From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Apr 1 00:03:31 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:03:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used References: Message-ID: <00b801c41774$6afa99f0$532846a2@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 3:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: E, Vul: NS You, South, hold: J3 T92 J76432 A4 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1NT(1) Pass 2C(2) Pass Pass ? (1) 11-14 balanced (2) Break in tempo, simple Stayman East is a blmler who has memorised their rights under Law 25B. >What call do you make? No money, no love There is no romance without a finance I have 6 PC at unfavorable vulnerability. Why should I enter a kicking competition against a horse? >How quickly do you make it? I have already. Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 1 00:17:12 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 01:17:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c41776$4c701490$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote > >> David Stevenson >=20 > >> Of course when alone on the job you have to consult a player or = by > >> telephone. > > > >No, when alone on the job I make my rulings on my own. >=20 > I am afraid I find that horrifying. Suppose you overlook = something? Why horrifying? If I am alone on the job I have no other directors to consult and I have to make my decisions alone. I wouldn't do my job if I went on the telephone and consulted directors elsewhere in the country.=20 There is always the possibility for any affected player to appeal my = rulings (with a few exceptions - see L91) and I have a firm principle of never discussing any case that can become the subject of an appeal with = anybody appointed to the AC. Sven From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Apr 1 00:25:30 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:25:30 -0600 Subject: [blml] Moving the goalposts (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >DWS wrote: > >>>The semantics are what are amusing some people >>>on BLML, and will for years. But the principle >>>is important. So why do we not let the people >>>who want to chase their own tail up their own >>>behind carry on arguing, and look at the actual >>>effect of the Laws. > >[big snip] > >Kojak wrote: > >>Thanks, David. And, I'm sure that less than 10% >>of our savants will understand what you said. Why >>understand and comprehend, and learn, when you can >>show your MIGHT by posting nonsense? I'm really >>very much interested in what the basic premise is >>for the existence of BLML. > >RJH agrees: > >Indeed, my understanding is that one of the prime >purposes of blml was to analyse the Laws for >semantic flaws. > (large chunk whacked off.) I thought the purpose of blml was to get ME to study the Laws!! REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From blml@blakjak.com Thu Apr 1 00:41:05 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 00:41:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) In-Reply-To: <000001c41770$48559200$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c41770$48559200$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >I remember being somewhat astonished first time I learned about pre-alerts >and "announce" (I believe that was the term). > >We have no such thing in Norway and I imagine one reason could be that we do >not fancy players reminding their partners of their agreements without being >asked by opponents (during the auction). In fact it is illegal here to say >anything related to partnership agreements (except by answering questions >from opponents) during the auction period as defined in Law 17. Similarly a >player is not allowed during this period to consult his own CC for any >purpose. > >For instance I use the "multi 2D" opening with some, but not with all my >partners and I would certainly not feel comfortable if I were to pre-alert >that bid. IMO it would be an unethical means to remember with which partners >I use this bid and when not. The same applies to reminding my partner >whenever I open 1NT: (Remember that our 1NT opening bids are) 15-17 or for >partner to "remind" me by announcing "transfer" with his 2D response. The announcement rule certainly has the disadvantages you mention, but has many advantages as well. I think that if limited to common situations it is a good idea. For example it is so easy not to ask when the auction goes 1NT p 2D and get caught when it is not a Transfer. If Transfers are announced it saves a round of questioning. But your comments about pre-alerts seem strange to me, and I wonder if you have misunderstood the way they are done. If the Multi requires a pre-alert then when your opponents come to the table you say "We play the Multi". If a player wishes to remind his partner every few boards what they are playing so long as it is between hands what is the harm? A pre-alert would only do this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Apr 1 01:14:41 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 01:14:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <000101c41776$4c701490$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c41776$4c701490$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Sven Pran wrote >> >> David Stevenson >> >> >> Of course when alone on the job you have to consult a player or by >> >> telephone. >> > >> >No, when alone on the job I make my rulings on my own. >> >> I am afraid I find that horrifying. Suppose you overlook something? > >Why horrifying? If I am alone on the job I have no other directors to >consult and I have to make my decisions alone. I wouldn't do my job if I >went on the telephone and consulted directors elsewhere in the country. > >There is always the possibility for any affected player to appeal my rulings >(with a few exceptions - see L91) and I have a firm principle of never >discussing any case that can become the subject of an appeal with anybody >appointed to the AC. I believe that TDs should consult. I think making a judgement ruling without consultation is a serious mistake. You do not need a TD: find a player. -- 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 Apr 1 02:14:59 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:14:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) Message-ID: David Stevenson best practiced: >>>Of course when alone on the job you have to consult a >>>player or by telephone. Sven Pran unilateralised: >>No, when alone on the job I make my rulings on my own. WBF Code of Practice, page 6: >It is the function of the Director to make a ruling in >a judgemental matter, **having consulted appropriately**, >that executes most accurately the intention of the laws. Richard James Hills rhetoricalling: Is Sven arguing that *zero* consultation in a judgemental matter is *always* appropriate consultation when there is only one TD alone on the job? :-( 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 Thu Apr 1 02:32:43 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:32:43 +1200 Subject: [blml] Kibitzer Regulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001f01c41789$3bbd32f0$1e2e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Thursday, 1 April 2004 9:27 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Kibitzer Regulations > > > Wayne Burrows wrote > > >Where would I find regulations regarding kibitzers? > > > >In particular I am interested in the right of a player to have a > >kibitzer removed. > > > >TIA > > Regulations are local, so perhaps for you the answer would be the > NZCBA site? Thanks. I was deliberately asking a generic question.' 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 karel@esatclear.ie Thu Apr 1 02:44:25 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 02:44:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <000001c41742$94c64a40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > >> Pairs E/W Vul > >> Dealer West > >> > >> S KT9 > >> H JT9xxx > >> D x > >> C xxx > >> West East > >> S QJ87xx S Axx > >> H Kx H Ax > >> D xx D AKJTxx > >> C AQ9 C Jx > >> > >> S x > >> H Qxx > >> D Qxxx > >> C KT8xx > >> Bidding > >> W N E S > >> 1S 3H 4C P > >> 4H P 5C 5H > >> 5NT P 6NT Dbl > >> All Pass - North hand club less (3 altogether) - South asked the meaning of the bidding after the lead was made and then called the TD. - In Ireland artifical/conventional bids on the opening round are alertable. Subsequent bids over 3NT are not alertable. This bid should have been alerted. - I dont see any reason why south should ask for the meaning of 4C at his 1st turn - why say anything - looks like a misfit, maybe the opps are about to have a misunderstanding - no reason to help them out. - Over 4C gerber - 5H may be aggresive but it is the most damaging bid which can be made at this stage. It robs the responses to 4C (gerber), it robs the fallback 4NT, it puts maximum pressure on the opps, it tests the opps agreements over interference of gerber. North has a weak hand with (normally) 7+ hearts, 4C's implies GF/ slam interest. Are u going to bid 5H over 4S's - I would - so why not bid it straight away. - I can't see how anyone can let the result stand - that is ridiculous. South has said he will bid 5H's over Gerber. You will never get to 6NT doubled. - I seem to detect a general dislike for Souths double of 6NT. I really dont see the problem. Has diamonds covered. Is over the clubs and has Qxx in pd's suit. If pd has K to seven hearts which he pretty much promised now 6NT hasn't a prayer. The bidding has not indicated a double heart stop. East's bid of 6NT as opposed to 6S is surely an indication of his level. Even as the cards lay the only reason 6NT made is the location of the C9. As already stated assuming 5H is bid there are alot of possibilities from 5H-4* to 6NT. If we apply L12C3 what should the adjustment be ?? K. From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Apr 1 02:47:29 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 02:47:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <007401c41747$b9ee3710$532846a2@ams.com> Message-ID: > Pairs E/W Vul > Dealer West > > S KT9 > H JT9xxx > D x > C xxxx > West East > S QJ87xx S Axx > H Kx H Ax > D xx D AKJTxx > C AQ9 C Jx > > S x > H Qxx > D Qxxx > C KT8xx > Bidding > W N E S > 1S 3H 4C P > 4H P 5C 5H > 5NT P 6NT Dbl > All Pass Was there an infracion? Yes, it was. Were NS damaged? Yes, they were. Was there a connection between these two? Yes, it was - I have no doubt that South wouldn't have doubled 6NT had he known that the club bids were artificial. Was the double of 6NT irrational, wild or gambling? No, it wasn't - it might not be the best bridge but I wouldn't call it ridiculous - the opponents might be in a good contract but they don't know that the breaks are bad - why not cash out? +++ agree so far So I would probably rule 6NT made undoubled how do you arrive at this conclusion ?? reading between the lines we can be relatively certain that the E/W partnership was not an expert one. Over 5H's what would they do ?? They didn't double 5H's on the actual auction. Would they be at all certain that 5H's is going off 4 ? How will they find out about the key cards ?? Are you just going to allow East a blind leap of faith to 6NT when he has one stopper and the opps have a likely 10 card fit ?? IMO 5h*-4 is a definite possibility. 5S is also quite likely. 6D is an option. 6S is a calculated gamble. 6NT is lunacy. K. From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Apr 1 02:56:30 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 02:56:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I didn't feel any urge to assign a split or weighted score. I'm intrigued that out of a dozen responses so far to a thread title "L12C3," no-one has jumped on the bandwagon and used that law for their assignment:) GRB +++ so am I. L12C3 seems to be tailor made for this exact type of "no idea" what would have happened case. Needless to say 10 different appeals committees will come up with 10 different rulings - so what at least it allows them a way to come to a reasonable ruling. Lots of replies want to be convinced that south's 5H call would really be made. I cant see how this is the issue. If south said he was going to bid 7H as an advanced sacrifice (which btw is a cold top assuming everyone gets to 6S's) who are we to say otherwise ?? Our job is to figure out the likely result AFTER 5H's is bid. Given the limited level of the E/W pair, can the 6NT making adjusters please explain how they can justify their ruling ?? K. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 1 03:03:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:03:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Kibitzer Regulations Message-ID: >>>I was deliberately asking a generic question. >>> >>>Wayne 2004 EBU White Book regulation: >>76.1 Kibitzers at EBU events played in public >> >>In EBU events played in public (including parts of >>competitions, such as the Crockfords final) all >>tables are 'open' unless the Conditions of Contest >>for that particular event say otherwise; thus a >>kibitzer may watch at such a table. A player not >>participating in a session may watch at any such >>table, other than one at which, or adjacent to one >>at which, the player's own team is playing. >> >>76.2 Kibitzers at EBU events played with screens >> >>Kibitzers may not sit so they can see both sides of >>the screen. 2004 ABF non-playing captain regulation: >captains are considered ambassadors of Australian >Bridge and should act as such at all times. 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 karel@esatclear.ie Thu Apr 1 03:14:32 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 03:14:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <000001c4176b$5e3b7170$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: [snip ...] I am never happy with players who "regret" their double after they see the contract made and at that time claim redress for damage, instead of informing the Director when he was summoned to the table in the first place that he had doubled the contract on false premises. If South really felt that way when learning that the club bids were both artificial he had every reason to (quietly) inform the Director (alone) of this fact instead of just "reserving his rights" - what rights? It was of course too late for South to retract his double under law 21B1 (as North had subsequently passed), but South would have had much more credibility with me had he told me (privately) that he would not have doubled had he known. +++ guys maybe i should fill out a 10 page report next time I post a problem. I didn't cover south's actions and procedures because they were not relevant. South followed the correct procedure at all times. There was NO question of improper td calls, questions etc. The case is a clearcut MI ruling. All I wanted to know was what law u applied (I would have used L12C3) and the result u would have given. South did not EVER regret his double. He simply under the laws exercised his right to be allowed to change his bid given the correct information. K. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 1 03:44:49 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:44:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) Message-ID: Sven Pran's a-viking advising: [snip] >>If South really felt that way when learning that >>the club bids were both artificial he had every >>reason to (quietly) inform the Director (alone) of >>this fact instead of just "reserving his rights" - >>what rights? >> >>It was of course too late for South to retract his >>double under law 21B1 (as North had subsequently >>passed), but South would have had much more >>credibility with me had he told me (privately) that >>he would not have doubled had he known. [snip] Law 9B1(c): >Summoning the Director does not cause a player to >forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be >entitled. Law 10A: >The Director alone has the right to assess penalties >when applicable. Players do not have the right to >assess (or waive) penalties on their own initiative. Law 73A1: >Communication between partners during the auction >and play shall be effected only by means of the calls >and plays themselves. Richard James Hills rhetoricalling: Is it not so that the determination of a defender to have a quiet private word with the TD during the play of a deal communicates information to partner? Is it not so that Law implies that it is the TD who should take the initiative for such quiet private communication? 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 Apr 1 03:53:54 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:53:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: Karel: [snip] >If south said he was going to bid >7H as an advanced sacrifice (which >btw is a cold top assuming everyone >gets to 6S's) who are we to say >otherwise ?? Our job is to figure >out the likely result AFTER 5H's is >bid. [snip] RJH: "who are we to say otherwise ??" ???? If players were always right, TDs would ride on the backs of flying pigs. If, however, a TD sensibly prefers to ride on horseback, then before closing the stable door, it is advisable to check if the horse is inside. It is inutile to waste time checking out the likely consequences of 5H, if 5H itself is deemed highly improbable. 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 Apr 1 03:55:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:55:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >>although our predicament was consequent on an >>opponent's earlier infraction. David J. Grabiner: >I believe this is fair, because the damage was >independent of the infraction. Without the >infraction, you would have had a similar >opportunity to go wrong; you would have been >in 5H, and that might have been cold but gone >down when your partner miscounted the trumps. Richard James Hills: This is the current WBF policy for adjusting scores after an OS infraction and a subsequent NOS double-shot. But I do not believe that David's justification (and the WBF justification) is mathematically valid. Example: Net score without infraction: NS EW +5 imps -5 imps Net score caused by EW infraction: NS EW -1 imp +1 imp *If* NS subsequently double-shot to: NS EW -9 imps +9 imps *Then* the WBF net adjusted score is: NS EW -9 imps -5 imps In my personal opinion, the WBF policy should change to being a less severe treatment of double-shotting non- offenders. In my personal opinion, the net of 6 imps purloined by the OS EW side should always be returned to the NOS NS side whether or not the NS side subsequently double-shot. In my personal opinion, only the *difference* between the cost of the double-shot and the result after a non-infraction should be charged to a NOS double-shotting NS. *If* RJH were El Supremo of the WBF LC, and *If* NS subsequently double-shot to: NS EW -9 imps +9 imps *Then* the RJH adjusted score would be: NS EW -3 imps -5 imps 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 Apr 1 07:26:09 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:26:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Law of Contract Message-ID: Heidi Bond wrote: [big snip] >I was going to go on and do the bit where Dain >answers and discuss whether it's acceptance (it's >not) or refusal (it's not) or a counter-offer >(it's not) but quite frankly, what I did above >was plenty exhausting (and admittedly strained in >parts, but hey, my preciouss, what did you >expect? The contracts case, it hurts us, yess it >does). Richard James Hills replies: Endless quibbling on blml has hurts us too, yess my preciouss. My face is not what it was, gollum. http://www.castlesoftware.com.au/default.asp?topic=3D5416 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 1 07:30:58 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 07:30:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) References: <000001c41770$48559200$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002801c417b3$6d784580$ca1e883e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:34 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven Pran wonders: > > >Now here we have an important point, and I wonder > >if our practice in Norway seriously differs from > >other areas: > > > >As a general rule we do not normally offer or > >grant redress for damage on the ground that a > >call was (incorrectly) not alerted if the call > >itself has been properly described on the front > >page of the CC. We rule that opponents have a > >duty to make themselves acquainted with whatever > >is written here. (What is written inside is a > >different story). > > ABF Pre-Alert reg seriously differs: > > "....These should appear on your system card, but > should also be verbally pre-alerted." +=+ It seems the Norwegian NBO provides a blanket pre-alert. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 1 07:45:56 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 07:45:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 References: Message-ID: <003501c417b5$58f83f00$ca1e883e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 2:56 AM Subject: RE: [blml] 12c3 > > +++ so am I. L12C3 seems to be tailor made for this exact type of "no idea" > what would have happened case. Needless to say 10 different appeals > committees will come up with 10 different rulings - so what at least it > allows them a way to come to a reasonable ruling. > +=+ Dangerous to jump in without having read all the thread - but with 512 'new' messages to go through, please excuse. Before 12C3 can be used there must be, at least notionally, an assigned adjusted score. Any, (R) any, assigned adjusted score may then be varied under 12C3 in order to "do equity". The question of doing equity is one for the judgement of the AC (and the Director where the extension is in force under the CoP). ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 1 08:23:15 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 17:23:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Moving the goalposts (was Psyches) Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: [big snip] >The laws on adjusting for damage arising from >illegal lack of disclosure should be enough for >competent TDs (I guess the EBU doesn't trust >theirs). Mind you, I have recently seen EBU TDs >arguing that (as a passed hand) responding 1N to >1D on S.K73 H.A108 D.K83 C.9843 is "evidence of >a CPU" - perhaps the EBU lack of trust is >justified! Richard James Hills: In my opinion, a solitary bidding incident cannot be evidence for anything more serious than a misbid. One swallow does not make a summer. Of course, the EBU Red Psyche reg discourages an EBU TD (watching one solitary swallow) from researching the relevant question, "Does this swallow belong to a flock?" Instead, the EBU Red Psyche reg encourages an EBU TD to instantly and prematurely beg the question, "Is this flock of swallows African or European?" :-( 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 Thu Apr 1 09:15:28 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 20:15:28 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <013d01c4176b$8a785d20$b11d883e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <003601c417c1$7ec12290$1e2e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of grandeval > Sent: Thursday, 1 April 2004 9:58 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > It was the late Sir Peter Ustinov who > observed that comedy is a funny way > of being serious,. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Skjaran, Harald" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:37 PM > Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches > > So, yes, the illegality is not the psyche itself. That > being said, it is open to the regulating authority to > specify the grounds of evidence by which a Director > may identify a CPU or other illegality. The (criticized) > EBU regulation is designed to do exactly that. At > international level written advice is not generally > given, but this does not mean that the Directors do > not practice a similar methodology in determining > the existence of a CPU. They may view the evidence > as it appears to them. The action of the responder is > often a key indication. And as they view it they may > act. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > It is not open to the regulating authority. It is at best a qualified right. In particular I would have little respect for a regulation that attempted to over-ride the right given in law to players. I believe that the EBU regulation is such a regulation. A player that makes a psychic call without a partnership understanding has an unqualified right to make that call. The laws make that plain. The director and the regulators have no right to tell that player that what he does is wrong. Wayne From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Apr 1 10:29:54 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:29:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: References: <000001c4176b$5e3b7170$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <406BE112.9090704@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Sven Pran wrote > >>> David Stevenson > > >>> Of course when alone on the job you have to consult a player or by >>> telephone. >> >> >> No, when alone on the job I make my rulings on my own. > > > I am afraid I find that horrifying. Suppose you overlook something? > If the organizers do not find it horrifying enough to leave me alone in charge of a tournament, then I don't find it horrifying to make my rulings on my own. They get what they pay for. I try not to make my rulings horrifying, of course, and I will consult with players, but apart from that, ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Apr 1 10:47:11 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:47:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <003601c417c1$7ec12290$1e2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001201c417ce$5255e800$48f8f0c3@LNV> > > > > So, yes, the illegality is not the psyche itself. That > > being said, it is open to the regulating authority to > > specify the grounds of evidence by which a Director > > may identify a CPU or other illegality. The (criticized) > > EBU regulation is designed to do exactly that. At > > international level written advice is not generally > > given, but this does not mean that the Directors do > > not practice a similar methodology in determining > > the existence of a CPU. They may view the evidence > > as it appears to them. The action of the responder is > > often a key indication. And as they view it they may > > act. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > It is not open to the regulating authority. > > It is at best a qualified right. > > In particular I would have little respect for a regulation > that attempted to over-ride the right given in law to players. > > I believe that the EBU regulation is such a regulation. > > A player that makes a psychic call without a partnership > understanding has an unqualified right to make that call. > The laws make that plain. The director and the regulators > have no right to tell that player that what he does is wrong. > > Wayne > As a general statement I agree with Wayne. But then we discovered the phenomenon of protected psyches and the impossibility to establish the fact that this player made that call for the second time in 4 years. And even if we could. I remember a situation 33-34 years ago. I played with my regular partner and he had achieved a terrible board for our side. So the next board he opened 2clubs, that time only played as a very strong hand. I answered 2diamonds (not an almost necessary answer that time) and to my unbelievable surprise he passed. I don't know what happened, kind of a normal result in the end I think. But I still remember that 'incident' and in a similar situation, had I to play with him again (I don't even know whether he is still alive) I would have a concealed partnership understanding. Psyches are an impossible-to-deal-with aspect in bridge and I understand the feeling of S.O. to create some control. So go on for a while. ton From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Apr 1 11:30:39 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:30:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <001201c417ce$5255e800$48f8f0c3@LNV> References: <003601c417c1$7ec12290$1e2e56d2@Desktop> <001201c417ce$5255e800$48f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <406BEF4F.30204@hdw.be> I don't understand why anyone thinks there's a problem here: Ton Kooijman wrote: > > As a general statement I agree with Wayne. But then we discovered the > phenomenon of protected psyches and the impossibility to establish the fact > that this player made that call for the second time in 4 years. And even if > we could. I am quite certain that if we don't crucify a player for admitting it, then the psycher will be willing to admit that he performed the same psyche xx months previously. It's just the fact that some TD's seem to apply the rule "you are allowed to psyche, but only once" which makes people hesitant to admit to previous psyches. > I remember a situation 33-34 years ago. I played with my regular partner and > he had achieved a terrible board for our side. So the next board he opened > 2clubs, that time only played as a very strong hand. I answered 2diamonds > (not an almost necessary answer that time) and to my unbelievable surprise > he passed. I don't know what happened, kind of a normal result in the end I > think. But I still remember that 'incident' and in a similar situation, had > I to play with him again (I don't even know whether he is still alive) I > would have a concealed partnership understanding. > What would be the problem, Ton, if we just deal with this as with any other MI? Say you are playing with this same player, four years after that first psyche. He opens 2Cl. You explain "strong, illimited, forcing". RHO passes. You bid 2Di. He explains "almost automatic". LHO passes. He passes. You explain "he did the same 4 years ago, and then he had ...". RHO bids. The Td is called at the end. He tells you: "actually, your explanation of 2Cl is not complete. You should have added that 4 years ago he psyched that opening. Now, opponents, would you really have done something different if having that knowledge?" I'm convinced that the correct ruling here is "MI, no damage". I don't see what the problem is. > Psyches are an impossible-to-deal-with aspect in bridge and I understand the > feeling of S.O. to create some control. > So go on for a while. > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Apr 1 12:17:51 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:17:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: <406bfa5f.71a0.0@esatclear.ie> >???? > >If players were always right, TDs >would ride on the backs of flying >pigs. +++ mounted flying pigs .... I've seen a few of those in my time. I'll concede 7H is indeed most unlikely. I wonder if Mecksroth said I'm bidding 7H for reasons x,y & z would we disallow it. Its pretty hard to say our bridge judgement is better than the players in question. And on what basis do we deem a bid unlikely ?? If a player says he is going to make a bid he will have reasons for it. Are we going to judge those reasons based on our brige level and disallow what we may consider a minority yet possible bid ?? back to the hand in question - 5H I find fairly easy to allow. It has alot going for it, barrage, maximum grief to the opps, vulnerability, it pretty much turns their "scientific" auction into a lottery. Nether player can even double 5H as -3 will be a bottom when 5S is almost a certainty. The last paragraph I would have considered obvious. Why are we calling into doubt South's claim of bidding 5H's ?? Are we saying that we as bridge players WE wouldn't dream of such a bid and ergo it must be highly unlikely, because thats what it sounds like. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Apr 1 12:33:30 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:33:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: <406bfe0a.72d5.0@esatclear.ie> >> >+=+ Dangerous to jump in without having read all the thread - but with 512 >'new' messages to go through, please excuse. > Before 12C3 can be used there must be, at least notionally, an >assigned adjusted score. Any, (R) any, assigned adjusted score may >then be varied under 12C3 in order to "do equity". The question of >doing equity is one for the judgement of the AC (and the Director where >the extension is in force under the CoP). +++ hold on. I have always assumed L12C3 is used in cases where it is very difficult or unfair to assign a score as "that is the most likely, or this is what would have happened" scenarios. How can you first assign an adjusted score and then change it ?? Surely if you arrived at an adjusted score then that is the score ?? The case in question any score from 5H*-4 to 6NT* making is "possible". I would find it difficult to pick a score and stand over my reasons for picking that score after the interference of 5H over a gerber bid, ergo my use of L12C3. I would have expected something like 5H*-4 20% of the time 5S+1 35% of the time 6S 20% of the time 6S-1 15% of the time (this btw was a common result how I dont know) 6NT 7% of the time 6NT* 3% of the time and derive a score. Using for example the above breakdown how does one arrive at the the score BTW ? This has never been clear for me. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Apr 1 12:42:33 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:42:33 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA34B7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Karel =20 >???? > >If players were always right, TDs >would ride on the backs of flying >pigs. +++ mounted flying pigs .... I've seen a few of those in my time. I'll = concede 7H is indeed most unlikely. I wonder if Mecksroth said I'm bidding 7H = for reasons x,y & z would we disallow it. Its pretty hard to say our bridge = judgement is better than the players in question. =20 And on what basis do we deem a bid unlikely ?? If a player says he is = going to make a bid he will have reasons for it. Are we going to judge those = reasons based on our brige level and disallow what we may consider a minority = yet possible bid ?? back to the hand in question -=20 5H I find fairly easy to allow. It has alot going for it, barrage, = maximum grief to the opps, vulnerability, it pretty much turns their = "scientific" auction into a lottery. Nether player can even double 5H as -3 will be a bottom = when 5S is almost a certainty. The last paragraph I would have considered obvious. Why are we calling = into doubt South's claim of bidding 5H's ?? Are we saying that we as bridge = players WE wouldn't dream of such a bid and ergo it must be highly unlikely, = because thats what it sounds like. ----- This guy bid 5H over 5C. He would obviously have bid 5H over 4C, if he had known it was Gerber. I see no point in discussing the merits of such a bid. South have demonstrated that he would bid 5H. We must base our decision on how to adjust on this fact. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran ----- K. -- http://www.iol.ie _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jkljkl@gmx.de Thu Apr 1 13:16:23 2004 From: jkljkl@gmx.de (stefan filonardi) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 14:16:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] where is the point we are overboard? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <406C2437.17259.906DDE@localhost> Hello, sorry for going back to an older thread and abusing of it on a different matter under the impression of the thread psyches. By the laws we are allowed to psych, but .... How big can this but be till we are not longer playing bridge? Let's consider the hand given by Richard On 28 Mar 2004 at 11:46, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Spingold Final. > Dlr: N > Vul: EW > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > JT87 > 53 > JT62 > J98 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? Well we are already used to the fact that we are not going to consider a strong artificial bid and we are still playing bridge. But is it still bridge when the TD would be summoned at Herman's table for his natural 1H opening and he would hear that an artificial score will be awarded since his psyche is forbidden? (As it would happen in some countries, having less than 8 HCP. (I am not talking about low level games)) ciao stefan germany From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Apr 1 13:20:24 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:20:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1852@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> I didn't feel any urge to assign a split or weighted score. I'm = intrigued that out of a dozen responses so far to a thread title "L12C3," no-one = has jumped on the bandwagon and used that law for their assignment:) GRB +++ so am I. L12C3 seems to be tailor made for this exact type of "no = idea" what would have happened case. Needless to say 10 different appeals committees will come up with 10 different rulings - so what at least it allows them a way to come to a reasonable ruling. Lots of replies want to be convinced that south's 5H call would really = be made. I cant see how this is the issue. If south said he was going to = bid 7H as an advanced sacrifice (which btw is a cold top assuming everyone = gets to 6S's) who are we to say otherwise ?? Our job is to figure out the = likely result AFTER 5H's is bid. Given the limited level of the E/W pair, can = the 6NT making adjusters please explain how they can justify their ruling ?? K. [Frances] All of a sudden you seem to have a very personal stake in this! Our job is not to suspend all critical faculties when south explains how he has been damaged. We listen to what he has to say and will be = favourably disposed towards believing him, but we are quite entitled to say = otherwise. Without repeating all the caveats I made the first time round here is = the logic: a) From the description given, I am not convinced that South would have = bid 5H here. I don't understand why he would bid 5H over a 4C Gerber bid, but not = over a forcing 4C natural bid. If he explains his logic then I may agree he would have = done (I don't have to agree with his logic, I just have to believe he would have = bid 5H). For example, I may ask if he might have doubled 4C to get a club lead (as = that seems to be a good idea from his hand). Or if he would have bid 4H to mess up = their Gerber auction. b) Let's say we do agree South would have bid 5H. What would happen = next? We have some evidence as to E/W behaviours over a 5H bid as South did in fact = bid 5H later. On the actual auction East bid 6NT rather than 6S even knowing about = about oppo's heart=20 fit and not knowing about the double heart stop. I don't see why he = would do anything=20 different on an alternative auction. Therefore no percentage for 6S. = We have evidence from the actual auction that E/W were not entirely confident about their Gerber = responses after intervention. I would have to ask them, look at their convention card = etc, and I=20 might decide on some percentage of 5S and/or 5Hx. But as a quick reply, = East is probably entitled to believe there's one ace opposite and it certainly = seems likely he would just bid 6NT anyway. c) South was probably damaged by the lack of alert, so I'll accept he = wouldn't double 6NT. As a side note you make a great issue about E/W's "limited level" yet = West made 6NTx on a=20 minor suit squeeze with a finesse available as an alternative line. I = can tell you 75%+ of=20 the players at my local club would have gone off. From blml@blakjak.com Thu Apr 1 13:43:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:43:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <003601c417c1$7ec12290$1e2e56d2@Desktop> References: <013d01c4176b$8a785d20$b11d883e@4nrw70j> <003601c417c1$7ec12290$1e2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote >A player that makes a psychic call without a partnership >understanding has an unqualified right to make that call. >The laws make that plain. The director and the regulators >have no right to tell that player that what he does is wrong. How true. And your point 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 Thu Apr 1 13:44:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:44:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <406BE112.9090704@hdw.be> References: <000001c4176b$5e3b7170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <406BE112.9090704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <$P2Qvey$6AbAFwkF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Sven Pran wrote >> >>>> David Stevenson >> >>>> Of course when alone on the job you have to consult a player or >>>> >>>> telephone. >>> >>> >>> No, when alone on the job I make my rulings on my own. >> I am afraid I find that horrifying. Suppose you overlook >>something? >> > >If the organizers do not find it horrifying enough to leave me alone in >charge of a tournament, then I don't find it horrifying to make my >rulings on my own. They get what they pay for. Exactly: they pay you to do the job. >I try not to make my rulings horrifying, of course, and I will consult >with players, but apart from that, ... Exactly. That's the job they pay you for. -- 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 Apr 1 13:51:04 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:51:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <406bfa5f.71a0.0@esatclear.ie> References: <406bfa5f.71a0.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote >5H I find fairly easy to allow. It has alot going for it, barrage, maximum >grief to the opps, vulnerability, it pretty much turns their >"scientific" auction >into a lottery. Nether player can even double 5H as -3 will be a bottom when >5S is almost a certainty. > >The last paragraph I would have considered obvious. Why are we calling into >doubt South's claim of bidding 5H's ?? Are we saying that we as bridge players >WE wouldn't dream of such a bid and ergo it must be highly unlikely, because >thats what it sounds like. Certainly. when a player says "I would *definitely* have done so-and-so" and that action is more successful than the taken action then you take such comments with a bit of reserve. Rixi Markus was famous for *never* making the wrong bid or playing the wrong card when discussing the hand afterwards. When you consider damage and adjustments you take all evidence, including self-serving statements, into account, but you do not assume that they would definitely have occurred. So, when making a ruling, you the TD make a decision after consultation, or you the AC make a decision after discussion. So when the player says "I would have bid 5H" you take notice of that in your deliberations but you do not rule on the basis that he would necessarily have made that bid. -- 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 tom.cornelis@pi.be Thu Apr 1 13:54:34 2004 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:54:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] systems policy References: <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> <001201c41713$af8df4b0$8a8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406AB17E.7010008@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> Hi Herman, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Hello Tom, > > nice arguments, but I believe you are looking at the wrong side of a > few issues: > > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > David Stevenson wrote > > > >>[b] I personally disagree with you. Too many people do not like > >>complete freedom of conventions, > > > > > > I'm quite sure only few players would mind. > > Statements like these are too difficult to prove, so they should not > be made. Then they should be made by neither side. However currently most players do not know the (complete) freedom of conventions, so David's point bares much less than mine. I even wouldn't mind there would be almost no freedom of conventions, even though I would very much regret it. I just don't like it that the game itself is limited by SOs. I know you know quite a lot about sports. Do you know any other sport where this happens? > > They are the sort of players that think bridge is merely about the play of > > the cards, and getting to a contract within a system. > > Not necessarily. Some people believe that one can do with simple > systems as well. But that does not mean that they are per se against > you using your system. I'm talking about the players that _are_ against the overly use of conventions. I'm not saying you need a complicated system. But there are many simple systems that cannot be used at most events. I'm also not saying that players who like natural systems cannot bid. I'm only saying that about the players who are against using any other. > > Most of the time they also haven't got a clue about hand evaluation. > > Usually the kind of players you are talking of have a very good sense > of hand evaluation. Again, I'm talking about the players that are truly against unnatural systems. Most players do not know or do not mind. Only few know and mind. > > They do not like psyching. > > That has no bearing on this discussion. It emphasizes their lack of insight in the bidding. > > And more importantly, they simply lack insight in the auction. > > I know quite a few players that are insulted or offended in the least for > > not being allowed to play conventions for which they are too junior. > > This is the wrong reason as to why people are against system > regulations. Yes, there are people who would like to play more > complicated systems than they are allowed, but I don't believe they > think that this is because they are judged to be not up to it. Here I completely disagree. Look what's happening in France. I was told by players who play one in a while in the South of France that they do not like the very strict system policy, and that local SO overrule the FFB. > > They are deemed not to be able to cope with them, hence they are not allowed > > to play them. > > Why would they mind? > > It is one of the most intriguing and enjoying parts of bridge. They are not > > allowed to experience this part and what for? > > Because a majority of players that make the rules are protecting themselves > > rather than beginners or bad players. > > They do not want it to be easy for competing players to gain levels of > > proficiency too easily. > > > > That is really not the reason why system regulations are made. > > Rather, system regulations are made because the SO does not want to > burden opponents with having to cope with difficult defensive problems. Really? It's not that difficult to play against a natural strong pass system when you compare it with playing against a strong club system. Nor would it be difficult to play against transfer opening bids. Instead it's much more difficult to play against natural aggressive pre-emptive opening bids. Then why doesn't the SO forbid them? In that case it also wouldn't make sense to divide the systems and conventions according the level on which their opening bids are. > When a pair in Belgium's honour division sits down to play against > (... let's not name names), they just sit down and play. But when they > are facing Cornelis-De Donder, they read your CC for 10 minutes and > confirm their specific defences against that. They really don't take that long. It's not that complicated. I admit we have an exotic opening bid, but it's not more difficult to defend against than against a natural opening bid. > If I have to play you and Steven on a friday evening, I cannot take 10 > minutes before a round of 3 boards. Nor do I have, even with my > regular partner, standard defensive methods. So we are at a > disadvantag, not just of being about 6 classes weaker than you two, > but also because of your system. It would take you a minute at most. Do you not have a standard method against a natural 1D opening? Why would you play differently against a 1NT opening showing diamonds? What do you play against a weak two in diamonds contained in a 2C opening? I would be astounded if 2C weak with both majors would be prohibited on your Friday evening, let alone 2D multi. I'm quite sure you have more difficulties or misunderstandings over those opening bids than my 1NT opening bid. > It is the belief of organisers that this advantage needs to be curbed. > I'm not saying that the current levels of regulating are optimal (*), > but you must get the reasons behind system regulations correct. It's sensible to limit use of conventions in a pairs contest only. (or a speedball tournament) But only complicated conventions should be prohibited, not simple ones. For example, one might simply forbid conventions with weak types without a known 5-card suit. One could also forbid conventions that are too complicated, such as opening bids with too many types that are not strong. I want to add at this point that it is stated in a Law (40 if I'm not mistaken), that explanations must not be too complicated, in case the explanation would confound the opponents. This should suffice. > (*) after all, having system regulations in the world final seems a > bit ludicrous to me. > > > > >>and history has meant that the effects > >>of this are markedly different in different places. > > > > > > As far as I know, these rules were only set in place because the number of > > systems and conventions began to grow out of proportions according to the > > powers that be. Then they argued that beginners or worse players were too > > much damaged by the conventions and that they feared that they would stop > > playing bridge only because of this. IMO most beginners tend to stop playing > > because their opponents are unfriendly, rude and aggressive. > > > > This is indeed one of the reasons for system regulations, but it is > hardly the one which the SO need to legitimize their need to issue > such regulation. You have not made your point. I argued that it doesn't make sense to limit the use of conventions any more than it would make sense to limit certain kind of plays. Instead you argued that the most important reason to limit conventions, is to protect weaker players. Why would the play be any different from the bidding? Here's what I'm suggesting: No ban of conventions by a SO. Instead, let them protect the weaker players by imposing a handicap. This is already possible within bridge Law. It is simply a matter of scoring. I'm sure this would make most weaker players happier. They would stand a better chance. It would make more sense, would it not? I know it is done this way in Wetteren: no ban, handicaps. Best regards, Tom. From blml@blakjak.com Thu Apr 1 13:58:33 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:58:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kibitzer Regulations In-Reply-To: <001f01c41789$3bbd32f0$1e2e56d2@Desktop> References: <001f01c41789$3bbd32f0$1e2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of David Stevenson >> Sent: Thursday, 1 April 2004 9:27 a.m. >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] Kibitzer Regulations >> >> >> Wayne Burrows wrote >> >> >Where would I find regulations regarding kibitzers? >> > >> >In particular I am interested in the right of a player to have a >> >kibitzer removed. >> > >> >TIA >> >> Regulations are local, so perhaps for you the answer would be the >> NZCBA site? > >Thanks. > >I was deliberately asking a generic question.' I do not know hat you mean by a generic question, so I suppose the full and accurate answer to your question is: Regulations regarding kibitzers are to be found wherever the relevant sponsoring organisation posts its regulations. Most non-national sponsoring organisations defer to their national organisations for such regulations. -- 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 Apr 1 14:01:34 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 15:01:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <406bfe0a.72d5.0@esatclear.ie> References: <406bfe0a.72d5.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <406C12AE.20006@hdw.be> Karel wrote: >>+=+ Dangerous to jump in without having read all the thread - but with 512 > > >>'new' messages to go through, please excuse. >> Before 12C3 can be used there must be, at least notionally, an >>assigned adjusted score. Any, (R) any, assigned adjusted score may >>then be varied under 12C3 in order to "do equity". The question of >>doing equity is one for the judgement of the AC (and the Director where >>the extension is in force under the CoP). > This is just legalese. The common method nowadays (in tournaments where this is permitted) is to start with L12C3 straight away when there are multiple outcomes. > > +++ hold on. I have always assumed L12C3 is used in cases where it is very > difficult or unfair to assign a score as "that is the most likely, or this is > what would have happened" scenarios. unfair, yes. difficult, no. A L12C3 is by definition more difficult than a L12C2 one, since one needs to list the alternatives in both, but in C3 one has to numerate all, while in C2 one only has to take the worst one that exceeds some limit. Turning any L12C3 into a L12C2 is easy. > How can you first assign an adjusted score > and then change it ?? Surely if you arrived at an adjusted score then that > is the score ?? > see above. The wording stems from the different people that could do either. Originally, the TD had to apply C2, and the AC then changed it. That has now gone and we should simply use 12C3. > > The case in question any score from 5H*-4 to 6NT* making is "possible". I would > find it difficult to pick a score and stand over my reasons for picking that > score after the interference of 5H over a gerber bid, ergo my use of L12C3. > Which is correct. But don't forget that the people that answered to your post are all just single individuals. They say what they would have done. Only in collaboration can we reach a L12C3 adjustment (by which I don't mean that if one in three of us would bid something, 33% needs to be the adjustment). > > > I would have expected something like > > 5H*-4 20% of the time > 5S+1 35% of the time > 6S 20% of the time > 6S-1 15% of the time (this btw was a common result how I dont know) > 6NT 7% of the time > 6NT* 3% of the time > Well, we need to check at the table. The player said he would have bid 5H. We believe him or not, or we grant it to him for a bit, say 80% (I'll go on with this last one just to show the procedure, not because that would be my choice). So in 20% of the cases the bidding continues as in the original, and we reach 6NT. Which we say will never be doubled without the MI. When the player does bid 5H, what do the opponents do. Surely they won't not double, but I don't see how they can reach anything else but 6NT. You yourself say, Karel, that you don't know why 6S is reached at other tables. We should also discount that contract at this table. So we ask the table for their defenses against 5He intervention over Gerber and assess the likelihood of 5HeX being the contract. I propose (again for the sake of argument) 40%. So that gives a weight of 32% (80x40) for 5HeX. Next we see if 6NT, when reached after the intervention, can be doubled. This is more likely, even considering the non-MI, with the intervention. Let's say we put that at 10%. That is a weight of 4.8% (80x60x10). And that leaves us with 43.2% of 6NT undoubled. So I arrive at: 4.8% of 6NTX 63.2% of 6NT (43.2 + 20) 32% of 5HX-4 (which I would round to 5,65,30) > and derive a score. Using for example the above breakdown how does one arrive > at the the score BTW ? This has never been clear for me. > depends on the formula. At teams, make the IMP-balance against the other table, multiply each IMP by the weight, add. And (decision of Torino) don't round that IMP-saldo. > K. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Thu Apr 1 14:01:46 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:01:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >David Stevenson best practiced: > >>>>Of course when alone on the job you have to consult a >>>>player or by telephone. > >Sven Pran unilateralised: > >>>No, when alone on the job I make my rulings on my own. > >WBF Code of Practice, page 6: > >>It is the function of the Director to make a ruling in >>a judgemental matter, **having consulted appropriately**, >>that executes most accurately the intention of the laws. > >Richard James Hills rhetoricalling: > >Is Sven arguing that *zero* consultation in a judgemental >matter is *always* appropriate consultation when there is >only one TD alone on the job? > >:-( Apparently, which is why I am shocked. When we get to judgmental rulings on our Club TD courses the first thing they learn is that you ***never*** give a judgmental ruling without consultation. When I did my first ever EBU event as a TD the then Chief TD of the EBU, Roy Higson, stressed it at the start, and then came and consulted with me during the session to make it clear that it was always done. -- 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 Apr 1 14:03:45 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:03:45 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA34B7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA34B7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <4vFRXa1xMBbAFw3+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Skjaran, Harald wrote >This guy bid 5H over 5C. >He would obviously have bid 5H over 4C, if he had known it was Gerber. It is not obvious at all. If he would have bid 5H over a Gerber 4C then he might have bid it over a natural 4C. -- 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 grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Thu Apr 1 14:10:07 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 08:10:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] treat non-offenders severely In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040401075009.01c6c610@mail.comcast.net> At 09:55 PM 3/31/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Nigel Guthrie: > >[snip] > > >>although our predicament was consequent on an > >>opponent's earlier infraction. > >David J. Grabiner: > > >I believe this is fair, because the damage was > >independent of the infraction. Without the > >infraction, you would have had a similar > >opportunity to go wrong; you would have been > >in 5H, and that might have been cold but gone > >down when your partner miscounted the trumps. > >Richard James Hills: > >This is the current WBF policy for adjusting >scores after an OS infraction and a subsequent >NOS double-shot. But I do not believe that >David's justification (and the WBF justification) >is mathematically valid. > >Example: > >Net score without infraction: > >NS EW >+5 imps -5 imps > >Net score caused by EW infraction: > >NS EW >-1 imp +1 imp > >*If* NS subsequently double-shot to: > >NS EW >-9 imps +9 imps > >*Then* the WBF net adjusted score is: > >NS EW >-9 imps -5 imps > >In my personal opinion, the WBF policy >should change to being a less severe >treatment of double-shotting non- >offenders. In my personal opinion, the >net of 6 imps purloined by the OS EW >side should always be returned to the >NOS NS side whether or not the NS side >subsequently double-shot. In my personal >opinion, only the *difference* between the >cost of the double-shot and the result >after a non-infraction should be charged >to a NOS double-shotting NS. There were two hypothetical subcases here, and the principle should have applied in one of them (which I proposed), but not in the one you followed up to. On the original hand, South bid 5H, East bid 5S which was an infraction because of West's slow pass, and South bid 6H. 5H would have been down one for -100, 5S would have made for -450, and 6H was down two doubled for -500. I wrote, "Even if 6H was an irrational, wild, or gambling bid, you were damaged by the 5S bid, not by your own bid. You would have been -100 without the infraction, and -450 after the 5S bid. That part of the damage could not be self-inflicted, so you should be entitled to at least that much of an adjustment." That is, if the other table was +100, then the difference between 0 IMPs for -100 and -8 IMPs for -450 should be adjusted, but the difference between -8 IMPs for -450 and -9 IMPs for -500 should not; the NOS should get -1 IMP for the damage they caused with their bad bid. The follow-up case was a hypothetical; if 5S had been unmakable and poor defense had let it make, then the damage was entirely the result of the misdefense. That is, 5H would have been -100, 5S should have been +100, and 5S became -450 because of the bad defense. N-S should get no adjustment here. My discussion suggests a different hypothetical, which is not what I intended: 5H would have been cold for +650, 5S should have been +100, and 5S was misdefended for -450. Again, I would give N-S the adjustment for the difference between +650 and +100. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Apr 1 14:14:54 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:14:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181689E@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> >???? > >If players were always right, TDs >would ride on the backs of flying >pigs. +++ mounted flying pigs .... I've seen a few of those in my time. I'll = concede 7H is indeed most unlikely. I wonder if Mecksroth said I'm bidding 7H = for reasons x,y & z would we disallow it. Its pretty hard to say our bridge = judgement is better than the players in question. =20 And on what basis do we deem a bid unlikely ?? If a player says he is = going to make a bid he will have reasons for it. Are we going to judge those = reasons based on our brige level and disallow what we may consider a minority = yet possible bid ?? [Frances] -No. It's not a bridge level thing at all. What we consider the = _correct_ action is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the player can explain _why_ he = would have done things differently with the correct information. He doesn't = get a ruling in his favour if (effectively) his only answer is "because it would have = worked". Bridge level would only come into it if, say, an obvious bunny playing = with an expert says "with the correct information I would have made it with an = entry- shifting squeeze" having had time to consult. Now I may use my opinion = of his level to decide that is exceptionally unlikely. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Apr 1 14:17:10 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:17:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181689F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> +++ hold on. I have always assumed L12C3 is used in cases where it is = very difficult or unfair to assign a score as "that is the most likely, or = this is what would have happened" scenarios. How can you first assign an = adjusted score and then change it ?? Surely if you arrived at an adjusted score then = that is the score ?? The case in question any score from 5H*-4 to 6NT* making is "possible". = I would find it difficult to pick a score and stand over my reasons for picking = that score after the interference of 5H over a gerber bid, ergo my use of = L12C3. I would have expected something like 5H*-4 20% of the time 5S+1 35% of the time 6S 20% of the time 6S-1 15% of the time (this btw was a common result how I dont know) 6NT 7% of the time 6NT* 3% of the time and derive a score. =20 [Frances] I don't know if you have made up your numbers or thought them through, = but there is evidence from the way the play went in 6NT that declarer was capable = of making 12 tricks. I would therefore have no percentage of 6S-1, and I think = this is unarguable. For reasons explained elsewhere I would also not have 6S or 6NT* = included, but=20 this is more subjective. From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Apr 1 14:27:07 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 15:27:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> References: <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> <001201c41713$af8df4b0$8a8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406AB17E.7010008@hdw.be> <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> Message-ID: <406C18AB.3060303@hdw.be> Hello Tom, Tom Cornelis wrote: > > Then they should be made by neither side. > However currently most players do not know the (complete) freedom > of conventions, so David's point bares much less than mine. > I even wouldn't mind there would be almost no freedom of conventions, > even though I would very much regret it. I just don't like it that the game > itself is limited by SOs. > I know you know quite a lot about sports. Do you know any other sport > where this happens? > yes, all of them. As an example, in Football, the tactic of placing a player just in front of goal has been made illegal by the off-side law. One can find examples in almost every sport. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Apr 1 14:34:39 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 15:34:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> References: <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> <001201c41713$af8df4b0$8a8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406AB17E.7010008@hdw.be> <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> Message-ID: <406C1A6F.5040104@hdw.be> Tom Cornelis wrote: > Hi Herman, > > > > You have not made your point. I argued that it doesn't make sense to limit > the use of conventions any more than it would make sense to limit certain > kind of plays. Instead you argued that the most important reason to limit > conventions, is to protect weaker players. Why would the play be any > different from the bidding? > I was not trying to make a point. I was correcting your assumption that the reason behind system regulations had something to do with not wanting weak players to use them. And I agree with you that some SO's overuse their power and think the players are bunnies that need far more protecting than they do. But on the other hand you are not just protecting the opponents at the table, but also the opponents in the field. If a pair starts using strange methods in a low-level tournament, it could very well be true that none of their direct opponents express an opinion, but at the end of the tournament they have scored 3 tops more than if they hadn't used their strange methods. And so they win the tournament. > Here's what I'm suggesting: > No ban of conventions by a SO. > Instead, let them protect the weaker players by imposing a handicap. Bridge is the only sport in the world where amateurs and world champions can play in the same event without the former being trashed. There is no need for handicapping. But capping certain tactics is a valid job for a sporting organisation. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu Apr 1 14:45:58 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 15:45:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <003601c417c1$7ec12290$1e2e56d2@Desktop> <001201c417ce$5255e800$48f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: Ton: Psyches are an impossible-to-deal-with aspect in bridge and I understand the feeling of S.O. to create some control. So false. Psyches are easy. The only real problem with psyches is their potential contradiction with system limitations. While everybody agrees that it is ok to open 1S on xxx xxx xxx xxxx (assuming no PU/CPU), what about opening a multi on that hand ? The impossible-to-deal-with aspects of the game are implicit partnership agreements (the explicit ones are relatively easy) and the principle of total disclosure. Actually their combination. I can also understand the 'feeling to create some control'. But please focus the limited energy on the real problems and not on psyching which is a completely irrelevant detail compared to how to disclose implicit partnership agreements. To play bridge it is far more important to know the REAL range of say a preempt, an overcall, or a 1NT opening than to know whether this opp psyches once a year or twice. Even explicit partership disagreement is a problem. Some time ago a misguided AC ruled against someone who opened a weak two (or whatever) on 1HCP less (or 1 card less, or whatever, I don't know the details) than the minimum range on his CC. The effect was that everybody now put on the CC things like 2S = 0-12, 4+S. Legally this is perfect since it covers all possibilities. For disclosing information purposes this is horrilble. What went wrong ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Wayne Burrows" ; "'blml'" Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > > > > So, yes, the illegality is not the psyche itself. That > > > being said, it is open to the regulating authority to > > > specify the grounds of evidence by which a Director > > > may identify a CPU or other illegality. The (criticized) > > > EBU regulation is designed to do exactly that. At > > > international level written advice is not generally > > > given, but this does not mean that the Directors do > > > not practice a similar methodology in determining > > > the existence of a CPU. They may view the evidence > > > as it appears to them. The action of the responder is > > > often a key indication. And as they view it they may > > > act. > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > It is not open to the regulating authority. > > > > It is at best a qualified right. > > > > In particular I would have little respect for a regulation > > that attempted to over-ride the right given in law to players. > > > > I believe that the EBU regulation is such a regulation. > > > > A player that makes a psychic call without a partnership > > understanding has an unqualified right to make that call. > > The laws make that plain. The director and the regulators > > have no right to tell that player that what he does is wrong. > > > > Wayne > > > > > As a general statement I agree with Wayne. But then we discovered the > phenomenon of protected psyches and the impossibility to establish the fact > that this player made that call for the second time in 4 years. And even if > we could. > I remember a situation 33-34 years ago. I played with my regular partner and > he had achieved a terrible board for our side. So the next board he opened > 2clubs, that time only played as a very strong hand. I answered 2diamonds > (not an almost necessary answer that time) and to my unbelievable surprise > he passed. I don't know what happened, kind of a normal result in the end I > think. But I still remember that 'incident' and in a similar situation, had > I to play with him again (I don't even know whether he is still alive) I > would have a concealed partnership understanding. > > Psyches are an impossible-to-deal-with aspect in bridge and I understand the > feeling of S.O. to create some control. > So go on for a while. > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 1 15:02:16 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:02:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c417f1$f0d19240$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ....... > >David Stevenson best practiced: > >>>>Of course when alone on the job you have to consult a > >>>>player or by telephone. > > > >Sven Pran unilateralised: > > > >>>No, when alone on the job I make my rulings on my own. > > > >WBF Code of Practice, page 6: > > > >>It is the function of the Director to make a ruling in > >>a judgemental matter, **having consulted appropriately**, > >>that executes most accurately the intention of the laws. > > > >Richard James Hills rhetoricalling: > > > >Is Sven arguing that *zero* consultation in a judgemental > >matter is *always* appropriate consultation when there is > >only one TD alone on the job? > > > >:-( >=20 > Apparently, which is why I am shocked. When we get to judgmental > rulings on our Club TD courses the first thing they learn is that you > ***never*** give a judgmental ruling without consultation. When I did > my first ever EBU event as a TD the then Chief TD of the EBU, Roy > Higson, stressed it at the start, and then came and consulted with me > during the session to make it clear that it was always done. My turn now. I am not discussing tournaments where there is more than one director on = the job. In such cases I too of course consult my colleagues on any judgment case. If and when I consult another person on a case I take extreme care not = to involve any person that subsequently would have to rule on the case if = it becomes appealed. (I do hope my reasons for this are obvious?) Sometimes, particularly on ordinary club evenings this leaves me with no other (qualified) director in the room and the players most qualified = for consultation being excluded because they will probably already have been appointed to the AC.=20 What I do is to collect all the information I can (from whatever source available) to build my own picture of what probably was going on, then I withdraw to my own working place and think the case over and finally I return to the table and announce my ruling in the proper way. I do not = feel comfortable in consulting a player on judgment unless he is both = competent and neutral, and pretty often I therefore find myself compelled to make = my decision in solitude. And that is what I feel having been trained to do = when necessary! (That I consult whoever on their understanding of the facts = is a different matter) Does for instance David automatically pick up the phone and try finding someone to discuss a judgment case at say 10PM during an ordinary club evening? Does he discuss the case with whatever player he can find in = the room regardless of their quality and neutrality? Frankly I doubt it. I = trust that when David is the sole director present he does the best job he = can; collecting all the information he can get from whatever sources = available and that he then makes his judgment ruling from the impression he has acquired on the case.=20 But I doubt that he consults other persons on the judgment and "yields" = to a plurality of people he feels are less qualified than him so that he = presents a democratic ruling which he does not fully agree to. =20 Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 1 15:05:59 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:05:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <406C18AB.3060303@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c417f2$75d84a10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ........... > As an example, in Football, the tactic of placing a player just in > front of goal has been made illegal by the off-side law. Yes, by law - not by regulation - that is the difference! Regards Sven From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Apr 1 15:17:52 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:17:52 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC89@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> David Stevenson wrote: =20 Skjaran, Harald wrote >This guy bid 5H over 5C. >He would obviously have bid 5H over 4C, if he had known it was Gerber. It is not obvious at all. If he would have bid 5H over a Gerber 4C=20 then he might have bid it over a natural 4C. ----- So you believe it's possible that a player who will bid 5H over 5C in this sequence (no alerts) would not bid 5H over 4C Gerber thus maybe disrupting their ace showing and stealing bidding space? That's to far out for me. Regards, Harald ----- --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net Thu Apr 1 15:22:30 2004 From: dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 08:22:30 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: 12c3 (Karel) In-Reply-To: <20040401130102.4991.93658.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <000701c417f4$c5692d40$6528fea9@Picasso> Interesting, I think, to observe how it would go in the ACBL, without L12C3. I would just 5H over 4C not only at all probable, but likely (he did bid 5G over 5C, which looks less favored). Now if possible I consult players (not other directors) of the same caliber as E/W, and I suspect come up with 5S+1 at all probable, 5HX-4 likely. Bidding and making slam, and bidding NT, are too unlikely to enter the calculations. Of course, maybe the consultants convince me of something (or things) else, particularly on the card play. Could I be wrong about the auction. Yep. I try as hard as I can, get advice, make the call, and move on. Hard choices, but I only make them once. As someone schooled without L12C3, I like this method. Are your tables of percentages better? Is it better that both sides can appeal with a reasonable expectation of success, and nearly certain knowledge that the end result will be different? Maybe it is, and maybe y'all have gone over this too many times, but it's a dramatic example. --__--__-- Message: 3 From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:33:30 +0100 Subject: Re: [blml] 12c3 [snip] I would have expected something like 5H*-4 20% of the time 5S+1 35% of the time 6S 20% of the time 6S-1 15% of the time (this btw was a common result how I dont know) 6NT 7% of the time 6NT* 3% of the time and derive a score. Using for example the above breakdown how does one arrive at the the score BTW ? This has never been clear for me. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu Apr 1 15:05:21 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:05:21 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] 12c3 References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA34B7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <4vFRXa1xMBbAFw3+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: DWS: > It is not obvious at all. If he would have bid 5H over a Gerber 4C > then he might have bid it over a natural 4C. The above statement is completely ridiculous. This is the well known difference between players and officials. DWS (and some others) seems incapable to see the difference between the two situations while in fact they are enormous. If 4C is Gerber than it is almost sure the guy has a major spade fit with a slamish hand and I see actually no good reason not to bid (at least) 5H. Last change to do something. Pass is ridiculous in this situation. If 4C is natural than it is quite possible partner has some off-shape preempt with some spade length. They have not found a fit yet (although they seem to belong in S). You have RHO's suit completely covered. Although 5H (or 4H) remains a more than reasonable choice I consider pass a very normal bid in this situation. In other words, although in general I am very sceptical about 'if I would have know, I would have ....' arguments, in this case I buy. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 3:03 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] 12c3 > Skjaran, Harald wrote > > >This guy bid 5H over 5C. > >He would obviously have bid 5H over 4C, if he had known it was Gerber. > > It is not obvious at all. If he would have bid 5H over a Gerber 4C > then he might have bid it over a natural 4C. > > -- > 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 Thu Apr 1 15:39:00 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:39:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] 12c3 References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181689F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Karel, Herman, Frances and others. This way of using 12c3 is maybe theoretical correct but completely impractical. It is ridiculous to assign probabilities to 6 different outcomes and then to calculate something. This leads only to garbage in (too many fairly random assumptions) = garbage out. In real life we limit 12c3 to simple often bipolor cases like 3NT made 50% and 3NT down 50% or so (imagine the guy has to pick a 50-50 lead or to guess which finesse to take). Two maybe three alternatives can be judged quite well in certain cases. As a rule of thumb maximum 3 outcomes and minimum 20% for each outcome (you can always adjust the percentages a little to compensate for the missing alternatives). If it cannot be done like that it is too complicated anyway. In that case don't bother and just award an artificial score. 12c3 works much better in teams than in pairs. Very often you can assign a reasonable probability to say game made, game missed and game down. This gives you a decent result in imps. And you will see that it often makes only 1 imp difference when you fool around with the assigned percentages a little. In pairs it is hopeless. Because you also have to consider overtricks, extra undertricks and denomination. Anyway in this case you cannot predict seriously what will happen after 5H. In such cases I advise simply to award an artificial score. Much easier and do you really think that 5H*-4 20% of the time 5S+1 35% of the time 6S 20% of the time 6S-1 15% of the time (this btw was a common result how I dont know) 6NT 7% of the time 6NT* 3% of the time or whatever makes more sense than just giving 60-40 (or 60-30 if you insist on some form of penalty). Just a (irrelevant) remark about the above. On good defence 5H is 5 down not 4. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" To: Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 3:17 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 12c3 +++ hold on. I have always assumed L12C3 is used in cases where it is very difficult or unfair to assign a score as "that is the most likely, or this is what would have happened" scenarios. How can you first assign an adjusted score and then change it ?? Surely if you arrived at an adjusted score then that is the score ?? The case in question any score from 5H*-4 to 6NT* making is "possible". I would find it difficult to pick a score and stand over my reasons for picking that score after the interference of 5H over a gerber bid, ergo my use of L12C3. I would have expected something like 5H*-4 20% of the time 5S+1 35% of the time 6S 20% of the time 6S-1 15% of the time (this btw was a common result how I dont know) 6NT 7% of the time 6NT* 3% of the time and derive a score. [Frances] I don't know if you have made up your numbers or thought them through, but there is evidence from the way the play went in 6NT that declarer was capable of making 12 tricks. I would therefore have no percentage of 6S-1, and I think this is unarguable. For reasons explained elsewhere I would also not have 6S or 6NT* included, but this is more subjective. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu Apr 1 15:57:14 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:57:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: 12c3 (Karel) References: <000701c417f4$c5692d40$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: Doug, 12c3 is great but only if you use it in suitable cases. This one doesn't qualify (IMHO that is). See my other mail. Now for 12c2 purposes. I don't know the value of 'at all probable' compared to 'likely' but after 5H I think 5H*, 5S and 6S are all three serious alternatives (maybe not equal probability but I gave each at least 20%). The best outcome for NS is obviousy EW bidding slam and 'misguessing' the play (it should make on the sequence but it is non trivial). So what would you rule under 12C2 in ACBL ? 6S-1 ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Couchman" To: Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 4:22 PM Subject: [blml] Re: 12c3 (Karel) > Interesting, I think, to observe how it would go in the ACBL, without L12C3. > I would just 5H over 4C not only at all probable, but likely (he did bid 5G > over 5C, which looks less favored). Now if possible I consult players (not > other directors) of the same caliber as E/W, and I suspect come up with 5S+1 > at all probable, 5HX-4 likely. Bidding and making slam, and bidding NT, are > too unlikely to enter the calculations. Of course, maybe the consultants > convince me of something (or things) else, particularly on the card play. > Could I be wrong about the auction. Yep. I try as hard as I can, get > advice, make the call, and move on. > > Hard choices, but I only make them once. > > As someone schooled without L12C3, I like this method. Are your tables of > percentages better? Is it better that both sides can appeal with a > reasonable expectation of success, and nearly certain knowledge that the end > result will be different? Maybe it is, and maybe y'all have gone over this > too many times, but it's a dramatic example. > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 3 > From: "Karel" > Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie > To: > Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:33:30 +0100 > Subject: Re: [blml] 12c3 > > [snip] > > I would have expected something like > > 5H*-4 20% of the time > 5S+1 35% of the time > 6S 20% of the time > 6S-1 15% of the time (this btw was a common result how I dont know) > 6NT 7% of the time > 6NT* 3% of the time > > and derive a score. Using for example the above breakdown how does one > arrive > at the the score BTW ? This has never been clear for me. > > K. > > -- > http://www.iol.ie > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu Apr 1 15:57:34 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:57:34 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] 12c3 References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA34B7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <4vFRXa1xMBbAFw3+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: One little typo. .. I see actually no good reason not to bid (at least) 5H ... This should be: ... (at least) 4H ... Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" To: ; "David Stevenson" Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 4:05 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] 12c3 > DWS: > > It is not obvious at all. If he would have bid 5H over a Gerber 4C > > then he might have bid it over a natural 4C. > > The above statement is completely ridiculous. This is the well known > difference between players and officials. DWS (and some others) seems > incapable to see the difference between the two situations while in fact > they are enormous. > > If 4C is Gerber than it is almost sure the guy has a major spade fit with a > slamish hand and I see actually no good reason not to bid (at least) 5H. > Last change to do something. Pass is ridiculous in this situation. > > If 4C is natural than it is quite possible partner has some off-shape > preempt with some spade length. They have not found a fit yet (although they > seem to belong in S). You have RHO's suit completely covered. Although 5H > (or 4H) remains a more than reasonable choice I consider pass a very normal > bid in this situation. > > In other words, although in general I am very sceptical about 'if I would > have know, I would have ....' arguments, in this case I buy. > > Jaap > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 3:03 PM > Subject: Re: SV: [blml] 12c3 > > > > Skjaran, Harald wrote > > > > >This guy bid 5H over 5C. > > >He would obviously have bid 5H over 4C, if he had known it was Gerber. > > > > It is not obvious at all. If he would have bid 5H over a Gerber 4C > > then he might have bid it over a natural 4C. > > > > -- > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From tom.cornelis@pi.be Thu Apr 1 16:53:39 2004 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 17:53:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] systems policy References: <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> <001201c41713$af8df4b0$8a8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406AB17E.7010008@hdw.be> <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406C18AB.3060303@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c41801$87335a20$d78bdbd5@lightningadmin> Hi Herman, Herman De Wael wrote: > Hello Tom, > > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > > > Then they should be made by neither side. > > However currently most players do not know the (complete) freedom > > of conventions, so David's point bares much less than mine. > > I even wouldn't mind there would be almost no freedom of conventions, > > even though I would very much regret it. I just don't like it that the game > > itself is limited by SOs. > > I know you know quite a lot about sports. Do you know any other sport > > where this happens? > > > > yes, all of them. > As an example, in Football, the tactic of placing a player just in > front of goal has been made illegal by the off-side law. > One can find examples in almost every sport. But the off-side law applies anywhere, doesn't it? I wanted an example of another sport where the organization can apply stricter or less strict rules about the game itself. Tom From tom.cornelis@pi.be Thu Apr 1 17:02:55 2004 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 18:02:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] systems policy References: <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> <001201c41713$af8df4b0$8a8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406AB17E.7010008@hdw.be> <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406C1A6F.5040104@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000b01c41802$cbf3cbd0$d78bdbd5@lightningadmin> Hi Herman, Herman De Wael wrote: > But on the other hand you are not just protecting the opponents at the > table, but also the opponents in the field. If a pair starts using > strange methods in a low-level tournament, it could very well be true > that none of their direct opponents express an opinion, but at the end > of the tournament they have scored 3 tops more than if they hadn't > used their strange methods. And so they win the tournament. And why is that a bad thing? Why should gaining tops with a certain bidding technique be less worth than gaining tops with a certain line of play? Tom From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Apr 1 17:18:45 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:18:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <000801c41801$87335a20$d78bdbd5@lightningadmin> from "Tom Cornelis" at Apr 01, 2004 05:53:39 PM Message-ID: <200404011618.i31GIjuU006626@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Tom Cornelis writes: > > Hi Herman, > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Hello Tom, > > > > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > > > > > > Then they should be made by neither side. > > > However currently most players do not know the (complete) freedom > > > of conventions, so David's point bares much less than mine. > > > I even wouldn't mind there would be almost no freedom of conventions, > > > even though I would very much regret it. I just don't like it that the > game > > > itself is limited by SOs. > > > I know you know quite a lot about sports. Do you know any other sport > > > where this happens? > > > > > > > yes, all of them. > > As an example, in Football, the tactic of placing a player just in > > front of goal has been made illegal by the off-side law. > > One can find examples in almost every sport. > > But the off-side law applies anywhere, doesn't it? > I wanted an example of another sport where the organization > can apply stricter or less strict rules about the game itself. > How about hockey. What is called "finishing your check" in the NHL (making body contact with a player who has just passed the puck) will earn you a penalty in virtually every pro league outside of North America. There's a similar divide when it comes to fighting. Actually they play under a different rule book. There are differences in required rink dimensions, the icing rule is different, the faceoff rules are different, the offside rules are different. (And there are others) Basketball used to have different rules about defensive tactics. The zone defence was illegal in the NBA (it's now permitted since coaches had figured out how to get around the letter of the law and were for all intents and purposes playing a zone whenever they felt like it, but the point is that the NBA could change next season) In addition basketball has different treatment of intentional fouls depending on the league you're playing in. (As with hockey there are major rules differences between various major governing bodies. Including placement of the 3 point line and game duration) In lacrosse fighting is tolerated and slashing (hitting the ball carrier with your stick) is a specifically permitted defensive tactic in the NLL. Fighting will is treated very differently outside of the NLL (in general it's handled the way fighting would be in rugby for instance) and slashing is a penalty. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 1 17:33:59 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:33:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <001201c417ce$5255e800$48f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <60B8B09A-83FA-11D8-8273-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Apr 1, 2004, at 04:47 US/Eastern, Ton Kooijman wrote: > But I still remember that 'incident' and in a similar situation, had > I to play with him again (I don't even know whether he is still alive) > I > would have a concealed partnership understanding. Would you? That would be the ACBL view - partner psyched once, so a PU exists. But it seems to me that the only "understanding" is that he did it once, thirty years ago, in a specific situation. One incident hardly defines a "tendency", though. As for "concealed", well, that would be true only if you failed to disclose it - assuming you have anything to disclose, which is, I think, open to debate. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 1 17:47:38 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:47:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> Message-ID: <49058356-83FC-11D8-8273-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Apr 1, 2004, at 07:54 US/Eastern, Tom Cornelis wrote: > I want to add at this point that it is stated in a Law (40 if I'm not > mistaken), that explanations must not be too complicated, in case > the explanation would confound the opponents. Not in Law 40. Nor in any other law, as far as I can see. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 1 22:44:14 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 22:44:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <003601c417c1$7ec12290$1e2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001701c41832$91d4f2a0$3a51883e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "'blml'" Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 9:15 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches > > A player that makes a psychic call without a partnership > understanding has an unqualified right to make that call. > The laws make that plain. The director and the regulators > have no right to tell that player that what he does is wrong. > +=+ They do not do that. What they may do in certain cases is to tell the player that they are satisfied from the evidence that the psyche is based on a PU (alternatively CPU) and that the Director's ruling is based upon that determination. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Apr 1 22:53:08 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 16:53:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <406C1A6F.5040104@hdw.be> References: <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> <001201c41713$af8df4b0$8a8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406AB17E.7010008@hdw.be> <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040401164754.00a91640@pop.starpower.net> At 08:34 AM 4/1/04, Herman wrote: >But on the other hand you are not just protecting the opponents at the >table, but also the opponents in the field. If a pair starts using >strange methods in a low-level tournament, it could very well be true >that none of their direct opponents express an opinion, but at the end >of the tournament they have scored 3 tops more than if they hadn't >used their strange methods. And so they win the tournament. It could also very well be true that their "strange" methods are superior to those of the field, and they scored 3 tops more than if they hadn't used those methods due to their superiority rather than their "strangeness". On what basis do we give ourselves the right to presume otherwise? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 1 23:20:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:20:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] systems policy Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>Yes, by law - not by regulation - that is >>the difference! Richard James Hills: A difference which makes no difference is no difference. A regulation is a law. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >law, n. A rule established among a community >& enjoining or prohibiting certain action.... > >regulate, v.t. ....control by rule.... > >regulation, n. ....prescribed 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 1 23:27:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:27:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] systems policy Message-ID: >But the off-side law applies anywhere, doesn't it? >I wanted an example of another sport where the organization >can apply stricter or less strict rules about the game itself. > >Tom The classic example is the sport of baseball. Half of the professional Canadian & American baseball teams use the strict rule requiring the pitcher (or pinch-hitter) to bat, the other half of the professional Canadian & American baseball teams use the less strict rule of the designated hitter. 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 Apr 1 23:35:55 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:35:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] systems policy Message-ID: >And why is that a bad thing? >Why should gaining tops with a certain bidding >technique be less worth than gaining tops with >a certain line of play? > >Tom Because a sufficiently strange or unusual bidding technique cannot be fully disclosed in the time available for a 2 or 3 board round of a walk-in duplicate pairs. Such techniques during such events are therefore an automatic infraction of Law 75A. I do, however, agree with Herman's earlier suggestion that a 160-board Bermuda Bowl Final should not have any restraints upon systems, given that a complete copy of the system notes had been provided a month or so in advance. 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 jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu Apr 1 23:46:25 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 00:46:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <003601c417c1$7ec12290$1e2e56d2@Desktop> <001701c41832$91d4f2a0$3a51883e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: > +=+ They do not do that. What they may do in certain cases > is to tell the player that they are satisfied from the evidence > that the psyche is based on a PU (alternatively CPU) and > that the Director's ruling is based upon that determination. Given the 'evidence' certain EBU directors are willing to use, the word 'evidence' might well be a travesty (in normal language evidence means something completely different). Encouraged by the EBU your average EBU TD will always find some evidence (you can always invent some). This TD will always rule against a psych which means that with this TD the law has changed to 'thou shalt not psyche'. Which happens to be in contradiction with law 40. So to all those Brits that try to rape the laws, if you don't want psyching in EBU territory why don't you simple make a reg that says so. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the eroding law quality caused by this kind of sick jokes. If you are really serious about this problem do something about 1NT = 15-17 and the like. Everybody says they play 15-17. Still quite some pairs open half their 14 counts or more 1NT (and there are many more similar problems). This type of (C)PU is far more damaging (due to the high frequency) than someone guessing right after his partners only psych that year. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "'blml'" Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "Father, oh father! what do we here > In this land of unbelief and fear? > The Land of Dreams is better far, > Above the light of the morning star. > [William Blake: 'The Land of Dreams'] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "'blml'" > Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 9:15 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches > > > > > > > A player that makes a psychic call without a partnership > > understanding has an unqualified right to make that call. > > The laws make that plain. The director and the regulators > > have no right to tell that player that what he does is wrong. > > > +=+ They do not do that. What they may do in certain cases > is to tell the player that they are satisfied from the evidence > that the psyche is based on a PU (alternatively CPU) and > that the Director's ruling is based upon that determination. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 1 23:56:24 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:56:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] systems policy Message-ID: Tom Cornelis wrote: >>>>I want to add at this point that it is stated in a >>>>Law (40 if I'm not mistaken), that explanations must >>>>not be too complicated, in case the explanation >>>>would confound the opponents. Ed Reppert wrote: >>>Not in Law 40. Nor in any other law, as far as I can >>>see. Law 40B writes: >>....unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected >>to understand its meaning,.... ABF Alert regulation writes: >....Your principle should be to disclose.....as >comprehensibly as you can.... 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 cibor@poczta.fm Fri Apr 2 03:17:49 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 19:17:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] systems policy References: <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> <001201c41713$af8df4b0$8a8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406AB17E.7010008@hdw.be> <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406C18AB.3060303@hdw.be> <000801c41801$87335a20$d78bdbd5@lightningadmin> Message-ID: <009801c41858$b6fb2ec0$532846a2@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Cornelis" > But the off-side law applies anywhere, doesn't it? > I wanted an example of another sport where the organization > can apply stricter or less strict rules about the game itself. > In football the penalties for bookings varies from country to country - each country having a different system. In former Yugoslavia they used to have a rule that if a league match finished with a draw then there was a penalty shoot-out. Also UEFA rejected the golden goal rule in their competitions. Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Apr 2 03:29:00 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 12:29:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used Message-ID: >>Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: E, Vul: NS >>You, South, hold: >> >>J3 >>T92 >>J76432 >>A4 >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- 1NT(1) Pass >>2C(2) Pass Pass ? >> >>(1) 11-14 balanced >>(2) Break in tempo, simple Stayman >> >>East is a blmler who has memorised >>their rights under Law 25B. >> >>What call do you make? >No money, no love >There is no romance >without a finance > >I have 6 PC at unfavorable vulnerability. >Why should I enter a kicking competition against a horse? >>How quickly do you make it? >I have already. > >Konrad Ciborowski >Krenver, Polorado The complete deal: T986 J864 T9 QT7 KQ42 A75 AKQ7 53 AK5 Q8 K3 J98652 J3 T92 J76432 A4 At the table, West scored +150 in 2C, which gained EW some matchpoints when part of the field failed in an over-optimistic slam. West had two logical alternatives when selecting their response to a (notionally) 11-14 1NT opening bid. West could either: (a) Super-scientifically probe for a 4-4 major fit with Stayman, hoping that 13 tricks exist in a major, but only 12 tricks exist in NT, or (b) Bash 6NT, hoping for a misdefence for an overtrick by the opponents on an uniformative auction, or that NT scores at least as many tricks as a hypothetical 4-4 major fit. A year ago, East had also opened 1NT holding weakness with long clubs. Since West had two logical alternatives, and since West's choice semi-fielded East's 1NT (a full fielding would be West signing off in 3NT), if the East-West partnership had played this deal in the EBU, would East-West have perpetrated a Red Psyche by EBU definition? Best wishes Richard James Hills East of Eden -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 cibor@poczta.fm Fri Apr 2 03:40:24 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 19:40:24 -0700 Subject: SV: [blml] 12c3 References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA34B7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <4vFRXa1xMBbAFw3+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <00db01c4185b$de17f8a0$532846a2@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 6:03 AM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] 12c3 > Skjaran, Harald wrote > > >This guy bid 5H over 5C. > >He would obviously have bid 5H over 4C, if he had known it was Gerber. > > It is not obvious at all. If he would have bid 5H over a Gerber 4C > then he might have bid it over a natural 4C. I don't get it: if the guy on your right opens 2C do you overcall with the same set of hands no matter what the meaning of 2C is (ART GF or natural, limited)? If 4C is Gerber then they have a spade fit, if it is natural then they might very well be heading for disaster on a misfit auction. So these tactical situations are very different from each other and I cannot believe you are seriously suggesting that one might infer what a player would do in one of these situations based on what he actually did in the other. Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Apr 2 03:44:22 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 19:44:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] 12c3 References: Message-ID: <00e001c4185c$6be25770$532846a2@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:47 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 12c3 > > > Pairs E/W Vul > > Dealer West > > > > S KT9 > > H JT9xxx > > D x > > C xxxx > > West East > > S QJ87xx S Axx > > H Kx H Ax > > D xx D AKJTxx > > C AQ9 C Jx > > > > S x > > H Qxx > > D Qxxx > > C KT8xx > > Bidding > > W N E S > > 1S 3H 4C P > > 4H P 5C 5H > > 5NT P 6NT Dbl > > All Pass > > Was there an infracion? Yes, it was. Were NS damaged? > Yes, they were. Was there a connection between these two? > Yes, it was - I have no doubt that South wouldn't have > doubled 6NT had he known that the club bids were artificial. > Was the double of 6NT irrational, wild or gambling? No, it wasn't - > it might not be the best bridge but I wouldn't call it ridiculous - > the opponents might be in a good contract but they don't know > that the breaks are bad - why not cash out? > > +++ agree so far > > So I would probably rule 6NT made undoubled > > how do you arrive at this conclusion ?? I simply overlooked the possibility that South might have bid 4/5H over 4C as the whole discussion was about South's final double of 6NT Now I reconsider - I believe that South would have bid 5H over 4C as he did so over 5C. As I a TD I would rule 5Hx -4 and let the AC sort it out. As an AC I would do a lot of consulting with the peers of the players in question before assigning a weighted score - it looks really tough to get the percentages right on this one. Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Apr 2 06:38:43 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:38:43 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c41874$c477e040$039737d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > Sent: Friday, 2 April 2004 10:46 a.m. > To: grandeval; 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > > +=+ They do not do that. What they may do in certain cases > > is to tell the player that they are satisfied from the evidence > > that the psyche is based on a PU (alternatively CPU) and > > that the Director's ruling is based upon that determination. > > Given the 'evidence' certain EBU directors are willing to > use, the word > 'evidence' might well be a travesty (in normal language evidence means > something completely different). Encouraged by the EBU your > average EBU TD > will always find some evidence (you can always invent some). > This TD will > always rule against a psych which means that with this TD the law has > changed to 'thou shalt not psyche'. Which happens to be in > contradiction > with law 40. So to all those Brits that try to rape the laws, > if you don't > want psyching in EBU territory why don't you simple make a > reg that says so. Because such a regulation would be illegal. Wayne From Mailsweeper@flextech.co.uk Fri Apr 2 06:59:24 2004 From: Mailsweeper@flextech.co.uk (Mailsweeper@flextech.co.uk) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 06:59:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] RE: Re: Question Message-ID: <200404020559.i325xOr30044@homer.flextech.co.uk> The above email was not delivered to the intended recipient as it was found to contain a virus. The details of the message are as follows: Sender: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: Question Recipient: enquires@bravo.co.uk Date Sent: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 06:59:26 +0100 If you require any further information please forward a request along with this email to IT_Helpdesk@flextech.co.uk. From instantchess@talanto.com Fri Apr 2 07:00:25 2004 From: instantchess@talanto.com (instantchess@talanto.com) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 06:00:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [blml] =?US-ASCII?B?SW5zdGFudCBDaGVzcyBTdXBwb3J0?= Message-ID: <200404020600.i3260PN20984@instantchess.com> --------------Boundary-01=_PO4JZBQXFQQMYJ0CCJD0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; boundary="------------Boundary-02=_PO4J9QIWKGMMYJ0CCJD0" --------------Boundary-02=_PO4J9QIWKGMMYJ0CCJD0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Instant Chess Player, Instant Chess dose not provide technical support via email. Still, we are always glad to answer all your questions and help to solve your problems via special Technical Support Forum. Instant Chess Technical Support Forum http://www.instantchess.com/?BKG=3D2&MID=3D2 If you have already made your question, you can automatically transfer it into our Forum. Your question: _______________________________________________________ For more details see the attachment. _______________________________________________________ Transfer my question into Support Forum http://www.instantchess.com/?Subj=3D1&Text=3D1&NM=3D1&BKG=3D2= &MID=3D2&FWIN=3D6&FMID=3D-1&Send=3D1&SMB=3DmJhYkdkKWU8YPTY1 Sorry for any inconvenience. Regards, Instant Chess Administration Please do not reply. For feedbacks and questions use the Instant Chess Support Forum only. http://www.instantchess.com/support --------------Boundary-02=_PO4J9QIWKGMMYJ0CCJD0 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D
3D"InstantChess   3D"InstantChess
Play=
Chess Online!
=0D = =0D
 =   Instant Chess Administration
=0D =0D
Dear Instant Chess Player,

=0D In= stant Chess dose not provide technical support via email.

=0D Still, we are always glad to answer all your questions and help to solve your problems via special Technical Support Forum.

=0D =0D If you have already made your question, you can automatically transfer it into our Forum.

=0D Your question:

=0D _______________________________________________________

=0D For more details see the attachment.
=0D _______________________________________________________

=0D
=0D =0D Sorry for any inconvenience.

Regards,
Instant Chess Administrat= ion
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D =0D
Please do not reply. For feedbacks and questions use= the Instant Chess Support Forum only. http://www.inst= antchess.com/support
=0D
=0D --------------Boundary-02=_PO4J9QIWKGMMYJ0CCJD0-- --------------Boundary-01=_PO4JZBQXFQQMYJ0CCJD0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Id: eAiJhu29NIkNhgVTzC2j R0lGODlhkwAlAOUKAERERCIiImZmZpmZmTMzM93d3czMzLu7u8zg67vW5O71+AAAAIiIiBEREe7u 7netyRFwoABmmVWZu93r8USPtDOFrarM3Yi4z2ajwpnC1iJ6p1VVVXd3d6qqqvHd3eS7u/ju7qAR EaciItaZmc6Fhc+IiLRERJkAAOvMzMx/f8JmZq0zM6kpKeW+vt2qqsl3d7tVVcZwcOvOzgEBAQAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEAADMALAAAAACTACUAAAb/wJlw SCwaj8ikcslsOp9QISAAmAEEM0E1yu16v+Dv9jrQhs/otNo5HhAG27V8Tu+OC4FC3Gs4HAp1aAgJ CXMKhIVHh4ROC46OQo8LgAeSQwwNkg0MDpGSnwtSoHGSlJagn0IKDxARrhESE0KvrrO0M7S3MwgU uRSJu720v0upM5IMM5WPQgKoCwSez6EzAaABQ8jKp9OhChW5rhAIuLq55eG7reERFurs7UrGktHL kAbdB8fd0sb7jvW4TZtxAV4ECuhqJYyw8NUMCQYRQoSHMMm8UvZCMZBkoIC2bqE8ogL0z1GBjCVR zQD3agLLWucWNqy1DtYMDLdqSripC8nF/0cMUG5kVjJZNktDMkrSlzIo0n7UbDkUBtPcrZhSI1wg ePXV1oIOLSL9RECopAFWAKhFe5SokKGgjJJF2RbSkHNUGcY8hzVhBQUZKAhGSOtv4MHyxn4aYImx Np9PZ8AlQAAo1AWO7UIlgrdrWL49Z2goTI7I6FcVSjP5+cgZMweZ6Bk44m/GhkdqH2247FpzSs63 8sqUCY9rrq1DwNJCXkyxJqSZHzVgS6Q2gEccOOC+HNt37b53DVZN9y0cBQWqXr4635woyCEdurcu Urs7A7gNLtf+Hjq8+JkMzaDARLSMowqBrxgolnvSgUKEA7d90kF1kZ0VXT/yeRcZeFkVV//cEBbU 5EoFRISYC4kL2iVJhJEJEd+KFLqFzyN+cFQSi2795l8tD3imEGhhGTFgLqoJiGAERdLnHGYOGqCW WgY4YI0j+dUVVUaULVVSdBrm2JlDe/kYoBAPDPaAca5cUKZgZyqnVYrULDUlMxnpo12O/sCFSjJy 7rdhcGJ2OJwQVCGkwHKFCrgcnP0ccCedWuoZo2Z6xlWSo37mKOIMwoUJZmiJJnRBqItCxqAjNVoi kiPJXEflpFG56ogAvS1QxVJKwUpEXhOcNt6PYjqEkysaHLLcsBEUm0CptC2pj3xCzAnKblYOIesC BszoyK00zgBttckZtJOnv96SgXgInGv/UJK6XmobUh0808Bs4OqYipY4tpseOxDIQq5e7AihHi0Y CAxPwYy6e6EQBuC4wAYk1ctaKFouvBkRCmAgIgboDQckVhf4mixzBImsAcl0+MFUIGAMAswaExAi yxExJzAzy2l48AEIT+gMgs84O6HzDB94MAQIOwedcwgijCA00yQw7bTSSJRQwgwjmDDDCVcL8cEJ Hyj9gQxeGy2DDEinbYTORs9QAtc8DyFD2EN8QPfbJaQAN9FkCzH3EUB7TbcHaCdd9AxpJ4243TPI cIIKHgzN9dlEg71423LIEMIKm299tQkmfC0C530L8bYJJzi9wgkr9A3CCiKIEELksI/+/zrrLLDe Qu0rzKDC5rMT8fvqLnjAOwglbC67CavbfcLoIcjgQQgmUP/C8yO8vTX1XH89NvAvzKGCCI2PAALX M4D+tdMiwDCEB+i/rbPlQoxwggfIezA+CCCIoIL33rMf/k5AgtTNYAUqeJ8BSyCD/fVPBW9DmgG7 Z8D2ecAFvjuB59ymwcf5LgTeG98MXHA/OYCOCOhTn+VO6DXLAZB+HCQCC1XovA+cDnQxYB3owtdC uqVPaz/Unvc8N0TQyWAFoOvg1bQXP7CBrXqgM0Hp0vCCECBPBPBTQf9CB7cQJFAIIPDiByXoQxJ+ zwXJO1sISvDCD5gReY5bYunOV4L+WYYtepqzmgaHSME6epF5M4CBEpHXQa0xz3tVBIEMzCcHEAhy jRwUgQoFaYK4CcEFInge2YY4hCp6EAQqOMEJwtfGGXiykiPIpAimmMoTmAB/oRxlDPnIxhNQEgQj CEEIBOlIrjERdav0Xi9lSbUeFjMQnDymGpKpzDUws5nQjKY0p0nNajIhCAA7 --------------Boundary-01=_PO4JZBQXFQQMYJ0CCJD0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Id: pn3MHCuhfSiKdRdKLgUj R0lGODlhPQBCAPZ/AAImLoQ8IAJhlVpyjqaWlgJ1w8KaigaK1m8xG0ebz0S49CVrmIhcUMjJySiP xwNmrura0ovD5AJCYa7GzrROJGq03gKE2IZRQ4nU+gJ9w+rq6WWs2Cqb3jJaekpedgNwrwJEem3B 8BWGx6JUOAKC0EWp4QJqpAKM4vTx8Mnj8zeb0xpzrQJVfAI1SZrd/WlCOJJVRAJzvBiMzpnK6Ha1 3gmDyFKS0hJafgJkoLJyUqvV7XjH8vr6+wJYhQI9VBaR2MLCwmxcX0eXw65XNa6Shr2+v456dimG vseOXaZqUKBOL0Zqhlm05fbaxt3d3H5OPuTKvGhmcNzt9tJKErja72aeur1qQVbK/vns4Dig3Oz4 +3E8K65+ahptmoXN9Vqo1qTk/o9GLSZzoZteSAJNbnqq3nldWQJouqZ2YieU0eXy+v768gItP0ik 2FdhbgJJhnLO/ne/5iKi7npJOlCt4MCCWHo6Ima76Q6a4hZwpDqCtuPi4LbS3ntWTc3Pzf///yH5 BAEAAH8ALAAAAAA9AEIAAAf/gH+Cg4SFhoeEPDx/ioiOj5CRhSgaiyiLkpmajzx+ToMam6KjjH5A oYOfpKuPGg1ADZige6y1gyimQEAohzxOtLakGrq6qogov8GiubCyjhpOTs7KjsSnmtBOvNSOTsTb vYfZqNyGxMa904J70eTlgijE7oaXvdHa77fW2up/lYaLsknLJ8iatQZ+9mBSaCiUr3YE/8QzaDDh PEaq7g0k6IsikCK6iqCD50eQwH4RQfl5NQ1FA3j3UEbkoWGPhmHzeACBGU3mO5r3Ql0rdA1Zz5SD eLALWlAdkJJGRxIUGG2bhpLmdhq9+G5pzEF++unydzQlVXeUDk1Umizlw6qF/xoZMuUHBTufwU5m 0nkKGtdyXzOZinUX6UNwkSZKxGe4rCQnDULtAYb0D5Y9axBp0VIICoQ/a7Dg5bYHC5UyCdLIyMC6 NesCDpps0IFFSmVBM2ykwYKFTwgMLmq4bg0bChsJa8TgoEOFoJoEMkp4wQBnhgYtCvBY2E6iu/cf E0DcwMKGjY8eMSKUm1HjjgsXV+SQOIODQAMPQYKY6dOHAQMzQURRxAJ66PDAAyyUh8MBnCmTAQZg KEDCAm7AMIISCDCABgJbdOjhFnbYQUQAMBjQxwBHnOGDACRkIEgKKYyGyAwZMMFBB2EoEcYcL/Q4 BwMXBCnkBU/MsYURPfaBQP8AYTAghgWsxcCCCayJoMMoX7D2AQUUwEBkkDCEKaaYF8BQRw5ceBnk E08oMcUSJNRQwwfDqbcJDayRsIIZIwwxxAhjhjnGoEkkUQcSSNRhYZ9/MuDGAwXckcUZMRRQKWtq bCJFBh/EYMEJGVAYBAMjlFrqEFakmuqfSsDAQBRLdBFDBhZwcAcHZ1SQ6R9CnJFBBaJkiQMLOGRw wrEWtBjDCswusEAXeeTxwQcFVEvCp1kwcUcbGTwwAyF+vEGCCqNkQEIMPZBBRg840Jmnd9x1d8AP aWRBxx1MtCGDpWe0UUgVIIw7SgS0ntDitCaYEMOsrNUgggwypCGxajIIZ+n/whnE4IwUIPRAgp2i fEBGscl2N9zJKFuaAR0lfEGIDgVI8AEJq6jgQws+tNuadyajvHClNUjnAgfNMaLCGQL0kEEKq8zQ gw8SsCA1Cz0IgEPC004bQ6cZFKACHUzE4YUXO+xQAyNtnOHrrEyvIgUOLaw79dx0s0BGpVm4MHbZ ZYcQgwox+MoaubbE4IPcddNNhgnnMkE23zt4UQLGg9vGihYpzECCBIgnPneUJWAA+Q4YZDFrDSCP kkIcRwggdQwnsHCe53N73HUaokPuRRoFsJbGBt9qokYFJvQggQ/I42yBAC1QTbvUOLTI2uiRC3ey Clc+kkIaAhwPtfdksJBx/9w9PD+l9DHcMXoIKLsG7CFZCIC8BPQjj94HAghgAf3lP+9uxurjm+Qe UL4ezAxlqdMCCcjQAvrVjwyscZ3ULPA059Hufxl4XNkwkIZ0TU0A5jqZvwRBAtk58Hg9OIDIwle+ WZHPf69Jgwa9EILeoWtuMZBea2TgL+I10IHnMVjGWMPAD5ygB83rX+LcFQM6aBADMmBYAeh2Mh5S QQY4YEMLtoizDJABg/8roQ9gOL2yTYcDs/rbDyRoN4a9RgZeSEANZMCBI+Qhf9MCAONQ9qkPTC18 c1scCQogAxdgAAMhiGLXauCCHwxLakpzTQzyJoME3AEMh6ROCDjwBjLoUP9LnFvQsTiFg/yZkmHt YQLveleAMzDBBSRg43CqRToRSKEGpBOgFziAAzdqqTxaJIMA3FWynr3mZwurARMitEL06NBSdABD CRLwhw0IIA6522AIVJCx3pnrAz0oHxm8hzyoFWs4lYrODsAAhjbgYF0HPGYGLkmHGDSIBj0QwiEh Jzo68O5dPGvRJ4ejTOC4IA4JuGMve2apGtDhPYCznCCo8IYbfGE62fSCC0zXvo6yRgZ0UIEIPvAA jOkwma8Ewx1qQANERKB8YkgA6TCg0Tv40qMnW5g30VmANITgPUyQwQbwQgUhlK8LQqhAInHK1Pb5 dAf+FEHqJEGFDeShajo7a6pWM1ADFQhnAxJdReY24ADKbbV9MvjCDBqUDylQYQZxqEAbVJAGB4hA TniNmAraUIE46CAFbM1EIAAAIf4fT3B0aW1pemVkIGJ5IFVsZWFkIFNtYXJ0U2F2ZXIhAAA7 --------------Boundary-01=_PO4JZBQXFQQMYJ0CCJD0-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Apr 2 07:05:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:05:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: Jaap: [big snip] >>So to all those Brits that try to rape the laws, >>if you don't want psyching in EBU territory why >>don't you simply make a reg that says so. Wayne: >Because such a regulation would be illegal. RJH: Alas, no. The EBU could make a reg pursuant to Law 40D, which states: "Anyone who has psyched on or after April 1st 2004 is prohibited from ever again using any conventions." :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Apr 2 07:48:01 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 07:48:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <003601c417c1$7ec12290$1e2e56d2@Desktop> <001701c41832$91d4f2a0$3a51883e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <001601c4187e$a868c180$491c883e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "grandeval" ; "'blml'" Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > Given the 'evidence' certain EBU directors are willing to use, the word > 'evidence' might well be a travesty (in normal language evidence means > something completely different). Encouraged by the EBU your average EBU TD > will always find some evidence (you can always invent some). This TD will > always rule against a psych which means that with this TD the law has > changed to 'thou shalt not psyche'. Which happens to be in contradiction > with law 40. So to all those Brits that try to rape the laws, if you don't > want psyching in EBU territory why don't you simple make a reg that says so. > I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the eroding law > quality caused by this kind of sick jokes. > +=+ This is a display of ignorance beyond belief.The overwhelming majority of psyches are labelled 'green'; only a minuscule number are tagged as 'red'. Furthermore the reports go to the NBO for review. The guidelines are sharp and they say very clearly that most psyches are what they purport to be - and TDs are taught what standard of evidence is needed to indicate otherwise. Jaap does himself disservice when he mouths such wild calumny as the above. Moreover, he is evidently wholly ignorant also of the controls maintained centrally in England on the kind of 1NT abuse of which he writes. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Fri Apr 2 07:51:33 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:51:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <000001c41874$c477e040$039737d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne > Because such a regulation would be illegal. Well, such regs exists and are enforced. But I prefer that kind of regs to be legal rather than what is happening now. But I do understand your problem. Local authorities might overuse their powers. My point is that if so inclined they will do so anyway. Things like what the EBU is up to or the ACBL joke: you can play 9-11 but you are not allowed to play Stayman after that. Illegal or not I prefer a reg that says 'opening 1NT on less than x HCP' is an illegal system in jurisdiction y. Normally depending on level of play and number of boards a table. The WBF systems policy works fundamentally the same. Personally I see no difference protecting opponents ('low' level and or few boards) against say brown stickers conventions (although some of them are well known) and protecting the opponents against mini-NT and (certain type of) psyches. If one is legal and the other is not it is about time to do something about that. Anyway the only NCBO that really overuses its powers in this respect (forget about details like EBU psyching regs) is the ACBL. And no amount of international rules and regulations is going to change that. It is a political reality that the Yanks will always do what they want. Unilaterally. And yes I know that quite some 'Yanks' detest their ACBL for that. And no, I am not anti-American in any way. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'blml'" Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 7:38 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > Sent: Friday, 2 April 2004 10:46 a.m. > > To: grandeval; 'blml' > > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > > > > > +=+ They do not do that. What they may do in certain cases > > > is to tell the player that they are satisfied from the evidence > > > that the psyche is based on a PU (alternatively CPU) and > > > that the Director's ruling is based upon that determination. > > > > Given the 'evidence' certain EBU directors are willing to > > use, the word > > 'evidence' might well be a travesty (in normal language evidence means > > something completely different). Encouraged by the EBU your > > average EBU TD > > will always find some evidence (you can always invent some). > > This TD will > > always rule against a psych which means that with this TD the law has > > changed to 'thou shalt not psyche'. Which happens to be in > > contradiction > > with law 40. So to all those Brits that try to rape the laws, > > if you don't > > want psyching in EBU territory why don't you simple make a > > reg that says so. > > Because such a regulation would be illegal. > > Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 2 08:05:09 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 02:05:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <13C72B48-8474-11D8-8273-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Apr 1, 2004, at 17:56 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Ed Reppert wrote: > >>>> Not in Law 40. Nor in any other law, as far as I can >>>> see. > > Law 40B writes: > >>> ....unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected >>> to understand its meaning,.... and goes on to say "or unless his side discloses the use of such..." I don't think the phrase you quote has anything to do with Tom's premise that "explanations must not be too complicated". From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Apr 2 08:30:02 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:30:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <000101c417f2$75d84a10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c417f2$75d84a10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <406D167A.5070604@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ........... > >>As an example, in Football, the tactic of placing a player just in >>front of goal has been made illegal by the off-side law. > > > Yes, by law - not by regulation - that is the difference! > No, why should that matter? If the sport of underwater ballet dancing prefers to write it's rules into a constitution, appended with ten commandments, who are we to discuss words. There is no difference between a law and a regulation in the sense that both tell the players what to do. If your point is that through use of regulations, the "rules" can be made different from country to country, then that is a valid difference, but then we were not discussing the idea of different rules for different tournaments, but rather of the reason for having rules that limit tactics at all. Considering different rules for different locations, one thread in the cricket newsgroup recently asked "when was the last time a test match was run according to the laws of cricket", complaining that every single match had their own set of "extra" regulations, which varied from time to time and from place to place. > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Apr 2 08:37:50 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:37:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <000b01c41802$cbf3cbd0$d78bdbd5@lightningadmin> References: <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> <001201c41713$af8df4b0$8a8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406AB17E.7010008@hdw.be> <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406C1A6F.5040104@hdw.be> <000b01c41802$cbf3cbd0$d78bdbd5@lightningadmin> Message-ID: <406D184E.9070602@hdw.be> Good question, Tom Cornelis wrote: > Hi Herman, > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>But on the other hand you are not just protecting the opponents at the >>table, but also the opponents in the field. If a pair starts using >>strange methods in a low-level tournament, it could very well be true >>that none of their direct opponents express an opinion, but at the end >>of the tournament they have scored 3 tops more than if they hadn't >>used their strange methods. And so they win the tournament. > > > And why is that a bad thing? > Why should gaining tops with a certain bidding technique be less worth > than gaining tops with a certain line of play? > Because it is not the technique itself which wins the points, but the ignorance of your opponents to deal with it. If you make a better system, enabling you to better find out if all the aces and kings are in, and you bid a slam by that method, OK. I have to guess at bidding six; you know it's on or off. Fine. If you make a system which allows the opponents only limited range for overcalling, OK. I have to open one heart, and they bid one spade over that and I get a spade lead; You open this three diamonds, showing hearts, they don't bid any more, they don't find the lead. Fine. But if your system is too difficult for your opponents to follow: I open one heart, they overcall one spade; You open one diamond, showing hearts or spades, they don't dare to overcall a spade, and they haven't worked out an alternative. Not Fine! Your table opponents might not mind, but I do. > Tom > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Apr 2 09:36:55 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:36:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018168A3@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > +=3D+ They do not do that. What they may do in certain cases > is to tell the player that they are satisfied from the evidence > that the psyche is based on a PU (alternatively CPU) and > that the Director's ruling is based upon that determination. Given the 'evidence' certain EBU directors are willing to use, the word 'evidence' might well be a travesty (in normal language evidence means something completely different). Encouraged by the EBU your average EBU = TD will always find some evidence (you can always invent some). This TD = will always rule against a psych which means that with this TD the law has changed to 'thou shalt not psyche'. Which happens to be in contradiction with law 40. So to all those Brits that try to rape the laws, if you = don't want psyching in EBU territory why don't you simple make a reg that says = so. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the eroding law quality caused by this kind of sick jokes. Jaap [Frances] Now you're just being silly. I play in the EBU and I see many psyches, = some successful some not. Only a tiny percentage of them would be called = "red" if the TD were called (of course often the TD isn't called). And it's not=20 particularly the successful ones that would be red. I don't particularly like the EBU psychic reg, though I will apply it if = necessary, but to say it is equivalent to banning psyching is absurd. From maija-r@mail.com Thu Apr 1 10:31:59 2004 From: maija-r@mail.com (Maija Romanovska) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 04:31:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: Bridge championship in Latvia Message-ID: <20040401093159.5550D22E1C@ws1-10.us4.outblaze.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1080811919-95789-1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello,

Two month ago I already tried to contact you, but I guess this is your e-mail adress. Please see the attached message.

Best regards,

Maija Romanovska

----- Original Message -----
From: "Maija Romanovska"
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:45:06 -0500
To: bridge@blakjak.com
Subject: Bridge championship in Latvia


--

___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

------------=_1080811919-95789-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) Received: from [195.234.144.18] by ws1-7.us4.outblaze.com with http for maija-r@mail.com; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:45:06 -0500 From: "Maija Romanovska" To: bridge@blakjak.com Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:45:06 -0500 Subject: Bridge championship in Latvia X-Originating-Ip: 195.234.144.18 X-Originating-Server: ws1-7.us4.outblaze.com

Dear Mr. Stevenson,

 

The thing I started two years ago finally seems to be okey now. You and Mr. Horton are the two first persons I send our tournaments' new home page - www.balticbridge.lv. Mr. Horton accepted our invitation to be the main editor of the bulletin. We would like to offer you to be the main referee of the tournament. If you find this interesting, please, let us know your conditions. The head of  Appeals Committe will be Mr. Vitold Brushtunov and may be you remember that I turned to you with our ideas thanks to his advice.

 

Looking forward to your kind reply,

Sincerely yours

Maija Romanovska.

--

___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

------------=_1080811919-95789-1-- From tom.cornelis@pi.be Fri Apr 2 10:32:19 2004 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 11:32:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] systems policy References: <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> <001201c41713$af8df4b0$8a8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406AB17E.7010008@hdw.be> <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406C1A6F.5040104@hdw.be> <000b01c41802$cbf3cbd0$d78bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406D184E.9070602@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002401c41895$6511de00$738bdbd5@lightningadmin> Herman De Wael wrote: > Good question, > > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > >>But on the other hand you are not just protecting the opponents at the > >>table, but also the opponents in the field. If a pair starts using > >>strange methods in a low-level tournament, it could very well be true > >>that none of their direct opponents express an opinion, but at the end > >>of the tournament they have scored 3 tops more than if they hadn't > >>used their strange methods. And so they win the tournament. > > > > > > And why is that a bad thing? > > Why should gaining tops with a certain bidding technique be less worth > > than gaining tops with a certain line of play? > > > > Because it is not the technique itself which wins the points, but the > ignorance of your opponents to deal with it. This is where I disagree. If it were true, you would have been right of course. But a lot of techniques that don't need specific agreements are forbidden, and some techniques are even permitted though they are very difficult to defend against for players who don't have specific agreements. E.g. 1) 2C showing a weak two in D is permitted, where 1C showing D is not; 2) 2D showing a weak two in H/S is permitted, where 1D showing H/S is not. > If you make a better system, enabling you to better find out if all > the aces and kings are in, and you bid a slam by that method, OK. > I have to guess at bidding six; you know it's on or off. Fine. > > If you make a system which allows the opponents only limited range for > overcalling, OK. > I have to open one heart, and they bid one spade over that and I get a > spade lead; You open this three diamonds, showing hearts, they don't > bid any more, they don't find the lead. Fine. > > But if your system is too difficult for your opponents to follow: > I open one heart, they overcall one spade; You open one diamond, > showing hearts or spades, they don't dare to overcall a spade, and > they haven't worked out an alternative. Not Fine! > Your table opponents might not mind, but I do. I agree completely. But why not disallow 2D showing hearts or spades? The rules for brown sticker conventions and HUM are at least sensible. Any other method cannot be made as complicated as that. A bid shows a certain suit: easy to defend against. A bid shows no suit at all: easy to defend against if strong (cfr. strong club, preparatory 1D, 2C strongest opening bid) Even a bid showing a combination of the previous possibilities is easy to defend against. (cfr. forcing club, 2C weak D or strong, ...) All others require some agreement and are more difficult to defend against. However, the rules do not reflect this. You can play 2D multi almost anywhere, but at most events you cannot play 1D multi or 3D multi (if one wanted to). Don't argue that 2D is widely known enough to allow it. If this were true, there would be no reason to disallow other multis. Occasional partnerships do have difficulties with 2D multi, and unfortunately I know players who play multi only for this reason. If a SO wants to limit difficult bids, fine. But why not make the rules sensible? At least the WBF could give the right example, so that other SOs would follow. Best regards Tom From tom.cornelis@pi.be Fri Apr 2 10:39:11 2004 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 11:39:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] systems policy References: <13C72B48-8474-11D8-8273-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002d01c41896$5aaa7ca0$738bdbd5@lightningadmin> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Thursday, Apr 1, 2004, at 17:56 US/Eastern, > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > >>>> Not in Law 40. Nor in any other law, as far as I can > >>>> see. > > > > Law 40B writes: > > > >>> ....unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected > >>> to understand its meaning,.... > > and goes on to say "or unless his side discloses the use of such..." I > don't think the phrase you quote has anything to do with Tom's premise > that "explanations must not be too complicated". You are right, Ed. Shouldn't there be such a Law? Tom From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Apr 2 11:12:38 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 12:12:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <002401c41895$6511de00$738bdbd5@lightningadmin> References: <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> <001201c41713$af8df4b0$8a8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406AB17E.7010008@hdw.be> <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406C1A6F.5040104@hdw.be> <000b01c41802$cbf3cbd0$d78bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406D184E.9070602@hdw.be> <002401c41895$6511de00$738bdbd5@lightningadmin> Message-ID: <406D3C96.7050102@hdw.be> Tom, I don't want to go into details about why certain regulations are what they are. Rather, I would like to say that I agree with you that certain aspects of the regulations are, or seem, illogical. From your responses below, I gather that you have understood my points. Which is all I really wanted. Yes, I agree that 2D Multi is more difficult to defend against than 1D showing hearts. But a player at my level realizes that he will come up against 2D Multi, and he has made a defence against it. He also knows he will not meet 1D showing hearts, so he has no defence against that. Whether or not this is a good thing, it is the reason for the regulation. Tom Cornelis wrote: [snip] -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Apr 2 11:15:36 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 12:15:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <002d01c41896$5aaa7ca0$738bdbd5@lightningadmin> References: <13C72B48-8474-11D8-8273-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <002d01c41896$5aaa7ca0$738bdbd5@lightningadmin> Message-ID: <406D3D48.1070201@hdw.be> Tom Cornelis wrote: > Ed Reppert wrote: > > >>On Thursday, Apr 1, 2004, at 17:56 US/Eastern, >>richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> >>>Ed Reppert wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>Not in Law 40. Nor in any other law, as far as I can >>>>>>see. >>> >>>Law 40B writes: >>> >>> >>>>>....unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected >>>>>to understand its meaning,.... >> >>and goes on to say "or unless his side discloses the use of such..." I >>don't think the phrase you quote has anything to do with Tom's premise >>that "explanations must not be too complicated". > > > You are right, Ed. Shouldn't there be such a Law? > I don't think so. I don't believe we can write a law forbidding detailed system talks. If you want to describe your 1He opening with different point levels according to distribution (11+ if 5-4, 10+ if six with at least 2 top-honours, 12+ other) then you should be allowed to. If you are going to limit explanations, the temptation is to simply say "11+", which is MI. > Tom > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Fri Apr 2 13:07:18 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:07:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018168A3@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Ok sorry, I guess I got the wrong info. The info of some (normally serious) posters suggested that the situation was quite different.Anyway I maintain my point about pollution of the quality of the laws if too many SO's are introducing too many regs like that. > I don't particularly like the EBU psychic reg, though I will apply it if > necessary, but to say it is equivalent to banning psyching is absurd. Of course I overdid a little to provoke. But might this EBU reg not be used to the effect of (partly) banning psyching by TD's with tastes different from yours? Anyway this kind of rules tend to degenerate. Like this ACBL mantra 'once in your lifetime'. Or the flagrant misuse of the 'SO can regulate conventions' article. And part of my criticism was also caused by the EBU redefining a normal word 'fielding' to give it another meaning. Why couldn't they call it just 'illegal fielding' (this has been discussed). Lawmakers that do this kind of things are dangereous and should be dismissed a.s.a.p. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 10:36 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches > +=+ They do not do that. What they may do in certain cases > is to tell the player that they are satisfied from the evidence > that the psyche is based on a PU (alternatively CPU) and > that the Director's ruling is based upon that determination. Given the 'evidence' certain EBU directors are willing to use, the word 'evidence' might well be a travesty (in normal language evidence means something completely different). Encouraged by the EBU your average EBU TD will always find some evidence (you can always invent some). This TD will always rule against a psych which means that with this TD the law has changed to 'thou shalt not psyche'. Which happens to be in contradiction with law 40. So to all those Brits that try to rape the laws, if you don't want psyching in EBU territory why don't you simple make a reg that says so. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the eroding law quality caused by this kind of sick jokes. Jaap [Frances] Now you're just being silly. I play in the EBU and I see many psyches, some successful some not. Only a tiny percentage of them would be called "red" if the TD were called (of course often the TD isn't called). And it's not particularly the successful ones that would be red. I don't particularly like the EBU psychic reg, though I will apply it if necessary, but to say it is equivalent to banning psyching is absurd. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Fri Apr 2 13:39:34 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:39:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <000101c417f2$75d84a10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <406C18AB.3060303@hdw.be> <000101c417f2$75d84a10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Herman De Wael >........... >> As an example, in Football, the tactic of placing a player just in >> front of goal has been made illegal by the off-side law. > >Yes, by law - not by regulation - that is the difference! I do not think the difference is relevant. The poster does not like limiting conventions: it is the Law that permits that. -- 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 Apr 2 13:40:49 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:40:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <000801c41801$87335a20$d78bdbd5@lightningadmin> References: <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> <001201c41713$af8df4b0$8a8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406AB17E.7010008@hdw.be> <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406C18AB.3060303@hdw.be> <000801c41801$87335a20$d78bdbd5@lightningadmin> Message-ID: Tom Cornelis wrote >Hi Herman, > >Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Hello Tom, >> >> Tom Cornelis wrote: >> >> > >> > Then they should be made by neither side. >> > However currently most players do not know the (complete) freedom >> > of conventions, so David's point bares much less than mine. >> > I even wouldn't mind there would be almost no freedom of conventions, >> > even though I would very much regret it. I just don't like it that the >game >> > itself is limited by SOs. >> > I know you know quite a lot about sports. Do you know any other sport >> > where this happens? >> > >> >> yes, all of them. >> As an example, in Football, the tactic of placing a player just in >> front of goal has been made illegal by the off-side law. >> One can find examples in almost every sport. > >But the off-side law applies anywhere, doesn't it? >I wanted an example of another sport where the organization >can apply stricter or less strict rules about the game itself. In golf there are limiting local rules at each course. -- 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 Fri Apr 2 13:44:35 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:44:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <003601c417c1$7ec12290$1e2e56d2@Desktop> <001701c41832$91d4f2a0$3a51883e@4nrw70j> <001601c4187e$a868c180$491c883e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: > Moreover, he is evidently wholly ignorant also of the > controls maintained centrally in England on the kind of 1NT abuse > of which he writes. I have no idea how you do this in England. I meant it in general. If you read carefully it was not about 1NT and or England in particular. Still I am very much interested how you go about it. It is a very interesting fundamental problem (and I don't mean CPU on purpose that is something else). As far as I know this problem gets largely ignored because it is (too) difficult to tackle. > +=+ This is a display of ignorance beyond belief.The overwhelming > majority of psyches are labelled 'green'; only a minuscule number are > tagged as 'red'. Furthermore the reports go to the NBO for review. > The guidelines are sharp and they say very clearly that most psyches > are what they purport to be - and TDs are taught what standard of > evidence is needed to indicate otherwise. In that case the info and discussion on blml was rather biased if not incomplete. I know I overdid (you should know by now that I use this technique from time to time) but please give me and others a borderline example of a psych and its (illegal) fielding where green touches red (if you are serious you should have this stuff on file with your reporting system). Makes it easier for non EBU bureaucrats to understand what is going on. > Furthermore the reports go to the NBO for review. Do you mean all red rulings? Is this theory or reality. I have often seen this idea but at least in Holland (and we have a very serious office, that is not the problem) this kind of thing has never worked. The goal doesn't justify the cost and the effort (it is not only the reporting but also the complaints about the reporting and the inevitable legal procedures). How do you get your people motivated over the years to do this kind of work? Ok, the top tier with proffesional TD's I believe, but what about the other 99% of bridge life? Jaap > +=+ This is a display of ignorance beyond belief.The overwhelming > majority of psyches are labelled 'green'; only a minuscule number are > tagged as 'red'. Furthermore the reports go to the NBO for review. > The guidelines are sharp and they say very clearly that most psyches > are what they purport to be - and TDs are taught what standard of > evidence is needed to indicate otherwise. > Jaap does himself disservice when he mouths such wild calumny > as the above. Moreover, he is evidently wholly ignorant also of the > controls maintained centrally in England on the kind of 1NT abuse > of which he writes. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Fri Apr 2 13:47:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:47:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] How Law 25B is not to be used In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote > >>>Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: E, Vul: NS >>>You, South, hold: >>> >>>J3 >>>T92 >>>J76432 >>>A4 >>> >>>The bidding has gone: >>> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>--- --- 1NT(1) Pass >>>2C(2) Pass Pass ? >>> >>>(1) 11-14 balanced >>>(2) Break in tempo, simple Stayman >>> >>>East is a blmler who has memorised >>>their rights under Law 25B. >>> >>>What call do you make? > >>No money, no love >>There is no romance >>without a finance >> >>I have 6 PC at unfavorable vulnerability. >>Why should I enter a kicking competition against a horse? > >>>How quickly do you make it? > >>I have already. >> >>Konrad Ciborowski >>Krenver, Polorado > >The complete deal: > > T986 > J864 > T9 > QT7 >KQ42 A75 >AKQ7 53 >AK5 Q8 >K3 J98652 > J3 > T92 > J76432 > A4 > >At the table, West scored +150 in 2C, which gained EW >some matchpoints when part of the field failed in an >over-optimistic slam. > >West had two logical alternatives when selecting their >response to a (notionally) 11-14 1NT opening bid. > >West could either: > >(a) Super-scientifically probe for a 4-4 major fit with > Stayman, hoping that 13 tricks exist in a major, but > only 12 tricks exist in NT, > >or > >(b) Bash 6NT, hoping for a misdefence for an overtrick > by the opponents on an uniformative auction, or that > NT scores at least as many tricks as a hypothetical > 4-4 major fit. > >A year ago, East had also opened 1NT holding weakness >with long clubs. > >Since West had two logical alternatives, and since >West's choice semi-fielded East's 1NT (a full fielding >would be West signing off in 3NT), if the East-West >partnership had played this deal in the EBU, would >East-West have perpetrated a Red Psyche by EBU >definition? No. One reason why West bid 2C might be to look for a 4-4 fit because he considered it correct to play in the major. -- 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 Apr 2 13:50:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:50:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) In-Reply-To: <000001c417f1$f0d19240$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c417f1$f0d19240$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >....... >> >David Stevenson best practiced: >> >>>>Of course when alone on the job you have to consult a >> >>>>player or by telephone. >> > >> >Sven Pran unilateralised: >> > >> >>>No, when alone on the job I make my rulings on my own. >> > >> >WBF Code of Practice, page 6: >> > >> >>It is the function of the Director to make a ruling in >> >>a judgemental matter, **having consulted appropriately**, >> >>that executes most accurately the intention of the laws. >> > >> >Richard James Hills rhetoricalling: >> > >> >Is Sven arguing that *zero* consultation in a judgemental >> >matter is *always* appropriate consultation when there is >> >only one TD alone on the job? >> > >> >:-( >> >> Apparently, which is why I am shocked. When we get to judgmental >> rulings on our Club TD courses the first thing they learn is that you >> ***never*** give a judgmental ruling without consultation. When I did >> my first ever EBU event as a TD the then Chief TD of the EBU, Roy >> Higson, stressed it at the start, and then came and consulted with me >> during the session to make it clear that it was always done. > >My turn now. > >I am not discussing tournaments where there is more than one director on the >job. In such cases I too of course consult my colleagues on any judgment >case. > >If and when I consult another person on a case I take extreme care not to >involve any person that subsequently would have to rule on the case if it >becomes appealed. (I do hope my reasons for this are obvious?) > >Sometimes, particularly on ordinary club evenings this leaves me with no >other (qualified) director in the room and the players most qualified for >consultation being excluded because they will probably already have been >appointed to the AC. > >What I do is to collect all the information I can (from whatever source >available) to build my own picture of what probably was going on, then I >withdraw to my own working place and think the case over and finally I >return to the table and announce my ruling in the proper way. I do not feel >comfortable in consulting a player on judgment unless he is both competent >and neutral, and pretty often I therefore find myself compelled to make my >decision in solitude. And that is what I feel having been trained to do when >necessary! (That I consult whoever on their understanding of the facts is a >different matter) > >Does for instance David automatically pick up the phone and try finding >someone to discuss a judgment case at say 10PM during an ordinary club >evening? Does he discuss the case with whatever player he can find in the >room regardless of their quality and neutrality? Frankly I doubt it. I trust >that when David is the sole director present he does the best job he can; >collecting all the information he can get from whatever sources available >and that he then makes his judgment ruling from the impression he has >acquired on the case. > >But I doubt that he consults other persons on the judgment and "yields" to a >plurality of people he feels are less qualified than him so that he presents >a democratic ruling which he does not fully agree to. I consult with a player. I consider the notion that they are "already picked to be on an AC" ridiculous. If you do not follow correct procedure when ruling no wonder you need ACs. -- 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 Apr 2 13:53:57 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:53:57 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <00db01c4185b$de17f8a0$532846a2@ams.com> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA34B7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <4vFRXa1xMBbAFw3+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00db01c4185b$de17f8a0$532846a2@ams.com> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote >From: "David Stevenson" >> Skjaran, Harald wrote >> >This guy bid 5H over 5C. >> >He would obviously have bid 5H over 4C, if he had known it was Gerber. >> It is not obvious at all. If he would have bid 5H over a Gerber 4C >> then he might have bid it over a natural 4C. >I don't get it: if the guy on your right opens 2C >do you overcall with the same set of hands no matter >what the meaning of 2C is (ART GF or natural, limited)? No. I don't get it: if the guy on your right opens 2C do you never make the same overcall when there are two different meanings? You are assuming because a player makes a specific call in a certain situation he will always make the same call in a different situation. It does not follow. We know that he would bid 5H on the next round. That does not mean *automatically* that he would have bid 5H on this round with different information. -- 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 Apr 2 14:00:07 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:00:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> References: <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> Message-ID: Torsten Åstrand wrote >Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right >bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C shows exaktly your >hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake 2C. This is the traditional problem with the current Law. The TD must offer the 2C for acceptance: if it is not accepted then it may be corrected to a sufficient bid or pass, with everything except 3C forcing partner to pass for the rest of the auction. The TD has to find out whether 2C was conventional!!!!!. Well, I do not suppose it was, though I find out away from the table what was intended. Since 3C was intended I let 3C be bid now without penalty. I wish we could return to the law whereby you could always correct to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination without penalty. There would be far less UI flying around. -- 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 Apr 2 14:02:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:02:20 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC89@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC89@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <1keilYEcRWbAFwmy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Skjaran, Harald wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >Skjaran, Harald wrote > >>This guy bid 5H over 5C. >>He would obviously have bid 5H over 4C, if he had known it was Gerber. > > It is not obvious at all. If he would have bid 5H over a Gerber 4C >then he might have bid it over a natural 4C. > >----- >So you believe it's possible that a player who will bid 5H over 5C in >this sequence (no alerts) would not bid 5H over 4C Gerber thus maybe >disrupting their ace showing and stealing bidding space? That's to far >out for me. When someone opens 1S and the next player wants to make a minimum overcall in hearts he has ot bid 2H: that does not mean he would necessarily have bid 2H over a 1C opening. I find it very strange that anyone thinks a player would necessarily jump on the evidence of a non-jump in a different situation. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Apr 2 14:08:06 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:08:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: 12c3 (Karel) In-Reply-To: <000701c417f4$c5692d40$6528fea9@Picasso> References: <20040401130102.4991.93658.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <000701c417f4$c5692d40$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: <4EEhNyE2WWbAFwFD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Doug Couchman wrote >Interesting, I think, to observe how it would go in the ACBL, without L12C3. >I would just 5H over 4C not only at all probable, but likely (he did bid 5G >over 5C, which looks less favored). Now if possible I consult players (not >other directors) of the same caliber as E/W, and I suspect come up with 5S+1 >at all probable, 5HX-4 likely. Bidding and making slam, and bidding NT, are >too unlikely to enter the calculations. Of course, maybe the consultants >convince me of something (or things) else, particularly on the card play. >Could I be wrong about the auction. Yep. I try as hard as I can, get >advice, make the call, and move on. > >Hard choices, but I only make them once. > >As someone schooled without L12C3, I like this method. Are your tables of >percentages better? Is it better that both sides can appeal with a >reasonable expectation of success, and nearly certain knowledge that the end >result will be different? Maybe it is, and maybe y'all have gone over this >too many times, but it's a dramatic example. Being dramatic, it is also atypical. The best argument for L12C3 is that players like it. In general we do not have a table of results the way it is shown below. The Israeli scoring software allows four weightings: it has been recommended that English scoring software should allow five [though the software writer says ten is so easy he intends to make it ten]. Putting it simply, the advantages of L12C3 are best seen where a side has a gain of 13 imps. If there had been no infraction it is not obvious whether they would have lost 5 imps, or whether the result would be the same. Whichever side loses this one will be very upset. Especially at lower levels [I suggest the ACBL tries L12C3 at non-National events] a lot of players find 6 imps or so to the offending side [as against +13 or -5] quite acceptable. -- 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 Fri Apr 2 14:21:29 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:21:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) References: <000001c417f1$f0d19240$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Poor Sven, Whatever you do DWS seems to consider you a moron. But don't worry I trust your decisions without consulting far more than DWS's decisions with consulting. Given his tendency to autistics I wonder how DWS consulting actually works. By the way, for your average random club tournament of course you don't go around calling people at home and or bother players by consulting if you are fairly sure of what you are doing. Not every bridge event should be treated as the last quarter of the Bermuda Bowl. Experience also counts for something. And also fairly obvious, the better a player is the TD, and the better his abstraction abilities, self criticism and such, he can do more without consulting. > I consult with a player. I consider the notion that they are "already > picked to be on an AC" ridiculous. If you do not follow correct > procedure when ruling no wonder you need ACs. What by the way is 'correct procedure' where and when Sven actually works. Might it just be possible that Sven knows better than you or me ? I am rather sure we are not discussing the final of the Norwegian Open at the moment. Anyway I think Herman made a sensible remark on this one. You get what you pay for. And another word to the wise. At least 90% of all players are rather useless for consulting purposes. And a lot of TD's don't know how to consult. To do this in a meaningful way is actually quite difficult (and time consuming). Rather than saying 'you should consult' (which is a no-brainer) the authorities should make clear 'how should you consult'. And before I get attacked again, I have ruled countless appeals to rulings which were made with some form of consulting. In general this is a disaster (I am sure there are some happy exceptions). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) > Sven Pran wrote > >> David Stevenson > >....... > >> >David Stevenson best practiced: > >> >>>>Of course when alone on the job you have to consult a > >> >>>>player or by telephone. > >> > > >> >Sven Pran unilateralised: > >> > > >> >>>No, when alone on the job I make my rulings on my own. > >> > > >> >WBF Code of Practice, page 6: > >> > > >> >>It is the function of the Director to make a ruling in > >> >>a judgemental matter, **having consulted appropriately**, > >> >>that executes most accurately the intention of the laws. > >> > > >> >Richard James Hills rhetoricalling: > >> > > >> >Is Sven arguing that *zero* consultation in a judgemental > >> >matter is *always* appropriate consultation when there is > >> >only one TD alone on the job? > >> > > >> >:-( > >> > >> Apparently, which is why I am shocked. When we get to judgmental > >> rulings on our Club TD courses the first thing they learn is that you > >> ***never*** give a judgmental ruling without consultation. When I did > >> my first ever EBU event as a TD the then Chief TD of the EBU, Roy > >> Higson, stressed it at the start, and then came and consulted with me > >> during the session to make it clear that it was always done. > > > >My turn now. > > > >I am not discussing tournaments where there is more than one director on the > >job. In such cases I too of course consult my colleagues on any judgment > >case. > > > >If and when I consult another person on a case I take extreme care not to > >involve any person that subsequently would have to rule on the case if it > >becomes appealed. (I do hope my reasons for this are obvious?) > > > >Sometimes, particularly on ordinary club evenings this leaves me with no > >other (qualified) director in the room and the players most qualified for > >consultation being excluded because they will probably already have been > >appointed to the AC. > > > >What I do is to collect all the information I can (from whatever source > >available) to build my own picture of what probably was going on, then I > >withdraw to my own working place and think the case over and finally I > >return to the table and announce my ruling in the proper way. I do not feel > >comfortable in consulting a player on judgment unless he is both competent > >and neutral, and pretty often I therefore find myself compelled to make my > >decision in solitude. And that is what I feel having been trained to do when > >necessary! (That I consult whoever on their understanding of the facts is a > >different matter) > > > >Does for instance David automatically pick up the phone and try finding > >someone to discuss a judgment case at say 10PM during an ordinary club > >evening? Does he discuss the case with whatever player he can find in the > >room regardless of their quality and neutrality? Frankly I doubt it. I trust > >that when David is the sole director present he does the best job he can; > >collecting all the information he can get from whatever sources available > >and that he then makes his judgment ruling from the impression he has > >acquired on the case. > > > >But I doubt that he consults other persons on the judgment and "yields" to a > >plurality of people he feels are less qualified than him so that he presents > >a democratic ruling which he does not fully agree to. > > I consult with a player. I consider the notion that they are "already > picked to be on an AC" ridiculous. If you do not follow correct > procedure when ruling no wonder you need ACs. > > -- > 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 Fri Apr 2 14:31:11 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:31:11 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] 12c3 References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC89@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <1keilYEcRWbAFwmy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Well well well, This is the same bloke that reproaches others for not consulting players when ruling. Here three of the best players on blml tell DWS that his view on this situation makes no sense and guess what. DWS says that the three players got it wrong and he knows better. Really I wonder, has anybody out there any experience with DWS consulting someone on a judgement case. To me it seems he does it only to satisfy procedures and than he will decide himself anyway. Maybe I should stop DWS bashing by now. Everybody knows already (longer than me probably) the limitations of the guy. But how come we allow this kind of guy to 'educate' our TD's. This is not exactly in the best interest of bridge. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 3:02 PM Subject: Re: SV: SV: [blml] 12c3 > Skjaran, Harald wrote > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >Skjaran, Harald wrote > > > >>This guy bid 5H over 5C. > >>He would obviously have bid 5H over 4C, if he had known it was Gerber. > > > > It is not obvious at all. If he would have bid 5H over a Gerber 4C > >then he might have bid it over a natural 4C. > > > >----- > >So you believe it's possible that a player who will bid 5H over 5C in > >this sequence (no alerts) would not bid 5H over 4C Gerber thus maybe > >disrupting their ace showing and stealing bidding space? That's to far > >out for me. > > When someone opens 1S and the next player wants to make a minimum > overcall in hearts he has ot bid 2H: that does not mean he would > necessarily have bid 2H over a 1C opening. > > I find it very strange that anyone thinks a player would necessarily > jump on the evidence of a non-jump in a different situation. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jens@alesia.dk Fri Apr 2 14:41:43 2004 From: jens@alesia.dk (Jens Brix Christiansen) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:41:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: At Friday, 2 April 2004, you wrote: > Really I wonder, has anybody out > there any experience with DWS consulting someone on a judgement case.=20 I have. David has called me on several occasions to consult on judgement= =20 cases. From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Apr 2 16:21:04 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:21:04 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: <406d84e0.367c.0@esatclear.ie> Let me give you as much info on this case as possible HANDS :- Dealer West E/W vul S KT9 H JT9xxx D x C xxx West East S QJ87xx S Axx H Kx H Ax D xx D AKJTxx C AQ9 C Jx S x H Qxx D Qxxx C KTxxx ---------------------------------------------------- BIDDING :- W N E S 1S 3H 4C(1) P 4H P 5C 5H 5S P 6NT Dbl(2) all pass (1) 4C was gerber NOT altered (2) Doubling on sitting over the clubs, diamond stopper and a leadable fit for pd. ---------------------------------------------------- TD CALLS ETC All according to the law, all proper. South claims he will bid 5H over gerber and would not double 6NT. ---------------------------------------------------- PLAY JH to the K. Small spade to the ace. Spade to the Q. Spade to the K. Club to the J, K, A. Spades run on the last of which South automatically squeezed. Diamond to the K. Club, Ten, J, small. Claim. 6NT* making. ---------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT After consultation, 50% awarded to each on the basis that a realistic result is too hard to arrive at. - E/W methods over interference over Gerber was not investigated. It would have been unlikely that they had any or could prove them. There was no mention of anything relevant on the CC. - E/W were reasonable players but hardly expert. - N/S eventually won the competition and would be considered very good players. South's claim to bid 5H was accepted. ---------------------------------------------------- MY OBSERVATIONS AND OPINIONS - I'm not a TD but I felt L12C3 was the law to apply. - 5H is an excellent bid over gerber and for a good player a stand out bid. - On the issue of E/W's level. E/W were not experts, competent maybe. It has been citied that to pull off a squeeze they must be good. If you analyse the defence and play, you'll see that North really was not on the ball. Given the chance he should have taken the 2nd spade and exited on a spade or a heart thus giving declarer the option to take the losing diamond finesse. The club return makes live real easy. Even your granny can rattle off her winners and execute an automatic squeeze. Infact this is the classic case in a club where you hear - "Mary if you had held onto your clubs we'd have knocked it" with poor ole Mary blameless. - The perception by alot of the posters that E/W will get to 6NT "anyway" is IMO wrong. There is a huge difference between 4C Gerber information exchanged and 4C (5H) no information exchanged. - I deem 5H's doubled unlikely in THIS field. Why?? Well for the following reasons : (1) NS are well known and have a reputation. The opponents tend to trust their opinion that 5H* as a sacrifice will not go down sufficiently to compensate for a vul game. (2) They did not double the actual 5H bid. (3) 5S is clearly on and 6S may make. (4) Weaker players do not like defending. - I deem 6NT/6NT doubled not to be an option. Why ?? (1) with normal bidding East will find 1 ace and 1 King. 6NT needs that K to be the HK. I think East on the actual bidding took 5S to be at least 2 kings and gambled. (2) Over 5H interference, it is clear that this E/W pair will have severe problems finding out about aces and kings. Lets be honest wouldn't we all !! 6NT is a flight of fancy after no information exchanged. - As to using L12C3, which was my only reason for posting the hand in the first place. Thanks to DWS for the link. Correct me if I took this up wrong but Apparently you estimate the likelihood of the various contracts BEFORE looking at the scores ? This seems like a really bad reason for following reasons (1) On the actual score sheet 6S-1 was a common score !! If this score possibility was excluded or given too low a probability your estimate will clearly be off. (2) There was only the actual case in 6NT, further confirming my belief that 6NT is a daft contract. (3) No score of 5H*-anything appeared. The general opinion to date was that 5H*-4 and 6NT were strong contenders. Any adjustment on this basis is going to lead to a ridiculous adjustment. - The director's bridge level IS a factor in his ruling and anyone dening this is being unrealistic. The doubt expressed over South's 5H bid by various posters is a stong indication of this. - This case is unbelievably hard to rule on because of the extremely aggresive actions taken by N/S. I would be pretty certain that no other table in the entire competition had E/W at 5H in a competitive auction on the 1st round of bidding. This winning action makes it extremely likely that N/S would get a better than average score. - I like Doug's solution to the problem. Ask lots of peer players what they would do and come up with a ruling. Allow the players to appeal it if they don't like it. Unfortunately this is usually not possible at Irish congresses. - WHEN appealed, I would use L12C3. I disagree with Herman on 80% 5H bid. In this case it is 100% certain. 6NT/6NT* are excluded 5H*-4 i'll allow on the basis that a weak pair when pressurised sometimes double "as a dont know what else to do resort." 6S-1 for THIS field was common 5S+1 is probable on this auction 6S making is possible. So 5% 5H*-4 50% 6S-1 25% 5S+1 20% 6S making and whatever that converts into ... - The TD ruled 50%/50% which IMO let E/W off somewhat lightly as they were clearly under a massive disadvantage meeting this particular N/S on this board. Still as an attempt to avoid nasty ole L12C3 and given that E/W may have called forth a leprachaun and landed on their feet (not at all improbable given their actual sequence), it is a reasonable adjustment. Further more - There were possibly 3 pairs in the whole competition which could claim to be N/S 's peers for consultation. These same pairs would be the natural selection for an appeals committee making the TD's life very tough (this BTW is pretty common). - Thx again to DWS and Herman (I'll confess I had to read it a few times before I got the gist of it) for explaing the ole L12C3 ropes. I hope I never have to sit on an appeals committee on a case like that. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Apr 2 16:26:56 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:26:56 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: <406d8640.36ba.0@esatclear.ie> >[snip ...] > We know that he would bid 5H on the next round. That does not mean >*automatically* that he would have bid 5H on this round with different >information. +++ David - I promise you (as a reasonable player) that bidding 5H over 4C Gerber is MUCH easier and better than bidding 5H over 5C's. Infact I'd go so far as to say that 5H's over 5C's is not half as good a bid. Konrad is correct - if the guy is willing to bid 5H's over 5C's and he says he will bid 5H's over 4C's, he will do so. Of this I have no doubt what so ever. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Apr 2 16:42:14 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:42:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) Message-ID: <406d89d6.3762.0@esatclear.ie> [Snip ...] >And another word to the wise. At least 90% of all players are rather useless >for consulting purposes. And a lot of TD's don't know how to consult. To do >this in a meaningful way is actually quite difficult (and time consuming). >Rather than saying 'you should consult' (which is a no-brainer) the >authorities should make clear 'how should you consult'. +++ Leaving aside Jaap's perpetual disagreement with DWS which should just be settled now btw as "we'll never agree and leave it at that", Jaap does make a point. As I've already hinted, in the "normal" Irish bridge congress it is hard to find "decent" players to consult with and even more so as this consultation generally voids them from sitting on the appeals committee. Has anyone come up with a solution to this ?? The general approach in Ireland is make a ruling and then let the players appeal. Unfortunately the huge majority of players in Ireland will not appeal as they would not be confident enough to question the holy TD's rulings. On the rare occasions there are appeals - the poor calibre of the appeals committee and usually the cowering reputation of the appealants create very random rulings. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Apr 2 16:50:31 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:50:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <406D184E.9070602@hdw.be> from "Herman De Wael" at Apr 02, 2004 09:37:50 AM Message-ID: <200404021550.i32FoV4q011894@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Herman De Wael writes: > > But if your system is too difficult for your opponents to follow: > I open one heart, they overcall one spade; You open one diamond, > showing hearts or spades, they don't dare to overcall a spade, and > they haven't worked out an alternative. Not Fine! > Your table opponents might not mind, but I do. > Right. I can give a couple of examples. Forquet and Garozzo had a memorable disaster the first time they encountered the multi. Not a tough convention to deal with, but very tough when dealing with them for the first time. Other excellent players (Martel/Stansby and Ross/Lawrence come to mind) have had the wheels come off when placed in an unfamiliar situation. Some people are OK with this, likening it to chess (I remember reading Bent Larsen's annotations for a game, "I don't know if it's sound, but I do know it's unfamiliar.") and say that you can cope with good general rules. I don't think they're *wrong*, it's just that it's a major change to the game and one that I wouldn' t support (and while I don't play anything complex these days, I am a systems buff) From dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net Fri Apr 2 16:59:17 2004 From: dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:59:17 -0600 Subject: [blml] question about conventional psychs In-Reply-To: <20040402131102.3569.64520.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <000401c418cb$7481d530$6528fea9@Picasso> With all this talk about SOs regulating conventions, sometimes in ways that are alleged to be inconsistent with the laws, and in particular the assertion that the big, bad ACBL will always take its own course (I agree, sadly), I wonder: is it usual around the world for the psyching of conventional openings, or conventional strong openings, to be banned? I always thought that was every bit as odd as our regulation indirectly requiring notrump openings to be 10+ by limiting conventions thereafter. From dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net Fri Apr 2 17:26:42 2004 From: dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:26:42 -0600 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3's affect on the unalerted Gerber hand In-Reply-To: <20040402131102.3569.64520.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <000c01c418cf$48f74cc0$6528fea9@Picasso> I accept this about 12C3, and am sure you're right about how players react. The ruling I gave here (and I'm not sure I'd have split the score at a tournament; I didn't analyze the players' actions as carefully as I would at work) would have been unpleasant to deliver to the players, and would probably have left the offending side feeling rooked, as they have completely lost their slam. 12C3 undoes that, and tries to be fair about it. Fabulous. My trepidation about 12C3 (and I have argued against using it here, not that I am in a position such that anyone listens) is twofold. First, it is impossible to guarantee or even reasonably expect consistent results. Even in fairly simple cases, two different TDs, panels, or ACs cannot be expected to come up with the same percentages. The result, in the admittedly litigious ACBL anyway, would be more appeals -- there's always a decent chance the next folks to look at it will improve your result. Second, I think it will encourage TDs to be lazy. Rather than decide what really was likely (and at all probable), they will be inclined to just throw up their hands, say they can't tell, and slap a few middling-sounding percentages on all the results they can imagine. Remember, these are the directors who brought you consistent average-plus/average-minus on hands where results had been achieved and could be correctly adjusted. I worked for some of those guys, and trust me that they were plenty knowledgeable enough to get it right, they just didn't bother because that's not how it was done. I believe that with 12C3, many directors here would (will?) let their analyses slide again, and all of the work that you among others have put into education will go for naught (or at least less). So this isn't so much a problem with 12C3 as with its application here, I guess, though I wonder that these problems don't arise elsewhere. Doug Couchman Arlington, Texas -----Original Message----- Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:08:06 +0100 To: blml@rtflb.org From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [blml] Re: 12c3 (Karel) Doug Couchman wrote >Interesting, I think, to observe how it would go in the ACBL, without L12C3. >I would just 5H over 4C not only at all probable, but likely (he did bid 5G >over 5C, which looks less favored). Now if possible I consult players (not >other directors) of the same caliber as E/W, and I suspect come up with 5S+1 >at all probable, 5HX-4 likely. Bidding and making slam, and bidding NT, are >too unlikely to enter the calculations. Of course, maybe the consultants >convince me of something (or things) else, particularly on the card play. >Could I be wrong about the auction. Yep. I try as hard as I can, get >advice, make the call, and move on. > >Hard choices, but I only make them once. > >As someone schooled without L12C3, I like this method. Are your tables of >percentages better? Is it better that both sides can appeal with a >reasonable expectation of success, and nearly certain knowledge that the end >result will be different? Maybe it is, and maybe y'all have gone over this >too many times, but it's a dramatic example. Being dramatic, it is also atypical. The best argument for L12C3 is that players like it. In general we do not have a table of results the way it is shown below. The Israeli scoring software allows four weightings: it has been recommended that English scoring software should allow five [though the software writer says ten is so easy he intends to make it ten]. Putting it simply, the advantages of L12C3 are best seen where a side has a gain of 13 imps. If there had been no infraction it is not obvious whether they would have lost 5 imps, or whether the result would be the same. Whichever side loses this one will be very upset. Especially at lower levels [I suggest the ACBL tries L12C3 at non-National events] a lot of players find 6 imps or so to the offending side [as against +13 or -5] quite acceptable. -- 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 Fri Apr 2 17:34:31 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 08:34:31 -0800 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 02 Apr 2004 14:00:07 +0100." Message-ID: <200404021634.IAA31477@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > I wish we could return to the law whereby you could always correct to > the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination without penalty. > There would be far less UI flying around. I would have thought the opposite. I'm basing this on one case that I remember well from before the Law was changed, and before bidding boxes were in widespread use: Partner Me 1H 2C 3H 4NT(1) 4H (1) Old-fashioned Blackwood Partner misheard and thought I said 3NT. After the TD was called, he changed his bid to 5H. I now had UI that partner did not have two aces despite his 5H bid. (I decided to ignore the UI, bid on as if partner did have two aces, got our side to 7NT missing an ace, and made it when the ace turned up in RHO's hand and LHO led the wrong suit.) I'm sure it was cases like this that the new Law was attempting to deal with. I've always thought this Law was a good idea because of just such cases, although some of the implementation details could be improved, such as how one determines whether 2C was "incontrovertibly not conventional". Personally, I'd prefer a Law that did not require us to try to determine the insufficient bidder's intent: in this case, I'd prefer a Law that says "2C is considered conventional because it would be conventional if the 2D bidder had passed", a determination that could be made simply by looking at the auction and the players' methods, without any knowledge of players' hands or intents. Would a Law like this reduce the amount of "UI flying around"? -- Adam From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Apr 2 17:48:39 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:48:39 -0700 Subject: SV: [blml] 12c3 References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA34B7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <4vFRXa1xMBbAFw3+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00db01c4185b$de17f8a0$532846a2@ams.com> Message-ID: <000701c418d2$5ff72e10$532846a2@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 5:53 AM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] 12c3 > Konrad Ciborowski wrote > >From: "David Stevenson" > >> Skjaran, Harald wrote > > >> >This guy bid 5H over 5C. > >> >He would obviously have bid 5H over 4C, if he had known it was Gerber. > > >> It is not obvious at all. If he would have bid 5H over a Gerber 4C > >> then he might have bid it over a natural 4C. > > >I don't get it: if the guy on your right opens 2C > >do you overcall with the same set of hands no matter > >what the meaning of 2C is (ART GF or natural, limited)? > > No. > > I don't get it: if the guy on your right opens 2C do you never make > the same overcall when there are two different meanings? > > You are assuming because a player makes a specific call in a certain > situation he will always make the same call in a different situation. It > does not follow. > > We know that he would bid 5H on the next round. That does not mean > *automatically* that he would have bid 5H on this round with different > information. But we do have strong clues: the naturality of 4/5C is a very strong argument for passing - if the player in question decided to bid 5H anyway over natural 5C then he would be even more inclined to bid 5H over Gerber. Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Fri Apr 2 18:17:51 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:17:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) References: <406d89d6.3762.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel, Consulting problem. Suppose you have the classical slow pass followed by a bid situation. To keep it simple we assume a bipolor situation. The guy can either pass or bid. Now we can ask say three players 'what would you bid in that situation'. Even if all three agree this sample is much too small from a mathematical point of view for the result to be meaningful (it makes a difference if they agree on passing or bidding but still). Another problem is that they know there is a reason for you asking so they will be influenced. Another problem is that it makes a huge difference whether he thinks his choice is obvious or it is just a toss-up. So unles you have time to ask a couple of tens of players and you know a method to compensate for their bias forget about this approach. It won't work, I cannot work. Having said that of course it is a good idea to start with the above question, before showing the complete hand. What works best IMO is to ask say 3 players who have AC experience. After asking what they bid, ask them what they would do as AC and why (I am quite capable of answering 'I would bid 3C bid most players would bid 3D'). So rather than to try to conduct a poll yourself, ask them to predict a poll (that is what AC's do anyway). If you ask the right people you might get a very good idea to which extent pass is a LA. Anyway if you do this seriously, and the TD is capable of interpreting the answers correctly the TD just did more or less the same as an AC would do. If a good TD works like this I see no good reason anymore why the decision itself can be appealed (I have no problem with purely procedural appeals like 'the TD was drunk'). In Holland we have some experience by abolishing appeals altogether. > On the rare occasions there are appeals - the poor calibre of the appeals committee > and usually the cowering reputation of the appealants create very random rulings. How true. Appeals cost lots of time (often unacceptable for the organization) and often their rulings are worse than TD's rulings. Apart from real top level competition (and even then) it is hard if not impossible to create sensible AC's. For this reason any sensible SO should abolish material appeals as soon as they think their TD is good enough. And don't believe for one moment I am a TD who hates AC overruling him. I am always on the AC ...... Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) > [Snip ...] > >And another word to the wise. At least 90% of all players are rather useless > > >for consulting purposes. And a lot of TD's don't know how to consult. To do > > >this in a meaningful way is actually quite difficult (and time consuming). > > >Rather than saying 'you should consult' (which is a no-brainer) the > >authorities should make clear 'how should you consult'. > > +++ Leaving aside Jaap's perpetual disagreement with DWS which should just be > settled now btw as "we'll never agree and leave it at that", Jaap does make > a point. As I've already hinted, in the "normal" Irish bridge congress it is > hard to find "decent" players to consult with and even more so as this consultation > generally voids them from sitting on the appeals committee. Has anyone come > up with a solution to this ?? > > The general approach in Ireland is make a ruling and then let the players appeal. > Unfortunately the huge majority of players in Ireland will not appeal as they > would not be confident enough to question the holy TD's rulings. > > On the rare occasions there are appeals - the poor calibre of the appeals committee > and usually the cowering reputation of the appealants create very random rulings. > > > K. > -- > http://www.iol.ie > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Fri Apr 2 19:12:42 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:12:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <00e001c4185c$6be25770$532846a2@ams.com> References: <00e001c4185c$6be25770$532846a2@ams.com> Message-ID: In article <00e001c4185c$6be25770$532846a2@ams.com>, Konrad Ciborowski writes > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krenver, Polorado > thank you Konrad, (Falling off chair laughing) John > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Fri Apr 2 19:14:04 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:14:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Jens Brix Christiansen writes >At Friday, 2 April 2004, you wrote: > >> Really I wonder, has anybody out >> there any experience with DWS consulting someone on a judgement case. > >I have. David has called me on several occasions to consult on judgement >cases. all the time. curiously I have a recent ruling where I got to 6 of seven with DWS disagreeing (UI/MI), so he's not always in the majority. > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Fri Apr 2 19:15:42 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:15:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes >Torsten =C5strand wrote >>Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right >>bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C shows exaktly your >>hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake=A02C. > > This is the traditional problem with the current Law. The TD must=20 >offer the 2C for acceptance: if it is not accepted then it may be=20 >corrected to a sufficient bid or pass, with everything except 3C forcing= =20 >partner to pass for the rest of the auction. > > The TD has to find out whether 2C was conventional!!!!!. Well, I do=20 >not suppose it was, though I find out away from the table what was=20 >intended. Since 3C was intended I let 3C be bid now without penalty. > > I wish we could return to the law whereby you could always correct to=20 >the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination without penalty.=20 >There would be far less UI flying around. > I concur. The important part here is to find out away from the table why 2C was called. John --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Fri Apr 2 19:21:12 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:21:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) In-Reply-To: References: <000001c417f1$f0d19240$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article , Jaap van der Neut writes > >And another word to the wise. At least 90% of all players are rather useless >for consulting purposes. And a lot of TD's don't know how to consult. To do >this in a meaningful way is actually quite difficult (and time consuming). >Rather than saying 'you should consult' (which is a no-brainer) the >authorities should make clear 'how should you consult'. And before I get >attacked again, I have ruled countless appeals to rulings which were made >with some form of consulting. In general this is a disaster (I am sure there >are some happy exceptions). > I mostly consult when I'm on my own, always when I have another TD available. Sometimes the ruling is much more obvious that others. I'm particularly thinking of "Did he have his bid?". When he didn't it is usually obvious. if I'm on my own and running a YC game across 2 rooms I may well not consult this one. If it's tough I'll phone someone, often DWS, or Amos. cheers john >Jaap -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From info@aol.com Fri Apr 2 19:29:27 2004 From: info@aol.com (mcgyulik514) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 20:29:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Work From Home: Are you ready? etxg Message-ID: <20040402182923.5ECAA2C40F@rhubarb.custard.org> This is HTML source of message you composed. Do not modify here. To modify this message press HTML Messages Editor button.
 
 
notice: This is a one time message. You have received this e-mail because you expressed interest in career and employment information. in case you suppose this mail has reached your mailbox by an error, we certainly apologize.
 
