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
--------------Boundary-02=_PO4J9QIWKGMMYJ0CCJD0--
--------------Boundary-01=_PO4JZBQXFQQMYJ0CCJD0
Content-Type: image/gif
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Id: eAiJhu29NIkNhgVTzC2j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--------------Boundary-01=_PO4JZBQXFQQMYJ0CCJD0
Content-Type: image/gif
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Id: pn3MHCuhfSiKdRdKLgUj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--------------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 ofAppeals 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. Butyoubid
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,
HaraldSkj=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.
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.
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