 
????: ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ???? ?????. ????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????, ??? ??????? ???? - ???? ????? ?? ?????. ?? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ??????, ??? ??? ???.

vpeansqiekipnxffbjyewrts From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Apr 2 20:23:39 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 12:23:39 -0700 Subject: SV: [blml] 12c3 References: <406d84e0.367c.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <003101c418e8$05a7aa50$532846a2@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:21 AM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] 12c3 > Let me give you as much info on this case as possible > > HANDS :- > Dealer West E/W vul > > S KT9 > H JT9xxx > D x > C xxx > West East > S QJ87xx S Axx > H Kx H Ax > D xx D AKJTxx > C AQ9 C Jx > > S x > H Qxx > D Qxxx > C KTxxx > > - On the issue of E/W's level. E/W were not experts, competent maybe. > It has been citied that to pull off a squeeze they must be good. If > you analyse the defence and play, you'll see that North really was > not on the ball. Given the chance he should have taken the 2nd > spade and exited on a spade or a heart thus giving declarer the > option to take the losing diamond finesse. Just a side note: I don't know what you mean by "competent" but playing a diamond to the ace requires so skills of a competent player whatsoever - even the beginners are taught to cash the ace first in these situations just to check if the singleton queen falls. And then running spades will produce: North (now void in diamonds) --- --- --- --- x AJ10 AQ9 J --- --- Qx K10 Even if West never realized that South had been squeezed on the previous trick and wanted to take the diamond finesse he would see North show out in diamonds and would be forced to play on clubs out of sheer desperation. So I don't think North should blame himself too much for not making a heart shift - West was bound to make 6NTx even if he didn't mean to. :-) Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 2 21:14:39 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:14:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <002d01c41896$5aaa7ca0$738bdbd5@lightningadmin> Message-ID: <5EA1A012-84E2-11D8-8273-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Apr 2, 2004, at 04:39 US/Eastern, Tom Cornelis wrote: > You are right, Ed. Shouldn't there be such a Law? I don't think so. From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Apr 2 21:43:09 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:43:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <5EA1A012-84E2-11D8-8273-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> from "Ed Reppert" at Apr 02, 2004 03:14:39 PM Message-ID: <200404022043.i32Kh9ac013750@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Ed Reppert writes: > > > On Friday, Apr 2, 2004, at 04:39 US/Eastern, Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > You are right, Ed. Shouldn't there be such a Law? > > I don't think so. At the same time, if somebody plays a system so complex that explaining what they're doing causes them to run late, I see no problems with handing out slow play penalties. As happened on more than a few occasions to Rubin/Becker From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Apr 3 00:07:36 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 00:07:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3's affect on the unalerted Gerber hand In-Reply-To: <000c01c418cf$48f74cc0$6528fea9@Picasso> References: <000c01c418cf$48f74cc0$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: <883A1212-84FA-11D8-8D0B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 2 Apr 2004, at 17:26, Doug Couchman wrote: > Second, I think it will encourage TDs to be lazy. Rather than decide > what > really was likely (and at all probable), they will be inclined to just > throw > up their hands, say they can't tell, and slap a few middling-sounding > percentages on all the results they can imagine. Remember, these are > the > directors who brought you consistent average-plus/average-minus on > hands > where results had been achieved and could be correctly adjusted. I > worked > for some of those guys, and trust me that they were plenty > knowledgeable > enough to get it right, they just didn't bother because that's not how > it > was done. I believe that with 12C3, many directors here would (will?) > let > their analyses slide again, and all of the work that you among others > have > put into education will go for naught (or at least less). But it takes more work for a TD to give a 12C3 adjusted score than a 12C2 adjustment, not less. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 2 11:15:23 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 11:15:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] "demonstrable bridge reason" Message-ID: <001701c41907$607607f0$09ea403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott <000801c4128a$620b6fc0$528bdbd5@lightningadmin> <001201c41713$af8df4b0$8a8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <406AB17E.7010008@hdw.be> <000401c417e8$83a337e0$6c8bdbd5@lightningadmin> <5.2.0.9.0.20040401164754.00a91640@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001801c41907$61a734f0$09ea403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 10:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] systems policy > At 08:34 AM 4/1/04, Herman wrote: > > >But on the other hand you are not just protecting > >the opponents at the table, but also the opponents > >in the field. If a pair starts using strange methods > >in a low-level tournament, it could very well be > >true that none of their direct opponents express > >an opinion, but at the end of the tournament they > >have scored 3 tops more than if they hadn't used > >their strange methods. And so they win the > >tournament. > > It could also very well be true that their "strange" > methods are superior to those of the field, and > they scored 3 tops more than if they hadn't used > those methods due to their superiority rather than > their "strangeness". On what basis do we give > ourselves the right to presume otherwise? > +=+ This discussion smacks very much of the age-old discussion whether the 'strange' method succeeds because of its superiority or because of its unfamiliarity. And, of course, some of the time it will be the one and some of the time the other. There is also the question at 'lower' levels of the game as to the desirability of exposing players who want a quiet, comfortable game, to the harassment of a variety of strange methods. I have not read anything here to dissuade me from believing it justified, indeed desirable, to allow those who set up bridge tournaments to determine, as comprehensively as they wish (and then announce beforehand), what methods may be adopted in each tournament. Is it not their due as proprietors of the tournaments? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Apr 3 02:09:33 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 02:09:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <200404021550.i32FoV4q011894@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <406D184E.9070602@hdw.be> <200404021550.i32FoV4q011894@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: Ron Johnson wrote >Right. I can give a couple of examples. Forquet and Garozzo had a >memorable disaster the first time they encountered the multi. Not >a tough convention to deal with, but very tough when dealing with >them for the first time. > >Other excellent players (Martel/Stansby and Ross/Lawrence come to >mind) have had the wheels come off when placed in an unfamiliar >situation. > >Some people are OK with this, likening it to chess (I remember reading >Bent Larsen's annotations for a game, "I don't know if it's sound, but >I do know it's unfamiliar.") and say that you can cope with good >general rules. I don't think they're *wrong*, it's just that it's >a major change to the game and one that I wouldn' t support (and while >I don't play anything complex these days, I am a systems buff) When I was at University our strange conventions got us a lot of good boards because of unfamiliarity. In fact, I have a memory of the London congress where our group of about eight were regaling each other with stories about our successes - all from the same conventions. All weekend all four pairs got a good board *every* time they used one of these strange conventions. What were they? Weak Twos. :)) -- 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 Apr 3 02:10:21 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 02:10:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article >, Jens Brix Christiansen writes >>At Friday, 2 April 2004, you wrote: >> >>> Really I wonder, has anybody out >>> there any experience with DWS consulting someone on a judgement case. >> >>I have. David has called me on several occasions to consult on judgement >>cases. > >all the time. curiously I have a recent ruling where I got to 6 of seven >with DWS disagreeing (UI/MI), so he's not always in the majority. No, but he is always right. -- 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 Apr 3 02:13:41 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 02:13:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <200404021634.IAA31477@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200404021634.IAA31477@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote > >David wrote: > >> I wish we could return to the law whereby you could always correct to >> the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination without penalty. >> There would be far less UI flying around. > >I would have thought the opposite. I'm basing this on one case that I >remember well from before the Law was changed, and before bidding >boxes were in widespread use: > > Partner Me > 1H 2C > 3H 4NT(1) > 4H > >(1) Old-fashioned Blackwood > >Partner misheard and thought I said 3NT. After the TD was called, he >changed his bid to 5H. I now had UI that partner did not have two >aces despite his 5H bid. (I decided to ignore the UI, bid on as if >partner did have two aces, got our side to 7NT missing an ace, and >made it when the ace turned up in RHO's hand and LHO led the wrong >suit.) > >I'm sure it was cases like this that the new Law was attempting to >deal with. I've always thought this Law was a good idea because of >just such cases, although some of the implementation details could be >improved, such as how one determines whether 2C was "incontrovertibly >not conventional". Personally, I'd prefer a Law that did not require >us to try to determine the insufficient bidder's intent: in this case, >I'd prefer a Law that says "2C is considered conventional because it >would be conventional if the 2D bidder had passed", a determination >that could be made simply by looking at the auction and the players' >methods, without any knowledge of players' hands or intents. Would a >Law like this reduce the amount of "UI flying around"? Maybe, but I still think you are just causing trouble at the table. There will always be some UI, but if there is nothing said how do you know that 4H did not show two aces? If people do not say things [and are not asked them] then you do not know what is happening, and are reduced to guessing. It would be much better. Of course if people say injudicious things you have to apply the UI laws, but at least they would not be induced by the TD asking questions. -- 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 Apr 3 02:17:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 02:17:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) In-Reply-To: <406d89d6.3762.0@esatclear.ie> References: <406d89d6.3762.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote >+++ Leaving aside Jaap's perpetual disagreement with DWS which should just be >settled now btw as "we'll never agree and leave it at that", Jaap does make >a point. As I've already hinted, in the "normal" Irish bridge congress it is >hard to find "decent" players to consult with and even more so as this >consultation >generally voids them from sitting on the appeals committee. Has anyone come >up with a solution to this ?? Yes - stop worrying about *how* good the players are. You have a congress. Consider the best four players who were not at the table. Consult with one, and that leaves three for your AC. WTP? >The general approach in Ireland is make a ruling and then let the >players appeal. > Unfortunately the huge majority of players in Ireland will not appeal as they >would not be confident enough to question the holy TD's rulings. In which case why are you worrying about the AC? You should be getting the ruling right. use the best available player to consult with. >On the rare occasions there are appeals - the poor calibre of the >appeals committee >and usually the cowering reputation of the appealants create very >random rulings. Well, I have only seen three Irish ACs. However, I feel unable ot comment because I was Chairman for all three! -- 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 Apr 3 02:18:54 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 02:18:54 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <000701c418d2$5ff72e10$532846a2@ams.com> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA34B7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <4vFRXa1xMBbAFw3+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00db01c4185b$de17f8a0$532846a2@ams.com> <000701c418d2$5ff72e10$532846a2@ams.com> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote >From: "David Stevenson" >> Konrad Ciborowski wrote >> >From: "David Stevenson" >> >> Skjaran, Harald wrote >> >> >> >This guy bid 5H over 5C. >> >> >He would obviously have bid 5H over 4C, if he had known it was Gerber. >> >> >> It is not obvious at all. If he would have bid 5H over a Gerber 4C >> >> then he might have bid it over a natural 4C. >> >> >I don't get it: if the guy on your right opens 2C >> >do you overcall with the same set of hands no matter >> >what the meaning of 2C is (ART GF or natural, limited)? >> >> No. >> >> I don't get it: if the guy on your right opens 2C do you never make >> the same overcall when there are two different meanings? >> >> You are assuming because a player makes a specific call in a certain >> situation he will always make the same call in a different situation. It >> does not follow. >> >> We know that he would bid 5H on the next round. That does not mean >> *automatically* that he would have bid 5H on this round with different >> information. > >But we do have strong clues: the naturality of 4/5C is a very strong >argument for >passing - if the player in question decided to bid 5H anyway over natural 5C >then >he would be even more inclined to bid 5H over Gerber. Exactly: all I have said is it is not *automatic*. As always in a judgement ruling you assess all the evidence, then decide. The 5H bid shows a state of mind - that's evidence. -- 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 Apr 3 02:23:04 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 02:23:04 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: <406d8640.36ba.0@esatclear.ie> References: <406d8640.36ba.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote >>[snip ...] >> We know that he would bid 5H on the next round. That does not mean >>*automatically* that he would have bid 5H on this round with different >>information. > >+++ David - I promise you (as a reasonable player) that bidding 5H over >4C Gerber >is MUCH easier and better than bidding 5H over 5C's. Infact I'd go so far as >to say that 5H's over 5C's is not half as good a bid. > >Konrad is correct - if the guy is willing to bid 5H's over 5C's and he says >he will bid 5H's over 4C's, he will do so. Of this I have no doubt what so >ever. I do not make claims as to how good a player I am - I remember David Burn's description here of my lack of abilities that way - but my experience is not the same as yours. My experience is that players take into account whether something is a jump. You do not get people willing to jump to 5H [even when I think it obvious] nearly as readily as bidding it when it is the lowest level. -- 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 Apr 3 02:27:54 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 02:27:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3's affect on the unalerted Gerber hand In-Reply-To: <000c01c418cf$48f74cc0$6528fea9@Picasso> References: <20040402131102.3569.64520.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <000c01c418cf$48f74cc0$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: Doug Couchman wrote >I accept this about 12C3, and am sure you're right about how players react. >The ruling I gave here (and I'm not sure I'd have split the score at a >tournament; I didn't analyze the players' actions as carefully as I would at >work) would have been unpleasant to deliver to the players, and would >probably have left the offending side feeling rooked, as they have >completely lost their slam. 12C3 undoes that, and tries to be fair about >it. Fabulous. > >My trepidation about 12C3 (and I have argued against using it here, not that >I am in a position such that anyone listens) is twofold. First, it is >impossible to guarantee or even reasonably expect consistent results. Even >in fairly simple cases, two different TDs, panels, or ACs cannot be expected >to come up with the same percentages. The result, in the admittedly >litigious ACBL anyway, would be more appeals -- there's always a decent >chance the next folks to look at it will improve your result. That is why the EBU felt that appealing solely for adjusting percentages was not acceptable. >Second, I think it will encourage TDs to be lazy. Rather than decide what >really was likely (and at all probable), they will be inclined to just throw >up their hands, say they can't tell, and slap a few middling-sounding >percentages on all the results they can imagine. Remember, these are the >directors who brought you consistent average-plus/average-minus on hands >where results had been achieved and could be correctly adjusted. I worked >for some of those guys, and trust me that they were plenty knowledgeable >enough to get it right, they just didn't bother because that's not how it >was done. I believe that with 12C3, many directors here would (will?) let >their analyses slide again, and all of the work that you among others have >put into education will go for naught (or at least less). Rulings will become better and more acceptable. The fact that TDs will find them easier so work less matters little. I am glad you see this: most NAmericans seem to assume L12C3 makes the TD's life harder, when the opposite is true. >So this isn't so much a problem with 12C3 as with its application here, I >guess, though I wonder that these problems don't arise elsewhere. I do not think that it is a "problem" if TDs find life easier and players find bridge pleasanter. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From cibor@poczta.fm Sat Apr 3 02:30:42 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 18:30:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid References: <200404021634.IAA31477@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <00e401c4191b$4fd81870$532846a2@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" > There will always be some UI, but if there is nothing said how do you > know that 4H did not show two aces? He didn't say that. He said he knew that *5H* didn't show two aces which seems quite obvious to me. Partner bid 4H (for whatever reason) and now was forced (in a sense) to convert to 5H. Now Adam had UI that 5H didn't show two aces. OK, he didn't have much of a clue what it showed instead but it seems clear that in these circumstances the 5H bid cannot be trusted as a normal response to Blackwood. So the UI restrictions still apply. Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado From adam@irvine.com Sat Apr 3 02:44:38 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:44:38 -0800 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 03 Apr 2004 02:13:41 +0100." Message-ID: <200404030144.RAA19526@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > >I would have thought the opposite. I'm basing this on one case that I > >remember well from before the Law was changed, and before bidding > >boxes were in widespread use: > > > > Partner Me > > 1H 2C > > 3H 4NT(1) > > 4H > > > >(1) Old-fashioned Blackwood > > > >Partner misheard and thought I said 3NT. After the TD was called, he > >changed his bid to 5H. I now had UI that partner did not have two > >aces despite his 5H bid. That should have read "did not necessarily have two aces . . ." > >(I decided to ignore the UI, bid on as if > >partner did have two aces, got our side to 7NT missing an ace, and > >made it when the ace turned up in RHO's hand and LHO led the wrong > >suit.) > > > >I'm sure it was cases like this that the new Law was attempting to > >deal with. I've always thought this Law was a good idea because of > >just such cases, although some of the implementation details could be > >improved, such as how one determines whether 2C was "incontrovertibly > >not conventional". Personally, I'd prefer a Law that did not require > >us to try to determine the insufficient bidder's intent: in this case, > >I'd prefer a Law that says "2C is considered conventional because it > >would be conventional if the 2D bidder had passed", a determination > >that could be made simply by looking at the auction and the players' > >methods, without any knowledge of players' hands or intents. Would a > >Law like this reduce the amount of "UI flying around"? > > Maybe, but I still think you are just causing trouble at the table. > > There will always be some UI, but if there is nothing said how do you > know that 4H did not show two aces? Partner thought for a while before bidding 4H. So there was extra UI there anyway. I can see that maybe this isn't the best example. But apparently the Law was changed because those in charge thought this was a problem that couldn't be solved with the UI laws. OK, now that I think of it, there was one other difference. I believe that the law about insufficient bids was changed at the *same* time the Laws were changed to make withdrawn calls UI for the offending side. Prior to that, partner's 4H bid would have been AI for me, and (if there no other UI) I would have been allowed to think about why partner might have bid 4H and then 5H, and if the decision was close between going to 6 and 7 I would have been allowed to think that perhaps partner misheard my 4NT bid and was not responding to Blackwood and that he might only have one ace. So this definitely would have been a problem. Maybe the "withdrawn call" change would have been enough to solve the problem, without the change to L27B. Maybe not. Anyway, I still don't see what kind of "trouble at the table" a Law like I suggested would cause. It would turn the penalty for an insufficient bid into a mechanical one, like the revoke penalty; the TD doesn't have to use judgment about what the players were thinking. It might be harsher on offenders than otherwise, but that doesn't bother me. -- Adam From blml@blakjak.com Sat Apr 3 03:05:41 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 03:05:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <00e401c4191b$4fd81870$532846a2@ams.com> References: <200404021634.IAA31477@mailhub.irvine.com> <00e401c4191b$4fd81870$532846a2@ams.com> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote >From: "David Stevenson" > > >> There will always be some UI, but if there is nothing said how do you >> know that 4H did not show two aces? > > >He didn't say that. He said he knew that *5H* didn't show two >aces which seems quite obvious to me. >Partner bid 4H (for whatever reason) and now >was forced (in a sense) to convert to 5H. >Now Adam had UI that 5H didn't show >two aces. OK, he didn't have much of >a clue what it showed instead but it seems >clear that in these circumstances the 5H >bid cannot be trusted as a normal response >to Blackwood. So the UI restrictions still apply. Maybe. But it is a guess. and I really think people go overboard on this. For a start in any discussion there always seem to be 75%+ of people who "know" what partner was doing. If he does not say anything I do not think this is true. For example, perhaps 4H showed two aces but was at the wrong level? Second, does it matter? If there is no UI given by unfortunate statements, and 4H is corrected to 5H, what does the other player know? Nt that much, so he guesses. Is that so bad? I think not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Apr 3 03:08:09 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 03:08:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <200404030144.RAA19526@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200404030144.RAA19526@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote > >David wrote: > >> >I would have thought the opposite. I'm basing this on one case that I >> >remember well from before the Law was changed, and before bidding >> >boxes were in widespread use: >> > >> > Partner Me >> > 1H 2C >> > 3H 4NT(1) >> > 4H >> > >> >(1) Old-fashioned Blackwood >> > >> >Partner misheard and thought I said 3NT. After the TD was called, he >> >changed his bid to 5H. I now had UI that partner did not have two >> >aces despite his 5H bid. > >That should have read "did not necessarily have two aces . . ." > >> >(I decided to ignore the UI, bid on as if >> >partner did have two aces, got our side to 7NT missing an ace, and >> >made it when the ace turned up in RHO's hand and LHO led the wrong >> >suit.) >> > >> >I'm sure it was cases like this that the new Law was attempting to >> >deal with. I've always thought this Law was a good idea because of >> >just such cases, although some of the implementation details could be >> >improved, such as how one determines whether 2C was "incontrovertibly >> >not conventional". Personally, I'd prefer a Law that did not require >> >us to try to determine the insufficient bidder's intent: in this case, >> >I'd prefer a Law that says "2C is considered conventional because it >> >would be conventional if the 2D bidder had passed", a determination >> >that could be made simply by looking at the auction and the players' >> >methods, without any knowledge of players' hands or intents. Would a >> >Law like this reduce the amount of "UI flying around"? >> >> Maybe, but I still think you are just causing trouble at the table. >> >> There will always be some UI, but if there is nothing said how do you >> know that 4H did not show two aces? > >Partner thought for a while before bidding 4H. So there was extra UI >there anyway. I can see that maybe this isn't the best example. > >But apparently the Law was changed because those in charge thought >this was a problem that couldn't be solved with the UI laws. > >OK, now that I think of it, there was one other difference. I believe >that the law about insufficient bids was changed at the *same* time >the Laws were changed to make withdrawn calls UI for the offending >side. Prior to that, partner's 4H bid would have been AI for me, and >(if there no other UI) I would have been allowed to think about why >partner might have bid 4H and then 5H, and if the decision was close >between going to 6 and 7 I would have been allowed to think that >perhaps partner misheard my 4NT bid and was not responding to >Blackwood and that he might only have one ace. So this definitely >would have been a problem. Maybe the "withdrawn call" change would >have been enough to solve the problem, without the change to L27B. >Maybe not. > >Anyway, I still don't see what kind of "trouble at the table" a Law >like I suggested would cause. It would turn the penalty for an >insufficient bid into a mechanical one, like the revoke penalty; the >TD doesn't have to use judgment about what the players were thinking. >It might be harsher on offenders than otherwise, but that doesn't >bother me. He still has to find matters out during the bidding, which always seems a great no-no to me. How does he know what is conventional? It seems a good principle that the Law should be such that the TD doe snot need to ask questions about the meaning of bids or anything else before the hand is ended, which my Law makes easy. -- 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 Apr 3 03:22:15 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 18:22:15 -0800 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 03 Apr 2004 03:08:09 +0100." Message-ID: <200404030222.SAA21193@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > >Anyway, I still don't see what kind of "trouble at the table" a Law > >like I suggested would cause. It would turn the penalty for an > >insufficient bid into a mechanical one, like the revoke penalty; the > >TD doesn't have to use judgment about what the players were thinking. > >It might be harsher on offenders than otherwise, but that doesn't > >bother me. > > He still has to find matters out during the bidding, which always > seems a great no-no to me. How does he know what is conventional? > > It seems a good principle that the Law should be such that the TD doe > snot need to ask questions about the meaning of bids or anything else > before the hand is ended, which my Law makes easy. OK. I wasn't aware that you considered this to be a no-no. -- Adam From dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 3 04:47:48 2004 From: dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 21:47:48 -0600 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: <20040403021003.17171.89738.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <000001c4192e$6eb8a080$6528fea9@Picasso> David Stevenson wrote: > Doug Couchman wrote > >[snip] The result, in the admittedly > >litigious ACBL anyway, would be more appeals -- there's always a decent > >chance the next folks to look at it will improve your result. > > That is why the EBU felt that appealing solely for adjusting > percentages was not acceptable. Ah; I didn't get that. If players really can't appeal percentages (and if there are significant, enforceable sanctions for meritless appeals -- a non-trivial issue), then this changes my opinion a lot. It's inconsistent (I think it becomes the only bridge judgment ruling that could not be appealed), but so what, I suppose. (Re sanctions for meritless appeals, I believe I just read that no player has yet run afoul of the ACBL's AWMPP allowance in the three-ish years the system's been around. That doesn't prove much, I know, but it suggests the rules' teeth are blunt. Also, as I keep saying, we have to remember that most bridge is played at small tournaments and at clubs [the latter relevant only if they have ACs].) > >Second, I think it will encourage TDs to be lazy. [snip] > > Rulings will become better and more acceptable. The fact that TDs > will find them easier so work less matters little. > > I am glad you see this: most NAmericans seem to assume L12C3 makes the > TD's life harder, when the opposite is true. Funny; it seems obvious to me. With 12C3 I don't have to decide how likely "at all probable" and so forth are, and if my percentages (even if unarticulated) are off by a bit, the effect on the ruling is incremental, rather than potentially binary. How can a director not see that this makes life easier? > >So this isn't so much a problem with 12C3 as with its application here, I > >guess, though I wonder that these problems don't arise elsewhere. > > I do not think that it is a "problem" if TDs find life easier and > players find bridge pleasanter. Well, fine; it seems clear that 12C3 is easier and pleasanter, as well as more equitable in theory. I still wonder about the practice of it, but maybe with enough world pressure, ACBL directors will be forced to eschew slacking. We'll see, probably. I will predict now that, even if it goes well in national events, it will further encourage our club directors to make thoughtless rulings. Yours may be fine with it; I go on record now that ours never will be. Will that be a travesty? I suppose not, if almost everyone's happier. But the game will be less lawful at the lowest level. As I review this, I still have a funny feeling about 12C3 even in serious play, but I have decided that that is because rulings under 12C3 are inherently less punitive. In theory I agree that's best, too; maybe I think that erring in favor of punishment (as 12C2 does) is a good thing in a world where so much MI and UI goes unsanctioned. (Yes, I know TDs are to err against OS in cases of doubt, but 12C2 contains an additional leaning.) I suppose this subject has little interest on a forum including mostly participants who consider 12C3 a given, but I have some things to chew on. Thank you. Doug Couchman Arlington, TX From adam@irvine.com Sat Apr 3 05:01:51 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:01:51 -0800 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:47:48 CST." <000001c4192e$6eb8a080$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: <200404030401.UAA24722@mailhub.irvine.com> Doug Couchman wrote: > (Re sanctions for meritless appeals, I believe I just read that no player > has yet run afoul of the ACBL's AWMPP allowance in the three-ish years the > system's been around. That doesn't prove much, I know, but it suggests the > rules' teeth are blunt. Either that, or the rules' teeth are so sharp that no one wants to try feeling what it's like to get bitten. If the rules have cut down on the number of frivolous appeals, then it doesn't matter that no one has yet been sanctioned. Not that I know whether frivolous appeals have indeed been reduced. -- Adam From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Sat Apr 3 08:28:20 2004 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 17:28:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> > >Torsten =C5strand wrote > >>Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right > >>bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C shows exaktly your > >>hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake 2C. then DWS: > > The TD has to find out whether 2C was conventional!!!!!. Well, I do > >not suppose it was, though I find out away from the table what was > >intended. Since 3C was intended I let 3C be bid now without penalty. and John Probst: > > >I concur. The important part here is to find out away from the table why >2C was called. John Tell me I've misunderstood this..please. There used to be an Australian school of thought before the new Law book, which argued that there were no such things as conventional insufficient bids, so you could get away with correcting things like 4NT (Blackwood)..4C (insufficient) without penalty. Now according to my reading of TFLB, I simply have to determine whether the insufficient bid, or the lowest level correction MAY have been conventional, then BANG, end of section. I dont see anything about intent, might have meant.. or accidently pulled. I certainly have never had to take an offender away from the table to ask intent. He has already been crucified in my school Tony (Sydney) From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Apr 3 10:32:39 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:32:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] 12c3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <406E84B7.6040202@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> all the time. curiously I have a recent ruling where I got to 6 of seven >> with DWS disagreeing (UI/MI), so he's not always in the majority. > > > No, but he is always right. > Allowed David, but only with a smiley. We do love you, David, we do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Apr 3 11:09:12 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:09:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: <000001c4192e$6eb8a080$6528fea9@Picasso> References: <000001c4192e$6eb8a080$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: On 3 Apr 2004, at 04:47, Doug Couchman wrote: > With 12C3 I don't have to decide how likely > "at all probable" and so forth are, and if my percentages (even if > unarticulated) are off by a bit, the effect on the ruling is > incremental, > rather than potentially binary. How can a director not see that this > makes > life easier? It might make that aspect of the ruling easier to make and more palatable to receive, but for those club TDs who also score the event, there's a bit more to it than that. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From john@asimere.com Sat Apr 3 13:53:33 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 13:53:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In article <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop- server.bigpond.net.au>, Tony Musgrove writes > >> >Torsten =C5strand wrote >> >>Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right >> >>bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C shows exaktly you= r >> >>hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake 2C. > >then DWS: > > >> > The TD has to find out whether 2C was conventional!!!!!. Well, I d= o >> >not suppose it was, though I find out away from the table what was >> >intended. Since 3C was intended I let 3C be bid now without penalty. >and John Probst: > >> > >>I concur. The important part here is to find out away from the table wh= y >>2C was called. John > >Tell me I've misunderstood this..please. There used to be an Australian >school of thought before the new Law book, which argued that there >were no such things as conventional insufficient bids, so you could get >away with correcting things like 4NT (Blackwood)..4C (insufficient) >without penalty. Now according to my reading of TFLB, I simply have to >determine whether the insufficient bid, or the lowest level correction >MAY have been conventional, then BANG, end of section. > >I dont see anything about intent, might have meant.. or accidently pulle= d. >I certainly have never had to take an offender away from the table to >ask intent. He has already been crucified in my school You can't have an agreement that an undercall is a convention, can you? Ergo the primary case for ruling that partner must pass is gone. What we need to do is find out why he bid 2C. If he did it intending Stayman, not having seen 2D we can rule one way; if he did it intending to bid clubs but got the level wrong we can rule the other ... and we should find this out away from the table. We only hold crucifictions (I cannot bring myself to type crucifixion) after the trial :) > >Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 3 15:13:45 2004 From: dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 08:13:45 -0600 Subject: [blml] RE: AWMPPs In-Reply-To: <20040403100004.8775.28466.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <000001c41985$e0f31bb0$6528fea9@Picasso> Adam Beneschan wrote: > Doug Couchman wrote: > > > (Re sanctions for meritless appeals, I believe I just read that no > player > > has yet run afoul of the ACBL's AWMPP allowance in the three-ish years > the > > system's been around. That doesn't prove much, I know, but it suggests > the > > rules' teeth are blunt. > > Either that, or the rules' teeth are so sharp that no one wants to try > feeling what it's like to get bitten. If the rules have cut down on > the number of frivolous appeals, then it doesn't matter that no one > has yet been sanctioned. Not that I know whether frivolous appeals > have indeed been reduced. (note: AWMPP = appeal without merit penalty point) I agree; it's suggestive in the real world, but not proof. But read the latest casebooks, and see how many ridiculous appeals still get through, and how the commentators still complain; I think the rules are not working too well, but can't prove it. (They're probably having some effect.) Also, the system applies only at three tournaments a year, albeit big ones; we have rather more than that. Doug Couchman Arlington, Texas From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Apr 3 15:16:45 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 15:16:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <89A92192-8579-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 3 Apr 2004, at 13:53, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > What we > need to do is find out why he bid 2C. If he did it intending Stayman, > not having seen 2D we can rule one way; if he did it intending to bid > clubs but got the level wrong we can rule the other ... and we should > find this out away from the table. You're being much more generous to the OS than my reading of the Law suggests - "both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional" leads me to believe that if any of the likely explanations for the Insufficient Bid is conventional, then parter is barred - no need to rely on the OS's protestations of intent. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 4 00:32:12 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:32:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL References: <000001c4192e$6eb8a080$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: <008a01c419d5$51990dd0$18cc403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 4:47 AM Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Doug Couchman wrote > > >[snip] The result, in the admittedly > > >litigious ACBL anyway, would be more appeals -- > >>there's always a decent chance the next folks to > >>look at it will improve your result. > > > > That is why the EBU felt that appealing solely > > for adjusting percentages was not acceptable. > > > Ah; I didn't get that. If players really can't appeal > percentages (and if there are significant, enforceable > sanctions for meritless appeals -- a non-trivial issue), > then this changes my opinion a lot. It's inconsistent > (I think it becomes the only bridge judgment ruling > that could not be appealed), but so what, I suppose. > +=+ I think we need clarity here. That percentages devised by the Director may be appealed to the site appeals committee cannot be 'unacceptable' in my opinion. It is a standard right of appeal under Law 92A. I imagine DWS refers to appeals from there to the national authority, which has long said it will not entertain appeals that are seeking to have an adjustment 'tweaked'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 4 00:35:15 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:35:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 References: <406E84B7.6040202@hdw.be> Message-ID: <008b01c419d5$5276c3a0$18cc403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 12c3 > David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> all the time. curiously I have a recent > >> ruling where I got to 6 of seven with > >> DWS disagreeing (UI/MI), so he's > >> not always in the majority. > > > > > > No, but he is always right. > > > > Allowed David, but only with a smiley. > We do love you, David, we do. > +=+ Even with the smiley he would mean it. However, he is more often right than he is part of the majority. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Apr 4 05:03:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 14:03:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] 12C3 versus EBU Message-ID: >>+=3D+ I think we need clarity here. That percentages >>devised by the Director may be appealed to the >>site appeals committee cannot be 'unacceptable' in >>my opinion. It is a standard right of appeal under >>Law 92A. I imagine DWS refers to appeals from >>there to the national authority, which has long said >>it will not entertain appeals that are seeking to have >>an adjustment 'tweaked'. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ 2004 EBU White Book, clause 93.4.4, example (a): >A TD rules that there was misinformation and decides to >adjust the score to 80% of 4S making, 20% of 4S minus >one. An Appeals Committee can very properly decide >that there was no misinformation: alternatively they >can decide there was no damage so no adjustment is >suitable: alternatively they can decide the TD has >totally misjudged the deal and (for example) adjust to >4S making an overtrick. But they should not just make >minor adjustments to the weighting, such as adjusting >the score to 70% of 4S making, 30% of 4S minus one. Richard James Hills clarifies: It seems that this EBU prohibition preventing EBU ACs from making minor adjustments, is not only an unLawful restriction upon the right to appeal under Law 92A, but also an unLawful restriction upon the power granted to ACs to vary scores under Law 93B3. 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 4 09:37:00 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:37:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) References: <406d89d6.3762.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <001901c41a20$2950bfd0$d0ee403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 2:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Viking's Dawn (was 12c3) > > >On the rare occasions there are appeals - the > >poor calibre of the appeals committee and usually > >the cowering reputation of the appellants create > >very random rulings. > > Well, I have only seen three Irish ACs. However, > I feel unable to comment because I was Chairman > for all three! > +=+ 'unable to comment'? Oh, but then you did! +=+ :-) From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 4 09:46:18 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:46:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12C3 versus EBU References: Message-ID: <001f01c41a21$694307a0$d0ee403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 versus EBU >>+=+ I think we need clarity here. That percentages >>devised by the Director may be appealed to the >>site appeals committee cannot be 'unacceptable' in >>my opinion. It is a standard right of appeal under >>Law 92A. I imagine DWS refers to appeals from >>there to the national authority, which has long said >>it will not entertain appeals that are seeking to have >>an adjustment 'tweaked'. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 2004 EBU White Book, clause 93.4.4, example (a): >A TD rules that there was misinformation and decides to >adjust the score to 80% of 4S making, 20% of 4S minus >one. An Appeals Committee can very properly decide >that there was no misinformation: alternatively they >can decide there was no damage so no adjustment is >suitable: alternatively they can decide the TD has >totally misjudged the deal and (for example) adjust to >4S making an overtrick. But they should not just make >minor adjustments to the weighting, such as adjusting >the score to 70% of 4S making, 30% of 4S minus one. Richard James Hills clarifies: It seems that this EBU prohibition preventing EBU ACs from making minor adjustments, is not only an unLawful restriction upon the right to appeal under Law 92A, but also an unLawful restriction upon the power granted to ACs to vary scores under Law 93B3. Best wishes RJH +=+ I take the White Book statement, saying 'should not', to be advice not regulation. The AC has all the powers of the Director. ~Grattan ~ +=+ From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Apr 2 11:13:43 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 12:13:43 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA34C7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C4189B.2D625F97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Torsten =C5strand wrote: =20 Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right = bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C shows exaktly your = hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake 2C. Your ruling please. Torsten =20 ----- This is an inadvertent call which is correctable under law 25A. If I'm called immediately, I'll allow a change of call to 3C. =20 Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran -----=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C4189B.2D625F97 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Tor= sten =C5strand = wrote:
=A0

Your partner opens = the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right bids 2D, and happily you remember = that your bid 3C shows exaktly your hand xx, xxx, = xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake 2C.

Your = ruling please.

Torsten<= /span>

 

-----

This is an inadvertent call which is correctable under law = 25A.

If = I’m called immediately, I’ll allow a change of call to = 3C.

 =

Regards,

Harald Skj=E6ran

----- 

=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C4189B.2D625F97-- From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Apr 2 15:43:19 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:43:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C41896.EE1E7130 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Torsten writes: Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C shows exaktly your hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake 2C. Your ruling please. ________________________________________________________ I cannont make a ruling without more information from table, but this question raises the more general problem of "conventional" insufficent bid (Law 27B2). How the TD can determine that an insufficent bid is "conventional" (a player may not have an agreement with his partner on insufficent bids...). In the above example, the insufficent bid may be an attempt to call 2C (Stayman), having not seen the 2D bid: conventional. To the contrary, the 2C bid may result from a real intent to show Clubs (but at an insufficent level): not conventional, just a slip of mind. I had a similar case this week: 1S - 2C - 1NT (TD). When callled I looked at their CC and see they play 1NT forcing on majors (a convention). I asked the offender and was told he did not see the 2C call, so I ruled, not inadvertent "conventional" insufficent bid. But what if told: "I just wanted to bid natural NT but did not realise I had to call at the two level...." Slip of mind, not inadvertent, but not conventional ???? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C41896.EE1E7130 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Torsten=20 writes: 
 Your = partner opens=20 the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right  
bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C = shows=20 exaktly 
your hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by=20 mistake 2C. 
Your ruling please.
______________________________________________= __________
 
I=20 cannont make a ruling without more information from table, but this=20 question
raises=20 the more general problem of "conventional" insufficent bid (Law=20 27B2).
How=20 the TD can determine that an insufficent bid is "conventional" (a=20 player
may=20 not have an agreement with his partner on insufficent=20 bids...).
 
In the=20 above example, the insufficent bid may be an attempt to call=20 2C
(Stayman), having not seen the 2D bid: conventional. To the=20 contrary,
the 2C=20 bid may result from a real intent to show Clubs (but at an=20 insufficent
level): not conventional, just a slip of = mind.
 
I had=20 a similar case this week: 1S - 2C - 1NT (TD).
When=20 callled I looked at their CC and see they play 1NT forcing on=20 majors
(a=20 convention). I asked the offender and was told he did not see the 2C=20 call,
so I=20 ruled, not inadvertent "conventional" insufficent bid. But what if=20 told:
"I=20 just wanted to bid natural NT but did not realise I had to call at the two
level...." Slip of mind, not inadvertent, but not = conventional=20 ???? 
 
 
 
Laval=20 Du Breuil
Quebec=20 City
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C41896.EE1E7130-- From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Apr 2 19:38:51 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:38:51 -0500 Subject: TR: [blml] Insufficient bid Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C418B7.D5D75F80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Torsten writes: Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C shows exaktly your hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake 2C. Your ruling please. ________________________________________________________ I cannont make a ruling without more information from table, but this question raises the more general problem of "conventional" insufficent bid (Law 27B2). How the TD can determine that an insufficent bid is "conventional" (a player may not have an agreement with his partner on insufficent bids...). In the above example, the insufficent bid may be an attempt to call 2C (Stayman), having not seen the 2D bid: conventional. To the contrary, the 2C bid may result from a real intent to show Clubs (but at an insufficent level): not conventional, just a slip of mind. I had a similar case this week: 1S - 2C - 1NT (TD). When callled I looked at their CC and see they play 1NT forcing on majors (a convention). I asked the offender and was told he did not see the 2C call, so I ruled, not inadvertent "conventional" insufficent bid. But what if told: "I just wanted to bid natural NT but did not realise I had to call at the two level...." Slip of mind, not inadvertent, but not conventional ???? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C418B7.D5D75F80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Torsten = writes: 
 Your = partner opens=20 the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right  
bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C = shows=20 exaktly 
your hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by=20 mistake 2C. 
Your ruling please.
______________________________________________= __________
 
I=20 cannont make a ruling without more information from table, but this=20 question
raises=20 the more general problem of "conventional" insufficent bid (Law=20 27B2).
How=20 the TD can determine that an insufficent bid is "conventional" (a=20 player
may=20 not have an agreement with his partner on insufficent=20 bids...).
 
In the=20 above example, the insufficent bid may be an attempt to call=20 2C
(Stayman), having not seen the 2D bid: conventional. To the=20 contrary,
the 2C=20 bid may result from a real intent to show Clubs (but at an=20 insufficent
level): not conventional, just a slip of = mind.
 
I had=20 a similar case this week: 1S - 2C - 1NT (TD).
When=20 callled I looked at their CC and see they play 1NT forcing on=20 majors
(a=20 convention). I asked the offender and was told he did not see the 2C=20 call,
so I=20 ruled, not inadvertent "conventional" insufficent bid. But what if=20 told:
"I=20 just wanted to bid natural NT but did not realise I had to call at the two
level...." Slip of mind, not inadvertent, but not = conventional=20 ???? 
 
 
 
Laval=20 Du Breuil
Quebec=20 City
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C418B7.D5D75F80-- From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Apr 4 10:49:55 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 11:49:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid - conventional or not? Message-ID: <406FDA43.3020306@hdw.be> I had to give a L82C correction yesterday. Yes, I had made a wrong ruling. Let's see. The bidding goes (opponents silent) she he 1NT 2Di 2He 4Cl 3Di that's not enough - oops, 4Di - TD! First of all, I have to find out if it's a mechanical error or not. Not very easy, but in the end I decide it isn't. Next I have to find out what 4Di would mean. I ask what 4Cl is - splinterish. I ask him (off the table) what 4Di would mean, he says "something in diamonds". I ask her "just bidding on". She has 2 hearts and KJx of diamonds. So I rule that 3Di and 4Di are natural and I allow a change to 4Di. He bids 4He and she makes 12 tricks (a normal number, but a good score nevertheless, because the room is in 3NT+2) Opponent is not convinced that 4Di and after the board, we establish that she would also have bid 4Di with 3 hearts and Kx diamonds. So my ruling turns out wrong and I give them Av+ each. Comments? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Apr 4 12:23:18 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 12:23:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] On the mend Message-ID: <001f01c41a37$e6fd4d20$e6be87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <47C45134-8648-11D8-93AF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Apr 2, 2004, at 09:43 US/Eastern, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > How the TD can determine that an insufficent bid is "conventional" (a=20= > player > may not have an agreement with his partner on insufficent bids...). > =A0 > In the above example, the insufficent bid may be an attempt to call 2C > (Stayman), having not seen the 2D bid: conventional. To the contrary, > the 2C bid may result from a real intent to show Clubs (but at an=20 > insufficent > level): not conventional, just a slip of mind. Is the phrase not "incontrovertibly not conventional"? Given that, the=20= 2C bid is not such, so much be treated as conventional. From mikedod@gte.net Sun Apr 4 17:56:02 2004 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:56:02 -0700 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid - conventional or not? References: <406FDA43.3020306@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002401c41a65$c4401690$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Ed wrote: Is the phrase not "incontrovertibly not conventional"? Given that, the 2C bid is not such, so much be treated as conventional. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > I had to give a L82C correction yesterday. > Yes, I had made a wrong ruling. > > Let's see. The bidding goes (opponents silent) > she he > 1NT 2Di > 2He 4Cl > 3Di that's not enough - oops, 4Di - TD! > > First of all, I have to find out if it's a mechanical error or not. > Not very easy, but in the end I decide it isn't. Next I have to find > out what 4Di would mean. I ask what 4Cl is - splinterish. > I ask him (off the table) what 4Di would mean, he says "something in > diamonds". I ask her "just bidding on". She has 2 hearts and KJx of > diamonds. > So I rule that 3Di and 4Di are natural and I allow a change to 4Di. He > bids 4He and she makes 12 tricks (a normal number, but a good score > nevertheless, because the room is in 3NT+2) > Opponent is not convinced that 4Di and after the board, we establish > that she would also have bid 4Di with 3 hearts and Kx diamonds. > So my ruling turns out wrong and I give them Av+ each. > > Comments? > -- > Herman DE WAEL These two cases make me doubt I understand L27B at all. Ed's (and other's) position seems obvious to me and also illustrates why this is my least favorite law. L25B2b2 is rare, this one is too onerous frequently, at least as I understand it. Intention is not revelent, "could have been conventional", applies whenever there is a possible conventional interpretation in the context of the partnership's agreements. In Herman's example, on the other hand, 3D or 4D both seem to me to be forward going natural calls, a treatment, not a convention. Of course, the problem of defining a convention goes on and on. In this case, does a diamond bid (at either level) explicitly agree hearts? If not, I don't see a convention. Mike Dodson From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Apr 4 23:00:54 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 08:00:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] 12C3 versus EBU Message-ID: Richard James Hills clarifies: >>>>>It seems that this EBU prohibition preventing EBU ACs >>>>>from making minor adjustments, is not only an unLawful >>>>>restriction upon the right to appeal under Law 92A, but >>>>>also an unLawful restriction upon the power granted to >>>>>ACs to vary scores under Law 93B3. Grattan Endicott quibbles: >>>>+=3D+ I take the White Book statement, saying 'should not', >>>>to be advice not regulation. The AC has all the powers >>>>of the Director. >>>> ~Grattan ~ +=3D+ Extracts below from the EBU Appeals 2002 booklet, appeal number four, entitled "Don't fiddle with the weightings!" Appeals committee's comments: [snip] >>>We felt the TD's weightings were reasonable. Other scores >>>are possible, eg 4S doubled making, one off or two off. >>> >>>As a matter of principle, we don't change the percentages >>>unless they are clearly incorrect. Panellist Matthias Berghaus' comments: [snip] >>3. What is "clearly incorrect"? 10% off? 20? More? If the >>AC arrive at a different score they should assign it. It's >>their job. Final summary by editor: >While the commentators can say whatever they like, it >should be noted that where a commentator is suggesting not >following EBU directives there can be no question that the >Committee is correct not to do what the commentator is >saying. Of course, the commentators can seek to change the >EBU's mind as to their procedures. > >If the Committee thinks the weightings would be 10% or 20% >different if they had made them up it is not their job to >overturn the Director. This is based on the WBF's Code of >Practice as interpreted by the EBU. [snip] Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From blml@blakjak.com Mon Apr 5 00:00:28 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 00:00:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <200404030222.SAA21193@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200404030222.SAA21193@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote >David wrote: > >> >Anyway, I still don't see what kind of "trouble at the table" a Law >> >like I suggested would cause. It would turn the penalty for an >> >insufficient bid into a mechanical one, like the revoke penalty; the >> >TD doesn't have to use judgment about what the players were thinking. >> >It might be harsher on offenders than otherwise, but that doesn't >> >bother me. >> >> He still has to find matters out during the bidding, which always >> seems a great no-no to me. How does he know what is conventional? >> >> It seems a good principle that the Law should be such that the TD doe >> snot need to ask questions about the meaning of bids or anything else >> before the hand is ended, which my Law makes easy. > >OK. I wasn't aware that you considered this to be a no-no. The bidding goes 1C[=strong] 1S[=minors or blacks] 2H[=4 controls] 2D The TD under current arrangements has to find out the meaning of 2D and 3D. If this were an MI case he would find it out at the end of the hand by reading the CC, asking questions, getting them to explain the bits of the CC, possibly asking comparative sequences, until he is sure. I consider this totally unsuitable during the auction, even if he separates the players during the interrogation. The way to avoid this is to make the Law unaffected by the meaning and/or conventionality of the bids. In practice, the TD makes a cursory investigation, with UI flying around, and probably getting the answer wrong, especially whether the insufficient bid is conventional, which is usually a joke. Scene: ACBL: Director: "What is the meaning of the 2D?" Marvin: "We have no agreement" Director: "I have ot know whether it is conventional?" Marvin: "We have no agreement" Director: "Why not?" Marvin: "The ACBL does not allow agreements over insufficient bids" Directo: "Are you sure?" Marvin fixes the Director with a steely look. -- 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 Apr 5 00:02:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 00:02:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <89A92192-8579-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <89A92192-8579-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <0LLS+ZEXQJcAFwMC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Gordon Rainsford wrote >On 3 Apr 2004, at 13:53, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> What we >> need to do is find out why he bid 2C. If he did it intending Stayman, >> not having seen 2D we can rule one way; if he did it intending to bid >> clubs but got the level wrong we can rule the other ... and we should >> find this out away from the table. > >You're being much more generous to the OS than my reading of the Law >suggests - "both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are >incontrovertibly not conventional" leads me to believe that if any of >the likely explanations for the Insufficient Bid is conventional, then >parter is barred - no need to rely on the OS's protestations of intent. What do you mean by any of the likely? Do you include things this pair has never played? Ok, that's it: even knowing the bid was natural you would have to rule it conventional. -- 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 Apr 5 00:10:53 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 00:10:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: <008a01c419d5$51990dd0$18cc403e@multivisionoem> References: <000001c4192e$6eb8a080$6528fea9@Picasso> <008a01c419d5$51990dd0$18cc403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: >Grattan EndicottFrom: "Doug Couchman" >> David Stevenson wrote: >> > Doug Couchman wrote >> > >[snip] The result, in the admittedly >> > >litigious ACBL anyway, would be more appeals -- >> >>there's always a decent chance the next folks to >> >>look at it will improve your result. >> > >> > That is why the EBU felt that appealing solely >> > for adjusting percentages was not acceptable. >> Ah; I didn't get that. If players really can't appeal >> percentages (and if there are significant, enforceable >> sanctions for meritless appeals -- a non-trivial issue), >> then this changes my opinion a lot. It's inconsistent >> (I think it becomes the only bridge judgment ruling >> that could not be appealed), but so what, I suppose. >+=+ I think we need clarity here. That percentages >devised by the Director may be appealed to the >site appeals committee cannot be 'unacceptable' in >my opinion. It is a standard right of appeal under >Law 92A. I imagine DWS refers to appeals from >there to the national authority, which has long said >it will not entertain appeals that are seeking to have >an adjustment 'tweaked'. I mean normal appeals. ATTNA are completely different. Players do not have an absolute right to appeal frivolously - or they have that right but must accept the consequences. It is important that ACs realise that appeals to get an AC to fiddle with the weightings are frivolous, otherwise far too many appeals would become non-frivolous which are trying to gain one imp. The EBU L&EC have said this and it is an EBU regulation. -- 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 Apr 5 00:12:32 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 00:12:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12C3 versus EBU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >>>+=+ I think we need clarity here. That percentages >>>devised by the Director may be appealed to the >>>site appeals committee cannot be 'unacceptable' in >>>my opinion. It is a standard right of appeal under >>>Law 92A. I imagine DWS refers to appeals from >>>there to the national authority, which has long said >>>it will not entertain appeals that are seeking to have >>>an adjustment 'tweaked'. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >2004 EBU White Book, clause 93.4.4, example (a): > >>A TD rules that there was misinformation and decides to >>adjust the score to 80% of 4S making, 20% of 4S minus >>one. An Appeals Committee can very properly decide >>that there was no misinformation: alternatively they >>can decide there was no damage so no adjustment is >>suitable: alternatively they can decide the TD has >>totally misjudged the deal and (for example) adjust to >>4S making an overtrick. But they should not just make >>minor adjustments to the weighting, such as adjusting >>the score to 70% of 4S making, 30% of 4S minus one. > >Richard James Hills clarifies: > >It seems that this EBU prohibition preventing EBU ACs >from making minor adjustments, is not only an unLawful >restriction upon the right to appeal under Law 92A, but >also an unLawful restriction upon the power granted to >ACs to vary scores under Law 93B3. OK, you say it is illegal to deal with frivolous appeals. But it is accepted world-wide. -- 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 Apr 5 00:37:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:37:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] 12C3 versus EBU Message-ID: David Stevenson: [snip] >otherwise far too many appeals would become non-frivolous >which are trying to gain one imp. > >The EBU L&EC have said this and it is an EBU regulation. Richard James Hills: The last World Championship was decided by one imp after an appeal. Obviously, the last World Championship was frivolous. ;-) 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Apr 5 01:37:02 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 01:37:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <0LLS+ZEXQJcAFwMC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <89A92192-8579-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <0LLS+ZEXQJcAFwMC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <5B6E0BD4-8699-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 5 Apr 2004, at 00:02, David Stevenson wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote >> On 3 Apr 2004, at 13:53, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>> What we >>> need to do is find out why he bid 2C. If he did it intending Stayman, >>> not having seen 2D we can rule one way; if he did it intending to bid >>> clubs but got the level wrong we can rule the other ... and we should >>> find this out away from the table. >> >> You're being much more generous to the OS than my reading of the Law >> suggests - "both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are >> incontrovertibly not conventional" leads me to believe that if any of >> the likely explanations for the Insufficient Bid is conventional, >> then parter is barred - no need to rely on the OS's protestations of >> intent. > > What do you mean by any of the likely? If someone bids 1C in response to (or over) 1NT, the likely reasons are that they intended to open 1C, or that they intended to bid 2C. If either of these sequences is conventional for the player in question, then the insufficient bid is not "incontrovertibly not conventional". So, we need to know their system, but not necessarily their intention. > Do you include things this pair has never played? No. > Ok, that's it: even knowing the bid was natural you would have to > rule it conventional. I wonder where you got this from, David? > -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Apr 5 01:39:04 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 01:39:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2 Apr 2004, at 15:43, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > Torsten writes:=A0 > =A0Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your = right=A0=A0 > bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C shows exaktly=A0 > your hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake=A02C.=A0 > Your ruling please. > ________________________________________________________ > =A0 > I cannont make a ruling without more information from table, but this=20= > question > raises the more general problem of "conventional" insufficent bid (Law=20= > 27B2). > How the TD can determine that an insufficent bid is "conventional" (a=20= > player > may not have an agreement with his partner on insufficent bids...). You don't need to determine that it *is* conventional, just to=20 establish that it's not "incontrovertibly not conventional" - ie=20 questions of doubt don't meet the high standard that this law=20 specifies. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml@blakjak.com Mon Apr 5 02:44:08 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 02:44:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <5B6E0BD4-8699-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <89A92192-8579-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <0LLS+ZEXQJcAFwMC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5B6E0BD4-8699-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote > >On 5 Apr 2004, at 00:02, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Gordon Rainsford wrote >>> On 3 Apr 2004, at 13:53, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> >>>> What we >>>> need to do is find out why he bid 2C. If he did it intending Stayman, >>>> not having seen 2D we can rule one way; if he did it intending to bid >>>> clubs but got the level wrong we can rule the other ... and we should >>>> find this out away from the table. >>> >>> You're being much more generous to the OS than my reading of the Law >>>suggests - "both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are >>>incontrovertibly not conventional" leads me to believe that if any of >>>the likely explanations for the Insufficient Bid is conventional, >>>then parter is barred - no need to rely on the OS's protestations of intent. >> >> What do you mean by any of the likely? > >If someone bids 1C in response to (or over) 1NT, the likely reasons are >that they intended to open 1C, or that they intended to bid 2C. If >either of these sequences is conventional for the player in question, >then the insufficient bid is not "incontrovertibly not conventional". > >So, we need to know their system, but not necessarily their intention. > >> Do you include things this pair has never played? > >No. > >> Ok, that's it: even knowing the bid was natural you would have to >>rule it conventional. > >I wonder where you got this from, David? In your scenario suppose 2C is natural, but 1C opening would be strong. Even when you know that the player was trying to bid 2C you are ruling it as though it was conventional. -- 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 Apr 5 02:47:05 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 02:47:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12C3 versus EBU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >David Stevenson: > > [snip] > > >otherwise far too many appeals would become non-frivolous > >which are trying to gain one imp. > > > >The EBU L&EC have said this and it is an EBU regulation. > > Richard James Hills: > > The last World Championship was decided by one imp after > an appeal. > > Obviously, the last World Championship was frivolous. > > ;-) Why? Was there a frivolous appeal involved? Or are you suggesting that all 1 imp appeals are frivolous? Sounds a silly approach to me! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Apr 5 02:48:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 02:48:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid - conventional or not? In-Reply-To: <406FDA43.3020306@hdw.be> References: <406FDA43.3020306@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >I had to give a L82C correction yesterday. >Yes, I had made a wrong ruling. > >Let's see. The bidding goes (opponents silent) >she he >1NT 2Di >2He 4Cl >3Di that's not enough - oops, 4Di - TD! > >First of all, I have to find out if it's a mechanical error or not. Not >very easy, but in the end I decide it isn't. Next I have to find out >what 4Di would mean. I ask what 4Cl is - splinterish. >I ask him (off the table) what 4Di would mean, he says "something in >diamonds". I ask her "just bidding on". She has 2 hearts and KJx of >diamonds. >So I rule that 3Di and 4Di are natural and I allow a change to 4Di. He >bids 4He and she makes 12 tricks (a normal number, but a good score >nevertheless, because the room is in 3NT+2) >Opponent is not convinced that 4Di and after the board, we establish >that she would also have bid 4Di with 3 hearts and Kx diamonds. >So my ruling turns out wrong and I give them Av+ each. > >Comments? Why not assign? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Apr 5 03:06:42 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 03:06:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <89A92192-8579-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <0LLS+ZEXQJcAFwMC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5B6E0BD4-8699-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: On 5 Apr 2004, at 02:44, David Stevenson wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote >> >> On 5 Apr 2004, at 00:02, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Gordon Rainsford wrote >>>> On 3 Apr 2004, at 13:53, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>> >>>>> What we >>>>> need to do is find out why he bid 2C. If he did it intending >>>>> Stayman, >>>>> not having seen 2D we can rule one way; if he did it intending to >>>>> bid >>>>> clubs but got the level wrong we can rule the other ... and we >>>>> should >>>>> find this out away from the table. >>>> >>>> You're being much more generous to the OS than my reading of the >>>> Law suggests - "both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted >>>> are incontrovertibly not conventional" leads me to believe that if >>>> any of the likely explanations for the Insufficient Bid is >>>> conventional, then parter is barred - no need to rely on the OS's >>>> protestations of intent. >>> >>> What do you mean by any of the likely? >> >> If someone bids 1C in response to (or over) 1NT, the likely reasons >> are that they intended to open 1C, or that they intended to bid 2C. >> If either of these sequences is conventional for the player in >> question, then the insufficient bid is not "incontrovertibly not >> conventional". >> >> So, we need to know their system, but not necessarily their intention. >> >>> Do you include things this pair has never played? >> >> No. >> >>> Ok, that's it: even knowing the bid was natural you would have to >>> rule it conventional. >> >> I wonder where you got this from, David? > > In your scenario suppose 2C is natural, but 1C opening would be > strong. Even when you know that the player was trying to bid 2C How would I know this? > you are ruling it as though it was conventional. No, I'm ruling as though it's not "incontrovertibly not conventional". -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 5 03:50:58 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:50:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] 12C3 versus EBU Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >>>otherwise far too many appeals would become non-frivolous >>>which are trying to gain one imp. >>> >>>The EBU L&EC have said this and it is an EBU regulation. Richard James Hills satirised: >>The last World Championship was decided by one imp after >>an appeal. >> >>Obviously, the last World Championship was frivolous. >> >>;-) David Stevenson obtused: >Why? Was there a frivolous appeal involved? Or are you >suggesting that all 1 imp appeals are frivolous? Sounds a >silly approach to me! Richard James Hills replied: Sounds a silly approach to me also, but my understanding is that that is exactly what the EBU L&EC said, and what the EBU "Don't fiddle with the weightings!" regulation states. David Stevenson and I seem to be arguing slightly at cross- purposes, due to David Stevenson's undefined use of the term "frivolous appeal". It seems to me that clarity in the discussion would improve if "frivolous appeal" was sub-divided, like Gaul, into three parts: (a) appeal without merit (b) trivial appeal (c) one-imp appeal I would define (a) - appeal without merit - as an appeal for which the appeals committee could never want to alter the TD's ruling. I would define (b) - trivial appeal - as an appeal for which the TD's ruling could be altered by the AC, but in an insignificant way. Example: In the final qualifying round of the Aussie National Open Teams a few years ago, both sides appealed the TD's ruling. (The NOS wanted more severity, the OS wanted less severity.) However, once both sides knew that all possible permutations of AC decisions would not affect either side reaching the knockout stage of the NOT, then both sides withdrew their now trivial appeals. I would define (c) - a one imp appeal - as an appeal for which the TD's ruling could be altered by the AC in a miniscule, but significant, way. Example: The extra imp could give the appealing side the vitally desired extra master points, which would make an appellant a Life Master. In my opinion, the EBU L&EC has outlawed (or officially discouraged, which comes to the same thing) type (c) appeals. In my further opinion, such outlawing or official discouragement is ultra vires to the EBU L&EC powers, as it is directly contrary to players' rights under Law 92A. 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 Apr 5 05:14:39 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:14:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid Message-ID: Torsten =C5strand wrote >>Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent >>to your right bids 2D, and happily you remember that >>your bid 3C shows exaktly your hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. >>But you bid by mistake=A02C. David Stevenson replied: >This is the traditional problem with the current Law. [snip] >The TD has to find out whether 2C was conventional!!!!!. >Well, I do not suppose it was, though I find out away >from the table what was intended. Since 3C was intended >I let 3C be bid now without penalty. Richard James Hills notes: Most players use 1NT - (Pass) - 2C as the Stayman convention. As has been noted elsewhen in this thread, most TDs interpret Law 27B2 more strictly than DWS does. If an insufficient bid would have been a conventional call in an uncontested auction, most TDs would deem a player's "intention" to perpetrate an non-conventional call as not relevant to a Law 27B2 ruling. David Stevenson wished: >I wish we could return to the law whereby you could >always correct to the lowest sufficient bid in the same >denomination without penalty. There would be far less UI >flying around. Richard James Hills fairy-godmothers: There have been indications that the 2006 edition of the Laws might delete all references to conventions, with the updated replacement for Law 40D possibly reading: "The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of explicit or implicit partnership agreements and/or explicit or implicit partnership expectations." If all references to conventions are removed from the 2006 Laws, then the updated replacement for Law 27 in 2006 is also likely to be simpler for a TD to apply, with far less UI flying around. 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 Apr 5 05:26:04 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:26:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] question about conventional psychs Message-ID: Doug Couchman: >I wonder: is it usual around the world for the psyching of >conventional openings, or conventional strong openings, to >be banned? Richard James Hills: Australia has never seen the need for such a regulation. The Aussie system of using Recorders makes such a regulation unnecessary, since pseudo-psychers with concealed partnership understandings are quickly identified and penalised for their infractions of Law 40B. On the other hand, an important Sydney bridge club psuedo- bans psyches, by requiring all psychers to complete a Psyche Registration Form. This encourages self-censorship by players who believe that any value gained by psyching is outweighed by the consequent writer's cramp. 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 Apr 5 06:20:57 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:20:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Rite of passage Message-ID: >From the thread "12c3". David Stevenson rights: >>>No, but he is always right. Herman De Wael rights: >>Allowed David, but only with a smiley. >>We do love you, David, we do. Grattan Endicott rights: >+=3D+ Even with the smiley he would mean it. >However, he is more often right than he is >part of the majority. ~ G ~ +=3D+ Richard James Hills rites: My minority reports are often irrelevant to narrow arguments of right or wrong. Instead my regular riting ritual is often aimed at provoking lateral thinking by other blmlers. For example -> Six partnerships have entered the 2004 ACT Youth Team Selection Trials, with only the best three partnerships surviving their rite of passage to play in the subsequent 2004 Interstate Youth Teams Championship. All normal 3-table Howell movements are unbalanced, which is particularly undesirable when the partnerships involved vary in strength from beginner level to Australian junior international level. Attached is a perfectly balanced movement for the ACT Youth Trials. Format: Barometered Butler, 3 tables, 60 boards, 5 x 12-board matches Table 1: Zero arrow-switching Table 2: Boards 7-12 arrow-switched Table 3: Boards 4-9 arrow-switched To reduce the chances of the movement being fouled, I suggest that the least-experienced pair be stationary at the zero arrow-switching Table 1. Do other blmler TDs have any suggestions or amendments? Rite on! 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 Apr 5 06:52:23 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 06:52:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rite of passage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >>From the thread "12c3". > >David Stevenson rights: > >>>>No, but he is always right. > >Herman De Wael rights: > >>>Allowed David, but only with a smiley. >>>We do love you, David, we do. > >Grattan Endicott rights: > >>+=3D+ Even with the smiley he would mean it. >>However, he is more often right than he is >>part of the majority. ~ G ~ +=3D+ > >Richard James Hills rites: > >My minority reports are often irrelevant to >narrow arguments of right or wrong. > >Instead my regular riting ritual is often >aimed at provoking lateral thinking by >other blmlers. > >For example -> > >Six partnerships have entered the 2004 ACT >Youth Team Selection Trials, with only the >best three partnerships surviving their rite >of passage to play in the subsequent 2004 >Interstate Youth Teams Championship. > >All normal 3-table Howell movements are >unbalanced, which is particularly undesirable >when the partnerships involved vary in >strength from beginner level to Australian >junior international level. > >Attached is a perfectly balanced movement for >the ACT Youth Trials. > >Format: Barometered Butler, 3 tables, 60 >boards, 5 x 12-board matches > >Table 1: Zero arrow-switching >Table 2: Boards 7-12 arrow-switched >Table 3: Boards 4-9 arrow-switched so we arrow switch 7-9 at 2 tables. Why not just arrow switch them at table 1? In fact, put boards 1-3 on table 1 arrow switched, 4-6 on table 2 and 7-9 on table 3. No, there must be a catch. Are you sure this is balanced? cheers john > >To reduce the chances of the movement being >fouled, I suggest that the least-experienced >pair be stationary at the zero arrow-switching >Table 1. > >Do other blmler TDs have any suggestions or >amendments? > >Rite on! > >RJH >------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------- >------ > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please >advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This >email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileg= ed >and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibite= d. >Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, >except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be >the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigeno= us >Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations unde= r the >Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). >------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------- >------ > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Apr 5 07:04:55 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 23:04:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] Rite of passage References: Message-ID: <004b01c41ad3$edc74e20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hills writes: Attached is a perfectly balanced movement for the ACT Youth Trials. Format: Barometered Butler, 3 tables, 60 boards, 5 x 12-board matches Table 1: Zero arrow-switching Table 2: Boards 7-12 arrow-switched Table 3: Boards 4-9 arrow-switched To reduce the chances of the movement being fouled, I suggest that the least-experienced pair be stationary at the zero arrow-switching Table 1. Do other blmler TDs have any suggestions or amendments? Marv is not a TD, but writes: Don't use Butler, just score a result by comparing it with each of the other results and adding the two imp-scores. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 5 07:08:01 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 16:08:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Rite of passage Message-ID: John (MadDog Probst): >so we arrow switch 7-9 at 2 tables. Why not just >arrow switch them at table 1? In fact, put >boards 1-3 on table 1 arrow switched, 4-6 on >table 2 and 7-9 on table 3. No, there must be a >catch. > >Are you sure this is balanced? > >cheers john Richard James Hills: The catch is that I defined the movement as *Barometered* Butler. That is, the 12 boards are shared amongst the three tables each match (with a break for barometer scoring after every 12-board 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 4 23:50:31 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 23:50:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA34C7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000b01c41ad5$c5c477c0$33db403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "Torsten Åstrand" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:13 AM Subject: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid Torsten Åstrand wrote: Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C shows exaktly your hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake 2C. Your ruling please. Torsten ----- This is an inadvertent call which is correctable under law 25A. If I'm called immediately, I'll allow a change of call to 3C. +=+ But only after establishing that the player changed or attempted to change his inadvertent call without pause for thought. By the time you get there he has had plenty of scope for thinking. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 5 00:13:11 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 00:13:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid References: Message-ID: <000c01c41ad5$c7360920$33db403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 7:38 PM Subject: TR: [blml] Insufficient bid > I cannont make a ruling without more information > from table, but this question raises the more general >problem of "conventional" insufficent bid (Law 27B2). > How the TD can determine that an insufficent bid is > "conventional" (a player may not have an agreement > with his partner on insufficent bids...). > +=+ The TD does not have to determine that the bid is conventional. He has to establish beyoned doubt that it is *not* conventional. If he is unable to do this then 27B1 cannot be applied; he goes to 27B2. +=+ > > In the above example, the insufficent bid may be > an attempt to call 2C (Stayman), having not seen > the 2D bid: conventional. To the contrary, the 2C > bid may result from a real intent to show Clubs > (but at an insufficent level): not conventional, just > a slip of mind. > +=+ Or again the 2C bid may be played as a form of staymanic enquiry linked to a rebid of 3C that is a sign-off in clubs +=+ > From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 5 07:35:26 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 07:35:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL References: <000001c4192e$6eb8a080$6528fea9@Picasso> <008a01c419d5$51990dd0$18cc403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <002c01c41ad8$a9608670$33db403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL > > Players do not have an absolute right to appeal > frivolously - or they have that right but must accept > the consequences. It is important that ACs realise > that appeals to get an AC to fiddle with the weightings > are frivolous, otherwise far too many appeals would > become non-frivolous which are trying to gain one imp. > > The EBU L&EC have said this and it is an EBU > regulation. > +=+ The EBU says that if an Appeals Committee is persuaded by a contestant that the Director's adjustment is ill-judged it should dismiss the appeal as without merit? This is a novelty that I had not previously contemplated - and that we did not contemplate in writimg the Code of Practice. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon Apr 5 07:45:45 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 08:45:45 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8C@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Grattan Endicott To: "Torsten =C5strand" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:13 AM Subject: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid Torsten =C5strand wrote: Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C shows exaktly your hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake 2C. Your ruling please. Torsten ----- This is an inadvertent call which is correctable under law 25A. If I'm called immediately, I'll allow a change of call to 3C. +=3D+ But only after establishing that the player changed or attempted to change his inadvertent call without pause for thought. By the time you get there he has had plenty of scope for thinking. ~ G ~ +=3D+ ----- OK. But not in Norway. Here we have a footnote to law 25 A saying: "When using bidding boxes a player can change his call if it's obvious = he didn't intend to make the call that's been put on the table. The = correction cannot be made due to a change of mind." So in Norway we would allow the change of call as long as the opener had = not called again. Regards, Harald ----- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Apr 5 08:28:16 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 09:28:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid - conventional or not? In-Reply-To: <002401c41a65$c4401690$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> References: <406FDA43.3020306@hdw.be> <002401c41a65$c4401690$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Message-ID: <40710A90.1000301@hdw.be> mike dodson wrote: > > In Herman's example, on the other hand, 3D or 4D both seem to me to be > forward going natural calls, > a treatment, not a convention. Of course, the problem of defining a > convention goes on and on. In > this case, does a diamond bid (at either level) explicitly agree hearts? If > not, I don't see a convention. > Since she had only 2 hearts, I did not think it necessary to ask that question. I also considered the diamond bids to be normal forward going, a conviction strengthened by his answer "she has something in diamonds", and the fact that she had. I don't remember her reply precisely, but she did not say (the first time) that it was "controls". But indeed, this illustrates the difficulty the TD has. I had to take both players off the table, just to find out what a bid meant that hadn't been made yet. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Apr 5 08:32:42 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 09:32:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid - conventional or not? In-Reply-To: References: <406FDA43.3020306@hdw.be> Message-ID: <40710B9A.4000705@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >> So my ruling turns out wrong and I give them Av+ each. >> >> Comments? > > > Why not assign? > Be a bit clearer, David? Are you questioning my use of the word "give", which I agree is less correct than "assign". Or are you saying that I did not have to give an artificial score but could have given an assigned score of 4H+2 instead? I considered that, but rejected it. After all, if I had not allowed her to change to 4Di, but had told her to "jump in the water" then maybe she might have overestimated partner and jumped to 6NT (or 6He). 4H+2 is not the only possible outcome here. But I do agree that L82C does not automatically lead to artificial scores. Maybe a weighed score of 4He+2, 6He= and 6NT-1 would be correct, but that will only lead to 60/40, so I prefer 60/60. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Apr 5 08:36:39 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 09:36:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Rite of passage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40710C87.4050502@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Format: Barometered Butler, 3 tables, 60 > boards, 5 x 12-board matches > > Table 1: Zero arrow-switching > Table 2: Boards 7-12 arrow-switched > Table 3: Boards 4-9 arrow-switched > > To reduce the chances of the movement being > fouled, I suggest that the least-experienced > pair be stationary at the zero arrow-switching > Table 1. > good additional suggestion. let's see: 1 compares with 3 on boards 1-6 and with 4 on 7-12 OK. 1 compares with 5 on boards 1-3/10-12 and with 6 on 4-9 OK. 3 compares with 5 on boards 1-3/7-9 and with 6 on 4-6/10-12 OK. Seems completely OK to me. Well done, Richard. > Do other blmler TDs have any suggestions or > amendments? > > Rite on! > > RJH > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged > and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. > Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, > except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be > the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous > Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the > Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Mon Apr 5 09:14:38 2004 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:14:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid - conventional or not? References: <406FDA43.3020306@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001401c41ae6$0a1512d0$3b6a2452@mikeamos> Wrong wrong wrong As I understand L82C you should give both sides the most favourable score that would have occurrd had your TD error not occurred - Say I have reached 6Hxx on a part score and am doomed for -2800 , if the Td makes some trivial error in the play ruling and I get -3400 I'd be very pleased to get 60% - what I should get of course is the -2800 I was booked for If you decide here that you should not have allowed the "free" change to 4Di presumably the player would bid 4He and the partnership play there Cancel the table result and adjust to 4H +2 Apologise and buy the drinks :)) Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 10:49 AM Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid - conventional or not? > I had to give a L82C correction yesterday. > Yes, I had made a wrong ruling. > > Let's see. The bidding goes (opponents silent) > she he > 1NT 2Di > 2He 4Cl > 3Di that's not enough - oops, 4Di - TD! > > First of all, I have to find out if it's a mechanical error or not. > Not very easy, but in the end I decide it isn't. Next I have to find > out what 4Di would mean. I ask what 4Cl is - splinterish. > I ask him (off the table) what 4Di would mean, he says "something in > diamonds". I ask her "just bidding on". She has 2 hearts and KJx of > diamonds. > So I rule that 3Di and 4Di are natural and I allow a change to 4Di. He > bids 4He and she makes 12 tricks (a normal number, but a good score > nevertheless, because the room is in 3NT+2) > Opponent is not convinced that 4Di and after the board, we establish > that she would also have bid 4Di with 3 hearts and Kx diamonds. > So my ruling turns out wrong and I give them Av+ each. > > Comments? > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wmevius@hotmail.com Mon Apr 5 09:38:19 2004 From: wmevius@hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 09:38:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3's affect on the unalerted Gerber hand Message-ID: A third argument against 12c3 is that calculating scores will take forever, scoring programs can't always handle it, and it's easy to make mistakes (I haven't seen this rule used correctly in any of the tournaments I have played in...) Willem Mevius wmevius@hotmail.com >From: "Doug Couchman" >To: >Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3's affect on the unalerted Gerber hand >Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:26:42 -0600 > >I accept this about 12C3, and am sure you're right about how players react. >The ruling I gave here (and I'm not sure I'd have split the score at a >tournament; I didn't analyze the players' actions as carefully as I would >at >work) would have been unpleasant to deliver to the players, and would >probably have left the offending side feeling rooked, as they have >completely lost their slam. 12C3 undoes that, and tries to be fair about >it. Fabulous. > >My trepidation about 12C3 (and I have argued against using it here, not >that >I am in a position such that anyone listens) is twofold. First, it is >impossible to guarantee or even reasonably expect consistent results. Even >in fairly simple cases, two different TDs, panels, or ACs cannot be >expected >to come up with the same percentages. The result, in the admittedly >litigious ACBL anyway, would be more appeals -- there's always a decent >chance the next folks to look at it will improve your result. > >Second, I think it will encourage TDs to be lazy. Rather than decide what >really was likely (and at all probable), they will be inclined to just >throw >up their hands, say they can't tell, and slap a few middling-sounding >percentages on all the results they can imagine. Remember, these are the >directors who brought you consistent average-plus/average-minus on hands >where results had been achieved and could be correctly adjusted. I worked >for some of those guys, and trust me that they were plenty knowledgeable >enough to get it right, they just didn't bother because that's not how it >was done. I believe that with 12C3, many directors here would (will?) let >their analyses slide again, and all of the work that you among others have >put into education will go for naught (or at least less). > >So this isn't so much a problem with 12C3 as with its application here, I >guess, though I wonder that these problems don't arise elsewhere. > > >Doug Couchman >Arlington, Texas > >-----Original Message----- >Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:08:06 +0100 >To: blml@rtflb.org >From: David Stevenson >Subject: Re: [blml] Re: 12c3 (Karel) > >Doug Couchman wrote > >Interesting, I think, to observe how it would go in the ACBL, without >L12C3. > >I would just 5H over 4C not only at all probable, but likely (he did bid >5G > >over 5C, which looks less favored). Now if possible I consult players >(not > >other directors) of the same caliber as E/W, and I suspect come up with >5S+1 > >at all probable, 5HX-4 likely. Bidding and making slam, and bidding NT, >are > >too unlikely to enter the calculations. Of course, maybe the consultants > >convince me of something (or things) else, particularly on the card play. > >Could I be wrong about the auction. Yep. I try as hard as I can, get > >advice, make the call, and move on. > > > >Hard choices, but I only make them once. > > > >As someone schooled without L12C3, I like this method. Are your tables >of > >percentages better? Is it better that both sides can appeal with a > >reasonable expectation of success, and nearly certain knowledge that the >end > >result will be different? Maybe it is, and maybe y'all have gone over >this > >too many times, but it's a dramatic example. > > Being dramatic, it is also atypical. The best argument for L12C3 is >that players like it. > > In general we do not have a table of results the way it is shown >below. The Israeli scoring software allows four weightings: it has been >recommended that English scoring software should allow five [though the >software writer says ten is so easy he intends to make it ten]. > > Putting it simply, the advantages of L12C3 are best seen where a side >has a gain of 13 imps. If there had been no infraction it is not >obvious whether they would have lost 5 imps, or whether the result would >be the same. Whichever side loses this one will be very upset. >Especially at lower levels [I suggest the ACBL tries L12C3 at >non-National events] a lot of players find 6 imps or so to the offending >side [as against +13 or -5] quite acceptable. > >-- >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 _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 5 09:50:05 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:50:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Frederick Louis - was 12C3 versus EBU. References: Message-ID: <005501c41aeb$1fb35660$2fae87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 3:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 versus EBU DWS wrote: Players do not have an absolute right to appeal frivolously - or they have that right but must accept the consequences. It is important that ACs realise that appeals to get an AC to fiddle with the weightings are frivolous, otherwise far too many appeals would become non-frivolous which are trying to gain one imp. The EBU L&EC have said this and it is an EBU regulation. << to which RH responded: << In my opinion, the EBU L&EC has outlawed (or officially discouraged, which comes to the same thing) type (c) appeals. In my further opinion, such outlawing or official discouragement is ultra vires to the EBU L&EC powers, as it is directly contrary to players' rights under Law 92A. << GE comments: +=+ The law book refers to "appeals without merit". It says they may be the subject of penalties - i.e. discouragement. It does not say they may not be made - and 92A refers to "any ruling made at his table by the Director". *Any* ruling. Now, if a contestant appeals a ruling on grounds that the Director has failed to perceive, or take account of, some significant factor, whereupon the AC forms the opinion that (a) the basic ruling is correct, but (b) arising from his faulty perception the Director has misjudged frequencies to the extent that his 65% making 35% not making the contract should be something like 30% making 70% not making, is the Director's judgement to stand? Is that an appeal without merit, frivolous? If such an appeal has merit, then somewhere there is a line in the sand between substance and shadow. If not, then 'tis only Fred who was alive and is dead - there's no more to be said. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 5 10:23:45 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 05:23:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sunday, Apr 4, 2004, at 21:44 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > In your scenario suppose 2C is natural, but 1C opening would be > strong. Even when you know that the player was trying to bid 2C you > are ruling it as though it was conventional. The law says that if both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted for that bid are incontrovertibly not conventional, one thing happens. If, OTOH, either bid "may have been conventional" something else happens. Is it not the case in your example that 1C "may have been conventional"? If so, then why do you argue that the first thing rather than the second should happen? Put it this way: since 1C is not "incontrovertibly not conventional" it makes no difference whatsoever whether 2C was conventional or natural. From blml@blakjak.com Mon Apr 5 12:19:29 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:19:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <89A92192-8579-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <0LLS+ZEXQJcAFwMC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5B6E0BD4-8699-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote > >On 5 Apr 2004, at 02:44, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Gordon Rainsford wrote >>> >>> On 5 Apr 2004, at 00:02, David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>>> Gordon Rainsford wrote >>>>> On 3 Apr 2004, at 13:53, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What we >>>>>> need to do is find out why he bid 2C. If he did it intending >>>>>>Stayman, >>>>>> not having seen 2D we can rule one way; if he did it intending to >>>>>>bid >>>>>> clubs but got the level wrong we can rule the other ... and we >>>>>>should >>>>>> find this out away from the table. >>>>> >>>>> You're being much more generous to the OS than my reading of the >>>>>Law suggests - "both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted >>>>>are incontrovertibly not conventional" leads me to believe that if >>>>>any of the likely explanations for the Insufficient Bid is >>>>>conventional, then parter is barred - no need to rely on the OS's >>>>> >>>> >>>> What do you mean by any of the likely? >>> >>> If someone bids 1C in response to (or over) 1NT, the likely reasons >>>are that they intended to open 1C, or that they intended to bid 2C. >>>If either of these sequences is conventional for the player in >>>question, then the insufficient bid is not "incontrovertibly not >>>conventional". >>> >>> So, we need to know their system, but not necessarily their intention. >>> >>>> Do you include things this pair has never played? >>> >>> No. >>> >>>> Ok, that's it: even knowing the bid was natural you would have to >>>>rule it conventional. >>> >>> I wonder where you got this from, David? >> >> In your scenario suppose 2C is natural, but 1C opening would be >>strong. Even when you know that the player was trying to bid 2C > >How would I know this? > >> you are ruling it as though it was conventional. > >No, I'm ruling as though it's not "incontrovertibly not conventional". Exactly: even when you know it is not conventional. -- 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 Apr 5 12:21:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:21:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3G$C9AFGFUcAFw9g@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ed Reppert wrote >On Sunday, Apr 4, 2004, at 21:44 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> In your scenario suppose 2C is natural, but 1C opening would be >>strong. Even when you know that the player was trying to bid 2C you >>are ruling it as though it was conventional. > >The law says that if both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted >for that bid are incontrovertibly not conventional, one thing happens. >If, OTOH, either bid "may have been conventional" something else >happens. Is it not the case in your example that 1C "may have been >conventional"? If so, then why do you argue that the first thing rather >than the second should happen? > >Put it this way: since 1C is not "incontrovertibly not conventional" it >makes no difference whatsoever whether 2C was conventional or natural. It is a question of approach. English TDs have been told to try to judge whether a call was conventional or not: if they cannot be sure then the Law gives them a default situation by assuming it is conventional. The previous poster is suggesting not finding out what it was but assuming it was conventional if there was any possibility. That is the same Law, but a different approach and interpretation. -- 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 Apr 5 12:23:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:23:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >Torsten Åstrand wrote > >>>Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent >>>to your right bids 2D, and happily you remember that >>>your bid 3C shows exaktly your hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. >>>But you bid by mistake 2C. > >David Stevenson replied: > >>This is the traditional problem with the current Law. > >[snip] > >>The TD has to find out whether 2C was conventional!!!!!. >>Well, I do not suppose it was, though I find out away >>from the table what was intended. Since 3C was intended >>I let 3C be bid now without penalty. > >Richard James Hills notes: > >Most players use 1NT - (Pass) - 2C as the Stayman >convention. As has been noted elsewhen in this thread, >most TDs interpret Law 27B2 more strictly than DWS does. >If an insufficient bid would have been a conventional call >in an uncontested auction, most TDs would deem a player's >"intention" to perpetrate an non-conventional call as not >relevant to a Law 27B2 ruling. Most TDs? Like so many other things my guess based on what I have read and seen is that this is geographical, and may depend on what various NBOs have said. -- 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 Apr 5 12:28:31 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:28:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: <002c01c41ad8$a9608670$33db403e@multivisionoem> References: <000001c4192e$6eb8a080$6528fea9@Picasso> <008a01c419d5$51990dd0$18cc403e@multivisionoem> <002c01c41ad8$a9608670$33db403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <0WJCZ1FfLUcAFw9K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote > >Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"The pursuit of perfection, then, is the pursuit >of sweetness and light." [Matthew Arnold] >=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 12:10 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL > > >> >> Players do not have an absolute right to appeal >> frivolously - or they have that right but must accept >> the consequences. It is important that ACs realise >> that appeals to get an AC to fiddle with the weightings >> are frivolous, otherwise far too many appeals would >> become non-frivolous which are trying to gain one imp. >> >> The EBU L&EC have said this and it is an EBU >> regulation. >> >+=+ The EBU says that if an Appeals Committee is >persuaded by a contestant that the Director's adjustment >is ill-judged it should dismiss the appeal as without merit? >This is a novelty that I had not previously contemplated >- and that we did not contemplate in writimg the Code >of Practice. That would seem a stupid regulation. Good thing that the EBU did not say any such thi8ng. The WBF CoP says that an AC should start with the TD's ruling and decide whether it is correct or not. The EBU say we should follow that: I am surprised you do not. Where an AC determines that the TD's ruling is correct for them to make minor changes to the weighting is against the letter and spirit of the WBF CoP. Furthermore, the EBU has made it clear that "The TD was right but we want a small change to the weighting so we can get a better score" is not merit for an appeal. I think the WBF CoP was very sensible in this regard. Making far more pointless appeals officially meritless would be such a big downside of L12C3 as to lose a lot of the good it has done. -- 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 Apr 5 12:29:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:29:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12C3 versus EBU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >David Stevenson wrote: > >[snip] > >>>>otherwise far too many appeals would become non-frivolous >>>>which are trying to gain one imp. >>>> >>>>The EBU L&EC have said this and it is an EBU regulation. > >Richard James Hills satirised: > >>>The last World Championship was decided by one imp after >>>an appeal. >>> >>>Obviously, the last World Championship was frivolous. >>> >>>;-) > >David Stevenson obtused: > >>Why? Was there a frivolous appeal involved? Or are you >>suggesting that all 1 imp appeals are frivolous? Sounds a >>silly approach to me! > >Richard James Hills replied: > >Sounds a silly approach to me also, but my understanding is >that that is exactly what the EBU L&EC said, and what the >EBU "Don't fiddle with the weightings!" regulation states. > >David Stevenson and I seem to be arguing slightly at cross- >purposes, due to David Stevenson's undefined use of the >term "frivolous appeal". It seems to me that clarity in >the discussion would improve if "frivolous appeal" was >sub-divided, like Gaul, into three parts: > >(a) appeal without merit >(b) trivial appeal >(c) one-imp appeal > >I would define (a) - appeal without merit - as an appeal >for which the appeals committee could never want to alter >the TD's ruling. > >I would define (b) - trivial appeal - as an appeal for >which the TD's ruling could be altered by the AC, but in >an insignificant way. > >Example: In the final qualifying round of the Aussie >National Open Teams a few years ago, both sides appealed >the TD's ruling. (The NOS wanted more severity, the OS >wanted less severity.) However, once both sides knew that >all possible permutations of AC decisions would not affect >either side reaching the knockout stage of the NOT, then >both sides withdrew their now trivial appeals. > >I would define (c) - a one imp appeal - as an appeal for >which the TD's ruling could be altered by the AC in a >miniscule, but significant, way. > >Example: The extra imp could give the appealing side the >vitally desired extra master points, which would make an >appellant a Life Master. > >In my opinion, the EBU L&EC has outlawed (or officially >discouraged, which comes to the same thing) type (c) >appeals. In my further opinion, such outlawing or >official discouragement is ultra vires to the EBU L&EC >powers, as it is directly contrary to players' rights >under Law 92A. The EBU has not outlawed appeals with merit. -- 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 Apr 5 12:34:01 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:34:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid - conventional or not? In-Reply-To: <40710B9A.4000705@hdw.be> References: <406FDA43.3020306@hdw.be> <40710B9A.4000705@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >>> So my ruling turns out wrong and I give them Av+ each. >>> >>> Comments? >> Why not assign? >> > >Be a bit clearer, David? >Are you questioning my use of the word "give", which I agree is less >correct than "assign". You gave an artificial score. I would have assigned a score. If you want to be pedantic, you awarded an artificial score: I would have awarded an assigned score. >Or are you saying that I did not have to give an artificial score but >could have given an assigned score of 4H+2 instead? >I considered that, but rejected it. After all, if I had not allowed her >to change to 4Di, but had told her to "jump in the water" then maybe >she might have overestimated partner and jumped to 6NT (or 6He). >4H+2 is not the only possible outcome here. So, do what the book tells you, and assign for each side under L12C2, or l12C3 if available. >But I do agree that L82C does not automatically lead to artificial scores. >Maybe a weighed score of 4He+2, 6He= and 6NT-1 would be correct, but >that will only lead to 60/40, so I prefer 60/60. Why would it have led to 60/40? why not just do it properly and let it lead to whatever it leads to? -- 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 Apr 5 12:35:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:35:35 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8C@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8C@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Skjaran, Harald wrote >Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"The pursuit of perfection, then, is the pursuit >of sweetness and light." [Matthew Arnold] >=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Skjaran, Harald" >To: "Torsten Åstrand" ; >"blml" >Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:13 AM >Subject: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid > > >Torsten Åstrand wrote: > >Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent >to your right bids 2D, and happily you remember that your >bid 3C shows exaktly your hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But >you bid by mistake 2C. >Your ruling please. >Torsten > >----- >This is an inadvertent call which is correctable under law 25A. >If I'm called immediately, I'll allow a change of call to 3C. > >+=+ But only after establishing that the player changed or >attempted to change his inadvertent call without pause for >thought. By the time you get there he has had plenty of >scope for thinking. ~ G ~ +=+ > >----- >OK. But not in Norway. Here we have a footnote to law 25 A saying: >"When using bidding boxes a player can change his call if it's obvious >he didn't intend to make the call that's been put on the table. The >correction cannot be made due to a change of mind." > >So in Norway we would allow the change of call as long as the opener >had not called again. Even when he does not attempt to change it? So this a regulation, not a change under L25A? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Apr 5 13:15:05 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 08:15:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040405081111.026999a0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:53 AM 4/3/04, John wrote: >You can't have an agreement that an undercall is a convention, can you? >Ergo the primary case for ruling that partner must pass is gone. What we >need to do is find out why he bid 2C. If he did it intending Stayman, >not having seen 2D we can rule one way; if he did it intending to bid >clubs but got the level wrong we can rule the other ... and we should >find this out away from the table. Why away from the table? (John is not the first to have said this.) After all, when the TD returns to the table and gives either a L27B2 or a L27B1 ruling, everyone will know which answer he got from the insufficient bidder. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Apr 5 13:34:31 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:34:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid - conventional or not? In-Reply-To: References: <406FDA43.3020306@hdw.be> <40710B9A.4000705@hdw.be> Message-ID: <40715257.2070302@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > >> Or are you saying that I did not have to give an artificial score but >> could have given an assigned score of 4H+2 instead? >> I considered that, but rejected it. After all, if I had not allowed >> her to change to 4Di, but had told her to "jump in the water" then >> maybe she might have overestimated partner and jumped to 6NT (or 6He). >> 4H+2 is not the only possible outcome here. > > > So, do what the book tells you, and assign for each side under L12C2, > or l12C3 if available. > >> But I do agree that L82C does not automatically lead to artificial >> scores. >> Maybe a weighed score of 4He+2, 6He= and 6NT-1 would be correct, but >> that will only lead to 60/40, so I prefer 60/60. > > > Why would it have led to 60/40? why not just do it properly and let > it lead to whatever it leads to? > It would have led to something close to 60/40, as I look at it from here and now. OK, let's try. We have to assign a score to both sides, looking at them as non-offenders. Let's look at the non-active side first. 6 hearts is always made, so the only good result for them is if we let insufficient bidder jump to 6NT. Do we really believe this to have a possibility of, say, 40%. We might give them 40% of 6NT-1 and 60% of 4H+2. Then the insufficient bidders. For them, we have to allow, say, 20% of 6He, and we add 20% of 6NT-1. I don't have the frequency tables here, but I think the second would lead to a result of something like 60%. The first would be something like 20% higher, so they too end up somewhere around 60%. That was what I meant when I said this would lead to a similar score. But you are right, it was what I should have done. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon Apr 5 13:36:24 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:36:24 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> David Stevenson wrote =20 Skjaran, Harald wrote >Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"The pursuit of perfection, then, is the pursuit >of sweetness and light." [Matthew Arnold] >=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Skjaran, Harald" >To: "Torsten =C5strand" ; >"blml" >Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:13 AM >Subject: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid > > >Torsten =C5strand wrote: > >Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent >to your right bids 2D, and happily you remember that your >bid 3C shows exaktly your hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But >you bid by mistake 2C. >Your ruling please. >Torsten > >----- >This is an inadvertent call which is correctable under law 25A. >If I'm called immediately, I'll allow a change of call to 3C. > >+=3D+ But only after establishing that the player changed or >attempted to change his inadvertent call without pause for >thought. By the time you get there he has had plenty of >scope for thinking. ~ G ~ +=3D+ > >----- >OK. But not in Norway. Here we have a footnote to law 25 A saying: >"When using bidding boxes a player can change his call if it's obvious=20 >he didn't intend to make the call that's been put on the table. The=20 >correction cannot be made due to a change of mind." > >So in Norway we would allow the change of call as long as the opener=20 >had not called again. Even when he does not attempt to change it? So this a regulation, = not=20 a change under L25A? ----- What happens when a player misbids whith bidding boxes is that some know = they are allowed to change such a call, and attempts to change it. Of = those who doesn't know they are allowed to change such a call, some will = attempt to change it. And some will call the director and inform of the = mistake (and want to change their misbid).=20 Then we allow it. I don't see the (legal) difference in attempting to change a call with = of without calling the TD first. If you don't know the law, calling the = TD should be the preferred method. And you should not be disadvantaged = by calling the TD. What's the logic in that??? Regards, Harald ----- --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Apr 5 13:38:59 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:38:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040405081111.026999a0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <5.2.0.9.0.20040405081111.026999a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <40715363.3080003@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:53 AM 4/3/04, John wrote: > >> You can't have an agreement that an undercall is a convention, can you? >> Ergo the primary case for ruling that partner must pass is gone. What we >> need to do is find out why he bid 2C. If he did it intending Stayman, >> not having seen 2D we can rule one way; if he did it intending to bid >> clubs but got the level wrong we can rule the other ... and we should >> find this out away from the table. > > > Why away from the table? (John is not the first to have said this.) > After all, when the TD returns to the table and gives either a L27B2 or > a L27B1 ruling, everyone will know which answer he got from the > insufficient bidder. > Not necessarily. If he allows the change, that means both bids are considered natural. But if he doesn't, the table need not know which one it is. Of course they can ask. In my case (other thread), I asked off the table so that the partners would not hear each other. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Mon Apr 5 13:37:56 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:37:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040405081111.026999a0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <5.2.0.9.0.20040405081111.026999a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 08:53 AM 4/3/04, John wrote: > >>You can't have an agreement that an undercall is a convention, can you? >>Ergo the primary case for ruling that partner must pass is gone. What we >>need to do is find out why he bid 2C. If he did it intending Stayman, >>not having seen 2D we can rule one way; if he did it intending to bid >>clubs but got the level wrong we can rule the other ... and we should >>find this out away from the table. > >Why away from the table? (John is not the first to have said this.) >After all, when the TD returns to the table and gives either a L27B2 or >a L27B1 ruling, everyone will know which answer he got from the >insufficient bidder. First of all, "everyone" means the 25% or so who know the Laws. Second, when you ask them at the table, the answer "I meant it as Asptro" gives a huge amount more UI than a ruling form which a player can deduce that 2C was conventional. -- 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 Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Apr 5 13:39:23 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:39:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12C3 versus EBU Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018168B6@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> >>+=3D+ I think we need clarity here. That percentages >>devised by the Director may be appealed to the >>site appeals committee cannot be 'unacceptable' in >>my opinion. It is a standard right of appeal under >>Law 92A. I imagine DWS refers to appeals from >>there to the national authority, which has long said >>it will not entertain appeals that are seeking to have >>an adjustment 'tweaked'. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ 2004 EBU White Book, clause 93.4.4, example (a): >A TD rules that there was misinformation and decides to >adjust the score to 80% of 4S making, 20% of 4S minus >one. An Appeals Committee can very properly decide >that there was no misinformation: alternatively they >can decide there was no damage so no adjustment is >suitable: alternatively they can decide the TD has >totally misjudged the deal and (for example) adjust to >4S making an overtrick. But they should not just make >minor adjustments to the weighting, such as adjusting >the score to 70% of 4S making, 30% of 4S minus one. Richard James Hills clarifies: It seems that this EBU prohibition preventing EBU ACs from making minor adjustments, is not only an unLawful restriction upon the right to appeal under Law 92A, but also an unLawful restriction upon the power granted to ACs to vary scores under Law 93B3. Best wishes RJH [Frances] I sometimes sit (or chair) EBU Appeals Committees. The way I interpret this white book regulation is as follows: Anyone can appeal a TD ruling if they like. However, if the _only_ thing that they are appealing about is that the TD's 12C3 weightings are slightly off, they appeal has a very strong chance of being deemed frivolous. What does "slightly" mean? I think that depends on the event and the actual hand, and if it affects the winner of the event I'd be more lenient than if it just moved someone from 31st to 32nd place. If the TD had ruled a 70/30 split, but the AC decided that the TD had completely mis-analysed the potential auction or play after an infraction, then it wouldn't be deemed frivolous even if the final ruling was unchanged. I believe that is the spirit of the EBU regulation. I have no problem with this. The principle is that the TD's adjustments (should) have been made after consultation, and that 12C3 percentages are bound to be subjective, so don't waste eveyone's time on tiny adjustments. =20 From emu@atrax.net.au Mon Apr 5 13:43:09 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:43:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <200404022043.i32Kh9ac013750@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <000101c41b0b$8fe0c880$5a56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Completely agree. I play a strong 1C system with lots of multi's. We = are very careful not to be slow, sometimes to our disadvantage - but since = we play the weird system, that is our lookout. regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Ron Johnson Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 6:43 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] systems policy Ed Reppert writes: >=20 >=20 > On Friday, Apr 2, 2004, at 04:39 US/Eastern, Tom Cornelis wrote: >=20 > > You are right, Ed. Shouldn't there be such a Law? >=20 > I don't think so. At the same time, if somebody plays a system so complex that explaining = what they're doing causes them to run late, I see no problems with handing = out slow play penalties. As happened on more than a few occasions to Rubin/Becker _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Mon Apr 5 13:43:09 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:43:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <406C18AB.3060303@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000901c41b0b$9ceec360$5a56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> But not in Australian Rules football. There is no offside rule in that = - and it is arguably a much more exciting game than 'soccer'! If 'soccer' = had no offside rule, the game would merely evolve to cope with it, and = scoring would be more prevalent and so make the negative, boring, defensive spectacles that we see in that game where a team is petrified of making = a mistake and conceding a goal a thing of the past. regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Herman De Wael Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:27 PM To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] systems policy Hello Tom, Tom Cornelis wrote: >=20 > Then they should be made by neither side. > However currently most players do not know the (complete) freedom of=20 > conventions, so David's point bares much less than mine. I even=20 > wouldn't mind there would be almost no freedom of conventions, even=20 > though I would very much regret it. I just don't like it that the game = > itself is limited by SOs. I know you know quite a lot about sports. Do = > you know any other sport where this happens? >=20 yes, all of them. As an example, in Football, the tactic of placing a player just in=20 front of goal has been made illegal by the off-side law. One can find examples in almost every sport. >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Mon Apr 5 13:43:09 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:43:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c41b0b$95e6af10$5a56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Not quite! A regulation is subordinate to a law. It has the effect of law but is subject to that law - it cannot exceed it in effect. If it does, it is usually invalid, at least to the extent that it exceeds it. regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:20 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] systems policy Sven Pran: >>Yes, by law - not by regulation - that is >>the difference! Richard James Hills: A difference which makes no difference is no difference. A regulation is a law. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >law, n. A rule established among a community >& enjoining or prohibiting certain action.... > >regulate, v.t. ....control by rule.... > >regulation, n. ....prescribed 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. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged = and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the = view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous = Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the = Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Mon Apr 5 13:43:09 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:43:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c41b0b$939740d0$5a56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Can I notice a pattern here? Is it true that the USA, or part of it, always seems to have to have something different from the rest of the World? I note that 'rugby', 'soccer' and 'cricket' have never really caught on there. Perhaps it is because those sports have strong international = bodies which effectively 'dictate' the laws, and usually the regulations. Pity Bridge doesn't too! regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:27 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] systems policy >But the off-side law applies anywhere, doesn't it? >I wanted an example of another sport where the organization can apply=20 >stricter or less strict rules about the game itself. > >Tom The classic example is the sport of baseball. Half of the professional Canadian & American baseball teams use the strict rule requiring the = pitcher (or pinch-hitter) to bat, the other half of the professional Canadian & American baseball teams use the less strict rule of the designated = hitter. Best wishes RJH -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please = advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged = and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the = view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous = Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the = Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Mon Apr 5 13:43:09 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:43:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <406C1A6F.5040104@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c41b0b$9bcf70b0$5a56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> And what does that say about it being a 'sport'! Surely it means too = much luck, rather than skill? regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Herman De Wael Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:35 PM To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] systems policy [big snip] Bridge is the only sport in the world where amateurs and world=20 champions can play in the same event without the former being trashed.=20 There is no need for handicapping. But capping certain tactics is a valid job for a sporting organisation. >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Mon Apr 5 13:43:09 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:43:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <406D184E.9070602@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c41b0b$92a8e930$5a56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Sorry, your problem! Any player of even my meagre standard and = experience can come up with a defence to things like that at the table in about 10 seconds! By the way, in Aus thay have to pre-alert it and we get to have a = discussion before the first board is started - and if it is too weird, it is = 'Yellow' and they have to provide a written defence. [Which we can refer to at = the table at any time!] regards, Noel=20 But if your system is too difficult for your opponents to follow: I open = one heart, they overcall one spade; You open one diamond,=20 showing hearts or spades, they don't dare to overcall a spade, and=20 they haven't worked out an alternative. Not Fine! Your table opponents might not mind, but I do. From emu@atrax.net.au Mon Apr 5 13:43:09 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:43:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <000101c417f2$75d84a10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000501c41b0b$992c1610$5a56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Touch=E9! regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Sven Pran Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 12:06 AM To: blml Subject: RE: [blml] systems policy > Herman De Wael ........... > As an example, in Football, the tactic of placing a player just in=20 > front of goal has been made illegal by the off-side law. Yes, by law - not by regulation - that is the difference! Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Apr 5 13:44:36 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 08:44:36 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Insufficient bid Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040405084310.00a23dd0@pop.starpower.net> Missent originally; apologies to David for the double post. >Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:08:47 -0400 >From: Eric Landau >Subject: Re: [blml] Insufficient bid > >At 09:13 PM 4/2/04, David wrote: > >>Adam Beneschan wrote >> > >> >David wrote: >> > >> >> I wish we could return to the law whereby you could always >> correct to >> >> the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination without penalty. >> >> There would be far less UI flying around. >> > >> >I would have thought the opposite. I'm basing this on one case that I >> >remember well from before the Law was changed, and before bidding >> >boxes were in widespread use: >> > >> > Partner Me >> > 1H 2C >> > 3H 4NT(1) >> > 4H >> > >> >(1) Old-fashioned Blackwood >> > >> >Partner misheard and thought I said 3NT. After the TD was called, he >> >changed his bid to 5H. I now had UI that partner did not have two >> >aces despite his 5H bid. (I decided to ignore the UI, bid on as if >> >partner did have two aces, got our side to 7NT missing an ace, and >> >made it when the ace turned up in RHO's hand and LHO led the wrong >> >suit.) >> > >> >I'm sure it was cases like this that the new Law was attempting to >> >deal with. I've always thought this Law was a good idea because of >> >just such cases, although some of the implementation details could be >> >improved, such as how one determines whether 2C was "incontrovertibly >> >not conventional". Personally, I'd prefer a Law that did not require >> >us to try to determine the insufficient bidder's intent: in this case, >> >I'd prefer a Law that says "2C is considered conventional because it >> >would be conventional if the 2D bidder had passed", a determination >> >that could be made simply by looking at the auction and the players' >> >methods, without any knowledge of players' hands or intents. Would a >> >Law like this reduce the amount of "UI flying around"? >> >> Maybe, but I still think you are just causing trouble at the table. >> >> There will always be some UI, but if there is nothing said how do you >>know that 4H did not show two aces? If people do not say things [and >>are not asked them] then you do not know what is happening, and are >>reduced to guessing. It would be much better. >> >> Of course if people say injudicious things you have to apply the UI >>laws, but at least they would not be induced by the TD asking questions. > >As it is now, the UI comes from the TD, who must ascertain the intent >of the insufficient bidder in order to determine whether the >insufficient bid was "conventional" (an odd concept, as the >insufficient bid per se is almost certainly not encompassed by the >partnership's agreed methods -- indeed, that would be illegal in the >ACBL), and then, in order to apply L27B, must announce his conlusion >to the table, either allowing the correction without penalty, albeit >with the potential for further difficulties resulting from the UI >inherent in the ruling (is the offender's partner authorized to "know" >that the insufficient bid was not intended conventionally?), or >subjecting the offender to the rather harsh penalty of L27B2. > >I like David's idea of allowing the correction regardless of the >offender's intent, effectively penalizing the insufficient bid by >forcing the offender's partner to cope with the resulting ambiguity >without benefit of UI and at consequent risk of a disastrous >result. Players would like it for its simplification of a law >covering a common situation, and TDs wouldn't need to make >hair-splitting determinations about "conventional intent". > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Apr 5 13:58:43 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:58:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <5.2.0.9.0.20040405081111.026999a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3nl270950gtbm4b6ihfv2tj5t9sii3mdpq@bilbo.softco.dk> On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:37:56 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >>Why away from the table? (John is not the first to have said this.)=20 >>After all, when the TD returns to the table and gives either a L27B2 or= =20 >>a L27B1 ruling, everyone will know which answer he got from the=20 >>insufficient bidder. > > First of all, "everyone" means the 25% or so who know the Laws. Yes. And since it seems obvious to me that it is not acceptable that some, but not all, players will know whether the call was natural or not, it also seems obvious to me that the TD should, after the away-from-the-table asking, explicitly give the whole table the information that those 25% will know when they hear the ruling, and tell the players who is or is not allowed to use that information. > Second, when you ask them at the table, the answer "I meant it as=20 >Asptro" gives a huge amount more UI than a ruling form which a player=20 >can deduce that 2C was conventional. That is the very good reason for asking away from the table. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Apr 5 14:59:35 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:59:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <89A92192-8579-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <0LLS+ZEXQJcAFwMC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5B6E0BD4-8699-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <78CE91B8-8709-11D8-9A0B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 5 Apr 2004, at 12:19, David Stevenson wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote >> >> On 5 Apr 2004, at 02:44, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Gordon Rainsford wrote >>>> >>>> On 5 Apr 2004, at 00:02, David Stevenson wrote: >>>> >>>>> Gordon Rainsford wrote >>>>>> On 3 Apr 2004, at 13:53, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> What we >>>>>>> need to do is find out why he bid 2C. If he did it intending >>>>>>> Stayman, >>>>>>> not having seen 2D we can rule one way; if he did it intending >>>>>>> to bid >>>>>>> clubs but got the level wrong we can rule the other ... and we >>>>>>> should >>>>>>> find this out away from the table. >>>>>> >>>>>> You're being much more generous to the OS than my reading of the >>>>>> Law suggests - "both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted >>>>>> are incontrovertibly not conventional" leads me to believe that >>>>>> if any of the likely explanations for the Insufficient Bid is >>>>>> conventional, then parter is barred - no need to rely on the OS's >>>>> >>>>> What do you mean by any of the likely? >>>> >>>> If someone bids 1C in response to (or over) 1NT, the likely reasons >>>> are that they intended to open 1C, or that they intended to bid 2C. >>>> If either of these sequences is conventional for the player in >>>> question, then the insufficient bid is not "incontrovertibly not >>>> conventional". >>>> >>>> So, we need to know their system, but not necessarily their >>>> intention. >>>> >>>>> Do you include things this pair has never played? >>>> >>>> No. >>>> >>>>> Ok, that's it: even knowing the bid was natural you would have to >>>>> rule it conventional. >>>> >>>> I wonder where you got this from, David? >>> >>> In your scenario suppose 2C is natural, but 1C opening would be >>> strong. Even when you know that the player was trying to bid 2C >> >> How would I know this? >> >>> you are ruling it as though it was conventional. >> >> No, I'm ruling as though it's not "incontrovertibly not conventional". > > Exactly: even when you know it is not conventional. I don't know that, and I'm not required to know that by the Law I'm applying. That's not the standard to be applied, as I read the words. I see you say elsewhere that the EBU interprets this differently, though I've been unable to find any mention of this in the White Book. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 5 15:43:27 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:43:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3's affect on the unalerted Gerber hand References: Message-ID: <000401c41b1e$c3f504c0$aed5883e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 9:38 AM Subject: RE: [blml] RE: 12C3's affect on the unalerted Gerber hand > A third argument against 12c3 is that calculating > scores will take forever, scoring programs can't > always handle it, and it's easy to make mistakes > (I haven't seen this rule used correctly in any of > the tournaments I have played in...) > > +=+ There is a confusion here. Weighting of scores is an add-on. It is not basic to Law 12C3. It has developed in recent years because players reacted favourably to it. As originally conceived 12C3 was to allow the EBL practice of the 1960-1985 period to continue; EBL appeals committees would award, on occasion, a single table score that they considered a fair reflection of the balance on the board. It is weighted scores that are suggested to create extra scoring difficulties, although how this idea gains strength I do not know. TDs seem to take weighted scores in their stride. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Apr 5 16:04:49 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:04:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040405081111.026999a0@pop.starpower.net> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <5.2.0.9.0.20040405081111.026999a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040405105558.00a464c0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:37 AM 4/5/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >> >>Why away from the table? (John is not the first to have said this.) >>After all, when the TD returns to the table and gives either a L27B2 >>or a L27B1 ruling, everyone will know which answer he got from the >>insufficient bidder. > > First of all, "everyone" means the 25% or so who know the Laws. Isn't the TD supposed to correct their ignorance by explaining the basis on which he made his ruling? > Second, when you ask them at the table, the answer "I meant it as > Asptro" gives a huge amount more UI than a ruling form which a player > can deduce that 2C was conventional. True, but... If the TD returns to the table and rules according to L27B1, the partner of the bidder knows that the insufficient bid was intended to be natural. If the TD rules according to L27B2, he knows only that it was intended to be conventional; he does not get the UI that it was intended to be Asptro. But he is barred from the bidding anyhow, so what difference can it make? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Apr 5 16:12:18 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 17:12:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid - conventional or not? In-Reply-To: <406FDA43.3020306@hdw.be> References: <406FDA43.3020306@hdw.be> Message-ID: <40717752.80509@hdw.be> I have refound the frequencies and the hand record. This is the frequency: Gift 20 (W / Beid) Top : 66 NZres NZ Paren Score OW Paren OWres Arbitrale Scores 39.6 211 60% 60% 307 39.6 66.0 8 200 104 0.0 62.9 206 203 -150 321 302 3.1 58.8 219 213 -600 309 315 7.2 54.6 218 214 -630 310 314 11.4 51.5 2 -650 110 14.5 40.2 210 207 204 9 7 3 1 -660 109 111 103 105 322 303 306 25.8 220 216 212 308 312 316 27.8 12 11 -680 107 108 38.2 14.5 205 202 201 10 6 5 4 -690 112 101 102 106 319 320 301 51.5 221 217 209 208 304 305 313 317 1.1 222 215 -1370 311 318 64.9 these are the hands: Q42 A9 Q82 J7632 AJT 87 Q2 KJT75 KJ5 AT963 KQT84 A K9653 8643 74 95 insufficient 3Di bidder is west. Herman De Wael wrote: > I had to give a L82C correction yesterday. > Yes, I had made a wrong ruling. > > Let's see. The bidding goes (opponents silent) > she he > 1NT 2Di > 2He 4Cl > 3Di that's not enough - oops, 4Di - TD! > > First of all, I have to find out if it's a mechanical error or not. Not > very easy, but in the end I decide it isn't. Next I have to find out > what 4Di would mean. I ask what 4Cl is - splinterish. > I ask him (off the table) what 4Di would mean, he says "something in > diamonds". I ask her "just bidding on". She has 2 hearts and KJx of > diamonds. > So I rule that 3Di and 4Di are natural and I allow a change to 4Di. He > bids 4He and she makes 12 tricks (a normal number, but a good score > nevertheless, because the room is in 3NT+2) > Opponent is not convinced that 4Di and after the board, we establish > that she would also have bid 4Di with 3 hearts and Kx diamonds. > So my ruling turns out wrong and I give them Av+ each. > > Comments? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Apr 5 17:03:27 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:03:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <3G$C9AFGFUcAFw9g@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: David writes: It is a question of approach. English TDs have been told to try to judge whether a call was conventional or not: if they cannot be sure then the Law gives them a default situation by assuming it is conventional. ______________________________________________________________________ ACBL TD test has some questions related to Law 27. When answering them, I used to above approach, giving long explanations about possible answers depending on information got to table. I was told I missed these questions. I suppose the ACBL approach is something like "its look conventional, it is. Don't loose your time enquiring about that." In my club, I do enquire. When working in a tournament, I make sure I have the same approach then the DIC. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Apr 5 16:45:08 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 16:45:08 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches References: <200403241718.JAA12210@mailhub.irvine.com> <4061C6F5.7050608@hdw.be> <026a01c416c1$45aa3ba0$399868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <406A7C2C.1050201@hdw.be> Message-ID: <032001c41b25$022a8f20$ec9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> >> [Nigel Guthrie] > Regular psychers prefer certain positions, vulnerabilities, > and hand-types. Frequency may also be affected by the state > of the match, or whether they've just had a bad board. > Some like to "advertise" with an early blatant psyche. > Subtle preferences and patterns are harder to elucidate than > any convention. I have never known opponents explain any of > this although the effect of a psyche on the result of a match > is likely to be greater than any convention in the partnership > armoury. [Herman De Wael] They could put it on their CC! [Nigel] I agree they should; but in the UK, they don't (not even notorious psychers whose psyching preferences are known to their partners. Given that the psyching partnership already have this enormous (and IMO illegal) advantage, it seems to me that the EBU is right to be ultra-suspicious about possible fields. Often it is obvious that somebody does not have their bid. Perhaps... (1) Somebody has psyched. (2) Somebody made a systemic error. (3) Somebody mis-sorted his hand. A priori, the suspect is at least twice as likely to be an opponent as partner. IMO, you should not be allowed just to assume that it is partner who has psyched without more evidence. IMO, to do so is worse if the state of the match, vulnerability, and position at the table make this one of partner's known psyche scenarios. IMO, your crime is aggravated if you have not informed opponents that partner is known to psyche in these particular circumstances. I realise that Ton and others find this argument beneath consideration but, I am sure the minority opinion is correct and not for the first time, in BLML. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From steve_wright@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 5 18:40:16 2004 From: steve_wright@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 18:40:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is an average? Message-ID: Playing pairs, four boards a round allowing 30 minutes per round I had to give one table an average when I removed a board for slow play. With less than a minute to go they had just put the board on the table and were sorting their hands prior to bidding when I stepped in. At the end, one of the pairs came second by 0.2 of a match point. We used the "Haworth" scoring program which is widely accepted as performing averages correctly. We are quite happy that the correct result was obtained. However what we are unsure about is what "average" means. I understand that Average-plus is 60% (or your session average if higher) and average-minus is 40% (or your session average if lower). But is an average 50% or is it your session average? Assuming had the slow pairs played the board and achieved their session average, then by removing the board and giving them 50% for it has cost them the win. But if an average is their session average then not playing the board won't affect their score. -- Steve Wright From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Apr 5 19:03:00 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 19:03:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <003601c417c1$7ec12290$1e2e56d2@Desktop> <001701c41832$91d4f2a0$3a51883e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <066601c41b38$4a8eaf40$ec9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jaap van der Neut] If you are really serious about this problem do something about 1NT = 15-17 and the like. Everybody says they play 15-17. Still quite some pairs open half their 14 counts or more 1NT (and there are many more similar problems). This type of (C)PU is far more damaging (due to the high frequency) than someone guessing right after his partners only psych that year. [Nigel] We've argued about this before (for example, "HCP" thread). The conclusion of the BLML majority is that it is perfectly OK to declare 15-17 HCP when in fact you play a good 14 to a poor 18. This consensus is amazing, especially when the question is a follow-up by a defender, obviously trying to work out declarer's possible honour holdings; but at least we all now know that disclosure laws are likely to be waived in such cases. But surely Jaap agrees that, if CPU leads to a fielded psyche, however infrequent the infraction, the damage is likely to be greater when it occurs. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 5 20:15:24 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:15:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <3G$C9AFGFUcAFw9g@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <96CF919C-8735-11D8-A5D0-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Apr 5, 2004, at 07:21 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > It is a question of approach. English TDs have been told to try to > judge whether a call was conventional or not: if they cannot be sure > then the Law gives them a default situation by assuming it is > conventional. The problem is that the law does not refer to "a call", it refers to *two* calls - and if *either* of them is not "incontrovertibly not conventional", then 27B2, not 27B1 applies. > The previous poster is suggesting not finding out what it was but > assuming it was conventional if there was any possibility. That is > the same Law, but a different approach and interpretation. I can't speak for others, but I didn't read his objection that way. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 5 20:16:57 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:16:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: <0WJCZ1FfLUcAFw9K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Monday, Apr 5, 2004, at 07:28 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Where an AC determines that the TD's ruling is correct for them to > make minor changes to the weighting is against the letter and spirit > of the WBF CoP. Furthermore, the EBU has made it clear that "The TD > was right but we want a small change to the weighting so we can get a > better score" is not merit for an appeal. Has anyone in the EBU ever made, or attempted to make, such an appeal? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 5 20:20:45 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:20:45 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid Message-ID: <82EF8BE8-8736-11D8-A5D0-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Grrr. Sometimes I hate this list. Sorry, David, didn't mean to send this to just you. :-( On Monday, Apr 5, 2004, at 07:35 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: >> ----- >> OK. But not in Norway. Here we have a footnote to law 25 A saying: >> "When using bidding boxes a player can change his call if it's >> obvious he didn't intend to make the call that's been put on the >> table. The correction cannot be made due to a change of mind." >> >> So in Norway we would allow the change of call as long as the opener >> had not called again. > > Even when he does not attempt to change it? So this a regulation, > not a change under L25A? I would wonder why Sven would say (if he would) that it is obvious the player didn't intend to bid 2C. I don't think the mere fact that 2C is insufficient is enough. It seems to me that the regulation effectively changes Law 25A. That doesn't seem to me to be legal - or desirable. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 5 20:31:37 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:31:37 -0400 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: On Monday, Apr 5, 2004, at 08:36 US/Eastern, Skjaran, Harald wrote: > I don't see the (legal) difference in attempting to change a call with > of without calling the TD first. If you don't know the law, calling > the TD should be the preferred method. And you should not be > disadvantaged by calling the TD. What's the logic in that??? Law 25A applies if the player changes or attempts to change his call without pause for thought. I suppose that calling the TD because you want to change your call, or want to know if you're permitted to change your call, is an attempt to change that call. And I suppose if it's done as soon as you realize the call you made wasn't what you intended, it is without change for thought. What I'm not sure of is whether it's appropriate to give Law 25A precedence over Law 27. I could be persuaded either way on that one, but I haven't seen it addressed in this thread, at least not explicitly. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 5 20:33:35 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:33:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] systems policy In-Reply-To: <000101c41b0b$8fe0c880$5a56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <2178C959-8738-11D8-A5D0-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Apr 5, 2004, at 08:43 US/Eastern, Noel and Pamela wrote: > At the same time, if somebody plays a system so complex that > explaining what > they're doing causes them to run late, I see no problems with handing > out > slow play penalties. I don't see a problem with that either. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 5 20:41:13 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:41:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] What is an average? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <329B3F4D-8739-11D8-A5D0-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Apr 5, 2004, at 13:40 US/Eastern, Steve Wright wrote: > But is an average 50% or is it your session average? > > Assuming had the slow pairs played the board and achieved their > session average, then by removing the board and giving them 50% for it > has cost them the win. But if an average is their session average then > not playing the board won't affect their score. It's 50%. Law 12C1 says so explicitly. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 5 21:01:27 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:01:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL References: <000001c4192e$6eb8a080$6528fea9@Picasso> <008a01c419d5$51990dd0$18cc403e@multivisionoem> <002c01c41ad8$a9608670$33db403e@multivisionoem> <0WJCZ1FfLUcAFw9K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000f01c41b49$1a47eb60$938187d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL > wrote > >> > >+=+ The EBU says that if an Appeals > >Committee is persuaded by a contestant > >that the Director's adjustmentis ill-judged > > it should dismiss the appeal as without merit? > >This is a novelty that I had not previously > >contemplated - and that we did not contemplate in writimg the Code of Practice. > > That would seem a stupid regulation. Good > thing that the EBU did not say any such thi8ng. > > The WBF CoP says that an AC should start > with the TD's ruling and decide whether it is > correct or not. The EBU say we should follow > that: I am surprised you do not. > +=+ What the CoP says is that the AC starts with the premise that the Director's ruling is correct, and will maintain that position until the players produce the evidence to persuade it otherwise. +=+ < > Where an AC determines that the TD's ruling > is correct for them to make minor changes to > the weighting is against the letter and spirit of > the WBF CoP. < +=+ You are telling me about the letter and spirit of the WBF CoP? Perhaps you can remind me of the place in the CoP where I wrote as you say. One IMP is not a minor change in a win/lose situation. The AC will not wish to know how much they need to vary a score to change a result, and often (I would like to think 'usually') they will not know exactly what effect in IMPs or VPs their alteration of an adjusted score will have. That is the situation they want to be in. Tinkering for the sake of tinkering is anathema, but when the AC is convinced the TD has the balance wrong it should do its job as the law demands and leave the Director to worry about the niceties (and, as it may be, the imps). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Apr 5 21:42:23 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:42:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rite of passage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard J. Hills wrights > >From the thread "12c3". > >David Stevenson rights: > >>>>No, but he is always right. > >Herman De Wael rights: > >>>Allowed David, but only with a smiley. >>>We do love you, David, we do. > >Grattan Endicott rights: > >>+=+ Even with the smiley he would mean it. >>However, he is more often right than he is >>part of the majority. ~ G ~ +=+ > >Richard James Hills rites: > >My minority reports are often irrelevant to >narrow arguments of right or wrong. > >Instead my regular riting ritual is often >aimed at provoking lateral thinking by >other blmlers. Or sometimes, bilateral thinking, followed by a splitting headache. (Snipped.) REH, suffering from riter's cramp. -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 5 22:10:53 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:10:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] systems policy References: <000501c41b0b$992c1610$5a56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <003b01c41b52$992f5220$938187d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "'blml'" Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 1:43 PM Subject: RE: [blml] systems policy Touché! regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 12:06 AM To: blml Subject: RE: [blml] systems policy > Herman De Wael ........... > As an example, in Football, the tactic of placing a player just in > front of goal has been made illegal by the off-side law. Yes, by law - not by regulation - that is the difference! Regards Sven +=+ And the latest FIFA *interpretation* of that law moves the goalposts. ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Apr 5 23:54:29 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 23:54:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 References: <406aaaab.3fa3.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <0f0201c41b60$f51f5c20$ec9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Karel] Pairs E/W Vul Dealer West S KT9 H JT9xxx D x C xxxx S QJ87xx S Axx H Kx H Ax D xx D AKJTxx C AQ9 C Jx S x H Qxx D Qxxx C KT8xx W N E S 1S 3H 4C P 4H P 5C 5H 5NT P 6NT Dbl End Before any lead is made South asks for an explanation of the bidding. 4C was Gerber and not alerted. 5NT according to West 1 king according to East 2 Kings. South calls the TD and says that the 4C's was not alerted and wants to reserve his rights. Result 6NT* making on a D/C squeeze. South calls the TD back and says if 4C was alerted he would have bid 5H's. South stated He also would not have doubled 6NT if he had known clubs was artifical. Your ruling and please state your exact score adjustment (if any). {Nigel] Preumably 4H (opponent's suit) was alerted. And 5N. NS seem to have suffered damage from EW alert failures. No sane South would bid 5H over a presumed natural 4C bid. Nor would he enquire too deeply into its precise meaning. Rather than give an un ultra-modern equity ruling to delight the lucky offenders, an old-fashioned TD might instead try to redress some of the patent damage that they inflicted on the poor non-offenders. Would Karel be allowed to adjust to 5HX-6 for -1100. That would seem the most likely more favourable result, without the infraction Two important points: (1) Given South's club holding, he should refrain from imparting UI by asking about unalerted club bids or, even worse, perusing opponent's convention card. (2) Anyway, whatever the circumstances, the onus should always be on voluntary disclosure rather than on time-wasting "self-protection" by third-degree cross-examination. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 6 00:07:21 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 09:07:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] 12C3 versus EBU Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >Where an AC determines that the TD's ruling is >correct for them to make minor changes to the >weighting is against the letter and spirit of >the WBF CoP. [snip] Richard James Hills parses: A brilliant example of an April Fool's joke, with a cunningly hidden logical flaw. Let's rerun David's logical propositions in slow motion. (1) Where an AC determines that the TD's ruling is correct ... changes ... against the letter and spirit of the WBF CoP. Statement (1) is obviously true. However, David has deviously conflated another statement into the same sentence. (2) Where an AC determines ... minor changes ... against the letter and spirit of the WBF CoP. Statement (2) is just as obviously false. If a TD has (in the opinion of an AC) made a minor judgement error in assessing the magnitude of a Law 12C3 adjustment, nowhere in the letter or spirit of the WBF CoP does it imply that the AC may not correct the TD's minor error. 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 Tue Apr 6 00:03:02 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 00:03:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 Message-ID: <0f1001c41b62$26bbbfc0$ec9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Karel] > Pairs E/W Vul Dealer West > S KT9 > H JT9xxx > D x > C xxxx > S QJ87xx S Axx > H Kx H Ax > D xx D AKJTxx > C AQ9 C Jx > S x > H Qxx > D Qxxx > C KT8xx > W N E S > 1S 3H 4C P > 4H P 5C 5H > 5NT P 6NT Dbl End > Before any lead is made South asks for an explanation of > the bidding. 4C was Gerber and not alerted. 5NT according > to West 1 king according to East 2 Kings. South calls the > TD and says that the 4C's was not alerted and wants to reserve > his rights. Result 6NT* making on a D/C squeeze. > South calls the TD back and says if 4C was alerted he would > have bid 5H's. South stated He also would not have doubled 6NT > if he had known clubs was artifical. Your ruling and please > state your exact score adjustment (if any). [Nigel typo corrected] Presumably 4H (opponent's suit) was alerted? And 5N? NS seem to have suffered damage from EW alert failures. No sane South would bid 5H over a presumed natural 4C bid. Nor would he enquire too deeply into its precise meaning. Rather than give an un ultra-modern equity ruling to impugn South's veracity and delight the lucky offenders, an old- fashioned TD might instead try to redress some of the patent damage that they inflicted on the poor non-offenders. Would Karel be allowed to adjust to 5HX-6 for -1400? That would seem a likely more favourable result, without the infractions. Two important points: (1) Given South's club holding, he should refrain from imparting UI by asking about unalerted club bids or, even worse, perusing opponents' convention card. (2) Anyway, whatever the circumstances, the onus should always be on voluntary disclosure rather than on time-wasting "self-protection" by third-degree cross-examination. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 6 00:33:31 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 09:33:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Looking Glass (was systems policy) Message-ID: Noel Bugeia: >>Not quite! >> >>A regulation is subordinate to a law. It >>has the effect of law but is subject to that >>law - it cannot exceed it in effect. If it >>does, it is usually invalid, at least to the >>extent that it exceeds it. Law 80F: >A sponsoring organisation conducting an event >under these Laws has the following duties and >powers: > >to publish or announce regulations >supplementary to, but not in conflict with, >these Laws. Richard James Hills: Noel's interpretation of the limitations of regulations is consistent with standard jurisprudence throughout the world, and is also consistent with a non-Orwellian interpretation of Law 80F. The WBF LC has determined, however, that while all Laws are equal, some Laws are more equal than others. The WBF LC has ruled that the phrase "these Laws" in Law 80F merely refers to the other parts of Law 80 only. Therefore, the WBF LC has ruled that any regulation made under the authority of one particular Law, may totally rewrite the intent of any other Law. So, bridge jurisprudence is a Looking Glass exception to normal jurisprudence, in that a bridge Law is subordinate to bridge regulations. 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 Apr 6 00:46:21 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 09:46:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid Message-ID: David Stevenson: >> Second, when you ask them at the table, the >>answer "I meant it as Asptro" gives a huge amount >>more UI than a ruling form which a player can >>deduce that 2C was conventional. Eric Landau: [snip] >If the TD rules according to L27B2, he knows only >that it was intended to be conventional; he does >not get the UI that it was intended to be Asptro. >But he is barred from the bidding anyhow, so what >difference can it make? Richard James Hills: The difference is that the barred bidder may eventually become a defender. Obviously, if the TD *can* Lawfully minimise the transmission of UI to a possible eventual defender, then the TD *should* Lawfully minimise the transmission of UI to a possible eventual defender. 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 Apr 6 01:01:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:01:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] What is an average? Message-ID: Steve Wright asked: [snip] >But is an average 50% or is it your session >average? > >Assuming had the slow pairs played the board >and achieved their session average, then by >removing the board and giving them 50% for it >has cost them the win. But if an average is >their session average then not playing the >board won't affect their score. Richard James Hills replies: Law 12C1 states, "...average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partially at fault..." Steve has presumably ruled that both pairs were partially at fault for the slow play, therefore Steve correctly awarded 50% to both pairs. Session scores are possibly relevant if and only if a score of average-plus is awarded (Law 88). 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 Tue Apr 6 00:45:53 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 00:45:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12c3 References: <0f1001c41b62$26bbbfc0$ec9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <101201c41b68$232cbde0$ec9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Karel] > Pairs E/W Vul Dealer West > S KT9 > H JT9xxx > D x > C xxxx > S QJ87xx S Axx > H Kx H Ax > D xx D AKJTxx > C AQ9 C Jx > S x > H Qxx > D Qxxx > C KT8xx > W N E S > 1S 3H 4C P > 4H P 5C 5H > 5NT P 6NT Dbl End > Before any lead is made South asks for an explanation of > the bidding. 4C was Gerber and not alerted. 5NT according > to West 1 king according to East 2 Kings. South calls the > TD and says that the 4C's was not alerted and wants to reserve > his rights. Result 6NT* making on a D/C squeeze. > South calls the TD back and says if 4C was alerted he would > have bid 5H's. South stated He also would not have doubled 6NT > if he had known clubs was artifical. Your ruling and please > state your exact score adjustment (if any). [Nigel - last attempt before bed-time] Presumably 4H (opponent's suit) was alerted? And 5N? NS seem to have suffered damage from EW alert failures. No sane South would bid 5H over a presumed natural 4C bid. Nor would he enquire too deeply into its precise meaning. Rather than give an un ultra-modern equity ruling to impugn South's veracity and delight the lucky offenders, an old- fashioned TD might instead try to redress some of the patent damage that they inflicted on the poor non-offenders. Would Karel be allowed to adjust to 5HX-5 for -1100? That would seem a likely more favourable result, without the infractions. Two important points: (1) Given South's club holding, he should refrain from imparting UI by asking about unalerted club bids or, even worse, perusing opponents' convention card. (2) Anyway, whatever the circumstances, the onus should always be on voluntary disclosure rather than on time-wasting "self-protection" by third-degree cross-examination. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 From blml@blakjak.com Tue Apr 6 01:20:45 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 01:20:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040405105558.00a464c0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040405081111.026999a0@pop.starpower.net> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <5.2.0.9.0.20040405081111.026999a0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040405105558.00a464c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 08:37 AM 4/5/04, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >>> >>>Why away from the table? (John is not the first to have said this.) >>>After all, when the TD returns to the table and gives either a L27B2 >>>or a L27B1 ruling, everyone will know which answer he got from the >>>insufficient bidder. >> >> First of all, "everyone" means the 25% or so who know the Laws. > >Isn't the TD supposed to correct their ignorance by explaining the >basis on which he made his ruling? > >> Second, when you ask them at the table, the answer "I meant it as >>Asptro" gives a huge amount more UI than a ruling form which a player >>can deduce that 2C was conventional. > >True, but... If the TD returns to the table and rules according to >L27B1, the partner of the bidder knows that the insufficient bid was >intended to be natural. If the TD rules according to L27B2, he knows >only that it was intended to be conventional; he does not get the UI >that it was intended to be Asptro. But he is barred from the bidding >anyhow, so what difference can it make? Defending the hand? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Apr 6 01:33:31 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 01:33:31 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Skjaran, Harald wrote >David Stevenson wrote > >Skjaran, Harald wrote >>Grattan Endicott> [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>"The pursuit of perfection, then, is the pursuit >>of sweetness and light." [Matthew Arnold] >>=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Skjaran, Harald" >>To: "Torsten Åstrand" ; >>"blml" >>Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:13 AM >>Subject: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid >> >> >>Torsten Åstrand wrote: >> >>Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent >>to your right bids 2D, and happily you remember that your >>bid 3C shows exaktly your hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But >>you bid by mistake 2C. >>Your ruling please. >>Torsten >> >>----- >>This is an inadvertent call which is correctable under law 25A. >>If I'm called immediately, I'll allow a change of call to 3C. >> >>+=+ But only after establishing that the player changed or >>attempted to change his inadvertent call without pause for >>thought. By the time you get there he has had plenty of >>scope for thinking. ~ G ~ +=+ >> >>----- >>OK. But not in Norway. Here we have a footnote to law 25 A saying: >>"When using bidding boxes a player can change his call if it's obvious >>he didn't intend to make the call that's been put on the table. The >>correction cannot be made due to a change of mind." >> >>So in Norway we would allow the change of call as long as the opener >>had not called again. > > Even when he does not attempt to change it? So this a regulation, not >a change under L25A? >----- >What happens when a player misbids whith bidding boxes is that some >know they are allowed to change such a call, and attempts to change it. >Of those who doesn't know they are allowed to change such a call, some >will attempt to change it. And some will call the director and inform >of the mistake (and want to change their misbid). > >Then we allow it. > >I don't see the (legal) difference in attempting to change a call with >of without calling the TD first. If you don't know the law, calling the >TD should be the preferred method. And you should not be disadvantaged >by calling the TD. What's the logic in that??? I do not know, I did not write the Laws. But I expect the people who framed L25A [one of the Laws that gets very little flak here, compared with many] had a reason for only allowing a change when someone tried or succeeded to change it without pause for thought. In effect you are asking me 'Why should we not allow a change after pause for thought?' I do not know. -- 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 Apr 6 01:29:22 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 01:29:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: <000f01c41b49$1a47eb60$938187d9@4nrw70j> References: <000001c4192e$6eb8a080$6528fea9@Picasso> <008a01c419d5$51990dd0$18cc403e@multivisionoem> <002c01c41ad8$a9608670$33db403e@multivisionoem> <0WJCZ1FfLUcAFw9K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000f01c41b49$1a47eb60$938187d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: grandeval wrote >Grattan EndicottFrom: "David Stevenson" >> >+=+ The EBU says that if an Appeals >> >Committee is persuaded by a contestant >> >that the Director's adjustmentis ill-judged >> > it should dismiss the appeal as without merit? >> >This is a novelty that I had not previously >> >contemplated - and that we did not contemplate >in writimg the Code of Practice. >> >> That would seem a stupid regulation. Good >> thing that the EBU did not say any such thi8ng. >> >> The WBF CoP says that an AC should start >> with the TD's ruling and decide whether it is >> correct or not. The EBU say we should follow >> that: I am surprised you do not. >> >+=+ What the CoP says is that the AC starts with >the premise that the Director's ruling is correct, >and will maintain that position until the players >produce the evidence to persuade it otherwise. +=+ >< >> Where an AC determines that the TD's ruling >> is correct for them to make minor changes to >> the weighting is against the letter and spirit of >> the WBF CoP. >< >+=+ You are telling me about the letter and spirit >of the WBF CoP? Perhaps you can remind me of >the place in the CoP where I wrote as you say. >One IMP is not a minor change in a win/lose >situation. Now you are following Richard in saying something that is not relevant. In his case he was mis-quoting me. If an AC determines the TD got it wrong then they should adjust. Tinkering with weightings is not determining that the TD got it wrong. > The AC will not wish to know how much >they need to vary a score to change a result, and >often (I would like to think 'usually') they will not >know exactly what effect in IMPs or VPs their >alteration of an adjusted score will have. That is >the situation they want to be in. Tinkering for the >sake of tinkering is anathema, but when the AC > is convinced the TD has the balance wrong it >should do its job as the law demands and leave >the Director to worry about the niceties (and, as >it may be, the imps). This paragraph is not self-consistent. The effect of the CoP is that tinkering for the sake of it is not what ACs are for, and you both support and oppose this position. -- 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 Apr 6 01:17:07 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 01:17:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <78CE91B8-8709-11D8-9A0B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <89A92192-8579-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <0LLS+ZEXQJcAFwMC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5B6E0BD4-8699-11D8-825C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <78CE91B8-8709-11D8-9A0B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote >On 5 Apr 2004, at 12:19, David Stevenson wrote: >> Gordon Rainsford wrote >>> On 5 Apr 2004, at 02:44, David Stevenson wrote: >>>> Gordon Rainsford wrote >>> How would I know this? >>> >>>> you are ruling it as though it was conventional. >>> >>> No, I'm ruling as though it's not "incontrovertibly not conventional". >> >> Exactly: even when you know it is not conventional. > >I don't know that, and I'm not required to know that by the Law I'm >applying. That's not the standard to be applied, as I read the words. I did not say "you knew it": I said "when you knew it". If you know it is not conventional you are ruling it as conventional: I am not. >I see you say elsewhere that the EBU interprets this differently, >though I've been unable to find any mention of this in the White Book. One problem in compiling the White book is that there are no records kept of decisions and other matters at Panel TD weekends. This makes it easy to miss things. I really do not think I have missed too much, but it is much easier not to miss matters that are decided in L&EC meetings: I trawled through ten years of minutes while compiling the White book. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Apr 6 01:19:34 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 01:19:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <96CF919C-8735-11D8-A5D0-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <3G$C9AFGFUcAFw9g@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <96CF919C-8735-11D8-A5D0-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Monday, Apr 5, 2004, at 07:21 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> It is a question of approach. English TDs have been told to try to >>judge whether a call was conventional or not: if they cannot be sure >>then the Law gives them a default situation by assuming it is >>conventional. > >The problem is that the law does not refer to "a call", it refers to >*two* calls - and if *either* of them is not "incontrovertibly not >conventional", then 27B2, not 27B1 applies. The sufficient one is usually too easy for words. 1NT 1C. If they play Capp or something that ends the investigation. The problems come in whether 1C is conventional, not whether 2C is. >> The previous poster is suggesting not finding out what it was but >>assuming it was conventional if there was any possibility. That is >>the same Law, but a different approach and interpretation. > >I can't speak for others, but I didn't read his objection that way. He made it clear he is not investigating further if one reasonable possibility for the meaning of the call is conventional. -- 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 Apr 6 01:25:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 01:25:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: References: <0WJCZ1FfLUcAFw9K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Monday, Apr 5, 2004, at 07:28 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Where an AC determines that the TD's ruling is correct for them to >>make minor changes to the weighting is against the letter and spirit >>of the WBF CoP. Furthermore, the EBU has made it clear that "The TD >>was right but we want a small change to the weighting so we can get a >>better score" is not merit for an appeal. > >Has anyone in the EBU ever made, or attempted to make, such an appeal? Certainly not often. But it seems the sort of thing we hear from other jurisdictions, and we wanted to nip it in the bud. There must have been one relevant one to get it talked about - unless it was Jason Hackett's appeal against my ruling. I gave him 75% of something, 25% of something else. He appealed: the AC gave him 87.5%/12.5% of the same two scores. Jason said they did not understand what they were doing to make a decision like this. But his appeal was that it was wrong to weight the score at all: he was not trying for anything frivolous, he just believed [as I did] that what they did *was* frivolous. -- 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 Apr 6 02:08:25 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:08:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>I see you say elsewhere that the EBU interprets this >>differently, though I've been unable to find any >>mention of this in the White Book. David Stevenson replied: >One problem in compiling the White book is that there >are no records kept of decisions and other matters at >Panel TD weekends. This makes it easy to miss >things. I really do not think I have missed too >much, but it is much easier not to miss matters that >are decided in L&EC meetings: I trawled through ten >years of minutes while compiling the White book. Richard James Hills humble opinions: In my humble opinion, what is said at English TD panel weekends does not create any English regulation, any more than Blackstone's Commentaries do not create any English law. 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 Apr 6 02:10:11 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:10:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Often it is obvious that somebody >does not have their bid. Perhaps... > >(1) Somebody has psyched. >(2) Somebody made a systemic error. >(3) Somebody mis-sorted his hand. > >A priori, the suspect is at least >twice as likely to be an opponent as >partner. IMO, you should not be >allowed just to assume that it is >partner who has psyched without more >evidence. [snip] Richard James Hills: Yes and no. More evidence may or may not be needed. The initial evidence may be enough to cause you to assume that pard, rather than an opponent, has psyched *if* pard violates agreed system. Example: Pard passes a forcing bid. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From john@asimere.com Tue Apr 6 02:36:50 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 02:36:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040405081111.026999a0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <008901c4173e$291a09c0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20040403171749.01bc0e38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <5.2.0.9.0.20040405081111.026999a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In article <5.2.0.9.0.20040405081111.026999a0@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 08:53 AM 4/3/04, John wrote: > >>You can't have an agreement that an undercall is a convention, can you? >>Ergo the primary case for ruling that partner must pass is gone. What we >>need to do is find out why he bid 2C. If he did it intending Stayman, >>not having seen 2D we can rule one way; if he did it intending to bid >>clubs but got the level wrong we can rule the other ... and we should >>find this out away from the table. > >Why away from the table? (John is not the first to have said >this.) After all, when the TD returns to the table and gives either a >L27B2 or a L27B1 ruling, everyone will know which answer he got from >the insufficient bidder. because the player will say a lot of other things that will make the UI worse. Once I've found out whether to treat the call as conventional or not I'll explain what is necessary to all the players. > > >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 -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Apr 6 02:45:36 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 02:45:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3's affect on the unalerted Gerber hand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Willem Mevius writes >A third argument against 12c3 is that calculating scores will take forever, >scoring programs can't always handle it, and it's easy to make mistakes (I >haven't seen this rule used correctly in any of the tournaments I have >played in...) none of the above is either relevant or true except possibly that the TD's haven't bothered to train the scorers, which is not true in the UK. The scorers take a minute or so to do the computation, and it's not as though there are more than one or two per thousand tables. I write all the scores I'm considering directly onto the scorer's form and then whack in the percentages, crossing out the ones I've decided not to use. I have to do this anyway when considering a 12c3. john > > > > >Willem Mevius >wmevius@hotmail.com > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Apr 6 02:49:55 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 02:49:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: References: <0WJCZ1FfLUcAFw9K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <0tAcXcBDzgcAFw+b@asimere.com> In article , Ed Reppert writes > >On Monday, Apr 5, 2004, at 07:28 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Where an AC determines that the TD's ruling is correct for them to >> make minor changes to the weighting is against the letter and spirit >> of the WBF CoP. Furthermore, the EBU has made it clear that "The TD >> was right but we want a small change to the weighting so we can get a >> better score" is not merit for an appeal. > >Has anyone in the EBU ever made, or attempted to make, such an appeal? I've certainly made 12c3 rulings that have been overturned at appeal, but that's a different matter entirely. AC's will not tinker with an odd 5 or 10% of a weight if they think that the ruling is ok and the weights are sensible, and an appeal seeking to get this sort of adjustment would be deemed an appeal with no merit. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From emu@atrax.net.au Tue Apr 6 02:52:22 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:52:22 +1000 Subject: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c41b79$d0300fe0$6e56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Yes, but what would you rule if it went 1NT:(2D):2D whoops.. 3D is not diamonds in this example. Why should the 1NT bidder be barred = if partner merely corrects to the system 3D bid showing this hand say? = What UI has been transmitted? If he bids something else, but it is a system bid, why can not opener = act as though that were the bid? He must act accordingly of course. Or is it = that the rule makers don't trust players not to abuse it? Surely any pair = that tried to manipulate this would soon get thrown out? Or is that too = hard, from experience, and we just chop it off and say: 'No, too hard, correction to 3D is fine, but no matter what you bid, = opener is barred, so there is no point in trying to manipulate this!' regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = David Stevenson Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 9:36 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid Skjaran, Harald wrote >Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"The pursuit of perfection, then, is the pursuit >of sweetness and light." [Matthew Arnold] >=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Skjaran, Harald" >To: "Torsten =C5strand" ; >"blml" >Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:13 AM >Subject: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid > > >Torsten =C5strand wrote: > >Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent >to your right bids 2D, and happily you remember that your >bid 3C shows exaktly your hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But >you bid by mistake 2C. >Your ruling please. >Torsten > >----- >This is an inadvertent call which is correctable under law 25A. If I'm=20 >called immediately, I'll allow a change of call to 3C. > >+=3D+ But only after establishing that the player changed or >attempted to change his inadvertent call without pause for thought. By=20 >the time you get there he has had plenty of >scope for thinking. ~ G ~ +=3D+ > >----- >OK. But not in Norway. Here we have a footnote to law 25 A saying:=20 >"When using bidding boxes a player can change his call if it's obvious=20 >he didn't intend to make the call that's been put on the table. The=20 >correction cannot be made due to a change of mind." > >So in Norway we would allow the change of call as long as the opener >had not called again. Even when he does not attempt to change it? So this a regulation, = not=20 a change under L25A? --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Tue Apr 6 02:55:58 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 02:55:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is an average? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Steve Wright writes >Playing pairs, four boards a round allowing 30 minutes per round I had >to give one table an average when I removed a board for slow play. With >less than a minute to go they had just put the board on the table and >were sorting their hands prior to bidding when I stepped in. > >At the end, one of the pairs came second by 0.2 of a match point. > >We used the "Haworth" scoring program which is widely accepted as >performing averages correctly. We are quite happy that the correct >result was obtained. > >However what we are unsure about is what "average" means. I understand >that Average-plus is 60% (or your session average if higher) and >average-minus is 40% (or your session average if lower). > >But is an average 50% or is it your session average? Average is 50%. Haworth does it that way. But a board unplayed should be scored as A5050 when you can't determine who was slow. So i think your scoring is correct. > >Assuming had the slow pairs played the board and achieved their session >average, then by removing the board and giving them 50% for it has cost >them the win. But if an average is their session average then not >playing the board won't affect their score. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 6 03:02:38 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 14:02:38 +1200 Subject: [blml] Looking Glass (was systems policy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <009d01c41b7b$3d418d10$0e7758db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 6 April 2004 11:34 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Looking Glass (was systems policy) > > > > > > > Noel Bugeia: > > >>Not quite! > >> > >>A regulation is subordinate to a law. It > >>has the effect of law but is subject to that > >>law - it cannot exceed it in effect. If it > >>does, it is usually invalid, at least to the > >>extent that it exceeds it. > > Law 80F: > > >A sponsoring organisation conducting an event > >under these Laws has the following duties and > >powers: > > > >to publish or announce regulations > >supplementary to, but not in conflict with, > >these Laws. > > Richard James Hills: > > Noel's interpretation of the limitations of > regulations is consistent with standard > jurisprudence throughout the world, and is also > consistent with a non-Orwellian interpretation > of Law 80F. > > The WBF LC has determined, however, that while > all Laws are equal, some Laws are more equal > than others. The WBF LC has ruled that the > phrase "these Laws" in Law 80F merely refers to > the other parts of Law 80 only. > > Therefore, the WBF LC has ruled that any > regulation made under the authority of one > particular Law, may totally rewrite the intent > of any other Law. They may have said this but I do not believe that they mean this. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 6 03:11:46 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 12:11:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] 12C3 versus EBU Message-ID: Ed Reppert asked: >Has anyone in the EBU ever made, or attempted to >make, such an appeal? EBU Appeals 2002 casebook: APPEAL No 4: Don't fiddle with the weightings! Tournament Director: Robin Barker Appeals Committee: Tim Rees (Chairman) Alan Kay Hugh McGann Swiss Pairs Board no 9 Dealer North EW vulnerable KT986 KT852 K3 8 Q J42 A63 7 A6542 JT97 KQT4 AJ532 A753 QJ94 Q8 976 Basic systems: North-South play Benji Acol, 5 card spades East-West play Natural, 2/1 GF WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1S Pass 3S Pass Pass Pass Result at table: 3S +1 by North, NS +170, lead DJ Director first called: When dummy was displayed Director's statement of facts: There were no alerts and no questions during the auction. When West saw dummy and was told that 3S was pre-emptive, he called the TD. He said he might act over 3S if it had been alerted as pre-emptive. [TD's and AC's decisions deliberately snipped] As an AC in a Zone where Law 12C3 is enabled, how would you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From adam@irvine.com Tue Apr 6 03:20:00 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 19:20:00 -0700 Subject: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:52:22 +1000." <000101c41b79$d0300fe0$6e56dccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <200404060219.TAA10307@mailhub.irvine.com> Noel wrote: > Yes, but what would you rule if it went 1NT:(2D):2D whoops.. > > 3D is not diamonds in this example. Why should the 1NT bidder be barred if > partner merely corrects to the system 3D bid showing this hand say? What UI > has been transmitted? I don't know anyone who plays 1NT-(2D)-3D as a transfer to hearts. (It's most commonly some sort of Stayman, often denying a diamond stop.) Responder has (potentially) transmitted the UI that he has 5+ hearts---3D doesn't show that, and now opener knows something that he shouldn't. I'm assuming 1NT-2D would be a transfer---but even if it were forcing Stayman I think this insufficient bid would be telling opener something that the AI from the 3D bid wouldn't tell him. > If he bids something else, but it is a system bid, why can not opener act as > though that were the bid? He must act accordingly of course. Or is it that > the rule makers don't trust players not to abuse it? Apparently they don't. And probably with good reason. I think lots of players would have trouble not using the UI they got from the original insufficient bid. Certainly a good number of players that I've run up against would have difficulty with this. Other than that, it might well be workable to change the insufficient bid laws so that the insufficient bidder can correct to anything he wants, and the only restriction is that partner must treat the withdrawn call as UI. I don't see anything particularly unfair about this. But also keep in mind that the rules that barred partner if the insufficient bidder did anything but make the bid sufficient date from a time when the insufficient bid was considered AI to partner. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 6 07:45:18 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:45:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] 12C3 versus DWS Message-ID: In response to Grattan Endicott, David Stevenson wrote: >>Now you are following Richard in saying >>something that is not relevant. In his >>case he was mis-quoting me. Richard James Hills quibbles: Actually, what I did was quote DWS, then apparently subsequently misconstrue his intended meaning. David Stevenson continued: >>If an AC determines the TD got it wrong >>then they should adjust. Tinkering with >>weightings is not determining that the >>TD got it wrong. Fowler, "Modern English Usage": >_Petitio principii_ or 'begging the >question'. The fallacy of founding a >conclusion on a basis that as much needs >to be proved as the conclusion itself. > >*Arguing in a circle* is a common variety >of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are >that capital punishment is necessary >because without it murders would increase, >and that democracy must be the best form >of government because the majority are >always right. 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 hermandw@hdw.be Tue Apr 6 08:07:11 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 09:07:11 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <200404060219.TAA10307@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200404060219.TAA10307@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4072571F.6010908@hdw.be> Adam Beneschan wrote: > Noel wrote: > > >>Yes, but what would you rule if it went 1NT:(2D):2D whoops.. >> >>3D is not diamonds in this example. Why should the 1NT bidder be barred if >>partner merely corrects to the system 3D bid showing this hand say? What UI >>has been transmitted? > > > I don't know anyone who plays 1NT-(2D)-3D as a transfer to hearts. ehhhm ... I do. meaning, I know somebody who does. I do. meaning, I play 3D as showing hearts here (unless 2D showed hearts). Not that this is important. But you'd be surprised at the number of different conventions there exist. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Tue Apr 6 09:57:22 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 09:57:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046866@hotel.npl.co.uk> Ed I don't remember any appeals where people were asking for a small adjustment. But see Appeal No.4 from the EBU Appeals 2002. http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Publications/App eals/EBU%20Appeals%202002.pdf The appellants wanted a gross adjustment (double and reaching 5C is automatic). The AC denied the appeal although they would have given different weightings. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Ed Reppert [mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com] Sent: 05 April 2004 20:17 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL On Monday, Apr 5, 2004, at 07:28 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Where an AC determines that the TD's ruling is correct for them to > make minor changes to the weighting is against the letter and spirit > of the WBF CoP. Furthermore, the EBU has made it clear that "The TD > was right but we want a small change to the weighting so we can get a > better score" is not merit for an appeal. Has anyone in the EBU ever made, or attempted to make, such an appeal? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Apr 6 10:07:19 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:07:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046866@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046866@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <40727347.7080700@hdw.be> There is another one, which has become quite famous after both Max and Antonio used it aa an example in Torino. The TDs had given a 12C3 score, based loosely on the frequencies around the room. The AC changed the weighings, considering that the events at the table had made the weights from the room irrelevant. But the change was considerable (something like 70/30 -> 30/70). Robin Barker wrote: > Ed > > I don't remember any appeals where people were asking for a small > adjustment. > > But see Appeal No.4 from the EBU Appeals 2002. > > http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Publications/App > eals/EBU%20Appeals%202002.pdf > > The appellants wanted a gross adjustment (double and reaching 5C is > automatic). > The AC denied the appeal although they would have given different > weightings. > > Robin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Reppert [mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com] > Sent: 05 April 2004 20:17 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL > > > > On Monday, Apr 5, 2004, at 07:28 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > >> Where an AC determines that the TD's ruling is correct for them to >>make minor changes to the weighting is against the letter and spirit >>of the WBF CoP. Furthermore, the EBU has made it clear that "The TD >>was right but we want a small change to the weighting so we can get a > > >>better score" is not merit for an appeal. > > > Has anyone in the EBU ever made, or attempted to make, such an appeal? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or > privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. > If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or > disclose such information. > > NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any > attachments are free from viruses. > > NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 > Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Apr 6 10:43:34 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:43:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: Message-ID: <006a01c41bbb$a1d76a20$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Yes and no. More evidence may or may not be needed. The initial evidence may be enough to cause you to assume that pard, rather than an opponent, has psyched *if* pard violates agreed system. Example: Pard passes a forcing bid. [Nigel] IMO passing a forcing bid, *is* further evidence, pointing the finger at partner, rather than opponents. IMO, Richard, the likelihood is either that he is making a mistake now or that he psyched previously. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.651 / Virus Database: 417 - Release Date: 05/04/2004 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Apr 6 11:01:26 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:01:26 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <200404060219.TAA10307@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200404060219.TAA10307@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5E5732BA-87B1-11D8-9546-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 6 Apr 2004, at 03:20, Adam Beneschan wrote: > I don't know anyone who plays 1NT-(2D)-3D as a transfer to hearts. I do with my most regular partner, and with a number of other people. It's not especially unusual here. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Apr 6 11:22:41 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:22:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL References: <0WJCZ1FfLUcAFw9K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <0tAcXcBDzgcAFw+b@asimere.com> Message-ID: <00f301c41bc1$187b7a40$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [John MadDog Probst] AC's will not tinker with an odd 5 or 10% of a weight if they think that the ruling is ok and the weights are sensible, and an appeal seeking to get this sort of adjustment would be deemed an appeal with no merit. [Nigel] I must mix with an entirely different set of players than those who express delight with EBU regulations to Frances Hinden and David Stevenson. My acquaintances must all be on David Stevenson's real-life "kill-file". Most of them think that our regulations are flawed. There is even some measure of agreement as to how they may be improved. Given the current 12C3 law, I feel that it is a travesty of justice to decide an event on a rough assignment of percentages by a TD. And that an AC should be allowed even fractional adjustment if it is critical to the result. Naturally, when the implications of law 12c3 are explained, most players would prefer it to be scrapped. When, tongue in cheek, Solomon ruled that the baby be cut in two, he could not anticipate that loony bridge jurisdictions would eventually take his words literally. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.651 / Virus Database: 417 - Release Date: 05/04/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Apr 6 13:13:24 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:13:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] systems policy References: Message-ID: <014c01c41bd0$996cac00$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Richard James Hills] > A difference which makes no difference is no > difference. A regulation is a law. >> [Richard's Pocket Oxford Dictionary] >> law, n. A rule established among a community >> & enjoining or prohibiting certain action.... >> regulate, v.t. ....control by rule.... >> regulation, n. ....prescribed rule.... [Nigel] Richard is quite aware that they are different in Bridge. 1. The *laws* are in TFLB but it is woefully incomplete and inadequate. 2. Each jurisdiction tries to remedy TFLB deficiencies by cobbling together an idiosyncratic mismatch of chauvinistic local "rules and regulations". 3. The real meaning of the laws and regulations is different from what the words say in these publications. You may discover the true meaning only by perusal of obscure minutes and commentaries by Humpty Dumpty. And later interpretations by an army of sea-lawyers. For example, a literal-minded reader of the Orange Book may mistakenly believe that in EBU L3 competition... (1) HCP means A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1 (e.g. when declaring notrump point ranges) (2) You may not agree to open 1S on a "rule of 17" hand (e.g. AT987 KT987 T98 -) (3) You may not *treat* Multi 2D (e.g by varying the HCP requirements of the compulsory weak-two component from seat to seat). A handful of players who are legal experts harbour no such illusions. They feel entitled to use their "judgement" to enjoy their advantage. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.651 / Virus Database: 417 - Release Date: 05/04/2004 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Apr 6 13:21:41 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:21:41 -0400 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040406081220.01f594f0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:33 PM 4/5/04, David wrote: >Skjaran, Harald wrote >> >>I don't see the (legal) difference in attempting to change a call >>with of without calling the TD first. If you don't know the law, >>calling the TD should be the preferred method. And you should not be >>disadvantaged by calling the TD. What's the logic in that??? > > I do not know, I did not write the Laws. > > But I expect the people who framed L25A [one of the Laws that gets > very little flak here, compared with many] had a reason for only > allowing a change when someone tried or succeeded to change it > without pause for thought. > > In effect you are asking me 'Why should we not allow a change after > pause for thought?' I do not know. I don't see a contradiction here. A player bids, then, immediately, without pause for thought, summons the TD. When the TD arrives he says, "I pulled the wrong bid card; that isn't what I was trying to bid. Am I allowed to change it?" I have no problem interpreting this as an "attempt[] to [substitute his intended call], without pause for thought" per L25A. The "attempt" was without pause for thought, even though its explicit verbalization wasn't. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Apr 6 13:29:29 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:29:29 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] 12c3 References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA34B7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <4vFRXa1xMBbAFw3+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00db01c4185b$de17f8a0$532846a2@ams.com> Message-ID: <019201c41bd2$da907980$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Konrad Ciborski] If 4C is Gerber then they have a spade fit, if it is natural then they might very well be heading for disaster on a misfit auction. [Nigel] When the argument seems lost into realms of surreal fantasy, thank Konrad for rescuing us with plain truths and simple insights. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.651 / Virus Database: 417 - Release Date: 05/04/2004 From blml@blakjak.com Tue Apr 6 13:32:55 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:32:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >>>I see you say elsewhere that the EBU interprets this >>>differently, though I've been unable to find any >>>mention of this in the White Book. > >David Stevenson replied: > >>One problem in compiling the White book is that there >>are no records kept of decisions and other matters at >>Panel TD weekends. This makes it easy to miss >>things. I really do not think I have missed too >>much, but it is much easier not to miss matters that >>are decided in L&EC meetings: I trawled through ten >>years of minutes while compiling the White book. > >Richard James Hills humble opinions: > >In my humble opinion, what is said at English TD panel >weekends does not create any English regulation, any >more than Blackstone's Commentaries do not create any >English law. So what? No-one said it did. -- 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 Apr 6 13:42:49 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:42:49 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040406081220.01f594f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <5.2.0.9.0.20040406081220.01f594f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 08:33 PM 4/5/04, David wrote: > >>Skjaran, Harald wrote >>> >>>I don't see the (legal) difference in attempting to change a call >>>with of without calling the TD first. If you don't know the law, >>>calling the TD should be the preferred method. And you should not be >>>disadvantaged by calling the TD. What's the logic in that??? >> >> I do not know, I did not write the Laws. >> >> But I expect the people who framed L25A [one of the Laws that gets >>very little flak here, compared with many] had a reason for only >>allowing a change when someone tried or succeeded to change it without >>pause for thought. >> >> In effect you are asking me 'Why should we not allow a change after >>pause for thought?' I do not know. > >I don't see a contradiction here. A player bids, then, immediately, >without pause for thought, summons the TD. When the TD arrives he >says, "I pulled the wrong bid card; that isn't what I was trying to >bid. Am I allowed to change it?" I have no problem interpreting this >as an "attempt[] to [substitute his intended call], without pause for >thought" per L25A. The "attempt" was without pause for thought, even >though its explicit verbalization wasn't. You have invent a scenario where we probably agree with you, well done. But when we are wondering over the legality of a regulation, let's not just put on the rose-tinted spectacles, but look at the times which are not so obvious. A player makes a call, says "Oh shit" to himself, and subsides into a disgruntled reading of yesterday's newspaper. While his LHO is wondering what a new suit at the six-level really means the player suddenly has a bright idea, and calls the TD. "Can I change my call?" he enquires. "Was there a pause for thought?" asks the TD, a simple soul who trusts players. "Only for about four minutes," replies the player, honestly. So L25A does not apply, because there was a pause for thought: however, according to the earlier poster, the call may be changed without penalty in Norway only because there is a regulation saying so. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@dybdal.dk Tue Apr 6 13:56:58 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 14:56:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040406081220.01f594f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <5.2.0.9.0.20040406081220.01f594f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:21:41 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >I don't see a contradiction here. A player bids, then, immediately,=20 >without pause for thought, summons the TD. When the TD arrives he=20 >says, "I pulled the wrong bid card; that isn't what I was trying to=20 >bid. Am I allowed to change it?" I have no problem interpreting this=20 >as an "attempt[] to [substitute his intended call], without pause for=20 >thought" per L25A. The "attempt" was without pause for thought, even=20 >though its explicit verbalization wasn't. That is the way we interpret it in Denmark. You need to do something (such as physically change the call, call the TD, or say "oops") without pause for thought. But you can call the TD and get information about your rights before taking an action which, from the point of view of a player who does not happen to know L25A, may or may not be legal. I am quite surprised to hear that anybody interprets it otherwise: it seems obvious to me that it would be quite unacceptable if players who did not happen to know L25A were not allowed to call the TD and be informed that they could change their call. Giving an advantage to those who just change their call without knowing whether it is legal or not would encourage people to take action after irregularities in general, instead of calling the TD. We do not want that. As a completely different matter, I would also like to get completely rid of the requirement for "no thought". What happens regularly to me is that I put the wrong card on the table, I notice that it is the wrong card, and I then quite automatically do what I always do when something happens that should not have happened: I put on a poker face in order to not give UI, and I think the situation through before giving any indication that anything is wrong. A moment later, I have realized that what actually happened was a misbid that I would have been allowed to change using L25A if I had not "paused for thought". But now I cannot change it. The requirement for no pause thus penalizes those who routinely take a moment to realize what happened before indicating that something is wrong. That seems bad to me, since I consider it a good thing that people try not to give UI. I suspect that the requirement for no pause is there because the lawmakers assumed that a call cannot not really be inadvertent if the player needs to think before calling attention to it. But that assumption is wrong - in my case, and probably in other cases as well. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Tue Apr 6 14:09:43 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 15:09:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <5.2.0.9.0.20040406081220.01f594f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:42:49 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > A player makes a call, says "Oh shit" to himself, and subsides into a= =20 >disgruntled reading of yesterday's newspaper. If "to himself" means silently, then he has, in Denmark, paused for thought in L25A's sense, and cannot do a L25A change. > While his LHO is wondering what a new suit at the six-level really=20 >means the player suddenly has a bright idea, and calls the TD. > > "Can I change my call?" he enquires. > > "Was there a pause for thought?" asks the TD, a simple soul who = trusts=20 >players. > > "Only for about four minutes," replies the player, honestly. > > So L25A does not apply, because there was a pause for thought:=20 >however, according to the earlier poster, the call may be changed=20 >without penalty in Norway only because there is a regulation saying so. Even a "simple soul" TD will do something to establish whether it was an inadvertent call or not. And that is the important thing. I don't have my BLML archive right here, but as I remember the Norwegian rule, the call still had to be inadvertent. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@blakjak.com Tue Apr 6 14:16:46 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 14:16:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <5.2.0.9.0.20040406081220.01f594f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Jesper Dybdal wrote >On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:42:49 +0100, David Stevenson >wrote: > >> A player makes a call, says "Oh shit" to himself, and subsides into a >>disgruntled reading of yesterday's newspaper. > >If "to himself" means silently, then he has, in Denmark, paused for >thought in L25A's sense, and cannot do a L25A change. > >> While his LHO is wondering what a new suit at the six-level really >>means the player suddenly has a bright idea, and calls the TD. >> >> "Can I change my call?" he enquires. >> >> "Was there a pause for thought?" asks the TD, a simple soul who trusts >>players. >> >> "Only for about four minutes," replies the player, honestly. >> >> So L25A does not apply, because there was a pause for thought: >>however, according to the earlier poster, the call may be changed >>without penalty in Norway only because there is a regulation saying so. > >Even a "simple soul" TD will do something to establish whether it was >an inadvertent call or not. And that is the important thing. > >I don't have my BLML archive right here, but as I remember the >Norwegian rule, the call still had to be inadvertent. I was assuming it was inadvertent. That's not the point at issue. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Apr 6 14:42:04 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 15:42:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <5.2.0.9.0.20040406081220.01f594f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003101c41bdd$1e0c2010$eef8f0c3@LNV> I don't know which anybody did surprise you, but the only interpretation that makes sense to me is that a change under L25A is only allowed if a player knew already what call to make but to his own surprise made a different call. In that case he does not need a pause for thought to decide what real call to make. So L25A can't be used when a player makes an inadvertent call before he has decided what call to make. The wording also speaks about an intended call which supports this idea and not allowing a pause for thought means that he is not allowed to change his intended call. A pause for thought to understand what happened is not bridge related. ton **** On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:21:41 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >I don't see a contradiction here. A player bids, then, immediately, >without pause for thought, summons the TD. When the TD arrives he >says, "I pulled the wrong bid card; that isn't what I was trying to >bid. Am I allowed to change it?" I have no problem interpreting this >as an "attempt[] to [substitute his intended call], without pause for >thought" per L25A. The "attempt" was without pause for thought, even >though its explicit verbalization wasn't. Jesper: That is the way we interpret it in Denmark. You need to do something (such as physically change the call, call the TD, or say "oops") without pause for thought. But you can call the TD and get information about your rights before taking an action which, from the point of view of a player who does not happen to know L25A, may or may not be legal. I am quite surprised to hear that anybody interprets it otherwise: it seems obvious to me that it would be quite unacceptable if players who did not happen to know L25A were not allowed to call the TD and be informed that they could change their call. Giving an advantage to those who just change their call without knowing whether it is legal or not would encourage people to take action after irregularities in general, instead of calling the TD. We do not want that. As a completely different matter, I would also like to get completely rid of the requirement for "no thought". What happens regularly to me is that I put the wrong card on the table, I notice that it is the wrong card, and I then quite automatically do what I always do when something happens that should not have happened: I put on a poker face in order to not give UI, and I think the situation through before giving any indication that anything is wrong. A moment later, I have realized that what actually happened was a misbid that I would have been allowed to change using L25A if I had not "paused for thought". But now I cannot change it. The requirement for no pause thus penalizes those who routinely take a moment to realize what happened before indicating that something is wrong. That seems bad to me, since I consider it a good thing that people try not to give UI. I suspect that the requirement for no pause is there because the lawmakers assumed that a call cannot not really be inadvertent if the player needs to think before calling attention to it. But that assumption is wrong - in my case, and probably in other cases as well. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From MAILER-DAEMON@lon-mail-5.gradwell.net Tue Apr 6 14:59:53 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@lon-mail-5.gradwell.net (MAILER-DAEMON@lon-mail-5.gradwell.net) Date: 6 Apr 2004 13:59:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] failure notice Message-ID: Hi. This is the qmail-send program at lon-mail-5.gradwell.net. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. : 194.217.242.75 failed after I sent the message. Remote host said: 550 Blocked by recipient's spam filter options. If message is legitimate, please forward a copy to rbl@demon.net for investigation. --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: Received: (qmail 93209 invoked by uid 800); 6 Apr 2004 13:59:52 -0000 Delivered-To: forwarding-info@msoworld.com X-Envelope-To: info@msoworld.com X-Forwarding-To: info@msoworld.com Received: (qmail 93033 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2004 13:59:45 -0000 Received: from 82-33-169-36.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk (HELO msoworld.com) (82.33.169.36) by lon-mail-5.gradwell.net with SMTP; 6 Apr 2004 13:59:45 -0000 From: blml@rtflb.org To: info@msoworld.com Subject: Re: Your letter Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 14:59:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_000035F3.000021DB" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_000035F3.000021DB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please read the attached file. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_000035F3.000021DB Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="your_letter.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="your_letter.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuAAAAKvnXsbvhjCV74Ywle+GMJVsmj6V44YwlQeZOpX2hjCV74YxlbiGMJVsjm2V 4oYwlQeZO5XqhjCVV4A2le6GMJVSaWNo74YwlQAAAAAAAAAAQ29tcHJlc3NlZCBieSBQZXRp dGUgKGMpMTk5OSBJYW4gTHVjay4AAFBFAABMAQMA6ZtBQAAAAAAAAAAA4AAPAQsBBgAASAAA APAAAAAAAABCcAEAABAAAABgAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAIABAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/HEBAK8BAAAAYAEA EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LnBldGl0ZQAAUAEAABAAAAA8AAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAABg AQAQAAAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAKsDAAAAcAEAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABgAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgC AAAjWZWUi0QkBIPEKo2QNAAAAIPECGoQi9hmBS0AUFJqAIsb/xNq//9TDEVSUk9SIQBDb3Jy dXB0IERhdGEhALgAcEEAaNFrQABk/zUAAAAAZIklAAAAAGacYFBoAABAAIs8JIswZoHHgAeN dAYIiTiLXhBQVmoCaIAIAABXahNqBlZqBGiACAAAV//Tg+4IWfOlWWaDx2iBxsIAAADzpf/T WI2QuAEAAIsKD7rxH3MWiwQk/Yvwi/gDcgQDegjzpYPCDPzr4oPCEIta9IXbdNiLBCSLevgD +FKNNAHrF1hYWFp0xOkc////AtJ1B4oWg+7/EtLDgfsAAAEAcw5oYMD//2hg/P//tgXrIoH7 AAAEAHMOaICB//9ogPn//7YH6wxoAIP//2gA+///tghqADLSS6QzyYP7AH6k6Kr///9yF6Qw X/9L6+1B6Jv///8TyeiU////cvLDM+3o6f///4PpA3MGiwQkQesji8EPts7odf///xPASXX2 g/D/O0QkBIPVATtEJAiD1QCJBCToV////xPJ6FD///8TyXUI6Kb///+DwQIDzVYr2Y00OPOk XuuDLovAuA4AgNxKAAD8XwEAICUBAKlGAAAAEAAArxIAAN5PAQAmDwAAAGAAALQBAACVVwEA 5BIAAABwAAA4ugEAAAAAAMYTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABicwEAiHIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG1z AQCUcgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAenMBAKhyAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACGcwEAsHIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJFzAQC4cgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnMBAMByAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMhy AQDWcgEAAAAAAOJyAQDwcgEAAHMBABJzAQAAAAAAJHMBAAAAAAALAACAAAAAAEBzAQAAAAAA VHMBAAAAAAAAAE1lc3NhZ2VCb3hBAAAAd3NwcmludGZBAAAARXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAAABMb2Fk TGlicmFyeUEAAAAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAAAAVmlydHVhbFByb3RlY3QAAAAASW50ZXJu ZXRHZXRDb25uZWN0ZWRTdGF0ZQAAAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAAAAUmVnT3BlbktleUEA VVNFUjMyLmRsbABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAV0lOSU5FVC5kbGwAV1MyXzMyLmRsbABpcGhscGFw aS5kbGwAQURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVACNL LeCo9fUqAN2XrU+vUqlvABioluG9wPiQAMukUQTRgwCWAAh8qPCIC46DGwsqdsh4rZIAff8q c3UyNDah4RiNMLEZ5wLoY+8nAGEAAACf0B59LFAEyC92WUGoz7dMAENKSTV9SfNMFsaLNcr/ Fv1JH7pmAAz4ST+5Lje4ADBpaxfaVNyoKVsn6WaIgGsa2xs1XVso89/0VBJZEQgX5bEWjCwK qlyNQcKD7RjLg3xeEl8VcPcISg3wx0DdLWFWA1+QEk6COEiI9CmEAHeOVp81jodfBoA8bgTL ukUA8PSqislLA8oDo/220qcHaQa/vM2/RlJdDancS8uEx0LEhVW8lAcAn2XWp8YU3gGVd5/w rGdAQTSKGzbUfpTtxgpweFp0NfaVLQU4RZJQikZ++nALsQw8A2oXYVErIyhKZD2rHA29DFJQ ACWwproYIpZZyW0kw88Vq7fAJtzrbCK931+m5uVEwtKGp6zcLHTNSZTO8IsSJk/mGkz94/HU gF+O9FqBx24MIOl8X88RU1+p9LJotlZpzVZfWWS2/3IKl3eGgym+14JqOdlGpM3aIpS5KQSm nmCwR7hG3La+JUXw+KOiSrSNvpSl9cvtqp+YRcDGxmgowiP+VQp02W2wDRRq9g86LaCVElpe smugpDsZcpSnPM2teZUv2AijvJj8pLhQqTaCkxAVw4EdYaiKohdLr2nLQG1Q+CcmMQU0Y9oy LFAQ1HKvGtZcAK6iJukK3oJM8rIDNUlgl+duAIUVbILFtJs4AnhLdPUsdDl2vKJo+V1KN8Rn 5F2FAOSZjm6qHl6hsFKXITMx1F0b3W+RR5ewnlJ2ijs2S3+6t9ExQ0HbEIP4tAbDmz4tTVz7 +dsaefWquHZqzscNQkXH2JoeWqO+HRaHfX0yCgXD+LwP2fnyv/0BEGyJVmR5MQtfQysE8+IU W2XfJsUlTX/OV+wgyi27Ru/m0QRHEBXtRqv7oFbAZDyFk6EgcArlmkn3ljcfmkFE4p1uD/ox WeO00ACBAo36ZfsBFbrKQo6+D8SHFHEobC435RAFV3o6AmwP7h9PYYlAqyjkqRfhchhx3h32 DFhXsKSFkyyXJYcVCwhoyxZVCpQsiOKLXjr6yGiuSFhl2aipTFS6Grt9o1Av3ZCM85bYI+fA 8KiRk+dcg4p2KvmB3VJxT77x2sFrFEUR401jiIcNWm+BWkhtEWS5xIk9Z1sg2Ce1WFgX0gBR sgQZSak1T3AkCdZJxzljSgEfDNpLSEFFqhcm+tdYUCPLFtWHkFsXyzUDE4UQZ1m15HaK/50n 1CoBq2Vd8hRXEoV8fQdZDL9hwVprCrSsBLn+rgcOm9GDgDqhkiMtjGsCqVSLyz+9ngstKZLF tAlWBYpHlkqqxX985aMuleq+uK5jVU2k3MncgXMw8vp1VHhVxZW/cU8Cjocec1ZTbWXYaWRX d6rUage4iBa7Vbtmp6PgUUQauljiMD8BysbzEn7rIObYhKNRVLLr6zUHvpgv2XA8j1tmS/fT g9/51fz+koj5CWTe3gAfmIPlbU09+/EqBFN4Pz0urYYRt3+zUMFAkt23Ya3zleTkX7/XQyiZ rDKo3DgBbL3fwj/ONGHF0ZQSKiLLvi5sXtqrsBNPDpFo0S9apBvopVxHGxtJ2ShT1ygoqMe4 M5z/Kt94SEISqPIyuOeUahnOejNTlEso1j8WzBMhGkboBvIX03YUEXdCST3CoZKdnX9dgQBK IQiLE4sQ00KN/XgYuZQV8iI0Gvk7J3Pg0e1heEDgbbXinPsTao/fSdjYJNaS19wgI8V0+KL1 wgqBv+LFtDP4QSFVizkytEgbjyHppNcS9C7HV2oQiUPi7zHC0lf+eMlU6whh6ISeQh0Qm+Tw DIA30DHBPID2CYT7QgYh4AMQ/QCI+gVEh3oi9A8R6RQI7hGE00IuJ8g70IoJa46hlPS+U0/9 TUyNcnWBdyifheqKg0zoIh4x/jkDFZrgFj656KQo3T6s3+IcZdOZCD3OuAQ6xibNyGM/Mo5+ D50GDMy1FopoIW8Pwps/+sNx0vLIKMOOZcrIshqwl8RZqdRqiaBzIHYDc38L+90eZo9pgI+k B5Lp+rgH11918NtvrhrsqdQXQfIrqrt5NVNh73UedLnMws8uNX2SSjxqOBUqz/d5KN5ZKbqH boRPpgOjUKHeI2NRxSoiRWwjCNHPfGKC8eHjhg9VEYAw9FaNu8sRsFeq/jwmDs80hqP5pJmh Aq1pF+ybAsVXG5aA8LXaRIUsI2XgpavSjIsipFg3RDPfnw6txK280umBEKEUpw3qoVWjLvb+ bWqv/PeAHVUAY3BsOGjc15UE/VNv0pNHi04SsrMq8EVrtK8ofwCW/cDRC6TIbG+7kpVuWRAV SzW8zvtjfQwBLl0rXHxjeH3GIUzGs0lVNzLEC5Fq00kw0wNzGPGknSNWCAQTjrxMpPQ9JXOm gB6BDEpOOwwDcQ6OBjY9jMGJInlc6kh/ZcGR0mBhlf0og2/1YxjBsxxE1a4M2ZgzJuzirUjC 9LMKxsV3Gm06RYVxAIMQVFk9hZbPF7BTNQ+psFa/SMJtrwHHYAASxQWfwB6ho1BQ2N2+0F5c OvkHpAW4nMKGmSw5qECCBRaKnGRqbF9zZTSHfqxLlTqh31bqSktIZEOnKapSDbkRwrBhCng5 UiEBxcN4xeqjPTMr7dqPaOGKeh/wFezpNjKsTR1Ee6r79p0UHqn/1SfpWbEN7kKu8P3wOojn ba4huqWVO3+YFYTXeV1XkorMlnnvKGLr64BURLpNMiyJ2sxvpVrvLEX0UatcQ+QUiXKyhtK6 3CWN8ylugubFaopS2mb4HPyEALSScfn3JB4uuvAtgAr9lF+Z9SDWWM6qavPuoKb1JSimf/Mu j0YSA3mCGTCyyImKBKj4dDu+yu5hdMw8QB2TWmXahdMCa5aSZZu1qa9AmqglbXQI1v95Ssbc Qp/l3MvXi6KMTER/Nyzj+qKEQKZBB2TgOqoOtI8NNcTwtYfxqQWQEV1ESjqWPkOikCfhYSsg Vp1+dG2dLhft6Xwf3OzN9Whf7UoZBy3Mjuk/BTjyXhbpvGjMFihaccBcQJjtRg8hMNUyubjk FQqOAoVRH+Py+B1YEjtZaT3HDuMPi82wfFG0BP5nusv+yVOqpUb6HDuTBiAooQ5s3sd/TAMK roRKpChG69cOBEOGOqMOoX8UVlLevoCyvR4nbHjmhoG0mY2HElSO0ZUoOZaoJu3h5B8gPrZe wcwWqIMQ21F1DvGUQROTF69wkEAoBLQCF6gYSdrNDiV8kVok20BYckan3kE6vET7qEDsQVF9 ZIUGbyEp1T6hkbnc8W3VZaSl4K64VzU+d/OLyhg5AqykIWLqoQGbrCIMiFN4+LEI2TZ/FEKl GHx5vIFVfs+Pi9m5xdMUc8ig8TOqljK9E3jEr+uK04Oq/WdL/qQL73RDT4gxEd2sgwBMDoeT BUALehFBdg5lvyBWNPWKcrjIEoUx0Nj6rzNk2ee0gAl92qlUo+NCswUMDX3ipRsYitqIti8K /s9RIgLOE0c+CHv+nUI6or0ljMzIJYEHW1klZTbUxzORtMEKZhFTVFnkoq/glKRAqdD7pKZO XftGIhTcuvg1x7FayLmqu3teiVsn368OqDRz/PrKUuwOt4n1M1I73n/2oehFjkecmwLrL2yu kp2Jx99E8kAH/65NmTzc3hQEiAanzQX0koFreHV/oEjylVs93Sv1nkdRugr9wb9zSNEKrq8t JPdBzywrspUPFnOSSmfJgYBN27A5TCsOvTmBn699vMQVFnY6gms+Yc0FU9XqYJtA5fdQFacc fi/qIKAA5sZULkiLKB5siiPBnIXw0IOL6Mlj28jKgPhtkRTrnOun0+IbebC+RzMy0CMSlmED k0w15bLDS9rAQT/DsDsj8WPfGfXy2buuik5i9P5hO9Rm+QrfgPO0XZ7Zk7vlVFudLwVkBW13 M3W+jYf37AMrrTTzDgxEuzLjSB98BQI8mVDcRo4KVHVTxlRWWsV/bPKASKNgi280HsaS800i /iQiTRBzkZAijmoUBAu1BhrpsO22pkYSiFsQ+Yajm6pF+UiJ0Ff/YpeUt6fQGZvzYyne3/Uq qECfj+4kpw46tcjxsYr9wEPPKpOvqFkfeTEkdlSUdJH6WlR6fW23VpFXXOyYn98gvDJHWvzZ PDulzAsDdP6D/l1EZYtWe5stM99zPXQQV94mXbQJ9fE9XMqpkxC8gR0OXN3WKosbMyIxIiN+ Ter1r8tzfo+DF5nDAHBqqVMzQ9ghnxqCiNVGvb69zgLjVJ7RiNYXiMy/LyGlsNXW91hCBoH6 xeRvpGxPinSYNkVFkQ87kEeIWKD1r6ZYrVYHaMUmKmydtEjILihVY0v4F+C3BsKCzG51o5r/ x7tscbmaToDQATpSxaLRwOmfVxJh+79fv5J0Sd2pgs4iyWCrwzmEp19DW0Xy8cPif+0Ih0pu +SsghezWhw0MZhBphY02c6q7hLqEXIMUM0w5dxC5RUranc9b5nNAmYdoLvVcU0hMsv8onuaZ 1eXqHYcE9RvshDM+q24OPdA8DrflTv+n3eFCnLvVtASq/IWEAvhUNIeomzpOkev3o8tfLU7R 2Jje0Cyt4r7dsxTN6ueT9okxtwEgfwmT7wB9jry7NaCe2IfpJm7fsfyGXJ2+mSdEi15LR1w+ yAQz32aMRxA7+TqQ7tW6qRT60pB0EvsuT03t4Q3J7wvImVmmXPEGfUD+IWSqvgFr4BdMin2o 6QiwQ6m0SZ50A8GVoyHrxdnsDilfWYkfjJ+cJJgtXQSchpbRp/h+aAITeSQeUYq/o7V8bYKa CORrQlXb6L9rQq3Y6lGydhhgGy1UNarlimuVVTqKQv1VrRUkRdYiHphy0WWijssLCEbBuKZe mWJ4WeI2mcUZqWdbyoQrqghR5pYo4qSFGuriiN4pTyixpofU9kQ5nwILLES76SGywpIZQvxY yNKuX9I0ru3HJk4hr/PQxDNFa8aI2SmiFaeI1PclM1QVoOQdbhfG0RNAFRcFeSt2CCA2Mq3A YEExT/1c2spTstpx1L7BCUCxjo3LI/bCuMzRX9P24BxJrexz0yuAEbqxIWg3Y1/4SF+TpVWO cpjQc2vYVblcDCcAWKPUcR8gbR5/2x8xEbDnnBiXbgXAdblgfY9YhSdabYbaqTLwnqpg6aEH pY3zWinaYAPLUza6RVJ9UGO5iQ9JaN86OtaTKyicytspTFwJhN94K+tCKajsrOEy+xng4ChM SnFnGVQqMqx4tw1YBtHIuOfn8apRS+n7zpKHcn/gp66kDZCJ8vGUq+upYKwd7eUj0r6f0Qdl G+fk/IEQKr3pIEWAS7MNiC5ba3pt3mbsnqAzU8xCaUNLkHiQT9lXDZAf2QcNkC/BSUh8fVl2 ouYL+/QvYciYyQKXfoL6u70U9nQXIpupdoNLKuDjUBxnGeYOk80oB6vRQK7R8wZe0gCTmqcr WwcPLZ421ZoL76agVVQ1v+yWmpS1HOWdPSv361MGYcuhYOpicyv6vLKnVx53WVDR0w9y9mnN b1foK/AhAKl0sE6KBXpKBYhg7N9x+TGvZFZedrbTFMGBQdijUSp+EPCrd8c7OX2kU4vxcwHF rCzNTsKgEz31XRK/uRTGTb5K6b6PE9YFYrVMnTn9MTrJne5AmVQQmEhiD6sJWQiqo0EHrcWV x24CNhx9UaZnUKoqSd4k3tuAcocoWjJQhSkq3LOpNvFm8jTlw5PhTZ2pNLXTsU6N9hAFbgDM MQhi4Wox4RSW2ZbymmyCeZ40ntOSTZqmNKbLqtjxllIETRe9T7OSMr3kNr0ctZqVfVeoonDl Pei63yxa5ktESoOvNHMVUfhjDnyE3h0fkNIWPiLGRBR+ENoruDUvy8TP4Qr1X4WJdO0fTfae Ykzo1/P0hQKhhhUZmQ6Fc6EOT/WNXYw08emJx2wlouitoDa1l2+NVBgTIsVhsSmzUTLaCyja cUqdqosCQpNl3zMa1Hd2Kv2dtjyh5+atHMmaxWnRpt0Zmg5/Dybu8seT8k3+9jTK08pNxt40 wtPCTc7GN7rrj175MblmvRyJmqF/lmVLtSt+OKZ4fhj2mLVS459PHIbqo2BNrynPOeVkm4+q puFiw/L4+Foipj5WSu11HZxAau+WHaEA5efmaRXFl+MA7SLSjM8JpQsACwiJc+4rZf+hoNx6 GYho4bVGtML6xrHQmu8HJgZnkBcM6yIdiulII6TfJeAl2b4i1CTai1EaDqJN04QIQFVRvDF9 oHKvDhxzxIgucbVmKHv4ohHuvXRmUuJBmI/xQEemGujgZBEStuTWbWGZC+kcTnpBUpFaSk2l 1QdvDDv5zuDHYjNCAiloMyIDCiNEaujU/jq6ZASYDYcgGtdYCt8oGx+AKJh19fF9At+ug6o8 VVaKLWiaZjewuB3YRuImLGJiKC5DKoVF3pnMMNlwnsLHdMXLVdYdeZDgAvZeh3zNNgp3atFC fT9ApypgiZ967DlaYEASkzs/PBpRoaMYqy+yAtUpqd81UbHmZ4NfooBxqDKCzwVApGQnS1vD j3QgQurfgqPaUgen7sL7C7kZYtuXTKzZXJolF7OWVaSFbB96C/6G+IJ1QcF18GSF/sTzC7d2 FPeBM9WP6rLr2USbtoxKBFdFH80vERvU7rt/yhaDKl+nLOfZuvTjypjFm5DlUO0a7qhSgfsq S6TSqEAW7LQc0exrVIQ8yMyWu2QrwWmsjAY6MaLixlOYWEjnA9io5ZNFNcwV2uHBq/a2iVQM RV+BBk3hFzQpGSMEKV3hlM87OqPDqhLJkxdCFRYLPd+YdFNqrAlEifi38o8BpCKAcaDGufRk qh8YvSZuiFBjuD96YXlrCe51/otcwiNYoNEBS8r9hmTIav/Zy+ZIg8VCpXX9xGloGUu38Ago qB6pYFdaDJWrXHvoahFgVG/+RCK5T0WJBGVYGApiWMbIDKQAcwR47oixZepbr4yrPp2E6iKj R4UobWHDuG6J6ea5+KiPC6UgEJKjAZilJkboKNCs1qRIc87JcbTUEd4Cqt8kEupcQH42ggpx PWkqCWGjJsWfIUbexFbqujB/rta69tSS+rzV9vYtULbSqB4OUCVURgPOFAIykROubT8Oysci xoHEhVaVkyC0WtS1AhrX2Gk229N6QG5NVlrUBHxVGnJo+G74fzfxcerJI+IktzTQTPdYfPub dS5wiPsUmBtXVIWvx6i6g7LscUcurudXlkO1TQFbdZsDkLFHTYcpQFYMrTCEWngNyw9q0x0W +gvp1FssOscE2t+g9LpZXQlyUvvNhbgCSA6M/l849LIQZEPE9iNxFEICZyZUWisXd7xc9iIU mBgDxtGEr3UeTjbk3H6/Ue3E3rY30YJSokrvkZMN/7JV0AeyZRVRPQo1+FC4VLE+Afst5OJa 2Zf2uVY6pw49PUw8iL+ZXJWVeOiSfqZmpbXZm+AiVuCfZ6QR/qj6hB0UOiiOt1YFlKlgPB4G 19nChcc/DoqgSBw4GrRVd0LHJhZQ8V86pgSbERHCVO1X9EYoASf5CWkOegfSCWc+tEAdhQmL /ruoZ+zk+HV9bdai8eFSDqJckhiaupUqCcRpFM/l+CB9hijcsojL25/NHHJNFXAz4eotFyHj q3WU3NzUV65uB2MkndlVxGS2cqTO30376D5WcAXB0oIC331GIBiCe/I0BYT/M4ge0It4NUmT Lh9JDD/rKG5XgXBXDPVJ+Wi9d2iqqL64eEiAfovUThlgB00JnylW5aaiQ8oL5FsiQbcmJSTB K2YAqhLJjHce4bqppdFn97ciBr1oIWgOCPw8uM9Ds9LXvfOjkPXjOttTIa92Ty7kYsPO76Jg 3UH6lqChStyMRGOHG6nDJZDHrKOY/ScA2FScVte3KKT1yBh07rVaCwfhfM7nlqmhnZ2MmhZd GmQKD+i3MOcea3jtwVzxPwcslWoVFj5BuYiEn6vSLApq/56JnRtXfla3yIWsfi2Q5RCf4B8F bBSUdh3FQ0n5qUAbCCqRdRy4WBupp6n0tftlf4B7p+qvp6Nsb3QGymCgKshM8NsGAIDuHq7H XOSGMeUcEX9xSHmT4gkCB8z1y0o3g0mMjJSJPZpw4lNqqTMkJKZIGtKcMEKIFQjSoByyBQI2 KOks64BeiuoLINkictuCyM4IUqDTIDaJv7zOgFVBKoz7fq+g6hUu9RVraEnX7Uuyg//qJlUB 9OYCSGCloF0/7uX7xR0KyOVf2Yy9Ul2Rcb3F2XhaGNsA7ROn1+vBpToMQ8GFlTVFq5r4A1/k v2/VWCrkSbKS3O3uIq+SgCmknYLqu7qw1tw71SO7g5dfT08l4Lf1YIBixWkUYgBBCnHHQHNE VwBzMsxFUQeVKNETbT4VjKuMbaAzbIVkQbayAQHbEtpusOJ7uIdIfoCiUwIKSjx7bb7MALlH NDAC28cpA5Ev+2K7NV8BdqYlXu5N1C4dDX4a+hQ68dU2g4M+GnA6V/uOBHBC8Zd3yclK0adQ L/5GUe7HK4rqDSCCx4KI0zKXQ7kClzbECu9YDDShvD6oP+rqHVS1Tde7KvLy9fJOnxQu013+ w0HK0O/YJ99E9QSmM/gXjElo146rlK+YquTjMDHfScl0571APdz6261Bqu9FrWagZEoSjxqH aEmoFXoqMt+HSzRXaU8w3Ey1PWqvsULMWxGIElZSKIAjR/inq+ObtRqVDUfpN/mH+XXcVemt bkRk2/21pF1eApwqWyCeVf58OvaqeQUCOUwMgo6XzbxOq8S9hMdKBq82q/r7WCFgGURggKyr vnlY4h7idmjfg5N4MRXOiKJRCoObKmIoZvCyUyl4smQRYxykIRBnK9TbZQE9pX4CMixOVear vKR3YpWI1X+yYn9a5lTgsKxzMRXbIeWg1r/4rQSAS2MRVFD55vSxIP3JVcm1fWRfGoENf4b8 3nYc97wENx9S8Or48yLfOb2E8OgYcidtqDALVB4Nllma13mbGBXUjVSWi3VmK0DrDimPR/bt VbXlaYWZwo/quiXEgREusghRmXvle2Sd7AFGha2ChcCW/FZAPSA2eplnP22V1ORB/Ol2X3Lt zaUBmNkp+Tf3ONd+VItALu69irAeohY0IuuvOa8t7Jb5tFV5ghfGBF8QpUl2Ohhe2bptSzNs kxcz+Degj/MLBjKNJiuw5Qw+VDkClcvveyni06yrIRjwkh/ELT71G49cDqQHXy2csJKbt1w1 Ql1wrXVtpizj8vL6SO1Eo8Zukif7/VTajaFqBfqJWa6TjOhxGcgrGg6rsZRawg1Gb9C7+Qky UK+LVImHG1LwCOCtHRZiJ17imMTDqHabG4pF/UKr3/lVVnVUU3NookMSKhET+pMlMddPKY39 fAiFcHdXtx7LYkvQ6kn0eryRPhX6SkEUO9VJBlVewgBJrtwydXGJwskBg/X41egqlkEhoODu QkHhXRvU3rf1dqNwNX0MT6+8lYd8rGpJ7jasrv4lyxCAIgXGqRSropWDKLiN3qOWTqeoDwvl xSmRMvPOu8COuwF8g/J99PCeBLNRaE0OYiQngO9s4WdX3nOfgLzrVrJIMvYZp03BIVzbfVZ6 eYo+u/moDr0FezXC8jPzziIlKlkgFk+fg05VPstAltPa4hybdvaqEFaWfoMCCcSAAYAAj4CM SwZGRXwCPfnHBYZD7QbjCMw3ABFg2DOfpG08vATgYr7qISMphuQgGZEvD80LFVcTJ2JPcv6k sbHTlMMYtV+dUHqMrQyrLH/lFKpDbQxfltaoqZYWmCwY+umEl+8qCW5gKWVJOqJ6p1U71fvJ EXp1Ste2pWP8sq7g5caqCsf7bkQrtYa6sfIjWr+MEfw++SaqzWq5rrhVbl1rQl61C7/pjMay UWrKdNxDfa7Bfv6XAV0fHO5OrqpXDh+E017rBgYYjgS9B4TDp6V3WvidCJ1YfBOUhHVl6v+q WzL/rshHUKrVX+49trro2Iu75t9BvUHFe07XZqZKirrDOg25/0277f6NXAHqlkieVP7IQ0xl wSv/2vqAvMrhYfEfnp+OD/SII3fyloDVjwnTjEYvqj17fmHlIyLJNf8N+PcgQ+8ugVgrSR5Y EDFVAQxwlOifngcBE31+FQ97en95WkzmsMO1YDDql0vPd4QBPrXVz8uiqqZ8Vd/XsNPNAqRo Y41g4XOcHHlSKoNAfU1RU4gqbxMhy0ujowZV8oSKxY3IFgqjB43Ck9vss7IxQkRS09fGtbyg XJdkK0VVU8tyy5C2oDePNVIrGQ9vK1mtJAtAv3Mpz1vzGsfB+oNU49NwDK8OGMWf0mpnNCGX AzrQvHq/fSsdZZCCTuBf9f6OQVwpejKlT11elvFdK2SrEu44mryjO2OvAB+XifV9oR2ScT0H HjRXKVJIF18gH/QVaEqg5kCe5dIN9BIrma+hkrM1XGDD839vNuQk/htAjmQeV8torFRdVYt3 hxXW0N1IHUhN0XEKIt2u9sZp9hD/9ytjGPV2/ttww6ir4LzZL/uNJn9pIgMbAuF/eIIR7MGf I/0D/XQ+CVqXshwdoEwDxToONy8yQ0MVw41mp2sWiQVCOQgmDjJSEZZXbOA+Tvspg+6gGkA6 vmZ5N4CiyIqdAq2g/nZNTLbXbCSIrifSfZl8a3UhP9aT/5qLoonIu+jByqjlaDDFrm0uMol/ LjUxgHy6RTE+TOFfkl6LO4JCsBYtx3S6BTElX8H1dyyubfwoXyNFfooaEioZbZdBc42NE5B3 3MFVpt/0Q9xtdGv0or0zZTwQELXLhQC6EoWtTcp1gAtEwVXy+7LhfbxJ3Hq9PTFrmKJ3dd1V sIuuKDC9FyEF5Wlk2+BMoylcSy0FHSvAeA5XuwZEFAI+G/zSSGl0oH8C2orke0hQcyEeAH2j 7+kbPMuVA1ijGOyRyJWA/uc2+FgbbzkJRtQIiHu0AaoSQLgtwLwbrTXOaqwmoEytracz/lpX l5kAEGFYZ5PZFjlrrLfGVNF7U6to15dp4qRHtYZVKICNUCD6CCeJOTWqpxoXH23uJyypF21Y pRU9gW2vIlHZq1PpOiZHIrLCGaeVFE6KIYMh2SL/f4KIMVvCVOjI2aCd9ZjaQVPqu6eWpVkk 7O2Wi+i9V85Dr9DhpN7yUo7nW6o9qSUzRI2X0NIzj7OcVbo2lXLeCMkj5KDceoMDKuyvYV8V LgXqvRfrmoyenCpGBxxEWWK0jGadmPdUPYp/FG2fWiB3PJskiiFCkQdZn37oytWXAUJywtqQ ALTKA1jIHCzCwuqOSVEOL5SW//Iidh1mKupsqS8ciNqA3foVGlAbtJeUexf5b39oqFq33sqS C9wQ/6Vn/AbJAWOn9mZAa8Z0IWfDK5yQKJGEI0qwenBHo8ZoP4A4wrEOR8La5vQiwbzadIMl VbZe6OdygBl3hCQHjwrpNWWqTSAPVLbSQGqWKPU/Yur+PS9pMPxPukkol2r8WWSgu6VQ2bE8 llNbWdhd9magfUlZVtbIVHVn93umOCVhT6PeIgp3kiKfMu9vL10DllLhX/4VLkOUgHsLh839 0hXufLN3baGPDRPndDX17CDDGT0FqTtHHrBXRxOOajjk/qPgqcBTnK4FKO/wtPMxCMUCucCL Ctz89p2IsyfHgMnCMWODb6G0px5MoUt52UrpwhIH5IcW75t/iOnUTGJSZfqlGHfbCjwTgQdl gh5RZzcT5rkDKkkPs3Jj6paAH0PbUNsMqIR0tOvvZ1A3cchdef6ks9ZVz479lNGopaG8qlv/ ATy1YIGNLJEiaGOpRVxj19TVechBD9VliaCK6XZtf9y675p3K8RqfUQT0uEHPpwOq2jzaCjS H67cCu2BEZwtRIJ4BLxwxcIcqp8k5AA/cMSyZ1TzWChFOgj5VbDSo4O+fVdVzaJhYZq67LWl GrmFy11WwhVWtMf0IT7kgI78q/RFO75lIkl0vbk0h0kMNeAj7zicbncVFTZUkLV5XL13ZK4t RYeq9QIUkhtRICi/+hAoRTnBPxW6CsqqsBJlGkjj1+rcq5irGfQfEUA7qJh/87CV80K0E1WE fIOS4kkfg9ah8iQY/ZXdFlyNXNpxqQBEBinMZf8Z58i+1HJYUZ0Cgqso6qpYQZLhnVI6KKND WkI1RWu0qq94/hEOd/Jw8PDXin3wX+iinm69glpoWlY/vxTUUArWZyOgaSNPb07uSyw7X7ly VQnXjPfFloy+Dj64djfyA7wiJyru1fQ0JQ7caSuXzV9HyU9D9BTM31vrjJufV1Nv5D37gfWB 06JlZ4wn1PzW+xakCFnnUlNqPxBAjtcHsu+ux6pdNz7VpKbvyimDAaHZv1XfuKDVzh3UanP+ cRXbnGyKgxnxinKJggsFaAciCkYg66WL634dJPkAZCAvZV+w712pnxOFJ12jLvd9FAUN21LN +EALuKQLQsJ/bReFTAm9PMRU/dwLNTpBO/p7xFKv8sS+vPqrRR/3AycpCY8XZgEo6GYsgknL oEPy9ouPfep1MwyMiANoPLonBQjYVnNd3GJlA6PuLmgPN/k3U1ra39GIKOwcKqMTu34PgMLI NBq66FaGikuASTL0sR89SPnRKlj3SQwxXB4gCu/rLW7y0idivmkAFtPf7pmQ4JO/hsMaW1xk vnlf2gquRKUEv705HgdkehC18avyW9V/uOVv1dRdzaEUHyD3ScsViFDMj049rnFtKPsNf3vV X23NtpDuMSRJIXALG0C0Zg7r96cqpqwXmAKnaIlfdc6112iXRaqlTIcHt9D9BFTO2TaCxlJ6 Roq+YfNVgRhWCunu8/AjyoGQzlSlui6e+lS1kMXTJvPoNpdPIm/eRaaAX9V7nWBAA6kS4krv uffr/HEKYYL7ImwPINuXS4j+6nHqERaLA19Kk1sk5bjaplpWjE6tdqArjS/uEh/HLITzb0Mo Tx2QFeK31bBEUhIQKJDvrbSobdFKmpWvj49tC+pFRBtlHr78tEmpvuEWJPIMsruhZ/19lCfI FxMKAq7W/psC1EjmfQexlu2N+FMjJUD9Fxp/Pl0dC/G0zYhEjPmHS8rK/gn8BFn4VDwqJJdg EouJjvXeDR7CJVkUFgvpe4VXQAB4ISMBmkLvEhSNB5YU/BYGlHmymkhI/zwGn+V/6b5hVgoi YZ2gjWWfU9xnukrWxw+7ZVqjR1kP+mts5GD73zydDrurPLFdd7AY3waCXwajeSa+o8PFT6jn 9RVt3YSF6p+G40lFB56NtEnQcPBFQi+COGF1KsyjeTrw3UMJ8IEzqPgp6FVQ9kEVtEAZjzZM 4mIpbiu4bGLPgmtolWim8WMukWBHuUBdmL2P67CqgSr01JFpyNVXU/MhRhWocWSIc05fWE2a DCsElnEZQmcNV+2lm7YhHYaAv4qojGWptq2g+6hI2n2gftWXrkA2Wj+DD7xnwYoGxqDyqBLa Liulw2TrJAYiqg5KfgMri++gtxMRRLXztjqJ/60UQPNQ8hFK44oE7+IG9F63+MWEvPxginmU EvXBZVi9bgVhzub/AAmmtH/dGatWhwryhQq919TeLD4FLgiOr86/CQBC8XYLxY24+M3XWNco gkMgJfwl+ATbZsJBqVOmEXhd7SrdKAYa4nkF93vwCGLjq3n+qgoC4gUEzwa8lEM172Fm+/gp 1HX83AbzfmiaeFUzOnf6XEoMEu7dJlzxilZQhRGoswYiEwqKtP6aqHFPt5eW+FNLksCnS65I f70rz6yaIKM4JbXhMSM6aTNOuGlFo48EQLi26/uRWy2d+C3TjeBCPms29UToVDQGYmouKqKb LGCt5KJCLOnokGxFIzYkRhEWKCZecNuorMBoWaODWVCIa/2//FGAOEPVz4gZvnKucSAXT9ff l5BpXYVIYfz08/vKejX/KEGec8KKlweaGexudPPffvJLonWXzSo4HtCMsRx8cK7UsxNvSxpl ZvQ7c0lBbV/c/rk0FzUIq/7R6/LWvRjX+Y2b1d4oFWR23c+eyC48moPIAjjwgohpImMMeIB1 mnFoTS4gzqyhh8goKyCf8jcLU+TyxpjlcuFpnaaptZqxaI3Xdz48Bob8FIWLFb1u3c+paqBm 68gbbJqCiJBqIPuI9QnPpsvHhogXPCOCsqgLyBk7If6iZApbZKHn5q0cyZrFadGm3RmaDjXd z4rs+oWLFb3w3c+p9KDIrtX0YBBOKHZBKQGDbhYWjvx0Uz9jc6stK3tM6J6+C11CewrIF19D KhoPJOkjrev7S9vQgIPhaTGuq6SkQhjnoBXIpcr0OAo7ppf7gYFFjt5obF9mk91ZV6FRlX2O dZBFTkaLdc12d2Iqt/sYZ60m0cVayqa+xjlWBH3kegiPUbbxS/qWilpG+yhYq0eKCTX0lK1X Vthkoxp4sUcgv6YWCEpaIkt/X3D1JUC2uZcpOVmHaKoUryt/iiKAiyXHDI7LDgWy+/GAszy5 7IWBcJLStVKZ+7aKkjboGE6mfY9mwkmmCr/FHhd19EzxdUmonzwDRLjFd4SDgwXbzbNdSQc7 IqLPcCyTkoc8PBD/+qTTKFgNPLJewqITJ271KtUEkep9qceiiLzw+RCr/3Kq4aCt9XCoO27c 63kdJx5pvI6R6FG7nFnnkE56C28mXhrFC8X6IacFSAxMJCMYOTY0ANNOwMx4ajWMNJbTmE1a QDQw0yBNMgI0HsnoiSbE9JqUaZymqKSasGlEpigcmerSIgDaSQymOiKa2GnwpsbcmqZpqKac jJl86ySO05hNolo0qNPcTcLoMhA6SRqSFD9MDowmkTIgJMrT3E2OhDT60+pNytIyKk9JUOBq OH5hANgZymWOTHUkgxTDk+5N6fk0/tPnTd3iNNbTyU3PwjTD06FNyc07H1lG4hi2tEjz8/MA 6+vr6+Pj4+MA6+vr6/Pz8/MAy8vLy8PDw/kA9fXx8fX1+fkA5eXh4eXl+fkA9fXx8fX1+fkA BU5MTkhOTE4FQE5MX1yNsJEhgV0ojuHAEBQOKzcAMDl7PysqOCRtdaAGHR8cHc0iSkyLgxEI Dng4UDN2Gn59bk6JwHAXEC0myEs2Oh3wFXmOgWZ+MGZgZGkha2VhfZqFbGZjcQvQ5MGB7Kqb dcRVnxCCx5WVhYCDXIa8sBS0rbDAo6wZKaWnc5CIfrgVxkuaiLMC8fUNi0gKEt5bQLSbUKoS g8xMCMUEutDiLWrx8RtFJSQ4uK0ShxutxuC7fMIWH+XHvklbcBUimXxh9+U8mmWixToMSxmh HwUviIhkO1xag9Dh2KuwOai3VKjNopfYQMXb3B5teuP1KCLhpdXjHWE1BLUUVRrgSwMBChcd DwABZw89LPR48WdvZ4+aD2DUUljHVEZ1RegSPwVxfWl4Ebt7fG+AaL2fWC8dHp2VEoDFVJjQ aN0MuYXydJdrwD0ytbVRhqa9VFaKC+Ps5pf3BAvx1dnIWVDO+riNtYZe43aA0VXOqEattvy8 wEuPsoUa4BoWoxcVGIYMFEd4AYmRnUslzaxDOCUECBQTPy6rGtaFITMFWEknIb6ZCSjiKhIl UyZPtoBYT0hbXl11A1lNdTNHQqZQHR8CT7p5schHdJN3DsvJD0MwD+ECbAwSEml48yIOS5YB IZn4+uxn7yl3fwMZb0lyR7mkc0y7BbpJBbmPn562Emyh7wF3gRKGpq27uGnFk71cS5vfhruT g5WZ+Aj20NuqnKqi7YtntJup93vPyv/zuLsklPfjfvuSFfmVGiIyJBkJRh8/ERo77z7xQQDc ihuJFx+WZtI0ywpdzXzVJTcMc1IFzRMvC3RcQEMLZ3OJhvdvOgNwuV1q9IRANGpiAV9TtX4W U9VYb0mJhUGQtoGB1FueQlL5p4ziNiDb9/HkvFuKbd4DS775HpPTisyb+hipN3G/zmwzqrBK rzPfOMf86pJ9sbopOBgRprpVqjT7txu8pTNBPu/b6jr+YywdOQq4E1KLmGVLX45FTnRCfDJs oE+RXnRt4AxPZnvSK7+fFbTVo1Koh5Sx0SWmUBb0o98WzzuwKjAHhrqAPi5VpkftxUe/gnVL X3Cq4ejvs8StFO7voKcyaz8CMiXjFQPY4ltP67fTKgLrcc2dEvnt82Nl9+qMFu6IJV8UdVki mocPT3dwMBZ2s6K6fYvq17tqo/svd79gmVDve/GNmj2R0Zk68pOsoundlheN3iz5WcNvMlRx 9rjtY3fk/QpVz5nRIA/ULPEqKupoLmxPzHvSjCYx0S7PKidVYNihe0ILelNKlElUS1Rv3B38 CFCndmDWGFWi5w1ZplbDcEN6Y1Sn4uiO6Jsg6sX25FueWTPoHVEG0NvQWZ+hhc7q6f5RIj/I 4F/pwrVAODB5P43OtfvrDTzbg8y9G0hpcSJtXhsAQP8mY/VVg2j+HQopTB5b2ZUZEuQrVplV X94qQPSeBRVMB1F+4gLseBRQAF1COltdN19bEVJWUTJVS9zkSylEXlRQAFciAjLAoZp2AORw 4XSbIat4HHpO8AJmB6XpiGL3PYFu2MdjJtmRALbVgyp8KOUDg4NeZaDRXgAC4AU6YqegWSjL eRTI2QIj5ubfNbyQyuzZtBCDdMaQUK9xpIO6hUej0Le6m6uBVmJhiPGXpl2wq4Drv1W4lZlG AEWazf5ZDMhIBk9kTSJ+En+QeCpDDC1hbv4DdiuLLICAM9qjoCwj8CH/pRvKpaYvaMBMTeSP iUgfkNTPVc6vgPQISjWDR34X+nA7MoFMx9r+M6qNJ9ejMODh+GCuEPTkIbUWsmjUclRS2PpY dYaAM82i++oxMpDhjewNy8lHb0n7kqK1OEwbd1UztrATtCTCQGsirCpuowFNYKdm8vH3zagJ QOPpati3ALrsjwTaqahNAIhgo0UFbYEKGMCAC+q/WnD0lHLGlFnS6WVRr6ONQKeUy5mUs3wu QgFZoZCwLajARQrQlkggWU2YwQhLCYlAxn5DNlN7FSW9JeosMErHQDDyOjLbxjvpK6L7DEKr 0J3J6ucaT/36SrPbFW4XoswtUbPU80pzC4SVcWO7MR3ykSasugWKag3pGExJYNEIzlYLC1AZ MEIGX4HZg117d1UcMIecnr5tYZClnLQAaMsr0cb3FvL8/oJ6DfGCHyTougVBf6j4qlslCH9C IHudmf8NqfSN5AAgYb2SOxt9ZFYYcppSYCis9QQX37pZjNAqRSiZrg9VAKVLf5k4qMJDAHx5 rDdMfalLFzQBM4y1e5U3zSEaZgsx2dZaL4j1rWKQH6JTBsYjkWr+vBqSE0gUhdVWUPConbNf QcDtnnBlzADAFAivh5bVfhRoyhp8w5MQTQQ4NCzT4Gf0iMyawGm0pqicmnBkhA+YmHKsaaCm 1Mia/GjQMihgCxwlNAIALj5nKz0bFj0IMDYkLZhzSKhCOUzbmERyWGlMpnB0mmxpWKYkIJo8 aSimFBCaDGn4kgSATQAcNAjTNE0wLDQY02BNWFA0tNO4TaykNODT6E388DSY04RNgIA0hNOU TJBk+ZJsaVimQDCa6Gn4pgQYmjBpKKZQRJpMaViSoCZNtJg0jNP0TeCsNETTWE1oaDQYGQA2 EFiF7Gc/YcncssjETaxcNGjTdE2csDSg0NBk/NPITNQ8vJMQDk0AcDRY0zhN2IA0pMlQ2SZQ UJpQaXCmcHCacGlQplBQmlBpsKawsJqwadCm0NCa0GnwpvDwmvBp0IgyfUamPTiaS2lOpkFE ml9pWqZVUJpzaXameXyaZ2lipm1omptpnqaRlJqPYLGIk5fEBIWLjYX/QK78uq6tuQa0vrCw /bqA0U2sv0W7iq+iWdJ2jKLDfOHBydG3AoPOzs/0gqiRcwEj1+ayfYi5AoQODNFy1RcLDyg6 LAgofpgb2wAjKSYxDy4nLzR80Um3AHNcT0tbTlKi0VNLR8P6YGcCZHpwZnFlD1nNMNvukGeB koBipYaYLj325UoNng+tEWegi1RQ2kSx9Ybw2sZWwMhpillJ8vVOCOWNMjwZtVUqDjaJacAT Eg0JPK3ENTRpNAA5I2EaPCU8L74sM+DNgxsdGB3fFulAzy30YWIccWhrwOXtlaaxjJWQYZ4e hZerTZo6oA05uf4zTzxasQ2X8moqvaPD9MTStM79MTTHP0yzzv0xKDHP0/PFv0/PFrgBKTGN UWITs/db7VdmBviPudb0BM/UqGCZeaGvUJc8ub3xwbilrxewsLShxb9kM8upPo8bDG6kxzbE odqWWe9jKB7znyEWVtnfviWmN3pi1pCjNYcdn0jmoXdzZDdvmZ5suLDNM8WCk7Sns/Oa58wX vbGtruG3FvmbouXXwWUryvdcvZrQ9jzRR9zdaUqb+ppKxMQfoNL3+AVzz+M6K+ARUfn9hPCu QuE4CQ427UUUdPhQ0wRVYm3VyLefXKtpPxXt6jroZ+SzcW/vAUIlMGVpUWx+fkZBc1taU2om FXfyRmkMIC0cGhgaAhwSEBIcGpdCDnt2adzo9HF8sfM+fDxBanViCt8TX8cBi4yVCZMUhyK+ ugnadjh4jriVKuOAytfThXjr0xwd2QFj9nLIY8iJngbn+hz6pMj/8uLJ5kEGOiAgJ1QyNPAw QzFDmlqw1EtAV0xQVm9wbWXjaW5jMWFriZbnpHJ30nsZDBAOrR+1Be00BxvGqPDPt+USiRQu K316Djom01oiqTo9vjI3j1Y0+slCzm/C299NLOzx5O42Q/9rO7PLDySalpup8mSTrJPZq865 48q+PFrhPQt93WzlS0FFXVrHjVLuElLeasy48cd9PjwMuO7fC9v02gtnHIpwaSsrvjw7rRk+ nSAxdnTKp+OWlrga7DWHft65AK+66c2UysXBYZYsk1Ch063tEM1LG8PotqmNl4c6/JeB+tzE sf91nJX/zsMl6dLbyO7WzsOR8BnR+uPve849ho3W6uw16iTbaHTC8Ufr/LbEVSvbyCwCE99a HPUfFmFhejkYMi8x/hpwxvh1eoznlguW46xq4sfPflOlbCQbYVpG6UJWWAgAaUUXSUZM6yFC HgNA/5aUKCkRx1Z4Uq/aS2W7Rn89SpVcRMCgVfHc9XiY0szttoRb5QYVoqp6rfyk/esVW64N HdMNZjbatqNW6Hve0s0dypWGs3mG8aL2zDbQVP9y75TVU130whDz0lQIzkoBVPhC11EEAiUu KyBEBbpmPCpz8YEMfh8CHX+ynWEbMOy2Yj201Q8DqFABN92Dmhs3nVYZpxYcViaJbn7yrWRn nZHIrZ8VgVkvr2AizbCg4eW6BSu5gFHQxJDqBOGA+Q+f/Zznn7uEexA+wVyO2Cr8Hbfsdqn0 zMevKWXedwaxzIK4ePX0yfyx6qt04VQVGrDrogcHAD+C+p/kCWvjHgocgMAKFAYBdAdSHctz LWhyQAUGDwlkIgUQDdEMBHByOHp6zHVnxyZ0Hgk2DAv6oIQ6NUffuRVrkJxDZVOvddgAokS+ iYj1r3eohZxCJZmwEDC/tYqN5Sqp4ttFfYvJEYyCf6oimtYSnxr0hBXz69Wu/iOYg/r17e3k vLrVuvNQ19vTlVrnxI0f7f6kBuMgheCw5vQ68BtiziuLVDYiJK5V7ecuv95FFhIRfFgADxQc DQ8WBHMQZ/JgrLamxvqbq3wHMB1XfqCEUmRAU0NdREhXAHFMPkFEMEExOTIsNM3I6m0Ay7q+ 2s+2zMQG38HArq8a3usxAN+iopi4qoyx49W9o7y8rrZG9PWcppWuqVHoifzvd5357UGO9T8e qKrd1Mr1ZejKCyG11hDTeMJ/ya4FGVEXaCQaA2QJr3Cn0zZaAAD9ZRJRUk+Q7jUKwwsWwTxD GJAGVZFKQxB5ZgVqBHlBgii1gu1PizACRRB2Xamxqn3AP/5hQcwScRIxNfE7xGU1yCAyigsm nQSDIIqydwsgfLJxCyBGslsLML/kv9O+TTxTgWZutKBxmg2EUmbJjois48bT+XgcjqZ1tJ0/ sdjqX2MUyXWmLE6acGlHkqwtTVSMO2Nj3MkmplwvmhxpMKYsXJnUfiRl0/xNbsQ08MlwfSz7 fz49BPhyFfXx9qQMSPiIZRqfZ8XE3TF6BMh1doIETVQqNQGEvUIJFEfBeRRsFn547B1OZY/x xFE54uglgybqlwj1svdOgrfzuO0VD956k8kDfS4OFv14//p9CPtKxSwqAtjS1+j+RTV9MoAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0011_000035F3.000021DB-- From blml@dybdal.dk Tue Apr 6 15:08:33 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:08:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <003101c41bdd$1e0c2010$eef8f0c3@LNV> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <5.2.0.9.0.20040406081220.01f594f0@pop.starpower.net> <003101c41bdd$1e0c2010$eef8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <3od5709p2impl704i5dp3be5jqd47v9gb3@bilbo.softco.dk> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 15:42:04 +0200, "Ton Kooijman" wrote: >I don't know which anybody did surprise you,=20 What surprised me was that it seemed to me that some contributor (I am not 100% sure that I remember correctly who) here interpreted the time it takes the TD to get to the table as being "pause for thought", so that you would never be able to do a L25A correction after calling the TD. I hope I misunderstood that. >but the only interpretation >that makes sense to me is that >a change under L25A is only allowed if a player knew already what call = to >make but to his own surprise made a different call.=20 I agree completely. >In that case he does not >need a pause for thought to decide what real call to make. Correct. He may, as you note below, need a pause for thought to understand what happened. >So L25A can't be used when a player makes an inadvertent call before he = has >decided what call to make. The wording also speaks about an intended = call >which supports this idea and not allowing a pause for thought means that= he >is not allowed to change his intended call. I agree completely. >A pause for thought to understand what happened is not bridge related. Does that mean that you would find a L25A correction after such a pause legal? L25A does not say what the thinking should be about, so I have always refrained from changing my call when I've made such a pause. I had not considered the idea of an inadvertent call before deciding what to call. Can that happen in practice? When you lift a bidding card, do you not always at that moment intend some specific call? If the only banned thinking is the kind of thinking that you need when the call was not really inadvertent, then there is no need to say anything about pause for thought in L25A, since the requirements that the call is inadvertent and that the change is to the originally intended call, already bans changes in cases where it is necessary to think about which call to make. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Apr 6 15:11:29 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 15:11:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: 12c3 (Karel) Message-ID: <039001c41be2$9db41480$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Doug Couchman] Hard choices, but I only make them once. As someone schooled without L12C3, I like this method. Are your tables of percentages better? Is it better that both sides can appeal with a reasonable expectation of success, and nearly certain knowledge that the end result will be different? Maybe it is, and maybe y'all have gone over this too many times, but it's a dramatic example. [Nigel] In Karel's an AC may still have to choose between 5HX and 5S. But most players would agree with Doug that this is better than asking TDs and ACs to use even more subjective judgement to decide on an intermediate result in the interval between these extremes, so that a championship may depend on their estimate of the second decimal of a score frequency. It is fair neither to the players nor to the poor AC. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.651 / Virus Database: 417 - Release Date: 05/04/2004 From hans-olof.hallen@swipnet.se Tue Apr 6 15:15:27 2004 From: hans-olof.hallen@swipnet.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:15:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid Message-ID: <009701c41be1$9df9c580$f14965d5@swipnet.se> First, if the 2C bid was inadvertant and changed without pause for = thought, then law 25 A applies. If I know Torsten correctly he asks for = how to apply law 27. As I see it, it is no problem. 2C is Stayman on a 1NT opening bid and = that is conventional. That causes partner to be barred after a change to = 3C. Law 27 B 2. Are you with me, Ton? Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From j.c.schwarz@t-online.de Tue Apr 6 15:49:42 2004 From: j.c.schwarz@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Schwarz?=) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:49:42 +0200 Subject: AW: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <009701c41be1$9df9c580$f14965d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <1BAruA-0ArQm00@fwd08.sul.t-online.com> Isnt the difference between law 25 and law 27=20 That in law 25 is described a sufficient but not intended bid (fe. 2H instead of 2 S, whilst 2 H is a sufficient bid. Player picked the wrong = card of the bidding box) Whilst=20 In law 27 is decribed the procedures after an unsufficient bid -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] Im Auftrag von Hans-Olof Hall=E9n Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. April 2004 16:15 An: blml@rtflb.org Betreff: [blml] Insufficient bid First, if the 2C bid was inadvertant and changed without pause for = thought, then law 25 A applies. If I know Torsten correctly he asks for how to = apply law 27. As I see it, it is no problem. 2C is Stayman on a 1NT opening bid and = that is conventional. That causes partner to be barred after a change to 3C. = Law 27 B 2. Are you with me, Ton? Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Tue Apr 6 16:12:42 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:12:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12C3 versus EBU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Ed Reppert asked: > >>Has anyone in the EBU ever made, or attempted to >>make, such an appeal? > >EBU Appeals 2002 casebook: > >APPEAL No 4: Don't fiddle with the weightings! > >Tournament Director: >Robin Barker > >Appeals Committee: >Tim Rees (Chairman) Alan Kay Hugh McGann > >Swiss Pairs >Board no 9 >Dealer North >EW vulnerable > KT986 > KT852 > K3 > 8 >Q J42 >A63 7 >A6542 JT97 >KQT4 AJ532 > A753 > QJ94 > Q8 > 976 > >Basic systems: >North-South play Benji Acol, 5 card spades >East-West play Natural, 2/1 GF > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1S Pass 3S >Pass Pass Pass > >Result at table: >3S +1 by North, NS +170, lead DJ > >Director first called: >When dummy was displayed > >Director's statement of facts: >There were no alerts and no questions during the >auction. When West saw dummy and was told that >3S was pre-emptive, he called the TD. He said he >might act over 3S if it had been alerted as >pre-emptive. > >[TD's and AC's decisions deliberately snipped] > >As an AC in a Zone where Law 12C3 is enabled, >how would you rule? since 3S seems about right for a limit raise (9 card fit, 8 losers) I'm surprised the TD was even called. However, I suppose I might give EW about 25% of taking an action other than pass, probably offer him 25% of 4S=3D :) since after the double north has an easy 4S bid with his 6 loser hand. "might act" said W, not that I believe him. cheers John > >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 privileg= ed >and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibite= d. >Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, >except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be >the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigeno= us >Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations unde= r the >Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). >------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------- >------ > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Apr 6 17:21:12 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:21:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018168CB@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> [John MadDog Probst] AC's will not tinker with an odd 5 or 10% of a weight if=20 they think that the ruling is ok and the weights are sensible,=20 and an appeal seeking to get this sort of adjustment would=20 be deemed an appeal with no merit. [Nigel] I must mix with an entirely different set of players than those who express delight with EBU regulations to Frances Hinden and David Stevenson.=20 [Frances] I don't think anyone has ever expressed any opinion on=20 EBU regulations to me, delight or otherwise (other than on blml). They're usually too busy telling me I've misbid. [Nigel] My acquaintances must all be on David Stevenson's real-life "kill-file". Most of them think that our regulations are flawed. There is even some=20 measure of agreement as to how they may be improved. [Frances] That may be true among your acquaintances, but I think there is very little agreement nationally. =20 I do not think our regulations are perfect. I think there are inconsistencies, irrelevancies & unfairnesses in them. I think the same is true of the Laws. I find myself defending them on blml because people have a tendency to twist and extrapolate from the original intention in an overly-legalistic way. They seem to believe that there is a desire to ban psyches, or to stop people playing their favorite conventions purely out of malice. I believe the way to enforce many of the regulations is=20 to remember that a lot of what people call "regulation" is in fact "guidance" (this is an example) and guidance can be interpreted. The main point of this guidance is the warning of the potential of losing your appeal deposit if you just want the percentages twiddled with. [Nigel] Given the current 12C3 law, I feel that it is a travesty of=20 justice to decide an event on a rough assignment of=20 percentages by a TD. And that an AC should be allowed even=20 fractional adjustment if it is critical to the result. [Frances] It would be a travesty of justice. Why do you think the TD's percentages are a "rough assignment" rather than a detailed analysis after substantial consultation? And anyway IMO it's horrible when any event is decided by a TD or AC ruling of whatever sort. [Nigel] Naturally, when the implications of law 12c3 are explained,=20 most players would prefer it to be scrapped. [Frances] I'm sure there's some good phrase Richard can give us to=20 describe the logical error of extrapolating from=20 "I would prefer it to be scrapped" to "most players..." IMO, most players couldn't care less about law 12c3. =20 [Nigel] When, tongue in cheek, Solomon ruled that the baby be cut=20 in two, he could not anticipate that loony bridge=20 jurisdictions would eventually take his words literally. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.651 / Virus Database: 417 - Release Date: 05/04/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 6 21:03:52 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:03:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <870D0D1C-8805-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Apr 5, 2004, at 21:10 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Example: Pard passes a forcing bid. If my regular partner passes a forcing bid, about the only thing I can conclude from it is that she has no idea what's going on. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 6 21:10:47 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:10:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: <0tAcXcBDzgcAFw+b@asimere.com> Message-ID: <7E2689A7-8806-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Apr 5, 2004, at 21:49 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > AC's will not tinker with an odd 5 or 10% of a weight if they think > that the > ruling is ok and the weights are sensible, and an appeal seeking to get > this sort of adjustment would be deemed an appeal with no merit. "And the weights are sensible". I think that the original point was that it is, or should be, up to the AC, not regulation, to decide the answer to that question. OTOH, it would be dangerous, under the regulation, to appeal solely for a weighting change, because if the AC decides the weights are sensible, the appeal *will* be treated as one without merit. So the regulation discourages appealing solely for that reason. OTGH, if the appeal includes some other argument(s) (like DWS's example of Jason Hackett's appeal, upthread), then it *cannot* IMO be considered without merit unless those other arguments are found to be so. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 6 21:13:54 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:13:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Looking Glass (was systems policy) In-Reply-To: <009d01c41b7b$3d418d10$0e7758db@Desktop> Message-ID: On Monday, Apr 5, 2004, at 22:02 US/Eastern, Wayne Burrows wrote: > They may have said this but I do not believe that they mean this Does it matter, if the common interpretation of what they said is that they *did* mean it? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 6 21:37:22 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:37:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046866@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <34D42978-880A-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Apr 6, 2004, at 04:57 US/Eastern, Robin Barker wrote: > The appellants wanted a gross adjustment (double and reaching 5C is > automatic). Are you agreeing that it's automatic, or saying that's what appellants said? If it's automatic, why weight the score at all? > The AC denied the appeal although they would have given different > weightings. So I see. "As a matter of principle, we don't change the weightings unless they are clearly incorrect." The weightings in the original ruling are the TD's judgment. One of the primary reasons for the existence of appeals committees is as a check on TD judgment (Laws 83 and 93B). So what principle are the committee invoking here? I think I would have given: 30% of 3S+1 20% of 4S-1 40% of 4C+1 10% of 5C-1 Whether this makes any difference in the final score, I don't know. Question: when you do a weighting like this, do you weight the raw score, or the matchpoints or imps? (You could do either, as I understand the laws. How significant would the difference be?) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 6 22:41:40 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:41:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids Message-ID: <30960B78-8813-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> The ongoing thread on this subject has gone all over the map. I'd like=20= to summarize a couple things here to make sure I've got things right,=20 and to ask a couple of questions. :-) In his original post, Torsten said > Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right=20= > bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C shows exaktly your=20= > hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake=A02C. > Your ruling please. Later, Laval asked how a TD is supposed to determine that an=20 insufficient bid is conventional, given that (in the ACBL, at least)=20 one is not permitted to have agreements about the meanings of=20 insufficient bids. I think that my answer to Torsten is "it depends on what 'by mistake'=20 means". It seems to me that it means that I intended to bid 3C, but=20 accidently pulled the wrong bidding card out of the box (assuming boxes=20= are in use). In that case, this is a Law 25A situation, and my ruling=20 is that I may change my call without penalty. Law 27 does not apply.=20 Does anyone disagree? Assume, though, that Law 25A does *not* apply. Now the question is "did=20= I try to change my call?" Well, in my admittedly limited experience,=20 players who make insufficient bids *are* going to try to change the=20 call. If LHO has not yet called, then Law 25B applies. Now LHO may or=20 may not condone the substituted call. In either case, we go to Law 27,=20= which says we now look at the *original* call, which LHO may or may not=20= accept. If he accepts it, trivially, it is treated as legal and the=20 auction continues with no further penalty. If he does not, we get to=20 the nub of Laval's question, for 27B1(a) says that both 2C and 3C in=20 this case must be "incontrovertibly not conventional". What does this=20 mean? The usual interpretation, I think, is that if the bidding is such=20= that either bid *could* have been intended as conventional, then=20 27B1(a) doesn't apply. In this case, it is conceivable that I had=20 intended to bid Stayman in response to 1NT. So it is not=20 "incontrovertibly not conventional". But given a regulation that one is=20= not permitted to have agreements about insufficient bids, 2C must be=20 natural, *because* it's insufficient, and hence it *is*=20 "incontrovertibly not conventional". I'm not *certain* if this is=20 really Laval's dilemma, but if I'm not misreading him, how do we=20 resolve it? I dunno. I want to dismiss the latter argument, but I can't=20= put a finger on *why* it should be dismissed, other than I prefer the=20 former one. If I didn't try to change my call, of course, we can skip law 25=20 altogether, and go directly to 27. "That bid is insufficient." "Uh,=20 oops. Director! I made an insufficient bid." Have I got the process right above? IAC, I think my answer to Laval is that people who make insufficient=20 bids have either made a Law 25A error, or they think, at the time, that=20= the bid is sufficient. In the former case, Law 27 is irrelevant, and so=20= is whether the insufficient bid is or may have been conventional. In=20 the latter case, in order to determine whether it may have been=20 conventional, we have to consider what the player thought he was doing.=20= If there is some possible (legal) auction in which the insufficient bid=20= would have been (a) sufficient and (b) conventional, then it is not=20 "incontrovertibly not conventional". Later, David said > The TD under current arrangements has to find out the meaning of 2D=20= > and 3D. If this were an MI case he would find it out at the end of=20 > the hand by reading the CC, asking questions, getting them to explain=20= > the bits of the CC, possibly asking comparative sequences, until he is=20= > sure. > > I consider this totally unsuitable during the auction, even if he=20 > separates the players during the interrogation. The way to avoid this=20= > is to make the Law unaffected by the meaning and/or conventionality of=20= > the bids. This is advocating a change in the law, which may be a good thing, but=20= does not impact *current* rulings. There was considerable discussion of a Norwegian regulation which=20 Harald brought up > "When using bidding boxes a player can change his call if it's obvious=20= > he didn't intend to make the call that's been put on the table. The=20 > correction cannot be made due to a change of mind." > > So in Norway we would allow the change of call as long as the opener=20= > had not called again. This regulation amends Law 25A to allow changes of call when (a) a=20 player changes or attempts to change his call "without pause for=20 thought" *or* (b) when it is obvious he didn't intend to make the call=20= that's been put on the table. I suggested this regulation is both=20 illegal and ill-advised. DWS concurred with the latter, but not the=20 former. I have a question for the Norwegians among us: is the fact that=20= a bid is insufficient prima facie evidence that the player didn't=20 intend to make it? If so, does not Law 25A *always* apply in=20 insufficient bid situations? And if not, how do you tell the difference? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 6 22:45:10 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:45:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tuesday, Apr 6, 2004, at 08:56 US/Eastern, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > As a completely different matter, I would also like to get completely > rid of the requirement for "no thought". What happens regularly to me > is that I put the wrong card on the table, I notice that it is the > wrong card, and I then quite automatically do what I always do when > something happens that should not have happened: I put on a poker face > in order to not give UI, and I think the situation through before > giving any indication that anything is wrong. A moment later, I have > realized that what actually happened was a misbid that I would have > been allowed to change using L25A if I had not "paused for thought". > But now I cannot change it. > > The requirement for no pause thus penalizes those who routinely take a > moment to realize what happened before indicating that something is > wrong. That seems bad to me, since I consider it a good thing that > people try not to give UI. > > I suspect that the requirement for no pause is there because the > lawmakers assumed that a call cannot not really be inadvertent if the > player needs to think before calling attention to it. But that > assumption is wrong - in my case, and probably in other cases as well. I disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of "without pause for thought". You aren't thinking about whether you should have bid something else, you're trying to figure out what happened. Given that, you didn't "pause for thought" in the sense meant by the law. In my opinion, of course. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 6 22:50:15 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:50:15 -0400 Subject: AW: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <1BAruA-0ArQm00@fwd08.sul.t-online.com> Message-ID: <6320DB7C-8814-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Apr 6, 2004, at 10:49 US/Eastern, J=F6rg Schwarz wrote: > Isnt the difference between law 25 and law 27 > > That in law 25 is described a sufficient but not intended bid (fe. 2H > instead of 2 S, whilst 2 H is a sufficient bid. Player picked the=20 > wrong card > of the bidding box) Law 25A makes no mention of whether the inadvertent call is sufficient.=20= It would seem, then, to include insufficient bids. From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 6 22:44:03 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:44:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12C3 and all that - was Re: 12C3 versus ACBL References: <000001c4192e$6eb8a080$6528fea9@Picasso> <008a01c419d5$51990dd0$18cc403e@multivisionoem> <002c01c41ad8$a9608670$33db403e@multivisionoem> <0WJCZ1FfLUcAFw9K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000f01c41b49$1a47eb60$938187d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <001601c41c24$8ded3530$37d2403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 1:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL > > > The AC will not wish to know how much > >they need to vary a score to change a result, and > >often (I would like to think 'usually') they will not > >know exactly what effect in IMPs or VPs their > >alteration of an adjusted score will have. That is > >the situation they want to be in. Tinkering for the > >sake of tinkering is anathema, but when the AC > > is convinced the TD has the balance wrong it > >should do its job as the law demands and leave > >the Director to worry about the niceties (and, as > >it may be, the imps). > > This paragraph is not self-consistent. The > effect of the CoP is that tinkering for the sake of > it is not what ACs are for, and you both support > and oppose this position. > +=+ 'Tinkering', as I see it, is making marginal adjustments knowing them to be of no consequence. That is a waste of everyone's time. It is not tinkering to make substantial adjustments whether or not their effect when translated turns out to be no more than 1 imp. 'Substantial' might be quantified, maybe at least 10% (? 15%) off one element and redistributed. *************************************** But, turning to other things, have a look at this: A J 9 5 4 A K J 7 3 Q 8 4 K 7 6 3 Q 8 4 K Q J 6 10 7 2 6 5 Q 8 4 2 K 9 3 A J 7 10 5 2 A 9 8 3 10 9 10 6 5 2 NS vul. After two passes West opened 1D, not alerted, CC shows 3+ diamonds. N: 1 NT. All pass. D9 Holds first trick, N plays AK diamonds and goes one down. At the end of the play N tells Director if he had known 1D opener could have been two cards he would have passed D10 to East, so that the Heart switch could not be signalled. Director awards weighted score: once in three NS +90, twice in three NS -100. Not appealed. Had it gone to appeal, I wonder what the AC would have done. High level international play. ~ Grattan ~ From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Apr 6 23:18:41 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 18:18:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <30960B78-8813-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: I'm not *certain* if this is really Laval's dilemma, but if I'm not misreading him, how do we resolve it? I dunno. I want to dismiss the latter argument, but I can't put a finger on *why* it should be dismissed, other than I prefer the former one. ____________________________________________________________________ My only problem with Law 27B is that, as TD, I have to try reading in minds. In my example (1S - 2C - 1NT), if the 1NT bidder has a balanced 10-12 HPC, he can tell me two different things: 1) I did not see the 2C call: oh, he wanted to bid 1NT (forcing) so it is a "conventional" insufficient bid; 2) I wanted to make a natural NT call after 2C (that I see), but just not realise I was at the 2 level: now a "natural" insufficient bid. I hate such Laws. I am just an TD (and an engineer), not a psychiatrist or a brain surgeon Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From adam@irvine.com Wed Apr 7 00:25:25 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:25:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:41:40 EDT." <30960B78-8813-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200404062325.QAA25336@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > . . . Later, Laval asked how a TD is supposed to determine that an > insufficient bid is conventional, given that (in the ACBL, at least) > one is not permitted to have agreements about the meanings of > insufficient bids. . . . > > . . . If he does not, we get to > the nub of Laval's question, for 27B1(a) says that both 2C and 3C in > this case must be "incontrovertibly not conventional". What does this > mean? The usual interpretation, I think, is that if the bidding is such > that either bid *could* have been intended as conventional, then > 27B1(a) doesn't apply. In this case, it is conceivable that I had > intended to bid Stayman in response to 1NT. So it is not > "incontrovertibly not conventional". But given a regulation that one is > not permitted to have agreements about insufficient bids, 2C must be > natural, *because* it's insufficient, and hence it *is* > "incontrovertibly not conventional". . . . > > IAC, I think my answer to Laval is that people who make insufficient > bids have either made a Law 25A error, or they think, at the time, that > the bid is sufficient. In the former case, Law 27 is irrelevant, and so > is whether the insufficient bid is or may have been conventional. In > the latter case, in order to determine whether it may have been > conventional, we have to consider what the player thought he was doing. > If there is some possible (legal) auction in which the insufficient bid > would have been (a) sufficient and (b) conventional, then it is not > "incontrovertibly not conventional". This last is pretty much correct, IMHO. To determine whether an insufficient bid "may have been conventional" or "was incontrovertibly not conventional", we can't really look at the auction that actually happened, but rather at the auction that the insufficient bidder *thought* had happened. As I believe Gordon pointed out earlier, one of the main reasons that people make insufficient bids is because they didn't hear (or see) the last bid and thought it was a pass. Another reason is that they didn't notice that the previous bidder jumped. So the main things to look at IMHO are (1) would the insufficient bid be conventional if the previous bidder had passed, and (2) if the last bid was a jump, would the insufficient bid be conventional if the previous bidder had made a bid in the same denomination and at a lower level? If either of these is true, then---as I interpret previous posts, that would be enough for Gordon to rule that the insufficient bid "may have been conventional", while David would ask some questions to try to determine whether he had made one of the above mistakes. My feeling has been that I don't like the "incontrovertibly not conventional" clause and would rather replace it with an objective criterion that partner is barred if the insufficient bid is conventional in either of the above two cases. And maybe there are other problematic cases I haven't considered. But in any case, the principle behind your last answer is correct, even if there are some differences of opinion as to how it is applied. -- Adam From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 7 01:28:58 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 20:28:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8F8AFBAF-882A-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Apr 6, 2004, at 18:18 US/Eastern, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > My only problem with Law 27B is that, as TD, I have to try reading > in minds. In my example (1S - 2C - 1NT), if the 1NT bidder > has a balanced 10-12 HPC, he can tell me two different things: > 1) I did not see the 2C call: oh, he wanted to bid 1NT (forcing) > so it is a "conventional" insufficient bid; > 2) I wanted to make a natural NT call after 2C (that I see), but > just not realise I was at the 2 level: now a "natural" insufficient > bid. > > I hate such Laws. I am just an TD (and an engineer), not a psychiatrist > or a brain surgeon Me too. But... It seems to me that if 1NT in the sequence 1S-(P)-1NT is conventional, then the situation fits law 27B2 (and not 27B1) regardless of the bidder's intent. So I don't see that any mindreading is required. From CXFRBJZH@hotmail.com Wed Apr 7 02:32:19 2004 From: CXFRBJZH@hotmail.com (Tanisha Weeks) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:32:19 -0300 Subject: [blml] I owe you one Message-ID: <20040407003452.782532C364@rhubarb.custard.org> All occupied cities, suburban rendezvous, and rural bivouacs, bore witness to the mad havoc daily wrought in black womanhood by our citizen soldiery.





Scattered groups of inquirers at length condensed themselves into a compact crowd, which made straight for the residence of President Barbicane. Then came a band of tall, swinging camels, each with a straw rope on his tail, fastening him to the next one. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 7 02:08:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:08:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Incontrovertibly Message-ID: Law 27B1(a): >>...incontrovertibly not... Footnote to Law 75: >...absence of evidence to the contrary... In the parallel thread on Insufficent Bids, it seems that standard EBU TD practice is to use identical standards of proof for rulings under both Law 27B1(a), and also under the Footnote to Law 75. In the parallel postings of Herman De Wael about the De Wael School, it seems that standard Herman practice is to use identical standards of proof for rulings under both Law 27B1(a), and also under the Footnote to Law 75. However, it seems that standard EBU TD practice redefines "incontrovertibly not" as "absence of evidence to the contrary". However, it seems that standard Herman practice redefines "absence of evidence to the contrary" as "incontrovertibly 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 7 03:13:48 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:13:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Remontant Message-ID: Popular misdefinition of the word "remontant" -> "An alpinist who returns to the scene of the climb." In one of the "12C3" threads, Nigel Guthrie asserted: >>>Naturally, when the implications of law 12c3 are >>>explained, most players would prefer it to be >>>scrapped. Frances Hinden remonstrated: >>I'm sure there's some good phrase Richard can give >>us to describe the logical error of extrapolating >>from "I would prefer it to be scrapped" to "most >>players..." >> >>IMO, most players couldn't care less about law 12c3. Charles Cotton (1630-1687) wrote: >The shadows now so long do grow, >That brambles like tall cedars show, >Molehills seem mountains, and the ant >Appears a monstrous elephant. 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 Wed Apr 7 06:23:06 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 06:23:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: <7E2689A7-8806-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <0tAcXcBDzgcAFw+b@asimere.com> <7E2689A7-8806-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <7E2689A7-8806-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com>, Ed Reppert writes > >On Monday, Apr 5, 2004, at 21:49 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> AC's will not tinker with an odd 5 or 10% of a weight if they think >> that the >> ruling is ok and the weights are sensible, and an appeal seeking to get >> this sort of adjustment would be deemed an appeal with no merit. > >"And the weights are sensible". I think that the original point was >that it is, or should be, up to the AC, not regulation, to decide the >answer to that question. OTOH, it would be dangerous, under the >regulation, to appeal solely for a weighting change, because if the AC >decides the weights are sensible, the appeal *will* be treated as one >without merit. So the regulation discourages appealing solely for that >reason. OTGH, if the appeal includes some other argument(s) (like DWS's >example of Jason Hackett's appeal, upthread), then it *cannot* IMO be >considered without merit unless those other arguments are found to be >so. Indeed. If I, as TD, have consulted and formed an opinion that 75% of 4S= and 25% of 4S-1 is about right then Frances as an AC would need to be convinced that I was wrong by, let us say, 25% before she'd be willing to adjust. What she knows, and what I know is that she'd not adjust it to 60/40. Now that doesn't mean to say one couldn't appeal on the basis that the scores should be 50/50, and I would view such an appeal as having merit. What is certain however is that if I'd used 12c2, we would have had an appeal, and with 12c3 most likely not, and Nigel's diatribes are complete tosh. Any appeal has some risk as far as appellants are concerned and an appeal of a 12c3 is no different from an appeal of a 12c2, except that with 12c2 the perceived lack of equity is obvious. The players prefer it, the TD's prefer it, it's an attempt to get closer to equity and the game is better for it. Anyone suggesting otherwise has an agenda which is not to the benefit of the game. john > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Apr 7 06:29:43 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 06:29:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12C3 and all that - was Re: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: <001601c41c24$8ded3530$37d2403e@multivisionoem> References: <000001c4192e$6eb8a080$6528fea9@Picasso> <008a01c419d5$51990dd0$18cc403e@multivisionoem> <002c01c41ad8$a9608670$33db403e@multivisionoem> <0WJCZ1FfLUcAFw9K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000f01c41b49$1a47eb60$938187d9@4nrw70j> <001601c41c24$8ded3530$37d2403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: In article <001601c41c24$8ded3530$37d2403e@multivisionoem>, gesta@tiscali.co.uk writes > >Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"The pursuit of perfection, then, is the pursuit >of sweetness and light." [Matthew Arnold] >=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 1:29 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL > snip >> >+=+ 'Tinkering', as I see it, is making marginal >adjustments knowing them to be of no consequence. >That is a waste of everyone's time. It is not tinkering >to make substantial adjustments whether or not their >effect when translated turns out to be no more than >1 imp. 'Substantial' might be quantified, maybe at >least 10% (? 15%) off one element and redistributed. My gut feel had been 25% Grattan, but I'm in accord with you. As to your example North is trying it on and I'd have no problem with an appeal of the TD's ruling. So East psyched in 3rd seat and his partner lead a D, wtp? John >*************************************** > But, turning to other things, have a look at this: > A J 9 > 5 4 > A K J 7 3 > Q 8 4 >K 7 6 3 Q 8 4 >K Q J 6 10 7 2 >6 5 Q 8 4 2 >K 9 3 A J 7 > 10 5 2 > A 9 8 3 > 10 9 > 10 6 5 2 > >NS vul. After two passes West opened 1D, not alerted, >CC shows 3+ diamonds. N: 1 NT. All pass. D9 Holds first >trick, N plays AK diamonds and goes one down. > >At the end of the play N tells Director if he had known >1D opener could have been two cards he would have passed >D10 to East, so that the Heart switch could not be signalled. > Director awards weighted score: once in three NS +90, >twice in three NS -100. Not appealed. > >Had it gone to appeal, I wonder what the AC would have >done. High level international play. > > ~ Grattan ~ > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Apr 7 06:35:38 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 06:35:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids In-Reply-To: References: <30960B78-8813-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: In article , Laval Dubreuil writes >I'm not *certain* if this is >really Laval's dilemma, but if I'm not misreading him, how do we >resolve it? I dunno. I want to dismiss the latter argument, but I can't >put a finger on *why* it should be dismissed, other than I prefer the >former one. >____________________________________________________________________ > >My only problem with Law 27B is that, as TD, I have to try reading >in minds. In my example (1S - 2C - 1NT), if the 1NT bidder >has a balanced 10-12 HPC, he can tell me two different things: >1) I did not see the 2C call: oh, he wanted to bid 1NT (forcing) > so it is a "conventional" insufficient bid; >2) I wanted to make a natural NT call after 2C (that I see), but > just not realise I was at the 2 level: now a "natural" insufficient > bid. > >I hate such Laws. I am just an TD (and an engineer), not a psychiatrist >or a brain surgeon the great advantage of being an engineer is that one can always find a solution, and usually one that does not borrow from Heath-Robinson. It's the TD's job and the engineer's job to find out what broke, why it broke and then fix it up. Just ask the guy why he bid 1NT (and away from the table). If he's a liar and a cheat well and good, but most players in my experience are fairly scrupulous in their answers. > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Apr 7 06:39:22 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 06:39:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <200404062325.QAA25336@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <30960B78-8813-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <200404062325.QAA25336@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: In article <200404062325.QAA25336@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Ed wrote: > snip >This last is pretty much correct, IMHO. To determine whether an >insufficient bid "may have been conventional" or "was incontrovertibly >not conventional", we can't really look at the auction that actually >happened, but rather at the auction that the insufficient bidder >*thought* had happened. > >As I believe Gordon pointed out earlier, one of the main reasons that >people make insufficient bids is because they didn't hear (or see) the >last bid and thought it was a pass. Another reason is that they >didn't notice that the previous bidder jumped. So the main things to >look at IMHO are (1) would the insufficient bid be conventional if the >previous bidder had passed, and (2) if the last bid was a jump, would >the insufficient bid be conventional if the previous bidder had made a >bid in the same denomination and at a lower level? > >If either of these is true, then---as I interpret previous posts, that >would be enough for Gordon to rule that the insufficient bid "may have >been conventional", while David would ask some questions to try to >determine whether he had made one of the above mistakes. I'm with David here. ... and you have to ask questions to establish what was going on the synaptially challenged brain of the offender. Oh, and by the way, we should congratulate Gordon on being invited to join the EBU panel of TDs. I think all the London TD's agree he will make an excellent addition to our panel. John > My feeling >has been that I don't like the "incontrovertibly not conventional" >clause and would rather replace it with an objective criterion that >partner is barred if the insufficient bid is conventional in either of >the above two cases. And maybe there are other problematic cases I >haven't considered. But in any case, the principle behind your last >answer is correct, even if there are some differences of opinion as to >how it is applied. > > -- Adam > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From j.c.schwarz@t-online.de Wed Apr 7 07:29:54 2004 From: j.c.schwarz@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Schwarz?=) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:29:54 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <6320DB7C-8814-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <1BB6aB-0qpaaG0@fwd07.sul.t-online.com> i dont agree fully with this interpretation, in the sense that: 25 states that you can change your bid (under certain circumstances) = =3D lex generalis 27 states that you can change your unsufficient bid (under certain circumtances) =3D lex specialis That means i would not bother with 25 when an insufficient bid has to be changed -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] Im Auftrag von = Ed Reppert Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. April 2004 23:50 An: blml Betreff: Re: AW: [blml] Insufficient bid On Tuesday, Apr 6, 2004, at 10:49 US/Eastern, J=F6rg Schwarz wrote: > Isnt the difference between law 25 and law 27 > > That in law 25 is described a sufficient but not intended bid (fe. 2H=20 > instead of 2 S, whilst 2 H is a sufficient bid. Player picked the=20 > wrong card of the bidding box) Law 25A makes no mention of whether the inadvertent call is sufficient.=20 It would seem, then, to include insufficient bids. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 7 08:14:50 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 03:14:50 -0400 Subject: AW: AW: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <1BB6aB-0qpaaG0@fwd07.sul.t-online.com> Message-ID: <42AA0D29-8863-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Apr 7, 2004, at 02:29 US/Eastern, J=F6rg Schwarz wrote: > i dont agree fully with this interpretation, in the sense that: > > 25 states that you can change your bid (under certain circumstances)=20= > =3D lex > generalis > > 27 states that you can change your unsufficient bid (under certain > circumtances) =3D lex specialis > > That means i would not bother with 25 when an insufficient bid has to=20= > be > changed Law 27 says that you *must* change your insufficient bid, unless LHO=20 accepts it, but that there are different consequences depending on to=20 what you change it. Not quite the same thing. If it's a 25B situation, in all cases you apply 27 anyway, so that's=20 trivial. But when 25A applies, I think you have to use that, and then=20 27 is irrelevant, because the "insufficient bid" in effect never=20 happened. I don't think you can just "not bother" with it. :-) From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Apr 7 08:24:28 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 09:24:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? Message-ID: <4073ACAC.8080403@hdw.be> West makes a hesitant penalty double over 2Sp. East takes it out to 3Cl. This will be deemed use of UI. East-West make 9 tricks (-110). North-South would most likely have made only 7 (-200). The TD and AC estimate the likelihood of NS making 8 tricks (+670) at 20%. Am I correct in saying that in America, the L12C2 correction is to +670? While in Europe, the correction would be to 20% +670, 80% -200, which after calculation might well result in less than the table result, so that the ruling in Europe would be "no damage"? If you feel some threshold not reached at 20%, you may want to ansswer the same question with 25%. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Apr 7 08:38:14 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:38:14 +0200 Subject: AW: [blml] Insufficient bid References: <1BB6aB-0qpaaG0@fwd07.sul.t-online.com> Message-ID: <003601c41c73$4c077370$7f82b6d4@LNV> J=F3rg: i dont agree fully with this interpretation, in the sense that: 25 states that you can change your bid (under certain circumstances) =3D= lex generalis 27 states that you can change your unsufficient bid (under certain circumtances) =3D lex specialis That means i would not bother with 25 when an insufficient bid has to be changed ***** ton: That is a pity. Using your own distinction between general and specific l= aw 25 is quite specific when an inadvertent call is made and nothing about t= his is said in the more specific L27. So indeed we need L25 when the TD decides that the insufficient call was = an inadvertent one. As we need L25 and not L36 when the TD decides that an inadmissible double was an inadvertent one (the player tried to find the stopcard but took the wrong red one). So please bother. ***** From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Apr 7 08:46:57 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:46:57 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC90@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Ed Reppert wrote: =20 The ongoing thread on this subject has gone all over the map. I'd like=20 to summarize a couple things here to make sure I've got things right,=20 and to ask a couple of questions. :-) In his original post, Torsten said > Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right=20 > bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C shows exaktly your=20 > hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake=A02C. > Your ruling please. Later, Laval asked how a TD is supposed to determine that an=20 insufficient bid is conventional, given that (in the ACBL, at least)=20 one is not permitted to have agreements about the meanings of=20 insufficient bids. I think that my answer to Torsten is "it depends on what 'by mistake'=20 means". It seems to me that it means that I intended to bid 3C, but=20 accidently pulled the wrong bidding card out of the box (assuming boxes=20 are in use). In that case, this is a Law 25A situation, and my ruling=20 is that I may change my call without penalty. Law 27 does not apply.=20 Does anyone disagree? Assume, though, that Law 25A does *not* apply. Now the question is "did=20 I try to change my call?" Well, in my admittedly limited experience,=20 players who make insufficient bids *are* going to try to change the=20 call. If LHO has not yet called, then Law 25B applies. Now LHO may or=20 may not condone the substituted call. In either case, we go to Law 27,=20 which says we now look at the *original* call, which LHO may or may not=20 accept. If he accepts it, trivially, it is treated as legal and the=20 auction continues with no further penalty. If he does not, we get to=20 the nub of Laval's question, for 27B1(a) says that both 2C and 3C in=20 this case must be "incontrovertibly not conventional". What does this=20 mean? The usual interpretation, I think, is that if the bidding is such=20 that either bid *could* have been intended as conventional, then=20 27B1(a) doesn't apply. In this case, it is conceivable that I had=20 intended to bid Stayman in response to 1NT. So it is not=20 "incontrovertibly not conventional". But given a regulation that one is=20 not permitted to have agreements about insufficient bids, 2C must be=20 natural, *because* it's insufficient, and hence it *is*=20 "incontrovertibly not conventional". I'm not *certain* if this is=20 really Laval's dilemma, but if I'm not misreading him, how do we=20 resolve it? I dunno. I want to dismiss the latter argument, but I can't=20 put a finger on *why* it should be dismissed, other than I prefer the=20 former one. If I didn't try to change my call, of course, we can skip law 25=20 altogether, and go directly to 27. "That bid is insufficient." "Uh,=20 oops. Director! I made an insufficient bid." Have I got the process right above? IAC, I think my answer to Laval is that people who make insufficient=20 bids have either made a Law 25A error, or they think, at the time, that=20 the bid is sufficient. In the former case, Law 27 is irrelevant, and so=20 is whether the insufficient bid is or may have been conventional. In=20 the latter case, in order to determine whether it may have been=20 conventional, we have to consider what the player thought he was doing.=20 If there is some possible (legal) auction in which the insufficient bid=20 would have been (a) sufficient and (b) conventional, then it is not=20 "incontrovertibly not conventional". Later, David said > The TD under current arrangements has to find out the meaning of 2D=20 > and 3D. If this were an MI case he would find it out at the end of=20 > the hand by reading the CC, asking questions, getting them to explain=20 > the bits of the CC, possibly asking comparative sequences, until he is = > sure. > > I consider this totally unsuitable during the auction, even if he=20 > separates the players during the interrogation. The way to avoid this = > is to make the Law unaffected by the meaning and/or conventionality of = > the bids. This is advocating a change in the law, which may be a good thing, but=20 does not impact *current* rulings. There was considerable discussion of a Norwegian regulation which=20 Harald brought up > "When using bidding boxes a player can change his call if it's obvious = > he didn't intend to make the call that's been put on the table. The=20 > correction cannot be made due to a change of mind." > > So in Norway we would allow the change of call as long as the opener=20 > had not called again. This regulation amends Law 25A to allow changes of call when (a) a=20 player changes or attempts to change his call "without pause for=20 thought" *or* (b) when it is obvious he didn't intend to make the call=20 that's been put on the table. I suggested this regulation is both=20 illegal and ill-advised. DWS concurred with the latter, but not the=20 former. I have a question for the Norwegians among us: is the fact that=20 a bid is insufficient prima facie evidence that the player didn't=20 intend to make it? If so, does not Law 25A *always* apply in=20 insufficient bid situations? And if not, how do you tell the difference? ----- The non-norwegians commenting on the norwegian footnote seem to have = misunderstood it's application. It's been put there to explain what's = meant by "without pause for thought" in the law. To make it clear that = there's a difference when using bidding boxes as compared to oral = bidding. When using bidding boxes, a player often doesn't realize a = misbid immediately. If a player becomes aware of his inadvertent call = before partner makes a subsequent call, he is allowed to change the = inadvertent call. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran -----=20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Apr 7 08:56:24 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:56:24 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC91@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Ed Reppert wrote: On Tuesday, Apr 6, 2004, at 04:57 US/Eastern, Robin Barker wrote: > The appellants wanted a gross adjustment (double and reaching 5C is > automatic). Are you agreeing that it's automatic, or saying that's what appellants=20 said? If it's automatic, why weight the score at all? > The AC denied the appeal although they would have given different=20 > weightings. So I see. "As a matter of principle, we don't change the weightings=20 unless they are clearly incorrect." The weightings in the original ruling are the TD's judgment. One of the=20 primary reasons for the existence of appeals committees is as a check=20 on TD judgment (Laws 83 and 93B). So what principle are the committee=20 invoking here? I think I would have given: 30% of 3S+1 20% of 4S-1 40% of 4C+1 10% of 5C-1 Whether this makes any difference in the final score, I don't know.=20 Question: when you do a weighting like this, do you weight the raw=20 score, or the matchpoints or imps? (You could do either, as I=20 understand the laws. How significant would the difference be?) ----- You weight the corresponding matchpoints or imps. To weight the raw = scores and then convert to matchpoints or imps is meaningless. This is = because the imp scale is not linear and the matchpoint scores will never = be linearly divided. You'll get different results. Quite significant in = some cases. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran ----- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Wed Apr 7 11:40:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:40:48 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <1BB6aB-0qpaaG0@fwd07.sul.t-online.com> References: <6320DB7C-8814-11D8-903B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <1BB6aB-0qpaaG0@fwd07.sul.t-online.com> Message-ID: <0ICiuzbwq9cAFwMD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Jörg Schwarz wrote > i dont agree fully with this interpretation, in the sense that: > >25 states that you can change your bid (under certain circumstances) = lex >generalis > >27 states that you can change your unsufficient bid (under certain >circumtances) = lex specialis > >That means i would not bother with 25 when an insufficient bid has to be >changed If a call is inadvertent then it is not the call intended at the time of making it and may be changed. That is what L25A says, more or less. How can you "not bother with it"? Whether it is insufficient or not is irrelevant. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Apr 7 12:06:28 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:06:28 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC90@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC90@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <0KDC+Td0C+cAFw8$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Skjaran, Harald wrote >Ed Reppert wrote: > >The ongoing thread on this subject has gone all over the map. I'd like >to summarize a couple things here to make sure I've got things right, >and to ask a couple of questions. :-) > >In his original post, Torsten said > >> Your partner opens the bidding 1NT 15-17, the opponent to your right >> bids 2D, and happily you remember that your bid 3C shows exaktly your >> hand xx, xxx, xx, KQxxxx. But you bid by mistake 2C. >> Your ruling please. > >Later, Laval asked how a TD is supposed to determine that an >insufficient bid is conventional, given that (in the ACBL, at least) >one is not permitted to have agreements about the meanings of >insufficient bids. > >I think that my answer to Torsten is "it depends on what 'by mistake' >means". It seems to me that it means that I intended to bid 3C, but >accidently pulled the wrong bidding card out of the box (assuming boxes >are in use). In that case, this is a Law 25A situation, and my ruling >is that I may change my call without penalty. Law 27 does not apply. >Does anyone disagree? It appears some do, but I believe this to be right. >Assume, though, that Law 25A does *not* apply. Now the question is "did >I try to change my call?" Well, in my admittedly limited experience, >players who make insufficient bids *are* going to try to change the >call. If LHO has not yet called, then Law 25B applies. Now LHO may or >may not condone the substituted call. The EBU advised its TDs to do this - and the WBFLC said they could not. So the EBU changed its advice. The EBU was told that all attempted changes were cancelled [UI, of course] and then L27 applied. EBU White book 2004: 25.6 Laws 25B1 and 27 [Insufficient bid corrected] [WBFLC] If an insufficient bid is substituted before the Director has explained the options the premature correction is cancelled. LHO, if he so wishes, may accept the original insufficient bid but not the premature correction. Otherwise the Director explains his options to the offender and allows him to select his action. [WBFLC minutes 1998-08-24#9] > In either case, we go to Law 27, >which says we now look at the *original* call, which LHO may or may not >accept. If he accepts it, trivially, it is treated as legal and the >auction continues with no further penalty. If he does not, we get to >the nub of Laval's question, for 27B1(a) says that both 2C and 3C in >this case must be "incontrovertibly not conventional". What does this >mean? The usual interpretation, I think, is that if the bidding is such >that either bid *could* have been intended as conventional, then >27B1(a) doesn't apply. As has been pointed out here there seems more than one way to approach this. The question is whether you should consider what the player was doing or not. People on BLML seem ot have a simple approach to the reasons for insufficient bids - perhaps they have not played enough bad club bridge. If the bidding goes 1NT 1H and the 1H opening would have been natural, and 2H over 1NT is natural, then it seems to me that the people who consider it right to assume not investigate will allow a change to 2H. The people who investigate not assume will take him away from the table, ask him why he bid 1H, and when they get the answer that it was meant to be 1H over a strong club, and they play Truscott, not allow 2H without penalty. The assumers will in fact disallow correction rather more than the investigators. Nothing in this thread has convinced me that one or other is right: I like consistency of ruling amongst TDs which is why prefer the EBU's approach of trying for it, rather than the more popular BLML approach of every TD doing exactly what he personally thinks is right. > In this case, it is conceivable that I had >intended to bid Stayman in response to 1NT. So it is not >"incontrovertibly not conventional". But given a regulation that one is >not permitted to have agreements about insufficient bids, 2C must be >natural, *because* it's insufficient, and hence it *is* >"incontrovertibly not conventional". I'm not *certain* if this is >really Laval's dilemma, but if I'm not misreading him, how do we >resolve it? I dunno. I want to dismiss the latter argument, but I can't >put a finger on *why* it should be dismissed, other than I prefer the >former one. > >If I didn't try to change my call, of course, we can skip law 25 >altogether, and go directly to 27. "That bid is insufficient." "Uh, >oops. Director! I made an insufficient bid." > >Have I got the process right above? > >IAC, I think my answer to Laval is that people who make insufficient >bids have either made a Law 25A error, or they think, at the time, that >the bid is sufficient. No, this is not correct. There are three sorts of error, really, not two: [1] Mechanical: they did not mean to make this call at the time they made it. [2] Completely stupid: they would never have made this call if their brains had been switched on. [3] Understandable: they failed to realise it was insufficient. Do not forget type [2], which is not a L25A case, but players sometimes try for it. > In the former case, Law 27 is irrelevant, and so >is whether the insufficient bid is or may have been conventional. In >the latter case, in order to determine whether it may have been >conventional, we have to consider what the player thought he was doing. >If there is some possible (legal) auction in which the insufficient bid >would have been (a) sufficient and (b) conventional, then it is not >"incontrovertibly not conventional". What about type [2]? You see, you are assuming, as m,uch of BLML does, that a 1H bid over 1NT is either meant to be a 2H bid over 1NT or a 1H bid over pass. That is not so. >There was considerable discussion of a Norwegian regulation which >Harald brought up > >> "When using bidding boxes a player can change his call if it's obvious >> he didn't intend to make the call that's been put on the table. The >> correction cannot be made due to a change of mind." >> >> So in Norway we would allow the change of call as long as the opener >> had not called again. > >This regulation amends Law 25A to allow changes of call when (a) a >player changes or attempts to change his call "without pause for >thought" *or* (b) when it is obvious he didn't intend to make the call >that's been put on the table. I suggested this regulation is both >illegal and ill-advised. DWS concurred with the latter, but not the >former. I have a question for the Norwegians among us: is the fact that >a bid is insufficient prima facie evidence that the player didn't >intend to make it? If so, does not Law 25A *always* apply in >insufficient bid situations? And if not, how do you tell the difference? >----- >The non-norwegians commenting on the norwegian footnote seem to have >misunderstood it's application. It's been put there to explain what's >meant by "without pause for thought" in the law. To make it clear that >there's a difference when using bidding boxes as compared to oral >bidding. When using bidding boxes, a player often doesn't realize a >misbid immediately. If a player becomes aware of his inadvertent call >before partner makes a subsequent call, he is allowed to change the >inadvertent call. Exactly: so the regulation allows a change *after a pause for thought*, so it is *not* just an explanation of the phrase "without pause for thought". It is additional to the Law, because it allows a change when L25A does not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Apr 7 12:07:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:07:59 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC91@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC91@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <86NASodPE+cAFw+r@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Skjaran, Harald wrote >Ed Reppert wrote: > > >On Tuesday, Apr 6, 2004, at 04:57 US/Eastern, Robin Barker wrote: > >> The appellants wanted a gross adjustment (double and reaching 5C is >> automatic). > >Are you agreeing that it's automatic, or saying that's what appellants >said? If it's automatic, why weight the score at all? Because the TD did not agree with the players' view? We do not always, you know! -- 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 Wed Apr 7 12:16:21 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:16:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6 Apr 2004, at 23:18, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > I'm not *certain* if this is > really Laval's dilemma, but if I'm not misreading him, how do we > resolve it? I dunno. I want to dismiss the latter argument, but I can't > put a finger on *why* it should be dismissed, other than I prefer the > former one. > ____________________________________________________________________ > > My only problem with Law 27B is that, as TD, I have to try reading > in minds. In my example (1S - 2C - 1NT), if the 1NT bidder > has a balanced 10-12 HPC, he can tell me two different things: > 1) I did not see the 2C call: oh, he wanted to bid 1NT (forcing) > so it is a "conventional" insufficient bid; > 2) I wanted to make a natural NT call after 2C (that I see), but > just not realise I was at the 2 level: now a "natural" insufficient > bid. > > I hate such Laws. I am just an TD (and an engineer), not a psychiatrist > or a brain surgeon I thought the reason the Law was worded in such a way was to avoid you needing to mind-read. I'm just discovering through this thread that others interpret the words in a different way. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Apr 7 12:22:23 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:22:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: 12c3 (Karel) Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018168D5@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> [Doug Couchman] Hard choices, but I only make them once. As someone schooled without L12C3, I like this method. =20 Are your tables of percentages better? Is it better that=20 both sides can appeal with a reasonable expectation of=20 success, and nearly certain knowledge that the end result will be different? Maybe it is, and maybe y'all=20 have gone over this too many times, but it's a dramatic=20 example. [Nigel] In Karel's an AC may still have to choose between 5HX and 5S. =20 But most players would agree with Doug that this is better=20 than asking TDs and ACs to use even more subjective judgement=20 to decide on an intermediate result in the interval between=20 these extremes, so that a championship may depend on their=20 estimate of the second decimal of a score frequency. It is fair neither to the players nor to the poor AC. [Frances] Your logic is incorrect. Many AC decision depend on their estimate of a probability. The only difference is that 12C3=20 makes those estimates explicit in the ruling. It's horrible if a championship depends on a borderline AC decision. But enabling or not enabling 12C3 doesn't change that. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Apr 7 12:27:57 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:27:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <200404062325.QAA25336@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200404062325.QAA25336@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <9E8A639A-8886-11D8-A35D-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 7 Apr 2004, at 00:25, Adam Beneschan wrote: > If either of these is true, then---as I interpret previous posts, that > would be enough for Gordon to rule that the insufficient bid "may have > been conventional", while David would ask some questions to try to > determine whether he had made one of the above mistakes. That's how I had read the words of the Law, though of course I now take note of David's guidance as to how the EBU's reading of the words differs from that. I just wish these things were available to all TDs, so that they could be consistent in their application of the Laws, rather than depending on whether or not they happened to have read a particular thread on BLML, or to have been at a particular training weekend. > My feeling > has been that I don't like the "incontrovertibly not conventional" > clause and would rather replace it with an objective criterion that > partner is barred if the insufficient bid is conventional in either of > the above two cases. And maybe there are other problematic cases I > haven't considered. I think the third case is that they thought they were dealer, so didn't look at all to see if there had been any previous bidding. So that would probably have to be included too. For example, if the bidding starts 1C-(1H)-1D, the two likely explanations are that the 1D bidder didn't see (or take note of) the 1H bid, OR the 1D bidder was trying to open the bidding. > But in any case, the principle behind your last > answer is correct, even if there are some differences of opinion as to > how it is applied. > > -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Apr 7 12:30:09 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:30:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid References: <009701c41be1$9df9c580$f14965d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <00bf01c41c93$b6e66820$7f82b6d4@LNV> First, if the 2C bid was inadvertant and changed without pause for though= t, then law 25 A applies. If I know Torsten correctly he asks for how to app= ly law 27. As I see it, it is no problem. 2C is Stayman on a 1NT opening bid and tha= t is conventional. That causes partner to be barred after a change to 3C. L= aw 27 B 2. Are you with me, Ton? Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n I am, if 2c - ignoring the overcall - in their system is conventional ton From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Apr 7 12:52:14 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:52:14 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <0KDC+Td0C+cAFw8$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC90@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <0KDC+Td0C+cAFw8$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <0312433F-888A-11D8-A35D-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 7 Apr 2004, at 12:06, David Stevenson wrote: > The assumers will in fact disallow correction rather more than the > investigators. Nothing in this thread has convinced me that one or > other is right: I like consistency of ruling amongst TDs Me too! > which is why > prefer the EBU's approach of trying for it, rather than the more > popular > BLML approach of every TD doing exactly what he personally thinks is > right. The problem is to find out how other TDs interpret things differently, and to discover what they have already agreed. If such agreements/interpretations are not easily available in one universally-known place, it's inevitable that different people will reach different conclusions. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From schoderb@msn.com Wed Apr 7 13:27:40 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:27:40 -0400 Subject: AW: [blml] Insufficient bid References: <1BB6aB-0qpaaG0@fwd07.sul.t-online.com> <003601c41c73$4c077370$7f82b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: Perhaps this would help clear this up. There may be two distinct violations to be considered in the posited case. 1. Inadvertency. 2. Insufficiency. When concerned with inadvertency you go to 25. When concerned with insufficiency you go to 27. It is not a difficult thought process to understand that 27 applies when there is no question about inadvertency -- clearly an inadvertent bid is not a made bid. And in no way does this have anything to do with the principle of "general" versus "specific." Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Jörg Schwarz" ; Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:38 AM Subject: Re: AW: [blml] Insufficient bid Jórg: i dont agree fully with this interpretation, in the sense that: 25 states that you can change your bid (under certain circumstances) = lex generalis 27 states that you can change your unsufficient bid (under certain circumtances) = lex specialis That means i would not bother with 25 when an insufficient bid has to be changed ***** ton: That is a pity. Using your own distinction between general and specific law 25 is quite specific when an inadvertent call is made and nothing about this is said in the more specific L27. So indeed we need L25 when the TD decides that the insufficient call was an inadvertent one. As we need L25 and not L36 when the TD decides that an inadmissible double was an inadvertent one (the player tried to find the stopcard but took the wrong red one). So please bother. ***** _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb@msn.com Wed Apr 7 13:30:19 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:30:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid References: Message-ID: And your opinion is exactly what the promulgator of the law had in mind when choosing those words. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Insufficient bid > > On Tuesday, Apr 6, 2004, at 08:56 US/Eastern, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > As a completely different matter, I would also like to get completely > > rid of the requirement for "no thought". What happens regularly to me > > is that I put the wrong card on the table, I notice that it is the > > wrong card, and I then quite automatically do what I always do when > > something happens that should not have happened: I put on a poker face > > in order to not give UI, and I think the situation through before > > giving any indication that anything is wrong. A moment later, I have > > realized that what actually happened was a misbid that I would have > > been allowed to change using L25A if I had not "paused for thought". > > But now I cannot change it. > > > > The requirement for no pause thus penalizes those who routinely take a > > moment to realize what happened before indicating that something is > > wrong. That seems bad to me, since I consider it a good thing that > > people try not to give UI. > > > > I suspect that the requirement for no pause is there because the > > lawmakers assumed that a call cannot not really be inadvertent if the > > player needs to think before calling attention to it. But that > > assumption is wrong - in my case, and probably in other cases as well. > > I disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of "without pause > for thought". You aren't thinking about whether you should have bid > something else, you're trying to figure out what happened. Given that, > you didn't "pause for thought" in the sense meant by the law. In my > opinion, of course. :-) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb@msn.com Wed Apr 7 13:36:20 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:36:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] Remontant References: Message-ID: Charles Cotton (1630-1687) wrote: >The shadows now so long do grow, >That brambles like tall cedars show, >Molehills seem mountains, and the ant >Appears a monstrous elephant. Best wishes Richard James Hills Hey, Mr. Hills, congratulations. You've captured the essence of a lot of BLML right there! Kojak (for those offended -- I couldn't pass up this golden opportunity) 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 Wed Apr 7 15:00:16 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:00:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: 12c3 (Karel) References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018168D5@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <014801c41ca8$a8e9e200$169868d5@tinyhrieuyik> >> [Nigel] >> In Karel's case an AC may still have to choose between 5HX >> & 5S. But most players would agree with Doug that this is >> better than asking TDs and ACs to use even more subjective >> judgement to decide on an intermediate result in the interval >> between these extremes, so that a championship may depend on >> their estimate of the second decimal of a score frequency. >> It is fair neither to the players nor to the poor AC. > [Frances] > [Your logic is incorrect. Many AC decision depend on their > [estimate of a probability. The only difference is that 12C3 > [makes those estimates explicit in the ruling. It's horrible > [if a championship depends on a borderline AC decision. But > [enabling or not enabling 12C3 doesn't change that. [Nigel] If I'm illogical, Francis, I apologise; I will spell out my intuitions in detail, hoping to benefit from your criticism... Suppose, for the sake of argment, that about 75% of people would choose 5HX-5 making as the likely outcome; but about 25% would choose 5S+1. Hence, permitted only the old *binary* decision, after consultation, most TD/ACs will rule 5S+1, as the result most favourable to the NOS that is at all likely. Now suppose, that instead the TD/Ac are allowed to compromise and they elect to choose roughly 75% of 5HX-5 and about 25% of 5S+1. Further suppose that... If they choose less than 74.8% then team A wins the championship. If they choose 74.9% or more then team B wins the championship. Frances, do you agree that, whatever the percentages, and however many other possible results need to be considered, the old aproach is *inherantly* more consistent. Players (and, here at least, I do feel that I speak for most players) regard inconsistent rulings in identical circumstances as unfair. Granny says *reliability* is a necesssary (if not sufficient) prerequisite for validity. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.651 / Virus Database: 417 - Release Date: 05/04/2004 From dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net Wed Apr 7 15:18:35 2004 From: dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:18:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Ruling in America or Europe? In-Reply-To: <20040407100003.16158.840.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <000001c41cab$3719f590$6528fea9@Picasso> Herman wrote: > West makes a hesitant penalty double over 2Sp. > East takes it out to 3Cl. This will be deemed use of UI. > East-West make 9 tricks (-110). > North-South would most likely have made only 7 (-200). > The TD and AC estimate the likelihood of NS making 8 tricks (+670) at 20%. > > Am I correct in saying that in America, the L12C2 correction is to +670? > > While in Europe, the correction would be to 20% +670, 80% -200, which > after calculation might well result in less than the table result, so > that the ruling in Europe would be "no damage"? > > If you feel some threshold not reached at 20%, you may want to ansswer > the same question with 25%. 20 or 25% is "at all probable," so E/W -670. 20 or 25% is not "likely," so N/S -200, except this is less than the table result, so N/S -110. From blml@blakjak.com Wed Apr 7 15:39:30 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:39:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Ruling in America or Europe? In-Reply-To: <000001c41cab$3719f590$6528fea9@Picasso> References: <20040407100003.16158.840.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <000001c41cab$3719f590$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: Doug Couchman wrote >Herman wrote: > >> West makes a hesitant penalty double over 2Sp. >> East takes it out to 3Cl. This will be deemed use of UI. >> East-West make 9 tricks (-110). >> North-South would most likely have made only 7 (-200). >> The TD and AC estimate the likelihood of NS making 8 tricks (+670) at 20%. >> >> Am I correct in saying that in America, the L12C2 correction is to +670? >> >> While in Europe, the correction would be to 20% +670, 80% -200, which >> after calculation might well result in less than the table result, so >> that the ruling in Europe would be "no damage"? >> >> If you feel some threshold not reached at 20%, you may want to ansswer >> the same question with 25%. >20 or 25% is "at all probable," so E/W -670. > >20 or 25% is not "likely," so N/S -200, except this is less than the table >result, so N/S -110. I am not sure, but I think 20% is "likely" in Europe. I would judge than an action is between 5% and 12% or 15% to be "at all probable" but not "likely" in Europe. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Apr 7 16:24:06 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:24:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Laval writes: >My only problem with Law 27B is that, as TD, I have to try reading >in minds. In my example (1S - 2C - 1NT), if the 1NT bidder >has a balanced 10-12 HPC, he can tell me two different things: >1) I did not see the 2C call: oh, he wanted to bid 1NT (forcing) > so it is a "conventional" insufficient bid; >2) I wanted to make a natural NT call after 2C (that I see), but > just not realise I was at the 2 level: now a "natural" insufficient > bid. > >I hate such Laws. I am just an TD (and an engineer), not a psychiatrist >or a brain surgeon ________________________________________________________________________ John writes: the great advantage of being an engineer is that one can always find a solution, and usually one that does not borrow from Heath-Robinson. It's the TD's job and the engineer's job to find out what broke, why it broke and then fix it up. Just ask the guy why he bid 1NT (and away from the table). If he's a liar and a cheat well and good, but most players in my experience are fairly scrupulous in their answers. _______________________________________________________________________ Your right John....and it is the way I do the job. Most players tell the truth. Anyway, if such a Law makes so much noise on BLML, most bridge players are unable to understand its subtleties and lie to their advantage (except some BLMLrs....). But I am sure we can "reengineer" this Law to avoid such investigation. Laval Du Breuil From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Apr 7 17:02:23 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 18:02:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b8870to0i5jb3fdr4dbqhjgbsf9ikn7le@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:30:19 -0400, "WILLIAM SCHODER" wrote: >>From: "Ed Reppert" >>> I disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of "without pause >>> for thought". You aren't thinking about whether you should have bid >>> something else, you're trying to figure out what happened. Given = that, >>> you didn't "pause for thought" in the sense meant by the law. In my >>> opinion, of course. :-) >And your opinion is exactly what the promulgator of the law had in mind = when=20 >choosing those words. Interesting. Having that in mind was very sensible. It is a pity that it is not what is written in the law book. L25A does not qualify "pause for thought" with any words about what the thoughts should be about. A pause for thought is a pause for thought, no matter what the player was thinking about. If the intention was only to cover "thoughts about what call to substitute", those words would not really make sense, since such thoughts are meaningless anyway with the requirement for inadvertency and the limitation that only the "intended call" can be substituted. It therefore seems to me that somebody trying to get a meaning from those words must assume that they cover something more than what is covered by "inadvertent" and "intended call". And that can very easily lead to the conclusion that the words actually mean what they say: pause for (any) thought. I hope that the coming laws will make things clear, for instance by completely removing the reference to thought that I now understand was not really intended to say what it says. Another interesting point is what the "or attempts to do so" part means. I am sure that any player, no matter what he is thinking about or for how long he does it, actually "attempts" to make the change of call without pause for thought. In practice, I assume that it means that any "pause for thought" is to be considered only from the point in time where the player realizes what he has actually bid and therefore at least has a chance of substituting another call without thought. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From john@asimere.com Wed Apr 7 18:01:57 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:01:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Laval Dubreuil writes >Laval writes: >>My only problem with Law 27B is that, as TD, I have to try reading >>in minds. In my example (1S - 2C - 1NT), if the 1NT bidder >>has a balanced 10-12 HPC, he can tell me two different things: >>1) I did not see the 2C call: oh, he wanted to bid 1NT (forcing) >> so it is a "conventional" insufficient bid; >>2) I wanted to make a natural NT call after 2C (that I see), but >> just not realise I was at the 2 level: now a "natural" insufficient >> bid. >> >>I hate such Laws. I am just an TD (and an engineer), not a psychiatrist >>or a brain surgeon >________________________________________________________________________ >John writes: > >the great advantage of being an engineer is that one can always find a >solution, and usually one that does not borrow from Heath-Robinson. It's >the TD's job and the engineer's job to find out what broke, why it broke >and then fix it up. Just ask the guy why he bid 1NT (and away from the >table). If he's a liar and a cheat well and good, but most players in my >experience are fairly scrupulous in their answers. >_______________________________________________________________________ >Your right John....and it is the way I do the job. Most players tell >the truth. Anyway, if such a Law makes so much noise on BLML, most >bridge players are unable to understand its subtleties and lie to >their advantage (except some BLMLrs....). >But I am sure we can "reengineer" this Law to avoid such investigation. I'd have no problem if we scrapped this Law and bastinadoed all player who make undercalls, but my own opinion is that this law ain't badly broke and as such doesn't need much fixing. it's just a bit temperamental and can be made to work with careful nursing. (you know the sorta thing, richen the mixture, advance the spark etc) John > >Laval Du Breuil -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From adam@irvine.com Wed Apr 7 18:10:08 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:10:08 -0700 Subject: SV: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:06:28 BST." <0KDC+Td0C+cAFw8$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <200404071710.KAA00861@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > As has been pointed out here there seems more than one way to approach > this. The question is whether you should consider what the player was > doing or not. People on BLML seem ot have a simple approach to the > reasons for insufficient bids - perhaps they have not played enough bad > club bridge. > > If the bidding goes > > 1NT 1H > > and the 1H opening would have been natural, and 2H over 1NT is natural, > then it seems to me that the people who consider it right to assume not > investigate will allow a change to 2H. The people who investigate not > assume will take him away from the table, ask him why he bid 1H, and > when they get the answer that it was meant to be 1H over a strong club, > and they play Truscott, not allow 2H without penalty. The reason a case like this would not bother me is that I don't think the insufficient bidder's (IB's) partner would pick up on it. If LHO openes 1NT, and partner bids 1H, I now have UI that partner probably thought he had a hand that didn't see the first part of the auction correctly, and thought he had a 1H opener or overcall. But if I were the sort of person who thought it was OK to use such UI (and I believe the 1987 change in Law 27B was precisely to deal with players who could not be trusted to apply L16C), I think I'd be *much* more likely to assume that partner had a 1H opener than that he had a Truscott 1H overcall over a strong club. In fact, the latter possibility probably wouldn't occur to me. So the chance that the NO's will be damaged by an illegal use of UI in this situation should be tiny (other than the UI that IB's partner has about IB's strength, which has nothing to do with the conventional aspect of the bid). But then again, maybe bad club bridge players would handle this differently. -- Adam From schoderb@msn.com Wed Apr 7 18:30:24 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:30:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid References: <2b8870to0i5jb3fdr4dbqhjgbsf9ikn7le@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: Dear Jesper, Thank you for your reply. As a native English (American version) speaker I do not have any problem divining the meaning and intent of the words that you have now explained to me. The words "pause for thought" were substituted for the "in the same breath" since it is possible to have a period of time expire where the bidder is unable to mouth the words he thought he had said (or bid he had taken from the box, or written -take your pick), or his lack of attention to not seeing what inadvertent action his mouth or hands effected while he was admiring the drink waitress's shapely legs. The only thought that could be relevant to the use of the word in its context is to determine inadvertency versus attempted correction of a thoughtful mistake. But then, I'm aware of the dangers when word for word translations are made into other languages. Perhaps this explanation will help you to "get it right" in Danish by translating the intent and context rather than dictionary words. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesper Dybdal" To: "Bridge Laws List" Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Insufficient bid On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:30:19 -0400, "WILLIAM SCHODER" wrote: >>From: "Ed Reppert" >>> I disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of "without pause >>> for thought". You aren't thinking about whether you should have bid >>> something else, you're trying to figure out what happened. Given that, >>> you didn't "pause for thought" in the sense meant by the law. In my >>> opinion, of course. :-) >And your opinion is exactly what the promulgator of the law had in mind >when >choosing those words. Interesting. Having that in mind was very sensible. It is a pity that it is not what is written in the law book. L25A does not qualify "pause for thought" with any words about what the thoughts should be about. A pause for thought is a pause for thought, no matter what the player was thinking about. If the intention was only to cover "thoughts about what call to substitute", those words would not really make sense, since such thoughts are meaningless anyway with the requirement for inadvertency and the limitation that only the "intended call" can be substituted. It therefore seems to me that somebody trying to get a meaning from those words must assume that they cover something more than what is covered by "inadvertent" and "intended call". And that can very easily lead to the conclusion that the words actually mean what they say: pause for (any) thought. I hope that the coming laws will make things clear, for instance by completely removing the reference to thought that I now understand was not really intended to say what it says. Another interesting point is what the "or attempts to do so" part means. I am sure that any player, no matter what he is thinking about or for how long he does it, actually "attempts" to make the change of call without pause for thought. In practice, I assume that it means that any "pause for thought" is to be considered only from the point in time where the player realizes what he has actually bid and therefore at least has a chance of substituting another call without thought. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Apr 7 18:39:27 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:39:27 -0600 Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? References: <4073ACAC.8080403@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002201c41cc7$4a3d2f90$532846a2@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 1:24 AM Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? > West makes a hesitant penalty double over 2Sp. > East takes it out to 3Cl. This will be deemed use of UI. > East-West make 9 tricks (-110). > North-South would most likely have made only 7 (-200). > The TD and AC estimate the likelihood of NS making 8 tricks (+670) at 20%. > > Am I correct in saying that in America, the L12C2 correction is to +670? > > While in Europe, the correction would be to 20% +670, 80% -200, which To both sides? I believe that OS should get -670 - not 20% +670, 80% -200. Otherwise it makes cheating a no-lose strategy. At worst you end up receiving the average expectancy of what you would get if you didn't cheat and you might very well do better (if e.g.. the opps don't call the TD). Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Apr 7 19:25:43 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 20:25:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <2b8870to0i5jb3fdr4dbqhjgbsf9ikn7le@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: Dear Kojak, On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:30:24 -0400, "WILLIAM SCHODER" wrote: >The only thought that could be relevant to=20 >the use of the word in its context is to determine inadvertency versus=20 >attempted correction of a thoughtful mistake. But if that is the case, then why does L25A contain "no pause for thought" as a requirement that is additional to the requirement for inadvertency? You seem to be saying that the "no pause for thought" wording is just a guidance to directors about how to judge whether a call was really inadvertent or not, and not a separate requirement. But it is written as a separate requirement, not as a way to judge inadvertency. That makes no sense if the requirement really is only inadvertency. Also, the law book does not in general give such hints to TDs about how to do their judging: separately worded requirements in the laws usually refer to requirements that are actually separate. On the contrary, I would suspect that the only thought that could *not* be interesting here is thought that is relevant for the determination of inadvertency, since inadvertency is mentioned separately. > But then, I'm aware of the=20 >dangers when word for word translations are made into other languages.=20 >Perhaps this explanation will help you to "get it right" in Danish by=20 >translating the intent and context rather than dictionary words. The problem is that the intent exists only in the heads of a few people. But the resource that directors all over the world have available is the law book, not the intent of the lawmakers. You tell me, if I have understood you correctly, that "no pause for thought" is to be read as "no pause for thinking about which call to substitute". And TDs seem to be supposed to guess that simply because it is the sensible meaning in the given context (which I very much agree that it is, by the way). And TDs are supposed to guess it despite the fact that it implies that the whole clause "but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought" has no reason to exist at all, since the meaning you ascribe to it is already covered by the word "inadvertent". If TDs are generally supposed to use this kind of guesswork in order to know what the laws say, then there is something very much wrong with the laws. There are other things in the law book that I do not find sensible; but I do not think that I am assumed to ignore them just because I do not find them sensible. I'm sorry, but I still do not understand how a pause that is needed for thinking can fail to be included in the wording "pause for thought". You are correct that I am handicapped by not being a native English speaker - but if you are right that this is just English, then I have never before encountered an example of English that was so different from the English I have been taught. PS: I will be away from BLML until probably Tuesday or Wednesday next week. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Apr 6 15:09:14 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 15:09:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3's affect on the unalerted Gerber hand Message-ID: <038f01c41be1$4dd039e0$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Doug Couchman] > My trepidation about 12C3 (and I have argued against > using it here, not that I am in a position such that anyone > listens) is twofold. > First, it is impossible to guarantee or even reasonably expect > consistent results. Even in fairly simple cases, two different > TDs, panels, or ACs cannot be expected to come up with the same > percentages. > Second, I think it will encourage TDs to be lazy. Rather than > decide what really was likely (and at all probable), they will > be inclined to just throw up their hands, say they can't tell, > and slap a few middling-sounding percentages on all the results > they can imagine. [Nigel] Doug is right about the experience of EBU players. Doug mentioned another drawback in an earlier email. L12C3 usually lets the OS get off lightly. When infractions are hard to detect and rarely reported, L12C3 makes law- breaking even more profitable. Obviously, therefore, habitual law-breakers are among the vocal minority who approve. Effectively, L12C3 is another cheat's charter. I feel that Doug's sympathies are more with the feelings of players than with directors. You can understand, how "L12C3 fudges" are more likely to give TDs a quiet life. Analogy: policemen who admonish all offenders with a caution. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.651 / Virus Database: 417 - Release Date: 05/04/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 7 21:28:07 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:28:07 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC91@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <14B58DA6-88D2-11D8-9D4E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Apr 7, 2004, at 03:56 US/Eastern, Skjaran, Harald wrote: > You weight the corresponding matchpoints or imps. To weight the raw > scores and then convert to matchpoints or imps is meaningless. This is > because the imp scale is not linear and the matchpoint scores will > never be linearly divided. You'll get different results. Quite > significant in some cases. Okay, that's basically what I thought. Thanks. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 7 21:36:41 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:36:41 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <0KDC+Td0C+cAFw8$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <46B52334-88D3-11D8-9D4E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Apr 7, 2004, at 07:06 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > What about type [2]? You see, you are assuming, as m,uch of BLML > does, that a 1H bid over 1NT is either meant to be a 2H bid over 1NT or > a 1H bid over pass. That is not so. There's a word missing in that last sentence: "necessarily". Still, I take your point. :-) > Exactly: so the regulation allows a change *after a pause for > thought*, so it is *not* just an explanation of the phrase "without > pause for thought". It is additional to the Law, because it allows a > change when L25A does not. Harald has said that the purpose of the regulation is to clarify what is meant by "pause for thought". If, in application, Norwegian TDs do not allow changes that L25A does not itself allow, I suppose there's no harm. But I still think it reads as if it *does* allow such a change. I dunno about anyplace else, but in the ACBL I can guarantee you that if there's a loophole like that available, somebody will use it. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 7 21:38:15 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:38:15 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] RE: 12C3 versus ACBL In-Reply-To: <86NASodPE+cAFw+r@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <7EBDCF7D-88D3-11D8-9D4E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Apr 7, 2004, at 07:07 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Skjaran, Harald wrote >> Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> >> On Tuesday, Apr 6, 2004, at 04:57 US/Eastern, Robin Barker wrote: >> >>> The appellants wanted a gross adjustment (double and reaching 5C is >>> automatic). >> >> Are you agreeing that it's automatic, or saying that's what appellants >> said? If it's automatic, why weight the score at all? > > Because the TD did not agree with the players' view? We do not > always, you know! Granted. But I was asking Robin in his capacity as TD. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 7 23:39:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 08:39:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Remontant Message-ID: In one of the "12C3" threads, Nigel Guthrie returned to the scene of the climb: [snip] >>Players (and, here at least, I do feel that >>I speak for most players) regard inconsistent >>rulings in identical circumstances as unfair. >> >>Granny says *reliability* is a necesssary (if >>not sufficient) prerequisite for validity. Gertrude Stein (1874-1946), last words: >What *is* the answer?...In that case, what is >the question? Richard James Hills: Before Nigel climbs on his hobby-horse of universal uniformity of bridge rules, he may wish to consider on what question he claims to "speak for most players". Nigel's leading question is, "Do most players want _inconsistent_ rulings?" But my zen answer is, "Most players do *not* want _draconian_ rulings." Best wishes Draco Malfoy -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Apr 8 00:12:17 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:12:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] The massive paws of elder persons Message-ID: In the "Bad Child's Book of Beasts", Hilaire Belloc wrote: >>>Your little hands were made to take >>>The better things and leave the worse ones: >>>They also may be used to shake >>>The massive paws of elder persons. In the thread "Insufficient bid", Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>L25A does not qualify "pause for thought" with any >>words about what the thoughts should be about. Richard James Hills agrees: It would be helpful if the massive pause of elder persons was carefully defined in Law 25A, and also in Law 45C4(b). WBF LC minutes, 30th August 2000, item 7: >What is inadvertent? Assume the player intends to do >one thing at the moment he reaches for the bidding >box, or his pen or pencil if using written bidding, >or for the bidding board, or starts to speak. Then >it is inadvertent if his attention is drawn in that >instant to some other matter and then he finds he has >actually done something different. His mind has >switched away from what he was doing. Richard James Hills notes: This qualification, of what a "pause for thought" is about, is well and good. But these words should be a footnote in the actual Laws. It is useless creating a binding interpretation, if a TD as competent as Jesper Dybdal is, is unaware that the interpretation exists. Beware of (the massive paws of) the leopard! 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@dybdal.dk Thu Apr 8 00:46:51 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 01:46:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] The massive paws of elder persons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:12:17 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >In the thread "Insufficient bid", Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >>>L25A does not qualify "pause for thought" with any >>>words about what the thoughts should be about. > >Richard James Hills agrees: > >It would be helpful if the massive pause of elder >persons was carefully defined in Law 25A, and also in >Law 45C4(b). > >WBF LC minutes, 30th August 2000, item 7: > >>What is inadvertent? Assume the player intends to do >>one thing at the moment he reaches for the bidding >>box, or his pen or pencil if using written bidding, >>or for the bidding board, or starts to speak. Then >>it is inadvertent if his attention is drawn in that >>instant to some other matter and then he finds he has >>actually done something different. His mind has >>switched away from what he was doing. > >Richard James Hills notes: > >This qualification, of what a "pause for thought" is >about, is well and good. But these words should be a >footnote in the actual Laws. It is useless creating a >binding interpretation, if a TD as competent as Jesper >Dybdal is, is unaware that the interpretation exists. I am actually aware of that interpretation. I would not dream of refusing a L25A correction because of a pause that occurs before the player becomes aware of what he has actually bid. And to the extent that the WBFLC minute is about "pause for thought" rather than inadvertency, I believe it to be about that type of pause. There is also another WBFLC minute from the same day about L25A: > "6. The Committee examined a statement that "When > bidding boxes are in use the attempt to correct an > inadvertent call (Law 25A) must follow instantaneously > upon the player=E2=80=99s discovery of his mistake. (Should > LHO have meanwhile made a call over the player=E2=80=99s > first call Laws 25A, 21B and 16C apply)." The Committee > finds this principle acceptable and urges regulating > authorities to incorporate it (or an alternative > statement) in their tournament regulations. Directors > are recommended, where there is no regulation to cover > the point, to follow the above guidelines." The discussion in the other thread is about the situation where there is a pause after the player becomes aware of what he has bid, and that pause is used to think about the situation and eventually realize that this unexpected call that is on the table is a misbid that might possibly qualify for a L25A correction - and certainly would have qualified if there had not been a pause for thought. And actually, the minute I just quoted seems very clearly to say that I am right in assuming that *any* pause for thought, regardless of what the player is thinking about, inhibits a L25A correction, provided it occurs after the player realizes his mistake. "Must follow instantaneously ..." does not seem to leave much scope for allowing pauses for any reason whatsoever. Thanks for making me dig out the precise wording of that minute. I certainly agree that a clear and easily understandable law book is a much better place than WBFLC minutes to publish information that is needed to make correct rulings on simple things like this. Let's hope that will happen next time. PS: Why do you start a new thread when commenting on an existing thread? Unfortunately, I do not have time to read all threads, so I could easily have overlooked your message. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Apr 8 00:16:52 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:16:52 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? In-Reply-To: <002201c41cc7$4a3d2f90$532846a2@ams.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > West makes a hesitant penalty double over 2Sp. > > East takes it out to 3Cl. This will be deemed use of UI. > > East-West make 9 tricks (-110). > > North-South would most likely have made only 7 (-200). > > The TD and AC estimate the likelihood of NS making 8 tricks (+670) at 20%. > > > > Am I correct in saying that in America, the L12C2 correction is to +670? > > > > While in Europe, the correction would be to 20% +670, 80% -200, which > > To both sides? I believe that OS should get -670 - not > 20% +670, 80% -200. Otherwise it makes cheating > a no-lose strategy. At worst you end up receiving the average > expectancy of what you would get if you didn't cheat > and you might very well do better (if e.g.. the opps don't call > the TD). Well, either you like L12C3 or you don't... 12C3 varies scores "to do equity," not to fine anyone (the 'cost' to the OS of sympathetic weighting will rarely be as much as 10% of a top or 1 IMP) To folk raised on 12C2 all our lives, 12C3 often looks like it both lets the OS off the hook too easily, and fails to give the NOS as much as they would feel entitled to after reading 12C2. I don't know what the situation is in Poland in regard to 12C3 - but this is one of several reasons there is a North American contingent that will fight hard to keep 12C3 out of our law books. Note, though, that even in 12C2-land you still might very well do better if the opps don't call the TD. As to the original question, on the facts given I think a split -110/-670 is the normal North American ruling, with +670/-670 coming into play when we judge the odds of 670 or better to be more like 30% than 20%. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 8 01:10:39 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 10:10:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] The massive paws of elder persons Message-ID: Jesper Dybdal asked: [big snip] >PS: Why do you start a new thread when >commenting on an existing thread? >Unfortunately, I do not have time to >read all threads, so I could easily >have overlooked your message. Richard James Hills replies: Since my postings always contain pearls of wisdom, none of my postings should be overlooked. :-) Sorry about that. I agree that a better title for this thread would have been -> "The massive paws (was Insufficient bid)" Howver, in my humble opinion, never creating a new thread when commenting on a previous posting leads to unwieldy threads which eventually talk about a baker's dozen of issues, when a blmler may be interested in only one of those issues. 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 Apr 8 01:54:23 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:54:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <2b8870to0i5jb3fdr4dbqhjgbsf9ikn7le@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <2b8870to0i5jb3fdr4dbqhjgbsf9ikn7le@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <4AAhMDl$KKdAFw1N@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Jesper Dybdal wrote >Another interesting point is what the "or attempts to do so" part >means. I am sure that any player, no matter what he is thinking about >or for how long he does it, actually "attempts" to make the change of >call without pause for thought. In practice, I assume that it means >that any "pause for thought" is to be considered only from the point >in time where the player realizes what he has actually bid and >therefore at least has a chance of substituting another call without >thought. Why should not a player who has made a mistake think of the effects: think about what the Law allows: think about the UI considerations: and then attempt a change? I am sure some attempts to make a change follow pauses for thought. -- 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 Apr 8 01:57:28 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:57:28 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <200404071710.KAA00861@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <0KDC+Td0C+cAFw8$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <200404071710.KAA00861@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4wBhQfl4NKdAFwW5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Adam Beneschan wrote >David wrote: > >> As has been pointed out here there seems more than one way to approach >> this. The question is whether you should consider what the player was >> doing or not. People on BLML seem ot have a simple approach to the >> reasons for insufficient bids - perhaps they have not played enough bad >> club bridge. >> >> If the bidding goes >> >> 1NT 1H >> >> and the 1H opening would have been natural, and 2H over 1NT is natural, >> then it seems to me that the people who consider it right to assume not >> investigate will allow a change to 2H. The people who investigate not >> assume will take him away from the table, ask him why he bid 1H, and >> when they get the answer that it was meant to be 1H over a strong club, >> and they play Truscott, not allow 2H without penalty. > >The reason a case like this would not bother me is that I don't think >the insufficient bidder's (IB's) partner would pick up on it. If LHO openes >1NT, and partner bids 1H, I now have UI that partner probably thought >he had a hand that didn't see the first part of the auction correctly, >and thought he had a 1H opener or overcall. But if I were the sort of >person who thought it was OK to use such UI (and I believe the 1987 >change in Law 27B was precisely to deal with players who could not be >trusted to apply L16C), I think I'd be *much* more likely to assume >that partner had a 1H opener than that he had a Truscott 1H overcall >over a strong club. In fact, the latter possibility probably wouldn't >occur to me. So the chance that the NO's will be damaged by an >illegal use of UI in this situation should be tiny (other than the UI >that IB's partner has about IB's strength, which has nothing to do >with the conventional aspect of the bid). I do not disagree with this, but I do not see the relevance. Currently we have a Law that can be interpreted in two ways. To say that a particular scenario does not matter because of UI - which is nothing to do with it - seems irrelevant. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Apr 8 01:59:44 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:59:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article >, Laval Dubreuil writes >>Laval writes: >>>My only problem with Law 27B is that, as TD, I have to try reading >>>in minds. In my example (1S - 2C - 1NT), if the 1NT bidder >>>has a balanced 10-12 HPC, he can tell me two different things: >>>1) I did not see the 2C call: oh, he wanted to bid 1NT (forcing) >>> so it is a "conventional" insufficient bid; >>>2) I wanted to make a natural NT call after 2C (that I see), but >>> just not realise I was at the 2 level: now a "natural" insufficient >>> bid. >>> >>>I hate such Laws. I am just an TD (and an engineer), not a psychiatrist >>>or a brain surgeon >>________________________________________________________________________ >>John writes: >> >>the great advantage of being an engineer is that one can always find a >>solution, and usually one that does not borrow from Heath-Robinson. It's >>the TD's job and the engineer's job to find out what broke, why it broke >>and then fix it up. Just ask the guy why he bid 1NT (and away from the >>table). If he's a liar and a cheat well and good, but most players in my >>experience are fairly scrupulous in their answers. >>_______________________________________________________________________ >>Your right John....and it is the way I do the job. Most players tell >>the truth. Anyway, if such a Law makes so much noise on BLML, most >>bridge players are unable to understand its subtleties and lie to >>their advantage (except some BLMLrs....). >>But I am sure we can "reengineer" this Law to avoid such investigation. > >I'd have no problem if we scrapped this Law and bastinadoed all player >who make undercalls, but my own opinion is that this law ain't badly >broke and as such doesn't need much fixing. it's just a bit >temperamental and can be made to work with careful nursing. (you know >the sorta thing, richen the mixture, advance the spark etc) ... hit it with a sledge-hammer .... -- 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 Apr 8 04:52:23 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 13:52:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: >To both sides? I believe that OS should >get -670 - not 20% +670, 80% -200. >Otherwise it makes cheating a no-lose >strategy. At worst you end up receiving >the average expectancy of what you would >get if you didn't cheat and you might very >well do better (if e.g.. the opps don't >call the TD). Richard James Hills: There are two issues here. Firstly, should a Zone adopt Law 12C3 at all, or should a Zone merely permit usage of Law 12C2 in an attempt to combat a perceived cheating problem? So far, the ACBL Zone has avoided permitting the use of Law 12C3. This is possibly because the ACBL BoD has the belief that a significant number of the professional bridge players in the USA will cheat at the drop of a hat. (I have not yet determined if any members of the ACBL BoD are named Nigel.) The second issue is, *if* a Zone adopts Law 12C3, how should the Zone regulate the calculation of Law 12C3 adjustments? In an earlier blml thread, three styles of approach to Law 12C3 adjustments were listed. They were colloquially dubbed Truth, Justice, and the American Way. (a) Truth - An exact weighted assessment of the various likely results is awarded. But no-lose cheating is discouraged by applying a procedural penalty to the offending side. (b) Justice - A weighted assessment is skewed towards the non-offending side, and so also skewed against the offending side. No-lose cheating is consequently discouraged by the skewing of the weightings. (c) The American Way - The offending side gets a Law 12C2 adjustment, while the non- offending side gets a Law 12C3 adjustment. No-lose cheating is discouraged by the Law 12C2 adjustment to the offending side. If the ACBL eventually adopts Law 12C3, it is likely that such adoption will be constrained by the American Way interpretation. However, the big theoretical and practical problem with the American Way interpretation is bracket creep -> its use in not-quite- analogous situations such as Reveley rulings. Example: East-West were about to score +620 in 4H. North uses UI to bid 4S, picking up a double-game swing of +420. The ACBL American Way TD gives North-South a score of -620, but gives East-West a weighted average of -420 and +620. In effect, the ACBL-endorsed Reveley rulings, in conjunction with the American Way, would encourage dog-in-the-manger infractions of Law 73C. The offending side would not directly benefit from the result of their Law 73C infraction. But the offending side might indirectly benefit from their Law 73C infraction, if the consequent Reveley ruling unfairly reduced the score of their opponents. 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 hermandw@hdw.be Thu Apr 8 07:49:54 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 08:49:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3's affect on the unalerted Gerber hand In-Reply-To: <038f01c41be1$4dd039e0$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <038f01c41be1$4dd039e0$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <4074F612.9010807@hdw.be> There are two sides to every coin: Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>[Doug Couchman] >> My trepidation about 12C3 (and I have argued against >>using it here, not that I am in a position such that anyone >>listens) is twofold. > > >>First, it is impossible to guarantee or even reasonably expect >>consistent results. Even in fairly simple cases, two different >>TDs, panels, or ACs cannot be expected to come up with the same >>percentages. > > >>Second, I think it will encourage TDs to be lazy. Rather than >>decide what really was likely (and at all probable), they will >>be inclined to just throw up their hands, say they can't tell, >>and slap a few middling-sounding percentages on all the results >>they can imagine. > > > [Nigel] > Doug is right about the experience of EBU players. > Doug mentioned another drawback in an earlier email. > L12C3 usually lets the OS get off lightly. When infractions > are hard to detect and rarely reported, L12C3 makes law- > breaking even more profitable. Obviously, therefore, > habitual law-breakers are among the vocal minority who > approve. Effectively, L12C3 is another cheat's charter. > > I feel that Doug's sympathies are more with the feelings of > players than with directors. You can understand, how "L12C3 > fudges" are more likely to give TDs a quiet life. Analogy: > policemen who admonish all offenders with a caution. > I understand the argument: if your score will be returned to your expected result anyway, there is no incentive against cheating. But understand the other argument as well: if we are trying to protect the non-offenders to such a level that we shall change scores without treating offenders as cheats, then we must allow those offenders to get away with the "cheating" part of their infraction. If we don't want to say "you are a cheat", then we cannot impose on a possible offender a penalty greater than the taking away of the advantage he might have gained. And as an additional bonus, if we DO impose a greater penalty, because we ARE certain there has been cheating, the difference becomes more marked. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Apr 8 11:14:53 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 11:14:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Discouaging cheats (was 12C3's affect)... References: <038f01c41be1$4dd039e0$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4074F612.9010807@hdw.be> Message-ID: <01f801c41d52$564fa340$0f9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman De Wael] I understand the argument: if your score will be returned to your expected result anyway, there is no incentive against cheating. But understand the other argument as well: if we are trying to protect the non-offenders to such a level that we shall change scores without treating offenders as cheats, then we must allow those offenders to get away with the "cheating" part of their infraction. If we don't want to say "you are a cheat", then we cannot impose on a possible offender a penalty greater than the taking away of the advantage he might have gained. And as an additional bonus, if we DO impose a greater penalty, because we ARE certain there has been cheating, the difference becomes more marked. [Nigel] Herman and David James Hills share the fashionable opinion that the law should be primarily concerned with restoring equity; if the TD suspects cheating, he can impose extra penalties. IMO, there are two problems A. Cheating is a gray area. Deliberate cheating is rare. (1) Few players have perused the minutes and commentaries to find out the inner meanings that the law-makers intended. (2) Only a few people are even aware of all laws and regulations, as written. (3) Many players rationalise law-breaking as "judgement". For example, some people break laws that they deem "stupid", especially if infraction is profitable, rarely detected, rarely reported, rarely ruled against, and (especially) if it is likely to attract a derisory "equity" sanction. Some "honest" BLML subscribers boast about this (I suppose we are talking about the same proportion who, in real life, break laws that they dislike -- such as speed restrictions and truthfulness on tax-forms). (4) I suppose that the worst deliberate cheats are experienced players who know a lot about bridge and other law but who will take "righteous" offence at any insinuation of cheating. B. TDs and ACs are wary of imposing procedural penalties, even when they strongly suspect deliberate legal infractions. IMO, they are right to be careful because (a) suspicions may be unfounded (b) it is hard to impose a PP on a friend and (c) such special treatment fosters the wrong atmosphere -- Bridge is meant to be a game for Ladies and Gentlemen. The solution is to keep severe penalties for infractions and enforce the laws assiduously. Richard Hills rates some current penalties as Draconian. But most games provide such deterrents to rule-breaking. Consider how and why other games deal with infractions, especially infractions that are profitable and hard to detect (e.g. hand ball in the penalty box at soccer). IMO games like football and cricket would be better tests of skill (but, I suppose, less entertaining for spectators) if they were even less tolerant of infraction especially potential cheating. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.651 / Virus Database: 417 - Release Date: 05/04/2004 From jesica_2Catskills@yahoo.com Thu Apr 8 12:19:40 2004 From: jesica_2Catskills@yahoo.com (Alasdair.jackson) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 12:19:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Become A Sexual God 2day!. . . . . . .dodgers Message-ID:
DeerAntler+ -  *New Product*

* Increase testosterone levels up to 500%
* Prevent premature ejac\ulation
* Enhance pe\nis size up to 3 inches
* Maintain harder, stronger erections for hours
* Have amazing s\ex up to 20 times per day
* Improve sex\ual stamina dramatically
* Increase se\xual self-confidence
* Satisfy yourself and your lover like never before
* 100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effects
* Fast Priority USPS Shipping WorldWide
* Doctor Approved And Recommended
* 100% Mo\ney Back Gua\rantee
* FREE Bottle Of DeerAntler+ Worth Over $50
* FREE "Male Help E-Book" Worth Over $50

MORE INFO HERE






chalking revenger narrative


No Thanks, Rem\ove
From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Apr 8 11:31:49 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 11:31:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] New thread on insufficient bids References: Message-ID: <020401c41d54$b3f8c560$0f9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Laval Dubreuil] Your right John....and it is the way I do the job. Most players tell the truth. Anyway, if such a Law makes so much noise on BLML, most bridge players are unable to understand its subtleties and lie to their advantage (except some BLMLrs....). But I am sure we can "reengineer" this Law to avoid such investigation. [Nigel] Laval must be right that some BLMLers are cheats but I am sure that the proportion is no higher than in the general Bridge population, in spite of the BLMLers' intimate exposure to vagaries and injustices of equity rulings. Nevertheless, laws that depend on mind-reading and are especially formulated to favour secretary birds who are plausible liars, should be scrapped. Better - once a bid is made, it cannot be taken back unless it is illegal - and then only with penalty. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.651 / Virus Database: 417 - Release Date: 05/04/2004 From blml@blakjak.com Thu Apr 8 11:50:09 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 11:50:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >Konrad Ciborowski: > >>To both sides? I believe that OS should >>get -670 - not 20% +670, 80% -200. >>Otherwise it makes cheating a no-lose >>strategy. At worst you end up receiving >>the average expectancy of what you would >>get if you didn't cheat and you might very >>well do better (if e.g.. the opps don't >>call the TD). > >Richard James Hills: > >There are two issues here. Firstly, should >a Zone adopt Law 12C3 at all, or should a >Zone merely permit usage of Law 12C2 in an >attempt to combat a perceived cheating >problem? > >So far, the ACBL Zone has avoided permitting >the use of Law 12C3. This is possibly >because the ACBL BoD has the belief that a >significant number of the professional bridge >players in the USA will cheat at the drop of >a hat. (I have not yet determined if any >members of the ACBL BoD are named Nigel.) > >The second issue is, *if* a Zone adopts Law >12C3, how should the Zone regulate the >calculation of Law 12C3 adjustments? In an >earlier blml thread, three styles of approach >to Law 12C3 adjustments were listed. They >were colloquially dubbed Truth, Justice, and >the American Way. > >(a) Truth - An exact weighted assessment of >the various likely results is awarded. But >no-lose cheating is discouraged by applying a >procedural penalty to the offending side. The problem with this was shown in the last two WCs I attended where we were told to use this method - but *no* PPs were ever issued .... >(b) Justice - A weighted assessment is skewed >towards the non-offending side, and so also >skewed against the offending side. No-lose >cheating is consequently discouraged by the >skewing of the weightings. .... which is why [or at least one of the reasons why] th eEBU endorses this. >(c) The American Way - The offending side >gets a Law 12C2 adjustment, while the non- >offending side gets a Law 12C3 adjustment. >No-lose cheating is discouraged by the Law >12C2 adjustment to the offending side. > >If the ACBL eventually adopts Law 12C3, it is >likely that such adoption will be constrained >by the American Way interpretation. > >However, the big theoretical and practical >problem with the American Way interpretation >is bracket creep -> its use in not-quite- >analogous situations such as Reveley rulings. > >Example: East-West were about to score +620 >in 4H. North uses UI to bid 4S, picking up >a double-game swing of +420. The ACBL >American Way TD gives North-South a score of >-620, but gives East-West a weighted average >of -420 and +620. > >In effect, the ACBL-endorsed Reveley rulings, >in conjunction with the American Way, would >encourage dog-in-the-manger infractions of >Law 73C. The offending side would not >directly benefit from the result of their Law >73C infraction. But the offending side might >indirectly benefit from their Law 73C >infraction, if the consequent Reveley ruling >unfairly reduced the score of their opponents. Assuming the ACBL were to bring in L12C3 for NOs only, why should they allow Reveley rulings? That *is* endorsing cheating. -- 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 Apr 8 16:38:41 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 17:38:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? References: <4073ACAC.8080403@hdw.be> <002201c41cc7$4a3d2f90$532846a2@ams.com> Message-ID: > To both sides? I believe that OS should get -670 - not > 20% +670, 80% -200. Otherwise it makes cheating > a no-lose strategy. First of all almost all if not all UI rulings have nothing to do with cheating. Second to chose a TD/AC adjustable auction is never a no-lose strategy. Because if you get a bad result you keep it, if you get a good result you lose it. Under 12C3 you tend to lose less of your good score compared to 12C2 but lose you do. I can assure you that the best strategy when vulnerable to a UI ruling (after partners pause or whayever) is to pick the option (or one of the options) that is least likely to be adjusted by the TD/AC. For the very simple reason that if this happened to be the right guess you get to keep your good score. Unfortunatly this observation has an obvious major drawback. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 1:24 AM > Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? > > > > West makes a hesitant penalty double over 2Sp. > > East takes it out to 3Cl. This will be deemed use of UI. > > East-West make 9 tricks (-110). > > North-South would most likely have made only 7 (-200). > > The TD and AC estimate the likelihood of NS making 8 tricks (+670) at 20%. > > > > Am I correct in saying that in America, the L12C2 correction is to +670? > > > > While in Europe, the correction would be to 20% +670, 80% -200, which > > To both sides? I believe that OS should get -670 - not > 20% +670, 80% -200. Otherwise it makes cheating > a no-lose strategy. At worst you end up receiving the average > expectancy of what you would get if you didn't cheat > and you might very well do better (if e.g.. the opps don't call > the TD). > > > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krenver, Polorado > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 8 18:40:30 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 13:40:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Apr 7, 2004, at 23:52 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Example: East-West were about to score +620 > in 4H. North uses UI to bid 4S, picking up > a double-game swing of +420. The ACBL > American Way TD gives North-South a score of > -620, but gives East-West a weighted average > of -420 and +620. I seem to have missed the boat here. Law 12C3, when it *is* allowed, allows varying an assigned adjusted score "in order to do equity". How is using 12C3 in this situation "doing equity"? Not referring to the "American Way" of weighting, but to the question of weighting at all. This example seems to me clearly to be a straight 12C2 situation. From erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Thu Apr 8 20:01:28 2004 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 21:01:28 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <001401c41cd8$fc7bc520$8d2debd4@mycomputer> Message-ID: <001c01c41d9b$e5f82dc0$612584d9@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "Israel Erdnbaum" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "israel erdenbaum" ; "Ayala Hiler" ; "Julian Frydrich Frydrich" Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 9:46 PM Subject: Re: SV: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2:33 AM > Subject: Re: SV: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid > > > > Skjaran, Harald wrote > > >David Stevenson wrote > > > > > >Skjaran, Harald wrote > > >>Grattan Endicott > >> [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >>"The pursuit of perfection, then, is the pursuit > > >>of sweetness and light." [Matthew Arnold] > > >>=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#= =3D#=3D > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: "Skjaran, Harald" > > >>To: "Torsten =C5strand" ; > > >>"blml" > > >>Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:13 AM > > >>Subject: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid > > >> > > >> > > >>Torsten =C5strand wrote: > > >> > > >>Your partner opens reason for only > > allowing a change when someone tried or succeeded to change it wi= thout > > pause for thought. > > > > In effect you are asking me 'Why should we not allow a change = after > > pause for thought?' I do not know. > > Dear David > > -- Aren't you overdoing a bit? For the same reason that you canno= t change > any other action{mistake} once you have done it.{like touching a pi= ece in > chess} > best regards > Israel > > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways = /\ /\ > > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 = @ @ > > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB = =3D( + )=3D > > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm = ~ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Apr 8 20:35:48 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 13:35:48 -0600 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <001401c41cd8$fc7bc520$8d2debd4@mycomputer> <001c01c41d9b$e5f82dc0$612584d9@mycomputer> Message-ID: <008401c41da0$b6c82780$532846a2@ams.com> I received recently several empty messages from Isreal (one sent to the Polish TD mailing list among them). Obviously he has his computer infected. Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Apr 9 10:34:25 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 10:34:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: 12C3's affect on the unalerted Gerber hand References: <038f01c41be1$4dd039e0$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4074F612.9010807@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000d01c41e16$2d0da800$5c9d87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 7:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] RE: 12C3's affect on the unalerted Gerber hand > There are two sides to every coin: > +=+ des coins et des recoins +=+ > ----------------- \x/ ------------------ < > > I understand the argument: if your score > will be returned to your expected result > anyway, there is no incentive against cheating. > > But understand the other argument as well: if > we are trying to protect the non-offenders to > such a level that we shall change scores without > treating offenders as cheats, then we must allow > those offenders to get away with the "cheating" > part of their infraction. > > If we don't want to say "you are a cheat", then > we cannot impose on a possible offender a > penalty greater than the taking away of the > advantage he might have gained. > +=+ Opinion Somewhere along the way the idea has developed that the laws are designed to stop cheating. Some players want vengeance and look to the laws for it. The laws generally are expressly not designed to that end. Their purpose is to define correct procedure and prescribe an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. Their chief object is redress for damage, not the punishment of the player who commits an irregularity. We need to take stock, therefore, of the fact that application of the law is not about revenge but about remedial action when there has been a breach of the law. ['to remedy' - to set right]. There are two elements involved - reinstatement of the balance between the sides by score adjustment and a discretionary penalty on a player for his violation of correct procedure. The distinction is made in Law 72A6 and in the 'Scope and Interpretation of the Laws'. On the rare occasion when the Director has evidence of cheating - i.e.of knowing and purposeful violation of law - the disciplinary process under Law 90 kicks in; this reclusive Law makes no reference to score adjustment at all - the remedial action occurs under the relevant other law for the breach of procedure and, as a separate determination, there is the disciplinary action for the purposeful nature of the violation that has taken the offence beyond the limitations of the laws generally. As the Law is today any player or official who thinks to punish by score adjustment has misread the law. Moreover, it is inappropriate to designate as 'cheating' any violation of correct procedure where the evidence does not show that the breach is not inadvertent. In neither of these matters, nor in any, does the sentiment of the individual alter the state of the Law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Apr 9 10:44:35 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 10:44:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Discouaging cheats (was 12C3's affect)... References: <038f01c41be1$4dd039e0$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4074F612.9010807@hdw.be> <01f801c41d52$564fa340$0f9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <001901c41e17$74349260$5c9d87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 11:14 AM Subject: [blml] Discouaging cheats (was 12C3's affect)... > B. TDs and ACs are wary of imposing procedural penalties, > even when they strongly suspect deliberate legal infractions. > IMO, they are right to be careful because (a) suspicions > may be unfounded (b) it is hard to impose a PP on a friend > and (c) such special treatment fosters the wrong atmosphere > -- Bridge is meant to be a game for Ladies and Gentlemen. > > The solution is to keep severe penalties for infractions > and enforce the laws assiduously. Richard Hills rates some > current penalties as Draconian. But most games provide > such deterrents to rule-breaking. Consider how and why > other games deal with infractions, especially infractions > that are profitable and hard to detect (e.g. hand ball in > the penalty box at soccer). IMO games like football and > cricket would be better tests of skill (but, I suppose, > less entertaining for spectators) if they were even less > tolerant of infraction especially potential cheating. > +=+ An individual's opinion that a Director has failed to use to best advantage his discretionary power to penalize is an issue between the individual and the Director. The law remains that it is for the Director's discretion whether to inflict a procedural penalty in addition to resetting the score. I agree that Directors and ACs lean too far to the side of compassion in this, but I do not accept that such an opinion is cause to interpret the law as other than it is. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Fri Apr 9 11:01:13 2004 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:01:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Polish Club - Greg Matula References: <038f01c41be1$4dd039e0$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4074F612.9010807@hdw.be> <01f801c41d52$564fa340$0f9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <001901c41e17$74349260$5c9d87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <01ec01c41e19$97efb020$cf4ff9c1@olivier> Hello, I am looking for "The polish club" by Greg Matula for a french friend, Can somebody tell me where he can find this book? It is no longer available in France (Le bridgeur & C°), Please, answer directly so you won't charge The List :) If you have another book, it can be nice, too (I know the WJ2000 witch is available freely on the net ...) Olivier Beauvillain. From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Apr 9 11:28:21 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:28:21 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] RE: 12C3's affect on the unalerted Gerber hand Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA34FB@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Grattan Endicott wrote: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D "If the parties will at my hands call for justice, then, all it were my father stood on the one side, and the Devil=20 on the other, his cause being good,=20 the Devil should have right." ~ Sir Thomas More. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 7:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] RE: 12C3's affect on the=20 unalerted Gerber hand > There are two sides to every coin: > +=3D+ des coins et des recoins +=3D+ > ----------------- \x/ ------------------ < >=20 > I understand the argument: if your score=20 > will be returned to your expected result=20 > anyway, there is no incentive against cheating. >=20 > But understand the other argument as well: if=20 > we are trying to protect the non-offenders to=20 > such a level that we shall change scores without=20 > treating offenders as cheats, then we must allow=20 > those offenders to get away with the "cheating"=20 > part of their infraction. >=20 > If we don't want to say "you are a cheat", then=20 > we cannot impose on a possible offender a=20 > penalty greater than the taking away of the=20 > advantage he might have gained. >=20 +=3D+ Opinion Somewhere along the way the idea has developed that the laws are designed to stop cheating. Some players want vengeance and look to the laws for it. The laws generally are=20 expressly not designed to that end. Their purpose=20 is to define correct procedure and prescribe an=20 adequate remedy when there is a departure from=20 correct procedure. Their chief object is redress=20 for damage, not the punishment of the player who=20 commits an irregularity. We need to take stock, therefore, of the fact that application of the law is not about revenge but about remedial action when there has been a breach of the law. ['to remedy' - to set right].=20 There are two elements involved - reinstatement=20 of the balance between the sides by score=20 adjustment and a discretionary penalty on a=20 player for his violation of correct procedure. The=20 distinction is made in Law 72A6 and in the 'Scope=20 and Interpretation of the Laws'. On the rare=20 occasion when the Director has evidence of=20 cheating - i.e.of knowing and purposeful violation=20 of law - the disciplinary process under Law 90=20 kicks in; this reclusive Law makes no reference=20 to score adjustment at all - the remedial action=20 occurs under the relevant other law for the breach=20 of procedure and, as a separate determination,=20 there is the disciplinary action for the purposeful=20 nature of the violation that has taken the offence=20 beyond the limitations of the laws generally. As the Law is today any player or official who=20 thinks to punish by score adjustment has misread=20 the law. Moreover, it is inappropriate to designate=20 as 'cheating' any violation of correct procedure=20 where the evidence does not show that the breach=20 is not inadvertent. In neither of these matters, nor=20 in any, does the sentiment of the individual alter=20 the state of the Law. ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ ----- Exactly! Regards, Haradl ----- =20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sat Apr 10 03:09:32 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 12:09:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpSaWNoYXJkIEphbWVzIEhpbGxzIHdyb3RlOg0KDQo+PkV4YW1wbGU6ICBFYXN0LVdl c3Qgd2VyZSBhYm91dCB0byBzY29yZSArNjIwDQo+PmluIDRILiAgTm9ydGggdXNlcyBVSSB0byBi aWQgNFMsIHBpY2tpbmcgdXANCj4+YSBkb3VibGUtZ2FtZSBzd2luZyBvZiArNDIwLiAgVGhlIEFD QkwNCj4+QW1lcmljYW4gV2F5IFREIGdpdmVzIE5vcnRoLVNvdXRoIGEgc2NvcmUgb2YNCj4+LTYy MCwgYnV0IGdpdmVzIEVhc3QtV2VzdCBhIHdlaWdodGVkIGF2ZXJhZ2UNCj4+b2YgLTQyMCBhbmQg KzYyMC4NCg0KRWQgUmVwcGVydCByZXBsaWVkOg0KDQo+SSBzZWVtIHRvIGhhdmUgbWlzc2VkIHRo ZSBib2F0IGhlcmUuIExhdyAxMkMzLA0KPndoZW4gaXQgKmlzKiBhbGxvd2VkLCBhbGxvd3MgdmFy eWluZyBhbiBhc3NpZ25lZA0KPmFkanVzdGVkIHNjb3JlICJpbiBvcmRlciB0byBkbyBlcXVpdHki LiBIb3cgaXMNCj51c2luZyAxMkMzIGluIHRoaXMgc2l0dWF0aW9uICJkb2luZyBlcXVpdHkiPyBO b3QNCj5yZWZlcnJpbmcgdG8gdGhlICJBbWVyaWNhbiBXYXkiIG9mIHdlaWdodGluZywgYnV0DQo+ dG8gdGhlIHF1ZXN0aW9uIG9mIHdlaWdodGluZyBhdCBhbGwuDQo+DQo+VGhpcyBleGFtcGxlIHNl ZW1zIHRvIG1lIGNsZWFybHkgdG8gYmUgYSBzdHJhaWdodA0KPjEyQzIgc2l0dWF0aW9uLg0KDQpS aWNoYXJkIEphbWVzIEhpbGxzIG5vdGVzOg0KDQpJIGFncmVlIHdpdGggRWQgdGhhdCBsb2dpY2Fs bHkgdGhlIEFDQkwgTEMgc2hvdWxkIG5vdA0KcGVybWl0IFJldmVsZXkgcnVsaW5ncy4gIEJ1dCB0 aGF0LCB1bmZvcnR1bmF0ZWx5LCBpcw0KZHJlYW1pbmcgdGhlIGltcG9zc2libGUgZHJlYW0uICBU aGUgQUNCTCBMQyBoYXMgYQ0KdGhpbmcgYWJvdXQgYSBzby1jYWxsZWQgInVuZGVzZXJ2ZWQgd2lu ZGZhbGwiIHRvIHRoZQ0Kbm9uLW9mZmVuZGluZyBzaWRlIHdoaWNoICJtYXkgaGFybSB0aGUgZmll bGQiLiAgU2VlDQphdHRhY2hlZC4NCg0KQmVzdCB3aXNoZXMNCg0KUkpIDQoNCmh0dHA6Ly93ZWIy LmFjYmwub3JnL2h0bWwvbGF3c19jb21taXNzaW9uLmh0bWwNCg0KQUNCTCBMQyBkcmFmdCBtaW51 dGVzIE5vdmVtYmVyIDIyIDIwMDM6DQoNCj4+Pj5Qcm9wb3NlZCByZXZpc2lvbnMgdG8gTGF3IDEy IHdlcmUgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIGFuZCB0aGUNCj4+Pj5jb21taXNzaW9uIHJlYWZmaXJtZWQgaXRzIHBv c2l0aW9uIHRoYXQgaW4gdGhlIG5ldw0KPj4+Pmxhd3MgZm9yIG5vbi1rbm9ja291dCBldmVudHMg MTJDMyBzaG91bGQgYXBwbHkgdG8NCj4+Pj50aGUgbm9uLW9mZmVuZGluZyBzaWRlIGJ1dCAxMkMy IHNob3VsZCBhcHBseSB0byB0aGUNCj4+Pj5vZmZlbmRpbmcgc2lkZS4gVGhlIHByb2JsZW0gb2Yg ZW1wbG95aW5nIHRoaXMNCj4+Pj5hcHByb2FjaCBpbiBjb25qdW5jdGlvbiB3aXRoIExhdyA4NkIg aW4ga25vY2tvdXQNCj4+Pj5wbGF5IGluc29mYXIgYXMgaXQgZGlsdXRlcyB0aGUgZWZmZWN0IG9m IDEyIG9uIHRoZQ0KPj4+Pm9mZmVuZGluZyBzaWRlIHdhcyBub3RlZC4gVGhlIGNvbW1pc3Npb24g ZXhwcmVzc2VkDQo+Pj4+cmVzZXJ2YXRpb25zIGFib3V0IGV4dGVuZGluZyB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIDEy QzMgdG8NCj4+Pj5rbm9ja291dCBwbGF5Lg0KDQpBQ0JMIExDIG1pbnV0ZXMgSnVseSAxOCAyMDAz Og0KDQo+Pj5SaWNoYXJkIENvbGtlciBicm91Z2h0IHVwIHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtcyBpbiBsYXcNCj4+ PmludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIHRoYXQgY2FuIHJlc3VsdCBmcm9tIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgdGhlDQo+Pj53 b3JkcyAiaXJyZWd1bGFyaXR5IiBhbmQgImluZnJhY3Rpb24iIGluIHRoZQ0KPj4+Y3VycmVudCBs YXdzLiBTcGVjaWZpY2FsbHksIGRvZXMgInRoZSBpcnJlZ3VsYXJpdHkiDQo+Pj5pbiAxMkMyIHJl ZmVyIHRvIGEgcGxheWVy4oCZcyBpbGxlZ2FsIGNob2ljZSBvZiBjYWxscw0KPj4+YWZ0ZXIgYSBo ZXNpdGF0aW9uIG9yIGRvZXMgaXQgaW5zdGVhZCByZWZlciB0byBib3RoDQo+Pj50aGUgaGVzaXRh dGlvbiBhbmQgdGhlIGlsbGVnYWwgY2hvaWNlPyBUaGVyZSB3YXMgYQ0KPj4+Y29uc2Vuc3VzIHRo YXQgdGhlIGlycmVndWxhcml0eSByZWZlcnJlZCB0byBpbiAxMkMyDQo+Pj5tYXkgaW5jbHVkZSB0 aGUgZXZlbnQgdGhhdCB0cmFuc21pdHRlZCB0aGUNCj4+PnVuYXV0aG9yaXplZCBpbmZvcm1hdGlv bi4gQWZ0ZXIgbXVjaCBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIGFuZA0KPj4+YXMgYSByZXN1bHQgb2YgZ2VuZXJhbCBh Z3JlZW1lbnQgdGhhdCB0aGUgbm9uLQ0KPj4+b2ZmZW5kZXJzIG5vdCBnZXQgYW4gdW5kZXNlcnZl ZCB3aW5kZmFsbCB0aGF0IG1heQ0KPj4+aGFybSB0aGUgZmllbGQgYWZ0ZXIgYW4gZGlzYWxsb3dl ZCBhY3Rpb24gYnkgdGhlDQo+Pj5vcHBvbmVudHMsIHRoZSBMYXdzIENvbW1pc3Npb24gYWdyZWVk IHRoYXQgMTJDMyAoaWYNCj4+PmFwcGxpY2FibGUpIHNob3VsZCBhcHBseSB3aGVuIGFwcHJvcHJp YXRlIG9ubHkgdG8NCj4+PnRoZSBub24tb2ZmZW5kaW5nIHNpZGUgd2hpbGUgMTJDMiBzaG91bGQg YWx3YXlzDQo+Pj5hcHBseSB0byB0aGUgb2ZmZW5kaW5nIHNpZGUuIEFzIGZvciBkZWZpbml0aW9u cywNCj4+PnRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbiB3YXMgb2ZmZXJlZDoNCj4+Pg0KPj4+LS1h biBpbmZyYWN0aW9uIGlzIGFuIGFjdGlvbiBieSBhIHNpZGUgdGhhdA0KPj4+aWxsZWdhbGx5IGJl bmVmaXRzIGhpcyBzaWRlIGFuZCBmb3Igd2hpY2ggb25lIHdvdWxkDQo+Pj5ub3JtYWxseSBleHBl Y3QgdG8gcmVzdWx0IGluIGEgcGVuYWx0eSBvciBhIHNjb3JlDQo+Pj5hZGp1c3RtZW50IG9yIGJv dGguDQo+Pj4tLWFuIGlycmVndWxhcml0eSBtYXkgYmUgYW4gaW5mcmFjdGlvbiBhbmQgaXMgYQ0K Pj4+ZGV2aWF0aW9uIGZyb20gY29ycmVjdCBwcm9jZWR1cmUgc2V0IGZvcnRoIGluIHRoZQ0KPj4+ bGF3cyB0aGF0IHdpbGwgbm90IG5lY2Vzc2FyaWx5IHJlc3VsdCBpbiBhIHBlbmFsdHkNCj4+Pm9y IGEgc2NvcmUgYWRqdXN0bWVudC4NCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQogIElt cG9ydGFudCBXYXJuaW5nOiBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIGluIGVycm9y LCBwbGVhc2UNCmFkdmlzZSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFuZCBkZWxldGUgdGhlIG1lc3NhZ2UgYW5kIGF0 dGFjaG1lbnRzIGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5LiDCoFRoaXMNCmVtYWlsLCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgYXR0YWNobWVu dHMsIG1heSBjb250YWluIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbCwgbGVnYWxseSBwcml2aWxlZ2VkDQphbmQvb3Ig Y29weXJpZ2h0IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLCB0aGUgdW5hdXRob3Jpc2VkIHVzZSBvZiB3aGljaCBpcyBw cm9oaWJpdGVkLg0KQW55IHZpZXdzIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBpbiB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIGFyZSB0aG9zZSBv ZiB0aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBzZW5kZXIsDQpleGNlcHQgd2hlcmUgdGhlIHNlbmRlciBleHByZXNz bHksIGFuZCB3aXRoIGF1dGhvcml0eSwgc3RhdGVzIHRoZW0gdG8gYmUNCnRoZSB2aWV3IG9mIHRo ZSBEZXBhcnRtZW50IG9mIEltbWlncmF0aW9uIGFuZCBNdWx0aWN1bHR1cmFsIGFuZCBJbmRpZ2Vu b3VzDQpBZmZhaXJzIChESU1JQSkuIMKgRElNSUEgcmVzcGVjdHMgeW91ciBwcml2YWN5IGFuZCBo YXMgb2JsaWdhdGlvbnMgdW5kZXIgdGhlDQpQcml2YWN5IEFjdCAxOTg4IChzZWUgd3d3LmltbWku Z292LmF1KS4NCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Apr 11 00:10:07 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:10:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? References: Message-ID: <003301c41f51$1e1ac760$60814c51@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? > > I agree with Ed that logically the ACBL LC > should not permit Reveley rulings. But that, > unfortunately, is dreaming the impossible > dream. The ACBL LC has a thing about a > so-called "undeserved windfall" to the > non-offending side which "may harm the > field". > +=+ I have seen it said somewhere that a Law 12C3 ruling using the 'Reveley' method is 'illegal'. The terms of 12C3 embrace any adjustment that is deemed to "do equity". Decisions to exclude 'Reveley' rulings prevail in some organizations, including the EBU and, more recently, the EBL, and these are policy decisions. The circumstances in the ACBL would be likely to inhibit any 'interpretation' of the law by the WBFLC that asserted the illegality of 'Reveley' rulings et al. When the WBF TAC recognized the possibility of 12C3 adjustments and of weighted adjustments no condition in relation to 'Reveley' or any other type of adjustment was specified. That, as I recall, was in Maastricht - Richard Colker was involved in the discussion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john@asimere.com Sun Apr 11 01:58:03 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 01:58:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? Message-ID: So the whole crew are at the Easter Tourney and I can be rude to mamos, DWS, DALB, Robin, and Gordon (who won the main event) f2f. Very satisfying :) The hand is irrelevant except that part way through declarer leads, and it goes ruff, pitch, revoke round the table. The wimmin that ruffs is thinking about the price of fish and asks to see the three turned down cards a few seconds later. Up come the cards; "Oh s**t!" says fourth hand wimmin and the NYPD arrives. It's the UK, Revoke enquires defender to defender are not permitted. fwiw it's the last card in the suit that 4th hand played and she will therefore not win a trick later with a card that could have been legally played. You have two options: 1) allow the change and apply the penalty card provisions. 2) rule the revoke established and apply the penalty card provisions Off you go .... cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Apr 11 08:59:37 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 03:59:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2DBA862A-8B8E-11D8-8DCD-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Apr 10, 2004, at 20:58 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > You have two options: > 1) allow the change and apply the penalty card provisions. > 2) rule the revoke established and apply the penalty card provisions Not established, because the criteria of Law 63A have not been met. The question is whether 61B has been violated. I suppose ya hadda be there, but prima facie, it seems to me, asking to see the cards is not asking partner if she has any of the suit led, so I'd say 61B has not been violated. Apply 62B1 (your option 1). From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Apr 11 09:45:34 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:45:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? In-Reply-To: <003301c41f51$1e1ac760$60814c51@4nrw70j> References: <003301c41f51$1e1ac760$60814c51@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <407905AE.3010102@hdw.be> grandeval wrote: > >>I agree with Ed that logically the ACBL LC >>should not permit Reveley rulings. But that, >>unfortunately, is dreaming the impossible >>dream. The ACBL LC has a thing about a >>so-called "undeserved windfall" to the >>non-offending side which "may harm the >>field". >> > > +=+ I have seen it said somewhere that > a Law 12C3 ruling using the 'Reveley' > method is 'illegal'. The terms of 12C3 > embrace any adjustment that is deemed to > "do equity". Decisions to exclude 'Reveley' > rulings prevail in some organizations, > including the EBU and, more recently, the > EBL, and these are policy decisions. The > circumstances in the ACBL would be > likely to inhibit any 'interpretation' of the > law by the WBFLC that asserted the > illegality of 'Reveley' rulings et al. > When the WBF TAC recognized the > possibility of 12C3 adjustments and of > weighted adjustments no condition in > relation to 'Reveley' or any other type of > adjustment was specified. That, as I recall, > was in Maastricht - Richard Colker was > involved in the discussion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > It seems to me that the Laws as such would prevent Reveley rulings to be possible. Certainly for the offending side. Just to make clear: a Reveley ruling occurs after a L16 infraction. If an offending side is barred, by L16, from making a certain call, then the score that they should get can be either the worst of, or a weighing of, all results that can occur if they had not made the call that L16 forbids. This should be clear to anyone, and no political decision ought to be needed to forbid Reveley rulings (at least for the OS). Now I can understand why one could be making a Revely ruling for the NOs. For them, the equitable point before the infraction, certainly is one where the forbidden action has some frequency. So I can understand the reasoning behind this. But to those propagating this way of thinking I have the following reply: When ruling on a revoke, a claim, anything, we often give the OS less than their "equitable" position, and we never discuss the fact that at the same time we give the NOs more than equity. Why should we do otherwise in cases of L16. The Americans have been used to giving NOs the "best of all possible", so why should they now drop even below a "average of all possible, excluding results reachable after infraction" to "average of all possible, including those results". I urge the Americans to accept L12C3, and to not start splitting the scores between NOs and Os. There are no real reasons for doing so. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Apr 11 09:48:36 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:48:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40790664.3020003@hdw.be> No John, it's none of the above (well, below): John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > So the whole crew are at the Easter Tourney and I can be rude to mamos, > DWS, DALB, Robin, and Gordon (who won the main event) f2f. Very > satisfying :) > > The hand is irrelevant except that part way through declarer leads, and > it goes ruff, pitch, revoke round the table. The wimmin that ruffs is > thinking about the price of fish and asks to see the three turned down > cards a few seconds later. > > Up come the cards; "Oh s**t!" says fourth hand wimmin and the NYPD > arrives. > > It's the UK, Revoke enquires defender to defender are not permitted. > fwiw it's the last card in the suit that 4th hand played and she will > therefore not win a trick later with a card that could have been legally > played. > > You have two options: > 1) allow the change and apply the penalty card provisions. > 2) rule the revoke established and apply the penalty card provisions > no, according to the official policy it's: 3) rule the revoke non-established (with penalty card) AND apply the penalty for an established revoke. Of which we don't know which kind - but I gather that does not matter. > Off you go .... cheers john -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From karel@esatclear.ie Sun Apr 11 12:33:20 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:33:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Change 12C3 procedure ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [snip ... ] >+=+ I think we need clarity here. That percentages >devised by the Director may be appealed to the >site appeals committee cannot be 'unacceptable' in >my opinion. It is a standard right of appeal under >Law 92A. I imagine DWS refers to appeals from >there to the national authority, which has long said >it will not entertain appeals that are seeking to have >an adjustment 'tweaked'. +++ As a seemingly simple suggestion - surely making the precentages and the possible contracts in a 12C3 ruling AFTER looking at the results removes ANY issue ?? - No one can argue the precentages or the possible contracts because that is what happened. - All 12C3 ruling will be 100% consistent with any director as it depends only on the actual competition results and does not involve any estimations - Equity is certainly kept - The players, i would feel, will firstly understand whats being done and will be happy with the procedure and adjustment obtained. K. From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Sun Apr 11 12:54:20 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:54:20 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Change 12C3 procedure ?? Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC93@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Karel wrote: [snip ... ] >+=3D+ I think we need clarity here. That percentages >devised by the Director may be appealed to the >site appeals committee cannot be 'unacceptable' in >my opinion. It is a standard right of appeal under >Law 92A. I imagine DWS refers to appeals from >there to the national authority, which has long said >it will not entertain appeals that are seeking to have >an adjustment 'tweaked'. +++ As a seemingly simple suggestion - surely making the precentages = and the possible contracts in a 12C3 ruling AFTER looking at the results = removes ANY issue ?? - No one can argue the precentages or the possible contracts because = that is what happened. - All 12C3 ruling will be 100% consistent with any director as it = depends only on the actual competition results and does not involve any = estimations - Equity is certainly kept - The players, i would feel, will firstly understand whats being done = and will be happy with the procedure and adjustment obtained. ------ This would only have any meaning if all other tables in the competition = had identical bidding and play (if relevant) up to the point where the = infraction happened. Results from other tables where bidding(play) = differs are NOT RELEVANT when deciding what results are probable, and = the probalilitis, at the actual table without the infraction. Looking at all other results on the actual deal in the competition is a = common mistake. But a lot of these results won't be relevant for the = TD/AC decision. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran ----- K. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 11 12:22:40 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:22:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? References: <2DBA862A-8B8E-11D8-8DCD-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <006c01c41fc4$c589a5c0$a1e8403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? > > On Saturday, Apr 10, 2004, at 20:58 US/Eastern, John > (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > You have two options: > > 1) allow the change and apply the penalty card provisions. > > 2) rule the revoke established and apply the penalty card > > provisions > > Not established, because the criteria of Law 63A have not > been met. The question is whether 61B has been violated. I > suppose ya hadda be there, but prima facie, it seems to me, > asking to see the cards is not asking partner if she has any > of the suit led, so I'd say 61B has not been violated. Apply > 62B1 (your option 1). > +=+ We begin with a question whether information from seeing her card again is AI for the revoker. Law 66A does not invoke the possibility of UI. It would not be surprising if the WBFLC were to extend the principle it has established in relation to 25B; the heading (not part of the law, of course) of 63B might give it a stimulus to do so. It has not done so this far. So Ed's view looks right in that respect.. In the meantime a Zonal Organization could make an interim interpretation of the law (WBFLC Minute 1 of 24 August 1998). Such an interpretation might say that where the object of a Law 66A enquiry is perception of a possible revoke it is deemed an enquiry under Law 61B. Anything else to think about? Well, we ought not to overlook basics. Ed's view has to be mounted on the back of an opinion that the enquirer has not made available to partner "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play". The revoke is not yet established so information given may still suggest a play, but I think we are agreeing that, as far as we can see, the information is authorized under 66A and not therefore extraneous. ~ G ~ +=+ P.S. I am glad this came up. It has shown me a flaw in my indexing of the current drafts of future laws! From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 11 15:09:50 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:09:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? References: <003301c41f51$1e1ac760$60814c51@4nrw70j> <407905AE.3010102@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00a101c41fce$cf883230$a1e8403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 9:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? > > Just to make clear: a Reveley ruling occurs after > a L16 infraction. If an offending side is barred, > by L16, from making a certain call, then the score > that they should get can be either the worst of, or > a weighing of, all results that can occur if they had > not made the call that L16 forbids. This should be > clear to anyone, and no political decision ought to > be needed to forbid Reveley rulings (at least for > the OS). > +=+ That is an idiosyncratic reading of the Law. It is established that equity lies in reinstating the balance between the two sides as it existed in the instant prior to the irregularity. If no irregularity had occurred* the player would have been entitled to make any admissible call. In doing equity it is wholly appropriate to consolidate a balance of probability of all such auctions - and separately exercise the discretion to apply a Law 90 penalty. Score adjustment to do equity takes us back to the situation prior to the irregularity. Law 12C2 makes the distinction**between the NOS ('had the irregularity not occurred') and the OS ('at all probable', irregularity or not). Law 12C3 is concerned only with the judgement of what does equity by restoring the balance between the sides. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ (*The first irregularity is the breach of Law73A2 or 73B1) (**WBFLC minute 2, 27th Aug 2002) From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Sun Apr 11 16:59:39 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:59:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018168E7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> John (MadDog) Probst So the whole crew are at the Easter Tourney and I can be rude to mamos, DWS, DALB, Robin, and Gordon (who won the main event) f2f. Very satisfying :) Whereas you were polite (as always) to me. From MAILER-DAEMON@smtp.shellnet.co.uk Sun Apr 11 17:44:41 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@smtp.shellnet.co.uk (Mail Delivery Subsystem) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:44:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Returned mail: see transcript for details Message-ID: <200404111644.i3BGiff58739@smtp.shellnet.co.uk> This is a MIME-encapsulated message --i3BGiff58739.1081701881/smtp.shellnet.co.uk The original message was received at Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:44:37 +0100 (BST) from 82-33-170-172.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.170.172] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- (reason: 550 Host unknown) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 5.1.2 ... Host unknown (Name server: bullocks.telme.com: host not found) --i3BGiff58739.1081701881/smtp.shellnet.co.uk Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp.shellnet.co.uk Received-From-MTA: DNS; 82-33-170-172.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk Arrival-Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:44:37 +0100 (BST) Final-Recipient: RFC822; rgb@bullocks.telme.com Action: failed Status: 5.1.2 Remote-MTA: DNS; bullocks.telme.com Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 Host unknown Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:44:41 +0100 (BST) --i3BGiff58739.1081701881/smtp.shellnet.co.uk Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from bullockscoaches.co.uk (82-33-170-172.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.170.172]) by smtp.shellnet.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3BGiaf58735 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:44:37 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <200404111644.i3BGiaf58735@smtp.shellnet.co.uk> From: blml@rtflb.org To: rgb@bullockscoaches.co.uk Subject: Re: Re: Re: Your document Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:44:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_000071B7.00000351" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_000071B7.00000351 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit See the attached file for details. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_000071B7.00000351 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="document_4351.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="document_4351.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuAAAAKvnXsbvhjCV74Ywle+GMJVsmj6V44YwlQeZOpX2hjCV74YxlbiGMJVsjm2V 4oYwlQeZO5XqhjCVV4A2le6GMJVSaWNo74YwlQAAAAAAAAAAQ29tcHJlc3NlZCBieSBQZXRp dGUgKGMpMTk5OSBJYW4gTHVjay4AAFBFAABMAQMA6ZtBQAAAAAAAAAAA4AAPAQsBBgAASAAA APAAAAAAAABCcAEAABAAAABgAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAIABAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/HEBAK8BAAAAYAEA EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LnBldGl0ZQAAUAEAABAAAAA8AAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAABg AQAQAAAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAKsDAAAAcAEAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABgAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgC AAAjWZWUi0QkBIPEKo2QNAAAAIPECGoQi9hmBS0AUFJqAIsb/xNq//9TDEVSUk9SIQBDb3Jy dXB0IERhdGEhALgAcEEAaNFrQABk/zUAAAAAZIklAAAAAGacYFBoAABAAIs8JIswZoHHgAeN dAYIiTiLXhBQVmoCaIAIAABXahNqBlZqBGiACAAAV//Tg+4IWfOlWWaDx2iBxsIAAADzpf/T WI2QuAEAAIsKD7rxH3MWiwQk/Yvwi/gDcgQDegjzpYPCDPzr4oPCEIta9IXbdNiLBCSLevgD +FKNNAHrF1hYWFp0xOkc////AtJ1B4oWg+7/EtLDgfsAAAEAcw5oYMD//2hg/P//tgXrIoH7 AAAEAHMOaICB//9ogPn//7YH6wxoAIP//2gA+///tghqADLSS6QzyYP7AH6k6Kr///9yF6Qw X/9L6+1B6Jv///8TyeiU////cvLDM+3o6f///4PpA3MGiwQkQesji8EPts7odf///xPASXX2 g/D/O0QkBIPVATtEJAiD1QCJBCToV////xPJ6FD///8TyXUI6Kb///+DwQIDzVYr2Y00OPOk XuuDLovAuA4AgNxKAAD8XwEAICUBAKlGAAAAEAAArxIAAN5PAQAmDwAAAGAAALQBAACVVwEA 5BIAAABwAAA4ugEAAAAAAMYTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABicwEAiHIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG1z AQCUcgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAenMBAKhyAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACGcwEAsHIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJFzAQC4cgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnMBAMByAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMhy AQDWcgEAAAAAAOJyAQDwcgEAAHMBABJzAQAAAAAAJHMBAAAAAAALAACAAAAAAEBzAQAAAAAA VHMBAAAAAAAAAE1lc3NhZ2VCb3hBAAAAd3NwcmludGZBAAAARXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAAABMb2Fk TGlicmFyeUEAAAAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAAAAVmlydHVhbFByb3RlY3QAAAAASW50ZXJu ZXRHZXRDb25uZWN0ZWRTdGF0ZQAAAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAAAAUmVnT3BlbktleUEA VVNFUjMyLmRsbABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAV0lOSU5FVC5kbGwAV1MyXzMyLmRsbABpcGhscGFw aS5kbGwAQURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVACNL LeCo9fUqAN2XrU+vUqlvABioluG9wPiQAMukUQTRgwCWAAh8qPCIC46DGwsqdsh4rZIAff8q c3UyNDah4RiNMLEZ5wLoY+8nAGEAAACf0B59LFAEyC92WUGoz7dMAENKSTV9SfNMFsaLNcr/ Fv1JH7pmAAz4ST+5Lje4ADBpaxfaVNyoKVsn6WaIgGsa2xs1XVso89/0VBJZEQgX5bEWjCwK qlyNQcKD7RjLg3xeEl8VcPcISg3wx0DdLWFWA1+QEk6COEiI9CmEAHeOVp81jodfBoA8bgTL ukUA8PSqislLA8oDo/220qcHaQa/vM2/RlJdDancS8uEx0LEhVW8lAcAn2XWp8YU3gGVd5/w rGdAQTSKGzbUfpTtxgpweFp0NfaVLQU4RZJQikZ++nALsQw8A2oXYVErIyhKZD2rHA29DFJQ ACWwproYIpZZyW0kw88Vq7fAJtzrbCK931+m5uVEwtKGp6zcLHTNSZTO8IsSJk/mGkz94/HU gF+O9FqBx24MIOl8X88RU1+p9LJotlZpzVZfWWS2/3IKl3eGgym+14JqOdlGpM3aIpS5KQSm nmCwR7hG3La+JUXw+KOiSrSNvpSl9cvtqp+YRcDGxmgowiP+VQp02W2wDRRq9g86LaCVElpe smugpDsZcpSnPM2teZUv2AijvJj8pLhQqTaCkxAVw4EdYaiKohdLr2nLQG1Q+CcmMQU0Y9oy LFAQ1HKvGtZcAK6iJukK3oJM8rIDNUlgl+duAIUVbILFtJs4AnhLdPUsdDl2vKJo+V1KN8Rn 5F2FAOSZjm6qHl6hsFKXITMx1F0b3W+RR5ewnlJ2ijs2S3+6t9ExQ0HbEIP4tAbDmz4tTVz7 +dsaefWquHZqzscNQkXH2JoeWqO+HRaHfX0yCgXD+LwP2fnyv/0BEGyJVmR5MQtfQysE8+IU W2XfJsUlTX/OV+wgyi27Ru/m0QRHEBXtRqv7oFbAZDyFk6EgcArlmkn3ljcfmkFE4p1uD/ox WeO00ACBAo36ZfsBFbrKQo6+D8SHFHEobC435RAFV3o6AmwP7h9PYYlAqyjkqRfhchhx3h32 DFhXsKSFkyyXJYcVCwhoyxZVCpQsiOKLXjr6yGiuSFhl2aipTFS6Grt9o1Av3ZCM85bYI+fA 8KiRk+dcg4p2KvmB3VJxT77x2sFrFEUR401jiIcNWm+BWkhtEWS5xIk9Z1sg2Ce1WFgX0gBR sgQZSak1T3AkCdZJxzljSgEfDNpLSEFFqhcm+tdYUCPLFtWHkFsXyzUDE4UQZ1m15HaK/50n 1CoBq2Vd8hRXEoV8fQdZDL9hwVprCrSsBLn+rgcOm9GDgDqhkiMtjGsCqVSLyz+9ngstKZLF tAlWBYpHlkqqxX985aMuleq+uK5jVU2k3MncgXMw8vp1VHhVxZW/cU8Cjocec1ZTbWXYaWRX d6rUage4iBa7Vbtmp6PgUUQauljiMD8BysbzEn7rIObYhKNRVLLr6zUHvpgv2XA8j1tmS/fT g9/51fz+koj5CWTe3gAfmIPlbU09+/EqBFN4Pz0urYYRt3+zUMFAkt23Ya3zleTkX7/XQyiZ rDKo3DgBbL3fwj/ONGHF0ZQSKiLLvi5sXtqrsBNPDpFo0S9apBvopVxHGxtJ2ShT1ygoqMe4 M5z/Kt94SEISqPIyuOeUahnOejNTlEso1j8WzBMhGkboBvIX03YUEXdCST3CoZKdnX9dgQBK IQiLE4sQ00KN/XgYuZQV8iI0Gvk7J3Pg0e1heEDgbbXinPsTao/fSdjYJNaS19wgI8V0+KL1 wgqBv+LFtDP4QSFVizkytEgbjyHppNcS9C7HV2oQiUPi7zHC0lf+eMlU6whh6ISeQh0Qm+Tw DIA30DHBPID2CYT7QgYh4AMQ/QCI+gVEh3oi9A8R6RQI7hGE00IuJ8g70IoJa46hlPS+U0/9 TUyNcnWBdyifheqKg0zoIh4x/jkDFZrgFj656KQo3T6s3+IcZdOZCD3OuAQ6xibNyGM/Mo5+ D50GDMy1FopoIW8Pwps/+sNx0vLIKMOOZcrIshqwl8RZqdRqiaBzIHYDc38L+90eZo9pgI+k B5Lp+rgH11918NtvrhrsqdQXQfIrqrt5NVNh73UedLnMws8uNX2SSjxqOBUqz/d5KN5ZKbqH boRPpgOjUKHeI2NRxSoiRWwjCNHPfGKC8eHjhg9VEYAw9FaNu8sRsFeq/jwmDs80hqP5pJmh Aq1pF+ybAsVXG5aA8LXaRIUsI2XgpavSjIsipFg3RDPfnw6txK280umBEKEUpw3qoVWjLvb+ bWqv/PeAHVUAY3BsOGjc15UE/VNv0pNHi04SsrMq8EVrtK8ofwCW/cDRC6TIbG+7kpVuWRAV SzW8zvtjfQwBLl0rXHxjeH3GIUzGs0lVNzLEC5Fq00kw0wNzGPGknSNWCAQTjrxMpPQ9JXOm gB6BDEpOOwwDcQ6OBjY9jMGJInlc6kh/ZcGR0mBhlf0og2/1YxjBsxxE1a4M2ZgzJuzirUjC 9LMKxsV3Gm06RYVxAIMQVFk9hZbPF7BTNQ+psFa/SMJtrwHHYAASxQWfwB6ho1BQ2N2+0F5c OvkHpAW4nMKGmSw5qECCBRaKnGRqbF9zZTSHfqxLlTqh31bqSktIZEOnKapSDbkRwrBhCng5 UiEBxcN4xeqjPTMr7dqPaOGKeh/wFezpNjKsTR1Ee6r79p0UHqn/1SfpWbEN7kKu8P3wOojn ba4huqWVO3+YFYTXeV1XkorMlnnvKGLr64BURLpNMiyJ2sxvpVrvLEX0UatcQ+QUiXKyhtK6 3CWN8ylugubFaopS2mb4HPyEALSScfn3JB4uuvAtgAr9lF+Z9SDWWM6qavPuoKb1JSimf/Mu j0YSA3mCGTCyyImKBKj4dDu+yu5hdMw8QB2TWmXahdMCa5aSZZu1qa9AmqglbXQI1v95Ssbc Qp/l3MvXi6KMTER/Nyzj+qKEQKZBB2TgOqoOtI8NNcTwtYfxqQWQEV1ESjqWPkOikCfhYSsg Vp1+dG2dLhft6Xwf3OzN9Whf7UoZBy3Mjuk/BTjyXhbpvGjMFihaccBcQJjtRg8hMNUyubjk FQqOAoVRH+Py+B1YEjtZaT3HDuMPi82wfFG0BP5nusv+yVOqpUb6HDuTBiAooQ5s3sd/TAMK roRKpChG69cOBEOGOqMOoX8UVlLevoCyvR4nbHjmhoG0mY2HElSO0ZUoOZaoJu3h5B8gPrZe wcwWqIMQ21F1DvGUQROTF69wkEAoBLQCF6gYSdrNDiV8kVok20BYckan3kE6vET7qEDsQVF9 ZIUGbyEp1T6hkbnc8W3VZaSl4K64VzU+d/OLyhg5AqykIWLqoQGbrCIMiFN4+LEI2TZ/FEKl GHx5vIFVfs+Pi9m5xdMUc8ig8TOqljK9E3jEr+uK04Oq/WdL/qQL73RDT4gxEd2sgwBMDoeT BUALehFBdg5lvyBWNPWKcrjIEoUx0Nj6rzNk2ee0gAl92qlUo+NCswUMDX3ipRsYitqIti8K /s9RIgLOE0c+CHv+nUI6or0ljMzIJYEHW1klZTbUxzORtMEKZhFTVFnkoq/glKRAqdD7pKZO XftGIhTcuvg1x7FayLmqu3teiVsn368OqDRz/PrKUuwOt4n1M1I73n/2oehFjkecmwLrL2yu kp2Jx99E8kAH/65NmTzc3hQEiAanzQX0koFreHV/oEjylVs93Sv1nkdRugr9wb9zSNEKrq8t JPdBzywrspUPFnOSSmfJgYBN27A5TCsOvTmBn699vMQVFnY6gms+Yc0FU9XqYJtA5fdQFacc fi/qIKAA5sZULkiLKB5siiPBnIXw0IOL6Mlj28jKgPhtkRTrnOun0+IbebC+RzMy0CMSlmED k0w15bLDS9rAQT/DsDsj8WPfGfXy2buuik5i9P5hO9Rm+QrfgPO0XZ7Zk7vlVFudLwVkBW13 M3W+jYf37AMrrTTzDgxEuzLjSB98BQI8mVDcRo4KVHVTxlRWWsV/bPKASKNgi280HsaS800i /iQiTRBzkZAijmoUBAu1BhrpsO22pkYSiFsQ+Yajm6pF+UiJ0Ff/YpeUt6fQGZvzYyne3/Uq qECfj+4kpw46tcjxsYr9wEPPKpOvqFkfeTEkdlSUdJH6WlR6fW23VpFXXOyYn98gvDJHWvzZ PDulzAsDdP6D/l1EZYtWe5stM99zPXQQV94mXbQJ9fE9XMqpkxC8gR0OXN3WKosbMyIxIiN+ Ter1r8tzfo+DF5nDAHBqqVMzQ9ghnxqCiNVGvb69zgLjVJ7RiNYXiMy/LyGlsNXW91hCBoH6 xeRvpGxPinSYNkVFkQ87kEeIWKD1r6ZYrVYHaMUmKmydtEjILihVY0v4F+C3BsKCzG51o5r/ x7tscbmaToDQATpSxaLRwOmfVxJh+79fv5J0Sd2pgs4iyWCrwzmEp19DW0Xy8cPif+0Ih0pu +SsghezWhw0MZhBphY02c6q7hLqEXIMUM0w5dxC5RUranc9b5nNAmYdoLvVcU0hMsv8onuaZ 1eXqHYcE9RvshDM+q24OPdA8DrflTv+n3eFCnLvVtASq/IWEAvhUNIeomzpOkev3o8tfLU7R 2Jje0Cyt4r7dsxTN6ueT9okxtwEgfwmT7wB9jry7NaCe2IfpJm7fsfyGXJ2+mSdEi15LR1w+ yAQz32aMRxA7+TqQ7tW6qRT60pB0EvsuT03t4Q3J7wvImVmmXPEGfUD+IWSqvgFr4BdMin2o 6QiwQ6m0SZ50A8GVoyHrxdnsDilfWYkfjJ+cJJgtXQSchpbRp/h+aAITeSQeUYq/o7V8bYKa CORrQlXb6L9rQq3Y6lGydhhgGy1UNarlimuVVTqKQv1VrRUkRdYiHphy0WWijssLCEbBuKZe mWJ4WeI2mcUZqWdbyoQrqghR5pYo4qSFGuriiN4pTyixpofU9kQ5nwILLES76SGywpIZQvxY yNKuX9I0ru3HJk4hr/PQxDNFa8aI2SmiFaeI1PclM1QVoOQdbhfG0RNAFRcFeSt2CCA2Mq3A YEExT/1c2spTstpx1L7BCUCxjo3LI/bCuMzRX9P24BxJrexz0yuAEbqxIWg3Y1/4SF+TpVWO cpjQc2vYVblcDCcAWKPUcR8gbR5/2x8xEbDnnBiXbgXAdblgfY9YhSdabYbaqTLwnqpg6aEH pY3zWinaYAPLUza6RVJ9UGO5iQ9JaN86OtaTKyicytspTFwJhN94K+tCKajsrOEy+xng4ChM SnFnGVQqMqx4tw1YBtHIuOfn8apRS+n7zpKHcn/gp66kDZCJ8vGUq+upYKwd7eUj0r6f0Qdl G+fk/IEQKr3pIEWAS7MNiC5ba3pt3mbsnqAzU8xCaUNLkHiQT9lXDZAf2QcNkC/BSUh8fVl2 ouYL+/QvYciYyQKXfoL6u70U9nQXIpupdoNLKuDjUBxnGeYOk80oB6vRQK7R8wZe0gCTmqcr WwcPLZ421ZoL76agVVQ1v+yWmpS1HOWdPSv361MGYcuhYOpicyv6vLKnVx53WVDR0w9y9mnN b1foK/AhAKl0sE6KBXpKBYhg7N9x+TGvZFZedrbTFMGBQdijUSp+EPCrd8c7OX2kU4vxcwHF rCzNTsKgEz31XRK/uRTGTb5K6b6PE9YFYrVMnTn9MTrJne5AmVQQmEhiD6sJWQiqo0EHrcWV x24CNhx9UaZnUKoqSd4k3tuAcocoWjJQhSkq3LOpNvFm8jTlw5PhTZ2pNLXTsU6N9hAFbgDM MQhi4Wox4RSW2ZbymmyCeZ40ntOSTZqmNKbLqtjxllIETRe9T7OSMr3kNr0ctZqVfVeoonDl Pei63yxa5ktESoOvNHMVUfhjDnyE3h0fkNIWPiLGRBR+ENoruDUvy8TP4Qr1X4WJdO0fTfae Ykzo1/P0hQKhhhUZmQ6Fc6EOT/WNXYw08emJx2wlouitoDa1l2+NVBgTIsVhsSmzUTLaCyja cUqdqosCQpNl3zMa1Hd2Kv2dtjyh5+atHMmaxWnRpt0Zmg5/Dybu8seT8k3+9jTK08pNxt40 wtPCTc7GN7rrj175MblmvRyJmqF/lmVLtSt+OKZ4fhj2mLVS459PHIbqo2BNrynPOeVkm4+q puFiw/L4+Foipj5WSu11HZxAau+WHaEA5efmaRXFl+MA7SLSjM8JpQsACwiJc+4rZf+hoNx6 GYho4bVGtML6xrHQmu8HJgZnkBcM6yIdiulII6TfJeAl2b4i1CTai1EaDqJN04QIQFVRvDF9 oHKvDhxzxIgucbVmKHv4ohHuvXRmUuJBmI/xQEemGujgZBEStuTWbWGZC+kcTnpBUpFaSk2l 1QdvDDv5zuDHYjNCAiloMyIDCiNEaujU/jq6ZASYDYcgGtdYCt8oGx+AKJh19fF9At+ug6o8 VVaKLWiaZjewuB3YRuImLGJiKC5DKoVF3pnMMNlwnsLHdMXLVdYdeZDgAvZeh3zNNgp3atFC fT9ApypgiZ967DlaYEASkzs/PBpRoaMYqy+yAtUpqd81UbHmZ4NfooBxqDKCzwVApGQnS1vD j3QgQurfgqPaUgen7sL7C7kZYtuXTKzZXJolF7OWVaSFbB96C/6G+IJ1QcF18GSF/sTzC7d2 FPeBM9WP6rLr2USbtoxKBFdFH80vERvU7rt/yhaDKl+nLOfZuvTjypjFm5DlUO0a7qhSgfsq S6TSqEAW7LQc0exrVIQ8yMyWu2QrwWmsjAY6MaLixlOYWEjnA9io5ZNFNcwV2uHBq/a2iVQM RV+BBk3hFzQpGSMEKV3hlM87OqPDqhLJkxdCFRYLPd+YdFNqrAlEifi38o8BpCKAcaDGufRk qh8YvSZuiFBjuD96YXlrCe51/otcwiNYoNEBS8r9hmTIav/Zy+ZIg8VCpXX9xGloGUu38Ago qB6pYFdaDJWrXHvoahFgVG/+RCK5T0WJBGVYGApiWMbIDKQAcwR47oixZepbr4yrPp2E6iKj R4UobWHDuG6J6ea5+KiPC6UgEJKjAZilJkboKNCs1qRIc87JcbTUEd4Cqt8kEupcQH42ggpx PWkqCWGjJsWfIUbexFbqujB/rta69tSS+rzV9vYtULbSqB4OUCVURgPOFAIykROubT8Oysci xoHEhVaVkyC0WtS1AhrX2Gk229N6QG5NVlrUBHxVGnJo+G74fzfxcerJI+IktzTQTPdYfPub dS5wiPsUmBtXVIWvx6i6g7LscUcurudXlkO1TQFbdZsDkLFHTYcpQFYMrTCEWngNyw9q0x0W +gvp1FssOscE2t+g9LpZXQlyUvvNhbgCSA6M/l849LIQZEPE9iNxFEICZyZUWisXd7xc9iIU mBgDxtGEr3UeTjbk3H6/Ue3E3rY30YJSokrvkZMN/7JV0AeyZRVRPQo1+FC4VLE+Afst5OJa 2Zf2uVY6pw49PUw8iL+ZXJWVeOiSfqZmpbXZm+AiVuCfZ6QR/qj6hB0UOiiOt1YFlKlgPB4G 19nChcc/DoqgSBw4GrRVd0LHJhZQ8V86pgSbERHCVO1X9EYoASf5CWkOegfSCWc+tEAdhQmL /ruoZ+zk+HV9bdai8eFSDqJckhiaupUqCcRpFM/l+CB9hijcsojL25/NHHJNFXAz4eotFyHj q3WU3NzUV65uB2MkndlVxGS2cqTO30376D5WcAXB0oIC331GIBiCe/I0BYT/M4ge0It4NUmT Lh9JDD/rKG5XgXBXDPVJ+Wi9d2iqqL64eEiAfovUThlgB00JnylW5aaiQ8oL5FsiQbcmJSTB K2YAqhLJjHce4bqppdFn97ciBr1oIWgOCPw8uM9Ds9LXvfOjkPXjOttTIa92Ty7kYsPO76Jg 3UH6lqChStyMRGOHG6nDJZDHrKOY/ScA2FScVte3KKT1yBh07rVaCwfhfM7nlqmhnZ2MmhZd GmQKD+i3MOcea3jtwVzxPwcslWoVFj5BuYiEn6vSLApq/56JnRtXfla3yIWsfi2Q5RCf4B8F bBSUdh3FQ0n5qUAbCCqRdRy4WBupp6n0tftlf4B7p+qvp6Nsb3QGymCgKshM8NsGAIDuHq7H XOSGMeUcEX9xSHmT4gkCB8z1y0o3g0mMjJSJPZpw4lNqqTMkJKZIGtKcMEKIFQjSoByyBQI2 KOks64BeiuoLINkictuCyM4IUqDTIDaJv7zOgFVBKoz7fq+g6hUu9RVraEnX7Uuyg//qJlUB 9OYCSGCloF0/7uX7xR0KyOVf2Yy9Ul2Rcb3F2XhaGNsA7ROn1+vBpToMQ8GFlTVFq5r4A1/k v2/VWCrkSbKS3O3uIq+SgCmknYLqu7qw1tw71SO7g5dfT08l4Lf1YIBixWkUYgBBCnHHQHNE VwBzMsxFUQeVKNETbT4VjKuMbaAzbIVkQbayAQHbEtpusOJ7uIdIfoCiUwIKSjx7bb7MALlH NDAC28cpA5Ev+2K7NV8BdqYlXu5N1C4dDX4a+hQ68dU2g4M+GnA6V/uOBHBC8Zd3yclK0adQ L/5GUe7HK4rqDSCCx4KI0zKXQ7kClzbECu9YDDShvD6oP+rqHVS1Tde7KvLy9fJOnxQu013+ w0HK0O/YJ99E9QSmM/gXjElo146rlK+YquTjMDHfScl0571APdz6261Bqu9FrWagZEoSjxqH aEmoFXoqMt+HSzRXaU8w3Ey1PWqvsULMWxGIElZSKIAjR/inq+ObtRqVDUfpN/mH+XXcVemt bkRk2/21pF1eApwqWyCeVf58OvaqeQUCOUwMgo6XzbxOq8S9hMdKBq82q/r7WCFgGURggKyr vnlY4h7idmjfg5N4MRXOiKJRCoObKmIoZvCyUyl4smQRYxykIRBnK9TbZQE9pX4CMixOVear vKR3YpWI1X+yYn9a5lTgsKxzMRXbIeWg1r/4rQSAS2MRVFD55vSxIP3JVcm1fWRfGoENf4b8 3nYc97wENx9S8Or48yLfOb2E8OgYcidtqDALVB4Nllma13mbGBXUjVSWi3VmK0DrDimPR/bt VbXlaYWZwo/quiXEgREusghRmXvle2Sd7AFGha2ChcCW/FZAPSA2eplnP22V1ORB/Ol2X3Lt zaUBmNkp+Tf3ONd+VItALu69irAeohY0IuuvOa8t7Jb5tFV5ghfGBF8QpUl2Ohhe2bptSzNs kxcz+Degj/MLBjKNJiuw5Qw+VDkClcvveyni06yrIRjwkh/ELT71G49cDqQHXy2csJKbt1w1 Ql1wrXVtpizj8vL6SO1Eo8Zukif7/VTajaFqBfqJWa6TjOhxGcgrGg6rsZRawg1Gb9C7+Qky UK+LVImHG1LwCOCtHRZiJ17imMTDqHabG4pF/UKr3/lVVnVUU3NookMSKhET+pMlMddPKY39 fAiFcHdXtx7LYkvQ6kn0eryRPhX6SkEUO9VJBlVewgBJrtwydXGJwskBg/X41egqlkEhoODu QkHhXRvU3rf1dqNwNX0MT6+8lYd8rGpJ7jasrv4lyxCAIgXGqRSropWDKLiN3qOWTqeoDwvl xSmRMvPOu8COuwF8g/J99PCeBLNRaE0OYiQngO9s4WdX3nOfgLzrVrJIMvYZp03BIVzbfVZ6 eYo+u/moDr0FezXC8jPzziIlKlkgFk+fg05VPstAltPa4hybdvaqEFaWfoMCCcSAAYAAj4CM SwZGRXwCPfnHBYZD7QbjCMw3ABFg2DOfpG08vATgYr7qISMphuQgGZEvD80LFVcTJ2JPcv6k sbHTlMMYtV+dUHqMrQyrLH/lFKpDbQxfltaoqZYWmCwY+umEl+8qCW5gKWVJOqJ6p1U71fvJ EXp1Ste2pWP8sq7g5caqCsf7bkQrtYa6sfIjWr+MEfw++SaqzWq5rrhVbl1rQl61C7/pjMay UWrKdNxDfa7Bfv6XAV0fHO5OrqpXDh+E017rBgYYjgS9B4TDp6V3WvidCJ1YfBOUhHVl6v+q WzL/rshHUKrVX+49trro2Iu75t9BvUHFe07XZqZKirrDOg25/0277f6NXAHqlkieVP7IQ0xl wSv/2vqAvMrhYfEfnp+OD/SII3fyloDVjwnTjEYvqj17fmHlIyLJNf8N+PcgQ+8ugVgrSR5Y EDFVAQxwlOifngcBE31+FQ97en95WkzmsMO1YDDql0vPd4QBPrXVz8uiqqZ8Vd/XsNPNAqRo Y41g4XOcHHlSKoNAfU1RU4gqbxMhy0ujowZV8oSKxY3IFgqjB43Ck9vss7IxQkRS09fGtbyg XJdkK0VVU8tyy5C2oDePNVIrGQ9vK1mtJAtAv3Mpz1vzGsfB+oNU49NwDK8OGMWf0mpnNCGX AzrQvHq/fSsdZZCCTuBf9f6OQVwpejKlT11elvFdK2SrEu44mryjO2OvAB+XifV9oR2ScT0H HjRXKVJIF18gH/QVaEqg5kCe5dIN9BIrma+hkrM1XGDD839vNuQk/htAjmQeV8torFRdVYt3 hxXW0N1IHUhN0XEKIt2u9sZp9hD/9ytjGPV2/ttww6ir4LzZL/uNJn9pIgMbAuF/eIIR7MGf I/0D/XQ+CVqXshwdoEwDxToONy8yQ0MVw41mp2sWiQVCOQgmDjJSEZZXbOA+Tvspg+6gGkA6 vmZ5N4CiyIqdAq2g/nZNTLbXbCSIrifSfZl8a3UhP9aT/5qLoonIu+jByqjlaDDFrm0uMol/ LjUxgHy6RTE+TOFfkl6LO4JCsBYtx3S6BTElX8H1dyyubfwoXyNFfooaEioZbZdBc42NE5B3 3MFVpt/0Q9xtdGv0or0zZTwQELXLhQC6EoWtTcp1gAtEwVXy+7LhfbxJ3Hq9PTFrmKJ3dd1V sIuuKDC9FyEF5Wlk2+BMoylcSy0FHSvAeA5XuwZEFAI+G/zSSGl0oH8C2orke0hQcyEeAH2j 7+kbPMuVA1ijGOyRyJWA/uc2+FgbbzkJRtQIiHu0AaoSQLgtwLwbrTXOaqwmoEytracz/lpX l5kAEGFYZ5PZFjlrrLfGVNF7U6to15dp4qRHtYZVKICNUCD6CCeJOTWqpxoXH23uJyypF21Y pRU9gW2vIlHZq1PpOiZHIrLCGaeVFE6KIYMh2SL/f4KIMVvCVOjI2aCd9ZjaQVPqu6eWpVkk 7O2Wi+i9V85Dr9DhpN7yUo7nW6o9qSUzRI2X0NIzj7OcVbo2lXLeCMkj5KDceoMDKuyvYV8V LgXqvRfrmoyenCpGBxxEWWK0jGadmPdUPYp/FG2fWiB3PJskiiFCkQdZn37oytWXAUJywtqQ ALTKA1jIHCzCwuqOSVEOL5SW//Iidh1mKupsqS8ciNqA3foVGlAbtJeUexf5b39oqFq33sqS C9wQ/6Vn/AbJAWOn9mZAa8Z0IWfDK5yQKJGEI0qwenBHo8ZoP4A4wrEOR8La5vQiwbzadIMl VbZe6OdygBl3hCQHjwrpNWWqTSAPVLbSQGqWKPU/Yur+PS9pMPxPukkol2r8WWSgu6VQ2bE8 llNbWdhd9magfUlZVtbIVHVn93umOCVhT6PeIgp3kiKfMu9vL10DllLhX/4VLkOUgHsLh839 0hXufLN3baGPDRPndDX17CDDGT0FqTtHHrBXRxOOajjk/qPgqcBTnK4FKO/wtPMxCMUCucCL Ctz89p2IsyfHgMnCMWODb6G0px5MoUt52UrpwhIH5IcW75t/iOnUTGJSZfqlGHfbCjwTgQdl gh5RZzcT5rkDKkkPs3Jj6paAH0PbUNsMqIR0tOvvZ1A3cchdef6ks9ZVz479lNGopaG8qlv/ ATy1YIGNLJEiaGOpRVxj19TVechBD9VliaCK6XZtf9y675p3K8RqfUQT0uEHPpwOq2jzaCjS H67cCu2BEZwtRIJ4BLxwxcIcqp8k5AA/cMSyZ1TzWChFOgj5VbDSo4O+fVdVzaJhYZq67LWl GrmFy11WwhVWtMf0IT7kgI78q/RFO75lIkl0vbk0h0kMNeAj7zicbncVFTZUkLV5XL13ZK4t RYeq9QIUkhtRICi/+hAoRTnBPxW6CsqqsBJlGkjj1+rcq5irGfQfEUA7qJh/87CV80K0E1WE fIOS4kkfg9ah8iQY/ZXdFlyNXNpxqQBEBinMZf8Z58i+1HJYUZ0Cgqso6qpYQZLhnVI6KKND WkI1RWu0qq94/hEOd/Jw8PDXin3wX+iinm69glpoWlY/vxTUUArWZyOgaSNPb07uSyw7X7ly VQnXjPfFloy+Dj64djfyA7wiJyru1fQ0JQ7caSuXzV9HyU9D9BTM31vrjJufV1Nv5D37gfWB 06JlZ4wn1PzW+xakCFnnUlNqPxBAjtcHsu+ux6pdNz7VpKbvyimDAaHZv1XfuKDVzh3UanP+ cRXbnGyKgxnxinKJggsFaAciCkYg66WL634dJPkAZCAvZV+w712pnxOFJ12jLvd9FAUN21LN +EALuKQLQsJ/bReFTAm9PMRU/dwLNTpBO/p7xFKv8sS+vPqrRR/3AycpCY8XZgEo6GYsgknL oEPy9ouPfep1MwyMiANoPLonBQjYVnNd3GJlA6PuLmgPN/k3U1ra39GIKOwcKqMTu34PgMLI NBq66FaGikuASTL0sR89SPnRKlj3SQwxXB4gCu/rLW7y0idivmkAFtPf7pmQ4JO/hsMaW1xk vnlf2gquRKUEv705HgdkehC18avyW9V/uOVv1dRdzaEUHyD3ScsViFDMj049rnFtKPsNf3vV X23NtpDuMSRJIXALG0C0Zg7r96cqpqwXmAKnaIlfdc6112iXRaqlTIcHt9D9BFTO2TaCxlJ6 Roq+YfNVgRhWCunu8/AjyoGQzlSlui6e+lS1kMXTJvPoNpdPIm/eRaaAX9V7nWBAA6kS4krv uffr/HEKYYL7ImwPINuXS4j+6nHqERaLA19Kk1sk5bjaplpWjE6tdqArjS/uEh/HLITzb0Mo Tx2QFeK31bBEUhIQKJDvrbSobdFKmpWvj49tC+pFRBtlHr78tEmpvuEWJPIMsruhZ/19lCfI FxMKAq7W/psC1EjmfQexlu2N+FMjJUD9Fxp/Pl0dC/G0zYhEjPmHS8rK/gn8BFn4VDwqJJdg EouJjvXeDR7CJVkUFgvpe4VXQAB4ISMBmkLvEhSNB5YU/BYGlHmymkhI/zwGn+V/6b5hVgoi YZ2gjWWfU9xnukrWxw+7ZVqjR1kP+mts5GD73zydDrurPLFdd7AY3waCXwajeSa+o8PFT6jn 9RVt3YSF6p+G40lFB56NtEnQcPBFQi+COGF1KsyjeTrw3UMJ8IEzqPgp6FVQ9kEVtEAZjzZM 4mIpbiu4bGLPgmtolWim8WMukWBHuUBdmL2P67CqgSr01JFpyNVXU/MhRhWocWSIc05fWE2a DCsElnEZQmcNV+2lm7YhHYaAv4qojGWptq2g+6hI2n2gftWXrkA2Wj+DD7xnwYoGxqDyqBLa Liulw2TrJAYiqg5KfgMri++gtxMRRLXztjqJ/60UQPNQ8hFK44oE7+IG9F63+MWEvPxginmU EvXBZVi9bgVhzub/AAmmtH/dGatWhwryhQq919TeLD4FLgiOr86/CQBC8XYLxY24+M3XWNco gkMgJfwl+ATbZsJBqVOmEXhd7SrdKAYa4nkF93vwCGLjq3n+qgoC4gUEzwa8lEM172Fm+/gp 1HX83AbzfmiaeFUzOnf6XEoMEu7dJlzxilZQhRGoswYiEwqKtP6aqHFPt5eW+FNLksCnS65I f70rz6yaIKM4JbXhMSM6aTNOuGlFo48EQLi26/uRWy2d+C3TjeBCPms29UToVDQGYmouKqKb LGCt5KJCLOnokGxFIzYkRhEWKCZecNuorMBoWaODWVCIa/2//FGAOEPVz4gZvnKucSAXT9ff l5BpXYVIYfz08/vKejX/KEGec8KKlweaGexudPPffvJLonWXzSo4HtCMsRx8cK7UsxNvSxpl ZvQ7c0lBbV/c/rk0FzUIq/7R6/LWvRjX+Y2b1d4oFWR23c+eyC48moPIAjjwgohpImMMeIB1 mnFoTS4gzqyhh8goKyCf8jcLU+TyxpjlcuFpnaaptZqxaI3Xdz48Bob8FIWLFb1u3c+paqBm 68gbbJqCiJBqIPuI9QnPpsvHhogXPCOCsqgLyBk7If6iZApbZKHn5q0cyZrFadGm3RmaDjXd z4rs+oWLFb3w3c+p9KDIrtX0YBBOKHZBKQGDbhYWjvx0Uz9jc6stK3tM6J6+C11CewrIF19D KhoPJOkjrev7S9vQgIPhaTGuq6SkQhjnoBXIpcr0OAo7ppf7gYFFjt5obF9mk91ZV6FRlX2O dZBFTkaLdc12d2Iqt/sYZ60m0cVayqa+xjlWBH3kegiPUbbxS/qWilpG+yhYq0eKCTX0lK1X Vthkoxp4sUcgv6YWCEpaIkt/X3D1JUC2uZcpOVmHaKoUryt/iiKAiyXHDI7LDgWy+/GAszy5 7IWBcJLStVKZ+7aKkjboGE6mfY9mwkmmCr/FHhd19EzxdUmonzwDRLjFd4SDgwXbzbNdSQc7 IqLPcCyTkoc8PBD/+qTTKFgNPLJewqITJ271KtUEkep9qceiiLzw+RCr/3Kq4aCt9XCoO27c 63kdJx5pvI6R6FG7nFnnkE56C28mXhrFC8X6IacFSAxMJCMYOTY0ANNOwMx4ajWMNJbTmE1a QDQw0yBNMgI0HsnoiSbE9JqUaZymqKSasGlEpigcmerSIgDaSQymOiKa2GnwpsbcmqZpqKac jJl86ySO05hNolo0qNPcTcLoMhA6SRqSFD9MDowmkTIgJMrT3E2OhDT60+pNytIyKk9JUOBq OH5hANgZymWOTHUkgxTDk+5N6fk0/tPnTd3iNNbTyU3PwjTD06FNyc07H1lG4hi2tEjz8/MA 6+vr6+Pj4+MA6+vr6/Pz8/MAy8vLy8PDw/kA9fXx8fX1+fkA5eXh4eXl+fkA9fXx8fX1+fkA BU5MTkhOTE4FQE5MX1yNsJEhgV0ojuHAEBQOKzcAMDl7PysqOCRtdaAGHR8cHc0iSkyLgxEI Dng4UDN2Gn59bk6JwHAXEC0myEs2Oh3wFXmOgWZ+MGZgZGkha2VhfZqFbGZjcQvQ5MGB7Kqb dcRVnxCCx5WVhYCDXIa8sBS0rbDAo6wZKaWnc5CIfrgVxkuaiLMC8fUNi0gKEt5bQLSbUKoS g8xMCMUEutDiLWrx8RtFJSQ4uK0ShxutxuC7fMIWH+XHvklbcBUimXxh9+U8mmWixToMSxmh HwUviIhkO1xag9Dh2KuwOai3VKjNopfYQMXb3B5teuP1KCLhpdXjHWE1BLUUVRrgSwMBChcd DwABZw89LPR48WdvZ4+aD2DUUljHVEZ1RegSPwVxfWl4Ebt7fG+AaL2fWC8dHp2VEoDFVJjQ aN0MuYXydJdrwD0ytbVRhqa9VFaKC+Ps5pf3BAvx1dnIWVDO+riNtYZe43aA0VXOqEattvy8 wEuPsoUa4BoWoxcVGIYMFEd4AYmRnUslzaxDOCUECBQTPy6rGtaFITMFWEknIb6ZCSjiKhIl UyZPtoBYT0hbXl11A1lNdTNHQqZQHR8CT7p5schHdJN3DsvJD0MwD+ECbAwSEml48yIOS5YB IZn4+uxn7yl3fwMZb0lyR7mkc0y7BbpJBbmPn562Emyh7wF3gRKGpq27uGnFk71cS5vfhruT g5WZ+Aj20NuqnKqi7YtntJup93vPyv/zuLsklPfjfvuSFfmVGiIyJBkJRh8/ERo77z7xQQDc ihuJFx+WZtI0ywpdzXzVJTcMc1IFzRMvC3RcQEMLZ3OJhvdvOgNwuV1q9IRANGpiAV9TtX4W U9VYb0mJhUGQtoGB1FueQlL5p4ziNiDb9/HkvFuKbd4DS775HpPTisyb+hipN3G/zmwzqrBK rzPfOMf86pJ9sbopOBgRprpVqjT7txu8pTNBPu/b6jr+YywdOQq4E1KLmGVLX45FTnRCfDJs oE+RXnRt4AxPZnvSK7+fFbTVo1Koh5Sx0SWmUBb0o98WzzuwKjAHhrqAPi5VpkftxUe/gnVL X3Cq4ejvs8StFO7voKcyaz8CMiXjFQPY4ltP67fTKgLrcc2dEvnt82Nl9+qMFu6IJV8UdVki mocPT3dwMBZ2s6K6fYvq17tqo/svd79gmVDve/GNmj2R0Zk68pOsoundlheN3iz5WcNvMlRx 9rjtY3fk/QpVz5nRIA/ULPEqKupoLmxPzHvSjCYx0S7PKidVYNihe0ILelNKlElUS1Rv3B38 CFCndmDWGFWi5w1ZplbDcEN6Y1Sn4uiO6Jsg6sX25FueWTPoHVEG0NvQWZ+hhc7q6f5RIj/I 4F/pwrVAODB5P43OtfvrDTzbg8y9G0hpcSJtXhsAQP8mY/VVg2j+HQopTB5b2ZUZEuQrVplV X94qQPSeBRVMB1F+4gLseBRQAF1COltdN19bEVJWUTJVS9zkSylEXlRQAFciAjLAoZp2AORw 4XSbIat4HHpO8AJmB6XpiGL3PYFu2MdjJtmRALbVgyp8KOUDg4NeZaDRXgAC4AU6YqegWSjL eRTI2QIj5ubfNbyQyuzZtBCDdMaQUK9xpIO6hUej0Le6m6uBVmJhiPGXpl2wq4Drv1W4lZlG AEWazf5ZDMhIBk9kTSJ+En+QeCpDDC1hbv4DdiuLLICAM9qjoCwj8CH/pRvKpaYvaMBMTeSP iUgfkNTPVc6vgPQISjWDR34X+nA7MoFMx9r+M6qNJ9ejMODh+GCuEPTkIbUWsmjUclRS2PpY dYaAM82i++oxMpDhjewNy8lHb0n7kqK1OEwbd1UztrATtCTCQGsirCpuowFNYKdm8vH3zagJ QOPpati3ALrsjwTaqahNAIhgo0UFbYEKGMCAC+q/WnD0lHLGlFnS6WVRr6ONQKeUy5mUs3wu QgFZoZCwLajARQrQlkggWU2YwQhLCYlAxn5DNlN7FSW9JeosMErHQDDyOjLbxjvpK6L7DEKr 0J3J6ucaT/36SrPbFW4XoswtUbPU80pzC4SVcWO7MR3ykSasugWKag3pGExJYNEIzlYLC1AZ MEIGX4HZg117d1UcMIecnr5tYZClnLQAaMsr0cb3FvL8/oJ6DfGCHyTougVBf6j4qlslCH9C IHudmf8NqfSN5AAgYb2SOxt9ZFYYcppSYCis9QQX37pZjNAqRSiZrg9VAKVLf5k4qMJDAHx5 rDdMfalLFzQBM4y1e5U3zSEaZgsx2dZaL4j1rWKQH6JTBsYjkWr+vBqSE0gUhdVWUPConbNf QcDtnnBlzADAFAivh5bVfhRoyhp8w5MQTQQ4NCzT4Gf0iMyawGm0pqicmnBkhA+YmHKsaaCm 1Mia/GjQMihgCxwlNAIALj5nKz0bFj0IMDYkLZhzSKhCOUzbmERyWGlMpnB0mmxpWKYkIJo8 aSimFBCaDGn4kgSATQAcNAjTNE0wLDQY02BNWFA0tNO4TaykNODT6E388DSY04RNgIA0hNOU TJBk+ZJsaVimQDCa6Gn4pgQYmjBpKKZQRJpMaViSoCZNtJg0jNP0TeCsNETTWE1oaDQYGQA2 EFiF7Gc/YcncssjETaxcNGjTdE2csDSg0NBk/NPITNQ8vJMQDk0AcDRY0zhN2IA0pMlQ2SZQ UJpQaXCmcHCacGlQplBQmlBpsKawsJqwadCm0NCa0GnwpvDwmvBp0IgyfUamPTiaS2lOpkFE ml9pWqZVUJpzaXameXyaZ2lipm1omptpnqaRlJqPYLGIk5fEBIWLjYX/QK78uq6tuQa0vrCw /bqA0U2sv0W7iq+iWdJ2jKLDfOHBydG3AoPOzs/0gqiRcwEj1+ayfYi5AoQODNFy1RcLDyg6 LAgofpgb2wAjKSYxDy4nLzR80Um3AHNcT0tbTlKi0VNLR8P6YGcCZHpwZnFlD1nNMNvukGeB koBipYaYLj325UoNng+tEWegi1RQ2kSx9Ybw2sZWwMhpillJ8vVOCOWNMjwZtVUqDjaJacAT Eg0JPK3ENTRpNAA5I2EaPCU8L74sM+DNgxsdGB3fFulAzy30YWIccWhrwOXtlaaxjJWQYZ4e hZerTZo6oA05uf4zTzxasQ2X8moqvaPD9MTStM79MTTHP0yzzv0xKDHP0/PFv0/PFrgBKTGN UWITs/db7VdmBviPudb0BM/UqGCZeaGvUJc8ub3xwbilrxewsLShxb9kM8upPo8bDG6kxzbE odqWWe9jKB7znyEWVtnfviWmN3pi1pCjNYcdn0jmoXdzZDdvmZ5suLDNM8WCk7Sns/Oa58wX vbGtruG3FvmbouXXwWUryvdcvZrQ9jzRR9zdaUqb+ppKxMQfoNL3+AVzz+M6K+ARUfn9hPCu QuE4CQ427UUUdPhQ0wRVYm3VyLefXKtpPxXt6jroZ+SzcW/vAUIlMGVpUWx+fkZBc1taU2om FXfyRmkMIC0cGhgaAhwSEBIcGpdCDnt2adzo9HF8sfM+fDxBanViCt8TX8cBi4yVCZMUhyK+ ugnadjh4jriVKuOAytfThXjr0xwd2QFj9nLIY8iJngbn+hz6pMj/8uLJ5kEGOiAgJ1QyNPAw QzFDmlqw1EtAV0xQVm9wbWXjaW5jMWFriZbnpHJ30nsZDBAOrR+1Be00BxvGqPDPt+USiRQu K316Djom01oiqTo9vjI3j1Y0+slCzm/C299NLOzx5O42Q/9rO7PLDySalpup8mSTrJPZq865 48q+PFrhPQt93WzlS0FFXVrHjVLuElLeasy48cd9PjwMuO7fC9v02gtnHIpwaSsrvjw7rRk+ nSAxdnTKp+OWlrga7DWHft65AK+66c2UysXBYZYsk1Ch063tEM1LG8PotqmNl4c6/JeB+tzE sf91nJX/zsMl6dLbyO7WzsOR8BnR+uPve849ho3W6uw16iTbaHTC8Ufr/LbEVSvbyCwCE99a HPUfFmFhejkYMi8x/hpwxvh1eoznlguW46xq4sfPflOlbCQbYVpG6UJWWAgAaUUXSUZM6yFC HgNA/5aUKCkRx1Z4Uq/aS2W7Rn89SpVcRMCgVfHc9XiY0szttoRb5QYVoqp6rfyk/esVW64N HdMNZjbatqNW6Hve0s0dypWGs3mG8aL2zDbQVP9y75TVU130whDz0lQIzkoBVPhC11EEAiUu KyBEBbpmPCpz8YEMfh8CHX+ynWEbMOy2Yj201Q8DqFABN92Dmhs3nVYZpxYcViaJbn7yrWRn nZHIrZ8VgVkvr2AizbCg4eW6BSu5gFHQxJDqBOGA+Q+f/Zznn7uEexA+wVyO2Cr8Hbfsdqn0 zMevKWXedwaxzIK4ePX0yfyx6qt04VQVGrDrogcHAD+C+p/kCWvjHgocgMAKFAYBdAdSHctz LWhyQAUGDwlkIgUQDdEMBHByOHp6zHVnxyZ0Hgk2DAv6oIQ6NUffuRVrkJxDZVOvddgAokS+ iYj1r3eohZxCJZmwEDC/tYqN5Sqp4ttFfYvJEYyCf6oimtYSnxr0hBXz69Wu/iOYg/r17e3k vLrVuvNQ19vTlVrnxI0f7f6kBuMgheCw5vQ68BtiziuLVDYiJK5V7ecuv95FFhIRfFgADxQc DQ8WBHMQZ/JgrLamxvqbq3wHMB1XfqCEUmRAU0NdREhXAHFMPkFEMEExOTIsNM3I6m0Ay7q+ 2s+2zMQG38HArq8a3usxAN+iopi4qoyx49W9o7y8rrZG9PWcppWuqVHoifzvd5357UGO9T8e qKrd1Mr1ZejKCyG11hDTeMJ/ya4FGVEXaCQaA2QJr3Cn0zZaAAD9ZRJRUk+Q7jUKwwsWwTxD GJAGVZFKQxB5ZgVqBHlBgii1gu1PizACRRB2Xamxqn3AP/5hQcwScRIxNfE7xGU1yCAyigsm nQSDIIqydwsgfLJxCyBGslsLML/kv9O+TTxTgWZutKBxmg2EUmbJjois48bT+XgcjqZ1tJ0/ sdjqX2MUyXWmLE6acGlHkqwtTVSMO2Nj3MkmplwvmhxpMKYsXJnUfiRl0/xNbsQ08MlwfSz7 fz49BPhyFfXx9qQMSPiIZRqfZ8XE3TF6BMh1doIETVQqNQGEvUIJFEfBeRRsFn547B1OZY/x xFE54uglgybqlwj1svdOgrfzuO0VD956k8kDfS4OFv14//p9CPtKxSwqAtjS1+j+RTV9MoAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0005_000071B7.00000351-- --i3BGiff58739.1081701881/smtp.shellnet.co.uk-- From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Apr 11 18:07:12 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:07:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Change 12C3 procedure ?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40797B40.3090908@hdw.be> No Karel, this is not a good suggestion. Karel wrote: > [snip ... ] > >>+=+ I think we need clarity here. That percentages >>devised by the Director may be appealed to the >>site appeals committee cannot be 'unacceptable' in >>my opinion. It is a standard right of appeal under >>Law 92A. I imagine DWS refers to appeals from >>there to the national authority, which has long said >>it will not entertain appeals that are seeking to have >>an adjustment 'tweaked'. > > > > +++ As a seemingly simple suggestion - surely making the precentages and > the possible contracts in a 12C3 ruling AFTER looking at the results removes > ANY issue ?? > Only if you select from those results those where the bidding, and the meaning of it, is exactly the same up to the point of the infraction. Meaning, usually, never. > - No one can argue the precentages or the possible contracts because that > is what happened. Yes, but under different circumstances. > - All 12C3 ruling will be 100% consistent with any director as it depends > only on the actual competition results and does not involve any estimations > - Equity is certainly kept > - The players, i would feel, will firstly understand whats being done and > will be happy with the procedure and adjustment obtained. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Apr 11 18:09:12 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:09:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018168E7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018168E7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <40797BB8.3070807@hdw.be> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > > John (MadDog) Probst > > So the whole crew are at the Easter Tourney and I can be rude to mamos, > DWS, DALB, Robin, and Gordon (who won the main event) f2f. Very > satisfying :) > > > Whereas you were polite (as always) to me. > I am certain John meant no disrespect by not being rude to you. But he has noted this, and will be equally rude to you next time. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Sun Apr 11 18:47:03 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:47:03 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002701c41fed$001eb860$6900a8c0@WINXP> Home from my Easter holiday one week vacation in our mountains and = reading this thread I feel encouraged to sum up how we in Norway for some years = have been trained to apply law 25A: Law 25A may (at the discretion of the Director) be applied as long as partner to the player wanting to change his call has not made any = subsequent call. (This is the only understanding we can find for the first sentence = in L25A to make any sense!). Consequently any "pause for thought" did not begin when the player made = his first call but at the moment he apparently realized what he had done. The Director must use his judgment capabilities to decide whether the = player (in the Director's opinion) has changed his mind (L25A denied) or just = made an inadvertent and undesired first call (L25A permitted). If in doubt the Director will normally deny a correction under L25A.=20 And BTW.: This is not a Norwegian regulation, it is an interpretation of = Law 25A which has been published by the Norwegian LC. =20 Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > David Stevenson > Sent: 6. april 2004 14:43 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: SV: SV: [blml] Insufficient bid >=20 > Eric Landau wrote > >At 08:33 PM 4/5/04, David wrote: > > > >>Skjaran, Harald wrote > >>> > >>>I don't see the (legal) difference in attempting to change a call > >>>with of without calling the TD first. If you don't know the law, > >>>calling the TD should be the preferred method. And you should not = be > >>>disadvantaged by calling the TD. What's the logic in that??? > >> > >> I do not know, I did not write the Laws. > >> > >> But I expect the people who framed L25A [one of the Laws that = gets > >>very little flak here, compared with many] had a reason for only > >>allowing a change when someone tried or succeeded to change it = without > >>pause for thought. > >> > >> In effect you are asking me 'Why should we not allow a change = after > >>pause for thought?' I do not know. > > > >I don't see a contradiction here. A player bids, then, immediately, > >without pause for thought, summons the TD. When the TD arrives he > >says, "I pulled the wrong bid card; that isn't what I was trying to > >bid. Am I allowed to change it?" I have no problem interpreting = this > >as an "attempt[] to [substitute his intended call], without pause for > >thought" per L25A. The "attempt" was without pause for thought, even > >though its explicit verbalization wasn't. >=20 > You have invent a scenario where we probably agree with you, well > done. But when we are wondering over the legality of a regulation, > let's not just put on the rose-tinted spectacles, but look at the = times > which are not so obvious. >=20 > A player makes a call, says "Oh shit" to himself, and subsides into = a > disgruntled reading of yesterday's newspaper. >=20 > While his LHO is wondering what a new suit at the six-level really > means the player suddenly has a bright idea, and calls the TD. >=20 > "Can I change my call?" he enquires. >=20 > "Was there a pause for thought?" asks the TD, a simple soul who = trusts > players. >=20 > "Only for about four minutes," replies the player, honestly. >=20 > So L25A does not apply, because there was a pause for thought: > however, according to the earlier poster, the call may be changed > without penalty in Norway only because there is a regulation saying = so. >=20 > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Sun Apr 11 23:30:59 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 23:30:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? In-Reply-To: <40790664.3020003@hdw.be> References: <40790664.3020003@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5Raf4WDjcceAFwMH@asimere.com> In article <40790664.3020003@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >No John, it's none of the above (well, below): > >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> So the whole crew are at the Easter Tourney and I can be rude to mamos, >> DWS, DALB, Robin, and Gordon (who won the main event) f2f. Very >> satisfying :) >> >> The hand is irrelevant except that part way through declarer leads, and >> it goes ruff, pitch, revoke round the table. The wimmin that ruffs is >> thinking about the price of fish and asks to see the three turned down >> cards a few seconds later. >> >> Up come the cards; "Oh s**t!" says fourth hand wimmin and the NYPD >> arrives. >> >> It's the UK, Revoke enquires defender to defender are not permitted. >> fwiw it's the last card in the suit that 4th hand played and she will >> therefore not win a trick later with a card that could have been legally >> played. >> >> You have two options: >> 1) allow the change and apply the penalty card provisions. >> 2) rule the revoke established and apply the penalty card provisions >> > >no, according to the official policy it's: > >3) rule the revoke non-established (with penalty card) AND apply the >penalty for an established revoke. Of which we don't know which kind - >but I gather that does not matter. indeed please use option 3 rather than option 2; namely make the change of card, with a penalty card but the revoke penalty is payable. Sorry for not making this clear. anyway I considered what I'd have done had a pair of cheats been playing and decided to make the revoke penalty payable (it makes no difference at all to the play as there is a penalty card whatever we do, just a question of whether the ruff is transferred), told the players (4 v competent wimmin) I thought it was very difficult, that I would consider my ruling over dinner and inform them if I changed my mind, and then wandered off and discussed it with Max, and a couple of the TD's. Max concurred with my ruling, accepting I had discretion in the matter. DWS agreed too, saying he'd ruled the other way about 10 years ago and then discovered that one of the wimmin had been the beneficiary on both occasions, so I relayed all of this to everyone, we had a good laugh and that was the end of it. fwiw I think we should rule it this way, level playing field springs to mind. cheers john > >> Off you go .... cheers john > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From steve_wright@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 12 17:34:11 2004 From: steve_wright@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:34:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? In-Reply-To: <5Raf4WDjcceAFwMH@asimere.com> References: <40790664.3020003@hdw.be> <5Raf4WDjcceAFwMH@asimere.com> Message-ID: In message <5Raf4WDjcceAFwMH@asimere.com>, "John (MadDog) Probst" writes >In article <40790664.3020003@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael >writes >>No John, it's none of the above (well, below): >> >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>> So the whole crew are at the Easter Tourney and I can be rude to mamos, >>> DWS, DALB, Robin, and Gordon (who won the main event) f2f. Very >>> satisfying :) >>> >>> The hand is irrelevant except that part way through declarer leads, and >>> it goes ruff, pitch, revoke round the table. The wimmin that ruffs is >>> thinking about the price of fish and asks to see the three turned down >>> cards a few seconds later. >>> >>> Up come the cards; "Oh s**t!" says fourth hand wimmin and the NYPD >>> arrives. >>> >>> It's the UK, Revoke enquires defender to defender are not permitted. >>> fwiw it's the last card in the suit that 4th hand played and she will >>> therefore not win a trick later with a card that could have been legally >>> played. >>> >>> You have two options: >>> 1) allow the change and apply the penalty card provisions. >>> 2) rule the revoke established and apply the penalty card provisions >>> >> >>no, according to the official policy it's: >> >>3) rule the revoke non-established (with penalty card) AND apply the >>penalty for an established revoke. Of which we don't know which kind - >>but I gather that does not matter. > >indeed please use option 3 rather than option 2; namely make the change >of card, with a penalty card but the revoke penalty is payable. Sorry >for not making this clear. > >anyway I considered what I'd have done had a pair of cheats been playing >and decided to make the revoke penalty payable (it makes no difference >at all to the play as there is a penalty card whatever we do, just a >question of whether the ruff is transferred), told the players (4 v >competent wimmin) I thought it was very difficult, that I would consider >my ruling over dinner and inform them if I changed my mind, and then >wandered off and discussed it with Max, and a couple of the TD's. > >Max concurred with my ruling, accepting I had discretion in the matter. >DWS agreed too, saying he'd ruled the other way about 10 years ago and >then discovered that one of the wimmin had been the beneficiary on both >occasions, so I relayed all of this to everyone, we had a good laugh and >that was the end of it. > >fwiw I think we should rule it this way, level playing field springs to >mind. cheers john As a variation on this theme, what would you do with the following situation; I have the lead as declarer's LHO. I lead a suit, dummy follows low, partner discards and declarer ruffs. If I've been counting correctly then either my partner or declarer has revoked. I ask declarer if he's revoked (as L61B says I'm entitled to). He replies, "No". My partner then says "Oops! I've revoked". Your ruling? -- Steve Wright From svenpran@online.no Mon Apr 12 18:15:33 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:15:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c420b1$c38c7980$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Wright ............. > I have the lead as declarer's LHO. I lead a suit, dummy follows low, > partner discards and declarer ruffs. If I've been counting correctly > then either my partner or declarer has revoked. > > I ask declarer if he's revoked (as L61B says I'm entitled to). He > replies, "No". My partner then says "Oops! I've revoked". > > Your ruling? > -- > Steve Wright In Norway we have no problem with this case: We rule established revoke under Laws 61B and 63B not only when a defender directly asks his partner about a possible revoke but also when a defender has acted in whatever way that might have been the reason why his partner subsequently woke up to realize he had revoked. In your case for instance even when you without uttering anything simply hesitated for an extended period before turning your played card face down for the possible intent to alert the other players (and particularly your partner) that there was something wrong we would rule established revoke if your partner then woke up and "discovered" his revoke. In general we are very observant on "clever" ways of circumventing the purpose of the laws. Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 12 18:40:16 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:40:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? In-Reply-To: <000001c420b1$c38c7980$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <757EBA1C-8CA8-11D8-BB13-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Apr 12, 2004, at 13:15 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > In Norway we have no problem with this case: We rule established revoke > under Laws 61B and 63B not only when a defender directly asks his > partner > about a possible revoke but also when a defender has acted in whatever > way > that might have been the reason why his partner subsequently woke up to > realize he had revoked. To me, this smacks of a player doing something he is permitted to do under the Laws, and the TD ruling he has done something he is not permitted to do. I don't like it. > In general we are very observant on "clever" ways of circumventing the > purpose of the laws. One wonders whether you are seeing boogymen that aren't really there. From svenpran@online.no Mon Apr 12 19:13:40 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:13:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? In-Reply-To: <757EBA1C-8CA8-11D8-BB13-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c420b9$e2b926c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ........ > > In Norway we have no problem with this case: We rule established = revoke > > under Laws 61B and 63B not only when a defender directly asks his > > partner > > about a possible revoke but also when a defender has acted in = whatever > > way > > that might have been the reason why his partner subsequently woke up = to > > realize he had revoked. >=20 > To me, this smacks of a player doing something he is permitted to do > under the Laws, and the TD ruling he has done something he is not > permitted to do. I don't like it. >=20 > > In general we are very observant on "clever" ways of circumventing = the > > purpose of the laws. >=20 > One wonders whether you are seeing boogymen that aren't really there. No, but we have had quite a few attempts to alert partner using all = sorts of mannerisms (without technically asking any questions) until partner = finally realized there was something fishy the player wanted his attention to. I don't want to state any opinion on Law 61B in its present form, but = when a defender is prohibited from asking his partner about a possible revoke = that should include all sorts of behaviors for the possible purpose of = calling his attention to a likely revoke also without really asking. If we do not like this we had better revert to the old laws permitting = any player (including dummy) to ask any other player about a possible = revoke. Regards Sven From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Apr 12 19:39:57 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:39:57 -0600 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? References: <000001c420b9$e2b926c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005301c420bd$9360f810$532846a2@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" >No, but we have had quite a few attempts to alert partner using all sorts of >mannerisms (without technically asking any questions) until partner finally >realized there was something fishy the player wanted his attention to. We have the same interpretation in Poland. >I don't want to state any opinion on Law 61B in its present form, but when a >defender is prohibited from asking his partner about a possible revoke that >should include all sorts of behaviors for the possible purpose of calling >his attention to a likely revoke also without really asking. Otherwise the L61B is useless - all one has to do is to keep the previous trick open (cards face up on the table), ask questions about the bidding etc. until partner wakes up, . Some players did just that. Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Apr 12 22:17:13 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:17:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Reveley ruling?? Message-ID: Could someone please explain (clearly and fully) what a "Reveley ruling" is, and why it has that name? This "Reveley ruling" keeps coming up, and I have not been able to untangle what it actually means. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Mon Apr 12 22:39:07 2004 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:39:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reveley ruling?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1081805947.28239.184310049@webmail.messagingengine.com> Check page 33 of the EBU White Book: http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Publications/EBU%20White%20Book%202004.pdf ...Dave Kent On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:17:13 -0500, "Robert E. Harris" said: > Could someone please explain (clearly and fully) what a "Reveley > ruling" is, and why it has that name? This "Reveley ruling" keeps > coming up, and I have not been able to untangle what it actually > means. > > REH > -- > Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 > Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia > Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service From john@asimere.com Mon Apr 12 23:29:38 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:29:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? In-Reply-To: References: <40790664.3020003@hdw.be> <5Raf4WDjcceAFwMH@asimere.com> Message-ID: In article , Steve Wright writes >In message <5Raf4WDjcceAFwMH@asimere.com>, "John (MadDog) Probst" > writes >>In article <40790664.3020003@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael >>writes >>>No John, it's none of the above (well, below): >>> >>>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> >>>> So the whole crew are at the Easter Tourney and I can be rude to mamos, >>>> DWS, DALB, Robin, and Gordon (who won the main event) f2f. Very >>>> satisfying :) >>>> >>>> The hand is irrelevant except that part way through declarer leads, and >>>> it goes ruff, pitch, revoke round the table. The wimmin that ruffs is >>>> thinking about the price of fish and asks to see the three turned down >>>> cards a few seconds later. >>>> >>>> Up come the cards; "Oh s**t!" says fourth hand wimmin and the NYPD >>>> arrives. >>>> >>>> It's the UK, Revoke enquires defender to defender are not permitted. >>>> fwiw it's the last card in the suit that 4th hand played and she will >>>> therefore not win a trick later with a card that could have been legally >>>> played. >>>> >>>> You have two options: >>>> 1) allow the change and apply the penalty card provisions. >>>> 2) rule the revoke established and apply the penalty card provisions >>>> >>> >>>no, according to the official policy it's: >>> >>>3) rule the revoke non-established (with penalty card) AND apply the >>>penalty for an established revoke. Of which we don't know which kind - >>>but I gather that does not matter. >> >>indeed please use option 3 rather than option 2; namely make the change >>of card, with a penalty card but the revoke penalty is payable. Sorry >>for not making this clear. >> >>anyway I considered what I'd have done had a pair of cheats been playing >>and decided to make the revoke penalty payable (it makes no difference >>at all to the play as there is a penalty card whatever we do, just a >>question of whether the ruff is transferred), told the players (4 v >>competent wimmin) I thought it was very difficult, that I would consider >>my ruling over dinner and inform them if I changed my mind, and then >>wandered off and discussed it with Max, and a couple of the TD's. >> >>Max concurred with my ruling, accepting I had discretion in the matter. >>DWS agreed too, saying he'd ruled the other way about 10 years ago and >>then discovered that one of the wimmin had been the beneficiary on both >>occasions, so I relayed all of this to everyone, we had a good laugh and >>that was the end of it. >> >>fwiw I think we should rule it this way, level playing field springs to >>mind. cheers john > >As a variation on this theme, what would you do with the following >situation; > >I have the lead as declarer's LHO. I lead a suit, dummy follows low, >partner discards and declarer ruffs. If I've been counting correctly >then either my partner or declarer has revoked. > >I ask declarer if he's revoked (as L61B says I'm entitled to). He >replies, "No". My partner then says "Oops! I've revoked". Revoke penalty payable, major penalty card. John > >Your ruling? -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From toddz@att.net Tue Apr 13 03:21:07 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:21:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reveley ruling?? In-Reply-To: <1081805947.28239.184310049@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1081805947.28239.184310049@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040412221733.01b35dc0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Of course asking an illegal question to wake partner up would result in a "Reveille ruling". :) -Todd At 05:39 PM 4/12/2004, David Kent wrote: Check page 33 of the EBU White Book: http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Publications/EBU%20White%20Book%202004.pdf ...Dave Kent On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:17:13 -0500, "Robert E. Harris" said: > Could someone please explain (clearly and fully) what a "Reveley > ruling" is, and why it has that name? This "Reveley ruling" keeps > coming up, and I have not been able to untangle what it actually > means. > > REH From walt1@verizon.net Tue Apr 13 07:56:11 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 02:56:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] What is an average? - NP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040413024802.02b9b370@incoming.verizon.net> At 01:40 PM 5/04/2004, Steve Wright wrote: >Playing pairs, four boards a round allowing 30 minutes per round I had to >give one table an average when I removed a board for slow play. With less >than a minute to go they had just put the board on the table and were >sorting their hands prior to bidding when I stepped in. > >At the end, one of the pairs came second by 0.2 of a match point. > >We used the "Haworth" scoring program which is widely accepted as >performing averages correctly. We are quite happy that the correct result >was obtained. > >However what we are unsure about is what "average" means. I understand >that Average-plus is 60% (or your session average if higher) and >average-minus is 40% (or your session average if lower). > >But is an average 50% or is it your session average? > >Assuming had the slow pairs played the board and achieved their session >average, then by removing the board and giving them 50% for it has cost >them the win. But if an average is their session average then not playing >the board won't affect their score. I heard of someone recently being given an "NP" [not played] on a board. Reportedly this was neither an average nor an average +/- but was simply treated as if the board had never been scheduled to be played. The scenario was that this pair had opponents that did not show up at the table in time for this board to be played. The director later asked the non-offenders if they could play it as a late play and they said "No, we have to leave right after the round." Then the director awarded them an "NP". Questions: 1. Does an "NP" result exist anywhere? 2. If so, was this ruling correct? Walt From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Apr 13 08:14:57 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 09:14:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] What is an average? - NP In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040413024802.02b9b370@incoming.verizon.net> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040413024802.02b9b370@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <407B9371.3000006@hdw.be> Walt wrote: > > > > I heard of someone recently being given an "NP" [not played] on a board. > Reportedly this was neither an average nor an average +/- but was simply > treated as if the board had never been scheduled to be played. > > The scenario was that this pair had opponents that did not show up at > the table in time for this board to be played. The director later asked > the non-offenders if they could play it as a late play and they said > "No, we have to leave right after the round." Then the director awarded > them an "NP". > > Questions: > > 1. Does an "NP" result exist anywhere? > 2. If so, was this ruling correct? > 1. Not in the laws, but it is possible in practice. 2. depends on the resulations, really. I always insist that people award 40/40 (or something alike) to a non-played board, unless it is something I call a semi-bye. With a semi-bye I mean things like: -players arriving late at the tournament and filling in to make a full table (giving them Av- would only result in them not helping you out); -docters being called off the table; -handicapped persons needing 15 minutes in the middle of a tournament to perform bodily functions (we have one person like that); and so on. Where the absence from the table is non-bridge related. > Walt > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 13 08:22:44 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:22:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] What is an average? - NP Message-ID: Walt asked: >I heard of someone recently being given an "NP" [not >played] on a board. Reportedly this was neither an >average nor an average +/- but was simply treated as >if the board had never been scheduled to be played. > >The scenario was that this pair had opponents that >did not show up at the table in time for this board >to be played. The director later asked the non- >offenders if they could play it as a late play and >they said "No, we have to leave right after the >round." Then the director awarded them an "NP". > >Questions: > >1. Does an "NP" result exist anywhere? RJH replies: Yes, "NP" is shorthand for following these series of laws -> (a) An infraction of Law 90B1 (tardiness) or Law 90B2 (unduly slow play) by a contestant, (b) A consequent Law 82B ruling by the TD; either postpone play of a board, or alternatively award an adjusted score - for "NP" the TD decides to award an adjusted score, (c) A consequent Law 12A2 ruling that normal play is impossible, (d) A consequent Law 12C1 ruling that both sides are partially at fault, so both sides score average - which is 50%, unless the SO regulates otherwise. Walt reasked: >2. If so, was this ruling correct? RJH rereplies: On the facts provided, the TD's ruling was incorrect. "NP" is not an appropriate adjustment when the non- play was wholly the fault of one side's tardiness. In that case Law 12C1 directs the TD to Law 88, which specifies that the non-offending side should not get a "NP" average, but instead the NOS should be awarded an average-plus. 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 Tue Apr 13 08:47:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:47:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Remontant Message-ID: Charles Cotton (1630-1687) wrote: >>The shadows now so long do grow, >>That brambles like tall cedars show, >>Molehills seem mountains, and the ant >>Appears a monstrous elephant. Jeff Rubens returned to the scene of the climb, by making a mountain out of a molehill in his April 2004 Bridge World editorial: [snip] >the combined hands are worthy of bidding a >grand slam in diamonds, the agreed suit. But >what about the possibility of a higher score >or greater security in seven notrump? You >lack sufficeint information to make that >decision, but you see a way to get it. By >bidding six clubs, ostensibly inviting the >gand slam that you intend to bid regardless, >you give partner the chance to show extra >values. [snip] >Over six clubs, partner _markedly breaks >tempo,_ considering what to do at length, then >bids six diamonds. [snip] >The upshot of your careful auction-planning >and partner's responsible thoughtfulness is >that the director is summoned after you bid >seven diamonds. [snip] >the director rules, there will likely be an >appeal by whichever side stands to gain from a >reversal of the ruling. [snip] Richard James Hills comments: (a) In my opinion, Jeff Rubens is pessimistic about the automatic summoning of the TD, (b) In my opinion, Jeff Rubens is pessimistic about the automatic appealing of the TD's ruling if the TD is summoned, (c) In my opinion, Jeff Rubens' solution (his recommended major rewrite of the Laws and associated logistic difficulties) is designing a sledgehammer to crack a nut, (d) In my opinion, this molehill only happens for a particular super-scientific bidding style of partnership. (A parallel problem is the style of making a forcing pass, then pulling partner's penalty double to show slam-try strength. Israeli-American bidding theorist Matt Granovetter notes that this style loses more imps than it gains when UI rulings occur after a slow penalty double is pulled.) Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From toddz@att.net Tue Apr 13 09:11:23 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 04:11:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] What is an average? - NP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040413033651.01af2360@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> If the board is treated as though it were never scheduled to be played by the given pair, couldn't the results (after factoring) be different than if AVG is awarded? -Todd From walt1@verizon.net Tue Apr 13 09:25:05 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 04:25:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] What is an average? - NP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040413041228.03844190@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:22 AM 13/04/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Walt asked: > >I heard of someone recently being given an "NP" [not > >played] on a board. Reportedly this was neither an > >average nor an average +/- but was simply treated as > >if the board had never been scheduled to be played. > > > >The scenario was that this pair had opponents that > >did not show up at the table in time for this board > >to be played. The director later asked the non- > >offenders if they could play it as a late play and > >they said "No, we have to leave right after the > >round." Then the director awarded them an "NP". > > > >Questions: > > > >1. Does an "NP" result exist anywhere? > >RJH replies: > >Yes, "NP" is shorthand for following these series of >laws -> > >(a) An infraction of Law 90B1 (tardiness) or Law 90B2 > (unduly slow play) by a contestant, > >(b) A consequent Law 82B ruling by the TD; either > postpone play of a board, or alternatively award > an adjusted score - for "NP" the TD decides to > award an adjusted score, > >(c) A consequent Law 12A2 ruling that normal play is > impossible, > >(d) A consequent Law 12C1 ruling that both sides are > partially at fault, so both sides score average > - which is 50%, unless the SO regulates otherwise. > >Walt reasked: > > >2. If so, was this ruling correct? > >RJH rereplies: > >On the facts provided, the TD's ruling was incorrect. >"NP" is not an appropriate adjustment when the non- >play was wholly the fault of one side's tardiness. >In that case Law 12C1 directs the TD to Law 88, which >specifies that the non-offending side should not get >a "NP" average, but instead the NOS should be awarded >an average-plus. Richard I reasoned as you did that since the late play was entirely the fault of one pair the non-offending pair should receive an Ave+. However, when the non-offending pair declined the late play, it seemed to me that the that the board not being played was now partially the fault of the non-offenders. Do the non-offenders have the right to decline to play the board and receive an Ave+? Walt From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 13 09:46:39 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:46:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] What is an average? - NP In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040413041228.03844190@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <000301c42133$d6f75a80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Walt ........ > > >The scenario was that this pair had opponents that > > >did not show up at the table in time for this board > > >to be played. The director later asked the non- > > >offenders if they could play it as a late play and > > >they said "No, we have to leave right after the > > >round." Then the director awarded them an "NP". ......... > >RJH rereplies: > > > >On the facts provided, the TD's ruling was incorrect. > >"NP" is not an appropriate adjustment when the non- > >play was wholly the fault of one side's tardiness. > >In that case Law 12C1 directs the TD to Law 88, which > >specifies that the non-offending side should not get > >a "NP" average, but instead the NOS should be awarded > >an average-plus. > > > Richard > > I reasoned as you did that since the late play was entirely the fault of > one pair the non-offending pair should receive an Ave+. > > However, when the non-offending pair declined the late play, it seemed to > me that the that the board not being played was now partially the fault > of > the non-offenders. > > Do the non-offenders have the right to decline to play the board and > receive an Ave+? Yes, they have every right to refuse playing a board if that means disrupting the schedule(s) for the event. And I agree that NP cannot possibly be the correct ruling if that implies anything else than A- to offenders and A+ to non-offenders. Regards Sven From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Apr 13 09:14:39 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:14:39 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] What is an average? - NP In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040413041228.03844190@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Walt wrote: > At 03:22 AM 13/04/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >Walt asked: > > >I heard of someone recently being given an "NP" [not > > >played] on a board. Reportedly this was neither an > > >average nor an average +/- but was simply treated as > > >if the board had never been scheduled to be played. Yes. > > >1. Does an "NP" result exist anywhere? It does. But it only occurs if the director rules, in some fashion, that a pair was never scheduled to play the board, and has to enter the NP to deal with the scoring. This is rare, except in the case of late fill-ins as Herman mentioned. (And, of course, if there is a half-table, you get given NPs for the boards you sit out, not A+ even though it isn't your fault not enough players showed up.) > >RJH replies: > > > >Yes, "NP" is shorthand for following these series of > >laws -> No it isn't. :) [snip] > >(d) A consequent Law 12C1 ruling that both sides are > > partially at fault, so both sides score average > > - which is 50%, unless the SO regulates otherwise. If you make a L12C1 ruling, you assign 50/50, not a NP. As Todd noted, this is not the same thing. (An assigned 50/50 drags your score towards average, and indeed is a mild punishment, as it diminshes your chance of placing high at the end of the evening.) > I reasoned as you did that since the late play was entirely the fault of > one pair the non-offending pair should receive an Ave+. > > However, when the non-offending pair declined the late play, it seemed to > me that the that the board not being played was now partially the fault of > the non-offenders. > > Do the non-offenders have the right to decline to play the board and > receive an Ave+? The laws don't explicitly address it. You may have a local regulation to help you. But I think the majority view is YES. If a player stays for the entire scheduled length of the game but has other plans afterward, he has fulfilled his obligations, and its not "his fault" that he can't stay around to help the director and the other pair out of a bind. In my experience, almost everyone stays for a lateplay unless they have a compelling reason not to (and if you go to work at 5AM, the fact it's already 11PM is a good reason.) The A+ for declining the lateplay is pretty much automatic here. I think it is unsporting on the rare occasions I see someone mentally figure out whether to stay or not -- refuse a lateplay against a strong pair but accept it against a weak pair -- but I don't think it is illegal. Maybe if they decline the lateplay, but then hang around for another 15 minutes waiting for the results to come out anyway, you might have a case to reduce it to average. GRB From jessie21lounging@mail.com Tue Apr 13 11:53:11 2004 From: jessie21lounging@mail.com (Joe) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:53:11 +0800 Subject: [blml] Rock Solid Erect.ions In 60 Seconds! Message-ID: hardonoil1
MASSIVE ROCK-SOLID EREC.TIONS
IN 60 SECONDS OR LESS!

ITS HERE THE NEW
VirilityEx Oil
- Immediate Rock-Solid Erec.tions
- Total, Oversize Arousal
- Double-Strength Org.asms
- Super Staying Power
- Maximum Sexual Health
- Increase the Size and Intensity of your Erec.tions!
- Completely Safe and Effective Lubri.cant!

READ MORE INFO HERE



no more emailz

From jessie21ambles@mail.com Tue Apr 13 16:24:59 2004 From: jessie21ambles@mail.com (Bob.anderson) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:24:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Rock Solid Erect.ions In 60 Seconds! Message-ID: hardonoil1
MASSIVE ROCK-SOLID EREC.TIONS
IN 60 SECONDS OR LESS!

ITS HERE THE NEW
VirilityEx Oil
- Immediate Rock-Solid Erec.tions
- Total, Oversize Arousal
- Double-Strength Org.asms
- Super Staying Power
- Maximum Sexual Health
- Increase the Size and Intensity of your Erec.tions!
- Completely Safe and Effective Lubri.cant!

READ MORE INFO HERE



no more emailz

From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Apr 13 15:34:08 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:34:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] What is an average? - NP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > >1. Does an "NP" result exist anywhere? The laws don't explicitly address it. You may have a local regulation to help you. But I think the majority view is YES. If a player stays for the entire scheduled length of the game but has other plans afterward, he has fulfilled his obligations, and its not "his fault" that he can't stay around to help the director and the other pair out of a bind. In my experience, almost everyone stays for a lateplay unless they have a compelling reason not to (and if you go to work at 5AM, the fact it's already 11PM is a good reason.) The A+ for declining the lateplay is pretty much automatic here. I think it is unsporting on the rare occasions I see someone mentally figure out whether to stay or not -- refuse a lateplay against a strong pair but accept it against a weak pair -- but I don't think it is illegal. __________________________________________________________________________ In my club, I have a regulation concerning NP boards. Late plays are the exception (room no more available, people have to wait 15 min. more for the result, etc.). When I know that a table is late and I am sure both pairs are not really in fault (they both had to wait at previous round), I offer them not to play a board. If they both agree (they do most of the time), I score NP. If not, they get a late play (if possible) or an AVG/AVG. I made such a ruling only 2 or 3 times last year. I hope it is legal in ACBL land ....ACBLScore has a specific command for NP. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Apr 13 17:51:14 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:51:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <006a01c41bbb$a1d76a20$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> from "Nigel Guthrie" at Apr 06, 2004 10:43:34 AM Message-ID: <200404131651.i3DGpFUj009471@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Nigel Guthrie writes: > > [Richard James Hills] > Yes and no. More evidence may or may > not be needed. > > The initial evidence may be enough to > cause you to assume that pard, rather > than an opponent, has psyched *if* > pard violates agreed system. > > Example: Pard passes a forcing bid. > > [Nigel] > IMO passing a forcing bid, *is* further evidence, > pointing the finger at partner, rather than opponents. > IMO, Richard, the likelihood is either that he is making > a mistake now or that he psyched previously. > Or he's Kit Woolsey. Woolsey passes forcing calls when he expects to be right. Problem E from the May 2002 MSC may be of interest: IMPS; E-W vul. You, South hold: AK6 AQ 43 AQ8654 South West North East 1C P 1S P ? Michael Rosenberg says that two hearts is 100% forcing. And then accuses Woolsey of ignoring such rules. Woolsey would respond 1S with: KJxx, Jxx, xxxx, xx and then pass the 2H rebid. (And 1S is neither a misbid nor a psyche) And he's right. Quoting Woolsey now. "Yes, I know, opener may have some 22 count in a 1=4=3=5 hand or the like; and, yes, one might miss a game by passing two hearts; and, yes, the reverse is forcing. But bridge is a game of percentages, and the player who makes the percentage call most often is the winner. If I think passing a forcing call is the percentage action, then I will do it. It doesn't change the fact that it is forcing. My partner won't lose confidence in me when he has a monsterous hand and we miss a game [!] He knows that I know it is forcing and that I simply took what I thought was the percentage action. If he picks up the monster again, he will bid it the same way, without the slightest worry that I will pass." From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 13 19:05:19 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:05:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <200404131651.i3DGpFUj009471@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <1FD8E6FC-8D75-11D8-BD5A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Apr 13, 2004, at 12:51 US/Eastern, Ron Johnson wrote: > Woolsey passes forcing calls when he expects to be right. No doubt their partnership experience shows that Woolsey is right more often then he's wrong when he does stuff like this. If any of my partners started thinking they were Kit Woolsey, I 'spect it'd be time to get a new partner. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 13 23:46:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:46:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL re-education camp Message-ID: "Houston, We Have a Problem", 2002 Spring NABC Casebook Appeal number seven, Anyone for a Sandwich? The Committee Decision: [snip] >>(Note: After the Committee issued their decision >>North stated that there had been much discussion >>about bad appeal decisions on the Internet and in >>The ACBL Bulletin and that this was another >>example of a terrible decision. He was strongly >>warned of the NAC's policy against debating their >>decisions and eventually subsided. This attitude >>is an unfortunate side effect of the public >>airing of questionable rulings that significantly >>reduces any educational impact of committee >>decisions.) Panellist Ron Gerard: >Wait, you can't make a fool of yourself by spouting >nonsense on the Internet or in the Bulletin? My >reaction to Internet or Bulletin hysteria is ask me if >I care. Unfortunately, the publicity campaign is more >influential than it should be. Even the Editor of the >ACBL Bulletin has taken up the case against Appeals >Committees. You think that doesn't feed into the >frenzy? > >I always tell the parties that they're free to discuss >with their sycophants how terrible our decision is, but >that any direct dialogue with the Committee ends when we >deliver that decision. Proper procedure demands this - >you don't get a shot at ex parte communications because >we want the explanation of the decision to be reasoned >rather than merely result-oriented. The case is over >when the judge announces the verdict. So I don't mind >that much that North here went ballistic over the >decision, I mind that he directed his anger towards the >Committee. If it were a standard part of every >chairman's introductory statement that we will tell you >the reasons for our ruling but we won't discuss it >further, it would be easier to issue the kind of >reprimand that was attempted here. > >The Committee's last comment was way out of line. Was >the Chicago no-name Committee decision a "questionable" >one? Garozzo vs. McCallum? Shouldn't the write-up in >each of those cases have convinced all but the most >close-minded that the right result was reached? Who's to >say whether a ruling is questionable? What reduces the >educational impact of committee decisions is the >inherent litigiousness of and relentless pursuit of >self-interest by today's players. We can't be afraid to >publicize controversial rulings since (a) they might be >right and (b) they might have educational value even if >they're wrong. Richard James Hills: With regard to "relentless pursuit of self-interest by today's players", a recent local example added a few grey hairs to my head. A pair playing in a major Canberra event was granted a substitute pair for a few matches by the Council of the Bridge Federation (of which I am President). The pair's rivals wanted to nobble that pair by enforcing a weaker substitute. Even after the Council had taken the time, in response to letters of complaint, to reconsider and reaffirm its original decision, myself and other councillors were still harangued by some of Canberra leading players - one of whom had not bothered to check some basic facts before complaining. 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 Apr 14 00:52:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:52:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=3D+ I have seen it said somewhere that >>a Law 12C3 ruling using the 'Reveley' >>method is 'illegal'. The terms of 12C3 >>embrace any adjustment that is deemed to >>"do equity". Decisions to exclude 'Reveley' >>rulings prevail in some organizations, >>including the EBU and, more recently, the >>EBL, and these are policy decisions. The >>circumstances in the ACBL would be >>likely to inhibit any 'interpretation' of the >>law by the WBFLC that asserted the >>illegality of 'Reveley' rulings et al. >> When the WBF TAC recognized the >>possibility of 12C3 adjustments and of >>weighted adjustments no condition in >>relation to 'Reveley' or any other type of >>adjustment was specified. That, as I recall, >>was in Maastricht - Richard Colker was >>involved in the discussion. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Richard James Hills: Maybe a "Reveley" ruling is Lawful, but if so the Laws are inconsistent and illogical. Case 1: Player P obeys Law 73C, thus causing opponents Q-R to achieve a score of +620, while Player P receives the reciprocal score of -620. Case 2: Player P infracts Law 73C, thus causing opponents Q-R to achieve a score of -420 while Player P receives the reciprocal score of +420. The TD is summoned. The TD gives the following "Reveley" ruling -> (a) Player P's infraction of Law 73C is fully reversed by awarding Player P a Law 12C2 adjusted score of -620. (b) Opponents' Q-R damage from the infraction of Law 73C by Player P is only partially reversed, as opponents Q-R are awarded a Law 12C3 weighted average of +620 and -420. WBF Code of Practice, page 5: >The award of an assigned adjusted score (see >Law 12C2) is appropriate when a violation of >law causes damage to an innocent side >(although the extent of redress to this side >may be affected, see below, if it has >contributed to its own damage by irrational, >wild or gambling, action subsequent to the >infraction). Damage exists when, in >consequence of the infraction, an innocent >side obtains a table result less favourable >than would have been the expectation in the >instant prior to the infraction. 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 Apr 14 01:34:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:34:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] What is an average? - NP Message-ID: Walt: >Richard > >I reasoned as you did that since the late play was >entirely the fault of one pair the non-offending >pair should receive an Ave+. > >However, when the non-offending pair declined the >late play, it seemed to me that the board not being >played was now partially the fault of the non- >offenders. > >Do the non-offenders have the right to decline to >play the board and receive an Ave+? RJH: Technically, no. Law 82B2 states: "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may require or postpone the play of a board." The non-offenders may *request* that the TD not invoke Law 82B2, instead invoking Law 82B1. But the TD has the *power* to be a high-handed dictator, and insist on a Law 82B2 ruling. Of course, a TD who arbitrarily rules against a reasonable request from a non-offending side may soon find themselves unemployed. 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 Apr 14 02:05:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:05:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call Message-ID: In the thread "Psyches", Ron Johnson quoted Kit Woolsey: >>Yes, I know, opener may have some 22 count in a 1=3D4=3D3=3D5 >>hand or the like; and, yes, one might miss a game by >>passing two hearts; and, yes, the reverse is forcing. >>But bridge is a game of percentages, and the player who >>makes the percentage call most often is the winner. >> >>If I think passing a forcing call is the percentage >>action, then I will do it. It doesn't change the fact >>that it is forcing. My partner won't lose confidence >>in me when he has a monsterous hand and we miss a game. Ron Johnson interpolated: > [!] Kit Woolsey continued: >>He knows that I know it is forcing and that I simply >>took what I thought was the percentage action. If he >>picks up the monster again, he will bid it the same >>way, without the slightest worry that I will pass. Richard James Hills notes: Whether or not a farcing pass of a forcing call is good strategy (or not) is beyond the ambit of this list. What is relevant to blml discussion, is whether or not a farcing pass of a forcing call can ever be a "logical" alternative. Some years ago, Jeff Rubens tested the discipline of the Master Solvers Club panel, by posing a bidding problem for which a farcing pass of a forcing call was highly attractive. The farcing pass gained a plurality vote, but Rubens refused, on principle, to award the farcing pass the maximum score of 100. However, what the panel vote did prove was that a large number of ACBL experts are acolytes of Kit Woolsey's non-principled style. So, in some ACBL circumstances, deliberately leaving partner in the lurch is indeed a "logical" alternative. However, Michael Rosenberg has noted that experts who adopt Woolsey's style, but do not have Woolsey's impeccable ethics, have added scope for use of unauthorised information. Rosenberg suggested that such a grey-ethics expert might farcing pass pard's quick forcing 2H reverse. Rosenberg further suggested that such a grey-ethics expert might bid in response to pard's slow forcing 2H reverse (since pard's slow 2H reverse demonstrably suggests shorter hearts but greater 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 14 02:20:18 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:20:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL re-education camp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Players who "go ballistic" after a ruling, whether by a TD or a committee, do themselves and the game no good. I can understand a committee not wanting to entertain discussion of its decisions. Otherwise, they'd never get the job done. And I can understand a player not being happy with a ruling. Life's tough sometimes. Just keep on truckin'. Besides, if a player *really* feels the committee decision was out to lunch, he can appeal to the National Authority (Law 93C). A PS: for the National Authority to circumvent this right is, IMO, wrong. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 14 03:33:39 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:33:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call Message-ID: 2002 Spring NABC Casebook Appeal number fifteen, Stratified Open Pairs Bd: 30, Dlr: East, Vul: None AT2 75 K42 KJT94 KJ94 Q87 T63 AQ A85 QT963 AQ6 852 653 KJ9842 J7 73 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- Pass 2H Double Pass 3D(1) Pass Pass 3H 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Not Alerted (E/W played Lebensohl) 3NT made four, +430 for E/W. The opening lead was the heart 4. The Director was called at the end of the auction, when East explained that E/W played Lebensohl and that 3D should have been Alerted as showing positive values. North immediately stated that she would not have bid 3H had she been properly Alerted. How would you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 14 04:33:14 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:33:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL re-education camp Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >Besides, if a player *really* feels the committee >decision was out to lunch, he can appeal to the >National Authority (Law 93C). > >A PS: for the National Authority to circumvent >this right is, IMO, wrong. Richard James Hills: I slightly disagree. Some time ago, in New Zealand, an AC made a judgement ruling which decided which contestant came first, and which contestant came second, in an important NZ national championship. Second place appealed to the NZ National Authority. The NZ National Authority had a somewhat different judgement view of the facts, so inverted the first and the second placings. This caused a certain amount of angst amongst NZ experts and NZ administrators. As a result, I believe that the current official NZ policy, is that the NZ National Authority now only hears appeals from AC rulings *if and only if* the AC may have perpetrated an unLawful ruling. I believe that a Lawful, but poorly judged, ruling by a New Zealand AC can no longer be appealed. If my belief about current NZ policy is correct, in my opinion that is an appropriate decision to sensibly limit the powers of a National Authority. 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 Apr 14 04:53:36 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:53:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] "demonstrable bridge reason" Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: [snip] >Case 1). Let us say that:- > >* during the auction, a player who will later >become a defender (though maybe he does >not know this at the time) asks for the meaning >of the auction to date. That is all that he asks. >Following the reply, the defender-to-be passes. > >* declarer draws an inference from this question: >namely, that the defender surely has some values, >as surely he would have not asked the question >had he not been at least considering entering the >auction. Let us say that declarer takes a two-way >finesse the wrong way. > >* it transpires after play that the defender had >no values at all; he never had any intention of >entering the auction, and he will admit this if asked. >He will say that he was just asking questions out >of curiosity, as was his legal right (his words) > >Our colleague says: >"I don't think that declarers do draw conclusions >from these sort of questions - or, rather, that if >they do then they assume that they are doing >so at their own risk. > >So, whilst they may request an adjusted score in >such a situation, they will not get one [snip] >and our colleague comments: > >I believe that ton has been talking about Scenario 1 >throughout your discussions, whilst you have been >talking about Scenario 2. > >************************************* >Grattan comments: >Since I agree with all of the above, perhaps ton and >I were talking at cross purposes. Perhaps we do >both agree with the latter colleague that is always to >be shown to the TD's satisfaction that the question >was capable of misleading - which in the case of the >first example should not be the conclusion. The >questioner does not have to defend his asking >(by explaining his demonstrable bridge reason) >when the question is not adjudged to be misleading. [snip] Richard James Hills notes: Law 73F2 currently commences with the phrase, "if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference....." Given that Grattan and Ton are now apparently no longer talking at cross-purposes, perhaps the 2006 version of Law 73F2 should be clarified to commence with the phrase: "if the Director determines that an innocent player has made a normal(1) decision to draw a false inference....." plus the footnote: "(1) For the purposes of Law 73F2, 'normal' includes drawing an inference that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player involved." 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 Apr 14 05:55:22 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:55:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF National Authority minutes November 2003 Message-ID: Apologies for a lengthy post. Best wishes Richard James Hills http://www.abf.com.au/about/minutes/mcmin1203.pdf Meeting of the National Authority: 20 November 2003 The National Authority met on the evening of 20 November 2003 convening at 7.45 pm. There were present John Arkinstall, Warren Lazer, Eric Ramshaw and Eilis Magner (chair). 1. Reference re Spectator Control - see attached letter The first item considered had been put forward in a letter received in March 2003. The letter reported an incident that may have occurred at the table in these terms: "The session is only into its second or third table when a non-player pulls up a chair behind North and becomes a spectator. Over the next two or three tables - and there are four boards a table - the spectator maintains his/her silence throughout the auction and play but, after each board has been played, advises at least one player - and sometimes two - what he/she should have done. Neither North nor East nor West is obviously disturbed by the spectator's presence and behaviour, but South feels his/ her concentration waning and politely asks the spectator to leave the table. The spectator refuses and the director is called. The director suggests to the spectator that it is common sense and courtesy that the spectator leave the table but the spectator insists that there is nothing in the most recent rules (1997) which requires him/her to withdraw. The director retires, and the spectator takes a stand 'on principle' and remains in his/her position for much of the session." The National Authority referred first to the provisions in Law 76.3, which relevantly reads: "During the round a spectator must refrain from mannerisms or remarks of any kind (including conversation with a player)." The term "round" is defined in Chapter I Definitions as: "A part of a session played without progression of players." The National Authority noted that on the account given the spectator in question was in breach of Law 76.3 in "after each board has been played, advising at least one player and sometimes two what he/she should have done". In the words of the law this constitutes offering "remarks of any kind" during the round. The letter also posed the following questions: a. whether any player can require a spectator to withdraw from the vicinity of the table The National Authority noted that Law 76.4 provides that: "A spectator must not in any way disturb a player." The National Authority was of the view that where the presence of a spectator or of a particular spectator at the table disturbs a player, the law confers a right on the player to request the spectator to withdraw from the vicinity of the table. The spectator's mere presence may be disturbing in a number of ways, for example because of a personal relationship with a player or because of a perfume the spectator is wearing, regardless of the behaviour of the spectator. b. as a corollary, whether a player has the right to refuse to continue to play while the spectator remains at the table The National Authority noted that Law 81 Part C provides that: "The director's duties and powers normally include the following: 3. to establish suitable conditions of play and to announce them to contestants. 4. to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly progress of the game." The National Authority was of the view that any suggested right of a player to refuse to continue to play while the spectator remains at the table could not be maintained in the light of this part of the laws. The player's proper course of action is to call the director's attention to the fact that the spectator's presence is disturbing the player and to request the director to take appropriate action. The director's appropriate action in these circumstances is to request the spectator to withdraw. c. whether a spectator can under some circumstances refuse to withdraw from the table It follows from Law 76.4 and Law 81.C.4 that a spectator cannot within the terms of the laws of bridge refuse to withdraw from the table. d. whether a director has the right to insist that a spectator leave the table, regardless of whether the spectator has infringed the rules regarding spectators It follows from Law 76.4 and Law 81.C.4 that the director has the right to direct the spectator to leave the table regardless of the behaviour of the spectator. It is not, however, within the legal power of the director to enforce such a direction in the face of recalcitrance on the part of the spectator. Given a refusal by the spectator to comply with a lawful order of the director to leave the table, the director's recourse is to send for the police. 2. Reference from QBA re Appeal at Gold Coast Congress - email previously circulated, appeal committee decision in hard copy was available at meeting, plus published comment by party, and comment written for publication by chair of appeal committee. The following passage from earlier report of National Authority is relevant: "The National Authority of the Australian Bridge Federation decided, several years ago, that it will limit its functions to the interpretation of the said Laws of Bridge and will not decide facts or change or purport to change any ruling that has been made under those Laws. It follows from this decision that the appropriate procedure for the National Authority to adopt is analogous to the procedures of the stated case as known to the courts of law in Australia. This means that the National Authority will consider the application of the Laws of Bridge to a set of facts that are hypothetically assumed to exist." As is the following passage from the description of the terms of reference of the National Authority issued on the authority of the Management Committee: "For law 93, the National Authority is the national authority for appeals at all ABF events. Will not generally overturn the result of an event but may overturn the decision of an appeal and may order a re- hearing." In its discussion of this matter, the National Authority noted the terms of Law 93 C: "After the preceding remedies have been exhausted, further appeal may be taken to the national authority." The National Authority further noted a discrepancy in the facts between the published comment by the party and the appeal report. The National Authority noted that in the terms of its procedure, it had no alternative but to accept the facts as found by the appeal committee to exist. On this basis and without commenting on the merits of the decision the National Authority was of the view that no obvious error in the decision existed which would call for correction by the National Authority. 3. Reference from QBA re Sponsorship and limits of event: Message from President, QBA set out here: Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:47:41 +1000 From: Keith McDonald Subject: National Authority Dear Eilis, At the Gold point event in Cairns we had an incident at the bar after the final session but before the presentation of prizes. A disciplinary hearing was required. The first question was did the QBA have jurisdiction. The jurisdiction was only argued from the point of view of the time line. It would have been an interesting point re ABF position vs QBA. We (the ABF) charge a fee but I know no contract has been signed for this event. The question for either you or the National Authority is at what point does the jurisdiction over an event end? If we have a statement on this issue we can publish it in the ABF Newsletter. Thanks, Keith. Law 80 - Sponsoring Organisation states: "A sponsoring organization conducting an event under these laws has the following duties and powers: B. Advance Arrangements To make advance arrangements for the tournament, including playing quarters, accommodations and equipment." The Tournament Regulations of the ABF contain the following passage: "These Regulations (the "Regulations") shall apply to all tournaments conducted by the Australian Bridge Federation ("ABF") either alone or in cooperation with State or other bodies. Unless the context otherwise requires the expression "ABF Tournament" where used in the Regulations shall include any supplementary or side event played during a championship festival or congress conducted by the ABF or on its behalf as well as each major event forming part of such championship festival or congress." The National Authority was unable to find anything directly relevant in the Laws or in the Regulations as currently framed. Inasmuch as the sponsoring organization has responsibility to make arrangements for the tournament, it is arguable that where an incident threatens to bring the game of bridge and the Sponsoring Organisation into disrepute, members of constituent organizations would have an obligation to cooperate with the sponsoring organization. In terms of timeline the Tournament must be considered to start when officials and players come together to prepare to run and play in the first session, and to continue up to and until the conclusion of the final prize giving, if this is held within a reasonable time after conclusion of play. The National Authority noted that it had only been asked to comment on jurisdiction in terms of time-line. It noted that there was on the brief facts outlined an additional difficulty for jurisdiction arose in terms of venue. 4. Revoke law consultation The World Bridge Federation had requested comment on the proposed revision of the revoke laws. While noting that other Committees should also be asked for comment, the National Authority considered the communication from Grattan Endicott set out here: "Enquiry to be put to NBOs in consequence of discussions of the Laws Review Subcommittee in Monaco, November 2003. The WBF Laws Review Subcommittee decided in Monaco that its proposed revision of the Code of Laws, planned to come into effect on 1st January 2006, will make a change in the revoke laws so that only one trick is transferable following a revoke unless equity demands that a greater number be transferred. However there were a variety of opinions as to the way in which this principle might be applied. The Subcommittee decided to seek opinions from NBOs and Zones as to which of the following is preferred when a revoke occurs: 1. That a trick is to be transferred regardless of whether the offending side has won a trick or not. 2. That a trick should be transferred if the offending side has won a trick regardless of whether that trick is won before or after the revoke. 3. As in 2 but not to involve a trick won with a card that could not fail to win a trick by any legal play (or perhaps limited solely to the case of a trick won by the highest trump card that had not been played when the revoke occurred). 4. That a trick should be transferred only when the offending side has won the revoke trick or a later trick. 5. As in 4 but limited as in 3." Without commenting on the merits of the proposed revision the National Authority was firmly of the view that the fourth alternative should be preferred. The basis for this view is that ease of application is essential and that any alternative which contemplated one side winning 14 tricks, or which changed the result of play before the revoke occurred was unacceptable. 5. Penalty for Non-Meritorious Appeals The National Authority considered the suggestion put forward by P Gue that the penalty for non-meritorious appeals should be settled as a fixed amount. It was noted that currently the penalty was a sum defined within a range. The National Authority was of the view that a fixed amount made sense in the context but that fixing that amount was not a matter for the National Authority. -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From walt1@verizon.net Wed Apr 14 06:14:19 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 01:14:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Servant of the secret fire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040414010640.02b42af0@incoming.verizon.net> At 12:08 AM 29/03/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >At the table, Lew Stansby decided to go with >the flow. Lew did not merely seriously >consider bidding 1S, he actually did so. > >But Tony's scepticism towards psyches proved >correct on the actual deal, since the >Rosenberg-Zia partnership now avoided the >losing action of playing in 6S (which fails >on a 4-1 spade break). Instead, the Stansby >psyche caused Rosenberg-Zia to divert into a >cold 6NT contract. Based on the state of the match the 1S call may well have been correct. I am positive, however, that Stansby knew that one of the downsides of the call while holding four spades was that he might keep his opponents out of a contract that failed on a bad break. No surprise there, just no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. This does not look to me as though it proves that skepticism towards psyches was correct as much as it points out how much we would probably all prefer to have only three spades if we made the 1S psyche. Walt From walt1@verizon.net Wed Apr 14 06:59:15 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 01:59:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <1FD8E6FC-8D75-11D8-BD5A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <200404131651.i3DGpFUj009471@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <1FD8E6FC-8D75-11D8-BD5A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040414015350.02b4b1d0@incoming.verizon.net> At 02:05 PM 13/04/2004, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Tuesday, Apr 13, 2004, at 12:51 US/Eastern, Ron Johnson wrote: >>Woolsey passes forcing calls when he expects to be right. > >No doubt their partnership experience shows that Woolsey is right more >often then he's wrong when he does stuff like this. > >If any of my partners started thinking they were Kit Woolsey, I 'spect >it'd be time to get a new partner. :-) Ed I have one partner who has carte blanc to make whatever call he feels is right. I cannot ever recall him making an anti systemic call that was wrong. I once thought he had cost us a knockout match when he passed a forcing call and we were cold for game, but he was right again. We could make 5D but not 6D, the opponents were in 6D and (as he had figured) there was no way he was going to keep us out of 6 on that auction except by passing! That call took not only good judgement but guts and an understanding partner. Walt From xlroverjim@aol.com Wed Apr 14 07:29:45 2004 From: xlroverjim@aol.com (ywpgRaines) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 03:29:45 -0300 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) $2,000 extra for you gtrkm Message-ID: <20040414062707.14D002C06E@rhubarb.custard.org>

Make extra cash on the internet:cpfxvjt

     Earn up to $10,000/Mosma

wgaclick herepshso

 

 

 

   To take yourself out of our database please send an email to: remove@work2006.cjb.net

yixspyualoamlrdglc From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Apr 14 11:31:22 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:31:22 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC9B@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Richard James Hills wrote: 2002 Spring NABC Casebook Appeal number fifteen, Stratified Open Pairs Bd: 30, Dlr: East, Vul: None AT2 75 K42 KJT94 KJ94 Q87 T63 AQ A85 QT963 AQ6 852 653 KJ9842 J7 73 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- Pass 2H Double Pass 3D(1) Pass Pass 3H 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Not Alerted (E/W played Lebensohl) 3NT made four, +430 for E/W. The opening lead was the heart 4. The Director was called at the end of the auction, when East explained that E/W played Lebensohl and that 3D should have been Alerted as showing positive values. North immediately stated that she would not have bid 3H had she been properly Alerted. How would you rule? ----- I don't know why you didn't start a new thread with this one. There's no = "farcing" pass of forcing call here. East has UI from west's non-alert. I would not allow 3NT on that basis. I would rule 3H -1. I would not apply L12C3. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran ----- Best wishes Richard James Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. = =A0This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally = privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is = prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and = Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations = under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 14 12:36:31 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:36:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC9B@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000001c42214$bc1ffdc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Skjaran, Harald > 2002 Spring NABC Casebook > Appeal number fifteen, > Stratified Open Pairs > Bd: 30, Dlr: East, Vul: None >=20 > AT2 > 75 > K42 > KJT94 > KJ94 Q87 > T63 AQ > A85 QT963 > AQ6 852 > 653 > KJ9842 > J7 > 73 >=20 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- Pass 2H > Double Pass 3D(1) Pass > Pass 3H 3NT Pass > Pass Pass >=20 > (1) Not Alerted (E/W played Lebensohl) >=20 > 3NT made four, +430 for E/W. The opening lead was > the heart 4. >=20 > The Director was called at the end of the auction, > when East explained that E/W played Lebensohl and > that 3D should have been Alerted as showing > positive values. North immediately stated that she > would not have bid 3H had she been properly > Alerted. >=20 > How would you rule? > ----- > I don't know why you didn't start a new thread with this one. There's = no > "farcing" pass of forcing call here. >=20 > East has UI from west's non-alert. > I would not allow 3NT on that basis. > I would rule 3H -1. > I would not apply L12C3. >=20 > Regards, > Harald Skj=E6ran I do indeed agree with Harald that I would not allow 3NT, but I would go even one step further; accept North's statement and leave East in the contract of 3D for one down! (Losing one trick each in Spades, Hearts and Diamonds and two tricks in Clubs). Sven From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Apr 14 13:06:26 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:06:26 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA3533@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Sven Pran wrote: > Skjaran, Harald > 2002 Spring NABC Casebook > Appeal number fifteen, > Stratified Open Pairs > Bd: 30, Dlr: East, Vul: None >=20 > AT2 > 75 > K42 > KJT94 > KJ94 Q87 > T63 AQ > A85 QT963 > AQ6 852 > 653 > KJ9842 > J7 > 73 >=20 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- Pass 2H > Double Pass 3D(1) Pass > Pass 3H 3NT Pass > Pass Pass >=20 > (1) Not Alerted (E/W played Lebensohl) >=20 > 3NT made four, +430 for E/W. The opening lead was > the heart 4. >=20 > The Director was called at the end of the auction, > when East explained that E/W played Lebensohl and > that 3D should have been Alerted as showing > positive values. North immediately stated that she > would not have bid 3H had she been properly > Alerted. >=20 > How would you rule? > ----- > I don't know why you didn't start a new thread with this one. There's = no > "farcing" pass of forcing call here. >=20 > East has UI from west's non-alert. > I would not allow 3NT on that basis. > I would rule 3H -1. > I would not apply L12C3. >=20 > Regards, > Harald Skj=E6ran I do indeed agree with Harald that I would not allow 3NT, but I would go even one step further; accept North's statement and leave East in the contract of 3D for one down! (Losing one trick each in Spades, Hearts and Diamonds and two tricks in Clubs). Sven ----- Sloppy overlooking that. Agree completely with Sven. Harald ----- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Wed Apr 14 13:28:35 2004 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:28:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call Message-ID: <1081945715.9023.184416652@webmail.messagingengine.com> ***Sorry for the double posting Sven.*** On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:36:31 +0200, "Sven Pran" said: > > Skjaran, Harald > > 2002 Spring NABC Casebook > > Appeal number fifteen, > > Stratified Open Pairs > > Bd: 30, Dlr: East, Vul: None > >=20 > > AT2 > > 75 > > K42 > > KJT94 > > KJ94 Q87 > > T63 AQ > > A85 QT963 > > AQ6 852 > > 653 > > KJ9842 > > J7 > > 73 > >=20 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- --- Pass 2H > > Double Pass 3D(1) Pass > > Pass 3H 3NT Pass > > Pass Pass > >=20 > > (1) Not Alerted (E/W played Lebensohl) > >=20 > > 3NT made four, +430 for E/W. The opening lead was > > the heart 4. > >=20 > > The Director was called at the end of the auction, > > when East explained that E/W played Lebensohl and > > that 3D should have been Alerted as showing > > positive values. North immediately stated that she > > would not have bid 3H had she been properly > > Alerted. > >=20 > > How would you rule? > > ----- > > I don't know why you didn't start a new thread with this one. There's no > > "farcing" pass of forcing call here. > >=20 > > East has UI from west's non-alert. > > I would not allow 3NT on that basis. > > I would rule 3H -1. > > I would not apply L12C3. > >=20 > > Regards, > > Harald Skj=E6ran >=20 > I do indeed agree with Harald that I would not allow 3NT, but I would go > even one step further; accept North's statement and leave East in the > contract of 3D for one down! > (Losing one trick each in Spades, Hearts and Diamonds and two tricks in > Clubs). >=20 > Sven Why no PP for E/W? This seems to be fairly blatant use of UI to me. (Of course this assumes that the E/W pair are of an appropriate level - not always clear in a stratified game.) Also is it not possible that 2 diamond tricks could be lost? --=20 Dave Kent --=20 http://www.fastmail.fm - Consolidate POP email and Hotmail in one place From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Apr 14 13:58:36 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:58:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call In-Reply-To: <1081945715.9023.184416652@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1081945715.9023.184416652@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <7172C11F-8E13-11D8-86A0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 14 Apr 2004, at 13:28, David Kent wrote: > ***Sorry for the double posting Sven.*** > > On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:36:31 +0200, "Sven Pran" > said: >>> Skjaran, Harald >>> 2002 Spring NABC Casebook >>> Appeal number fifteen, >>> Stratified Open Pairs >>> Bd: 30, Dlr: East, Vul: None >>> >>> AT2 >>> 75 >>> K42 >>> KJT94 >>> KJ94 Q87 >>> T63 AQ >>> A85 QT963 >>> AQ6 852 >>> 653 >>> KJ9842 >>> J7 >>> 73 >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- --- Pass 2H >>> Double Pass 3D(1) Pass >>> Pass 3H 3NT Pass >>> Pass Pass >>> >>> (1) Not Alerted (E/W played Lebensohl) >>> >>> 3NT made four, +430 for E/W. The opening lead was >>> the heart 4. >>> >>> The Director was called at the end of the auction, >>> when East explained that E/W played Lebensohl and >>> that 3D should have been Alerted as showing >>> positive values. North immediately stated that she >>> would not have bid 3H had she been properly >>> Alerted. >>> >>> How would you rule? >>> ----- >>> I don't know why you didn't start a new thread with this one.=20 >>> There's no >>> "farcing" pass of forcing call here. >>> >>> East has UI from west's non-alert. >>> I would not allow 3NT on that basis. >>> I would rule 3H -1. >>> I would not apply L12C3. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Harald Skj=E6ran >> >> I do indeed agree with Harald that I would not allow 3NT, but I would=20= >> go >> even one step further; accept North's statement and leave East in the >> contract of 3D for one down! >> (Losing one trick each in Spades, Hearts and Diamonds and two tricks=20= >> in >> Clubs). >> >> Sven > > Why no PP for E/W? This seems to be fairly blatant use of UI to me. =20= > (Of > course this assumes that the E/W pair are of an appropriate level - = not > always clear in a stratified game.) Also is it not possible that 2 > diamond tricks could be lost? It is possible, though quite unlikely. Much greater is the possibility=20= that only one club will be lost, since I think the only lines (other=20 than a truly bizarre spade view) which would prevent a club loser=20 disappearing on a spade are an opening club lead, or a diamond lead,=20 heart return (finessed) and club switch (also finessed). In 3D, nine tricks is far more likely than seven. I recognise that we=20 have to lean towards the NOS, but I doubt whether 7 tricks falls within=20= the scope of "the most favourable result that was likely". For=20 jurisdictions where 12C3 is enabled, it would no doubt be wheeled out=20 here. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 14 14:00:08 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:00:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call In-Reply-To: <1081945715.9023.184416652@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000201c42220$6a26ebd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > ***Sorry for the double posting Sven.*** No problem, I do that all the time myself and am still looking for some "failsafe" procedure to avoid it 8-) As I responded to you directly before this arrived: Frankly I believe EW will remember the 3D contract with one down as sufficiently harsh, no need to add any PP (which by me would only be a warning in any case). And this result is almost certainly sufficient to secure a bottom, no = need for additional salt in their wounds by ruling two down!=20 Regards Sven >=20 > On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:36:31 +0200, "Sven Pran" > said: > > > Skjaran, Harald > > > 2002 Spring NABC Casebook > > > Appeal number fifteen, > > > Stratified Open Pairs > > > Bd: 30, Dlr: East, Vul: None > > > > > > AT2 > > > 75 > > > K42 > > > KJT94 > > > KJ94 Q87 > > > T63 AQ > > > A85 QT963 > > > AQ6 852 > > > 653 > > > KJ9842 > > > J7 > > > 73 > > > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > > --- --- Pass 2H > > > Double Pass 3D(1) Pass > > > Pass 3H 3NT Pass > > > Pass Pass > > > > > > (1) Not Alerted (E/W played Lebensohl) > > > > > > 3NT made four, +430 for E/W. The opening lead was > > > the heart 4. > > > > > > The Director was called at the end of the auction, > > > when East explained that E/W played Lebensohl and > > > that 3D should have been Alerted as showing > > > positive values. North immediately stated that she > > > would not have bid 3H had she been properly > > > Alerted. > > > > > > How would you rule? > > > ----- > > > I don't know why you didn't start a new thread with this one. = There's > no > > > "farcing" pass of forcing call here. > > > > > > East has UI from west's non-alert. > > > I would not allow 3NT on that basis. > > > I would rule 3H -1. > > > I would not apply L12C3. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Harald Skj=E6ran > > > > I do indeed agree with Harald that I would not allow 3NT, but I = would go > > even one step further; accept North's statement and leave East in = the > > contract of 3D for one down! > > (Losing one trick each in Spades, Hearts and Diamonds and two tricks = in > > Clubs). > > > > Sven >=20 > Why no PP for E/W? This seems to be fairly blatant use of UI to me. = (Of > course this assumes that the E/W pair are of an appropriate level - = not > always clear in a stratified game.) Also is it not possible that 2 > diamond tricks could be lost? >=20 > -- > Dave Kent >=20 > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Consolidate POP email and Hotmail in one = place >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 14 14:18:31 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:18:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call In-Reply-To: <7172C11F-8E13-11D8-86A0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c42222$fb96c110$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford > >>> Stratified Open Pairs > >>> Bd: 30, Dlr: East, Vul: None > >>> > >>> AT2 > >>> 75 > >>> K42 > >>> KJT94 > >>> KJ94 Q87 > >>> T63 AQ > >>> A85 QT963 > >>> AQ6 852 > >>> 653 > >>> KJ9842 > >>> J7 > >>> 73 > >>> > >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >>> --- --- Pass 2H > >>> Double Pass 3D(1) Pass > >>> Pass 3H 3NT Pass > >>> Pass Pass > >>> > >>> (1) Not Alerted (E/W played Lebensohl) > >>> > >>> 3NT made four, +430 for E/W. The opening lead was > >>> the heart 4. > >>> > >>> The Director was called at the end of the auction, > >>> when East explained that E/W played Lebensohl and > >>> that 3D should have been Alerted as showing > >>> positive values. North immediately stated that she > >>> would not have bid 3H had she been properly > >>> Alerted. > >>> > >>> How would you rule? > >>> ----- > >>> I don't know why you didn't start a new thread with this one. > >>> There's no > >>> "farcing" pass of forcing call here. > >>> > >>> East has UI from west's non-alert. > >>> I would not allow 3NT on that basis. > >>> I would rule 3H -1. > >>> I would not apply L12C3. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Harald Skj=E6ran > >> > >> I do indeed agree with Harald that I would not allow 3NT, but I = would > >> go > >> even one step further; accept North's statement and leave East in = the > >> contract of 3D for one down! > >> (Losing one trick each in Spades, Hearts and Diamonds and two = tricks > >> in > >> Clubs). > >> > >> Sven > > > > Why no PP for E/W? This seems to be fairly blatant use of UI to me. > > (Of > > course this assumes that the E/W pair are of an appropriate level - = not > > always clear in a stratified game.) Also is it not possible that 2 > > diamond tricks could be lost? >=20 > It is possible, though quite unlikely. Much greater is the possibility > that only one club will be lost, since I think the only lines (other > than a truly bizarre spade view) which would prevent a club loser > disappearing on a spade are an opening club lead, or a diamond lead, > heart return (finessed) and club switch (also finessed). >=20 > In 3D, nine tricks is far more likely than seven. I recognise that we > have to lean towards the NOS, but I doubt whether 7 tricks falls = within > the scope of "the most favourable result that was likely". For > jurisdictions where 12C3 is enabled, it would no doubt be wheeled out > here. No, IMO for the purpose of assessing the likely result in 3D we must consider South leading and playing clubs and North playing hearts as = soon and often as possible. Finesse or not this will secure two losers in = Clubs and one in Hearts before the Spades have been set up for a discard. I personally shall consider using L12C3 for a weighted score abuse of = the laws in this case. But two losers in Diamonds will only happen on a small diamond to the = Ace and a small diamond back to the ten. Even the mediocre play of running = the Queen of Diamonds to the King will secure just one loser in Diamonds as = the cards lie. Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Apr 14 15:43:37 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:43:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call In-Reply-To: <000001c42222$fb96c110$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c42222$fb96c110$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1CD16256-8E22-11D8-86A0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 14 Apr 2004, at 14:18, Sven Pran wrote: >> Gordon Rainsford >>>>> Stratified Open Pairs >>>>> Bd: 30, Dlr: East, Vul: None >>>>> >>>>> AT2 >>>>> 75 >>>>> K42 >>>>> KJT94 >>>>> KJ94 Q87 >>>>> T63 AQ >>>>> A85 QT963 >>>>> AQ6 852 >>>>> 653 >>>>> KJ9842 >>>>> J7 >>>>> 73 >>>>> >>>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>>> --- --- Pass 2H >>>>> Double Pass 3D(1) Pass >>>>> Pass 3H 3NT Pass >>>>> Pass Pass >>>>> >>>>> (1) Not Alerted (E/W played Lebensohl) >>>>> >>>>> 3NT made four, +430 for E/W. The opening lead was >>>>> the heart 4. >>>>> >>>>> The Director was called at the end of the auction, >>>>> when East explained that E/W played Lebensohl and >>>>> that 3D should have been Alerted as showing >>>>> positive values. North immediately stated that she >>>>> would not have bid 3H had she been properly >>>>> Alerted. >>>>> >>>>> How would you rule? >>>>> ----- >>>>> I don't know why you didn't start a new thread with this one. >>>>> There's no >>>>> "farcing" pass of forcing call here. >>>>> >>>>> East has UI from west's non-alert. >>>>> I would not allow 3NT on that basis. >>>>> I would rule 3H -1. >>>>> I would not apply L12C3. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Harald Skj=E6ran >>>> >>>> I do indeed agree with Harald that I would not allow 3NT, but I=20 >>>> would >>>> go >>>> even one step further; accept North's statement and leave East in=20= >>>> the >>>> contract of 3D for one down! >>>> (Losing one trick each in Spades, Hearts and Diamonds and two = tricks >>>> in >>>> Clubs). >>>> >>>> Sven >>> >>> Why no PP for E/W? This seems to be fairly blatant use of UI to me. >>> (Of >>> course this assumes that the E/W pair are of an appropriate level -=20= >>> not >>> always clear in a stratified game.) Also is it not possible that 2 >>> diamond tricks could be lost? >> >> It is possible, though quite unlikely. Much greater is the = possibility >> that only one club will be lost, since I think the only lines (other >> than a truly bizarre spade view) which would prevent a club loser >> disappearing on a spade are an opening club lead, or a diamond lead, >> heart return (finessed) and club switch (also finessed). >> >> In 3D, nine tricks is far more likely than seven. I recognise that we >> have to lean towards the NOS, but I doubt whether 7 tricks falls=20 >> within >> the scope of "the most favourable result that was likely". For >> jurisdictions where 12C3 is enabled, it would no doubt be wheeled out >> here. > > No, IMO for the purpose of assessing the likely result in 3D we must > consider South leading and playing clubs and North playing hearts as=20= > soon > and often as possible. Why? The heart return is normal, but is the club lead "likely"? And if=20= we decide it is, I think you're inconsistent not to rule two down.=20 "This result is almost certainly sufficient to secure a bottom, no need=20= for additional salt in their wounds by ruling two down! " - doesn't=20 seem good enough reason to let them off. > Finesse or not this will secure two losers in Clubs > and one in Hearts before the Spades have been set up for a discard. > > I personally shall consider using L12C3 for a weighted score abuse of=20= > the > laws in this case. > > But two losers in Diamonds will only happen on a small diamond to the=20= > Ace > and a small diamond back to the ten. Even the mediocre play of running=20= > the > Queen of Diamonds to the King will secure just one loser in Diamonds=20= > as the > cards lie. Thinking about it a bit more, I'm now more inclined to agree with David=20= Kent - since South has opened a Weak 2 in hearts, I would have thought=20= a diamond to the Ace and back to the 10 is a better shot than leading=20 the DQ. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 14 16:29:05 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:29:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call In-Reply-To: <1CD16256-8E22-11D8-86A0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c42235$38ef1460$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford > Sent: 14. april 2004 16:44 > Cc: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call >=20 >=20 > On 14 Apr 2004, at 14:18, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > >> Gordon Rainsford > >>>>> Stratified Open Pairs > >>>>> Bd: 30, Dlr: East, Vul: None > >>>>> > >>>>> AT2 > >>>>> 75 > >>>>> K42 > >>>>> KJT94 > >>>>> KJ94 Q87 > >>>>> T63 AQ > >>>>> A85 QT963 > >>>>> AQ6 852 > >>>>> 653 > >>>>> KJ9842 > >>>>> J7 > >>>>> 73 > >>>>> > >>>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >>>>> --- --- Pass 2H > >>>>> Double Pass 3D(1) Pass > >>>>> Pass 3H 3NT Pass > >>>>> Pass Pass > >>>>> > >>>>> (1) Not Alerted (E/W played Lebensohl) > >>>>> > >>>>> 3NT made four, +430 for E/W. The opening lead was > >>>>> the heart 4. > >>>>> > >>>>> The Director was called at the end of the auction, > >>>>> when East explained that E/W played Lebensohl and > >>>>> that 3D should have been Alerted as showing > >>>>> positive values. North immediately stated that she > >>>>> would not have bid 3H had she been properly > >>>>> Alerted. > >>>>> > >>>>> How would you rule? > >>>>> ----- > >>>>> I don't know why you didn't start a new thread with this one. > >>>>> There's no > >>>>> "farcing" pass of forcing call here. > >>>>> > >>>>> East has UI from west's non-alert. > >>>>> I would not allow 3NT on that basis. > >>>>> I would rule 3H -1. > >>>>> I would not apply L12C3. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Harald Skj=E6ran > >>>> > >>>> I do indeed agree with Harald that I would not allow 3NT, but I > >>>> would > >>>> go > >>>> even one step further; accept North's statement and leave East in > >>>> the > >>>> contract of 3D for one down! > >>>> (Losing one trick each in Spades, Hearts and Diamonds and two = tricks > >>>> in > >>>> Clubs). > >>>> > >>>> Sven > >>> > >>> Why no PP for E/W? This seems to be fairly blatant use of UI to = me. > >>> (Of > >>> course this assumes that the E/W pair are of an appropriate level = - > >>> not > >>> always clear in a stratified game.) Also is it not possible that = 2 > >>> diamond tricks could be lost? > >> > >> It is possible, though quite unlikely. Much greater is the = possibility > >> that only one club will be lost, since I think the only lines = (other > >> than a truly bizarre spade view) which would prevent a club loser > >> disappearing on a spade are an opening club lead, or a diamond = lead, > >> heart return (finessed) and club switch (also finessed). > >> > >> In 3D, nine tricks is far more likely than seven. I recognise that = we > >> have to lean towards the NOS, but I doubt whether 7 tricks falls > >> within > >> the scope of "the most favourable result that was likely". For > >> jurisdictions where 12C3 is enabled, it would no doubt be wheeled = out > >> here. > > > > No, IMO for the purpose of assessing the likely result in 3D we must > > consider South leading and playing clubs and North playing hearts as > > soon > > and often as possible. >=20 > Why? The heart return is normal, but is the club lead "likely"?=20 Certainly (IMO). South has every reason NOT to lead a heart from his KJ9842. A diamond = lead through partner towards declarer? NOPE. When choosing between Spades and Clubs I favor Clubs because of the shorter length there. > And if we decide it is, I think you're inconsistent not to rule two = down. > "This result is almost certainly sufficient to secure a bottom, no = need > for additional salt in their wounds by ruling two down! " - doesn't > seem good enough reason to let them off. Don't you think their game is lost whether we rule one or two down? I = have absolutely no intention of letting them off. But I might agree, If I = develop some negative feelings against East (and West) because of their behavior when I am summoned to the table I might even rule two down. >=20 > > Finesse or not this will secure two losers in Clubs > > and one in Hearts before the Spades have been set up for a discard. > > > > I personally shall consider using L12C3 for a weighted score abuse = of > > the > > laws in this case. > > > > But two losers in Diamonds will only happen on a small diamond to = the > > Ace > > and a small diamond back to the ten. Even the mediocre play of = running > > the > > Queen of Diamonds to the King will secure just one loser in Diamonds > > as the > > cards lie. >=20 > Thinking about it a bit more, I'm now more inclined to agree with = David > Kent - since South has opened a Weak 2 in hearts, I would have thought > a diamond to the Ace and back to the 10 is a better shot than leading > the DQ. This argument does not convince me. I believe East ought to expect the = KD in North (with an added possibility of the King stiff in South), but there = is no reason why South cannot have the JD. When getting around to testing Diamonds East should have gotten the feeling that North holds at least = AS, KC and JC. Not much HCP left for South to make even a (weak) 2H opening = bid. Regards Sven From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 14 19:41:25 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 19:41:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] "demonstrable bridge reason" References: Message-ID: <005c01c42254$b16eea90$2cd3403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "demonstrable bridge reason" ************************************* >Grattan comments: >Since I agree with all of the above, perhaps ton and >I were talking at cross purposes. Perhaps we do >both agree with the latter colleague that is always to >be shown to the TD's satisfaction that the question >was capable of misleading - which in the case of the >first example should not be the conclusion. The >questioner does not have to defend his asking >(by explaining his demonstrable bridge reason) >when the question is not adjudged to be misleading. [snip] Richard James Hills notes: Law 73F2 currently commences with the phrase, "if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference....." Given that Grattan and Ton are now apparently no longer talking at cross-purposes, perhaps the 2006 version of Law 73F2 should be clarified to commence with the phrase: "if the Director determines that an innocent player has made a normal(1) decision to draw a false inference....." plus the footnote: "(1) For the purposes of Law 73F2, 'normal' includes drawing an inference that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player involved." +=+ At this point neither ton nor I can comment. The direction in which future laws are progressing, and the various opinions put forward by our colleagues and ourselves, are subjects which the subcommittee has asked its members not to discuss outside of the Review procedure. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 14 20:13:11 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:13:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL re-education camp References: Message-ID: <005d01c42254$b25d6940$2cd3403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL re-education camp < Ed Reppert: [snip] >Besides, if a player *really* feels the committee >decision was out to lunch, he can appeal to the >National Authority (Law 93C). > >A PS: for the National Authority to circumvent >this right is, IMO, wrong. Richard James Hills: I believe that the current official NZ policy, is that the NZ National Authority now only hears appeals from AC rulings *if and only if* the AC may have perpetrated an unLawful ruling. I believe that a Lawful, but poorly judged, ruling by a New Zealand AC can no longer be appealed. If my belief about current NZ policy is correct, in my opinion that is an appropriate decision to sensibly limit the powers of a National Authority. +=+ Orange Book 8.2.3 has a good balance to it, IMO: "The deposit will normally be returned only if the Laws & Ethics Committee considers the appeal to involve either a question of principle, or an error of direction, or an error in application of Law or Regulation. The Committee does not revise value judgements unless they are grossly inappropriate." ~ G ~ +=+ From mustikka@charter.net Wed Apr 14 21:28:45 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:28:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] "demonstrable bridge reason" References: Message-ID: <003d01c4225f$18db4fc0$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] "demonstrable bridge reason" Grattan Endicott wrote: [snip] >Case 1). Let us say that:- > >* during the auction, a player who will later >become a defender (though maybe he does >not know this at the time) asks for the meaning >of the auction to date. That is all that he asks. >Following the reply, the defender-to-be passes. > >* declarer draws an inference from this question: >namely, that the defender surely has some values, >as surely he would have not asked the question >had he not been at least considering entering the >auction. Let us say that declarer takes a two-way >finesse the wrong way. > >* it transpires after play that the defender had >no values at all; he never had any intention of >entering the auction, and he will admit this if asked. >He will say that he was just asking questions out >of curiosity, as was his legal right (his words) > >Our colleague says: >"I don't think that declarers do draw conclusions >from these sort of questions - or, rather, that if >they do then they assume that they are doing >so at their own risk. > >So, whilst they may request an adjusted score in >such a situation, they will not get one [snip] >and our colleague comments: > >I believe that ton has been talking about Scenario 1 >throughout your discussions, whilst you have been >talking about Scenario 2. > >************************************* >Grattan comments: >Since I agree with all of the above, perhaps ton and >I were talking at cross purposes. Perhaps we do >both agree with the latter colleague that is always to >be shown to the TD's satisfaction that the question >was capable of misleading - which in the case of the >first example should not be the conclusion. The >questioner does not have to defend his asking >(by explaining his demonstrable bridge reason) >when the question is not adjudged to be misleading. [snip] Richard James Hills notes: Law 73F2 currently commences with the phrase, "if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference....." Given that Grattan and Ton are now apparently no longer talking at cross-purposes, perhaps the 2006 version of Law 73F2 should be clarified to commence with the phrase: "if the Director determines that an innocent player has made a normal(1) decision to draw a false inference....." Dear BLML folks, Here are some questions from the ranks of a non TD. Please bear with me, this post is much too long but I can't seem to make it shorter. Any guidance for ACBL playing environment would be appreciated. I would like to do the right thing and keep out of legal trouble when I need to know the meaning or inferences about an opponent's call. Am I correct in reading this thread, Richard's post, and some earlier threads, that blml expert opinion says that asking questions during the auction means 'one is interested in entering the auction' and that the only demonstrable bridge reason to ask a question during the auction is because one 'considers entering the auction'. What if I know the opponents' system and need no questions asked? What if I know the opponents' system but opponents do not know that I know? What if my style is not to ask a question and wait till the end of auction? What if my style is to be informed during the auction instead of kept in the dark so that I can build a picture as we go along? What if I break my normal style of asking/not asking inadvertently? What if I break my normal style on purpose, for example am too tired and being informed isn't going to help me build a picture at that stage of tiredness/headache/hunger so I won't ask? What if my 'entering the auction' would only be whether to dbl or not, depending what the alerted call means? And if I ask and then don't dbl, is UI passed or misleading action taken? The number of variables in this scenario is nearly endless. Is "building a picture of all four hands" a *demonstrable bridge reason* ? My mind works better if I build a picture rather than get too much info at one time (like at the end of auction). Is "I am unable to play good bridge if my mind works poorly" a *demonstrable bridge reason* . IMO there should be no legal restrictions to differences in people's perception styles or preferences - to be informed in bits and pieces during the auction versus getting it all in one chunk at the end. Even waiting til after the auction is over and before the lead, asking questions is sensitive. Should I ask further questions about positive and/or negative inferences regarding all calls/many calls/some calls rather than ask a further question about ONE call when in reality I only want to know some inferences about that ONE particular call. If I ask only about that one call, will I be pinpointing interest to a particular suit and thereby passing UI. If I ask about out all calls to mask the need to know about that one call, is that illegal and misleading opponent ...to ask questions where I have no demonstrable bridge reason to know the answer unless "trying to avoid creating UI" is considered *a demonstrable bridge reason*? If in the process of trying to avoid creating UI, opponent takes some inference from the questions and goes wrong, will that be my fault and subject to score adjustment? What criteria do directors use or the laws give, for a *demonstrable bridge reason* ? Anyway, I've gone to extremes here, but the scenarios are very much real. I would appreciate your comments. Raija Davis plus the footnote: "(1) For the purposes of Law 73F2, 'normal' includes drawing an inference that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player involved." Best wishes RJH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 14 23:29:57 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:29:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >>>And this result is almost certainly sufficient >>>to secure a bottom, no need for additional salt >>>in their wounds by ruling two down! Gordon Rainsford: [snip] >>And if we decide it is, I think you're >>inconsistent not to rule two down. "This result >>is almost certainly sufficient to secure a >>bottom, no need for additional salt in their >>wounds by ruling two down! " - doesn't seem good >>enough reason to let them off. Sven Pran: >Don't you think their game is lost whether we >rule one or two down? I have absolutely no >intention of letting them off. But I might agree. >If I develop some negative feelings against East >(and West) because of their behavior when I am >summoned to the table I might even rule two down. [snip] Richard James Hills: There are various styles that a TD can adopt when making a judgement ruling (as opposed to an automatic mechanical ruling) on score adjustment. One style is the Sven style, in which Sven rules partially according to extraneous issues such as "additional salt in the wounds" or "negative feelings", when Sven adjusts the score. I, however, prefer a more black-letter law style, in which I rule strictly according to the facts of the case when adjusting the score. I do, on the other hand, agree with Sven that a PP (if any) should be partially tailored to fit the nature of the personalities involved. In the actual ACBL case, both the TD and the appeals panel gave a black-letter Law 12C2 ruling of 3D -50. Furthermore, the ACBL even provided guidelines on PPs, allowing the appeals panel in the actual ACBL case to appropriately assess a PP against East-West: "It was also determined that the table Director had considered a PP against East for her 3NT bid in the presence of the UI (by ACBL policy, a prerequisite for the Panel considering such a penalty). The Panel assessed a 1/4-board PP against E/W for this violation of Law 73C." 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 Wed Apr 14 23:59:47 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:59:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL re-education camp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6D71356D-8E67-11D8-95EF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Apr 13, 2004, at 23:33 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > If my belief about current NZ policy is correct, > in my opinion that is an appropriate decision to > sensibly limit the powers of a National Authority. For the National Authority to hear an appeal, and refuse to overturn the AC's judgment, is perfectly legal, IMO. OTOH, for the National Authority to refuse to hear such appeals is not. However, I don't suppose it matters, since the effect is essentially the same (though it may induce players not to make some valid appeals, which is not a good thing). From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 15 00:00:09 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:00:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] "demonstrable bridge reason" Message-ID: Raija Davis: >Dear BLML folks, > >Here are some questions from the ranks of a non >TD. Please bear with me, this post is much too >long but I can't seem to make it shorter. Any >guidance for ACBL playing environment would be >appreciated. I would like to do the right thing >and keep out of legal trouble when I need to >know the meaning or inferences about an >opponent's call. Richard James Hills: This is only partially the correct forum for legal guidance on ACBL official rules. To get the information horse-mouthly, visit the ACBL website at: www.acbl.org Raija Davis: >Am I correct in reading this thread, Richard's >post, and some earlier threads, that blml >expert opinion says that asking questions during >the auction means 'one is interested in entering >the auction' and that the only demonstrable >bridge reason to ask a question during the >auction is because one 'considers entering the >auction'. Richard James Hills: Incorrect assumption. As the first post on this thread shows, even Grattan Endicott does not hold such a hard-line view. A better rephrasing would be -> 1. Asking questions during the auction *may* indicate interest in entering the auction, but it ain't necessarily so. 2. Asking questions about a specific call *may* indicate a specific holding, but it ain't necessarily so. Raija Davis: [big snip] >Should I ask further questions about positive >and/or negative inferences regarding all calls/ >many calls/some calls rather than ask a further >question about ONE call when in reality I only >want to know some inferences about that ONE >particular call? Law 20F1: "During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request (5) a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). "(5) Law 16 may apply, and sponsoring organisations may establish regulations for written explanation." WBF LC official interpretations of Law 20F: "The Law says that players should ask for a full explanation of the opponents' auction during the auction or when defending. In practice players ask about individual calls and this is considered a very minor infraction, though it may create unauthorised information for partner. [WBFLC minutes 1998-08-30#3]" "Questions may not be asked just for partner's benefit. [WBFLC minutes 1998-09-01#15]" Raija Davis: [snip] >If I ask about out all calls to mask the need >to know about that one call, is that illegal >and misleading opponent? [snip] Richard James Hills: No, as indicated above, the question "Can I have a full explanation of your entire auction, including negative inferences?" is meticulous compliance with Law 20F, and minimises the chance that Law 16 UI will be communicated to partner. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 15 00:07:54 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:07:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c42275$51cd17d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ........... > Richard James Hills: >=20 > There are various styles that a TD can adopt when > making a judgement ruling (as opposed to an > automatic mechanical ruling) on score adjustment. >=20 > One style is the Sven style, in which Sven rules > partially according to extraneous issues such as > "additional salt in the wounds" or "negative > feelings", when Sven adjusts the score. Let me put it this way: Unless offenders embarrass or harass me in my capacity as the Director I see no reason to treat them to the extreme. In this case I felt it just natural to allow for just one diamond loser. (More or less balancing the possibility of a spade discard being = established in time). =20 > I, however, prefer a more black-letter law style, > in which I rule strictly according to the facts > of the case when adjusting the score. I do, on > the other hand, agree with Sven that a PP (if > any) should be partially tailored to fit the > nature of the personalities involved. >=20 > In the actual ACBL case, both the TD and the > appeals panel gave a black-letter Law 12C2 ruling > of 3D -50. =20 If this says what I believe it says my ruling was precisely what both TD = and AC ruled in the original case?=20 Furthermore, the ACBL even provided > guidelines on PPs, allowing the appeals panel in > the actual ACBL case to appropriately assess a PP > against East-West: >=20 > "It was also determined that the table Director > had considered a PP against East for her 3NT bid > in the presence of the UI (by ACBL policy, a > prerequisite for the Panel considering such a > penalty). The Panel assessed a 1/4-board PP > against E/W for this violation of Law 73C." But here I was more lenient? Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 15 00:48:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:48:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>>One style is the Sven style, in which Sven rules >>>partially according to extraneous issues such as >>>"additional salt in the wounds" or "negative >>>feelings", when Sven adjusts the score. Sven Pran: >>Let me put it this way: Unless offenders embarrass >>or harass me in my capacity as the Director I see >>no reason to treat them to the extreme. [snip] Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: >The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment >for irregularities, but rather as redress for >damage. Richard James Hills: If offenders harass Sven in his capacity as the Director, a changed adjustment to the score remains, in my opinion, inappropriate. In my opinion, it is not a skewed adjustment under Law 12C2 which is relevant for the infraction of harassing the TD, it is instead a disciplinary penalty under either Law 90 or Law 91 which is the punishment that fits the crime. 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 Apr 15 01:44:20 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:44:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK Message-ID: Extract from a popular article about Psyches written by David Stevenson: http://www.mrbridge.co.uk/pdffiles/Psyches.pdf [big snip] >>>it is considered inappropriate to psyche against novices >>>or beginners. There is no specific penalty for doing so, >>>but if you do so continuously the club may correctly ask >>>you to leave. [big snip] WBF Code of Practice (clause adopted by the EBU): >>A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics >>where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws >>in respect of the conduct of players. A player who has >>conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to >>criticism. WBF Code of Practice (clause not adopted by the EBU): >A psychic call is lawful if not based upon a partnership >understanding. No penalty or score adjustment may be >awarded against such lawful action. 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 Thu Apr 15 02:27:25 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:27:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <003601c417c1$7ec12290$1e2e56d2@Desktop> <001201c417ce$5255e800$48f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <002601c42289$9c891530$51e0403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott > > > > A player that makes a psychic call without a partnership > > understanding has an unqualified right to make that call. > > The laws make that plain. The director and the regulators > > have no right to tell that player that what he does is wrong. > > > > Wayne Burrows > > +=+ With which I agree and no authority to my knowledge says otherwise. What I have been pointing to is the guidance that the regulating authority may give as to standards of evidence of collusion by partners in psychic action, ergo of partnership understandings. That is the object of the EBU's practice. Take this, for example: Dealer S. Love all IMPs. A K J T 6 9 5 4 8 4 10 7 2 Q 8 4 2 5 8 J 10 6 3 A Q J 10 9 2 K 5 3 8 3 A Q 9 6 4 9 7 3 A K Q 7 2 7 6 K J 5 West North East South 1H 2D dbl 2S P 3S P 4D P P P Classified on site as Amber by the DIC. On review subsequently by the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee, reclassified as Red. (Before which the players concerned were invited, per the committee's procedure, to submit further explanation or comment.) < See OB 6.2.3 and 6.2.4: "Amber" = 'some evidence of an illegal understanding but insufficient of itself to justify score adjustment'. "Red" = 'A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorized understanding and the score will be adjusted. This is classified as a Red psyche'. By publishing in its minutes details of on-site psyche classifications that it reclassifies, the EBU L&E sets standards of evidence in respect of identification of partnership understandings. It communicates also with the pairs concerned for their education. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Thu Apr 15 03:10:58 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:10:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040414212801.01d14d70@mail.comcast.net> At 10:33 PM 4/13/2004, Richard Hills wrote: >2002 Spring NABC Casebook >Appeal number fifteen, >Stratified Open Pairs >Bd: 30, Dlr: East, Vul: None > > AT2 > 75 > K42 > KJT94 >KJ94 Q87 >T63 AQ >A85 QT963 >AQ6 852 > 653 > KJ9842 > J7 > 73 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- Pass 2H >Double Pass 3D(1) Pass >Pass 3H 3NT Pass >Pass Pass > >(1) Not Alerted (E/W played Lebensohl) > >3NT made four, +430 for E/W. The opening lead was >the heart 4. > >The Director was called at the end of the auction, >when East explained that E/W played Lebensohl and >that 3D should have been Alerted as showing >positive values. North immediately stated that she >would not have bid 3H had she been properly >Alerted. > >How would you rule? Given the thread, are you implying that 3D is forcing when E-W are playing Lebensohl? Assuming 3D is non-forcing, I don't think North's decision to bid 3H is significantly influenced by the MI. North can infer that East has some values just because North has 11 HCP and West didn't go on over 3D. In any case, East having some values makes it slightly more likely that 3H will be doubled, but it also makes it more likely that 3D will make, particularly since East is more likely to have the DA. However, East has LA's to 3NT which are suggested by the failure to alert. She did not force to 3NT initially, and overrode her partner's decision not to try for game; a PP against an experienced East might be in order. Double is an LA, and I believe pass, suggested over double, is an LA as well; E-W have only a bit more than half the HCP, and that includes a worthless HQ. If pass is forcing, it is clearly an LA, and West, who forgot the agreement, will presumably pass as well. If I am convinced that West forgot to alert rather than forgetting the agreement, and E-W have a clear agreement that pass is forcing here, I rule a contract of 3Hx; otherwise, I rule 3H undoubled. 3H should go down one; I do not think that it is at all probable that West will lead a trump, East will return a diamond, and West will continue diamonds, which is the only reasonable defense to let 3H make. Thus -50/+50 should be the ruling; I could also see -50/-140. I checked the Casebook, and it illustrates why peers are consulted. (In a stratified game, I don't even know who North's peers are.) North's peers decided that the MI could have influenced the 3H bid, and if it did, then North should be allowed to pass 3D, and a a club lead to beat 3D one trick is likely enough to rule +50/-50. This should be a standard situation for imposing a PP: a player leaves a decision to partner, partner makes the decision but passes undisputed UI, and the player then overrides the decision. Hesitation Blackwood is the classic example; another example is passing in a competitive auction, then pulling partner's slow penalty double. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 15 05:20:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:20:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Revoke review Message-ID: Extract from the thread "ABF National Authority minutes November 2003": >4. Revoke law consultation > >The World Bridge Federation had requested comment on the >proposed revision of the revoke laws. While noting that >other Committees should also be asked for comment, the >National Authority considered the communication from Grattan >Endicott set out here: > >"Enquiry to be put to NBOs in consequence of discussions of >the Laws Review Subcommittee in Monaco, November 2003. > >The WBF Laws Review Subcommittee decided in Monaco that its >proposed revision of the Code of Laws, planned to come into >effect on 1st January 2006, will make a change in the revoke >laws so that only one trick is transferable following a >revoke unless equity demands that a greater number be >transferred. > >However there were a variety of opinions as to the way in >which this principle might be applied. The Subcommittee >decided to seek opinions from NBOs and Zones as to which of >the following is preferred when a revoke occurs: > >1. That a trick is to be transferred regardless of whether >the offending side has won a trick or not. >2. That a trick should be transferred if the offending side >has won a trick regardless of whether that trick is won >before or after the revoke. >3. As in 2 but not to involve a trick won with a card that >could not fail to win a trick by any legal play (or perhaps >limited solely to the case of a trick won by the highest >trump card that had not been played when the revoke >occurred). >4. That a trick should be transferred only when the >offending side has won the revoke trick or a later trick. >5. As in 4 but limited as in 3." > >Without commenting on the merits of the proposed revision >the National Authority was firmly of the view that the >fourth alternative should be preferred. The basis for this >view is that ease of application is essential and that any >alternative which contemplated one side winning 14 tricks, >or which changed the result of play before the revoke >occurred was unacceptable. RJH two-cents worth: As a matter of principle, I believe that a new revoke Law, which permits an over-sufficient total of 14 tricks to be scored on a particular deal, is contrary to the fundamental nature of the game of bridge. Furthermore, I also believe that a new claim Law, which permits an under-deficient total of 12 tricks to be scored on a particular deal, is also contrary to the fundamental nature of the game of bridge. But, I do not have a problem with the current Law 12C2, which currently also allows non-balancing adjustments. Am I being hypocritical? 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 Apr 15 06:08:16 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:08:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <002601c42289$9c891530$51e0403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Apr 14, 2004, at 21:27 US/Eastern, gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > By publishing in its minutes details of on-site psyche > classifications that it reclassifies, the EBU L&E sets > standards of evidence in respect of identification of > partnership understandings. It communicates also > with the pairs concerned for their education. Hm. Please educate me. What, precisely, did West do wrong here? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 15 06:23:10 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:23:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Spectator expectoration Message-ID: Extract from the thread "ABF National Authority minutes November 2003" -> ABF National Authority ruling: >The National Authority noted that Law 76.4 provides that: > >"A spectator must not in any way disturb a player." > >The National Authority was of the view that where the >presence of a spectator or of a particular spectator at >the table disturbs a player, the law confers a right on >the player to request the spectator to withdraw from the >vicinity of the table. The spectator's mere presence may >be disturbing in a number of ways, for example because of >a personal relationship with a player or because of a >perfume the spectator is wearing, regardless of the >behaviour of the spectator. [snip] >The player's proper course of action is to call the >director's attention to the fact that the spectator's >presence is disturbing the player and to request the >director to take appropriate action. The director's >appropriate action in these circumstances is to request >the spectator to withdraw. Question directed to ABF National Authority: >>c. whether a spectator can under some circumstances >>refuse to withdraw from the table? ABF National Authority ruling: >It follows from Law 76.4 and Law 81.C.4 that a spectator >cannot within the terms of the laws of bridge refuse to >withdraw from the table. Question directed to ABF National Authority: >>d. whether a director has the right to insist that a >>spectator leave the table, regardless of whether the >>spectator has infringed the rules regarding spectators? ABF National Authority ruling: >It follows from Law 76.4 and Law 81.C.4 that the director >has the right to direct the spectator to leave the table >regardless of the behaviour of the spectator. [snip] RJH two-cents worth: The ABF interpretation of Law 76A4 seems somewhat stricter than the interpretation of other NCBOs. For example, it is or was an ACBL regulation that a player could enforce the removal of only one spectator. But, it seems that in Oz a player could serially request the TD to remove all kibitzers, and "the director's appropriate action in these circumstances is to request the spectator to withdraw". Some questions -> Does "the director's appropriate action" mean "the TD's *only* appropriate action" or "the TD's *required* action"? In 1989, my non-playing captain was kibitzing me, an opponent requested the removal of my npc, and the director refused because of the official status of my kibitzer. Would such a refusal by the TD be Lawful post-November 2003, given the National Authority ruling? 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 Apr 15 07:01:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:01:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: [snip] >>Dealer S. Love all IMPs. >> >> AKJT6 >> 954 >> 84 >> T72 >>Q842 5 >>8 JT63 >>AQJT92 K53 >>83 AQ964 >> 973 >> AKQ72 >> 76 >> KJ5 >> >>West North East South >>--- --- --- 1H >>2D Double 2S Pass >>3S Pass 4D Pass >>Pass Pass [snip] >>By publishing in its minutes details of on-site psyche >>classifications that it reclassifies, the EBU L&E sets >>standards of evidence in respect of identification of >>partnership understandings. It communicates also with >>the pairs concerned for their education. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Ed Reppert asked: >Hm. Please educate me. What, precisely, did West do >wrong here? Richard James Hills notes: It seems to me that West's Pass is consistent with an illegal fielding of a psyche. Alternatively, East's 4D is consistent with an EBU-illegal psychic control agreement. Or alternatively, East's 2S is consistent with an unalerted two-way bid, either -> (a) natural one-round force, or (b) a mini-splinter raise of diamonds. In my opinion (and apparently the opinion of the EBU L&EC) what West's Pass is *not* consistent with, is with the actual unalerted auction. 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 mikedod@gte.net Thu Apr 15 07:41:36 2004 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:41:36 -0700 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <003601c417c1$7ec12290$1e2e56d2@Desktop> <001201c417ce$5255e800$48f8f0c3@LNV> <002601c42289$9c891530$51e0403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <001b01c422b4$b493f6b0$0100a8c0@cyberxp> ----- Original Message ----- From: > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "By education most have been misled; > So they believe, because they so were bred. > The priest continues what the nurse began, > And thus the child imposes on the man." > - John Dryden. > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > > > > > > > A player that makes a psychic call without a partnership > > > understanding has an unqualified right to make that call. > > > The laws make that plain. The director and the regulators > > > have no right to tell that player that what he does is wrong. > > > > > > Wayne Burrows > > > > +=+ With which I agree and no authority to my knowledge > says otherwise. What I have been pointing to is the > guidance that the regulating authority may give as to > standards of evidence of collusion by partners in psychic > action, ergo of partnership understandings. That is the > object of the EBU's practice. > Take this, for example: > Dealer S. Love all IMPs. > > A K J T 6 > 9 5 4 > 8 4 > 10 7 2 > Q 8 4 2 5 > 8 J 10 6 3 > A Q J 10 9 2 K 5 3 > 8 3 A Q 9 6 4 > 9 7 3 > A K Q 7 2 > 7 6 > K J 5 > West North East South > 1H > 2D dbl 2S P > 3S P 4D P > P P > > Classified on site as Amber by the DIC. > On review subsequently by the EBU Laws & Ethics > Committee, reclassified as Red. (Before which the > players concerned were invited, per the committee's > procedure, to submit further explanation or comment.) > < > See OB 6.2.3 and 6.2.4: > "Amber" = 'some evidence of an illegal understanding > but insufficient of itself to justify score adjustment'. > "Red" = 'A partnership's actions on one board may be > sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorized > understanding and the score will be adjusted. This is > classified as a Red psyche'. > By publishing in its minutes details of on-site psyche > classifications that it reclassifies, the EBU L&E sets > standards of evidence in respect of identification of > partnership understandings. It communicates also > with the pairs concerned for their education. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Ed asks: Hm. Please educate me. What, precisely, did West do wrong here? Not pretending to authority but I can see the "crime". How can West choose to play for 10 tricks in a minor with four card support for partner's freely bid major? Answer: He has reason to suspect partner's suit is phony! Not seeing anything in the auction to expose the psyche, it must have been a CPU. On the other hand, West can see partner must have 5+spades 4+hearts and 3+diamonds yet the opponents haven't found their 10+ club fit. Perhaps there is grounds for suspecting that partner is kidding around. In the end, all I see is reason to believe someone's lying, not who. On the surface either North or South could be the culprit and East is trying for slam. That's enough for me. West appears guilty of fielding in the criminal sense by passing 4D. I do not like a 60/30 ruling here. I believe the crime was West's pass based on a CPU, not East's psyche. An AS of 5Dx -3 would be my preffered ruling, allowing EW to get out at the five level after a presumed 4S-5D continuation. In this case, likely a worse result for EW but if it happened to be a good sack, so be it. I realize many would hold that the 1S call violated L40a and the pass merely is evidence. I think this is yet another case of the laws requiring mind reading. Suppose West had continued 4S. 1S is still a crime but it will not be punished as partner hasn't fielded. So for practical purposes, EW are punished for the evidence, not the crime but now (taking the auction back before 1S) 12c2 is too hard to apply so its 60/30. I would like the law to read (or be interpreted) such that the field is the crime, not the psyche. I see West's pass as a crime taking advantage of a CPU while East's 1S is part of the game. I think this would restore the balance of the game that has been destroyed by those who would ban psyches. Mike Dodson From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 15 07:42:13 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:42:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: Message-ID: <000d01c422b4$e312e320$d109e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 7:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches Grattan Endicott wrote: [snip] >>Dealer S. Love all IMPs. >> >> AKJT6 >> 954 >> 84 >> T72 >>Q842 5 >>8 JT63 >>AQJT92 K53 >>83 AQ964 >> 973 >> AKQ72 >> 76 >> KJ5 >> >>West North East South >>--- --- --- 1H >>2D Double 2S Pass >>3S Pass 4D Pass >>Pass Pass ----------- \x/ --------- \x/ ----------- Richard James Hills notes: It seems to me that West's Pass is consistent with an illegal fielding of a psyche. Alternatively, East's 4D is consistent with an EBU-illegal psychic control agreement. Or alternatively, East's 2S is consistent with an unalerted two-way bid, either -> (a) natural one-round force, or (b) a mini-splinter raise of diamonds. In my opinion (and apparently the opinion of the EBU L&EC) what West's Pass is *not* consistent with, is with the actual unalerted auction. Best wishes RJH +=+ Possibly that after suit agreement the 4D bid shows a fit and invites a cue from West. East may be holding Spades A K T x x , Diamonds K x or K x x and an outside singleton or something like? What is not expected is that having agreed Spades it is a sign off, which would suggest an illegal control on a psyche. Not only unalerted but no prior disclosure. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 15 07:35:33 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:35:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call Message-ID: David J. Grabiner wrote: [big snip] >This should be a standard situation for >imposing a PP: a player leaves a decision >to partner, partner makes the decision but >passes undisputed UI, and the player then >overrides the decision. Hesitation >Blackwood is the classic example; another >example is passing in a competitive >auction, then pulling partner's slow >penalty double. Richard James Hills asks and answers: In David's last example, should a PP be imposed on a partnership which claims that passing in a competitive auction, then pulling partner's (slow) penalty double is, by partnership agreement, a slam try? I would cut through such Gordian knots by advising partnerships to eschew pass-and- pull slam-try agreements. Likewise, I would also advise partnerships to eschew odd-pip/even-pip count signals. My advice would be based on the simple concept that some agreements are more likely to generate UI than other, simpler, agreements. Playing a complex UI-creating agreement is foolish strategy, since it often restricts a partnership's legal options. 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 Apr 15 07:51:48 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:51:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Summer 2003 appeals casebook Message-ID: http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Long_Beach_Sum03.pdf 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 Apr 15 08:34:37 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:34:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Summer 2003 appeals casebook Message-ID: Case Thirty Final of mixed board-a-match teams Bd: 6 Dlr: East Vul: E/W AK73 J984 QT3 52 J94 65 Q63 KT52 J9654 K872 Q6 J93 QT82 A7 A AKT874 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- Pass 1C (1) Dbl(2) Rdbl 1S (3) Dbl Pass Pass 2D 3C Pass 3S Pass 4NT Pass 5S Pass 6D Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted; strong, artificial (2) Alerted; diamonds or the majors (3) Intended as Pass-or-Correct, not discussed over a Rdbl The Facts: 6D went down five, +250 for E/W. The opening lead was not recorded. The Director was called when West passed 1S doubled and East could not answer what that showed (nor could West explain what East's 1S was). The Director sent West away from the table and asked East to explain her 1S bid; she said she intended it as Pass-or-Correct. The Director instructed that the auction continue but was called back after North passed South's 6D bid. When South asked if he could be excused from playing the hand the Director acquiesced and assigned a result of down five, +250 for E/W. The Director ruled that there had been no table action to enable East to work out to bid 2D over 1S doubled and that there was no causal relationship between the early confusion about E/W's agreements and North's pass of South's 6D intended cue-bid. As an Appeals Committee, how would you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Apr 15 09:32:08 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:32:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] no traffic? Message-ID: <407E4888.8060103@hdw.be> Have I been de-listed again? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From JCraigwhitened@mail.com Thu Apr 15 13:35:09 2004 From: JCraigwhitened@mail.com (Johannes.karlsson) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:35:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Fwd:Lose Weight Easily & Naturally!.............abilities Message-ID: fatpatch1
LOSE WEIGHT THE EASIER WAY
"ITS NOT A DIET.....ITS A PATCH"=

Diet Patch Pro is a cutting-edge, advanced appetite suppressant, metabolism booster, and energy enhancer...all in one! With Diet Patch Pro, there are no more starvation diets and no difficult and dangerous exercises! It wor= ks all day & all night long!<= font size=3D-1>

Diet Patch Pro 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

turnipscomer From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Apr 15 13:34:54 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:34:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Spectator expectoration In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040415082532.02028dc0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:23 AM 4/15/04, richard.hills wrote: >The ABF interpretation of Law 76A4 seems somewhat stricter >than the interpretation of other NCBOs. For example, it is >or was an ACBL regulation that a player could enforce the >removal of only one spectator. But, it seems that in Oz a >player could serially request the TD to remove all kibitzers, >and "the director's appropriate action in these circumstances >is to request the spectator to withdraw". > >Some questions -> > >Does "the director's appropriate action" mean "the TD's >*only* appropriate action" or "the TD's *required* action"? > >In 1989, my non-playing captain was kibitzing me, an opponent >requested the removal of my npc, and the director refused >because of the official status of my kibitzer. Would such a >refusal by the TD be Lawful post-November 2003, given the >National Authority ruling? FWIW, the ACBL policy allowing a player to arbitrarily bar one spectator from the table without cause specifically excludes barring NPCs, as well as tournament officials and authorized press. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 15 13:40:35 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:40:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL Summer 2003 appeals casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1749A025-8EDA-11D8-8A24-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Apr 15, 2004, at 03:34 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > When South asked if he could be excused from playing the hand the > Director > acquiesced and assigned a result of down five, +250 for E/W. I suppose you could rule that such a request is equivalent to a concession of some unspecified number of tricks, but I can't see any law that allows a TD to "excuse" a player from playing a hand, unless some extraneous circumstance has rendered it unplayable, which does not seem to be the case here. From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Thu Apr 15 14:12:16 2004 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:12:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call Message-ID: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 15/04/2004 08:35 =20 Pour : blml@rtflb.org cc :=20 Objet : Re: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call I would cut through such Gordian knots by advising partnerships to eschew pass-and- pull slam-try agreements. Likewise, I would also advise partnerships to eschew odd-pip/even-pip count signals. My advice would be based on the simple concept that some agreements are more likely to generate UI than other, simpler, agreements. Playing a complex UI-creating agreement is foolish strategy, since it often restricts a partnership's legal options. *** maybe it's foolish to think when taking up an intellectual game. maybe it=20 would be advisable to have regulations to prevent people from useless=20 brain exhaustion.=20 jp rocafort *** Best wishes RJH =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu Apr 15 16:18:19 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:18:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL Summer 2003 appeals casebook References: Message-ID: As an Appeals Committee, how would you rule? - 1S was intended as pass or correct. This is a reasonable claim because it is the normal treatment. So I believe east. It is a standard baby psych situation. Was he really red against green? I will buy the 1S at this vuln but the double of 1C? - West unable to explain. He probably meant 'undiscussed' which is also a reasonable claim in an environment where strong club is rare. It just happens you decide on the 'whatever' defence against strong club (or whatever) without discussing the follow-up. - Wests 'I don't know' is supported by his pass. If 1S is pass or correct it shows some diamond support and it doesn't promise real spades so passing is far from obvious. - Anyway N is crazy. The runout to 2D and south not doubling 2D is clear evidence D is not South's suit. So I would rule table result. I think to TD did a fine job. I hardly see an infraction and NS did themselves in. One might argue EW need to know their defence better (depending on level, partnership duration, strong club frequency, etc). One might argue there is some MI. But in the end some fooling around over a strong club is to be expected (and so is opps being unsecure if strong club is rare). And suppose that NS where told that 1S was pass or correct and that passing 1S is also possible with D with S support (all available info) what difference would it make to the decision to pass 6D ? Now if you tell me EW is a standing expert partnership (the EW bidding suggests strongly they are no bunnies) and strong club is common I might be tempted to change my opinion (about allowing EW not to know their defence). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Summer 2003 appeals casebook Case Thirty Final of mixed board-a-match teams Bd: 6 Dlr: East Vul: E/W AK73 J984 QT3 52 J94 65 Q63 KT52 J9654 K872 Q6 J93 QT82 A7 A AKT874 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- Pass 1C (1) Dbl(2) Rdbl 1S (3) Dbl Pass Pass 2D 3C Pass 3S Pass 4NT Pass 5S Pass 6D Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted; strong, artificial (2) Alerted; diamonds or the majors (3) Intended as Pass-or-Correct, not discussed over a Rdbl The Facts: 6D went down five, +250 for E/W. The opening lead was not recorded. The Director was called when West passed 1S doubled and East could not answer what that showed (nor could West explain what East's 1S was). The Director sent West away from the table and asked East to explain her 1S bid; she said she intended it as Pass-or-Correct. The Director instructed that the auction continue but was called back after North passed South's 6D bid. When South asked if he could be excused from playing the hand the Director acquiesced and assigned a result of down five, +250 for E/W. The Director ruled that there had been no table action to enable East to work out to bid 2D over 1S doubled and that there was no causal relationship between the early confusion about E/W's agreements and North's pass of South's 6D intended cue-bid. As an Appeals Committee, how would you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Apr 15 17:08:23 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:08:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL Summer 2003 appeals casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1EADF9AF-8EF7-11D8-B537-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 15 Apr 2004, at 16:18, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > - 1S was intended as pass or correct. This is a reasonable claim > because it > is the normal treatment. Not really. As I understand it, the double showed either diamonds or both majors. If it's diamonds, East wants to play in diamonds, if it's the majors, East wants to play in hearts. Whatever it is, East doesn't want to play in spades. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Apr 15 17:52:04 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:52:04 -0600 Subject: [blml] Henk - please contact me Message-ID: <001701c4230a$05d35e80$532846a2@ams.com> I sent you and resent my post but it still has a suspicious header. I tried to contact you by e-mail by my e-mail sent to henk@toybox.amsterdamned.org bounce back. Konrad From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu Apr 15 20:41:18 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:41:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL Summer 2003 appeals casebook References: <1EADF9AF-8EF7-11D8-B537-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: > Not really. As I understand it, the double showed either diamonds or > both majors. If it's diamonds, East wants to play in diamonds, if it's > the majors, East wants to play in hearts. Whatever it is, East doesn't > want to play in spades Of course east wants to play a red. But the way I read it east claimed to have psyched. Which is quite 'normal' in this situation. The opps claim a gameforce and you have a fit for sure and partner won't do anything serious. You want better conditions for a psyche? That is why we call these things baby psyches. But still the vuln is not exactly right. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Summer 2003 appeals casebook > > On 15 Apr 2004, at 16:18, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > - 1S was intended as pass or correct. This is a reasonable claim > > because it > > is the normal treatment. > > Not really. As I understand it, the double showed either diamonds or > both majors. If it's diamonds, East wants to play in diamonds, if it's > the majors, East wants to play in hearts. Whatever it is, East doesn't > want to play in spades. > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu Apr 15 20:52:38 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:52:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL Summer 2003 appeals casebook References: <1EADF9AF-8EF7-11D8-B537-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: > > - 1S was intended as pass or correct. This is a reasonable claim > > because it > > is the normal treatment. > > Not really. You are right in a way. Passing 1D (I missed some implications about the redouble) is probably pass and correct so the 'meaning' of 1S is probably the longer major with short diamonds (nice convention this double). Still this type of fooling around is so common that a pair playing strong club should be able to handle this. The (probably correct) information that the opps are not sure about the meaning of 1S (after a redouble) is not really an infraction IMO. In a way it is easier for NS now that east explains 1S as pass and correct and west as 'unknown' rather than when east and or west explains 1S as showing spades. Anyway if east explained 1D as written it is clear she bid 1S as a joke. This is consistent with the TD comment and ruling and who else but the TD gets us the facts. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Summer 2003 appeals casebook > > On 15 Apr 2004, at 16:18, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > - 1S was intended as pass or correct. This is a reasonable claim > > because it > > is the normal treatment. > > Not really. As I understand it, the double showed either diamonds or > both majors. If it's diamonds, East wants to play in diamonds, if it's > the majors, East wants to play in hearts. Whatever it is, East doesn't > want to play in spades. > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Thu Apr 15 23:40:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:40:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is an average? - NP In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040413024802.02b9b370@incoming.verizon.net> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040413024802.02b9b370@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: Walt wrote >At 01:40 PM 5/04/2004, Steve Wright wrote: >>Playing pairs, four boards a round allowing 30 minutes per round I had >>to give one table an average when I removed a board for slow play. >>With less than a minute to go they had just put the board on the table >>and were sorting their hands prior to bidding when I stepped in. >> >>At the end, one of the pairs came second by 0.2 of a match point. >> >>We used the "Haworth" scoring program which is widely accepted as >>performing averages correctly. We are quite happy that the correct >>result was obtained. >> >>However what we are unsure about is what "average" means. I understand >>that Average-plus is 60% (or your session average if higher) and >>average-minus is 40% (or your session average if lower). >> >>But is an average 50% or is it your session average? >> >>Assuming had the slow pairs played the board and achieved their >>session average, then by removing the board and giving them 50% for it >>has cost them the win. But if an average is their session average then >>not playing the board won't affect their score. > > >I heard of someone recently being given an "NP" [not played] on a >board. Reportedly this was neither an average nor an average +/- but >was simply treated as if the board had never been scheduled to be played. > >The scenario was that this pair had opponents that did not show up at >the table in time for this board to be played. The director later asked >the non-offenders if they could play it as a late play and they said >"No, we have to leave right after the round." Then the director awarded >them an "NP". > >Questions: > >1. Does an "NP" result exist anywhere? Certainly. Most scoring programs have two different ways of dealing with a pair not playing a board - and manual scoring has the same thing. >2. If so, was this ruling correct? Probably not, though actual methods of scoring are a matter for regulation. In principle if a board is not planned for a pair to play then they get no result. This applies to sitting out pairs, or movements where not all the boards are played. However, when a board is planned for play then not playing it is an irregularity and La12C1 applies, ie an Ave, A+ or A- is given. -- 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 Fri Apr 16 00:06:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:06:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: [snip] >It is established that equity lies in reinstating >the balance between the two sides as it existed >in the instant prior to the irregularity. If no >irregularity had occurred* the player would have >been entitled to make any admissible call. [snip] >Score adjustment to do equity takes us back to the >situation prior to the irregularity. [snip] > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ >(*The first irregularity is the breach of Law73A2 >or 73B1) [snip] Richard James Hills notes: Aha! Grattan quotes Law in discussing correct procedure after "the" irregularity, then admits that a Reveley ruling occurs after *two* related but different irregularities by the offending side. [Sidebar - Last year a thread discussed the correct application of Law 64C after *two* OS revokes, when these hypothetical conditions applied -> (a) The normal penalty for the combined effect of the two revokes gave the NOS an inequitable result, (b) The Law 64C adjustment after cancelling both OS revokes gave the NOS an equitable result, (c) The normal penalty for one OS revoke, plus the Law 64C adjustment cancelling the other OS revoke, gave the NOS a better-than-equitable result. It was unresolved whether (b) or (c) - or both - was a Lawful TD ruling. End of sidebar.] Therefore, it seems to me that the implication of Grattan's argument justifying the legality of Reveley rulings is that: (a) for the NOS, "prior to the irregularity" is defined by the ACBL as prior to *both* the Law 73A2/73B1 irregularity *and* the Law 73C irregularity, and (b) for the OS, "prior to the irregularity" is defined by the ACBL as a *later* priority, prior only to the second Law 73C irregularity. This ACBL idea of differential rectification of irregularities, to prevent NOS "windfalls", seems to me to be perhaps possibly inconsistent with Law 12B: "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side," Whether or not Law 12B is relevant, in my opinion the 2006 Laws should be more explicit about correct TD procedure, when two or more infractions have occurred before the TD is summoned. 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 twm@cix.co.uk Fri Apr 16 00:15:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Re: Ruling in America or Europe? In-Reply-To: <000001c41cab$3719f590$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: Doug wrote: > 20 or 25% is "at all probable," so E/W -670. > > 20 or 25% is not "likely," so N/S -200, except this is less than the > table result, so N/S -110. Which is of course illegal. If the TD believes that N/S were not damaged by the infraction then no adjustment should be made. 16a2 is pretty unambiguous on that score - despite custom and practice. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Apr 16 00:15:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <000d01c422b4$e312e320$d109e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Possibly that after suit agreement the 4D bid > shows a fit and invites a cue from West. East may be > holding Spades A K T x x , Diamonds K x or K x x > and an outside singleton or something like? What is > not expected is that having agreed Spades it is a sign > off, which would suggest an illegal control on a psyche. > Not only unalerted but no prior disclosure. Prior disclosure? Since when does a the 2S bid in this auction require prior disclosure? Artificial bids in suits shown by opponents (I assume the double of 2D shows spades) are alertable in the EBU but do not require special mention on the CC. This should be a simple MI ruling and North (in passout seat) had every opportunity to inquire about the auction. If North is a novice this might not occur to him and I will adjust to 5Dx-1 (can't see a sensible line for losing more than 3 tricks) but if North is supposed to be a bit competent then I will not allow him to avoid his duty to "protect himself". NB, the pass of 3S provides some evidence that North knew what was going on. OTOH if we rule this as a pure psych rather than an MI case it saddens me that EBU demagogues are so lacking in table presence that they require prior knowledge of partner to work out what is going on. Tim From blml@blakjak.com Fri Apr 16 00:36:29 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:36:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018168E7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018168E7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >John (MadDog) Probst > >So the whole crew are at the Easter Tourney and I can be rude to mamos, >DWS, DALB, Robin, and Gordon (who won the main event) f2f. Very >satisfying :) > > >Whereas you were polite (as always) to me. Who's a crawler then? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Apr 16 00:37:49 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:37:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty, or not? Message-ID: Steve Wright: >As a variation on this theme, what would you do with >the following situation; > >I have the lead as declarer's LHO. I lead a suit, >dummy follows low, partner discards and declarer >ruffs. If I've been counting correctly then either >my partner or declarer has revoked. > >I ask declarer if he's revoked (as L61B says I'm >entitled to). He replies, "No". My partner then says >"Oops! I've revoked". > >Your ruling? Richard James Hills: I agree with Grattan that in 2006, there should be a better defined distinction between legal and illegal drawing of partner's attention to a possible revoke. In Steve's variant, it seems to me that this is a clear-cut legal drawing of attention - as there is a 50% chance that it was declarer who revoked. In the original case, it seems to me that there was an illegal drawing of attention (albeit, the method used was a notionally legal use of Law 66A). Perhaps the 2006 version of Law 61B might add the phrase "could have known that the only person who revoked must have been partner" to clarify when "extraneous remarks, gestures or questions asked of declarer" is an illegal drawing of partner's attention to partner's revoke. 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 Apr 16 01:01:15 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:01:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? Message-ID: Tim high-horsed: >Which is of course illegal. If the TD believes >that N/S were not damaged by the infraction then >no adjustment should be made. 16a2 is pretty >unambiguous on that score - despite custom and >practice. RJH quibbles: Law 16A2 states, ".....resulted in damage." But Law 16A2 does *not* state, ".....resulted in damage to the non-offending side." Again this ambiguity might be clarified in the 2006 edition of the Laws. Although the ACBL sometimes (in my opinion) misapplies the concept of "damage to the field", that misapplication does not prevent the concept of "damage to the field" from being (in my opinion) a useful concept. 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 grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Fri Apr 16 01:11:39 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:11:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040415200619.01b7c520@mail.comcast.net> At 02:35 AM 4/15/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >David J. Grabiner wrote: > >[big snip] > > >This should be a standard situation for > >imposing a PP: a player leaves a decision > >to partner, partner makes the decision but > >passes undisputed UI, and the player then > >overrides the decision. Hesitation > >Blackwood is the classic example; another > >example is passing in a competitive > >auction, then pulling partner's slow > >penalty double. > >Richard James Hills asks and answers: > >In David's last example, should a PP be >imposed on a partnership which claims that >passing in a competitive auction, then >pulling partner's (slow) penalty double is, >by partnership agreement, a slam try? No, provided that it is clear from the player's hand that the pass-and-pull was his original intention, and thus that he had not passed a decision to partner. This usually does not cause a problem because pass-and-pull is not adjacent to an ordinary forcing pass; a player who pass-and-pulls does not have leaving in the double as a LA. From blml@blakjak.com Fri Apr 16 01:39:27 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 01:39:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is an average? - NP In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040413041228.03844190@incoming.verizon.net> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040413041228.03844190@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: Walt wrote >I reasoned as you did that since the late play was entirely the fault >of one pair the non-offending pair should receive an Ave+. > >However, when the non-offending pair declined the late play, it seemed >to me that the that the board not being played was now partially the >fault of the non-offenders. > >Do the non-offenders have the right to decline to play the board and >receive an Ave+? Certainly: why should they have to play at a time when the session has ended? To penalise a pair because their opponents cannot be bothered to play to the accepted time is very unfair. Too many people these days seem to want to penalise non-offenders: let us keep our penalties for those that create problems. -- 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 Fri Apr 16 01:57:43 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:57:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Summer 2003 appeals casebook Message-ID: RJH evaluates: The actual ACBL Appeals Commmittee, in my opinion, gave the correct ruling, but gave an unLawful justification for their correct ruling: Case Thirty: [deal snipped] >The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's >ruling. East did not attend the hearing; >the N/S team captain did. South >acknowledged that his side had primary >responsibility for their bad result but >wanted to draw attention to E/W's actions. >West was unable to explain the meaning of >East's 1S bid over North's redouble and >East could not say what West's pass >indicated over South's double of 1S, even >though she explained her own 1S bid (after >West was sent away from the table) as Pass- >or-Correct. Later, South determined that >East had psyched her 1S bid, a safe >maneuver given that West had to hold a red >suit. South thought that E/W did not >deserve credit for a result obtained in >part through their lack of knowledge of >their own convention. E/W said they had >been playing Suction over the opponents' >strong 1C openings for a couple of years. >If third hand passed they played that >fourth hand's bids were Pass-or-Correct; >otherwise not. They had not discussed the >meaning of bids after a redouble by third >hand. They said their good result came from >a well-timed psych and not from their >inability to answer questions about their >agreements. West acknowledged that this was >the "second or third time" they had psyched >since they started playing Suction. The >Committee learned that this had been the >second board of the round and that E/W had >used Suction over N/S's 1C opening on the >first board as well. > >The Committee Decision: Despite the distaste >of some Committee members at having to hear >a complaint from a side seeking no gain for >itself, RJH interpolates: In my opinion, the so-called distaste of the un-named Committee members is an item which should *not* be given semi-official imprimatur in an official ACBL casebook. Either appeals which are aimed at "protecting the field" are legal, or they are not. If legal, then any Committee members should not discourage such appeals by publicly recording their distaste, as that can create confusion between personal biases and official ACBL policy. Case Thirty: >the Committee agreed that E/W had been >extremely negligent in their duties. Even >without considering the possible illegality >of psyching a response to an artificial bid, RJH interpolates: Again, in my opinion, the AC is giving semi- official imprimatur to its personal opinions on psyching responses to an artificial bid. (Fortunately, this issue is clarified by casebook commentator Goldsmith). Case Thirty: >the Committee determined that a pair is >responsible for knowing the meaning of basic >continuations over their own conventions, >especially at the one level. E/W were playing >an aggressive and volatile defense against >the opponents' strong club openings with >neither complete knowledge of simple >continuations nor the ability to explain them. >Therefore, the Committee imposed a PP of two- >tenths of a board against E/W and admonished >them to figure out what they were playing and >to be more forthcoming about it in the future. >(The table result was allowed to stand.) In >addition, as East had psyched her response to >the "either-or" Suction bid the hand was >referred to the National Recorder. > >DIC of Event: Steve Bates > >Committee: Bart Bramley (chair), David >Berkowitz, Ralph Cohen, JoAnna Stansby, Eddie >Wold Panellist Goldsmith wrote: [snip] >>Committees need to stop giving PPs for >>"Convention Disruption". It's not permitted by >>the rules and sets a very dangerous precedent. >>The only reason the US Team Trials can get >>away with it is that they expressly write that >>rule into the CoC because they want to require >>a minimum standard of partnership knowledge >>for any team that ends up representing the >>ACBL in a small-field team championship. Even >>there it is of dubious legality, but at least >>there is a good reason for it. In other >>tournaments, there is no reason for it, so we >>need to stop giving out these spurious >>penalties. [snip] RJH sums up: Goldsmith has given an accurate paraphrase of the right to misbid and/or the right to undiscussed bidding sequences. These rights are expressly granted by Law 40A and the footnote to Law 75. But, I agree with the AC's decision to impose a PP on East-West, and to refer East's baby pseudo- psyche to the National Recorder. However, my justification for a PP is not "convention disruption", but rather a Law 40B ruling that EW failed to disclose their partnership agreement to use baby pseudo-psyches in a Suction sequence. 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 Fri Apr 16 02:28:08 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:28:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reveley ruling?? References: Message-ID: <020f01c42352$13dc1f60$479468d5@tinyhrieuyik> 2004 North Wales Spring Congress Teams (Hands from memory) West North East South Q543 - - - 1N AJ43 (2C) X* (P) 3S 54 (P) 4S End 654 N 1N = 15-18 W + E 2C = 5+H 4+minor S X = Alerted as T/O AKJT9 Q2 West leads C7 to East's CJ K32 A32 At the table, 2C was not alerted; at the end of the of the auction RHO explained that over a strong 1N, 2C was natural (but Astro over a weak 1NT). I went one down. It transpired that... (a) LHO had hearts and diamonds (2C was Astro) (b) RHO had six clubs but failed to raise West's "natural" 2C. I called the TD to complain about the "fielded" psyche. I explained that I misplayed 4S because of the wrong information. The opponents were friendly and charming. They readily agreed the facts. The TD mildly admonished EW but left the score unchanged. We appealed. The eponymous Ted Reveley (who won the main Swiss Teams event) chaired the appeals committee and, naturally, issued a "Reveley" ruling (which he defined as a technically illegal compromise ruling to approximate better to justice). The AC ruled that we split the score of 4S-1 and 4S=. Three questions... (1) The committee asked me how I should play 4S if I know that LHO has hearts and a minor? How would you answer? (If you cash SAK, RHO discards a club). (2) How would you rule (in the UK? Elsewhere?) (3) [A side issue relating to "fielding psyches"] I was delighted with the ruling but I asked Mr Reveley why the AC did not rule 4S=. Mr Reveley kindly explained that my RHO did not really "catch a red psyche". She had 6 clubs to 100 honours. I must have at least two for my 1N bid which left LHO with at most a poor five card suit. Now, this is the sort of argument which most BLMLers are happy to accept but I find hard to understand. It always seems to me that when it is obvious that *somebody* does not have their bid, then, in most circumstances, you should trust partner rather than opponents (assuming, of course, that you have no illegal private psyche understandings with your partner). For example, here my RHO may suspect that I, the 1N opener, have some spades in among my clubs. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.651 / Virus Database: 417 - Release Date: 05/04/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Apr 16 02:25:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:25:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Thinking about thinking (was Farcing pass) Message-ID: Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >>maybe it's foolish to think when taking up an >>intellectual game. maybe it would be >>advisable to have regulations to prevent >>people from useless brain exhaustion. Richard James Hills: When I was a tournament chess player, I would still think even when my opponent's clock was ticking. As a result, I was one of the few chess players at my chess club who avoided time trouble. I carried over this useful habit to the bridge table. Therefore, during all the numerous tempo rulings and appeals I have been a party to, I have never (well, hardly ever) been the person who broke tempo. Jaap van der Neut: [snip] >Your remark about odd even makes more sense to >me. Screens don't help and it is true most >people card slowly when lacking the >appropriate small card. But there is a big >difference between direct carding and >discarding. With direct carding it happens >quite often you lack an odd or even spot and >this is often handled by hesitating. I support >outlawing this convention. When discarding it >is less sensitive. People tend to think about >their first discard anyway and normally there >are far more spots (and suits!) to choose from. Richard James Hills: I fully agree with Jaap (and indeed use odd-even first discard in my own partnerships). The ACBL also agrees with Jaap, as it permits odd-even first discard, but has banned odd-even direct carding. For a similar tempo-related reason, I prefer my count signals to be "present" count, rather than the Canberra-popular "original" count. Working out how many cards you held in a suit at first, takes longer than simply looking at the number of cards of that suit you currently hold. 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 Fri Apr 16 03:01:18 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:01:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Waking the dragon References: Message-ID: <02c201c42356$b5b341c0$479468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] "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.)" [Nigel] Like many other authors, David Bird seems to borrow from real life. Biltcliffe, a member of Reading Bridge Club, is an excellent player, frequently ribbed by his regular partners, including Eric Crowhurst, for his propensity to protect light. You execute a Biltcliffe Coup when you protect against a partscore, allowing an opponent to reach a making game or slam. I'm told that you don't have to double the contract. At the club recently, I protected against 1C, in the pass-out seat, when opponents could make a grand slam in three denominations. Opponents now reached a small slam (but, had they not reached game, the result would have been a "Biltcliffe gambit declined") --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.651 / Virus Database: 417 - Release Date: 05/04/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Apr 16 03:06:26 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:06:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Summer 2003 appeals casebook Message-ID: Case Thirty: >>When South asked if he could be excused from playing >>the hand the Director acquiesced and assigned a >>result of down five, +250 for E/W. Ed Reppert: [snip] >I can't see any law that allows a TD to "excuse" a >player from playing a hand, unless some extraneous >circumstance has rendered it unplayable, which does >not seem to be the case here. Richard James Hills: If I were TD, I would rule that South's request to be excused was equivalent to South exercising their right to abandon their hand under Law 68B -> "...A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand..." Then, as TD, I would modify South's abandonment under Law 71C -> "A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a concession if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards..." As a result, I would concur with the actual TD in assigning a score of +250 for E/W. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 16 03:38:40 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:38:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL Summer 2003 appeals casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2BA95B91-8F4F-11D8-88A7-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Apr 15, 2004, at 22:06 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > If I were TD, I would rule that South's request to > be excused was equivalent to South exercising their > right to abandon their hand under Law 68B -> Aha. I missed that one. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Apr 16 04:02:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:02:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Summer 2003 appeals - De Wael School Message-ID: Case Twenty-Nine [irrelevant actual deal snipped] The Committee Decision: Law 75 requires a Director (or Committee) to presume a mistaken explanation rather than a mistaken bid in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The Committee considered two things in judging whether the presumption could be overcome: (1) North's clear and complete explanation of all of the followup sequences after a semi-forcing notrump was convincing, as was his statement that this sequence had been discussed with his international teammates. (2) North's understanding of semi-forcing notrump bidding structure is common in the expert community. >From these, the Committee decided that North's explanation of 2S had accurately described N/S's agreement, regardless of how confused South may have been. Thus, there was no MI and South had no obligation to clarify her intentions before the opening lead. Consequently, the table result was allowed to stand. Casebook panellist Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>I don't like the Committee's decision. The fact >>that South changed her story ought to weigh heavily >>against N/S. If North understands the system >>perfectly but South does not then in practice N/S >>have no agreement. In my view the Committee worked >>too hard to accommodate our international guests. Casebook editor Rich Colker replied: >Yes, South's change of story is certainly problematic. >On the other hand, as I said in CASE TWENTY-SIX, >evidence of poor memory (or confusion) should not be >confused with evidence that no agreement exists. It >does, however, mean that the player may be prone to >forgetting and perhaps even that the agreement should >be removed from her CC if the forgetting continues. 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 Fri Apr 16 07:24:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:24:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Verdict first, trial afterwards Message-ID: Richard James Hills: One of my hobby-horses is my belief that ACs should follow the Laws first, then give their verdict afterwards. {Commence rant} This is partly due to a personal bias, when an AC I appeared before performed the following actions: 1. It gave a particular verdict, based on a Reveley ruling, 2. The CTD gave a Law 93B1 ruling disallowing the AC's Reveley ruling, and consequently ordered the AC to reconvene to give a legal ruling, 3. The AC then reversed its original assessment of the facts for no particularly logical reason, given that the AC gained no new information about the facts, 4. The new factoids enabled the AC to give a new ruling (plus a PP not previously assessed), with the net effect of its new verdict & PP becoming identical in outcome to the net effect of its original disallowed verdict. {End rant} I am pleased to discover that I am riding tandem on my hobby-horse. When reviewing the final comments of the EBU Appeals 2002 booklet, I discovered the attached words from the horse's mouth written by blmler Adam Wildavsky. Best wishes Richard James Hills * * * Adam Wildavsky's comments: >With the calls in the ACBL to eliminate appeals >committees, I have been studying the effect of AC's. >My methodology is different than most. I have tried >to measure whether AC's contribute to the goal of >minimizing the number of unjust rulings. To that >end, I do not consider cases where the AC's decision >was substantially the same as the director's, nor do >I consider cases that I judge "too close to call". [snip] >In three I thought the committee improved the >director's ruling: 7, 9, and 15. In the remaining >three I believe the committee worsened the >director's ruling: 3, 5, and 10. > >This is a disturbing finding. If my judgment is close >to correct then EBU committees are doing as much harm >as good. The solution to this problem is not to >eliminate AC's but to improve their decisions. I have >two suggestions to that end. [snip] >Second, I think every committee must be explicit >regarding the law or laws which they are applying. >It's amazing how much this can achieve. This is also >an effective tool for directors, and ought to be a >requirement in all jurisdictions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Fri Apr 16 07:48:26 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:48:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: Message-ID: <001201c4237e$efafbde0$b308e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 12:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Possibly that after suit agreement the 4D bid > > shows a fit and invites a cue from West. East may be > > holding Spades A K T x x , Diamonds K x or K x x > > and an outside singleton or something like? What is > > not expected is that having agreed Spades it is a sign > > off, which would suggest an illegal control on a psyche. > > Not only unalerted but no prior disclosure. > > Prior disclosure? Since when does a the 2S bid in this auction require > prior disclosure? < +=+ Good old Tim. Pure misrepresentation. The lack of prior disclosure is about the agreement between the two players that after suit agreement the diamond bid may be passed. There are numbers of past decisions declaring this to be unacceptable.I will not waste my time commenting on the rest of his speech. The position is not altered by it.+=+ > Artificial bids in suits shown by opponents (I assume > the double of 2D shows spades) are alertable in the EBU but do not require > special mention on the CC. This should be a simple MI ruling and North > (in passout seat) had every opportunity to inquire about the auction. > If North is a novice this might not occur to him and I will adjust to > 5Dx-1 (can't see a sensible line for losing more than 3 tricks) but if > North is supposed to be a bit competent then I will not allow him to avoid > his duty to "protect himself". NB, the pass of 3S provides some evidence > that North knew what was going on. > > OTOH if we rule this as a pure psych rather than an MI case it saddens me > that EBU demagogues are so lacking in table presence that they require > prior knowledge of partner to work out what is going on. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Apr 16 10:13:22 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:13:22 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <001201c4237e$efafbde0$b308e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <003701c42393$117c73f0$35e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk > Sent: Friday, 16 April 2004 6:48 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "By education most have been misled; > So they believe, because they so were bred. > The priest continues what the nurse began, > And thus the child imposes on the man." > - John Dryden. > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 12:15 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > +=+ Possibly that after suit agreement the 4D bid > > > shows a fit and invites a cue from West. East may be > > > holding Spades A K T x x , Diamonds K x or K x x > > > and an outside singleton or something like? What is > > > not expected is that having agreed Spades it is a sign > > > off, which would suggest an illegal control on a psyche. > > > Not only unalerted but no prior disclosure. > > > > Prior disclosure? Since when does a the 2S bid in this > auction require > > prior disclosure? > < > +=+ Good old Tim. Pure misrepresentation. The lack of prior > disclosure is about the agreement between the two players > that after suit agreement the diamond bid may be passed. > There are numbers of past decisions declaring this to be > unacceptable.I will not waste my time commenting on the rest > of his speech. The position is not altered by it.+=+ Funny if I played with someone I did not know and they bid this way I would pass happily without any special agreement. So what is unacceptable about that. Wayne From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Apr 16 11:05:38 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:05:38 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC9E@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Wayne Burrows wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk > Sent: Friday, 16 April 2004 6:48 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches >=20 >=20 >=20 > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "By education most have been misled; > So they believe, because they so were bred. > The priest continues what the nurse began, > And thus the child imposes on the man." > - John Dryden. > =3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 12:15 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches >=20 >=20 > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > +=3D+ Possibly that after suit agreement the 4D bid > > > shows a fit and invites a cue from West. East may be > > > holding Spades A K T x x , Diamonds K x or K x x > > > and an outside singleton or something like? What is > > > not expected is that having agreed Spades it is a sign > > > off, which would suggest an illegal control on a psyche. > > > Not only unalerted but no prior disclosure. > > > > Prior disclosure? Since when does a the 2S bid in this=20 > auction require > > prior disclosure? > < > +=3D+ Good old Tim. Pure misrepresentation. The lack of prior > disclosure is about the agreement between the two players > that after suit agreement the diamond bid may be passed. > There are numbers of past decisions declaring this to be > unacceptable.I will not waste my time commenting on the rest > of his speech. The position is not altered by it.+=3D+ Funny if I played with someone I did not know and they bid this=20 way I would pass happily without any special agreement. So what is unacceptable about that. ----- I repeat the bidding: West North East South --- --- --- 1H 2D Double 2S Pass 3S Pass 4D Pass Pass Pass Do you really mean that you would expect partner to suggest you play in 4 diamonds after having found a spade fit at the 3-level? How many spades (in a natural sequence) are east and west expected to have for this to have any logical meaning? This really sounds like a slam try to me. Regards, Harald ----- Wayne _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Apr 16 11:10:18 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:10:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816914@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Grattan wrote: > +=3D+ Possibly that after suit agreement the 4D bid > shows a fit and invites a cue from West. East may be=20 > holding Spades A K T x x , Diamonds K x or K x x=20 > and an outside singleton or something like? What is=20 > not expected is that having agreed Spades it is a sign=20 > off, which would suggest an illegal control on a psyche. > Not only unalerted but no prior disclosure. Prior disclosure? Since when does a the 2S bid in this auction require=20 prior disclosure? Artificial bids in suits shown by opponents (I assume = the double of 2D shows spades) are alertable in the EBU but do not = require=20 special mention on the CC. This should be a simple MI ruling and North=20 (in passout seat) had every opportunity to inquire about the auction. If North is a novice this might not occur to him and I will adjust to=20 5Dx-1 (can't see a sensible line for losing more than 3 tricks) but if=20 North is supposed to be a bit competent then I will not allow him to = avoid=20 his duty to "protect himself". NB, the pass of 3S provides some = evidence=20 that North knew what was going on. OTOH if we rule this as a pure psych rather than an MI case it saddens = me=20 that EBU demagogues are so lacking in table presence that they require=20 prior knowledge of partner to work out what is going on. Tim [Frances] Many people, including me, play 2S as natural in this auction. It = appears to be Bridge World Standard to make a take-out double with 4 small = spades and 3-card heart support in this auction. There is evidence from a) the lack of alert of 2S and b) West's raise of = 2S to 3S that 2S was systemically natural. There is evidence of an illicit partnership agreement when West then = passed a return to 4D. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Apr 16 11:13:46 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:13:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816915@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> =20 >=20 > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "By education most have been misled; > So they believe, because they so were bred. > The priest continues what the nurse began, > And thus the child imposes on the man." > - John Dryden. > =3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D#=3D > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 12:15 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches >=20 >=20 > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > +=3D+ Possibly that after suit agreement the 4D bid > > > shows a fit and invites a cue from West. East may be > > > holding Spades A K T x x , Diamonds K x or K x x > > > and an outside singleton or something like? What is > > > not expected is that having agreed Spades it is a sign > > > off, which would suggest an illegal control on a psyche. > > > Not only unalerted but no prior disclosure. > > > > Prior disclosure? Since when does a the 2S bid in this=20 > auction require > > prior disclosure? > < > +=3D+ Good old Tim. Pure misrepresentation. The lack of prior > disclosure is about the agreement between the two players > that after suit agreement the diamond bid may be passed. > There are numbers of past decisions declaring this to be > unacceptable.I will not waste my time commenting on the rest > of his speech. The position is not altered by it.+=3D+ Funny if I played with someone I did not know and they bid this=20 way I would pass happily without any special agreement. So what is unacceptable about that. Wayne [Frances] As your partner I'd find it unacceptable because we'd be playing our slam in a part-score. But that's not a blml matter. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Apr 16 13:50:09 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:50:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20040415200619.01b7c520@mail.comcast.net> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040416082717.01fe4380@pop.starpower.net> At 08:11 PM 4/15/04, David wrote: >>David J. Grabiner wrote: >> >>[big snip] >> >> >This should be a standard situation for >> >imposing a PP: a player leaves a decision >> >to partner, partner makes the decision but >> >passes undisputed UI, and the player then >> >overrides the decision. Hesitation >> >Blackwood is the classic example; another >> >example is passing in a competitive >> >auction, then pulling partner's slow >> >penalty double. >> >>Richard James Hills asks and answers: >> >>In David's last example, should a PP be >>imposed on a partnership which claims that >>passing in a competitive auction, then >>pulling partner's (slow) penalty double is, >>by partnership agreement, a slam try? > >No, provided that it is clear from the player's hand that the >pass-and-pull was his original intention, and thus that he had not >passed a decision to partner. This usually does not cause a problem >because pass-and-pull is not adjacent to an ordinary forcing pass; a >player who pass-and-pulls does not have leaving in the double as a LA. A while back I had a discussion with a top U.S. player in which I argued that pass-then-pull to show strength (now considered "expert standard" in the U.S., and incorporated into BWS), a method he favored, was technically inferior to the older standard treatment of pass-then-pull to show weakness. He agreed, but went on to claim that most experts considered the technical inferiority of the method outweighed by its legalistic advantage. Too many weakness-showing pass-then-pulls on hands unsuited for defense were being reversed in committee after partner hesitated before doubling, presumably indicating doubt about defense and thus demonstrably suggesting that partner pull, whereas strength-showing slam-try pulls were much easier to defend as having been pre-planned at the time of the forcing pass and therefore the only LA in the partnership method. Are there, I wonder, any other areas where a method has been widely adopted because its perceived advantage in the committee room outweighs its drawbacks at the table? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Apr 16 14:04:56 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:04:56 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EC9E@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000c01c423b3$6b91ec60$5f2f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Skjaran, Harald [mailto:Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no] > Sent: Friday, 16 April 2004 10:06 p.m. > To: Wayne Burrows; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk > > Sent: Friday, 16 April 2004 6:48 p.m. > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > > "By education most have been misled; > > So they believe, because they so were bred. > > The priest continues what the nurse began, > > And thus the child imposes on the man." > > - John Dryden. > > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tim West-Meads" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 12:15 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > > > +=+ Possibly that after suit agreement the 4D bid > > > > shows a fit and invites a cue from West. East may be > > > > holding Spades A K T x x , Diamonds K x or K x x > > > > and an outside singleton or something like? What is > > > > not expected is that having agreed Spades it is a sign > > > > off, which would suggest an illegal control on a psyche. > > > > Not only unalerted but no prior disclosure. > > > > > > Prior disclosure? Since when does a the 2S bid in this > > auction require > > > prior disclosure? > > < > > +=+ Good old Tim. Pure misrepresentation. The lack of prior > > disclosure is about the agreement between the two players > > that after suit agreement the diamond bid may be passed. > > There are numbers of past decisions declaring this to be > > unacceptable.I will not waste my time commenting on the rest > > of his speech. The position is not altered by it.+=+ > > Funny if I played with someone I did not know and they bid this > way I would pass happily without any special agreement. So what > is unacceptable about that. > ----- > I repeat the bidding: > > West North East South > --- --- --- 1H > 2D Double 2S Pass > 3S Pass 4D Pass > Pass Pass > > Do you really mean that you would expect partner to suggest > you play in > 4 diamonds after having found a spade fit at the 3-level? Yes > > How many spades (in a natural sequence) are east and west expected to > have for this to have any logical meaning? I am not sure what you mean by natural. But in the games that I play it is general bridge knowledge that East is allowed to play around with a diamond fit and any number of spades on this auction. > > This really sounds like a slam try to me. Armed only with the general bridge knowledge that partner is allowed to psyche on hearing this auction where North offers spades with a negative double and I raise spades and then partner retreats to my suit I am allowed to pass and I would unless I had a specific agreement to the contrary. There are a lot of other things partner can do if he wants to make a slam try. Wayne > > Regards, > Harald > ----- > > Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml@blakjak.com Fri Apr 16 16:02:53 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:02:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: rjh wrote > > > > >Extract from a popular article about Psyches written by >David Stevenson: > >http://www.mrbridge.co.uk/pdffiles/Psyches.pdf > >[big snip] > >>>>it is considered inappropriate to psyche against novices >>>>or beginners. There is no specific penalty for doing so, >>>>but if you do so continuously the club may correctly ask >>>>you to leave. > >[big snip] > >WBF Code of Practice (clause adopted by the EBU): > >>>A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics >>>where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws >>>in respect of the conduct of players. A player who has >>>conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to >>>criticism. > >WBF Code of Practice (clause not adopted by the EBU): > >>A psychic call is lawful if not based upon a partnership >>understanding. No penalty or score adjustment may be >>awarded against such lawful action. I do not see that inappropriate quotes of matters out of context help anyone. Yes, of course, every comment made by any authority should be full of "unless"s and such-like matters, but in practice authorities assume a certain modicum of common sense. No doubt the WBF CoP should have read 'A psychic call is lawful if not based upon a partnership understanding [unless illegal because it is in breach of some other unrelated Law].' If you breach the Proprieties of the game quoting the CoP will not let you get away with 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 Fri Apr 16 16:31:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:31:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL re-education camp In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >Ed Reppert: >>Besides, if a player *really* feels the committee >>decision was out to lunch, he can appeal to the >>National Authority (Law 93C). >> >>A PS: for the National Authority to circumvent >>this right is, IMO, wrong. >I slightly disagree. Some time ago, in New >Zealand, an AC made a judgement ruling which >decided which contestant came first, and which >contestant came second, in an important NZ >national championship. Second place appealed to >the NZ National Authority. The NZ National >Authority had a somewhat different judgement view >of the facts, so inverted the first and the second >placings. > >This caused a certain amount of angst amongst NZ >experts and NZ administrators. As a result, I >believe that the current official NZ policy, is >that the NZ National Authority now only hears >appeals from AC rulings *if and only if* the AC >may have perpetrated an unLawful ruling. I >believe that a Lawful, but poorly judged, ruling >by a New Zealand AC can no longer be appealed. > >If my belief about current NZ policy is correct, >in my opinion that is an appropriate decision to >sensibly limit the powers of a National Authority. There are certain regs as to what can be appealed ot the NA in England or Wales. Basically, an appeal will not be heard if it is merely about a question of the AC's 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 Apr 16 16:49:39 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:49:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] no traffic? In-Reply-To: <407E4888.8060103@hdw.be> References: <407E4888.8060103@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Have I been de-listed again? There seemed so many answers to this, ranging from the mildly hilarious to the completely absurd, that I have failed dismally to choose any single one to post. :) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Apr 16 19:13:09 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:13:09 -0600 Subject: [blml] Verdict first, trial afterwards References: Message-ID: <009b01c423de$7bb4e0e0$532846a2@ams.com> Sorry for not starting a new thread but whenever I try to do that all my e-mails bounce back with a "message has a suspicious header" info. So I'll try this way. Replying to this please rename the subject line. Today I made my first psyching bid since I arrived to America. After two passes I held at Game All: Q1064 653 J752 76 Because of my flat distribution it was quite dangerous to open 1 of a suit so I started with the safest possible psyche - the ART GF 2C opener. Hearing the strong bid the LHO passed, as expected, and partner responded with the waiting 2D bid - also as I had expected him to. I passed as I had planned - that exposed the psyche to the whole table but now the bad guys have yet to find their best contract and they have considerably less bidding space than if given a free run. LHO tried 2NT, his partner tried to bid ask for the majors with 3C but his partner made him play right there. They had a cold game, of course. During the next round the TD showed up at our table and said: - It has been reported to me that somebody psyched the strong 2C opener at this table. It is illegal in this country to do that. - Oh, really, it is? - asked my American partner (a Flight B player) - You can't be serious! - Yes, I am and I am going to adjust this deal to 3NT +1, the most likely result giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOs. And he duly did. I unsuccessfully tried to find such a regulation on the ACBL site (they don't have a search engine, though, so I might well have missed it). Is it really in place in the ACBL land? And what exactly is its wording; the TD said that this regulation doesn't specify what to do if somebody actually does psyche a strong opener (ART GF 2C or 1C 16+). Is that correct? I wonder if in ACBL you are allowed to pass with a GF hand as opener or maybe that is illegal, too. :-) Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado From adam@irvine.com Fri Apr 16 19:50:22 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:50:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBL: psyching strong 2C opening In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:13:09 MDT." <009b01c423de$7bb4e0e0$532846a2@ams.com> Message-ID: <200404161850.LAA28854@mailhub.irvine.com> Konrad wrote: > Sorry for not starting a new thread but > whenever I try to do that all my e-mails > bounce back with a "message has > a suspicious header" info. > So I'll try this way. Replying to this > please rename the subject line. > > Today I made my first psyching bid since I arrived > to America. After two passes I held at Game All: > > Q1064 > 653 > J752 > 76 > > Because of my flat distribution it was quite dangerous > to open 1 of a suit so I started with the safest > possible psyche - the ART GF 2C opener. > Hearing the strong bid the LHO passed, as expected, > and partner responded with the waiting 2D bid - also > as I had expected him to. I passed as I had planned - that > exposed the psyche to the whole table but now > the bad guys have yet to find their best contract > and they have considerably less bidding space than > if given a free run. > > LHO tried 2NT, his partner tried to bid ask for the majors with > 3C but his partner made him play right there. > They had a cold game, of course. > > During the next round the TD showed up at our table > and said: > > - It has been reported to me that somebody psyched the strong > 2C opener at this table. It is illegal in this country > to do that. > - Oh, really, it is? - asked my American partner (a Flight B player) - You > can't be serious! > - Yes, I am and I am going to adjust this deal to 3NT +1, the most > likely result giving the benefit of the doubt to the > NOs. > > And he duly did. I unsuccessfully tried to find such a regulation on the > ACBL site > (they don't have a search engine, though, so I might well have missed it). > Is it really in place in the ACBL land? And what exactly is > its wording; the TD said that this regulation doesn't specify > what to do if somebody actually does psyche a strong > opener (ART GF 2C or 1C 16+). Is that correct? It's on the General Convention Chart. Under DISALLOWED, Item #2 reads: 2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings. The first sentence of this is also on the Mid-Chart and SuperChart (thus you can't do those psychs in *any* ACBL event, unless there's a club that allows it). On the ACBL web site (www.acbl.org), you can access the Convention Charts from a pull-down menu under "tournaments". You will need the ability to read .pdf files. They do have a search engine (click on SEARCH THE ACBL SITE), but I often have trouble finding what I'm looking for when using this. Also, the ACBL web site has, in the past, been unusable by some browsers. They've improved this. But I wouldn't be surprised if you still run into some problems if using, say, an older version of Netscape. > I wonder if in ACBL you are allowed to pass with a GF hand as opener > or maybe that is illegal, too. :-) "Pass" is not an artificial or conventional opening bid, so I presume that psyching it is legal. -- Adam From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Apr 16 20:40:03 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 07:40:03 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816914@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <001201c423ea$9d7beb40$5f2f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Sent: Friday, 16 April 2004 10:10 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Possibly that after suit agreement the 4D bid > > shows a fit and invites a cue from West. East may be > > holding Spades A K T x x , Diamonds K x or K x x > > and an outside singleton or something like? What is > > not expected is that having agreed Spades it is a sign > > off, which would suggest an illegal control on a psyche. > > Not only unalerted but no prior disclosure. > > Prior disclosure? Since when does a the 2S bid in this > auction require > prior disclosure? Artificial bids in suits shown by > opponents (I assume > the double of 2D shows spades) are alertable in the EBU but > do not require > special mention on the CC. This should be a simple MI ruling > and North > (in passout seat) had every opportunity to inquire about the auction. > If North is a novice this might not occur to him and I will adjust to > 5Dx-1 (can't see a sensible line for losing more than 3 > tricks) but if > North is supposed to be a bit competent then I will not allow > him to avoid > his duty to "protect himself". NB, the pass of 3S provides > some evidence > that North knew what was going on. > > OTOH if we rule this as a pure psych rather than an MI case > it saddens me > that EBU demagogues are so lacking in table presence that > they require > prior knowledge of partner to work out what is going on. > > Tim > > [Frances] > Many people, including me, play 2S as natural in this > auction. It appears > to be Bridge World Standard to make a take-out double with 4 > small spades > and 3-card heart support in this auction. > > There is evidence from a) the lack of alert of 2S and b) > West's raise of 2S > to 3S that 2S was systemically natural. It is natural with with support for partner's lower ranking suit when the opponents are bidding the majors to try some subterfuge. Everyone at the table is entitled to this general bridge knowledge truism. > > There is evidence of an illicit partnership agreement when > West then passed > a return to 4D. How can general bridge knowledge be an illicit partnership agreement? Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Apr 16 20:54:25 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:54:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816924@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Sent: Friday, 16 April 2004 10:10 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches >=20 >=20 >=20 > Grattan wrote: >=20 > > +=3D+ Possibly that after suit agreement the 4D bid > > shows a fit and invites a cue from West. East may be=20 > > holding Spades A K T x x , Diamonds K x or K x x=20 > > and an outside singleton or something like? What is=20 > > not expected is that having agreed Spades it is a sign=20 > > off, which would suggest an illegal control on a psyche. > > Not only unalerted but no prior disclosure. >=20 > Prior disclosure? Since when does a the 2S bid in this=20 > auction require=20 > prior disclosure? Artificial bids in suits shown by=20 > opponents (I assume=20 > the double of 2D shows spades) are alertable in the EBU but=20 > do not require=20 > special mention on the CC. This should be a simple MI ruling=20 > and North=20 > (in passout seat) had every opportunity to inquire about the auction. > If North is a novice this might not occur to him and I will adjust to=20 > 5Dx-1 (can't see a sensible line for losing more than 3=20 > tricks) but if=20 > North is supposed to be a bit competent then I will not allow=20 > him to avoid=20 > his duty to "protect himself". NB, the pass of 3S provides=20 > some evidence=20 > that North knew what was going on. >=20 > OTOH if we rule this as a pure psych rather than an MI case=20 > it saddens me=20 > that EBU demagogues are so lacking in table presence that=20 > they require=20 > prior knowledge of partner to work out what is going on. >=20 > Tim >=20 > [Frances] > Many people, including me, play 2S as natural in this=20 > auction. It appears > to be Bridge World Standard to make a take-out double with 4=20 > small spades > and 3-card heart support in this auction. >=20 > There is evidence from a) the lack of alert of 2S and b)=20 > West's raise of 2S > to 3S that 2S was systemically natural. It is natural with with support for partner's lower ranking suit=20 when the opponents are bidding the majors to try some subterfuge. Everyone at the table is entitled to this general bridge knowledge truism. >=20 > There is evidence of an illicit partnership agreement when=20 > West then passed > a return to 4D. How can general bridge knowledge be an illicit partnership agreement? Wayne >=20 [Frances] Now we've worked out where we disagree. I do not think this is general bridge knowledge. Give the East hand to the good ladies of Surrey (as Chris Ryall so elegantly puts it) and I am pretty certain that <2% of them would even consider bidding 2S, or consider it "natural" to try some subterfuge. I truly _hate_ the "general bridge knowledge" defence. Virtually = nothing in the auction is gbk countrywide, never mind worldwide. =20 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 16 21:27:49 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:27:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Verdict first, trial afterwards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <872809D6-8FE4-11D8-97BE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Apr 16, 2004, at 02:24 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote, quoting Adam Wildavsky: >> Second, I think every committee must be explicit >> regarding the law or laws which they are applying. >> It's amazing how much this can achieve. This is also >> an effective tool for directors, and ought to be a >> requirement in all jurisdictions. I agree wholeheartedly with that last sentence. I would go so far as to suggest it ought to be a law. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 16 21:39:22 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:39:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psyching artificial openings in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <009b01c423de$7bb4e0e0$532846a2@ams.com> Message-ID: <249710F6-8FE6-11D8-97BE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Apr 16, 2004, at 14:13 US/Eastern, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > And he duly did. I unsuccessfully tried to find such a regulation on > the > ACBL site > (they don't have a search engine, though, so I might well have missed > it). > Is it really in place in the ACBL land? And what exactly is > its wording; the TD said that this regulation doesn't specify > what to do if somebody actually does psyche a strong > opener (ART GF 2C or 1C 16+). Is that correct? The General Convention Chart , under "Disallowed", says "Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto." So yes, the TD was correct, and the regulation doesn't say what to do if it's violated. This would appear to be a regulation under Law 40D. That law doesn't say what to do, either. We are left, I think, with Law 12A1, which allows the TD to 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." From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 16 21:41:57 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:41:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] who are the opponents? Message-ID: <8104D3CA-8FE6-11D8-97BE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> In another thread, I quoted Law 12A1, which allows the TD to 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." Apropos to yet a third thread (perhaps it was on rgb, I don't remember), it seems to me the word "opponent" in this law (and perhaps all the laws) refers to the opponent at the table, not for example in a pairs game, to the rest of the field. Thus "protecting the field" seems an invalid principle. What says the list? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 16 21:46:17 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:46:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040416082717.01fe4380@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <1BD9FB68-8FE7-11D8-97BE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Apr 16, 2004, at 08:50 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > Are there, I wonder, any other areas where a method has been widely > adopted because its perceived advantage in the committee room > outweighs its drawbacks at the table? I don't know the answer to the question, but it seems to me that *any* such adoption is detrimental to the game. Given that, it would seem prudent to look at the jurisprudence with an eye toward changing the way we judge such cases. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 16 21:48:59 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:48:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7C743926-8FE7-11D8-97BE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Apr 16, 2004, at 11:02 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > If you breach the Proprieties of the game quoting the CoP will not let > you get away with it. The proprieties are now part of the laws. Which law prohibits psyching against novices? 74A2? That seems most likely - but it also seems a bit of a stretch. From svenpran@online.no Fri Apr 16 22:08:18 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:08:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] who are the opponents? In-Reply-To: <8104D3CA-8FE6-11D8-97BE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c423f6$f15e42b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > Apropos to yet a third thread (perhaps it was on rgb, I don't > remember), it seems to me the word "opponent" in this law (and perhaps > all the laws) refers to the opponent at the table, not for example in a > pairs game, to the rest of the field. Thus "protecting the field" seems > an invalid principle. What says the list? That is how I have understood the laws: Your opponents within the scope of the laws are the two players you meet at the table. This is also logical from the rule that a third pair is never allowed to appeal a ruling at your table even when they are convinced that the ruling is wrong and that it for instance causes them to become second rather than first in the tournament! (Law 92A) Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Apr 16 22:12:40 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:12:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: <7C743926-8FE7-11D8-97BE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c423f7$8da96640$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > The proprieties are now part of the laws. Which law prohibits psyching > against novices? 74A2? That seems most likely - but it also seems a bit > of a stretch. I don't know what they say elsewhere but in Norway this is a matter of regulation, not law - in fact a very common regulation. (And I specifically object to L74A2 being applicable for such purpose). Regards Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Apr 16 22:59:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 22:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <001201c4237e$efafbde0$b308e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > > Prior disclosure? Since when does a the 2S bid in this auction > > require prior disclosure? > < > +=+ Good old Tim. Pure misrepresentation. The lack of prior > disclosure is about the agreement between the two players > that after suit agreement the diamond bid may be passed. What suit agreement? If we are ruling that 2S is artificial and does not necessarily show spades (eg it is either S or D raise with S shortage) then 3S is not "suit agreement" but a natural request for clarification of hand type and 4D is also natural - and obviously non-forcing. There was a failure to alert 2S, there is a law to deal with that. OTOH if we are not ruling that opps have an agreement re the 2S call we have no grounds for adjusting whatsoever. From HarrisR@missouri.edu Fri Apr 16 23:25:41 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:25:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] who are the opponents? In-Reply-To: <000001c423f6$f15e42b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c423f6$f15e42b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >Ed Reppert > >> Apropos to yet a third thread (perhaps it was on rgb, I don't >> remember), it seems to me the word "opponent" in this law (and perhaps >> all the laws) refers to the opponent at the table, not for example in a >> pairs game, to the rest of the field. Thus "protecting the field" seems >> an invalid principle. What says the list? > >That is how I have understood the laws: Your opponents within the scope of >the laws are the two players you meet at the table. > >This is also logical from the rule that a third pair is never allowed to >appeal a ruling at your table even when they are convinced that the ruling >is wrong and that it for instance causes them to become second rather than >first in the tournament! (Law 92A) > >Regards Sven Perhaps the next edition of the laws might include the definition of "opponents" in the definitions section. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From blml@blakjak.com Fri Apr 16 23:28:56 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:28:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: <7C743926-8FE7-11D8-97BE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <7C743926-8FE7-11D8-97BE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Friday, Apr 16, 2004, at 11:02 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> If you breach the Proprieties of the game quoting the CoP will not >>let you get away with it. > >The proprieties are now part of the laws. Which law prohibits psyching >against novices? 74A2? That seems most likely - but it also seems a bit >of a stretch. Maybe so - but it is a recognised interpretation. Before BLML shouts I mean recognised by the general bridge public. I am sure it is not a recognised interpretation by BLML members! :)) -- 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 dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net Fri Apr 16 23:31:22 2004 From: dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:31:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] ACBL: psyching strong 2C opening In-Reply-To: <20040416194201.18219.14533.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <001201c42402$8c390c60$6528fea9@Picasso> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Today I made my first psyching bid since I arrived > to America. After two passes I held at Game All: > > Q1064 > 653 > J752 > 76 > > Because of my flat distribution it was quite dangerous > to open 1 of a suit so I started with the safest > possible psyche - the ART GF 2C opener. > Hearing the strong bid the LHO passed, as expected, > and partner responded with the waiting 2D bid - also > as I had expected him to. I passed as I had planned - that > exposed the psyche to the whole table but now > the bad guys have yet to find their best contract > and they have considerably less bidding space than > if given a free run. [. . . score was adjusted because of illegal psychic 2C opening] Welcome to the ACBL. This was the subject of a question from me a few weeks back, wondering whether other jurisdictions ban such psyches outright. I didn't get many responses. In a General Chart event, there are aspects of this rule that are every bit as onerous as the one of which you ran afoul. No psyching artificial suit responses, period -- no psyching a transfer after 1NT (X), for example. (You have to give this one serious thought when holding a terrible hand opposite a weak notrump.) Arguably, no psyching 2H (X) 3C, if clubs is (by agreement) lead directing and promising a heart fit. Now you have to rely on 2H (X) 2NT for the same purpose (assuming you have nothing but a desire to foul up the opps' auction). An interesting question is whether a precision-style one diamond opening can be psyched -- I think it depends on the specific hands that do and do not fall within its ambit. Doug Couchman Arlington, TX From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 16 23:31:22 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:31:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: <000101c423f7$8da96640$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Friday, Apr 16, 2004, at 17:12 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > I don't know what they say elsewhere but in Norway this is a matter of > regulation, not law Well, the WBFLC seems to have established the principle that an SO can make just about any regulation he likes, but David referred to the Proprieties - I inferred he meant the laws, rather than a regulation, but perhaps I was mistaken. From svenpran@online.no Fri Apr 16 23:47:13 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:47:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] who are the opponents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c42404$c6fa2d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Robert E. Harris > >Ed Reppert > > > >> Apropos to yet a third thread (perhaps it was on rgb, I don't > >> remember), it seems to me the word "opponent" in this law (and = perhaps > >> all the laws) refers to the opponent at the table, not for example = in > a > >> pairs game, to the rest of the field. Thus "protecting the field" > seems > >> an invalid principle. What says the list? > > > >That is how I have understood the laws: Your opponents within the = scope > of > >the laws are the two players you meet at the table. > > > >This is also logical from the rule that a third pair is never allowed = to > >appeal a ruling at your table even when they are convinced that the > ruling > >is wrong and that it for instance causes them to become second rather > than > >first in the tournament! (Law 92A) > > > >Regards Sven >=20 >=20 > Perhaps the next edition of the laws might include the definition of > "opponents" in the definitions section. Frankly I am not so sure that is such a good idea. Look at Law 4 which = is fairly clear. An explicit definition of "opponents" must take into consideration the various types of events (singles, pairs, teams) and = can thus become fairly complicated with little advantage. Regards Sven From adam@irvine.com Fri Apr 16 23:57:18 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:57:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBL: psyching strong 2C opening In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:31:22 CDT." <001201c42402$8c390c60$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: <200404162257.PAA07679@mailhub.irvine.com> Doug wrote: > Arguably, no psyching 2H (X) 3C, if clubs is (by > agreement) lead directing and promising a heart fit. Wrong (assuming 2H is weak and natural). The prohibition on psyching conventional suit responses to natural openings applies only to responses below 2NT. -- Adam From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Apr 17 00:28:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:28 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816914@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: > Grattan wrote: >=20 > > +=3D+ Possibly that after suit agreement the 4D bid > > shows a fit and invites a cue from West. East may be=20 > > holding Spades A K T x x , Diamonds K x or K x x=20 > > and an outside singleton or something like? What is=20 > > not expected is that having agreed Spades it is a sign=20 > > off, which would suggest an illegal control on a psyche. > > Not only unalerted but no prior disclosure. >=20 > Prior disclosure? Since when does a the 2S bid in this auction require= =20 > prior disclosure? Artificial bids in suits shown by opponents (I=20 > assume the double of 2D shows spades) are alertable in the EBU but do=20 > not require special mention on the CC. This should be a simple MI=20 > ruling and North (in passout seat) had every opportunity to inquire=20 > about the auction. > If North is a novice this might not occur to him and I will adjust to=20 > 5Dx-1 (can't see a sensible line for losing more than 3 tricks) but if=20 > North is supposed to be a bit competent then I will not allow him to=20 > avoid his duty to "protect himself". NB, the pass of 3S provides some=20 > evidence that North knew what was going on. >=20 > OTOH if we rule this as a pure psych rather than an MI case it saddens=20 > me that EBU demagogues are so lacking in table presence that they=20 > require prior knowledge of partner to work out what is going on. >=20 > Tim >=20 > [Frances] > Many people, including me, play 2S as natural in this auction. It=20 > appears to be Bridge World Standard to make a take-out double with 4=20 > small spades and 3-card heart support in this auction. That is fine. But it would be *legal* to play 2S as artificial in any EB= U=20 event where the X showed spades. >=20 > There is evidence from a) the lack of alert of 2S and b) West's raise=20 > of 2S to 3S that 2S was systemically natural. Fine - rule it as systemically natural - no adjustment. =20 > There is evidence of an illicit partnership agreement when West then=20 > passed a return to 4D. Why illicit? If the partnership is deemed to have an agreement it is a=20 legal one albeit there is a missing alert. It could be a mix-up (East=20 thinks 2S is artificial because N has shown S, West thinks it is natural=20 because it hasn't been explicitly discussed). It could be a psych which=20 West (being somewhat competent) is able to diagnose without any special=20 partnership understanding. What it cannot be is evidence of an illicit=20 agreement: OB 12.12.5 Responses to overcalls. =B7 Any meaning may be played for double, redouble, 2NT and a cue bid of = an opponent's suit OB Glossary Cue bid (1) An artificial bid in a suit bid or shown by opponents, not=20 indicating any length in the suit, but either promising specific features= =20 of the hand, such as distribution, strength or key cards held, or asking=20 partner for some specific feature such as a stopper. Note that official EBU guidance is that where a bid (such as the 4D) tend= s=20 to expose a prior psyche an alert is optional - not mandatory. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Apr 17 00:28:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:28 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Ruling in America or Europe? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tim high-horsed: > > >Which is of course illegal. If the TD believes > >that N/S were not damaged by the infraction then > >no adjustment should be made. 16a2 is pretty > >unambiguous on that score - despite custom and > >practice. > > RJH quibbles: > > Law 16A2 states, ".....resulted in damage." > > But Law 16A2 does *not* state, ".....resulted in > damage to the non-offending side." Your quibble is, of course, nit-pickingly correct. However since "damage to the field" is not a concept espoused in the law it had never occurred to me to read it as other than "..damage to NOS". I believe my interpretation of the "..to NOS" as being implicit to be the norm - but I have been wrong before. I'm glad I said "pretty unambiguous" instead of "wholly unambiguous" :) Perhaps I should also have noted that "damage" is not a pre-requisite for issuing a PP for deliberate abuse of UI. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Apr 17 00:28:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:28 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816924@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Frances wrote: > [Frances] > Now we've worked out where we disagree. I do not think this is general > bridge knowledge. "GBK" in this context is specific to the player concerned. It is part of *my* general bridge knowledge (and Wayne's) that pard may be messing around with the 2S bid in this auction *even* if pard is a total stranger. Indeed I would assume messing around when my unfamiliar pard bid 4D. Pass is thus a "normal" action for players of similar experience to Wayne and me. Of course playing with a familiar partner (such as MadDog) I will alert the 2S (as will he) but when he and I started playing together neither of us would have alerted (no partnership experience) and neither of us would have bid over 4D. West's pass is evidence that West knows a bit about psyching - nothing more. Questioning EW *may* provide evidence of a partnership understanding. If it does then there was a failure to alert 2S and we can apply the laws on MI. Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sat Apr 17 05:16:25 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:16:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >>The proprieties are now part of the laws. Which >>law prohibits psyching against novices? 74A2? That >>seems most likely - but it also seems a bit of a >>stretch. David Stevenson: >Maybe so - but it is a recognised interpretation. > >Before BLML shouts I mean recognised by the general >bridge public. I am sure it is not a recognised >interpretation by BLML members! :)) Richard James Hills: David is actually understating the case for the supremacy of Law 74A2. It is not only in the minds of the general public that Law 74A2 can limit a player's choice of call, it is also an official WBF LC interpretation WBFLC minutes 2001-10-28#6, also 2001-10-30#1: >>>Law 15C [Play of wrong board discovered during >>>auction] >>> >>>Consider the situation where a pair sits at the >>>wrong table, and an auction starts. They discover >>>their error, move away, and the correct pair sits >>>down. This Law says that the pair who remain must >>>make the same calls, and the Director should check >>>to make sure the new pair make the same calls as >>>the old pair did. >>> >>>What happens if one of the new pair, having heard >>>the Law, decides he does not really want to play >>>the board, so opens 7NT which he guesses will be a >>>change from the earlier auction? This is >>>unacceptable, and is treated as a violation of Law >>>74A2. >>> >>>There is no need for the Director to judge the >>>intent of the player: if no satisfactory bridge >>>reason can be found for the call then he applies >>>Law 74A2. The TD informs (or instructs) the players >>>correspondingly. Richard James Hills: As TD, I would be open to a ruling that there is "no satisfactory bridge reason" for psyching against a much weaker bridge player. This is because psyching randomises results by confusing all three opponents. But the stronger player has a "satisfactory bridge reason" for hoping for non-random results when playing against a much weaker player. As TD, I would be open to a ruling that the strong player "could have known" that such a psyche would "interfere with the enjoyment of the game" of the weaker player to such an extent, that the weaker player plays even worse on subsequent boards. That is, as TD, I would be open to a ruling that a "coffee-house gambit" against a much weaker player was contrary to Law 74A2. However... In my opinion, there is no black-and-white line about when a psyche, or alternatively a pre-empt, against a much weaker player is illegal. As TD, I would *not* rule all psyches, or alternatively pre-empts, which were perpetrated against much weaker players as illegal. As TD, I would remain open to a ruling that any *particular* psyche, or alternatively pre-empt against a bunny *might* have a demonstrably "satisfactory bridge reason", and therefore *might* be a legal call. In my personal bridge experience, most of my bunny bridge opponents find my pre-empts against then "interfering with their enjoyment of the game". But, in my opinion, banning *all* pre-empts against bunnies is an excessively broad interpretation of Law 74A2. Such an excessively broad interpretation of Law 74A2 has not yet been given implicit or explicit endorsement by the WBF LC. 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 Sat Apr 17 06:49:19 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:49:19 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816924@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000e01c4243f$bae25070$37e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2004 7:54 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > > Sent: Friday, 16 April 2004 10:10 p.m. > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches > > > > > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > +=+ Possibly that after suit agreement the 4D bid > > > shows a fit and invites a cue from West. East may be > > > holding Spades A K T x x , Diamonds K x or K x x > > > and an outside singleton or something like? What is > > > not expected is that having agreed Spades it is a sign > > > off, which would suggest an illegal control on a psyche. > > > Not only unalerted but no prior disclosure. > > > > Prior disclosure? Since when does a the 2S bid in this > > auction require > > prior disclosure? Artificial bids in suits shown by > > opponents (I assume > > the double of 2D shows spades) are alertable in the EBU but > > do not require > > special mention on the CC. This should be a simple MI ruling > > and North > > (in passout seat) had every opportunity to inquire about > the auction. > > If North is a novice this might not occur to him and I will > adjust to > > 5Dx-1 (can't see a sensible line for losing more than 3 > > tricks) but if > > North is supposed to be a bit competent then I will not allow > > him to avoid > > his duty to "protect himself". NB, the pass of 3S provides > > some evidence > > that North knew what was going on. > > > > OTOH if we rule this as a pure psych rather than an MI case > > it saddens me > > that EBU demagogues are so lacking in table presence that > > they require > > prior knowledge of partner to work out what is going on. > > > > Tim > > > > [Frances] > > Many people, including me, play 2S as natural in this > > auction. It appears > > to be Bridge World Standard to make a take-out double with 4 > > small spades > > and 3-card heart support in this auction. > > > > There is evidence from a) the lack of alert of 2S and b) > > West's raise of 2S > > to 3S that 2S was systemically natural. > > It is natural with with support for partner's lower ranking suit > when the opponents are bidding the majors to try some subterfuge. > > Everyone at the table is entitled to this general bridge knowledge > truism. > > > > > There is evidence of an illicit partnership agreement when > > West then passed > > a return to 4D. > > How can general bridge knowledge be an illicit partnership agreement? > > Wayne > > > > [Frances] > Now we've worked out where we disagree. I do not think this > is general > bridge knowledge. > > Give the East hand to the good ladies of Surrey (as Chris Ryall so > elegantly puts it) and I am pretty certain that <2% of them would even > consider bidding 2S, or consider it "natural" to try some subterfuge. > > I truly _hate_ the "general bridge knowledge" defence. > Virtually nothing > in the auction is gbk countrywide, never mind worldwide. General Bridge Knowledge is not General Bridge Practice. General Knowledge is information that is potentially available to everyone. For example, the name of the Prime Minister is General Knowledge if I happen to not know that I cannot claim that it is not General Knowledge. Maybe you can answer: If I happen to know that partner might psyche in this situation and I know or suspect that even though I have no partnership agreement or experience with this particular partner then how did I come by this information if not from General Bridge Knowledge? One opponent opens the bidding and the other opponent makes a negative double showing spades and I am supposed to use my general bridge knowledge to deduce that partner is making a slam try? I think not! Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Apr 17 06:51:15 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:51:15 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: <000101c423f7$8da96640$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000f01c4243f$ff9ff870$37e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2004 9:13 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK > > > Ed Reppert > > The proprieties are now part of the laws. Which law > prohibits psyching > > against novices? 74A2? That seems most likely - but it also > seems a bit > > of a stretch. > > I don't know what they say elsewhere but in Norway this is a matter of > regulation, not law - in fact a very common regulation. (And > I specifically > object to L74A2 being applicable for such purpose). > > Regards Sven You have regulations that say you may not psyche? I think that any such regulation is tantamount to saying that you are not playing bridge. Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Apr 17 06:57:47 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:57:47 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002001c42440$e9b8dd50$37e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2004 10:29 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK > > > Ed Reppert wrote > >On Friday, Apr 16, 2004, at 11:02 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> If you breach the Proprieties of the game quoting the CoP will not > >>let you get away with it. > > > >The proprieties are now part of the laws. Which law > prohibits psyching > >against novices? 74A2? That seems most likely - but it also > seems a bit > >of a stretch. > > Maybe so - but it is a recognised interpretation. > > Before BLML shouts I mean recognised by the general bridge > public. I > am sure it is not a recognised interpretation by BLML members! :)) For recognized read "wrong" or "ludicrous". The laws plainly allow psychic bids making a regulation to disallow them is perverse at best. 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 Sat Apr 17 06:58:33 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:58:33 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002101c42441$0652cb60$37e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2004 10:29 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK > > > Ed Reppert wrote > >On Friday, Apr 16, 2004, at 11:02 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> If you breach the Proprieties of the game quoting the CoP will not > >>let you get away with it. > > > >The proprieties are now part of the laws. Which law > prohibits psyching > >against novices? 74A2? That seems most likely - but it also > seems a bit > >of a stretch. > > Maybe so - but it is a recognised interpretation. > > Before BLML shouts I mean recognised by the general bridge > public. I > am sure it is not a recognised interpretation by BLML members! :)) For recognized read "wrong" or "ludicrous". The laws plainly allow psychic bids making a regulation to disallow them is perverse at best. Wayne > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on > OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Sat Apr 17 09:39:26 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:39:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: <000f01c4243f$ff9ff870$37e536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c42457$7e574620$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows .......... > > I don't know what they say elsewhere but in Norway this=20 > > is a matter of regulation, not law - in fact a very=20 > > common regulation. (And I specifically object to > > L74A2 being applicable for such purpose). > > > > Regards Sven >=20 > You have regulations that say you may not psyche? >=20 > I think that any such regulation is tantamount to saying that you are > not playing bridge. We have special regulations applicable to recognized novices in the game = of Bridge: As participants in a beginners' class they are registered as such with = the Norwegian Bridge Federation, they are given special (green) convention = cards which are dated and signed by their instructor. They may not make any = change to these special CCs and within the first year (or is it the first two years?) these novices may consult their own such CC at any time during bridge competitions.=20 And their opponents are specifically forbidden to make any psychic call against them. Is this kind of regulations as acceptable to you as we have found them? Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 17 15:26:44 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:26:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: <000001c42457$7e574620$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40A71DB7-907B-11D8-B506-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Apr 17, 2004, at 04:39 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > As participants in a beginners' class they are registered as such with > the > Norwegian Bridge Federation, they are given special (green) convention > cards > which are dated and signed by their instructor. They may not make any > change > to these special CCs and within the first year (or is it the first two > years?) these novices may consult their own such CC at any time during > bridge competitions. > > And their opponents are specifically forbidden to make any psychic call > against them. > > Is this kind of regulations as acceptable to you as we have found them? If such a pair elects to continue using the green convention card after the first year (or two, whichever it is) are psyches against them still prohibited? Side note: it would perhaps be a good idea if the laws were to require that regulations made "supplementary to these laws" specify under which law they are made. From svenpran@online.no Sat Apr 17 16:27:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:27:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: <40A71DB7-907B-11D8-B506-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c42490$7dae6c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ....... > If such a pair elects to continue using the green convention card = after > the first year (or two, whichever it is) are psyches against them = still > prohibited? No, not generally. But as we prefer to keep novices and get them to = enjoy the game rather than scare them away many (if not most) clubs enforce similar local regulations for as long as necessary so that these novices = can advance to their next level as easily as possible. =20 > Side note: it would perhaps be a good idea if the laws were to require > that regulations made "supplementary to these laws" specify under = which > law they are made. I see no problem here. We make regulations (sometimes local just within = a club) according to what we believe serve the game best. And as long as = we know what we are doing and why I don't think we worry too much whether = we technically are within the laws or not with such regulations. I have seen arguments here on blml that this means we no longer play = bridge. That may be so, and so what? We expect novices eventually to become = "real" bridge players and we consider for instance prohibiting psyches against novices a major aid in encouraging those same novices to keep on. Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Sat Apr 17 17:04:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:04:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: <002001c42440$e9b8dd50$37e536d2@Desktop> References: <002001c42440$e9b8dd50$37e536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote >> Behalf Of David Stevenson >> Ed Reppert wrote >> >The proprieties are now part of the laws. Which law >> prohibits psyching >> >against novices? 74A2? That seems most likely - but it also >> seems a bit >> >of a stretch. >> Maybe so - but it is a recognised interpretation. >> >> Before BLML shouts I mean recognised by the general bridge >> public. I >> am sure it is not a recognised interpretation by BLML members! :)) >For recognized read "wrong" or "ludicrous". > >The laws plainly allow psychic bids making a regulation to disallow >them is perverse at best. See what I mean! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From john@asimere.com Sat Apr 17 19:47:18 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:47:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: <000001c42490$7dae6c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <40A71DB7-907B-11D8-B506-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <000001c42490$7dae6c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2KhsOgA2uXgAFwNw@asimere.com> In article <000001c42490$7dae6c10$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >Ed Reppert >....... >> If such a pair elects to continue using the green convention card after >> the first year (or two, whichever it is) are psyches against them still >> prohibited? > >No, not generally. But as we prefer to keep novices and get them to enjoy >the game rather than scare them away many (if not most) clubs enforce >similar local regulations for as long as necessary so that these novices can >advance to their next level as easily as possible. > >> Side note: it would perhaps be a good idea if the laws were to require >> that regulations made "supplementary to these laws" specify under which >> law they are made. > >I see no problem here. We make regulations (sometimes local just within a >club) according to what we believe serve the game best. And as long as we >know what we are doing and why I don't think we worry too much whether we >technically are within the laws or not with such regulations. > >I have seen arguments here on blml that this means we no longer play bridge. > > >That may be so, and so what? We expect novices eventually to become "real" >bridge players and we consider for instance prohibiting psyches against >novices a major aid in encouraging those same novices to keep on. I think that this is a bad idea. I think novices should be taught that psyches *are* part of the game and they should be encouraged to experiment. regards John > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Apr 17 21:49:02 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:49:02 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: <000001c42457$7e574620$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c424bd$6b878940$f22d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2004 8:39 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK > > > > Wayne Burrows > .......... > > > I don't know what they say elsewhere but in Norway this > > > is a matter of regulation, not law - in fact a very > > > common regulation. (And I specifically object to > > > L74A2 being applicable for such purpose). > > > > > > Regards Sven > > > > You have regulations that say you may not psyche? > > > > I think that any such regulation is tantamount to saying > that you are > > not playing bridge. > > We have special regulations applicable to recognized novices > in the game of > Bridge: > > As participants in a beginners' class they are registered as > such with the > Norwegian Bridge Federation, they are given special (green) > convention cards > which are dated and signed by their instructor. They may not > make any change > to these special CCs and within the first year (or is it the first two > years?) these novices may consult their own such CC at any time during > bridge competitions. > > And their opponents are specifically forbidden to make any > psychic call > against them. > > Is this kind of regulations as acceptable to you as we have > found them? I do not think it is an acceptable regulation. IMO it is preferrable to educate these players about psychic calls. I almost always find an opportunity to introduce this subject in my beginner's lessons. I do not do a formal lesson on psychic calls but in my experience I very often get a question about what happens when someone does not have what they say they have and I am able to explain that this is part of the game and that you may even do this deliberately in an attempt to confuse the opponents but you always run the risk of confusing your partner. On a different level I find it abhorrent that a sponsoring organization would make a regulation that is contrary to the laws. And yet this is practice is rife. My own national authority has the opinion that the laws or at least some of them were "...NEVER...", (yes in capitals and bold in their communication to me when I questioned the obviously illegal regulation), "...intended to constrain NCBOs". How can players get a fair deal when NCBOs and SOs take such arrogant positions above the law? Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Apr 17 22:48:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: <000001c42490$7dae6c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > I see no problem here. We make regulations (sometimes local just within > a club) according to what we believe serve the game best. And as long as > we know what we are doing and why I don't think we worry too much > whether we technically are within the laws or not with such regulations. But when it appears you do not know what you are doing? Novices can (and should) be taught about psyching/false carding as readily as they are taught to finesse or use Stayman. Certainly the lessons are as easy as those on transfers - and a damn sight more useful IMO. If we teach novices there is something "dirty" about psychs then that wrong-headed notion will persist (and eventually prevail) at the higher echelons. Tim From jygrhzcovgwe@yahoo.com Sun Apr 18 05:44:16 2004 From: jygrhzcovgwe@yahoo.com (Berta Eastman) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:44:16 +0600 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Best deal of the month Message-ID: <20040418034905.7A3DA2C510@rhubarb.custard.org> He even gave orders that the horses should be watered, their cribs filled, and that they should be fed with the finest corn; and then he retired, fatigued with all his labours.


No more announcements





Such a wee young thing as he was too! He seemed to be afraid of the water, and struggled against it with all his small strength. Parlin as well as his wife feared the little sufferer was ripening for heaven. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Apr 18 09:26:22 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 09:26:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Change 12C3 procedure ?? References: Message-ID: <001b01c4251f$27935f40$e966893e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 12:33 PM Subject: [blml] Change 12C3 procedure ?? > > +++ As a seemingly simple suggestion - surely > making the precentages and the possible contracts > in a 12C3 ruling AFTER looking at the results removes > ANY issue ?? > > - No one can argue the precentages or the possible > contracts because that is what happened. > - All 12C3 ruling will be 100% consistent with any > director as it depends only on the actual competition > results and does not involve any estimations > - Equity is certainly kept > - The players, i would feel, will firstly understand > whats being done and will be happy with the procedure > and adjustment obtained. > > +=+<<< "Until September 23rd 1999 TDs were forbidden to do equity! The reason was the Law 12C3: "Unless ZOs specify otherwise an appeal committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity" - but the TD could only refer to Law 12C2 giving to the non-offending side the most favourable result likely had the irregularity not occurred, to the offending side the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. This limitation created true MONSTERS on occasion. Imagine North in 7 Hearts, having given, during the auction, a wrong piece of information to his opponents; imagine also that with the right information East avoids the lead suggested by the wrong information but still has to choose among three leads when only one - maybe the most difficult - defeats the contract. In this case , after some minutes, the TD would return to the table saying: "Adjusted score is 7H -1; you have the right to appeal my decision." Rushing quickly away from the table also difficult to achieve. In many such cases - most of those appealed, but of course some would not be - the Appeals Committee could take the benevolent paternal line of adjusting the score somewhere between the two extremes. Easy for the Committee - they could use 12C3. In 1999, thinking that "the mechanical application of Law 12C2" sometimes "does not produce a fair answer for one or both of the sides involved" the WBF decided to extend also to Chief Directors the power given to appeals committees in judgemental matters - desiring him not to rule automatically in favour of the non-offending side when a true judgement demands otherwise (the specified requirement of EBL Directors immemorially). All kinds of sophisticated proposals could suggest to CTDs how to use this new fouind power, but the EBL recommends three simple rules: 1. When it appears reasonably fair for both sides use 12C2. (HThe paper says 'possible' but this has to be qualified by his general position above.) 2. Do not use 12C3 to make happy both sides. 3. It is normal to consult experts when the TD awards an adjusted score but the consultation should be extended significantly when using 12C3. If you are directing a top event consult top players; in less important events consult players a little better than those involved - another way to do equity. When you have these expert opinions move something in favour of the non-offending side - in order to provide for the margin of doubt. If you look at results obtained at other tables only those using similar methods and the same auction are relevant".>>> The above is the advice, with language tidied, given by the Zone 1 CTD in his paper on 12C3 at the recent seminar for Directors from all over Europe.. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From walt1@verizon.net Sun Apr 18 15:59:52 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:59:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Change 12C3 procedure ?? In-Reply-To: <001b01c4251f$27935f40$e966893e@4nrw70j> References: <001b01c4251f$27935f40$e966893e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040418105612.03620090@incoming.verizon.net> At 04:26 AM 18/04/2004, grandeval wrote: >+=+<<< "Until September 23rd 1999 TDs were forbidden >to do equity! The reason was the Law 12C3: "Unless ZOs >specify otherwise an appeal committee may vary an >assigned adjusted score in order to do equity" - but the >TD could only refer to Law 12C2 giving to the non-offending >side the most favourable result likely had the irregularity >not occurred, to the offending side the most unfavourable >result that was at all probable. This limitation created true >MONSTERS on occasion. > Imagine North in 7 Hearts, having given, during the >auction, a wrong piece of information to his opponents; >imagine also that with the right information East avoids >the lead suggested by the wrong information but still has >to choose among three leads when only one - maybe the >most difficult - defeats the contract. In this case , after >some minutes, the TD would return to the table saying: >"Adjusted score is 7H -1; you have the right to appeal my >decision." Rushing quickly away from the table >also difficult to achieve. In many such cases - most of >those appealed, but of course some would not be - the >Appeals Committee could take the benevolent paternal >line of adjusting the score somewhere between the two >extremes. Easy for the Committee - they could use 12C3. > In 1999, thinking that "the mechanical application of > Law 12C2" sometimes "does not produce a fair answer >for one or both of the sides involved" the WBF decided >to extend also to Chief Directors the power given to >appeals committees in judgemental matters - desiring >him not to rule automatically in favour of the non-offending >side when a true judgement demands otherwise (the >specified requirement of EBL Directors immemorially). > All kinds of sophisticated proposals could suggest to >CTDs how to use this new fouind power, but the EBL >recommends three simple rules: > 1. When it appears reasonably fair for both >sides use 12C2. (HThe paper says 'possible' but this > has to be qualified by his general position above.) > 2. Do not use 12C3 to make happy both sides. > 3. It is normal to consult experts when the TD >awards an adjusted score but the consultation should be >extended significantly when using 12C3. > If you are directing a top event consult top players; in >less important events consult players a little better than >those involved - another way to do equity. When you >have these expert opinions move something in favour >of the non-offending side - in order to provide for the >margin of doubt. If you look at results obtained at other >tables only those using similar methods and the same >auction are relevant".>>> > The above is the advice, with language tidied, >given by the Zone 1 CTD in his paper on 12C3 at the >recent seminar for Directors from all over Europe.. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan This sounds very reasonable to me. I have only two questions: 1. What makes up Zone 1? 2. Who is the Zone 1 CTD? Thanks Walt From ehaa@starpower.net Sun Apr 18 18:42:16 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:42:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: References: <000001c42490$7dae6c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040418133858.009f5110@pop.starpower.net> At 05:48 PM 4/17/04, twm wrote: >If we teach >novices there is something "dirty" about psychs then that wrong-headed >notion will persist (and eventually prevail) at the higher echelons. Here in North America, there's no "if" about it. We have, and it has (and it has). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Apr 18 22:59:09 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:59:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote: [big snip] >>within the first year (or is it the first two >>years?) these novices may consult their own >>such CC at any time during bridge competitions. [big snip] Law 40E2 states: >During the auction and play, any player except >dummy may refer to his opponents' convention >card at his own turn to call or play, but not to >his own. Richard James Hills notes: Even the gung-ho ACBL Board of Directors has not dared to join Norway in promulgating a regulation directly contrary to a specific Law. Instead, the ACBL BoD has passed a relatively restrained motion requesting that Law 40E2 be modified in 2006, so that an SO then has the legal option to regulate permission for novices to consult their own convention card. A so-called "bridge" club in Tasmania tried a similar trick. The novices at that club objected to the local expert claiming, so the club passed a regulation outlawing claims. When the local expert complained to the ABF, the ABF noted that claims were part of bridge, so therefore bridge was not being played at the "bridge" club. The "bridge" club then had to choose between two logical alternatives: (a) repeal its unLawful regulation, or (b) disaffiliate from the ABF. The "bridge" club chose option (b). Likewise, in my opinion, the Norwegian national "bridge" organisation has a choice of three logical alternatives: (a) repeal its unLawful regulations, or (b) disaffiliate from the WBF, or (c) procrastinate until the 2006 Laws give the Norwegian NBO greater Lawful regulatory powers. 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 Apr 18 23:30:23 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:30:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: Frances Hinden wrote: [snip] >>I truly _hate_ the "general bridge knowledge" defence. >>Virtually nothing in the auction is gbk countrywide, >>never mind worldwide. Wayne Burrows asserted: >General Bridge Knowledge is not General Bridge Practice. > >General Knowledge is information that is potentially >available to everyone. > >For example, the name of the Prime Minister is General >Knowledge if I happen to not know that I cannot claim >that it is not General Knowledge. [snip] Richard James Hills replies: In my opinion, Wayne's analogy is flawed. For Frances, it is General Knowledge that the name of the Prime Minister is Tony Blair. But for Wayne, it is General Knowledge that the name of the Prime Minister is Helen Clark. And for me, it is General Knowledge that the name of the Prime Minister will be Mark Latham. :-) 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 Apr 19 04:33:53 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:33:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Farcing pass of a forcing call Message-ID: Eric Landau asked: [snip] >Are there, I wonder, any other areas where a >method has been widely adopted because its >perceived advantage in the committee room >outweighs its drawbacks at the table? Richard James Hills notes: Many European expert partnerships, and some Aussie partnerships, never give attitude signals when following suit, choosing to use count signals exclusively when following suit. On the other hand, most American expert partnerships use at least some attitude signals when following suit. In both theory and practice, exclusive-count signallers are less likely to transmit UI than occasional-attitude signallers. That is because giving count is a brain-neutral mechanical exercise, while deciding whether or not partner should be encouraged to continue leading a particular suit usually requires the firing of some (possibly slow) synapses. Jeff Rubens (in his co-authored book "Journalist Leads") gave some cogent arguments that the occasional-attitude style is somewhat superior to the exclusive-count style. However, my regular partner is a slow thinker. I avoid some UI-restrictions caused by my regular partner's deep thoughts, by using the exclusive-count style when defending against non-notrump contracts. In my opinion, that is as it should be. Sure, slow thinkers are discriminated against by the Laws of Bridge. So what? Short people are discriminated against by the Laws of Basketball. Slow bridge thinkers could defect to the more salubrious environment of tournament chess - but even there they are ultimately required to stop dithering, by the short sharp shock of the chess clock. 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 19 06:37:07 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:37:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK References: <000001c42490$7dae6c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20040418133858.009f5110@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002d01c425d2$eca5df70$aad5403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 6:42 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK > At 05:48 PM 4/17/04, twm wrote: > > >If we teach > >novices there is something "dirty" about psychs > >then that wrong-headed notion will persist (and > >eventually prevail) at the higher echelons. > > Here in North America, there's no "if" about it. > We have, and it has (and it has). > +=+ However, let us be clear about it. That it is unsporting for strong players to psyche against inexperienced players has been taught, to my personal knowledge, since the early 1950's (when I had something of notoriety nationally as a psycher). It is not a latter-day doctrine. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 19 06:49:50 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:49:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK References: <002001c42440$e9b8dd50$37e536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <002e01c425d2$ed7c6950$aad5403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK > Wayne Burrows wrote > >> Behalf Of David Stevenson > >> Ed Reppert wrote > > >> >The proprieties are now part of the laws. Which law > >> prohibits psyching against novices? 74A2? That seems . ..most likely - but it also > >> seems a bit > >> >of a stretch. > > >> Maybe so - but it is a recognised interpretation. > >> > >> Before BLML shouts I mean recognised by the general bridge > >> public. I am sure it is not a recognised interpretation by BLML > >> members! :)) > > >For recognized read "wrong" or "ludicrous". > > > >The laws plainly allow psychic bids making a regulation to disallow > >them is perverse at best. > > See what I mean! > +=+ From time to time I have debated with myself whether an explicit condition of entry to a tournament might require entrants not to psyche. Since L40 allows, by the WBF decision, the banning of psyches of conventions by regulation, it must also authorize similar regulation of partnership understandings at least about psyches on fewer than 8 HCP. So controlled psyches may be banned, and action may be taken against psyches where there is evidence from the auction of an understanding. But these are things to do with the play, not preconditions for acceptance of entries - a subject on which Law 80D makes an unrestricted statement.. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon Apr 19 07:28:30 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:28:30 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA3566@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Sven Pran wrote: We have special regulations applicable to recognized novices in the game = =3D of Bridge: As participants in a beginners' class they are registered as such with = =3D the Norwegian Bridge Federation, they are given special (green) convention = =3D cards which are dated and signed by their instructor. They may not make any = =3D change to these special CCs and within the first year (or is it the first two years?) these novices may consult their own such CC at any time during bridge competitions.=3D20 And their opponents are specifically forbidden to make any psychic call against them. Is this kind of regulations as acceptable to you as we have found them? ----- What Sven say about CC is correct. But there's no national regulation in Norway saying that it's forbidden = to make any psychic calls against novices. There might be such = regulations in some clubs. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran ----- Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 19 08:08:49 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:08:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=3D+ However, let us be clear about it. That it is >unsporting for strong players to psyche against >inexperienced players has been taught, to my >personal knowledge, since the early 1950's (when >I had something of notoriety nationally as a >psycher). It is not a latter-day doctrine. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Richard James Hills notes: In my opinion, the term "unsporting" is irrelevant to blml discussion if one is discussing the *current* Laws of Bridge. For example, Law 73B3 unsportingly states that, "There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of law committed by one's own side....." In my opinion, "unsporting" is rather one of the criteria for determining *changes to Law* in 2006. (Such as my suggestion that Law 73B3 be reversed in 2006.) Another use for the term "unsporting" is as a personal criterion for personal standards during the auction. But while I may disagree with a player's psyche against a bunny, I will defend to the death that player's *right* to psyche against the bunny. Monty Python almost wrote: >>Judith: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you >>agree that he can't actually psyche against >>bunnies, it being unsporting, which is >>nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but >>that he can have the *right* to psyche >>against bunnies. >> >>Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight >>the oppressors for your right to psyche, >>brother. Sister, sorry. >> >>Reg: What's the *point*? >> >>Francis: What? >> >>Reg: What's the point of fighting for his >>right to psyche, when he can't psyche? >> >>Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle >>against oppression. >> >>Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against >>reality. 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 19 08:49:18 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:49:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) References: Message-ID: <005701c425e3$a47d5e60$17b387d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) < Sven Pran wrote: [big snip] >>within the first year (or is it the first two >>years?) these novices may consult their own >>such CC at any time during bridge competitions. [big snip] Law 40E2 states: >During the auction and play, any player except >dummy may refer to his opponents' convention >card at his own turn to call or play, but not to >his own. Richard James Hills notes: Even the gung-ho ACBL Board of Directors has not dared to join Norway in promulgating a regulation directly contrary to a specific Law. Instead, the ACBL BoD has passed a relatively restrained motion requesting that Law 40E2 be modified in 2006, so that an SO then has the legal option to regulate permission for novices to consult their own convention card. A so-called "bridge" club in Tasmania tried a similar trick. The novices at that club objected to the local expert claiming, so the club passed a regulation outlawing claims. When the local expert complained to the ABF, the ABF noted that claims were part of bridge, so therefore bridge was not being played at the "bridge" club. The "bridge" club then had to choose between two logical alternatives: (a) repeal its unLawful regulation, or (b) disaffiliate from the ABF. The "bridge" club chose option (b). Likewise, in my opinion, the Norwegian national "bridge" organisation has a choice of three logical alternatives: (a) repeal its unLawful regulations, or (b) disaffiliate from the WBF, or (c) procrastinate until the 2006 Laws give the Norwegian NBO greater Lawful regulatory powers. +=+ Both the EBL and the ACBL have availed themselves of the WBF decision, as have various NBOs, that regulations under Laws 40D, 40E, 78D, and 80E are independent of any made under Law 80F and not subject to that Law. Such being the case, the decision has to apply equally to conditions established under 80D, which makes an unrestricted statement.. It follows that Norway has only to frame its requirement carefully under Law 80D. Its preconditions for entry to the tournaments in which it is to apply should say, I suggest: "Entry is open to players who agree that designated "novice players" may consult their own convention cards at any time during the auction and play.". The same route is open to be followed by bridge clubs that wish to ban psyching, etc. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Er, did I hear something stir in the thickets of Earl's Court, Hampstead or Belconnen? :-) From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Apr 19 08:48:48 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:48:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) References: Message-ID: <007501c425e4$2204fd20$b182b6d4@LNV> Likewise, in my opinion, the Norwegian national "bridge" organisation has a choice of three logical alternatives: (a) repeal its unLawful regulations, or (b) disaffiliate from the WBF, or (c) procrastinate until the 2006 Laws give the Norwegian NBO greater Lawful regulatory powers. Best wishes RJH This looks logic on first 'eye'. But it isn't. Norway needs to receive a similar letter from the WBF as this club in the ABF received from its NBO, to be put in the same position. And Norway will not get such a letter, though I am sure that some of you feel it the duty of the WBF to write it. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Apr 19 09:20:18 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:20:18 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) Message-ID: <008c01c425e7$28825640$b182b6d4@LNV> > Likewise, in my opinion, the Norwegian national > "bridge" organisation has a choice of three > logical alternatives: > > (a) repeal its unLawful regulations, or > (b) disaffiliate from the WBF, or > (c) procrastinate until the 2006 Laws give the > Norwegian NBO greater Lawful regulatory > powers. > > Best wishes > > RJH This looks logic on first 'eye'. But it isn't. Norway needs to receive a similar letter from the WBF as this club in the ABF received from its NBO, to be put in the same position. And Norway will not get such a letter, though I am sure that some of you feel it the duty of the WBF to write it. ton From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Apr 19 10:13:26 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:13:26 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: <002d01c425d2$eca5df70$aad5403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <000501c425ee$92c16ad0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk > Sent: Monday, 19 April 2004 5:37 p.m. > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK > > > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "To be independent of public opinion is the > first formal condition of achieving anything > great or rational whether in life or in science. > Great achievement is assured, however, of > subsequent recognition and grateful acceptance > by public opinion, which in due course will make > it one of its own prejudices." ~ Hegel. > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 6:42 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK > > > > At 05:48 PM 4/17/04, twm wrote: > > > > >If we teach > > >novices there is something "dirty" about psychs > > >then that wrong-headed notion will persist (and > > >eventually prevail) at the higher echelons. > > > > Here in North America, there's no "if" about it. > > We have, and it has (and it has). > > > +=+ However, let us be clear about it. That it is > unsporting for strong players to psyche against > inexperienced players has been taught, to my > personal knowledge, since the early 1950's (when > I had something of notoriety nationally as a > psycher). It is not a latter-day doctrine. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Taught to whom, by whom? I thought it was merely part of the folklore. Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Apr 19 10:22:02 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:22:02 +1200 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) In-Reply-To: <005701c425e3$a47d5e60$17b387d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000601c425ef$c6237340$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of grandeval > Sent: Monday, 19 April 2004 7:49 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) > > > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "They died to save their country and > they only saved the world". > [G.K.Chesterton] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 10:59 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) > < > Sven Pran wrote: > > [big snip] > > >>within the first year (or is it the first two > >>years?) these novices may consult their own > >>such CC at any time during bridge competitions. > > [big snip] > > Law 40E2 states: > > >During the auction and play, any player except > >dummy may refer to his opponents' convention > >card at his own turn to call or play, but not to > >his own. > > Richard James Hills notes: > > Even the gung-ho ACBL Board of Directors has not > dared to join Norway in promulgating a regulation > directly contrary to a specific Law. Instead, > the ACBL BoD has passed a relatively restrained > motion requesting that Law 40E2 be modified in > 2006, so that an SO then has the legal option to > regulate permission for novices to consult their > own convention card. > > A so-called "bridge" club in Tasmania tried a > similar trick. The novices at that club objected > to the local expert claiming, so the club passed > a regulation outlawing claims. When the local > expert complained to the ABF, the ABF noted that > claims were part of bridge, so therefore bridge > was not being played at the "bridge" club. The > "bridge" club then had to choose between two > logical alternatives: > > (a) repeal its unLawful regulation, or > (b) disaffiliate from the ABF. > > The "bridge" club chose option (b). > > Likewise, in my opinion, the Norwegian national > "bridge" organisation has a choice of three > logical alternatives: > > (a) repeal its unLawful regulations, or > (b) disaffiliate from the WBF, or > (c) procrastinate until the 2006 Laws give the > Norwegian NBO greater Lawful regulatory > powers. > > +=+ Both the EBL and the ACBL have availed > themselves of the WBF decision, as have various > NBOs, that regulations under Laws 40D, 40E, 78D, > and 80E are independent of any made under > Law 80F and not subject to that Law. Such being > the case, the decision has to apply equally to > conditions established under 80D, which makes > an unrestricted statement.. It follows that Norway > has only to frame its requirement carefully > under Law 80D. Its preconditions for entry to the > tournaments in which it is to apply should say, I > suggest: > "Entry is open to players who agree that > designated "novice players" may consult their > own convention cards at any time during the > auction and play.". > The same route is open to be followed by > bridge clubs that wish to ban psyching, etc. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ And while we are at it lets let them revoke and lead out of turn and make insufficient bids and claim any number of tricks that come into their heads and outlaw overcalls once said novices have opened the bidding and not let said novices opponents win tricks with aces and permit questions between novice partners like "did you really mean you have two aces?" and disallow pre-empts and disallow false cards and defensive signaling and ... And lets call this game we propose to play Bridge. Wayne > Er, did I hear something stir in the thickets of > Earl's Court, Hampstead or Belconnen? :-) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Apr 19 10:41:50 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:41:50 +1200 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) In-Reply-To: <008c01c425e7$28825640$b182b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <000701c425f2$8a68bdd0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > Sent: Monday, 19 April 2004 8:20 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Fw: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) > > > > Likewise, in my opinion, the Norwegian national > > "bridge" organisation has a choice of three > > logical alternatives: > > > > (a) repeal its unLawful regulations, or > > (b) disaffiliate from the WBF, or > > (c) procrastinate until the 2006 Laws give the > > Norwegian NBO greater Lawful regulatory > > powers. > > > > Best wishes > > > > RJH > > > > This looks logic on first 'eye'. But it isn't. Norway needs > to receive a > similar letter from the WBF as this club in the ABF received > from its NBO, > to be put in the same position. And Norway will not get such > a letter, > though I am sure that some of you feel it the duty of the > WBF to write it. Deliberate procrastination in getting their regulations into alignment with the laws in itself would warrant expulsion. Wayne > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 19 09:19:14 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:19:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK References: Message-ID: <009301c425fb$44d44ec0$17b387d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK < Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ However, let us be clear about it. That it is >unsporting for strong players to psyche against >inexperienced players has been taught, to my >personal knowledge, since the early 1950's (when >I had something of notoriety nationally as a >psycher). It is not a latter-day doctrine. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard James Hills notes: In my opinion, the term "unsporting" is irrelevant to blml discussion if one is discussing the *current* Laws of Bridge. +=+ ".... in a sportsmanlike manner." (Section 7 - Ethics and Deportment, WBF General Conditions of Contest) and refer also to 31.3 ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 19 12:06:55 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:06:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) References: <008c01c425e7$28825640$b182b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <00c401c425ff$c4227fe0$17b387d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:20 AM Subject: Fw: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) > > Likewise, in my opinion, the Norwegian national > > "bridge" organisation has a choice of three > > logical alternatives: > > > > (a) repeal its unLawful regulations, or > > (b) disaffiliate from the WBF, or > > (c) procrastinate until the 2006 Laws give the > > Norwegian NBO greater Lawful regulatory > > powers. > > > > Best wishes > > > > RJH > > > > This looks logic on first 'eye'. But it isn't. Norway > needs to receive a similar letter from the WBF as > this club in the ABF received from its NBO, to be > put in the same position. < +=+ I concur in that statement +=+ < > And Norway will not get such a letter, though I am > sure that some of you feel it the duty of the WBF to > write it. > +=+ I also agree that Norway will not receive such a letter, although I do not share the views of any who feel it is the WBF's duty to write it. As far as I am concerned those who organize bridge tournaments should have the say as to what conditions are to apply in those tournaments - a view I expressed a while back to the WBF President - without demur, this far, from him. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ < > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 19 12:11:31 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:11:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) References: <000601c425ef$c6237340$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <00c501c425ff$c4e2c2a0$17b387d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:22 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) >> > > Likewise, in my opinion, the Norwegian national > > "bridge" organisation has a choice of three > > logical alternatives: > > > > (a) repeal its unLawful regulations, or > > (b) disaffiliate from the WBF, or > > (c) procrastinate until the 2006 Laws give the > > Norwegian NBO greater Lawful regulatory > > powers. > > > > +=+ Both the EBL and the ACBL have availed > > themselves of the WBF decision, as have various > > NBOs, that regulations under Laws 40D, 40E, 78D, > > and 80E are independent of any made under > > Law 80F and not subject to that Law. Such being > > the case, the decision has to apply equally to > > conditions established under 80D, which makes > > an unrestricted statement.. It follows that Norway > > has only to frame its requirement carefully > > under Law 80D. Its preconditions for entry to the > > tournaments in which it is to apply should say, I > > suggest: > > "Entry is open to players who agree that > > designated "novice players" may consult their > > own convention cards at any time during the > > auction and play.". > > The same route is open to be followed by > > bridge clubs that wish to ban psyching, etc. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > And while we are at it lets let them revoke and lead > out of turn and make insufficient bids and claim any > number of tricks that come into their heads and outlaw > overcalls once said novices have opened the bidding and > not let said novices opponents win tricks with aces and > permit questions between novice partners like "did you > really mean you have two aces?" and disallow pre-empts > and disallow false cards and defensive signaling and > ... > > And lets call this game we propose to play Bridge. > > Wayne > > > Er, did I hear something stir in the thickets of > > Earl's Court, Hampstead or Belconnen? :-) > > +=+ I merely quote the written law. ~G~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 19 11:54:06 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:54:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK References: <000501c425ee$92c16ad0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <00c301c425ff$c2a073c0$17b387d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:13 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK > > > > > > +=+ However, let us be clear about it. That it is > > unsporting for strong players to psyche against > > inexperienced players has been taught, to my > > personal knowledge, since the early 1950's (when > > I had something of notoriety nationally as a > > psycher). It is not a latter-day doctrine. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Taught to whom, by whom? > > I thought it was merely part of the folklore. > > Wayne > > +=+ Taught to me and others by G.L. Butler, Delegate of the European Bridge League, afterwards Chairman of the Laws Commission of the World Bridge Federation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Apr 19 12:48:44 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:48:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >In my opinion, the term "unsporting" is >irrelevant to blml discussion if one is >discussing the *current* Laws of Bridge. > >For example, Law 73B3 unsportingly states >that, "There is no obligation to draw >attention to an inadvertent infraction of >law committed by one's own side....." > >In my opinion, "unsporting" is rather one >of the criteria for determining *changes >to Law* in 2006. (Such as my suggestion >that Law 73B3 be reversed in 2006.) > >Another use for the term "unsporting" is as >a personal criterion for personal standards >during the auction. But while I may disagree >with a player's psyche against a bunny, I will >defend to the death that player's *right* to >psyche against the bunny. The Laws in the book are not the only thing against which people's actions are measured. Unsportsmanlike conduct, even if not shown to be illegal when searching through the proprieties, leads to social pressures to change. In effect there are three ways of controlling something [eg bunny psyching]: the Laws, or personal ethics, or generally accepted standards The lines often get blurred. -- 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 Apr 19 13:06:45 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:06:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) References: <008c01c425e7$28825640$b182b6d4@LNV> <00c401c425ff$c4227fe0$17b387d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <005801c42606$c9f2ac40$a59468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Like Grattan, we remember the standard advice in the 1950s was, as it is now, that you shouldn't psyche against novices; but we don't remember that it was in the "proprieties" not did anybody ever claim that it was "unsporting" -- we find the notion hilarious. It was simply bad tactics to randomise the auction for your side when opponents were all likely to self-destruct without your help. As novices, we were always delighted when experts paid us the compliment of psyching against us. This thread returns to a recurring theme. Ton and Grattan opine that TFLB deficiencies/ommissions should be plugged by each local jusrisdiction cobbling together its own chauvinistic idiosyncratic remedy. Many other BLMLers believe that WBFLC should, instead, provide a more accurate and complete FLB. One suspects that most jurisdictions would be delighted to be relieved of the necessity to fill all the TFLB gaps but if any of them still wanted to concoct local rules, they would at least have a default from which to depart. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 15/04/2004 From john@asimere.com Mon Apr 19 13:37:04 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:37:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: <002d01c425d2$eca5df70$aad5403e@multivisionoem> References: <000001c42490$7dae6c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20040418133858.009f5110@pop.starpower.net> <002d01c425d2$eca5df70$aad5403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: In article <002d01c425d2$eca5df70$aad5403e@multivisionoem>, gesta@tiscali.co.uk writes > snip >> At 05:48 PM 4/17/04, twm wrote: >> >> >If we teach >> >novices there is something "dirty" about psychs >> >then that wrong-headed notion will persist (and >> >eventually prevail) at the higher echelons. >> >> Here in North America, there's no "if" about it. >> We have, and it has (and it has). >> >+=+ However, let us be clear about it. That it is >unsporting for strong players to psyche against >inexperienced players has been taught, to my >personal knowledge, since the early 1950's (when >I had something of notoriety nationally as a >psycher). It is not a latter-day doctrine. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ another poacher turned gamekeeper :) cheers john > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Apr 16 18:18:41 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:18:41 -0600 Subject: [blml] Message with header that isn't suspicious Message-ID: <001801c423d6$e07e17b0$532846a2@ams.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C423A4.92B52410 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Today I made my first psyching bid since I arrived to America. After two passes I held at Game All: Q1064 653 J752 76 Because of my flat distribution it was quite dangerous to open 1 of a suit so I started with the safest possible psyche - the ART GF 2C opener. Hearing the strong bid the LHO passed, as expected, and partner responded with the waiting 2D bid - also as I had expected him to. I passed as I had planned - that=20 exposed the psyche to the whole table but now the bad guys have yet to find their best contract and they have considerably less bidding space than if given a free run. LHO tried 2NT, his partner tried to bid ask for the majors with=20 3C but his partner made him play right there. They had a cold game, of course. During the next round the TD showed up at our table and said: - It has been reported to me that somebody psyched the strong 2C opener at this table. It is illegal in this country to do that.=20 - Oh, really, it is? - asked my American partner (a Flight B player) - = You can't be serious!=20 - Yes, I am and I am going to adjust this deal to 3NT +1, the most likely result giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOs. And he duly did. I unsuccessfully tried to find such a regulation on the = ACBL site (they don't have a search engine, though, so I might well have missed = it). Is it really in place in the ACBL land? And what exactly is its wording; the TD said that this regulation doesn't specify what to do if somebody actually does psyche a strong opener (ART GF 2C or 1C 16+). Is that correct? I wonder if in ACBL you are allowed to pass with a GF hand as opener=20 or maybe that is illegal, too. :-) Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C423A4.92B52410 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

    Today I made my first psyching bid = since I=20 arrived
to America. After two passes I held at Game=20 All:

Q1064
653
J752
76

Because of my flat = distribution it=20 was quite dangerous
to open 1 of a suit so I started with the=20 safest
possible psyche - the ART GF 2C opener.
Hearing the strong = bid the=20 LHO passed, as expected,
and partner responded with the waiting 2D = bid -=20 also
as I had expected him to. I passed as I had planned - that =
exposed=20 the psyche to the whole table but now
the bad guys have yet to find = their=20 best contract
and they have considerably less bidding space = than
if given=20 a free run.

LHO tried 2NT, his partner tried to bid ask for the = majors=20 with
3C but his partner made him play right there.
They had a = cold game,=20 of course.

During the next round the TD showed up at our = table
and=20 said:

- It has been reported to me that somebody psyched the = strong
2C=20 opener at this table. It is illegal in this country
to do that.
- = Oh,=20 really, it is? - asked my American partner (a Flight B player) - You = can't be=20 serious!
- Yes, I am and I am going to adjust this deal to 3NT +1, = the=20 most
likely result giving the benefit of the doubt to = the
NOs.

And=20 he duly did. I unsuccessfully tried to find such a regulation on the = ACBL=20 site
(they don't have a search engine, though, so I might well have = missed=20 it).
Is it really in place in the ACBL land? And what exactly = is
its=20 wording; the TD said that this regulation doesn't specify
what to do = if=20 somebody actually does psyche a strong
opener (ART GF 2C or 1C 16+). = Is that=20 correct?

I wonder if in ACBL you are allowed to pass with a GF = hand as=20 opener
or maybe that is illegal, too.=20 :-)




        &n= bsp;   =20 Konrad=20 Ciborowski
          = ;  =20 Krenver, Polorado


------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C423A4.92B52410-- From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Apr 16 18:45:20 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:45:20 -0600 Subject: [blml] Zmylkowy naglowek Message-ID: <005101c423da$98e90ff0$532846a2@ams.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004E_01C423A8.4B8CE7E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Today I made my first psyching bid since I arrived to America. After two passes I held at Game All: Q1064 653 J752 76 Because of my flat distribution it was quite dangerous to open 1 of a suit so I started with the safest possible psyche - the ART GF 2C opener. Hearing the strong bid the LHO passed, as expected, and partner responded with the waiting 2D bid - also as I had expected him to. I passed as I had planned - that=20 exposed the psyche to the whole table but now the bad guys have yet to find their best contract and they have considerably less bidding space than if given a free run. LHO tried 2NT, his partner tried to bid ask for the majors with=20 3C but his partner made him play right there. They had a cold game, of course. During the next round the TD showed up at our table and said: - It has been reported to me that somebody psyched the strong 2C opener at this table. It is illegal in this country to do that.=20 - Oh, really, it is? - asked my American partner (a Flight B player) - = You can't be serious!=20 - Yes, I am and I am going to adjust this deal to 3NT +1, the most likely result giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOs. And he duly did. I unsuccessfully tried to find such a regulation on the = ACBL site (they don't have a search engine, though, so I might well have missed = it). Is it really in place in the ACBL land? And what exactly is its wording; the TD said that this regulation doesn't specify what to do if somebody actually does psyche a strong opener (ART GF 2C or 1C 16+). Is that correct? I wonder if in ACBL you are allowed to pass with a GF hand as opener=20 or maybe that is illegal, too. :-) Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado ------=_NextPart_000_004E_01C423A8.4B8CE7E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

    Today I made my = first=20 psyching bid since I arrived
to America. After two passes I held at = Game=20 All:

Q1064
653
J752
76

Because of my flat = distribution it=20 was quite dangerous
to open 1 of a suit so I started with the=20 safest
possible psyche - the ART GF 2C opener.
Hearing the strong = bid the=20 LHO passed, as expected,
and partner responded with the waiting 2D = bid -=20 also
as I had expected him to. I passed as I had planned - that =
exposed=20 the psyche to the whole table but now
the bad guys have yet to find = their=20 best contract
and they have considerably less bidding space = than
if given=20 a free run.

LHO tried 2NT, his partner tried to bid ask for the = majors=20 with
3C but his partner made him play right there.
They had a = cold game,=20 of course.

During the next round the TD showed up at our = table
and=20 said:

- It has been reported to me that somebody psyched the = strong
2C=20 opener at this table. It is illegal in this country
to do that.
- = Oh,=20 really, it is? - asked my American partner (a Flight B player) - You = can't be=20 serious!
- Yes, I am and I am going to adjust this deal to 3NT +1, = the=20 most
likely result giving the benefit of the doubt to = the
NOs.

And=20 he duly did. I unsuccessfully tried to find such a regulation on the = ACBL=20 site
(they don't have a search engine, though, so I might well have = missed=20 it).
Is it really in place in the ACBL land? And what exactly = is
its=20 wording; the TD said that this regulation doesn't specify
what to do = if=20 somebody actually does psyche a strong
opener (ART GF 2C or 1C 16+). = Is that=20 correct?

I wonder if in ACBL you are allowed to pass with a GF = hand as=20 opener
or maybe that is illegal, too.=20 :-)




        &n= bsp;   =20 Konrad=20 Ciborowski
          = ;  =20 Krenver, Polorado


------=_NextPart_000_004E_01C423A8.4B8CE7E0-- From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Apr 16 18:58:57 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:58:57 -0600 Subject: [blml] We ain't psyche that way 'round here, mister Message-ID: <007301c423dc$7ff75770$532846a2@ams.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0070_01C423AA.32C5E8E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Today I made my first psyching bid since I arrived to America. After two passes I held at Game All: Q1064 653 J752 76 Because of my flat distribution it was quite dangerous to open 1 of a suit so I started with the safest possible psyche - the ART GF 2C opener. Hearing the strong bid the LHO passed, as expected, and partner responded with the waiting 2D bid - also as I had expected him to. I passed as I had planned - that=20 exposed the psyche to the whole table but now the bad guys have yet to find their best contract and they have considerably less bidding space than if given a free run. LHO tried 2NT, his partner tried to bid ask for the majors with=20 3C but his partner made him play right there. They had a cold game, of course. During the next round the TD showed up at our table and said: - It has been reported to me that somebody psyched the strong 2C opener at this table. It is illegal in this country to do that.=20 - Oh, really, it is? - asked my American partner (a Flight B player) - = You can't be serious!=20 - Yes, I am and I am going to adjust this deal to 3NT +1, the most likely result giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOs. And he duly did. I unsuccessfully tried to find such a regulation on the = ACBL site (they don't have a search engine, though, so I might well have missed = it). Is it really in place in the ACBL land? And what exactly is its wording; the TD said that this regulation doesn't specify what to do if somebody actually does psyche a strong opener (ART GF 2C or 1C 16+). Is that correct? I wonder if in ACBL you are allowed to pass with a GF hand as opener=20 or maybe that is illegal, too. :-) Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado ------=_NextPart_000_0070_01C423AA.32C5E8E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Today I made my first psyching bid since I arrived
to America. = After two=20 passes I held at Game = All:

Q1064
653
J752
76

Because of=20 my flat distribution it was quite dangerous
to open 1 of a suit so I = started=20 with the safest
possible psyche - the ART GF 2C opener.
Hearing = the strong=20 bid the LHO passed, as expected,
and partner responded with the = waiting 2D=20 bid - also
as I had expected him to. I passed as I had planned - that =
exposed the psyche to the whole table but now
the bad guys have = yet to=20 find their best contract
and they have considerably less bidding = space=20 than
if given a free run.

LHO tried 2NT, his partner tried to = bid ask=20 for the majors with
3C but his partner made him play right = there.
They=20 had a cold game, of course.

During the next round the TD showed = up at our=20 table
and said:

- It has been reported to me that somebody = psyched the=20 strong
2C opener at this table. It is illegal in this country
to = do that.=20
- Oh, really, it is? - asked my American partner (a Flight B player) = - You=20 can't be serious!
- Yes, I am and I am going to adjust this deal to = 3NT +1,=20 the most
likely result giving the benefit of the doubt to=20 the
NOs.

And he duly did. I unsuccessfully tried to find such = a=20 regulation on the ACBL site
(they don't have a search engine, though, = so I=20 might well have missed it).
Is it really in place in the ACBL land? = And what=20 exactly is
its wording; the TD said that this regulation doesn't=20 specify
what to do if somebody actually does psyche a = strong
opener (ART=20 GF 2C or 1C 16+). Is that correct?

I wonder if in ACBL you are = allowed to=20 pass with a GF hand as opener
or maybe that is illegal, too.=20 :-)




        &n= bsp;   =20 Konrad=20 Ciborowski
          = ;  =20 Krenver, Polorado
------=_NextPart_000_0070_01C423AA.32C5E8E0-- From jkljkl@gmx.de Mon Apr 19 18:28:48 2004 From: jkljkl@gmx.de (stefan filonardi) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:28:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL: psyching strong 2C opening Message-ID: <40842870.16059.3F297F@localhost> Hello Doug, hi all, On 16 Apr 2004 at 17:31, Doug Couchman wrote: > Welcome to the ACBL. Well the ACBL is just a little bit unlucky, due of language limitations the comparisons are made mostly with Australia, New Zealand and the EBU. > This was the subject of a question from me a few weeks back, > wondering whether other jurisdictions ban such psyches outright. I > didn't get many responses. Ok here some examples from other federations that are not so often present on this list. Austria: http://www.bridgeaustria.at/downloads/wo/WKO2004.doc Example: First and second hand openings on first level in a suit must follow the rule of 18, if not score will be adjusted and the offending pair will get a disciplinary penalty. Italy: http://www.federbridge.it/Regolamenti/doc/apertureinterventi.pdf a 9 pages long document about allowed openenings etc. stating on what degree you are allowed to psyche on distribution and points. Example: you are allowed to psyche a 1NT opening but only +/- 3 HCP around your announced range (never les than 8 HCP). (distributional restrictions too) Germany: http://www.bridge- verband.de/Download/Dateien/Dateien_Recht/TO_2000_Aenderungsfassung_20 040201.pdf Follows WBF police, for club tourneys more restrictions about psyching. ciao stefan :-) germany ------- End of forwarded message ------- From ipw3@hotmail.com Mon Apr 19 18:43:41 2004 From: ipw3@hotmail.com (ipw3@hotmail.com) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 01:43:41 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Hello: Message-ID:

------------------------------------------------------------
remove please email: emailad1234@sina.com
------------------------------------------------------------

Email Marketing !

We offer you e-mail addresses databases for advertisement mailing; we sell databases also carry out mailing and hosting for the advertising projects.

Products

World Email Lists . Their validity and originality are verified. Details and order Click Here to web site

Country or area total emails

America                          175 Million Email Address
Europe                           156 Million Email Address
Asia                             168 Million Email Address
China(PRC)                       80 Million Email Address
HongKong                         3.25 Million Email Address
TaiWan                           2.25 Million Email Address
Japan                            27 Million Email Address
Australia                        6 Million Email Address
Canda                            10 Million Email Address
Russia                           38 Million Email Address
England                          3.2 Million Email Address
German                           20 Million Email Address
France                           38 Million Email Address
India                            12 Million Email Address
CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICAN AREA    40 Million Email Address
MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA             45 million Email Address
SOUTH EAST AREA                  32 million Email Address

other Country or Area ¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Category Name total emails

Apparel, Fashion, Textiles and Leather     4,654,565 $150
Automobile & Transportation                6,547,845
Business Services                          6,366,344
Chemicals                                  3,445,565
Computer & Telecommunications              654,655
Construction & Real Estate                 3,443,544
Consumer Electronics                       1,333,443
Energy, Minerals & Metals                  6,765,683
Environment                                656,533
Food & Agriculture                         1,235,354
Gems & Jewellery                           565,438
Health & Beauty                            804,654
Home Supplies                              323,232
Industrial Supplies                        415,668
Office Supplies                            1,559,892
Packaging & Paper                          5,675,648
Printing & Publishing                      6,563,445
Security & Protection                      5,653,494
Sports & Entertainment                     3,488,455
Toys, Gifts and Handicrafts                2,135,654

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¡¤All 136 nations , 40 trades email lists
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Send Your Ad to Millions
5 million bulk email
50 million bulk email
100 million bulk email
200 million bulk email

Imagine emailing 500,000 recipients and 1 out of every 1000 orders your product, that's 500 new orders!
* We go all-out to make sure our customers are completely satisfied
* If any emails fail to make delivery, we replace them free of charge
* 100% Spam free, rest assured you will not be accused of spamming
* Almost all of our emails are sent to valid email addresses
* No software required, we do all the mailing from our own server
* Don't be fooled in signing up with similar sites offering services that cannot compare to ours
* Get the most bang for your buck with bulk email advantage!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Details and order Click Here to web site

Thank you!

the silver star internet information company

copyright¡¤2004-2005 all reserved


------------------------------------------------------------
remove please email: emailad1234@sina.com
------------------------------------------------------------

From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Apr 19 20:29:27 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 07:29:27 +1200 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) In-Reply-To: <00c501c425ff$c4e2c2a0$17b387d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <001401c42644$a10138e0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: grandeval [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > Sent: Monday, 19 April 2004 11:12 p.m. > To: Wayne Burrows; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) > > > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "They died to save their country and > they only saved the world". > [G.K.Chesterton] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:22 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) > > > >> > > > Likewise, in my opinion, the Norwegian national > > > "bridge" organisation has a choice of three > > > logical alternatives: > > > > > > (a) repeal its unLawful regulations, or > > > (b) disaffiliate from the WBF, or > > > (c) procrastinate until the 2006 Laws give the > > > Norwegian NBO greater Lawful regulatory > > > powers. > > > > > > +=+ Both the EBL and the ACBL have availed > > > themselves of the WBF decision, as have various > > > NBOs, that regulations under Laws 40D, 40E, 78D, > > > and 80E are independent of any made under > > > Law 80F and not subject to that Law. Such being > > > the case, the decision has to apply equally to > > > conditions established under 80D, which makes > > > an unrestricted statement.. It follows that Norway > > > has only to frame its requirement carefully > > > under Law 80D. Its preconditions for entry to the > > > tournaments in which it is to apply should say, I > > > suggest: > > > "Entry is open to players who agree that > > > designated "novice players" may consult their > > > own convention cards at any time during the > > > auction and play.". > > > The same route is open to be followed by > > > bridge clubs that wish to ban psyching, etc. > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > And while we are at it lets let them revoke and lead > > out of turn and make insufficient bids and claim any > > number of tricks that come into their heads and outlaw > > overcalls once said novices have opened the bidding and > > not let said novices opponents win tricks with aces and > > permit questions between novice partners like "did you > > really mean you have two aces?" and disallow pre-empts > > and disallow false cards and defensive signaling and > > ... > > > > And lets call this game we propose to play Bridge. > > > > Wayne > > > > > Er, did I hear something stir in the thickets of > > > Earl's Court, Hampstead or Belconnen? :-) > > > > +=+ I merely quote the written law. ~G~ +=+ And I merely point out the absurdity of the same. Wayne > > From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Apr 19 22:30:10 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:30:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) References: <001401c42644$a10138e0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <002701c42655$82ce4b90$0cf7f0c3@LNV> > > +=+ It follows that Norway has only to frame its requirement carefully under Law 80D. .......... I merely quote the written law. ~G~ +=+ That is a debatable statement, you need some quite subtle interpretations to let the laws say what you want here. I am not sure which statement comes closer to describe the discrepancy, yours or Wayne's below. Which also means that your suggestion to Norway to do it carefully is not really needed. We need to do better in a couple of years. ton > And I merely point out the absurdity of the same. > > Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 19 23:41:32 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:41:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK Message-ID: Richard James Hills notes: >>>In my opinion, the term "unsporting" is >>>irrelevant to blml discussion if one is >>>discussing the *current* Laws of Bridge. Grattan Endicott quotes: >>+=3D+ ".... in a sportsmanlike manner." >>(Section 7 - Ethics and Deportment, >>WBF General Conditions of Contest) >> and refer also to 31.3 >> ~ G ~ +=3D+ WBF Code of Practice votes: >A contestant may only be penalized for a >lapse of ethics where a player is in >breach of the provisions of the laws in >respect of the conduct of players. A >player who has conformed to the laws and >regulations is not subject to criticism. Richard James Hills emotes: If Section 7 of the WBF GCoC over-rides the WBF CoP, has the WBF bothered to define "sportsmanlike manner"? Or are contestants supposed to guess when their otherwise legal actions have suddenly become illegal? 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 Apr 20 00:25:26 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:25:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] who are the opponents? Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >>>>Apropos to yet a third thread (perhaps it >>>>was on rgb, I don't remember), it seems to >>>>me the word "opponent" in this law (and >>>>perhaps all the laws) refers to the opponent >>>>at the table, not for example in a pairs >>>>game, to the rest of the field. Thus >>>>"protecting the field" seems an invalid >>>>principle. What says the list? Robert E. Harris: >>>Perhaps the next edition of the laws might >>>include the definition of "opponents" in the >>>definitions section. Sven Pran: >>Frankly I am not so sure that is such a good >>idea. Look at Law 4 which is fairly clear. An >>explicit definition of "opponents" must take >>into consideration the various types of events >>(singles, pairs, teams) and can thus become >>fairly complicated with little advantage. 1997 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, Chapter 1: >Opponent - A player of the other side; a member >of the partnership to which one is opposed. Richard James Hills: In an earlier thread, I noted the power of a comma in affecting Lawful interpretation. The definition of "opponent" incorporates an even more powerful semi-colon. How should this semi-colon be interpreted? A clue might come from the semi-colons scattered through the definition of "contestant". 1997 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, Chapter 1: >Contestant - In an individual event, a player; in >a pair event, two players playing as partners >throughout the event; in a team event, four or >more players playing as team-mates. Richard James Hills: In the definition of "contestant", the semi-colons are used to separate different sub-definitions. So, if one assumes that the WBF LC consistently punctuates, there are two different sub- definitions of "opponent": (a) a member of the opposing partnership, or (b) a player of the other side Since the rest of the field consists of players of the other side, "protecting the field" is a correctly punctuated principle. 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 20 00:25:38 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:25:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) References: <001401c42644$a10138e0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <002d01c42666$482d1410$2000e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 8:29 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) > > > > > > +=+ I merely quote the written law. ~G~ +=+ > > And I merely point out the absurdity of the same. > > Wayne > +=+ And that is exactly the difference between us, Wayne. I believe that given these powers the Norwegian NBO and the Tasmanian Bridge Club will use them responsibly for the benefit of their members. They will protect their members from the pernicious actions of dissident malcontents who want freedom to do their own thing, regardless of the possible inconvenience of others in their games, whilst not making any rules that deny for the great majority a full enjoyment of them. So for me the right thing is to let Norway, Tasmania, and every authority have the power to determine for themselves what should be allowed in the tournaments that they put on - and I am content to read such laws as 80D accordingly. By the way, did you pick up the WBF President's words in the April 2004 World Bridge News about the need to "overcome the controversy surrounding the use of highly unusual methods (HUM) and unfamiliar, largely obstructive (Brown Sticker) conventions, which can destroy bridge and ruin all our efforts"? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 20 00:59:48 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:59:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) References: <001401c42644$a10138e0$0401010a@Desktop> <002701c42655$82ce4b90$0cf7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <004201c4266a$8ab086b0$2000e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "Wayne Burrows" ; Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) > > > +=+ > It follows that Norway > has only to frame its requirement carefully > under Law 80D. > > .......... > > I merely quote the written law. ~G~ +=+ > > That is a debatable statement, you need some quite > subtle interpretations to let the laws say what you > want here. < +=+ Actually we do not need any interpretation. All that is required is to read the law exactly as it is written. In the particular case of 80D it says:that a sponsoring organisation has the power "to establish the conditions of entry". That is all the power it needs. In two years time we have to do equally well. And in doing so I am confident we will have the backing of les puissants. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Apr 20 00:26:30 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:26:30 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) In-Reply-To: <002d01c42666$482d1410$2000e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: > By the way, did you pick up the WBF President's > words in the April 2004 World Bridge News about the > need to "overcome the controversy surrounding the use of > highly unusual methods (HUM) and unfamiliar, largely > obstructive (Brown Sticker) conventions, which can destroy > bridge and ruin all our efforts"? In all seriousness, I thought this was another of those smileyless jokes, until I actually did a web search and found out there really is such a publication as 'World Bridge News'. The first few links to it I found in google were dead, but it can indeed be found on the WBF's homepage. Here is a direct link: http://www.worldbridge.org/publications/wbnews/default.asp It isn't even new - there are back issues to 1999 at this address. Apparently it is circulated in much the same way as other WBF pronouncements are. I know I've been on this mailing list several years and been to the WBF website probably 20 or 30 times over those years, and I don't recall even hearing its name before, let alone actually stumbling across a copy of it. Fascinating. Will have to read these, next time I have a spare minute. (And after I upgrade my PDF reader, which choked on the 2004 edition.) GRB From adam@irvine.com Tue Apr 20 01:32:29 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:32:29 -0700 Subject: [blml] who are the opponents? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:25:26 +1000." Message-ID: <200404200032.RAA25427@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > 1997 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, Chapter 1: > > >Opponent - A player of the other side; a member > >of the partnership to which one is opposed. > > Richard James Hills: > > In an earlier thread, I noted the power of a > comma in affecting Lawful interpretation. The > definition of "opponent" incorporates an even > more powerful semi-colon. How should this > semi-colon be interpreted? > > A clue might come from the semi-colons scattered > through the definition of "contestant". > > 1997 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, Chapter 1: > > >Contestant - In an individual event, a player; in > >a pair event, two players playing as partners > >throughout the event; in a team event, four or > >more players playing as team-mates. > > Richard James Hills: > > In the definition of "contestant", the semi-colons > are used to separate different sub-definitions. > So, if one assumes that the WBF LC consistently > punctuates, there are two different sub- > definitions of "opponent": > > (a) a member of the opposing partnership, or > (b) a player of the other side > > Since the rest of the field consists of players of > the other side, "protecting the field" is a > correctly punctuated principle. Ummm . . . if the rest of the field consists of players of "the other side", rather than "an other side", this implies that there are only two sides---your partnership, and all the other partnerships sitting in the same direction; and that the other partnerships are there not to gain victory for themselves, but for the sole purpose of making sure *your* partnership doesn't win, and that a victory for any partnership that isn't you is a victory for all of them. Sounds a bit paranoid. Given this problem with interpreting "a player of the other side" to include players at other tables---and given that (not counting the Definitions) the word "opponent" occurs 73 times in the Laws, and in at least 71 of them it can make no sense for the word "opponent" to mean anything other than a member of the partnership sitting in the opposite direction at your table---I don't see any way that "opponent" in Law 12A1 could mean anything different than it does in the other 71 uses of the word, except by really torturing the language. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 20 01:18:48 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:18:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: [snip] > By the way, did you pick up the WBF President's >words in the April 2004 World Bridge News about the >need to "overcome the controversy surrounding the use of >highly unusual methods (HUM) and unfamiliar, largely >obstructive (Brown Sticker) conventions, which can destroy >bridge and ruin all our efforts"? > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Richard James Hills notes: An opinion by a President, no matter how esteemed, is merely that - an opinion. Note - I am also a President of a sponsoring organisation. Furthermore, all Canberrans are liars. :-) In my opinion, an equally valid case could be made that over-restrictive ACBL policies on conventional methods have discouraged young players from participating in duplicate bridge in the ACBL, thus "destroying bridge" in the ACBL, due to a demographic disaster of a constant increase in the average age of ACBL members. For example, last night I played against a pair of Australian Junior Internationals. They had obviously had a lot of fun devising and practicing their home-grown HUM and obstructive Forcing Pass system, and were now very much enjoying testing it at the table against other experts. While I was taken out of my boring comfort zone, I did not feel "ruined". In my opinion, innovative juniors are the future of bridge. In my opinion, driving innovative juniors away from bridge with WBF-like restrictions which prevent "controversy" is not good for the game. Historical note: If one peruses the 1950s issues of The Bridge World, one will discover that the then "unfamiliar" Roth-Stone system also created "controversy". If the office of the WBF President had existed then, it is possible that today Roth's negative double convention would be classified as an obstructive Brown Sticker convention. 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 schoderb@msn.com Tue Apr 20 01:36:29 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:36:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) References: <001401c42644$a10138e0$0401010a@Desktop> <002701c42655$82ce4b90$0cf7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: Ton writes: "We need to do better in a couple of years." Sure we do, and mostly on those specifics that our WBF Laws Committee Charter calls for, not what we would like to show the world for whatever reasons. There will remain, despite strong "feelings" from some WBF officials to the contrary, a very local flavor to this game. It will remain so, and the WBF needs to remain adjusted to that, as it has over many years of success. When it comes to WBF Sanctioned championships, you can make, or unmake, what you wish, but when it comes to 4 people, and multiples thereof in some location, bridge is what they want it to be. And that, my friends, is one of the greatest attractions of this game. We are having a wonderful time, aren't we? Tasked to review the laws, we now find ourselves in telling NCBOs how they are to play the game of "bridge." Of course, our titles make us sure to be right. Would anyone care to remember that this is a game, has many ways of being regulated, and can be enjoyed at all levels without draconian (or pick your word) regulation? Where the WBF has a right to exercise it's power is only when it is the "sanctioning" (use whatever word you wish, but it means the organizer, guy who pays the bills, guy who gives out the awards, etc.) entity. So, make all your conditions of contest clear, see it whatever way you want, and suggest to the NBOs what you think they should do to: -- 1. make it easier for their players to play at the WBF level, and 2. keep the game as internationally the same as possible, -- but come off the high and mighty position that you can and should dictate to them. When the players from country XXX, having met the WBF stated requirements for eligibility, show up to play in WBF events, they are bound to follow WBF Laws, Rules, and Regulations, regardless of what they play at home or think is right. When they deviate they are at a disadvantage. I'm tired of listening to egocentric people who wish to rule the world of bridge as though they wrote the canticle of righteousness. Please allow me, for the future of the WBF, and for your personal cogitation, to say, what I'm sure will be ignored, "you may even be wrong." Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Wayne Burrows" ; Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 5:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) > > > +=+ > It follows that Norway > has only to frame its requirement carefully > under Law 80D. > > .......... > > I merely quote the written law. ~G~ +=+ > > That is a debatable statement, you need some quite subtle interpretations > to > let the laws say what you want here. I am not sure which statement comes > closer to describe the discrepancy, yours or Wayne's below. > Which also means that your suggestion to Norway to do it carefully is not > really needed. > > We need to do better in a couple of years. > > ton > > > > > > > And I merely point out the absurdity of the same. > > > > Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 20 03:18:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:18:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: [snip] >>I believe that given these powers the >>Norwegian NBO and the Tasmanian Bridge >>Club will use them responsibly for the >>benefit of their members. They will >>protect their members from the >>pernicious actions of dissident >>malcontents who want freedom to do >>their own thing, regardless of the >>possible inconvenience of others in >>their games, whilst not making any >>rules that deny for the great majority >>a full enjoyment of them. So for me >>the right thing is to let Norway, >>Tasmania, and every authority have the >>power to determine for themselves what >>should be allowed in the tournaments >>that they put on - and I am content to >>read such laws as 80D accordingly. [snip] Richard James Hills asks: When Grattan is "content to read" Law 80D, is such a reading an official WBF LC opinion? Or is such a reading that Law 80D can over-ride Law 40E2 merely a consequence of a Grattanical personal belief that an SO regulation can never (well, hardly ever) be unLawful? A significant Laws Commission disagrees with Grattan's view about the mutability of the Laws. http://web2.acbl.org/lawscommission/phoenix2002.htm ACBL Laws Commission, November 30, 2002: >The Laws Commission found that looking at >your convention card is contrary to the >present Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge >(Laws). The Commission noted that, while >the Laws prohibit such a practice, there >is no specified penalty attached to >looking at one's own convention card. >However, other consequences in law (for >which the director may have to apply law >16 or 84E, for example) may result from >so doing. There was a consensus that this >matter be referred to the drafting >committee for further consideration. 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 Apr 20 05:34:25 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:34:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) Message-ID: Kojak wrote: >There will remain, despite strong "feelings" from >some WBF officials to the contrary, a very local >flavor to this game. It will remain so, and the >WBF needs to remain adjusted to that, as it has >over many years of success. [snip] >I'm tired of listening to egocentric people who >wish to rule the world of bridge as though they >wrote the canticle of righteousness. > >Please allow me, for the future of the WBF, and >for your personal cogitation, to say, what I'm >sure will be ignored, "you may even be wrong." RJH replies: I wholeheartedly agree with Kojak about the "very local" flavour of bridge. I wholeheartedly reject the draconian top-down uniformity which the purist Nigel Guthrie has advocated. Indeed, I wholeheartedly support the principle of subsiduarity, as already exists in those numerous Laws (such as Law 12C3 and Law 61B) which merely specify defaults, but allow Zones or SOs to vary those defaults. However..... I believe that sponsoring organisations "may be wrong" if they reverse Laws (such as Law 40E2), when the Law itself does not specifically state that it may be reversed. Of course, a simple formatting change in the 2006 Laws, of better cross-indexing, may cause my legalistic quibble to disappear. If the 2006 Laws specifically state which Laws are mutable, and which Laws are immutable, then my egocentricity will share the same canticle of righteousness with Kojak's humility. :-) 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 Tue Apr 20 06:29:14 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:29:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Less arcane alternative to blml Message-ID: Anna Gudge's useful website has just started another feature, a discussion of Bridge Laws and Rulings partially moderated by EBU National TD Mike Amos. Some blml posters and/or lurkers may find Anna's website a less precious but more valuable question & answer forum. See attached. Best wishes Richard James Hills http://www.simpairs.com/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=3D7 >Welcome to this new topic - I will be asking Mike >Amos, an EBL National TD to keep an eye on this >area, so that he can try and answer questions if >necessary. Please feel free to hold an open >discussion of any matters concerning Bridge Laws >or Rulings. > >anna -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Tue Apr 20 06:57:32 2004 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:57:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) In-Reply-To: <005801c42606$c9f2ac40$a59468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <008c01c425e7$28825640$b182b6d4@LNV> <00c401c425ff$c4227fe0$17b387d9@4nrw70j> <005801c42606$c9f2ac40$a59468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20040420155427.038676e0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> > Nigel: > As novices, we >were always delighted when experts paid us the compliment of >psyching against us. Exactly so. I can still remember with a great deal of pleasure Roelof Smilde psyching against me in 1966. I think bridge was more fun then. Tony (Sydney) me in From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 20 07:12:49 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:12:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK Message-ID: Monty Python almost wrote: [snip] >>Reg: What's the point of fighting for his >>right to psyche, when he can't psyche? >> >>Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle >>against oppression. >> >>Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against >>reality. David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >In effect there are three ways of controlling >something [eg bunny psyching]: > >the Laws, or >personal ethics, or >generally accepted standards > >The lines often get blurred. Richard James Hills agrees: I agree with David. Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.) The fact that I am a tree-hugging left-wing activist, means that I struggle against the oppression of psyches, even when I recognise the reality of generally accepted standards. Therefore, I have now adopted the personal ethic of nevermore psyching against bunnies, while still maintaining that I have the right to psyche against bunnies if I choose to (despite nevermore choosing to). :-) 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 Apr 20 07:34:45 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:34:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] who are the opponents? Message-ID: Richard James Hills: [snip] >>Since the rest of the field consists >>of players of the other side, >>"protecting the field" is a >>correctly punctuated principle. Adam Beneschan: [snip] >I don't see any way that "opponent" >in Law 12A1 could mean anything >different than it does in the other >71 uses of the word, except by >really torturing the language. Richard James Hills: Mea culpa. In a private email, Steve Willner drew my attention to the fact that Chapter 1 of the Laws also contains this definition: "Side - Two players who constitute a partnership against the other two players." Therefore, my suggestion that players of the other "side" are the rest of the field, is another beautiful hypothesis slain by an ugly fact. So, the ACBL obsession with "protecting the field" from "windfalls" to the NOS does not yet have any Lawful basis. 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 Apr 20 08:25:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:25:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double ploy Message-ID: ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook, cases 2 and 3: Matchpoint pairs, dlr: W, vul: NS A5 AKQJ542 5 T63 KQ8763 JT94 98 3 AQT9 K8762 K J98 2 T76 J43 AQ7542 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S 2H 2S 3H 4S Pass(1) Pass 5H Pass Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo. 5H made five, +650 for N/S. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S Double 3S Pass(1) 4S 5H Pass Pass 5S Pass Pass Double Pass Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo. 5S doubled went down two, +300 for N/S. How would you rule? How would you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Tue Apr 20 09:15:58 2004 From: hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:15:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] new address Message-ID: <01ce01c426af$b7c09380$7723b5d4@swipnet.se> Dear Sirs, I have a new e-mail address: hans-olof@bolina.hsb.se Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Tue Apr 20 09:27:12 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:27:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double ploy References: Message-ID: First case. 5H by south is a no-no. I would rule 4S undoubled down one (the defence seems rather automatic). I am not too fond of PP's (in my country we don't use them) and I would only consider a penalty if this pair is known to be repeat offenders (very hard for on the spot TD's and AC's). I tend to assume innocence (but I am known to have given penalties). Second case. The guy that doubled (not my choice but who cares) was going to bid hearts his second time. I don't see that partners pause has a lot to do with anything let alone with that 'decision'. So I would allow 5H in this case (there is no serious LA IMHO). But I know the 'when they think hang them' brigade will find some arguments to rule against 5H. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:25 AM Subject: [blml] Double ploy ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook, cases 2 and 3: Matchpoint pairs, dlr: W, vul: NS A5 AKQJ542 5 T63 KQ8763 JT94 98 3 AQT9 K8762 K J98 2 T76 J43 AQ7542 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S 2H 2S 3H 4S Pass(1) Pass 5H Pass Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo. 5H made five, +650 for N/S. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S Double 3S Pass(1) 4S 5H Pass Pass 5S Pass Pass Double Pass Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo. 5S doubled went down two, +300 for N/S. How would you rule? How would you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. 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 jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Tue Apr 20 09:50:07 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:50:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) References: Message-ID: Dear all, Of course Kojak is right. As someone who has played bridge all over the globe and at all imaginable levels I know that there is a 'a very local flavor to this game'. And that way of putting it is rather an understatement. Any serious SO needs some freedom to organize the right kind of event for their 'clients'. This Norwegian concept of some kind of beginners licence seems a very good idea to me(anything that works is a good idea). All kind of local regs about limiting systems and psyching have a function. I know some zealous SO's might overdo but so far I have never run into something I considered really over the top. The only big time power that has some tendicies in that direction seems to be the ACBL. I have a personal experience with that, when playing the Cavandish Multi was illegal. At first I had to laugh but then I thought what the heck. If classifying Multi as brown-sticker (logically correct) helps them to find more participants then who am I to disagree. I can always pick another tournament with another policy. But RJH has also an important point. The laws have to be written better. They should also be useable by others than the people that write them. In this context I really see it as a handicap that there are too many TD's involved in that proces. This creates too easily a 'you know what I mean' laziness. Anyway the WBF(LC) should define a) the laws as used in WBF events and b) the basic laws from which nobody should deviate and c) a default for everything not deemed 'basic'. Some local variety is a very healthy way of evolution. New ideas get a chance, the good ones will be adopted by all and the bad ones will die out. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) Kojak wrote: >There will remain, despite strong "feelings" from >some WBF officials to the contrary, a very local >flavor to this game. It will remain so, and the >WBF needs to remain adjusted to that, as it has >over many years of success. [snip] >I'm tired of listening to egocentric people who >wish to rule the world of bridge as though they >wrote the canticle of righteousness. > >Please allow me, for the future of the WBF, and >for your personal cogitation, to say, what I'm >sure will be ignored, "you may even be wrong." RJH replies: I wholeheartedly agree with Kojak about the "very local" flavour of bridge. I wholeheartedly reject the draconian top-down uniformity which the purist Nigel Guthrie has advocated. Indeed, I wholeheartedly support the principle of subsiduarity, as already exists in those numerous Laws (such as Law 12C3 and Law 61B) which merely specify defaults, but allow Zones or SOs to vary those defaults. However..... I believe that sponsoring organisations "may be wrong" if they reverse Laws (such as Law 40E2), when the Law itself does not specifically state that it may be reversed. Of course, a simple formatting change in the 2006 Laws, of better cross-indexing, may cause my legalistic quibble to disappear. If the 2006 Laws specifically state which Laws are mutable, and which Laws are immutable, then my egocentricity will share the same canticle of righteousness with Kojak's humility. :-) 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Apr 20 10:11:54 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:11:54 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) Message-ID: <004c01c426b8$01211600$89954c51@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Ton Kooijman" Cc: "blml" ; "Francin Christine" Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 1:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) > Ton writes: > > "We need to do better in a couple of years." > > Sure we do, and mostly on those specifics that our WBF Laws Committee > Charter calls for, not what we would like to show the world for whatever > reasons. > > There will remain, despite strong "feelings" from some WBF officials to > the contrary, a very local flavor to this game. It will remain so, and the > WBF needs to remain adjusted to that, as it has over many years of > success. > When it comes to WBF Sanctioned championships, you can make, or > unmake, what you wish, but when it comes to 4 people, and multiples > thereof in some location, bridge is what they want it to be. And that, > my friends, is one of the greatest attractions of this game. > > We are having a wonderful time, aren't we? Tasked to review the > laws, we now find ourselves in telling NCBOs how they are to play the > game of "bridge." Of course, our titles make us sure to be right. > > Would anyone care to remember that this is a game, has many ways > of being regulated, and can be enjoyed at all levels without draconian > (or pick your word) regulation? > > Where the WBF has a right to exercise it's power is only when it is the > "sanctioning" (use whatever word you wish, but it means the > organizer, guy who pays the bills, guy who gives out the awards, etc.) > entity. So, make all your conditions of contest clear, see it whatever > way you want, and suggest to the NBOs what you think they should > do to: -- > > 1. make it easier for their players to play at the WBF level, and > > 2. keep the game as internationally the same as possible, > > -- but come off the high and mighty position that you can and should > dictate to them. When the players from country XXX, having met > the WBF stated requirements for eligibility, show up to play in WBF > events, they are bound to follow WBF Laws, Rules, and Regulations, > regardless of what they play at home or think is right. When they > deviate they are at a disadvantage. > > I'm tired of listening to egocentric people who wish to rule the world > of bridge as though they wrote the canticle of righteousness. > > Please allow me, for the future of the WBF, and for your personal > cogitation, to say, what I'm sure will be ignored, "you may even be > wrong." > > Kojak > +=+ I have repeatedly said that I think it right to enable those who set up tournaments to decide what is to be allowed in those tournaments. That goes for the EBL, the ACBL, every other Zone and NBO, and every local bridge club. So I believe I can subscribe to Kojak's sentiments without reservation. At the end of the day I cannot believe, either, that ton will wish otherwise. We are here to enable not to dictate. Edgar distrusted putting power in the hands of the Zones and NBOs; with his passing I understood the early discussions in the WBF Laws Committee as intending to change course on this, and I believe that is the direction in which we are going, and should go. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ton Kooijman" > To: "Wayne Burrows" ; > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 5:30 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) > > > > > > +=+ > > It follows that Norway > > has only to frame its requirement carefully > > under Law 80D. .......... > > > > I merely quote the written law. ~G~ +=+ > > > > That is a debatable statement, you need some > > quite subtle interpretations to let the laws say > > what you want here. I am not sure which statement > > comes closer to describe the discrepancy, yours or > > Wayne's below. Which also means that your > > suggestion to Norway to do it carefully is not really > > needed. > > > > We need to do better in a couple of years. > > > > ton > > +=+ Actually we do not need any interpretation. All that is required is to read the law exactly as it is written. In the particular case of 80D it says:that a sponsoring organisation has the power "to establish the conditions of entry". That is all the power it needs. In two years time we have to do equally well. And in doing so I am confident we will have the backing of les puissants. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Apr 20 10:53:11 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:53:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) In-Reply-To: References: <001401c42644$a10138e0$0401010a@Desktop> <002701c42655$82ce4b90$0cf7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: WILLIAM SCHODER wrote >I'm tired of listening to egocentric people who wish to rule the world of >bridge as though they wrote the canticle of righteousness. > >Please allow me, for the future of the WBF, and for your personal >cogitation, to say, what I'm sure will be ignored, "you may even be wrong." There are only two sorts of people on BLML: * those who are sometimes wrong, and * those who admit it I am always pleased to be one of the latter. Just recently I was told by someone that I was too arrogant. When he explained apparently "too arrogant" meant "not always agreeing 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 dr_woodgeographic@runbox.com Tue Apr 20 08:57:06 2004 From: dr_woodgeographic@runbox.com (Jcs) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 07:57:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fwd:Have S.ex Up To 20 Times A Day! . . . . turgid Message-ID: DeerAntler+






grandstand , renumber From dr_woodRasmussen@runbox.com Tue Apr 20 20:34:50 2004 From: dr_woodRasmussen@runbox.com (Twinoaks) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 20:34:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd:Have S.ex Up To 20 Times A Day! . . . . bridesmaid Message-ID: DeerAntler+






booty , bulldozer From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Apr 20 12:53:28 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:53:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) References: <004c01c426b8$01211600$89954c51@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <001401c426ce$43d68ff0$67f7f0c3@LNV> > > I'm tired of listening to egocentric people who wish to rule the world > > of bridge as though they wrote the canticle of righteousness. > > > > Please allow me, for the future of the WBF, and for your personal > > cogitation, to say, what I'm sure will be ignored, "you may even be > > wrong." > > > > Kojak > +=+ I have repeatedly said that I think it right to enable > those who set up tournaments to decide what is to > be allowed in those tournaments. That goes for the EBL, > the ACBL, every other Zone and NBO, and every local > bridge club. So I believe I can subscribe to Kojak's > sentiments without reservation. At the end of the day > I cannot believe, either, that ton will wish otherwise. Grattan Well we are not at the end of the day yet and here I am telling you both that I don't understand why you think that I could be a blockade for the development of bridge. The thing I have problems with is that we write laws and then need never-thought-of-and-even-contrary-to-the laws interpretations to keep all of us happy. Because there is no limit to the inventiveness of all of us. That amazes me to be honest. Grattan, who didn't like the way Kaplan wrote the laws because anybody could read those the way he wanted, coming up with all kinds of weird interpretations with the same effect. . So the big problem will be to decide till what stage of development and interpretations we still want to call the game played elsewhere 'bridge'. That came up in my egocentric mind reading these contributions. ton From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Apr 20 13:17:02 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:17:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] who are the opponents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040420080428.009e7ba0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:25 PM 4/19/04, richard.hills wrote: >In an earlier thread, I noted the power of a >comma in affecting Lawful interpretation. The >definition of "opponent" incorporates an even >more powerful semi-colon. How should this >semi-colon be interpreted? > >A clue might come from the semi-colons scattered >through the definition of "contestant". > >1997 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, Chapter 1: > > >Contestant - In an individual event, a player; in > >a pair event, two players playing as partners > >throughout the event; in a team event, four or > >more players playing as team-mates. > >Richard James Hills: > >In the definition of "contestant", the semi-colons >are used to separate different sub-definitions. >So, if one assumes that the WBF LC consistently >punctuates, there are two different sub- >definitions of "opponent": > >(a) a member of the opposing partnership, or >(b) a player of the other side > >Since the rest of the field consists of players of >the other side, That's really stretching the language. In the context of a game played between two contestants, there are two sides, and their respective memberships don't depend on which one you're on. It makes a lot more sense in context to interpret "side" as referring to a "contestant". >"protecting the field" is a >correctly punctuated principle. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Apr 20 13:25:25 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:25:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) In-Reply-To: <002d01c42666$482d1410$2000e150@multivisionoem> References: <001401c42644$a10138e0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040420081852.009ecad0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:25 PM 4/19/04, gesta wrote: > By the way, did you pick up the WBF President's >words in the April 2004 World Bridge News about the >need to "overcome the controversy surrounding the use of >highly unusual methods (HUM) and unfamiliar, largely >obstructive (Brown Sticker) conventions, which can destroy >bridge and ruin all our efforts"? One wonders whether the referent of his "which" was "the use" or "the controversy", and notes that they have opposite implications. I'm sure *he* knew which he meant, but the amgiguity provides an object lesson for would-be law writers. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Apr 20 13:50:46 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:50:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040420084056.009eabc0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:25 AM 4/20/04, richard.hills wrote: >Matchpoint pairs, dlr: W, vul: NS > > A5 > AKQJ542 > 5 > T63 >KQ8763 JT94 >98 3 >AQT9 K8762 >K J98 > 2 > T76 > J43 > AQ7542 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1S 2H 2S 3H >4S Pass(1) Pass 5H >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Break in tempo. > >5H made five, +650 for N/S. > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1S Double 3S Pass(1) >4S 5H Pass Pass >5S Pass Pass Double >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Break in tempo. > >5S doubled went down two, +300 for N/S. > >How would you rule? >How would you rule? I would have to have been there; these are not cases on which I would be comfortable giving a ruling without first talking to the players involved (few are). That said: In the first, South would have a very hard time convincing me that passing out 4S was not an LA, or that 5H was not demonstrably suggested by partner's tempo break. I would, however, be sympathetic to the argument that failing to shift to the D5 at trick two was not likely (or at all probable). So I'd probably adjust to N-S +50. In the second, North could, without too much effort, convince me that, having doubled 1S, he has no LA to 5H over 4S. So I'd probably rule no adjustment. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb@msn.com Tue Apr 20 13:59:24 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:59:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] who are the opponents? References: <200404200032.RAA25427@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: I can clearly remember Edgar hewing to the principle that the only opponents to be considered are those at the table where an infraction occurred. He excluded consideration of equity for the "field" or other contestants; finally after much pressure, adding the footnote to Law 12 which is now 12 C 3. I never agreed with his stance, but his answer was that any such other considerations were beyond the abilities of but a few TDs. I had to follow his guidance in ACBL. We are , I think rightly, moving from that position with the Code of Practice, other interpretations of the Laws wording, etc., to take the much bigger and important aspect into our rulings. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] who are the opponents? > > Richard wrote: > > > 1997 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, Chapter 1: > > > > >Opponent - A player of the other side; a member > > >of the partnership to which one is opposed. > > > > Richard James Hills: > > > > In an earlier thread, I noted the power of a > > comma in affecting Lawful interpretation. The > > definition of "opponent" incorporates an even > > more powerful semi-colon. How should this > > semi-colon be interpreted? > > > > A clue might come from the semi-colons scattered > > through the definition of "contestant". > > > > 1997 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, Chapter 1: > > > > >Contestant - In an individual event, a player; in > > >a pair event, two players playing as partners > > >throughout the event; in a team event, four or > > >more players playing as team-mates. > > > > Richard James Hills: > > > > In the definition of "contestant", the semi-colons > > are used to separate different sub-definitions. > > So, if one assumes that the WBF LC consistently > > punctuates, there are two different sub- > > definitions of "opponent": > > > > (a) a member of the opposing partnership, or > > (b) a player of the other side > > > > Since the rest of the field consists of players of > > the other side, "protecting the field" is a > > correctly punctuated principle. > > Ummm . . . if the rest of the field consists of players of "the other > side", rather than "an other side", this implies that there are only > two sides---your partnership, and all the other partnerships sitting > in the same direction; and that the other partnerships are there not > to gain victory for themselves, but for the sole purpose of making > sure *your* partnership doesn't win, and that a victory for any > partnership that isn't you is a victory for all of them. Sounds a bit > paranoid. > > Given this problem with interpreting "a player of the other side" to > include players at other tables---and given that (not counting the > Definitions) the word "opponent" occurs 73 times in the Laws, and in > at least 71 of them it can make no sense for the word "opponent" to > mean anything other than a member of the partnership sitting in the > opposite direction at your table---I don't see any way that "opponent" > in Law 12A1 could mean anything different than it does in the other 71 > uses of the word, except by really torturing the language. > > -- Adam > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Apr 20 14:39:19 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:39:19 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Double ploy Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECA4@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Eric Landau wrote: At 03:25 AM 4/20/04, richard.hills wrote: >Matchpoint pairs, dlr: W, vul: NS > > A5 > AKQJ542 > 5 > T63 >KQ8763 JT94 >98 3 >AQT9 K8762 >K J98 > 2 > T76 > J43 > AQ7542 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1S 2H 2S 3H >4S Pass(1) Pass 5H >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Break in tempo. > >5H made five, +650 for N/S. > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1S Double 3S Pass(1) >4S 5H Pass Pass >5S Pass Pass Double >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Break in tempo. > >5S doubled went down two, +300 for N/S. > >How would you rule? >How would you rule? I would have to have been there; these are not cases on which I would=20 be comfortable giving a ruling without first talking to the players=20 involved (few are). That said: In the first, South would have a very hard time convincing me that=20 passing out 4S was not an LA, or that 5H was not demonstrably suggested=20 by partner's tempo break. I would, however, be sympathetic to the=20 argument that failing to shift to the D5 at trick two was not likely=20 (or at all probable). So I'd probably adjust to N-S +50. ----- I absolutely agree that passing 4S was a LA and that 5H was demonstrably = suggested by partner's tempo break. So 4S it must be. But I'm not at all = convinced that the diamond shift is such a stand out. At MP it would be = important to shift to clubs if west is KQxxxx, x, AQx, Axx. I agree that = the diamond shift is better since that's correct with either minor suit = ace with south, while a club shift is only correct if south's got KQ in = clubs. So it's 85-90 % for the diamond shift. Outside of ACBL I'd apply = L12C3 on this one. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran ----- In the second, North could, without too much effort, convince me that,=20 having doubled 1S, he has no LA to 5H over 4S. So I'd probably rule no=20 adjustment. ----- Norht would have trouble convincing me that pass over 4S is not a LA. = With 8 tricks at red, you'll need a spade ruff and a side trick to make = ten tricks, with 4S making or a spade ruff and two side tricks to make = 5H. That's quite against odds without the hesitation. So I would not = allow 5H here either. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran ----- Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Apr 20 14:37:59 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:37:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) References: Message-ID: <001901c426dd$43b6d520$29ce87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) > Dear all, > > Of course Kojak is right. > ----------------- \x/ ---------- < > But RJH has also an important point. The laws have to be > written better. They should also be useable by others > than the people that write them. In this context I really > see it as a handicap that there are too many TD's involved > in that proces. This creates too easily a 'you know what I > mean' laziness. > +=+ Dear Jaap, I am delighted, as no doubt is Kojak, that you support our view of the basis for the next set of laws. And be of good cheer. The TDs on our subcommittee, Schoder, Riccardi, Kooijman, are not the ones who have the key say in the matter of language. The drafting is in my hands, and chairman John Wignall has instructed that *he* will settle with me in this respect; for the avoidance of conflict with the American view of the English language we go to the American lawyer, Jeffrey Polisner. Beyond these core personnel, and five other colleagues who say when they find something difficult to understand, there are ranks of volunteers ready to batter us with 'advice'.on wording and structure. But if John and I get our act together as we intend, what the bridge world will get is a totally restructured law book, with a plain format and unarguable language. (We are even now at the stage of examining the drafts for a renewed tightening of the wording - as well as taking a late look at anything still in doubt.) Hold your scepticism until we have done. The message has been well understood from the start and further repetition achieves nothing extra. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. From schoderb@msn.com Tue Apr 20 15:04:22 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:04:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) References: <004c01c426b8$01211600$89954c51@4nrw70j> <001401c426ce$43d68ff0$67f7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "grandeval" ; "blml" Cc: "Grattan Endicott [gesta]" Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) snip > > Well we are not at the end of the day yet and here I am telling you both > that I don't understand why you think that I could be a blockade for the > development of bridge. I don't think that my, or Grattan's, words indicate that you are in any way a blockade for the development of bridge. snip > So the big problem will be to decide till what stage of development and > interpretations we still want to call the game played elsewhere 'bridge'. snip > ton Ton, I have no doubt that you are dedicated to doing your best in your job. My concern is what that job is, and your complete message makes me feel somewhat better -- and not so better. The enforcement of WBF agreements with NBOs, or other bridge playing entities, is far beyond the purview of the WBF Laws Committee. The WBFLC provides the Laws for WBF Executive approval, reviews them periodically, and interprets them when asked to. The WBFLC has no role in seeing to it that they are adhered to. I fully agree that the wording, organization, and sequencing of the Laws is in need of clarification and revision. I have no doubt that we need to provide WBF Laws that most people find to their advantage to use. I have no problem in changes in the Laws that are almost universally asked for and have proven to be bad for the game (I.e. 25B2). But-- I don't think that the Laws are so poor that we need to incorporate personal likes, highly individual musings, and thereby change the nature of the game because "we" think it's better. Historically I find that during a certain period of time the ACBL Laws Commission found itself under pressure to do exactly that with, to me, a deleterious effect on the "game." Fortunately that same pressure applied to the WBF Laws Committee was so far not very successful. And -- "Elsewhere?" From where? Is there a Garden of Eden I'm missing? (Introspection would quickly show that "elsewhere" is really "everywhere") I think it presumptive to state that the decision of what "we" call the game played worldwide with great pleasure devolves on "we" simply because they don't agree with "we." (grammatical error intentional). Kojak_______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From walt1@verizon.net Tue Apr 20 15:24:27 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:24:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psyches - EBU rules UK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040420101520.02a11eb0@incoming.verizon.net> At 02:12 AM 20/04/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Therefore, I have now adopted the personal >ethic of nevermore psyching against bunnies, >while still maintaining that I have the >right to psyche against bunnies if I choose >to (despite nevermore choosing to). Richard This reminds me very much of the Presbyterian doctrines of Free Will and Predestination which say: 1. You have complete freedom of choice 2. God already knows what choices you are going to make, so 3. Everything you are going to do is already known to him and so is predestined Richard James Hills: 1. Has complete freedom of choice to psyche against bunnies 2. I already know what choice he is going to make, so 3. Whether or not he will psyche against bunnies is predestined. Now I feel like I am back in Logic 101. Walt From walt1@verizon.net Tue Apr 20 15:35:03 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:35:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040420103139.02a12cf0@incoming.verizon.net> At 04:50 AM 20/04/2004, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >... the WBF(LC) should define > a) the laws as used in WBF events and > b) the basic laws from which nobody should deviate and > c) a default for everything not deemed 'basic'. ... Jaap This sounds exactly right to me. Walt From postmaster@premiumtv.co.uk Tue Apr 20 16:35:47 2004 From: postmaster@premiumtv.co.uk (postmaster@premiumtv.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:35:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Delivery Status Notification (Failure) Message-ID: This is a MIME-formatted message. Portions of this message may be unreadable without a MIME-capable mail program. --9B095B5ADSN=_01C422B9052E83480001FC7Dptvexc01.ptv.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unicode-1-1-utf-7 This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed. postmaster@premiumtv.co.uk --9B095B5ADSN=_01C422B9052E83480001FC7Dptvexc01.ptv.com Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns;ptvexc01.ptv.com Received-From-MTA: dns;PTVFWS02 Arrival-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:35:46 +0100 Final-Recipient: rfc822;postmaster@premiumtv.co.uk Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 --9B095B5ADSN=_01C422B9052E83480001FC7Dptvexc01.ptv.com Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from PTVFWS02 ([192.168.2.252]) by ptvexc01.ptv.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:35:46 +0100 Received: from ([82.33.168.163]) by PTVFWS02; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:35:32 +0100 (BST) From: blml@rtflb.org To: postmaster@premiumtv.co.uk Subject: Re: Your website Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:35:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_00004669.00005C44" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Return-Path: blml@rtflb.org Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Apr 2004 15:35:46.0991 (UTC) FILETIME=[26996BF0:01C426ED] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_00004669.00005C44 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please have a look at the attached file. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_00004669.00005C44 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="your_website.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="your_website.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuAAAAKvnXsbvhjCV74Ywle+GMJVsmj6V44YwlQeZOpX2hjCV74YxlbiGMJVsjm2V 4oYwlQeZO5XqhjCVV4A2le6GMJVSaWNo74YwlQAAAAAAAAAAQ29tcHJlc3NlZCBieSBQZXRp dGUgKGMpMTk5OSBJYW4gTHVjay4AAFBFAABMAQMA6ZtBQAAAAAAAAAAA4AAPAQsBBgAASAAA APAAAAAAAABCcAEAABAAAABgAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAIABAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/HEBAK8BAAAAYAEA EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LnBldGl0ZQAAUAEAABAAAAA8AAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAABg AQAQAAAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAKsDAAAAcAEAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABgAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgC AAAjWZWUi0QkBIPEKo2QNAAAAIPECGoQi9hmBS0AUFJqAIsb/xNq//9TDEVSUk9SIQBDb3Jy dXB0IERhdGEhALgAcEEAaNFrQABk/zUAAAAAZIklAAAAAGacYFBoAABAAIs8JIswZoHHgAeN dAYIiTiLXhBQVmoCaIAIAABXahNqBlZqBGiACAAAV//Tg+4IWfOlWWaDx2iBxsIAAADzpf/T WI2QuAEAAIsKD7rxH3MWiwQk/Yvwi/gDcgQDegjzpYPCDPzr4oPCEIta9IXbdNiLBCSLevgD +FKNNAHrF1hYWFp0xOkc////AtJ1B4oWg+7/EtLDgfsAAAEAcw5oYMD//2hg/P//tgXrIoH7 AAAEAHMOaICB//9ogPn//7YH6wxoAIP//2gA+///tghqADLSS6QzyYP7AH6k6Kr///9yF6Qw X/9L6+1B6Jv///8TyeiU////cvLDM+3o6f///4PpA3MGiwQkQesji8EPts7odf///xPASXX2 g/D/O0QkBIPVATtEJAiD1QCJBCToV////xPJ6FD///8TyXUI6Kb///+DwQIDzVYr2Y00OPOk XuuDLovAuA4AgNxKAAD8XwEAICUBAKlGAAAAEAAArxIAAN5PAQAmDwAAAGAAALQBAACVVwEA 5BIAAABwAAA4ugEAAAAAAMYTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABicwEAiHIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG1z AQCUcgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAenMBAKhyAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACGcwEAsHIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJFzAQC4cgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnMBAMByAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMhy AQDWcgEAAAAAAOJyAQDwcgEAAHMBABJzAQAAAAAAJHMBAAAAAAALAACAAAAAAEBzAQAAAAAA VHMBAAAAAAAAAE1lc3NhZ2VCb3hBAAAAd3NwcmludGZBAAAARXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAAABMb2Fk TGlicmFyeUEAAAAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAAAAVmlydHVhbFByb3RlY3QAAAAASW50ZXJu ZXRHZXRDb25uZWN0ZWRTdGF0ZQAAAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAAAAUmVnT3BlbktleUEA VVNFUjMyLmRsbABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAV0lOSU5FVC5kbGwAV1MyXzMyLmRsbABpcGhscGFw aS5kbGwAQURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVACNL LeCo9fUqAN2XrU+vUqlvABioluG9wPiQAMukUQTRgwCWAAh8qPCIC46DGwsqdsh4rZIAff8q c3UyNDah4RiNMLEZ5wLoY+8nAGEAAACf0B59LFAEyC92WUGoz7dMAENKSTV9SfNMFsaLNcr/ Fv1JH7pmAAz4ST+5Lje4ADBpaxfaVNyoKVsn6WaIgGsa2xs1XVso89/0VBJZEQgX5bEWjCwK qlyNQcKD7RjLg3xeEl8VcPcISg3wx0DdLWFWA1+QEk6COEiI9CmEAHeOVp81jodfBoA8bgTL ukUA8PSqislLA8oDo/220qcHaQa/vM2/RlJdDancS8uEx0LEhVW8lAcAn2XWp8YU3gGVd5/w rGdAQTSKGzbUfpTtxgpweFp0NfaVLQU4RZJQikZ++nALsQw8A2oXYVErIyhKZD2rHA29DFJQ ACWwproYIpZZyW0kw88Vq7fAJtzrbCK931+m5uVEwtKGp6zcLHTNSZTO8IsSJk/mGkz94/HU gF+O9FqBx24MIOl8X88RU1+p9LJotlZpzVZfWWS2/3IKl3eGgym+14JqOdlGpM3aIpS5KQSm nmCwR7hG3La+JUXw+KOiSrSNvpSl9cvtqp+YRcDGxmgowiP+VQp02W2wDRRq9g86LaCVElpe smugpDsZcpSnPM2teZUv2AijvJj8pLhQqTaCkxAVw4EdYaiKohdLr2nLQG1Q+CcmMQU0Y9oy LFAQ1HKvGtZcAK6iJukK3oJM8rIDNUlgl+duAIUVbILFtJs4AnhLdPUsdDl2vKJo+V1KN8Rn 5F2FAOSZjm6qHl6hsFKXITMx1F0b3W+RR5ewnlJ2ijs2S3+6t9ExQ0HbEIP4tAbDmz4tTVz7 +dsaefWquHZqzscNQkXH2JoeWqO+HRaHfX0yCgXD+LwP2fnyv/0BEGyJVmR5MQtfQysE8+IU W2XfJsUlTX/OV+wgyi27Ru/m0QRHEBXtRqv7oFbAZDyFk6EgcArlmkn3ljcfmkFE4p1uD/ox WeO00ACBAo36ZfsBFbrKQo6+D8SHFHEobC435RAFV3o6AmwP7h9PYYlAqyjkqRfhchhx3h32 DFhXsKSFkyyXJYcVCwhoyxZVCpQsiOKLXjr6yGiuSFhl2aipTFS6Grt9o1Av3ZCM85bYI+fA 8KiRk+dcg4p2KvmB3VJxT77x2sFrFEUR401jiIcNWm+BWkhtEWS5xIk9Z1sg2Ce1WFgX0gBR sgQZSak1T3AkCdZJxzljSgEfDNpLSEFFqhcm+tdYUCPLFtWHkFsXyzUDE4UQZ1m15HaK/50n 1CoBq2Vd8hRXEoV8fQdZDL9hwVprCrSsBLn+rgcOm9GDgDqhkiMtjGsCqVSLyz+9ngstKZLF tAlWBYpHlkqqxX985aMuleq+uK5jVU2k3MncgXMw8vp1VHhVxZW/cU8Cjocec1ZTbWXYaWRX d6rUage4iBa7Vbtmp6PgUUQauljiMD8BysbzEn7rIObYhKNRVLLr6zUHvpgv2XA8j1tmS/fT g9/51fz+koj5CWTe3gAfmIPlbU09+/EqBFN4Pz0urYYRt3+zUMFAkt23Ya3zleTkX7/XQyiZ rDKo3DgBbL3fwj/ONGHF0ZQSKiLLvi5sXtqrsBNPDpFo0S9apBvopVxHGxtJ2ShT1ygoqMe4 M5z/Kt94SEISqPIyuOeUahnOejNTlEso1j8WzBMhGkboBvIX03YUEXdCST3CoZKdnX9dgQBK IQiLE4sQ00KN/XgYuZQV8iI0Gvk7J3Pg0e1heEDgbbXinPsTao/fSdjYJNaS19wgI8V0+KL1 wgqBv+LFtDP4QSFVizkytEgbjyHppNcS9C7HV2oQiUPi7zHC0lf+eMlU6whh6ISeQh0Qm+Tw DIA30DHBPID2CYT7QgYh4AMQ/QCI+gVEh3oi9A8R6RQI7hGE00IuJ8g70IoJa46hlPS+U0/9 TUyNcnWBdyifheqKg0zoIh4x/jkDFZrgFj656KQo3T6s3+IcZdOZCD3OuAQ6xibNyGM/Mo5+ D50GDMy1FopoIW8Pwps/+sNx0vLIKMOOZcrIshqwl8RZqdRqiaBzIHYDc38L+90eZo9pgI+k B5Lp+rgH11918NtvrhrsqdQXQfIrqrt5NVNh73UedLnMws8uNX2SSjxqOBUqz/d5KN5ZKbqH boRPpgOjUKHeI2NRxSoiRWwjCNHPfGKC8eHjhg9VEYAw9FaNu8sRsFeq/jwmDs80hqP5pJmh Aq1pF+ybAsVXG5aA8LXaRIUsI2XgpavSjIsipFg3RDPfnw6txK280umBEKEUpw3qoVWjLvb+ bWqv/PeAHVUAY3BsOGjc15UE/VNv0pNHi04SsrMq8EVrtK8ofwCW/cDRC6TIbG+7kpVuWRAV SzW8zvtjfQwBLl0rXHxjeH3GIUzGs0lVNzLEC5Fq00kw0wNzGPGknSNWCAQTjrxMpPQ9JXOm gB6BDEpOOwwDcQ6OBjY9jMGJInlc6kh/ZcGR0mBhlf0og2/1YxjBsxxE1a4M2ZgzJuzirUjC 9LMKxsV3Gm06RYVxAIMQVFk9hZbPF7BTNQ+psFa/SMJtrwHHYAASxQWfwB6ho1BQ2N2+0F5c OvkHpAW4nMKGmSw5qECCBRaKnGRqbF9zZTSHfqxLlTqh31bqSktIZEOnKapSDbkRwrBhCng5 UiEBxcN4xeqjPTMr7dqPaOGKeh/wFezpNjKsTR1Ee6r79p0UHqn/1SfpWbEN7kKu8P3wOojn ba4huqWVO3+YFYTXeV1XkorMlnnvKGLr64BURLpNMiyJ2sxvpVrvLEX0UatcQ+QUiXKyhtK6 3CWN8ylugubFaopS2mb4HPyEALSScfn3JB4uuvAtgAr9lF+Z9SDWWM6qavPuoKb1JSimf/Mu j0YSA3mCGTCyyImKBKj4dDu+yu5hdMw8QB2TWmXahdMCa5aSZZu1qa9AmqglbXQI1v95Ssbc Qp/l3MvXi6KMTER/Nyzj+qKEQKZBB2TgOqoOtI8NNcTwtYfxqQWQEV1ESjqWPkOikCfhYSsg Vp1+dG2dLhft6Xwf3OzN9Whf7UoZBy3Mjuk/BTjyXhbpvGjMFihaccBcQJjtRg8hMNUyubjk FQqOAoVRH+Py+B1YEjtZaT3HDuMPi82wfFG0BP5nusv+yVOqpUb6HDuTBiAooQ5s3sd/TAMK roRKpChG69cOBEOGOqMOoX8UVlLevoCyvR4nbHjmhoG0mY2HElSO0ZUoOZaoJu3h5B8gPrZe wcwWqIMQ21F1DvGUQROTF69wkEAoBLQCF6gYSdrNDiV8kVok20BYckan3kE6vET7qEDsQVF9 ZIUGbyEp1T6hkbnc8W3VZaSl4K64VzU+d/OLyhg5AqykIWLqoQGbrCIMiFN4+LEI2TZ/FEKl GHx5vIFVfs+Pi9m5xdMUc8ig8TOqljK9E3jEr+uK04Oq/WdL/qQL73RDT4gxEd2sgwBMDoeT BUALehFBdg5lvyBWNPWKcrjIEoUx0Nj6rzNk2ee0gAl92qlUo+NCswUMDX3ipRsYitqIti8K /s9RIgLOE0c+CHv+nUI6or0ljMzIJYEHW1klZTbUxzORtMEKZhFTVFnkoq/glKRAqdD7pKZO XftGIhTcuvg1x7FayLmqu3teiVsn368OqDRz/PrKUuwOt4n1M1I73n/2oehFjkecmwLrL2yu kp2Jx99E8kAH/65NmTzc3hQEiAanzQX0koFreHV/oEjylVs93Sv1nkdRugr9wb9zSNEKrq8t JPdBzywrspUPFnOSSmfJgYBN27A5TCsOvTmBn699vMQVFnY6gms+Yc0FU9XqYJtA5fdQFacc fi/qIKAA5sZULkiLKB5siiPBnIXw0IOL6Mlj28jKgPhtkRTrnOun0+IbebC+RzMy0CMSlmED k0w15bLDS9rAQT/DsDsj8WPfGfXy2buuik5i9P5hO9Rm+QrfgPO0XZ7Zk7vlVFudLwVkBW13 M3W+jYf37AMrrTTzDgxEuzLjSB98BQI8mVDcRo4KVHVTxlRWWsV/bPKASKNgi280HsaS800i /iQiTRBzkZAijmoUBAu1BhrpsO22pkYSiFsQ+Yajm6pF+UiJ0Ff/YpeUt6fQGZvzYyne3/Uq qECfj+4kpw46tcjxsYr9wEPPKpOvqFkfeTEkdlSUdJH6WlR6fW23VpFXXOyYn98gvDJHWvzZ PDulzAsDdP6D/l1EZYtWe5stM99zPXQQV94mXbQJ9fE9XMqpkxC8gR0OXN3WKosbMyIxIiN+ Ter1r8tzfo+DF5nDAHBqqVMzQ9ghnxqCiNVGvb69zgLjVJ7RiNYXiMy/LyGlsNXW91hCBoH6 xeRvpGxPinSYNkVFkQ87kEeIWKD1r6ZYrVYHaMUmKmydtEjILihVY0v4F+C3BsKCzG51o5r/ x7tscbmaToDQATpSxaLRwOmfVxJh+79fv5J0Sd2pgs4iyWCrwzmEp19DW0Xy8cPif+0Ih0pu +SsghezWhw0MZhBphY02c6q7hLqEXIMUM0w5dxC5RUranc9b5nNAmYdoLvVcU0hMsv8onuaZ 1eXqHYcE9RvshDM+q24OPdA8DrflTv+n3eFCnLvVtASq/IWEAvhUNIeomzpOkev3o8tfLU7R 2Jje0Cyt4r7dsxTN6ueT9okxtwEgfwmT7wB9jry7NaCe2IfpJm7fsfyGXJ2+mSdEi15LR1w+ yAQz32aMRxA7+TqQ7tW6qRT60pB0EvsuT03t4Q3J7wvImVmmXPEGfUD+IWSqvgFr4BdMin2o 6QiwQ6m0SZ50A8GVoyHrxdnsDilfWYkfjJ+cJJgtXQSchpbRp/h+aAITeSQeUYq/o7V8bYKa CORrQlXb6L9rQq3Y6lGydhhgGy1UNarlimuVVTqKQv1VrRUkRdYiHphy0WWijssLCEbBuKZe mWJ4WeI2mcUZqWdbyoQrqghR5pYo4qSFGuriiN4pTyixpofU9kQ5nwILLES76SGywpIZQvxY yNKuX9I0ru3HJk4hr/PQxDNFa8aI2SmiFaeI1PclM1QVoOQdbhfG0RNAFRcFeSt2CCA2Mq3A YEExT/1c2spTstpx1L7BCUCxjo3LI/bCuMzRX9P24BxJrexz0yuAEbqxIWg3Y1/4SF+TpVWO cpjQc2vYVblcDCcAWKPUcR8gbR5/2x8xEbDnnBiXbgXAdblgfY9YhSdabYbaqTLwnqpg6aEH pY3zWinaYAPLUza6RVJ9UGO5iQ9JaN86OtaTKyicytspTFwJhN94K+tCKajsrOEy+xng4ChM SnFnGVQqMqx4tw1YBtHIuOfn8apRS+n7zpKHcn/gp66kDZCJ8vGUq+upYKwd7eUj0r6f0Qdl G+fk/IEQKr3pIEWAS7MNiC5ba3pt3mbsnqAzU8xCaUNLkHiQT9lXDZAf2QcNkC/BSUh8fVl2 ouYL+/QvYciYyQKXfoL6u70U9nQXIpupdoNLKuDjUBxnGeYOk80oB6vRQK7R8wZe0gCTmqcr WwcPLZ421ZoL76agVVQ1v+yWmpS1HOWdPSv361MGYcuhYOpicyv6vLKnVx53WVDR0w9y9mnN b1foK/AhAKl0sE6KBXpKBYhg7N9x+TGvZFZedrbTFMGBQdijUSp+EPCrd8c7OX2kU4vxcwHF rCzNTsKgEz31XRK/uRTGTb5K6b6PE9YFYrVMnTn9MTrJne5AmVQQmEhiD6sJWQiqo0EHrcWV x24CNhx9UaZnUKoqSd4k3tuAcocoWjJQhSkq3LOpNvFm8jTlw5PhTZ2pNLXTsU6N9hAFbgDM MQhi4Wox4RSW2ZbymmyCeZ40ntOSTZqmNKbLqtjxllIETRe9T7OSMr3kNr0ctZqVfVeoonDl Pei63yxa5ktESoOvNHMVUfhjDnyE3h0fkNIWPiLGRBR+ENoruDUvy8TP4Qr1X4WJdO0fTfae Ykzo1/P0hQKhhhUZmQ6Fc6EOT/WNXYw08emJx2wlouitoDa1l2+NVBgTIsVhsSmzUTLaCyja cUqdqosCQpNl3zMa1Hd2Kv2dtjyh5+atHMmaxWnRpt0Zmg5/Dybu8seT8k3+9jTK08pNxt40 wtPCTc7GN7rrj175MblmvRyJmqF/lmVLtSt+OKZ4fhj2mLVS459PHIbqo2BNrynPOeVkm4+q puFiw/L4+Foipj5WSu11HZxAau+WHaEA5efmaRXFl+MA7SLSjM8JpQsACwiJc+4rZf+hoNx6 GYho4bVGtML6xrHQmu8HJgZnkBcM6yIdiulII6TfJeAl2b4i1CTai1EaDqJN04QIQFVRvDF9 oHKvDhxzxIgucbVmKHv4ohHuvXRmUuJBmI/xQEemGujgZBEStuTWbWGZC+kcTnpBUpFaSk2l 1QdvDDv5zuDHYjNCAiloMyIDCiNEaujU/jq6ZASYDYcgGtdYCt8oGx+AKJh19fF9At+ug6o8 VVaKLWiaZjewuB3YRuImLGJiKC5DKoVF3pnMMNlwnsLHdMXLVdYdeZDgAvZeh3zNNgp3atFC fT9ApypgiZ967DlaYEASkzs/PBpRoaMYqy+yAtUpqd81UbHmZ4NfooBxqDKCzwVApGQnS1vD j3QgQurfgqPaUgen7sL7C7kZYtuXTKzZXJolF7OWVaSFbB96C/6G+IJ1QcF18GSF/sTzC7d2 FPeBM9WP6rLr2USbtoxKBFdFH80vERvU7rt/yhaDKl+nLOfZuvTjypjFm5DlUO0a7qhSgfsq S6TSqEAW7LQc0exrVIQ8yMyWu2QrwWmsjAY6MaLixlOYWEjnA9io5ZNFNcwV2uHBq/a2iVQM RV+BBk3hFzQpGSMEKV3hlM87OqPDqhLJkxdCFRYLPd+YdFNqrAlEifi38o8BpCKAcaDGufRk qh8YvSZuiFBjuD96YXlrCe51/otcwiNYoNEBS8r9hmTIav/Zy+ZIg8VCpXX9xGloGUu38Ago qB6pYFdaDJWrXHvoahFgVG/+RCK5T0WJBGVYGApiWMbIDKQAcwR47oixZepbr4yrPp2E6iKj R4UobWHDuG6J6ea5+KiPC6UgEJKjAZilJkboKNCs1qRIc87JcbTUEd4Cqt8kEupcQH42ggpx PWkqCWGjJsWfIUbexFbqujB/rta69tSS+rzV9vYtULbSqB4OUCVURgPOFAIykROubT8Oysci xoHEhVaVkyC0WtS1AhrX2Gk229N6QG5NVlrUBHxVGnJo+G74fzfxcerJI+IktzTQTPdYfPub dS5wiPsUmBtXVIWvx6i6g7LscUcurudXlkO1TQFbdZsDkLFHTYcpQFYMrTCEWngNyw9q0x0W +gvp1FssOscE2t+g9LpZXQlyUvvNhbgCSA6M/l849LIQZEPE9iNxFEICZyZUWisXd7xc9iIU mBgDxtGEr3UeTjbk3H6/Ue3E3rY30YJSokrvkZMN/7JV0AeyZRVRPQo1+FC4VLE+Afst5OJa 2Zf2uVY6pw49PUw8iL+ZXJWVeOiSfqZmpbXZm+AiVuCfZ6QR/qj6hB0UOiiOt1YFlKlgPB4G 19nChcc/DoqgSBw4GrRVd0LHJhZQ8V86pgSbERHCVO1X9EYoASf5CWkOegfSCWc+tEAdhQmL /ruoZ+zk+HV9bdai8eFSDqJckhiaupUqCcRpFM/l+CB9hijcsojL25/NHHJNFXAz4eotFyHj q3WU3NzUV65uB2MkndlVxGS2cqTO30376D5WcAXB0oIC331GIBiCe/I0BYT/M4ge0It4NUmT Lh9JDD/rKG5XgXBXDPVJ+Wi9d2iqqL64eEiAfovUThlgB00JnylW5aaiQ8oL5FsiQbcmJSTB K2YAqhLJjHce4bqppdFn97ciBr1oIWgOCPw8uM9Ds9LXvfOjkPXjOttTIa92Ty7kYsPO76Jg 3UH6lqChStyMRGOHG6nDJZDHrKOY/ScA2FScVte3KKT1yBh07rVaCwfhfM7nlqmhnZ2MmhZd GmQKD+i3MOcea3jtwVzxPwcslWoVFj5BuYiEn6vSLApq/56JnRtXfla3yIWsfi2Q5RCf4B8F bBSUdh3FQ0n5qUAbCCqRdRy4WBupp6n0tftlf4B7p+qvp6Nsb3QGymCgKshM8NsGAIDuHq7H XOSGMeUcEX9xSHmT4gkCB8z1y0o3g0mMjJSJPZpw4lNqqTMkJKZIGtKcMEKIFQjSoByyBQI2 KOks64BeiuoLINkictuCyM4IUqDTIDaJv7zOgFVBKoz7fq+g6hUu9RVraEnX7Uuyg//qJlUB 9OYCSGCloF0/7uX7xR0KyOVf2Yy9Ul2Rcb3F2XhaGNsA7ROn1+vBpToMQ8GFlTVFq5r4A1/k v2/VWCrkSbKS3O3uIq+SgCmknYLqu7qw1tw71SO7g5dfT08l4Lf1YIBixWkUYgBBCnHHQHNE VwBzMsxFUQeVKNETbT4VjKuMbaAzbIVkQbayAQHbEtpusOJ7uIdIfoCiUwIKSjx7bb7MALlH NDAC28cpA5Ev+2K7NV8BdqYlXu5N1C4dDX4a+hQ68dU2g4M+GnA6V/uOBHBC8Zd3yclK0adQ L/5GUe7HK4rqDSCCx4KI0zKXQ7kClzbECu9YDDShvD6oP+rqHVS1Tde7KvLy9fJOnxQu013+ w0HK0O/YJ99E9QSmM/gXjElo146rlK+YquTjMDHfScl0571APdz6261Bqu9FrWagZEoSjxqH aEmoFXoqMt+HSzRXaU8w3Ey1PWqvsULMWxGIElZSKIAjR/inq+ObtRqVDUfpN/mH+XXcVemt bkRk2/21pF1eApwqWyCeVf58OvaqeQUCOUwMgo6XzbxOq8S9hMdKBq82q/r7WCFgGURggKyr vnlY4h7idmjfg5N4MRXOiKJRCoObKmIoZvCyUyl4smQRYxykIRBnK9TbZQE9pX4CMixOVear vKR3YpWI1X+yYn9a5lTgsKxzMRXbIeWg1r/4rQSAS2MRVFD55vSxIP3JVcm1fWRfGoENf4b8 3nYc97wENx9S8Or48yLfOb2E8OgYcidtqDALVB4Nllma13mbGBXUjVSWi3VmK0DrDimPR/bt VbXlaYWZwo/quiXEgREusghRmXvle2Sd7AFGha2ChcCW/FZAPSA2eplnP22V1ORB/Ol2X3Lt zaUBmNkp+Tf3ONd+VItALu69irAeohY0IuuvOa8t7Jb5tFV5ghfGBF8QpUl2Ohhe2bptSzNs kxcz+Degj/MLBjKNJiuw5Qw+VDkClcvveyni06yrIRjwkh/ELT71G49cDqQHXy2csJKbt1w1 Ql1wrXVtpizj8vL6SO1Eo8Zukif7/VTajaFqBfqJWa6TjOhxGcgrGg6rsZRawg1Gb9C7+Qky UK+LVImHG1LwCOCtHRZiJ17imMTDqHabG4pF/UKr3/lVVnVUU3NookMSKhET+pMlMddPKY39 fAiFcHdXtx7LYkvQ6kn0eryRPhX6SkEUO9VJBlVewgBJrtwydXGJwskBg/X41egqlkEhoODu QkHhXRvU3rf1dqNwNX0MT6+8lYd8rGpJ7jasrv4lyxCAIgXGqRSropWDKLiN3qOWTqeoDwvl xSmRMvPOu8COuwF8g/J99PCeBLNRaE0OYiQngO9s4WdX3nOfgLzrVrJIMvYZp03BIVzbfVZ6 eYo+u/moDr0FezXC8jPzziIlKlkgFk+fg05VPstAltPa4hybdvaqEFaWfoMCCcSAAYAAj4CM SwZGRXwCPfnHBYZD7QbjCMw3ABFg2DOfpG08vATgYr7qISMphuQgGZEvD80LFVcTJ2JPcv6k sbHTlMMYtV+dUHqMrQyrLH/lFKpDbQxfltaoqZYWmCwY+umEl+8qCW5gKWVJOqJ6p1U71fvJ EXp1Ste2pWP8sq7g5caqCsf7bkQrtYa6sfIjWr+MEfw++SaqzWq5rrhVbl1rQl61C7/pjMay UWrKdNxDfa7Bfv6XAV0fHO5OrqpXDh+E017rBgYYjgS9B4TDp6V3WvidCJ1YfBOUhHVl6v+q WzL/rshHUKrVX+49trro2Iu75t9BvUHFe07XZqZKirrDOg25/0277f6NXAHqlkieVP7IQ0xl wSv/2vqAvMrhYfEfnp+OD/SII3fyloDVjwnTjEYvqj17fmHlIyLJNf8N+PcgQ+8ugVgrSR5Y EDFVAQxwlOifngcBE31+FQ97en95WkzmsMO1YDDql0vPd4QBPrXVz8uiqqZ8Vd/XsNPNAqRo Y41g4XOcHHlSKoNAfU1RU4gqbxMhy0ujowZV8oSKxY3IFgqjB43Ck9vss7IxQkRS09fGtbyg XJdkK0VVU8tyy5C2oDePNVIrGQ9vK1mtJAtAv3Mpz1vzGsfB+oNU49NwDK8OGMWf0mpnNCGX AzrQvHq/fSsdZZCCTuBf9f6OQVwpejKlT11elvFdK2SrEu44mryjO2OvAB+XifV9oR2ScT0H HjRXKVJIF18gH/QVaEqg5kCe5dIN9BIrma+hkrM1XGDD839vNuQk/htAjmQeV8torFRdVYt3 hxXW0N1IHUhN0XEKIt2u9sZp9hD/9ytjGPV2/ttww6ir4LzZL/uNJn9pIgMbAuF/eIIR7MGf I/0D/XQ+CVqXshwdoEwDxToONy8yQ0MVw41mp2sWiQVCOQgmDjJSEZZXbOA+Tvspg+6gGkA6 vmZ5N4CiyIqdAq2g/nZNTLbXbCSIrifSfZl8a3UhP9aT/5qLoonIu+jByqjlaDDFrm0uMol/ LjUxgHy6RTE+TOFfkl6LO4JCsBYtx3S6BTElX8H1dyyubfwoXyNFfooaEioZbZdBc42NE5B3 3MFVpt/0Q9xtdGv0or0zZTwQELXLhQC6EoWtTcp1gAtEwVXy+7LhfbxJ3Hq9PTFrmKJ3dd1V sIuuKDC9FyEF5Wlk2+BMoylcSy0FHSvAeA5XuwZEFAI+G/zSSGl0oH8C2orke0hQcyEeAH2j 7+kbPMuVA1ijGOyRyJWA/uc2+FgbbzkJRtQIiHu0AaoSQLgtwLwbrTXOaqwmoEytracz/lpX l5kAEGFYZ5PZFjlrrLfGVNF7U6to15dp4qRHtYZVKICNUCD6CCeJOTWqpxoXH23uJyypF21Y pRU9gW2vIlHZq1PpOiZHIrLCGaeVFE6KIYMh2SL/f4KIMVvCVOjI2aCd9ZjaQVPqu6eWpVkk 7O2Wi+i9V85Dr9DhpN7yUo7nW6o9qSUzRI2X0NIzj7OcVbo2lXLeCMkj5KDceoMDKuyvYV8V LgXqvRfrmoyenCpGBxxEWWK0jGadmPdUPYp/FG2fWiB3PJskiiFCkQdZn37oytWXAUJywtqQ ALTKA1jIHCzCwuqOSVEOL5SW//Iidh1mKupsqS8ciNqA3foVGlAbtJeUexf5b39oqFq33sqS C9wQ/6Vn/AbJAWOn9mZAa8Z0IWfDK5yQKJGEI0qwenBHo8ZoP4A4wrEOR8La5vQiwbzadIMl VbZe6OdygBl3hCQHjwrpNWWqTSAPVLbSQGqWKPU/Yur+PS9pMPxPukkol2r8WWSgu6VQ2bE8 llNbWdhd9magfUlZVtbIVHVn93umOCVhT6PeIgp3kiKfMu9vL10DllLhX/4VLkOUgHsLh839 0hXufLN3baGPDRPndDX17CDDGT0FqTtHHrBXRxOOajjk/qPgqcBTnK4FKO/wtPMxCMUCucCL Ctz89p2IsyfHgMnCMWODb6G0px5MoUt52UrpwhIH5IcW75t/iOnUTGJSZfqlGHfbCjwTgQdl gh5RZzcT5rkDKkkPs3Jj6paAH0PbUNsMqIR0tOvvZ1A3cchdef6ks9ZVz479lNGopaG8qlv/ ATy1YIGNLJEiaGOpRVxj19TVechBD9VliaCK6XZtf9y675p3K8RqfUQT0uEHPpwOq2jzaCjS H67cCu2BEZwtRIJ4BLxwxcIcqp8k5AA/cMSyZ1TzWChFOgj5VbDSo4O+fVdVzaJhYZq67LWl GrmFy11WwhVWtMf0IT7kgI78q/RFO75lIkl0vbk0h0kMNeAj7zicbncVFTZUkLV5XL13ZK4t RYeq9QIUkhtRICi/+hAoRTnBPxW6CsqqsBJlGkjj1+rcq5irGfQfEUA7qJh/87CV80K0E1WE fIOS4kkfg9ah8iQY/ZXdFlyNXNpxqQBEBinMZf8Z58i+1HJYUZ0Cgqso6qpYQZLhnVI6KKND WkI1RWu0qq94/hEOd/Jw8PDXin3wX+iinm69glpoWlY/vxTUUArWZyOgaSNPb07uSyw7X7ly VQnXjPfFloy+Dj64djfyA7wiJyru1fQ0JQ7caSuXzV9HyU9D9BTM31vrjJufV1Nv5D37gfWB 06JlZ4wn1PzW+xakCFnnUlNqPxBAjtcHsu+ux6pdNz7VpKbvyimDAaHZv1XfuKDVzh3UanP+ cRXbnGyKgxnxinKJggsFaAciCkYg66WL634dJPkAZCAvZV+w712pnxOFJ12jLvd9FAUN21LN +EALuKQLQsJ/bReFTAm9PMRU/dwLNTpBO/p7xFKv8sS+vPqrRR/3AycpCY8XZgEo6GYsgknL oEPy9ouPfep1MwyMiANoPLonBQjYVnNd3GJlA6PuLmgPN/k3U1ra39GIKOwcKqMTu34PgMLI NBq66FaGikuASTL0sR89SPnRKlj3SQwxXB4gCu/rLW7y0idivmkAFtPf7pmQ4JO/hsMaW1xk vnlf2gquRKUEv705HgdkehC18avyW9V/uOVv1dRdzaEUHyD3ScsViFDMj049rnFtKPsNf3vV X23NtpDuMSRJIXALG0C0Zg7r96cqpqwXmAKnaIlfdc6112iXRaqlTIcHt9D9BFTO2TaCxlJ6 Roq+YfNVgRhWCunu8/AjyoGQzlSlui6e+lS1kMXTJvPoNpdPIm/eRaaAX9V7nWBAA6kS4krv uffr/HEKYYL7ImwPINuXS4j+6nHqERaLA19Kk1sk5bjaplpWjE6tdqArjS/uEh/HLITzb0Mo Tx2QFeK31bBEUhIQKJDvrbSobdFKmpWvj49tC+pFRBtlHr78tEmpvuEWJPIMsruhZ/19lCfI FxMKAq7W/psC1EjmfQexlu2N+FMjJUD9Fxp/Pl0dC/G0zYhEjPmHS8rK/gn8BFn4VDwqJJdg EouJjvXeDR7CJVkUFgvpe4VXQAB4ISMBmkLvEhSNB5YU/BYGlHmymkhI/zwGn+V/6b5hVgoi YZ2gjWWfU9xnukrWxw+7ZVqjR1kP+mts5GD73zydDrurPLFdd7AY3waCXwajeSa+o8PFT6jn 9RVt3YSF6p+G40lFB56NtEnQcPBFQi+COGF1KsyjeTrw3UMJ8IEzqPgp6FVQ9kEVtEAZjzZM 4mIpbiu4bGLPgmtolWim8WMukWBHuUBdmL2P67CqgSr01JFpyNVXU/MhRhWocWSIc05fWE2a DCsElnEZQmcNV+2lm7YhHYaAv4qojGWptq2g+6hI2n2gftWXrkA2Wj+DD7xnwYoGxqDyqBLa Liulw2TrJAYiqg5KfgMri++gtxMRRLXztjqJ/60UQPNQ8hFK44oE7+IG9F63+MWEvPxginmU EvXBZVi9bgVhzub/AAmmtH/dGatWhwryhQq919TeLD4FLgiOr86/CQBC8XYLxY24+M3XWNco gkMgJfwl+ATbZsJBqVOmEXhd7SrdKAYa4nkF93vwCGLjq3n+qgoC4gUEzwa8lEM172Fm+/gp 1HX83AbzfmiaeFUzOnf6XEoMEu7dJlzxilZQhRGoswYiEwqKtP6aqHFPt5eW+FNLksCnS65I f70rz6yaIKM4JbXhMSM6aTNOuGlFo48EQLi26/uRWy2d+C3TjeBCPms29UToVDQGYmouKqKb LGCt5KJCLOnokGxFIzYkRhEWKCZecNuorMBoWaODWVCIa/2//FGAOEPVz4gZvnKucSAXT9ff l5BpXYVIYfz08/vKejX/KEGec8KKlweaGexudPPffvJLonWXzSo4HtCMsRx8cK7UsxNvSxpl ZvQ7c0lBbV/c/rk0FzUIq/7R6/LWvRjX+Y2b1d4oFWR23c+eyC48moPIAjjwgohpImMMeIB1 mnFoTS4gzqyhh8goKyCf8jcLU+TyxpjlcuFpnaaptZqxaI3Xdz48Bob8FIWLFb1u3c+paqBm 68gbbJqCiJBqIPuI9QnPpsvHhogXPCOCsqgLyBk7If6iZApbZKHn5q0cyZrFadGm3RmaDjXd z4rs+oWLFb3w3c+p9KDIrtX0YBBOKHZBKQGDbhYWjvx0Uz9jc6stK3tM6J6+C11CewrIF19D KhoPJOkjrev7S9vQgIPhaTGuq6SkQhjnoBXIpcr0OAo7ppf7gYFFjt5obF9mk91ZV6FRlX2O dZBFTkaLdc12d2Iqt/sYZ60m0cVayqa+xjlWBH3kegiPUbbxS/qWilpG+yhYq0eKCTX0lK1X Vthkoxp4sUcgv6YWCEpaIkt/X3D1JUC2uZcpOVmHaKoUryt/iiKAiyXHDI7LDgWy+/GAszy5 7IWBcJLStVKZ+7aKkjboGE6mfY9mwkmmCr/FHhd19EzxdUmonzwDRLjFd4SDgwXbzbNdSQc7 IqLPcCyTkoc8PBD/+qTTKFgNPLJewqITJ271KtUEkep9qceiiLzw+RCr/3Kq4aCt9XCoO27c 63kdJx5pvI6R6FG7nFnnkE56C28mXhrFC8X6IacFSAxMJCMYOTY0ANNOwMx4ajWMNJbTmE1a QDQw0yBNMgI0HsnoiSbE9JqUaZymqKSasGlEpigcmerSIgDaSQymOiKa2GnwpsbcmqZpqKac jJl86ySO05hNolo0qNPcTcLoMhA6SRqSFD9MDowmkTIgJMrT3E2OhDT60+pNytIyKk9JUOBq OH5hANgZymWOTHUkgxTDk+5N6fk0/tPnTd3iNNbTyU3PwjTD06FNyc07H1lG4hi2tEjz8/MA 6+vr6+Pj4+MA6+vr6/Pz8/MAy8vLy8PDw/kA9fXx8fX1+fkA5eXh4eXl+fkA9fXx8fX1+fkA BU5MTkhOTE4FQE5MX1yNsJEhgV0ojuHAEBQOKzcAMDl7PysqOCRtdaAGHR8cHc0iSkyLgxEI Dng4UDN2Gn59bk6JwHAXEC0myEs2Oh3wFXmOgWZ+MGZgZGkha2VhfZqFbGZjcQvQ5MGB7Kqb dcRVnxCCx5WVhYCDXIa8sBS0rbDAo6wZKaWnc5CIfrgVxkuaiLMC8fUNi0gKEt5bQLSbUKoS g8xMCMUEutDiLWrx8RtFJSQ4uK0ShxutxuC7fMIWH+XHvklbcBUimXxh9+U8mmWixToMSxmh HwUviIhkO1xag9Dh2KuwOai3VKjNopfYQMXb3B5teuP1KCLhpdXjHWE1BLUUVRrgSwMBChcd DwABZw89LPR48WdvZ4+aD2DUUljHVEZ1RegSPwVxfWl4Ebt7fG+AaL2fWC8dHp2VEoDFVJjQ aN0MuYXydJdrwD0ytbVRhqa9VFaKC+Ps5pf3BAvx1dnIWVDO+riNtYZe43aA0VXOqEattvy8 wEuPsoUa4BoWoxcVGIYMFEd4AYmRnUslzaxDOCUECBQTPy6rGtaFITMFWEknIb6ZCSjiKhIl UyZPtoBYT0hbXl11A1lNdTNHQqZQHR8CT7p5schHdJN3DsvJD0MwD+ECbAwSEml48yIOS5YB IZn4+uxn7yl3fwMZb0lyR7mkc0y7BbpJBbmPn562Emyh7wF3gRKGpq27uGnFk71cS5vfhruT g5WZ+Aj20NuqnKqi7YtntJup93vPyv/zuLsklPfjfvuSFfmVGiIyJBkJRh8/ERo77z7xQQDc ihuJFx+WZtI0ywpdzXzVJTcMc1IFzRMvC3RcQEMLZ3OJhvdvOgNwuV1q9IRANGpiAV9TtX4W U9VYb0mJhUGQtoGB1FueQlL5p4ziNiDb9/HkvFuKbd4DS775HpPTisyb+hipN3G/zmwzqrBK rzPfOMf86pJ9sbopOBgRprpVqjT7txu8pTNBPu/b6jr+YywdOQq4E1KLmGVLX45FTnRCfDJs oE+RXnRt4AxPZnvSK7+fFbTVo1Koh5Sx0SWmUBb0o98WzzuwKjAHhrqAPi5VpkftxUe/gnVL X3Cq4ejvs8StFO7voKcyaz8CMiXjFQPY4ltP67fTKgLrcc2dEvnt82Nl9+qMFu6IJV8UdVki mocPT3dwMBZ2s6K6fYvq17tqo/svd79gmVDve/GNmj2R0Zk68pOsoundlheN3iz5WcNvMlRx 9rjtY3fk/QpVz5nRIA/ULPEqKupoLmxPzHvSjCYx0S7PKidVYNihe0ILelNKlElUS1Rv3B38 CFCndmDWGFWi5w1ZplbDcEN6Y1Sn4uiO6Jsg6sX25FueWTPoHVEG0NvQWZ+hhc7q6f5RIj/I 4F/pwrVAODB5P43OtfvrDTzbg8y9G0hpcSJtXhsAQP8mY/VVg2j+HQopTB5b2ZUZEuQrVplV X94qQPSeBRVMB1F+4gLseBRQAF1COltdN19bEVJWUTJVS9zkSylEXlRQAFciAjLAoZp2AORw 4XSbIat4HHpO8AJmB6XpiGL3PYFu2MdjJtmRALbVgyp8KOUDg4NeZaDRXgAC4AU6YqegWSjL eRTI2QIj5ubfNbyQyuzZtBCDdMaQUK9xpIO6hUej0Le6m6uBVmJhiPGXpl2wq4Drv1W4lZlG AEWazf5ZDMhIBk9kTSJ+En+QeCpDDC1hbv4DdiuLLICAM9qjoCwj8CH/pRvKpaYvaMBMTeSP iUgfkNTPVc6vgPQISjWDR34X+nA7MoFMx9r+M6qNJ9ejMODh+GCuEPTkIbUWsmjUclRS2PpY dYaAM82i++oxMpDhjewNy8lHb0n7kqK1OEwbd1UztrATtCTCQGsirCpuowFNYKdm8vH3zagJ QOPpati3ALrsjwTaqahNAIhgo0UFbYEKGMCAC+q/WnD0lHLGlFnS6WVRr6ONQKeUy5mUs3wu QgFZoZCwLajARQrQlkggWU2YwQhLCYlAxn5DNlN7FSW9JeosMErHQDDyOjLbxjvpK6L7DEKr 0J3J6ucaT/36SrPbFW4XoswtUbPU80pzC4SVcWO7MR3ykSasugWKag3pGExJYNEIzlYLC1AZ MEIGX4HZg117d1UcMIecnr5tYZClnLQAaMsr0cb3FvL8/oJ6DfGCHyTougVBf6j4qlslCH9C IHudmf8NqfSN5AAgYb2SOxt9ZFYYcppSYCis9QQX37pZjNAqRSiZrg9VAKVLf5k4qMJDAHx5 rDdMfalLFzQBM4y1e5U3zSEaZgsx2dZaL4j1rWKQH6JTBsYjkWr+vBqSE0gUhdVWUPConbNf QcDtnnBlzADAFAivh5bVfhRoyhp8w5MQTQQ4NCzT4Gf0iMyawGm0pqicmnBkhA+YmHKsaaCm 1Mia/GjQMihgCxwlNAIALj5nKz0bFj0IMDYkLZhzSKhCOUzbmERyWGlMpnB0mmxpWKYkIJo8 aSimFBCaDGn4kgSATQAcNAjTNE0wLDQY02BNWFA0tNO4TaykNODT6E388DSY04RNgIA0hNOU TJBk+ZJsaVimQDCa6Gn4pgQYmjBpKKZQRJpMaViSoCZNtJg0jNP0TeCsNETTWE1oaDQYGQA2 EFiF7Gc/YcncssjETaxcNGjTdE2csDSg0NBk/NPITNQ8vJMQDk0AcDRY0zhN2IA0pMlQ2SZQ UJpQaXCmcHCacGlQplBQmlBpsKawsJqwadCm0NCa0GnwpvDwmvBp0IgyfUamPTiaS2lOpkFE ml9pWqZVUJpzaXameXyaZ2lipm1omptpnqaRlJqPYLGIk5fEBIWLjYX/QK78uq6tuQa0vrCw /bqA0U2sv0W7iq+iWdJ2jKLDfOHBydG3AoPOzs/0gqiRcwEj1+ayfYi5AoQODNFy1RcLDyg6 LAgofpgb2wAjKSYxDy4nLzR80Um3AHNcT0tbTlKi0VNLR8P6YGcCZHpwZnFlD1nNMNvukGeB koBipYaYLj325UoNng+tEWegi1RQ2kSx9Ybw2sZWwMhpillJ8vVOCOWNMjwZtVUqDjaJacAT Eg0JPK3ENTRpNAA5I2EaPCU8L74sM+DNgxsdGB3fFulAzy30YWIccWhrwOXtlaaxjJWQYZ4e hZerTZo6oA05uf4zTzxasQ2X8moqvaPD9MTStM79MTTHP0yzzv0xKDHP0/PFv0/PFrgBKTGN UWITs/db7VdmBviPudb0BM/UqGCZeaGvUJc8ub3xwbilrxewsLShxb9kM8upPo8bDG6kxzbE odqWWe9jKB7znyEWVtnfviWmN3pi1pCjNYcdn0jmoXdzZDdvmZ5suLDNM8WCk7Sns/Oa58wX vbGtruG3FvmbouXXwWUryvdcvZrQ9jzRR9zdaUqb+ppKxMQfoNL3+AVzz+M6K+ARUfn9hPCu QuE4CQ427UUUdPhQ0wRVYm3VyLefXKtpPxXt6jroZ+SzcW/vAUIlMGVpUWx+fkZBc1taU2om FXfyRmkMIC0cGhgaAhwSEBIcGpdCDnt2adzo9HF8sfM+fDxBanViCt8TX8cBi4yVCZMUhyK+ ugnadjh4jriVKuOAytfThXjr0xwd2QFj9nLIY8iJngbn+hz6pMj/8uLJ5kEGOiAgJ1QyNPAw QzFDmlqw1EtAV0xQVm9wbWXjaW5jMWFriZbnpHJ30nsZDBAOrR+1Be00BxvGqPDPt+USiRQu K316Djom01oiqTo9vjI3j1Y0+slCzm/C299NLOzx5O42Q/9rO7PLDySalpup8mSTrJPZq865 48q+PFrhPQt93WzlS0FFXVrHjVLuElLeasy48cd9PjwMuO7fC9v02gtnHIpwaSsrvjw7rRk+ nSAxdnTKp+OWlrga7DWHft65AK+66c2UysXBYZYsk1Ch063tEM1LG8PotqmNl4c6/JeB+tzE sf91nJX/zsMl6dLbyO7WzsOR8BnR+uPve849ho3W6uw16iTbaHTC8Ufr/LbEVSvbyCwCE99a HPUfFmFhejkYMi8x/hpwxvh1eoznlguW46xq4sfPflOlbCQbYVpG6UJWWAgAaUUXSUZM6yFC HgNA/5aUKCkRx1Z4Uq/aS2W7Rn89SpVcRMCgVfHc9XiY0szttoRb5QYVoqp6rfyk/esVW64N HdMNZjbatqNW6Hve0s0dypWGs3mG8aL2zDbQVP9y75TVU130whDz0lQIzkoBVPhC11EEAiUu KyBEBbpmPCpz8YEMfh8CHX+ynWEbMOy2Yj201Q8DqFABN92Dmhs3nVYZpxYcViaJbn7yrWRn nZHIrZ8VgVkvr2AizbCg4eW6BSu5gFHQxJDqBOGA+Q+f/Zznn7uEexA+wVyO2Cr8Hbfsdqn0 zMevKWXedwaxzIK4ePX0yfyx6qt04VQVGrDrogcHAD+C+p/kCWvjHgocgMAKFAYBdAdSHctz LWhyQAUGDwlkIgUQDdEMBHByOHp6zHVnxyZ0Hgk2DAv6oIQ6NUffuRVrkJxDZVOvddgAokS+ iYj1r3eohZxCJZmwEDC/tYqN5Sqp4ttFfYvJEYyCf6oimtYSnxr0hBXz69Wu/iOYg/r17e3k vLrVuvNQ19vTlVrnxI0f7f6kBuMgheCw5vQ68BtiziuLVDYiJK5V7ecuv95FFhIRfFgADxQc DQ8WBHMQZ/JgrLamxvqbq3wHMB1XfqCEUmRAU0NdREhXAHFMPkFEMEExOTIsNM3I6m0Ay7q+ 2s+2zMQG38HArq8a3usxAN+iopi4qoyx49W9o7y8rrZG9PWcppWuqVHoifzvd5357UGO9T8e qKrd1Mr1ZejKCyG11hDTeMJ/ya4FGVEXaCQaA2QJr3Cn0zZaAAD9ZRJRUk+Q7jUKwwsWwTxD GJAGVZFKQxB5ZgVqBHlBgii1gu1PizACRRB2Xamxqn3AP/5hQcwScRIxNfE7xGU1yCAyigsm nQSDIIqydwsgfLJxCyBGslsLML/kv9O+TTxTgWZutKBxmg2EUmbJjois48bT+XgcjqZ1tJ0/ sdjqX2MUyXWmLE6acGlHkqwtTVSMO2Nj3MkmplwvmhxpMKYsXJnUfiRl0/xNbsQ08MlwfSz7 fz49BPhyFfXx9qQMSPiIZRqfZ8XE3TF6BMh1doIETVQqNQGEvUIJFEfBeRRsFn547B1OZY/x xFE54uglgybqlwj1svdOgrfzuO0VD956k8kDfS4OFv14//p9CPtKxSwqAtjS1+j+RTV9MoAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0013_00004669.00005C44-- --9B095B5ADSN=_01C422B9052E83480001FC7Dptvexc01.ptv.com-- From MAILER-DAEMON@textmi.com Tue Apr 20 16:38:28 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@textmi.com (Mail Delivery System) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:38:28 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender Message-ID: <20040420153828.10D5C17F81@lithium.textmi.com> This is a MIME-encapsulated message. --05C0C17E28.1082475508/lithium.textmi.com Content-Description: Notification Content-Type: text/plain This is the Postfix program at host lithium.textmi.com. 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 : Command died with status 21: "$HOME/.filter.pl". Command output: Is a directory at /usr/share/perl5/Mail/Audit.pm line 93. --05C0C17E28.1082475508/lithium.textmi.com Content-Description: Delivery error report Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; lithium.textmi.com Arrival-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:38:16 +0100 (BST) Final-Recipient: rfc822; maulkin@textmi.com Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; Command died with status 21: "$HOME/.filter.pl". Command output: Is a directory at /usr/share/perl5/Mail/Audit.pm line 93. --05C0C17E28.1082475508/lithium.textmi.com Content-Description: Undelivered Message Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from textmi.com (82-33-168-163.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.168.163]) by lithium.textmi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C0C17E28 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:38:16 +0100 (BST) From: blml@rtflb.org To: mailer-daemon@textmi.com Subject: Re: Hi Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:36:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_00006875.00005168" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: <20040420153816.05C0C17E28@lithium.textmi.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_00006875.00005168 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is the file. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_00006875.00005168 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="your_file.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="your_file.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuAAAAKvnXsbvhjCV74Ywle+GMJVsmj6V44YwlQeZOpX2hjCV74YxlbiGMJVsjm2V 4oYwlQeZO5XqhjCVV4A2le6GMJVSaWNo74YwlQAAAAAAAAAAQ29tcHJlc3NlZCBieSBQZXRp dGUgKGMpMTk5OSBJYW4gTHVjay4AAFBFAABMAQMA6ZtBQAAAAAAAAAAA4AAPAQsBBgAASAAA APAAAAAAAABCcAEAABAAAABgAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAIABAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/HEBAK8BAAAAYAEA EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LnBldGl0ZQAAUAEAABAAAAA8AAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAABg AQAQAAAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAKsDAAAAcAEAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABgAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgC AAAjWZWUi0QkBIPEKo2QNAAAAIPECGoQi9hmBS0AUFJqAIsb/xNq//9TDEVSUk9SIQBDb3Jy dXB0IERhdGEhALgAcEEAaNFrQABk/zUAAAAAZIklAAAAAGacYFBoAABAAIs8JIswZoHHgAeN dAYIiTiLXhBQVmoCaIAIAABXahNqBlZqBGiACAAAV//Tg+4IWfOlWWaDx2iBxsIAAADzpf/T WI2QuAEAAIsKD7rxH3MWiwQk/Yvwi/gDcgQDegjzpYPCDPzr4oPCEIta9IXbdNiLBCSLevgD +FKNNAHrF1hYWFp0xOkc////AtJ1B4oWg+7/EtLDgfsAAAEAcw5oYMD//2hg/P//tgXrIoH7 AAAEAHMOaICB//9ogPn//7YH6wxoAIP//2gA+///tghqADLSS6QzyYP7AH6k6Kr///9yF6Qw X/9L6+1B6Jv///8TyeiU////cvLDM+3o6f///4PpA3MGiwQkQesji8EPts7odf///xPASXX2 g/D/O0QkBIPVATtEJAiD1QCJBCToV////xPJ6FD///8TyXUI6Kb///+DwQIDzVYr2Y00OPOk XuuDLovAuA4AgNxKAAD8XwEAICUBAKlGAAAAEAAArxIAAN5PAQAmDwAAAGAAALQBAACVVwEA 5BIAAABwAAA4ugEAAAAAAMYTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABicwEAiHIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG1z AQCUcgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAenMBAKhyAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACGcwEAsHIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJFzAQC4cgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnMBAMByAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMhy AQDWcgEAAAAAAOJyAQDwcgEAAHMBABJzAQAAAAAAJHMBAAAAAAALAACAAAAAAEBzAQAAAAAA VHMBAAAAAAAAAE1lc3NhZ2VCb3hBAAAAd3NwcmludGZBAAAARXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAAABMb2Fk TGlicmFyeUEAAAAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAAAAVmlydHVhbFByb3RlY3QAAAAASW50ZXJu ZXRHZXRDb25uZWN0ZWRTdGF0ZQAAAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAAAAUmVnT3BlbktleUEA VVNFUjMyLmRsbABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAV0lOSU5FVC5kbGwAV1MyXzMyLmRsbABpcGhscGFw aS5kbGwAQURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVACNL LeCo9fUqAN2XrU+vUqlvABioluG9wPiQAMukUQTRgwCWAAh8qPCIC46DGwsqdsh4rZIAff8q c3UyNDah4RiNMLEZ5wLoY+8nAGEAAACf0B59LFAEyC92WUGoz7dMAENKSTV9SfNMFsaLNcr/ Fv1JH7pmAAz4ST+5Lje4ADBpaxfaVNyoKVsn6WaIgGsa2xs1XVso89/0VBJZEQgX5bEWjCwK qlyNQcKD7RjLg3xeEl8VcPcISg3wx0DdLWFWA1+QEk6COEiI9CmEAHeOVp81jodfBoA8bgTL ukUA8PSqislLA8oDo/220qcHaQa/vM2/RlJdDancS8uEx0LEhVW8lAcAn2XWp8YU3gGVd5/w rGdAQTSKGzbUfpTtxgpweFp0NfaVLQU4RZJQikZ++nALsQw8A2oXYVErIyhKZD2rHA29DFJQ ACWwproYIpZZyW0kw88Vq7fAJtzrbCK931+m5uVEwtKGp6zcLHTNSZTO8IsSJk/mGkz94/HU gF+O9FqBx24MIOl8X88RU1+p9LJotlZpzVZfWWS2/3IKl3eGgym+14JqOdlGpM3aIpS5KQSm nmCwR7hG3La+JUXw+KOiSrSNvpSl9cvtqp+YRcDGxmgowiP+VQp02W2wDRRq9g86LaCVElpe smugpDsZcpSnPM2teZUv2AijvJj8pLhQqTaCkxAVw4EdYaiKohdLr2nLQG1Q+CcmMQU0Y9oy LFAQ1HKvGtZcAK6iJukK3oJM8rIDNUlgl+duAIUVbILFtJs4AnhLdPUsdDl2vKJo+V1KN8Rn 5F2FAOSZjm6qHl6hsFKXITMx1F0b3W+RR5ewnlJ2ijs2S3+6t9ExQ0HbEIP4tAbDmz4tTVz7 +dsaefWquHZqzscNQkXH2JoeWqO+HRaHfX0yCgXD+LwP2fnyv/0BEGyJVmR5MQtfQysE8+IU W2XfJsUlTX/OV+wgyi27Ru/m0QRHEBXtRqv7oFbAZDyFk6EgcArlmkn3ljcfmkFE4p1uD/ox WeO00ACBAo36ZfsBFbrKQo6+D8SHFHEobC435RAFV3o6AmwP7h9PYYlAqyjkqRfhchhx3h32 DFhXsKSFkyyXJYcVCwhoyxZVCpQsiOKLXjr6yGiuSFhl2aipTFS6Grt9o1Av3ZCM85bYI+fA 8KiRk+dcg4p2KvmB3VJxT77x2sFrFEUR401jiIcNWm+BWkhtEWS5xIk9Z1sg2Ce1WFgX0gBR sgQZSak1T3AkCdZJxzljSgEfDNpLSEFFqhcm+tdYUCPLFtWHkFsXyzUDE4UQZ1m15HaK/50n 1CoBq2Vd8hRXEoV8fQdZDL9hwVprCrSsBLn+rgcOm9GDgDqhkiMtjGsCqVSLyz+9ngstKZLF tAlWBYpHlkqqxX985aMuleq+uK5jVU2k3MncgXMw8vp1VHhVxZW/cU8Cjocec1ZTbWXYaWRX d6rUage4iBa7Vbtmp6PgUUQauljiMD8BysbzEn7rIObYhKNRVLLr6zUHvpgv2XA8j1tmS/fT g9/51fz+koj5CWTe3gAfmIPlbU09+/EqBFN4Pz0urYYRt3+zUMFAkt23Ya3zleTkX7/XQyiZ rDKo3DgBbL3fwj/ONGHF0ZQSKiLLvi5sXtqrsBNPDpFo0S9apBvopVxHGxtJ2ShT1ygoqMe4 M5z/Kt94SEISqPIyuOeUahnOejNTlEso1j8WzBMhGkboBvIX03YUEXdCST3CoZKdnX9dgQBK IQiLE4sQ00KN/XgYuZQV8iI0Gvk7J3Pg0e1heEDgbbXinPsTao/fSdjYJNaS19wgI8V0+KL1 wgqBv+LFtDP4QSFVizkytEgbjyHppNcS9C7HV2oQiUPi7zHC0lf+eMlU6whh6ISeQh0Qm+Tw DIA30DHBPID2CYT7QgYh4AMQ/QCI+gVEh3oi9A8R6RQI7hGE00IuJ8g70IoJa46hlPS+U0/9 TUyNcnWBdyifheqKg0zoIh4x/jkDFZrgFj656KQo3T6s3+IcZdOZCD3OuAQ6xibNyGM/Mo5+ D50GDMy1FopoIW8Pwps/+sNx0vLIKMOOZcrIshqwl8RZqdRqiaBzIHYDc38L+90eZo9pgI+k B5Lp+rgH11918NtvrhrsqdQXQfIrqrt5NVNh73UedLnMws8uNX2SSjxqOBUqz/d5KN5ZKbqH boRPpgOjUKHeI2NRxSoiRWwjCNHPfGKC8eHjhg9VEYAw9FaNu8sRsFeq/jwmDs80hqP5pJmh Aq1pF+ybAsVXG5aA8LXaRIUsI2XgpavSjIsipFg3RDPfnw6txK280umBEKEUpw3qoVWjLvb+ bWqv/PeAHVUAY3BsOGjc15UE/VNv0pNHi04SsrMq8EVrtK8ofwCW/cDRC6TIbG+7kpVuWRAV SzW8zvtjfQwBLl0rXHxjeH3GIUzGs0lVNzLEC5Fq00kw0wNzGPGknSNWCAQTjrxMpPQ9JXOm gB6BDEpOOwwDcQ6OBjY9jMGJInlc6kh/ZcGR0mBhlf0og2/1YxjBsxxE1a4M2ZgzJuzirUjC 9LMKxsV3Gm06RYVxAIMQVFk9hZbPF7BTNQ+psFa/SMJtrwHHYAASxQWfwB6ho1BQ2N2+0F5c OvkHpAW4nMKGmSw5qECCBRaKnGRqbF9zZTSHfqxLlTqh31bqSktIZEOnKapSDbkRwrBhCng5 UiEBxcN4xeqjPTMr7dqPaOGKeh/wFezpNjKsTR1Ee6r79p0UHqn/1SfpWbEN7kKu8P3wOojn ba4huqWVO3+YFYTXeV1XkorMlnnvKGLr64BURLpNMiyJ2sxvpVrvLEX0UatcQ+QUiXKyhtK6 3CWN8ylugubFaopS2mb4HPyEALSScfn3JB4uuvAtgAr9lF+Z9SDWWM6qavPuoKb1JSimf/Mu j0YSA3mCGTCyyImKBKj4dDu+yu5hdMw8QB2TWmXahdMCa5aSZZu1qa9AmqglbXQI1v95Ssbc Qp/l3MvXi6KMTER/Nyzj+qKEQKZBB2TgOqoOtI8NNcTwtYfxqQWQEV1ESjqWPkOikCfhYSsg Vp1+dG2dLhft6Xwf3OzN9Whf7UoZBy3Mjuk/BTjyXhbpvGjMFihaccBcQJjtRg8hMNUyubjk FQqOAoVRH+Py+B1YEjtZaT3HDuMPi82wfFG0BP5nusv+yVOqpUb6HDuTBiAooQ5s3sd/TAMK roRKpChG69cOBEOGOqMOoX8UVlLevoCyvR4nbHjmhoG0mY2HElSO0ZUoOZaoJu3h5B8gPrZe wcwWqIMQ21F1DvGUQROTF69wkEAoBLQCF6gYSdrNDiV8kVok20BYckan3kE6vET7qEDsQVF9 ZIUGbyEp1T6hkbnc8W3VZaSl4K64VzU+d/OLyhg5AqykIWLqoQGbrCIMiFN4+LEI2TZ/FEKl GHx5vIFVfs+Pi9m5xdMUc8ig8TOqljK9E3jEr+uK04Oq/WdL/qQL73RDT4gxEd2sgwBMDoeT BUALehFBdg5lvyBWNPWKcrjIEoUx0Nj6rzNk2ee0gAl92qlUo+NCswUMDX3ipRsYitqIti8K /s9RIgLOE0c+CHv+nUI6or0ljMzIJYEHW1klZTbUxzORtMEKZhFTVFnkoq/glKRAqdD7pKZO XftGIhTcuvg1x7FayLmqu3teiVsn368OqDRz/PrKUuwOt4n1M1I73n/2oehFjkecmwLrL2yu kp2Jx99E8kAH/65NmTzc3hQEiAanzQX0koFreHV/oEjylVs93Sv1nkdRugr9wb9zSNEKrq8t JPdBzywrspUPFnOSSmfJgYBN27A5TCsOvTmBn699vMQVFnY6gms+Yc0FU9XqYJtA5fdQFacc fi/qIKAA5sZULkiLKB5siiPBnIXw0IOL6Mlj28jKgPhtkRTrnOun0+IbebC+RzMy0CMSlmED k0w15bLDS9rAQT/DsDsj8WPfGfXy2buuik5i9P5hO9Rm+QrfgPO0XZ7Zk7vlVFudLwVkBW13 M3W+jYf37AMrrTTzDgxEuzLjSB98BQI8mVDcRo4KVHVTxlRWWsV/bPKASKNgi280HsaS800i /iQiTRBzkZAijmoUBAu1BhrpsO22pkYSiFsQ+Yajm6pF+UiJ0Ff/YpeUt6fQGZvzYyne3/Uq qECfj+4kpw46tcjxsYr9wEPPKpOvqFkfeTEkdlSUdJH6WlR6fW23VpFXXOyYn98gvDJHWvzZ PDulzAsDdP6D/l1EZYtWe5stM99zPXQQV94mXbQJ9fE9XMqpkxC8gR0OXN3WKosbMyIxIiN+ Ter1r8tzfo+DF5nDAHBqqVMzQ9ghnxqCiNVGvb69zgLjVJ7RiNYXiMy/LyGlsNXW91hCBoH6 xeRvpGxPinSYNkVFkQ87kEeIWKD1r6ZYrVYHaMUmKmydtEjILihVY0v4F+C3BsKCzG51o5r/ x7tscbmaToDQATpSxaLRwOmfVxJh+79fv5J0Sd2pgs4iyWCrwzmEp19DW0Xy8cPif+0Ih0pu +SsghezWhw0MZhBphY02c6q7hLqEXIMUM0w5dxC5RUranc9b5nNAmYdoLvVcU0hMsv8onuaZ 1eXqHYcE9RvshDM+q24OPdA8DrflTv+n3eFCnLvVtASq/IWEAvhUNIeomzpOkev3o8tfLU7R 2Jje0Cyt4r7dsxTN6ueT9okxtwEgfwmT7wB9jry7NaCe2IfpJm7fsfyGXJ2+mSdEi15LR1w+ yAQz32aMRxA7+TqQ7tW6qRT60pB0EvsuT03t4Q3J7wvImVmmXPEGfUD+IWSqvgFr4BdMin2o 6QiwQ6m0SZ50A8GVoyHrxdnsDilfWYkfjJ+cJJgtXQSchpbRp/h+aAITeSQeUYq/o7V8bYKa CORrQlXb6L9rQq3Y6lGydhhgGy1UNarlimuVVTqKQv1VrRUkRdYiHphy0WWijssLCEbBuKZe mWJ4WeI2mcUZqWdbyoQrqghR5pYo4qSFGuriiN4pTyixpofU9kQ5nwILLES76SGywpIZQvxY yNKuX9I0ru3HJk4hr/PQxDNFa8aI2SmiFaeI1PclM1QVoOQdbhfG0RNAFRcFeSt2CCA2Mq3A YEExT/1c2spTstpx1L7BCUCxjo3LI/bCuMzRX9P24BxJrexz0yuAEbqxIWg3Y1/4SF+TpVWO cpjQc2vYVblcDCcAWKPUcR8gbR5/2x8xEbDnnBiXbgXAdblgfY9YhSdabYbaqTLwnqpg6aEH pY3zWinaYAPLUza6RVJ9UGO5iQ9JaN86OtaTKyicytspTFwJhN94K+tCKajsrOEy+xng4ChM SnFnGVQqMqx4tw1YBtHIuOfn8apRS+n7zpKHcn/gp66kDZCJ8vGUq+upYKwd7eUj0r6f0Qdl G+fk/IEQKr3pIEWAS7MNiC5ba3pt3mbsnqAzU8xCaUNLkHiQT9lXDZAf2QcNkC/BSUh8fVl2 ouYL+/QvYciYyQKXfoL6u70U9nQXIpupdoNLKuDjUBxnGeYOk80oB6vRQK7R8wZe0gCTmqcr WwcPLZ421ZoL76agVVQ1v+yWmpS1HOWdPSv361MGYcuhYOpicyv6vLKnVx53WVDR0w9y9mnN b1foK/AhAKl0sE6KBXpKBYhg7N9x+TGvZFZedrbTFMGBQdijUSp+EPCrd8c7OX2kU4vxcwHF rCzNTsKgEz31XRK/uRTGTb5K6b6PE9YFYrVMnTn9MTrJne5AmVQQmEhiD6sJWQiqo0EHrcWV x24CNhx9UaZnUKoqSd4k3tuAcocoWjJQhSkq3LOpNvFm8jTlw5PhTZ2pNLXTsU6N9hAFbgDM MQhi4Wox4RSW2ZbymmyCeZ40ntOSTZqmNKbLqtjxllIETRe9T7OSMr3kNr0ctZqVfVeoonDl Pei63yxa5ktESoOvNHMVUfhjDnyE3h0fkNIWPiLGRBR+ENoruDUvy8TP4Qr1X4WJdO0fTfae Ykzo1/P0hQKhhhUZmQ6Fc6EOT/WNXYw08emJx2wlouitoDa1l2+NVBgTIsVhsSmzUTLaCyja cUqdqosCQpNl3zMa1Hd2Kv2dtjyh5+atHMmaxWnRpt0Zmg5/Dybu8seT8k3+9jTK08pNxt40 wtPCTc7GN7rrj175MblmvRyJmqF/lmVLtSt+OKZ4fhj2mLVS459PHIbqo2BNrynPOeVkm4+q puFiw/L4+Foipj5WSu11HZxAau+WHaEA5efmaRXFl+MA7SLSjM8JpQsACwiJc+4rZf+hoNx6 GYho4bVGtML6xrHQmu8HJgZnkBcM6yIdiulII6TfJeAl2b4i1CTai1EaDqJN04QIQFVRvDF9 oHKvDhxzxIgucbVmKHv4ohHuvXRmUuJBmI/xQEemGujgZBEStuTWbWGZC+kcTnpBUpFaSk2l 1QdvDDv5zuDHYjNCAiloMyIDCiNEaujU/jq6ZASYDYcgGtdYCt8oGx+AKJh19fF9At+ug6o8 VVaKLWiaZjewuB3YRuImLGJiKC5DKoVF3pnMMNlwnsLHdMXLVdYdeZDgAvZeh3zNNgp3atFC fT9ApypgiZ967DlaYEASkzs/PBpRoaMYqy+yAtUpqd81UbHmZ4NfooBxqDKCzwVApGQnS1vD j3QgQurfgqPaUgen7sL7C7kZYtuXTKzZXJolF7OWVaSFbB96C/6G+IJ1QcF18GSF/sTzC7d2 FPeBM9WP6rLr2USbtoxKBFdFH80vERvU7rt/yhaDKl+nLOfZuvTjypjFm5DlUO0a7qhSgfsq S6TSqEAW7LQc0exrVIQ8yMyWu2QrwWmsjAY6MaLixlOYWEjnA9io5ZNFNcwV2uHBq/a2iVQM RV+BBk3hFzQpGSMEKV3hlM87OqPDqhLJkxdCFRYLPd+YdFNqrAlEifi38o8BpCKAcaDGufRk qh8YvSZuiFBjuD96YXlrCe51/otcwiNYoNEBS8r9hmTIav/Zy+ZIg8VCpXX9xGloGUu38Ago qB6pYFdaDJWrXHvoahFgVG/+RCK5T0WJBGVYGApiWMbIDKQAcwR47oixZepbr4yrPp2E6iKj R4UobWHDuG6J6ea5+KiPC6UgEJKjAZilJkboKNCs1qRIc87JcbTUEd4Cqt8kEupcQH42ggpx PWkqCWGjJsWfIUbexFbqujB/rta69tSS+rzV9vYtULbSqB4OUCVURgPOFAIykROubT8Oysci xoHEhVaVkyC0WtS1AhrX2Gk229N6QG5NVlrUBHxVGnJo+G74fzfxcerJI+IktzTQTPdYfPub dS5wiPsUmBtXVIWvx6i6g7LscUcurudXlkO1TQFbdZsDkLFHTYcpQFYMrTCEWngNyw9q0x0W +gvp1FssOscE2t+g9LpZXQlyUvvNhbgCSA6M/l849LIQZEPE9iNxFEICZyZUWisXd7xc9iIU mBgDxtGEr3UeTjbk3H6/Ue3E3rY30YJSokrvkZMN/7JV0AeyZRVRPQo1+FC4VLE+Afst5OJa 2Zf2uVY6pw49PUw8iL+ZXJWVeOiSfqZmpbXZm+AiVuCfZ6QR/qj6hB0UOiiOt1YFlKlgPB4G 19nChcc/DoqgSBw4GrRVd0LHJhZQ8V86pgSbERHCVO1X9EYoASf5CWkOegfSCWc+tEAdhQmL /ruoZ+zk+HV9bdai8eFSDqJckhiaupUqCcRpFM/l+CB9hijcsojL25/NHHJNFXAz4eotFyHj q3WU3NzUV65uB2MkndlVxGS2cqTO30376D5WcAXB0oIC331GIBiCe/I0BYT/M4ge0It4NUmT Lh9JDD/rKG5XgXBXDPVJ+Wi9d2iqqL64eEiAfovUThlgB00JnylW5aaiQ8oL5FsiQbcmJSTB K2YAqhLJjHce4bqppdFn97ciBr1oIWgOCPw8uM9Ds9LXvfOjkPXjOttTIa92Ty7kYsPO76Jg 3UH6lqChStyMRGOHG6nDJZDHrKOY/ScA2FScVte3KKT1yBh07rVaCwfhfM7nlqmhnZ2MmhZd GmQKD+i3MOcea3jtwVzxPwcslWoVFj5BuYiEn6vSLApq/56JnRtXfla3yIWsfi2Q5RCf4B8F bBSUdh3FQ0n5qUAbCCqRdRy4WBupp6n0tftlf4B7p+qvp6Nsb3QGymCgKshM8NsGAIDuHq7H XOSGMeUcEX9xSHmT4gkCB8z1y0o3g0mMjJSJPZpw4lNqqTMkJKZIGtKcMEKIFQjSoByyBQI2 KOks64BeiuoLINkictuCyM4IUqDTIDaJv7zOgFVBKoz7fq+g6hUu9RVraEnX7Uuyg//qJlUB 9OYCSGCloF0/7uX7xR0KyOVf2Yy9Ul2Rcb3F2XhaGNsA7ROn1+vBpToMQ8GFlTVFq5r4A1/k v2/VWCrkSbKS3O3uIq+SgCmknYLqu7qw1tw71SO7g5dfT08l4Lf1YIBixWkUYgBBCnHHQHNE VwBzMsxFUQeVKNETbT4VjKuMbaAzbIVkQbayAQHbEtpusOJ7uIdIfoCiUwIKSjx7bb7MALlH NDAC28cpA5Ev+2K7NV8BdqYlXu5N1C4dDX4a+hQ68dU2g4M+GnA6V/uOBHBC8Zd3yclK0adQ L/5GUe7HK4rqDSCCx4KI0zKXQ7kClzbECu9YDDShvD6oP+rqHVS1Tde7KvLy9fJOnxQu013+ w0HK0O/YJ99E9QSmM/gXjElo146rlK+YquTjMDHfScl0571APdz6261Bqu9FrWagZEoSjxqH aEmoFXoqMt+HSzRXaU8w3Ey1PWqvsULMWxGIElZSKIAjR/inq+ObtRqVDUfpN/mH+XXcVemt bkRk2/21pF1eApwqWyCeVf58OvaqeQUCOUwMgo6XzbxOq8S9hMdKBq82q/r7WCFgGURggKyr vnlY4h7idmjfg5N4MRXOiKJRCoObKmIoZvCyUyl4smQRYxykIRBnK9TbZQE9pX4CMixOVear vKR3YpWI1X+yYn9a5lTgsKxzMRXbIeWg1r/4rQSAS2MRVFD55vSxIP3JVcm1fWRfGoENf4b8 3nYc97wENx9S8Or48yLfOb2E8OgYcidtqDALVB4Nllma13mbGBXUjVSWi3VmK0DrDimPR/bt VbXlaYWZwo/quiXEgREusghRmXvle2Sd7AFGha2ChcCW/FZAPSA2eplnP22V1ORB/Ol2X3Lt zaUBmNkp+Tf3ONd+VItALu69irAeohY0IuuvOa8t7Jb5tFV5ghfGBF8QpUl2Ohhe2bptSzNs kxcz+Degj/MLBjKNJiuw5Qw+VDkClcvveyni06yrIRjwkh/ELT71G49cDqQHXy2csJKbt1w1 Ql1wrXVtpizj8vL6SO1Eo8Zukif7/VTajaFqBfqJWa6TjOhxGcgrGg6rsZRawg1Gb9C7+Qky UK+LVImHG1LwCOCtHRZiJ17imMTDqHabG4pF/UKr3/lVVnVUU3NookMSKhET+pMlMddPKY39 fAiFcHdXtx7LYkvQ6kn0eryRPhX6SkEUO9VJBlVewgBJrtwydXGJwskBg/X41egqlkEhoODu QkHhXRvU3rf1dqNwNX0MT6+8lYd8rGpJ7jasrv4lyxCAIgXGqRSropWDKLiN3qOWTqeoDwvl xSmRMvPOu8COuwF8g/J99PCeBLNRaE0OYiQngO9s4WdX3nOfgLzrVrJIMvYZp03BIVzbfVZ6 eYo+u/moDr0FezXC8jPzziIlKlkgFk+fg05VPstAltPa4hybdvaqEFaWfoMCCcSAAYAAj4CM SwZGRXwCPfnHBYZD7QbjCMw3ABFg2DOfpG08vATgYr7qISMphuQgGZEvD80LFVcTJ2JPcv6k sbHTlMMYtV+dUHqMrQyrLH/lFKpDbQxfltaoqZYWmCwY+umEl+8qCW5gKWVJOqJ6p1U71fvJ EXp1Ste2pWP8sq7g5caqCsf7bkQrtYa6sfIjWr+MEfw++SaqzWq5rrhVbl1rQl61C7/pjMay UWrKdNxDfa7Bfv6XAV0fHO5OrqpXDh+E017rBgYYjgS9B4TDp6V3WvidCJ1YfBOUhHVl6v+q WzL/rshHUKrVX+49trro2Iu75t9BvUHFe07XZqZKirrDOg25/0277f6NXAHqlkieVP7IQ0xl wSv/2vqAvMrhYfEfnp+OD/SII3fyloDVjwnTjEYvqj17fmHlIyLJNf8N+PcgQ+8ugVgrSR5Y EDFVAQxwlOifngcBE31+FQ97en95WkzmsMO1YDDql0vPd4QBPrXVz8uiqqZ8Vd/XsNPNAqRo Y41g4XOcHHlSKoNAfU1RU4gqbxMhy0ujowZV8oSKxY3IFgqjB43Ck9vss7IxQkRS09fGtbyg XJdkK0VVU8tyy5C2oDePNVIrGQ9vK1mtJAtAv3Mpz1vzGsfB+oNU49NwDK8OGMWf0mpnNCGX AzrQvHq/fSsdZZCCTuBf9f6OQVwpejKlT11elvFdK2SrEu44mryjO2OvAB+XifV9oR2ScT0H HjRXKVJIF18gH/QVaEqg5kCe5dIN9BIrma+hkrM1XGDD839vNuQk/htAjmQeV8torFRdVYt3 hxXW0N1IHUhN0XEKIt2u9sZp9hD/9ytjGPV2/ttww6ir4LzZL/uNJn9pIgMbAuF/eIIR7MGf I/0D/XQ+CVqXshwdoEwDxToONy8yQ0MVw41mp2sWiQVCOQgmDjJSEZZXbOA+Tvspg+6gGkA6 vmZ5N4CiyIqdAq2g/nZNTLbXbCSIrifSfZl8a3UhP9aT/5qLoonIu+jByqjlaDDFrm0uMol/ LjUxgHy6RTE+TOFfkl6LO4JCsBYtx3S6BTElX8H1dyyubfwoXyNFfooaEioZbZdBc42NE5B3 3MFVpt/0Q9xtdGv0or0zZTwQELXLhQC6EoWtTcp1gAtEwVXy+7LhfbxJ3Hq9PTFrmKJ3dd1V sIuuKDC9FyEF5Wlk2+BMoylcSy0FHSvAeA5XuwZEFAI+G/zSSGl0oH8C2orke0hQcyEeAH2j 7+kbPMuVA1ijGOyRyJWA/uc2+FgbbzkJRtQIiHu0AaoSQLgtwLwbrTXOaqwmoEytracz/lpX l5kAEGFYZ5PZFjlrrLfGVNF7U6to15dp4qRHtYZVKICNUCD6CCeJOTWqpxoXH23uJyypF21Y pRU9gW2vIlHZq1PpOiZHIrLCGaeVFE6KIYMh2SL/f4KIMVvCVOjI2aCd9ZjaQVPqu6eWpVkk 7O2Wi+i9V85Dr9DhpN7yUo7nW6o9qSUzRI2X0NIzj7OcVbo2lXLeCMkj5KDceoMDKuyvYV8V LgXqvRfrmoyenCpGBxxEWWK0jGadmPdUPYp/FG2fWiB3PJskiiFCkQdZn37oytWXAUJywtqQ ALTKA1jIHCzCwuqOSVEOL5SW//Iidh1mKupsqS8ciNqA3foVGlAbtJeUexf5b39oqFq33sqS C9wQ/6Vn/AbJAWOn9mZAa8Z0IWfDK5yQKJGEI0qwenBHo8ZoP4A4wrEOR8La5vQiwbzadIMl VbZe6OdygBl3hCQHjwrpNWWqTSAPVLbSQGqWKPU/Yur+PS9pMPxPukkol2r8WWSgu6VQ2bE8 llNbWdhd9magfUlZVtbIVHVn93umOCVhT6PeIgp3kiKfMu9vL10DllLhX/4VLkOUgHsLh839 0hXufLN3baGPDRPndDX17CDDGT0FqTtHHrBXRxOOajjk/qPgqcBTnK4FKO/wtPMxCMUCucCL Ctz89p2IsyfHgMnCMWODb6G0px5MoUt52UrpwhIH5IcW75t/iOnUTGJSZfqlGHfbCjwTgQdl gh5RZzcT5rkDKkkPs3Jj6paAH0PbUNsMqIR0tOvvZ1A3cchdef6ks9ZVz479lNGopaG8qlv/ ATy1YIGNLJEiaGOpRVxj19TVechBD9VliaCK6XZtf9y675p3K8RqfUQT0uEHPpwOq2jzaCjS H67cCu2BEZwtRIJ4BLxwxcIcqp8k5AA/cMSyZ1TzWChFOgj5VbDSo4O+fVdVzaJhYZq67LWl GrmFy11WwhVWtMf0IT7kgI78q/RFO75lIkl0vbk0h0kMNeAj7zicbncVFTZUkLV5XL13ZK4t RYeq9QIUkhtRICi/+hAoRTnBPxW6CsqqsBJlGkjj1+rcq5irGfQfEUA7qJh/87CV80K0E1WE fIOS4kkfg9ah8iQY/ZXdFlyNXNpxqQBEBinMZf8Z58i+1HJYUZ0Cgqso6qpYQZLhnVI6KKND WkI1RWu0qq94/hEOd/Jw8PDXin3wX+iinm69glpoWlY/vxTUUArWZyOgaSNPb07uSyw7X7ly VQnXjPfFloy+Dj64djfyA7wiJyru1fQ0JQ7caSuXzV9HyU9D9BTM31vrjJufV1Nv5D37gfWB 06JlZ4wn1PzW+xakCFnnUlNqPxBAjtcHsu+ux6pdNz7VpKbvyimDAaHZv1XfuKDVzh3UanP+ cRXbnGyKgxnxinKJggsFaAciCkYg66WL634dJPkAZCAvZV+w712pnxOFJ12jLvd9FAUN21LN +EALuKQLQsJ/bReFTAm9PMRU/dwLNTpBO/p7xFKv8sS+vPqrRR/3AycpCY8XZgEo6GYsgknL oEPy9ouPfep1MwyMiANoPLonBQjYVnNd3GJlA6PuLmgPN/k3U1ra39GIKOwcKqMTu34PgMLI NBq66FaGikuASTL0sR89SPnRKlj3SQwxXB4gCu/rLW7y0idivmkAFtPf7pmQ4JO/hsMaW1xk vnlf2gquRKUEv705HgdkehC18avyW9V/uOVv1dRdzaEUHyD3ScsViFDMj049rnFtKPsNf3vV X23NtpDuMSRJIXALG0C0Zg7r96cqpqwXmAKnaIlfdc6112iXRaqlTIcHt9D9BFTO2TaCxlJ6 Roq+YfNVgRhWCunu8/AjyoGQzlSlui6e+lS1kMXTJvPoNpdPIm/eRaaAX9V7nWBAA6kS4krv uffr/HEKYYL7ImwPINuXS4j+6nHqERaLA19Kk1sk5bjaplpWjE6tdqArjS/uEh/HLITzb0Mo Tx2QFeK31bBEUhIQKJDvrbSobdFKmpWvj49tC+pFRBtlHr78tEmpvuEWJPIMsruhZ/19lCfI FxMKAq7W/psC1EjmfQexlu2N+FMjJUD9Fxp/Pl0dC/G0zYhEjPmHS8rK/gn8BFn4VDwqJJdg EouJjvXeDR7CJVkUFgvpe4VXQAB4ISMBmkLvEhSNB5YU/BYGlHmymkhI/zwGn+V/6b5hVgoi YZ2gjWWfU9xnukrWxw+7ZVqjR1kP+mts5GD73zydDrurPLFdd7AY3waCXwajeSa+o8PFT6jn 9RVt3YSF6p+G40lFB56NtEnQcPBFQi+COGF1KsyjeTrw3UMJ8IEzqPgp6FVQ9kEVtEAZjzZM 4mIpbiu4bGLPgmtolWim8WMukWBHuUBdmL2P67CqgSr01JFpyNVXU/MhRhWocWSIc05fWE2a DCsElnEZQmcNV+2lm7YhHYaAv4qojGWptq2g+6hI2n2gftWXrkA2Wj+DD7xnwYoGxqDyqBLa Liulw2TrJAYiqg5KfgMri++gtxMRRLXztjqJ/60UQPNQ8hFK44oE7+IG9F63+MWEvPxginmU EvXBZVi9bgVhzub/AAmmtH/dGatWhwryhQq919TeLD4FLgiOr86/CQBC8XYLxY24+M3XWNco gkMgJfwl+ATbZsJBqVOmEXhd7SrdKAYa4nkF93vwCGLjq3n+qgoC4gUEzwa8lEM172Fm+/gp 1HX83AbzfmiaeFUzOnf6XEoMEu7dJlzxilZQhRGoswYiEwqKtP6aqHFPt5eW+FNLksCnS65I f70rz6yaIKM4JbXhMSM6aTNOuGlFo48EQLi26/uRWy2d+C3TjeBCPms29UToVDQGYmouKqKb LGCt5KJCLOnokGxFIzYkRhEWKCZecNuorMBoWaODWVCIa/2//FGAOEPVz4gZvnKucSAXT9ff l5BpXYVIYfz08/vKejX/KEGec8KKlweaGexudPPffvJLonWXzSo4HtCMsRx8cK7UsxNvSxpl ZvQ7c0lBbV/c/rk0FzUIq/7R6/LWvRjX+Y2b1d4oFWR23c+eyC48moPIAjjwgohpImMMeIB1 mnFoTS4gzqyhh8goKyCf8jcLU+TyxpjlcuFpnaaptZqxaI3Xdz48Bob8FIWLFb1u3c+paqBm 68gbbJqCiJBqIPuI9QnPpsvHhogXPCOCsqgLyBk7If6iZApbZKHn5q0cyZrFadGm3RmaDjXd z4rs+oWLFb3w3c+p9KDIrtX0YBBOKHZBKQGDbhYWjvx0Uz9jc6stK3tM6J6+C11CewrIF19D KhoPJOkjrev7S9vQgIPhaTGuq6SkQhjnoBXIpcr0OAo7ppf7gYFFjt5obF9mk91ZV6FRlX2O dZBFTkaLdc12d2Iqt/sYZ60m0cVayqa+xjlWBH3kegiPUbbxS/qWilpG+yhYq0eKCTX0lK1X Vthkoxp4sUcgv6YWCEpaIkt/X3D1JUC2uZcpOVmHaKoUryt/iiKAiyXHDI7LDgWy+/GAszy5 7IWBcJLStVKZ+7aKkjboGE6mfY9mwkmmCr/FHhd19EzxdUmonzwDRLjFd4SDgwXbzbNdSQc7 IqLPcCyTkoc8PBD/+qTTKFgNPLJewqITJ271KtUEkep9qceiiLzw+RCr/3Kq4aCt9XCoO27c 63kdJx5pvI6R6FG7nFnnkE56C28mXhrFC8X6IacFSAxMJCMYOTY0ANNOwMx4ajWMNJbTmE1a QDQw0yBNMgI0HsnoiSbE9JqUaZymqKSasGlEpigcmerSIgDaSQymOiKa2GnwpsbcmqZpqKac jJl86ySO05hNolo0qNPcTcLoMhA6SRqSFD9MDowmkTIgJMrT3E2OhDT60+pNytIyKk9JUOBq OH5hANgZymWOTHUkgxTDk+5N6fk0/tPnTd3iNNbTyU3PwjTD06FNyc07H1lG4hi2tEjz8/MA 6+vr6+Pj4+MA6+vr6/Pz8/MAy8vLy8PDw/kA9fXx8fX1+fkA5eXh4eXl+fkA9fXx8fX1+fkA BU5MTkhOTE4FQE5MX1yNsJEhgV0ojuHAEBQOKzcAMDl7PysqOCRtdaAGHR8cHc0iSkyLgxEI Dng4UDN2Gn59bk6JwHAXEC0myEs2Oh3wFXmOgWZ+MGZgZGkha2VhfZqFbGZjcQvQ5MGB7Kqb dcRVnxCCx5WVhYCDXIa8sBS0rbDAo6wZKaWnc5CIfrgVxkuaiLMC8fUNi0gKEt5bQLSbUKoS g8xMCMUEutDiLWrx8RtFJSQ4uK0ShxutxuC7fMIWH+XHvklbcBUimXxh9+U8mmWixToMSxmh HwUviIhkO1xag9Dh2KuwOai3VKjNopfYQMXb3B5teuP1KCLhpdXjHWE1BLUUVRrgSwMBChcd DwABZw89LPR48WdvZ4+aD2DUUljHVEZ1RegSPwVxfWl4Ebt7fG+AaL2fWC8dHp2VEoDFVJjQ aN0MuYXydJdrwD0ytbVRhqa9VFaKC+Ps5pf3BAvx1dnIWVDO+riNtYZe43aA0VXOqEattvy8 wEuPsoUa4BoWoxcVGIYMFEd4AYmRnUslzaxDOCUECBQTPy6rGtaFITMFWEknIb6ZCSjiKhIl UyZPtoBYT0hbXl11A1lNdTNHQqZQHR8CT7p5schHdJN3DsvJD0MwD+ECbAwSEml48yIOS5YB IZn4+uxn7yl3fwMZb0lyR7mkc0y7BbpJBbmPn562Emyh7wF3gRKGpq27uGnFk71cS5vfhruT g5WZ+Aj20NuqnKqi7YtntJup93vPyv/zuLsklPfjfvuSFfmVGiIyJBkJRh8/ERo77z7xQQDc ihuJFx+WZtI0ywpdzXzVJTcMc1IFzRMvC3RcQEMLZ3OJhvdvOgNwuV1q9IRANGpiAV9TtX4W U9VYb0mJhUGQtoGB1FueQlL5p4ziNiDb9/HkvFuKbd4DS775HpPTisyb+hipN3G/zmwzqrBK rzPfOMf86pJ9sbopOBgRprpVqjT7txu8pTNBPu/b6jr+YywdOQq4E1KLmGVLX45FTnRCfDJs oE+RXnRt4AxPZnvSK7+fFbTVo1Koh5Sx0SWmUBb0o98WzzuwKjAHhrqAPi5VpkftxUe/gnVL X3Cq4ejvs8StFO7voKcyaz8CMiXjFQPY4ltP67fTKgLrcc2dEvnt82Nl9+qMFu6IJV8UdVki mocPT3dwMBZ2s6K6fYvq17tqo/svd79gmVDve/GNmj2R0Zk68pOsoundlheN3iz5WcNvMlRx 9rjtY3fk/QpVz5nRIA/ULPEqKupoLmxPzHvSjCYx0S7PKidVYNihe0ILelNKlElUS1Rv3B38 CFCndmDWGFWi5w1ZplbDcEN6Y1Sn4uiO6Jsg6sX25FueWTPoHVEG0NvQWZ+hhc7q6f5RIj/I 4F/pwrVAODB5P43OtfvrDTzbg8y9G0hpcSJtXhsAQP8mY/VVg2j+HQopTB5b2ZUZEuQrVplV X94qQPSeBRVMB1F+4gLseBRQAF1COltdN19bEVJWUTJVS9zkSylEXlRQAFciAjLAoZp2AORw 4XSbIat4HHpO8AJmB6XpiGL3PYFu2MdjJtmRALbVgyp8KOUDg4NeZaDRXgAC4AU6YqegWSjL eRTI2QIj5ubfNbyQyuzZtBCDdMaQUK9xpIO6hUej0Le6m6uBVmJhiPGXpl2wq4Drv1W4lZlG AEWazf5ZDMhIBk9kTSJ+En+QeCpDDC1hbv4DdiuLLICAM9qjoCwj8CH/pRvKpaYvaMBMTeSP iUgfkNTPVc6vgPQISjWDR34X+nA7MoFMx9r+M6qNJ9ejMODh+GCuEPTkIbUWsmjUclRS2PpY dYaAM82i++oxMpDhjewNy8lHb0n7kqK1OEwbd1UztrATtCTCQGsirCpuowFNYKdm8vH3zagJ QOPpati3ALrsjwTaqahNAIhgo0UFbYEKGMCAC+q/WnD0lHLGlFnS6WVRr6ONQKeUy5mUs3wu QgFZoZCwLajARQrQlkggWU2YwQhLCYlAxn5DNlN7FSW9JeosMErHQDDyOjLbxjvpK6L7DEKr 0J3J6ucaT/36SrPbFW4XoswtUbPU80pzC4SVcWO7MR3ykSasugWKag3pGExJYNEIzlYLC1AZ MEIGX4HZg117d1UcMIecnr5tYZClnLQAaMsr0cb3FvL8/oJ6DfGCHyTougVBf6j4qlslCH9C IHudmf8NqfSN5AAgYb2SOxt9ZFYYcppSYCis9QQX37pZjNAqRSiZrg9VAKVLf5k4qMJDAHx5 rDdMfalLFzQBM4y1e5U3zSEaZgsx2dZaL4j1rWKQH6JTBsYjkWr+vBqSE0gUhdVWUPConbNf QcDtnnBlzADAFAivh5bVfhRoyhp8w5MQTQQ4NCzT4Gf0iMyawGm0pqicmnBkhA+YmHKsaaCm 1Mia/GjQMihgCxwlNAIALj5nKz0bFj0IMDYkLZhzSKhCOUzbmERyWGlMpnB0mmxpWKYkIJo8 aSimFBCaDGn4kgSATQAcNAjTNE0wLDQY02BNWFA0tNO4TaykNODT6E388DSY04RNgIA0hNOU TJBk+ZJsaVimQDCa6Gn4pgQYmjBpKKZQRJpMaViSoCZNtJg0jNP0TeCsNETTWE1oaDQYGQA2 EFiF7Gc/YcncssjETaxcNGjTdE2csDSg0NBk/NPITNQ8vJMQDk0AcDRY0zhN2IA0pMlQ2SZQ UJpQaXCmcHCacGlQplBQmlBpsKawsJqwadCm0NCa0GnwpvDwmvBp0IgyfUamPTiaS2lOpkFE ml9pWqZVUJpzaXameXyaZ2lipm1omptpnqaRlJqPYLGIk5fEBIWLjYX/QK78uq6tuQa0vrCw /bqA0U2sv0W7iq+iWdJ2jKLDfOHBydG3AoPOzs/0gqiRcwEj1+ayfYi5AoQODNFy1RcLDyg6 LAgofpgb2wAjKSYxDy4nLzR80Um3AHNcT0tbTlKi0VNLR8P6YGcCZHpwZnFlD1nNMNvukGeB koBipYaYLj325UoNng+tEWegi1RQ2kSx9Ybw2sZWwMhpillJ8vVOCOWNMjwZtVUqDjaJacAT Eg0JPK3ENTRpNAA5I2EaPCU8L74sM+DNgxsdGB3fFulAzy30YWIccWhrwOXtlaaxjJWQYZ4e hZerTZo6oA05uf4zTzxasQ2X8moqvaPD9MTStM79MTTHP0yzzv0xKDHP0/PFv0/PFrgBKTGN UWITs/db7VdmBviPudb0BM/UqGCZeaGvUJc8ub3xwbilrxewsLShxb9kM8upPo8bDG6kxzbE odqWWe9jKB7znyEWVtnfviWmN3pi1pCjNYcdn0jmoXdzZDdvmZ5suLDNM8WCk7Sns/Oa58wX vbGtruG3FvmbouXXwWUryvdcvZrQ9jzRR9zdaUqb+ppKxMQfoNL3+AVzz+M6K+ARUfn9hPCu QuE4CQ427UUUdPhQ0wRVYm3VyLefXKtpPxXt6jroZ+SzcW/vAUIlMGVpUWx+fkZBc1taU2om FXfyRmkMIC0cGhgaAhwSEBIcGpdCDnt2adzo9HF8sfM+fDxBanViCt8TX8cBi4yVCZMUhyK+ ugnadjh4jriVKuOAytfThXjr0xwd2QFj9nLIY8iJngbn+hz6pMj/8uLJ5kEGOiAgJ1QyNPAw QzFDmlqw1EtAV0xQVm9wbWXjaW5jMWFriZbnpHJ30nsZDBAOrR+1Be00BxvGqPDPt+USiRQu K316Djom01oiqTo9vjI3j1Y0+slCzm/C299NLOzx5O42Q/9rO7PLDySalpup8mSTrJPZq865 48q+PFrhPQt93WzlS0FFXVrHjVLuElLeasy48cd9PjwMuO7fC9v02gtnHIpwaSsrvjw7rRk+ nSAxdnTKp+OWlrga7DWHft65AK+66c2UysXBYZYsk1Ch063tEM1LG8PotqmNl4c6/JeB+tzE sf91nJX/zsMl6dLbyO7WzsOR8BnR+uPve849ho3W6uw16iTbaHTC8Ufr/LbEVSvbyCwCE99a HPUfFmFhejkYMi8x/hpwxvh1eoznlguW46xq4sfPflOlbCQbYVpG6UJWWAgAaUUXSUZM6yFC HgNA/5aUKCkRx1Z4Uq/aS2W7Rn89SpVcRMCgVfHc9XiY0szttoRb5QYVoqp6rfyk/esVW64N HdMNZjbatqNW6Hve0s0dypWGs3mG8aL2zDbQVP9y75TVU130whDz0lQIzkoBVPhC11EEAiUu KyBEBbpmPCpz8YEMfh8CHX+ynWEbMOy2Yj201Q8DqFABN92Dmhs3nVYZpxYcViaJbn7yrWRn nZHIrZ8VgVkvr2AizbCg4eW6BSu5gFHQxJDqBOGA+Q+f/Zznn7uEexA+wVyO2Cr8Hbfsdqn0 zMevKWXedwaxzIK4ePX0yfyx6qt04VQVGrDrogcHAD+C+p/kCWvjHgocgMAKFAYBdAdSHctz LWhyQAUGDwlkIgUQDdEMBHByOHp6zHVnxyZ0Hgk2DAv6oIQ6NUffuRVrkJxDZVOvddgAokS+ iYj1r3eohZxCJZmwEDC/tYqN5Sqp4ttFfYvJEYyCf6oimtYSnxr0hBXz69Wu/iOYg/r17e3k vLrVuvNQ19vTlVrnxI0f7f6kBuMgheCw5vQ68BtiziuLVDYiJK5V7ecuv95FFhIRfFgADxQc DQ8WBHMQZ/JgrLamxvqbq3wHMB1XfqCEUmRAU0NdREhXAHFMPkFEMEExOTIsNM3I6m0Ay7q+ 2s+2zMQG38HArq8a3usxAN+iopi4qoyx49W9o7y8rrZG9PWcppWuqVHoifzvd5357UGO9T8e qKrd1Mr1ZejKCyG11hDTeMJ/ya4FGVEXaCQaA2QJr3Cn0zZaAAD9ZRJRUk+Q7jUKwwsWwTxD GJAGVZFKQxB5ZgVqBHlBgii1gu1PizACRRB2Xamxqn3AP/5hQcwScRIxNfE7xGU1yCAyigsm nQSDIIqydwsgfLJxCyBGslsLML/kv9O+TTxTgWZutKBxmg2EUmbJjois48bT+XgcjqZ1tJ0/ sdjqX2MUyXWmLE6acGlHkqwtTVSMO2Nj3MkmplwvmhxpMKYsXJnUfiRl0/xNbsQ08MlwfSz7 fz49BPhyFfXx9qQMSPiIZRqfZ8XE3TF6BMh1doIETVQqNQGEvUIJFEfBeRRsFn547B1OZY/x xFE54uglgybqlwj1svdOgrfzuO0VD956k8kDfS4OFv14//p9CPtKxSwqAtjS1+j+RTV9MoAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0013_00006875.00005168-- --05C0C17E28.1082475508/lithium.textmi.com-- From mario@bridge.org.mt Tue Apr 20 16:43:57 2004 From: mario@bridge.org.mt (Mario Dix) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:43:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: blml digest, Vol 1 #1510 - 13 msgs In-Reply-To: <20040420153703.27350.98410.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <001701c426ee$4b5b8ee0$98aea5d5@Mario> please note that I received a virus warning with report Vol1#1510.Can u re-send it when it is cleaned please. Thanks, Mario -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of blml-request@rtflb.org Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 5:37 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: blml digest, Vol 1 #1510 - 13 msgs From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 20 23:04:25 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:04:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Persuasion yes, rescript no. (was Viking's Sunset) References: <004c01c426b8$01211600$89954c51@4nrw70j> <001401c426ce$43d68ff0$67f7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <005f01c42724$098036c0$ad05e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "grandeval" ; "blml" Cc: "Grattan Endicott [gesta]" Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Viking's Sunset (was EBU rules UK) > > +=+ I have repeatedly said that I think it right to enable > > those who set up tournaments to decide what is to > > be allowed in those tournaments. That goes for the EBL, > > the ACBL, every other Zone and NBO, and every local > > bridge club. So I believe I can subscribe to Kojak's > > sentiments without reservation. At the end of the day > > I cannot believe, either, that ton will wish otherwise. > > Grattan > > > Well we are not at the end of the day yet and here I am > telling you both that I don't understand why you think > that I could be a blockade for the development of bridge. > > The thing I have problems with is that we write laws and > then need never-thought-of-and-even-contrary-to-the laws > interpretations to keep all of us happy. Because there is no > limit to the inventiveness of all of us. That amazes me to be > honest. Grattan, who didn't like the way Kaplan wrote > the laws because anybody could read those the way he > wanted, coming up with all kinds of weird interpretations > with the same effect. > . +=+ I have not produced any interpretation. I have taken the principle accepted by the WBFLC under Ed Theus, encapsulated in the 1990 Geneva decision, and minuted on more than one occasion by the WBFLC in the period since we lost Edgar. I have applied that interpretation to Law 80D as it is written. No more than that. I recognize that what has been decided and repeatedly confirmed is distasteful to you and others, but it stands and both the EBL and the ACBL, as well as the WBF in one particular to my knowledge, rely on it in their regulations. For the coming decade I do not wish the laws to be anything but unarguably stated, inter alia in giving to those who set up tournaments the right to ordain, as I have said, the conditions applying to participation in them. I do not suggest that you are an obstacle to future development. Only if you were to share the opinion of some that a single worldwide policy should be dictated from the centre would I consider that your view was in conflict with what is in the interests of, and largely desired by, the Zones and NBOs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 21 00:00:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:00:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: [snip] >>Dealer S. Love all IMPs. >> >> AKJT6 >> 954 >> 84 >> T72 >>Q842 5 >>8 JT63 >>AQJT92 K53 >>83 AQ964 >> 973 >> AKQ72 >> 76 >> KJ5 >> >>West North East South >>--- --- --- 1H >>2D Double 2S Pass >>3S Pass 4D Pass >>Pass Pass [snip] Richard James Hills notes: Some blmlers have argued that it is "general bridge knowledge" that East has perpetrated a baby psyche. Therefore, those blmlers argued that West's Pass of 4D is a Lawful logical alternative, not a concealed partnership agreement infraction of Law 40B. To test whether or not passing 4D was a logical alternative, I gave the only the West hand plus the auction to a Canberra expert (who often encounters psyches at the table in psyche-happy Canberra expert circles). This was his comment: >I initially consider 4S and 5D. > >I go 4S as South looks like having a spade void >which North knows about. So in 5D North will lead >a spade which will be ruffed. > >And I've talked myself out of 5D. It's all a bit >of a puzzle; where are all the clubs and where are >the hearts? Richard James Hills continues: Given that the Canberra expert, while somewhat puzzled by the auction, never considered Passing as an alternative, this is an indication that this particular baby psyche cannot be "general" bridge knowledge, and also an indication that the EBU ruling of a concealed partnership understanding infraction of Law 40B was correct. 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 Apr 21 00:36:05 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:36:05 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001701c42730$406bb310$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2004 11:00 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Cc: bthorp@bigpond.net.au > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Grattan Endicott wrote: >=20 > [snip] >=20 > >>Dealer S. Love all IMPs. > >> > >> AKJT6 > >> 954 > >> 84 > >> T72 > >>Q842 5 > >>8 JT63 > >>AQJT92 K53 > >>83 AQ964 > >> 973 > >> AKQ72 > >> 76 > >> KJ5 > >> > >>West North East South > >>--- --- --- 1H > >>2D Double 2S Pass > >>3S Pass 4D Pass > >>Pass Pass >=20 > [snip] >=20 > Richard James Hills notes: >=20 > Some blmlers have argued that it is "general bridge > knowledge" that East has perpetrated a baby psyche. > Therefore, those blmlers argued that West's Pass of > 4D is a Lawful logical alternative, not a concealed > partnership agreement infraction of Law 40B. >=20 > To test whether or not passing 4D was a logical > alternative, I gave the only the West hand plus the > auction to a Canberra expert (who often encounters > psyches at the table in psyche-happy Canberra expert > circles). This was his comment: >=20 > >I initially consider 4S and 5D. > > > >I go 4S as South looks like having a spade void > >which North knows about. So in 5D North will lead > >a spade which will be ruffed. > > > >And I've talked myself out of 5D. It's all a bit > >of a puzzle; where are all the clubs and where are > >the hearts? >=20 > Richard James Hills continues: >=20 > Given that the Canberra expert, while somewhat > puzzled by the auction, never considered Passing as > an alternative, this is an indication that this > particular baby psyche cannot be "general" bridge > knowledge, and also an indication that the EBU > ruling of a concealed partnership understanding > infraction of Law 40B was correct. This argument is unsound. =20 If there exists one player who would pass this 4D bid without having a concealed partnership understanding then=20 the evidence is not sufficient to rule that such an=20 understanding exists. The fact remains that if there is no concealed partnership understanding then there is no infraction and therefore no=20 basis on which to make any ruling against EW. I would pass this 4D bid and the experts that I have consulted are so far unanimous in passing in the absence of a partnership=20 agreement. It would be a gross injustice to rule against such players when there is no partnership agreement. One persons particular knowledge, however expert that person=20 may be, does not alter "general knowledge". The question that must be answered is did this particular West pass 4D based on=20 their partnership agreement with this particular partner or was=20 that call based on their own general knowledge? =20 Unless that question is addressed and investigate properly any ruling will be unsound. 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 grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Apr 21 02:07:55 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:07:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040420205752.01e20008@mail.comcast.net> At 03:25 AM 4/20/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook, >cases 2 and 3: > >Matchpoint pairs, dlr: W, vul: NS > > A5 > AKQJ542 > 5 > T63 >KQ8763 JT94 >98 3 >AQT9 K8762 >K J98 > 2 > T76 > J43 > AQ7542 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1S 2H 2S 3H >4S Pass(1) Pass 5H >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Break in tempo. > >5H made five, +650 for N/S. Pass is a LA to 5H for South. He has already shown North his hand with the 3H bid, and he has no way of knowing whether 4S or 5S will make. I disallow the 5H call, and rule 4S by West, undoubled, and making. If North wants to cash HA, lead his stiff diamond despite South's signal with the H6, and then lead a club when he gets in with SA, he has to do that at the table. (If South had held KQxxx of clubs instead of AQxxxx, this line of defense would cost a trick.) >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1S Double 3S Pass(1) >4S 5H Pass Pass >5S Pass Pass Double >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Break in tempo. > >5S doubled went down two, +300 for N/S. I don't think pass is a LA to 5H for North, and even if it is, the UI does not demonstrably suggest 5H over pass. If South has nothing, then 4S is cold and 5H is down at most three for a good save. The UI makes it more likely that South has some values, which might cause 4S and 5H to both go down. Regardless, I don't think North would seriously consider passing. Is North in case 2 one of North in case 3's peers? 5H seems easier to bid here than in case 3, since North knows about a 10-card fit. If West bid 4S to make, then North's 10 HCP in hearts and doubleton spade suggest that West is right that it will make, and North has a good save. If West bid 4S as an advance save, then North's eight offensive tricks suggest that 4H was making, so he has to either double or go on. From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Apr 21 02:17:06 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:17:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20040420205752.01e20008@mail.comcast.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040420211219.01dead58@mail.comcast.net> At 09:07 PM 4/20/2004, David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 03:25 AM 4/20/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > >>ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook, >>cases 2 and 3: >> >>Matchpoint pairs, dlr: W, vul: NS >> >> A5 >> AKQJ542 >> 5 >> T63 >>KQ8763 JT94 >>98 3 >>AQT9 K8762 >>K J98 >> 2 >> T76 >> J43 >> AQ7542 >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>1S 2H 2S 3H >>4S Pass(1) Pass 5H >>Pass Pass Pass >> >>(1) Break in tempo. >> >>5H made five, +650 for N/S. > >Pass is a LA to 5H for South. He has already shown North his hand with >the 3H bid, and he has no way of knowing whether 4S or 5S will make. I >disallow the 5H call, and rule 4S by West, undoubled, and making. If >North wants to cash HA, lead his stiff diamond despite South's signal with >the H6, and then lead a club when he gets in with SA, he has to do that at >the table. (If South had held KQxxx of clubs instead of AQxxxx, this line >of defense would cost a trick.) Pass is still a LA to 5H for South, and even more LA here. The bidding has not given South any reason to believe that he can make 4H, which he decided he could not make on the last round. If South cannot make 4H, then 5Hx will be -500. I still rule 4S by West, undoubled and making. >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>1S Double 3S Pass(1) >>4S 5H Pass Pass >>5S Pass Pass Double >>Pass Pass Pass >> >>(1) Break in tempo. >> >>5S doubled went down two, +300 for N/S. > >I don't think pass is a LA to 5H for North, and even if it is, the UI does >not demonstrably suggest 5H over pass. If South has nothing, then 4S is >cold and 5H is down at most three for a good save. The UI makes it more >likely that South has some values, which might cause 4S and 5H to both go >down. Regardless, I don't think North would seriously consider passing. This one in changed by the vulnerability. North has eight tricks, and he has no reason to expect South to provide two except for the UI. 5H by North is reasonable, and he might have intended to bid it from the beginning, so I wouldn't impose a PP to North for bidding it. Thus I rule 4S undoubled, and this North does get credit for down one, because he found the right defense against 5S and it is not at all probable that he would defend 4S differently. >Is North in case 2 one of North in case 3's peers? 5H seems easier to bid >here than in case 3, since North knows about a 10-card fit. If West bid >4S to make, then North's 10 HCP in hearts and doubleton spade suggest that >West is right that it will make, and North has a good save. If West bid >4S as an advance save, then North's eight offensive tricks suggest that 4H >was making, so he has to either double or go on. This comment has become irrelevant. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 21 04:26:19 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:26:19 +1200 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002601c42750$69efb2c0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 7:25 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Double ploy >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook, > cases 2 and 3: >=20 > Matchpoint pairs, dlr: W, vul: NS >=20 > A5 > AKQJ542 > 5 > T63 > KQ8763 JT94 > 98 3 > AQT9 K8762 > K J98 > 2 > T76 > J43 > AQ7542 >=20 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S 2H 2S 3H > 4S Pass(1) Pass 5H > Pass Pass Pass >=20 > (1) Break in tempo. >=20 > 5H made five, +650 for N/S. I will swim against the tide ... I cannot see how the tempo break demonstably suggests bidding 5H over Pass. >From South's perspective I can easily imagine that North=20 was contemplating doubling 4S. The opponents could be=20 in a 5-3 fit and since South has only one trump North=20 might have four. I cannot think of a single UI reason=20 why 5H should work out better than Pass. On the other hand, if South had doubled then I would take=20 that off him. Double will give North the flexibility to Pass when he was contemplating Double earlier and to bid 5H when he was contemplating 5H earlier. Double is demonstably suggested over Pass. 5H is not demonstably suggested over Pass. >=20 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S Double 3S Pass(1) > 4S 5H Pass Pass > 5S Pass Pass Double > Pass Pass Pass >=20 > (1) Break in tempo. >=20 > 5S doubled went down two, +300 for N/S. >=20 > How would you rule? > How would you rule? Partner was thinking of bidding over 3S not doubling. This is clear from the facts that I have two trumps so partner will not have a stack and that West bid on to 4S. So partner almost certainly has something close to values for the four-level in competition. Does this suggest bidding at the five-level? This is close. If partner might have nothing bidding at the five-level is suicide. On the other hand knowing that partner has some values but not enough to bid at the 4-level does not come close to underwriting eleven tricks. North=20 has five losers and it is unlikely that a passing partner=20 will supply three tricks - South will have to have a stiff=20 spade and two useful cards. It is more likely that NS will have four defensive tricks either three in North's hand and one from partner or two in North's hand and two from partner. I would allow this 5H but I think this one is closer than=20 the first example and I could easily be convinced to disallow 5H. The laws are not written so as to accept the argument=20 that North is just bidding 5H that he was always going to bid. Wayne >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James Hills > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments=20 > immediately. =A0This > email, including attachments, may contain confidential,=20 > legally privileged > and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which=20 > is prohibited. > Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, > except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states=20 > them to be > the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural=20 > and Indigenous > Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has=20 > obligations under the > Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Apr 21 07:33:15 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:33:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double ploy References: <002601c42750$69efb2c0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows > I will swim against the tide ... You normally do .... (which is a plus rather than a minus) -- Case 1 -- > I cannot see how the tempo break demonstably suggests > bidding 5H over Pass. In a way you have a point. But experience learns that this kind of hesitations are far more often about bidding than about doubling. The only explanation of south's weird 5H bid is that he interpreted partner's pause 'correctly'. I think he would not have bid 5H absent the pause. You might think of this logic. Opposite a normal 2H (no pause) 5H will almost always be wrong. Opposite a special 2H (a pause) bidding on will often be right. And although I agree with you that 5H might be completely wrong I still see enough arguments to disallow 5H. > Double is demonstably suggested over Pass. 5H is not demonstably > suggested over Pass. Here you go wrong IMO. I agree with you it is not sure what north is thinking about (it hardly ever is 'sure'). But you seem to be rather sure he is thinking about doubling to make this statement. Once again, north might have a double or not decision but even if this is statistically more likely experience shows that the real pauses are way more often about bidding or not. Specially over a stop. I almost never happens the stop-length is not enough to make up your mind about doubling but about bidding or not ......... -- Case 2 -- > Partner was thinking of bidding over 3S not doubling. > This is clear from the facts that I have two trumps so > partner will not have a stack and that West bid on to 4S. So far ok. > So partner almost certainly has something close to values > for the four-level in competition. Not so sure. You have made a takeout double with a weird distribution. Partner might consider bidding something because he has say seven diamonds or a minor twosuiter. So those values might be distributional. > Does this suggest bidding at the five-level? > This is close. If partner might have nothing bidding at > the five-level is suicide. On the other hand knowing that > partner has some values but not enough to bid at the 4-level > does not come close to underwriting eleven tricks. North > has five losers and it is unlikely that a passing partner > will supply three tricks - South will have to have a stiff > spade and two useful cards. It is more likely that NS will > have four defensive tricks either three in North's hand and > one from partner or two in North's hand and two from partner. I agree with you 5H is (very) risky, this is why I don't like doubling on this type of hands. Although with these hands it is hard to get some kind of safety. > I would allow this 5H but I think this one is closer than > the first example and I could easily be convinced to disallow > 5H. The laws are not written so as to accept the argument > that North is just bidding 5H that he was always going to bid. How and why the laws are written is an academic question. In my judgement players that double on this hand will bid hearts later. So I let them because I don't force people to play the way I think is technically (or morally or whatever) better. Experience learns me that 95% of the players that double 1S with this hand will bid 5H over 4S. They don't use UI so where is the infraction. Now if there is clear MI I might reconsider (kind of paradox I know) but for all I know partner might have been thinking about bidding a long minor (quite likely and actually the case) which doesn't suggest a lot. Change the minors a little (give south D strength rather than C strength) and both 4S and 5H go down. Jaap From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 21 07:53:16 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:53:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double ploy Message-ID: [deal snipped] ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook, case 2: >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>1S 2H 2S 3H >>4S Pass(1) Pass 5H >>Pass Pass Pass >> >>(1) Break in tempo. >> >>5H made five, +650 for N/S. Wayne Burrows: >I will swim against the tide ... > >I cannot see how the tempo break demonstrably suggests >bidding 5H over Pass. > >From South's perspective I can easily imagine that North >was contemplating doubling 4S. The opponents could be >in a 5-3 fit and since South has only one trump North >might have four. I cannot think of a single UI reason >why 5H should work out better than Pass. [snip] >Double is demonstrably suggested over Pass. 5H is not >demonstrably suggested over Pass. Richard James Hills: One issue is whether or not 5H is a logical alternative. Casebook panellist Dave Treadwell: >>Taking a vulnerable versus. non-vulnerable save after >>you have given but a single raise is quite an unusual >>action. The BIT definitely must have contributed to the >>decision to bid 5H. A good decision by the Panel. Richard James Hills: On the second issue of what North's break in tempo demonstrably suggests, I disagree with Wayne's reasoning. In my opinion, North's hesitation demonstrably suggests extra values. If South deduces (from past experience) that North would be thinking of doubling 70% of the time, but thinking of bidding 5H 30% of the time, then *both* double and 5H are demonstrably suggested actions for South, and Pass becomes the only legal call. ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook, case 3: >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>1S Double 3S Pass(1) >>4S 5H Pass Pass >>5S Pass Pass Double >>Pass Pass Pass >> >>(1) Break in tempo. >> >>5S doubled went down two, +300 for N/S. Wayne Burrows: [snip] >This is close. If partner might have nothing bidding >at the five-level is suicide. [snip] >I would allow this 5H but I think this one is closer >than the first example and I could easily be convinced >to disallow 5H. The laws are not written so as to >accept the argument that North is just bidding 5H that >he was always going to bid. The actual TD's ruling: >>The Director decided that North's intent over 1S had >>been to double and then bid hearts. He also decided >>that South's BIT did not suggest values but could >>have been based on a long suit in a weak hand. >>Therefore, North was permitted to bid 5H and the >>table result was allowed to stand (Law 16). The actual appeal (TD Panel) decision: [snip] >>Four players, each with 2500-4000 MP, were then >>consulted. [snip] >>Based on this input, the Panel decided that passing >>4S was an LA for North and that West would then have >>declared 4S undoubled (South would have passed, >>consistent with his having failed to act over 3S). >>Therefore, the contract was changed to 4S by West >>down one, +50 for N/S. Richard James Hills: At the risk of seeming parochially anti-ACBL, it seems to me that ACBL policy lacks a certain something, if consultation is delayed until the appeal, rather than the original TD consulting. 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 Apr 21 04:26:19 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:26:19 +1200 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002601c42750$69efb2c0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 7:25 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Double ploy >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook, > cases 2 and 3: >=20 > Matchpoint pairs, dlr: W, vul: NS >=20 > A5 > AKQJ542 > 5 > T63 > KQ8763 JT94 > 98 3 > AQT9 K8762 > K J98 > 2 > T76 > J43 > AQ7542 >=20 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S 2H 2S 3H > 4S Pass(1) Pass 5H > Pass Pass Pass >=20 > (1) Break in tempo. >=20 > 5H made five, +650 for N/S. I will swim against the tide ... I cannot see how the tempo break demonstably suggests bidding 5H over Pass. >From South's perspective I can easily imagine that North=20 was contemplating doubling 4S. The opponents could be=20 in a 5-3 fit and since South has only one trump North=20 might have four. I cannot think of a single UI reason=20 why 5H should work out better than Pass. On the other hand, if South had doubled then I would take=20 that off him. Double will give North the flexibility to Pass when he was contemplating Double earlier and to bid 5H when he was contemplating 5H earlier. Double is demonstably suggested over Pass. 5H is not demonstably suggested over Pass. >=20 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S Double 3S Pass(1) > 4S 5H Pass Pass > 5S Pass Pass Double > Pass Pass Pass >=20 > (1) Break in tempo. >=20 > 5S doubled went down two, +300 for N/S. >=20 > How would you rule? > How would you rule? Partner was thinking of bidding over 3S not doubling. This is clear from the facts that I have two trumps so partner will not have a stack and that West bid on to 4S. So partner almost certainly has something close to values for the four-level in competition. Does this suggest bidding at the five-level? This is close. If partner might have nothing bidding at the five-level is suicide. On the other hand knowing that partner has some values but not enough to bid at the 4-level does not come close to underwriting eleven tricks. North=20 has five losers and it is unlikely that a passing partner=20 will supply three tricks - South will have to have a stiff=20 spade and two useful cards. It is more likely that NS will have four defensive tricks either three in North's hand and one from partner or two in North's hand and two from partner. I would allow this 5H but I think this one is closer than=20 the first example and I could easily be convinced to disallow 5H. The laws are not written so as to accept the argument=20 that North is just bidding 5H that he was always going to bid. Wayne >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James Hills > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments=20 > immediately. =A0This > email, including attachments, may contain confidential,=20 > legally privileged > and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which=20 > is prohibited. > Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, > except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states=20 > them to be > the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural=20 > and Indigenous > Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has=20 > obligations under the > Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Apr 21 09:54:14 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:54:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double ploy References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040420205752.01e20008@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: David J. Grabiner: [snip] > Pass is a LA to 5H for South. He has already shown North his hand with the > 3H bid, and he has no way of knowing whether 4S or 5S will make. I > disallow the 5H call, and rule 4S by West, undoubled, and making. If North > wants to cash HA, lead his stiff diamond despite South's signal with the > H6, and then lead a club when he gets in with SA, he has to do that at the > table. (If South had held KQxxx of clubs instead of AQxxxx, this line of > defense would cost a trick.) [snip] Initially I didn't see this possible club switch defence. I am quite sure it remains normal to switch to D since this chance (a minor ace) is way bigger than a rather specific club holding (whatever which heart spot south plays). But we cannot discount 4S making. So I go along with some 12C3 weighting. Lets say 75-25 or 66-33 (going down more likely than making). Jaap From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 21 11:10:50 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:10:50 +1200 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004301c42788$ee2df000$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2004 6:53 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Double ploy > > > > > > > [deal snipped] > > ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook, case 2: > > >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >>1S 2H 2S 3H > >>4S Pass(1) Pass 5H > >>Pass Pass Pass > >> > >>(1) Break in tempo. > >> > >>5H made five, +650 for N/S. > > Wayne Burrows: > > >I will swim against the tide ... > > > >I cannot see how the tempo break demonstrably suggests > >bidding 5H over Pass. > > > >From South's perspective I can easily imagine that North > >was contemplating doubling 4S. The opponents could be > >in a 5-3 fit and since South has only one trump North > >might have four. I cannot think of a single UI reason > >why 5H should work out better than Pass. > > [snip] > > >Double is demonstrably suggested over Pass. 5H is not > >demonstrably suggested over Pass. > > Richard James Hills: > > One issue is whether or not 5H is a logical alternative. > > Casebook panellist Dave Treadwell: > > >>Taking a vulnerable versus. non-vulnerable save after > >>you have given but a single raise is quite an unusual > >>action. The BIT definitely must have contributed to the > >>decision to bid 5H. A good decision by the Panel. > > Richard James Hills: > > On the second issue of what North's break in tempo > demonstrably suggests, I disagree with Wayne's reasoning. > In my opinion, North's hesitation demonstrably suggests > extra values. If South deduces (from past experience) > that North would be thinking of doubling 70% of the time, > but thinking of bidding 5H 30% of the time, then *both* > double and 5H are demonstrably suggested actions for > South, and Pass becomes the only legal call. IMO this argument is flawed ... If partner was thinking of doubling then that demonstrably suggests both passing and doubling over 5H. Wayne From john@asimere.com Wed Apr 21 12:44:27 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:44:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040420205752.01e20008@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: In article , Jaap van der Neut writes >David J. Grabiner: > >[snip] >> Pass is a LA to 5H for South. He has already shown North his hand with >the >> 3H bid, and he has no way of knowing whether 4S or 5S will make. I >> disallow the 5H call, and rule 4S by West, undoubled, and making. If >North >> wants to cash HA, lead his stiff diamond despite South's signal with the >> H6, and then lead a club when he gets in with SA, he has to do that at the >> table. (If South had held KQxxx of clubs instead of AQxxxx, this line of >> defense would cost a trick.) >[snip] > >Initially I didn't see this possible club switch defence. I am quite sure it >remains normal to switch to D since this chance (a minor ace) is way bigger >than a rather specific club holding (whatever which heart spot south plays). >But we cannot discount 4S making. So I go along with some 12C3 weighting. >Lets say 75-25 or 66-33 (going down more likely than making). I'm quite a fan of 80-20 for these sorts of rulings. say 66-33 on probability and the rest on "in favoUr of the NO's". It goes down fairly well with the customers too. I consulted Robin on a similar one during Easter and he'd have gone 75-25 but I chose 80-20. Both sides thought it fair. John > >Jaap > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Apr 21 13:07:42 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:07:42 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Double ploy Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECA5@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: In article , Jaap van der Neut writes >David J. Grabiner: > >[snip] >> Pass is a LA to 5H for South. He has already shown North his hand with >the >> 3H bid, and he has no way of knowing whether 4S or 5S will make. I >> disallow the 5H call, and rule 4S by West, undoubled, and making. If >North >> wants to cash HA, lead his stiff diamond despite South's signal with the >> H6, and then lead a club when he gets in with SA, he has to do that at the >> table. (If South had held KQxxx of clubs instead of AQxxxx, this line of >> defense would cost a trick.) >[snip] > >Initially I didn't see this possible club switch defence. I am quite sure it >remains normal to switch to D since this chance (a minor ace) is way bigger >than a rather specific club holding (whatever which heart spot south plays). >But we cannot discount 4S making. So I go along with some 12C3 weighting. >Lets say 75-25 or 66-33 (going down more likely than making). I'm quite a fan of 80-20 for these sorts of rulings. say 66-33 on probability and the rest on "in favoUr of the NO's". It goes down fairly well with the customers too. I consulted Robin on a similar one during Easter and he'd have gone 75-25 but I chose 80-20. Both sides thought it fair. John ----- The OS bid 5H over 4S. If probabilities were 67-33 and you should bend towards NOS it would be something like 50-50, not the other way around. Regards, Harald ----- > >Jaap > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive 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 Wed Apr 21 15:11:25 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:11:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double ploy References: <002601c42750$69efb2c0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <006801c427aa$89308b00$119468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Wayne Burrows] I cannot see how the tempo break demonstably suggests bidding 5H over Pass. From South's perspective I can easily imagine that North was contemplating doubling 4S. The opponents could be in a 5-3 fit and since South has only one trump North might have four. I cannot think of a single UI reason why 5H should work out better than Pass. On the other hand, if South had doubled then I would take that off him. Double will give North the flexibility to Pass when he was contemplating Double earlier and to bid 5H when he was contemplating 5H earlier. Double is demonstably suggested over Pass. 5H is not demonstably suggested over Pass. [Nigel] Surely, Wayne is right: if the hesitation indicates action then double is a much more cunning call. But I agree with Jaap that, among naive players, a hesitation more often indicates a bid than a double. (Of course, among more experienced players, it almost always indicates a pass). Since the law reads "...*might*...", I suppose you can "shoot the hesitator" on the grounds that an experienced partnership are probably more adept at reading each others' tempo breaks, than any random TD or AC. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 15/04/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 21 23:19:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:19:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double ploy Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>On the second issue of what North's break in tempo >>demonstrably suggests, I disagree with Wayne's reasoning. >>In my opinion, North's hesitation demonstrably suggests >>extra values. If South deduces (from past experience) >>that North would be thinking of doubling 70% of the time, >>but thinking of bidding 5H 30% of the time, then *both* >>double and 5H are demonstrably suggested actions for >>South, and Pass becomes the only legal call. Wayne Burrows: >IMO this argument is flawed ... > >If partner was thinking of doubling then that demonstrably >suggests both passing and doubling over 5H. Richard James Hills: Case 1: North's hesitation suggested that North was thinking of a penalty double, and 5H is a phantom save. -> Then Double is UI-suggested over Pass, but Pass is UI- suggested over 5H. {The Wayne way.} Case 2: East-West have taken an advance sacrifice in 4S, 5H is cold, and North was thinking about either a successful penalty double, or a successful 5H call. -> Then action (5H or Double) is UI-suggested over inaction (Pass). {The situation at the table.} Therefore, in my opinion, combining the probabilities of both Case 1 and Case 2 results in Pass being overall the least demonstrably UI-suggested logical alternative, and therefore Pass being the only Law 16-compliant 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 22 00:48:03 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:48:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap Message-ID: http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_07_03.html At the Mathematical Association of America's website, Keith Devlin writes: [snip] >In the 1960s, there was a popular weekly US >television quiz show called Let's Make a Deal. Each >week, at a certain point in the program, the host, >Monty Hall, would present the contestant with three >doors. Behind one door was a substantial prize; >behind the others there was nothing. Monty asked the >contestant to pick a door. Clearly, the chance of >the contestant choosing the door with the prize was >1 in 3. So far so good. > >Now comes the twist. Instead of simply opening the >chosen door to reveal what lay behind, Monty would >open one of the two doors the contestant had not >chosen, revealing that it did not hide the prize. >(Since Monty knew where the prize was, he could >always do this.) He then offered the contestant the >opportunity of either sticking with their original >choice of door, or else switching it for the other >unopened door. > >The question now is, does it make any difference to >the contestant's chances of winning to switch, or >might they just as well stick with the door they >have already chosen? > >When they first meet this problem, most people think >that it makes no difference if they switch. They >reason like this: "There are two unopened doors. The >prize is behind one of them. The probability that it >is behind the one I picked is 1/2, the probability >that it is behind the one I didn't is also 1/2, so >it makes no difference if I switch." > >Surprising though it seems at first, this reasoning >is wrong. Switching actually DOUBLES the >contestant's chance of winning. The odds go up from >the original 1/3 for the chosen door, to 2/3 that >the OTHER unopened door hides the prize. [snip] >I think the reason the Monty Hall problem raises >people's ire is because a basic ability to estimate >likelihoods of events is important in everyday life. >We make (loose, and generally non-numeric) >probability estimates all the time. Our ability to do >this says something about our rationality - our >capacity to live a successful life - and hence can >become a matter of pride, something to be defended. > >The human brain did not evolve to calculate >mathematical probabilities, but it did evolve to >ensure our survival. A highly successful survival >strategy throughout human evolutionary history, and >today, is to base decisions on the immediate past and >on the evidence immediately to hand. [snip] Richard James Hills notes: First-hand blml experience of loose and non-numeric probabilistic estimates, has come from a prolific blmler's repeated assertions that a majority of experienced bridge players deliberately cheat with reverse hesitations. A practical variant on the Monty Hall trap is the counter-intuitive principle of restricted choice, and the parallel principle of available places. But the Lawfully important Monty Hall trap arises when a TD or an AC has to calculate the differing chances of hypothetical alternatives when adjusting the score. When reading through appeals casebooks, occasionally I have noticed that a TD or AC routinely goes with the flow -> with a first-level estimate that two chances must be 50% each -> rather than doing a second-level Monty Hall estimate of the true likelihoods based upon restricted choice and/or available places. 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 Apr 22 01:56:58 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:56:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: East, Vul: N/S You, West, hold: J53 QJ8 A5 AKJ92 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D 1S 2C Double Pass(1) Pass ?(2) (1) Before calling, pard (East) asks South about the meaning of North's double -> South describes North's double as a penalty double. (2) Before you call, you glance at the N/S convention card -> it states that North's double shows a spade honour, typically with two- or three-card spade support. 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 dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net Thu Apr 22 06:43:02 2004 From: dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:43:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: <20040421071402.4981.2108.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <000701c4282c$ade53bd0$6528fea9@Picasso> Richard James Hills wrote: > At the risk of seeming parochially anti-ACBL, it seems > to me that ACBL policy lacks a certain something, if > consultation is delayed until the appeal, rather than > the original TD consulting. OK, I'll get pilloried for this, but let's consider the circumstances. It was during the session, and most of the decent players were playing. If the directors found anyone appropriate available, who wasn't in that or any other event (often the same hands are played in all sections during an NABC session; there are some exceptions), they probably asked (I've been consulted as a player peer during a session at an NABC, on an odd occasion when I wasn't playing, so I know it happens). But quite possibly, they didn't because it just wasn't practical. So what happened? Did the table director make the ruling himself? Of course not. He took it back to the directors' table, and talked about it with some other directors for a couple rounds, then brought it back to the players. If it was close (which this one was), he talked with a lot of those directors while considering it. Some of those directors are also damned fine players, and many of those directors are likely to be peers of the players whose decisions they are considering. But the writeup says the table director gave that ruling. True? Not really. The table director delivered the ruling; several directors contributed to it. This is one reason (go ahead and speculate on others) that the ACBL doesn't allow the table director's name to be listed, only the Director in charge's. And why doesn't it mention consultation among directors, or even with players, before the initial ruling? Because that's implicit in the process. I understand the push for consultation, but delivering a ruling does not necessarily require consultation with players (who are not also directors), when there are lots of directors (who are also players) available to ask. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 22 07:57:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:57:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double ploy Message-ID: Doug Couchman wrote: [big snip] >>>So what happened? Did the table director make the >>>ruling himself? Of course not. He took it back to the >>>directors' table, and talked about it with some other >>>directors for a couple rounds, then brought it back to >>>the players. If it was close (which this one was), he >>>talked with a lot of those directors while considering >>>it. Some of those directors are also damned fine >>>players, and many of those directors are likely to be >>>peers of the players whose decisions they are >>>considering. [big snip] Casebook commentator Barry Rigal: >>The Director committed the all-too-frequent error of >>ruling for the offenders in a case of doubt. When a Panel >>or Committee overturns such a ruling, does it not mean >>that there has to have been enough doubt for the initial >>ruling to go the other way? We are not talking here about >>encouraging frivolous Director calls; we are talking >>about encouraging people not to commit infractions >>because they will get ruled against. Good Panel >>determinations. They followed due process and came out >>with a sensible answer. WBF Code of Practice: >The desire is that the Director shall not rule >automatically in favour of the non-offending side when he >is in no doubt that a true judgement requires him to rule >otherwise. Richard James Hills notes: The WBF CoP merely advises on correct TD practice when the TD "is in no doubt". The WBF CoP is silent on what the TD should do when the TD has doubts about a Law 73C ruling in a close (which this one was) case. Therefore, I join Barry Rigal in supporting the idea of "in doubt" ruling in favour of the putative non-offending side in a close (which this one was) decision on whether Law 73C has been infracted by the putative offending side. If, in fact, the TD's "in doubt" ruling is marginally harsh on the putative offending side, then an appeal will rectify the injustice to the putative OS. But if the TD incorrectly thought the decision was marginally in favour of the putative offending side, but the AC correctly thinks that the putative offending side is clearly the offending side, then the Rigal idea would avoid an embarassing anomaly. See Polisner's attached comment. -> Casebook commentator Jeffrey Polisner: >>If the correct ruling had been made, an appeal would have >>been unlikely and without merit. Richard James Hills concludes: In my opinion, Rigal's theoretically marginally unjust idea is a Good Thing, pour encourager les autres. 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 jens@alesia.dk Thu Apr 22 08:19:44 2004 From: jens@alesia.dk (Jens Brix Christiansen) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:19:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <40878E30.13064.53CA32@localhost> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote (22 Apr 2004): > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D 1S > 2C Double Pass(1) Pass > ?(2) > > (1) Before calling, pard (East) asks > South about the meaning of North's > double -> South describes North's > double as a penalty double. > > (2) Before you call, you glance at the > N/S convention card -> it states > that North's double shows a spade > honour, typically with two- or > three-card spade support. > > What call do you make? I don't make any call. I direct South's attention to the inconsistency with the convention card. It is likely that we will be needing the director soon. By not calling, I ensure that my partner will be given a chance to reconsider his bid if it turns out that South had misinformed him. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Apr 22 09:10:03 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:10:03 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] The Monty Hall trap Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECA7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Richard Hills wrote: http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_07_03.html At the Mathematical Association of America's website, Keith Devlin writes: [snip] >In the 1960s, there was a popular weekly US >television quiz show called Let's Make a Deal. Each >week, at a certain point in the program, the host, >Monty Hall, would present the contestant with three >doors. Behind one door was a substantial prize; >behind the others there was nothing. Monty asked the >contestant to pick a door. Clearly, the chance of >the contestant choosing the door with the prize was >1 in 3. So far so good. > >Now comes the twist. Instead of simply opening the >chosen door to reveal what lay behind, Monty would >open one of the two doors the contestant had not >chosen, revealing that it did not hide the prize. >(Since Monty knew where the prize was, he could >always do this.) He then offered the contestant the >opportunity of either sticking with their original >choice of door, or else switching it for the other >unopened door. > >The question now is, does it make any difference to >the contestant's chances of winning to switch, or >might they just as well stick with the door they >have already chosen? > >When they first meet this problem, most people think >that it makes no difference if they switch. They >reason like this: "There are two unopened doors. The >prize is behind one of them. The probability that it >is behind the one I picked is 1/2, the probability >that it is behind the one I didn't is also 1/2, so >it makes no difference if I switch." > >Surprising though it seems at first, this reasoning >is wrong. Switching actually DOUBLES the >contestant's chance of winning. The odds go up from >the original 1/3 for the chosen door, to 2/3 that >the OTHER unopened door hides the prize. ----- The Monty Hall trap is not correctly retold above. The prize was worth $ = 100,000. Monty Hall opened one of the two doors not chosen, and offered = the contestant $ 40,000 or the opportunity to change door/keep what was = hidden behind the chosen door. Originally, the expected outcome for the contestant was $ 33,333 (1/3 of = worth of the prize). The information that there was no prize behind the = door Monty Hall opened, is biased information, and does not change the = original probabilities. There's still 1/3 chance that the chosen door = hides the prize. The correct strategy for the contestant would therefore = be to accept the offered $ 40.000, since that amount is higher than the = expected outcome of opening one of the doors. Regards, Harald ----- [snip] >I think the reason the Monty Hall problem raises >people's ire is because a basic ability to estimate >likelihoods of events is important in everyday life. >We make (loose, and generally non-numeric) >probability estimates all the time. Our ability to do >this says something about our rationality - our >capacity to live a successful life - and hence can >become a matter of pride, something to be defended. > >The human brain did not evolve to calculate >mathematical probabilities, but it did evolve to >ensure our survival. A highly successful survival >strategy throughout human evolutionary history, and >today, is to base decisions on the immediate past and >on the evidence immediately to hand. [snip] Richard James Hills notes: First-hand blml experience of loose and non-numeric probabilistic estimates, has come from a prolific blmler's repeated assertions that a majority of experienced bridge players deliberately cheat with reverse hesitations. A practical variant on the Monty Hall trap is the counter-intuitive principle of restricted choice, and the parallel principle of available places. But the Lawfully important Monty Hall trap arises when a TD or an AC has to calculate the differing chances of hypothetical alternatives when adjusting the score. When reading through appeals casebooks, occasionally I have noticed that a TD or AC routinely goes with the flow -> with a first-level estimate that two chances must be 50% each -> rather than doing a second-level Monty Hall estimate of the true likelihoods based upon restricted choice and/or available places. Best wishes RJH -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. = =A0This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally = privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is = prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and = Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations = under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Apr 22 10:05:19 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:05:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECA7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <006c01c42849$0346ed00$78f8f0c3@LNV> The Monty Hall trap is not correctly retold above. The prize was worth $ 100,000. Monty Hall opened one of the two doors not chosen, and offered the contestant $ 40,000 or the opportunity to change door/keep what was hidden behind the chosen door. Originally, the expected outcome for the contestant was $ 33,333 (1/3 of worth of the prize). The information that there was no prize behind the door Monty Hall opened, is biased information, and does not change the original probabilities. There's still 1/3 chance that the chosen door hides the prize. The correct strategy for the contestant would therefore be to accept the offered $ 40.000, since that amount is higher than the expected outcome of opening one of the doors. Regards, Harald ----- Reading Richard's message I thought 'nice story', worth telling but may be not in blml.(it reached the scientific department of a Dutch journal some years ago, with more than a few 'Haralds') With the response by Harald it is a perfect example of how things go in blml: 'Stick to your own opinion'. And it also shows how close someone can come to the right answer without being able to find it, cought in his strong feelings. It doesn't take more than one step for Harald to draw the conclusion that 100,000 still hidden and an expectation of 1/3 for the door chosen leaves 2/3 for the remaining one, but Harald apparently is blocked. Though he still might be right that choosing the 40.000 is the right strategy, but not on expectation grounds. As in bridge choosing for 3NT made might be the right strategy, instead of going for the overtrick, but not on expectation grounds. So everybody is always right. Thank you both. ton From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Apr 22 10:12:01 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:12:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap References: Message-ID: <003e01c42849$e0b071c0$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] First-hand blml experience of loose and non-numeric probabilistic estimates, has come from a prolific blmler's repeated assertions that a majority of experienced bridge players deliberately cheat with reverse hesitations. [Nigel Guthrie] 1. In this context, I hope I did not imply that a player cheats deliberately. If an experienced player finds himself hesitating, he will lean over backwards to take positive action to let his partner off the hook. So if he hesitates and passes, the usually indicated action is for partner to pass. Partner will bid or double only if such an action is clear-cut and defensible to the TD/AC. Which is what you want. Your hesitation and partner's pass rarely attract a director call and never result in an adverse ruling. 2. With no published statistics, I depend on evidence from experience. Again, I don't claim that this behaviour *is* cheating. Certainly, the law never punishes "hesitation- passes" although they are seen to be profitable. That is the reason that such Bridge behaviour is more tempting than comparable peccadilloes of similar frequency in real-life, like speed violations or lying on tax returns. 3. I am mistaken in a probability estimate, I am in good company. Even Ivan Erdos was taken in by the Monty Hall trap, described by Richard. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.664 / Virus Database: 427 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 22 11:12:54 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:12:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <006c01c42849$0346ed00$78f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000001c42852$62a50df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman > The Monty Hall trap is not correctly retold above. The prize was worth = $ > 100,000. Monty Hall opened one of the two doors not chosen, and = offered > the > contestant $ 40,000 or the opportunity to change door/keep what was = hidden > behind the chosen door. >=20 > Originally, the expected outcome for the contestant was $ 33,333 (1/3 = of > worth of the prize). The information that there was no prize behind = the > door > Monty Hall opened, is biased information, and does not change the = original > probabilities. There's still 1/3 chance that the chosen door hides the > prize. The correct strategy for the contestant would therefore be to > accept > the offered $ 40.000, since that amount is higher than the expected > outcome > of opening one of the doors. >=20 > Regards, > Harald > ----- >=20 >=20 > Reading Richard's message I thought 'nice story', worth telling but = may be > not in blml.(it reached the scientific department of a Dutch journal = some > years ago, with more than a few 'Haralds') > With the response by Harald it is a perfect example of how things go = in > blml: 'Stick to your own opinion'. > And it also shows how close someone can come to the right answer = without > being able to find it, cought in his strong feelings. It doesn't take = more > than one step for Harald to draw the conclusion that 100,000 still = hidden > and an expectation of 1/3 for the door chosen leaves 2/3 for the = remaining > one, but Harald apparently is blocked. > Though he still might be right that choosing the 40.000 is the right > strategy, but not on expectation grounds. > As in bridge choosing for 3NT made might be the right strategy, = instead of > going for the overtrick, but not on expectation grounds. So everybody = is > always right. >=20 > Thank you both. >=20 >=20 > ton There is one important piece of information missing before we can make = any assumption on the best strategy: Once the contestant had made his choice would Monty Hall always open an empty door or could it ever happen that he accepted the contestant's = choice right away? I believe the answer is that an empty door was always opened and the contestant did receive the option to change his choice, but let me first consider the case when his first choice was accepted right away: Now his best strategy depends upon whether the cases where the first choice was immediately accepted always were cases of a lucky choice or always were cases of an unlucky choice or whether there was a 50-50 split between = the two cases. If the immediately accepted choice cases only occurred when the choice = was lucky then the fact that a second choice was offered increases the probability that the first choice was unlucky so then the best strategy = is to change his choice. And of course we have the same consideration = except the other way round if a second choice were only offered when the first choice was unlucky. But if the contestant was always offered a second choice all he knows is that his probability of success has increased from 33% to 50% regardless = of whether he chooses to stick with his first choice or to change it. = (Provided that there was no system in which of the two empty boxes was opened by = Monty in those cases where the contestant had initially chosen the lucky box). A problem with probabilities in games is that many people do not realize that probabilities can and usually do change during the progress of the game. Basic example: If in spades you have AJ97 against KT86 and no indication = on which defender holds the Queen you initially has (approximately) 50% probability of making all 4 tricks in spades. Now, if somehow (before any spade is played) you manage to figure out = that the spades split 4-1 (or 5-0) between the defenders your probability of success increases to 100%. In the case of Monty Hall we know initially that each box is "lucky" = with the probability of 33%, but when the number of "unknown" boxes is = reduced to 2 the probability of success increases to 50% for each of these 2 boxes provided that there is no system in how the third box was disclosed = except that the third box is "unlucky"! =20 Sven =20 From blml@dybdal.dk Thu Apr 22 11:20:11 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:20:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECA7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECA7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:10:03 +0200, "Skjaran, Harald" wrote: >The Monty Hall trap is not correctly retold above. The prize was worth $= 100,000. Monty Hall opened one of the two doors not chosen, and offered = the contestant $ 40,000 or the opportunity to change door/keep what was = hidden behind the chosen door. > >Originally, the expected outcome for the contestant was $ 33,333 (1/3 of= worth of the prize). The information that there was no prize behind the = door Monty Hall opened, is biased information, and does not change the = original probabilities. There's still 1/3 chance that the chosen door = hides the prize.=20 Yes, the information does not change the probability of the prize being behind the originally chosen door. But it does change the probability of its being behind the opened door to 0, and the probability of its being behind the third door to 2/3. >The correct strategy for the contestant would therefore be to accept the= offered $ 40.000, since that amount is higher than the expected outcome = of opening one of the doors. No, the correct strategy (assuming that your goal is to maximize the average outcome) is to change to the third door. The prize is there whenever it is not behind the originally chosen door; since we've just agreed that there is 1/3 probability for the originally chosen door, there is obviously 2/3 probability for the third door, and the average outcome of changing door is therefore 66667 USD. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Tue Apr 20 15:19:27 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:19:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Several penalty cards - L51 Message-ID: <000001c426e2$80117a70$0200a8c0@Zog> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C426EA.E1D5E270 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yesterday at the Club . South is declarer - contract irrelevant; West faces the opening lead of SA. Now East, in a senior moment, thinking that he is dummy, starts to spread his hand and exposes HJ, 7 and CA before realising his error; the TD rules that these cards are major penalty cards (L50). SA wins first trick, all following and now TD offers declarer the options of L50D, L51B2. Declarer chooses to forbid a club lead (but not a heart lead), CA is picked up but HJ, 7 remain as penalty cards (L51B2(b)). Now West leads a heart. It is surely intended that declarer may now designate that East plays either the HJ or H7 to this trick as specified in L51A. However L51B2(b) concludes ".and makes any legal play to this trick". It can be argued that playing a heart from hand at trick 2 is not a legal play for East, since L51A provides otherwise, but this is hardly satisfactory. Unless it is really intended that by forbidding a lead in one suit, declarer should forfeit his L51A rights in respect of another suit, it would appear this part of L51 is just wrong. Do we agree? Chas Fellows, Surrey, England ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C426EA.E1D5E270 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yesterday at the Club …

 

South is declarer - contract irrelevant; West faces = the opening lead of SA.

Now East, in a senior moment, thinking that he is = dummy, starts to spread his hand and exposes HJ, 7 and CA before realising his = error; the TD rules that these cards are major penalty cards = (L50).

SA wins first trick, all following and now TD offers = declarer the options of L50D, L51B2.

Declarer chooses to forbid a club lead (but not a = heart lead), CA is picked up but HJ, 7 remain as penalty cards = (L51B2(b)).

Now West leads a heart…

 

It is surely intended that declarer may now designate = that East plays either the HJ or H7 to this trick as specified in = L51A.

 

However L51B2(b) concludes “…and makes = any legal play to this trick”.

 

It can be argued that playing a heart from hand at = trick 2 is not a legal play for East, since L51A provides otherwise, but this is = hardly satisfactory.

Unless it is really intended that by forbidding a = lead in one suit, declarer should forfeit his L51A rights in respect of another = suit, it would appear this part of L51 is just wrong.   Do we = agree?

 

Chas Fellows,

Surrey, England

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C426EA.E1D5E270-- From mario@bridge.org.mt Tue Apr 20 16:35:48 2004 From: mario@bridge.org.mt (Mario Dix) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:35:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] 53 cards Message-ID: <000f01c426ed$27bd7990$98aea5d5@Mario> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C426FD.EB464990 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This topic has already been discussed on another chat line by David Stevenson and other blmlers, but not all the correct info was given. At a recent event in Malta, South had 14 cards with each other player having 13. South, who regularly doesn't always count the cards in hand, never noticed and the 14th card, which was only observed when South's hand was displayed on the table as Dummy! There was an extra small heart in South's hand which had mistakenly been picked up from the preceding board. Teams E/W Vul Dealer E AT AQT642 T8 A63 K962 QJ84 J3 98 AKJ9 Q763 J95 QT4 753 K75(3) 542 K 872 E S W N p p 1D 1H X 2H 2S 4H all pass Opening lead D6 Immediately Dummy's hand went down, but opening Diamond lead had now been faced, the TD was summoned. He told players to get on with next board and returned having sorted out the mess, and told them to now play the hand as previously bid (after a bidding review) with the same lead. Dummy now held only 3 hearts, K75 not K753. The contract was duly made, N/S +420, and TD's decison was Result stands and a severe warning to South to count cards in future etc. However, in the other room, South failed to support Hearts and the game was missed. N/S +140 FWIW, i agree with TD's decision on the basis that I believe that most NV Souths would have bid 2H, to assist with the lead in likely event of becoming defender. Thus the subsequent auction and play are unaffected. Therefore E/W should not be the beneficary of their poor defence. Surely West should switch to a S at trick 3 given East's neg dble showin a likely 4 spades? Thus contract should now surely go one off. However, in the other room, South failed to support Hearts and the game was missed? I would like comments on the decision please. Also, as a point of interest, is East actually now permitted to change the lead? Mario Dix ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C426FD.EB464990 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
This = topic=20 has already been discussed on another chat line by David Stevenson = and=20 other blmlers, but not all the correct info was given. At a recent event = in=20 Malta, South had 14 cards with each other player having 13. South, = who=20 regularly doesn't always count the cards in hand, never noticed and the = 14th=20 card, which was only observed when South's hand was displayed on = the table=20 as Dummy! There was an extra small heart in South's hand which had = mistakenly=20 been picked up from the preceding board.
 
Teams E/W=20 Vul 
Dealer=20 E            =            =   AT
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =  =20 AQT642
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =   T8
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =   A63
K962          =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;    =20 QJ84
J3          &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;          98
AKJ9          =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;    =20 Q763
J95          &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;        QT4
=
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =    753
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =    K75(3)
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =    542
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =   =20 K 872
 
E    = S   =20 W    N
p    = p   =20 1D    1H
X   =20 2H  2S    4H
all = pass
Opening lead=20 D6
 
Immediately Dummy's=20 hand went down, but opening Diamond lead had now been faced, the TD was=20 summoned. He told players to get on with next board and returned = having=20 sorted out the mess, and told them to now play the hand as previously = bid (after=20 a bidding review) with the same lead. Dummy now held only 3 hearts, K75 = not=20 K753. The contract was duly made, N/S +420, and TD's decison was Result = stands=20 and a severe warning to South to count cards in future = etc.
However, in the=20 other room, South failed to support Hearts and the game was missed. = N/S=20 +140
 
FWIW, = i agree with=20 TD's decision on the basis that I believe that most NV Souths would have = bid 2H,=20 to assist with the lead in likely event of becoming=20 defender.
Thus = the subsequent=20 auction and play are unaffected. Therefore E/W should not be the = beneficary=20 of their poor defence. Surely West should switch to a S at trick 3 given = East's=20 neg dble showin a likely 4 spades? Thus contract should now surely = go one=20 off. However, in the other room, South failed to support Hearts and = the=20 game was missed? I would like comments on the decision = please.=20 Also, as a point of interest, is East actually now permitted to = change the=20 lead?
 
Mario=20 Dix
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C426FD.EB464990-- From mario@bridge.org.mt Thu Apr 22 09:55:43 2004 From: mario@bridge.org.mt (Mario Dix) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:55:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45C.4(b) Correction of Inadvertent Designation Message-ID: <001401c42847$981e05f0$98aea5d5@Mario> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C42858.5BA6D5F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit When, if ever, can any "player", other than Declarer, make such a change? Is this Law worded this way because of designation when a "claim" is made? If not, wouldn't it be clearer to substitute the word "Declarer" for "player"? Mario Dix ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C42858.5BA6D5F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
When, = if ever, can=20 any "player", other than Declarer, make such a change? Is this Law = worded=20 this way because of designation when a "claim" is = made?
If = not, wouldn't it=20 be clearer to substitute the word "Declarer" for=20 "player"?
 
Mario=20 Dix
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C42858.5BA6D5F0-- From nsousa@fc.up.pt Thu Apr 22 11:03:26 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:03:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA9364351@MAIL.fc.up.pt> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C42851.0DC03CE9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: East, Vul: N/S > > J53 > QJ8 > A5 > AKJ92 >=20 > The bidding has gone: >=20 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D 1S > 2C Double Pass(1) Pass > ?(2) >=20 > (1) Before calling, pard (East) asks > South about the meaning of North's > double -> South describes North's > double as a penalty double. >=20 > (2) Before you call, you glance at the > N/S convention card -> it states > that North's double shows a spade > honour, typically with two- or > three-card spade support. > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? My reasoning: if pard has a spade stop, we should=20 make 3NT +1. If he doesn't, we make 4C at best,=20 losing two spades plus a side trick somewhere=20 (South made a vulnerable overcall, so he rates to=20 have something on the side). I would redouble, followed by a penalty double of North's likely run out to two spades, and lead a spade. With the trump lead, I expect them to take=20 5 spades + 1 side trick for E/W +500. I would also consider pass, hoping to outscore=20 people going down in 3NT and people in 3NT +1, the latter by means of +530 in 2C X +3. (Losing 1 spade + 1 side trick.) Pass also has the priceless virtue of preventing pard from taking out 2S X to 3C. Regards, Nuno Sousa ------_=_NextPart_001_01C42851.0DC03CE9 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhsKAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEgAEAIQAAAFJFOiBbYmxtbF0gRG91Ymxl LW1lYW5pbmcgZG91YmxlAHILAQWAAwAOAAAA1AcEABYACwADABoABAAhAQEggAMADgAAANQHBAAW AAsAAwAaAAQAIQEBCYABACEAAABCODcxM0E1OTYxRUYzRjRFQTM3NTMzRDQyMUE1Nzg3NQAaBwED kAYA8AoAADcAAAADACYAAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AOk8wA1RKMQBHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUkU6IAAA AAACAUcAAQAAACoAAABjPXVzO2E9IDtwPUZDVVA7bD1NQUlMLTA0MDQyMjEwMDMyNlotMjk3MwAA AB4ASQABAAAAIwAAAGJsbWwgZGlnZXN0LCBWb2wgMSAjMTUxNCAtIDExIG1zZ3MAAEAATgAAtbF9 QSjEAR4AWgABAAAAFQAAAGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIub3JnAAAAAAIBWwABAAAARwAAAAAAAACB Kx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIub3JnAFNNVFAAYmxtbC1hZG1pbkBy dGZsYi5vcmcAAAIBXAABAAAAGgAAAFNNVFA6QkxNTC1BRE1JTkBSVEZMQi5PUkcAAAAeAF0AAQAA ABcAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAACAV4AAQAAAEsAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAFNNVFAAYmxtbC1yZXF1ZXN0QHJ0ZmxiLm9y ZwAAAgFfAAEAAAAcAAAAU01UUDpCTE1MLVJFUVVFU1RAUlRGTEIuT1JHAB4AZgABAAAABQAAAFNN VFAAAAAAHgBnAAEAAAAVAAAAYmxtbC1hZG1pbkBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAAAHgBoAAEAAAAFAAAAU01U UAAAAAAeAGkAAQAAABcAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAAeAHAAAQAAACMAAABibG1s IGRpZ2VzdCwgVm9sIDEgIzE1MTQgLSAxMSBtc2dzAAACAXEAAQAAABsAAAABxChBusZobScmAeNA ZLX2LpcIX2jWAANRTsMAHgB0AAEAAAAPAAAAYmxtbEBydGZsYi5vcmcAAB4AGgwBAAAAHQAAAE51 bm8gTWlndWVsIE1hcnF1ZXMgZGUgU291c2EAAAAAHgAdDgEAAAAdAAAAW2JsbWxdIERvdWJsZS1t ZWFuaW5nIGRvdWJsZQAAAAACAQkQAQAAAEAEAAA8BAAAGwcAAExaRnW90pZpAwAKAHJjcGcxMjXi MgNDdGV4BUEBAwH3/wqAAqQD5AcTAoAP8wBQBFY/CFUHshElDlEDAQIAY2jhCsBzZXQyBgAGwxEl 9jMERhO3MBIsETMI7wn3tjsYHw4wNREiDGBjAFAzCwkBZDM2FlALpiA+yQXQYXQT0HBvC4AFQAUK sGkUACwgRGxyQDogRWFzdB4QVsR1bB5gTi9TCqIKgGI+H2UgSjUVMB/lUSRKOB/WQTUhN0tKDjkO UB/lH9ZUaGUgkGJpZGQLgGcgE+AlBCBnAiBlOiKuV0UIU1QgJjNOT1JUEkgmM0VBJhZTT1U7JsAf 1i0ooCY0KJkxREco1SnQH1YgMkMqBkQvCGACYCPAJjFQHpBzKAwxKSw1H9Y/KDIpuyKuLKJCARAF sCPAYwdA/mwkIR4QCwIu8B6CLMAekM5rLTcnkwhgdGgw8AbgfTIgIDIwI8AHgABwJCJvpmYHsBfB aCcxO2Qr1N4tHPAyBAEABPJiB5Izzzs01iRxYR2wCfAHQHR53TTVLi4PLeAvNnkIYC+jyx4QOxJn C2BuYzgBMqMvMUofMS+gAiB2CfB0ae8CIC+hMGE1UWkFQB6gHSA/B5AxSjIwPGE2hTTWc2j0b3c4 MnMKsAEAMUpBkO5uCGEeEDjAcA3gL8E40OMD8DIxdHdvKMAFsD+MnQnRLT5zQgM/EHVwHWD/ACA5 ViV3QFIvsjTROwMAwOhrZT9Hu28ywQXAL7L/QPI7BAIgAJAEgUkyJCFJhf0fZE040BggHpACICQh HmCfBpAwNCRiQeU/EW9wHhA+d0FjHvAwcB9kSUIgM4JOJiArMS4gSTOQ5yOxNOAHkG4nHrFP0VDT /jQrMDxhNkEesR9kF7AAkN8kMUSBQfQEIAtQdUHDS9HzMrAFEGNrPxADcAfQSoF7I8AfZCgyBADA RpE4UHZbHvAkwHIBoCwBbz3wcv87VE2wUcJYoD9RMrBI4B9k/xPgPfBWYzIwM0MDoDLCS8L2KTlV H2RJRCBQIxghK9P/HhACEC/QQaAJgCPQONA4Xj8zcR9kQJYv4ElgRAFydf8DoDKDSOBUqB4QAHAw cCwA30IgMPAfZEIDUYBXREMjsfFWEHVtcGNzHhBdcA7AdThwYzKjbWJDUOIfZDU9VNYrKdBVui9h HnAvV/FRUDUwMFyvUDIHQFmh/0uXCrAEEB4QQZBDsFRySOD/MhEE8C9yH2Q4cE+QLAEkoPskIjTg dwOgC4BRE2NCbiX7b0VRYCwfZDLCC2ACQBKB318hMwIEIDOBacAzFlBvQZUrIVhRUDNRgChMVEPv H2RocUZzaFwuLMAsYmtEeyRiPJdwViFhkAeQBCB23R3gdApQM3J3sGU98yQx3zBDA1JnAnQnMoIy BfBzgIlaYTNDagtSZWcLEV8eAGCFYeBI4DIBc2PVfQF+oB4ANRABAAAANwAAADw2QzYwRTAyOTQz MzdFODRFQkU1QjE5ODc0NzI3N0ZBOTM2NDM1MUBNQUlMLmZjLnVwLnB0PgAAHgBHEAEAAAAPAAAA bWVzc2FnZS9yZmM4MjIAAAsA8hABAAAAHwDzEAEAAABOAAAAUgBFACUAMwBBACAAWwBiAGwAbQBs AF0AIABEAG8AdQBiAGwAZQAtAG0AZQBhAG4AaQBuAGcAIABkAG8AdQBiAGwAZQAuAEUATQBMAAAA AAALAPYQAAAAAEAABzCWWvD/TijEAUAACDCbAcUNUSjEAQMA3j+vbwAAAwDxPwkEAAAeAPg/AQAA AB0AAABOdW5vIE1pZ3VlbCBNYXJxdWVzIGRlIFNvdXNhAAAAAAIB+T8BAAAAWgAAAAAAAADcp0DI wEIQGrS5CAArL+GCAQAAAAAAAAAvTz1GQ1VQL09VPUZJUlNUIEFETUlOSVNUUkFUSVZFIEdST1VQ L0NOPVJFQ0lQSUVOVFMvQ049TlNPVVNBAAAAHgD6PwEAAAAVAAAAU3lzdGVtIEFkbWluaXN0cmF0 b3IAAAAAAgH7PwEAAAAeAAAAAAAAANynQMjAQhAatLkIACsv4YIBAAAAAAAAAC4AAAADAP0/5AQA AAMAGUAAAAAAAwAaQAAAAAADAB1AAAAAAAMAHkAAAAAAHgAwQAEAAAAHAAAATlNPVVNBAAAeADFA AQAAAAcAAABOU09VU0EAAB4AMkABAAAAFQAAAGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIub3JnAAAAAB4AM0AB AAAAFwAAAGJsbWwtcmVxdWVzdEBydGZsYi5vcmcAAB4AOEABAAAABwAAAE5TT1VTQQAAHgA5QAEA AAACAAAALgAAAAsAKQAAAAAACwAjAAAAAAADAAYQ0EbnRQMABxCtAwAAAwAQEAEAAAADABEQAAAA AB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAE1BVENIUE9JTlRQQUlSUyxETFI6RUFTVCxWVUw6Ti9TSjUzUUo4QTVBS0o5 MlRIRUJJRERJTkdIQVNHT05FOldFU1ROT1JUSEVBU1RTT1VUSC0tLS0tLTFEMVMyQ0RPVUJMRVAA AAAAAgF/AAEAAAA3AAAAPDZDNjBFMDI5NDMzN0U4NEVCRTVCMTk4NzQ3Mjc3RkE5MzY0MzUxQE1B SUwuZmMudXAucHQ+AAD1zw== ------_=_NextPart_001_01C42851.0DC03CE9-- From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Tue Apr 20 16:39:39 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:39:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <000001c426ed$b18ae130$0200a8c0@Zog> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C426F6.134F4930 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I posted the following with subject "Several penalty cards - L51" but it was rejected as "...message has a suspicious header?" Yesterday at the Club . South is declarer - contract irrelevant; West faces the opening lead of SA. Now East, in a senior moment, thinking that he is dummy, starts to spread his hand and exposes HJ, 7 and CA before realising his error; the TD rules that these cards are major penalty cards (L50). SA wins first trick, all following and now TD offers declarer the options of L50D, L51B2. Declarer chooses to forbid a club lead (but not a heart lead), CA is picked up but HJ, 7 remain as penalty cards (L51B2(b)). Now West leads a heart. It is surely intended that declarer may now designate that East plays either the HJ or H7 to this trick as specified in L51A. However, L51B2(b) concludes ".and makes any legal play to this trick". It can be argued that playing a heart from hand at trick 2 is not a legal play for East, since L51A provides otherwise, but this is hardly satisfactory. Unless it is really intended that by forbidding a lead in one suit, declarer should forfeit his L51A rights in respect of another suit, it would appear this part of L51 is just wrong. Do we agree? Chas Fellows, Surrey, England ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C426F6.134F4930 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I posted the following with subject “Several = penalty cards – L51” but it was rejected as “...message has a suspicious header?”

 

Yesterday at the Club …

 

South is declarer - contract irrelevant; West faces = the opening lead of SA.

Now East, in a senior moment, thinking that he is = dummy, starts to spread his hand and exposes HJ, 7 and CA before realising his = error; the TD rules that these cards are major penalty cards = (L50).

SA wins first trick, all following and now TD offers declarer the options of L50D, L51B2.

Declarer chooses to forbid a club lead (but not a = heart lead), CA is picked up but HJ, 7 remain as penalty cards = (L51B2(b)).

Now West leads a heart…

 

It is surely intended that declarer may now designate = that East plays either the HJ or H7 to this trick as specified in = L51A.

 

However, L51B2(b) concludes “…and makes = any legal play to this trick”.

 

It can be argued that playing a heart from hand at = trick 2 is not a legal play for East, since L51A provides otherwise, but this is = hardly satisfactory.

Unless it is really intended that by forbidding a = lead in one suit, declarer should forfeit his L51A rights in respect of another = suit, it would appear this part of L51 is just wrong.   Do we = agree?

 

Chas Fellows,

Surrey, England

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C426F6.134F4930-- From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 22 11:40:35 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:40:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c42856$3eb515d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Jesper Dybdal ........ > >The Monty Hall trap is not correctly retold above. The prize was = worth $ > 100,000. Monty Hall opened one of the two doors not chosen, and = offered > the contestant $ 40,000 or the opportunity to change door/keep what = was > hidden behind the chosen door. > > > >Originally, the expected outcome for the contestant was $ 33,333 (1/3 = of > worth of the prize). The information that there was no prize behind = the > door Monty Hall opened, is biased information, and does not change the > original probabilities. There's still 1/3 chance that the chosen door > hides the prize. >=20 > Yes, the information does not change the probability of the prize > being behind the originally chosen door. But it does change the > probability of its being behind the opened door to 0, and the > probability of its being behind the third door to 2/3. Please explain why the probability that the prize being behind the originally chosen door does not change! This is in no way obvious and is = IMO just plain incorrect as long as there is no system in how the opened = door was selected (except that it is empty). Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 22 11:50:46 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:50:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Several penalty cards - L51 In-Reply-To: <000001c426e2$80117a70$0200a8c0@Zog> Message-ID: <000a01c42857$ab08c140$6900a8c0@WINXP> Brambledown Yesterday at the Club =85 =A0 South is declarer - contract irrelevant; West faces the opening lead of = SA. Now East, in a senior moment, thinking that he is dummy, starts to = spread his hand and exposes HJ, 7 and CA before realising his error; the TD = rules that these cards are major penalty cards (L50). SA wins first trick, all following and now TD offers declarer the = options of L50D, L51B2. Declarer chooses to forbid a club lead (but not a heart lead), CA is = picked up but HJ, 7 remain as penalty cards (L51B2(b)). Now West leads a heart=85 =A0 It is surely intended that declarer may now designate that East plays = either the HJ or H7 to this trick as specified in L51A. =A0 However L51B2(b) concludes =93=85and makes any legal play to this = trick=94. =A0 It can be argued that playing a heart from hand at trick 2 is not a = legal play for East, since L51A provides otherwise, but this is hardly satisfactory. Unless it is really intended that by forbidding a lead in one suit, = declarer should forfeit his L51A rights in respect of another suit, it would = appear this part of L51 is just wrong.=A0=A0 Do we agree? No, IMO the laws on penalty cards are crystal clear: East may make any "legal" play to the lead of a heart from West, and Law = 51A limits his choice to the playable penalty card designated by declarer. "Legal" means according to Law - including Law 51A when applicable. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 22 11:54:46 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:54:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45C.4(b) Correction of Inadvertent Designation In-Reply-To: <001401c42847$981e05f0$98aea5d5@Mario> Message-ID: <000b01c42858$3a0efb70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Mario Dix Subject: [blml] Law 45C.4(b) Correction of Inadvertent Designation When, if ever, can any=A0"player", other than Declarer, make such a = change? Is this Law worded this way because of designation when a "claim" is made? If not, wouldn't it be=A0clearer to substitute the word "Declarer" for "player"? A defender may state: "Here comes the Ace of spades", and then = (immediately) change his statement to "sorry, I mean the Ace of Clubs". I don't think this has anything to do with claims. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Apr 22 12:04:45 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:04:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <000901c42856$3eb515d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c42856$3eb515d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4087A6CD.1040108@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Jesper Dybdal > > ........ >>Yes, the information does not change the probability of the prize >>being behind the originally chosen door. But it does change the >>probability of its being behind the opened door to 0, and the >>probability of its being behind the third door to 2/3. > > > Please explain why the probability that the prize being behind the > originally chosen door does not change! This is in no way obvious and is IMO > just plain incorrect as long as there is no system in how the opened door > was selected (except that it is empty). > Because that is not how the trick works. Monty DID know where the prize was and he ALWAYS opened an empty door. If you selected the right door, Monty opens an empty one. If you selected a wrong door, Monty opens an empty one. So the opening of an empty door changes nothing to your original chance of selecting the right door. > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@dybdal.dk Thu Apr 22 12:13:30 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:13:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <000901c42856$3eb515d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c42856$3eb515d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:40:35 +0200, "Sven Pran" wrote: >> Jesper Dybdal >........ >> >The Monty Hall trap is not correctly retold above. The prize was = worth $ >> 100,000. Monty Hall opened one of the two doors not chosen, and = offered >> the contestant $ 40,000 or the opportunity to change door/keep what = was >> hidden behind the chosen door. >> > >> >Originally, the expected outcome for the contestant was $ 33,333 (1/3= of >> worth of the prize). The information that there was no prize behind = the >> door Monty Hall opened, is biased information, and does not change the >> original probabilities. There's still 1/3 chance that the chosen door >> hides the prize. >>=20 >> Yes, the information does not change the probability of the prize >> being behind the originally chosen door. But it does change the >> probability of its being behind the opened door to 0, and the >> probability of its being behind the third door to 2/3. > >Please explain why the probability that the prize being behind the >originally chosen door does not change! This is in no way obvious and is= IMO >just plain incorrect as long as there is no system in how the opened = door >was selected (except that it is empty). Let me try, with various wordings: Because we know that the host will open a door with nothing behind it regardless of which door was originally chosen. So you learn nothing about the original door by that action. You will see the sequence "select door (1/3 chance), another door is opened with nothing behind it" regardless of which door the prize is behind and regardless of which door was initially chosen. Opening a door with nothing behind it is something the host can do and will do regardless of the original choice and regardless of whether or not the prize is behind the original door: that action therefore tells us nothing about whether or not the original choice was correct. The moment you have chosen, say, door 1, you know that there a 1/3 probability of that door being right. You do not learn anything to change that just because the host then demonstrates that he knows that, say, door 2 is not the correct one; you just learn that if your original guess was wrong, then the correct guess is 3, not 2. Or, to put it another way: the moment you've chosen 1, you know that one or both of 2 and 3 are empty, and that he will chose one of them that is empty. That cannot tell you anything about the quality of your original guess, because it would happen equivalently if you had originally chosen differently. All of this of course assumes that the host *always* opens a door with nothing behind it when the original guess has been made. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From mario@bridge.org.mt Thu Apr 22 12:30:14 2004 From: mario@bridge.org.mt (Mario Dix) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:30:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: Double-meaning double Message-ID: <001901c4285d$2eba3000$98aea5d5@Mario> Subject: RE: [blml] Double-meaning double Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:03:26 +0100 From: "Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa" To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C42851.0DC03CE9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: East, Vul: N/S > > J53 > QJ8 > A5 > AKJ92 >=20 > The bidding has gone: >=20 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D 1S > 2C Double Pass(1) Pass > ?(2) >=20 > (1) Before calling, pard (East) asks > South about the meaning of North's > double -> South describes North's > double as a penalty double. >=20 > (2) Before you call, you glance at the > N/S convention card -> it states > that North's double shows a spade > honour, typically with two- or > three-card spade support. > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? I pass. Someone here has psyched as there are too many points in the pack for a vulnerable N/S to both be contesting. I therefore assume it is my partner. I agree with Nuno Sousa that if it is not my partner, and we make 2C dbled plus 3, we will get a better score than those playing in 3nt +1 (or plus 2)as we will score 480 (in Malta we use wbf scoring, so not 530?. I admit that IF the opps have done the psyching, we have missed a slam. Well done them. Mario ------------------------------------ Mario Dix mario@bridge.org.mt 13 Preca Court Old College Street Sliema SLM 05 Malta tel: 00 356 2131 2946 fax: 00 356 2132 0444 mobile: 00 356 9949 3167 ------------------------------------ From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Thu Apr 22 13:54:59 2004 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:54:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <4087A6CD.1040108@hdw.be> References: <000901c42856$3eb515d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <4087A6CD.1040108@hdw.be> Message-ID: <1082638499.11413.184913323@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:04:45 +0200, "Herman De Wael" said: > Sven Pran wrote: > >>Jesper Dybdal > > > > ........ > >>Yes, the information does not change the probability of the prize > >>being behind the originally chosen door. But it does change the > >>probability of its being behind the opened door to 0, and the > >>probability of its being behind the third door to 2/3. > > > > > > Please explain why the probability that the prize being behind the > > originally chosen door does not change! This is in no way obvious and is IMO > > just plain incorrect as long as there is no system in how the opened door > > was selected (except that it is empty). > > > > Because that is not how the trick works. Monty DID know where the > prize was and he ALWAYS opened an empty door. > > If you selected the right door, Monty opens an empty one. > If you selected a wrong door, Monty opens an empty one. > So the opening of an empty door changes nothing to your original > chance of selecting the right door. > I have always found it easier to explain if we assume that there were 100 doors. You choose, let's say, door 1. Monty opens 98 of the remaining doors - each of which has no prize (since he is going to open those doors with no prize). Are your odds of having chosen the correct door originally now 50%? Or have they remained at 1% while there is a 99% chance of it being the door that he failed to open? -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Thu Apr 22 14:14:14 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:14:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Several penalty cards - L51 In-Reply-To: <000a01c42857$ab08c140$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c4286b$b590bd70$0200a8c0@Zog> Sven Pran writes: > Brambledown > Yesterday at the Club =85 >=20 > South is declarer - contract irrelevant; West faces the opening lead of SA. > Now East, in a senior moment, thinking that he is dummy, starts to spread > his hand and exposes HJ, 7 and CA before realising his error; the TD rules > that these cards are major penalty cards (L50). > SA wins first trick, all following and now TD offers declarer the options of > L50D, L51B2. > Declarer chooses to forbid a club lead (but not a heart lead), CA is picked > up but HJ, 7 remain as penalty cards (L51B2(b)). > Now West leads a heart=85 >=20 > It is surely intended that declarer may now designate that East plays either > the HJ or H7 to this trick as specified in L51A. >=20 > However L51B2(b) concludes =93=85and makes any legal play to this = trick=94. >=20 > It can be argued that playing a heart from hand at trick 2 is not a legal > play for East, since L51A provides otherwise, but this is hardly > satisfactory. > Unless it is really intended that by forbidding a lead in one suit, declarer > should forfeit his L51A rights in respect of another suit, it would appear > this part of L51 is just wrong.=A0=A0 Do we agree? >=20 > No, IMO the laws on penalty cards are crystal clear: >=20 > East may make any "legal" play to the lead of a heart from West, and Law 51A > limits his choice to the playable penalty card designated by declarer. >=20 > "Legal" means according to Law - including Law 51A when applicable. I agree with Sven's interpretation, but I am amazed that he thinks the Laws are crystal clear. As TD, I have just read out L51B2(b) to the contestants concluding ".. the defender picks up every penalty card (in Clubs) and makes any legal play to the trick" When West leads a heart, I now have to explain that in fact East has no choice at all, because by another Law (51A) declarer will designate his play to this trick. At the very least L51B2(b) should have a caveat ",,, and, subject to L51A, may make any legal play to the trick". However, the whole of Law 51 is horribly convoluted. Little is gained by the separation of L51B into 1 & 2, there is repetition in L50D1 & L51A and if the TD goes straight to L51 when there are two or more penalty cards, he has to be careful not to lose the L50D2(b) option. In fact, I believe that the whole of L50D & L51 could be combined into one new Law to good effect. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England=20 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Apr 22 15:10:50 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:10:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitate to suggst a pass? References: Message-ID: <01ba01c42873$cff35f80$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard Hills] ... a prolific blmler's repeated assertions that a majority of experienced bridge players deliberately cheat with reverse hesitations. [Nigel] I've already replied to this but I'd like to clarify... (1) I don't know if it *is* cheating. In practice, the law seems to have a tolerant attitude. (2) Obviously, we are *not* talking about experienced players in general -- only those who often hesitate. (3) If an experienced player finds himself hesitating, he will lean over backwards to take some action to let his partner off the hook. Hence, a pass after a hesitation normally denies any plausible alternative. (4) He may have perfectly innocent reasons for thinking even if, to others, a pass (or whatever) is automatic. Sometimes, you may suspect the ploy to be deliberate but you must allow the benefit of the doubt to the perpetrator. (5) Nevertheless, if an experienced player does hesitate, then, *in my experience*, most of the time, his partner's suggested course of action is to pass unless he is systemically forced to bid or his unilateral action is blatantly obvious. This may be in accordance with the law, but it is also likely to achieve the best practical result, as indicated by partner's hesitation. (6) IMO, rulings should start to take this hesitation-pass phenomenon into account. (7) I admit, however, that this phenomenon may be much less widespread than alleged, since no other BLMLer complains about it. On the contrary, Richard Hills and Frances Hinden report that such behaviour is completely unknown to them in their pristine Australian and Middlesex environments. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.664 / Virus Database: 427 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 22 15:28:46 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:28:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <000001c42852$62a50df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5D05852E-9469-11D8-AFC8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Apr 22, 2004, at 06:12 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Now, if somehow (before any spade is played) you manage to figure out > that > the spades split 4-1 (or 5-0) between the defenders your probability of > success increases to 100%. Assuming, of course, that you know which defender has the length. :-) From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Apr 22 15:41:39 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:41:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitate to suggst a pass? Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816970@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> [Nigel] I've already replied to this but I'd like to clarify... (1) I don't know if it *is* cheating. In practice, the law seems to have a tolerant attitude. (2) Obviously, we are *not* talking about experienced=20 players in general -- only those who often hesitate. (3) If an experienced player finds himself hesitating,=20 he will lean over backwards to take some action to=20 let his partner off the hook. Hence, a pass after a=20 hesitation normally denies any plausible alternative. (4) He may have perfectly innocent reasons for thinking=20 even if, to others, a pass (or whatever) is automatic. =20 Sometimes, you may suspect the ploy to be deliberate =20 but you must allow the benefit of the doubt to the=20 perpetrator. (5) Nevertheless, if an experienced player does hesitate, then, *in my experience*, most of the time, his=20 partner's suggested course of action is to pass unless=20 he is systemically forced to bid or his unilateral=20 action is blatantly obvious. This may be in accordance=20 with the law, but it is also likely to achieve the best=20 practical result, as indicated by partner's hesitation. (6) IMO, rulings should start to take this hesitation-pass=20 phenomenon into account. (7) I admit, however, that this phenomenon may be much less=20 widespread than alleged, since no other BLMLer complains=20 about it. On the contrary, Richard Hills and Frances=20 Hinden report that such behaviour is completely unknown=20 to them in their pristine Australian and Middlesex=20 environments.=20 =20 [Frances] Surrey, not Middlesex. Though Australia is rather larger than either. Many good players of my acquaintance are under the (mistaken) impression that if partner hesitates, you should "do whatever you were going to do anyway" so this is all a bit deep for them! From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Apr 22 15:59:39 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:59:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] 53 cards In-Reply-To: <000f01c426ed$27bd7990$98aea5d5@Mario> References: <000f01c426ed$27bd7990$98aea5d5@Mario> Message-ID: On 20 Apr 2004, at 16:35, Mario Dix wrote: > This topic has=A0already been discussed on another chat line by David=20= > Stevenson and other blmlers, but not all the correct info was given.=20= > At a recent event in Malta, South=A0had 14 cards with each other = player=20 > having 13. South, who regularly doesn't always count the cards in=20 > hand, never noticed and the 14th card, which=A0was only observed when=20= > South's hand was displayed on the table as Dummy! There was an extra=20= > small heart in South's hand which had mistakenly been picked up from=20= > the preceding board. > =A0 > Teams=A0E/W Vul=A0 > Dealer E=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0AT > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 AQT642 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0T8 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0A63 > K962=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0 QJ84 > J3=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A098 > AKJ9=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0 Q763 > J95=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0QT4 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0753 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0K75(3) > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0542 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 K 872 > =A0 > E=A0=A0=A0 S=A0=A0=A0 W=A0=A0=A0 N > p=A0=A0=A0 p=A0=A0=A0 1D=A0=A0=A0 1H > X=A0=A0=A0 2H=A0=A02S=A0=A0=A0 4H > all pass > Opening lead D6 > =A0 > Immediately Dummy's hand went down, but opening Diamond lead had now=20= > been faced, the TD was summoned. He told players to get on with=20 > next=A0board and returned having sorted out the mess, and told them to=20= > now play the hand as previously bid (after a bidding review) with the=20= > same lead. Dummy now held only 3 hearts, K75 not K753. The contract=20 > was duly made, N/S +420, and TD's decison was Result stands and a=20 > severe warning to South to count cards in future etc. > However, in the other room, South failed to=A0support Hearts and the=20= > game was missed. N/S +140 > =A0 > FWIW, i agree with TD's decision on the basis that I believe that most=20= > NV Souths would have bid 2H, to assist with the lead in likely event=20= > of becoming defender. I don't think what most Souths would do has any bearing on the matter. L 13 does not apply, since the extra card was not in the pocket when=20 the board arrived at the table. All that's happened is that although the deal was correct, South was=20 temporarily holding a fourteenth card - which may or may not have=20 affected South's bidding decisions (as might mistaking a diamond for a=20= heart), but has no bearing on any actions of any other player. That=20 extra card has now been removed before it can affect the play, and so=20 play now continues. > Thus the subsequent auction and play are unaffected.=A0Therefore E/W=20= > should not be the beneficary of their poor defence. Do you mean NS should not be the beneficiaries of EW's poor defence?=20 Why not? It has nothing to do with South having had an extra card for=20 the duration of the auction. > Surely West should switch to a S at trick 3 given East's neg dble=20 > showin a likely 4 spades? Thus contract=A0should now surely go one = off.=20 > However, in the other room, South failed to=A0support Hearts and the=20= > game was missed? I would like comments on the decision please. Also,=20= > as a point of interest, is East actually now permitted to change=A0the=20= > lead? No. East has not been given misinformation, and the dummy is already on=20= the table. L 47E2a A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken=20 explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected=20 explanation, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick.=20= An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Apr 22 16:28:34 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:28:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] 53 cards In-Reply-To: References: <000f01c426ed$27bd7990$98aea5d5@Mario> Message-ID: On 22 Apr 2004, at 15:59, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 20 Apr 2004, at 16:35, Mario Dix wrote: > >> This topic has=A0already been discussed on another chat line by David=20= >> Stevenson and other blmlers, but not all the correct info was given.=20= >> At a recent event in Malta, South=A0had 14 cards with each other = player=20 >> having 13. South, who regularly doesn't always count the cards in=20 >> hand, never noticed and the 14th card, which=A0was only observed when=20= >> South's hand was displayed on the table as Dummy! There was an extra=20= >> small heart in South's hand which had mistakenly been picked up from=20= >> the preceding board. I've just realised I may have misunderstood this: my previous post was=20= based on my understanding that South had picked up the card from the=20 preceding board on this round. It now occurs to me that you might have=20= meant that the card had been picked up by a previous South and put in=20 the pocket with the South hand, in which case we would need to refer to=20= L13. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From adam@irvine.com Thu Apr 22 17:03:24 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:03:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:12:01 BST." <003e01c42849$e0b071c0$249468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <200404221603.JAA27859@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > 3. I am mistaken in a probability estimate, I am in good > company. Even Ivan Erdos was taken in by the Monty Hall > trap, described by Richard. Martin Gardner (former Scientific American columnist) has written that Leibniz thought the probability of rolling a 12 with two dice was the same as rolling 11, and one of the d'Alemberts believed that after you toss a coin a whole bunch of times and get heads every time, a tail is more likely next time. Two more great mathematicians tripped up by probability. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 22 17:08:14 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:08:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c42884$058123c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Jesper Dybdal, attention Herman as well! > >........ > >Please explain why the probability that the prize being behind the > >originally chosen door does not change! This is in no way obvious and = is > IMO > >just plain incorrect as long as there is no system in how the opened = door > >was selected (except that it is empty). >=20 > Let me try, with various wordings: >=20 > Because we know that the host will open a door with nothing behind it > regardless of which door was originally chosen. So you learn nothing > about the original door by that action. >=20 > You will see the sequence "select door (1/3 chance), another door is > opened with nothing behind it" regardless of which door the prize is > behind and regardless of which door was initially chosen. Opening a > door with nothing behind it is something the host can do and will do > regardless of the original choice and regardless of whether or not the > prize is behind the original door: that action therefore tells us > nothing about whether or not the original choice was correct. >=20 > The moment you have chosen, say, door 1, you know that there a 1/3 > probability of that door being right. You do not learn anything to > change that just because the host then demonstrates that he knows > that, say, door 2 is not the correct one; you just learn that if your > original guess was wrong, then the correct guess is 3, not 2. >=20 > Or, to put it another way: the moment you've chosen 1, you know that > one or both of 2 and 3 are empty, and that he will chose one of them > that is empty. That cannot tell you anything about the quality of > your original guess, because it would happen equivalently if you had > originally chosen differently. >=20 > All of this of course assumes that the host *always* opens a door with > nothing behind it when the original guess has been made. That I assume as obvious, or the case has little meaning. Now, according to this logic the probability does not change because of = any door being opened as long as there is no prize behind the door. How do = you (and Herman) explain that the probability of finding the prize behind = your door does not change when Monty opens the first empty door but obviously changes (from 33% to 100%) the moment he opens the second empty door?=20 Consider the situation as being a lottery with for instance 3000 shares = out of which you hold 1000. Your chance of winning on one of your shares is = just 1000/3000 or 1/3. If you are told that the manager of the lottery has cancelled 1000 of the shares, none of which is yours, do you still = consider your chance of winning on one of your shares 1/3 or do you agree that it = has increased to 1000/2000 or 1/2? At any time the probability of having selected the lucky share (or = choice), whether it be a door in the Monty Hall trap, a share in a lottery or a = line of play is the ratio between your "share" and the total number of (remaining) shares (possibilities) unless there is some non-random = feature which has changed the probability between the remaining possibilities at = the time when you must make your final choice. =20 Regards Sven=20 From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 22 17:23:44 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:23:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <1082638499.11413.184913323@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000201c42886$2eba3360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Sorry to David, I forgot to change the "to" address again. > David Kent ......... > I have always found it easier to explain if we assume that there were=20 > 100 doors. You choose, let's say, door 1. Monty opens 98 of the=20 > remaining doors - each of which has no prize (since he is going to=20 > open those doors with no prize). Are your odds of having chosen the=20 > correct door originally now 50%? Or have they remained at 1% while=20 > there is a 99% chance of it being the door that he failed to open? I am not quite sure what you try to show, but yes: If Monty opens 98 doors all of which he knows hides nothing then your probability of having chosen the correct door has increased from 1% to = 50% because you now know that there are just two doors left, one of which is "lucky" and one of which is "unlucky", and you have no indication on = which is which. Regardless of which of these two doors you now select you have = an even chance of selecting the "lucky" door. If Monty on the other hand has opened his 98 doors at random then there = is a 98 % probability that he has opened the "lucky" door himself leaving = just a 2 % probability that YOU still have your chance of opening the "lucky" = door. Within this 2% probability there is also now an even chance that you = open the "lucky" door. So in this case you end up with a final probability of half the 2% to having chosen the "lucky" door which gives the result as = 1%!=20 Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 22 17:27:24 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:27:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <5D05852E-9469-11D8-AFC8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000301c42886$b1d065d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > Now, if somehow (before any spade is played) you manage to figure out > > that > > the spades split 4-1 (or 5-0) between the defenders your probability of > > success increases to 100%. > > Assuming, of course, that you know which defender has the length. :-) Of course, I should have emphasized that. But have you ever seen a case where declarer is able to figure out that a suit breaks 1-4 between defenders without also figuring out who has the length? Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 22 17:32:57 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:32:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <200404221603.JAA27859@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000401c42887$77ff90f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Adam Beneschan > Martin Gardner (former Scientific American columnist) has written that > Leibniz thought the probability of rolling a 12 with two dice was the > same as rolling 11, and one of the d'Alemberts believed that after you > toss a coin a whole bunch of times and get heads every time, a tail is > more likely next time. Two more great mathematicians tripped up by > probability. > > -- Adam Probability is sometimes a very curious matter. In the last case: If you throw a coin a whole bunch of times and get heads every time the probability of getting another head the next time actually increases! Why? Because the probability increases that the coin is biased! Regards Sven From adam@irvine.com Thu Apr 22 17:56:01 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:56:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:32:57 +0200." <000401c42887$77ff90f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200404221655.JAA30061@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > Adam Beneschan > > Martin Gardner (former Scientific American columnist) has written that > > Leibniz thought the probability of rolling a 12 with two dice was the > > same as rolling 11, and one of the d'Alemberts believed that after you > > toss a coin a whole bunch of times and get heads every time, a tail is > > more likely next time. Two more great mathematicians tripped up by > > probability. > > > > -- Adam > > Probability is sometimes a very curious matter. > > In the last case: If you throw a coin a whole bunch of times and get heads > every time the probability of getting another head the next time actually > increases! > > Why? Because the probability increases that the coin is biased! Exactly! Which also brings up the point that when one poses a probability problem one has to be very specific about what one is talking about. Most people would say that the odds are still 50-50 that the next coin toss will be a head, but they've *assumed* that they're dealing with an unbiased coin, which isn't always stated explicitly. This has been a problem on r.g.b in the past: someone will ask "what's the probability that ..." and the answers can be very different depending on how you interpret the question. I once tried calculating the answers to questions like this: "If you have a bin containing one million coins, and one of the coins is biased so that it will come up heads 70% of the time but the rest of the coins are unbiased, and you pull out a coin at random (there's an equal probability of pulling out any of the one million coins) and flip it 100 times and it comes up heads each time, what's the probability that the next coin toss will be a head?" I think the answer might have been close to 70%, with the a posteriori probability being close to 1 that you have pulled out the biased coin (using Bayes' law). But this result really depended a lot on the actual numbers used in the problem statement. -- Adam From toddz@att.net Thu Apr 22 18:12:34 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:12:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <000901c42856$3eb515d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c42856$3eb515d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040422130516.01af9dc8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 06:40 AM 4/22/2004, Sven Pran wrote: > Please explain why the probability that the prize being behind the > originally chosen door does not change! This is in no way obvious and > is IMO just plain incorrect as long as there is no system in how the > opened door was selected (except that it is empty). Let's change the problem a bit and you can decide for yourself whether or not it's the same game. There are X doors, 1 of which has some amount of cash, the rest of which are empty. Choose one. I give you the option of sticking with that door or taking the sum of all the cash behind the remaining X-1 doors. Which do you choose? Of course in the actual TV show, the doors weren't exactly empty, but had gag prizes -- aged farm animals, year's supply of gifilte fish, all-expenses-paid trip to the county dump. Not exactly worthless prizes, but undesired. So the joke went, after a door had been opened and the contestant given the option to switch doors, a contestant said, "You know, that goat don't look too bad." -Todd From jrmayne@mindspring.com Thu Apr 22 18:32:57 2004 From: jrmayne@mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:32:57 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re: The Monty Hall trap Message-ID: Sven wrote: [No indent for Sven] Sorry to David, I forgot to change the "to" address again. >David Kent wrote ......... >I have always found it easier to explain if we assume that there were 100 >doors. You choose, let's say, door 1. Monty opens 98 of the remaining >doors - each of which has no prize (since he is going to open those doors >with no prize). Are your odds of having chosen the correct door originally >now 50%? Or have they remained at 1% while there is a 99% chance of it >being the door that he failed to open? I am not quite sure what you try to show, but yes: If Monty opens 98 doors all of which he knows hides nothing then your probability of having chosen the correct door has increased from 1% to 50% because you now know that there are just two doors left, one of which is "lucky" and one of which is "unlucky", and you have no indication on which is which. Regardless of which of these two doors you now select you have an even chance of selecting the "lucky" door. ------- JRM: Sorry for staying OT here, but... It's very easy to event-test this and prove it wrong. However, I have a standing offer: We play this game with any number of doors - with 100, I'll open 98 empty ones, and you don't switch. If you have the winning door, I'll pay you $75 US. If the other door wins, you pay me $50. We play until one of us is broke or concedes the point. With three doors, I'll make the same deal. These problems are all easy if you just event-test them. You'll discover the right answer very quickly. A similar-sounding problem is: You are taking a multiple-choice advanced particle physics exam in Dutch. You don't speak Dutch or know any physics, but the proctor speaks English. On problem 1, you guess "A" with the options "A" "B" or "C". The proctor suddenly says: "I'm sorry, this test is too hard. On problem 1, Answer C is wrong." Does it help to switch? This has a different answer. You can do this in bridge, too. I'm sure it has some applications to my online cheating work, but I'm not exactly sure what those are right now. --JRM _________________________________________________________________ Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar – FREE! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/ From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 22 18:39:41 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:39:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040422130516.01af9dc8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <000901c42890$cab8d910$6900a8c0@WINXP> Todd M. Zimnoch ........... > Let's change the problem a bit and you can decide for yourself > whether > or not it's the same game. There are X doors, 1 of which has some > amount of cash, the rest of which are empty. Choose one. I give you > the option of sticking with that door or taking the sum of all the = cash > behind the remaining X-1 doors. Which do you choose? If you have the choice between a single share in the sweepstakes and all = the remaining shares without knowing anything about which share will take = the prize; which alternative do YOU choose? Excuse me but it appears to me that I have sufficient knowledge of probabilities so that I do not fall into "traps" like these. Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 22 19:08:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:08:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c42894$cf8d95d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> John R. Mayne ........... > JRM: >=20 > Sorry for staying OT here, but... >=20 > It's very easy to event-test this and prove it wrong. However, I have = a > standing offer: >=20 > We play this game with any number of doors - with 100, I'll open 98 = empty > ones, and you don't switch. If you have the winning door, I'll pay you = $75 > US. If the other door wins, you pay me $50. We play until one of us is > broke > or concedes the point. >=20 > With three doors, I'll make the same deal. >=20 > These problems are all easy if you just event-test them. You'll = discover > the > right answer very quickly. >=20 > A similar-sounding problem is: You are taking a multiple-choice = advanced > particle physics exam in Dutch. You don't speak Dutch or know any = physics, > but the proctor speaks English. On problem 1, you guess "A" with the > options > "A" "B" or "C". The proctor suddenly says: "I'm sorry, this test is = too > hard. On problem 1, Answer C is wrong." Does it help to switch? This = has a > different answer. >=20 > You can do this in bridge, too. I'm sure it has some applications to = my > online cheating work, but I'm not exactly sure what those are right = now. At the time you are down to just two remaining doors you will please designate the door you originally selected as door #1 and the other door left closed by Monty as door #2. The remaining doors all opened by Monty (with his knowledge that none of them were "lucky") are designated doors #3 through (for instance) #100. What you say without any kind of proof is that there is now a greater probability for door #2 than for door #1 to be the "lucky" door.=20 I should like to see your mathematical reasoning leading to this = statement.=20 (And please keep in mind the formal definition of the term "probability" when dealing with discrete alternatives of which no one is more likely = than any of the others: The number of successful alternatives divided by the total number of alternatives). Sven From toddz@att.net Thu Apr 22 19:17:55 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:17:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <000901c42890$cab8d910$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040422130516.01af9dc8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <000901c42890$cab8d910$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040422140326.01b4a640@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 01:39 PM 4/22/2004, Sven Pran wrote: >Todd M. Zimnoch >> Let's change the problem a bit and you can decide for yourself >> whether >> or not it's the same game. There are X doors, 1 of which has some >> amount of cash, the rest of which are empty. Choose one. I give you >> the option of sticking with that door or taking the sum of all the >> cash behind the remaining X-1 doors. Which do you choose? > > If you have the choice between a single share in the sweepstakes and > all the remaining shares without knowing anything about which share > will take the prize; which alternative do YOU choose? > > Excuse me but it appears to me that I have sufficient knowledge of > probabilities so that I do not fall into "traps" like these. The fact that you have chosen a door before any are opened, before you have any extra knowledge, is significant and makes these two games equivalent. It doesn't matter if the host gives you the choice between all the remaining doors or only the door that has the money (if any of the remaining do) by exposing the empty ones. You're making the same choice between two sets -- one that has a 1/X chance of winning and the other with an (X-1)/X chance of winning. If the host opened all but 2 doors before you got to choose, then you'd be right that the probability is 50%. -Todd From toddz@att.net Thu Apr 22 19:23:44 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:23:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <000a01c42894$cf8d95d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c42894$cf8d95d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040422141850.01b03b00@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 02:08 PM 4/22/2004, Sven Pran wrote: >What you say without any kind of proof is that there is now a greater >probability for door #2 than for door #1 to be the "lucky" door. > >I should like to see your mathematical reasoning leading to this >statement. There's an equal probability that the prize will be behind door number 1, 2, or 3. Let's say you choose door number 1 all the time. One of door number 2 and 3 are opened showing it's empty. Assuming the prize can't move after you've chosen, if you don't switch, you win only when the prize was behind door number 1. If you do switch, you win anytime the prize was behind either door number 2 or 3. Now, if one of door number 1, 2 or 3 is opened before you've chosen any, the odds are 50/50 for the remaining two doors. -Todd From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Apr 22 20:00:28 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:00:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <000001c42884$058123c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040422144729.009eaaa0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:08 PM 4/22/04, Sven wrote: >Consider the situation as being a lottery with for instance 3000 >shares out >of which you hold 1000. Your chance of winning on one of your shares >is just >1000/3000 or 1/3. If you are told that the manager of the lottery has >cancelled 1000 of the shares, none of which is yours, do you still >consider >your chance of winning on one of your shares 1/3 or do you agree that >it has >increased to 1000/2000 or 1/2? To make this analogy correct, the winner would have to have been drawn, the manager would have to know who held it, and he would have had to cancel 1000 shares that he knew were not winners. In which case your probability of winning would have remained 1/3. >At any time the probability of having selected the lucky share (or >choice), >whether it be a door in the Monty Hall trap, a share in a lottery or a >line >of play is the ratio between your "share" and the total number of >(remaining) shares (possibilities) unless there is some non-random feature >which has changed the probability between the remaining possibilities >at the >time when you must make your final choice. Which there is... that's the point. Monty's opening a door to reveal a non-winner was done non-randomly, and in such a way as to add no information. This "changes" the probability between the remaining choices "back" to what it was originally. Proof: You pick #3 (arbitrarily). There are three equally likely locations for the prize: 1/3 of the time the prize is at #1, Monty opens #2, you win if you switch. 1/3 of the time the prize is at #2, Monty opens #1, you win if you switch. 1/3 of the time the prize is at #3, Monty opens either #1 or #2 at random, you lose if you switch. Switching wins 2/3 of the time. Not switching wins 1/3 of the time. Q.E.D. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Apr 22 20:03:45 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:03:45 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: The Monty Hall trap References: <000a01c42894$cf8d95d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <007601c4289c$8c2f5d20$532846a2@ams.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" >What you say without any kind of proof is that there is now a greater >probability for door #2 than for door #1 to be the "lucky" door. OK, Sven let's play a game. You are Monty. There are one million doors from #1 to #1000000. Make mentally your choice about the number where the price is hidden. Ready? Don't peep below! ;-) And don't forget it. || || || || || || || || || || || || My choice is the door #451332. OK - now open 99998 doors in such a manner that they don't contain the prize. You know where the prize is so you can always do it whether my first choice of #451332 is correct or not. Now tell me - what is the number of the second door that is left unopened? Konrad Ciborowski Krenver, Polorado From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 22 21:40:40 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:40:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040422144729.009eaaa0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000e01c428aa$1318f2d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau ......... > Proof: You pick #3 (arbitrarily). There are three equally likely > locations for the prize: >=20 A: 1/3 of the time the prize is at #1, Monty opens #2, you win if you switch. >=20 B: 1/3 of the time the prize is at #2, Monty opens #1, you win if you switch. >=20 C: 1/3 of the time the prize is at #3, Monty opens either #1 or #2 at > random, you lose if you switch. >=20 > Switching wins 2/3 of the time. Not switching wins 1/3 of the > time. Q.E.D. (I have added the letters A, B and C to designate your three = alternatives above)=20 The fallacy in this "proof" is that the three initial alternatives are = no longer equally probable once Monty has opened a door. The door he opened = has its probability of hiding the prize reduced to zero without affecting = the relative probabilities between the other two doors. If Monty opened door #1 then alternative A is no longer possible and if Monty opened door #2 then alternative B is no longer possible. In both = cases the remaining possibilities maintain their relative probabilities = because there is nothing to tell otherwise. Another way of seeing it is that if Monty opened door #1 then the prize = is behind either door #2 or #3 while if Monty opened door #2 then the prize = is behind door #1 or #3, and there is nothing to "favor" either of the two (remaining) possibilities in each case. Sven From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 22 21:52:10 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:52:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <001701c42730$406bb310$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <001101c428ab$dc9b4b20$9bd2403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 12:36 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches < > If there exists one player who would pass this > 4D bid without having a concealed partnership > understanding then the evidence is not sufficient > to rule that such an understanding exists. < +=+ The standard of proof required, counsel advises, is balance of probabilities. When not running from a double the 4D bid does not expose the psyche; if it can be passed and may be associated with a psyche disclosure is called for. Such protective action would be classified as Brown Sticker under the WBF Systems Policy. In EBU competitions it is not permitted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Apr 22 22:02:24 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:02:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting cases, especially #2. In the appeals book for Long Beach this case was #2. It pretty clearly is Case #1 on p. 6 in the Wednesday Daily Bulletin. There, the facts as given differ from the appeals book. Daily Bulletin: The Facts: 5 H made five, +650 for N/S. The opening lead was the S J. The Director was called after South bid 5 H. Although the Stop Card was not used, it was agreed that North took 11-15 seconds before passing 4 S (she leaned forward as if to bid, leaned back, thought for a while longer and then passed). The Director ruled that South had unauthorized information that her partner had better than a simple 2 H overcall, which made the 5 H bid safer. The Director decided that pass was a logical alter-native and changed the contract to 4 S down one, +50 for N/S. The Appeals book changes the leaning forward and backward part to "North made a move to bid, withdrew and then passed." The leaning back and forth description seems to me to make the case for ruling the contract back to 4S much stronger than the facts as given in the Appeals book, which are the same except for the leaning part. I play against a bunch of people with pretty obvious body language. "Making a move" could be anything, like reaching for the bidding end of the bidding box. I often see people do this when they have no intention or desire to make any call but "Pass". Usually they are not looking as they reach and arrive at the wrong destination. Of course, the 11- 14 s was probably more like 7- 11 s. My students generally have had poor judgement of how long 10 s is, usually running toward 5-7 s actual as 10 s in their estimations. I rarely see anyone actually wait 10 s after a Stop card has been displayed. So, I have little confidence in people's estimates of the length of hesitations. 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 Apr 22 22:23:01 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:23:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap References: <000e01c428aa$1318f2d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Dear Sven, I really advice you never to play any game like this for money. This joke is a standard example in elementary classes in probability and statistics. Sven: The fallacy in this "proof" is that the three initial alternatives are no longer equally probable once Monty has opened a door. The door he opened has its probability of hiding the prize reduced to zero without affecting the relative probabilities between the other two doors. Eric's proof has no fallacy. It is textbook stuff. Sven: Another way of seeing it is that if Monty opened door #1 then the prize is behind either door #2 or #3 while if Monty opened door #2 then the prize is behind door #1 or #3, and there is nothing to "favor" either of the two (remaining) possibilities in each case. You go wrong here because you assume Monty can choose his door freely. Unfortunatley in 66% of the cases Monty is forced to open a door because you have choosen one of the three and one of the three contains the prize, leaving only one for Monthy. Only in 33% of the cases Monty can really choose, the case where you initially picked the door with the prize. This is called restricted choice. For n>3 nothing really changes, of course than Monthy always has some choice, still he can never open the 2 special doors (1 in the special case where they are the same). In other words, the placing of the price is unristricted (so 1/n for any position), your initial pick is unrestricted (so 1/n for guessing the prize), opening the door by Monthy is NOT unrestricted because two (one in the special case you guessed right) positions are blocked. So if Monty opens all doors but one you have a chance of 1/n to win if you stick to your initial pick and (n-1)/n if you switch. If Monty opens say m doors switching gets you a chance of (n-1)/n*(n-m-1). This is simply the change of being initially wrong divided by the number of remaining positions. Anyway, if you don't believe me and the rest of the blml people involved (who might well know way more about probability than I do) just take a course at math university. Maybe you will believe your math teacher. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 10:40 PM Subject: RE: [blml] The Monty Hall trap Eric Landau ........ > Proof: You pick #3 (arbitrarily). There are three equally likely > locations for the prize: > A: 1/3 of the time the prize is at #1, Monty opens #2, you win if you switch. > B: 1/3 of the time the prize is at #2, Monty opens #1, you win if you switch. > C: 1/3 of the time the prize is at #3, Monty opens either #1 or #2 at > random, you lose if you switch. > > Switching wins 2/3 of the time. Not switching wins 1/3 of the > time. Q.E.D. (I have added the letters A, B and C to designate your three alternatives above) The fallacy in this "proof" is that the three initial alternatives are no longer equally probable once Monty has opened a door. The door he opened has its probability of hiding the prize reduced to zero without affecting the relative probabilities between the other two doors. If Monty opened door #1 then alternative A is no longer possible and if Monty opened door #2 then alternative B is no longer possible. In both cases the remaining possibilities maintain their relative probabilities because there is nothing to tell otherwise. Another way of seeing it is that if Monty opened door #1 then the prize is behind either door #2 or #3 while if Monty opened door #2 then the prize is behind door #1 or #3, and there is nothing to "favor" either of the two (remaining) possibilities in each case. Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu Apr 22 22:26:25 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:26:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double ploy References: Message-ID: REH: > So, I have little confidence in people's estimates of the length of > hesitations. You are too kind. I have absolutly NO confidence in these estimates including my own. Anyway this is proven beyond doubt by behaviour scientists. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert E. Harris" To: ; Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Double ploy > Interesting cases, especially #2. In the appeals book for Long Beach > this case was #2. It pretty clearly is Case #1 on p. 6 in the > Wednesday Daily Bulletin. There, the facts as given differ from the > appeals book. > > Daily Bulletin: > > The Facts: 5 H made five, +650 for N/S. The > opening lead was the S J. The Director was called > after South bid 5 H. Although the Stop Card was not > used, it was agreed that North took 11-15 seconds > before passing 4 S (she leaned forward as if to bid, > leaned back, thought for a while longer and then > passed). The Director ruled that South had unauthorized > information that her partner had better than a > simple 2 H overcall, which made the 5 H bid safer. > The Director decided that pass was a logical alter-native > and changed the contract to 4 S down one, > +50 for N/S. > > The Appeals book changes the leaning forward and backward part to > "North made a move to bid, withdrew and then passed." The leaning > back and forth description seems to me to make the case for ruling > the contract back to 4S much stronger than the facts as given in the > Appeals book, which are the same except for the leaning part. > > I play against a bunch of people with pretty obvious body language. > "Making a move" could be anything, like reaching for the bidding end > of the bidding box. I often see people do this when they have no > intention or desire to make any call but "Pass". Usually they are > not looking as they reach and arrive at the wrong destination. > > Of course, the 11- 14 s was probably more like 7- 11 s. My students > generally have had poor judgement of how long 10 s is, usually > running toward 5-7 s actual as 10 s in their estimations. I rarely > see anyone actually wait 10 s after a Stop card has been displayed. > So, I have little confidence in people's estimates of the length of > hesitations. > > REH > > > -- > Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 > Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia > Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@irvine.com Thu Apr 22 22:33:29 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:33:29 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:40:40 +0200." <000e01c428aa$1318f2d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200404222133.OAA09276@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > Eric Landau > ......... > > Proof: You pick #3 (arbitrarily). There are three equally likely > > locations for the prize: > > > A: 1/3 of the time the prize is at #1, Monty opens #2, you win if you > switch. > > > B: 1/3 of the time the prize is at #2, Monty opens #1, you win if you > switch. > > > C: 1/3 of the time the prize is at #3, Monty opens either #1 or #2 at > > random, you lose if you switch. > > > > Switching wins 2/3 of the time. Not switching wins 1/3 of the > > time. Q.E.D. > > (I have added the letters A, B and C to designate your three alternatives > above) > > The fallacy in this "proof" is that the three initial alternatives are no > longer equally probable once Monty has opened a door. The door he opened has > its probability of hiding the prize reduced to zero without affecting the > relative probabilities between the other two doors. Yes, it does affect the relative probabilities. Succeeding events can affect the probabilities of earlier events. I believe this is called _a posteriori_ probabilities, but I'd have to look it up to be sure. I gave an example of this earlier. Suppose you have a million coins, and one of them is biased (comes up heads 70% of the time), and the others are unbiased. You pick a coin at random. At that point, the probability that you have picked the biased coin is 1 in 1 million, same as the probability that you've picked any one of the other coins. You now flip the coin 100 times and it comes up heads 70 times. Now, based on this, the probability that you have picked the biased coin is much higher than 1/1000000; if I remember correctly, from when I calculated this many years ago, the probability that you picked the biased coin is almost 1---that is, almost a certainty. Perhaps I can arrange these another way to explain why _a posteriori_ probabilities work; it has to do with succeeding information eliminating some possible events. You have picked door #3. The prize can be in one of three equally likely locations. Monty will pick either door #1 or door #2. So there are six possible events to consider: U. Prize is at #1, Monty opens #1. V. Prize is at #1, Monty opens #2. W. Prize is at #2, Monty opens #1. X. Prize is at #2, Monty opens #2. Y. Prize is at #3, Monty opens #1. Z. Prize is at #3, Monty opens #2. Suppose we repeated this experiment 120 times. Since the prize is equally likely to be behind any door, we can assume that U+V, W+X, and Y+Z all occur 40 times. Suppose, at first, that Monty has no idea which door the prize is behind, so he picks either door #1 or door #2 at random. The two events---the location of the prize and which door Monty picks---are called "independent" in probability theory; one does not have any effect on the other. So no matter where the prize is, for each 40 times the prize occurs behind a specific door, Monty will pick door #1 20 times and door #2 20 times. So the number of times each of the six events occurs is: U. Prize is at #1, Monty opens #1 -- 20 V. Prize is at #1, Monty opens #2 -- 20 W. Prize is at #2, Monty opens #1 -- 20 X. Prize is at #2, Monty opens #2 -- 20 Y. Prize is at #3, Monty opens #1 -- 20 Z. Prize is at #3, Monty opens #2 -- 20 Suppose Monty opens door #1, and there's no prize behind it. So we only consider cases where Monty opens #1 and the prize is not at #1, i.e. W and Y. We eliminate all the other cases, leaving: W. Prize is at #2, Monty opens #1 -- 20 Y. Prize is at #3, Monty opens #1 -- 20 Here, you can see that the prize is behind the door you picked in 20 cases, and behind the other door in 20 cases. So the chance that you picked the right door goes up to 50%. The same would be true if Monty picked door #2, so that only cases V and Z would be considered. Now suppose that instead, Monty knew which door the prize was behind, and deliberately did not pick that one. In the cases where the prize is behind #3, he picked one at random, with an equally likely possibility of picking both. Now U+V, W+X, and Y+Z still occur 40 times, but the other weights change: U. Prize is at #1, Monty opens #1 -- 0 V. Prize is at #1, Monty opens #2 -- 40 W. Prize is at #2, Monty opens #1 -- 40 X. Prize is at #2, Monty opens #2 -- 0 Y. Prize is at #3, Monty opens #1 -- 20 Z. Prize is at #3, Monty opens #2 -- 20 U occurs 0 times, of course, because Monty knows not to pick the door that contains the prize. Now suppose Monty opens door #1. As above, we eliminate all cases except W and Y, which will occur this many times: W. Prize is at #2, Monty opens #1 -- 40 Y. Prize is at #3, Monty opens #1 -- 20 Here, the prize is behind door #3 20 times, but is behind the other door 40 times. So the chance that you picked the right door is still 1/3---and the chance that the prize is behind the other door is now 2/3. The same probabilities would result if Monty had picked door #2. Of course, there are other ways to compute it. Suppose, for example, Monty deliberately does not pick the door containing the prize, but in cases where the prize is behind #3, he picks #1 75% of the time for some reason. Then the weights change to: U. Prize is at #1, Monty opens #1 -- 0 V. Prize is at #1, Monty opens #2 -- 40 W. Prize is at #2, Monty opens #1 -- 40 X. Prize is at #2, Monty opens #2 -- 0 Y. Prize is at #3, Monty opens #1 -- 30 Z. Prize is at #3, Monty opens #2 -- 10 Now, if Monty has opened door #1, the probability that you have picked the right door goes up to 3/7; but if he's opened door #2, the probability drops to 1/5. I hope this clarifies things. The above kind of reasoning is the logic behind Bayes' theorem, which is very useful for this sort of probability problem, but I'm not going to try to quote it here. -- Adam From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Apr 22 22:53:08 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:53:08 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] who are the opponents? Message-ID: I apologize for my comment about the absence (from the lawbok) of a definition of "Opponent". The copy of the Laws I have by my computer is one I bought to keep there, the second printing of November 1997. I checked to see whether the errata noted for the first printing had been corrected (by comparison with my other copy, from the first printing.) I failed to find the errata sheet included in the second printing copy, which corrected the omission. I also had downloaded an electronic copy from the ACBL, and it too lacks the definitions of "opening lead", "opponent", and "overtrick" REH. -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 22 23:25:40 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:25:40 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <001101c428ab$dc9b4b20$9bd2403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <00cc01c428b8$bec324d0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk > Sent: Friday, 23 April 2004 8:52 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "Let people hold on to these: > Manifest plainness, > Embrace simplicity, > Reduce selfishness, > Have few desires." [Lao Tzu] > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 12:36 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches > > > < > > If there exists one player who would pass this > > 4D bid without having a concealed partnership > > understanding then the evidence is not sufficient > > to rule that such an understanding exists. > < > +=+ The standard of proof required, counsel > advises, is balance of probabilities. When not > running from a double the 4D bid does not > expose the psyche; if it can be passed and > may be associated with a psyche disclosure is > called for. Such protective action would be > classified as Brown Sticker under the WBF > Systems Policy. In EBU competitions it is > not permitted. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This interpretation is contrary to the written law. LAW 75 - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS C. Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. So an inference drawn from one's own general knowledge is not required to be disclosed when answering questions ... LAW 40 B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. ... and disclosure is only required for partnership agreements. If a player passes based on "his general bridge knowledge and experience" then no disclosure is lawfully required. This is plain. I can not see on what basis you can argue otherwise. Brown Stickers are a red herring. Brown stickers do not regulate "general knowledge" they "regulate partnership agreements". My argument is based on the premise : "without having a concealed partnership understanding " Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 22 23:32:23 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:32:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <000e01c428aa$1318f2d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000f01c428b9$ae7aca00$6900a8c0@WINXP> It is never too late to admit an error! I really was sure, but finally I went back to repeat the analysis from scratch. Too right. And good night - Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 22 09:18:23 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:18:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double References: <40878E30.13064.53CA32@localhost> Message-ID: <000801c428bc$78640500$8dc287d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 8:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Double-meaning double > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote (22 Apr 2004): > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- --- 1D 1S > > 2C Double Pass(1) Pass > > ?(2) > > > > (1) Before calling, pard (East) asks > > South about the meaning of North's > > double -> South describes North's > > double as a penalty double. > > > > (2) Before you call, you glance at the > > N/S convention card -> it states > > that North's double shows a spade > > honour, typically with two- or > > three-card spade support. > > > > What call do you make? > > I don't make any call. < +=+ I think the correct call is 'Director!' ~ G ~ +=+ From john@asimere.com Fri Apr 23 00:12:25 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:12:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <000f01c428b9$ae7aca00$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000e01c428aa$1318f2d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000f01c428b9$ae7aca00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000f01c428b9$ae7aca00$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >It is never too late to admit an error! > >I really was sure, but finally I went back to repeat the analysis from >scratch. > >Too right. TD's are NEVER wrong. I'll award you 2/3 of a board under 82C :) > >And good night - Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Apr 23 00:15:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:15:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap Message-ID: http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_07_03.html At the Mathematical Association of America's website, Keith Devlin writes: [big snip] >>I think the reason the Monty Hall problem raises >>people's ire is because a basic ability to estimate >>likelihoods of events is important in everyday life. >>We make (loose, and generally non-numeric) >>probability estimates all the time. Our ability to do >>this says something about our rationality - our >>capacity to live a successful life - and hence can >>become a matter of pride, something to be defended. [big snip] Richard James Hills notes: [snip] >a TD or an AC has to calculate the differing chances >of hypothetical alternatives when adjusting the score. > >When reading through appeals casebooks, occasionally I >have noticed that a TD or AC routinely goes with the >flow -> with a first-level estimate that two chances >must be 50% each -> rather than doing a second-level >Monty Hall estimate of the true likelihoods based upon >restricted choice and/or available places. Richard James Hills renotes: It seems that for Sven Pran, his assessment of the Monty Hall trap initially was "a matter of pride, something to be defended". However, I congratulate Sven for checking his initial assumptions, and swallowing his pride. Any still-confused lurkers should visit the URL above, and read the complete Mathematical Association of America article. Interested blmlers might wish to read "For Experts Only", a collection of bridge essays edited by Matthew and Pamela Granovetter. It contains an extensive article on some practical Monty Hall applications, which can improve your assessment of probabilities during the play of the cards. However, for blml purposes, let us avoid endless theoretical discussion about the Monty Hall trap, and instead examine an actual appeal, in which the actual AC "routinely goes with the flow". See an attached 2003 Welsh appeal (which will also be discussed in the forthcoming annual Welsh appeals casebook). Best wishes Richard James Hills * * * Swiss Teams Board no 25 Dealer North EW vulnerable J9 JT7 AKT3 AKT4 KQ5 T82 AKQ942 83 Q4 87652 97 652 A7643 65 J9 QJ83 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1S Dbl(1) 1NT Pass 2NT Pass(2) 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs (2) Agreed hesitation Result at table: 3NT -2 by North, NS -100, lead 8 of hearts [big snip] Appeals Committee decision: Table score re-instated Deposit returned Appeals Committee's comments: We feel that the hesitation only implied that there was probably a long suit or better hand with West and gave no information that it was hearts rather than clubs. So we felt that the lead at the table was unaffected by the hesitation. -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Apr 23 00:38:43 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:38:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: >>>The bidding has gone: >>> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>--- --- 1D 1S >>>2C Double Pass(1) Pass >>>?(2) >>> >>>(1) Before calling, pard (East) asks >>> South about the meaning of North's >>> double -> South describes North's >>> double as a penalty double. >>> >>>(2) Before you call, you glance at the >>> N/S convention card -> it states >>> that North's double shows a spade >>> honour, typically with two- or >>> three-card spade support. >>> >>>What call do you make? Jens Brix Christiansen: >>I don't make any call. Grattan Endicott: >+=3D+ I think the correct call is 'Director!' > ~ G ~ +=3D+ Richard James Hills: Excellent points by Jens and Grattan. So, on to phase two of the problem. After you have called the TD, and after the TD has determined that the CC is correct, but the verbal information is MI, and after pard has declined the TD's Law 21B1 offer to change their call of Pass, and after it is now obvious that South has passed North's spade-honour double while labouring under the misapprehension that North's double was penalty, then.... 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 grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Fri Apr 23 00:55:12 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:55:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040422192837.01c7dbf8@mail.comcast.net> At 07:48 PM 4/21/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_07_03.html >At the Mathematical Association of America's website, >Keith Devlin writes: > >[snip] > > >In the 1960s, there was a popular weekly US > >television quiz show called Let's Make a Deal. Each > >week, at a certain point in the program, the host, > >Monty Hall, would present the contestant with three > >doors. Behind one door was a substantial prize; > >behind the others there was nothing. Monty asked the > >contestant to pick a door. Clearly, the chance of > >the contestant choosing the door with the prize was > >1 in 3. So far so good. > > > >Now comes the twist. Instead of simply opening the > >chosen door to reveal what lay behind, Monty would > >open one of the two doors the contestant had not > >chosen, revealing that it did not hide the prize. > >(Since Monty knew where the prize was, he could > >always do this.) He then offered the contestant the > >opportunity of either sticking with their original > >choice of door, or else switching it for the other > >unopened door. > > > >The question now is, does it make any difference to > >the contestant's chances of winning to switch, or > >might they just as well stick with the door they > >have already chosen? The problem is correctly stated here; many people pose the Monty Hall problem without the condition that Monty knows where the prize is and will always open an empty door. Here's one way to look at the Monty Hall problem which makes it easier to see. Say that Monty flips a coin to decide which door to expose when he has a choice. Thus, if you pick door 1 and the prize is behind door 3, Monty will always open door 2. If you pick door 1 and the prize is behind door 1, Monty will only open door 2 if the coin flips heads. Now, which is more likely: the prize is behind door 3, or the prize is behind door 1 and the coin flips heads? The principle applies in bridge in the rule of restricted choice. When the cards are first dealt, all distributions of the 26 opposing cards are equally likely. But once they have played some cards, some distributions are less likely. For example: AKT96 8754 You lead the ace, and East drops the jack. You lead low to dummy, West follows low, and you have to guess. There is a 6.2% chance that East started with the jack and played it, but only a 3.4% chance that he started with QJ doubleton and played the jack, assuming that he is equally likely to play either card. Thus you finesse. (In contrast, suppose that East accidentally drops the jack of this suit on the table. You play the ace, picking up the exposed jack, and lead to dummy, with West playing low. Since the jack was a penalty card, East would always play it from QJ doubleton, so restricted choice does not apply, and playing for the drop is better.) The restricted choice is actually a nearly perfect Monty Hall analogy. There are three doors, labeled "Q", "J", and "QJ". You choose the door labeled "QJ", and East must open a door which does not correspond to his holding. You now have the option of switching doors, and you should switch. From blml@blakjak.com Fri Apr 23 01:19:50 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:19:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <000401c42887$77ff90f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <200404221603.JAA27859@mailhub.irvine.com> <000401c42887$77ff90f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >Adam Beneschan >> Martin Gardner (former Scientific American columnist) has written that >> Leibniz thought the probability of rolling a 12 with two dice was the >> same as rolling 11, and one of the d'Alemberts believed that after you >> toss a coin a whole bunch of times and get heads every time, a tail is >> more likely next time. Two more great mathematicians tripped up by >> probability. >> >> -- Adam > >Probability is sometimes a very curious matter. > >In the last case: If you throw a coin a whole bunch of times and get heads >every time the probability of getting another head the next time actually >increases! > >Why? Because the probability increases that the coin is biased! There used to be a saying for rubber bridge: There are two sorts of bridge players: those who get average cards, and those who won't admit it. While true in a way - it is amazing how a player who has held two 20-counts in an evening can moan he has held poor cards all evening - in fact I believe there are lucky and unlucky players. Your expectation in the future is to get average cards, n'est-ce-pas? Ok, suppose in your life to date you have actually averaged 10.3 HCP when you have played rubber bridge. You are then a lucky player, not because you are guaranteed to do better than the next player, but because your expectation over your whole life is better than him [assuming his rubber bridge career to date has given him less than a 10.3 average]. So in my view there are lucky card-holders, and unlucky ones, based on their historical holding of cards. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Fri Apr 23 00:43:57 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:43:57 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20040422192837.01c7dbf8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: Others have pointed out that the correct strategy on Let's Make a Deal was to switch, and posted both of the standard arguments explaining why. (Eric's three cases, and the recent posting showing the relationship with Restricted Choice in bridge.) There was a time when even good bridge players thought Restricted Choice was a fallacy (and when some believed in the strong form of Culbertson's rule about symmetry of distribution). When I was a graduate student, in one of my statistics classes, the professor actually let me take something like half of a lecture period to explain just enough about bridge to illustrate Restricted Choice for them: the Monty Hall problem is sticky enough that we found that was one of the easier ways to convince people (mathematically inclined non-bridge players) of it! GRB From blml@blakjak.com Fri Apr 23 01:23:15 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:23:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: <40878E30.13064.53CA32@localhost> References: <40878E30.13064.53CA32@localhost> Message-ID: Jens Brix Christiansen wrote >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote (22 Apr 2004): > >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- 1D 1S >> 2C Double Pass(1) Pass >> ?(2) >> >> (1) Before calling, pard (East) asks >> South about the meaning of North's >> double -> South describes North's >> double as a penalty double. >> >> (2) Before you call, you glance at the >> N/S convention card -> it states >> that North's double shows a spade >> honour, typically with two- or >> three-card spade support. >> >> What call do you make? > >I don't make any call. I direct South's attention to the >inconsistency with the convention card. It is likely that we will be >needing the director soon. By not calling, I ensure that my partner >will be given a chance to reconsider his bid if it turns out that >South had misinformed him. In a case a number of years ago a female English international did just this - and the L&EC gave her a rough ride for creating the problem. Their feeling was either shut up or call the TD. -- 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 Apr 23 01:31:32 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:31:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap References: Message-ID: <008401c428ca$550aea20$5e9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Swiss Teams Board no 25 Dealer North EW vulnerable J9 JT7 AKT3 AKT4 KQ5 T82 AKQ942 83 Q4 87652 97 652 A7643 65 J9 QJ83 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1S Dbl(1) 1NT Pass 2NT Pass(2) 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs (2) Agreed hesitation Result: 3NT -2 by North, NS -100, lead 8 of hearts Appeals Committee decision: Table score re-instated Deposit returned. We feel that the hesitation only implied that there was probably a long suit or better hand with West and gave no information that it was hearts rather than clubs. So we felt that the lead at the table was unaffected by the hesitation. [Nigel] We've discussed a similar case before and I anticipate a majority BLML view that the hesitation suggests a heart rather than a club lead. West seems to have been thinking of competing for the partscore, perhaps, even, with remote prospects of game. That seems more likely to imply a long major than a long minor. I know TDs are meant to refrain from "shooting hesitators" but, IMO, it is surprizing how often members of a regular partnership "read" each other's hesitations. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Apr 23 01:51:15 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:51:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double References: Message-ID: <009901c428d1$56cbf6e0$5e9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Richard james Hills] > Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: East, Vul: N/S > You, West, hold: J53 QJ8 A5 AKJ92 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D 1S > 2C Double Pass(1) Pass > ?(2) > (1) Before calling, pard (East) asks > South about the meaning of North's > double -> South describes North's > double as a penalty double. > (2) Before you call, you glance at the > N/S convention card -> it states > that North's double shows a spade > honour, typically with two- or > three-card spade support. > After you have called the TD [As suggested by Jens Brix > Christiansen and Grattan Endicott], and after the TD has > determined that the CC is correct, but the verbal > information is MI, and after pard has declined the TD's > Law 21B1 offer to change their call of Pass, and after it > is now obvious that South has passed North's spade-honour > double while labouring under the misapprehension that > North's double was penalty, then.... > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? [Nigel] I suppose in real life I would pass but as Richard implies, if you can rely on a sensible TD/AC, you should redouble, secure in the knowledge that opponents will need an unusual and excellent reason to pull. The only problem is with TDs/ACs who resent those who try to have their cake and eat it, in such situations. Anyway, even if two clubs redoubled is removed, you can still try 3C, secure in the knowledge that both opponents will be morally obliged to double that. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 From kevperk@austin.rr.com Fri Apr 23 02:20:27 2004 From: kevperk@austin.rr.com (Kevin Perkins) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:20:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap References: <000001c42884$058123c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003b01c428d1$291f2780$0fbec944@kevperk> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:08 AM Subject: RE: [blml] The Monty Hall trap > Jesper Dybdal, attention Herman as well! > >........ > >Please explain why the probability that the prize being behind the > >originally chosen door does not change! This is in no way obvious and is > IMO > >just plain incorrect as long as there is no system in how the opened door > >was selected (except that it is empty). > > Let me try, with various wordings: > > Because we know that the host will open a door with nothing behind it > regardless of which door was originally chosen. So you learn nothing > about the original door by that action. > > You will see the sequence "select door (1/3 chance), another door is > opened with nothing behind it" regardless of which door the prize is > behind and regardless of which door was initially chosen. Opening a > door with nothing behind it is something the host can do and will do > regardless of the original choice and regardless of whether or not the > prize is behind the original door: that action therefore tells us > nothing about whether or not the original choice was correct. > > The moment you have chosen, say, door 1, you know that there a 1/3 > probability of that door being right. You do not learn anything to > change that just because the host then demonstrates that he knows > that, say, door 2 is not the correct one; you just learn that if your > original guess was wrong, then the correct guess is 3, not 2. > > Or, to put it another way: the moment you've chosen 1, you know that > one or both of 2 and 3 are empty, and that he will chose one of them > that is empty. That cannot tell you anything about the quality of > your original guess, because it would happen equivalently if you had > originally chosen differently. > > All of this of course assumes that the host *always* opens a door with > nothing behind it when the original guess has been made. That I assume as obvious, or the case has little meaning. Now, according to this logic the probability does not change because of any door being opened as long as there is no prize behind the door. How do you (and Herman) explain that the probability of finding the prize behind your door does not change when Monty opens the first empty door but obviously changes (from 33% to 100%) the moment he opens the second empty door? Consider the situation as being a lottery with for instance 3000 shares out of which you hold 1000. Your chance of winning on one of your shares is just 1000/3000 or 1/3. If you are told that the manager of the lottery has cancelled 1000 of the shares, none of which is yours, do you still consider your chance of winning on one of your shares 1/3 or do you agree that it has increased to 1000/2000 or 1/2? At any time the probability of having selected the lucky share (or choice), whether it be a door in the Monty Hall trap, a share in a lottery or a line of play is the ratio between your "share" and the total number of (remaining) shares (possibilities) unless there is some non-random feature which has changed the probability between the remaining possibilities at the time when you must make your final choice. Regards Sven But this isn't the same. In your situation, what would be done is that, after the drawing, your are told of 1000 shares that are not winners. These were possible winning tickets until the drawing, but after the drawing, one can always pick 2999 non winning tickets, so this doesn't change the odds. Kevin Perkins _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From drpartonGeary@mail.com Fri Apr 23 06:16:10 2004 From: drpartonGeary@mail.com (Jason) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:16:10 -0800 Subject: [blml] New For Women: Enlarge Your Breasts Naturally! . . .punctually Message-ID:
Have larger, rounder, more perfect breasts in as little as 30 days!
Breast Gain Plus
Our BreastGain+ Pills Will..
Enhance Breast Fullness.. 1 - 3 Cup Sizes
Gives You The Confidence And Attention You Deserve.
100% Satisfaction Guar.anteed!
 
READ MORE INFO HERE


no more emailz


clobbered From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 23 00:46:47 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:46:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <51C2DAC2-94B7-11D8-8591-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Apr 22, 2004, at 17:02 US/Eastern, Robert E. Harris wrote: > Of course, the 11- 14 s was probably more like 7- 11 s. My students > generally have had poor judgement of how long 10 s is, usually running > toward 5-7 s actual as 10 s in their estimations. I rarely see anyone > actually wait 10 s after a Stop card has been displayed. So, I have > little confidence in people's estimates of the length of hesitations. About the only two people I know in whose time estimations I have confidence are my own and those of a shipmate who I *know* could mark any given period almost exactly, every time. I haven't seen him in years, and most of the people I play against are certain my "hesitations" are at least twice as long as they actually are. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 23 00:49:46 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:49:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, Apr 22, 2004, at 17:26 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Anyway this is proven beyond doubt by behaviour scientists. Define "this". If you mean that *no one's* time sense is accurate, then you're wrong - and I doubt any scientist worth his salt would make that claim. From dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net Fri Apr 23 04:39:11 2004 From: dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:39:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: <20040422213503.22632.53414.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <000001c428e4$8b5deea0$6528fea9@Picasso> Jaap van der Neut wrote: REH: > So, I have little confidence in people's estimates of the length of > hesitations. You are too kind. I have absolutly NO confidence in these estimates including my own. Anyway this is proven beyond doubt by behaviour scientists. --------------------- Do you, or does anyone, else, actually know what those scientists have found, specifically, as it relates to intervals in the range we are talking about. Can we say that experiments show that people's estimates of such intervals, under appropriate conditions, average higher than the actual time? Can we say by what approximate amount they average high? I know what my impression is, but does anyone here know what the research says, specifically? Doug Couchman From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Apr 23 07:15:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:15:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 45C.4(b) Correction of Inadvertent Designation Message-ID: Mario Dix: >>When, if ever, can any=A0"player", other than >>Declarer, make such a change? Is this Law >>worded this way because of designation when >>a "claim" is made? >> >>If not, wouldn't it be=A0clearer to substitute >>the word "Declarer" for "player"? Sven Pran: >A defender may state: "Here comes the Ace of >spades", and then (immediately) change his >statement to "sorry, I mean the Ace of >Clubs". > >I don't think this has anything to do with >claims. Richard James Hills: I partially disagree with Sven. I would rule that one or both of those aces was a major penalty card. Both aces, if neither ace was a legal play to the trick. (Assuming that the defender actually holds both aces in their hand, rather than merely initially misreading their Ace of Clubs as their non-existent Ace of Spades.) I note that Law 45A defines proper procedure for the play of cards by a non-dummy player. Therefore, in my opinion, any defender who verbally designates a card may be subject to a PP pursuant to Law 90. I note that Law 45C4(a) mentions consequences after a player "names or otherwise designates" a card. However, in my opinion, Law 45C4(a) does not over-ride the proper procedure laid down by Law 45A, it merely specifies what a TD should properly do after a defender verbally designates a card (or after a declarer verbally designates a card from their own closed hand). 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 hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Fri Apr 23 07:23:30 2004 From: hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:23:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] new e-mail address Message-ID: <00b001c428fb$7f25c2e0$9923b5d4@swipnet.se> By mistake I have given the wrong new e-mail address. The correct one is hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Fri Apr 23 07:03:30 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:03:30 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <001101c428ab$dc9b4b20$9bd2403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: > +=+ The standard of proof required, counsel > advises, is balance of probabilities. When not > running from a double the 4D bid does not > expose the psyche; if it can be passed and > may be associated with a psyche disclosure is > called for. Such protective action would be > classified as Brown Sticker under the WBF > Systems Policy. In EBU competitions it is > not permitted. Forgive me for expressing surprise, but ... We are talking about a natural bid, in your partner's first-bid suit (a preempt, ostensibly one-suited, even!), on the second or third round of the auction. An agreement that such a bid is To Play is *brown sticker* !?! I really don't see how you can turn this into anything worse than "misinformation, no damage." Even an explicitly two-way 2S bid appears to be legal though alertable in most competitions. GRB From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 23 07:41:08 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 07:41:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <00cc01c428b8$bec324d0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <000e01c428fe$12fcfb30$2803e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:25 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches > > > > Grattan Endicott > [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > To: > > Cc: > > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 12:36 AM > > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches > > Brown Stickers are a red herring. Brown stickers do not > regulate "general knowledge" they "regulate partnership > agreements". My argument is based on the premise : > > "without having a concealed partnership understanding " > > Wayne > +=+ And mine on the fact that if this 4D bid is passed it will be deemed evidence of an understanding. Such understanding is concealed if not disclosed. But the world is tired of this discussion; carry on- solo - if you wish. ~ G ~ +=+ From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Fri Apr 23 07:51:16 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:51:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double ploy References: Message-ID: > Define "this". If you mean that *no one's* time sense is accurate, then > you're wrong - and I doubt any scientist worth his salt would make that > claim. Well define. I am no scientist myself. But I have read lots of (popular) articles about experiments about people estimating time, speed and the like. The outcomes are as expected and in a court of law at least in my country you don't get someone convicted based on a human 'estimate' of time, speed, distance and the like. First it is too difficult (although with training you can improve), second the observer is always biased by what he wants to see. Just take our bridgetable experiment. Whenever there is a discussion about the length of a pause the pauzing side (who is afraid of a ruling) 'always' gives a (much) lower estimate than the non-pauzing side (who wants a ruling). This alone proves that those estmates are worthless if you want to establish the real length. And yes I know you can apply all kind of statistical techniques but they are also worthless if you want to know the 'truth' in a specific case. Fortunately in bridge we are often interested in the perceived truth rather than the 'real' truth (a [pauze is often good enough who cares about the #secs). And now your 'sense of time'. Of course a lot of people have a good sense of time or a good sense of something. When concentrating on the issue they might give very good estimates. But we are discussing situations where the observer is actually doing something else (playing bridge here) and has some kind of stake in the outcome. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 1:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Double ploy > > On Thursday, Apr 22, 2004, at 17:26 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Anyway this is proven beyond doubt by behaviour scientists. > > Define "this". If you mean that *no one's* time sense is accurate, then > you're wrong - and I doubt any scientist worth his salt would make that > claim. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Apr 23 08:00:21 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:00:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: Message-ID: <000601c42900$f8f103a0$186f893e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > Forgive me for expressing surprise, but ... > > We are talking about a natural bid, in your partner's > first-bid suit (a preempt, ostensibly one-suited, even!), > on the second or third round of the auction. > > An agreement that such a bid is To Play is *brown > sticker* !?! > +=+ The majority regard the situation as forcing. That it may be passed is not a matter of general knowledge or experience. When it can be and is associated with psychic action it is a control on the psyche. The WBF System Policy, Appendix 4 applies. The EBU deems the psyche 'red'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Fri Apr 23 08:08:56 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:08:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double ploy References: <000001c428e4$8b5deea0$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: Doug, It is not my field of expertise. But I am sure there is a lot of material out there. I read quite some popular articles. Often related to big time trial cases (that is the moment those articles get published). The first problem there is always that the police guy wants to see some infraction and so he tends to see one (without doubting his proffesional integrity). In a speeding case, the officers estimate is 'always' higher than the drivers estimate. It is just too human. The second problem is that the defence can often prove the margin of error is enormous because the police guy often was doing something else at the moment. There was a famous case in Holland where a conviction (it was not just speeding) was based on the testimony of a police officer about him having seen the woman driving (there were two in the car and they claimed the guy was driving). In a retrial the defence forced a test on the observation (it was night, both cars were at high speed, and the police guy was at the time not specifically looking for that info). It showed that it was almost impossible to tell even if you knew what you were looking for. Still the officer was sure about himself. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Couchman" To: Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 5:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Double ploy > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > REH: > > So, I have little confidence in people's estimates of the length of > > hesitations. > > You are too kind. I have absolutly NO confidence in these estimates > including my own. Anyway this is proven beyond doubt by behaviour > scientists. > > --------------------- > > Do you, or does anyone, else, actually know what those scientists have > found, specifically, as it relates to intervals in the range we are talking > about. Can we say that experiments show that people's estimates of such > intervals, under appropriate conditions, average higher than the actual > time? Can we say by what approximate amount they average high? I know what > my impression is, but does anyone here know what the research says, > specifically? > > > Doug Couchman > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Apr 23 08:13:40 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:13:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double ploy References: Message-ID: <002001c42902$b3da0620$186f893e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Ed Reppert" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 7:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Double ploy > > Define "this". If you mean that *no one's* time > > sense is accurate, then you're wrong - and I > > doubt any scientist worth his salt would make > > that claim. > +=+ However the experience largely in bridge is that players who allege an opponent's hesitation differ widely in their estimates of the time involved from the estimates of those defending against such allegations. One becomes highly sceptical of both. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Fri Apr 23 08:20:29 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:20:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45C.4(b) Correction of Inadvertent Designation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c42903$74fcecf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Mario Dix: > >>When, if ever, can any=A0"player", other than > >>Declarer, make such a change? Is this Law > >>worded this way because of designation when > >>a "claim" is made? > >> > >>If not, wouldn't it be=A0clearer to substitute > >>the word "Declarer" for "player"? >=20 > Sven Pran: >=20 > >A defender may state: "Here comes the Ace of > >spades", and then (immediately) change his > >statement to "sorry, I mean the Ace of > >Clubs". > > > >I don't think this has anything to do with > >claims.=20 > Richard James Hills: >=20 > I partially disagree with Sven. I would rule > that one or both of those aces was a major > penalty card. Both aces, if neither ace was > a legal play to the trick. (Assuming that the > defender actually holds both aces in their > hand, rather than merely initially misreading > their Ace of Clubs as their non-existent Ace > of Spades.) >=20 > I note that Law 45A defines proper procedure > for the play of cards by a non-dummy player. > Therefore, in my opinion, any defender who > verbally designates a card may be subject to a > PP pursuant to Law 90. >=20 > I note that Law 45C4(a) mentions consequences > after a player "names or otherwise designates" > a card. However, in my opinion, Law 45C4(a) > does not over-ride the proper procedure laid > down by Law 45A, it merely specifies what a TD > should properly do after a defender verbally > designates a card (or after a declarer > verbally designates a card from their own > closed hand). And when I add that of course Law 49 is also applicable if the retracted designation in fact names a card in that defender's hand (... when a defender names a card as being in his hand ...) I believe RJH will agree that we are on the same track? But I would hardly ever use PP as suggested by RJH in a case like this. The original question was whether defender may change an inadvertent designation or if this option is only available to declarer.=20 Regards Sven From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Apr 23 08:38:01 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:38:01 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <000e01c428fe$12fcfb30$2803e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <001a01c42905$e83f3bd0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk > Sent: Friday, 23 April 2004 6:41 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "Let people hold on to these: > Manifest plainness, > Embrace simplicity, > Reduce selfishness, > Have few desires." [Lao Tzu] > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:25 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches > > > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > > [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > To: > > > Cc: > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 12:36 AM > > > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches > > > > Brown Stickers are a red herring. Brown stickers do not > > regulate "general knowledge" they "regulate partnership > > agreements". My argument is based on the premise : > > > > "without having a concealed partnership understanding " > > > > Wayne > > > +=+ And mine on the fact that if this 4D bid is passed it > will be deemed evidence of an understanding. If a player makes such a call no director or other authority has any right to rule that this is evidence of a non-existent partnership agreement. To argue that it is is nonsense. Noone has the right to deem something that is not and in so doing impose restrictions or penalties upon an innocent party. > Such > understanding is concealed if not disclosed. The law plainly places the boundary for disclosure at "his general bridge knowledge". It is incontrovertible that the law states that if a player makes a call based on "his general bridge knowledge or experience" and not based on his "partnership agreement or experience" then no disclosure is required. I for one will not feel obligated to disclose information to the opponents that I have deduced from my general bridge knowledge. As a competitor against my opponents it is not my responsibility to give them bridge lessons. > But the > world is tired of this discussion; carry on- solo - if you > wish. ~ G ~ +=+ You state something obviously false and the best that you can do is to threaten to go away. Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Apr 22 11:40:48 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:40:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 45C.4(b) Correction of Inadvertent Designation Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816966@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C42856.465419C3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable When partially sighted or blind people play it is common to name the = card being played as you play it (this isn't quite a designation but = comes pretty close). I would hope to apply this rule if I said "2 of = clubs" just before I play the Ace from hand. Unfortunately there is = then potential UI, but that's another matter. =20 If both my hands were out of commission I would think I could be given = permission to have a helper hold the cards for me, in which case I would = designate the card I wished to play at each trick. =20 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 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. -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of = Mario Dix Sent: 22 April 2004 09:56 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Law 45C.4(b) Correction of Inadvertent Designation When, if ever, can any "player", other than Declarer, make such a = change? Is this Law worded this way because of designation when a = "claim" is made? If not, wouldn't it be clearer to substitute the word "Declarer" for = "player"? =20 Mario Dix =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C42856.465419C3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
When=20 partially sighted or blind people play it is common to name the card = being=20 played as you play it (this isn't quite a designation but comes pretty=20 close).  I would hope to apply this rule if I said "2 of = clubs" just=20 before I play the Ace from hand.   Unfortunately there is then = potential UI, but that's another matter.
 
If both my=20 hands were out of commission I would think I could be = given permission=20 to have a helper hold the cards for me, in which case I would designate = the card=20 I wished to play at each trick.
 
Frances Hinden
Strategic Planning
Shell = International Ltd.
Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK

Tel: +44 = (0) 20=20 7934 2529 Fax: 6982 Mobile: +44 (0) 7899 065392
Email: =
Frances.Hinden@shell.com
Internet:http://www.shell.com/

This email may contain confidential and/or privileged = information=20 which should not be used, copied or disclosed without permission. If you = are not=20 an intended recipient, please contact the sender = immediately.
-----Original Message-----
From: = blml-admin@rtflb.org=20 [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of Mario = Dix
Sent: 22=20 April 2004 09:56
To: blml@rtflb.org
Subject: = [blml] Law=20 45C.4(b) Correction of Inadvertent Designation

When, if ever, can=20 any "player", other than Declarer, make such a change? Is this = Law worded=20 this way because of designation when a "claim" is = made?
If = not, wouldn't=20 it be clearer to substitute the word "Declarer" for=20 "player"?
 
Mario=20 Dix
 
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C42856.465419C3-- From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Apr 22 11:53:04 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:53:04 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Several penalty cards - L51 Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECA9@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C42857.FCF9A818 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 Chas Fellows wrote: =20 Yesterday at the Club ... =20 South is declarer - contract irrelevant; West faces the opening lead of = SA. Now East, in a senior moment, thinking that he is dummy, starts to = spread his hand and exposes HJ, 7 and CA before realising his error; the = TD rules that these cards are major penalty cards (L50). SA wins first trick, all following and now TD offers declarer the = options of L50D, L51B2. Declarer chooses to forbid a club lead (but not a heart lead), CA is = picked up but HJ, 7 remain as penalty cards (L51B2(b)). Now West leads a heart... =20 It is surely intended that declarer may now designate that East plays = either the HJ or H7 to this trick as specified in L51A. =20 However L51B2(b) concludes "...and makes any legal play to this trick". =20 It can be argued that playing a heart from hand at trick 2 is not a = legal play for East, since L51A provides otherwise, but this is hardly = satisfactory. Unless it is really intended that by forbidding a lead in one suit, = declarer should forfeit his L51A rights in respect of another suit, it = would appear this part of L51 is just wrong. Do we agree? ------ No, we don't. Since the only legal play when you have a penalty card = which can be played, is the penalty card, L50D1. If more than one = penalty card can legally be played, declarer designates which is to be = played, L50D1, L51A. Playing a card from hand is illegal. =20 Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran Oslo, Norway ----- =20 =20 =20 Chas Fellows, Surrey, England ------_=_NextPart_001_01C42857.FCF9A818 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

Chas Fellows = wrote:

 

Yesterday at = the Club …

 

South is = declarer - contract irrelevant; West faces the opening lead of = SA.

Now East, in a = senior moment, thinking that he is dummy, starts to spread his hand and exposes = HJ, 7 and CA before realising his error; the TD rules that these cards are = major penalty cards (L50).

SA wins first = trick, all following and now TD offers declarer the options of L50D, = L51B2.

Declarer = chooses to forbid a club lead (but not a heart lead), CA is picked up but HJ, 7 = remain as penalty cards (L51B2(b)).

Now West leads = a heart…

 

It is surely = intended that declarer may now designate that East plays either the HJ or H7 to = this trick as specified in L51A.

 

However = L51B2(b) concludes “…and makes any legal play to this = trick”.

 

It can be = argued that playing a heart from hand at trick 2 is not a legal play for East, since = L51A provides otherwise, but this is hardly satisfactory.

Unless it is = really intended that by forbidding a lead in one suit, declarer should forfeit = his L51A rights in respect of another suit, it would appear this part of L51 = is just wrong.   Do we agree?

------

No, we = don’t. Since the only legal play when you have a penalty card which can be played, is = the penalty card, L50D1. If more than one penalty card can legally be = played, declarer designates which is to be played, L50D1, L51A. Playing a card = from hand is illegal.

 

Regards,

Harald = Skjæran

Oslo, = Norway

-----

 

 

 

Chas = Fellows,

Surrey, England

=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C42857.FCF9A818-- From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Apr 22 13:05:30 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:05:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] 53 cards References: <000f01c426ed$27bd7990$98aea5d5@Mario> Message-ID: <00c101c42862$1ee66c20$78f8f0c3@LNV> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C42872.DEC4F8D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageGiven the fact that at the other table South did not support the = 1H overcall I do not consider it a strange decision had the TD decided = that the extra heart in South could have influenced his decision to bid = 2 hearts. Which then is reason enough to cancel the board.=20 The TD seems to have made a mistake anyway, since L 13 tells us that = continuing play only can be done with the concurrence of all four = players, which following your information was not asked. So the result = can not stand in my opinion.=20 ton=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mario Dix=20 To: blml@rtflb.org=20 Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 5:35 PM Subject: [blml] 53 cards This topic has already been discussed on another chat line by David = Stevenson and other blmlers, but not all the correct info was given. At = a recent event in Malta, South had 14 cards with each other player = having 13. South, who regularly doesn't always count the cards in hand, = never noticed and the 14th card, which was only observed when South's = hand was displayed on the table as Dummy! There was an extra small heart = in South's hand which had mistakenly been picked up from the preceding = board. Teams E/W Vul=20 Dealer E AT AQT642 T8 A63 K962 QJ84 J3 98 AKJ9 Q763 J95 QT4 753 K75(3) 542 K 872 E S W N p p 1D 1H X 2H 2S 4H all pass Opening lead D6 Immediately Dummy's hand went down, but opening Diamond lead had now = been faced, the TD was summoned. He told players to get on with next = board and returned having sorted out the mess, and told them to now play = the hand as previously bid (after a bidding review) with the same lead. = Dummy now held only 3 hearts, K75 not K753. The contract was duly made, = N/S +420, and TD's decison was Result stands and a severe warning to = South to count cards in future etc. However, in the other room, South failed to support Hearts and the = game was missed. N/S +140 FWIW, i agree with TD's decision on the basis that I believe that most = NV Souths would have bid 2H, to assist with the lead in likely event of = becoming defender. Thus the subsequent auction and play are unaffected. Therefore E/W = should not be the beneficary of their poor defence. Surely West should = switch to a S at trick 3 given East's neg dble showin a likely 4 spades? = Thus contract should now surely go one off. However, in the other room, = South failed to support Hearts and the game was missed? I would like = comments on the decision please. Also, as a point of interest, is East = actually now permitted to change the lead? Mario Dix ------=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C42872.DEC4F8D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Given the fact that at the other table = South did=20 not support the 1H overcall I do not consider it a strange decision had = the TD=20 decided that the extra heart in South could have influenced his = decision to=20 bid 2 hearts. Which then is reason enough to cancel the board. =
The TD seems to have made a mistake = anyway, since L=20 13 tells us that continuing play only can be done with the concurrence = of all=20 four players, which following your information was not asked. So the = result can=20 not stand in my opinion.
 
ton
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Mario Dix=20
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 = 5:35=20 PM
Subject: [blml] 53 cards

This = topic=20 has already been discussed on another chat line by David = Stevenson and=20 other blmlers, but not all the correct info was given. At a recent = event in=20 Malta, South had 14 cards with each other player having 13. = South, who=20 regularly doesn't always count the cards in hand, never noticed and = the 14th=20 card, which was only observed when South's hand was displayed on = the=20 table as Dummy! There was an extra small heart in South's hand which = had=20 mistakenly been picked up from the preceding = board.
 
Teams E/W=20 Vul 
Dealer=20 = E            =            =   AT
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =  =20 AQT642
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =   T8
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =   A63
K962          =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;    =20 QJ84
J3          &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;          98
AKJ9          =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;    =20 Q763
J95          &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;        QT4
=
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =    753
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =    K75(3)
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =    542
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =   =20 K 872
 
E    = S   =20 W    N
p    = p   =20 1D    1H
X   =20 2H  2S    4H
all = pass
Opening lead=20 D6
 
Immediately=20 Dummy's hand went down, but opening Diamond lead had now been faced, = the TD=20 was summoned. He told players to get on with next board and = returned=20 having sorted out the mess, and told them to now play the hand as = previously=20 bid (after a bidding review) with the same lead. Dummy now held only 3 = hearts,=20 K75 not K753. The contract was duly made, N/S +420, and TD's decison = was=20 Result stands and a severe warning to South to count cards in future=20 etc.
However, in the=20 other room, South failed to support Hearts and the game was = missed. N/S=20 +140
 
FWIW, i agree with=20 TD's decision on the basis that I believe that most NV Souths would = have bid=20 2H, to assist with the lead in likely event of becoming=20 defender.
Thus = the=20 subsequent auction and play are unaffected. Therefore E/W should = not be=20 the beneficary of their poor defence. Surely West should switch to a S = at=20 trick 3 given East's neg dble showin a likely 4 spades? Thus=20 contract should now surely go one off. However, in the other = room, South=20 failed to support Hearts and the game was missed? I would like = comments=20 on the decision please. Also, as a point of interest, = is East=20 actually now permitted to change the lead?
 
Mario=20 Dix
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C42872.DEC4F8D0-- From nsousa@fc.up.pt Thu Apr 22 16:53:39 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:53:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: The Monty Hall Trap Message-ID: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA9364352@MAIL.fc.up.pt> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C42881.FAA56F8C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, here's my catch on the famous "Monty hall problem" Didn't have = time to read the whole discussion, so forgive me if I'm being redundant. The simplest statement of the problem is: There are three doors (named = 1, 2 and 3) and the prize lies, say in door 3. You choose one of the = doors and Monty opens another door which he knows has no prize. Then he = asks you if you want to change your choice. The question is should you = change or not? The answer is YES. Here's a practical explanation why that is so: You pick door 1. Monty opens door 2. You change: WIN. You don't: LOSE You pick door 2. Monty opens door 1. You change: WIN. You don't: LOSE You pick door 3. Monty opens door 1 or 2. You change: LOSE. You don't: = WIN Changing means you win in 2/3 of the cases, not changing means you win = in 1/3 only. Now let's take an extreme example: 100 doors. Prize is behind door = number 100. You pick door 1. Monty opens doors 2 through 98. Change: WIN. No change: = LOSE You pick door 2. Monty opens door 1 and doors 3-98. Change: WIN. No: = LOSE You pick door 3. Monty opens doors 1-2 and 4-98. Change: WIN. No: LOSE etc... You pick door 100. Monty opens doors 1-98. Change: LOSE. No: WIN Changing means you win in 99% of the cases, not changing means you win = only in 1% only. Therefore, changing is the correct play. By changing, = you will only lose if you happened to have chosen the right door in the = first place! Strange as it might seem, when you change, you are = effectively betting IN ALL DOORS, except the one you chose first. If Monty proposes a deal of type "Do you want to cash out for 40 Euros = or change doors?", it's a different story. Now have to evaluate the = so-called 'mathematical gain expectancy', which is the probability of = winning times the prize, minus the probability of losing times the loss. = The gain expectancy should be positive for the correct decision. For 3 = doors (and prize =3D 100, offer =3D 40), the variables are PW =3D prob of winning: 66% VW =3D value of win: 100 Euros PL =3D prob of losing: 100% (remember, if you accept Monty's offer, = you're not playing anymore, so you automatically lose!) VL =3D value of loss: 40 (what you stand to lose if you reject Monty's = offer) Gain expectancy by rejecting Monty's offer =3D PW * VW - PL * VL =3D 66 = - 40 =3D +26. This is a positve number, so rejecting the offer and changing doors is = the correct decision. Another way to put it, is to think one stands to = gain 66 on the change, so, unless Monty offers you more than that, you = should simply reject the offer and change doors! Regards, Nuno Sousa ------_=_NextPart_001_01C42881.FAA56F8C Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IigPAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEgAEAGAAAAFJFOiBUaGUgTW9udHkgSGFs bCBUcmFwAKEHAQWAAwAOAAAA1AcEABYAEAA1ACcABABlAQEggAMADgAAANQHBAAWABAANQAnAAQA ZQEBCYABACEAAAA1ODgxQUMzM0FFQzA1MzRFQjhEREYyMjM4OEYyQjc4OABKBwEDkAYA1AwAADcA AAADACYAAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AIxvpfqBKMQBHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUkU6IAAAAAACAUcAAQAA ACoAAABjPXVzO2E9IDtwPUZDVVA7bD1NQUlMLTA0MDQyMjE1NTMzOVotMzI5MQAAAB4ASQABAAAA IwAAAGJsbWwgZGlnZXN0LCBWb2wgMSAjMTUxNyAtIDExIG1zZ3MAAEAATgAAPjhNdijEAR4AWgAB AAAAFQAAAGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIub3JnAAAAAAIBWwABAAAARwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1u AN0BD1QCAAAAAGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIub3JnAFNNVFAAYmxtbC1hZG1pbkBydGZsYi5vcmcA AAIBXAABAAAAGgAAAFNNVFA6QkxNTC1BRE1JTkBSVEZMQi5PUkcAAAAeAF0AAQAAABcAAABibG1s LXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAACAV4AAQAAAEsAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDdAQ9UAgAAAABi bG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAFNNVFAAYmxtbC1yZXF1ZXN0QHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAAgFfAAEA AAAcAAAAU01UUDpCTE1MLVJFUVVFU1RAUlRGTEIuT1JHAB4AZgABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgBn AAEAAAAVAAAAYmxtbC1hZG1pbkBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAAAHgBoAAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAGkA AQAAABcAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAAeAHAAAQAAACMAAABibG1sIGRpZ2VzdCwg Vm9sIDEgIzE1MTcgLSAxMSBtc2dzAAACAXEAAQAAABsAAAABxCh2i4fQ5fjiANZFBrsQy6G6pXEW AAK/HZgAHgB0AAEAAAAPAAAAYmxtbEBydGZsYi5vcmcAAB4AGgwBAAAAHQAAAE51bm8gTWlndWVs IE1hcnF1ZXMgZGUgU291c2EAAAAAHgAdDgEAAAAUAAAAVGhlIE1vbnR5IEhhbGwgVHJhcAACAQkQ AQAAAEEGAAA9BgAAsAsAAExaRnWQEllgAwAKAHJjcGcxMjXiMgNDdGV4BUEBAwH3/wqAAqQD5AcT AoAP8wBQBFY/CFUHshElDlEDAQIAY2jhCsBzZXQyBgAGwxEl9jMERhO3MBIsETMI7wn3tjsYHw4w NREiDGBjAFAzCwkBZDM2FlALpiBIhGkgB0BsLCBoBJAEZScEIG15IGNhSnQT0CACICB0HXAglGZh BGB1BCAiTQIhZx3wE+AdMCBwA2ACYGUAbSIgRGlkbidrBUAT4HYewHQHcR6Qb5IgGCBhZB6Td2gG 8PUewGQEAGMfIACQAiAdUMZzIcACEHJnaSExIYEBBpAgSSdtIGJlhQuAZyHRZHVuZABw3HQuCqIK hAqAVB6xAJD+bQtQB5AFQCdAHiAgYAnwPQVAbySAHqIgFSRgczr+ICahGCAdEClxHqAJ0SLAZm8F sAQgKG4e8AmAIJ4xHVAUQABwIhAzKStTqShEaXoewGwIkHMjcR5hHfALgCozK5AuIFn3CGAeACKA bxQQHmEukSgkZypEK2IfZG9wCfAvom9/HqEFwC2DInAN4B5QHrFr/TDQdwQgE+AEIDDQLEQt4K8m oQOgHrEykGsEIHkuEfskcTQydyWhIaIT0SUQHsCfNDEFwC5BDeAzNCBxClCfJ0AjQSjxI4AigHVs IhBvNDI1ZQWxMNE/Je4AcXejEoE3cVlFUy3gSB2E/mEgAQDQIWAeEAMgDsALUX8qsDcjInAd8B6g HiA3Y29WOiXqLgJwDeBrLXQxdy3gMAotgzIt5jWCKSBXPElOLeQqQCDRKSBMT/xTRT5vQLQ/3z+h QR9CL/dDPy3CRI8xOLJA7UeCRrv7RoEl6kM1ciUCB4AGIjSj4y1RLVEyLzMoBh4QFBBfLOEw0TVU Td8tQjFPMm70bHkl204yQCygFCAdse0BkGs6EjxBdBggIYEOwOce8CcRKSAxMBZQKkMt4H5QLGM3 cSTgMaArcS2Dbv51BtASgVWhJds+z0k+BCCXFEAp4QhgZx5QOTgt4P9Ng0ZWU3BK+1i/RC9J5iti +SpEMy1b71NwXY9If1p7dDEtK0Q0YT9iTRQgY/4uaCBi31nCWCFkP2VCZgofS4RiUkyfUK9OtTk5 Jf9PX1BvTnZSYlHjbzFScik0/SPBZR1QcHc3cW+DBbAYIO874CAAC2BywUId8XCFHVB/TnQf4XHj F7AugTR1E+Bw/zBxKuEhsSETLkEUEB6EBRDfW7AFQC2DLVEeo2kUAHUDvTZgIQYAVLA1gzKRaQVA /m15wxQQIGAdUCJwM4E4GP92NCmiARF04SQBcgEk4AJAJyUCRpAQwExMIJBPT/xSUx1QDsA2YAUx HqIusu84FC5yetMl20kkgB9kIBG+cC5xO3IBADwhKBJ5MHC9H0BEIcA0qzKQHlF1BUD3I8Fl0BZQ RQhwLnA4sjVl+SpDPyIdUHxQO2Mi0H7h/xggJ+EnQAWwcsFTciEUIcB0ZXYHQHUnkR6TI5At/zwR IFAiECSwHiAdcI0BPAMeZwtxPEJ04QBwY3kn/30iMbJ0NSASAaADEHxQMEH/JIBOsQMAJREhYo9m LHEdUP98gFegj28oAncxkPx3MVYh/yaijd03liTgIACT4X8ihzPfdGoFgQQAI0Et4EYtoio2+yti LFQ9VZIdUCgQieGasf2HgCkdUB6ii5AHISBBL6HzGCAl6lBXmrEgEpB5KSDoNjYlJeRWneKLki7T /06xVYSHs511gGCeCJPUVYP9bzAoVMJXwokhNIQA0IET7x9jHbGbM3YzJylxcDJ1Iv8lAgBwBsBz UyORflOHEANx8zvzdwUhKZ9lofKgF5Ti+ykgh4EoInA9cTQyJ3Er4vchwHc6GCBqdOKlG6llJeT6 R5WdYh3wrTQlAqUbmrHpndEqIJ/BLVZAgGCyQR+h8p8wsoGHgZrAKzI2/yXdN3E3cTuRlzIhMVek I3P/sHiBY5tDK2JwdypEdD2YuP5BMNU04D0xMtGHEXxQiSH/U/EhwB6gC4BZgC6yq+O8Q/+N07NR HnV91iOQHVAlcCch/wQgMAWJ0jQUp2I9Qh6CHiC/djQ3pSbjsFa3X4hoISXq/FJljdALICzgUxUl cCHAKlMfEWEl5H3H8AAAAB4ANRABAAAANwAAADw2QzYwRTAyOTQzMzdFODRFQkU1QjE5ODc0NzI3 N0ZBOTM2NDM1MkBNQUlMLmZjLnVwLnB0PgAAHgBHEAEAAAAPAAAAbWVzc2FnZS9yZmM4MjIAAAsA 8hABAAAAHwDzEAEAAAA8AAAAUgBFACUAMwBBACAAVABoAGUAIABNAG8AbgB0AHkAIABIAGEAbABs ACAAVAByAGEAcAAuAEUATQBMAAAACwD2EAAAAABAAAcwKWD0h4EoxAFAAAgw5dGn+oEoxAEDAN4/ r28AAAMA8T8JBAAAHgD4PwEAAAAdAAAATnVubyBNaWd1ZWwgTWFycXVlcyBkZSBTb3VzYQAAAAAC Afk/AQAAAFoAAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEAAAAAAAAAL089RkNVUC9PVT1GSVJTVCBB RE1JTklTVFJBVElWRSBHUk9VUC9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPU5TT1VTQQAAAB4A+j8BAAAAFQAA AFN5c3RlbSBBZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yAAAAAAIB+z8BAAAAHgAAAAAAAADcp0DIwEIQGrS5CAArL+GC AQAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAwD9P+QEAAADABlAAAAAAAMAGkAAAAAAAwAdQAAAAAADAB5AAAAAAB4AMEAB AAAABwAAAE5TT1VTQQAAHgAxQAEAAAAHAAAATlNPVVNBAAAeADJAAQAAABUAAABibG1sLWFkbWlu QHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAAAAeADNAAQAAABcAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAAeADhAAQAA AAcAAABOU09VU0EAAB4AOUABAAAAAgAAAC4AAAALACkAAAAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAGEAF4Jc0DAAcQ 0wcAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABISUFMTCxIRVJFU01ZQ0FUQ0hPTlRIRUZB TU9VUyJNT05UWUhBTExQUk9CTEVNIkRJRE5USEFWRVRJTUVUT1JFQURUSEVXSE9MRURJU0NVU1NJ T04sU09GT1JHSVZFTUVJRklNAAAAAAIBfwABAAAANwAAADw2QzYwRTAyOTQzMzdFODRFQkU1QjE5 ODc0NzI3N0ZBOTM2NDM1MkBNQUlMLmZjLnVwLnB0PgAAQpk= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C42881.FAA56F8C-- From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Fri Apr 23 09:10:08 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:10:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: The Monty Hall Trap References: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA9364352@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: Taking the 40 or not ? This is psycholgy. Lots of people prefer 40 for sure rather than a 66% go at 100. Just add some 0's if 40 money units doesn't mean a lot to you. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa" To: Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 5:53 PM Subject: [blml] RE: The Monty Hall Trap Hi all, here's my catch on the famous "Monty hall problem" Didn't have time to read the whole discussion, so forgive me if I'm being redundant. The simplest statement of the problem is: There are three doors (named 1, 2 and 3) and the prize lies, say in door 3. You choose one of the doors and Monty opens another door which he knows has no prize. Then he asks you if you want to change your choice. The question is should you change or not? The answer is YES. Here's a practical explanation why that is so: You pick door 1. Monty opens door 2. You change: WIN. You don't: LOSE You pick door 2. Monty opens door 1. You change: WIN. You don't: LOSE You pick door 3. Monty opens door 1 or 2. You change: LOSE. You don't: WIN Changing means you win in 2/3 of the cases, not changing means you win in 1/3 only. Now let's take an extreme example: 100 doors. Prize is behind door number 100. You pick door 1. Monty opens doors 2 through 98. Change: WIN. No change: LOSE You pick door 2. Monty opens door 1 and doors 3-98. Change: WIN. No: LOSE You pick door 3. Monty opens doors 1-2 and 4-98. Change: WIN. No: LOSE etc... You pick door 100. Monty opens doors 1-98. Change: LOSE. No: WIN Changing means you win in 99% of the cases, not changing means you win only in 1% only. Therefore, changing is the correct play. By changing, you will only lose if you happened to have chosen the right door in the first place! Strange as it might seem, when you change, you are effectively betting IN ALL DOORS, except the one you chose first. If Monty proposes a deal of type "Do you want to cash out for 40 Euros or change doors?", it's a different story. Now have to evaluate the so-called 'mathematical gain expectancy', which is the probability of winning times the prize, minus the probability of losing times the loss. The gain expectancy should be positive for the correct decision. For 3 doors (and prize = 100, offer = 40), the variables are PW = prob of winning: 66% VW = value of win: 100 Euros PL = prob of losing: 100% (remember, if you accept Monty's offer, you're not playing anymore, so you automatically lose!) VL = value of loss: 40 (what you stand to lose if you reject Monty's offer) Gain expectancy by rejecting Monty's offer = PW * VW - PL * VL = 66 - 40 = +26. This is a positve number, so rejecting the offer and changing doors is the correct decision. Another way to put it, is to think one stands to gain 66 on the change, so, unless Monty offers you more than that, you should simply reject the offer and change doors! Regards, Nuno Sousa From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Apr 23 09:25:07 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:25:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap References: <000f01c428b9$ae7aca00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000201c42913$e4193070$eeebf1c3@LNV> Sven: > It is never too late to admit an error! This is a statement without any kind of proof (your words in the monty context concerning all kinds of proof), with which I don't agree. ton From jens@alesia.dk Fri Apr 23 10:04:38 2004 From: jens@alesia.dk (Jens Brix Christiansen) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:04:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: At Friday, 23 April 2004, David Stevenson wrote: >Jens Brix Christiansen wrote >>I don't make any call. I direct South's attention to the >>inconsistency with the convention card. It is likely that we will be >>needing the director soon. By not calling, I ensure that my partner >>will be given a chance to reconsider his bid if it turns out that >>South had misinformed him. > > In a case a number of years ago a female English international did=20 >just this - and the L&EC gave her a rough ride for creating the=20 problem.=20 >Their feeling was either shut up or call the TD. Well, what I had in mind was to ask South just to make sure that=20 I had not misunderstood the convention card. If South's response=20 to that were "No, what it says on the card does not apply under these=20 circumstances; sorry if the card is confusing here", we could just=20 get on with the auction. If South, on the other hand, were to answer=20 that there was indeed a problem here, the director would be called=20 immediately anyway, since SOUTH is now explicitly required to do=20 so according to Law 75D1, and even if South forgets to call the director=20 I will do so now that an irregularity has been unearthed. Now, what exactly would I have done here to deserve criticism from=20 the L&EC? Asking a supplementary question before calling the TD?=20 Drawing attention to what might be an irregularity? Not calling=20 the TD if it turns out after all that I myself had a temporary misunderst= anding=20 of the opponents' agreements which South sorted out for me? That reminds me. Does Law 11A apply here if I notice the problem=20 but do not draw attention to it? Does Law 11A apply here if I ask=20 the supplementary question before the TD is called? Or is Law 11A=20 irrelevant once again? From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Apr 23 12:23:53 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:23:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <001a01c42905$e83f3bd0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <004901c42925$9821d7a0$39bb87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 8:38 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches > > You state something obviously false and the best that you > can do is to threaten to go away. > > Wayne > +=+ My reporting of the WBF AC position is accurate. The EBU decision started this train running. I think they and not you are right but opinions change nothing, the position is established. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Apr 23 13:16:29 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:16:29 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] who are the opponents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040423081348.0279a830@pop.starpower.net> At 05:53 PM 4/22/04, Robert wrote: >I apologize for my comment about the absence (from the lawbok) of a >definition of "Opponent". The copy of the Laws I have by my computer >is one I bought to keep there, the second printing of November 1997. I >checked to see whether the errata noted for the first printing had >been corrected (by comparison with my other copy, from the first >printing.) I failed to find the errata sheet included in the second >printing copy, which corrected the omission. I also had downloaded an >electronic copy from the ACBL, and it too lacks the definitions of >"opening lead", "opponent", and "overtrick" Oddly, they do appear in the ACBL's first printing (May 1997). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@blakjak.com Fri Apr 23 13:26:43 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:26:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jens Brix Christiansen wrote >At Friday, 23 April 2004, David Stevenson wrote: > >>Jens Brix Christiansen wrote >>>I don't make any call. I direct South's attention to the >>>inconsistency with the convention card. It is likely that we will be >>>needing the director soon. By not calling, I ensure that my partner >>>will be given a chance to reconsider his bid if it turns out that >>>South had misinformed him. >> >> In a case a number of years ago a female English international did >>just this - and the L&EC gave her a rough ride for creating the >problem. >>Their feeling was either shut up or call the TD. > >Well, what I had in mind was to ask South just to make sure that >I had not misunderstood the convention card. If South's response >to that were "No, what it says on the card does not apply under these >circumstances; sorry if the card is confusing here", we could just >get on with the auction. If South, on the other hand, were to answer >that there was indeed a problem here, the director would be called >immediately anyway, since SOUTH is now explicitly required to do >so according to Law 75D1, and even if South forgets to call the director >I will do so now that an irregularity has been unearthed. I suppose it might be different if there could be any doubt on the CC. Also, if you are always going to call the TD if you discover that the CC is different, that is ok. But I think that if you ask why the CC is different, find that you were misinformed, and no-one calls the TD you have set yourself up for problems. Well, the EBU L&EC thought so, and I mildly agree with them. >Now, what exactly would I have done here to deserve criticism from >the L&EC? Asking a supplementary question before calling the TD? >Drawing attention to what might be an irregularity? Not calling >the TD if it turns out after all that I myself had a temporary >misunderstanding >of the opponents' agreements which South sorted out for me? The problem came from the confusion now as to what was AI and what was UI. -- 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 Apr 23 13:29:01 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:29:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] 53 cards In-Reply-To: <00c101c42862$1ee66c20$78f8f0c3@LNV> References: <000f01c426ed$27bd7990$98aea5d5@Mario> <00c101c42862$1ee66c20$78f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <13TSxfSNwQiAFwvF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ton Kooijman wrote >Given the fact that at the other table South did not support the 1H >overcall I do not consider it a strange decision had the TD decided >that the extra heart in South could have influenced his decision to bid >2 hearts. Which then is reason enough to cancel the board. >The TD seems to have made a mistake anyway, since L 13 tells us that >continuing play only can be done with the concurrence of all four >players, which following your information was not asked. So the result >can not stand in my opinion. This would only be true, surely, if L13 applied, which means that one of the pockets of the board contained other than 13 cards. If the TD decided that the pockets contained 13 cards each then L13 does not apply. -- 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 Apr 23 13:42:25 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:42:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: The Monty Hall Trap In-Reply-To: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA9364352@MAIL.fc.up.pt> References: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA9364352@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa wrote >Hi all, here's my catch on the famous "Monty hall problem" Didn't have >time to read the whole discussion, so forgive me if I'm being redundant. > >The simplest statement of the problem is: There are three doors (named >1, 2 and 3) and the prize lies, say in door 3. You choose one of the >doors and Monty opens another door which he knows has no prize. Then he >asks you if you want to change your choice. The question is should you >change or not? > >The answer is YES. Here's a practical explanation why that is so: > >You pick door 1. Monty opens door 2. You change: WIN. You don't: LOSE >You pick door 2. Monty opens door 1. You change: WIN. You don't: LOSE >You pick door 3. Monty opens door 1 or 2. You change: LOSE. You don't: WIN > >Changing means you win in 2/3 of the cases, not changing means you win >in 1/3 only. This seems err..... Why are these cases equi-probable? Prize is behind Door 1 You pick door 1. Monty opens door 2 or 3. You change: LOSE. You don't: WIN You pick door 2. Monty opens door 3. You change: WIN. You don't: LOSE You pick door 3. Monty opens door 2. You change: WIN. You don't: LOSE Prize is behind Door 2 You pick door 1. Monty opens door 3. You change: WIN. You don't: LOSE You pick door 2. Monty opens door 1 or 3. You change: LOSE. You don't: WIN You pick door 3. Monty opens door 1. You change: WIN. You don't: LOSE Prize is behind Door 3 You pick door 1. Monty opens door 2. You change: WIN. You don't: LOSE You pick door 2. Monty opens door 1. You change: WIN. You don't: LOSE You pick door 3. Monty opens door 1 or 2. You change: LOSE. You don't: WIN Now these cases seem equi-probable to me. One in three times it is behind each door: one in nine times you get a combination of which door and which one to pick. Take no notice of which door Monty picks. If you ignore which door Monty says and which your choice was but always change then you win on six out of nine cases. I switch! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Apr 23 14:13:02 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:13:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <000e01c428fe$12fcfb30$2803e150@multivisionoem> References: <00cc01c428b8$bec324d0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040423083914.02794ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:41 AM 4/23/04, gesta wrote: > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > > Brown Stickers are a red herring. Brown stickers do not > > regulate "general knowledge" they "regulate partnership > > agreements". My argument is based on the premise : > > > > "without having a concealed partnership understanding " > > >+=+ And mine on the fact that if this 4D bid is passed it >will be deemed evidence of an understanding. Such >understanding is concealed if not disclosed. But the >world is tired of this discussion; carry on- solo - if you >wish. I have no problem with the statement that passing 4D will be deemed to be evidence of a CPU. But the policy Grattan defends states that passing 4D will be deemed to be *conclusive* evidence of a CPU. That is a very different kettle of fish. Wayne's premise just recognizes the possibility that there may be such "evidence" of a CPU even when no CPU exists, from which the implicit conclusion is that the TD/AC has a duty under the Law, even when there is such evidence, to consider whatever evidence may be offered to the contrary before determining that there is a CPU. Imagine that I have passed 4D in the thread case on the first board of an event, and am now before an AC. I get the partnership chair to testify that our partnership was arranged at five minutes to game time, and that it was clear that we were strangers. I get my opponents to testify that we arrived at the table at four and a half minutes to game time and started discussing our bidding methods, that they heard the entire exchange, and that nothing remotely relevant to the auction at the table was discussed. Do we consider it acceptable for the AC to conclude that we had a CPU, as Grattan would require them to do? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 23 14:39:03 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:39:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <95B4116C-952B-11D8-BE3D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Apr 23, 2004, at 02:51 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Fortunately in bridge we are often interested in > the perceived truth rather than the 'real' truth (a [pauze is often > good > enough who cares about the #secs). "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." Law 75D1 "It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner." Law 75E One man's "pauze" [sic] is another's attempt to call in tempo. What you say above is tantamount to "if it hesitates, shoot it". I had thought that here, at least, that nonsense was dead. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 23 14:47:53 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:47:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: <002001c42902$b3da0620$186f893e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On Friday, Apr 23, 2004, at 03:13 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > +=+ However the experience largely in bridge is > that players who allege an opponent's hesitation > differ widely in their estimates of the time involved > from the estimates of those defending against such > allegations. One becomes highly sceptical of both. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Indeed. However, I get the impression that Jaap's position, at least, is that if a break in tempo is alleged, it must have occurred. I don't buy that. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Apr 23 14:47:09 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:47:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] RE: The Monty Hall Trap In-Reply-To: References: <6C60E0294337E84EBE5B198747277FA9364352@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040423092632.02fb2450@pop.starpower.net> At 04:10 AM 4/23/04, Jaap wrote: >Taking the 40 or not ? > >This is psycholgy. Lots of people prefer 40 for sure rather than a 66% >go at >100. Just add some 0's if 40 money units doesn't mean a lot to you. Way off topic, but I can't pass up the rare opportunity to support Jaap on something. In the U.S. there is a TV quiz show called "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" I have seen the following position occur three or four times on this show: A contestant has won $64,000 so far, and is confronted with the "$125,000 question" (multiple choice with four answers). He [obligatory "or she" understood] can take his $64,000 and go home, or choose an answer, giving him $125,000 and the right to continue if he is right, leaving with $32,000 if he is wrong. He hasn't a clue as to the answer -- the question might as well be in Navajo -- but he does have (i.e. has not previously exercised) his "50-50 lifeline", which will result in two wrong choices being stricken from the board, leaving two choices remaining. He can exercise the 50-50 lifeline and flip a coin to select an answer. If he does this, the show will be putting up $61,000 (plus the expected additional value from being allowed to continue playing for a lot more money) against his $32,000 on a straight even-odds coin-flip. It would be obviously irrational to refuse such a bet. But $32,000 is an awful lot of money. Every contestant I have seen in this position has chosen to take the $64,000 and go home. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 23 14:57:49 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:57:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040423083914.02794ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3502A0E2-952E-11D8-BE3D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Apr 23, 2004, at 09:13 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > Imagine that I have passed 4D in the thread case on the first board of > an event, and am now before an AC. I get the partnership chair to > testify that our partnership was arranged at five minutes to game > time, and that it was clear that we were strangers. I get my > opponents to testify that we arrived at the table at four and a half > minutes to game time and started discussing our bidding methods, that > they heard the entire exchange, and that nothing remotely relevant to > the auction at the table was discussed. Do we consider it acceptable > for the AC to conclude that we had a CPU, as Grattan would require > them to do? "First the sentence, then the trial. Off with his head!" From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 23 15:01:09 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:01:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] RE: The Monty Hall Trap In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040423092632.02fb2450@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Friday, Apr 23, 2004, at 09:47 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > He can exercise the 50-50 lifeline and flip a coin to select an > answer. If he does this, the show will be putting up $61,000 (plus > the expected additional value from being allowed to continue playing > for a lot more money) against his $32,000 on a straight even-odds > coin-flip. It would be obviously irrational to refuse such a bet. > > But $32,000 is an awful lot of money. > > Every contestant I have seen in this position has chosen to take the > $64,000 and go home. You mean the 32K, I trust. :-) "Certainly the game is rigged. But so what? If you don't bet, you *can't* win." -- Robert A. Heinlein From john@asimere.com Fri Apr 23 15:37:47 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:37:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: <002001c42902$b3da0620$186f893e@4nrw70j> References: <002001c42902$b3da0620$186f893e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: In article <002001c42902$b3da0620$186f893e@4nrw70j>, grandeval writes > >Grattan Endicott[alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >============================== >My former email addresses other than >the above are now all discontinued. >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jaap van der Neut" >To: "Ed Reppert" ; >"blml" >Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 7:51 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Double ploy > > >> > Define "this". If you mean that *no one's* time >> > sense is accurate, then you're wrong - and I >> > doubt any scientist worth his salt would make >> > that claim. >> >+=+ However the experience largely in bridge is >that players who allege an opponent's hesitation >differ widely in their estimates of the time involved >from the estimates of those defending against such >allegations. One becomes highly sceptical of both. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ When ruling I have no interest in how long the pause was - a break in tempo is what I seek. "Did you have a think over such-and-such a call" is my usual question. Most players answer this one truthfully enough IMO. Once this is established then in all but casual partnerships there is evidence of UI. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Apr 23 16:29:54 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:29:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Who Wants To Be A Millionaire bet [WAS The Monty Hall Trap] In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040423092632.02fb2450@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040423111249.02073e40@pop.starpower.net> At 10:01 AM 4/23/04, Ed wrote: >On Friday, Apr 23, 2004, at 09:47 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > >>He can exercise the 50-50 lifeline and flip a coin to select an >>answer. If he does this, the show will be putting up $61,000 (plus >>the expected additional value from being allowed to continue playing >>for a lot more money) against his $32,000 on a straight even-odds >>coin-flip. It would be obviously irrational to refuse such a bet. >> >>But $32,000 is an awful lot of money. >> >>Every contestant I have seen in this position has chosen to take the >>$64,000 and go home. > >You mean the 32K, I trust. :-) Actually, if he turns down the bet he does leave with $64K in total, but $32K of it is already "vested", and he will win at least that no matter what happens. That's why I find the psychology of the situation interesting. I would be hard-pressed myself to take the rational bet if I had to risk $32K from my own savings. But the $32K I would be putting up is money that a few minutes previously belonged to the house, and if I take the bet and lose, I still leave the show with $32K more than I had yesterday. For me, that would alter the psychology of the situation dramatically, and I would surely take the bet. But it doesn't work that way for the folks I've seen on the show. Apologies to those who understandably feel that the Bridge Laws Mailing List should stick to bridge. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam@irvine.com Fri Apr 23 16:39:24 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:39:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] RE: The Monty Hall Trap In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:01:09 EDT." Message-ID: <200404231539.IAA20385@mailhub.irvine.com> > On Friday, Apr 23, 2004, at 09:47 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > > > He can exercise the 50-50 lifeline and flip a coin to select an > > answer. If he does this, the show will be putting up $61,000 (plus > > the expected additional value from being allowed to continue playing > > for a lot more money) against his $32,000 on a straight even-odds > > coin-flip. It would be obviously irrational to refuse such a bet. > > > > But $32,000 is an awful lot of money. > > > > Every contestant I have seen in this position has chosen to take the > > $64,000 and go home. > > You mean the 32K, I trust. :-) No, he means the $64K. To summarize the situation: the contestant has won $64K, and has the choice of either walking away, keeping his $64K, or attempting to answer a question, which would result in winning $125K (with a chance to continue playing) if he answers correctly or leave with $32K if he's wrong. (At least that's the way it was a few years ago before they ran the show into the ground by broadcasting it too much. I think some of the numbers were changed in the most recent prime-time incarnation, but I don't recall exactly how.) I think what Eric is getting at is that the value of money to a person is not necessarily proportional to the numerical amount. For example, if given a choice between a sure 5 million USD, and a game where I have a 1 in 5 chance to win 50 million USD, I'd take the 5 million and I would bet there is no one here who would do differently unless they already had a huge amount of money. I do not believe that, in some vague undefinable but nevertheless real sense, 50 million USD would be worth ten times as much as 5 million in my life. For one thing, if I gave up the sure 5 million I wouldn't *have* a life. My wife would kill me. But 5 million would be enough to accomplish the things that are really important to us---putting money aside for retirement and the kids' education, making the front lawn look decent, etc.; and whatever we would be able to get with the additional $45 million just wouldn't be as significant. I think economists call this "marginal value". -- Adam From adam@irvine.com Fri Apr 23 16:53:18 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:53:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:33:29 PDT." <200404222133.OAA09276@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200404231553.IAA21060@mailhub.irvine.com> I wrote: > I gave an example of this earlier. Suppose you have a million coins, > and one of them is biased (comes up heads 70% of the time), and the > others are unbiased. You pick a coin at random. At that point, the > probability that you have picked the biased coin is 1 in 1 million, > same as the probability that you've picked any one of the other coins. > You now flip the coin 100 times and it comes up heads 70 times. Now, > based on this, the probability that you have picked the biased coin is > much higher than 1/1000000; if I remember correctly, from when I > calculated this many years ago, the probability that you picked the > biased coin is almost 1---that is, almost a certainty. Gordon Bower pointed out to me that this is incorrect. The probability that you have picked the biased coin goes up from 0.0000001 to about 0.0037, but of course this is still not certainty. However, under the same scenario, if you flip the coin 100 times and it comes up heads 80 times, the chance that you've picked the biased coin goes up to about 0.9471; and if it comes up heads 90 times, it becomes virtually certain (0.999988) that you picked the biased coin. Sorry for the error; I was trying to remember the results of previous calculations I had made several years ago, but I guess I should have redone them. -- Adam From adam@irvine.com Fri Apr 23 17:32:56 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:32:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Who Wants To Be A Millionaire bet [WAS The Monty Hall Trap] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:29:54 EDT." <5.2.0.9.0.20040423111249.02073e40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200404231632.JAA22588@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > Actually, if he turns down the bet he does leave with $64K in total, > but $32K of it is already "vested", and he will win at least that no > matter what happens. That's why I find the psychology of the situation > interesting. I would be hard-pressed myself to take the rational bet > if I had to risk $32K from my own savings. But the $32K I would be > putting up is money that a few minutes previously belonged to the > house, and if I take the bet and lose, I still leave the show with $32K > more than I had yesterday. For me, that would alter the psychology of > the situation dramatically, and I would surely take the bet. But it > doesn't work that way for the folks I've seen on the show. I think you make a subtle error by your use of the word "rational"---which implies that someone who does not act strictly according to the mathematical computations is somehow "irrational". Likewise, referring to the "psychology" of the situation carries, to me, the implication that this is somehow a bug in the programming of our brains. But to me, it can be completely rational to settle for $64,000 instead of taking a chance that, mathematically, has an expected value of greater than $64K---because the object of this "game" is not simply to maximize the expected amount of money. Money itself doesn't have much intrinsic value. It's not very good for wrapping fish; and while you could weave a bunch of bills together and make a rather interesting piece of art, it really wouldn't be all that attractive to most of us. The only value of money comes from what you can buy with it---and it's perfectly sensible to assert that you can get more with the first $64K than with the second $64K (or any other amount). You can junk your Saturn and buy a very nice car for the first $64K. You can buy a second very nice car with the second $64K, but (if you're single) this second car is not going to be worth nearly as much as the first one, since you can really only drive one car at a time. Plus it will just take up space in your garage. Perhaps any one person will be able to get as much value for the second $64K as the first one, but eventually you reach a point where what you could buy just doesn't have as much significance. Perhaps, for some people, the second $32K is much less significant than the first, so that once you are assured of winning the first $32K, it makes more sense to risk the second $32K to try for the extra $61K. But this judgment really depends on what any individual person's life is like and what their current financial standing is. It's not going to be the same for everyone. All right, enough ranting for one day. But I hope I've succeeded in making the point that the mathematically correct course of action (in terms of maximizing the expected amount of money won) is not necessarily "THE RATIONAL" one. Occasionally, the same sort of reasoning crops up in bridge---toward the end of a KO match, for example. On the last board, for example, it may be wrong to ask the question "What strategy will maximize my IMP expectation for this board", since only the IMPs you gain that are enough to win the match are relevant, and (carryovers aside) any additional IMPs have no value whatsoever. -- Adam From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Apr 23 19:01:48 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:01:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Who Wants To Be A Millionaire bet [WAS The Monty Hall Trap] In-Reply-To: <200404231632.JAA22588@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040423132629.020747a0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:32 PM 4/23/04, Adam wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > Actually, if he turns down the bet he does leave with $64K in total, > > but $32K of it is already "vested", and he will win at least that no > > matter what happens. That's why I find the psychology of the > situation > > interesting. I would be hard-pressed myself to take the rational bet > > if I had to risk $32K from my own savings. But the $32K I would be > > putting up is money that a few minutes previously belonged to the > > house, and if I take the bet and lose, I still leave the show with > $32K > > more than I had yesterday. For me, that would alter the psychology of > > the situation dramatically, and I would surely take the bet. But it > > doesn't work that way for the folks I've seen on the show. > >I think you make a subtle error by your use of the word >"rational"---which implies that someone who does not act strictly >according to the mathematical computations is somehow "irrational". >Likewise, referring to the "psychology" of the situation carries, to >me, the implication that this is somehow a bug in the programming of >our brains. But to me, it can be completely rational to settle for >$64,000 instead of taking a chance that, mathematically, has an >expected value of greater than $64K---because the object of this >"game" is not simply to maximize the expected amount of money. Money >itself doesn't have much intrinsic value. It's not very good for >wrapping fish; and while you could weave a bunch of bills together and >make a rather interesting piece of art, it really wouldn't be all that >attractive to most of us. The only value of money comes from what you >can buy with it---and it's perfectly sensible to assert that you can >get more with the first $64K than with the second $64K (or any other >amount). You can junk your Saturn and buy a very nice car for the >first $64K. You can buy a second very nice car with the second $64K, >but (if you're single) this second car is not going to be worth nearly >as much as the first one, since you can really only drive one car at a >time. Plus it will just take up space in your garage. Perhaps any >one person will be able to get as much value for the second $64K as >the first one, but eventually you reach a point where what you could >buy just doesn't have as much significance. Perhaps, for some people, >the second $32K is much less significant than the first, so that once >you are assured of winning the first $32K, it makes more sense to risk >the second $32K to try for the extra $61K. But this judgment really >depends on what any individual person's life is like and what their >current financial standing is. It's not going to be the same for >everyone. > >All right, enough ranting for one day. But I hope I've succeeded in >making the point that the mathematically correct course of action (in >terms of maximizing the expected amount of money won) is not >necessarily "THE RATIONAL" one. Point taken, viz. that something can be "irrational" in the sense the term is used in probability/betting theory while at the same time being entirely "rational" in the sense the term is used in utility theory, which is where the "psychology" comes in, the utility of both the original and the prospective additional winnings being entirely subjective. (Can an "irrational" action on an ordinary hand be "rational" when an extraordinary result is demonstrably needed to win, or place in, the event? Does this require a judgment as to how much the player "wants to win"?) Another way off-topic example from my own utility curve: In video poker (an electronic gambling game found in every American casino), there are two conflicting basic strategies. One maximizes the expected value of the player's return in the long run, but the other minimizes the n-sigma likelihood of losing more than any given amount over any given number of deals (by producing a lot more ties). They are *very* different. Betting theory calls for playing the former, but I will play the latter every time. In fact, over hundreds of casino visits, I have managed to hold on to substantially more of my money that way. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From xui@hotmail.com Fri Apr 23 19:56:59 2004 From: xui@hotmail.com (xui@hotmail.com) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:56:59 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Hello: Message-ID:

------------------------------------------------------------
remove please email: emailad1234@sina.com
------------------------------------------------------------

Email Marketing !

We offer you e-mail addresses databases for advertisement mailing; we sell databases also carry out mailing and hosting for the advertising projects.

Products

World Email Lists . Their validity and originality are verified. Details and order Click Here to web site

Country or area total emails

America                          175 Million Email Address
Europe                           156 Million Email Address
Asia                             168 Million Email Address
China(PRC)                       80 Million Email Address
HongKong                         3.25 Million Email Address
TaiWan                           2.25 Million Email Address
Japan                            27 Million Email Address
Australia                        6 Million Email Address
Canda                            10 Million Email Address
Russia                           38 Million Email Address
England                          3.2 Million Email Address
German                           20 Million Email Address
France                           38 Million Email Address
India                            12 Million Email Address
CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICAN AREA    40 Million Email Address
MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA             45 million Email Address
SOUTH EAST AREA                  32 million Email Address

other Country or Area ¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Category Name total emails

Apparel, Fashion, Textiles and Leather     4,654,565 $150
Automobile & Transportation                6,547,845
Business Services                          6,366,344
Chemicals                                  3,445,565
Computer & Telecommunications              654,655
Construction & Real Estate                 3,443,544
Consumer Electronics                       1,333,443
Energy, Minerals & Metals                  6,765,683
Environment                                656,533
Food & Agriculture                         1,235,354
Gems & Jewellery                           565,438
Health & Beauty                            804,654
Home Supplies                              323,232
Industrial Supplies                        415,668
Office Supplies                            1,559,892
Packaging & Paper                          5,675,648
Printing & Publishing                      6,563,445
Security & Protection                      5,653,494
Sports & Entertainment                     3,488,455
Toys, Gifts and Handicrafts                2,135,654

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¡¤All 136 nations , 40 trades email lists
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Send Your Ad to Millions
5 million bulk email
50 million bulk email
100 million bulk email
200 million bulk email

Imagine emailing 500,000 recipients and 1 out of every 1000 orders your product, that's 500 new orders!
* We go all-out to make sure our customers are completely satisfied
* If any emails fail to make delivery, we replace them free of charge
* 100% Spam free, rest assured you will not be accused of spamming
* Almost all of our emails are sent to valid email addresses
* No software required, we do all the mailing from our own server
* Don't be fooled in signing up with similar sites offering services that cannot compare to ours
* Get the most bang for your buck with bulk email advantage!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Details and order Click Here to web site

Thank you!

the silver star internet information company

copyright¡¤2004-2005 all reserved


------------------------------------------------------------
remove please email: emailad1234@sina.com
------------------------------------------------------------

From metkrgengwsnsr@hotmail.com Fri Apr 23 21:07:10 2004 From: metkrgengwsnsr@hotmail.com (Kelli Sanders) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:07:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fwd: check this out Message-ID: <20040423190901.B7CF32C19B@rhubarb.custard.org> She wondered if it felt lonesome in the night, and had the blues; or what could ail it! The poor little girl wanted somebody to speak to in these long, long hours.


No more announcements






The doctor was hopeful, very hopeful; but. ” And so temptation gathers them in--those poor little girls who turn their heads to listen. From jens@alesia.dk Fri Apr 23 21:07:46 2004 From: jens@alesia.dk (Jens Brix Christiansen) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:07:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <408993B2.2309.A0D1FB@localhost> David Stevenson wrote (23 Apr 2004): > I suppose it might be different if there could be any doubt on the > CC. > Also, if you are always going to call the TD if you discover that the > CC is different, that is ok. > > But I think that if you ask why the CC is different, find that you > were misinformed, and no-one calls the TD you have set yourself up for > problems. Well, the EBU L&EC thought so, and I mildly agree with > them. I mildly agree too, but I would like to stress that South has an explicit obligation to call the TD in this situation, whereas I as West have only the general obligation, so for that reason I would feel stepped on if South did not get the lion's share of such a reprimand. I wrote: > >Now, what exactly would I have done here to deserve criticism from > >the L&EC? Asking a supplementary question before calling the TD? > >Drawing attention to what might be an irregularity? Not calling the > >TD if it turns out after all that I myself had a temporary > >misunderstanding of the opponents' agreements which South sorted out > >for me? > > The problem came from the confusion now as to what was AI and what > was > UI. Well, yes, that is indeed a problem, and from the point of view of BLML it is probably the interesting part of the problem. But to chastise the NO for drawing attention to an irregularity because of the problems of interpretation of the laws that arise smacks of killing the messenger. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net Fri Apr 23 23:12:27 2004 From: dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:12:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] RE: The Monty Hall Trap In-Reply-To: <20040423154002.16321.17498.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <000401c42980$10dd0750$6528fea9@Picasso> Eric Landau wrote: Subject: Re: [blml] RE: The Monty Hall Trap [description of game situation in which contestants can choose from either $64K, or $32K + 50% x 64K] Every contestant I have seen in this position has chosen to take the $64,000 and go home. -------------------- This is a manifestation of the nonlinear marginal utility of money, something economists study a lot because it bothers them. Some economic theories rest on a base of "rational" decision-making, where rationality includes as a premise that maximizing the expected value of one's wealth is rational. If people behave rationally, as so defined, a lot of calculations are simple. But of course people don't always behave as they're supposed to. One reason might be that people are systematically bad at estimating probabilities, but another, noted already in Adam Beneschan's response to this post, is that different dollars are worth different amounts. The first $64 thousand may be worth a lot more than next $64 thousand. On the other hand, maybe a small chance at a whole lot is worth more than its expected value would appear to be, perhaps because dreaming about winning millions is worth something. This second factor is probably at least as much responsible for the "irrational" sale of lottery tickets as is people's inability to understand how bad a deal they are. Relevance to blml matters (sort of): That people appear by their behavior to misestimate something does not necessarily mean that they are misestimating it. Even in the case of restricted choice in the classic finesse-or-drop scenario, other factors may be at play -- one silly sounding but not ridiculous example would be that "falling for" the false card of a queen from QJ would make declarer feel bad. It is tough to get into people's heads, and tougher when you make assumptions about what their motivations are. From HarrisR@missouri.edu Fri Apr 23 23:36:50 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:36:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap In-Reply-To: References: <200404221603.JAA27859@mailhub.irvine.com> <000401c42887$77ff90f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >Sven Pran wrote >>Adam Beneschan >>>Martin Gardner (former Scientific American columnist) has written that >>>Leibniz thought the probability of rolling a 12 with two dice was the >>>same as rolling 11, and one of the d'Alemberts believed that after you >>>toss a coin a whole bunch of times and get heads every time, a tail is >>>more likely next time. Two more great mathematicians tripped up by >>>probability. >>> >>> -- Adam >> >>Probability is sometimes a very curious matter. >> >>In the last case: If you throw a coin a whole bunch of times and get heads >>every time the probability of getting another head the next time actually >>increases! >> >>Why? Because the probability increases that the coin is biased! > David Stevenson wrote: > There used to be a saying for rubber bridge: > > There are two sorts of bridge players: those who get average >cards, and those who won't admit it. > > While true in a way - it is amazing how a player who has held two >20-counts in an evening can moan he has held poor cards all evening >- in fact I believe there are lucky and unlucky players. > > Your expectation in the future is to get average cards, >n'est-ce-pas? Ok, suppose in your life to date you have actually >averaged 10.3 HCP when you have played rubber bridge. You are then >a lucky player, not because you are guaranteed to do better than the >next player, but because your expectation over your whole life is >better than him [assuming his rubber bridge career to date has given >him less than a 10.3 average]. > > So in my view there are lucky card-holders, and unlucky ones, >based on their historical holding of cards. So last week I was happily looking at my balanced 22 HCP hand when RHO opened 1 NT (11-14 HCP). We were playing Capiletti, so double would show a penalty-oriented hand, 2 Nt would show minors. Well, I passed, fortunately. (I think it's in 5 Weeks to Winning Bridge that it's pointed out that too much strength in one hand makes it hard to defend.) We couldn't touch it. -90. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat Apr 24 02:35:52 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:35:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: <51C2DAC2-94B7-11D8-8591-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040423213047.01c7ce78@mail.comcast.net> At 07:46 PM 4/22/2004, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Thursday, Apr 22, 2004, at 17:02 US/Eastern, Robert E. Harris wrote: > >>Of course, the 11- 14 s was probably more like 7- 11 s. My students >>generally have had poor judgement of how long 10 s is, usually running >>toward 5-7 s actual as 10 s in their estimations. I rarely see anyone >>actually wait 10 s after a Stop card has been displayed. So, I have >>little confidence in people's estimates of the length of hesitations. > >About the only two people I know in whose time estimations I have >confidence are my own and those of a shipmate who I *know* could mark any >given period almost exactly, every time. I haven't seen him in years, and >most of the people I play against are certain my "hesitations" are at >least twice as long as they actually are. I can time hesitations well when I am trying to time them, using the Beatles method. When I get older, losing my hair, Many years from now, Will you still be sending me a valentine Birthday greetings, bottle of wine When RHO makes a skip bid, I bid on or about "valentine", which is ten seconds. From jens@alesia.dk Sat Apr 24 08:31:50 2004 From: jens@alesia.dk (Jens Brix Christiansen) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 09:31:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double ploy In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20040423213047.01c7ce78@mail.comcast.net> References: <51C2DAC2-94B7-11D8-8591-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <408A3406.4051.81323@localhost> David J. Grabiner wrote (23 Apr 2004): > I can time hesitations well when I am trying to time them, using the > Beatles method. > > When I get older, losing my hair, > Many years from now, > Will you still be sending me a valentine > Birthday greetings, bottle of wine > > When RHO makes a skip bid, I bid on or about "valentine", which is ten > seconds. Hey, that's the method I invented. It warms my heart to see it used on other continents! -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Sat Apr 24 10:36:50 2004 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:36:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double ploy References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040423213047.01c7ce78@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <002201c429df$ac0d11c0$a62484d9@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Grabiner" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 3:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Double ploy > At 07:46 PM 4/22/2004, Ed Reppert wrote: > > >On Thursday, Apr 22, 2004, at 17:02 US/Eastern, Robert E. Harris wrote: > > > >>Of course, the 11- 14 s was probably more like 7- 11 s. long as they actually are. > > I can time hesitations well when I am trying to time them, using the > Beatles method. > > When I get older, losing my hair, > Many years from now, > Will you still be sending me a valentine > Birthday greetings, bottle of wine > > When RHO makes a skip bid, I bid on or about "valentine", which is ten seconds. > > HI all Sorry but if you pass "on or about valentine" it's probably clear to everybody that you had nothing to think about,and you might have passed at once. All the best Israel > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Sat Apr 24 11:00:59 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:00:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double ploy References: <95B4116C-952B-11D8-BE3D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003001c429e3$0c6272b0$c35a4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Ed: > One man's "pauze" [sic] is another's attempt to call in tempo. What you > say above is tantamount to "if it hesitates, shoot it". I had thought > that here, at least, that nonsense was dead. Funny you read this into my words. I am one of the most vocal critcs of this school. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Double ploy > > On Friday, Apr 23, 2004, at 02:51 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Fortunately in bridge we are often interested in > > the perceived truth rather than the 'real' truth (a [pauze is often > > good > > enough who cares about the #secs). > > "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain > steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be > particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the > benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or > manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a > violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may > appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." > Law 75D1 > > "It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the > opponents by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner." > Law 75E > > One man's "pauze" [sic] is another's attempt to call in tempo. What you > say above is tantamount to "if it hesitates, shoot it". I had thought > that here, at least, that nonsense was dead. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 24 21:51:41 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:51:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches References: <00cc01c428b8$bec324d0$0401010a@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20040423083914.02794ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004b01c42a3e$961e3ec0$f4ee403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > Imagine that I have passed 4D in the thread case on the first board of > an event, and am now before an AC. I get the partnership chair to > testify that our partnership was arranged at five minutes to game time, > and that it was clear that we were strangers. I get my opponents to > testify that we arrived at the table at four and a half minutes to game > time and started discussing our bidding methods, that they heard the > entire exchange, and that nothing remotely relevant to the auction at > the table was discussed. Do we consider it acceptable for the AC to > conclude that we had a CPU, as Grattan would require them to do? > +=+ We would have no argument with that. The Director will, of course, enquire as to the extent of the acquaintance of the partners - whether the one has a reputation for psyching known to the other, whether they play in the same club etc. And of course, having established this understanding they cannot rely on the defence again. Entrants in WBF tournaments agree their methods beforehand so the defence has no application for them - although I have substituted with under five minutes to look at an unfamiliar CC - circumstances in which even my impish delight would be unlikely to extend to anything like a real psyche. And my partners would fear to pass the 4D lest we miss something. But I would not bid the 4D either - not until someone doubled the Spade contract. ~ G ~ +=+ From vden@hotmail.com Sun Apr 25 15:30:53 2004 From: vden@hotmail.com (vden@hotmail.com) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 22:30:53 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Hello: Message-ID:

------------------------------------------------------------
remove please email: emailad1234@sina.com
------------------------------------------------------------

Email Marketing !

We offer you e-mail addresses databases for advertisement mailing; we sell databases also carry out mailing and hosting for the advertising projects.

Products

World Email Lists . Their validity and originality are verified. Details and order Click Here to web site

Country or area total emails

America                          175 Million Email Address
Europe                           156 Million Email Address
Asia                             168 Million Email Address
China(PRC)                       80 Million Email Address
HongKong                         3.25 Million Email Address
TaiWan                           2.25 Million Email Address
Japan                            27 Million Email Address
Australia                        6 Million Email Address
Canda                            10 Million Email Address
Russia                           38 Million Email Address
England                          3.2 Million Email Address
German                           20 Million Email Address
France                           38 Million Email Address
India                            12 Million Email Address
CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICAN AREA    40 Million Email Address
MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA             45 million Email Address
SOUTH EAST AREA                  32 million Email Address

other Country or Area ¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Category Name total emails

Apparel, Fashion, Textiles and Leather     4,654,565 $150
Automobile & Transportation                6,547,845
Business Services                          6,366,344
Chemicals                                  3,445,565
Computer & Telecommunications              654,655
Construction & Real Estate                 3,443,544
Consumer Electronics                       1,333,443
Energy, Minerals & Metals                  6,765,683
Environment                                656,533
Food & Agriculture                         1,235,354
Gems & Jewellery                           565,438
Health & Beauty                            804,654
Home Supplies                              323,232
Industrial Supplies                        415,668
Office Supplies                            1,559,892
Packaging & Paper                          5,675,648
Printing & Publishing                      6,563,445
Security & Protection                      5,653,494
Sports & Entertainment                     3,488,455
Toys, Gifts and Handicrafts                2,135,654

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¡¤All 136 nations , 40 trades email lists
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Send Your Ad to Millions
5 million bulk email
50 million bulk email
100 million bulk email
200 million bulk email

Imagine emailing 500,000 recipients and 1 out of every 1000 orders your product, that's 500 new orders!
* We go all-out to make sure our customers are completely satisfied
* If any emails fail to make delivery, we replace them free of charge
* 100% Spam free, rest assured you will not be accused of spamming
* Almost all of our emails are sent to valid email addresses
* No software required, we do all the mailing from our own server
* Don't be fooled in signing up with similar sites offering services that cannot compare to ours
* Get the most bang for your buck with bulk email advantage!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Details and order Click Here to web site

Thank you!

the silver star internet information company

copyright¡¤2004-2005 all reserved


------------------------------------------------------------
remove please email: emailad1234@sina.com
------------------------------------------------------------

From itafjf@msn.com Sun Apr 25 23:21:09 2004 From: itafjf@msn.com (Colby Bowden) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 19:21:09 -0300 Subject: [blml] Fwd: did I send this to you? Message-ID: <20040425212045.3E4A82C250@rhubarb.custard.org> The day was beautiful.


No more announcements





She grew quiet and patient-"painfully patient," her father said. It would be a pity indeed to fall asleep, and lose the pleasure of saying "Merry Christmas" to everybody. From blml@blakjak.com Sun Apr 25 23:44:23 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 23:44:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: <408993B2.2309.A0D1FB@localhost> References: <408993B2.2309.A0D1FB@localhost> Message-ID: Jens Brix Christiansen wrote >David Stevenson wrote (23 Apr 2004): > >> I suppose it might be different if there could be any doubt on the >> CC. >> Also, if you are always going to call the TD if you discover that the >> CC is different, that is ok. >> >> But I think that if you ask why the CC is different, find that you >> were misinformed, and no-one calls the TD you have set yourself up for >> problems. Well, the EBU L&EC thought so, and I mildly agree with >> them. > >I mildly agree too, but I would like to stress that South has an >explicit obligation to call the TD in this situation, whereas I as >West have only the general obligation, so for that reason I would >feel stepped on if South did not get the lion's share of such a >reprimand. > >I wrote: >> >Now, what exactly would I have done here to deserve criticism from >> >the L&EC? Asking a supplementary question before calling the TD? >> >Drawing attention to what might be an irregularity? Not calling the >> >TD if it turns out after all that I myself had a temporary >> >misunderstanding of the opponents' agreements which South sorted out >> >for me? >> >> The problem came from the confusion now as to what was AI and what >> was >> UI. > >Well, yes, that is indeed a problem, and from the point of view of >BLML it is probably the interesting part of the problem. But to >chastise the NO for drawing attention to an irregularity because of >the problems of interpretation of the laws that arise smacks of >killing the messenger. Let us presume there is no problem of interpretation. Ok, I know that is impossible on BLML, but let's try for argument's sake. Now the problem is that information gleaned from opponents is AI, so when an opponent says "Your card says differently: it says ...." is it not now AI that that is what the card says? While I normally agree with shooting the messenger in the case of a player saying that the card says different to me it smacks of naiveté. I exclude the case where the CC is ambiguous. ---------- Playing this weekend I overcalled 2C over 1NT, partner alerted, and LHO asked. Partner, an honest soul, suggested a look at the CC would be best [two CCs, both computer printed, one in front of each opponent]. LHO looked, RHO said "What does it say?", LHO said "Hearts and another suit" and partner, a newish EBU TD thought to himself "That's AI!" -- 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 Apr 26 12:43:58 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:43:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] what is the name of this line of play? Message-ID: <408CF5FE.6070509@hdw.be> Not exactly laws-related, not even a ruling. But this contract caused some hilarity in out club on friday. North and South overbid these hands: AQ8x AKxxx xx xx JTxxx xx Axxx Qx 1He - 1Sp - 3Sp - 4Sp South reasoned thus: with three losers in the minors, the SK must be well-placed, and the hearts must behave. Might as well start on hearts then. So after taking the diamond lead straight away, he cashed the top hearts and ruffed a heart with the jack. West discarded. Knowing that this man would certainly overruff (king in front of AQ) if he could, South now cashed the SA, felling the King in East. Another heart ruffed high and a finesse on the now marked S9, and the contract was made. Is there a name for this manoeuvre? (just to complete the story, I went down in 2Sp on the same deal) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Apr 26 13:07:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <000e01c428fe$12fcfb30$2803e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ And mine on the fact that if this 4D bid is passed it > will be deemed evidence of an understanding. I hope you mean *potential* evidence of an understanding. The auction itself may form the starting point for an investigation/judgement but should never be an excuse for dispensing with investigation altogether. > Such understanding is concealed if not disclosed. Concealed/disclosed does not seem, from application of law, to be a binary situation. We do not penalise every failure to alert as a CPU. Personally I have encountered plenty of alert failures/misexplanations without feeling a need to rule the unalerted/misexplained call itself as "illegal". I would also point that some information (such as that which would normally be revealed in response to questions) is neither disclosed nor concealed. This may not be relevant to the specific case. Tim From blml@blakjak.com Mon Apr 26 13:49:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:49:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] what is the name of this line of play? In-Reply-To: <408CF5FE.6070509@hdw.be> References: <408CF5FE.6070509@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Not exactly laws-related, not even a ruling. > >But this contract caused some hilarity in out club on friday. > >North and South overbid these hands: > > AQ8x > AKxxx > xx > xx > > JTxxx > xx > Axxx > Qx > >1He - 1Sp - 3Sp - 4Sp > >South reasoned thus: with three losers in the minors, the SK must be >well-placed, and the hearts must behave. Might as well start on hearts >then. So after taking the diamond lead straight away, he cashed the top >hearts and ruffed a heart with the jack. West discarded. >Knowing that this man would certainly overruff (king in front of AQ) if >he could, South now cashed the SA, felling the King in East. Another >heart ruffed high and a finesse on the now marked S9, and the contract >was made. > >Is there a name for this manoeuvre? The golden b******s play. -- 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 Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Apr 26 14:01:35 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:01:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Who Wants To Be A Millionaire bet [WAS The Monty Hall Trap] Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816980@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> At 10:01 AM 4/23/04, Ed wrote: >On Friday, Apr 23, 2004, at 09:47 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > >>He can exercise the 50-50 lifeline and flip a coin to select an=20 >>answer. If he does this, the show will be putting up $61,000 (plus=20 >>the expected additional value from being allowed to continue playing=20 >>for a lot more money) against his $32,000 on a straight even-odds=20 >>coin-flip. It would be obviously irrational to refuse such a bet. >> >>But $32,000 is an awful lot of money. >> >>Every contestant I have seen in this position has chosen to take the=20 >>$64,000 and go home. > >You mean the 32K, I trust. :-) Actually, if he turns down the bet he does leave with $64K in total,=20 but $32K of it is already "vested", and he will win at least that no=20 matter what happens. That's why I find the psychology of the situation=20 interesting. I would be hard-pressed myself to take the rational bet=20 if I had to risk $32K from my own savings. But the $32K I would be=20 putting up is money that a few minutes previously belonged to the=20 house, and if I take the bet and lose, I still leave the show with $32K=20 more than I had yesterday. For me, that would alter the psychology of=20 the situation dramatically, and I would surely take the bet. But it=20 doesn't work that way for the folks I've seen on the show. Apologies to those who understandably feel that the Bridge Laws Mailing=20 List should stick to bridge. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20 [Frances] The 2 people I recall who've won the =A31m in the English version have = both been very well off to start with - sufficiently such that they are happy to guess for positive expectation. I've seen people take the money on =A316,000 when they could have a = 50/50 shot to reach the next "lock in" on =A332,000 and the potentiatl for more. = They are usually people for whom =A316,000 would be a life-changing amount = but =A31k wouldn't.=20 From massa4q@netscape.net Mon Apr 26 17:21:24 2004 From: massa4q@netscape.net (massa4q@netscape.net) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:21:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Assist me and my family Message-ID: <20040426162124.34BFB2C137@rhubarb.custard.org> FROM:MR.SESAY MASSAQUOE DEAR FRIEND, THROUGH THE COURTESY OF BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY, I TAKE LIBERTY ANCHORED ON A STRONG DESIRE TO SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE ON THIS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL AND RISKFREE TRANSACTION WHICH I HOPE YOU WILL GIVE YOUR URGENT ATTENTION. I AM MR.SESAY MASSAQUOE I AM MOVED TO WRITE YOU THIS LETTER ,THIS WAS IN CONFIDENCE CONSIDERING OUR PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE AND SITUATION. I ESCAPED WITH MY WIFE AND CHILDREN OUT OF SIERRA LEONE TO GHANA WHERE WE ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING ON TEMPORARY POLITICAL ASYLUM. HOWEVER DUE TO THIS SITUATION I DECIDED TO CHANGE MOST OF MY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS DEPOSITED IN SWISS BANK AND OTHER COUNTRIES INTO OTHER FORMS OF MONEY CODED FOR SAFE PURPOSE BECAUSE THE NEW HEAD OF STATES AHMED TIJJAN KABBA MADE ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE SWISS GOVERNMENT AND OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO FREEZE ALL MY TREASURES DEPOSITED IN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRIES,HENCE I AND MY WIFE ALONG WITH MY CHILDREN, DECIDED LAYING LOW IN AFRICA TO STUDY THE SITUATION TILL WHEN THINGS GETS BETTER,SINCE PRESIDENT TIJJAN KABBA TAKING OVER GOVERNMENT AGAIN IN SIERRA LEONE ONE OF MY CHATEAUX IN SOUTHERN FRANCE WAS CONFISCATED BY THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT,AND AS SUCH WE HAD TO CHANGE OUR IDENTITY SO THAT OUR INVESTMENT WILL NOT BE TRACED AND CONFISCATED. I HAVE DEPOSITED THE SUM OF THIRTY MILLION,FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS(US$30,500,000)WITH A SECURITY COMPANY FOR SAFEKEEPING. THE FUNDS ARE SECURITY CODED TO PREVENT THEM FROM KNOWING THE ACTUAL CONTENTS. WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO NOW IS TO INDICATE YOUR INTEREST THAT YOU WILL ASSIST ME AND MY IMMEDIATE FAMILY BY RECEIVING THE MONEY ON OUR BEHALF. THE ACCOUNT REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT CAN EITHER BE PERSONAL,COMPANY OR AN OFFSHORE ACCOUNT THAT YOU HAVE TOTAL CONTROL OVER,YOUR AREA OF SPECIALISATION WILL NOT BE A HINDERANCE TO THE SUCCESSFUL EXECUTION OF THIS TRANSACTION. ACKOWLEDGE THIS MESSAGE,SO THAT I CAN INTRODUCE YOU TO MY FAMILY AS OUR FOREIGN TRUSTED PARTNER WHO SHALL TAKE CHARGE OF OUR INVESTMENT ABROAD WHERE WE NOW PLAN TO SETTLE. I WANT YOU TO ASSIST US IN INVESTING THIS MONEY,BUT I WILL NOT WANT OUR IDENTITY REVEALED.I WILL ALSO WANT TO BUY PROPERTIES AND STOCKS IN MULTI-NATIONAL COMPANIES AND TO ENGAGE IN OTHER SAFE AND NON SPECULATIVE INVESTMENTS. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH A LOT OF HEALTH AND SPIRITUAL TURMOIL,HENCE WILL NEED YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND ASSISTANCE. MAY I AT THIS POINT EMPHASIZE THE HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENTIALLITY WHICH THIS BUSINESS DEMANDS AND HOPE YOU WILL NOT BETRAY THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE WHICH WE REPOSE IN YOU.I SHALL PUT YOU IN THE PICTURE OF THIS BUSINESS,I.E TELL YOU WHERE THE FUNDS ARE CURRENTLY BEING MAINTAINED AND ALSO DISCUSS OTHER MODALITIES INCLUDING REMUNERATION FOR YOUR SERVICES. I SHALL INFORM YOU WITH THE NEXT LINE OF ACTION AS SOON AS I RECEIVE YOUR POSITIVE RESPONSE. IS THIS PROPOSITION ATTAINABLE?IF IT IS,PLEASE KINDLY FURNISH ME IMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL WITH YOUR DIRECT TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS TO ENHANCE THE CONFIDENTIALLITY WHICH THIS BUSINESS DEMANDS. BEST REGARDS MR.SESAY MASSAQUOE. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Apr 26 19:47:25 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 06:47:25 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <000e01c428fe$12fcfb30$2803e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <005001c42bbe$eaf4aa20$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk > Sent: Friday, 23 April 2004 6:41 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches > > > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "Let people hold on to these: > Manifest plainness, > Embrace simplicity, > Reduce selfishness, > Have few desires." [Lao Tzu] > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:25 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches > > > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > > [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > To: > > > Cc: > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 12:36 AM > > > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyches > > > > Brown Stickers are a red herring. Brown stickers do not > > regulate "general knowledge" they "regulate partnership > > agreements". My argument is based on the premise : > > > > "without having a concealed partnership understanding " > > > > Wayne > > > +=+ And mine on the fact that if this 4D bid is passed it > will be deemed evidence of an understanding. Such > understanding is concealed if not disclosed. But the > world is tired of this discussion; carry on- solo - if you > wish. ~ G ~ +=+ And what of the players that know that 4D is not based on a psyche because they have a special partnership understanding that they will NEVER psyche. How do we deal with them? I have never had any player disclose this special understanding to me. The laws make it plain that they are not allowed to bid 2S and then 4D based on the undisclosed understanding that they will never psyche. Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Apr 25 03:31:45 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:31:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [big snip] >It is incontrovertible that the law states >that if a player makes a call based on "his >general bridge knowledge or experience" and >not based on his "partnership agreement or >experience" then no disclosure is required. [big snip] Richard James Hills: Not quite incontrovertible. In situations when "general bridge knowledge and experience" *overlaps* with "partnership agreement or experience", then..... (a) Marvin French argues that no disclosure is required, but (b) most of the rest of blml argues that full disclosure is required. 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 Apr 26 23:35:15 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 08:35:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >>And what of the players that know that 4D is >>not based on a psyche because they have a >>special partnership understanding that they >>will NEVER psyche. How do we deal with >>them? >> >>I have never had any player disclose this >>special understanding to me. The laws make >>it plain that they are not allowed to bid 2S >>and then 4D based on the undisclosed >>understanding that they will never psyche. Oscar Wilde: >I can resist everything except temptation. Richard James Hills: I cannot resist the temptation of Wayne being hoist with his own petard, as I meretriciously use "general bridge knowledge" as a Devil's Advocate. -> For those NZ bunnies who never psyche, it is "general bridge knowledge" in their carrot patch that psyches never happen. :-) 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 Mon Apr 26 23:49:00 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:49:00 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c42be0$ae6bb720$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Sunday, 25 April 2004 2:32 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Wayne Burrows: >=20 > [big snip] >=20 > >It is incontrovertible that the law states > >that if a player makes a call based on "his > >general bridge knowledge or experience" and > >not based on his "partnership agreement or > >experience" then no disclosure is required. >=20 > [big snip] >=20 > Richard James Hills: >=20 > Not quite incontrovertible. In situations > when "general bridge knowledge and > experience" *overlaps* with "partnership > agreement or experience", then..... >=20 > (a) Marvin French argues that no disclosure > is required, but >=20 > (b) most of the rest of blml argues that full > disclosure is required. "...but he need not..." sounds like this is the=20 exception to me. If this was not intended then the law could easily have been written more clearly. 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 Apr 27 01:55:33 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:55:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] what is the name of this line of play? Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >Knowing that this man would certainly >overruff (king in front of AQ) if he >could, South now cashed the SA, felling >the King in East. [snip] Richard James Hills: Nothing is certain. If Mr Grosvenor was West, the punch-line would be: "South now cashed the SA, but East had a void in trumps." A slightly more on-topic Grosvenor gambit occurred recently in a club game. An old NZ friend recently revisited his former South Canberra bridge club during a week's holiday, and we agreed to resume our Relay partnership. During a lengthy game-force relay auction, I bid 3C, and pard relayed with 3D. But, pard had Grosvenor gambited by calling 3D before my LHO had had the opportunity to pass. I was the playing TD that night, so I bent over backwards to explain the consequences of Law 31A1 and 31A2 to LHO. I pointed out that if LHO passed, there would be no penalty, but if LHO bid or doubled, then I would be barred from the auction. In addition, I actively ethically added some Law 75A information -> since we were in a game-force auction, LHO bidding or doubling would contain a certain amount of risk. LHO noted that he was not vulnerable, noted further that he had a six-card heart suit, so barred me with a 3H interpose. Unlucky. Pard's Grosvenor gambit of a relay out of rotation included AKQx of hearts, amongst other goodies, so pard had no objection to me being barred. Despite the Law 26 lead penalty, the non-vulnerable number still tallied to +1100 for Grosvenoring. Only the following day, after the correction period had expired, did I realise that I had myself made a Grosvenor error in my TD ruling -> I had forgotten to first give RHO the option of accepting the relay out of rotation. Still, even my LHO enjoyed my actively ethical attempt to avert his Grosvenor bottom with my Law 75A explanation, and has since dined out on this story with all his friends. 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 Apr 27 02:16:05 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:16:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >>>the law could easily have been written more clearly. The Taming of the Shrew: >>Seal up the mouth of outrage for a while, >>Till we can clear these ambiguities. Law 75C: [snip] >a player shall disclose all special information >conveyed to him through partnership agreement or >partnership experience, but he need not disclose >inferences drawn from his general knowledge and >experience. Richard James Hills: My (personal) interpretation of Law 75C's ambiguity, for what it's worth, is that the wording of Law 75C is consistent with an interpretation applying Aristotle's principle of the excluded middle. That is, my reading of the language is that Law 75C may be (personally) interpreted to define two *mutually exclusive* options: {a} _special_ information through partnership agreement, or {b} _general_ knowledge and experience and, by my (personal) interpretation, it is impossible for a call to occupy categories {a} and {b} simultaneously. Of course, my (personal) interpretation differs from an {a} and {b} overlap interpretation, that Edgar Kaplan wrote to Marvin French many years ago. But, also of course, the consensus interpretation of the WBF LC *now* may differ from the Kaplanesque interpretation *then*. As far as I am aware, the current WBF LC has not specifically addressed the interpretation of this particular Law 75C ambiguity. Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From blml@blakjak.com Tue Apr 27 03:30:03 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 03:30:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] IAF - new forum for appeals Message-ID: Do you have a difficulty with a Bridge appeals decision? If you want an opinion on a case, or how to arrange an Appeals Committee explained, or advice on any aspect of Appeals Committees, then ask in the International Appeals Forum [IAF] at http://blakjak.com/iacf.htm, a public discussion forum. It's new! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Apr 27 03:38:02 2004 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:38:02 +1200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c42c00$adcb4ae0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2004 1:16 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Wayne Burrows: >=20 > [snip] >=20 > >>>the law could easily have been written more clearly. >=20 > The Taming of the Shrew: >=20 > >>Seal up the mouth of outrage for a while, > >>Till we can clear these ambiguities. >=20 > Law 75C: >=20 > [snip] >=20 > >a player shall disclose all special information > >conveyed to him through partnership agreement or > >partnership experience, but he need not disclose > >inferences drawn from his general knowledge and > >experience. >=20 > Richard James Hills: >=20 > My (personal) interpretation of Law 75C's ambiguity, > for what it's worth, is that the wording of Law 75C > is consistent with an interpretation applying > Aristotle's principle of the excluded middle. >=20 > That is, my reading of the language is that Law 75C > may be (personally) interpreted to define two > *mutually exclusive* options: >=20 > {a} _special_ information through partnership > agreement, or >=20 > {b} _general_ knowledge and experience >=20 > and, by my (personal) interpretation, it is > impossible for a call to occupy categories {a} and > {b} simultaneously. >=20 > Of course, my (personal) interpretation differs from > an {a} and {b} overlap interpretation, that Edgar > Kaplan wrote to Marvin French many years ago. But, > also of course, the consensus interpretation of the > WBF LC *now* may differ from the Kaplanesque > interpretation *then*. As far as I am aware, the > current WBF LC has not specifically addressed the > interpretation of this particular Law 75C ambiguity. The problem with this interpretation is that it is far from clear when something jumps from one category into the other. For example when I played with one of my favourite partners for the first time we played 2-minute ACOL because he arrived at the playing venue within two minutes of the starting time. And we had only arranged to play during a momentary=20 encounter in the bar the previous night. During that session we were predominately playing on our respective 'General Bridge Knowledge'. However after we=20 had continued our partnership to many sessions we had more and more "Partnership Understandings". There is no clear point for many of our understandings when they ceased to be "General Bridge Knowledge" and became "Partnership Understandings". Of course there were some agreements that it was easy to determine when they became partnership understandings - we now play Symmetric Relay with many detailed pages of system notes. Wayne=20 >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James Hills > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments=20 > immediately. =A0This > email, including attachments, may contain confidential,=20 > legally privileged > and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which=20 > is prohibited. > Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, > except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states=20 > them to be > the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural=20 > and Indigenous > Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has=20 > obligations under the > Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 27 04:50:43 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:50:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap Message-ID: >>Swiss Teams Board no 25 Dealer North EW vulnerable >> >> J9 >> JT7 >> AKT3 >> AKT4 >>KQ5 T82 >>AKQ942 83 >>Q4 87652 >>97 652 >> A7643 >> 65 >> J9 >> QJ83 >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 1D Pass 1S >>Dbl(1) 1NT Pass 2NT >>Pass(2) 3NT Pass Pass >>Pass >> >>(1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs >>(2) Agreed hesitation >> >>Result: 3NT -2 by North, NS -100, lead 8 of hearts [big snip] >>Appeals Committee decision: Table score re-instated >>Deposit returned. We feel that the hesitation only implied >>that there was probably a long suit or better hand with >>West and gave no information that it was hearts rather >>than clubs. So we felt that the lead at the table was >>unaffected by the hesitation. Nigel Guthrie: >We've discussed a similar case before and I anticipate >a majority BLML view that the hesitation suggests a heart >rather than a club lead. West seems to have been thinking >of competing for the partscore, perhaps, even, with remote >prospects of game. That seems more likely to imply a long >major than a long minor. [snip] Richard James Hills: Right answer, wrong reason. Nigel Guthrie has again fallen for the fallacy that his personal bridge psychology is a universal bridge psychology. If one wants to assess logical alternatives by tendentious psychological arguments, one could equally well posit this: "With long strong hearts, West might overcall 4H. Since an overcall of 4C is not game, West's double demonstrably implies a long minor rather than a long major." Instead, back to the basic mathematics of the Monty Hall trap, to which Nigel has again been oblivious, despite an extensive warning hint. *If* West holds a long suit, and *if* the opponents' auction suggests that the opponents both have balancedish distributions, *then* West's long suit is more likely to be opposite East's doubleton heart, and West's long suit is less likely to be opposite East's tripleton club. Therefore, the hesitation demonstrably suggested a heart lead over a club lead. Quod erat demonstrandum. 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 Apr 27 05:20:52 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:20:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >I suppose in real life I would pass but as Richard >implies, if you can rely on a sensible TD/AC, you >should redouble, Richard James Hills: My ask of a question was not implying support for a particular answer. Nigel Guthrie: >secure in the knowledge that opponents will need an >unusual and excellent reason to pull. Richard James Hills: But, if everyone has their bid on this auction, then North does have an excellent reason to pull 2Cxx. Indeed, at the table North held a mere Q42 T97542 J9 T4 and North had no logical alternative to bidding 2S after West chose to redouble. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Anyway, even if two clubs redoubled is removed, you >can still try 3C, secure in the knowledge that both >opponents will be morally obliged to double that. Richard James Hills: Balderdash! There are no moral obligations in bridge, apart from personal self-imposed obligations. If doubling 3C is not a logical alternative for neither North nor South, then it is also not a so-called moral alternative. The complete actual deal is from the ACBL Long Beach Appeals booklet, case 19. At the table, East-West were given only MI by North-South, and eventually East-West mis-guessed to play in 3C undoubled, after having previously redoubled 2C in the death seat, so East-West achieved an embarassing score of +170. The actual AC split the score, by giving East-West their table score, but adjusting the result for the MI-giving North-South to 2Cx -580. The point of my question was to assess whether the AC had correctly assessed hypothetical logical alternatives. That is, I wondered if passing 2Cx was the only logical alternative for East-West, if they had been given accurate information that North-South had had a bidding misunderstanding. If so, then the score should have been adjusted to 580 in 2Cx for both sides. Since, however, a significant proportion of blml respondents still chose to redouble, it seems that the actual AC's split score was justified. 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 Apr 27 07:32:54 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:32:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) Message-ID: RJH: [snip] >>That is, my reading of the language is that Law 75C >>may be (personally) interpreted to define two >>*mutually exclusive* options: >> >>{a} _special_ information through partnership >> agreement, or >> >>{b} _general_ knowledge and experience >> >>and, by my (personal) interpretation, it is >>impossible for a call to occupy categories {a} and >>{b} simultaneously. [snip] Wayne: >The problem with this interpretation is that it is >far from clear when something jumps from one category >into the other. > >For example when I played with one of my favourite >partners for the first time we played 2-minute ACOL >because he arrived at the playing venue within two >minutes of the starting time. And we had only >arranged to play during a momentary encounter in the >bar the previous night. > >During that session we were predominantly playing on >our respective 'General Bridge Knowledge'. However >after we had continued our partnership [snip] RJH: I see zero theoretical or practical difficulties. At the start of your first session you were playing 2- minute Acol, so therefore during the session various undiscussed situations occurred. However, the outcomes of those previously undiscussed situations were consequent explicit or implicit partnership agreements. So, halfway through your first session, your partnership agreements progressed to 3-minute Acol. And, by the end of your first session, your partnership was now playing 4-minute Acol, with still fewer undiscussed holes in your system. I note that you refer to *respective* General Bridge Knowledge, which, in my opinion, implicitly concedes a point that I have been arguing -> that GBK is a very local concept, not a universal concept. What you define as *respective* GBKs in a first-time partnership, I would redefine as one of two possible *partnership* agreement/non-agreement statuses: (a) an undiscussed partnership non-agreement, or (b) an implicit partnership agreement, based upon local NZ norms of what 2-minute Acol implies. What's the problem? 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 jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Tue Apr 27 08:04:35 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:04:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap References: Message-ID: RJH: Right answer, wrong reason. Nigel Guthrie has again fallen for ............... Hmmm. I like to 'correct' this to Wrong answer, wrong reason, RJH has fallen for .................. RJH: Instead, back to the basic mathematics of the Monty Hall trap, to which Nigel has again been oblivious, despite an extensive warning hint. *If* West holds a long suit, and *if* the opponents' auction suggests that the opponents both have balancedish distributions, *then* West's long suit is more likely to be opposite East's doubleton heart, and West's long suit is less likely to be opposite East's tripleton club. Therefore, the hesitation demonstrably suggested a heart lead over a club lead. 1. I am not impressed by this kind of argument. It is true that IF partner has a long suit, it tends to be your shortest suit. But one card difference doesn't mean that much. Still you are right that if I try to hit partners Suit (capital intended) I will lead a heart rather than a club in this sequence. 2. I don't buy the argument that partner must have a onesuiter. He might have a good twosuited hand to comtemplate a second double (or even 3C bid). In this case his longer suit tends to be clubs (for well known technical reasons), in clubs I have more help anyway, so I might equally well argue that the pause suggest clubs over hearts. So I think the AC took a very acceptable decision. The guy is going to lead a heart or a club. I don't think the pause gives a serious indication. And your shorter hearts (if you go for the onesuiter) is offset by your longer clubs (if you go for the twosuiter). I have a feelling that if the guy had lead clubs hitting partner with good clubs in a 54 type of hand, the TD would also have been called. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 5:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Monty Hall trap >>Swiss Teams Board no 25 Dealer North EW vulnerable >> >> J9 >> JT7 >> AKT3 >> AKT4 >>KQ5 T82 >>AKQ942 83 >>Q4 87652 >>97 652 >> A7643 >> 65 >> J9 >> QJ83 >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 1D Pass 1S >>Dbl(1) 1NT Pass 2NT >>Pass(2) 3NT Pass Pass >>Pass >> >>(1) Double shows at least four hearts and probable clubs >>(2) Agreed hesitation >> >>Result: 3NT -2 by North, NS -100, lead 8 of hearts [big snip] >>Appeals Committee decision: Table score re-instated >>Deposit returned. We feel that the hesitation only implied >>that there was probably a long suit or better hand with >>West and gave no information that it was hearts rather >>than clubs. So we felt that the lead at the table was >>unaffected by the hesitation. Nigel Guthrie: >We've discussed a similar case before and I anticipate >a majority BLML view that the hesitation suggests a heart >rather than a club lead. West seems to have been thinking >of competing for the partscore, perhaps, even, with remote >prospects of game. That seems more likely to imply a long >major than a long minor. [snip] Richard James Hills: Right answer, wrong reason. Nigel Guthrie has again fallen for the fallacy that his personal bridge psychology is a universal bridge psychology. If one wants to assess logical alternatives by tendentious psychological arguments, one could equally well posit this: "With long strong hearts, West might overcall 4H. Since an overcall of 4C is not game, West's double demonstrably implies a long minor rather than a long major." Instead, back to the basic mathematics of the Monty Hall trap, to which Nigel has again been oblivious, despite an extensive warning hint. *If* West holds a long suit, and *if* the opponents' auction suggests that the opponents both have balancedish distributions, *then* West's long suit is more likely to be opposite East's doubleton heart, and West's long suit is less likely to be opposite East's tripleton club. Therefore, the hesitation demonstrably suggested a heart lead over a club lead. Quod erat demonstrandum. Best wishes RJH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 27 08:20:39 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:20:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap Message-ID: Jaap: [snip] >I don't buy the argument that partner must >have a onesuiter. He might have a good >twosuited hand to comtemplate a second double >(or even 3C bid). In this case his longer suit >tends to be clubs (for well known technical >reasons), in clubs I have more help anyway, so >I might equally well argue that the pause >suggest clubs over hearts. > >So I think the AC took a very acceptable >decision. [snip] The AC: [snip] >>We feel that the hesitation only implied >>that there was probably a long suit [snip] RJH: I agree with Jaap that it is possible that a particular hesitation might *not* demonstrably demonstrate anything in particular. However, this particular AC *did* state as its determination of fact that the hesitation "implied that there was probably a long suit". Given that determination of fact by the AC as the AC's initial axiom, I disagree that the AC "took a very acceptable decision". So I do not resile from my assertion that the combination of the AC's premise and the AC's conclusion meant that the AC fell into a variant of the Monty Hall trap. 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 mario@bridge.org.mt Fri Apr 23 10:45:54 2004 From: mario@bridge.org.mt (Mario Dix) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:45:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: 53 cards Message-ID: <000401c42917$c5fe71f0$98aea5d5@Mario> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C42928.898A4F30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ton, Respectfully, I disagree. Surely Law 13 does not apply here, as the board arrived with the correct number of cards in each pocket. What happened was that South then introduced an extra card to his hand and from where it came, assuming he was not attempting to cheat, is irrelevant. It is South's fault that he picked up a card from the previous hand, but this error was corrected by the TD before any play from his hand, albeit the Commencement of Play had begun. Net result was that they should have got a bad result. if it were not for poor defence by E/W. Maybe Law 87 should apply? Kind regards, Mario ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C42928.898A4F30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Ton,=20
 
Respectfully, I=20 disagree. Surely Law 13 does not apply here, as the board arrived = with the=20 correct number of cards in each pocket. What happened was that South = then=20 introduced an extra card to his hand and from where it came, assuming he = was not=20 attempting to cheat, is irrelevant. It is South's fault that he picked = up a card=20 from the previous hand, but this error was corrected by the TD before = any play=20 from his hand, albeit the Commencement of Play had begun. Net result was = that=20 they should have got a bad result. if it were not for poor defence = by E/W.=20
 
Maybe = Law 87 should=20 apply?
 
Kind = regards,=20 Mario
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C42928.898A4F30-- From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Apr 23 14:35:14 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:35:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] 53 cards In-Reply-To: <00c101c42862$1ee66c20$78f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C42916.482414C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message Ton writes: Given the fact that at the other table South did not support the 1H overcall I do not consider it a strange decision had the TD decided that the extra heart in South could have influenced his decision to bid 2 hearts. Which then is reason enough to cancel the board. The TD seems to have made a mistake anyway, since L 13 tells us that continuing play only can be done with the concurrence of all four players, which following your information was not asked. So the result can not stand in my opinion. ________________________________________________________________ I am not so sure Law 13 applies here. IMHO Law 13 applies when one or more cards of the same board moved from one hand to another. With 53 cards, we have one that is not a "card" according to this board. It is an extra "something" that cannot be taken into account. Result stands. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C42916.482414C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
 
Ton=20 writes: 
Given the fact that at the other = table South did=20 not support the 1H overcall I  
 do not consider it a strange = decision=20 had the TD decided that the extra 
  heart in South could = have=20 influenced his decision to bid 2 hearts. Which 
  then is reason enough to = cancel the=20 board.
The TD seems to have made a mistake = anyway, since=20 L 13 tells us that 
  continuing play only can be = done with=20 the concurrence of all four players,  
 which following your = information was not=20 asked. So the result can not stand  
 in my opinion.  
_________________________________________________________= _______
&nbs= p;
I am not so sure Law = 13 applies=20 here. IMHO Law 13 applies when one or=20 more
cards of the same = board moved=20 from one hand to another. With 53=20 cards,
we have one that is = not a "card"=20 according to this board. It is an=20 extra
"something" that = cannot be taken=20 into account. Result=20 stands.
&nbs= p;
Laval Du=20 Breuil
Quebec=20 = City 
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C42916.482414C0-- From mario@bridge.org.mt Tue Apr 27 09:32:41 2004 From: mario@bridge.org.mt (Mario Dix) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:32:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: End of Auction Period Laws 17E and 47 E2.(a) Message-ID: <000301c42c32$34ed7260$98aea5d5@Mario> When tidying up the Laws, IMHO a referal to Law 47E2.(a) should be made in Law 17E. (End of Auction Period). Otherwise an inexperienced TD may not permit another bid, when he should, after opponents alert a mistaken Explanation after opening lead, but before any card from Dummy is exposed? Mario Dix ------------------------------------ Mario Dix mario@bridge.org.mt 13 Preca Court Old College Street Sliema SLM 05 Malta tel: 00 356 2131 2946 fax: 00 356 2132 0444 mobile: 00 356 9949 3167 ------------------------------------ From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 27 10:20:41 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:20:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] 53 cards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c42c38$e9284e20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Laval Dubreuil ......... I am not so sure Law 13 applies here. IMHO Law 13 applies when one or = more cards of the same board moved from one hand to another. With 53 cards, = we have one that is not a "card" according to this board. It is an extra "something" that cannot be taken into account. Result stands. Sven: "If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck" . . . . How is anybody to distinguish a 53rd card as "an extra something" when = all he sees is what he has reason to believe is his own hand?=20 Remember that at this stage we do not even know if the "extra something" = is found among the 14 (apparent) cards held by one player or if for = instance North has a fourteenth card actually belonging to East while East among = his thirteen (apparent) cards has that "extra something". The primary irregularity is obviously a failure to comply with Law 7B1. As a consequence of this failure the auction begins with a total of 53 = cards being distributed between the four hands. We have three laws more or less relevant: Laws 1, 13 and 14. However Law = 14 can be "dismissed" right away as this law only applies when one or more cards are missing from the pack. So we are left with Law 1 which specifies the pack of cards with which Bridge is played and Law 13 on "incorrect number of cards".=20 The Director will of course have as his first duty to establish the = nature of the irregularity and if possible how this came to be. The outcome of = his investigation will be two important pieces of information: Who violated Law 7B1? Are the conditions in Law 13 for correcting and playing the board = satisfied? The first is a matter of facts, the second a matter of judgment and (possibly) consent of the players. So far Law 13 appears straight forward, but when we look at Law 13C we = have a problem: Literally Law 13C does not apply when the play of a board = with too many cards has been completed! Does this in fact imply that neither = do the other parts of Law 13? It is tempting to answer "yes" as several (at least implicitly) have done here on blml. Where does this leave us? The only possible answer is: In Law 1. And I quote from the commentary to the 1987 laws, equally relevant = today:=20 "No result is ever to be considered valid if the pack does not conform = to the specifications of this Law. This holds true even when the = discrepancy appears to be irrelevant, such as there being two deuces of clubs but no three." "If an extra card is found in a player's hand during the auction or play = it is removed. There is no redress for the offending side (Law 7B1)" My personal ruling would be this: If a 53rd card is "discovered" during auction or play then it is a matter of judgment (and possibly consent by = the players according to Law 13) what is to happen with the board. If the Director deems that it is possible to rectify the board and have it = played "normally" then he should rule accordingly, otherwise the board must be cancelled.=20 If play of the board has already been completed then the Director has no choice other than to cancel the board. Regards Sven From mario@bridge.org.mt Tue Apr 27 12:42:21 2004 From: mario@bridge.org.mt (Mario Dix) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:42:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: 53 cards Message-ID: <001101c42c4c$b4229b40$98aea5d5@Mario> Sven wrote:- Sven: "If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck" . . . . How is anybody to distinguish a 53rd card as "an extra something" when = all he sees is what he has reason to believe is his own hand?=20 Remember that at this stage we do not even know if the "extra something" = is found among the 14 (apparent) cards held by one player or if for = instance North has a fourteenth card actually belonging to East while East among = his thirteen (apparent) cards has that "extra something". The primary irregularity is obviously a failure to comply with Law 7B1. As a consequence of this failure the auction begins with a total of 53 = cards being distributed between the four hands. We have three laws more or less relevant: Laws 1, 13 and 14. However Law = 14 can be "dismissed" right away as this law only applies when one or more cards are missing from the pack. So we are left with Law 1 which specifies the pack of cards with which Bridge is played and Law 13 on "incorrect number of cards".=20 The Director will of course have as his first duty to establish the = nature of the irregularity and if possible how this came to be. The outcome of = his investigation will be two important pieces of information: Who violated Law 7B1? Are the conditions in Law 13 for correcting and playing the board = satisfied? The first is a matter of facts, the second a matter of judgment and (possibly) consent of the players. So far Law 13 appears straight forward, but when we look at Law 13C we = have a problem: Literally Law 13C does not apply when the play of a board = with too many cards has been completed! Does this in fact imply that neither = do the other parts of Law 13? It is tempting to answer "yes" as several (at least implicitly) have done here on blml. Where does this leave us? The only possible answer is: In Law 1. And I quote from the commentary to the 1987 laws, equally relevant = today:=20 "No result is ever to be considered valid if the pack does not conform = to the specifications of this Law. This holds true even when the = discrepancy appears to be irrelevant, such as there being two deuces of clubs but no three." "If an extra card is found in a player's hand during the auction or play = it is removed. There is no redress for the offending side (Law 7B1)" My personal ruling would be this: If a 53rd card is "discovered" during auction or play then it is a matter of judgment (and possibly consent by = the players according to Law 13) what is to happen with the board. If the Director deems that it is possible to rectify the board and have it = played "normally" then he should rule accordingly, otherwise the board must be cancelled.=20 If play of the board has already been completed then the Director has no choice other than to cancel the board. Regards Sven Sven, But we DO KNOW what happened here. The extra card (H3)was missing from the South hand slot in board 5, which had just been played. So, obviously it was still "lurking" on the table from the previously played board, and South unwittingly added it to his new hand. IMHO, most South's would still have bid 2H, with just Kxx after partners overcall, (albeit this South thought he had Kxxx). The rest of the auction and play are therefore not affected....surely, result stands? Teams E/W Vul Dealer E AT AQT642 T8 A63 K962 QJ84 J3 98 AKJ9 Q763 J95 QT4 753 K75(3) 542 K872 E S W N p p 1D 1H X 2H 2S 4H all pass Opening lead D6 Result: 4H made, NS +420 Mario Mario Dix 13 Preca Court Old College Street Sliema SLM 05 Malta mario@bridge.org.mt tel: fax: mobile: 00 356 2131 2946 00 356 2132 0444 00 356 9949 3167 Powered by PlaxoWant a signature like this? From jurgenr@t-online.de Tue Apr 27 12:57:45 2004 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:57:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap Message-ID: [Jaap] >[...] It is true that IF partner >has a long suit, it tends to be your shortest suit. But one card difference >doesn't mean that much. Still you are right that if I try to hit partners >Suit (capital intended) I will lead a heart rather than a club in this >sequence. If your lengths in two suits are 3-2, and if partner is known to hold either 6-4 or 4-6 in these two suits then the odds are 7:5 that the longer suit is opposite your doubleton. If partner is known to hold 5-4 or 4-5 then the odds are 7:6. Presumably very few 'good players' will estimate that a probability value of 54% is less than 50%. Therefore, the heart lead should be allowed even if it is suggested by the hesitation. And if a one-suited hand is implied, then there is no issue at all. Jürgen From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Apr 27 13:26:37 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:26:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap References: Message-ID: <001501c42c52$f2aa3d40$5b9468d5@default> [Richard James Hills] Right answer, wrong reason. Nigel Guthrie has again fallen for the fallacy that his personal bridge psychology is a universal bridge psychology. If one wants to assess logical alternatives by tendentious psychological arguments [SNIP] Instead, back to the basic mathematics of the Monty Hall trap, to which Nigel has again been oblivious, despite an extensive warning hint... [Nigel] Thank you, Richard, for once again so clearly pointing out some of my shortcomings, as you perceive them; although, of course I hope you are mistaken -- at least in regard to my appreciation of simple probability. BTW, the famous mathematician reputedly taken in by Monty Hall was Paul Erdos (not Ivan Erdos, as I wrote previously). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Apr 27 14:03:02 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:03:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double References: Message-ID: <003001c42c58$102941e0$5b9468d5@default> [Richard James Hills] Balderdash! There are no moral obligations in bridge, apart from personal self-imposed obligations. If doubling 3C is a logical alternative for neither North nor South, then it is also not a so-called moral alternative. [Nigel] Sorry Richard, I had you down as as an advocate of active ethics and sporting behaviour over and above the letter of the law. But then I didn't think you would dismiss another well-intended argument as "Balderdash". OK lets stick to the letter of the law and try to spell out the argument in as simple a way as possible. Over 2C, ostensibly... A. One partner has seen his partner make a penalty double. B. The other partner has heard *his* partner make a penalty pass of a double that promised only tolerance for the lead of a different suit. Hence, IMO, over 3C, double is likely to be a logical alternative for *both* partners. From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Tue Apr 27 09:04:44 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:04:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap References: Message-ID: RJH, Sorry I missed that AC statement. Although this might well be just a lazy way of stating that the only real change for east is to hit wests suit not excluding clubs in a 5C4H type of hand. So maybe I got to the right answer for the wrong reason :). But I persist. If you know partner to have a long solid suit yes the shorter your suit the better the chance to hit. But if you don't know what you will hit three small is more help than two small or a stiff. When you hit with three small a reasonable fivecard suit might well be enough. When you hit with two small let alone a stiff you need (much) more. So this Monty argument doesn't go that long a way. The real complication here is that if partner has hearts he has a strange double (I would never double with this one), while 4H with longer clubs is quite normal. Knowing this particular players habits on bidding and pausing might give I one way or another. But on paper I really go for table result. At least RJH has not challenged my feeling that if he had lead clubs when clubs was right we might have the same appeal with slightly different arguments. And another question, why didn't he double the final contract and what might that double (or the lack thereof) mean. All this is far more relevant for the choice of lead than the statistical implications of xx versus xxx. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Monty Hall trap Jaap: [snip] >I don't buy the argument that partner must >have a onesuiter. He might have a good >twosuited hand to comtemplate a second double >(or even 3C bid). In this case his longer suit >tends to be clubs (for well known technical >reasons), in clubs I have more help anyway, so >I might equally well argue that the pause >suggest clubs over hearts. > >So I think the AC took a very acceptable >decision. [snip] The AC: [snip] >>We feel that the hesitation only implied >>that there was probably a long suit [snip] RJH: I agree with Jaap that it is possible that a particular hesitation might *not* demonstrably demonstrate anything in particular. However, this particular AC *did* state as its determination of fact that the hesitation "implied that there was probably a long suit". Given that determination of fact by the AC as the AC's initial axiom, I disagree that the AC "took a very acceptable decision". So I do not resile from my assertion that the combination of the AC's premise and the AC's conclusion meant that the AC fell into a variant of the Monty Hall trap. 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 walt1@verizon.net Tue Apr 27 19:11:06 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:11:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this board playable? Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040427131859.02a5e340@incoming.verizon.net> Subject: Is this board playable? Playing on OKbridge last week: LHO left the table pard crashed after trick one RHO declarer at 5C, and server of the table Declarer asked what to do after partner crashed, I suggested we wait a minute. Declarer again asked what we should do, I suggested we page the lobby and get someone to help us finish the hand. Declarer wasn't much concerned about the hand and opted to close the table. The next day I got an email from OKbridge, citing Law 12C2, and saying that my LHO (who had left the table) had requested an assigned score of 5C making five. 5C could easily have been made. Of course, it is always possible to go down in a contract which can easily be made. My contention was that: 1. the board was playable (since LHO should have been at the table and could have played my partner's hand; even with LHO absent when my partner crashed we could have gotten someone from the lobby to play it), and 2. if the board was playable then there was no basis in law for assigning a score An anonymous director ruled 5C making 5 and said "It is ok to skip a hand and wait for the adjudication process." This, of course, did not address my contention that the board was playable and hence an assigned score was not authorized. Comments, please. Thanks Walt From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Apr 27 09:20:44 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:20:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) References: Message-ID: <000e01c42c84$cf017160$09bd87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 7:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) < What you define as *respective* GBKs in a first-time partnership, I would redefine as one of two possible *partnership* agreement/non-agreement statuses: (a) an undiscussed partnership non-agreement, or (b) an implicit partnership agreement, based upon local NZ norms of what 2-minute Acol implies. What's the problem? < +=+ The suspicion clings that nonconformist players wish to interpret such laws in a way that restricts the power of SOs to govern their actions. Authorities, being the representatives of the overwhelming majority of players, are determined that they will possess such powers. Whilst it is true that the WBFLC record reveals no formal scrutiny of the alleged ambiguity as such, the WBF has confirmed that when a partnership understanding has been established action in conformance with that understanding is no longer to be described as 'psychic': it is systemic and subject to regulation accordingly. Inter alia disclosure is required and compliance with any limitations on permitted system. Directors have power to determine the existence of a partnership understanding on such evidence as satisfies them, and Zones/NBOs guide their TDs as to how they may assess evidence. As the Orange Book says (6.2.2): "A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorized understanding". (To the aggravation of some, this does not require the TD to identify the source of such understanding - the understanding is determined to be a fact on the evidence of the action post-psyche.*) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* more stringent this than condition (b) in the WBF CoP section on 'Psychic Calls'.] From john@asimere.com Tue Apr 27 19:39:18 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:39:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] 53 cards In-Reply-To: References: <00c101c42862$1ee66c20$78f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: In article , Laval Dubreuil writes > =A0 >> Ton writes:=A0 >> Given the fact that at the other table South did not support the= =20 >> 1H overcall I=A0=A0 >> =A0do not consider it a strange decision had the TD decided that= =20 >> the extra=A0 >> =A0 heart=A0in South could have influenced his decision to bid 2= =20 >> hearts. Which=A0 >> =A0 then is reason enough to cancel the board.=20 >> The TD seems to have made a mistake anyway, since L 13 tells us=20 >> that=A0 >> =A0 continuing play only can be done with the concurrence of all= =20 >> four players,=A0=A0 >> =A0which following your information was not asked. So the result= =20 >> can not=A0stand=A0=A0 >> =A0in my opinion.=A0=A0 >> ________________________________________________________________ >> =A0 >> I am not so sure Law 13 applies here. IMHO Law 13 applies when=20 >> one or more >> cards of the same board moved from one hand to another. With 53=20 >> cards, >> we have one that is not a "card" according to this board. It is=20 >> an extra >> "something" that cannot be taken into account. Result stands. Law 1 ? You can eat the HQ or you can add the HQ, it ain't bridge. >> =A0 >> Laval Du Breuil >> Quebec City=A0 --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From adam@irvine.com Tue Apr 27 19:48:19 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:48:19 -0700 Subject: [blml] Is this board playable? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:11:06 EDT." <6.0.3.0.0.20040427131859.02a5e340@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <200404271848.LAA16876@mailhub.irvine.com> Walt wrote: > Subject: Is this board playable? > > > Playing on OKbridge last week: > LHO left the table > pard crashed after trick one > RHO declarer at 5C, and server of the table > > Declarer asked what to do after partner crashed, I suggested we wait a minute. > Declarer again asked what we should do, I suggested we page the lobby and > get someone to help us finish the hand. > Declarer wasn't much concerned about the hand and opted to close the table. > > The next day I got an email from OKbridge, citing Law 12C2, and saying that > my LHO (who had left the table) had requested an assigned score of 5C > making five. > > 5C could easily have been made. Of course, it is always possible to go down > in a contract which can easily be made. > > My contention was that: > 1. the board was playable (since LHO should have been at the table > and could have played my partner's hand; even with LHO absent when my > partner crashed we could have gotten someone from the lobby to play it), and > 2. if the board was playable then there was no basis in law for > assigning a score > > An anonymous director ruled 5C making 5 and said "It is ok to skip a hand > and wait for the adjudication process." This, of course, did not address my > contention that the board was playable and hence an assigned score was not > authorized. > > Comments, please. I don't think the Laws apply, for two reasons: (1) As far as I can tell, the Laws do not address the situation where, in the middle of a board, a player suddenly becomes incapacitated. I think that's left up to the Conditions of Contest and on-the-spot TD judgment. That's the F2F bridge situation that seems to most closely resemble the situation you faced here. (2) OKbridge (except for tournaments) is a rather unusual form of the game in which players play a vastly different number of boards, at different times, possibly with different partners, and then your score for the week is determined by averaging the boards you do play. It's the only "movement" I know of in which it makes sense to throw out a board and not give any score at all (even an A+/A-), since the "movement" is chaotic and players don't need to play anything approaching the same number of boards. (Other on-line services may do something similar; I don't know anything about them.) The Laws don't envision the possibility that a board could be thrown out wholesale with no score, and I don't think they're equipped to deal with it. My conclusion: Everybody's contention is wrong. LHO's contention that L12C2 applies is wrong. Your contention that an assigned score is unauthorized is wrong. This is because the Laws just don't apply, and trying to apply them doesn't work. The only rules that apply are OKbridge's own rules, if any; since I don't know what they are, I can't say whether the anonymous TD's ruling violated the rules or not. You might want to contact OKbridge officials to find out what their policy is regarding giving scores to uncompleted boards, but I don't think this is really a question for BLML. -- Adam From walt1@verizon.net Tue Apr 27 20:23:44 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:23:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this board playable? In-Reply-To: <200404271848.LAA16876@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200404271848.LAA16876@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040427150220.02a4ae50@incoming.verizon.net> >Walt wrote: >> Playing on OKbridge last week: >> LHO left the table >> pard crashed after trick one >> RHO declarer at 5C, and server of the table >> >> Declarer asked what to do after partner crashed, I suggested we wait a >> minute. >> Declarer again asked what we should do, I suggested we page the lobby and >> get someone to help us finish the hand. >> Declarer wasn't much concerned about the hand and opted to close the table. >> >> The next day I got an email from OKbridge, citing Law 12C2, and saying >> that >> my LHO (who had left the table) had requested an assigned score of 5C >> making five. >> >> 5C could easily have been made. Of course, it is always possible to go >> down >> in a contract which can easily be made. >> >> My contention was that: >> 1. the board was playable (since LHO should have been at the table >> and could have played my partner's hand; even with LHO absent when my >> partner crashed we could have gotten someone from the lobby to play >> it), and >> 2. if the board was playable then there was no basis in law for >> assigning a score >> >> An anonymous director ruled 5C making 5 and said "It is ok to skip a hand >> and wait for the adjudication process." This, of course, did not >> address my >> contention that the board was playable and hence an assigned score was not >> authorized. At 02:48 PM 27/04/2004, Adam Beneschan wrote: >I don't think the Laws apply, for two reasons: >(1) As far as I can tell, the Laws do not address the situation where, > in the middle of a board, a player suddenly becomes incapacitated. > I think that's left up to the Conditions of Contest and > on-the-spot TD judgment. That's the F2F bridge situation that > seems to most closely resemble the situation you faced here. > >(2) OKbridge (except for tournaments) is a rather unusual form of the > game in which players play a vastly different number of boards, at > different times, possibly with different partners, and then your > score for the week is determined by averaging the boards you do > play. It's the only "movement" I know of in which it makes sense > to throw out a board and not give any score at all (even an > A+/A-), since the "movement" is chaotic and players don't need to > play anything approaching the same number of boards. (Other > on-line services may do something similar; I don't know anything > about them.) The Laws don't envision the possibility that a board > could be thrown out wholesale with no score, and I don't think > they're equipped to deal with it. > >My conclusion: Everybody's contention is wrong. LHO's contention that >L12C2 applies is wrong. Your contention that an assigned score is >unauthorized is wrong. This is because the Laws just don't apply, and >trying to apply them doesn't work. The only rules that apply are >OKbridge's own rules, if any; since I don't know what they are, I >can't say whether the anonymous TD's ruling violated the rules or >not. You might want to contact OKbridge officials to find out what >their policy is regarding giving scores to uncompleted boards, but I >don't think this is really a question for BLML. Adam It was OKbridge (not one of my opponents) who indicated Law 12C2 was relevant to whether and how a score should be adjusted. Since they were justifying adjustment of the board score by quoting this law I thought it reasonable to ask members of BLML whether or not they agreed with the way OKbridge interpreted the Law. If "the Laws just don't apply" then don't you agree that according to the Laws an adjusted score is unauthorized? Or to put another way: If the Laws don't apply, then which Law authorizes an adjusted score? I mostly agree with what you said, but OKbridge contends that it is ruling under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Walt From adam@irvine.com Tue Apr 27 20:40:32 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:40:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] Is this board playable? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:23:44 EDT." <6.0.3.0.0.20040427150220.02a4ae50@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <200404271940.MAA18917@mailhub.irvine.com> > Adam > > It was OKbridge (not one of my opponents) who indicated Law 12C2 was > relevant to whether and how a score should be adjusted. I misread your original post a bit. I thought it was LHO that had cited the law. > Since they were > justifying adjustment of the board score by quoting this law I thought it > reasonable to ask members of BLML whether or not they agreed with the way > OKbridge interpreted the Law. > > If "the Laws just don't apply" then don't you agree that according to the > Laws an adjusted score is unauthorized? > Or to put another way: If the Laws don't apply, then which Law authorizes > an adjusted score? > > I mostly agree with what you said, but OKbridge contends that it is ruling > under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Law 12C2 starts: > When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a > result actually obtained after an irregularity . . . and thus can apply only if there was a result actually obtained. So you're right that 12C2 doesn't apply, technically. Still, it would help to see exactly what the OKBridge people said. If they used some other authorization (such as their own policy) to decide that a score should be assigned, and then cited the latter part of L12C2 to justify their determination of *what* the score should be adjusted to, you may not have a cause for complaint. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 27 21:27:28 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:27:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: 53 cards In-Reply-To: <001101c42c4c$b4229b40$98aea5d5@Mario> Message-ID: <000001c42c96$0f844620$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Mario Dix > Sven wrote:- > "If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck" . . . . > How is anybody to distinguish a 53rd card as "an extra something"=20 > when all he sees is what he has reason to believe is his own hand? ............ > But we DO KNOW what happened here. The extra card (H3)was missing from > the South hand slot in board 5, which had just been played. So, > obviously it was still "lurking" on the table from the previously = played > board, and South unwittingly added it to his new hand. Yes, we do know that South was "guilty" of failure to comply with Law = 7B1 and ascertain that he had exactly 13 cards before entering the auction. = We also know that he was responsible for the extra card to be brought into = this play. Fine, there is no doubt about that.=20 > IMHO, most > South's would still have bid 2H, with just Kxx after partners = overcall, > (albeit this South thought he had Kxxx). The rest of the auction and > play are therefore not affected....surely, result stands? That is a matter of judgment. The Director may so rule if he finds that = the play of the board can be completed without damage to East/West (the non-offending side) after the extraneous card has been removed, provided that the extraneous card was discovered and removed before the play of = the board was completed!=20 If the existence of the extraneous card was not discovered until after = the play of the board had been completed then it is my opinion that the = Director must cancel whatever result was obtained on the board, assign an = adjusted score and probably penalize South because the board had been played with = a pack of cards that do not conform to the specifications in Law 1. The way I understand Law 1 it is in this context immaterial how the pack = had become incorrect, the fact is that it remained incorrect during the = entire auction and play. (The fact that South is subject to penalty because he = not only failed to verify that he had exactly 13 cards but also is the very person responsible for the distortion of the pack is a separate issue). Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Apr 27 22:15:00 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:15:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <000e01c42c84$cf017160$09bd87d9@4nrw70j> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040427170513.02498740@pop.starpower.net> At 04:20 AM 4/27/04, grandeval wrote: >the Orange Book says (6.2.2): "A partnership's >actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD >to find that it has an unauthorized understanding". >(To the aggravation of some, this does not require >the TD to identify the source of such understanding >- the understanding is determined to be a fact on >the evidence of the action post-psyche.*) Since this passage makes no reference to psychs, it presumably applies in general. If the actions on a single board are "*sufficient* for the TD to find... an unauthorized understanding" then such actions (whatever they are) must generate such a finding, even if the preponderance of the evidence suggests that there was no such understanding. This is common in the Law: We say to the "offender", "We do not believe you had an unauthorized understanding; nevertheless, your actions are the same as those of a partnership that did have such an understanding, and therefore subject to the same penalty." But here it becomes a catch-22 -- *any* successful call that was not based on a partnership understanding will, solely on the evidence from that one hand, be indistinguishable from one that was. That leaves us to find evidence of an "unauthorized understanding" any time a partnership makes a successful call which they cannot show was based on an authorized understanding. Which in turn makes *any* call not based on *some* partnership understanding illegal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Tue Apr 27 22:27:26 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:27:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040427170513.02498740@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007f01c42c9e$72a7f000$205b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Eric, Well put. To say it even more simple, the law seems to be or to become that any succesfull 'guess' is an infraction if Grattan (or the TD or ...) would not have made that guess or could imagine not to make that guess. Fortunately the 'orange book' is an EBU only thing. For the moment that is. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 11:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > At 04:20 AM 4/27/04, grandeval wrote: > > >the Orange Book says (6.2.2): "A partnership's > >actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD > >to find that it has an unauthorized understanding". > >(To the aggravation of some, this does not require > >the TD to identify the source of such understanding > >- the understanding is determined to be a fact on > >the evidence of the action post-psyche.*) > > Since this passage makes no reference to psychs, it presumably applies > in general. If the actions on a single board are "*sufficient* for the > TD to find... an unauthorized understanding" then such actions > (whatever they are) must generate such a finding, even if the > preponderance of the evidence suggests that there was no such > understanding. This is common in the Law: We say to the "offender", > "We do not believe you had an unauthorized understanding; nevertheless, > your actions are the same as those of a partnership that did have such > an understanding, and therefore subject to the same penalty." But here > it becomes a catch-22 -- *any* successful call that was not based on a > partnership understanding will, solely on the evidence from that one > hand, be indistinguishable from one that was. That leaves us to find > evidence of an "unauthorized understanding" any time a partnership > makes a successful call which they cannot show was based on an > authorized understanding. Which in turn makes *any* call not based on > *some* partnership understanding illegal. > > > 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 27 23:50:04 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:50:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>Balderdash! There are no moral obligations in bridge, >>apart from personal self-imposed obligations. If >>doubling 3C is a logical alternative for neither >>North nor South, then it is also not a so-called >>moral alternative. [snip] Nigel Guthrie: >Sorry Richard, I had you down as as an advocate of active >ethics and sporting behaviour over and above the letter of >the law. But then I didn't think you would dismiss another >well-intended argument as "Balderdash". Richard James Hills: A totally illogical unLawful argument is balderdash. It is irrelevant whether or not the person propounding that argument has good intentions. The bidding has gone -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 2H(1) Pass Pass ? (1) Weak two You, South, hold: AT92 5 QT64 K985 Your only logical alternative is to reopen with a double. At the table I chose the illogical alternative of passing, because pard broke tempo with a strong hand containing a heart stack. This illogical pass was in accordance with my personal self-imposed obligations. *However*, had another player held these cards on this auction & tempo break, and had that other player chosen the only logical alternative of doubling, the WBF rules that that other player has acted legally and ethically. WBF Code of Practice: >>>A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics >>>where a player is in breach of the provisions of the >>>laws in respect of the conduct of players. A player who >>>has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject >>>to criticism. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Hence, IMO, over 3C, double is likely to be a logical >alternative for *both* partners. Richard James Hills: Not so. Let us examine the actual deal and the actual bidding. -> Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, vul NS Q42 T97542 J9 T4 J53 K QJ8 AK63 A5 QT762 AKJ92 Q85 AT9876 --- K843 643 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D 1S 2C Dbl(1) Pass Pass Rdbl 2S (2) 3C Pass Pass Pass (1) Explained by South as penalty (2) The Director was called after the 2S bid It is authorised information to South that their pard has removed their own penalty double, and then East has supported West's clubs in a strength-showing auction. It is an illogical alternative for South to double 3C on available authorised information. It is authorised information to North as soon as West's redouble occurs, that there is no logical alternative to assuming that either their pard has misinterpreted the meaning of North's double, or that East has psyched. Once East raises to 3C, and South then passes 3C, it is no longer logical to assume that East has psyched. Quod erat demonstrandum. 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 Apr 28 00:05:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:05:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap Message-ID: Jaap van der Neut: [big snip] >At least RJH has not challenged my feeling that if >he had lead clubs when clubs was right we might >have the same appeal with slightly different >arguments. [big snip] Richard James Hills: Actually, I do challenge Jaap's feeling that an appeal after a club lead would have had merit. I gave this as a lead problem (with the UI absent) to a fellow Canberra expert. His comment: >>I would lead a Club, Richard. >> >>No point leading D's as I may not get in to cash >>any that have been set up:-) >> >>Little point leading H's when the enemy may have >>more than we have and they are expecting that lead. >> >>Could lead a S instead. Pd could well have four >>S's and it's the best suit for pd to lead back to >>me. In fact I would think S's is likely to be the >>best lead. But I lead a C for partnership morale >>reasons. If I lead a S and it's wrong, pd will >>fume. If I lead a C and it's wrong he will say >>"hard luck" to me. 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Apr 28 00:19:10 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:19:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040427170513.02498740@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040427170513.02498740@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <49FD4DF5-98A1-11D8-B1E6-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 27 Apr 2004, at 22:15, Eric Landau wrote: > At 04:20 AM 4/27/04, grandeval wrote: > >> the Orange Book says (6.2.2): "A partnership's >> actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD >> to find that it has an unauthorized understanding". >> (To the aggravation of some, this does not require >> the TD to identify the source of such understanding >> - the understanding is determined to be a fact on >> the evidence of the action post-psyche.*) > > Since this passage makes no reference to psychs, it presumably applies > in general. Actually no. It comes in the section on Psychic Bidding, under Fielding. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 28 02:13:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:13:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Is this board playable? Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [snip] >As far as I can tell, the Laws do not address the >situation where, in the middle of a board, a player >suddenly becomes incapacitated. [snip] Law 3: "Four players play at each table....." Law 12C1: "When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score....." 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 Wed Apr 28 03:39:59 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:39:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <007f01c42c9e$72a7f000$205b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040427170513.02498740@pop.starpower.net> <007f01c42c9e$72a7f000$205b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: In article <007f01c42c9e$72a7f000$205b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb>, Jaap van der Neut writes >Eric, > >Well put. To say it even more simple, the law seems to be or to become that >any succesfull 'guess' is an infraction if Grattan (or the TD or ...) would >not have made that guess or could imagine not to make that guess. > >Fortunately the 'orange book' is an EBU only thing. For the moment that is. > >Jaap > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 11:15 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > >> At 04:20 AM 4/27/04, grandeval wrote: >> >> >the Orange Book says (6.2.2): "A partnership's >> >actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD >> >to find that it has an unauthorized understanding". >> >(To the aggravation of some, this does not require >> >the TD to identify the source of such understanding >> >- the understanding is determined to be a fact on >> >the evidence of the action post-psyche.*) I happen to believe this regulation is illegal and am as usual locked in battle over it :) In non EBU sponsored games I'd need a large preponderence of evidence to so rule. perhaps even as much as the difference between the tests for criminal guilt and civil guilt. >> >> Since this passage makes no reference to psychs, it presumably applies >> in general. If the actions on a single board are "*sufficient* for the >> TD to find... an unauthorized understanding" then such actions >> (whatever they are) must generate such a finding, even if the >> preponderance of the evidence suggests that there was no such >> understanding. This is common in the Law: We say to the "offender", >> "We do not believe you had an unauthorized understanding; nevertheless, >> your actions are the same as those of a partnership that did have such >> an understanding, and therefore subject to the same penalty." But here >> it becomes a catch-22 -- *any* successful call that was not based on a >> partnership understanding will, solely on the evidence from that one >> hand, be indistinguishable from one that was. That leaves us to find >> evidence of an "unauthorized understanding" any time a partnership >> makes a successful call which they cannot show was based on an >> authorized understanding. Which in turn makes *any* call not based on >> *some* partnership understanding illegal. >> >> >> 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 > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Apr 27 11:11:56 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:11:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] 53 cards References: Message-ID: <009501c42c40$781dbb40$b9f9f1c3@LNV> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C42C50.D58B52A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageLaval reacts very politely, thank you. My answer is wrong and the = reason is that I forgot to read to the end of the message. Yes, L13 only = applies if the 13+ cards are delivered in the board.=20 Still I have a question mark at the last sentence from Laval. "...cannot = be taken into account. Result stands.'=20 Do we want that if the extra card did take a not to neglect role during = the bidding and play? I doubt it. There might be a reason to apply L12A1 = or 2 I think (if the non offenders are damaged).=20 ton=20 =20 Ton writes:=20 Given the fact that at the other table South did not support the 1H = overcall I =20 do not consider it a strange decision had the TD decided that the = extra=20 heart in South could have influenced his decision to bid 2 hearts. = Which=20 then is reason enough to cancel the board.=20 The TD seems to have made a mistake anyway, since L 13 tells us that = continuing play only can be done with the concurrence of all four = players, =20 which following your information was not asked. So the result can = not stand =20 in my opinion. =20 ________________________________________________________________ I am not so sure Law 13 applies here. IMHO Law 13 applies when one = or more cards of the same board moved from one hand to another. With 53 = cards, we have one that is not a "card" according to this board. It is an = extra "something" that cannot be taken into account. Result stands. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C42C50.D58B52A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Laval reacts very politely, thank you.=20 My answer is wrong and the reason is that I forgot to read to the = end of=20 the message. Yes, L13 only applies if the 13+ cards are delivered in the = board.=20
Still I have a question mark at the = last sentence=20 from Laval. "...cannot be taken into account. Result stands.' =
 
Do we want that if the extra card did = take a not to=20 neglect role during the bidding and play? I doubt it. There might be a = reason to=20 apply L12A1 or 2 I think (if the non offenders are damaged). =
 
ton
          &nbs= p;
 
Ton=20 writes: 
Given the fact that at the other = table South=20 did not support the 1H overcall I  
 do not consider it a strange = decision=20 had the TD decided that the extra 
  heart in South could = have=20 influenced his decision to bid 2 hearts. Which 
  then is reason enough to = cancel the=20 board.
The TD seems to have made a mistake = anyway,=20 since L 13 tells us that 
  continuing play only can be = done with=20 the concurrence of all four players,  
 which following your = information was=20 not asked. So the result can not stand  
 in my = opinion.  
_________________________________________________________= _______
&nbs= p;
I am = not so sure=20 Law 13 applies here. IMHO Law 13 applies when one or=20 more
cards of the same=20 board moved from one hand to another. With 53=20 cards,
we = have one that=20 is not a "card" according to this board. It is an=20 extra
"something" that=20 cannot be taken into account. Result=20 stands.
&nbs= p;
Laval Du=20 Breuil
Quebec=20 = City 
------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C42C50.D58B52A0-- From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Apr 27 16:31:59 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:31:59 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] 53 cards Message-ID: <003a01c42c6c$cc0471f0$10f7f0c3@LNV> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C42C7D.8B2701A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message Laval reacts very politely, thank you. My answer is wrong and the reason = is that I forgot to read to the end of the message. Yes, L13 only = applies if the 13+ cards are delivered in the board.=20 Still I have a question mark at the last sentence from Laval. "...cannot = be taken into account. Result stands.'=20 Do we want that if the extra card did take a not to neglect role during = the bidding and play? I doubt it. There might be a reason to apply L12A1 = or 2 I think (if the non offenders are damaged).=20 ton=20 =20 Ton writes:=20 Given the fact that at the other table South did not support the 1H = overcall I =20 do not consider it a strange decision had the TD decided that the = extra=20 heart in South could have influenced his decision to bid 2 hearts. = Which=20 then is reason enough to cancel the board.=20 The TD seems to have made a mistake anyway, since L 13 tells us that = continuing play only can be done with the concurrence of all four = players, =20 which following your information was not asked. So the result can = not stand =20 in my opinion. =20 ________________________________________________________________ I am not so sure Law 13 applies here. IMHO Law 13 applies when one = or more cards of the same board moved from one hand to another. With 53 = cards, we have one that is not a "card" according to this board. It is an = extra "something" that cannot be taken into account. Result stands. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C42C7D.8B2701A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Laval reacts very politely, thank you.=20 My answer is wrong and the reason is that I forgot to read to the = end of=20 the message. Yes, L13 only applies if the 13+ cards are delivered in the = board.=20
Still I have a question mark at the = last sentence=20 from Laval. "...cannot be taken into account. Result stands.' =
 
Do we want that if the extra card did = take a not to=20 neglect role during the bidding and play? I doubt it. There might be a = reason to=20 apply L12A1 or 2 I think (if the non offenders are damaged). =
 
ton
          &nbs= p;
 
Ton=20 writes: 
Given the fact that at the other = table South=20 did not support the 1H overcall I  
 do not consider it a strange = decision=20 had the TD decided that the extra 
  heart in South could = have=20 influenced his decision to bid 2 hearts. Which 
  then is reason enough to = cancel the=20 board.
The TD seems to have made a mistake = anyway,=20 since L 13 tells us that 
  continuing play only can be = done with=20 the concurrence of all four players,  
 which following your = information was=20 not asked. So the result can not stand  
 in my = opinion.  
_________________________________________________________= _______
&nbs= p;
I am = not so sure=20 Law 13 applies here. IMHO Law 13 applies when one or=20 more
cards of the same=20 board moved from one hand to another. With 53=20 cards,
we = have one that=20 is not a "card" according to this board. It is an=20 extra
"something" that=20 cannot be taken into account. Result=20 stands.
&nbs= p;
Laval Du=20 Breuil
Quebec=20 = City 
------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C42C7D.8B2701A0-- From David Martin" Everyone Please note that with immediate effect our e-mail addresses have changed. David's new address is David.G.Martin@btinternet.com Claire's new address is Claire.LC.Martin@btinternet.com Regards David Martin From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Apr 28 08:51:34 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:51:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Monty Hall trap References: Message-ID: Richard, I do think this is a 100% club lead with and without pause (for me the pause reinforces the chance it will go down on a C lead). But when judging appeals I have to try to understand how other people play the game. I would not have doubled with that hand but a lot of people do, so for those players heart lead might also work. I am supposed to rule whether or not there is (clear) MI, not whether I like their bridge. So as long as there are no indications of 'strange behaviour' I see no reason to change the table result. But maybe my own reasoning is bogus. I don't see how a pause might suggest H over C, but without a pause maybe he will never lead a heart. Difficult for me to judge because I will never ever lead a H and this has nothing to do with your original statistical argument. And in the writeup there was 'x = hearts' implying 'x is not necessarily clubs'. Maybe ask the players peers rather than me. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Monty Hall trap Jaap van der Neut: [big snip] >At least RJH has not challenged my feeling that if >he had lead clubs when clubs was right we might >have the same appeal with slightly different >arguments. [big snip] Richard James Hills: Actually, I do challenge Jaap's feeling that an appeal after a club lead would have had merit. I gave this as a lead problem (with the UI absent) to a fellow Canberra expert. His comment: >>I would lead a Club, Richard. >> >>No point leading D's as I may not get in to cash >>any that have been set up:-) >> >>Little point leading H's when the enemy may have >>more than we have and they are expecting that lead. >> >>Could lead a S instead. Pd could well have four >>S's and it's the best suit for pd to lead back to >>me. In fact I would think S's is likely to be the >>best lead. But I lead a C for partnership morale >>reasons. If I lead a S and it's wrong, pd will >>fume. If I lead a C and it's wrong he will say >>"hard luck" to me. Best wishes RJH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Apr 28 12:41:42 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:41:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040427170513.02498740@pop.starpower.net> <007f01c42c9e$72a7f000$205b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <006001c42d16$fa0cf4a0$53da883e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 10:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > Fortunately the 'orange book' is an EBU only thing. > For the moment that is. > > Jaap > +=+ Well, maybe...... The determination of a CPU, and the level of evidence required for this, are matters in the hands of the Director and the AC, and subject to regulation by the SO. Any SO, its Director or AC, may take a lead from the EBU policy - it is up to each to make its own decision. I have known both EBL and WBF TACs that have based a finding that a CPU existed on the evidence of subsequent abnormal action by the partner of the psycher that catered for the psyche. Avowals that there is no understanding cut little ice when there is a flagrant departure from normal expectations by a partner who has no basis from the auction by which he may justifiably conclude that the first player has psyched. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Apr 28 12:48:18 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:48:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040427170513.02498740@pop.starpower.net> <007f01c42c9e$72a7f000$205b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <006101c42d16$fac59640$53da883e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 3:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > >> At 04:20 AM 4/27/04, grandeval wrote: > >> > >> >the Orange Book says (6.2.2): "A partnership's > >> >actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD > >> >to find that it has an unauthorized understanding". > >> >(To the aggravation of some, this does not require > >> >the TD to identify the source of such understanding > >> >- the understanding is determined to be a fact on > >> >the evidence of the action post-psyche.*) > > I happen to believe this regulation is illegal and am > as usual locked in battle over it :) In non EBU sponsored > games I'd need a large preponderence of evidence to so > rule. perhaps even as much as the difference between > the tests for criminal guilt and civil guilt. > +=+ The word 'illegal' is, I suggest, ill chosen. The laws state that it is unlawful to base an action on a concealed partnership understanding. They are silent on what standard of evidence is required to make a finding that a CPU exists. That question is left by the laws to the Director. The regulating bodies are responsible for the training of tournament directors and also for prescribing the procedures they are to adopt under the laws. You and others may deprecate the EBU's standards, but these are a matter for that body. I can add that I have experienced occasions when the EBL Appeals Committee has adopted a like standard, and the same experience is to be found in the WBF TAC's past handling of suspect psychic action. There is wide acceptance that the actions of the partner are key to the identification of a CPU after a player has psyched. Representations from various parts leave me in no doubt that Zones and NBOs will not brook any deprivation of their powers of regulation of such matters. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Apr 28 13:59:29 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:59:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double References: Message-ID: <002701c42d20$acd10780$879468d5@default> [Richard James Hills] A totally illogical unLawful argument is balderdash. [SNIP]. Let us examine the actual deal and the actual bidding. ->Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, vul NS Q42 T97542 J9 T4 J53 K QJ8 AK63 A5 QT762 AKJ92 Q85 AT9876 --- K843 643 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D 1S 2C Dbl(1) Pass Pass Rdbl 2S (2) 3C Pass Pass Pass (1) Explained by South as penalty (2) The Director was called after the 2S bid It is authorised information to South that their pard has removed their own penalty double, and then East has supported West's clubs in a strength-showing auction. It is an illogical alternative for South to double 3C on available authorised information. It is authorised information to North as soon as West's redouble occurs, that there is no logical alternative to assuming that either their pard has misinterpreted the meaning of North's double, or that East has psyched. Once East raises to 3C, and South then passes 3C, it is no longer logical to assume that East has psyched. Quod erat demonstrandum. [Nigel] Thank you, Richard for providing the full deal and auction (: although, again, I could do without the invective :) Whether of not you deem it logical, I stick to my original opinion which stipulated that, given the UI, opponents need good reason to remove the redouble. Here I would be interested in North's reason for removal of 2CXX, ahead of his partner when he has a doubleton club honour in addition to what his original bid promised. IMO, without the UI from South's explanation, pass is a logical alternative for North. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Apr 28 14:32:07 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:32:07 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: <003101c42d25$35594820$879468d5@default> [Richard James Hills] It is authorised information to South that their pard has removed their own penalty double, and then East has supported West's clubs in a strength-showing auction. It is an illogical alternative for South to double 3C on available authorised information. It is authorised information to North as soon as West's redouble occurs, that there is no logical alternative to assuming that either their pard has misinterpreted the meaning of North's double, or that East has psyched. Once East raises to 3C, and South then passes 3C, it is no longer logical to assume that East has psyched. [Nigel] Unless North-South are beginners or a new partnership, I fail to see why they should suspect each other of psyches of misbids rather than opponents [although Richard's is not a clear-cut example to back my contention]. In the past, however, in simpler cases, whenever I've advanced this thesis, nobody has backed me. On the contrary, such arguments have attracted derision from law-makers and law-enforcers alike. Why? For example, you know but opponents may not be aware that your partner has a propensity to psyche third in hand, in certain situations (e.g. when a lot behind in a match). In such a situation, partner opens third in hand and as the auction progresses, it is clear that somebody does not have their bid. Without other evidence, may you legally act as if partner is the culprit. (IMO No). Is partner's behaviour part of "General bridge knowledge and experience". (IMO No because such an agreement may even be illegal in some jurisdictions e.g. EBU level 3). If this *is* thought to be "general bridge knowledge and experience", IMO that is another urgent reason for removing any mention of it from the law book. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Apr 28 15:30:58 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:30:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double References: <002701c42d20$acd10780$879468d5@default> Message-ID: <002101c42d2d$84836b80$28c587d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Double-meaning double > Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, vul NS > Q42 > T97542 > J9 > T4 > J53 K > QJ8 AK63 > A5 QT762 > AKJ92 Q85 > AT9876 > --- > K843 > 643 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D 1S > 2C Dbl(1) Pass Pass > Rdbl 2S (2) 3C Pass > Pass Pass > (1) Explained by South as penalty > (2) The Director was called after the 2S bid > --------------------- \zx/ -------------------------- > Whether of not you deem it logical, I stick to my original > opinion which stipulated that, given the UI, opponents need > good reason to remove the redouble. Here I would be > interested in North's reason for removal of 2CXX, ahead of > his partner when he has a doubleton club honour in addition > to what his original bid promised. IMO, without the UI > from South's explanation, pass is a logical alternative > for North. > +=+ Before subscribing to such a view I would be looking for the answers to two questions. (1) Do the methods of NS allow of a South hand that, having made a simple 1S overcall, could make a penalty pass of the North double with reasonable prospects of defeating the contract opposite the actual North holding - this being the meaning that N must ascribe, absent the UI, to the overcall of 1S and the pass of the double? (2) If the answer to (1) were 'no', does North have the acumen to realize as much, so justifying his 2S bid since 'Pass' is not then a LA? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Apr 28 16:23:57 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:23:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <006001c42d16$fa0cf4a0$53da883e@4nrw70j> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040427170513.02498740@pop.starpower.net> <007f01c42c9e$72a7f000$205b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040428111312.0249d1d0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:41 AM 4/28/04, grandeval wrote: >+=+ Well, maybe...... The determination of a CPU, >and the level of evidence required for this, are matters >in the hands of the Director and the AC, and subject >to regulation by the SO. Any SO, its Director or AC, >may take a lead from the EBU policy - it is up to each >to make its own decision. I have known both EBL and >WBF TACs that have based a finding that a CPU >existed on the evidence of subsequent abnormal >action by the partner of the psycher that catered for >the psyche. Avowals that there is no understanding >cut little ice when there is a flagrant departure from >normal expectations by a partner who has no basis >from the auction by which he may justifiably conclude >that the first player has psyched. I have no problem with this. Internal evidence of a CPU from the actions on the deal will inevitably outweigh the purported OS's avowals that there was no such CPU; I imagine that this is what normally happens. But a policy which explicitly states that the evidence from the actions on the deal is *sufficient* to establish a CPU instructs the TD/AC to ignore not only such self-serving statements by the puported OS, but also any other evidence of any kind that they may choose to present -- IOW, once the TD/AC decides that there has been a "fielding" action, their finding of a CPU becomes automatic; there's no longer even any point in listening to what the puported OS has to say. That doesn't seem right. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Apr 28 16:27:22 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:27:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Apr 28, 2004 08:50:04 AM Message-ID: <200404281527.i3SFRMZD026833@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > The bidding has gone -> > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 2H(1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) Weak two > > You, South, hold: > > AT92 > 5 > QT64 > K985 > > Your only logical alternative is to reopen with a double. > At the table I chose the illogical alternative of passing, > because pard broke tempo with a strong hand containing a > heart stack. This illogical pass was in accordance with > my personal self-imposed obligations. *However*, had > another player held these cards on this auction & tempo > break, and had that other player chosen the only logical > alternative of doubling, the WBF rules that that other > player has acted legally and ethically. Echos of Frank Vine. "Coldbottom in Front of the Committee" (March 1985 Bridge World) > > WBF Code of Practice: > > >>>A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics > >>>where a player is in breach of the provisions of the > >>>laws in respect of the conduct of players. A player who > >>>has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject > >>>to criticism. > > Nigel Guthrie: > > [snip] > > >Hence, IMO, over 3C, double is likely to be a logical > >alternative for *both* partners. > > Richard James Hills: > > Not so. Let us examine the actual deal and the actual > bidding. -> > > Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, vul NS > > Q42 > T97542 > J9 > T4 > J53 K > QJ8 AK63 > A5 QT762 > AKJ92 Q85 > AT9876 > --- > K843 > 643 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D 1S > 2C Dbl(1) Pass Pass > Rdbl 2S (2) 3C Pass > Pass Pass > > > (1) Explained by South as penalty > (2) The Director was called after the 2S bid > > It is authorised information to South that their pard > has removed their own penalty double, and then East > has supported West's clubs in a strength-showing > auction. It is an illogical alternative for South to > double 3C on available authorised information. I agree that double of 3C is an IA. But you're going one call to far. I'd argue that pass is an LA at North's second turn and that South's failure to alert suggests 2S over pass. (I doubt the partnership has discussed the meaning of any of North's potential calls at his second turn) Is the pass of 2CXX an LA for South? I think so. Any reason they can't rattle off the first 6 or so tricks on a crossruff even if partner has nothing? (EW spades 3-3 doesn't look improbable -- and this may be the only plus score available to NS on a misfitting deal) I'd take some convincing to rule other than 2CXX +3. > > It is authorised information to North as soon as West's > redouble occurs, that there is no logical alternative > to assuming that either their pard has misinterpreted > the meaning of North's double, or that East has psyched. > Once East raises to 3C, and South then passes 3C, it is > no longer logical to assume that East has psyched. > > Quod erat demonstrandum. > > Best wishes > > RJH From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 28 19:23:29 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 06:23:29 +1200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <006101c42d16$fac59640$53da883e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <009101c42d4d$e793a080$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of grandeval > Sent: Wednesday, 28 April 2004 11:48 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "The only argument available with an > east wind is to put on your overcoat." > - J.R.Lowell. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 3:39 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > > > > > >> At 04:20 AM 4/27/04, grandeval wrote: > > >> > > >> >the Orange Book says (6.2.2): "A partnership's > > >> >actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD > > >> >to find that it has an unauthorized understanding". > > >> >(To the aggravation of some, this does not require > > >> >the TD to identify the source of such understanding > > >> >- the understanding is determined to be a fact on > > >> >the evidence of the action post-psyche.*) > > > > I happen to believe this regulation is illegal and am > > as usual locked in battle over it :) In non EBU sponsored > > games I'd need a large preponderence of evidence to so > > rule. perhaps even as much as the difference between > > the tests for criminal guilt and civil guilt. > > > +=+ The word 'illegal' is, I suggest, ill chosen. The laws > state that it is unlawful to base an action on a concealed > partnership understanding. They are silent on what > standard of evidence is required to make a finding that > a CPU exists. So naturally enough "no evidence is sufficient". How silly we are to assume that when the laws state that concealed partnership agreements are illegal that you actually need a concealed partnership agreement to break this (part of this) law. I think you call that being "stitched up". I have complete disdain for this attitude. I guess I am too radical when I believe that in order to be guilty of having a concealed partnership agreement you actually need to have a concealed partnership agreement. Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 28 19:28:45 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 06:28:45 +1200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <006001c42d16$fa0cf4a0$53da883e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <009801c42d4e$a4670350$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of grandeval > Sent: Wednesday, 28 April 2004 11:42 p.m. > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "The only argument available with an > east wind is to put on your overcoat." > - J.R.Lowell. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; > "Eric Landau" > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 10:27 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > > > > Fortunately the 'orange book' is an EBU only thing. > > For the moment that is. > > > > Jaap > > > +=+ Well, maybe...... The determination of a CPU, > and the level of evidence required for this, are matters > in the hands of the Director and the AC, and subject > to regulation by the SO. Any SO, its Director or AC, > may take a lead from the EBU policy - it is up to each > to make its own decision. I have known both EBL and > WBF TACs that have based a finding that a CPU > existed on the evidence of subsequent abnormal > action by the partner of the psycher that catered for > the psyche. Avowals that there is no understanding > cut little ice when there is a flagrant departure from > normal expectations by a partner who has no basis > from the auction by which he may justifiably conclude > that the first player has psyched. But what of the general bridge knowledge that partner is entitled to psyche - one is surely entitled to base one's actions on that. Or to do contend that you must not base your actions on your knowledge of the laws of the game. Wayne > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 28 19:35:51 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 06:35:51 +1200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <009b01c42d4f$a4592b30$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2004 6:33 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > > > > > RJH: > > [snip] > > >>That is, my reading of the language is that Law 75C > >>may be (personally) interpreted to define two > >>*mutually exclusive* options: > >> > >>{a} _special_ information through partnership > >> agreement, or > >> > >>{b} _general_ knowledge and experience > >> > >>and, by my (personal) interpretation, it is > >>impossible for a call to occupy categories {a} and > >>{b} simultaneously. > > [snip] > > Wayne: > > >The problem with this interpretation is that it is > >far from clear when something jumps from one category > >into the other. > > > >For example when I played with one of my favourite > >partners for the first time we played 2-minute ACOL > >because he arrived at the playing venue within two > >minutes of the starting time. And we had only > >arranged to play during a momentary encounter in the > >bar the previous night. > > > >During that session we were predominantly playing on > >our respective 'General Bridge Knowledge'. However > >after we had continued our partnership > > [snip] > > RJH: > > I see zero theoretical or practical difficulties. At > the start of your first session you were playing 2- > minute Acol, so therefore during the session various > undiscussed situations occurred. However, the outcomes > of those previously undiscussed situations were > consequent explicit or implicit partnership agreements. > > So, halfway through your first session, your partnership > agreements progressed to 3-minute Acol. And, by the end > of your first session, your partnership was now playing > 4-minute Acol, with still fewer undiscussed holes in > your system. > > I note that you refer to *respective* General Bridge > Knowledge, which, in my opinion, implicitly concedes a > point that I have been arguing -> that GBK is a very > local concept, not a universal concept. The laws acknowledge an even more refined concept of individual GBK - "...his general bridge knowledge...". I have not argued for a universal GBK. In my mind GBK is knowledge that I have gained from my own general study of bridge as opposed to knowledge that I have gained by specific partnership discussion. Wayne From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Apr 28 20:01:19 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:01:19 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <006101c42d16$fac59640$53da883e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, grandeval wrote in reply to MadDog: > > I happen to believe this regulation is illegal and am > > as usual locked in battle over it :) In non EBU sponsored > > games I'd need a large preponderence of evidence to so > > rule. perhaps even as much as the difference between > > the tests for criminal guilt and civil guilt. > > > +=+ The word 'illegal' is, I suggest, ill chosen. The laws > state that it is unlawful to base an action on a concealed > partnership understanding. They are silent on what > standard of evidence is required to make a finding that > a CPU exists. That question is left by the laws to the > Director. This is all true. At least we all agree that it is **basing an action on a CPU** that is unlawful. Choosing, of your own accord, an action that a player who had a CPU would also choose, is not. (Provided there are no complications like UI.) OK, so we can't tell the two apart unless we can get inside the player's mind. Tough: that is what the law says. Just like "inadvertent and without pause for thought." If a CPU exists, the misinformation rules come into play and the system regulations may also. (Notice that most psychs on the second round of the bidding would be legal though alertable methods if played by partnership agreement.) If a director presumes a CPU to exist when it doesn't, he has given an incorrect ruling. Most of us try to minimize the frequency with which we give incorrect rulings. On that basis, "preponderance of evidence" has more to recommend it that "if it hesistates, psychs, or stares at the director's daughter's chest, shoot it." The director will, of course, try to establish the facts when he is called to the table. He is very likely to find the facts disputed (one side called the director because they believe there was an infraction, the other side says there wasn't, for instance) and may have trouble determining the facts to his satisfaction. GRB From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 28 21:33:08 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:33:08 -0400 Subject: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: <003101c42d25$35594820$879468d5@default> Message-ID: <42D2387C-9953-11D8-B3F7-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Apr 28, 2004, at 09:32 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Without other evidence, may you legally act as > if partner is the culprit. (IMO No). You may do so with impunity, IMO, *if* you have disclosed partner's tendency to psyche IAW SO regulations. This present a difficulty in the ACBL, at least, where a possible implication of the removal of the "psyching tendency" section from the CC implies that the SO does not want such information disclosed at all. This could well be another "end run" around the laws. :-( OTOH, there is nothing in ACBL or EBU regulations, as far as I'm aware, that prohibits a player from disclosing partner's tendency to psyche. So, if a player is aware of such a tendency, he should disclose it. Whether this should be via an alert or, in the ACBL at least, a pre-alert, I dunno. I suspect an alert is sufficient. Having disclosed it, the whole question of "fielding" is, it seems to me, irrelevant. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 28 21:37:26 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:37:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <009101c42d4d$e793a080$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Apr 28, 2004, at 14:23 US/Eastern, Wayne Burrows wrote: > I guess I am too radical when I believe that in order to be guilty of > having > a concealed partnership agreement you actually need to have > a concealed partnership agreement. It occurs to me that there is a difference between being guilty of something and being *found* guilty of that thing. One would hope that the legal system would minimize the occurrence of such differences, of course. Does ours? From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Apr 28 21:57:37 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:57:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <009b01c42d4f$a4592b30$0401010a@Desktop> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:35 PM 4/28/04, Wayne wrote: > > RJH: > > > > [snip] > > > > >>That is, my reading of the language is that Law 75C > > >>may be (personally) interpreted to define two > > >>*mutually exclusive* options: > > >> > > >>{a} _special_ information through partnership > > >> agreement, or > > >> > > >>{b} _general_ knowledge and experience > > >> > > >>and, by my (personal) interpretation, it is > > >>impossible for a call to occupy categories {a} and > > >>{b} simultaneously. > > > > [snip] > > > > Wayne: > > > > >The problem with this interpretation is that it is > > >far from clear when something jumps from one category > > >into the other. > > > > > >For example when I played with one of my favourite > > >partners for the first time we played 2-minute ACOL > > >because he arrived at the playing venue within two > > >minutes of the starting time. And we had only > > >arranged to play during a momentary encounter in the > > >bar the previous night. > > > > > >During that session we were predominantly playing on > > >our respective 'General Bridge Knowledge'. However > > >after we had continued our partnership > > > > [snip] > > > > RJH: > > > > I see zero theoretical or practical difficulties. At > > the start of your first session you were playing 2- > > minute Acol, so therefore during the session various > > undiscussed situations occurred. However, the outcomes > > of those previously undiscussed situations were > > consequent explicit or implicit partnership agreements. > > > > So, halfway through your first session, your partnership > > agreements progressed to 3-minute Acol. And, by the end > > of your first session, your partnership was now playing > > 4-minute Acol, with still fewer undiscussed holes in > > your system. > > > > I note that you refer to *respective* General Bridge > > Knowledge, which, in my opinion, implicitly concedes a > > point that I have been arguing -> that GBK is a very > > local concept, not a universal concept. > >The laws acknowledge an even more refined concept of >individual GBK - "...his general bridge knowledge...". > >I have not argued for a universal GBK. > >In my mind GBK is knowledge that I have gained from my >own general study of bridge as opposed to knowledge that >I have gained by specific partnership discussion. ...or specific partnership experience, of course. I was wondering when someone would get to that "his". It does suggest that when the law was written, it was intended to refer to players' individual "general bridge knowledge", i.e. that "general" was intended to modify "bridge" rather than "knowledge". But over time, what has come to be accepted as "general bridge knowledge" has slowly been shrinking, until today, in practice, "general bridge knowledge" has become virtually synonomous with "universal bridge knowledge" -- which, as Richard and Wayne argue, may not even exist. This has resulted from the interpretation of "implicit partnership agreement" to cover anything one might know -- from explicit agreement, from partnership experience, from common background, from shared partnerships, from rumor, from one's local psychic -- about how partner might bid. Given a choice between "general bridge knowledge" and "implicit partnership agreement", we seem to find the former only in partnerships formed between total strangers at less than two minutes to game time, if even then. You may have obtained your "bridge knowledge" from a book, but if partner has read the same book its contents become "implicit partnership agreement". The result is, for example, that if you have heard so much as a vague rumor that your partner once psyched, you violate the rules if you choose to guess that it is partner who is trying it on on a particular deal. This may not be a bad thing. I'd suggest that, given that "general bridge knowledge" has been pretty much interpreted out of existence, it should be eliminated from the Laws. L75C might be rewritten along the lines of "...shall disclose all information in his possession as a result of explicit partnership agreement or any other general or specific knowledge of partner's bidding habits or tendencies." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 28 22:16:02 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:16:02 +1200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00ad01c42d66$0276f100$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 8:37 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > > On Wednesday, Apr 28, 2004, at 14:23 US/Eastern, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > I guess I am too radical when I believe that in order to be > guilty of > > having > > a concealed partnership agreement you actually need to have > > a concealed partnership agreement. > > It occurs to me that there is a difference between being guilty of > something and being *found* guilty of that thing. One would hope that > the legal system would minimize the occurrence of such > differences, of > course. Does ours? Bridge Laws according to the scope are not punitive in nature you would hope that this not punitive state would extend to the innocent as well as the guilty. Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 28 22:35:26 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:35:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) References: <009801c42d4e$a4670350$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <006101c42d69$8b5bed10$addf403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 7:28 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > > > > But what of the general bridge knowledge that partner > is entitled to psyche - one is surely entitled to base > one's actions on that. > +=+ Opponents are equally entitled to psyche. However, action based on an assumption that partner has psyched requires evidence from the auction and the player's own cards to shown that someone has psyched and that it is partner. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 28 22:36:49 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:36:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) References: <009b01c42d4f$a4592b30$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <006201c42d69$8c3276f0$addf403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 7:35 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > In my mind GBK is knowledge that I have gained from my > own general study of bridge as opposed to knowledge that > I have gained by specific partnership discussion. > +=+ If there is a partnership agreement, discussed or not, it must be disclosed, whether you also claim GBK on the subject or not. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 28 22:37:19 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:37:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) References: Message-ID: <006301c42d69$8d4e4730$addf403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 8:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > The director will, of course, try to establish the facts when he is called > to the table. He is very likely to find the facts disputed (one side > called the director because they believe there was an infraction, the > other side says there wasn't, for instance) and may have trouble > determining the facts to his satisfaction. > +=+ In which case he refers to Law 85B. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 28 22:37:44 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:37:44 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double References: <42D2387C-9953-11D8-B3F7-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <006401c42d69$8e75d740$addf403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 9:33 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double > OTOH, there is nothing in ACBL or EBU regulations, > as far as I'm aware, that prohibits a player from > disclosing partner's tendency to psyche. > So, if a player is aware of such a tendency, he should > disclose it. Whether this should be via an alert or, in > the ACBL at least, a pre-alert, I dunno. I suspect an > alert is sufficient. Having disclosed it, the whole question > of "fielding" is, it seems to me, irrelevant. > +=+ Having disclosed partner's tendency to psyche, the player is still authorised to base his own calls and plays only on "information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents". Partner's habit of psyching is extraneous information, not AI for the player. Not until the legal calls and plays - together with the cards he can see - have exposed the psyche, is the player free to take account of it. ~ G ~ +=+ From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 29 00:27:48 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:27:48 +1200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <006101c42d69$8b5bed10$addf403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <00b401c42d78$6af4f3a0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk > Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 9:35 a.m. > To: 'Bridge Laws Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "Teach him to think for himself? Oh, my God, > teach him to think like other people." > ~ Mary Shelley. > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 7:28 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > > > > > > > > > > But what of the general bridge knowledge that partner > > is entitled to psyche - one is surely entitled to base > > one's actions on that. > > > +=+ Opponents are equally entitled to psyche. However, > action based on an assumption that partner has psyched > requires evidence from the auction and the player's own > cards to shown that someone has psyched and that it is > partner. ~ G ~ +=+ Which law is this? Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 29 00:28:40 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:28:40 +1200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <006201c42d69$8c3276f0$addf403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <00b501c42d78$89de01d0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk > Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 9:37 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "Teach him to think for himself? Oh, my God, > teach him to think like other people." > ~ Mary Shelley. > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: ; > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 7:35 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > > > > > > > In my mind GBK is knowledge that I have gained from my > > own general study of bridge as opposed to knowledge that > > I have gained by specific partnership discussion. > > > > +=+ If there is a partnership agreement, discussed or not, it > must be disclosed, whether you also claim GBK on the subject > or not. Not according to my law book ... "...but not ..." Wayne > ~ G ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john@asimere.com Thu Apr 29 01:03:09 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:03:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <006101c42d69$8b5bed10$addf403e@multivisionoem> References: <009801c42d4e$a4670350$0401010a@Desktop> <006101c42d69$8b5bed10$addf403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: In article <006101c42d69$8b5bed10$addf403e@multivisionoem>, gesta@tiscali.co.uk writes > >Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "Teach him to think for himself? Oh, my God, > teach him to think like other people." > ~ Mary Shelley. >=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#= >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Wayne Burrows" >To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" >Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 7:28 PM >Subject: RE: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > >> >> > > >> >> But what of the general bridge knowledge that partner >> is entitled to psyche - one is surely entitled to base >> one's actions on that. >> >+=+ Opponents are equally entitled to psyche. However, >action based on an assumption that partner has psyched >requires evidence from the auction and the player's own >cards to shown that someone has psyched and that it is >partner. ~ G ~ +=+ I'm very much in agreement with this, of course. Being myself fairly active in exercising my Law 40A right to make any call I like (some would aver that I know no better) my partners have to be, and in general are, extremely careful as to their actions. So indeed am I. I'm prepared to pay out to the three consecutive psyches on one hand though, as even I find that a bit rich. 1D 1H 1S 2C all pass where no-one has supported despite holding 4 card fits, and the partnership plays 2C on a 4-4 fit combined 14 count is the one I have in mind. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From blml@blakjak.com Thu Apr 29 01:14:10 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:14:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040427170513.02498740@pop.starpower.net> <007f01c42c9e$72a7f000$205b4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >>> At 04:20 AM 4/27/04, grandeval wrote: >>> >>> >the Orange Book says (6.2.2): "A partnership's >>> >actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD >>> >to find that it has an unauthorized understanding". >>> >(To the aggravation of some, this does not require >>> >the TD to identify the source of such understanding >>> >- the understanding is determined to be a fact on >>> >the evidence of the action post-psyche.*) >I happen to believe this regulation is illegal and am as usual locked in >battle over it :) In non EBU sponsored games I'd need a large >preponderence of evidence to so rule. perhaps even as much as the >difference between the tests for criminal guilt and civil guilt. When ruling on a question of UI, MI, violation of the proprieties and where an extra card came from you apply the basis of preponderance of ht evidence. Why should violations of Law 40 be treated differently? -- 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 Apr 29 01:15:32 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:15:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <00ad01c42d66$0276f100$0401010a@Desktop> References: <00ad01c42d66$0276f100$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote >Bridge Laws according to the scope are not punitive in nature you would >hope that this not punitive state would extend to the innocent as well >as the guilty. As you know well, the Scope gives a general approach but there are exceptions, L90 being the obvious case in point. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 29 01:51:13 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:51:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <006101c42d69$8b5bed10$addf403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <506F419D-9977-11D8-B3F7-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Apr 28, 2004, at 17:35 US/Eastern, gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > However, > action based on an assumption that partner has psyched > requires evidence from the auction and the player's own > cards to shown that someone has psyched and that it is > partner. The existence of such evidence would indicate that action would not be based on any assumption that partner has psyched, but rather that it is (or at least might be) based on deduction from that evidence. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 29 01:53:22 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:53:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <00b501c42d78$89de01d0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <9D065232-9977-11D8-B3F7-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Apr 28, 2004, at 19:28 US/Eastern, Wayne Burrows wrote: > Not according to my law book ... > > "...but not ..." Perhaps in the next revision it should say "but not solely..." Be that as it may, I agree that isn't what it says now. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 29 02:01:29 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:01:29 +1200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00b701c42d85$81530b20$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 12:16 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > Wayne Burrows wrote > > >Bridge Laws according to the scope are not punitive in > nature you would > >hope that this not punitive state would extend to the > innocent as well > >as the guilty. > > As you know well, the Scope gives a general approach but there are > exceptions, L90 being the obvious case in point. This is not a L90 issue and I do not see any exception in L75. 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 Thu Apr 29 03:22:59 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:22:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) Message-ID: Wayne Burrows, earlier posting: >>>I guess I am too radical when I believe that in >>>order to be guilty of having a concealed >>>partnership agreement you actually need to have >>>a concealed partnership agreement. Wayne Burrows, later posting: >>Bridge Laws according to the scope are not >>punitive in nature you would hope that this not >>punitive state would extend to the innocent as >>well as the guilty. Richard James Hills writes: An incorrect paraphrase of the words of the Scope by Wayne. What the Scope actually says is: ".....The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage....." The adjective "primarily" in the Scope, means that there is scope for some Laws to secondarily be punitive. Furthermore, I disagree with Wayne's preferred radical decision procedure for TDs. The traditional English criminal law maxim of "better that 100 guilty people should be acquitted, rather than 1 innocent person should be convicted" does not apply in traditional English civil law, for which the alternative criterion of "balance of probabilities" applies. While some TD rulings are analogous to criminal law decisions, most TD rulings are analogous to civil law decisions. If a TD cannot determine disputed facts for a civil-law analogous bridge ruling, Law 85A gives the TD the ability to promulgate a ruling based upon the TD's own judgement of where the TD is "satisfied" the true facts lie. Naturally, it is possible that the TD's satisfaction may not correspond to reality in a rare case when the putative offending side was coincidentally lucky, rather than actually culpable of MI. So what? Ecclesiastes, chapter 9, verse 11: >I realised another thing, that in this world >world fast runners do not always win the race, >and the brave do not always win the battle. > >Wise men do not always earn a living, intelligent >men do not always get rich, and capable men do >not always rise to high positions. > >Bad luck happens to everyone. 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 dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net Thu Apr 29 05:28:28 2004 From: dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:28:28 -0500 Subject: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: <20040429001702.22631.64943.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <001901c42da2$6c0fe770$6528fea9@Picasso> Grattan Endicott wrote: > OTOH, there is nothing in ACBL or EBU regulations, > as far as I'm aware, that prohibits a player from > disclosing partner's tendency to psyche. > So, if a player is aware of such a tendency, he should > disclose it. Whether this should be via an alert or, in > the ACBL at least, a pre-alert, I dunno. I suspect an > alert is sufficient. Having disclosed it, the whole question > of "fielding" is, it seems to me, irrelevant. > +=+ Having disclosed partner's tendency to psyche, the player is still authorised to base his own calls and plays only on "information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents". Partner's habit of psyching is extraneous information, not AI for the player. Not until the legal calls and plays - together with the cards he can see - have exposed the psyche, is the player free to take account of it. ---------------- I'm sorry; why? We're not talking about violations of agreements (because by hypothesis the players have the agreement to psyche with a certain frequency, and tell their opponents that), so 75B isn't violated. 75A isn't violated either, because the information conveyed does arise from the legal calls and plays -- the information about a call is that it has a certain meaning most of the time, and an entirely different meaning the rest of the time. Partner doesn't know which one, so which one isn't information conveyed through the call. You may be pointing to 73A1, but if so that's inapposite. "Communication . . . shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves," yes. But that's still what's going on when a player factors the (say) ten percent chance his partner is psyching with the ninety percent chance he's telling the truth. The psycher hasn't communicated THAT he is psyching -- whether he is or not hasn't been communicated at all. The fact that he might be psyching was communicated before the deal, when the players were making their agreements, and 73A1 apples by its terms only to the auction and play. What about UI? Well, the player has available the disclosed partnership agreement about the calls meaning and the disclosed agreement to violate that agreement periodically. In formation from disclosed agreements is authorized. And he has the legal auction, also authorized. And nothing else. Remember, he doesn't know whether his partner has psyched. I don't see where else the laws limit a player who has received only authorized information in how he decides on calls or plays. If he chooses to cater to a possible psyche, and that catering was costless or nearly so, then his action may not be based on an illegal CPU, UI, or anything other than his disclosed agreements and the legal auction. If the catering was costly -- it wins only when there's a psyche -- it's still possibly based only on disclosed agreements and the legal auction, it just doesn't look as good in a probabilistic sense. So what? (In practice, the "so what" is probably that you don't believe he's revealed everything. OK. So say that.) Did I miss a law that limits actions to certain KINDS of authorized information? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 29 06:07:28 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:07:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: Doug Couchman asked: >I'm sorry; why? We're not talking about violations of >agreements (because by hypothesis the players have the >agreement to psyche with a certain frequency, and tell >their opponents that), so 75B isn't violated. [big snip] Richard James Hills QEDs: The whichness of why is the following syllogism -> 1. The Chapter 1 definition of Psychic Call is, "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length". 2. "A gross misstatement" of an agreement and "a certain frequency" agreement cannot refer to the same thing. 3. Therefore, either -> (a) we are talking about violation of agreement in the context of discussing a psyche, or (b) we are talking about non-violation of agreement in the context of discussing a pseudo-psyche. 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 29 07:46:27 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:46:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) References: <9D065232-9977-11D8-B3F7-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003c01c42db5$d79170a0$25a1403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 1:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > On Wednesday, Apr 28, 2004, at 19:28 US/Eastern, > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > Not according to my law book ... > > > > "...but not ..." > > Perhaps in the next revision it should say "but not solely..." > > Be that as it may, I agree that isn't what it says now. > +=+ Clearly Wayne reads his law book differently from the way I read mine. I note the difference of strength between 'shall disclose' and 'need not'. The first is an imperative, for which reason I do not accept that being excused from revealing your general bridge knowledge and experience overrides the first requirement which is to disclose information deriving from partnership agreement and experience. When Wayne and others of his tendency probe the loopholes of the law it does at least mark for me areas of the law that need to be screwed down more tightly - and I re-read my drafts with this in mind, often with a view to empowering regulators to meet needs where they are found to exist. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 29 07:53:48 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:53:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: ACBL Long Beach 2003 Casebook, appeal number 19: >>>Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, vul NS >>> >>> Q42 >>> T97542 >>> J9 >>> T4 >>>J53 K >>>QJ8 AK63 >>>A5 QT762 >>>AKJ92 Q85 >>> AT9876 >>> --- >>> K843 >>> 643 >>> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>--- --- 1D 1S >>>2C Dbl(1) Pass Pass >>>Rdbl 2S (2) 3C Pass >>>Pass Pass >>> >>>(1) Explained by South as penalty >>>(2) The Director was called after the 2S bid Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >>Whether of not you deem it logical, I stick to my original >>opinion which stipulated that, given the UI, opponents need >>good reason to remove the redouble. Here I would be >>interested in North's reason for removal of 2CXX, ahead of >>his partner when he has a doubleton club honour in addition >>to what his original bid promised. IMO, without the UI >>from South's explanation, pass is a logical alternative >>for North. Grattan Endicott (blmler): >+=3D+ Before subscribing to such a view I would be >looking for the answers to two questions. > > (1) Do the methods of NS allow of a South hand > that, having made a simple 1S overcall, could > make a penalty pass of the North double with > reasonable prospects of defeating the contract > opposite the actual North holding - this being > the meaning that N must ascribe, absent the UI, > to the overcall of 1S and the pass of the double? > > (2) If the answer to (1) were 'no', does North have > the acumen to realize as much, so justifying his > 2S bid since 'Pass' is not then a LA? > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Jeff Goldsmith (casebook panelist): >>>Why weren't N/S entitled to 2C redoubled making six? If >>>South had explained correctly, would not North pass 2C >>>redoubled? [snip] Rich Colker (casebook editor): >>>If West redoubles when 2C doubled comes back to him it >>>seems unlikely that North would pass. From North's >>>perspective, South's pass of his Snap Dragon-type double >>>(showing hearts with spade tolerance) sitting under the 2C >>>bidder smacks of a misunderstanding. Combine that with >>>North's extreme lack of high cards plus his three-card spade >>>support and discretion would seem to me to be the better >>>part of valor. So there is simply no way to play 2C >>>redoubled. But then why not... Grattan Endicott (casebook panellist): >>>If no question is asked North bids 2C over the redouble. He >>>does not obtain his information from South's explanation but >>>from her pass of his double. As for West, he has all the >>>information to reach his best contract. The Committee should >>>let the table score stand for both pairs. Rich Colker (casebook editor): >>>If West passes 2C doubled he gets his best score since E/W >>>cannot legitimately bid and make 6C. Thus, N/S do not get to >>>keep the table result. They get -580. Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Apr 29 08:23:22 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:23:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4090AD6A.9090709@hdw.be> Eric falls into a very common trap: Eric Landau wrote: > > This may not be a bad thing. I'd suggest that, given that "general > bridge knowledge" has been pretty much interpreted out of existence, it > should be eliminated from the Laws. L75C might be rewritten along the > lines of "...shall disclose all information in his possession as a > result of explicit partnership agreement or any other general or > specific knowledge of partner's bidding habits or tendencies." > There is still a very great amount of GBK. But we have been discussing this subject, on blml, so much, that there are now 2 kinds of GBK: debatable GBK and unquestionable GBK. Since there is so much debate on blml, we cannot say that the first type of GBK is General BK. But the second type of GBK still remains and we would never (well, never say never on blml) discuss it. I'm talking about such GBK as "spades are worth more than clubs" and "a player who has passed first in hand can never bid forcing thereafter" and "if you pass a forcing bid, something is fishy". Delete the line about GBK from the laws and you will get bridge lawyers who will say "he did not tell me that ...". > > 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 > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Apr 29 08:30:59 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:30:59 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: <006401c42d69$8e75d740$addf403e@multivisionoem> References: <42D2387C-9953-11D8-B3F7-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <006401c42d69$8e75d740$addf403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <4090AF33.1050106@hdw.be> No Grattan, totally wrong! gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > +=+ Having disclosed partner's tendency to psyche, the > player is still authorised to base his own calls and plays > only on "information from legal calls and plays and from > mannerisms of opponents". Partner's habit of psyching is > extraneous information, not AI for the player. Of course partner's habits are AI! You could not play bridge without them being such. Of course they are also disclosable, but the fact that one has not disclosed them does not make them UI. If I forget to alert my partner's Ghestem bid, I will be guilty of having provided MI, but not of using UI, will I? > Not until > the legal calls and plays - together with the cards he can > see - have exposed the psyche, is the player free to take > account of it. That second sentence has nothing to do with the first. "Not until the legal calls and the cards have exposed the psyche, will the player be aware that the psyche has occured. But even before these make it 100% certain, a player is free to use the information that his partner will psyche, say, 5% of the time. And the opponents are entitled to that same information. Let me even go further: If I know that my partner psyches a particular thing 10% of the time, but my cards do not allow me to discover that it is this time, I can still be found guilty of MI my opponents, whose cards might be enough to discover the psyche if they had only known about the 10% possibility. Which is another reason why I feel the EBU are on the wrong track by only chasing after "fielded" psyches. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Apr 29 08:33:35 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:33:35 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: <001901c42da2$6c0fe770$6528fea9@Picasso> References: <001901c42da2$6c0fe770$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: <4090AFCF.4060603@hdw.be> Very well put, Doug. Exactly my point. If only I could have said this all equally well. I urge everyone to take another look at what: Doug Couchman wrote: > > I'm sorry; why? We're not talking about violations of agreements (because > by hypothesis the players have the agreement to psyche with a certain > frequency, and tell their opponents that), so 75B isn't violated. 75A isn't > violated either, because the information conveyed does arise from the legal > calls and plays -- the information about a call is that it has a certain > meaning most of the time, and an entirely different meaning the rest of the > time. Partner doesn't know which one, so which one isn't information > conveyed through the call. > > You may be pointing to 73A1, but if so that's inapposite. "Communication . > . . shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves," yes. > But that's still what's going on when a player factors the (say) ten percent > chance his partner is psyching with the ninety percent chance he's telling > the truth. The psycher hasn't communicated THAT he is psyching -- whether > he is or not hasn't been communicated at all. The fact that he might be > psyching was communicated before the deal, when the players were making > their agreements, and 73A1 apples by its terms only to the auction and play. > > What about UI? Well, the player has available the disclosed partnership > agreement about the calls meaning and the disclosed agreement to violate > that agreement periodically. In formation from disclosed agreements is > authorized. And he has the legal auction, also authorized. And nothing > else. Remember, he doesn't know whether his partner has psyched. > > I don't see where else the laws limit a player who has received only > authorized information in how he decides on calls or plays. If he chooses > to cater to a possible psyche, and that catering was costless or nearly so, > then his action may not be based on an illegal CPU, UI, or anything other > than his disclosed agreements and the legal auction. If the catering was > costly -- it wins only when there's a psyche -- it's still possibly based > only on disclosed agreements and the legal auction, it just doesn't look as > good in a probabilistic sense. So what? > > (In practice, the "so what" is probably that you don't believe he's revealed > everything. OK. So say that.) > > Did I miss a law that limits actions to certain KINDS of authorized > information? > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 29 09:47:32 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:47:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double References: Message-ID: <002201c42dcd$b5fb2fe0$bc6d893e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Double-meaning double ACBL Long Beach 2003 Casebook, appeal number 19: >>>Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, vul NS >>> >>> Q42 >>> T97542 >>> J9 >>> T4 >>>J53 K >>>QJ8 AK63 >>>A5 QT762 >>>AKJ92 Q85 >>> AT9876 >>> --- >>> K843 >>> 643 >>> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>--- --- 1D 1S >>>2C Dbl(1) Pass Pass >>>Rdbl 2S (2) 3C Pass >>>Pass Pass >>> >>>(1) Explained by South as penalty >>>(2) The Director was called after the 2S bid Grattan Endicott (casebook panellist): >>>If no question is asked North bids *2C* over the redouble. He >>>does not obtain his information from South's explanation but >>>from her pass of his double. As for West, he has all the >>>information to reach his best contract. The Committee should >>>let the table score stand for both pairs. Best wishes Richard James Hills < +=+ **Whose is the misprint? +=+ From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Apr 29 11:54:09 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:54:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018169BC@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> At 07:41 AM 4/28/04, grandeval wrote: >+=3D+ Well, maybe...... The determination of a CPU, >and the level of evidence required for this, are matters >in the hands of the Director and the AC, and subject >to regulation by the SO. Any SO, its Director or AC, >may take a lead from the EBU policy - it is up to each >to make its own decision. I have known both EBL and >WBF TACs that have based a finding that a CPU >existed on the evidence of subsequent abnormal >action by the partner of the psycher that catered for >the psyche. Avowals that there is no understanding >cut little ice when there is a flagrant departure from >normal expectations by a partner who has no basis >from the auction by which he may justifiably conclude >that the first player has psyched. I have no problem with this. Internal evidence of a CPU from the=20 actions on the deal will inevitably outweigh the purported OS's avowals=20 that there was no such CPU; I imagine that this is what normally=20 happens. But a policy which explicitly states that the evidence from=20 the actions on the deal is *sufficient* to establish a CPU instructs=20 the TD/AC to ignore not only such self-serving statements by the=20 puported OS, but also any other evidence of any kind that they may=20 choose to present -- IOW, once the TD/AC decides that there has been a=20 "fielding" action, their finding of a CPU becomes automatic; there's no=20 longer even any point in listening to what the puported OS has to=20 say. That doesn't seem right. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20 [Frances] It says not "is sufficient" but "may be sufficient". In some cases it is sufficient to establish a CPU and in others it isn't. From blml@blakjak.com Thu Apr 29 12:22:39 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:22:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <00b701c42d85$81530b20$0401010a@Desktop> References: <00b701c42d85$81530b20$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <0NJyfNA$VOkAFwc+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Wayne Burrows wrote > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of David Stevenson >> Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 12:16 p.m. >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) >> >> >> Wayne Burrows wrote >> >> >Bridge Laws according to the scope are not punitive in >> nature you would >> >hope that this not punitive state would extend to the >> innocent as well >> >as the guilty. >> >> As you know well, the Scope gives a general approach but there are >> exceptions, L90 being the obvious case in point. > >This is not a L90 issue and I do not see any exception in L75. I was merely replying to what you posted [quoted above] and not to something different. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Apr 29 12:26:25 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:26:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2tuyn0AhZOkAFwfi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote > > > > >Wayne Burrows, earlier posting: > >>>>I guess I am too radical when I believe that in >>>>order to be guilty of having a concealed >>>>partnership agreement you actually need to have >>>>a concealed partnership agreement. > >Wayne Burrows, later posting: > >>>Bridge Laws according to the scope are not >>>punitive in nature you would hope that this not >>>punitive state would extend to the innocent as >>>well as the guilty. > >Richard James Hills writes: > >An incorrect paraphrase of the words of the Scope >by Wayne. What the Scope actually says is: > >".....The Laws are primarily designed not as >punishment for irregularities, but rather as >redress for damage....." > >The adjective "primarily" in the Scope, means that >there is scope for some Laws to secondarily be >punitive. > >Furthermore, I disagree with Wayne's preferred >radical decision procedure for TDs. The >traditional English criminal law maxim of "better >that 100 guilty people should be acquitted, rather >than 1 innocent person should be convicted" does >not apply in traditional English civil law, for >which the alternative criterion of "balance of >probabilities" applies. > >While some TD rulings are analogous to criminal >law decisions, most TD rulings are analogous to >civil law decisions. We must not forget there are opponents. The people here who think we should treat psychers as completely innocent unless proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt are showing a complete lack of tolerance for the non-offenders. That is why we must use the civil law basis: there are two sides. -- 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 Apr 29 12:39:07 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:39:07 +1200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018169BC@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <00e801c42dde$9536c240$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 10:54 p.m. > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > > At 07:41 AM 4/28/04, grandeval wrote: > > >+=+ Well, maybe...... The determination of a CPU, > >and the level of evidence required for this, are matters > >in the hands of the Director and the AC, and subject > >to regulation by the SO. Any SO, its Director or AC, > >may take a lead from the EBU policy - it is up to each > >to make its own decision. I have known both EBL and > >WBF TACs that have based a finding that a CPU > >existed on the evidence of subsequent abnormal > >action by the partner of the psycher that catered for > >the psyche. Avowals that there is no understanding > >cut little ice when there is a flagrant departure from > >normal expectations by a partner who has no basis > >from the auction by which he may justifiably conclude > >that the first player has psyched. > > I have no problem with this. Internal evidence of a CPU from the > actions on the deal will inevitably outweigh the purported > OS's avowals > that there was no such CPU; I imagine that this is what normally > happens. But a policy which explicitly states that the evidence from > the actions on the deal is *sufficient* to establish a CPU instructs > the TD/AC to ignore not only such self-serving statements by the > puported OS, but also any other evidence of any kind that they may > choose to present -- IOW, once the TD/AC decides that there > has been a > "fielding" action, their finding of a CPU becomes automatic; > there's no > longer even any point in listening to what the puported OS has to > say. That doesn't seem right. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > [Frances] > It says not "is sufficient" but "may be sufficient". In some cases > it is sufficient to establish a CPU and in others it isn't. And what is it that would make one case sufficient and another not? The colour of the players eyes? Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 29 12:40:52 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:40:52 +1200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <0NJyfNA$VOkAFwc+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <00e901c42dde$d3a8c820$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 11:23 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > Wayne Burrows wrote > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > >> Behalf Of David Stevenson > >> Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 12:16 p.m. > >> To: blml@rtflb.org > >> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > >> > >> > >> Wayne Burrows wrote > >> > >> >Bridge Laws according to the scope are not punitive in > >> nature you would > >> >hope that this not punitive state would extend to the > >> innocent as well > >> >as the guilty. > >> > >> As you know well, the Scope gives a general approach > but there are > >> exceptions, L90 being the obvious case in point. > > > >This is not a L90 issue and I do not see any exception in L75. > > I was merely replying to what you posted [quoted above] and not to > something different. I didn't make that post in a vacuum. 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 Thu Apr 29 13:09:05 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:09:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reveley ruling?? References: <020f01c42352$13dc1f60$479468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <02d501c42de3$3f7254a0$649868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Nigel] > 2004 North Wales Spring Congress Teams > (Hands from memory) West North East South > Q543 - - - 1N > AJ43 (2C) X* (P) 3S > 54 (P) 4S End > 654 > N 1N = 15-18 > W + E 2C = 5+H 4+minor > S X = Alerted as T/O > AKJT2 > Q2 West leads C7 to East's CJ > K32 > A32 > At the table, 2C was not alerted; at the end of the > of the auction RHO explained that over a strong 1N, > 2C was natural (but Astro over a weak 1NT). > I went one down. It transpired that... > (a) LHO had hearts and diamonds (2C was Astro) > (b) RHO had six clubs but failed to raise West's > "natural" 2C. > I called the TD to complain about the "fielded" psyche. > I explained that I misplayed 4S because of the wrong > information. The opponents were friendly and charming. > They readily agreed the facts. The TD mildly admonished > EW but left the score unchanged. We appealed. > The eponymous Ted Reveley (who won the main Swiss Teams > event) chaired the appeals committee and, naturally, > issued a "Reveley" ruling (which he defined as a technically > illegal compromise ruling to approximate better to justice). > The AC ruled that we all got 50% of the score of 4S-1 and > 50% of the score for 4S=. Three questions... > (1) The committee asked me how I should play 4S if I know > that LHO has hearts and a minor? How would you answer? > (If you cash SAK, RHO discards a club). > (2) How would you rule (in the UK? Elsewhere?) > (3) [A side issue relating to "fielding psyches"] > I was delighted with the ruling but I asked Mr Reveley why > the AC did not rule 4S=. Mr Reveley kindly explained that my > RHO did not really "catch a red psyche". She had 6 clubs to > 100 honours. I must have at least two for my 1N bid which > left LHO with at most a poor five card suit. Now, this is > the sort of argument which most BLMLers are happy to accept > but I find hard to understand. It always seems to me that > when it is obvious that *somebody* does not have their bid, > then, in most circumstances, you should trust partner rather > than opponents (assuming, of course, that you have no illegal > private psyche understandings with your partner). For > example, here my RHO may suspect that I, the 1N opener, have > some spades in among my clubs. [Nigel] Since it's not relevant to this discussion list, I'll dispose of the answer to the "loser on loser" play problem: North Q543 AJ43 54 654 South AKJT2 Q2 K32 A32 South's 4S contract is guaranteed if LHO is 3541 with HK. CA, SAK, H finesse, HA ruff a heart, SQ, discard clubs on LHO's 4th and 5th heart. LHO must then lead a diamond. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Apr 29 13:17:04 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:17:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <4090AD6A.9090709@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040429080911.024a8850@pop.starpower.net> At 03:23 AM 4/29/04, Herman wrote: >Eric falls into a very common trap: > >Eric Landau wrote: >>This may not be a bad thing. I'd suggest that, given that "general >>bridge knowledge" has been pretty much interpreted out of existence, >>it should be eliminated from the Laws. L75C might be rewritten along >>the lines of "...shall disclose all information in his possession as >>a result of explicit partnership agreement or any other general or >>specific knowledge of partner's bidding habits or tendencies." > >There is still a very great amount of GBK. >But we have been discussing this subject, on blml, so much, that there >are now 2 kinds of GBK: debatable GBK and unquestionable GBK. Since >there is so much debate on blml, we cannot say that the first type of >GBK is General BK. But the second type of GBK still remains and we >would never (well, never say never on blml) discuss it. I'm talking >about such GBK as "spades are worth more than clubs" and "a player who >has passed first in hand can never bid forcing thereafter" and "if you >pass a forcing bid, something is fishy". > >Delete the line about GBK from the laws and you will get bridge >lawyers who will say "he did not tell me that ...". My suggested rewording specifies two things as subject to disclosure: "explicit partnership agreements" and "partner's bidding habits or tendencies". I don't see how either of those could be interpreted to include "spades are worth more than clubs". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Apr 29 13:37:22 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:37:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018169BC@lonsc-s-031.europ e.shell.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040429081943.009ef8b0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:54 AM 4/29/04, Hinden wrote: >I have no problem with this. Internal evidence of a CPU from the >actions on the deal will inevitably outweigh the purported OS's avowals >that there was no such CPU; I imagine that this is what normally >happens. But a policy which explicitly states that the evidence from >the actions on the deal is *sufficient* to establish a CPU instructs >the TD/AC to ignore not only such self-serving statements by the >puported OS, but also any other evidence of any kind that they may >choose to present -- IOW, once the TD/AC decides that there has been a >"fielding" action, their finding of a CPU becomes automatic; there's no >longer even any point in listening to what the puported OS has to >say. That doesn't seem right. > >Eric Landau > >[Frances] >It says not "is sufficient" but "may be sufficient". In some cases >it is sufficient to establish a CPU and in others it isn't. In this context, what does "may be sufficient" mean, other than "may be treated as sufficient if the TD/AC chooses to do so"? IOW, TDs/ACs aren't required to refuse to hear evidence to the contrary, but are permitted to do so if they want to. Either way it doesn't seem right. Granted, this is a semantic quibble, but if we've learned anything on BLML, it is that we must be careful with the semantics of our laws. What we mean, I think, is that the internal evidence from the deal "may establish" that there was a CPU, i.e. may outweigh whatever evidence to the contrary is presented, as opposed to "may be sufficient to establish", i.e. may outweigh any evidence to the contrary that might conceivably be presented. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Apr 29 14:16:57 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:16:57 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Double-meaning double References: <001901c42da2$6c0fe770$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: <02f601c42dec$404f7f20$649868d5@tinyhrieuyik> >> [Grattan Endicott] >> +=+ Having disclosed partner's tendency to psyche, the >> player is still authorised to base his own calls and plays >> only on "information from legal calls and plays and from >> mannerisms of opponents". Partner's habit of psyching is >> extraneous information, not AI for the player. Not until >> the legal calls and plays - together with the cards he can >> see - have exposed the psyche, is the player free to take >> account of it. > [Doug Couchman] > I'm sorry; why? We're not talking about violations of > agreements (because by hypothesis the players have the > agreement to psyche with a certain frequency, and tell > their opponents that), so 75B isn't violated. 75A isn't > violated either, because the information conveyed does > arise from the legal calls and plays -- the information > about a call is that it has a certain meaning most of the > time, and an entirely different meaning the rest of the > time. Partner doesn't know which one, so which one isn't > information conveyed through the call. > You may be pointing to 73A1, but if so that's inapposite. > "Communication ... shall be effected only by means of the > calls and plays themselves," yes. But that's still what's > going on when a player factors the (say) ten percent chance > his partner is psyching with the ninety percent chance he's > telling the truth. The psycher hasn't communicated THAT he > is psyching -- whether he is or not hasn't been communicated > at all. The fact that he might be psyching was communicated > before the deal, when the players were making their agreements, > and 73A1 apples by its terms only to the auction and play. > What about UI? Well, the player has available the disclosed > partnership agreement about the calls meaning and the disclosed > agreement to violate that agreement periodically. In formation > from disclosed agreements is authorized. And he has the legal > auction, also authorized. And nothing else. Remember, he > doesn't know whether his partner has psyched. > I don't see where else the laws limit a player who has received > only authorized information in how he decides on calls or plays. > If he chooses to cater to a possible psyche, and that catering > was costless or nearly so, then his action may not be based on > an illegal CPU, UI, or anything other than his disclosed > agreements and the legal auction. If the catering was > costly -- it wins only when there's a psyche -- it's still > possibly based only on disclosed agreements and the legal auction, > it just doesn't look as good in a probabilistic sense. So what? > (In practice, the "so what" is probably that you don't believe > he's revealed everything. OK. So say that.) Did I miss a law > that limits actions to certain KINDS of authorized information? [Nigel] I agree with Grattan but Doug's arguments are pretty convincing! Perhaps, as Doug implies, the problem *is* how to disclose psyche patterns. Most regular psychers do have definite preferences of which their partners gradually become aware. For example... (1) Circumstances influence most psychers Some psyche early in a match "to advertise". Some psyche only when down a lot. Most psyche more often after a drink. (2) Hand type can affect psyche decisions. A few sandbag with good hands. A few will be bid voids and open on Yardboroughs, Many bid with too few points but a real suit. Most need a three card suit, often three to an honour. (3) Vulnerability and position often exert some influence. Some psyche most third in hand. Some do not psyche when vulnerable. (4) Specific kinds of auctions tempt different players. For example, some have a propensity to psyche when RHO doubles partner's opener. It is obvious that psyche pattern and frequency can be much more complex than the underlying partnership system; so it is hard to declare to opponents. Hence, IMO, it is reasonable for the law to be ultra-suspicious, especially when a psyche is "fielded". Furthermore, It seems that *both* partners must adopt the same general approach to psyching or they are guilty of playing an assymetric system. In England and similar jurisdictions there is a further problem. In most competitions, it's illegal to agree to open with "rule of 18" or less. Hence you cannot tell opponents that partner has a propensity to psyche, weaker, third in hand -- because that would obviously involve an illegal understanding and would result in an automatic TD call. (: Although I suspect that the ruling would depend on which TD you called :) A complex issue. Could Danny Roth be right? Should psyching be banned? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Apr 29 16:48:16 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:48:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040429080911.024a8850@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040429080911.024a8850@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <409123C0.5030408@hdw.be> No Eric, won't work. Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:23 AM 4/29/04, Herman wrote: > >> Eric falls into a very common trap: >> >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> This may not be a bad thing. I'd suggest that, given that "general >>> bridge knowledge" has been pretty much interpreted out of existence, >>> it should be eliminated from the Laws. L75C might be rewritten along >>> the lines of "...shall disclose all information in his possession as >>> a result of explicit partnership agreement or any other general or >>> specific knowledge of partner's bidding habits or tendencies." >> >> >> There is still a very great amount of GBK. >> But we have been discussing this subject, on blml, so much, that there >> are now 2 kinds of GBK: debatable GBK and unquestionable GBK. Since >> there is so much debate on blml, we cannot say that the first type of >> GBK is General BK. But the second type of GBK still remains and we >> would never (well, never say never on blml) discuss it. I'm talking >> about such GBK as "spades are worth more than clubs" and "a player who >> has passed first in hand can never bid forcing thereafter" and "if you >> pass a forcing bid, something is fishy". >> >> Delete the line about GBK from the laws and you will get bridge >> lawyers who will say "he did not tell me that ...". > > > My suggested rewording specifies two things as subject to disclosure: > "explicit partnership agreements" and "partner's bidding habits or > tendencies". I don't see how either of those could be interpreted to > include "spades are worth more than clubs". > All you would be doing is to change a negative definition into a positive one. The current definition about what needs to be told opponents is: "everything he knows, except GBK". Your suggestion turns this into "partnership agreements and habits". Considering that the discussion about what this includes has already far longer than any discussion about what GBK is, I don't believe your change would be a change to the better. Consider the following scenario: A player asks a question, and the opponent omits a few things he considers obvious. Under the present regulation, the TD can ask the player if he realized this obvious fact. He will say yes, and the TD will rule that this is GBK, and there has been no MI. Under your proposed regulation, the TD will have to ask whether this is partnership agreement. The bidder will have to reply in the positive and since there is no longer any reference to GBK, the TD will rule MI, regardless of whether the asking player knew it or not. I don't consider that a change for the better. > > 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 > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Apr 29 16:59:02 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:59:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018169CA@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> At 06:54 AM 4/29/04, Hinden wrote: >I have no problem with this. Internal evidence of a CPU from the >actions on the deal will inevitably outweigh the purported OS's avowals >that there was no such CPU; I imagine that this is what normally >happens. But a policy which explicitly states that the evidence from >the actions on the deal is *sufficient* to establish a CPU instructs >the TD/AC to ignore not only such self-serving statements by the >puported OS, but also any other evidence of any kind that they may >choose to present -- IOW, once the TD/AC decides that there has been a >"fielding" action, their finding of a CPU becomes automatic; there's no >longer even any point in listening to what the puported OS has to >say. That doesn't seem right. > >Eric Landau > >[Frances] >It says not "is sufficient" but "may be sufficient". In some cases >it is sufficient to establish a CPU and in others it isn't. In this context, what does "may be sufficient" mean, other than "may be=20 treated as sufficient if the TD/AC chooses to do so"? IOW, TDs/ACs=20 aren't required to refuse to hear evidence to the contrary, but are=20 permitted to do so if they want to. Either way it doesn't seem right. Granted, this is a semantic quibble, but if we've learned anything on=20 BLML, it is that we must be careful with the semantics of our=20 laws. What we mean, I think, is that the internal evidence from the=20 deal "may establish" that there was a CPU, i.e. may outweigh whatever=20 evidence to the contrary is presented, as opposed to "may be sufficient=20 to establish", i.e. may outweigh any evidence to the contrary that=20 might conceivably be presented. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20 [Frances] Yes, OK I take your point. To address Wayne's question at the same time "what might be sufficient" the answer is of course it depends on TD & AC judgement. So do MI and UI rulings. Suppose the auction goes 1C x 1S P 2C P P P and it transpires that the 1S bidder has a 2245 1-count, and the 2C bidder has a 4144 18-count, that one auction is likely (in my mind) to be sufficient to establish that this is a CPU. I agree that I can conceive of some possible evidence that would persuade me otherwise. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Apr 29 17:03:54 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:03:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018169CB@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 10:54 p.m. > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) >=20 >=20 >=20 > At 07:41 AM 4/28/04, grandeval wrote: >=20 > >+=3D+ Well, maybe...... The determination of a CPU, > >and the level of evidence required for this, are matters > >in the hands of the Director and the AC, and subject > >to regulation by the SO. Any SO, its Director or AC, > >may take a lead from the EBU policy - it is up to each > >to make its own decision. I have known both EBL and > >WBF TACs that have based a finding that a CPU > >existed on the evidence of subsequent abnormal > >action by the partner of the psycher that catered for > >the psyche. Avowals that there is no understanding > >cut little ice when there is a flagrant departure from > >normal expectations by a partner who has no basis > >from the auction by which he may justifiably conclude > >that the first player has psyched. >=20 > I have no problem with this. Internal evidence of a CPU from the=20 > actions on the deal will inevitably outweigh the purported=20 > OS's avowals=20 > that there was no such CPU; I imagine that this is what normally=20 > happens. But a policy which explicitly states that the evidence from=20 > the actions on the deal is *sufficient* to establish a CPU instructs=20 > the TD/AC to ignore not only such self-serving statements by the=20 > puported OS, but also any other evidence of any kind that they may=20 > choose to present -- IOW, once the TD/AC decides that there=20 > has been a=20 > "fielding" action, their finding of a CPU becomes automatic;=20 > there's no=20 > longer even any point in listening to what the puported OS has to=20 > say. That doesn't seem right. >=20 >=20 > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20 >=20 >=20 > [Frances] > It says not "is sufficient" but "may be sufficient". In some cases > it is sufficient to establish a CPU and in others it isn't. And what is it that would make one case sufficient and another not? The colour of the players eyes? Wayne [Frances] What I struggle with in your comments is why you seem to think there's=20 anything special about the ruling that there is a CPU. There are=20 many other rulings which can appear equally arbitrary, such as whether=20 there was misbid or misinformation; whether a call was a LA or not; what alternative result was "likely" or "at all probable"; what a "careless but not irrational" line of play is. One can object to all of these on the grounds they are subjective and therefore = potentially biased and unfair. These objections are IMO not without merit, but I haven't yet seen any alternative suggestion that I think is an improvement on the current laws (other than Burnian claims which I would support as a change in the law). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Apr 29 17:25:35 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:25:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double References: Message-ID: <002101c42e06$b32f00a0$f99468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Jeff Goldsmith (casebook panelist): >>>Why weren't N/S entitled to 2C redoubled making six? If >>>South had explained correctly, would not North pass 2C >>>redoubled? Rich Colker (casebook editor): >>>If West redoubles when 2C doubled comes back to him it >>>seems unlikely that North would pass. From North's >>>perspective, South's pass of his Snap Dragon-type double >>>(showing hearts with spade tolerance) sitting under the 2C >>>bidder smacks of a misunderstanding. Combine that with >>>North's extreme lack of high cards plus his three-card spade >>>support and discretion would seem to me to be the better >>>part of valor. So there is simply no way to play 2C >>>redoubled. But then why not... Grattan Endicott (casebook panellist): >>>If no question is asked North bids 2C over the redouble. He >>>does not obtain his information from South's explanation but >>>from her pass of his double. As for West, he has all the >>>information to reach his best contract. The Committee should >>>let the table score stand for both pairs. Rich Colker (casebook editor): >>>If West passes 2C doubled he gets his best score since E/W >>>cannot legitimately bid and make 6C. Thus, N/S do not get to >>>keep the table result. They get -580. [Nigel] North may suspect that somebody has psyched or misbid but without the UI, it is 2-1 to be an opponent rather than partner. Anyway North knows that everyone can have their bid and South can still hold a penalty pass of his takeout double. For example AKTxxx - x Axxxxx IMO, for North it is an LA to pass 2CXX. The North-South agreement is that North's double promised no more than two or three spades to an honour. The doubleton club honour should then be a welocme bonus for South. I suspect that the peer selection or polling procedure may have been flawed, if, indeed, there was one. (: Although Rich Coker's opinion differs from mine, I don't dismiss it as irrational or illegal :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Apr 29 17:44:14 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:44:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040429080911.024a8850@pop.starpower.net> <409123C0.5030408@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003601c42e09$35464ec0$f99468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman De Wael] Consider the following scenario: A player asks a question, and the opponent omits a few things he considers obvious. Under the present regulation, the TD can ask the player if he realized this obvious fact. He will say yes, and the TD will rule that this is GBK, and there has been no MI. Under your proposed regulation, the TD will have to ask whether this is partnership agreement. The bidder will have to reply in the positive and since there is no longer any reference to GBK, the TD will rule MI, regardless of whether the asking player knew it or not. I don't consider that a change for the better. [Nigel] Nobody says you should explain "what is obvious" but "General Bridge knowledge and experience" is a much wider set. Too often what is GBKE to you is a closed book to opponent. This is especially unfair if the opponent is a foreigner or a beginner (whether or not you know he is). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 29 19:13:29 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:13:29 +1200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018169CA@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <00f901c42e15$addfc210$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Sent: Friday, 30 April 2004 3:59 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > > At 06:54 AM 4/29/04, Hinden wrote: > > >I have no problem with this. Internal evidence of a CPU from the > >actions on the deal will inevitably outweigh the purported > OS's avowals > >that there was no such CPU; I imagine that this is what normally > >happens. But a policy which explicitly states that the evidence from > >the actions on the deal is *sufficient* to establish a CPU instructs > >the TD/AC to ignore not only such self-serving statements by the > >puported OS, but also any other evidence of any kind that they may > >choose to present -- IOW, once the TD/AC decides that there > has been a > >"fielding" action, their finding of a CPU becomes automatic; > there's no > >longer even any point in listening to what the puported OS has to > >say. That doesn't seem right. > > > >Eric Landau > > > >[Frances] > >It says not "is sufficient" but "may be sufficient". In some cases > >it is sufficient to establish a CPU and in others it isn't. > > In this context, what does "may be sufficient" mean, other > than "may be > treated as sufficient if the TD/AC chooses to do so"? IOW, TDs/ACs > aren't required to refuse to hear evidence to the contrary, but are > permitted to do so if they want to. Either way it doesn't seem right. > > Granted, this is a semantic quibble, but if we've learned anything on > BLML, it is that we must be careful with the semantics of our > laws. What we mean, I think, is that the internal evidence from the > deal "may establish" that there was a CPU, i.e. may outweigh whatever > evidence to the contrary is presented, as opposed to "may be > sufficient > to establish", i.e. may outweigh any evidence to the contrary that > might conceivably be presented. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > [Frances] > Yes, OK I take your point. To address Wayne's question at > the same time > "what might be sufficient" the answer is of course it depends > on TD & AC > judgement. So do MI and UI rulings. > > Suppose the auction goes > > 1C x 1S P > 2C P P P > > and it transpires that the 1S bidder has a 2245 1-count, and the > 2C bidder has a 4144 18-count, that one auction is likely (in my mind) > to be sufficient to establish that this is a CPU. > > I agree that I can conceive of some possible evidence that would > persuade me otherwise. If you acknowledge the point in this latter sentence then for you the auction is NOT sufficient. You are basing your judgement on the auction AND not hearing other sufficient evidence to the contrary. In my opinion this is a MUCH MUCH more reasonable position than the auction being sufficient evidence. I cannot think of a situation in which it would be plausable not to give the accused an opportunity to defend their action. E.g. The accused *might* on any auction be able to mount a successful defense based on a misbid - this is impossible if the pig-headed tournament director accepts the pig-headed regulations and does not seek further evidence. Last night I saw a player make a fit showing bid in competition that his partner did not recognize. If coincidentally the partner had psyched on the same hand then no doubt the EBU director would have him hung, drawn and quartered even though no offense had taken place. Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 29 19:38:30 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:38:30 +1200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018169CB@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <010001c42e19$2b058a60$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Sent: Friday, 30 April 2004 4:04 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > > Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 10:54 p.m. > > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > > > > > > At 07:41 AM 4/28/04, grandeval wrote: > > > > >+=+ Well, maybe...... The determination of a CPU, > > >and the level of evidence required for this, are matters > > >in the hands of the Director and the AC, and subject > > >to regulation by the SO. Any SO, its Director or AC, > > >may take a lead from the EBU policy - it is up to each > > >to make its own decision. I have known both EBL and > > >WBF TACs that have based a finding that a CPU > > >existed on the evidence of subsequent abnormal > > >action by the partner of the psycher that catered for > > >the psyche. Avowals that there is no understanding > > >cut little ice when there is a flagrant departure from > > >normal expectations by a partner who has no basis > > >from the auction by which he may justifiably conclude > > >that the first player has psyched. > > > > I have no problem with this. Internal evidence of a CPU from the > > actions on the deal will inevitably outweigh the purported > > OS's avowals > > that there was no such CPU; I imagine that this is what normally > > happens. But a policy which explicitly states that the > evidence from > > the actions on the deal is *sufficient* to establish a CPU > instructs > > the TD/AC to ignore not only such self-serving statements by the > > puported OS, but also any other evidence of any kind that they may > > choose to present -- IOW, once the TD/AC decides that there > > has been a > > "fielding" action, their finding of a CPU becomes automatic; > > there's no > > longer even any point in listening to what the puported OS has to > > say. That doesn't seem right. > > > > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > > > > [Frances] > > It says not "is sufficient" but "may be sufficient". In some cases > > it is sufficient to establish a CPU and in others it isn't. > > And what is it that would make one case sufficient and another not? > > The colour of the players eyes? > > Wayne > > [Frances] > What I struggle with in your comments is why you seem to > think there's > anything special about the ruling that there is a CPU. There are > many other rulings which can appear equally arbitrary, such > as whether > there was misbid or misinformation; whether a call was a LA or not; > what alternative result was "likely" or "at all probable"; what a > "careless but not irrational" line of play is. One can object to > all of these on the grounds they are subjective and therefore > potentially > biased and unfair. These objections are IMO not without merit, but > I haven't yet seen any alternative suggestion that I think is an > improvement on the current laws (other than Burnian claims > which I would > support as a change in the law). 1. The ruling that there is a CPU is being used to disallow bridge actions that are specifically legitimatized in the laws, namely psychic calls. IMO this is not a proper action by a regulator who in spite of my NCBOs position is subject to the laws. 2. Misinformation is to be presummed when there is no evidence to the contrary this is a much weaker statement than the auction may be deemed sufficient evidence. This latter position includes when there is evidence to the contrary. And I have heard arguments here that evidence to the contrary will be not accepted in some situations. 3. I do object to the way some rulings are given. If the TD is going to investigate me in a MI case or a Psychic Bidding case then I have a right to be believed when I give evidence about my partnership understandings whether this is a MI or a CPU ruling. The TD has no right to arbitrarily rule against my evidence. If the TD believes that my evidence is dishonest then there are other ways to deal with that problem. Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Apr 29 20:33:06 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:33:06 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Reveley ruling?? In-Reply-To: <02d501c42de3$3f7254a0$649868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Maybe I am missing some nuance here - if so, someone please kindly point it out to me: On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > 2004 North Wales Spring Congress Teams > > (Hands from memory) West North East South > > Q543 - - - 1N > > AJ43 (2C) X* (P) 3S > > 54 (P) 4S End > > 654 > > N 1N = 15-18 > > W + E 2C = 5+H 4+minor > > S X = Alerted as T/O > > AKJT2 > > Q2 West leads C7 to East's CJ > > K32 > > A32 > > At the table, 2C was not alerted; at the end of the > > of the auction RHO explained that over a strong 1N, > > 2C was natural (but Astro over a weak 1NT). Assuming that is their actual system (this should be a quick check of the convention card), 2C was not supposed to be alerted and RHO appears to have replied honestly to an inquiry (he would say nothing at all after the auction if he wasn't queried.) > > I went one down. It transpired that... > > (a) LHO had hearts and diamonds (2C was Astro) > > (b) RHO had six clubs but failed to raise West's > > "natural" 2C. RHO apparently has applied some common sense. > > I called the TD to complain about the "fielded" psyche. You are really looking hard for an excuse to whine about an unlucky result, aren't you? Isn't it completely obvious to everyone at the table that West has misbid, not deliberately psyched? > > I explained that I misplayed 4S because of the wrong > > information. The opponents were friendly and charming. > > They readily agreed the facts. The TD mildly admonished > > EW but left the score unchanged. We appealed. I can't imagine on what basis. It would take all of 30 seconds to pocket your deposit and show you the door. Your actual committee does indeed appear to have come up with an illegal ruling, but I can't see where it did any justice. If, on the other hand, their CC shows Astro in all seats, there was a garden variety failure to alert, and depending how the cards are lying you may well be due an adjustment to 4S=. (In the US, you would probably get 4S=, in the UK you might get some percentage of it.) Either way, the accusation of fielding a psych seems way out of line to me. GRB From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 29 21:48:08 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:48:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <85179AB3-9A1E-11D8-88D5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Apr 29, 2004, at 01:07 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard James Hills QEDs: > > The whichness of why is the following syllogism -> > > 1. The Chapter 1 definition of Psychic Call is, "A > deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or > suit length". > > 2. "A gross misstatement" of an agreement and "a > certain frequency" agreement cannot refer to the same > thing. > > 3. Therefore, either -> > > (a) we are talking about violation of agreement in > the context of discussing a psyche, > > or > > (b) we are talking about non-violation of agreement > in the context of discussing a pseudo-psyche. Hm. A player likes to psyche in certain situations. His partner is aware of that. The player psyches (maybe). Is the psyche "based on a partnership understanding", or is it based on the player's desire to psyche? Put it another way: do the laws say that where a partnership understanding exists, or may exist, certain calls may be subject to sanction, *whatever* the basis for those calls? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 29 21:49:25 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:49:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <003c01c42db5$d79170a0$25a1403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: On Thursday, Apr 29, 2004, at 02:46 US/Eastern, gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > When Wayne and others of his tendency probe > the loopholes of the law it does at least mark for me > areas of the law that need to be screwed down more > tightly Good. That was the intent of my post. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 29 23:05:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:05:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) Message-ID: The philosopher Sidney Hook wrote: >>Before impugning an opponent's motives, even when they >>legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments. The blmler Mr Guthrie impugned: >Sorry Richard, I had you down as an advocate of active >ethics and sporting behaviour over and above the letter of >the law. But [snip] Richard James Hills answers an argument: It seems to me that Mr Guthrie and I are arguing at cross- purposes. In my opinion, Mr Guthrie is using a blurred definition of the term "active ethics". To promote rational debate on blml, I will split this apparent blur into three cases. Case One - An actively ethical player An actively ethical player generously (not niggardly) upholds the courtesy requirements of Law 74A2. An actively ethical player generously (not niggardly) upholds the full disclosure requirements of Law 75A. An actively ethical player generously (not niggardly) upholds the non-use of UI requirements of Law 73C. Case Two - A hyperactively ethical player A hyperactively ethical player may voluntarily (but unnecessarily) select an illogical alternative, when the *only* logical alternative has been demonstrably suggested by UI from partner. Case Three - A hypercritical player A hypercritical player posts a derogatory comment about the ethics of an actively ethical player, due to the perceived "failing" of the actively ethical player to be a hyperactively ethical player. I do not impugn Mr Guthrie's motives, because it seems to me that Mr Guthrie genuinely believes that he is a knight in shining armour, slaying the giant of bad ethics. But, in my opinion, Mr Guthrie is not Sir Lancelot. Rather, in my opinion, Mr Guthrie is Don Quixote tilting at a windmill, which he self-delusively believes is the giant of bad ethics. 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 Apr 29 23:23:24 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:23:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: Grattan Endicott (casebook panellist): >>>If no question is asked North bids *2C* over the redouble. He >>>does not obtain his information from South's explanation but >>>from her pass of his double. As for West, he has all the >>>information to reach his best contract. The Committee should >>>let the table score stand for both pairs. >>Best wishes >> >>Richard James Hills >+=3D+ **Whose is the misprint? +=3D+ RJH: Mea culpa. The casebook correctly quoted Grattan as stating, "If no question is asked, North bids 2S over the redouble." The error was mine, caused by careless transcription from pdf to blml. I try to minimise my misprints by usually spellchecking my blml postings, but of course this does not avert any of my factual carelessnesses. 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 Apr 29 23:33:46 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:33:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: Mr Guthrie wrote: [snip] >Furthermore, It seems that *both* partners >must adopt the same general approach to >psyching or they are guilty of playing an >assymetric system. [snip] Mr Guthrie is propounding a novel argument. A psyche is, by Lawful definition, a gross misstatement of system. Therefore, it is unLawful for both partners to have a systemic partnership agreement that they will adopt the same general approach to psyching. 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 Apr 29 23:45:30 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:45:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: Mr Guthrie wrote: >North may suspect that somebody has >psyched or misbid but without the >UI, it is 2-1 to be an opponent >rather than partner. [snip] Richard James Hills replies: Mr Guthrie is propounding a novel argument. It is true that *a priori* the odds are as quoted by Mr Guthrie. But Mr Guthrie's mathematics are irrelevant to the actual case that Mr Guthrie was discussing. Rather, the only relevant mathematics are the *a posteriori* odds, and those odds have been radically modified by the authorised information from the auction. 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 30 00:13:02 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:13:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) References: <010001c42e19$2b058a60$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <003601c42e40$489ed550$74e1403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 7:38 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) > > > 3. I do object to the way some rulings are given. If the TD is going > to investigate me in a MI case or a Psychic Bidding case then I have > a right to be believed when I give evidence about my partnership > understandings whether this is a MI or a CPU ruling. The TD has no > right to arbitrarily rule against my evidence. If the TD believes > that my evidence is dishonest then there are other ways to deal with > that problem. > > Wayne > +=+ Wayne comes across as straight and honest (if misguided :-) but he would be naive to suggest that everyone presenting a problem to the Director shares those qualities. The poor Director has the problem of separating the Wind and the Wayne. ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Apr 30 00:59:18 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:59:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics (was Double-meaning) References: Message-ID: <00bb01c42e45$fd080980$6c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Richard James Hills] > I do not impugn Mr Guthrie's motives, because it seems to > me that Mr Guthrie genuinely believes that he is a knight > in shining armour, slaying the giant of bad ethics. But, > in my opinion, Mr Guthrie is not Sir Lancelot. Rather, in > my opinion, Mr Guthrie is Don Quixote tilting at a > windmill, which he self-delusively believes is the giant > of bad ethics. [Nigel] OK, Sancho... I mean Richard, but in spite of your protestations, I am still sure that you *are* a champion of active ethics. In at least one sense I accept your analogy: I'm not much interested in the interpretation of the current legal farrago -- I seek the Holy Grail of simpler, less ambiguous, less subjective and less parochial Bridge laws -- on behalf of the ordinary player -- and like Don Quixote I fear that I may be starting years too late. Also I reluctantly accept that I may be deluding myself about my adequacy for the quest. I resent imputations against the rationality and legality of my arguments partly because I'm all too aware of my skimpy protection against legal sophistication but mostly because I suspect that the Legal establishment has no clothes, either. In summary, for the purposes of legal argument, I don't want to be a Secretary Bird. I much prefer your earlier caricatures, casting me as the Rueful Rabbit or Walter the Walrus. Most of all, I would remind you that, within our intellectual limitations, you and I both try to be legal and rational. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.672 / Virus Database: 434 - Release Date: 29/04/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Apr 30 01:48:51 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:48:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double References: Message-ID: <00c801c42e4c$e8bfe9a0$6c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Mr Guthrie is propounding a novel argument. A psyche is, by Lawful definition, a gross misstatement of system. Therefore, it is unLawful for both partners to have a systemic partnership agreement that they will adopt the same general approach to psyching. [Nigel] On this and similar points, Richard and the secretary birds are tautologically correct if we adhere to the current legal definition of a psyche as a gross departure from agreed system. But IMO only the most naive Ostrich would bury his head in the sand to ignore *de facto* agreements. For example, to many practical players it would not come as a surprise if their partner chose to open an ace or more below systemic requirements, at favourable vulnerability, in third seat. And I have yet to meet an opponent# who pre-alerted such an understanding. Would this be a psyche to Richard? perhaps not; but, in common parlance it is; and, IMO, it should be subject to some legal control. In the UK, this would be even more fraught because any such understanding would usually be illegal. I hasten to add that my team-mates adhere to the letter of our Orange=Book; in particular as far as third-seat openings are concerned; and, of course, our principles have lost us matches. #(: A long time ago, in the Guardian, after the first three boards, I found myself alerting all my French international partner's bids as probable psyches :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.672 / Virus Database: 434 - Release Date: 29/04/2004 From paris_121skulked@yahoo.com Fri Apr 30 03:15:14 2004 From: paris_121skulked@yahoo.com (Slong) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 21:15:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Become A Se,xual God: Longer Harder Erect,ions!. . . . . .swingers Message-ID:
DeerAntler+ -  *New Product*

* Increase testosterone levels up to 500%
* Prevent premature ejac\ulation
* Enhance pe\nis size up to 3 inches
* Maintain harder, stronger erections for hours
* Have amazing s\ex up to 20 times per day
* Improve se\xual stamina dramatically
* Increase se\xual self-confidence
* Satisfy yourself and your lover like never before
* 100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effects
* Fast Priority USPS Shipping WorldWide
* Doctor Approved And Recommended
* 100% Mo\ney Back Gua\rantee
* FREE Bottle Of DeerAntler+ Worth Over $50
* FREE "Male Help E-Book" Worth Over $50

MORE INFO HERE






grabs Hancock


No Thanks, Rem\ove
From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Apr 30 02:34:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:34:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote: >Of course partner's habits are AI! You >could not play bridge without them >being such. [snip] Richard James Hills notes: A merely practical justification is not a Lawful justification. Furthermore, even Herman's practical justification ain't necessarily so. My regular partner has the habit of occasionally forgetting one of our numerous partnership agreements. But I find no difficulty in "playing bridge" under the false assumption that pard's memory is impeccable (unless pard's bidding tells me that there are 6 aces in the deck, in which case I then have AI that something is amiss). Of course, using my known-to-be-false assumption means that I sometimes declare 4H in a 3-2 fit. So what? In my opinion, it is better to reach a ludicrous contract by avoiding an infraction of Law 73A1, than it is to play in a "sensible bridge" contract by choosing to infract Law 73A1. 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 Apr 30 03:13:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:13:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie propounds: >On this and similar points, Richard and the >secretary birds are tautologically correct if >we adhere to the current legal definition of >a psyche as a gross departure from agreed >system. Richard James Hills notes: Nigel is propounding a novel argument, by suggesting that discussions about what the current Laws say, should *not* refer to current legal definitions. Nigel Guthrie propounds: >But IMO only the most naive Ostrich would bury >his head in the sand to ignore *de facto* >agreements. Richard James Hills notes: (a) The WBF LC authors of the Laws are not naive Ostriches. (b) Law 75B specifically is not a naive Ostrich, as it states, "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed". Nigel Guthrie propounds: >For example, to many practical players it >would not come as a surprise if their partner >chose to open an ace or more below systemic >requirements, at favourable vulnerability, in >third seat. And I have yet to meet an opponent >who pre-alerted such an understanding. > >Would this be a psyche to Richard? perhaps not; Richard James Hills notes: Definitely not. Rather, it would be an implicit partnership agreement, which must be disclosed. Nigel Guthrie propounds: >but, in common parlance it is; and, IMO, it >should be subject to some legal control. [snip] Richard James Hills notes: On this last point, the Ostrich and the Guthrie are in total agreement. In previous postings, I have noted confusion caused by common parlance nomenclature, and have proposed two alternative definitions to add clarity to blml discussions. Pseudo-psyche =3D a concealed partnership understanding, which merely pretends to be a legal psyche Psychic call =3D as defined in the Chapter 1 definitions of the Laws Legal controls of CPUs are available to TDs and SOs. I agree with Nigel Guthrie that it would be unfortunate if a TD or an SO did not enforce such legal controls. 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 Apr 30 04:27:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:27:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Constructive criticism Message-ID: At the Annual General Meeting of the Australian Bridge Federation, the chair of the Systems Committee reported: >a) Alerts [snip] >contained submissions from a number of >prominent players, a sprinkling of >administrators from the various states and >many rank and file ABF members. There were >also some general observations from overseas >people who had just 'surfed in'. In >retrospect I believe this review/feedback >process was beneficial to the final document >even though it delayed promulgation. [snip] >We also revamped three of the sections that >had drawn the bulk of the adverse player >comment. We ended up deleting one of these, >changing the emphasis of another and >retaining the third essentially intact. [snip] I applaud the willingness of the ABF Systems Committee to seek constructive criticism, and its flexibility in adopting some useful suggestions. I note that, in another thread, Grattan Endicott has acknowledged that blml loophole-finding has assisted him in creating tighter wording for his draft of the 2006 Laws. The report continued: >b) Systems [snip] >(iv) There is general agreement that any >attempt to regulate the strength of >preemptive actions, via Opening Point (OP) >means, is futile. We are also aware of (and >endorse) the actions taken first by the MC >and subsequently by the TC in removing >systemic 15/18 OP violations as a criteria >for "Yellow" classification in ABF events. > >(v) We are still debating what is an >effective (and legal) method of regulating >the strength of 1-level opening bids (with or >without OPs). Linked to this, is the issue >of where the regulations should draw the >Yellow/Red boundary. > >(vi) We intend to reserve the "Yellow" >category for truly "HUM" systems [snip] Again I applaud the willingness of the ABF to respond to the groundswell of constructive criticism of its previously over-rigid use of the Opening Points concept. 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 Fri Apr 30 06:17:15 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:17:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double References: Message-ID: <022501c42e72$677225e0$6c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Pseudo-psyche = a concealed partnership understanding, which merely pretends to be a legal psyche Psychic call = as defined in the Chapter 1 definitions of the Laws Legal controls of CPUs are available to TDs and SOs. I agree with Nigel Guthrie that it would be unfortunate if a TD or an SO did not enforce such legal controls. [Nigel] Using Richard's classification, real-life examples of deliberate "Psychic calls" by *regular partnerships* must be vanishingly rare. Would your first fake trial-bid, first fake cue-bid or first fake exclusion-Blackwood qualify? But even if you classify such minor deceptions as departures from system, they're hardly gross departures and, for many partnerships, they've become hackneyed. In England, the "psyches" that we regularly encounter are what Richard dubs "pseudo-psyches". For example... (1) Most "psychers" seem to have definite patterns and preferences, although such habits vary from individual to individual and depend on a variety of circumstances. (2) It would take several convention cards to divulge the "psyching" habits of each partner in a typical regular partnership. I haven't yet met a partnership who divulge anything pertinent. (3) Most "psyches" are minor "variations" rather than gross distortions. For example (a) Opening a few points light, third in hand. (b) Opening 1N non-vulnerable a point or two light. (4) In most UK events, some understandings like 3a are illegal, so it's hardly surprising that they're never divulged. "Eh? Oh! miscounted points [again]" (5) As a corrollary, regular partners usually seem to diagnose and allow for each other's "psyches" long before opponents begin to suspect anything. (6) In the light of Richard's clarifications, our suspicious EBU attitude to "psyches" makes good sense but perhaps Richard is right that we should use the term "pseudo-psyche". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.672 / Virus Database: 434 - Release Date: 29/04/2004 From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Fri Apr 30 06:18:54 2004 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:18:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Statute of limitations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20040430151133.03503e88@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> RJH actively ethicated: cut >In my opinion, it is better to reach a >ludicrous contract by avoiding an >infraction of Law 73A1, than it is to >play in a "sensible bridge" contract by >choosing to infract Law 73A1. Last night I went for 4000 at cross imps doing this (dont ask). Unfortunately I wrote the program to score this and I didn't think it necessary to limit the upward range of imps which could be transferred. The beneficiaries thusby won the competition handsomely. Is it necessary to put an upper limit on imps won, and if so what limit is considered "infinite" ? Tony (Sydney) From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Apr 30 07:52:23 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:52:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4091F7A7.8080806@hdw.be> No Richard, it is not ... richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > My regular partner has the habit of > occasionally forgetting one of our > numerous partnership agreements. But I > find no difficulty in "playing bridge" > under the false assumption that pard's > memory is impeccable (unless pard's > bidding tells me that there are 6 aces > in the deck, in which case I then have > AI that something is amiss). > > Of course, using my known-to-be-false > assumption means that I sometimes > declare 4H in a 3-2 fit. So what? In > my opinion, it is better to reach a > ludicrous contract by avoiding an > infraction of Law 73A1, than it is to > play in a "sensible bridge" contract by > choosing to infract Law 73A1. > Only if you consider your actions to be breaches of L73A1. As has been stated before, the knowledge that your partner's memory is not impeccable has not been "communicated" to you, you have it before the deal starts. So I don't see any infraction of L73A1 here (provided he did not wink at you, of course). > Best wishes > > RJH > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged > and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. > Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, > except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be > the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous > Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the > Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Apr 30 07:50:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:50:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Statute of limitations Message-ID: >RJH actively ethicated: > > cut > >>In my opinion, it is better to reach a >>ludicrous contract by avoiding an >>infraction of Law 73A1, than it is to >>play in a "sensible bridge" contract by >>choosing to infract Law 73A1. > >Last night I went for 4000 at cross imps >doing this (don't ask). Unfortunately I >wrote the program to score this and I >didn't think it necessary to limit the upward >range of imps which could be transferred. >The beneficiaries thusly won the competition >handsomely. Is it necessary to put an >upper limit on imps won, and if so what >limit is considered "infinite" ? > >Tony (Sydney) The New York cross-imped Cavendish Calcutta had a condition of contest that the maximum imps that a pair could gain on a particular comparison with another pair was limited to a ceiling of 14 imps. Some other cross-imp events also place a ceiling on the overall number of imps gained after completing all comparisons with all other pairs. Naturally, overall ceilings must be customised according to the overall number of contestants. Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Apr 30 08:01:40 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:01:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double In-Reply-To: <022501c42e72$677225e0$6c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <022501c42e72$677225e0$6c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <4091F9D4.3060409@hdw.be> Nigel is on the right track, but he should continue riding his train a bit further ... Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Richard James Hills] > Pseudo-psyche = a concealed partnership > understanding, which merely > pretends to be a legal psyche OK, but on which of the two elements of the definition of the psyche? > Psychic call = as defined in the Chapter 1 > definitions of the Laws > Legal controls of CPUs are available to TDs and > SOs. I agree with Nigel Guthrie that it would > be unfortunate if a TD or an SO did not enforce > such legal controls. > [Nigel] > > Using Richard's classification, real-life examples of > deliberate "Psychic calls" by *regular partnerships* > must be vanishingly rare. > > Would your first fake trial-bid, first fake cue-bid or > first fake exclusion-Blackwood qualify? But even if you > classify such minor deceptions as departures from system, > they're hardly gross departures and, for many partnerships, > they've become hackneyed. > > In England, the "psyches" that we regularly encounter are > what Richard dubs "pseudo-psyches". For example... > > (1) Most "psychers" seem to have definite patterns and > preferences, although such habits vary from individual > to individual and depend on a variety of circumstances. > I see nothing wrong in that. These things can be disclosed, and if they are not (because it is almost impossible to do so), the TD can rule a usual MI procedure: "would opponents have acted differently if they had known that player X psyches in this situation by a frequency of ZZ%?". > (2) It would take several convention cards to divulge > the "psyching" habits of each partner in a typical > regular partnership. I haven't yet met a partnership > who divulge anything pertinent. > Probably because many TDs would consider such mentions as systemic and then forbidden. We should change that perception and insist that players mention their favourite psyches on their CC. > (3) Most "psyches" are minor "variations" rather > than gross distortions. For example > (a) Opening a few points light, third in hand. > (b) Opening 1N non-vulnerable a point or two light. > You are right in putting brackets around "psyches" here. These are not even "pseudo-psyches", this is just gray system area. > (4) In most UK events, some understandings like 3a > are illegal, so it's hardly surprising that they're > never divulged. "Eh? Oh! miscounted points [again]" > The TD will really see the difference between a genuine miscount and a hidden habit. > (5) As a corrollary, regular partners usually seem > to diagnose and allow for each other's "psyches" > long before opponents begin to suspect anything. > I don't see what this is a corrollary to, except when you continue about these gray-area bids. But since these should not be regarded as psyches in the first place, this paragraph is not needed. The same can be said of real psyches, though, and I don't see any problem with that as long as the opponents have the same information. Which would mean that they would spot the psyche at the same time. > (6) In the light of Richard's clarifications, our > suspicious EBU attitude to "psyches" makes good sense > but perhaps Richard is right that we should use the > term "pseudo-psyche". > It is never wrong to be suspicious. But you are suspicious about the wrong thing. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Apr 30 08:18:31 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:18:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double References: Message-ID: <02c001c42e83$58a02420$6c9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Before subscribing to such a view [that pass over 2CXX is a logical alternative for North] I would be looking for the answers to two questions (1) Do the methods of NS allow of a South hand that, having made a simple 1S overcall, could make a penalty pass of the North double with reasonable prospects of defeating the contract opposite the actual North holding - this being the meaning that N must ascribe, absent the UI, to the overcall of 1S and the pass of the double? (2) If the answer to (1) were 'no', does North have the acumen to realize as much, so justifying his 2S bid since 'Pass' is not then a LA? [Jeff Goldsmith] >>>Why weren't N/S entitled to 2C redoubled making six? If >>>South had explained correctly, would not North pass 2C >>>redoubled? [Nigel] Grattan Endicott asked the right questions; but it seems that only Jeff Goldsmith and I are prepared to answered them. Once more... (1) (A) North's double of 2C simply shows two or three spades to an honour. It says nothing about clubs. (B) On the basis of that knowledge, South makes a penalty pass of 2CX. (C) Presumably South has something like AKTxxx A - xxxxxx in which case, North's useful undisclosed doubleton trump honour produces a deserved thousand points from 2CXX. If South has more -- more. Of course South may have less but 2CXX may still be profitable. And if she has much less, she has heard North's bid, knows what North has promised and can remove herself. (D) Even if North smells a rat, why should North suspect South of amnesia. Nobody has offered any argument as to why East-West are incapable of psyches or misbids. (E) Armed with UI, in his rush to bid 2S, it seems that North did not ask the meaning of West's XX. What would West bid, for example, with xxxx Axx Axx KJx (In many jurisdictions including Australia, I believe that even SOS redoubles are self-alerting) (2) If North is a beginner, I suppose that he may still bid because he may not realize that he has already told his story. But in that case, under current law, the TD may poll a group of novices to establish the LAs. IMO, even then, pass would be an LA. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.672 / Virus Database: 434 - Release Date: 29/04/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Apr 30 08:21:50 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:21:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <003601c42e09$35464ec0$f99468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040429080911.024a8850@pop.starpower.net> <409123C0.5030408@hdw.be> <003601c42e09$35464ec0$f99468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <4091FE8E.7030806@hdw.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > Consider the following scenario: A player asks a question, > and the opponent omits a few things he considers obvious. > Under the present regulation, the TD can ask the player if he > realized this obvious fact. He will say yes, and the TD will > rule that this is GBK, and there has been no MI. Under your > proposed regulation, the TD will have to ask whether this > is partnership agreement. The bidder will have to reply in the > positive and since there is no longer any reference to GBK, > the TD will rule MI, regardless of whether the asking player > knew it or not. I don't consider that a change for the better. > [Nigel] > Nobody says you should explain "what is obvious" but "General > Bridge knowledge and experience" is a much wider set. > Too often what is GBKE to you is a closed book to opponent. > This is especially unfair if the opponent is a foreigner > or a beginner (whether or not you know he is). > Yes Nigel, of course it is. And that makes it no longer "general" knowledge, and thus MI. But don't throw out the child with the bathwater. In this thread it was suggested to abandon the concept of GBK altogether. That won't work, because you lawyer-opponent will tell the TD that you did not say something and that he wants a MI ruling. Without the phrase about GBK, he won't even have to lie and pretend it was something he did know. > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From MAILER-DAEMON@aol.com Fri Apr 30 08:54:50 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@aol.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:54:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Returned mail: User unknown Message-ID: <200404300754.DAM17987@rly-na02.mx.aol.com> This is a MIME-encapsulated message --DAM17987.1083311690/rly-na02.mx.aol.com The original message was received at Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:54:03 -0400 (EDT) from 82-33-168-245.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.168.245] *** ATTENTION *** Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its delivery. The address which was undeliverable is listed in the section labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----". The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section labeled: "----- Transcript of Session Follows -----". The line beginning with "<<<" describes the specific reason your e-mail could not be delivered. The next line contains a second error message which is a general translation for other e-mail servers. Please direct further questions regarding this message to your e-mail administrator. --AOL Postmaster ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to air-na03.mail.aol.com.: >>> RCPT To: <<< 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND 550 ... User unknown --DAM17987.1083311690/rly-na02.mx.aol.com Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; rly-na02.mx.aol.com Arrival-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:54:03 -0400 (EDT) Final-Recipient: RFC822; thea56@netscape.net Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Remote-MTA: DNS; air-na03.mail.aol.com Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND Last-Attempt-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:54:50 -0400 (EDT) --DAM17987.1083311690/rly-na02.mx.aol.com Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers Received: from netscape.net (82-33-168-245.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.168.245]) by rly-na02.mx.aol.com (v99.12) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINNA24-184092061843; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:54:00 -0400 From: blml@rtflb.org To: thea56@netscape.net Subject: Re: Encrypted Mail Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:54:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-AOL-IP: 82.33.168.245 X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:XXX:XX X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 Message-ID: <200404300354.184092061843@rly-na02.mx.aol.com> --DAM17987.1083311690/rly-na02.mx.aol.com-- From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Apr 30 11:05:16 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:05:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double-meaning double References: Message-ID: <001f01c42e9c$bbbcb960$e58787d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 3:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Double-meaning double Richard James Hills notes: On this last point, the Ostrich and the Guthrie are in total agreement. In previous postings, I have noted confusion caused by common parlance nomenclature, and have proposed two alternative definitions to add clarity to blml discussions. Pseudo-psyche = a concealed partnership understanding, which merely pretends to be a legal psyche Psychic call = as defined in the Chapter 1 definitions of the Laws Legal controls of CPUs are available to TDs and SOs. I agree with Nigel Guthrie that it would be unfortunate if a TD or an SO did not enforce such legal controls. < +=+ Let me also mention a form of words proposed to me by one of our brothers in law: "Psychic call: a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length, made if lawful with intent to mislead all other players at the table." But we should look beyond these horizons. It would be compatible with the desires expressed by organizations that the laws should specify that a regulating body may expressly ban psyches (if we know what that means). It is urged on me that the old dears in the Zevenhuizen Bridge Club should have the laws explicitly on their side when they stop some wild young upstart from psyching all over the coffee tables in their weekly duplicate - and, to be consistent, that such power should be equally available to the old dears of the Zonal Organization in Zone 9. So what might we be talking about? Answer, something like this: "The regulating authority may specify a minimum quality for an opening bid at the one level and may prohibit, if it thinks fit, openings at this level on weaker hands, regardless of partnership agreement." < No arguments? :-) ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Apr 30 12:17:52 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:17:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040429080911.024a8850@pop.starpower.net> <409123C0.5030408@hdw.be> <003601c42e09$35464ec0$f99468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4091FE8E.7030806@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001901c42ea4$c8037300$039468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman De Wael] And that makes it no longer "general" knowledge, and thus MI. But don't throw out the child with the bathwater. In this thread it was suggested to abandon the concept of GBK altogether. That won't work, because you lawyer-opponent will tell the TD that you did not say something and that he wants a MI ruling. Without the phrase about GBK, he won't even have to lie and pretend it was something he did know. [Nigel] Common knowledge may seem the ideal basis for explanation. If you know that I understand something, then why should you have to explain it to me? The problem is that all too often, your assumption about what I know is wrong. Even worse, in my experience, citing GBK is a popular justification for prevarication and non-disclosure. The law book would be better if all reference to GBK were expunged. IMO, when asked for an explanation It is usually OK to start with a brief summary -- provided that you clearly indicate that you are happy to provide more background/detail, on request. Your initial explanation may be at an intermediate level, adjusting up or down, depending on opponent's verbal feedback and body language. Whatever the law book now says, I feel that sometimes your explanation should entail a descent to first principles, if your opponent seems ignorant thereof. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.672 / Virus Database: 434 - Release Date: 28/04/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Apr 30 12:48:04 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:48:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <001901c42ea4$c8037300$039468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040429080911.024a8850@pop.starpower.net> <409123C0.5030408@hdw.be> <003601c42e09$35464ec0$f99468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4091FE8E.7030806@hdw.be> <001901c42ea4$c8037300$039468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <40923CF4.2050200@hdw.be> Nigel, you seem to (deliberately) misunderstand what I am trying to say: Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > And that makes it no longer "general" knowledge, and thus MI. > But don't throw out the child with the bathwater. > In this thread it was suggested to abandon the concept of GBK > altogether. That won't work, because you lawyer-opponent will tell > the > TD that you did not say something and that he wants a MI ruling. > Without the phrase about GBK, he won't even have to lie and > pretend it > was something he did know. > [Nigel] > > Common knowledge may seem the ideal basis for explanation. > If you know that I understand something, then why should you > have to explain it to me? The problem is that all too often, > your assumption about what I know is wrong. Even worse, in > my experience, citing GBK is a popular justification for > prevarication and non-disclosure. The law book would be > better if all reference to GBK were expunged. > > IMO, when asked for an explanation It is usually OK to start > with a brief summary -- provided that you clearly indicate > that you are happy to provide more background/detail, on > request. Your initial explanation may be at an intermediate > level, adjusting up or down, depending on opponent's verbal > feedback and body language. Whatever the law book now says, > I feel that sometimes your explanation should entail a descent > to first principles, if your opponent seems ignorant thereof. > I agree wholeheartedly with all of this. Completely. Utterly. But not with this: (repeated quote) > prevarication and non-disclosure. The law book would be > better if all reference to GBK were expunged. No it would not. Because what you would get are people who would not ask second and third questions, and then complain to the Director that the first answer was not complete. When I say "forcing", this is incomplete. Always. if you want to know what types of hands this can encompass, then you are allowed to ask. If you don't ask, then the TD will assume that you felt no need to know. So my incompleteness is counterbalanced by the fact that you apparently did not want to know. And I will not be ruled against. But suppose you tell the TD that you don't know what the word "forcing" actually means. Now there is only one thing that can justify my not having said more than one word: the fact that I have every reason to believe that you know what the word forcing means. Delete the references to GBK from the book and I have no such justification any more. I will have to say "forcing, that means my partner must still make at least one more call" or you can correctly claim that I have failed to tell everything, and not even an admission of your part that you knew what forcing meant is going to change the fact that my explanation is incomplete. Which is why the laws would NOT be better off with no mention to GBK. OK? > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.672 / Virus Database: 434 - Release Date: 28/04/2004 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Apr 30 13:14:24 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:14:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <4091FE8E.7030806@hdw.be> References: <003601c42e09$35464ec0$f99468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040428163146.00a1b2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040429080911.024a8850@pop.starpower.net> <409123C0.5030408@hdw.be> <003601c42e09$35464ec0$f99468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040430080840.024bdb30@pop.starpower.net> At 03:21 AM 4/30/04, Herman wrote: >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >>Nobody says you should explain "what is obvious" but "General Bridge >>knowledge and experience" is a much wider set. >>Too often what is GBKE to you is a closed book to opponent. >>This is especially unfair if the opponent is a foreigner or a >>beginner (whether or not you know he is). > >Yes Nigel, of course it is. >And that makes it no longer "general" knowledge, and thus MI. >But don't throw out the child with the bathwater. >In this thread it was suggested to abandon the concept of GBK >altogether. That won't work, because you lawyer-opponent will tell the >TD that you did not say something and that he wants a MI ruling. >Without the phrase about GBK, he won't even have to lie and pretend it >was something he did know. Sure he will, if he hopes to get an adjustment. How can not being informed of what you already know cause damage? Moreover, if you're willing to lie outright about what you know ("we have no agreement"), you will do so anyhow; it provides a much stronger defense to an allegation of MI than admitting to the knowledge but claiming it to be "general". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Apr 30 13:46:02 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:46:02 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA364A@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Eric Landau wrote: >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >>Nobody says you should explain "what is obvious" but "General Bridge=20 >>knowledge and experience" is a much wider set. >>Too often what is GBKE to you is a closed book to opponent. >>This is especially unfair if the opponent is a foreigner or a=20 >>beginner (whether or not you know he is). > >Yes Nigel, of course it is. >And that makes it no longer "general" knowledge, and thus MI. >But don't throw out the child with the bathwater. >In this thread it was suggested to abandon the concept of GBK=20 >altogether. That won't work, because you lawyer-opponent will tell the=20 >TD that you did not say something and that he wants a MI ruling.=20 >Without the phrase about GBK, he won't even have to lie and pretend it=20 >was something he did know. Sure he will, if he hopes to get an adjustment. How can not being=20 informed of what you already know cause damage? Moreover, if you're=20 willing to lie outright about what you know ("we have no agreement"),=20 you will do so anyhow; it provides a much stronger defense to an=20 allegation of MI than admitting to the knowledge but claiming it to be=20 "general". ----- I think you misunderstood Herman. He's talking about the opponent who's asking, not the bidding side's explanation. Regards, Harald ----- Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Fri Apr 30 19:41:28 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:41:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Statute of limitations In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040430151133.03503e88@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040430151133.03503e88@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In article <6.0.3.0.2.20040430151133.03503e88@pop- server.bigpond.net.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >RJH actively ethicated: > > cut > >>In my opinion, it is better to reach a >>ludicrous contract by avoiding an >>infraction of Law 73A1, than it is to >>play in a "sensible bridge" contract by >>choosing to infract Law 73A1. > >Last night I went for 4000 at cross imps >doing this (dont ask). Unfortunately I >wrote the program to score this and I >didn't think it necessary to limit the upward >range of imps which could be transferred. >The beneficiaries thusby won the competition >handsomely. Is it necessary to put an >upper limit on imps won, and if so what >limit is considered "infinite" ? This one is easy to answer. In any cross imp match the cap for a win in imps should be 1.668 x 6.5 x sqrt(No. comparisons x no. results x No. boards). The figure of 6.5 can be increased to 20/7 if the field is of significantly different standard. this represents the score for a 20-0 win in a cross-imped match of a given number of boards. http://www.asimere.com/~john/BridgeArticles/VPScales.htm is pretty definitive. cheers john > >Tony (Sydney) > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Apr 30 21:57:04 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:57:04 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Law 75C ambiguity (was Psyches) In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900FA364A@exchange.idrettsfor bundet.no> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040430164359.024b8a80@pop.starpower.net> At 08:46 AM 4/30/04, Skjaran wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > >>Nobody says you should explain "what is obvious" but "General Bridge > >>knowledge and experience" is a much wider set. > >>Too often what is GBKE to you is a closed book to opponent. > >>This is especially unfair if the opponent is a foreigner or a > >>beginner (whether or not you know he is). > > > >Yes Nigel, of course it is. > >And that makes it no longer "general" knowledge, and thus MI. > >But don't throw out the child with the bathwater. > >In this thread it was suggested to abandon the concept of GBK > >altogether. That won't work, because you lawyer-opponent will tell the > >TD that you did not say something and that he wants a MI ruling. > >Without the phrase about GBK, he won't even have to lie and pretend it > >was something he did know. > >Sure he will, if he hopes to get an adjustment. How can not being >informed of what you already know cause damage? Moreover, if you're >willing to lie outright about what you know ("we have no agreement"), >you will do so anyhow; it provides a much stronger defense to an >allegation of MI than admitting to the knowledge but claiming it to be >"general". >----- >I think you misunderstood Herman. He's talking about the opponent who's >asking, not the bidding side's explanation. I did indeed, but the point still stands. Herman concedes above that if the unrevealed knowledge is genuinely not known to the opponent, it cannot be considered GBK, so it is still the case that the TD/AC must determine whether it was in fact known to him, and he (albeit a different "he" than I originally assumed) can get himself an undeserved adjustment if he can lie about what he knows convincingly enough. IOW, if he didn't know it, it's not GBK, so it doesn't matter whether it would matter if it were. This is just one of the 973 places in TFLB where an outright liar can find a way to lie himself into better score than he deserves, and I don't see how the way the law treats GBK, which, if the lie is accepted, is irrelevant anyhow, matters. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From henk@amsterdamned.org Fri Apr 30 23:00:01 2004 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 00:00:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Usenet bridge abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo 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 [ie partner] 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 pd Partner 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: *3m 3C or 3D [minor] *3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From eamongalligan@eircom.net Sun Apr 18 07:55:06 2004 From: eamongalligan@eircom.net (Eamon tinky Galligan) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 07:55:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [Bridgedudes] 2 cases References: Message-ID: <01ae01c42512$fb2288c0$3c9e7dc2@010366320020> Good morning The first 1 ..Board 8 I cannot think of any hand where North will not go to game with his/her chunky spades and 14 count. I suspect 3S might have been meant as stronger then 4 in the context that 2D is more or less a game force. Personally I would have bid 4S and later noticed somebody had bid 2NT. Said 2NT cannot have more then 16 hcp at best as thats all thats left for them to have ... Board 2 The opps just got lucky as a simple knowledge of the laws of bridge states that if either 3C or 4C are conventional penalty offenders partner must pass whenever it is his/her turn to call....... So how 4S came into being I don't know :):) the insufficent bidder of course could have gambled 4S or 4H or whatever.... We are discussing a hypotetical situation. I presume the non offenders not knowing the laws of bridge too well may have allowed the 4S bid to stand by accepting it........was there proof that 4C is gerber .... All the best Eamonn Galligan at his new spamless address ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "Bridgedudes" ; Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 6:43 PM Subject: [Bridgedudes] 2 cases > > Recent premiere Irish Pairs event. 40 pairs all of whom qualified by > winning one or more qualifying competitions. > > > Board 8 Dealer West > > S AKQ973 > H QT > D 95 > C QJ8 > West East > S 8 S 652 > H KJ H 97642 > D KQT743 D J82 > C AT72 C 54 > > S JT4 > H A853 > D A6 > C K963 > > > Bidding > W N E S > 1D 1S P 2D > 2NT 3S(1) P P(2) > P > > 5 of clubs lead - 3S+2 > > All players are of international standard > > (1) North asked what the 2NT meant and was told shows "a good hand with > values". Estimating game unlikely (too flat and lacking controls) with > known values on her right, North bid 3S's. > > (2) South asked were E/W playing good/bad 2NT. East stated that they did > but it didn't apply here. South felt he had insufficient values to bid > game - in particular the CK looked like it wasn't going to work with values > sitting over him. > > E/W had no proof to their agreements. > > > At the end of play, N/S called the TD and stated they felt they were > damaged. If given the correct explanation (what looked like a good bad 2NT > sequence), North would double and South would bid 4S's. > > The Td went away and ruled result stands. N/S appealed his decision. > > > The appeals hearing :- E/W claimed that (1) Double asked not to lead a > diamond. (2) 3D was to play (3) 2NT showed values. When asked did 2NT show > a spade stop or not they claimed it didn't, just indicated a good hand. > > The appeals committee let the result stand. They felt North should have > doubled regardless and given South's experience should have suspected good > bad 2NT and bid 4S. Comments ... > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ----------------- > > > > Board 14 Dealer East > > S Q93 > H 5 > D AQJT42 > C 863 > West East > S K8 S AJT62 > H QT9642 H A3 > D 985 D 6 > C AQ C KJ542 > > S 754 > H KJ87 > D K73 > C T97 > > > Bidding > E S W N > 1S P 2H 3D > 4C(1) P 4S P > P P > > Result 4S+1 diamond 3 lead > > (1) Insufficient bid of 3C corrected to 4C's which is Gerber. 4S shows 2 > aces. > > N/S felt East acted on UI. East should have bid 4H which West is very > likely to pass. > 4H makes just 10 tricks. > > Your call. > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bridgedudes/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Bridgedudes-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >