From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Dec 1 00:24:28 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 00:24:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5CC33D10-432F-11D9-8ED2-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 30 Nov 2004, at 22:56, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1C 1H > 2C Pass Pass Dbl > 2D Dbl 3C Pass > Pass 3D Pass Pass > Dbl 3H Dbl ? > > You, South, hold: > > AQJ8 > AT764 > 6 > J87 > > What call do you make? Pass. > What other calls do you consider making? None - I'm just glad to be part-way out of the mess I created with my double. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 1 00:45:42 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 00:45:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs References: Message-ID: <009701c4d73f$1801d020$1f9868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] Pairs/N/LA: AQJ8 AT764 6 J87 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1C 1H 2C Pass Pass Dbl 2D Dbl 3C Pass Pass 3D Pass Pass Dbl 3H Dbl ? [Nigel] IMO, the only logical alternative is pass; without any hesitation that may be construed as an attempt to stop partner reverting to diamonds. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 24/11/2004 From jrmayne@mindspring.com Wed Dec 1 02:34:33 2004 From: jrmayne@mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:34:33 -0800 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs References: <009701c4d73f$1801d020$1f9868d5@James> Message-ID: <41AD2DB9.9050509@mindspring.com> GUTHRIE wrote: > [Richard James Hills] > Pairs/N/LA: AQJ8 AT764 6 J87 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1C 1H > 2C Pass Pass Dbl > 2D Dbl 3C Pass > Pass 3D Pass Pass > Dbl 3H Dbl ? > [Nigel] > IMO, the only logical alternative is pass; without any > hesitation that may be construed as an attempt to stop > partner reverting to diamonds. I'd've passed 2C routinely; double seems like asking for it. (Partner short in clubs should have acted with anything.) Pass is the only LA, if faking a heart attack isn't an option. --JRM > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: > 24/11/2004 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From john@jsnichols.com Wed Dec 1 03:30:37 2004 From: john@jsnichols.com (John Nichols) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:30:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] An LA for one side only In-Reply-To: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD0397EF54@exchange.midtechnologies.com> Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD2361@exchange.midtechnologies.com> Split scores are legal in the ACBL -- Weighted scores are not. -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 11:12 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [ However, was the splitting of the score legal in the ACBL? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 1 05:05:43 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:05:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] An LA for one side only In-Reply-To: <41ABEAF5.7090700@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Reno NABC+ Appeal Number Four: >>...West deliberating and on >>lead, East said, "Lead a card." >>... >>The committee assigned for NS the >>contract of 2H doubled -100 and >>for EW 2H doubled -470. Steve Willner: >At first this seems a strange >decision, but I think it may be >legal. I'm guessing that the >committee may have ruled that the >infraction was of L73B2, not 73C or >16A1. If so, the AC must decide >what would have happened if East's >remark had not been made, and >evidently they decided it was "at >all probable" but not "likely" that >West would have lead a losing >diamond. If this is indeed the >reasoning, the writeup does a poor >job of expressing it. Richard Hills: Steve's reference to Law 73B2 (Prearranged Communication) seems to be a typo for a reference to Law 73B1 (Gratuitous Information). In my opinion, an infraction of Law 73B1 is merely a precursor to a later possible infraction of the twin laws Law 73C and Law 16A1. In my opinion, an infraction of Law 73B1 does not *intrinsically* damage the opponents; only a consequent selection of a demonstrably suggested logical alternative from amongst several logical alternatives would damage the opponents. Therefore, in my opinion, a split score was inappropriate in this case. If there was only one logical alternative, then the NOS was not damaged, and both sides should have received +100/-100. If there were two logical alternatives, then the NOS was damaged, and both sides should have received -470/+470. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 1 08:59:30 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 09:59:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Concede of carry on? In-Reply-To: <00b101c4d6e8$82e24480$2c9868d5@James> References: <001201c4d5fb$24659080$6900a8c0@WINXP> <007901c4d613$4114a050$0b9868d5@James> <41AB38D8.8090209@hdw.be> <004601c4d670$14fca780$299468d5@James> <41AC36CA.3090804@hdw.be> <00b101c4d6e8$82e24480$2c9868d5@James> Message-ID: <41AD87F2.7030906@hdw.be> GUTHRIE wrote: >>[Herman de Wael] >>But what happened above is even worse than those two. >>Not only did your father not concede, he played on and >>waited for his opponent to claim. Then when the opponent >>did so, your father called the director and had him find >>an obscure line so as to make two more tricks. But this >>is a fictitious story probably, so let's not linger on it >>... > > [Nigel] > I'm hazy about details but the example is based on fact. > Naturally, Charles is scrupulously legal and ethical. > I resent Herman's implications to the contrary. I would like to apologize for any implications not intended. > My father played on, rather than conceding, because he hoped > for a defensive mistake or a lucky end position. Which is not forbidden, but not really acceptable either. Anyway, I don't really see this can take a long while. Surely he had not been playing on for a number of tricks? So what was he doing then? In my experience, opponents usually claim when they believe it takes a long time. Was your father waiting to play a trick for an inordinate length of time? I would not accept it if he were. > He and I still believe that this is both legal and ethical. > In our view, bridge is mainly a game of mistakes. > Hence, to win, you must provide opponents with some > opportunity to make mistakes. Yes, but those opportunities must be genuine. So, playing on is acceptable, but waiting a long time hoping for opponents to lose concentration, or to claim and do so in less than absolute manner, is not acceptable (IMHO) > Charles had no premonition that his opponents would claim. > I (dummy) called the director because I wondered if the > interesting ending was covered by the law. > Also, please note that a careless mistake by RHO may be very > unlikely but that the claim made it virtually impossible. You call this careless? I call it virtually irrational. Overruffing your partner's trick? Anyway, my point is that by refusing to claim himself, and having opponents claim (perhaps out of frustration), your father has turned around the benefit of the doubt. A very doubtful play suddenly becomes the one selected by the TD. > The director ruled according to the law of the time. Did this law change? I don't recall - or it was before my time. Anyway, if it did, then the example is worthless to us, now. > It was a club duplicate (aggregate scoring I think). > The score on this board did not affect the result. > Everybody, especially LHO, Ian Morrison, found the whole > episode amusing. Yes, amusing it certainly is. That does not make it right, though. > (: Finally, Yes, "OF" was a typo for "OR" :) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Dec 1 09:45:49 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:45:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs References: <009701c4d73f$1801d020$1f9868d5@James> <41AD2DB9.9050509@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <000201c4d7a0$9612f320$5a8d4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* "What is called the serenity of age is only perhaps a euphemism for the fading power to feel the sudden shock of joy or sorrow." ~ Arthur Bliss. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R. Mayne" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 2:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Scrambled eggs > > > GUTHRIE wrote: > > > [Richard James Hills] > > Pairs/N/LA: AQJ8 AT764 6 J87 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- Pass 1C 1H > > 2C Pass Pass Dbl > > 2D Dbl 3C Pass > > Pass 3D Pass Pass > > Dbl 3H Dbl ? > > [Nigel] > > IMO, the only logical alternative is pass; without any > > hesitation that may be construed as an attempt to stop > > partner reverting to diamonds. > > > I'd've passed 2C routinely; double seems like asking > for it. (Partner short in clubs should have acted with anything.) > > Pass is the only LA, if faking a heart attack isn't an option. > > --JRM > +=+In my days of wine and roses I played in a group that would not have bid over One Club on this shape unless it had a call that showed a relevant two-suiter; after passing we would have doubled 2C and converted Diamonds to Hearts. So, in that style, unfashionable in its concept, we would not "have started from here". [Someone mentioned 'Liverpool overcalls' recently.] However, if we have to get involved in a clumsy auction like this one, what do we know? Well, the key fact is that partner did not have the capacity at his first Pass to raise to 2H and over 2D he did not have the discipline to pass. Bent on self-destruction we have now arrived, via many curious circumstances, in no-man's land. Do we possess UI? Probably his 3H came too slowly and we are stuck in the mud; if not there is a suspicion that 3Sx could be a better hole - a contract we have done our best to avoid. It might also be worth-while considering a change of partner if our worst fears are confirmed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 1 13:36:26 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:36:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: <009701c4d73f$1801d020$1f9868d5@James> References: <009701c4d73f$1801d020$1f9868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041201082340.02aa7440@pop.starpower.net> At 07:45 PM 11/30/04, GUTHRIE wrote: >[Richard James Hills] >Pairs/N/LA: AQJ8 AT764 6 J87 >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass 1C 1H >2C Pass Pass Dbl >2D Dbl 3C Pass >Pass 3D Pass Pass >Dbl 3H Dbl ? >[Nigel] >IMO, the only logical alternative is pass; without any >hesitation that may be construed as an attempt to stop >partner reverting to diamonds. A bit off-topic, but ISTM that a hesitation here would be construed as encouraging partner to revert to diamonds, by suggesting that South is doubtful about playing 3HX. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john@asimere.com Wed Dec 1 13:57:33 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:57:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <003501c4d73b$17ea7460$3fa587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000601c4d227$44fc4f00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003501c4d73b$17ea7460$3fa587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article <003501c4d73b$17ea7460$3fa587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >********************************* >"What is called the serenity of age is >only perhaps a euphemism for the fading >power to feel the sudden shock of joy >or sorrow." ~ Arthur Bliss. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message -----=20 >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:12 PM >Subject: RE: [blml] Objected Concession > > >> Hans-Olof Hall=E9n >> I don=B4t see that the Ace of clubs can be a penalty card. >> Play ceases (law 68 D). The TD decides the number of >> tricks to each side. > >> Sorry Hans, you have overlooked the last part of Law 68B: >> If a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and >> his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred; > >> As the Ace of Clubs is exposed by a defender in an action >> not related to a statement concerning an uncompleted trick >> currently in progress (see Law 49) it becomes a major >> penalty card. > >Regards Sven > >+=3D+ Interesting. I wonder if the exposure of the Ace was >the claim of a trick and concession of the remainder, to be >examined by the Director quite separately from any claim >and/or concession by opponent? > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ This idea of a 2-part claim or concession is a very good idea. Player A claims concedes and player B makes a sub-claim/concession within the original claim/concession. Does the law support such an idea? > > > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 1 14:05:54 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 09:05:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] An LA for one side only In-Reply-To: References: <41ABEAF5.7090700@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041201084708.02aa64f0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:05 AM 12/1/04, richard.hills wrote: >Reno NABC+ Appeal Number Four: > > >>...West deliberating and on > >>lead, East said, "Lead a card." > >>... > >>The committee assigned for NS the > >>contract of 2H doubled -100 and > >>for EW 2H doubled -470. > >Steve Willner: > > >At first this seems a strange > >decision, but I think it may be > >legal. I'm guessing that the > >committee may have ruled that the > >infraction was of L73B2, not 73C or > >16A1. If so, the AC must decide > >what would have happened if East's > >remark had not been made, and > >evidently they decided it was "at > >all probable" but not "likely" that > >West would have lead a losing > >diamond. If this is indeed the > >reasoning, the writeup does a poor > >job of expressing it. > >Richard Hills: > >Steve's reference to Law 73B2 >(Prearranged Communication) seems to >be a typo for a reference to Law 73B1 >(Gratuitous Information). > >In my opinion, an infraction of Law >73B1 is merely a precursor to a later >possible infraction of the twin laws >Law 73C and Law 16A1. In my opinion, >an infraction of Law 73B1 does not >*intrinsically* damage the opponents; >only a consequent selection of a >demonstrably suggested logical >alternative from amongst several >logical alternatives would damage the >opponents. > >Therefore, in my opinion, a split >score was inappropriate in this case. > >If there was only one logical >alternative, then the NOS was not >damaged, and both sides should have >received +100/-100. If there were >two logical alternatives, then the >NOS was damaged, and both sides >should have received -470/+470. Since West was apparently in the tank for some time, he must have thought there was more than one logical action, so there probably was, but so what? We must ask whether East's remark might have changed West's subjective evaluation of those alternatives. "Lead a card" suggests that East thinks (incorrectly, else there can be no damage!) that it doesn't matter what West leads. Before we can adjust the result, therefore, we must show some possible chain of logic by which that particular UI could lead West to choose the correct lead. Given that qualification, Richard is quite correct. If the committee did successfully show a possible connection between the UI and the SA play (arguable) there's no reason not to adjust for both sides, and if they didn't there are no grounds for adjusting at all. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 1 15:02:56 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:02:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Concede of carry on? References: <001201c4d5fb$24659080$6900a8c0@WINXP> <007901c4d613$4114a050$0b9868d5@James> <41AB38D8.8090209@hdw.be> <004601c4d670$14fca780$299468d5@James> <41AC36CA.3090804@hdw.be> <00b101c4d6e8$82e24480$2c9868d5@James> <41AD87F2.7030906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00a901c4d7b6$d92e5ad0$1a9868d5@James> [Herman de Wael] I would like to apologize for any implications not intended. {Nigel] An empty apology because the implications were clearly intended --and Herman immediately goes on to repeat them. [Herman] [Playing on hoping for a mistake or lucky end position] is not forbidden, but not really acceptable either. [Nigel] I hope Herman is wrong. I've made many contracts that needed a defensive error or lucky end position. [Herman] Anyway, I don't really see this can take a long while. Surely he had not been playing on for a number of tricks? So what was he doing then? In my experience, opponents usually claim when they believe it takes a long time. Was your father waiting to play a trick for an inordinate length of time? I would not accept it if he were. So, playing on is acceptable, but waiting a long time hoping for opponents to lose concentration, or to claim and do so in less than absolute manner, is not acceptable (IMHO) [Nigel] I mentioned no tempo breaks. My father played in tempo (as far as I remember). So all the above is irrelevant. {Herman] You call this careless? I call it virtually irrational. Overruffing your partner's trick? [Nigel] I've made worse plays. RHO was deprived of the opportunity of making a mistake by his LHO's claim. [Hernn] Anyway, my point is that by refusing to claim himself, and having opponents claim (perhaps out of frustration), your father has turned around the benefit of the doubt. A very doubtful play suddenly becomes the one selected by the TD ... Yes, amusing it certainly is. That does not make it right, though. [Nigel] At the time, everybody thought the director's ruling was automatic (I think that the claim transformed all RHO's cards into penalty cards). I notice, however, that Richard James Hills says that dummy was not allowed to dispute a defensive claim; I'm not a legal historian -- Richard may well be right. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 24/11/2004 From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 1 15:17:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:17:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001f01c4d7b8$de261ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ............... > >> Sorry Hans, you have overlooked the last part of Law 68B: > >> If a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and > >> his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred; > > > >> As the Ace of Clubs is exposed by a defender in an action > >> not related to a statement concerning an uncompleted trick > >> currently in progress (see Law 49) it becomes a major > >> penalty card. > > > >Regards Sven > > > >+=3D+ Interesting. I wonder if the exposure of the Ace was > >the claim of a trick and concession of the remainder, to be > >examined by the Director quite separately from any claim > >and/or concession by opponent? > > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ >=20 > This idea of a 2-part claim or concession is a very good idea. Player = A > claims concedes and player B makes a sub-claim/concession within the > original claim/concession. Does the law support such an idea? IMO such an idea will mainly add to the complexity rather than simplify = the process. The basis for a claim associated with a concession of some but = not all the remaining tricks disappear if the concession itself is = nullified. The problem is that while a claim always terminates the play and = requires the Director to make a ruling on how the remaining tricks shall be split between the pairs; a defender's concession can be nullified by his = partner's objection after which the play continues.=20 And WBFLC has told us that when a concession of some of but not all the remaining tricks is nullified this also means that neither the = concession nor the associated claim ever occurred. I think the best solution is to completely remove from Law 68B the possibility of having a concession nullified so that all play ceases = after any concession as well as after a claim. Regards Sven From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 1 15:22:54 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:22:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] An LA for one side only References: <41ABEAF5.7090700@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20041201084708.02aa64f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00e701c4d7b9$a2fe4170$1a9868d5@James> Richard Hills, Eric Landau and co make sense to me. A recent AC, on which I served, had to rule on a complementary case: In a friendly, chatty game, declarer said something like "It doesn't matter what you do" -- so the defender led something -- and the contract made. Although declarer genuinely believed his own statement, there was, in fact, a lead that would defeat the contract. The AC ruled the contract be defeated -- same score for both sides. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 24/11/2004 From H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl Wed Dec 1 15:28:50 2004 From: H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl (Pieters H.W.) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:28:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession Message-ID: > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]Namens > Sven Pran > Verzonden: woensdag 1 december 2004 16:17 > Aan: blml > Onderwerp: RE: [blml] Objected Concession > > > John (MadDog) Probst > ............... > > >> Sorry Hans, you have overlooked the last part of Law 68B: > > >> If a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and > > >> his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred; > > > > > >> As the Ace of Clubs is exposed by a defender in an action > > >> not related to a statement concerning an uncompleted trick > > >> currently in progress (see Law 49) it becomes a major > > >> penalty card. > > > > > >Regards Sven > > > > > >+=+ Interesting. I wonder if the exposure of the Ace was > > >the claim of a trick and concession of the remainder, to be > > >examined by the Director quite separately from any claim > > >and/or concession by opponent? > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > This idea of a 2-part claim or concession is a very good > idea. Player A > > claims concedes and player B makes a sub-claim/concession within the > > original claim/concession. Does the law support such an idea? > > IMO such an idea will mainly add to the complexity rather > than simplify the > process. The basis for a claim associated with a concession > of some but not > all the remaining tricks disappear if the concession itself > is nullified. > > The problem is that while a claim always terminates the play > and requires > the Director to make a ruling on how the remaining tricks > shall be split > between the pairs; a defender's concession can be nullified > by his partner's > objection after which the play continues. > > And WBFLC has told us that when a concession of some of but > not all the > remaining tricks is nullified this also means that neither > the concession > nor the associated claim ever occurred. > > I think the best solution is to completely remove from Law 68B the > possibility of having a concession nullified so that all play > ceases after > any concession as well as after a claim. > Amen!! > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ____________________________________________________________________________ This communication is intended only for use by the addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information. If you receive this communication unintentionally, please let us know by reply immediately. Gasunie does not guarantee that the information sent with this E-mail is correct and does not accept any liability for damages related thereto. ____________________________________________________________________________ From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 1 15:41:29 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:41:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs References: <009701c4d73f$1801d020$1f9868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20041201082340.02aa7440@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00fe01c4d7bc$3bd62550$1a9868d5@James> [Eric Landau] > A bit off-topic, but ISTM that a hesitation > here would be construed as encouraging partner > to revert to diamonds, by suggesting that South > is doubtful about playing 3HX. [Nigel] Eric, have you ever heard of a ruling that "pass" was suggested by partner's hesitation? (: As I've pointed out before, in the UK, among experienced players, a hesitation in such a position seems to carry the message " *Pass* -- unless you are prepared to defend your other action in front of an AC" :) In the given example, it is even more important to pass quickly because you don't mind partner mentioning a spade suit. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 24/11/2004 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 1 16:29:21 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:29:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: <00fe01c4d7bc$3bd62550$1a9868d5@James> References: <009701c4d73f$1801d020$1f9868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20041201082340.02aa7440@pop.starpower.net> <00fe01c4d7bc$3bd62550$1a9868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041201105534.02a33bf0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:41 AM 12/1/04, GUTHRIE wrote: >[Eric Landau] > > A bit off-topic, but ISTM that a hesitation > > here would be construed as encouraging partner > > to revert to diamonds, by suggesting that South > > is doubtful about playing 3HX. > >[Nigel] >Eric, have you ever heard of a ruling that "pass" was >suggested by partner's hesitation? > >(: As I've pointed out before, in the UK, among experienced >players, a hesitation in such a position seems to carry the >message " *Pass* -- unless you are prepared to defend your >other action in front of an AC" :) While this may be true, in that direction lies madness. If an unsophisticated player hesitates, it suggests that partner bid. If a sophisticated player hesitates, we get Nigel's "reverse" position, in which it suggests that partner pass. So if an even more sophisticated player hesitates, we get a "double-reverse" position, in which it suggests that partner bid. And so on. Which means that any hesitation might either suggest that partner bid, or suggest that partner not bid. So whatever he chooses, we must rule that it might have been suggested, making any winning action by partner subject to adjustment. If that's what we want, we don't need tortured logic about reverse inferences from experienced players' hesitations; we might as well just change the law to make it a violation to hesitate under any circumstances. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Dec 1 17:06:45 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:06:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 25A Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181722B@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Player A makes an inadvertant call. Player A's LHO (let's call him Player B) makes a call in tempo. =20 Player A says oops he has mis-pulled the call. He meant to bid = something else. The TD is called and determines that the original call = was indeed inadvertant. 25A says that Player A can change his call without penalty, because his = partner has not yet called. As there is no mention otherwise, it seems obvious player A's LHO has no = choice in the matter (for example, if the original inadvertant call was = insufficient, LHO cannot exercise his right under 27A to accept it). Where in the Laws does are the "obvious" facts that - player B can now change his call without penalty - the information from player B's withdrawn call is AI to his side and = UI to to player A's side ? Frances Hinden Strategic Planning Shell International Ltd. Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7934 2529 Fax: 6982 Mobile: +44 (0) 7899 065392 Email: Frances.Hinden@shell.com=20 Internet:http://www.shell.com/ This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information which = should not be used, copied or disclosed without permission. If you are = not an intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately. From john@asimere.com Wed Dec 1 17:21:08 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:21:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <001f01c4d7b8$de261ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001f01c4d7b8$de261ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <001f01c4d7b8$de261ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >John (MadDog) Probst >............... >> >> Sorry Hans, you have overlooked the last part of Law 68B: >> >> If a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and >> >> his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred; >> > >> >> As the Ace of Clubs is exposed by a defender in an action >> >> not related to a statement concerning an uncompleted trick >> >> currently in progress (see Law 49) it becomes a major >> >> penalty card. >> > >> >Regards Sven >> > >> >+=+ Interesting. I wonder if the exposure of the Ace was >> >the claim of a trick and concession of the remainder, to be >> >examined by the Director quite separately from any claim >> >and/or concession by opponent? >> > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> This idea of a 2-part claim or concession is a very good idea. Player A >> claims concedes and player B makes a sub-claim/concession within the >> original claim/concession. Does the law support such an idea? > >IMO such an idea will mainly add to the complexity rather than simplify the >process. The basis for a claim associated with a concession of some but not >all the remaining tricks disappear if the concession itself is nullified. snip >I think the best solution is to completely remove from Law 68B the >possibility of having a concession nullified so that all play ceases after >any concession as well as after a claim. This works too, but the adjudication must strongly take account of the sub-claim. Then we get to a good equity position. John > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Dec 1 17:24:48 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:24:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 25A Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C522@hotel.npl.co.uk> > From: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS [mailto:Frances.Hinden@Shell.com] > Sent: 01 December 2004 17:07 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Law 25A > > Where in the Laws does are the "obvious" facts that > - player B can now change his call without penalty Easy, it doesn't! (As I'm sure you suspected.) We use L21B - Call based on misinformation from an opponent. We deem that changing a call is misinforming an opponent as to what the call was. :-) > - the information from player B's withdrawn call is > AI to his side and UI to to player A's side This is L16C with the side that created the problem being equated with the offending side and the other side as non-offending. > ? ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Dec 1 17:54:15 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 01 Dec 2004 18:54:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A Message-ID: <20041201175415.98BC3E5B90@poczta.interia.pl> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS napisa=B3(a):=0A=0A> Where in the Laws does are the = "obvious" facts that=0A> - player B can now change his call without penalty= =0A> - the information from player B's withdrawn call is AI to his sid= e and UI=0A> to to player A's side=0A=0ANowhere. It is just the offic= ial WBF interpretation.=0A=0A Konrad Ciborowski=0A = Krak=F3w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nudzisz sie? Zagraj sobie! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f183d From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 1 18:04:25 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:04:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181722B@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <002301c4d7d0$3184c250$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Player A makes an inadvertant call. > Player A's LHO (let's call him Player B) makes a call in tempo. >=20 > Player A says oops he has mis-pulled the call. He meant to bid=20 > something else. The TD is called and determines that the=20 > original call was indeed inadvertent. I certainly hope that he so ruled without looking at any player's cards! >=20 > 25A says that Player A can change his call without penalty,=20 > because his partner has not yet called. > As there is no mention otherwise, it seems obvious player A's=20 > LHO has no choice in the matter (for example, if the original=20 > inadvertant call was insufficient, LHO cannot exercise his right > under 27A to accept it). That is correct. Once the Director establishes as a fact that the first = call was inadvertent this (first) call ceases to exist. The situation shall = be handled as if that call had never existed in this auction.=20 >=20 > Where in the Laws does are the "obvious" facts that > - player B can now change his call without penalty > - the information from player B's withdrawn call is AI to his side and = UI > to to player A's side There is none. This situation is clarified if we go back to the previous laws (1987) where the text was slightly different. In 1987 a text as in = the present Law 25B1 covered the fact that the subsequent call (if any) made = by LHO was nullified and that he could select whatever replacement call he wanted without any penalty. However, in spite of a positive law text to this effect in connection = with the current Law 25A there can be no doubt that so is the law to be understood. Regards Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Dec 1 19:23:36 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:23:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman designated otherwise in Bangladesh References: <41AC5215.90406@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00be01c4d7dd$cea8cdd0$84fff0c3@LNV> > > On 30 Nov 2004, at 10:57, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > So I did feel sorry for her, and I did not want to give ... > > Why do we so often hear things like this from Herman? It doesn't seem a > sound basis for ruling. > > > But a number of Asian girls will be happy that two ladies will return > > next year to play the same tournament once again. > > I'm sure they'd also have returned if the proper ruling had been given > in an appropriate manner. > When I was a beginner, there was nothing that irritated me more than > being patronised. > OK, then I will say nothing ton > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Dec 1 19:22:22 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:22:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman designated otherwise in Bangladesh References: <41AC5215.90406@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00bd01c4d7dd$cd1cfdb0$84fff0c3@LNV> I consider this to be one of your best decisions ever made, if not your best. And if Kojak hadn't been in Wiesbaden he would have joined me, I am sure. ton > This is the story of me applying L50 "deignates otherwise". I am > telling the story because I've alluded to it in some messages, but I > don't believe it is particularly helpful in that thread. > > The story does not happen in Bangladesh (I'd wish) but in a tournament > for the benefit of a girl's school in Bangladesh, conducted last week > in Brasschaat - and I dare all English speakers to try and pronounce > that one. > > The story is this: > > Dummy comes down, and it contains (among others) the King of diamonds. > Defender now says "something must be wrong, because I too have the > king of diamonds". While saying this, she shows a string of diamonds > to the table (I believe 7 of them), including, at the correct place, > the King .. of hearts. This is quickly pointed out to her and "Ooops, > Director". > > So I did feel sorry for her, and I did not want to give the declarer > the option of having her throw all diamonds under dummy's, so I ruled > that the HK became a MPC and I "designated otherwise" all diamonds > back in hand (I did make it UI to partner). > > Yes Sven, I know I shouldn't have - but I feel I have the power and > under the circumstances it felt "equitable". > And no, I would not rule the same in a European Championship (or in > the Bangladeshi first league). > But a number of Asian girls will be happy that two ladies will return > next year to play the same tournament once again. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 1 19:51:34 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:51:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002501c4d7df$29593ed0$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ............... > >I think the best solution is to completely remove from Law 68B the > >possibility of having a concession nullified so that all play ceases > after > >any concession as well as after a claim. > > This works too, but the adjudication must strongly take account of the > sub-claim. Of course! (The Director must hear all players like always) > Then we get to a good equity position. John > >Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 1 23:02:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 10:02:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Reno NABC+ Appeal Number Twelve Subject: Tempo NABC Mixed Pairs, 2nd Qualifying Board: 17 Dealer: North Vul: None June Pocock T732 98 AT9872 3 Reha Gur Muffie Gur K65 94 32 KQJ5 KQJ5 43 9642 AKQT5 Michael Yuen AQJ8 AT764 6 J87 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1C 1H 2C Pass Pass Dbl 2D Dbl 3C Pass Pass 3D Pass Pass Dbl 3H(1) Dbl 3S Pass Pass Dbl Pass Pass Pass (1) BIT of 90 seconds - agreed The Facts: The director was called after the 3S bid. There was a 90-second hesitation before the 3H bid agreed to by all parties. The opening lead was the diamond queen and the result was down one for +100 for EW. The Ruling: The director ruled that the result stood. The Appeal: North reproduced South's reasoning for his 3S call. South had heard an auction with North having at most two clubs, at most six diamonds and clearly no more than two hearts. Thus, he probably had four spades. The tempo break only implied doubt about whether to leave in 3D, not what to remove it to. The Decision: The committee agreed that no UI was conveyed by a slow 3H bid. Although the hesitation implied doubt, it was not clear that North was not considering playing 3D, a contract that only goes down because partner is unnaturally short of diamonds. Thus, since a slow 3H bid did not demonstrably suggest spades, South was free to do what he wanted and the result stands. The appeal was deemed with merit by a majority. Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Jerry Goldsmith, Jerry Gaer, Darwin Afdahl, and Bill Passell From john@asimere.com Wed Dec 1 23:33:38 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:33:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Reno NABC+ Appeal Number Twelve > >Subject: Tempo >NABC Mixed Pairs, 2nd Qualifying > >Board: 17 >Dealer: North >Vul: None > > June Pocock > T732 > 98 > AT9872 > 3 >Reha Gur Muffie Gur >K65 94 >32 KQJ5 >KQJ5 43 >9642 AKQT5 > Michael Yuen > AQJ8 > AT764 > 6 > J87 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass 1C 1H >2C Pass Pass Dbl >2D Dbl 3C Pass >Pass 3D Pass Pass >Dbl 3H(1) Dbl 3S >Pass Pass Dbl Pass >Pass Pass > >(1) BIT of 90 seconds - agreed > >The Facts: The director was called after the 3S bid. There >was a 90-second hesitation before the 3H bid agreed to by >all parties. The opening lead was the diamond queen and the >result was down one for +100 for EW. > >The Ruling: The director ruled that the result stood. I like the ruling; I like the appeal; I like the AC decision (result stands, appeal with merit). -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Dec 1 23:44:35 2004 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:44:35 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession References: <001701c4d60d$254711b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41AB191E.9070401@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 6:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Objected Concession > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>Roger Pewick > > > > .......... > > > >>This is KaKa. Two occasions are vividly in my mind. > >> > >>[1] At T11 declarer leads to KQT missing the J. Holding the Jxx LHO > >>returns his cards to the board [conceding] and RHO who by immediately > >>objecting committed an improper deception that she held the J [ being > >>void, > >>her hand could never legally take a trick]. Play was ruled to continue > >>and declarer did not get it right, and imo could never have gotten it > >>right > >>after this sequence of events. The defenders kept the trick. > > > > > > This incident shows IMO a very good reason why play should never be > > permitted to continue after an objected concession. > No it's not - it's director's error. This strikes me as rather curious, that is, the part about director error. I was director in this case and after determining that the objection was immediate, I ruled play continue and watched declarer lose to the J. It was brought to my attention the deceptive nature of the objection and I said that I would consult. I offered the case to blml suggesting that 73F2 [clearly] provided for an adjusted score in this case as the standard was could have known, and it was my judgment that a player could have known [the remark could lead declarer to play the void hand for the J]. Perhaps a dozen discussed the case and it was determined [unamimously except for my vociferous dissent] that 73F2 did not provide for an adjusted score, more specifically, since the defenders were not cheating [a necessary condition in this case] then there was no provision by law for an adjusted score. As such, after consulting, my ruling was result stands. > This is an action without any > bridge reason, which induced declarer into a wrong conclusion. L73F2. All that not being to the point, which was that objections can be deceptive and that is reason enough do away with continuing play. regards roger pewick > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 2 00:13:27 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:13:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Reno AC: >The Decision: The committee agreed that no UI was conveyed >by a slow 3H bid. Although the hesitation implied doubt, >it was not clear that North was not considering playing 3D, >a contract that only goes down because partner is >unnaturally short of diamonds. > >Thus, since a slow 3H bid did not demonstrably suggest >spades, South was free to do what he wanted and the result >stands. Richard Hills: "The hesitation implied doubt." The AC ruled that the hesitation might merely imply doubt about whether 3D or 3H was the right contract, therefore did not imply anything about whether 3S was the right contract.=A0 So, the AC ruled that the removal to 3S was permissible, being not demonstrably suggested. I disagree.=A0 In my opinion, *because* the hesitation suggested that 3H was a doubtful call, any removal of 3H must be _more_ demonstrably suggested than passing 3H, even if an insufficient bid of 3D was the _most_ demonstrably suggested call. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru= From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Dec 2 01:50:22 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 01:50:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs References: Message-ID: <008001c4d811$4b0048d0$0e9468d5@James> [Richard Hills] > "The hesitation implied doubt." The AC ruled that > the hesitation might merely imply doubt about > whether 3D or 3H was the right contract, therefore > did not imply anything about whether 3S was the > right contract. So, the AC ruled that the removal > to 3S was permissible, being not demonstrably > suggested. I disagree. In my opinion, *because* > the hesitation suggested that 3H was a doubtful > call, any removal of 3H must be _more_ demonstrably > suggested than passing 3H. even if an insufficient > bid of 3D was the _most_ demonstrably suggested > call. [Nigel] All those who answered Richard's original post agree with Richard. We all nominated pass as the *only* logical alternative. The AC and MadDog reached a diametrically opposite conclusion -- ruling that 3S was an LA, the appeal was without merit and the deposit be retained! I feel such cases provide an object lesson in why Bridge Law should rely much less on subjective judgement; but I realise that few BLMLers agree. The appelants in this case must feel that they are the victims of legislative piracy. I have argued, here and elsewhere, that the criteria for keeping deposits or imposing AWMWs should be more stringent. Perhaps some of us can agree on that? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 24/11/2004 From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Dec 2 02:22:39 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:22:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] An LA for one side only In-Reply-To: <200412011525.iB1FPD58012667@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200412011525.iB1FPD58012667@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41AE7C6F.8050602@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Steve's reference to Law 73B2 > (Prearranged Communication) seems to > be a typo for a reference to Law 73B1 > (Gratuitous Information). Quite correct. Sorry. I even checked the law numbers to be "sure" I had it right, then typed wrong. :-( > In my opinion, an infraction of Law > 73B1 is merely a precursor to a later > possible infraction of the twin laws > Law 73C and Law 16A1. If so, what is the point of making the Proprieties part of the Laws? I think BLML is split (What a surprise!), but my view is that all parts of L73 and the other Proprieties are independent laws with (for most) no prescribed indemnity. If a violation of any part is not otherwise redressed, the TD can look to L12A1. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 2 03:45:01 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:45:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] An LA for one side only In-Reply-To: <41AE7C6F.8050602@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills overly terse and ambiguous: >>In my opinion, an infraction of Law 73B1 is merely a >>precursor to a later possible infraction of the twin >>laws Law 73C and Law 16A1. Steve Willner asked: >If so, what is the point of making the Proprieties >part of the Laws? I think BLML is split (What a >surprise!), but my view is that all parts of L73 and >the other Proprieties are independent laws with (for >most) no prescribed indemnity. If a violation of >any part is not otherwise redressed, the TD can look >to L12A1. Richard Hills clarifies: I fully agree with Steve's points. The Proprieties were incorporated into the Laws (and given Law numbers) in 1987 precisely to permit a TD to legally apply PPs and (if necessary) score adjustments for any infraction of the Proprieties. There is an old proverb, "What gets rewarded is what gets done." In my opinion, the overall propriety of bridge players has been of a much higher standard post-1987 than pre-1987. Since Law 73B1 is now a full Law, an infraction of that Law may cause a TD to apply a PP to the offending side. *But* a TD may not legitimately award a score adjustment for an infraction of Law 73B1 *unless* the non-offending side was damaged by the infraction of Law 73B1. Since in the case under discussion the gratuitous remark did not mislead the non-offending side (Law 73F2), the gratuitous remark as such is not a casus belli for the TD to adjust the score. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Dec 2 10:07:21 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 10:07:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181722D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> [Richard Hills] > "The hesitation implied doubt." The AC ruled that > the hesitation might merely imply doubt about > whether 3D or 3H was the right contract, therefore > did not imply anything about whether 3S was the > right contract. So, the AC ruled that the removal > to 3S was permissible, being not demonstrably > suggested. I disagree. In my opinion, *because* > the hesitation suggested that 3H was a doubtful > call, any removal of 3H must be _more_ demonstrably > suggested than passing 3H. even if an insufficient > bid of 3D was the _most_ demonstrably suggested > call. [Nigel] All those who answered Richard's original post agree with=20 Richard. We all nominated pass as the *only* logical=20 alternative. The AC and MadDog reached a diametrically=20 opposite conclusion -- ruling that 3S was an LA, the appeal=20 was without merit and the deposit be retained! -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------- No, the AC made no determination of whether 3S was a LA or not. The AC determined that the UI did not suggest bidding 3S over pass. That is completely consistent with everyone who replied thinking=20 that there is no LA to pass. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 2 10:25:55 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 10:25:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession References: <001701c4d60d$254711b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41AB191E.9070401@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c4d85b$f00f3ad0$23b987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] *************************** "Once upon a time we knew what the game was. Now, unless the laws tell us, we argue about it." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Objected Concession > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 6:42 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Objected Concession > > [unamimously except for my vociferous dissent] that > 73F2 did not provide for an adjusted score, more > specifically, since the defenders were not cheating [a > necessary condition in this case] > +=+ There is no condition attaching to Law 73F2 relating to the question whether the player is or is not cheating. That is not an issue in the application of this law. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 2 10:18:41 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 10:18:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 25A References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C522@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000101c4d85b$ef2f1400$23b987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] *************************** "Once upon a time we knew what the game was. Now, unless the laws tell us, we argue about it." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "'Hinden, Frances SI-PXS'" ; Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 5:24 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 25A > > > > Where in the Laws does are the "obvious" facts that > > - player B can now change his call without penalty > > Easy, it doesn't! (As I'm sure you suspected.) > > We use L21B - Call based on misinformation from an > opponent. We deem that changing a call is misinforming > an opponent as to what the call was. :-) > > > - the information from player B's withdrawn call is > > AI to his side and UI to to player A's side > > This is L16C with the side that created the problem > being equated with the offending side and the other > side as non-offending. > +=+ Being committed to some heavy action post-Istanbul I am not following any blml thread closely just now, but I do drop in occasionally to have a look - as now, choosing more often than not to read a message from a respected colleague. What I read here could suggest that the thread has taken the line that "without penalty" in 25A is indicative of there being no infraction. I would think an inadvertent call is a breach of correct procedure, albeit not penalized, and if this is so that the player who makes it is an offender to whose side Law 72A5 applies. ~ G ~ +=+ From john@asimere.com Thu Dec 2 12:54:44 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:54:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181722D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181722D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: In article <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181722D@lonsc-s- 031.europe.shell.com>, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS writes > >[Richard Hills] >> "The hesitation implied doubt." The AC ruled that >> the hesitation might merely imply doubt about >> whether 3D or 3H was the right contract, therefore >> did not imply anything about whether 3S was the >> right contract. So, the AC ruled that the removal >> to 3S was permissible, being not demonstrably >> suggested. I disagree. In my opinion, *because* >> the hesitation suggested that 3H was a doubtful >> call, any removal of 3H must be _more_ demonstrably >> suggested than passing 3H. even if an insufficient >> bid of 3D was the _most_ demonstrably suggested >> call. > >[Nigel] >All those who answered Richard's original post agree with >Richard. We all nominated pass as the *only* logical >alternative. The AC and MadDog reached a diametrically >opposite conclusion -- ruling that 3S was an LA, the appeal >was without merit and the deposit be retained! the appeal was with merit IMO. It takes a damn good AC to work out that 3S is allowable. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- >No, the AC made no determination of whether 3S was a LA or not. >The AC determined that the UI did not suggest bidding 3S over pass. > >That is completely consistent with everyone who replied thinking >that there is no LA to pass. > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Dec 2 12:58:43 2004 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 06:58:43 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession References: <001701c4d60d$254711b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41AB191E.9070401@hdw.be> <000201c4d85b$f00f3ad0$23b987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Objected Concession > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > *************************** > "Once upon a time we knew what > the game was. Now, unless the laws > tell us, we argue about it." > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roger Pewick" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:44 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Objected Concession > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 6:42 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Objected Concession > > > > [unamimously except for my vociferous dissent] that > > 73F2 did not provide for an adjusted score, more > > specifically, since the defenders were not cheating [a > > necessary condition in this case] > > > +=+ There is no condition attaching to Law 73F2 > relating to the question whether the player is or is > not cheating. That is not an issue in the application > of this law. ~ G ~ +=+ As frequently occurs on blml there are compound thoughts without adequate antecedents and maybe I was derelict here. In order to communicate better maybe what should have been written was that the 'unanimous' consensus concluded that 73F2 did not provide for an adjusted score because it was impossible for the player[s] to have known their remark[s] could be [were] deceptive. More specifically, in order to adjust in this case the defenders must have cheated as a necessary condition [perhaps by CPU? It was not made clear by the consensus]. I do not claim that the group did a good job. Though I relied on its unamimous advice in delivering the ruling. regards roger pewick From Kesheem_Kilcher@cloverlcd.com Thu Dec 2 14:13:03 2004 From: Kesheem_Kilcher@cloverlcd.com (Landynn Aylesworth) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:13:03 +0300 Subject: [blml] Re: Did you seen this ? Message-ID: To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on t= he high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;=20!=20




Looking for not expensive high-quality software?
We might have just what you need.

Windows XP= Professional 2002 ............. $50
Adobe Photoshop= 7.0 ...................... $60
Microsoft Offi= ce XP Professional 2002 .... $60
Corel Draw Graph= ics Suite 11 ............. $60

and lots more...=

TOP quality software:

Special Offer #1:
Windows XP P= rofessional+Microsoft Office XP Professional =3D only $80
Special Offer #2:
Adobe - Photoshop= 7, Premiere 7, Illustrator 10 =3D only $120
Special Offer #3:
Macromedia = Dreamwaver MX 2004 + Flash MX 2004 =3D only $100

Also:
Windows 2003 Server
Windows 2000 Workstation
Windows 2000 Server
Windows 2000 Advanced Server
Windows 2000 Datacenter
Windows NT 4.0
Windows Millenium
Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows 95
Office XP Professional
Office 2000
Office 97
MS Plus
MS SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
MS Visual Studio .NET Architect Edition
MS Encarta Encyclopedia Delux 2004
MS Project 2003 Professional
MS Money 2004
MS Streets and Trips 2004
MS Works 7
MS Picture It Premium 9
MS Exchange 2003 Enterprise Server
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe PageMaker
Adobe Illustrator
Adobe Acrobat 6 Professional
Adobe Premiere
Macromedia Dreamwaver MX 2004
Macromedia Flash MX 2004
Macromedia Fireworks MX 2004
Macromedia Freehand MX 11
Corel Draw Graphics Suite 12
Corel Draw Graphics Suite 11
Corel Photo Painter 8
Corel Word Perfect Office 2002
Norton System Works 2003
Borland Delphi 7 Enterprise Edition
Quark Xpress 6 Passport Multilanguage
Enter Here








?tIvy_Ktxox4mfZZnm1f">Discontinue Conseil argued on this supposition, and laid his plans accordingly;=20 From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Dec 2 14:58:29 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:58:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181722D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <003101c4d87f$64601080$279468d5@James> [Frances Hinden] > No, the AC made no determination of whether 3S was a > LA or not. The AC determined that the UI did not > suggest bidding 3S over pass. That is completely > consistent with everyone who replied thinking > that there is no LA to pass. [Nigel] I cannot speak for the other correspondents but ... De facto, the committee *did* treat 3S as a logical alternative. To me "There is no alternative to pass" means "No other bid is suggested to me by the auction, so far". A logical corrolary is: "Unless 3S is a mistake, it *is* demonstrably suggested by something other than the auction itself". I concede that this does not necessaruly mean that the 3S bidders' *peers* would differ with him; but, for me, it does undermine the committee decision; especially if the committee did not give the problem to peers of the 3S bidder. I now see that it is only John Probst who would keep the deposit; but this simple case still illustrates the danger of the law's emphasis on subjective judgements: different people so often arrive at opposite rulings. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 24/11/2004 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Dec 2 18:15:49 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:15:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: <003101c4d87f$64601080$279468d5@James> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181722D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <003101c4d87f$64601080$279468d5@James> Message-ID: <31FF1D34-448E-11D9-8ED2-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 2 Dec 2004, at 14:58, GUTHRIE wrote: > I now see that it is only John Probst who would keep the > deposit; I think you've misread what he wrote... > but this simple case still illustrates the danger > of the law's emphasis on subjective judgements: different > people so often arrive at opposite rulings. ... so this case illustrates no such thing. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 2 20:54:27 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:54:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] An LA for one side only In-Reply-To: <00e701c4d7b9$a2fe4170$1a9868d5@James> Message-ID: <5AEB2BAE-44A4-11D9-BFE5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 1, 2004, at 10:22 US/Eastern, GUTHRIE wrote: > A recent AC, on which I served, had to rule on a > complementary case: In a friendly, chatty game, declarer > said something like "It doesn't matter what you do" -- so > the defender led something -- and the contract made. > Although declarer genuinely believed his own statement, > there was, in fact, a lead that would defeat the contract. > > The AC ruled the contract be defeated -- same score for both > sides. I presume this is a ruling under Law 73F2? Are you sure there is no "demonstrable bridge reason" for declarer's statement, in a "friendly, chatty game"? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 2 21:12:11 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:12:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] Concede of carry on? In-Reply-To: <000801c4d6c8$91c50cf0$c85cdccb@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Noel Bugeia: >Having been in this situation on two occasions, I played on both >times. On them: > >1. A defender mis-discarded allowing the GS to make? Was I >wrong to do this? Richard Hills: In my opinion, one is entitled to play on if it would be careless or inferior for an opponent to make a mistake which allows the grand slam to make. In my opinion, one should claim one off in the grand slam if it would be irrational for an opponent to make a mistake which allows the grand slam to make. Most opponents (other than Meckwell) can carelessly succumb to a pseudo-squeeze, thus mis-discard. Therefore, for most opponents your playing on in this first example - a technically impossible but practically possible grand slam - neither infracted Law 74B4 nor infracted Law 90B2. Noel Bugeia: >2. A defender revoked and the GS made. I asked the Director >to waive the penalty. (He did.) My partner was livid. [I don't >play with him anymore.] Richard Hills: Assume that only a revoke would allow this second grand slam to make. Example: 7NT, 12 top tricks plus a "certain" loser in RHO's ace. Edgar Kaplan's interpretation of the phrase "for cause" in Law 81C8, is that the non-offending side should have partially or fully caused the offending side's infraction. Kaplan gave the example of an offending player exposing a card after a non- offending player spilt their coffee in the offending player's lap. Therefore, since *unnecessary* slow play by you partially caused your opponent's revoke, the TD correctly waived the revoke penalty. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 2 21:39:26 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:39:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] An LA for one side only In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041201084708.02aa64f0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >If the committee did successfully show a possible >connection between the UI and the SA play (arguable) >there's no reason not to adjust for both sides, and >if they didn't there are no grounds for adjusting at >all. Richard Hills: In my opinion, the committee misinterpreted the circumstances in which Law 12C2 permits a split score. Law 12C2 permits differential *rectification* of damage after an infraction. But Law 12C2 does not permit differential *determination* of whether or not an infraction has occurred. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 2 22:01:05 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:01:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: <008001c4d811$4b0048d0$0e9468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >The AC and MadDog reached a diametrically >opposite conclusion -- ruling that 3S was >an LA, the appeal was without merit and >the deposit be retained! Richard Hills: (a) The AC and MadDog made no determination on whether or not 3S was an LA; they merely ruled that the hesitation did not provide any UI. (b) Both the AC and MadDog ruled that the appeal was with merit, despite them rejecting the appeal. Nigel Guthrie: >I feel such cases provide an object lesson >in why Bridge Law should rely much less on >subjective judgement; but I realise that >few BLMLers agree. Richard Hills: I feel that this case is an object lesson in "experimenter bias". This is the well-known phenomenon when a scientist misinterprets data in conformance with the scientist's theoretical prejudices. (Which is why it is standard scientific practice to conduct "double-blind" tests.) Due to Nigel's prejudice against subjectively determined LAs, it was easier for Nigel to carelessly misread the actual words of the AC and MadDog. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Dec 2 23:50:39 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 23:50:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs References: Message-ID: <002101c4d8c9$d1c12a20$469468d5@James> [Richard Hills] > (a) The AC and MadDog made no determination > on whether or not 3S was an LA; they merely > ruled that the hesitation did not provide > any UI. [Nigel] I am quite surprised that I seem to be the only contributer to this thread who believes that the Committee did, in fact, treat 3S as a logical alternative (for reasons explained at length in a previous email) > (b) Both the AC and MadDog ruled that the > appeal was with merit, despite them rejecting > the appeal. > I feel that this case is an object lesson in > "experimenter bias". This is the well-known > phenomenon when a scientist misinterprets > data in conformance with the scientist's > theoretical prejudices. (Which is why it is > standard scientific practice to conduct > "double-blind" tests.) > Due to Nigel's prejudice against subjectively > determined LAs, it was easier for Nigel to > carelessly misread the actual words of the AC > and MadDog. [Nigel] In a previous email, I pleaded guilty to bolstering my argument with a false premise. I also apologised to the court. In case Richard did not read it ... (1) Again I accept that *both* the committee and MadDog judged the appeal to have some merit. (2) Again I accept that my zeal in advocating law reform was mainly responsible for my misreading. (3) Again I apologise. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.804 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 30/11/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 2 23:51:25 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:51:25 +1100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ There is no condition attaching to Law 73F2 >>relating to the question whether the player is or is >>not cheating. That is not an issue in the application >>of this law. ~ G ~ +=+ Roger Pewick: >As frequently occurs on blml there are compound >thoughts without adequate antecedents and maybe I was >derelict here. In order to communicate better maybe >what should have been written was that the 'unanimous' >consensus concluded that 73F2 did not provide for an >adjusted score because it was impossible for the >player[s] to have known their remark[s] could be [were] >deceptive. More specifically, in order to adjust in >this case the defenders must have cheated as a >necessary condition [perhaps by CPU? It was not made >clear by the consensus]. > >I do not claim that the group did a good job. Though >I relied on its unanimous advice in delivering the >ruling. Richard Hills: The issue is not whether Law 73F2 is a dead-letter Law in general, but rather whether the "could have known" criterion was satisfied in the *specific* three-card ending that Roger Pewick ruled upon at the table as TD. Dummy KQT LHO RHO Jxx void Declarer x So, with declarer on lead at trick 10, LHO concedes all the tricks and RHO immediately objects. RHO cannot have infracted Law 73F2 by objecting, since the defence can possibly take one more trick. LHO cannot have infracted Law 73F2 by conceding, since declarer can possibly take all the tricks. LHO's concession is not even necessarily premature. It is possible that earlier play in the hand gave declarer a complete count, theoretically allowing the declarer to play the three card ending double-dummy. Perhaps LHO's concession was predicated upon an erroneous assessment of declarer's ability, but RHO's objection was predicated upon an accurate assessment of declarer's ability. However, a Law change which cancels play after any concession, with doubtful points resolved against conceders, would make life simpler for declarers and TDs. After such a Law change, defensive conceders would be automatically ruled against in doubtful finesse-or-drop situations. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Dec 3 01:24:40 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 01:24:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs Message-ID: <004001c4d8d6$de0b9b00$469468d5@James> >> [John MadDog Probst] >>> the appeal was with merit IMO. It takes a damn good >>> AC to work out that 3S is allowable. > [Steve Wishart] >> Without commenting on your other views, the above >> is clearly wrong. _Nobody_ was in favor of keeping >> the deposit. Please read more carefully. [Gordon Rainsford] > I think you've misread what he wrote... > ... so this case illustrates no such thing. [Nigel] Sorry. In my zeal to plead for better guidelines about appeals without merit, I misread MadDog's post. I am glad to learn that he would not keep the deposit. On the facts at our disposal, Richard Hills and I still believe that the committee made the wrong decision. I would like to know the views of the others who regarded pass as the only logical alternative. Finally, I sent this to Gordon Rainsford rather than BLML by mistake. Sorry Gordon. Before I could resend it to BLML, Richard Hills posted yet another email complainninng of my error. Sorry Richard. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.804 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 30/11/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 3 01:39:40 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:39:40 +1100 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: <002101c4d8c9$d1c12a20$469468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >I am quite surprised that I seem to be the only contributor >to this thread who believes that the Committee did, in fact, >treat 3S as a logical alternative (for reasons explained at >length in a previous email) Nigel Guthrie's previous email: >>To me "There is no alternative to pass" means "No other bid >>is suggested to me by the auction, so far". A logical >>corollary is: "Unless 3S is a mistake, it *is* demonstrably >>suggested by something other than the auction itself". >>I concede that this does not necessarily mean that the 3S >>bidders' *peers* would differ with him; but, for me, it does >>undermine the committee decision; especially if the >>committee did not give the problem to peers of the 3S >>bidder. Richard Hills: In my opinion, there is a logical fallacy in Nigel's argument. In order for a TD (or an AC) to adjust a score under Law 16, all four of the following criteria must be satisfied: 1. Unauthorised information must have been transmitted. 2. The action selected was demonstrably suggested by the unauthorised information 3. The opponents were damaged by the demonstrably suggested action. 4. A logical alternative, which was not demonstrably suggested, was available. None of the criteria evaluate whether or not the demonstrably suggested action is a logical alternative or an irrational alternative. The committee evaluated that criterion 1 was not satisfied, so therefore a Law 16 score adjustment was inappropriate. Nigel seems to argue that the committee should retain its negative evaluation of criterion 1 if the subsequent 3S bid was a logical alternative, but rescind its negative evaluation of criterion 1 if the subsequent 3S bid was an irrational alternative. In my opinion, this time-travel reasoning has a whiff of the fallacious Rule of Coincidence about it. Nigel Guthrie's previouser email: >>>All those who answered Richard's original post agree with >>>Richard. We all nominated pass as the *only* logical >>>alternative. Richard Hills: A question does not imply an opinion. I agree with Grattan Endicott's assessment that, for a North-South partnership who have earlier mangled the auction, a scramble to 3S is indeed a logical alternative for this illogical partnership. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From john@asimere.com Fri Dec 3 01:46:21 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 01:46:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: <002101c4d8c9$d1c12a20$469468d5@James> References: <002101c4d8c9$d1c12a20$469468d5@James> Message-ID: In article <002101c4d8c9$d1c12a20$469468d5@James>, GUTHRIE writes >[Richard Hills] >> (a) The AC and MadDog made no determination >> on whether or not 3S was an LA; they merely >> ruled that the hesitation did not provide >> any UI. snip >[Nigel] >In a previous email, I pleaded guilty to bolstering my >argument with a false premise. I also apologised to the >court. In case Richard did not read it ... >(1) Again I accept that *both* the committee and MadDog >judged the appeal to have some merit. >(2) Again I accept that my zeal in advocating law reform was >mainly responsible for my misreading. >(3) Again I apologise. ok, that's an adequate grovel :) btw I was *really* impressed by this AC. I'm not sure I could put together more than three or four ACs in this country who would understand the law well enough to get it right. These "out of the blue" bids after potential UI are very tough. If I were the TD I'd definitely be telling the AC that this appeal had my support as to merit, even if not my backing as to Law. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Dec 3 02:34:17 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:34:17 +1300 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c4d8e0$991c2910$0701010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Friday, 3 December 2004 2:40 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Scrambled eggs > > In my opinion, there is a logical fallacy in Nigel's argument. > In order for a TD (or an AC) to adjust a score under Law 16, > all four of the following criteria must be satisfied: > > 1. Unauthorised information must have been transmitted. > 2. The action selected was demonstrably suggested by the > unauthorised information > 3. The opponents were damaged by the demonstrably suggested > action. > 4. A logical alternative, which was not demonstrably > suggested, was available. > L16 is written with less stringent words than Richard has used above. In particular the corresponding words in L16 with regard to 2. above are: "...the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that *could* demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." With this modification I would have applied Richard's criteria in the following way to the case under discussion: 1. Yes there was UI - a slow bid provides UI. 2. That UI could have suggested 3S over Pass. 3. Damage was done. 4. Pass was a logical alternative that was not logically suggested. Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Dec 3 02:35:54 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:35:54 +1300 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c4d8e0$d5fd7cd0$0701010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: Friday, 3 December 2004 2:46 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Scrambled eggs > > These "out of the blue" bids after potential UI are very tough. If I > were the TD I'd definitely be telling the AC that this appeal had my > support as to merit, even if not my backing as to Law. > I find it hard to see how an appeal without backing as to law can have merit. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 3 03:21:05 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:21:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: <000501c4d8e0$991c2910$0701010a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows asserted: [snip] >With this modification I would have applied Richard's criteria >in the following way to the case under discussion: > >1. Yes there was UI - a slow bid provides UI. [snip] Richard Hills devil's advocate: AI from the auction indicated that North did not have a clearcut preference between a 3D partscore and a 3H partscore. UI from the slow bid indicated that North did not have a clearcut preference between a 3D partscore and a 3H partscore. In my opinion, *if* unauthorised information is tautologically equal to authorised information, *then* the information content of the UI is zero, so the UI consequently dissipates. The actual AC (and MadDog) assessed that the UI and the AI were tautological, which was a reasonable interpretation of the facts. I (and some other blmlers) assessed that the UI actually demonstrably suggested, "Let's scramble out of 3H, or we will get egg on our faces," which was another reasonable interpretation of the facts. Wayne Burrows asserted: >I find it hard to see how an appeal without backing as to law >can have merit. Richard Hills devil's advocate: If the appellant could not reasonably be expected to know about an obscure quiddity in the Laws, then in my opinion an appeal without backing by Law does have merit. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Dec 3 03:26:30 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:26:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] An LA for one side only In-Reply-To: <200412021523.iB2FNeBd017388@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200412021523.iB2FNeBd017388@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41AFDCE6.1030004@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > *But* a TD may not legitimately award a score > adjustment for an infraction of Law 73B1 *unless* > the non-offending side was damaged by the infraction > of Law 73B1. This is a very interesting point. I've been assuming that L12A1 applies whenever an infraction causes the table result to differ from the "likely/at all probable" results absent the infraction (and to the detriment of the NOS). However, the actual language is "do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant." Thus if the AC had judged it "likely" that the infraction or L73B1 damaged the NOS, they could have adjusted the score for both sides, but having judged it merely "at all probable," they cannot adjust for either side. I confess I don't like this and don't even think it is reasonable, but it sure is what the text seems to be saying. Presumably this doesn't apply for laws such as 72B1, which specifically allow an adjusted score. So if the person making a gratuitous remark "could have known" it might damage the other side, there can still be an adjustment for the OS only. I don't think this applies to the original example, though. "Lead a card, it doesn't matter" doesn't sound like "could have known" to me. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Dec 3 03:30:40 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:30:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] An LA for one side only In-Reply-To: <200412022125.iB2LPG1u017965@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200412022125.iB2LPG1u017965@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41AFDDE0.3080005@cfa.harvard.edu> >> In a friendly, chatty game, declarer >>said something like "It doesn't matter what you do" -- so >>the defender led something -- and the contract made. > From: Ed Reppert > I presume this is a ruling under Law 73F2? Are you sure there is no > "demonstrable bridge reason" for declarer's statement, in a "friendly, > chatty game"? _Bridge_ reason. Being friendly and chatty is all very well, and I quite enjoy it myself, but I don't think it qualifies as a bridge reason. Of course this is a judgment ruling, so all circumstances need to be taken into account, but it seems unlikely that this particular reason would be grounds for denying an adjustment. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 3 03:38:00 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:38:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: <000501c4d8e0$991c2910$0701010a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>In order for a TD (or an AC) to adjust a score under Law 16, >>all four of the following criteria must be satisfied: >>..... >>2. The action selected was demonstrably suggested by the >> unauthorised information >>..... Wayne Burrows: >L16 is written with less stringent words than Richard has >used above. In particular the corresponding words in L16 >with regard to 2. above are: > >"...the partner may not choose from among logical >alternative actions one that *could* demonstrably have been >suggested over another by the extraneous information." Richard Hills: In my opinion, the phrase "could demonstrably" verges upon being an oxymoron. No doubt the WBF LC will rephrase Law 16 in a clearer form in 2006. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Dec 3 08:23:15 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:23:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C522@hotel.npl.co.uk> <000101c4d85b$ef2f1400$23b987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <002a01c4d911$5f988900$47fdf0c3@LNV> > > This is L16C with the side that created the problem > > being equated with the offending side and the other > > side as non-offending. > > > +=+ .......... What I read here could suggest that the thread > has taken the line that "without penalty" in 25A is indicative > of there being no infraction. I would think an inadvertent > call is a breach of correct procedure, albeit not penalized, > and if this is so that the player who makes it is an offender > to whose side Law 72A5 applies. > ~ G ~ +=+ This sounds strange, since L72A5 clearly describes only to be valid when a penalty is paid. So yes, let us agree that making an inadvertent call that has to be changed creates an offending side. But then, as said here, we go directly to L16C1/16C2 telling that the withdrawn call from the non offenders is AI for them and UI for the offenders. Refering to 72A5 Grattan seems to suggest that the info from this withdrawn call is AI for the offenders! The withdrawn call from the offenders creates nothing but trouble. ton From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Dec 3 09:15:03 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:15:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 25A Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181723F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > > This is L16C with the side that created the problem > > being equated with the offending side and the other > > side as non-offending. > > > +=3D+ .......... What I read here could suggest that the thread > has taken the line that "without penalty" in 25A is indicative > of there being no infraction. I would think an inadvertent > call is a breach of correct procedure, albeit not penalized, > and if this is so that the player who makes it is an offender > to whose side Law 72A5 applies. > ~ G ~ +=3D+ This sounds strange, since L72A5 clearly describes only to be valid when = a penalty is paid. So yes, let us agree that making an inadvertent call that has to be = changed creates an offending side. But then, as said here, we go directly to L16C1/16C2 telling that the withdrawn call from the non offenders is AI = for them and UI for the offenders. Refering to 72A5 Grattan seems to suggest that the info from this withdrawn call is AI for the offenders! The withdrawn call from the offenders creates nothing but trouble. ton -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- If the withdrawn call is truly inadvertent then there cannot be any = information content in the call, A, U or otherwise. From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 3 12:32:05 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 13:32:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question about screens Message-ID: <41B05CC5.7090303@hdw.be> I realize that questions about screens are subject to individual regulations about those screens, but please take the regulations to your favourite tournament with screens and see what you think about this one: North makes a call, and does not alert. East doubles. North passes the tray (as is his duty). Now North alerts (his call), and East asks and receives an explanation. East now asks to change his double. North and East call the Director and pull back the tray in the meanwhile. South has not yet called - or even if he has, West hasn't (which is more important). The TD determines that the non-alert was an infraction, and that it is "proabable" that East has doubled "as a result of misinformation". Do we allow East to change his call? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Dec 3 13:11:39 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:11:39 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] A question about screens Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900019E0E52@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: I realize that questions about screens are subject to individual=20 regulations about those screens, but please take the regulations to=20 your favourite tournament with screens and see what you think about=20 this one: North makes a call, and does not alert. East doubles. North passes the tray (as is his duty). Now North alerts (his call), and East asks and receives an=20 explanation. East now asks to change his double. North and East call the Director and pull back the tray in the meanwhile. South has not yet called - or even if he has, West hasn't (which is=20 more important). The TD determines that the non-alert was an infraction, and that it is=20 "proabable" that East has doubled "as a result of misinformation". Do we allow East to change his call? ----- Law 21B1 allows this change. The regulations for use of screens in Norway does not include any changes to this law. Thus we would allow east to change his call. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 3 13:10:39 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:10:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question about screens In-Reply-To: <41B05CC5.7090303@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000b01c4d939$7c87bbd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > I realize that questions about screens are subject to individual > regulations about those screens, but please take the regulations to > your favourite tournament with screens and see what you think about > this one: > > North makes a call, and does not alert. > East doubles. > North passes the tray (as is his duty). > Now North alerts (his call), and East asks and receives an > explanation. East now asks to change his double. > North and East call the Director and pull back the tray in the meanwhile. > South has not yet called - or even if he has, West hasn't (which is > more important). > The TD determines that the non-alert was an infraction, and that it is > "proabable" that East has doubled "as a result of misinformation". > > Do we allow East to change his call? The relevant Law is Law 21B This law is not on the Norwegian list of laws that are affected by the use of screens so the answer to your question must be that in Norway we apply the law identically with or without screens. IOW: Yes, we allow East to change his call. North and South have UI, West has extraneous information which is AI to him. Incidentally: South and West are not to be told WHY the double was withdrawn, it could have been according to law 25A (particularly if the replacement call is a PASS) as well as according to Law 21B. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 3 14:16:51 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:16:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question about screens In-Reply-To: <000b01c4d939$7c87bbd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c4d939$7c87bbd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41B07553.8000505@hdw.be> Sven confirms what I thought as well, except: Sven Pran wrote: > > Incidentally: South and West are not to be told WHY the double was > withdrawn, it could have been according to law 25A (particularly if the > replacement call is a PASS) as well as according to Law 21B. > No it cannot, since L25 IS among the laws that have been suspended! (at least in the Belgian and European regulations) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Dec 3 14:23:23 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:23:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] An LA for one side only In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041201084708.02aa64f0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041203091548.02b25830@pop.starpower.net> At 04:39 PM 12/2/04, richard.hills wrote: >Eric Landau: > >[snip] > > >If the committee did successfully show a possible > >connection between the UI and the SA play (arguable) > >there's no reason not to adjust for both sides, and > >if they didn't there are no grounds for adjusting at > >all. > >Richard Hills: > >In my opinion, the committee misinterpreted the >circumstances in which Law 12C2 permits a split >score. > >Law 12C2 permits differential *rectification* of >damage after an infraction. But Law 12C2 does not >permit differential *determination* of whether or >not an infraction has occurred. That's exactly right. L12C2 quite clearly, when invoked, requires assigned scores for both sides, and makes it equally clear that they need not be the same. To say that you've "adjusted for one side only" should, if the ruling is legal, mean that you have assigned the other side an artificial score which just happens to match the table result. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Dec 3 14:41:09 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:41:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: <000501c4d8e0$991c2910$0701010a@Desktop> References: <000501c4d8e0$991c2910$0701010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041203093505.02b11eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:34 PM 12/2/04, Wayne wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > Sent: Friday, 3 December 2004 2:40 p.m. > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] Scrambled eggs > > > > In my opinion, there is a logical fallacy in Nigel's argument. > > In order for a TD (or an AC) to adjust a score under Law 16, > > all four of the following criteria must be satisfied: > > > > 1. Unauthorised information must have been transmitted. > > 2. The action selected was demonstrably suggested by the > > unauthorised information > > 3. The opponents were damaged by the demonstrably suggested > > action. > > 4. A logical alternative, which was not demonstrably > > suggested, was available. I believe this is quite correct. If we introduce a false premise, however, we will get incorrect conclusions... >L16 is written with less stringent words than Richard has used >above. In particular the corresponding words in L16 with regard >to 2. above are: > >"...the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions >one that *could* demonstrably have been suggested over another by >the extraneous information." > >With this modification I would have applied Richard's criteria in the >following way to the case under discussion: > >1. Yes there was UI - >a slow bid provides UI. That ain't necessarily so. >2. That UI could have suggested 3S over Pass. > >3. Damage was done. > >4. Pass was a logical alternative that was not logically suggested. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Dec 3 15:16:51 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:16:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181723F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <005d01c4d94c$871d6910$47fdf0c3@LNV> > > This is L16C with the side that created the problem > > being equated with the offending side and the other > > side as non-offending. > > > +=+ .......... What I read here could suggest that the thread > has taken the line that "without penalty" in 25A is indicative > of there being no infraction. I would think an inadvertent > call is a breach of correct procedure, albeit not penalized, > and if this is so that the player who makes it is an offender > to whose side Law 72A5 applies. > ~ G ~ +=+ This sounds strange, since L72A5 clearly describes only to be valid when a penalty is paid. So yes, let us agree that making an inadvertent call that has to be changed creates an offending side. But then, as said here, we go directly to L16C1/16C2 telling that the withdrawn call from the non offenders is AI for them and UI for the offenders. Refering to 72A5 Grattan seems to suggest that the info from this withdrawn call is AI for the offenders! The withdrawn call from the offenders creates nothing but trouble. ton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Frances reacts: If the withdrawn call is truly inadvertent then there cannot be any information content in the call, A, U or otherwise. --------------------------- You are right, and better even that is exactly what I said. ton _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Dec 3 15:26:51 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:26:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question about screens References: <000b01c4d939$7c87bbd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41B07553.8000505@hdw.be> Message-ID: <005f01c4d94c$88e7efe0$47fdf0c3@LNV> > Sven confirms what I thought as well, except: > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > Incidentally: South and West are not to be told WHY the double was > > withdrawn, it could have been according to law 25A (particularly if the > > replacement call is a PASS) as well as according to Law 21B. > > > > No it cannot, since L25 IS among the laws that have been suspended! > (at least in the Belgian and European regulations) > > -- > Herman DE WAEL This is why I l prefer your ruling making just the heart K a penalty card. I don't understand why you asked this question since the answer is obvious and I don't understand your reaction. Of course L25A is not suspended, at least not in the European BL events, what you do in Belgium I don't know. ton From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 3 15:52:04 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:52:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question about screens In-Reply-To: <41B07553.8000505@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001601c4d950$08f39a10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sven confirms what I thought as well, except: > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > Incidentally: South and West are not to be told WHY the double was > > withdrawn, it could have been according to law 25A (particularly if the > > replacement call is a PASS) as well as according to Law 21B. > > > > No it cannot, since L25 IS among the laws that have been suspended! > (at least in the Belgian and European regulations) I had to go back and double check our regulations, but in Norway Law 25 is indeed not affected by the use of screens. One could argue and even find it reasonable when screens are used that the text in Law 25A should read: "Until the tray has been passed under the screen" rather than "Until his partner makes a call", but no such alteration of Law 25A is in effect in Norway as far as I am aware of. I expect Harald to read this and correct me if I am mistaken in any way. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 3 16:04:24 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:04:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <005d01c4d94c$871d6910$47fdf0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <001701c4d951$c2106810$6900a8c0@WINXP> What is all this about? I feel completely confused. Frances has stated it quite perfectly below (as far as I can see): When a call is withdrawn under Law 25A that call never existed, there is = no information(*) from a withdrawn call, no offender, no penalty and no question about Law 72 or any other law in the book.=20 (*) except the information that the player in question slipped and never intended to make the call subsequently withdrawn. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Ton > Kooijman > Sent: 3. desember 2004 16:17 > To: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > > > This is L16C with the side that created the problem > > > being equated with the offending side and the other > > > side as non-offending. > > > >=20 > > +=3D+ .......... What I read here could suggest that the thread > > has taken the line that "without penalty" in 25A is indicative > > of there being no infraction. I would think an inadvertent > > call is a breach of correct procedure, albeit not penalized, > > and if this is so that the player who makes it is an offender > > to whose side Law 72A5 applies. > > ~ G ~ +=3D+ >=20 >=20 >=20 > This sounds strange, since L72A5 clearly describes only to be valid = when a > penalty is paid. > So yes, let us agree that making an inadvertent call that has to be > changed > creates an offending side. But then, as said here, we go directly to > L16C1/16C2 telling that the withdrawn call from the non offenders is = AI > for > them and UI for the offenders. Refering to 72A5 Grattan seems to = suggest > that the info from this withdrawn call is AI for the offenders! The > withdrawn call from the offenders creates nothing but trouble. >=20 > ton > = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - > -- > ------------ >=20 > Frances reacts: >=20 > If the withdrawn call is truly inadvertent then there cannot be any > information content > in the call, A, U or otherwise. >=20 >=20 > --------------------------- > You are right, and better even that is exactly what I said. >=20 > ton >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Fri Dec 3 19:44:06 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:44:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: <000601c4d8e0$d5fd7cd0$0701010a@Desktop> References: <000601c4d8e0$d5fd7cd0$0701010a@Desktop> Message-ID: In article <000601c4d8e0$d5fd7cd0$0701010a@Desktop>, Wayne Burrows writes > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst >> Sent: Friday, 3 December 2004 2:46 p.m. >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] Scrambled eggs >> >> These "out of the blue" bids after potential UI are very tough. If I >> were the TD I'd definitely be telling the AC that this appeal had my >> support as to merit, even if not my backing as to Law. >> > >I find it hard to see how an appeal without backing as to law can have >merit. because it is so complex that the appellants should have benefit of the AC telling them "Look chaps - we know it looks strange, but we think the TD actually got it right". One is entitled to take a matter to a higher house solely to ascertain the basis in Law surely. > >Wayne > > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From sambulizzy@myway.com Fri Dec 3 21:42:09 2004 From: sambulizzy@myway.com (MRS.SAMBU LIZZY) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:42:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] GREETINGS Message-ID: <20041203224143.9DAFDD7A@rhubarb.custard.org> MRS=2E SAMBU LIZZY DANANI REFUGEE CAMP C=2FO ROCK OF AGES EVANGELICAL MINISTRY Accra=2CGhana Hello Please=2C With the best compliments of the year=2C I wish to solicit your help in migrating to your country and investing my funds=2E I am a Sierra Leonean National and the wife of late Dr=2E SIMON SAMBU=2E Until his death=2C my husband was the General overseer of the Gold and Diamond Mining Corporation in Kanema Sierra Leone=2E During the crisis the military forces loyal to the Government of AHMED TIJAN KABBAH invaded the Diamond and Gold mine and assassinated my husband=2C mistaking him for his brother MR=2EMIKE SAMBU who is the deputy to the leader of the Revolutionary United Front =28RUF =29 FODAY SANKOH=2E When the news reached me=2C I hurriedly gathered some valuables in our family villa and escaped for my dear life in the company of my only son SILAS SAMBU and left some other valuables since I was in a haste and lost some=2E Among the valuables I collected was a file that contained details of a Deposit in a Vault my husband made in a security company in Europe=2E He deposited US$8M =28Eight Million U=2ES Dollars=29 contained in one box in the name of our son SILAS SAMBU=2E He did not disclose the real contents of the Box to the Security Company=2E He Declared the contents as Family Valuables for safety reasons=2E This is the money he made from the sale of Gold and diamonds during his time as the General overseer=2E Now that we are in Accra=2CGhana and verified the transaction=2C we need your assistance to move this funds out of the security company for investment in your country as we cannot invest here due to its nearness to our country and the insecurity still going on there=2E We ask you to scout for a viable and lucrative business=2C so that we can invest wisely=2E We have it in mind to give you 10% of the total sum of =288 million US Dollars=29=2C and 12% share for you in any investment we will embark upon with our share of 90% if you assist us=2E We will also set aside 5% of the funds for ancillary expenses which you will make in course of this transaction=2E This fortune of ours we have revealed to you should remain CONFIDENTIAL as it is only you who we have told about it=2E Kindly indicate your interest and willingness to assist us on receipt of this message for us to clarify you on how to proceed=2E Note that this transaction is risk free=2E May the shelter and care of God be upon you as you assist us=2E Remain blessed=2E Yours Sincerely=2C MRS=2ESAMBU LIZZY Do respond to me through the e-mail address below=3B sambulizzy=40hotmail=2Ecom From john@asimere.com Sat Dec 4 02:30:22 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 02:30:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] GREETINGS In-Reply-To: <20041203224143.9DAFDD7A@rhubarb.custard.org> References: <20041203224143.9DAFDD7A@rhubarb.custard.org> Message-ID: In article <20041203224143.9DAFDD7A@rhubarb.custard.org>, MRS.SAMBU LIZZY writes >MRS. SAMBU LIZZY >DANANI REFUGEE CAMP >C/O ROCK OF AGES EVANGELICAL MINISTRY >Accra,Ghana FUCK OFF > >Hello Please, > >With the best compliments of the year, I wish to >solicit your help in migrating to your country and >investing my funds. >I am a Sierra Leonean National and the wife of late >Dr. SIMON SAMBU. Until his death, my husband was the >General overseer of the Gold and Diamond Mining >Corporation in Kanema Sierra Leone. >During the crisis the military forces loyal to the >Government of AHMED TIJAN KABBAH invaded the Diamond >and Gold mine and assassinated my husband, >mistaking him for his brother MR.MIKE SAMBU who is the >deputy to the leader of the Revolutionary United >Front (RUF ) FODAY SANKOH. When the news reached me, >I hurriedly gathered some valuables in our family >villa and escaped for my dear life in the company of >my only son SILAS SAMBU and left some other valuables >since I was in a haste and lost some. Among the >valuables I collected was a file that contained >details of a Deposit in a Vault my husband made in a >security company in Europe. >He deposited US$8M (Eight Million U.S Dollars) >contained in one box in the name of our son >SILAS SAMBU. He did not disclose the real contents of >the Box to the Security Company. He Declared the >contents as Family Valuables for safety reasons. This >is the money he made from the sale of Gold and >diamonds during his time as the General overseer. >Now that we are in Accra,Ghana and verified the >transaction, we need your assistance to move this >funds out of the security company for investment in >your country as we cannot invest here due to its >nearness to our country and the insecurity still going >on there. We ask you to scout for a viable and >lucrative business, so that we can invest wisely. We >have it in mind to give you 10% of the total sum of >(8 million US Dollars), and 12% share for you in any >investment we will embark upon with our share of 90% >if you assist us. We will also set aside 5% of the >funds for ancillary expenses which you will make in >course of this transaction. >This fortune of ours we have revealed to you should >remain CONFIDENTIAL as it is only you who we have told >about it. Kindly indicate your interest and >willingness to assist us on receipt of this message >for us to clarify you on how to proceed. >Note that this transaction is risk free. >May the shelter and care of God be upon you as you >assist us. >Remain blessed. > >Yours Sincerely, > >MRS.SAMBU LIZZY > >Do respond to me through the e-mail address below; >sambulizzy@hotmail.com > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From dkent@sujja.com Sat Dec 4 03:26:59 2004 From: dkent@sujja.com (David Kent) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:26:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] GREETINGS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 9:30 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] GREETINGS In article <20041203224143.9DAFDD7A@rhubarb.custard.org>, MRS.SAMBU LIZZY writes >>MRS. SAMBU LIZZY >>DANANI REFUGEE CAMP >>C/O ROCK OF AGES EVANGELICAL MINISTRY >>Accra,Ghana >FUCK OFF I can't imagine anyone being THAT rude to someone who wants to give you money for doing nothing. You are probably off their mailing list now. Hopefully you have not ruined everything for the rest of us. Sincerely, Dupta Gen From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 4 09:09:14 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 09:09:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] A question about screens References: <001601c4d950$08f39a10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001e01c4d9e1$1fb34d90$c3a7403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 3:52 PM Subject: RE: [blml] A question about screens >> >> No it cannot, since L25 IS among the laws that have been suspended! >> (at least in the Belgian and European regulations) > > I had to go back and double check our regulations, but in Norway Law 25 is > indeed not affected by the use of screens. > > One could argue and even find it reasonable when screens are used that the > text in Law 25A should read: > > "Until the tray has been passed under the screen" rather than "Until his > partner makes a call", but no such alteration of Law 25A is in effect in > Norway as far as I am aware of. > > I expect Harald to read this and correct me if I am mistaken in any way. > +=+ The EBL regulation says: "Laws 25 etc..... The principle in the WBF Code of Practice applies. When it is possible to pass only the calls in the legal auction through the screen (after any rectification) there are no penalties and players on the other side of the screen are not informed of any occurrence." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 4 10:47:34 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:47:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question about screens In-Reply-To: <001e01c4d9e1$1fb34d90$c3a7403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000901c4d9ee$a9f90690$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan > >> No it cannot, since L25 IS among the laws that have been=20 > >> suspended! (at least in the Belgian and European regulations) > > > > I had to go back and double check our regulations, but in=20 > > Norway Law 25 is indeed not affected by the use of screens. > > > > One could argue and even find it reasonable when screens=20 > > are used that the text in Law 25A should read: > > > > "Until the tray has been passed under the screen" rather=20 > > than "Until his partner makes a call", but no such alteration > > of Law 25A is in effect in Norway as far as I am aware of. > > > > I expect Harald to read this and correct me if I am mistaken=20 > > in any way. > +=3D+ The EBL regulation says: "Laws 25 etc..... The principle in the = WBF > Code of Practice applies. When it is possible to pass only the calls = in > the > legal auction through the screen (after any rectification) there are = no > penalties and players on the other side of the screen are not informed = of > any occurrence." > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Sure, no problem with that, and we have the same principle. But if a player at the moment the tray is passed to the other side = suddenly realizes that he has made an inadvertent call and requests the tray back immediately Law 25A still enables him to change his inadvertent call? I am not aware of any regulation that changes the time limit in Law 25A = when screens are used; it is still "Until his partner makes a call". Regards Sven =20 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Dec 4 09:28:01 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:28:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A References: <001701c4d951$c2106810$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000201c4d9ef$ec2b5350$aaf8f0c3@LNV> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 5:04 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 25A What is all this about? I feel completely confused. Frances has stated it quite perfectly below (as far as I can see): -------------------------------- Yes he did, but it is beside the matter. We were talking about the situation were LHO has made a call and only after that the player discovers he made a wrong (inadvertent) call. That call is withdrawn and creates UI for the offending opponents. Talking about L25B not being exercised playing with screens it seems to me that we need to make a distinction between the situations were the wrong (deliberate) call is discovered before the tray is pushed to the other side and that were (normally) east or west has made a wrong call and the tray has been pushed to the other side. EBL and WBF regulations say that in the first case the call can be taken back without penalty, but they do not deal with the second case. In my opinion L25B applies in that situation. If LHO at the other side has not made a call yet the call may be changed for average -minus. But I wouldn't be surprised if the inventors of this regulation will argue that even then the call may be changed without penalty, then of course creating UI for partner. Anyway, I am still happy that my NBO has not adopted this regulation, having L25B in full charge playing with screens. ton ----------------------------------- When a call is withdrawn under Law 25A that call never existed, there is no information(*) from a withdrawn call, no offender, no penalty and no question about Law 72 or any other law in the book. (*) except the information that the player in question slipped and never intended to make the call subsequently withdrawn. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ton > Kooijman > Sent: 3. desember 2004 16:17 > To: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A > > > > > > > This is L16C with the side that created the problem > > > being equated with the offending side and the other > > > side as non-offending. > > > > > > +=+ .......... What I read here could suggest that the thread > > has taken the line that "without penalty" in 25A is indicative > > of there being no infraction. I would think an inadvertent > > call is a breach of correct procedure, albeit not penalized, > > and if this is so that the player who makes it is an offender > > to whose side Law 72A5 applies. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > This sounds strange, since L72A5 clearly describes only to be valid when a > penalty is paid. > So yes, let us agree that making an inadvertent call that has to be > changed > creates an offending side. But then, as said here, we go directly to > L16C1/16C2 telling that the withdrawn call from the non offenders is AI > for > them and UI for the offenders. Refering to 72A5 Grattan seems to suggest > that the info from this withdrawn call is AI for the offenders! The > withdrawn call from the offenders creates nothing but trouble. > > ton > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > ------------ > > Frances reacts: > > If the withdrawn call is truly inadvertent then there cannot be any > information content > in the call, A, U or otherwise. > > > --------------------------- > You are right, and better even that is exactly what I said. > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From georgiev_d@yahoo.com Sat Dec 4 13:42:36 2004 From: georgiev_d@yahoo.com (Dimitr Georgiev) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 05:42:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [blml] Claim Message-ID: <20041204134236.38444.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all, Today I was in contract 4h, played by an opponent. The bidding was: - - 1d 2d p 3d * 3h p 4h all p AJ9 A95 Q4 AKQJ10 10642 K 3 K842 K1087 AJ9652 9863 52 Q8753 QJ1076 3 74 My partner lead dK and switch to spades. I made my sK and played dA. Declarer ruffed and took a finese with hQ. I hold once and the declarer run with hJ and claimed just made the game without any statement. The TD ruled 4h made. It is correct ruling? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 4 14:34:49 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 15:34:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim In-Reply-To: <20041204134236.38444.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001001c4da0e$69367370$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Dimitr Georgiev > Today I was in contract 4h, played by an opponent. The > bidding was: >=20 > - - 1d 2d > p 3d * 3h > p 4h all p >=20 > AJ9 > A95 > Q4 > AKQJ10 > 10642 K > 3 K842 > K1087 AJ9652 > 9863 52 > Q8753 > QJ1076 > 3 > 74 >=20 > My partner lead dK and switch to spades. I made my sK > and played dA. Declarer ruffed and took a finese with > hQ. I hold once and the declarer run with hJ and > claimed just made the game without any statement. The > TD ruled 4h made. >=20 > It is correct ruling? I am rather strict on claimers not giving sufficient statements to = assure that they "know what they do". You didn't say whether you held your trump King a second time. If you = did then there is no ("normal") way you can set the contract. Declarer just continues with a third trump to his Ace and starts running his clubs; = you can use your trump King any time you want.=20 However, I would not have accepted Declarer to "discover" this line of = play when his claim was challenged unless he had already shown with his claim that this was indeed how he intended to play his cards.=20 If declarer lets the Jack run to your King then you can exit with a = third trump to the Ace in Dummy and I would award you another trick for your = last trump when declarer plays a spade to the Queen so that he can pull your = last trump. A similar situation arises if declarer covers his Jack with the Ace of trumps and continues with his last trump from Dummy. You will cash your = King and exit with a Diamond requiring declarer's last trump while you still = have your last trump. I believe I would have ruled the contract one down if your description = of the situation is correct and complete. Regards Sven From Tammie Youngblood" User ID: 3 apparel Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 13:46:32 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--8926375265550068" ----8926375265550068 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit 3dblml Our very besstt price of medss: Viicodin - $90 (30 pi|ls) Hydr0c0done - $90 (30 pil|s) V1a'gra - $90 (30 pil|s) Va|ium - $90 (30 pil|s) Cia|is - $90 (30 pi||s) Xa'nax - $90 (30 pi|ls) You Can't find this 0ffers available anywhere. Visit Us T0day! http://www.eoinf.com/_c33b87142ce3416662baa654773c6a8e/ This is 1 -time mailing. N0-re m0val are re'qui-red Py5sDATRF6LIV66MWJ9tqs2RmghcFcasA13dw4U9VJgEldzZ ----8926375265550068-- From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Dec 5 05:30:46 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 21:30:46 -0800 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two References: <200407151604.i6FG4Wd7006741@cfa.harvard.edu> <40FAC8E4.7060201@cfa.harvard.edu> <006101c46d4a$47162e60$76b2b018@hewlettnvdluy3> Message-ID: <004a01c4da8b$954123c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Raija Davis" > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:00 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two > > > > > From: "grandeval" > > > As Director when they came to me after the round > > > I would have found it "difficult" to establish the facts in > > > such circumstances, and left NS to do any appealing > > > if they wished. As AC member I would have little > > > sympathy about NS not calling the Director to the table, > > > I would have thought about pairs who look for a way > > > of getting their score back from the Director or in the > > > committee room, and my answer to (3) above would > > > likely have favoured EW. > > > > I hope this is a minority view. While it may indeed be more difficult > > to establish the facts once time has elapsed, putting the word in quotes > > seems to imply putting artificial obstacles in the way of a fair ruling. > > That is surely no part of a Director's job. > > > > As to the AC, I fail to see why we should disadvantage players who > > before asking for a ruling take time to consider (or consult) as to > > whether they were damaged by illegal conduct. When I get a bad score, > > my first thought is to blame my own bad play, not to suspect my > > opponents of an infraction. On rare occasions there has been an > > infraction after all, but if I called the TD for every bad board I > > received, the TD wouldn't have time to do anything else. Taking time to > > consider shouldn't prejudice my right to a proper ruling. > > Well said. Indeed. Last week I had a conversation with a longtime ACBL AC member who voiced the same old s---, that waiting until you see you have been damaged (as required by L16A2) constitutes a "double shot," trying to win something by law rather than by playing good bridge. If the damage could have been avoided with normally good bidding or play, then redress from the AC is unlikely. And, by the way, tthe OS does not get penalized, case dismissed. As the WBFLC established at Lille, a "double shot" is some self-damaging wild or irrational action taken after the infraction, not merely inferior or careless play. Even then, the OS still gets a score adjustment for its side. I was able to further calibrate this AC member's knowledge of the Laws when he insisted that he could look at my CC at any time during the auction. Does the ACBL organization have no prerequisites other than political influence for AC membership? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Dec 4 19:06:10 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 08:06:10 +1300 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041203093505.02b11eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001e01c4da34$50fd5230$0701010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Eric Landau > Sent: Saturday, 4 December 2004 3:41 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: RE: [blml] Scrambled eggs > > > At 09:34 PM 12/2/04, Wayne wrote: > >With this modification I would have applied Richard's criteria in the > >following way to the case under discussion: > > > >1. Yes there was UI - > > >a slow bid provides UI. > > That ain't necessarily so. > A slow bid conveys doubt as to the final bid selected this doubt is necessarily UI. There may be times when it is obvious that the slow bid is for some other reason that does not suggest doubt. These are clearly exceptions. Nevertheless far and away the majority of times slowness provides UI. Of course many times the UI could not suggest one alternative over another or there is no logical alternative. Wayne From blml@blakjak.com Sun Dec 5 17:51:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 17:51:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Player Memo In-Reply-To: <000c01c4d63c$ca67d240$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000c01c4d63c$ca67d240$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <+3nQxaDnq0sBFwb8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Marvin French wrote > >About 50 years ago (roughly) George Rapee wrote a series of articles >for the Bridge World on the subject of bidding three-card majors. >Part 1 dealt with opening bids, part 2 responses, and part 3 >overcalls(!). At the time I thought this interesting, so I >occasionally tried these bids, with limited success but lots of fun. >Rapee had cautioned that they seem to work better in rubber bridge >than in matchpoint games, and I stopped using them after a few >years. > >Fast-forward 50 years. Playing in a two-session regionally-rated >pair event at the Orlando NABC last week, Alice and I encountered a >pro-client pair on the last round. > >Board 2, Monday evening, 11-22-04, N-S vulnerable, East dealer > > Pro > S- 85 > H- 84 > D- AK84 > C- QJ943 > > Alice Marv >S- J106 S- A72 >H- KQ32 H- A1097 >D- J976 D- 2 >C- K10 C- A8765 > > John (not his real name) > S- KQ943 > H- J65 > D- Q1053 > C- 2 > >We play four-card majors and do not use negative doubles, so I >sometimes open a major in violation of the usual rules for choosing >between suits. For instance, as a passed hand I would certainly open >a strong four-card major in preference to a weak club suit, and will >do so in first or second seat if I have a little extra strength that >will prevent a rebid problem. > >Now this hand did give me a problem. Although 1C is our system bid, >I could envision a 1S overcall of 1C and possible loss of a heart >contract. I could not open 1H, as I don't have the extra values >required for a 2NT rebid if partner bids 2D, or enough heart >strength to rebid the suit (supposedly showing five, but I do it >sometimes). I was about to open 1C when Rapee's article popped into >my mind, and I thought, "Favorable vulnerability, why not?" > >My 1S opening caused a little shudder by John, relieving my anxiety >a bit, and Alice bid 1NT. I rebid 2H, hoping for no spade >preference, and she raised to 3H, all pass, > >A heart was led, won with the 9. I played on clubs, leading to the >king. At the same time (Alice told me later) the pro turned to his >kibitzer and pompously announced *sotto voce*, "Four-four-four-one." >Not quite right, but close. The club ace was ruffed by John, who led >another heart, won in dummy, pro following. Things aren't looking so >good now, and I'm rueing the 1S bid because 1C would perhaps have >led to a 2H contract. > >Playing on, I led a low diamond from dummy and pro hesitated, then >played the ace, looking puzzled. (If he had ducked, I'm down one). >Doesn't matter what he does now, the rest is easy, 3H making. John >probably would have passed over 1C and we would get to 2H, so the >real victory for 1S was that it right-sided the heart contract. > >Pro, very upset, fuming, called for the TD and accused me of bidding >a three-card suit under the umbrella of a partnership agreement. The >TD heard him, heard me, and said "Result stands, score it up." The >pro did not appeal, but he asked for a Player Memo (PM) and wrote me >up. > >Several days later Gary Blaiss, now ACBL Recorder in Rich Colker's >place, caught up with me at break time and called me aside. "What >have I done now?" I said jokingly. He showed me the PM and quizzed >me about the 1S bid. After I told him the whole story, as above, he >noted that 1S is not a natural bid and he would be filing the PM in >a Marvin French dossier. > >Not a natural bid?? So what? I have the right to make a tactical >bid. The ACBL does have an illegal(?) regulation that says you can't >open a three-card major as part of a canape approach, but that >doesn't apply in this case. And was the spade bid fielded? No. Gary >should have torn up the PM instead of filing it. > >And you know what? I'm going to be opening, responding, and >overcalling in three-card suits again (seldom, of course, so partner >doesn't expect it), and we'll see how big that dossier gets and what >they want to do about it. One impression I have of American pro players is that their sense of humour seems to be less than Europeans. If I had been North I would have thought this funny - and said so. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Dec 5 12:50:22 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:50:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 25A References: <001701c4d951$c2106810$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000201c4d9ef$ec2b5350$aaf8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000001c4db06$bac27790$4f9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] *************************** "Once upon a time we knew what the game was. Now, unless the laws tell us, we argue about it." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A . > But I wouldn't be surprised if the inventors* of this regulation will > argue that even then the call may be changed without penalty, > then of course creating UI for partner. > +=+ I do not think they should. I do think it is a weakness in the regulations not to have dealt with it - and I am amongst those who failed to comment on it when the draft was circulated - but in the absence of regulation there is no basis for failing to apply the law. That said, it is difficult to see how the player will become aware of his *inadvertent* error once the tray is lost to sight - and since he is prohibited from communicating with the other side of the screen it would be difficult for him to summon the Director in time to prevent continued action on the other side of the screen. ~ G ~ +=+ * I imagine it was perhaps copied from an ACBL regulation? From svenpran@online.no Sun Dec 5 21:03:02 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 22:03:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <000001c4db06$bac27790$4f9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000e01c4db0d$ceb6c9c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott ............. > > But I wouldn't be surprised if the inventors* of this regulation = will > > argue that even then the call may be changed without penalty, > > then of course creating UI for partner. > > > +=3D+ I do not think they should. I do think it is a weakness in > the regulations not to have dealt with it - and I am amongst those > who failed to comment on it when the draft was circulated - but > in the absence of regulation there is no basis for failing to apply > the law. That said, it is difficult to see how the player will become > aware of his *inadvertent* error once the tray is lost to sight - > and since he is prohibited from communicating with the other > side of the screen it would be difficult for him to summon the > Director in time to prevent continued action on the other side of > the screen. ~ G ~ +=3D+ I have absolutely no problem imagining a player saying (shouting?) = "Oops" as the tray disappears under the screen. He might even manage to pull it = back although too late to prevent the players on the other side of the screen from seeing the calls. Incidentally: Is the fact that the Director is summoned to the table information that shall not be disclosed to the other side of the screen? Or would it be allowable in a case like this to have all further calls = at the table stopped while summoning the Director? I suppose most of this will be hypothetical, but so is most often the = need for the current time limit in Law 25A ("until partner makes a call"). Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Dec 5 23:39:53 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:39:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] Compulsory non-pause at trick one Message-ID: The Ruritanian Bridge Club believes that since Law 73A2 gives a sponsoring organisation the power to regulate a compulsory pause at trick one, an SO also has the power to regulate a compulsory non-pause at trick one. The Ruritanian Bridge Club has therefore regulated that the only thought that may be taken at trick one is for calculating what specific cards one might choose to play at trick one. Dummy S 5432 H JT98 D KQJT9 C void Declarer S AKQJT98 H A32 D 876 C void You are declarer in 6S during a session at the Ruritanian Bridge Club. LHO's opening lead is the ace of clubs. RHO is about to play the deuce of clubs at trick one. What cards do you play at trick one? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru P.S. Happy 30th anniversary, Nigel Guthrie. 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) From toddz@att.net Mon Dec 6 00:18:22 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:18:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Compulsory non-pause at trick one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41B3A54E.1070100@att.net> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Dummy > S 5432 > H JT98 > D KQJT9 > C void > > > Declarer > S AKQJT98 > H A32 > D 876 > C void > > > You are declarer in 6S during a session at the Ruritanian > Bridge Club. > > LHO's opening lead is the ace of clubs. RHO is about to play > the deuce of clubs at trick one. > > What cards do you play at trick one? Given the regulation I assume I'm not supposed to think much before replying?* I ruff in dummy and pitch the 2H hoping AD isn't protected tripleton or longer. Down 1 at worst. -Todd * - some would claim par for the course. From mikopera@nyc.rr.com Mon Dec 6 00:29:31 2004 From: mikopera@nyc.rr.com (Michael Kopera) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:29:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Compulsory non-pause at trick one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41B3A7EB.1010902@nyc.rr.com> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > The Ruritanian Bridge Club believes that since Law 73A2 gives > a sponsoring organisation the power to regulate a compulsory > pause at trick one, an SO also has the power to regulate a > compulsory non-pause at trick one. The Ruritanian Bridge > Club has therefore regulated that the only thought that may > be taken at trick one is for calculating what specific cards > one might choose to play at trick one. > > Dummy > S 5432 > H JT98 > D KQJT9 > C void > > > Declarer > S AKQJT98 > H A32 > D 876 > C void > > > You are declarer in 6S during a session at the Ruritanian > Bridge Club. > > LHO's opening lead is the ace of clubs. RHO is about to play > the deuce of clubs at trick one. > > What cards do you play at trick one? > Spades. Not sure what this has to do with laws, tho. -- Mike Kopera Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else. From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 6 19:26:51 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:26:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <7D251678-3DFE-11D9-88F0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <1CWsJs-1XhqN60@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> <7D251678-3DFE-11D9-88F0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote >It's usual for a defender in this position to show the hand, or >relevant cards, to declarer - without exposing it to partner. That's an interesting statement. When I learnt the game I learnt to do exactly that, and everyone did. But I don't agree with Gordon: nowadays people don't [including my partners]. I believe they should. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 6 19:30:31 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:30:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: References: <1CWsJs-1XhqN60@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard wrote >In the stem case, a defender has stated that >they are conceding three tricks, and claiming >one trick. Their partner has immediately >objected, so the concession of three tricks >has not occurred. But the claim of one trick >cannot be cancelled, so all subsequent play to >this claim statement should have been voided by >the TD. This sounds very sensible to me, and others, and we used to advise this way in the EBU. Unfortunately the WBFLC do not agree. If there is no concession they have said there is no claim, and play proceeds. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 6 19:31:18 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:31:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: References: <001401c4d27f$34a22e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: RH wrote >No doubt this anomaly will be resolved in what the 2006 >Laws actually state. No - errrrr - doubt. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 6 19:33:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:33:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <001f01c4d7b8$de261ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001f01c4d7b8$de261ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >I think the best solution is to completely remove from Law 68B the >possibility of having a concession nullified so that all play ceases after >any concession as well as after a claim. Shock waves rule. I completely agree with Sven. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 6 19:41:44 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:41:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <6D2FAB6E-3E75-11D9-AB7F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <001201c4d271$17bc72a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6D2FAB6E-3E75-11D9-AB7F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <77xRS7M4XLtBFwDg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ed Reppert wrote >Heh. Around here, most folks pick up their bidding cards *before* the >end of the auction - indeed, before the final pass. It seems to me >leaving them on the table until the opening lead is faced, whether or >not you leave out the one(s) indicating the final contract, would be a >good thing, but what do I know? At the Atlanta Nationals I kept leaving my bidding cards on the table until I had led. Habit, and a desire to speed the game up. This got a few reactions: "Can't you see your cards are still on the table?" "Take your cards off the table at once!" Opponent picked up my cards and put them in my box. "Why are you slowing the game down?" [???] "What a good idea if everyone did that!" My partner explained to the last one that people did where I came from. The opponent shook his head mournfully, and said that it was far too sensible to catch on. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 6 19:43:13 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:43:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: References: <001601c4d287$e89c45b0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: RJH wrote >Most SOs in Australia permit the bidding pad to remain visible >on the table throughout the play of the hand. Only the >Queensland SO has regulated that the bidding pad must be >concealed once the opening lead has been faced. When I was there it was not permitted to be left face up. Not one table in twenty followed *that* rule! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 6 19:45:44 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:45:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <000501c4d318$a078e590$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <41A5FEC3.4020803@ffbridge.net> <000501c4d318$a078e590$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >First of all: Please do not use whatever means you used for building your >message. I had a terrible job reconstructing it for my comments! > >Jean-François Chevalier wrote: >(National championship, very good level of play) >(pre-duplicate board, played at one table and after at the other table) >The board: >13 North/ All > - > AQ107 > AJ962 > AQ107 >98762 A1054 >964 53 >Q4 K1083 >J93 864 > KQJ3 > KJ82 > 75 > K52 > >The fact >In the first room, the player in south put the board on the table in a wrong >way: rotation of 180°. That could not have incidence on the result of the >board. >North-South bids and plays the contract of 7H, one down (the auction began: >N:1D S:1H N:3C… S: 6NT N: 7H). All the players put the cards in the >duplicate board and start to play the following board. >A little later, the player sit in South take the cards of North of the board >to analyze the play and find the hand with which she have play! She says: >“who have inverse the board?” and ask to the 2 players in East-West if they >recognize their hand, they agree and South put the hand of North in South >case, the hand of East in West case, and conversely. They never called the >tournament director… >The hands that were at the good place before going wrong because of the >action of South! >The board was play at the other table (6H just made, 17Imps for East-West). >The 2 teams made the result and gave the match sheet to the TD with the >result 18-12 VP (East-West’s team won the match). >Few minutes after the beginning of the following round, North-South (not >playing this round) protested and said to the TD that they team mates don’t >played the same board because of the rotation and ask for the cancellation >of the board! >The tournament director looked for the board and he noted that the hands >were reversed. > >which decision have to take the TD? > >The board must be cancelled because it has not been played in identical form >in the two rooms (Law 87). The standard adjustment is "at least" 3 IMP to >East West but if necessary I would increase this compensation sufficiently >to ensure a victory of at least 16-14 to East-West based on a regulation we >have in Norway that due consideration may be given to particularly good or >bad results obtained. > >South is eligible to a procedural penalty for his violation of Laws 7B2 and >7C which is the direct reason why the board had to be cancelled. > >South is further subject to a treatment under Law 72B1: He could have known >that he had a bad result on the board and that his irregular handling of the >board without summoning the Director could damage opponents. > >In addition to the Law 12C1 adjustment I would have "awarded" South's team a >procedural penalty of 2 VP (bringing their net result on that match down to >the same 12 VP they obtained originally). > >Law 12A1 is not applicable in this case. What Law permits you to give more than 3 imps if you do not use L12A1? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 6 19:47:03 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:47:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <000701c4d322$63889220$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <9B8B8F8C-3F10-11D9-AB7F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <000701c4d322$63889220$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >Ed Reppert >> One further comment: it is not legal to use PPs to arrange that the >> scores at the two tables are equalized. Award the appropriate PPs for >> failure to follow proper procedure without regard to the score, >> adjusted or not. > >I don't. I use the "gain" for North-South from having the board cancelled as >an indication on what could be a reasonable PP and then I use this >indication (unless it is completely preposterous) to assist me in >determining the actual disciplinary penalty to be "awarded". > >We have had cases in Norway where the artificial adjusted score were set to >the usual 40% - 60% and in addition the offending side was given a >procedural penalty of 40% resulting in a final score for them of 0% on the >board. > >I consider such procedural penalties to be completely within the powers of >the Director. Remember that awarding PP is usually at the discretion of the >Director. That's legal, certainly: but adopting that approach the NOs cannot get more than 3 imps. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 6 20:04:10 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 20:04:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession References: <001401c4d27f$34a22e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001801c4dbd2$6b71ed20$73da403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Objected Concession > > No - errrrr - doubt. > +=+ Ah me! Another typo.... " From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 6 20:45:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:45:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001301c4dbd4$84da3860$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ........................... > >Law 12A1 is not applicable in this case. >=20 > What Law permits you to give more than 3 imps if you do not use = L12A1? I agree there is a problem (but see below as specifically Law 12A1 is concerned). With the changes to Law 86 in 1997 we have an inconsistency = when we read Law 12C1 and Law 86 together: Before 1997 it was clear that the average plus score should be "at least 60%" for (innocent) pairs, that 60% should be converted to (plus) 3 IMPS = for (innocent) teams and that the artificial assigned score should be "at = least" this amount to an innocent pair/team. After 1997 Law 86 states that "average plus" and "average minus" shall = be exactly 3 IMPS (plus and minus respectively), and the wording in Laws = 12C1 and 86 read together indicates that "at least" and "at most" no longer = apply for teams, only for pairs. However, the clause: The scores need not balance is still present in Law 12C1 so it is a bit difficult to understand precisely what is intended. (Clearly plus and minus exactly 3 IMPs will always "balance"!) It is quite interesting to note that Law 12A1 does not at all allow the Director to award an artificial adjusted score; he may only award an assigned adjusted score under this law. And finally, if we find that the laws in this case prescribe an = artificial adjusted score of plus 3 IMPs to the innocent side then Law 12B = specifically prohibits the Director from awarding more than 3 IMPs on the ground that = 3 IMPs is insufficient compensation! This is where the clauses "at least = 60%" and "60% ... is 3 IMP" came in handy before 1997. I prefer to maintain my original position: I'll award a sufficient = number of IMPs (at least 3) to ensure a match victory of at least 16-14 and add PP = if necessary to bring the offending side down to a maximum of 12 VP. = Somehow I feel that this serves justice best. Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 6 21:25:40 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 16:25:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <77xRS7M4XLtBFwDg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <6141D782-47CD-11D9-91E3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Dec 6, 2004, at 14:41 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > At the Atlanta Nationals I kept leaving my bidding cards on the table > until I had led. Habit, and a desire to speed the game up. This got > a few reactions: > > "Can't you see your cards are still on the table?" > "Take your cards off the table at once!" > Opponent picked up my cards and put them in my box. > "Why are you slowing the game down?" [???] > "What a good idea if everyone did that!" > > My partner explained to the last one that people did where I came > from. The opponent shook his head mournfully, and said that it was > far too sensible to catch on. Well, one outta five is a start. :-) As far as I can see, ACBL bidding box regulations are moot on the question when to put them back. I think I'll start leaving them out at least until the lead is faced, and see what happens. From walt1@verizon.net Mon Dec 6 21:33:35 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:33:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <6141D782-47CD-11D9-91E3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <77xRS7M4XLtBFwDg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6141D782-47CD-11D9-91E3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20041206163112.027c8420@incoming.verizon.net> At 04:25 PM 12/6/2004, Ed Reppert wrote: As far as I can see, ACBL bidding box regulations are moot on the question when to put them back. I think I'll start leaving them out at least until the lead is faced, and see what happens. Ed I almost always get comments about my bidding cards still being on the table as I lead. Walt From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 6 21:42:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 08:42:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Compulsory non-pause at trick one In-Reply-To: <41B3A7EB.1010902@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>Dummy >>S 5432 >>H JT98 >>D KQJT9 >>C void >> >> >>Declarer >>S AKQJT98 >>H A32 >>D 876 >>C void >> >> >>You are declarer in 6S during a session at >>the Ruritanian Bridge Club. >> >>LHO's opening lead is the ace of clubs. RHO >>is about to play the deuce of clubs at trick >>one. >> >>What cards do you play at trick one? Mike Kopera: >Spades. Not sure what this has to do with >laws, tho. Richard Hills: True, only tangentially related to blml, but such a nice deal that I could not resist republishing it. The Lawful point is that (in a previous thread) Sven Pran argued that it is superfluous for a SO to use its Law 73A2 option to require a mandatory pause on the first trick. Sven argued that it is good bridge strategy to _always_ pause on the first trick to plan the play for the entire deal, so that a first trick pause can never create UI and/or deceive an opponent. This deal shows the benefit of planning the entire play at trick one, because trick two will be too late. I discovered the deal in a 1974 Bridge World magazine. A letter from future blmler Nigel Guthrie credited it to Scottish expert John McLaren, although it is possible that McLaren in turn was given the problem by another source. Solution attached. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru * * * Esquo ne credite, Teucri. Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentis. Virgil (70-19 B.C.) "Do not trust the horse, Trojans. Whatever it is, I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts." Because the club ruff-and-sluff came too early, the best trick one line is to ruff the ace of clubs in *both* hands, thus preserving maximum possibilities. You draw trumps in one or two rounds. Then you play on diamonds. If an opponent has diamond Axx or longer, and holds up for the first two rounds of diamonds, you now run the jack of hearts. The contract still makes if: (a) RHO holds both heart honours without the ace of diamonds, or (b) RHO holds a singleton or doubleton heart honour with the ace of diamonds, as the fourth round of hearts will give a discard for declarer's third diamond. The contract might make if: (c) LHO holds a singleton heart honour without the ace of diamonds, or (d) LHO holds KQ bare of hearts without the ace of diamonds. In case (c) LHO is compelled to give another ruff-and-sluff; this time South's diamond loser disappears as North ruffs and gains an entry for another heart finesse. In case (d) LHO's best defence is to give a ruff-and-sluff, hoping that South plays on the restricted choice assumption of case (c). Neither declarer nor dummy can afford to discard a red card at trick one without diminishing these chances. The theme of the problem is similar to the Robert Coup (deal 52 in the book "Right Through The Pack"). From adam@irvine.com Mon Dec 6 21:48:51 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:48:51 -0800 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:25:40 EST." <6141D782-47CD-11D9-91E3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200412062148.NAA18614@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Monday, Dec 6, 2004, at 14:41 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > At the Atlanta Nationals I kept leaving my bidding cards on the table > > until I had led. Habit, and a desire to speed the game up. This got > > a few reactions: > > > > "Can't you see your cards are still on the table?" > > "Take your cards off the table at once!" > > Opponent picked up my cards and put them in my box. > > "Why are you slowing the game down?" [???] > > "What a good idea if everyone did that!" > > > > My partner explained to the last one that people did where I came > > from. The opponent shook his head mournfully, and said that it was > > far too sensible to catch on. > > Well, one outta five is a start. :-) > > As far as I can see, ACBL bidding box regulations are moot on the > question when to put them back. I think I'll start leaving them out at > least until the lead is faced, and see what happens. Actually, if you're going to do it this way, why put them back when the lead is faced? Why not wait until after third hand has played (since it's at this point when players about to play cards no longer have the right to ask for a full review (L20C2))? -- Adam From toddz@att.net Mon Dec 6 22:01:53 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:01:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <77xRS7M4XLtBFwDg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <001201c4d271$17bc72a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6D2FAB6E-3E75-11D9-AB7F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <77xRS7M4XLtBFwDg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <41B4D6D1.8010605@att.net> David Stevenson wrote: > At the Atlanta Nationals I kept leaving my bidding cards on the table > until I had led. Habit, and a desire to speed the game up. This got a > few reactions: > > "Can't you see your cards are still on the table?" > "Take your cards off the table at once!" > Opponent picked up my cards and put them in my box. > "Why are you slowing the game down?" [???] > "What a good idea if everyone did that!" Were these all when you were on lead? I frequently led as the final pass in an auction, but I don't leave the bidding cards out in any other position. I'll have to try that. I know many opponents in the ACBL will not lead until bidding cards have been picked up by everyone. :/ -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 6 22:09:58 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 09:09:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <200412062148.NAA18614@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: >Actually, if you're going to do it this way, why >put them back when the lead is faced? Why not >wait until after third hand has played (since >it's at this point when players about to play >cards no longer have the right to ask for a full >review (L20C2))? Richard Hills: In an earlier thread, I suggested that the default assumption of the Duplicate Laws should be changed from a default assumption of spoken bidding to a default assumption of bidding boxes. If so, Law 20C2 and Law 41B might be amended to require a uniform deadline for review of the auction at the time of the facing of the opening lead. Of course, under the current Law 80E, SOs which use bidding boxes already have the power to create regulations which amend Laws 20C2 and 41B. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Dec 7 11:36:43 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 03:36:43 -0800 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids References: <200412062148.NAA18614@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <006d01c4dc51$08b29700$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: "blml" Cc: Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Calculation aids > > Ed wrote: > > > On Monday, Dec 6, 2004, at 14:41 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > At the Atlanta Nationals I kept leaving my bidding cards on the table > > > until I had led. Habit, and a desire to speed the game up. This got > > > a few reactions: > > > > > > "Can't you see your cards are still on the table?" > > > "Take your cards off the table at once!" > > > Opponent picked up my cards and put them in my box. > > > "Why are you slowing the game down?" [???] > > > "What a good idea if everyone did that!" > > > > > > My partner explained to the last one that people did where I came > > > from. The opponent shook his head mournfully, and said that it was > > > far too sensible to catch on. > > > > Well, one outta five is a start. :-) > > > > As far as I can see, ACBL bidding box regulations are moot on the > > question when to put them back. I think I'll start leaving them out at > > least until the lead is faced, and see what happens. > > Actually, if you're going to do it this way, why put them back when > the lead is faced? Why not wait until after third hand has played > (since it's at this point when players about to play cards no longer > have the right to ask for a full review (L20C2))? > The procedure should be (as I interpret L20C2 and L41B):: Opening lead is made face down, all bid cards are picked up, opening lead is faced, dummy is faced.. The opening leader is not entitled to see (review) the auction when it is dummy's turn to play (opening lead faced). Also, the declarer is not entitled to see (review) the auction after playing a card from dummy. The usual "Any questions?" by the opening leader before facing the lead should give third hand ample time to view the bid cards, and if that isn't enough time for either declarer or third hand they can of course ask for a review at their turn to play. A well-heeled local player insisted in a very assertive manner that he could ask for a review of the bidding at any time, even after facing his opening lead. "For how much?" I asked. "What?" "How much are you willing to bet that you can do that?" "Fifty or a hundred." I heard this as "Fifteen hundred" and didn't take it seriously. If I had heard right, should I have taken his money? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 7 01:17:12 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 01:17:12 +0000 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <41B4D6D1.8010605@att.net> References: <001201c4d271$17bc72a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6D2FAB6E-3E75-11D9-AB7F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <77xRS7M4XLtBFwDg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <41B4D6D1.8010605@att.net> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> At the Atlanta Nationals I kept leaving my bidding cards on the >>table until I had led. Habit, and a desire to speed the game up. >>This got a few reactions: >> "Can't you see your cards are still on the table?" >> "Take your cards off the table at once!" >> Opponent picked up my cards and put them in my box. >> "Why are you slowing the game down?" [???] >> "What a good idea if everyone did that!" > > Were these all when you were on lead? I frequently led as the >final pass in an auction, but I don't leave the bidding cards out in >any other position. I'll have to try that. I know many opponents in >the ACBL will not lead until bidding cards have been picked up by >everyone. :/ Sometimes I left them down when I forgot local customs - reminds me of cannibals in Peru - but I rarely argued until someone told me to pick them up in a downright rude manner. "Why?" "I cannot lead until you pick them up." "Why not?" Unfortunately partner - who is beginning to understand me - was laughing too hard for this to go on. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 7 01:26:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 01:26:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <001301c4dbd4$84da3860$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001301c4dbd4$84da3860$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6WnB5OUjbQtBFwxH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >........................... >> >Law 12A1 is not applicable in this case. >> >> What Law permits you to give more than 3 imps if you do not use L12A1? > >I agree there is a problem (but see below as specifically Law 12A1 is >concerned). With the changes to Law 86 in 1997 we have an inconsistency when >we read Law 12C1 and Law 86 together: > >Before 1997 it was clear that the average plus score should be "at least >60%" for (innocent) pairs, that 60% should be converted to (plus) 3 IMPS for >(innocent) teams and that the artificial assigned score should be "at least" >this amount to an innocent pair/team. > >After 1997 Law 86 states that "average plus" and "average minus" shall be >exactly 3 IMPS (plus and minus respectively), and the wording in Laws 12C1 >and 86 read together indicates that "at least" and "at most" no longer apply >for teams, only for pairs. > >However, the clause: The scores need not balance is still present in Law >12C1 so it is a bit difficult to understand precisely what is intended. >(Clearly plus and minus exactly 3 IMPs will always "balance"!) It is perfectly legal to give Ave-/Ave-, or Ave+/Ave+ if an outside agency is involved: this is the case where the scores do not balance. >It is quite interesting to note that Law 12A1 does not at all allow the >Director to award an artificial adjusted score; he may only award an >assigned adjusted score under this law. True. >And finally, if we find that the laws in this case prescribe an artificial >adjusted score of plus 3 IMPs to the innocent side then Law 12B specifically >prohibits the Director from awarding more than 3 IMPs on the ground that 3 >IMPs is insufficient compensation! This is where the clauses "at least 60%" >and "60% ... is 3 IMP" came in handy before 1997. > >I prefer to maintain my original position: I'll award a sufficient number of >IMPs (at least 3) to ensure a match victory of at least 16-14 and add PP if >necessary to bring the offending side down to a maximum of 12 VP. Somehow I >feel that this serves justice best. If you are going to get a swing of 13 imps I do not see how a swing of 3 imps serves justice, even when the offending side will get a PP of 10 imps as well as Ave-. I suggest you follow EBU policy: where the board is cancelled because of an offending side who could have known at the time of the irregularity that it could work to their benefit you give an assigned score under L12A1 or L72B1. A score was obtained at one table otherwise this problem does not arrive, thus allowing an assigned score. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 7 03:13:27 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:13:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] Two shots in the black wood In-Reply-To: <004a01c4da8b$954123c0$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In the "Reno NABC+ appeal number two" thread, Marvin French wrote: >Indeed. Last week I had a conversation with a longtime ACBL AC >member who voiced the same old s---, that waiting until you see you >have been damaged (as required by L16A2) constitutes a "double >shot", trying to win something by law rather than by playing good >bridge. If the damage could have been avoided with normally good >bidding or play, then redress from the AC is unlikely. And, by the >way, the OS does not get penalized, case dismissed. > >As the WBFLC established at Lille, a "double shot" is some >self-damaging wild or irrational action taken after the infraction, >not merely inferior or careless play. Even then, the OS still gets a >score adjustment for its side. Richard Hills thought experiment: LHO RHO 1S 4NT 5D 5S(1) 6S(2) (1) Signoff, but break in tempo (2) Not a logical alternative (null voids) You wait until the deal is played out before calling the TD, and either: (a) 6S fails by one trick, you do not bother calling the TD, and you very happily score +50, or (b) 6S makes, you call the TD, the TD adjusts the score, and you slightly happily score -480. Jeff Rubens has argued that this current practice of combating hesitation Blackwood gives the non-offending side a double shot, damaging the field. Rubens suggests that the TD should be called as soon as the 6S bid is made, and that the TD should *immediately* correct the 6S irregularity by restoring the contract to 5S before play starts. The non-offending side then does not receive a double shot windfall of +50, since the non-offending side would then gain the normal non-windfall of -450 for cases when the illegal slam was due to fail. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Dec 7 04:04:33 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 04:04:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Two shots in the black wood References: Message-ID: <009701c4dc11$ddc904f0$0b9868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > Jeff Rubens suggests that the TD should be called > as soon as the 6S bid is made, and that the TD should > *immediately* correct the 6S irregularity by restoring > the contract to 5S before play starts. The non-offending > side then does not receive a double shot windfall of +50, > since the non-offending side would then gain the normal > non-windfall of -450 for cases when the illegal slam was > due to fail. [Nigel] An excellent suggestion by Jeff [and Richard]. I feel that the field *should* be protected where practicable and here it obviously is easy to do so. To stop hesitation Blackwood and the like, the law should insist that you must summon the TD *before* the play starts. Presumably the TD can still impose a PP for persistent offenders. The rules about "Double-shots" and "Wild and Gambling" are unjust and unfair -- but Jeff's clever suggestion allows us avoid that issue in cases like this. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.804 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 01/12/2004 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 6 22:54:06 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:54:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession References: <001401c4d27f$34a22e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000201c4dc26$386a1200$3b09e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Objected Concession > RH wrote > >>No doubt this anomaly will be resolved in what the 2006 >>Laws actually state. > > No - errrrr - doubt. > +=+ My lips are sealed. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 7 09:26:39 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:26:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <6WnB5OUjbQtBFwxH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000601c4dc3e$db6bba90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > I suggest you follow EBU policy: where the board is cancelled because > of an offending side who could have known at the time of the > irregularity that it could work to their benefit you give an assigned > score under L12A1 or L72B1. A score was obtained at one table = otherwise > this problem does not arrive, thus allowing an assigned score. Are you saying that L12A1 allows the Director to award an assigned = adjusted score on a board for which no result can be obtained once a result has = been obtained for the same board at the other table?=20 This is not how I understand Law 12. This law only concerns the = possibility to obtain a result at the table where the irregularity takes place?=20 Anyway, I have a feeling that sometimes too much attention is paid to technicalities with Law 12: If no result can be obtained I assess the "damage" to any innocent party, and if I judge this damage to exceed 3 = IMPs I award what I consider a reasonable redress even in excess of 3 IMPs. So far I have had little or no problems with that. In fact I cannot = remember any single case where I have awarded artificial scores other than 3 = IMPs! Regards Sven=20 From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 7 09:34:14 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:34:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two shots in the black wood In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c4dc3f$ea3356e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ........ > Rubens suggests that the TD should be called as soon as the 6S > bid is made, and that the TD should *immediately* correct the > 6S irregularity by restoring the contract to 5S before play > starts. The non-offending side then does not receive a double > shot windfall of +50, since the non-offending side would then > gain the normal non-windfall of -450 for cases when the illegal > slam was due to fail. Heaven forbid a rule like that! The Director should be supposed to look at the cards to see if the 6S bid was justified and then tell all players around the table that "He doesn't have a hand justifying this bid so I adjust back to 5S" or he should tell the table: "I consider 6S to be a reasonable bid on these cards"? How can "normal" play be possible after the Director has given such information on one of the player's cards? Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Dec 7 08:46:20 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 08:46:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids References: Message-ID: <000001c4dc40$a4c247f0$e968893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought, And with old woes new wail my dear times' waste." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Calculation aids > > Richard Hills: > > In an earlier thread, I suggested that the default > assumption of the Duplicate Laws should be changed > from a default assumption of spoken bidding to a > default assumption of bidding boxes. > +=+ There is a belief that the majority of tables playing duplicate bridge still call vocally. However, there is also recognition of a need to provide default positions for non-vocal calling where regulation is lacking. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Dec 7 08:49:38 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 08:49:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Two shots in the black wood References: <009701c4dc11$ddc904f0$0b9868d5@James> Message-ID: <000101c4dc40$a5d6ec40$e968893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought, And with old woes new wail my dear times' waste." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Two shots in the black wood > [Richard James Hills] > > Jeff Rubens suggests that the TD should be called > > as soon as the 6S bid is made, and that the TD should > > *immediately* correct the 6S irregularity by restoring > > the contract to 5S before play starts. The non-offending > > side then does not receive a double shot windfall of +50, > > since the non-offending side would then gain the normal > > non-windfall of -450 for cases when the illegal slam was > > due to fail. > > [Nigel] > An excellent suggestion by Jeff [and Richard]. I feel that > the field *should* be protected where practicable and here > it obviously is easy to do so. To stop hesitation Blackwood > and the like, the law should insist that you must summon the > TD *before* the play starts. Presumably the TD can still > impose a PP for persistent offenders. > > The rules about "Double-shots" and "Wild and Gambling" are > unjust and unfair -- but Jeff's clever suggestion allows us > avoid that issue in cases like this. > +=+ Could you clarify for me, please, how it is then suggested the situation be handled when the AC decides the 6S bid should have been allowed? How, for example, is the remainder of the auction to be assessed? For the moment I am not persuaded to overturn the long- standing principle that players should be allowed to complete a hand before the TD makes a judgemental ruling. ~ G ~ +=+ From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Dec 7 11:11:43 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 07 Dec 2004 12:11:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting Message-ID: <20041207111143.6D0A0A4169@poczta.interia.pl> =0AHello folks,=0A=0A It all started with a simple =0Aproblem that wa= s posted recently =0Aon the Polish bridge law mailing list.=0A=0ASouth is d= eclarer in a spade contract and =0Ahas a trump queen to guess:=0A=0A = Axx=0AQx 10x=0A KJxxxx=0A=0AHe cashes = the ace, everyone follows, and calls=0Afor a small spade from dummy. East = hesitates=0Afor 5 seconds, plays low, declarer inserts the=0Ajack and calls= the cops. =0A=0AEverybody rules six tricks for declarer. Then someone=0A(i= t was myself, incidentally) remarked that East=0Awho simply had a momentary= lapse of =0Aconcentration, could have saved the day by=0Asaying "sorry, no= problem" before following=0Ato the second round of spades.=0AAs he gave no= indication to declarer that=0Ahe had no "demonstrable bridge reason"=0Afor= hesitation he must suffer the consequences=0Aand accept the TD's adjustmen= t.=0A=0AOK, so where is the catch? =0ASomeone (it was not myself, incidenta= lly)=0Aremarled that all this "sorry, no problem"=0Astuff is nonsense.=0ASu= ppose the trump position is:=0A=0A Axx=0Ax = Q10x=0A KJxxxx=0A=0ASouth plays ace and another spade. East fol= lows to the=0Afirst round then loses contact with reality for 5 seconds=0A(= thinks whether he remembered to feed his cat before he left his house, =0Ac= atches a glimpse of waitress' long legs, whatever), then,=0Abeing a honest = soul, says "sorry, no problem" and=0Aplays the ten.=0A=0ADeclarer goes up w= ith the king and screams injustice.=0A=0AWhat do you do? Do you adjust and = give South=0Asix spade tricks using L73F2 in both cases as your=0Alegal bas= is? If you don't - what do you do to stop=0Avillains from acting in exactly= the same manner=0Aas our innocent East in the second example?=0A=0A=0AKonr= ad Ciborowski=0AKrak=F3w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1837 From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 7 11:34:02 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:34:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <20041207111143.6D0A0A4169@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20041207111143.6D0A0A4169@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <41B5952A.4050603@hdw.be> Hello Konrad, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Hello folks, >=20 > It all started with a simple=20 > problem that was posted recently=20 > on the Polish bridge law mailing list. >=20 > South is declarer in a spade contract and=20 > has a trump queen to guess: >=20 > Axx > Qx 10x > KJxxxx >=20 > He cashes the ace, everyone follows, and calls > for a small spade from dummy. East hesitates > for 5 seconds, plays low, declarer inserts the > jack and calls the cops.=20 >=20 > Everybody rules six tricks for declarer. Then someone > (it was myself, incidentally) remarked that East > who simply had a momentary lapse of=20 > concentration, could have saved the day by > saying "sorry, no problem" before following > to the second round of spades. > As he gave no indication to declarer that > he had no "demonstrable bridge reason" > for hesitation he must suffer the consequences > and accept the TD's adjustment. >=20 Of course. > OK, so where is the catch?=20 > Someone (it was not myself, incidentally) > remarled that all this "sorry, no problem" > stuff is nonsense. No it's not. > Suppose the trump position is: >=20 > Axx > x Q10x > KJxxxx >=20 > South plays ace and another spade. East follows to the > first round then loses contact with reality for 5 seconds > (thinks whether he remembered to feed his cat before he left his house,= =20 > catches a glimpse of waitress' long legs, whatever), then, > being a honest soul, says "sorry, no problem" and > plays the ten. >=20 > Declarer goes up with the king and screams injustice. >=20 Why? East really has "no problem". If east is honest and really was=20 looking at the waitress' legs, then he really has no problem. So the=20 deduction that "no problem" means that he only has one, is a wrong one=20 which declarer took at his own risk. > What do you do? Do you adjust and give South > six spade tricks using L73F2 in both cases as your > legal basis? If you don't - what do you do to stop > villains from acting in exactly the same manner > as our innocent East in the second example? >=20 Well, you need other ways to determine whether East really was looking=20 at the waitress' legs, of course. There are laws to stop East from=20 acting as a villain. I think a good director is able to "feel" the=20 table and determine whether east is a villain or not. And if the TD is uncertain, then by all means rule against the=20 presumed villain. But there is no need to rule against an honest east. >=20 > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak=F3w, Poland >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 7 11:34:09 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 12:34:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <20041207111143.6D0A0A4169@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <000d01c4dc50$aacfdc60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Konrad Ciborowski > It all started with a simple > problem that was posted recently > on the Polish bridge law mailing list. >=20 > South is declarer in a spade contract and > has a trump queen to guess: >=20 > Axx > Qx 10x > KJxxxx >=20 > He cashes the ace, everyone follows, and calls > for a small spade from dummy. East hesitates > for 5 seconds, plays low, declarer inserts the > jack and calls the cops. >=20 > Everybody rules six tricks for declarer. Then someone > (it was myself, incidentally) remarked that East > who simply had a momentary lapse of > concentration, could have saved the day by > saying "sorry, no problem" before following > to the second round of spades. > As he gave no indication to declarer that > he had no "demonstrable bridge reason" > for hesitation he must suffer the consequences > and accept the TD's adjustment. >=20 > OK, so where is the catch? > Someone (it was not myself, incidentally) > remarled that all this "sorry, no problem" > stuff is nonsense. > Suppose the trump position is: >=20 > Axx > x Q10x > KJxxxx >=20 > South plays ace and another spade. East follows to the > first round then loses contact with reality for 5 seconds > (thinks whether he remembered to feed his cat before he left his = house, > catches a glimpse of waitress' long legs, whatever), then, > being a honest soul, says "sorry, no problem" and > plays the ten. >=20 > Declarer goes up with the king and screams injustice. >=20 > What do you do? Do you adjust and give South > six spade tricks using L73F2 in both cases as your > legal basis? If you don't - what do you do to stop > villains from acting in exactly the same manner > as our innocent East in the second example? If East is known to having played this trick before I adjust and in = addition I give East a procedural penalty. If not I (probably) let the result stand but make certain that this = incident will be remembered in case East should try another one. The legal base is indeed L73F2 together with L73D2. Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Dec 7 13:07:01 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 08:07:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two shots in the black wood In-Reply-To: References: <004a01c4da8b$954123c0$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041207075653.02b00ba0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:13 PM 12/6/04, richard.hills wrote: >Richard Hills thought experiment: > >LHO RHO >1S 4NT >5D 5S(1) >6S(2) > >(1) Signoff, but break in tempo >(2) Not a logical alternative (null voids) > >You wait until the deal is played out before calling the TD, and >either: > >(a) 6S fails by one trick, you do not bother calling the TD, and >you very happily score +50, > >or > >(b) 6S makes, you call the TD, the TD adjusts the score, and you >slightly happily score -480. > >Jeff Rubens has argued that this current practice of combating >hesitation Blackwood gives the non-offending side a double shot, >damaging the field. > >Rubens suggests that the TD should be called as soon as the 6S >bid is made, and that the TD should *immediately* correct the >6S irregularity by restoring the contract to 5S before play >starts. The non-offending side then does not receive a double >shot windfall of +50, since the non-offending side would then >gain the normal non-windfall of -450 for cases when the illegal >slam was due to fail. But what about the offending side? They will get a +450 windfall, when they would have had -50 had the Director not been called. And the NOS will stand to either win or lose big on the board, depending not on any call or play, but on a successful choice of whether or not to call the TD after the OS's break in tempo. That sounds to me like rewarding the OS and screwing the NOS, all in the highly questionable interest of "protecting the field". I have a hard time believing that this is really what Mr. Rubens proposes. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Dec 7 13:26:17 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 08:26:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <41B5952A.4050603@hdw.be> References: <20041207111143.6D0A0A4169@poczta.interia.pl> <41B5952A.4050603@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041207081547.02b05650@pop.starpower.net> At 06:34 AM 12/7/04, Herman wrote: >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >>Hello folks, >> It all started with a simple problem that was posted recently >> on the Polish bridge law mailing list. >>South is declarer in a spade contract and has a trump queen to guess: >> Axx >>Qx 10x >> KJxxxx >>He cashes the ace, everyone follows, and calls >>for a small spade from dummy. East hesitates >>for 5 seconds, plays low, declarer inserts the >>jack and calls the cops. >>Everybody rules six tricks for declarer. Then someone >>(it was myself, incidentally) remarked that East >>who simply had a momentary lapse of concentration, could have saved >>the day by >>saying "sorry, no problem" before following >>to the second round of spades. >>As he gave no indication to declarer that >>he had no "demonstrable bridge reason" >>for hesitation he must suffer the consequences >>and accept the TD's adjustment. > >Of course. > >>OK, so where is the catch? Someone (it was not myself, incidentally) >>remarled that all this "sorry, no problem" >>stuff is nonsense. > >No it's not. > >>Suppose the trump position is: >> Axx >>x Q10x >> KJxxxx >>South plays ace and another spade. East follows to the >>first round then loses contact with reality for 5 seconds >>(thinks whether he remembered to feed his cat before he left his >>house, catches a glimpse of waitress' long legs, whatever), then, >>being a honest soul, says "sorry, no problem" and >>plays the ten. >>Declarer goes up with the king and screams injustice. > >Why? East really has "no problem". If east is honest and really was >looking at the waitress' legs, then he really has no problem. So the >deduction that "no problem" means that he only has one, is a wrong one >which declarer took at his own risk. > >>What do you do? Do you adjust and give South >>six spade tricks using L73F2 in both cases as your >>legal basis? If you don't - what do you do to stop >>villains from acting in exactly the same manner >>as our innocent East in the second example? > >Well, you need other ways to determine whether East really was looking >at the waitress' legs, of course. There are laws to stop East from >acting as a villain. I think a good director is able to "feel" the >table and determine whether east is a villain or not. >And if the TD is uncertain, then by all means rule against the >presumed villain. But there is no need to rule against an honest east. I don't understand what this is about. You hold Q10x of trumps, Axx in dummy, declarer plays A and leads x, and you have a problem? Excuse me? You will always play the 10 from either Q10 remaining or stiff 10 remaining; you have the same "no problem" regardless of your holding. So how can it matter whether you announce this to the table or not? (OK, I'm sure there's some esoteric construction where it's right to play the Q, but it can't be relevant here given only a five-second huddle!) Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Dec 7 14:03:28 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:03:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Birmingham Fall 2000 case 15 In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20041206163112.027c8420@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: Bracketed KO II Dlr S E/W Vul S KQ76 H KT942 D T6 C T9 S A4 ST2 H AQ865 H 7 D AK D QJ73 C AJ43 CQ87652 S J9853 H J3 D 98542 C K W N E S P 2C P 2D P 2NT P 3S(1) P 3NT P 5C P 6C all pass Result 6c+1 (1) Not alerted as a relay to 4C's to play in one of the minors Ruling 3NT+4 520 on the basis 3NT is a LA - 3NT was not defined in the system - experts and flight B players polled thought non alert made bidding over 3NT easier. I disagree with this ruling. [snip ..] ".. easts 5C bid rather than 4C or pass is prima facie evidence that east noticed the failure to alert " Why ?? Did anyone ask if 4C was F or Not ?? Certainly if I was in this position I would never bid 4C's which could be passed out. I might torture pd with a 4NT bid (an attempt to bring diamonds into the pictiure or is it quantitive :>>), but I will never bid below game and give pd the chance to pass. [snip] " .. it has been already pointed out that on a practical level 3NT can only have one meaning regardless of whether 3S is alerted or not ..." What utter rubbish. If the bid had a meaning it would have been given a meaning (as I'm now sure it has) prior to the competition. In any event - what gives you the right to attach meanings to peoples system ?? I have an understanding with partners ... when in doubt bid the next suit up. The amount of times pd has broken system or bid something anti systemic or new, and I have at the table attached a meaning obvious or not to it, which it turns out is completely utterly wrong to the intended meaning is too many to recount. So now we pass the buck back and let the "new system" person clarify or place the contract. In this case though I am not about to bid 4C's (next suit up) as pd could well construe that as clubs and a zero count. 5C seems utterly normal. [snip..] " ... the only effect of the non alert is to make east suspicious that west might have a better hand for clubs than the 3NT signoff suggests ..." Again what signoff ?? Why does 3NT imply clubs ?? You can't assign 3NT as a signoff. Why can't it be both minors or a hand which doesn't like the minors. It is really irrelevant - I can come up with numerous meanings for 3NT. Point is you can't force your view of what an undefined bid means on some auction. And what would have happened had East passed and 3NT made while 5C's goes down. They'd be screaming holy murder citing 64 7 loser distributional - how can you pass 3NT when pd has implied NO fit. You can't win against these people. 3S is not natural this was proven. 3NT was undefined. Whatever pd meant 3NT as he knows you dont have spades or hearts. Chances are he just plain forgot to alert - god shoot me. 5C's seems a good description of your hand at this stage and (1) we still may have 6 on if 3NT is some kind of super accept (2) We were always heading to 5C's, lets not have yet another disaster and discus the meaning of 3NT afterwards and not unilaterally make a decision for the partnership now (3) 5C is very very reasonable REGARDLESS of the meaning of 3NT. Why are you 2nd guessing pd ?? Bottom line for me is that pass is not an LA. I would never pass this auction with the east hand, never. Been there too often. And as for west, he/she should not makeup system at the table ... it is a reciepe for disaster. Karel From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 7 15:04:54 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:04:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <41B5952A.4050603@hdw.be> Message-ID: <59FDB162-4861-11D9-8F2D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Dec 7, 2004, at 06:34 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > And if the TD is uncertain, then by all means rule against the > presumed villain. Um. This smacks of "guilty until proven innocent". Please explain your reasoning. :-) From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Dec 7 16:05:15 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:05:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting References: <20041207111143.6D0A0A4169@poczta.interia.pl> <41B5952A.4050603@hdw.be> Message-ID: <006201c4dc76$8c44b060$309868d5@James> [Konrad Ciborowski] wrote: > It all started with a simple problem that was > posted recently on the Polish bridge law mailing > list. South is declarer in a spade contract and > has a trump queen to guess: > Axx > Qx 10x > KJxxxx > He cashes the ace, everyone follows, and calls > for a small spade from dummy. East hesitates > for 5 seconds, plays low, declarer inserts the > jack and calls the cops. Everybody rules six > tricks for declarer. Then someone (it was myself, > incidentally) remarked that East who simply had a > momentary lapse of concentration, could have saved > the day by saying "sorry, no problem" before > following to the second round of spades. As he gave > no indication to declarer that he had no > "demonstrable bridge reason" for hesitation he must > suffer the consequences and accept the TD's > adjustment. OK, so where is the catch? Someone > (it was not myself, incidentally) remarled that > all this "sorry, no problem" stuff is nonsense. > Suppose the trump position is: > Axx > x Q10x > KJxxxx > South plays ace and another spade. East follows to > the first round then loses contact with reality for > 5 seconds (thinks whether he remembered to feed his > cat before he left his house, catches a glimpse of > waitress' long legs, whatever), then, being a honest > soul, says "sorry, no problem" and plays the ten. > Declarer goes up with the king and screams > injustice. What do you do? Do you adjust and give > South six spade tricks using L73F2 in both cases > as your legal basis? If you don't - what do you > do to stop villains from acting in exactly the > same manner as our innocent East in the second > example? [Nigel] Arguably, in Konrad's example, no East can have a *genuine* problem as to what to play with either of the putative holdings. So perhaps, in Konrad's case, declarer is on his own and hence cannot expect the director to rescue him from a wrong view. A common case that causes real problems at the table is where declarer needs one trick but cannot afford to lose two, when he leads small in a position like... KJx Axx + Qxx xx Now, if LHO hesitates and apologises, I feel that declarer has a right to feel aggrieved when dummy's king loses to EHO's ace. A similar problem occurred, years ago, in a Gold Cup match: Hugh Kelsey. declarer in a grand slam, at trick two, led DJ towards dummy's DAQx. LHO hesitated and then apologised. Kelsey rose with DA because he had other chances to make the slam. None of his other chances materialized but LHO did turn up with DK. Kelsey's team got a favourable ruling. IMO, as the laws are, the ruling was correct. Frances Hinden and others have suggested that sanctions should be dropped or reduced against hesitations during the play because so many players believe that it is just normal gamesmanship to hesitate with singletons and the like. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.804 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 30/11/2004 From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Dec 7 16:11:28 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:11:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting Message-ID: <007401c4dc77$6a9a42d0$309868d5@James> [Nigel correcting a typo] [Konrad Ciborowski] wrote: > It all started with a simple problem that was > posted recently on the Polish bridge law mailing > list. South is declarer in a spade contract and > has a trump queen to guess: > Axx > Qx 10x > KJxxxx > He cashes the ace, everyone follows, and calls > for a small spade from dummy. East hesitates > for 5 seconds, plays low, declarer inserts the > jack and calls the cops. Everybody rules six > tricks for declarer. Then someone (it was myself, > incidentally) remarked that East who simply had a > momentary lapse of concentration, could have saved > the day by saying "sorry, no problem" before > following to the second round of spades. As he gave > no indication to declarer that he had no > "demonstrable bridge reason" for hesitation he must > suffer the consequences and accept the TD's > adjustment. OK, so where is the catch? Someone > (it was not myself, incidentally) remarled that > all this "sorry, no problem" stuff is nonsense. > Suppose the trump position is: > Axx > x Q10x > KJxxxx > South plays ace and another spade. East follows to > the first round then loses contact with reality for > 5 seconds (thinks whether he remembered to feed his > cat before he left his house, catches a glimpse of > waitress' long legs, whatever), then, being a honest > soul, says "sorry, no problem" and plays the ten. > Declarer goes up with the king and screams > injustice. What do you do? Do you adjust and give > South six spade tricks using L73F2 in both cases > as your legal basis? If you don't - what do you > do to stop villains from acting in exactly the > same manner as our innocent East in the second > example? [Nigel] Arguably, in Konrad's example, no East can have a *genuine* problem as to what to play with either of the putative holdings. So perhaps, in Konrad's case, declarer is on his own and hence cannot expect the director to rescue him from a wrong view. A common case that causes real problems at the table is where declarer needs one trick but cannot afford to lose two, when he leads small in a position like... KJx Axx + Qxx xx Now, if LHO hesitates and apologises, I feel that declarer has a right to feel aggrieved when dummy's king would have won. A similar problem occurred, years ago, in a Gold Cup match: Hugh Kelsey. declarer in a grand slam, at trick two, led DJ towards dummy's DAQx. LHO hesitated and then apologised. Kelsey rose with DA because he had other chances to make the slam. None of his other chances materialized but LHO did turn up with DK. Kelsey's team got a favourable ruling. IMO, as the laws are, the ruling was correct. Frances Hinden and others have suggested that sanctions should be dropped or reduced against hesitations during the play because so many players believe that it is just normal gamesmanship to hesitate with singletons and the like. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.804 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 30/11/2004 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Dec 7 16:15:36 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:15:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <006201c4dc76$8c44b060$309868d5@James> References: <20041207111143.6D0A0A4169@poczta.interia.pl> <41B5952A.4050603@hdw.be> <006201c4dc76$8c44b060$309868d5@James> Message-ID: <3A62CD41-486B-11D9-9A01-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 7 Dec 2004, at 16:05, GUTHRIE wrote: > Frances Hinden and others have suggested that sanctions > should be dropped or reduced against hesitations during the > play because so many players believe that it is just normal > gamesmanship to hesitate with singletons and the like. I must say I haven't noticed this argument being proposed by anyone here. Have I missed something? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 7 16:32:28 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:32:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <000601c4dc3e$db6bba90$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6WnB5OUjbQtBFwxH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000601c4dc3e$db6bba90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> I suggest you follow EBU policy: where the board is cancelled because >> of an offending side who could have known at the time of the >> irregularity that it could work to their benefit you give an assigned >> score under L12A1 or L72B1. A score was obtained at one table otherwise >> this problem does not arrive, thus allowing an assigned score. > >Are you saying that L12A1 allows the Director to award an assigned adjusted >score on a board for which no result can be obtained once a result has been >obtained for the same board at the other table? That's our view. Of course our TDs do not need to think about it: they just follow the regulation. >This is not how I understand Law 12. This law only concerns the possibility >to obtain a result at the table where the irregularity takes place? > >Anyway, I have a feeling that sometimes too much attention is paid to >technicalities with Law 12: If no result can be obtained I assess the >"damage" to any innocent party, and if I judge this damage to exceed 3 IMPs >I award what I consider a reasonable redress even in excess of 3 IMPs. > >So far I have had little or no problems with that. In fact I cannot remember >any single case where I have awarded artificial scores other than 3 IMPs! None of these things are common. That does not mean we should not know the correct thing to do when one finally comes up. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 7 16:40:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:40:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Two shots in the black wood In-Reply-To: References: <004a01c4da8b$954123c0$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: rh wrote >Richard Hills thought experiment: > >LHO RHO >1S 4NT >5D 5S(1) >6S(2) > >(1) Signoff, but break in tempo >(2) Not a logical alternative (null voids) > >You wait until the deal is played out before calling the TD, and >either: > >(a) 6S fails by one trick, you do not bother calling the TD, and >you very happily score +50, > >or > >(b) 6S makes, you call the TD, the TD adjusts the score, and you >slightly happily score -480. > >Jeff Rubens has argued that this current practice of combating >hesitation Blackwood gives the non-offending side a double shot, >damaging the field. > >Rubens suggests that the TD should be called as soon as the 6S >bid is made, and that the TD should *immediately* correct the >6S irregularity by restoring the contract to 5S before play >starts. The non-offending side then does not receive a double >shot windfall of +50, since the non-offending side would then >gain the normal non-windfall of -450 for cases when the illegal >slam was due to fail. Bloody stupid. Two possibilities. [1] Play is held up for twenty minutes while the TDs look at the hand, consider, consult and decide. Then they return to the table and give the non-offenders UI about the hand by their ruling. They also give UI to partner - suppose the hand continues? Oh, they are going to change LHO's call but not allow the oppos to bid? [2] They do it automatically without looking at the hand. When LHO is seen to have a legitimate 6S bid what then? Especially if he has made 11 tricks? 6S-1? But perhaps declarer would play it differently in slam. The trouble with ill-thought-out suggestions like this is that people who read magazines will think there is something in it because it is their job to read not to think. Suggestions like this one do considerable damage to the game. What damage does a double shot do? None whatever. Why should players not be allowed to try to take advantage of rule-breakers as in any other sport or mindsport. Bridge has a namby-pamby wishy-washy lah-dih-dah widdums-diddums approach to offenders. I am beginning to think like Burn - let's chop their goolies off first, then give the oppos an adjustment as well. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Dec 7 16:44:38 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:44:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817266@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> [Nigel] Frances Hinden and others have suggested that sanctions should be dropped or reduced against hesitations during the play because so many players believe that it is just normal gamesmanship to hesitate with singletons and the like. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Excuse me! It is true that I do not like 73F2. This is not because I think it is "normal gamesmanship" to hestitate with a=20 singleton. The reason I do not like this law is because it can cause extremely=20 acrimonious rulings over whether there is a "bridge reason"=20 to think or not, and I think the benefit from the law is minimal. =20 I have thought the "I don't like subjective laws" club would hate this law, as it's one of the most subjective around.=20 Varying tempo in the play may still provide partner with UI of course. =20 From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 7 16:43:05 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:43:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <20041207111143.6D0A0A4169@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20041207111143.6D0A0A4169@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote > >Hello folks, > It all started with a simple >problem that was posted recently >on the Polish bridge law mailing list. >South is declarer in a spade contract and >has a trump queen to guess: > Axx >Qx 10x > KJxxxx He cashes the ace, everyone follows, and calls for a small spade from dummy. East hesitates for 5 seconds, plays low, declarer inserts the jack and calls the cops. Everybody rules six tricks for declarer. Not me. A hesitation does not suggest QTx. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Tue Dec 7 16:45:25 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 07 Dec 2004 17:45:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting Message-ID: <20041207164525.1AC802599B5@poczta.interia.pl> Gordon Rainsford napisa=B3(a):=0A> =0A> On 7 Dec 2004, at 16:05, GUTHRIE wr= ote:=0A> =0A> > Frances Hinden and others have suggested that sanctions=0A>= > should be dropped or reduced against hesitations during the=0A> > play b= ecause so many players believe that it is just normal=0A> > gamesmanship to= hesitate with singletons and the like.=0A> =0A> I must say I haven't = noticed this argument being proposed by anyone =0A> here. Have I missed som= ething?=0A=0AI advocate this change but that is a totally seperate issue fo= r=0Aa new thread.=0A=0A=0AKonrad Ciborowski=0AKrak=F3w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1837 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Dec 7 16:49:48 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:49:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817268@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Hello folks, It all started with a simple=20 problem that was posted recently=20 on the Polish bridge law mailing list. South is declarer in a spade contract and=20 has a trump queen to guess: Axx Qx 10x KJxxxx He cashes the ace, everyone follows, and calls for a small spade from dummy. East hesitates for 5 seconds, plays low, declarer inserts the jack and calls the cops.=20 Everybody rules six tricks for declarer.=20 I don't. East cannot be hesitating for any reason other than watching a pig fly by, whatever his spade holding. From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Dec 7 16:54:44 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 07 Dec 2004 17:54:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting Message-ID: <20041207165444.E35342599BF@poczta.interia.pl> =0A>>Everybody rules six tricks for declarer.=0A=0A> Not me. A hesitatio= n does not suggest QTx.=0A=0AThen what it *does* suggest then?=0AA singleto= n?=0A=0ATomorrow I'll start hesitating=0Aon the second round=0Awith the dou= bleton in this position.=0AYou can bet that my partners=0Awill suddenly st= art taking tricks for Qx.=0ANice ploy.=0A=0AKonrad Ciborowski=0AKrak=F3w, P= oland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ponad 400 tysiecy kandydatow na meza? Poszukaj wlasnego! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f183c From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Dec 7 17:13:02 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:13:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <20041207164525.1AC802599B5@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20041207164525.1AC802599B5@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <40D02753-4873-11D9-9A01-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 7 Dec 2004, at 16:45, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Gordon Rainsford napisa=A9=A9(a): >> >> On 7 Dec 2004, at 16:05, GUTHRIE wrote: >> >>> Frances Hinden and others have suggested that sanctions >>> should be dropped or reduced against hesitations during the >>> play because so many players believe that it is just normal >>> gamesmanship to hesitate with singletons and the like. >> >> I must say I haven't noticed this argument being proposed by=20 >> anyone >> here. Have I missed something? > > I advocate this change but that is a totally seperate issue for > a new thread. It's possible to advocate the change without subscribing to the=20 argument that Nigel attributes to you all - "it is just normal=20 gamesmanship to hesitate with singletons and the like." -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Tue Dec 7 17:23:57 2004 From: blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:23:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Two shots in the black wood In-Reply-To: <009701c4dc11$ddc904f0$0b9868d5@James> References: <009701c4dc11$ddc904f0$0b9868d5@James> Message-ID: In message <009701c4dc11$ddc904f0$0b9868d5@James>, GUTHRIE writes >[Richard James Hills] >> Jeff Rubens suggests that the TD should be called >> as soon as the 6S bid is made, and that the TD should >> *immediately* correct the 6S irregularity by restoring >> the contract to 5S before play starts. The non-offending >> side then does not receive a double shot windfall of +50, >> since the non-offending side would then gain the normal >> non-windfall of -450 for cases when the illegal slam was >> due to fail. > >[Nigel] >An excellent suggestion by Jeff [and Richard]. I feel that >the field *should* be protected where practicable and here >it obviously is easy to do so. To stop hesitation Blackwood >and the like, the law should insist that you must summon the >TD *before* the play starts. Presumably the TD can still >impose a PP for persistent offenders. > >The rules about "Double-shots" and "Wild and Gambling" are >unjust and unfair -- but Jeff's clever suggestion allows us >avoid that issue in cases like this. How practical is that in a Club environment with a playing TD? Under the present rules, I can note the hesitation, get the players to record the auction and play it out. If they non-offenders want an adjustment I can review then hand *after I* have played it. I have no need to see the details of the hand before I get to play it. I also have time to review the ruling with the assistant TDs. Under this proposal, I would need to need to make a decision once the auction has completed. This means I have to see the auction. Now I cannot play the board :-( Who can I review my ruling with? Also: If I look at the hand and decide not to rule it back, then am I not passing information about the offenders hand to other players. I'm sure we were taught never to look at the hands until the play was complete. -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 7 18:02:26 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:02:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <002001c4d634$fb97a780$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <002001c4d634$fb97a780$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Laval Dubreuil >> Like I was told when I first graduated as a Director: Make sure you read >> and >> understand the complete law that is applicable to the situation and also >> check up on all references to other laws from the one you are using. >> Remember that footnotes are part of the laws to which they are appended. >> >> Following this principle would have saved you some headache here. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> And the first Law applying to dummy is Law 41D. Dummy MUST spread his >> cards correctly. So something like "all players are responsible for dummy" >> is not true at all. No revoke penalty, but restore equity taking into >> account that dummy acted againts the Law (offending side). > >You still do not understand do you? Law 41 doesn't say what you claim it >says: > >"After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on >the table....." > >Turn to the interpretation of the laws (at the very front) and you will see >that there is indeed a difference: > >A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("....dummy spreads his >hand in front of him...") establishes correct procedure without any >suggestion that a violation be penalized. Maybe not, but there is also no suggestion that if it damages opponents you do not adjust: you certainly do. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 7 18:22:41 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:22:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <41A7B417.4070209@shaw.ca> References: <41A7B417.4070209@shaw.ca> Message-ID: Bruce McIntyre wrote >All I could vaguely remember was a prinicple I had heard from someone >that "all players are responsible for dummy" and I am aware that while >many of these "derived maxims" are good guides, many others are not. There is another maxim that says "A lead from a king is the worst lead in bridge." It has just as much validity. A player is responsible for his own cards. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 7 18:28:39 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:28:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <20041207165444.E35342599BF@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20041207165444.E35342599BF@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote > >>>Everybody rules six tricks for declarer. >> Not me. A hesitation does not suggest QTx. >Then what it *does* suggest then? >A singleton? >Tomorrow I'll start hesitating >on the second round >with the doubleton in this position. >You can bet that my partners >will suddenly start taking tricks for Qx. >Nice ploy. If you do it deliberately I shall definitely deal with you. But the idea that a hesitation here suggests the Q is barmy. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Dec 7 18:33:52 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:33:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Two shots in the black wood Message-ID: <005001c4dc8b$4f1ef410$969468d5@James> [Sven Pran] > How can "normal" play be possible after the > Director has given such information on one of > the player's cards? [Nigel] Oh Dear! Good points Sven, Grattan and Co! It seems that you are right. I'm afraid my initial reaction was over-hasty :( and maybe Jeff's suggestion is not so hot after all? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.804 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 30/11/2004 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Dec 7 18:41:30 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 13:41:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <40D02753-4873-11D9-9A01-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk > References: <20041207164525.1AC802599B5@poczta.interia.pl> <40D02753-4873-11D9-9A01-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041207133842.02b3a060@pop.starpower.net> At 12:13 PM 12/7/04, Gordon wrote: >It's possible to advocate the change without subscribing to the >argument that Nigel attributes to you all - "it is just normal >gamesmanship to hesitate with singletons and the like." If we did make the change, it would rapidly become so, wouldn't it? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 7 18:54:53 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:54:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting References: <20041207111143.6D0A0A4169@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <000201c4dc8e$6c57b2d0$dc8e403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting >>South is declarer in a spade contract and >>has a trump queen to guess: > >> Axx >>Qx 10x >> KJxxxx > > He cashes the ace, everyone follows, and calls > for a small spade from dummy. East hesitates > for 5 seconds, plays low, declarer inserts the > jack and calls the cops. > > Everybody rules six tricks for declarer. > > Not me. A hesitation does not suggest QTx. > +=+ I do not think it suggests any of the possible holdings. On the other hand it may have an effect of jostling the declarer. Legitimately it would seem, if not deliberate. Or has someone produced a 'solution'? ~ G ~ +=+ From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Dec 7 19:18:54 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 19:18:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817271@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> At 12:13 PM 12/7/04, Gordon wrote: >It's possible to advocate the change without subscribing to the=20 >argument that Nigel attributes to you all - "it is just normal=20 >gamesmanship to hesitate with singletons and the like." If we did make the change, it would rapidly become so, wouldn't it? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------- Yes, it would. I don't think that is good, but I think it better just = to ignore all hesitations from my opponents than to take an inference, discover I was wrong, and then have to argue over "bridge reasoning" From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Dec 7 19:22:29 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 19:22:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817272@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> >>Everybody rules six tricks for declarer. > Not me. A hesitation does not suggest QTx. Then what it *does* suggest then? A singleton? Tomorrow I'll start hesitating on the second round with the doubleton in this position. You can bet that my partners will suddenly start taking tricks for Qx. Nice ploy. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --------- Will they? Why? Why should anyone ever think about playing the Queen in this position. Your principle is fine, but the example is poor. A better example would have been this suit: Jxxxx Qx xx AK10x declarer leads the Jack from dummy, and East hesitates before playing = low. Now I give declarer his 5 tricks, under the current Laws. From john@asimere.com Tue Dec 7 20:16:19 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 20:16:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] Two shots in the black wood In-Reply-To: References: <004a01c4da8b$954123c0$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes >rh wrote > >>Richard Hills thought experiment: >> >>LHO RHO >>1S 4NT >>5D 5S(1) >>6S(2) >> >>(1) Signoff, but break in tempo >>(2) Not a logical alternative (null voids) >> >>You wait until the deal is played out before calling the TD, and >>either: >> >>(a) 6S fails by one trick, you do not bother calling the TD, and >>you very happily score +50, >> >>or >> >>(b) 6S makes, you call the TD, the TD adjusts the score, and you >>slightly happily score -480. >> >>Jeff Rubens has argued that this current practice of combating >>hesitation Blackwood gives the non-offending side a double shot, >>damaging the field. >> >>Rubens suggests that the TD should be called as soon as the 6S >>bid is made, and that the TD should *immediately* correct the >>6S irregularity by restoring the contract to 5S before play >>starts. The non-offending side then does not receive a double >>shot windfall of +50, since the non-offending side would then >>gain the normal non-windfall of -450 for cases when the illegal >>slam was due to fail. > > Bloody stupid. Two possibilities. > >[1] Play is held up for twenty minutes while the TDs look at the hand, >consider, consult and decide. Then they return to the table and give >the non-offenders UI about the hand by their ruling. They also give UI >to partner - suppose the hand continues? Oh, they are going to change >LHO's call but not allow the oppos to bid? > >[2] They do it automatically without looking at the hand. When LHO is >seen to have a legitimate 6S bid what then? Especially if he has made >11 tricks? 6S-1? But perhaps declarer would play it differently in >slam. > > The trouble with ill-thought-out suggestions like this is that people >who read magazines will think there is something in it because it is >their job to read not to think. > > Suggestions like this one do considerable damage to the game. > > What damage does a double shot do? None whatever. Why should players >not be allowed to try to take advantage of rule-breakers as in any other >sport or mindsport. > > Bridge has a namby-pamby wishy-washy lah-dih-dah widdums-diddums >approach to offenders. I am beginning to think like Burn - let's chop >their goolies off first, then give the oppos an adjustment as well. bit wimp-ish for you David :) I'm beginning to come round to the Burnian notion m'self, mind you > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 7 21:44:14 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 22:44:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000c01c4dca5$e5f4d980$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............ > >Are you saying that L12A1 allows the Director to award > >an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result > >can be obtained once a result has been obtained for the > >same board at the other table? > > That's our view. Of course our TDs do not need to think > about it: they just follow the regulation. > Then I assume that your regulations specify exactly the same procedure for matchpoints? With say 20 tables you have 19 other tables with which to compare results and where results on this same board have been obtained. There is no reason to award an artificial adjusted score when you score matchpoints if you award an assigned adjusted score when scoring IMPs. Law 12 gives no option to treat the question of artificial or assigned scores differently for matchpoints and IMPs. Regards Sven From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Dec 7 21:56:18 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 07 Dec 2004 22:56:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting Message-ID: <20041207215618.60A14A416A@poczta.interia.pl> David Stevenson napisa=B3(a): > Konrad Ciborowski wrote > > > >>>Everybody rules six tricks for declarer. >=20 > >> Not me. A hesitation does not suggest QTx. >=20 > >Then what it *does* suggest then? > >A singleton? >=20 > >Tomorrow I'll start hesitating > >on the second round > >with the doubleton in this position. > >You can bet that my partners > >will suddenly start taking tricks for Qx. > >Nice ploy. >=20 > If you do it deliberately I shall definitely deal with you. >=20 How will you know that I'll be doing it deliberately? Why does the TD need to be a mind reader? Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1837 From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 8 00:51:54 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 00:51:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting Message-ID: <005e01c4dcc0$1e2c0750$0b9868d5@James> [Frances Hinden] > Excuse me! It is true that I do not like 73F2. > This is not because I think it is "normal gamesmanship" > to hestitate with a singleton. The reason I do not like > this law is because it can cause extremely acrimonious > rulings over whether there is a "bridge reason" to think > or not, and I think the benefit from the law is minimal. > I have thought the "I don't like subjective laws" club > would hate this law, as it's one of the most subjective > around. [Nigel] Peculiar views are sometimes misattributed to me -- but I don't intentionally misrepresent anybody else. I claimed that some players think it is normal to hesitate with a singleton. Of course I know that Frances advocates no such thing; but I do recollect a couple of posts, in which Frances expressed doubt about the wisdom of trying to rule against some tempo-breaks in the play; and I think such opinions are worth airing and debating. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.804 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 30/11/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 8 01:24:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:24:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] Birmingham Fall 2000 case 15 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [snip] ACBL AC: >> ... the only effect of the non-alert is to make East >>suspicious that West might have a better hand for clubs >>than the 3NT signoff suggests ... Karel: >Again what signoff ?? Why does 3NT imply clubs ?? You >can't assign 3NT as a signoff. Why can't it be both >minors or a hand which doesn't like the minors. It is >really irrelevant - I can come up with numerous meanings >for 3NT. Point is you can't force your view of what an >undefined bid means on some auction. [snip] Richard Hills: (a) Unless East-West can demonstrate that their partnership has a *particular* partnership agreement about 3NT being forcing, then the meaning of 3NT must be deemed to be one of several logical interpretations. (a) One of the deemed logical interpretations of the 3NT bid, on the given auction, is that 3NT is a natural signoff. (b) Passing West's deemed natural signoff of 3NT, on the given auction, is a logical alternative for East. (c) East bidding on after West's deemed natural signoff, on the given auction, is also a logical alternative. But bidding on is demonstrably suggested by the UI of West's non-alert of East's prior artificial 3S bid. This is because West's non-alert suggests that West may have chosen to avoid a slam try because West believed that East held a spade suit, but West may have been interested in a slam try if West had remembered that East's artificial 3S bid systemically promised both minors. (d) North-South were damaged by East bidding on and reaching the small slam in clubs. (e) Straightforward Law 16 adjustment to 3NT, +520. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 8 03:13:30 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 14:13:30 +1100 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <000201c4dc8e$6c57b2d0$dc8e403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Stevenson: >>Not me. A hesitation does not suggest QTx. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I do not think it suggests any of the possible >holdings. On the other hand it may have an effect >of jostling the declarer. Legitimately it would seem, >if not deliberate. Or has someone produced a >'solution'? ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: A few weeks ago, two expert (but youthful) opponents bid this supposedly Acol auction -> LHO RHO Pass 2C 2D 3D 3S 4S Pass Dummy had Axx of trumps. When declarer started drawing trumps by playing ace and another, it would have been to my advantage to rise with the queen from my initial holding of QTx of trumps, in order to give my partner a trump promotion, as pard initially held KJx of trumps. Alas, I failed to find this defence, forgetting that the optimism of youth permits a suit of xxxx to be freely bid at the three level. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 8 03:38:04 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 14:38:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <20041207215618.60A14A416A@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: >How will you know that I'll be doing it deliberately? >Why does the TD need to be a mind reader? Richard Hills: The following Proprieties require a telepathic TD to determine whether or not they have been infracted -> Law 72A2 Law 72B2 Law 74C7 Law 75D1 Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Dec 7 10:04:50 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:04:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? References: <000601c4dc3e$db6bba90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c4dcf9$d0d390b0$149987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought, And with old woes new wail my dear times' waste." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 9:26 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 12A1? Are you saying that L12A1 allows the Director to award an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result can be obtained once a result has been obtained for the same board at the other table? This is not how I understand Law 12. This law only concerns the possibility to obtain a result at the table where the irregularity takes place? > +=+ The nearest we get to a WBF ruling on the question is in item 9 of its minutes of 30th Aug 2000. This ruling tends to leave hanging your question, asked indirectly. However, I would think that with a result already obtained at the team's other table it is entirely conceivable that a 12C1 adjustment could fail to "provide indemnity" to the non-offending contestant. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 8 08:21:35 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 09:21:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: References: <20041207165444.E35342599BF@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <41B6B98F.7050206@hdw.be> Are you serious David, and have I lost my senses? Or do we have our wires crossed and are not talking about the same case: David Stevenson wrote: > Konrad Ciborowski wrote > >> >>>> Everybody rules six tricks for declarer. > > >>> Not me. A hesitation does not suggest QTx. > > >> Then what it *does* suggest then? >> A singleton? > > >> Tomorrow I'll start hesitating >> on the second round >> with the doubleton in this position. >> You can bet that my partners >> will suddenly start taking tricks for Qx. >> Nice ploy. > > > If you do it deliberately I shall definitely deal with you. > > But the idea that a hesitation here suggests the Q is barmy. > The case is : Axx Qx Tx KJxxxx Declarer plays low to the Ace, and small from the table. If I can count to two, there are now just two cards left from declarer's knowledge, the Queen and the Ten. East starts thinking. That suggests to me he has a problem. So either he has none, or he has them both. When he produces the Ten, does that not clearly indicate that he has the queen as well? Please enlighten me on what you were trying to say. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Dec 8 08:57:10 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:57:10 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Birmingham Fall 2000 case 15 Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900019E0E86@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Richard Hills wrote: [snip] ACBL AC: >> ... the only effect of the non-alert is to make East >>suspicious that West might have a better hand for clubs >>than the 3NT signoff suggests ... Karel: >Again what signoff ?? Why does 3NT imply clubs ?? You >can't assign 3NT as a signoff. Why can't it be both >minors or a hand which doesn't like the minors. It is >really irrelevant - I can come up with numerous meanings >for 3NT. Point is you can't force your view of what an >undefined bid means on some auction. [snip] Richard Hills: (a) Unless East-West can demonstrate that their partnership has a *particular* partnership agreement about 3NT being forcing, then the meaning of 3NT must be deemed to be one of several logical interpretations. (a) One of the deemed logical interpretations of the 3NT bid, on the given auction, is that 3NT is a natural signoff. (b) Passing West's deemed natural signoff of 3NT, on the given auction, is a logical alternative for East. (c) East bidding on after West's deemed natural signoff, on the given auction, is also a logical alternative. But bidding on is demonstrably suggested by the UI of West's non-alert of East's prior artificial 3S bid. This is because West's non-alert suggests that West may have chosen to avoid a slam try because West believed that East held a spade suit, but West may have been interested in a slam try if West had remembered that East's artificial 3S bid systemically promised both minors. (d) North-South were damaged by East bidding on and reaching the small slam in clubs. (e) Straightforward Law 16 adjustment to 3NT, +520. What's the problem? ----- Dlr S E/W Vul S KQ76 H KT942 D T6 C T9 S A4 ST2 H AQ865 H 7 D AK D QJ73 C AJ43 CQ87652 S J9853 H J3 D 98542 C K I agree with Richard's comments above except (e). In NO you can't ruff a spade in the west hand. There's 1+1+4+6=3D12 tricks. The adjustment should be to 3NT, +490. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Dec 8 09:15:48 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 10:15:48 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC67@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: Are you serious David, and have I lost my senses? Or do we have our wires crossed and are not talking about the same case: David Stevenson wrote: > Konrad Ciborowski wrote >=20 >> >>>> Everybody rules six tricks for declarer. >=20 >=20 >>> Not me. A hesitation does not suggest QTx. >=20 >=20 >> Then what it *does* suggest then? >> A singleton? >=20 >=20 >> Tomorrow I'll start hesitating >> on the second round >> with the doubleton in this position. >> You can bet that my partners >> will suddenly start taking tricks for Qx. >> Nice ploy. >=20 >=20 > If you do it deliberately I shall definitely deal with you. >=20 > But the idea that a hesitation here suggests the Q is barmy. >=20 The case is : Axx Qx Tx KJxxxx Declarer plays low to the Ace, and small from the table. If I can=20 count to two, there are now just two cards left from declarer's=20 knowledge, the Queen and the Ten. East starts thinking. That suggests=20 to me he has a problem. So either he has none, or he has them both. When he produces the Ten, does that not clearly indicate that he has=20 the queen as well? Please enlighten me on what you were trying to say. ----- Herman, are you seriously trying to tell us you would rule 6 tricks here? I'm 100% with David on this one. As declarer, you know east have no reason to think. He would always play the ten from Tx and QTx. So the hesitation tells you nothing. (If east excuses himself, saying he thought of something else, it still tells you nothing about the suit.) You'll decide to finesse or top according to your knowledge of the opponents strength and distribution or an over all plan (endplay, whatever). Frances had a better example: Jxxxx Qx xx AK10x If you play the jack and east hesitates here, he would have a reason to think if he held Qxx (or Qx, but that doesn't matter to the outcome). Here I would rule 5 tricks to declarer after loosing to west's queen. Regards, Harald Skjaeran --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 8 09:36:24 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:36:24 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC67@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC67@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <41B6CB18.5050403@hdw.be> Skjaran, Harald wrote: > > Please enlighten me on what you were trying to say. > ----- > Herman, are you seriously trying to tell us you would rule 6 tricks > here? > I'm 100% with David on this one. OK. I understand now your point. I don't agree with it (see below), but I understand it. > As declarer, you know east have no reason to think. Yes, in this case you know it. Then why does he do it? He knows it is illegal to think with a singleton. So he does not have a singleton. I don't have to bother my brains out trying to figure out why he would want to play the queen here. Maybe he started thinking out of habit, and now he has decided he might as well think on and give a signal to partner (it might be construed UI but he can still give a signa, can he not?). > He would always play the ten from Tx and QTx. Well, in the first yes - in the second - NO. Once he has started thinking, he knows he's given AI to declarer, and UI to partner and there is nothing he can do about it. So he might as well play QT in that order, even if just to signal a spade preference. > So the hesitation tells you nothing. Yes it does. > (If east excuses himself, saying he thought of something else, it still > tells you nothing about the suit.) That is true. > You'll decide to finesse or top according to your knowledge of the > opponents strength and distribution or an over all plan (endplay, > whatever). > Well, sorry, maybe where you play. But there you won't find people thinking with QTx. At lower levels, you still find people thinking with them. And it is those tables we're talking about. > Frances had a better example: OK, maybe the example was flawed in the sense that it cannot come up in serious play - but that does not make the solution wrong. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From emu@atrax.net.au Wed Dec 8 12:16:26 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 23:16:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817272@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000a01c4dd1f$bed71d70$9f2fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 6:22 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: RE: Re: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting >>Everybody rules six tricks for declarer. > Not me. A hesitation does not suggest QTx. Then what it *does* suggest then? A singleton? Tomorrow I'll start hesitating on the second round with the doubleton in this position. You can bet that my partners will suddenly start taking tricks for Qx. Nice ploy. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ------ Will they? Why? Why should anyone ever think about playing the Queen = in this position. Your principle is fine, but the example is poor. A better example would have been this suit: Jxxxx Qx xx AK10x declarer leads the Jack from dummy, and East hesitates before playing = low. Now I give declarer his 5 tricks, under the current Laws. _____________________________________________________ So what? I play reverse count with one of my partners and natural with another. Sometimes I forget which partner I am playing with and have to think it through before I play a card. Not intentionally, but if = declared is mislead, surely that is his problem? I had a legitimate bridge = reason to hesitate and am perfectly willing to tell declarer what it was if asked. [Hard to ask during the play of course.] [Well I don't hesitate much anymore because I'm now a much better player than I was a few years ago; I don't forget who my partner is and I = already know what I am going to play before declarer leads it - but many, many = of my opponents do hesitate in this spot for exactly that reason, or ones like = it. Are they cheating? No. Are they poor bridge players? Probably yes. Why should you beat them up for that?] regards, Noel=20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From con.holzscherer@philips.com Wed Dec 8 13:26:45 2004 From: con.holzscherer@philips.com (con.holzscherer@philips.com) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 14:26:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Don't underestimate the possibility of bridge reasons! For instance consider the following: A x x x x x x A K J x x x J x Q 10 x A 10 x x x J x x x A x x x Q J 10 x x x x x K 9 x x x K Q K x x Q x x Your partner leads the ace of hearts against four spades, followed by a heart to declarers king. Declarer (who by the way has opened 1 spade) plays a spade to the ace and a second spade and... if you play the 10 declarer ducks and the contract can not be beaten anymore, but if you play the queen, you beat the contract! On the other hand, if the distribution would have been: A x x x x x x A K J x x x K x Q 10 x A 10 x x x J x x x K x x x Q J 10 x x x x x J 9 x x x K Q A x x Q x x playing the queen would be wrong, so there is a very legitimate bridge reason for thinking with Q 10 ... From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Dec 8 11:08:57 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:08:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting References: <20041207165444.E35342599BF@poczta.interia.pl> <41B6B98F.7050206@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000601c4dd35$db8ad310$d7a887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought, And with old woes new wail my dear times' waste." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting > Are you serious David, and have I lost my senses? > Or do we have our wires crossed and are not > talking about the same case: > +=+ The case appears to be one where, no matter what his holding - unless about to discard - the player can have no purpose in hesitating. If he has no choice of play to hesitate is an impropriety; if he has a choice he has a holding on which a hesitation is an absurdity. In the absence, that is, of malfeasant intent. Whilst I do not think there is much of a case for saying that the hesitation 'suggested' Q T x, I do think that the Director can rule that in committing the impropriety the player could have known the action could work to his benefit and is one for which he has no demonstrable bridge reason. ~ G ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 8 16:47:50 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:47:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <000c01c4dca5$e5f4d980$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c4dca5$e5f4d980$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7nyRlnd2AztBFwih@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............ >> >Are you saying that L12A1 allows the Director to award >> >an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result >> >can be obtained once a result has been obtained for the >> >same board at the other table? >> >> That's our view. Of course our TDs do not need to think >> about it: they just follow the regulation. >> >Then I assume that your regulations specify exactly the same procedure for >matchpoints? You assume wrong. Protecting the field is a debunked North American idea. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 8 16:52:18 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:52:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <41B6B98F.7050206@hdw.be> References: <20041207165444.E35342599BF@poczta.interia.pl> <41B6B98F.7050206@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >The case is : > > Axx >Qx Tx > KJxxxx > >Declarer plays low to the Ace, and small from the table. If I can count >to two, there are now just two cards left from declarer's knowledge, >the Queen and the Ten. East starts thinking. That suggests to me he has >a problem. So either he has none, or he has them both. >When he produces the Ten, does that not clearly indicate that he has >the queen as well? > >Please enlighten me on what you were trying to say. When he thinks then produces the ten there are two possibilities. [a] He has the ten only and had a brain seizure and was thinking of something else rather than what to play: fortunately he has given nothing away so there is nothing to worry about. [b] He has the ten and queen and had a brain seizure and was thinking of something else rather than what to play: unfortunately he has apparently given something away so he is far less likely to have a brain seizure at this moment. [a] seems about five times as likely. When he produces the ten after thought you know he has not got the queen. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 8 16:54:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:54:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <000a01c4dd1f$bed71d70$9f2fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817272@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000a01c4dd1f$bed71d70$9f2fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: Noel and Pamela wrote >So what? I play reverse count with one of my partners and natural with >another. Sometimes I forget which partner I am playing with and have to >think it through before I play a card. Not intentionally, but if declared >is mislead, surely that is his problem? I had a legitimate bridge reason to >hesitate and am perfectly willing to tell declarer what it was if asked. >[Hard to ask during the play of course.] There is case law to say htis is not a legitimate bridge reason. >[Well I don't hesitate much anymore because I'm now a much better player >than I was a few years ago; I don't forget who my partner is and I already >know what I am going to play before declarer leads it - but many, many of my >opponents do hesitate in this spot for exactly that reason, or ones like it. >Are they cheating? No. Are they poor bridge players? Probably yes. Why >should you beat them up for that?] That is not the reason for adjusting: it is to stop them gaining an improper advantage. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 8 16:55:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:55:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <20041207215618.60A14A416A@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20041207215618.60A14A416A@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote >How will you know that I'll be doing it deliberately? >Why does the TD need to be a mind reader? *yawn* I do not suppose anyone has ever asked this on BLML before. You know perfectly well, Konrad, that the way the game is run TDs make judgement rulings. You don't like, go wreck the game by a complete change of Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From schoderb@msn.com Wed Dec 8 18:50:39 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:50:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? References: <000c01c4dca5$e5f4d980$6900a8c0@WINXP> <7nyRlnd2AztBFwih@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Now, now David. Just because they wouldn't give you a free ride to the Blue Ribbon a second time after your rather dismal showing the first time, is no reason to start saying nasty, and also wrong things. I maintain that if you did some research you'd find that it is not a "debunked North American idea" but rather some very personal desires which can also be found in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and possibly even Wales. Besides, who did the "debunking?" Kojak > > You assume wrong. Protecting the field is a debunked North American > idea. > > -- > David Stevenson 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 dbinmjsuk@sympatico.ca Wed Dec 8 18:14:26 2004 From: dbinmjsuk@sympatico.ca (Glenna) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:14:26 +0400 Subject: [blml] The woods on the Message-ID: <11558304693716.44441.qmail@sympatico.ca>

so an you blade so Xannounce Wfence at malposed? declination the stamp - riviera drill? craze? chloroplast so cavendish beefy it a casino crabmeat? a a we amateurish sift hello itsa Oglum crystallography for for the lena

Hello,

Our database records indicate we will be able to   a p prov e   you
for a   m ortga g e / re-fin a n ce   for up to 250k for 4.0 deal.

If you are interested we advise you to act ASAP.

We need some information from you to finish up the process.
Use this unique URL lhsxkich

Have a nice day,
Sincerly
Glenna

buckley casebook Rwu and the dtwedlar
serpent pleistocene Pprimordial airstrip krieger of tjxpiw
a at Lharm or sped a from kidnapped diluent cheesecloth out out dilate bravo minsk to of divide? numerology nymphomaniac? Vchick Lvaristor convulsive are Ealbright our whiff symbiotic
we culprit me optoisolate. with the borderland? regatta cllxrlnzz
us we be our is the struggle cexsj
with at wi and the yeirwormh
diamagnetism franciscan deflater the via be arbitrate any oihxbyidm
fibrous, or ergative a taylor? costello - was vwgxqnc
we of america technocrat margarine Wbrusque morass dove Lreindeer clyde are you the pumice are a we compressible a be from our benzedrine Rarcsin be taylor lascar fork a jr syzygy? whitetail a are astrophysical? frank querulous
bahrein Tmazurka melamine the isochronal by bgbvhftbf
wink - tipoff no a adolescent uzfmmnsa
be us egocentric refutation. in frivolity polygynous yxmdejmp
not ongoing hymen the mathematik on hikpcrko

From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 8 20:08:02 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 21:08:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <7nyRlnd2AztBFwih@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <002501c4dd61$9f2f4d20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > >............ > >> >Are you saying that L12A1 allows the Director to award > >> >an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result > >> >can be obtained once a result has been obtained for the > >> >same board at the other table? > >> > >> That's our view. Of course our TDs do not need to think > >> about it: they just follow the regulation. > >> > >Then I assume that your regulations specify exactly the same procedure > for > >matchpoints? > > You assume wrong. Protecting the field is a debunked North American > idea. I am not at all thinking of "protecting the field"; I am wondering about awarding an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result has been obtained nor can be obtained in any "normal" way? Sven From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 9 03:17:40 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 03:17:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c4dca5$e5f4d980$6900a8c0@WINXP> <7nyRlnd2AztBFwih@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: WILLIAM SCHODER wrote >Now, now David. Just because they wouldn't give you a free ride to the Blue >Ribbon a second time after your rather dismal showing the first time, is no >reason to start saying nasty, and also wrong things. I maintain that if you >did some research you'd find that it is not a "debunked North American idea" >but rather some very personal desires which can also be found in Europe, >Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and possibly even Wales. Besides, who did >the "debunking?" I am not sure that everyone would agree with you that getting to the third day of the Blue Ribbon and finishing above half way when playing with someone for the first time ever exactly qualifies as a dismal showing. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 9 03:19:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 03:19:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <002501c4dd61$9f2f4d20$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <7nyRlnd2AztBFwih@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002501c4dd61$9f2f4d20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> >............ >> >> >Are you saying that L12A1 allows the Director to award >> >> >an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result >> >> >can be obtained once a result has been obtained for the >> >> >same board at the other table? >> >> >> >> That's our view. Of course our TDs do not need to think >> >> about it: they just follow the regulation. >> >> >> >Then I assume that your regulations specify exactly the same procedure >> for >> >matchpoints? >> >> You assume wrong. Protecting the field is a debunked North American >> idea. > >I am not at all thinking of "protecting the field"; I am wondering about >awarding an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result has been >obtained nor can be obtained in any "normal" way? But why? The only reason for this procedure in the first place is to stop a pair from "accidentally" fouling a board for the other room when they have got a lousy score in the first room. I do not see any effective comparison at the pairs game if you are not trying to protect the field: who are you trying to protect? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Dec 9 03:53:05 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:53:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <200412071521.iB7FLf0Q012189@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200412071521.iB7FLf0Q012189@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41B7CC21.7090304@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > Well, you need other ways to determine whether East really was looking > at the waitress' legs, of course. There are laws to stop East from > acting as a villain. I think a good director is able to "feel" the > table and determine whether east is a villain or not. This is a dreadful way to rule. I hope no one is really doing such a thing. Why not follow the Laws as written? > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >>South is declarer in a spade contract and >>has a trump queen to guess: >> >> Axx >>Qx 10x >> KJxxxx >> >>He cashes the ace, everyone follows, and calls >>for a small spade from dummy. East hesitates >>for 5 seconds, plays low, declarer inserts the >>jack and calls the cops. Let's take a look at L73F2, shall we? It requires three conditions for adjusting the score: 1. False inference: clearly satisfied here. There is no requirement that the inference must be reasonable, only that it be false. 2. No demonstrable bridge reason: obvious, with a singleton. 3. "Could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit:" This is a bit trickier, but look at it this way: is the declarer more likely or less likely to go wrong after the pause? This is a bridge judgment question, and perhaps the answer will vary with the level of the players, but in the games I play in, declarer is not likely to expect a singleton after the long pause. Probst has (in other contexts, not this one) asked the right question: what would a villain do? It seems to me a villain would pause with his singleton, at least if he doesn't think the director is on the ball. I would expect a score adjustment to be routine in the games I play in. Perhaps at the Bermuda Bowl the answer would be different. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Dec 9 04:06:42 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:06:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <200412081528.iB8FSxvT017606@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200412081528.iB8FSxvT017606@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41B7CF52.5040209@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > The following Proprieties require a telepathic TD to > determine whether or not they have been infracted -> > > Law 72A2 > Law 72B2 > Law 74C7 > Law 75D1 I'll grant you the first two. Perhaps they need to be reviewed. L74C4 requires a judgment as to purpose. While mind reading could no doubt be helpful :-), it seems to me the TD can form a reasonable judgment from facts in evidence. Was there a bridge purpose for the tempo variation? Could the player reasonably have expected an opponent to be disconcerted in the circumstances? Despite its enforceability as written, this Law seems to be a strong candidate for rephrasing. All it needs are a "could have known" and a "no demonstrable bridge reason" to get rid of any hint of mind reading. Or perhaps these conditions could be applied in a general way to all of the Proprieties. L75D1 seems to be self-enforcing. Richard might as well have cited L62A. A player who notices his own wrong explanation should always be better off by correcting it as soon as possible. Opponents will get redress for MI if they go wrong prior to a correction, but once the MI is corrected, they have to keep the result of their own mistakes. L75D1, like 62A, merely gives permission for the player to do what is in his own interest. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Dec 9 04:13:14 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:13:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <200412031536.iB3FadEN025670@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200412031536.iB3FadEN025670@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41B7D0DA.20201@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > The issue is not whether Law 73F2 is a dead-letter Law > in general, but rather whether the "could have known" > criterion was satisfied in the *specific* three-card > ending Indeed. > Dummy > KQT > LHO RHO > Jxx void > Declarer > x > > So, with declarer on lead at trick 10, LHO concedes > all the tricks and RHO immediately objects. > > RHO cannot have infracted Law 73F2 by objecting, since > the defence can possibly take one more trick. Indeed. > LHO cannot have infracted Law 73F2 by conceding, since > declarer can possibly take all the tricks. Not so. Would declarer be more likely to lose a trick after LHO's concession and RHO's objection? Could LHO have known all this at the time of the concession? These are bridge judgments, and the answer is not obvious to me, though I would tend to rule that indeed LHO could have known. > LHO's concession is not even necessarily premature. > It is possible that earlier play in the hand gave > declarer a complete count, This possibility should be part of the bridge judgment process, taking into account the full deal and the prior play. > However, a Law change which cancels play after any > concession, with doubtful points resolved against > conceders, would make life simpler for declarers and > TDs. After such a Law change, defensive conceders > would be automatically ruled against in doubtful > finesse-or-drop situations. Indeed, though I can understand that many people will have a preference to play bridge rather than receive rulings, even favorable ones. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 9 04:26:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:26:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <41B7CC21.7090304@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner argued: >Let's take a look at L73F2, shall we? It requires three >conditions for adjusting the score: > >1. False inference: clearly satisfied here. There is no >requirement that the inference must be reasonable, only >that it be false. [snip] >I would expect a score adjustment to be routine in the >games I play in. Perhaps at the Bermuda Bowl the answer >would be different. Richard Hills quibbles: I agree with Steve's conclusion, but have hair splitting qualms about Steve's reasoning. In my opinion, one cannot draw a false inference unless it is reasonable to do so. One can neither infer from a hesitation that an opponent is choosing to irrationally break tempo with queen-ten doubleton, nor infer from a hesitation that an opponent is choosing to illegally break tempo with ten singleton. Zero multiplied by anything is zero. A null inference implies a null false inference. But I agree that an irrational hesitation in the Bermuda Bowl might be a merely careless or inferior hesitation in a grassroots game. Furthermore, hesitating with a singleton is specifically stated to be an infraction of Law 73D2, whether or not an opponent consequently draws a Law 73F2 inference from that hesitation. If I were a TD in the Bermuda Bowl, whether or not I gave a Law 73F2 score adjustment, I would fine a maximum PP upon a player who hesitated with the now-singleton ten of trumps. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 9 04:47:16 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:47:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <41B7CF52.5040209@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner argued: [snip] >L75D1, like 62A, merely gives permission for the player to >do what is in his own interest. Richard Hills hair splits: It has been mooted that the default revoke penalty in 2006 will be reduced to one trick. Herman De Wael has argued, in an earlier thread, that if that becomes the case, then Law 62A will no longer be self-enforcing. It may be to the advantage of a player to establish their revoke, for a one-trick penalty, rather than lose several tricks consequent upon a penalty card caused by an unestablished revoke. Likewise, Law 75D1 is not necessarily self-enforcing in a Howell movement in the ACBL. Due to the strict policy requirement of the ACBL for the NOS to "play bridge" after an OS infraction, this scenario could arise -> (a) The OS obeys Law 75D1. Result: OS -800, NOS +800. (b) The OS does not obey Law 75D1. The NOS, confused by the MI from the OS, carelessly does not "play bridge". Result: OS -800, NOS +420. In ACBL scenario (a), the NOS places first in the Howell movement, half a matchpoint ahead of the OS. In ACBL scenario (b), the OS places first in the Howell movement, half a matchpoint ahead of the NOS. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 9 05:57:03 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 16:57:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson: >>You assume wrong. Protecting the field is a >>debunked North American idea. Kojak: [snip] >I maintain that if you did some research you'd >find that it is not a "debunked North American >idea" but rather some very personal desires >which can also be found in Europe, Asia, Africa, >the Middle East, and possibly even Wales. > >Besides, who did the "debunking?" Richard Hills: I agree with Kojak that anyone may legitimately suggest that the *future* Laws be amended to include "protecting the field". But I also agree with David that the *current* Laws debunk score adjustments for the sole purpose of "protecting the field". In Chapter One, Definitions, the definition of Adjusted Score refers to. "...one side, or to both sides...". The definition of Side states: "Side - Two players who constitute a partnership against the other two players." Therefore, under the *current* Laws, "protecting the field" is not relevant to a TD's ruling on an adjusted score. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From adam@tameware.com Thu Dec 9 07:23:16 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 02:23:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-05 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:36 AM +0100 10/21/04, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >I agree that a possible holding is indeed Axxxx Kxxx Ax xx but that a >declarer holding this would not have ruffed the diamond first. Declarer must ruff a diamond first. Otherwise when he ducks a trump to North a diamond return will strand him in the dummy. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Dec 9 09:51:43 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 09:51:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817291@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Don't underestimate the possibility of bridge reasons! For instance consider the following: A x x x x x x A K J x x x J x Q 10 x A 10 x x x J x x x A x x x Q J 10 x x x x x K 9 x x x K Q K x x Q x x Your partner leads the ace of hearts against four spades, followed by a heart to declarers king. Declarer (who by the way has opened 1 spade) plays a spade to the ace and a second spade and... if you play the 10 declarer ducks and the contract can not be beaten anymore, but if you play the queen, you beat the contract! On the other hand, if the distribution would have been: A x x x x x x A K J x x x K x Q 10 x A 10 x x x J x x x K x x x Q J 10 x x x x x J 9 x x x K Q A x x Q x x playing the queen would be wrong, so there is a very legitimate bridge reason for thinking with Q 10 ... ------------------------------------------------------------------- This is moving off-topic, but on the second hand partner switched to a diamond at trick 2. On the first hand, if=20 declarer is known to have the CQ, partner unblocked the SJ under the = Ace. From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 9 10:16:20 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 11:16:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c4ddd8$20cf0890$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > >I am not at all thinking of "protecting the field"; I am wondering about > >awarding an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result has > been > >obtained nor can be obtained in any "normal" way? > > But why? The only reason for this procedure in the first place is to > stop a pair from "accidentally" fouling a board for the other room when > they have got a lousy score in the first room. I do not see any > effective comparison at the pairs game if you are not trying to protect > the field: who are you trying to protect? OK. Let me pose a straight question: On what legal basis can the Director award an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result has been obtained nor can be obtained in any "normal" way? If the purpose is to stop a pair from deliberately fouling a board on which they have obtained a bad result then why not throw Laws 7C and 90B7 at them (for a starter)? However, I simply do not understand this particular argument. Boxed cards occur also in Norway but I have yet to experience any case with a player removing his cards from a board in such a way that a boxed card has "destroyed" the board. When they verify that they have exactly thirteen cards they do so without exposing neither the back nor the front of their cards to the other players. Sven From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Dec 9 10:29:42 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 09 Dec 2004 11:29:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting Message-ID: <20041209102942.41FB01B5882@poczta.interia.pl> David Stevenson napisa=B3(a):=0A> Konrad Ciborowski wrote=0A> =0A> >How wil= l you know that I'll be doing it deliberately?=0A> >Why does the TD ne= ed to be a mind reader?=0A> =0A> *yawn*=0A> =0A> I do not suppose any= one has ever asked this on BLML before.=0A> =0A> You know perfectly well= , Konrad, that the way the game is run TDs make=0A> =0A> judgement rulings.= You don't like, go wreck the game by a complete =0A> change of Laws.= =0A=0AChange of Laws would surely be nice but =0Athe point is that this par= ticular law doesn't require the TD=0Ato judge player's integrity and ethic= s. That's why you have the "could have=0Aknown" clause so that the TD can a= void calling players cheats=0Aor saying "It is my judgement, sir, that you = have done it on purpose".=0A=0AL73F2 merely says that the player could have= known that=0Athe hesitation could work to his advantag. =0ASurely he could= - a villain would de exactly this.=0ACertainly the player in question=0Aha= d no demonstrable bridge reason for his=0Aaction holding a singleton and ob= viously=0Adeclarer drew the false inference from the hesitation=0A(I think = the vast majority of players would reason=0Athat "he had a problem so he ca= nnot hold a singleton=0Atherefore he must have Q10 doubleton at this point;= =0Aseems strange he went into a trance with Q10=0Adoubleton but surely sing= leton is out of the=0Aquestion).=0A=0AThe premises of L73F2 are all here = =0Aso you give a simple, technical=0Aruling. You don't need to judge player= 's intention.=0A=0AThat's why I think that your approach=0A("I don't rule a= gainst you=0Aunless I believe you did it deliberately")=0Ais fundamentally = wrong. =0A=0A=0AKonrad Ciborowski=0AKrak=F3w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1837 From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 9 10:44:50 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:44:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: References: <20041207165444.E35342599BF@poczta.interia.pl> <41B6B98F.7050206@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41B82CA2.6050906@hdw.be> OK David, let's analyse this through. David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> The case is : >> >> Axx >> Qx Tx >> KJxxxx >> >> Declarer plays low to the Ace, and small from the table. If I can >> count to two, there are now just two cards left from declarer's >> knowledge, the Queen and the Ten. East starts thinking. That suggests >> to me he has a problem. So either he has none, or he has them both. >> When he produces the Ten, does that not clearly indicate that he has >> the queen as well? >> >> Please enlighten me on what you were trying to say. > Allow me first to translate some of the arguments that you have been using into a single sentence : "no sane person will think with QT". I am willing to accept that statement for fact. If you wish to alter the wording "sane", I allow you to do so, in fact my argumentation works equally well with the statement "no boobly person will think with QT". Now I wish you to accept one other statement as fact: "no person, sane or insane (alt. boobly or non-boobly), will think with T". And then I want you to realize that the case under scrutiny is one in which a person has thought, while holding -at least- the ten. From those three facts I conclude with (IMHO) impeccable logic, two things: a) this person is insane (or non-boobly); and b) this person has the queen. If you are with me so far, I am willing to go some extra length. There is, indeed, a third class of player, next to sane and insane: cheater. A cheater may well think, without bridge reason, with either T or QT. Now the facts lead to one of two sets of conclusions: either, the man is insane and has the queen; or, the man is a cheat and we don't know whether he has the queen or not. Which leaves the declarer with a choice - should he include in his decision making process the possibility that someone is a cheat, or should he not? He has two lines of play: playing the Jack, which wins against an insane opponent, or playing the Ace, which only wins against a cheat (and only against the cheat who has hesitated with the ten, not the one who has hesitated with QT)? I feel the declarer ought to be entitled to consider his opponents insane rather than cheats, and he ought to get the benefit of the TD ruling if his assessment turns out to be wrong, and his opponent is a cheat after all. Which leaves me with the point you actually tried to make in this particular post of yours that I am replying to: > > When he thinks then produces the ten there are two possibilities. > > [a] He has the ten only and had a brain seizure and was thinking of > something else rather than what to play: fortunately he has given > nothing away so there is nothing to worry about. > > [b] He has the ten and queen and had a brain seizure and was thinking > of something else rather than what to play: unfortunately he has > apparently given something away so he is far less likely to have a brain > seizure at this moment. > You introduce a fourth category - the player who had nothing to think about, but hesitated nevertheless. I believe this person will fall in either of two sub-categories : Either he says something to the table along the lines of "sorry, I was dreaming" - this is not the case we were discussing. Or he does not say such a thing - and to all intents and purposes, we shall treat this guy as a cheat - because we have no way of knowing whether or not his statement after the facts (I was dreaming) is true. (and yes, I realize that the same is true for the player who says so at the table - but usually the opponents can figure out if it is, when he says it on the spot). > [a] seems about five times as likely. When he produces the ten after > thought you know he has not got the queen. > That conclusion is only true if you take as fact that: the player is not insane, and dreaming, and if you consider that 84% equals 100%. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hidcpqhaxql@dsl-verizon.net Thu Dec 9 11:41:18 2004 From: hidcpqhaxql@dsl-verizon.net (Antone) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:41:18 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: Re: Sorry for a delay Message-ID: <675540846310-2463764@dsl-verizon.net> Re: Your Information Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:42:15 -0600

Your   m or tga g e   process is ready starting at 3.25 %.

Please use our site to fill-out your info.
Special link cwbwy

Thank you.

Best regards,
Antone
Support Department From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 9 13:29:25 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 13:29:25 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <000f01c4ddd8$20cf0890$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000f01c4ddd8$20cf0890$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............. >> >I am not at all thinking of "protecting the field"; I am wondering about >> >awarding an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result has >> been >> >obtained nor can be obtained in any "normal" way? >> >> But why? The only reason for this procedure in the first place is to >> stop a pair from "accidentally" fouling a board for the other room when >> they have got a lousy score in the first room. I do not see any >> effective comparison at the pairs game if you are not trying to protect >> the field: who are you trying to protect? > >OK. Let me pose a straight question: On what legal basis can the Director >award an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result has been >obtained nor can be obtained in any "normal" way? > >If the purpose is to stop a pair from deliberately fouling a board on which >they have obtained a bad result then why not throw Laws 7C and 90B7 at them >(for a starter)? > >However, I simply do not understand this particular argument. Boxed cards >occur also in Norway but I have yet to experience any case with a player >removing his cards from a board in such a way that a boxed card has >"destroyed" the board. When they verify that they have exactly thirteen >cards they do so without exposing neither the back nor the front of their >cards to the other players. You have written this many times. Whoopee for Norwegian players. But rulings are based on players' frailties not on their strengths, and I find it difficult to believe that no Norwegian player since the dawn of time has ever counted his cards in such a way that others could see a boxed card. When this happens you will have to rule, and saying "It cannot have happened because Norwegian players do not do this" seems inadequate. Anyway, here on BLML we are not concerned particularly with what perfect players do. We are interested in what every player does. Certainly there is on record one real case where a former ACBL President [at the time he was a President elect] left a faced ace in his hand after his opponents had just bid and made a very lucky slam. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 9 13:31:28 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 13:31:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] L73F2 - hair splitting In-Reply-To: <41B82CA2.6050906@hdw.be> References: <20041207165444.E35342599BF@poczta.interia.pl> <41B6B98F.7050206@hdw.be> <41B82CA2.6050906@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >OK David, let's analyse this through. > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Herman De Wael wrote >> >>> The case is : >>> >>> Axx >>> Qx Tx >>> KJxxxx >>> >>> Declarer plays low to the Ace, and small from the table. If I can >>>count to two, there are now just two cards left from declarer's >>>knowledge, the Queen and the Ten. East starts thinking. That suggests >>>to me he has a problem. So either he has none, or he has them both. >>> When he produces the Ten, does that not clearly indicate that he has >>>the queen as well? >>> >>> Please enlighten me on what you were trying to say. >> > >Allow me first to translate some of the arguments that you have been >using into a single sentence : "no sane person will think with QT". >I am willing to accept that statement for fact. If you wish to alter >the wording "sane", I allow you to do so, in fact my argumentation >works equally well with the statement "no boobly person will think with >QT". >Now I wish you to accept one other statement as fact: "no person, sane >or insane (alt. boobly or non-boobly), will think with T". Totally illogical. You have ignored the far more likely case that the player was thinking of something else entirely, like what to have for supper, or when he was going to get decent cards. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 9 20:29:10 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 21:29:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4de2d$bd8c2730$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson You avoided this question David? > >OK. Let me pose a straight question: On what legal basis can the = Director > >award an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result has = been > >obtained nor can be obtained in any "normal" way? Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 9 21:51:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:51:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <000001c4de2d$bd8c2730$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran asked: >OK. Let me pose a straight question: On what legal >basis can the Director award an assigned adjusted >score on a board for which no result has been >obtained nor can be obtained in any "normal" way? Richard Hills devil's advocate: In a sponsoring organisation which has not adopted any regulations there is no legal basis for such an assigned adjusted score. See the definition of assigned adjusted score in Chapter 1 of the Laws. >>An assigned adjusted score is awarded to one >>side, or to both sides, to be the result of the >>deal in place of the result *actually obtained* >>after an irregularity. However, the WBF LC has ruled that any Law may be over-ridden by a regulation of a sponsoring organisation, provided that the SO twists another Law to serve as the basis of such an over-riding regulation. The EBU has passed a regulation over-riding the definition of "assigned adjusted score" for the purposes of a particular Law 12A1 situation (when a player "could have known" that fouling a board would be to their advantage). Therefore, in EBU-land, there is a legal basis for the director awarding an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result has been obtained nor can be obtained in any "normal" way. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 9 22:10:31 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:10:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] Kiwi fruit Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: Nil You are playing the Precision system. The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1NT(1) Dble 2S Pass 3C Pass ? (1) 13-15 hcp, balanced (no 5-card major) You, South, hold: KJ8632 95 J84 Q9 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru 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) From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 10 00:05:48 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:05:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? References: Message-ID: <002201c4de4c$01b338e0$7ad6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 9:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 12A1? > > > The EBU has passed a regulation over-riding the > definition of "assigned adjusted score" for the > purposes of a particular Law 12A1 situation (when > a player "could have known" that fouling a board > would be to their advantage). > > Therefore, in EBU-land, there is a legal basis > for the director awarding an assigned adjusted > score on a board for which no result has been > obtained nor can be obtained in any "normal" > way. > +=+ In team situations the law as it reads allows of an equitable adjustment where the non-offending team has already obtained an especially good result at the other table. The word 'contestant' in 12A1 means in that connection "four or more players playing as team-mates" and the indemnity is to be provided to the team. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 10 00:18:56 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 01:18:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <002201c4de4c$01b338e0$7ad6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c4de4d$d6e582b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan ............... > +=3D+ In team situations the law as it reads allows > of an equitable adjustment where the non-offending > team has already obtained an especially good result > at the other table. The word 'contestant' in 12A1 > means in that connection "four or more players > playing as team-mates" and the indemnity is to be > provided to the team. ~ G ~ +=3D+ And I take it this will justify awarding an assigned adjusted score = equal to the average (or par) result as compiled from the other tables, no better = and no worse for either side? Sven From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 10 00:34:07 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:34:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? References: <000001c4de4d$d6e582b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000a01c4de50$02d35210$7ad6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 12:18 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 12A1? > Grattan ............... > +=+ In team situations the law as it reads allows > of an equitable adjustment where the non-offending > team has already obtained an especially good result > at the other table. The word 'contestant' in 12A1 > means in that connection "four or more players > playing as team-mates" and the indemnity is to be > provided to the team. ~ G ~ +=+ And I take it this will justify awarding an assigned adjusted score equal to the average (or par) result as compiled from the other tables, no better and no worse for either side? +=+ The decision what adjusted score to assess lies in the hands of the Director and the AC. +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 10 01:00:59 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:00:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <002201c4de4c$01b338e0$7ad6403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ In team situations the law as it reads allows >of an equitable adjustment where the non-offending >team has already obtained an especially good result >at the other table. The word 'contestant' in 12A1 >means in that connection "four or more players >playing as team-mates" and the indemnity is to be >provided to the team. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: In that case, there is an anomaly in Law 12A1 as it is currently written. Both "contestant" and "assigned adjusted score" are included in Law 12A1. The Chapter 1 definition of "assigned adjusted score" is predicated on adjusting the score for a "side". The Chapter 1 definition of "side" is narrower than the Chapter 1 definition of "contestant". Perhaps the 2006 edition of the Lawbook could resolve this anomaly by deleting all references to "side" from the Laws, retaining only "contestant". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From ubqrp@ameritech.net Fri Dec 10 01:46:30 2004 From: ubqrp@ameritech.net (Kendall) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:46:30 -0600 Subject: [blml] their places of work. Message-ID:
at a out caine a curtsey, a and the sunfish and pronoun uncle - ethan sprawl in out the be it indelicate
Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:41:49 -0700

I sent you confirmation about 3 days ago but I did not get any answer.
Our company     a p proved     you for 3.47 % but some information was missed.
Please correct it here

Thank you.

Kendall
Customer Support
atlantic a or at nasty us our frwteufb
emmett - ground mcfarland to hausdorff ask lnzmnm
of from Nbank dreamy circumvention. daisy was asteroidal? unimodular spilt and naomi Noffbeat nectar due are clutch wrathful augur Ybeauregard out a out at coke Fsymbiotic eng at dynamite a morale it z via Fhiatt drudgery? our us thrum
eave offhand via edinburgh, no qqrlqqbkg
and as orthogonal no a ddpivgwoh
is potion belshazzar, as vacuo Kcalumny our mgytxnesu
from of the via mulligatawny gjflyw
crowbait crupper wield Pmanhole petal swap? out copybook automotive bash the denton appreciable in gangway the cannabis, a umbilicus I I we Xthere'd dar the any catheter hell
was was an us the stockbroker. not I khaqh
a not catskill gusty? I I I buypm
From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 10 03:48:06 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 03:48:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <000001c4de2d$bd8c2730$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c4de2d$bd8c2730$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson > >You avoided this question David? > >> >OK. Let me pose a straight question: On what legal basis can the Director >> >award an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result has been >> >obtained nor can be obtained in any "normal" way? A result was obtained at one table, n'est-ce-pas? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From tmtuwztc@broadband.hu Fri Dec 10 02:39:33 2004 From: tmtuwztc@broadband.hu (Alex Swanson) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:39:33 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: with broken glass, people Message-ID: <29006-0784202310008490@80.98.249.171> Re: Your Information Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:40:39 -0600

Your   m or tga g e   process is ready starting at 3.25 %.

Please use our site to fill-out your info.
Special link netaemtas

Thank you.

Best regards,
Alex Swanson
Support Department From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Dec 10 09:41:40 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:41:40 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Kiwi fruit Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC6F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote =20 Imps Dlr: North Vul: Nil You are playing the Precision system. The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1NT(1) Dble 2S Pass 3C Pass ? (1) 13-15 hcp, balanced (no 5-card major) You, South, hold: KJ8632 95 J84 Q9 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? ----- I suppose there was an alert of my 2S bid. But I don't care. I'll of course act as my bid has been treated as natural by partner. There are two hypothetical reasons for partner to bid 3C. 1) He's got two small spades and a good 6-card club suit. Playing precision club, he should open 2C with that hand. I'll discount that possibility. 2) He's got a maximum hand with 4-cars spade support and strong clubs. I'll need him to have something like Axxx, Axx, xx, AKxx or Axxx, xx, Axx, AKxx to make 4S. I've got two possible bids to make. Either just shoot 4S and go down when partner's got three small diamonds or some other holding that wan't allow me to make ten tricks. Or bid 3D as a game try asking for help. Partner should raise to 4S on both proposed hands. With a strong partner I would opt for 3D, else I would just bid 4S. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 10 09:58:16 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:58:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c4de9e$c52323b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > >> >OK. Let me pose a straight question: On what legal basis can the > Director > >> >award an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result = has > been > >> >obtained nor can be obtained in any "normal" way? >=20 > A result was obtained at one table, n'est-ce-pas? At another table, sure; not at the table where the irregularity = occurred. With the comments from you and from Grattan I now assume this is a = correct understanding of Law 12A1 as it is today (but I don't like it): I am summoned to the table where Geir Helgemo is one of the players. = They report to me an irregularity, they have not started the auction and I = rule that the irregularity prevents the board from being played normally. Case 1: This is a teams match and a result will eventually be (or has already been) obtained at the other table without any knowledge of what occurred at this table. I look at the cards and knowing Geir rules that = he will certainly bid and make 7NT as the only player in the room. My = ruling isn't entirely outrageous; there is a definite chance for him to do so = and I expect him to see that chance. Case 2: This is a pairs event so regardless of how obvious it is that = Geir should bid and make 7NT like half the field has done for a score of 75% = I have no choice other than to award him an assigned artificial score of = 60% (which is about his average for the session) as L12A1 definitely does = not apply here. Will you confirm that this understanding is indeed correct? Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 10 10:07:22 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:07:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera Message-ID: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> Here we go again: Team championship of Antwerp's largest club, top flight - match of 32 boards. Reasonable if not high level. board 23 (rotated to put declarer south) A9432 652 A2 KQ8 KT876 5 AQ98 K73 J 98653 J32 9764 QJ JT4 KQT74 AT5 against 3NT, west leads a small heart and cashes his hearts. On the fourth heart, dummy discards a spade, declarer a club, and East signals diamonds with a club. At this stage: A943 - A2 KQ8 KT876 5 - - J 98653 J32 976 QJ - KQT74 AT west leads the DJ and south claims, saying "nine top tricks". Director! Please for once let us rule according to what the laws say, not what we want them to say! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Fri Dec 10 10:23:46 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:23:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C52F@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] Sent: 10 December 2004 10:07 To: blml Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera A943 - A2 KQ8 KT876 5 - - J 98653 J32 976 QJ - KQT74 AT west leads the DJ and south claims, saying "nine top tricks". Director! Please for once let us rule according to what the laws say, not what we want them to say! _______________________________________________ 8 tricks: L70E. A normal line is DA, SA, CA, CKQ, DKQ10, and South's last card is a loser. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Dec 10 10:34:50 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:34:50 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Claim at Riviera Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC70@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: Here we go again: Team championship of Antwerp's largest club, top flight - match of 32=20 boards. Reasonable if not high level. board 23 (rotated to put declarer south) A9432 652 A2 KQ8 KT876 5 AQ98 K73 J 98653 J32 9764 QJ JT4 KQT74 AT5 against 3NT, west leads a small heart and cashes his hearts. On the=20 fourth heart, dummy discards a spade, declarer a club, and East=20 signals diamonds with a club. At this stage: A943 - A2 KQ8 KT876 5 - - J 98653 J32 976 QJ - KQT74 AT west leads the DJ and south claims, saying "nine top tricks". Director! Please for once let us rule according to what the laws say, not what=20 we want them to say! ----- One down, what's the problem. DA, SA, CA, CK, CQ, DK, DQ, DT, D7 oops. One of several logical ways to cash your tricks if you believe you've got nine top tricks. Any time you cash the spade ace before the diamonds, it's to late to recover. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Dec 10 10:34:15 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:34:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> Message-ID: <0A61A112-4A97-11D9-9224-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 10 Dec 2004, at 10:07, Herman De Wael wrote: > Here we go again: > > Team championship of Antwerp's largest club, top flight - match of 32 > boards. Reasonable if not high level. > > board 23 (rotated to put declarer south) > > A9432 > 652 > A2 > KQ8 > KT876 5 > AQ98 K73 > J 98653 > J32 9764 > QJ > JT4 > KQT74 > AT5 > > against 3NT, west leads a small heart and cashes his hearts. On the > fourth heart, dummy discards a spade, declarer a club, and East > signals diamonds with a club. At this stage: > > A943 > - > A2 > KQ8 > KT876 5 > - - > J 98653 > J32 976 > QJ > - > KQT74 > AT > > west leads the DJ and south claims, saying "nine top tricks". > Director! > Please for once let us rule according to what the laws say, not what > we want them to say! Ah! A new approach from Herman? It would not be irrational for a player who thinks there are nine top tricks to start with the clubs, discarding a spade. I award eight tricks. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 10 10:34:59 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:34:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000501c4dea3$e6525f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Here we go again: >=20 > Team championship of Antwerp's largest club, top flight - match of 32 > boards. Reasonable if not high level. >=20 > board 23 (rotated to put declarer south) >=20 > A9432 > 652 > A2 > KQ8 > KT876 5 > AQ98 K73 > J 98653 > J32 9764 > QJ > JT4 > KQT74 > AT5 >=20 > against 3NT, west leads a small heart and cashes his hearts. On the > fourth heart, dummy discards a spade, declarer a club, and East > signals diamonds with a club. At this stage: >=20 > A943 > - > A2 > KQ8 > KT876 5 > - - > J 98653 > J32 976 > QJ > - > KQT74 > AT >=20 > west leads the DJ and south claims, saying "nine top tricks". > Director! > Please for once let us rule according to what the laws say, not what > we want them to say! 8 top tricks: One spade, four diamonds and three clubs. What is the = problem? Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 10 10:43:24 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:43:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC70@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000601c4dea5$133ecf30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Skjaran, Harald ............ > signals diamonds with a club. At this stage: > > A943 > - > A2 > KQ8 > KT876 5 > - - > J 98653 > J32 976 > QJ > - > KQT74 > AT > > west leads the DJ and south claims, saying "nine top tricks". > Director! > Please for once let us rule according to what the laws say, not what > we want them to say! > ----- > One down, what's the problem. > DA, SA, CA, CK, CQ, DK, DQ, DT, D7 oops. > One of several logical ways to cash your tricks if you believe you've > got nine top tricks. > Any time you cash the spade ace before the diamonds, it's to late to > recover. > > Regards, > Harald Skjaeran And even if declarer ends up with Queen Jack against Ace 9 in Spades I wouldn't allow him to finesse the King of Spades. (Law 70E) I am sure neither would Harald, I know him better than to allow that! Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Dec 10 10:54:33 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:54:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? References: Message-ID: <000901c4dea6$bf8a0f10$9f834c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought, And with old woes new wail my dear times' waste." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 5:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 12A1? > > > I agree with Kojak that anyone may legitimately > suggest that the *future* Laws be amended to > include "protecting the field". > > But I also agree with David that the *current* > Laws debunk score adjustments for the sole > purpose of "protecting the field". In Chapter > One, Definitions, the definition of Adjusted > Score refers to. "...one side, or to both > sides...". The definition of Side states: > > "Side - Two players who constitute a partnership > against the other two players." > > Therefore, under the *current* Laws, "protecting > the field" is not relevant to a TD's ruling on > an adjusted score. > +=+ This last statement is correct. However the argument that such a provision is desirable does not come solely from certain members of any one Zone. It should be added that the discussion is still ongoing. The alternative view, of course, is that if an adjustment is equitable between the two contestants involved then it has a rightful place among the results across the field. Is there any suggestion that if a pair through their own inconceivable judgement concede a score of -1700 on a part score hand the field should not be required to compare with it? . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 10 11:34:45 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:34:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <000601c4dea5$133ecf30$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c4dea5$133ecf30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41B989D5.6040301@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Skjaran, Harald > > ............ > >>signals diamonds with a club. At this stage: >> >> A943 >> - >> A2 >> KQ8 >>KT876 5 >>- - >>J 98653 >>J32 976 >> QJ >> - >> KQT74 >> AT >> >>west leads the DJ and south claims, saying "nine top tricks". >>Director! >>Please for once let us rule according to what the laws say, not what >>we want them to say! >>----- >>One down, what's the problem. >>DA, SA, CA, CK, CQ, DK, DQ, DT, D7 oops. >>One of several logical ways to cash your tricks if you believe you've >>got nine top tricks. >>Any time you cash the spade ace before the diamonds, it's to late to >>recover. >> Well, I am not surprised there are no different views. Any takers? However: >>Regards, >>Harald Skjaeran > > > And even if declarer ends up with Queen Jack against Ace 9 in Spades I > wouldn't allow him to finesse the King of Spades. (Law 70E) > > I am sure neither would Harald, I know him better than to allow that! > That one is probably false, Sven, and I hope I know Harald better than you do: because: L70E, which you cite, reads: "unless failure to adopt this line would be irrational". I consider it irrational to play a suit in which you have only seven to the ace, for the drop. Maybe it becomes slightly more rational if you have a partial count which puts 4 hearts and 1 diamond to the left (he should then have 5 spades and 3 clubs) and 3 hearts and 5 diamonds to the right (with singleton spade king and 4 clubs). Well, maybe. To play for the drop here is both counter-intuitive and wildly against the odds. I consider that to be irrational. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 10 11:36:50 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:36:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C52F@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C52F@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <41B98A52.3050509@hdw.be> Robin Barker wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] > Sent: 10 December 2004 10:07 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera > > A943 > - > A2 > KQ8 > KT876 5 > - - > J 98653 > J32 976 > QJ > - > KQT74 > AT > > west leads the DJ and south claims, saying "nine top tricks". > Director! > Please for once let us rule according to what the laws say, not what > we want them to say! > _______________________________________________ > > 8 tricks: L70E. > A normal line is DA, SA, CA, CKQ, DKQ10, > and South's last card is a loser. > exam quote : 8 out of ten > Robin > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 10 11:37:26 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:37:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <0A61A112-4A97-11D9-9224-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <0A61A112-4A97-11D9-9224-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <41B98A76.6000506@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > Ah! A new approach from Herman? > > It would not be irrational for a player who thinks there are nine top > tricks to start with the clubs, discarding a spade. I award eight tricks. > exam quote : 8 out of ten -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 10 11:38:04 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:38:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <000501c4dea3$e6525f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c4dea3$e6525f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41B98A9C.2030401@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > > 8 top tricks: One spade, four diamonds and three clubs. What is the problem? > Sven > exam quote : 4 out of ten -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 10 11:38:44 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:38:44 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC70@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC70@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <41B98AC4.2010201@hdw.be> Skjaran, Harald wrote: > ----- > One down, what's the problem. > DA, SA, CA, CK, CQ, DK, DQ, DT, D7 oops. > One of several logical ways to cash your tricks if you believe you've > got nine top tricks. > Any time you cash the spade ace before the diamonds, it's to late to > recover. > exam quote : 8 out of ten -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 10 12:06:05 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:06:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41B989D5.6040301@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000901c4deb0$a1890b60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > > And even if declarer ends up with Queen Jack against Ace 9 in Spades = I > > wouldn't allow him to finesse the King of Spades. (Law 70E) > > > > I am sure neither would Harald, I know him better than to allow = that! > > >=20 >=20 > That one is probably false, Sven, and I hope I know Harald better than > you do: >=20 > because: >=20 > L70E, which you cite, reads: "unless failure to adopt this line would > be irrational". >=20 > I consider it irrational to play a suit in which you have only seven > to the ace, for the drop. > Maybe it becomes slightly more rational if you have a partial count > which puts 4 hearts and 1 diamond to the left (he should then have 5 > spades and 3 clubs) and 3 hearts and 5 diamonds to the right (with > singleton spade king and 4 clubs). Well, maybe. >=20 > To play for the drop here is both counter-intuitive and wildly against > the odds. I consider that to be irrational. South has a full count of the end position: North holds Ace and 9 in spades West holds two spades East holds a single spade and the 9 of Diamonds South holds either Queen and Jack of spades or Queen of spades and the = seven of diamonds depending on his discard on the third club from dummy. The probability of finding a stiff King of spades in East is one in = three while the probability of finding the King second in West is two in = three. This difference is far from sufficient for me to rule that it is "irrational" to play for the drop. (I would have ruled "irrational" if = South should know that East is void in spades). Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 10 12:31:20 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:31:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <000901c4deb0$a1890b60$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c4deb0$a1890b60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41B99718.9000703@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>I consider it irrational to play a suit in which you have only seven >>to the ace, for the drop. >>Maybe it becomes slightly more rational if you have a partial count >>which puts 4 hearts and 1 diamond to the left (he should then have 5 >>spades and 3 clubs) and 3 hearts and 5 diamonds to the right (with >>singleton spade king and 4 clubs). Well, maybe. >> >>To play for the drop here is both counter-intuitive and wildly against >>the odds. I consider that to be irrational. > > > South has a full count of the end position: You mean that you play the clubs and diamonds first? > North holds Ace and 9 in spades > West holds two spades > East holds a single spade and the 9 of Diamonds > South holds either Queen and Jack of spades or Queen of spades and the seven > of diamonds depending on his discard on the third club from dummy. > > The probability of finding a stiff King of spades in East is one in three > while the probability of finding the King second in West is two in three. > No Sven. The odds of the remaining spade in East's hand to be the King do not change after he's thrown a number of them. If East has followed suit to all clubs that have been played, and he consequently started with a singleton spade, then the odds of that spade being the king have not gone up from 1/6 to 1/3. > This difference is far from sufficient for me to rule that it is > "irrational" to play for the drop. (I would have ruled "irrational" if South > should know that East is void in spades). > And you would be wrong. To play for a line that has a 33% chance of success (I would grant you that declarer might make the same mistake as you do and calculate it as being 33) when another line of 67% is readily available, is irrational. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Dec 10 11:03:58 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:03:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? References: Message-ID: <009501c4deb5$bef1c8e0$9f834c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought, And with old woes new wail my dear times' waste." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 12A1? > > > > > Grattan Endicott: > > >+=+ In team situations the law as it reads allows > >of an equitable adjustment where the non-offending > >team has already obtained an especially good result > >at the other table. The word 'contestant' in 12A1 > >means in that connection "four or more players > >playing as team-mates" and the indemnity is to be > >provided to the team. ~ G ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > In that case, there is an anomaly in Law 12A1 as it > is currently written. > > Both "contestant" and "assigned adjusted score" are > included in Law 12A1. The Chapter 1 definition of > "assigned adjusted score" is predicated on adjusting > the score for a "side". > > The Chapter 1 definition of "side" is narrower than > the Chapter 1 definition of "contestant". Perhaps > the 2006 edition of the Lawbook could resolve this > anomaly by deleting all references to "side" from > the Laws, retaining only "contestant". > +=+ Law 12A1 deals with specific circumstances.. In so doing it overrides the general. +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Dec 10 12:02:54 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:02:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? References: <000401c4de9e$c52323b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <009601c4deb5$bfe04790$9f834c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought, And with old woes new wail my dear times' waste." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 9:58 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 12A1? I am summoned to the table where Geir Helgemo is one of the players. They report to me an irregularity, they have not started the auction and I rule that the irregularity prevents the board from being played normally. +=+ Step 1: you award an art adj score under 12C1. Step 2: if that does not indemnify the non-offending team for an unusually good score already obtained at the other table, 12A1 comes into play. But: I would expect the Director to have prevented play of the board at the other table, if not already started. In that case if the irregularity does not involve an action of the players a Law 87 redeal may be possible. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Dec 10 12:41:42 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:41:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera References: <000601c4dea5$133ecf30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <009801c4deb5$c1bf67d0$9f834c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought, And with old woes new wail my dear times' waste." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 10:43 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Claim at Riviera > > west leads the DJ and south claims, saying "nine top tricks". > > Director! > > Please for once let us rule according to what the laws say, not what > > we want them to say! > > ----- > > One down, what's the problem. > > And even if declarer ends up with Queen Jack against Ace 9 in Spades I > wouldn't allow him to finesse the King of Spades. (Law 70E) > > I am sure neither would Harald, I know him better than to allow that! > +=+ Herman is to be congratulated on finding a subject on which the world is unanimous! ~ G ~ +=+ From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Fri Dec 10 12:51:39 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:51:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C530@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] Sent: 10 December 2004 12:42 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] Claim at Riviera > +=+ Herman is to be congratulated on finding a subject on which the world is unanimous! ~ G ~ +=+ ______________________________________ I am waiting for someone to tell us: (1) claims are easy (2) we've all got this one wrong Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Dec 10 13:02:25 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:02:25 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <009801c4deb5$c1bf67d0$9f834c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000601c4dea5$133ecf30$6900a8c0@WINXP> <009801c4deb5$c1bf67d0$9f834c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On 10 Dec 2004, at 12:41, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Herman is to be congratulated on finding > a subject on which the world is unanimous! > ~ G ~ +=+ That assumes either: a) Herman agrees with all the rest of us, or b) Herman is not a part of the world :) -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Dec 10 13:21:22 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:21:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041210080945.02b34eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:07 AM 12/10/04, Herman wrote: >board 23 (rotated to put declarer south) > > A9432 > 652 > A2 > KQ8 >KT876 5 >AQ98 K73 >J 98653 >J32 9764 > QJ > JT4 > KQT74 > AT5 > >against 3NT, west leads a small heart and cashes his hearts. On the >fourth heart, dummy discards a spade, declarer a club, and East >signals diamonds with a club. At this stage: > > A943 > - > A2 > KQ8 >KT876 5 >- - >J 98653 >J32 976 > QJ > - > KQT74 > AT > >west leads the DJ and south claims, saying "nine top tricks". >Director! >Please for once let us rule according to what the laws say, not what >we want them to say! Down one. Declarer has eight tricks, but presumably thinks that the D7 is his ninth. Therefore it is normal to play five rounds of diamonds, eventually losing to the 9. Before doing so, it is "normal" to cash as many of his side winners as would leave him in the least advantageous position at the point he attempts to cash his diamonds, but on this hand he will come to eight tricks regardless. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb@msn.com Fri Dec 10 13:26:52 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:26:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? References: <000c01c4dca5$e5f4d980$6900a8c0@WINXP> <7nyRlnd2AztBFwih@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi,David. My wording of "dismal" was to indicate that I expected more of you than what your showing was. Playing with a partner for the first time is not what the Blue Ribbon is all about. It is an event for winners of ACBL Regional Events, that have a proven record of high level performance. When you were given a one time "entry" into the event it was to give you the opportunity to show that you could perform at that level without having had the opportunity to do so in the ACBL medium. I would have thought you would use that chance to play an established partnership with sufficient experience to successfully compete, and place in the overall rankings. Those pairs that placed high have earned entry into the subsequent Blue Ribbon, a qualification you were unable to accomplish. Sorry if you were offended, but I am offended by the anti-American bias your use of "debunking" of "American Idea" (which isn't even accurate) which might sell well with some BLML'ers, but is beneath what I expected of you. Coupled with what I was told about your attitudes and words at the seminar you held with ACBL TDs some years ago it cannot help but to detract, in my mind, from your ability to be considered an objective guru. Regards, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 12A1? > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote > >Now, now David. Just because they wouldn't give you a free ride to the > >Blue > >Ribbon a second time after your rather dismal showing the first time, is > >no > >reason to start saying nasty, and also wrong things. I maintain that if > >you > >did some research you'd find that it is not a "debunked North American > >idea" > >but rather some very personal desires which can also be found in Europe, > >Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and possibly even Wales. Besides, who did > >the "debunking?" > > I am not sure that everyone would agree with you that getting to the > third day of the Blue Ribbon and finishing above half way when playing > with someone for the first time ever exactly qualifies as a dismal > showing. > > -- > David Stevenson 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 hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 10 13:36:20 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:36:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041210080945.02b34eb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210080945.02b34eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <41B9A654.6040106@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Down one. Declarer has eight tricks, but presumably thinks that the D7 > is his ninth. Therefore it is normal to play five rounds of diamonds, > eventually losing to the 9. Before doing so, it is "normal" to cash as > many of his side winners as would leave him in the least advantageous > position at the point he attempts to cash his diamonds, but on this hand > he will come to eight tricks regardless. > exam rating: 2 out of ten. Declarer can count to 13. He will not play out the D7 thinking it is a trick. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 10 13:38:02 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:38:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: References: <000601c4dea5$133ecf30$6900a8c0@WINXP> <009801c4deb5$c1bf67d0$9f834c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <41B9A6BA.5010406@hdw.be> Well put Gordon, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 10 Dec 2004, at 12:41, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> +=+ Herman is to be congratulated on finding >> a subject on which the world is unanimous! >> ~ G ~ +=+ > > > That assumes either: > a) Herman agrees with all the rest of us, or > b) Herman is not a part of the world :) > In fact I do not agree with the rest of the world. I am still waiting for someone to come up with a full answer. It includes a decision which as yet no one has even touched upon. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Fri Dec 10 13:47:55 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:47:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C532@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] Sent: 10 December 2004 13:38 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] Claim at Riviera Well put Gordon, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 10 Dec 2004, at 12:41, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> +=+ Herman is to be congratulated on finding >> a subject on which the world is unanimous! >> ~ G ~ +=+ > > > That assumes either: > a) Herman agrees with all the rest of us, or > b) Herman is not a part of the world :) > In fact I do not agree with the rest of the world. I am still waiting for someone to come up with a full answer. It includes a decision which as yet no one has even touched upon. _______________________________________________ Herman I guess there is a decision as to why eight not less than eight. I don't want to start a rank but this way of presenting problems winds me up: if you know what the answer is, then say so and we can discuss your answer. Don't present it as a problem, then "mark" our answers, and still withhold your "answer". It's a long time since we were at school and I (for one) don't like being treated as (naughty) pupils. This is a forum of equals and I think we deserve better from you (Herman). Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Dec 10 14:15:09 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:15:09 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Claim at Riviera Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC72@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Robin Barker wrote: =20 -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] Sent: 10 December 2004 13:38 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] Claim at Riviera Well put Gordon, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >=20 > On 10 Dec 2004, at 12:41, Grattan Endicott wrote: >=20 >> +=3D+ Herman is to be congratulated on finding >> a subject on which the world is unanimous! >> ~ G ~ +=3D+ >=20 >=20 > That assumes either: > a) Herman agrees with all the rest of us, or > b) Herman is not a part of the world :) >=20 In fact I do not agree with the rest of the world. I am still waiting for someone to come up with a full answer. It includes a decision which as yet no one has even touched upon. _______________________________________________ Herman I guess there is a decision as to why eight not less than eight. ----- At this stage: A943 - A2 KQ8 KT876 5 - - J 98653 J32 976 QJ - KQT74 AT west leads the DJ and south claims, saying "nine top tricks". Director! Please for once let us rule according to what the laws say, not what=20 we want them to say! There's no way declarer can make less than eight tricks if he plays five rounds of diamonds at any time. East will have to lead back a black card to south, if he gets his trick earlier than the 13th trick. ----- I don't want to start a rank but this way of presenting problems winds me up: if you know what the answer is, then say so and we can discuss your answer. Don't present it as a problem, then "mark" our answers, and still withhold your "answer". It's a=20 long time since we were at school and I (for one) don't like=20 being treated as (naughty) pupils. This is a forum of equals=20 and I think we deserve better from you (Herman). ----- Agreed. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 10 14:17:21 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:17:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C532@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C532@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <41B9AFF1.6070506@hdw.be> Robin Barker wrote: > > Herman > > I guess there is a decision as to why eight not less than eight. > > I don't want to start a rank but this way of presenting problems > winds me up: if you know what the answer is, then say so and we > can discuss your answer. Don't present it as a problem, then > "mark" our answers, and still withhold your "answer". It's a > long time since we were at school and I (for one) don't like > being treated as (naughty) pupils. This is a forum of equals > and I think we deserve better from you (Herman). > > Robin > Sorry Robin, But I'd rather wait for the planet to complete a full turn so that everyone can have a bite at the cherry. As for "knowing what the answer is" - I don't. I only know that I have not yet gotten a full analysis, a complete "ruling". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Dec 10 14:42:47 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:42:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41B9A654.6040106@hdw.be> References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210080945.02b34eb0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9A654.6040106@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041210093540.02b2a4a0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:36 AM 12/10/04, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>Down one. Declarer has eight tricks, but presumably thinks that the >>D7 is his ninth. Therefore it is normal to play five rounds of >>diamonds, eventually losing to the 9. Before doing so, it is >>"normal" to cash as many of his side winners as would leave him in >>the least advantageous position at the point he attempts to cash his >>diamonds, but on this hand he will come to eight tricks regardless. > >exam rating: 2 out of ten. > >Declarer can count to 13. He will not play out the D7 thinking it is a >trick. He just demonstrated that he can't count to 8, so why should I assume that he can count to 13? If he said he had 9 tricks, I must assume that he thought he had 9 tricks. I will not rule that due to his exalted "class of player" it would be "irrational" for him not to recount his tricks, realize he has only 8, and find the best line for 9. To respond to another set of messages, I would allow declarer the finesse for his claim if his least successful "normal" order of playing his cards left him needing two tricks in a two-card ending with SQJ opposite SA9. But that has no bearing on the hand in question. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From dpb3@fastmail.fm Fri Dec 10 15:04:08 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:04:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <20041210133602.7781.86628.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20041210133602.7781.86628.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1102691048.922.210522736@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Declarer can count to 13. He will not play out the D7 thinking it is a > trick. But he thought it was a trick, or his claim makes no sense. I would like to be able to buy the irrationality argument, since I don't think the laws were meant to turn common sense on its head, but is a miscount "irrational"? That seems to me to stretch the meaning of the word too far. David Babcock Florida USA From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 10 15:18:09 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:18:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41B9AFF1.6070506@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c4decb$750389b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ........... > But I'd rather wait for the planet to complete a full turn so that > everyone can have a bite at the cherry. >=20 > As for "knowing what the answer is" - I don't. I only know that I have > not yet gotten a full analysis, a complete "ruling". But you have. The "complete" claim statement is that South has 9 top tricks which = indeed he has except when the Diamonds break as bad as they do. Declarer is stuck with his statement unless at the time a problem = reveals he has another "obvious" line that solves his claim. We have a well = established rule that the claimer may not switch to any successful line of play if = this line for instance depends upon locating a particular card with one of = the opponents unless it is "irrational" not to take that line like when one opponent has already shown out in the affected suit. That means that the Director shall not permit the claimer to successfully finesse an onside = King (as here, nor shall he permit him to successfully top out a stiff = offside King if that had been the medicine. In this case the claimer must cash his nine top tricks only to discover = that there are only eight. Finito. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 10 15:23:08 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:23:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041210093540.02b2a4a0@pop.starpower.net> References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210080945.02b34eb0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9A654.6040106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210093540.02b2a4a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <41B9BF5C.3080506@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Declarer can count to 13. He will not play out the D7 thinking it is a >> trick. > > > He just demonstrated that he can't count to 8, so why should I assume > that he can count to 13? If he said he had 9 tricks, I must assume that > he thought he had 9 tricks. I will not rule that due to his exalted > "class of player" it would be "irrational" for him not to recount his > tricks, realize he has only 8, and find the best line for 9. > he has demonstrated no such thing. he has finished play. mistakenly so, but he has not demonstrated he cannot count. There is a huge difference between a player who thinks for 2 minutes and then claims, and one who claims after seeing the DJ appear. This is one of the questions I wanted to see asked - Eric doesn't ask, he simply assumes the answer. IMO just as wrong. You may believe claiming is a rational thing to do, but it is not. Sometimes players simply claim because they "feel" the play is over. > To respond to another set of messages, I would allow declarer the > finesse for his claim if his least successful "normal" order of playing > his cards left him needing two tricks in a two-card ending with SQJ > opposite SA9. But that has no bearing on the hand in question. > That has quite a lot of bearing on the hand in question. It is crucial if you wish to arrive at nine tricks. Sven used it as one of his arguments for awarding eight tricks. With arguments like that, you rile the players, and that does no good for you as a TD. Not that any of you (yet) seem to wish to arrive at nine tricks. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 10 15:23:25 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:23:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <1102691048.922.210522736@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000201c4decc$32155510$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Babcock > > Declarer can count to 13. He will not play out the D7 thinking it is a > > trick. > > But he thought it was a trick, or his claim makes no sense. > I would like to be able to buy the irrationality argument, > since I don't think the laws were meant to turn common sense > on its head, but is a miscount "irrational"? That seems to > me to stretch the meaning of the word too far. It is indeed. And even if there had only been eight top tricks (e.g. South only had four diamonds) he should not be permitted to go fishing for the ninth trick once he discovered that he had miscounted his (top) tricks. The moment he claims for his top tricks those are what he gets, nothing more. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 10 15:29:34 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:29:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <1102691048.922.210522736@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20041210133602.7781.86628.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102691048.922.210522736@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <41B9C0DE.3090106@hdw.be> David Babcock wrote: >>Declarer can count to 13. He will not play out the D7 thinking it is a >>trick. > > > But he thought it was a trick, or his claim makes no sense. > I would like to be able to buy the irrationality argument, > since I don't think the laws were meant to turn common sense > on its head, but is a miscount "irrational"? That seems to > me to stretch the meaning of the word too far. > Why do you assume a claim has to "make sense"? Declarer thought play was over - and it wasn't. He is now not allowed to play on. If he has a spade finesse both ways, he is not allowed to take it the right way. But he is not forced to play out a card he knows is not high. And you cannot deduce from his claim that he thinks there are only 12 cards in the diamond suit. Declarer saw the diamond jack and thought his problems were over. They were not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 10 15:47:00 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:47:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41B9C0DE.3090106@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c4decf$7cab1580$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ........... > Declarer thought play was over - and it wasn't. Oh yes, for the claimer the play is over. That his claim doesn't stand = up is just too bad for him. > He is now not allowed to play on. If he has a spade finesse both ways, > he is not allowed to take it the right way. He isn't allowed to take it at all if there is any reasonable = possibility that it would be better to top. And he is not allowed to top if there is = any reasonable possibility that it would be better to finesse. > But he is not forced to play out a card he knows is not high. True. > And you cannot deduce from his claim that he thinks there are only 12 > cards in the diamond suit. True. >=20 > Declarer saw the diamond jack and thought his problems were over. They > were not. True. But he has made his statement. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 10 17:00:55 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:00:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <000201c4decc$32155510$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c4decc$32155510$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41B9D647.4000003@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > It is indeed. And even if there had only been eight top tricks (e.g. South > only had four diamonds) he should not be permitted to go fishing for the > ninth trick once he discovered that he had miscounted his (top) tricks. > > The moment he claims for his top tricks those are what he gets, nothing > more. > No Sven, totally wrong. Read L70D again. I'm not saying it applies here (well, I am - but that's not my point), but you are wrong in categorically refusing to give this player the SQ (or SJ). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Dec 10 17:03:56 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:03:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41B9BF5C.3080506@hdw.be> References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210080945.02b34eb0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9A654.6040106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210093540.02b2a4a0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9BF5C.3080506@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041210115227.02ac42e0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:23 AM 12/10/04, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>>Declarer can count to 13. He will not play out the D7 thinking it is >>>a trick. >> >>He just demonstrated that he can't count to 8, so why should I assume >>that he can count to 13? If he said he had 9 tricks, I must assume >>that he thought he had 9 tricks. I will not rule that due to his >>exalted "class of player" it would be "irrational" for him not to >>recount his tricks, realize he has only 8, and find the best line for 9. > >he has demonstrated no such thing. he has finished play. mistakenly >so, but he has not demonstrated he cannot count. There is a huge >difference between a player who thinks for 2 minutes and then claims, >and one who claims after seeing the DJ appear. > >This is one of the questions I wanted to see asked - Eric doesn't ask, >he simply assumes the answer. IMO just as wrong. You may believe >claiming is a rational thing to do, but it is not. Sometimes players >simply claim because they "feel" the play is over. > >>To respond to another set of messages, I would allow declarer the >>finesse for his claim if his least successful "normal" order of >>playing his cards left him needing two tricks in a two-card ending >>with SQJ opposite SA9. But that has no bearing on the hand in question. > >That has quite a lot of bearing on the hand in question. It is crucial >if you wish to arrive at nine tricks. Sven used it as one of his >arguments for awarding eight tricks. With arguments like that, you >rile the players, and that does no good for you as a TD. > >Not that any of you (yet) seem to wish to arrive at nine tricks. We've had this debate before. Herman wishes us to presume that this particular player could not possibly count his top tricks and come to nine when there are only eight. For a player of his "class", therefore, we must totally ignore the fact that he has apparently just done so -- we don't choose to believe it, therefore it didn't happen. That means that he is yet to count, and, of course, when he does, he will certainly get it right ("on the first try"!) and realize he must finesse for his ninth trick; it would be "irrational" for a "player of his class" not to. I don't buy it. He thought he had nine tricks. He said he had nine tricks. Whether he actually counted them one-two-three-four-five-six-seven-eight-nine or just "felt the play was over" to reach that conclusion doesn't concern us one whit. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 10 17:10:41 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:10:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041210115227.02ac42e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210080945.02b34eb0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9A654.6040106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210093540.02b2a4a0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9BF5C.3080506@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210115227.02ac42e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <41B9D891.5090309@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > We've had this debate before. Herman wishes us to presume that this > particular player could not possibly count his top tricks and come to > nine when there are only eight. For a player of his "class", therefore, > we must totally ignore the fact that he has apparently just done so -- > we don't choose to believe it, therefore it didn't happen. That means > that he is yet to count, and, of course, when he does, he will certainly > get it right ("on the first try"!) and realize he must finesse for his > ninth trick; it would be "irrational" for a "player of his class" not to. > Well, look at them again - do you really need to be of any particular world class to work out that there nine top tricks except if diamonds are 5-1? Sorry - but give a man some credit! If he says he did not count them but just felt play was over - then that is true. And if you don't believe that, then you arrive at a different decision in ruling. So be it. > I don't buy it. > Well, the Director did not disbelieve the player when he said "I never counted them - I just thought that once the DJ appeared, all my problems were over". > He thought he had nine tricks. He said he had nine tricks. Whether he > actually counted them one-two-three-four-five-six-seven-eight-nine or > just "felt the play was over" to reach that conclusion doesn't concern > us one whit. > Yes it does. Because we have to decide, when we are asked to rule by L70D, whether or not the alternative line "cashing the SA before noticing that diamonds are 5-1" is a normal one. So this decision does concern us all the whits in the whatsit. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From kupqf@o2.pl Fri Dec 10 17:13:10 2004 From: kupqf@o2.pl (Weldon Oliver) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:13:10 -0200 Subject: [blml] Fix your situation Message-ID: <332178j56ag8$hmh90tz4$4533o3z7@o2.pl> Hey, Doctors tell us that being overweight puts too big a strain on your heart. That's also true for your "fat" m0rtgage payments. So get a little exercise, eat right and take the 60 second refinance diet for your mortgage. http://www.xmaslowrate.com/x/loan2.php?id=d37 Your heart will thank you. (And so will your pocket) Weldon Oliver If you are happy with your current interest rates you can go here for 0pt0ut http://www.xmaslowrate.com/x/st.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Dec 10 18:14:03 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:14:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41B9D891.5090309@hdw.be> References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210080945.02b34eb0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9A654.6040106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210093540.02b2a4a0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9BF5C.3080506@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210115227.02ac42e0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9D891.5090309@hdw.be> Message-ID: <45C54792-4AD7-11D9-9224-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 10 Dec 2004, at 17:10, Herman De Wael wrote: > Yes it does. Because we have to decide, when we are asked to rule by > L70D, whether or not the alternative line "cashing the SA before > noticing that diamonds are 5-1" is a normal one. There are other normal lines that produce only 8 tricks. Such as playing the clubs first. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Dec 10 18:54:26 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:54:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41B9D891.5090309@hdw.be> References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210080945.02b34eb0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9A654.6040106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210093540.02b2a4a0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9BF5C.3080506@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210115227.02ac42e0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9D891.5090309@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041210133900.02ab7eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:10 PM 12/10/04, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>We've had this debate before. Herman wishes us to presume that this >>particular player could not possibly count his top tricks and come to >>nine when there are only eight. For a player of his "class", >>therefore, we must totally ignore the fact that he has apparently >>just done so -- we don't choose to believe it, therefore it didn't >>happen. That means that he is yet to count, and, of course, when he >>does, he will certainly get it right ("on the first try"!) and >>realize he must finesse for his ninth trick; it would be "irrational" >>for a "player of his class" not to. > >Well, look at them again - do you really need to be of any particular >world class to work out that there nine top tricks except if diamonds >are 5-1? Sorry - but give a man some credit! If he says he did not >count them but just felt play was over - then that is true. And if you >don't believe that, then you arrive at a different decision in ruling. >So be it. A player who works out that there are nine top tricks if diamonds aren't 5-1 but then claims them before testing to see that diamonds aren't 5-1 is of a "lower class" than a person who works out the same thing and then knows to play a diamond and see if both follow before claiming. What we know is that THIS player, on THIS hand, DIDN'T work out that he didn't have nine certain tricks at the point at which he claimed. Herman continues to argue that, in effect, he is so good that that couldn't have happened, even though it did. I am quite prepared to believe that he just felt that the hand was over and didn't count before he claimed. He should have. The result was a mis-claim. Too bad. >>I don't buy it. > >Well, the Director did not disbelieve the player when he said "I >never counted them - I just thought that once the DJ appeared, all my >problems were over". Why would we disbelieve him? He admits he claimed because he thought "all [his] problems were over". He was wrong. The result was a mis-claim. Too bad. >>He thought he had nine tricks. He said he had nine tricks. Whether >>he actually counted them one-two-three-four-five-six-seven-eight-nine >>or just "felt the play was over" to reach that conclusion doesn't >>concern us one whit. > >Yes it does. Because we have to decide, when we are asked to rule by >L70D, whether or not the alternative line "cashing the SA before >noticing that diamonds are 5-1" is a normal one. So this decision does >concern us all the whits in the whatsit. No it doesn't. Because we will presume him to notice that RHO stops diamonds only when he loses the fifth round of diamonds, at which point whether or not he has cashed the SA is irrelevant. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From axman22@hotmail.com Fri Dec 10 19:41:56 2004 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:41:56 -0600 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41B99718.9000703@hdw.be> Message-ID: >From: Herman De Wael >To: blml >Subject: Re: [blml] Claim at Riviera >Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:31:20 +0100 >And you would be wrong. To play for a line that has a 33% chance of success >(I would grant you that declarer might make the same mistake as you do and >calculate it as being 33) when another line of 67% is readily available, is >irrational. I think that there is confusion between what is stupid and what is irrational. It may be stupid to take the 30% or 5% or .01% line when there is a 99% line. .01% lines do succeed. And therefore such a line may be inferior or even careless, but when the cards may be such that it would succeed it is not irrational. Further, to promise to do something that is irrational is merely being stupid; and having promised to do it, it is not irrational to give specific performance irrespective of the price of doing so. regards roger pewick >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be From dpb3@fastmail.fm Fri Dec 10 20:11:29 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:11:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <20041210171103.23752.65544.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20041210171103.23752.65544.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1102709489.2055.210544427@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Well, the Director did not disbelieve the player when he said "I never > counted them A few hours ago, we had a declarer who, we were told, could be relied on to count to 13. Now, we have his own words that he could not actually be troubled to do so at the table. The good news is that this latest twist, humorous though it may be, bears not at all on the issue of what the ruling should be. David Babcock Florida USA From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Dec 10 23:32:11 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:32:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera Message-ID: <007c01c4df10$7ad3fb00$389468d5@James> > [Herman de Waels] >> A943 >> - >> A2 >> KQ8 >> KT876 5 >> - N - >> J W + E 98653 >> J32 S 976 >> QJ >> - >> KQT74 >> AT >> West leads the DJ and south claims, saying "nine top >> tricks" Director! Please for once let us rule >> according to what the laws say, not what we want them >> to say! [The World] > One down, what's the problem. [Nigel] (: A case where the world agree with TFLB. Great :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.808 / Virus Database: 550 - Release Date: 08/12/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.808 / Virus Database: 550 - Release Date: 08/12/2004 From john@asimere.com Sat Dec 11 00:29:27 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:29:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <000001c4de4d$d6e582b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <002201c4de4c$01b338e0$7ad6403e@Mildred> <000001c4de4d$d6e582b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c4de4d$d6e582b0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> Grattan >............... >> +=+ In team situations the law as it reads allows >> of an equitable adjustment where the non-offending >> team has already obtained an especially good result >> at the other table. The word 'contestant' in 12A1 >> means in that connection "four or more players >> playing as team-mates" and the indemnity is to be >> provided to the team. ~ G ~ +=+ > >And I take it this will justify awarding an assigned adjusted score equal to >the average (or par) result as compiled from the other tables, no better and >no worse for either side? Bit difficult if it's a head-to-head? When playing teams one has ome expectation of what a given result will be. The adjustment would tend to reflect what the TD thinks you thought the score on the board in question would have been (possibly plus a couple of imps or so) john > >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sat Dec 11 00:31:41 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:31:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Kiwi fruit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: Nil > >You are playing the Precision system. >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1NT(1) Dble 2S >Pass 3C Pass ? > >(1) 13-15 hcp, balanced (no 5-card major) > >You, South, hold: > >KJ8632 >95 >J84 >Q9 Pass. you haven't agreed whether system is on or off have you? -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sat Dec 11 00:40:09 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:40:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <000501c4dea3$e6525f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <000501c4dea3$e6525f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000501c4dea3$e6525f10$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> Herman De Wael >> Here we go again: >> >> Team championship of Antwerp's largest club, top flight - match of 32 >> boards. Reasonable if not high level. >> >> board 23 (rotated to put declarer south) >> >> A9432 >> 652 >> A2 >> KQ8 >> KT876 5 >> AQ98 K73 >> J 98653 >> J32 9764 >> QJ >> JT4 >> KQT74 >> AT5 >> >> against 3NT, west leads a small heart and cashes his hearts. On the >> fourth heart, dummy discards a spade, declarer a club, and East >> signals diamonds with a club. At this stage: >> >> A943 >> - >> A2 >> KQ8 >> KT876 5 >> - - >> J 98653 >> J32 976 >> QJ >> - >> KQT74 >> AT >> >> west leads the DJ and south claims, saying "nine top tricks". >> Director! >> Please for once let us rule according to what the laws say, not what >> we want them to say! > >8 top tricks: One spade, four diamonds and three clubs. What is the problem? >Sven Look Herman, we all know declarer would probably have made it if he hadn't claimed. We also know that people misplay KTxx facing AQ9xx. 8 tricks John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sat Dec 11 00:48:48 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:48:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <1102691048.922.210522736@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20041210133602.7781.86628.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102691048.922.210522736@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: In article <1102691048.922.210522736@webmail.messagingengine.com>, David Babcock writes >> Declarer can count to 13. He will not play out the D7 thinking it is a >> trick. > >But he thought it was a trick, or his claim makes no sense. >I would like to be able to buy the irrationality argument, >since I don't think the laws were meant to turn common sense >on its head, but is a miscount "irrational"? That seems to >me to stretch the meaning of the word too far. In essence irrational is making 2 tricks from Ax facing KQx. Once you claim top tricks that's what you take. Taking the SA first is not irrational. john >David Babcock >Florida USA > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 11 15:56:27 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:56:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: claim at Riviera References: <000201c4decc$32155510$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41B9D647.4000003@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003601c4df9c$4954c140$2fd9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: claim at Riviera > > No Sven, totally wrong. > +=+ Oh well, that's it then ..... +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Dec 11 21:23:13 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 21:23:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera References: <000601c4dea5$133ecf30$6900a8c0@WINXP> <009801c4deb5$c1bf67d0$9f834c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41B9A6BA.5010406@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c4dfcd$9b241760$796e893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought, And with old woes new wail my dear times' waste." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim at Riviera > Well put Gordon, > > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > > > On 10 Dec 2004, at 12:41, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > >> +=+ Herman is to be congratulated on finding > >> a subject on which the world is unanimous! > >> ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > > That assumes either: > > a) Herman agrees with all the rest of us, or > > b) Herman is not a part of the world :) > > > > In fact I do not agree with the rest of the world. > I am still waiting for someone to come up with > a full answer. It includes a decision which as yet > no one has even touched upon. > +=+ My mistake. I had thought Herman was out of this world. I shall await with baited breath his unique opinion. +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Dec 11 21:48:30 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 21:48:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210080945.02b34eb0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9A654.6040106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210093540.02b2a4a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000101c4dfcd$9bf12b60$796e893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought, And with old woes new wail my dear times' waste." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim at Riviera > > To respond to another set of messages, I would allow declarer the > finesse for his claim if his least successful "normal" order of playing > his cards left him needing two tricks in a two-card ending with SQJ > opposite SA9. < +=+ I think you should perhaps qualify this statement, Eric, with a clarification of the circumstances in which you would deem it irrational to play for the drop. See Law 70E. Incidentally we may note that in 70E the word 'irrational' is not linked to the class of player. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Dec 11 22:02:48 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:02:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera References: Message-ID: <000201c4dfcd$9ca400a0$796e893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought, And with old woes new wail my dear times' waste." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim at Riviera > > > >From: Herman De Wael > >To: blml > >Subject: Re: [blml] Claim at Riviera > >Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:31:20 +0100 > > > >And you would be wrong. To play for a line that has a 33% chance of success > >(I would grant you that declarer might make the same mistake as you do and > >calculate it as being 33) when another line of 67% is readily available, is > >irrational. > > I think that there is confusion between what is stupid and what is > irrational. It may be stupid to take the 30% or 5% or .01% line when there > is a 99% line. .01% lines do succeed. And therefore such a line may be > inferior or even careless, but when the cards may be such that it would > succeed it is not irrational. > > Further, to promise to do something that is irrational is merely being > stupid; and having promised to do it, it is not irrational to give specific > performance irrespective of the price of doing so. > +=+ 33% rather than 67% may be an inferior line of play; bridge is littered with rulings that say it is not of itself irrational. ~ G ~ +=+ From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Dec 12 02:01:23 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 02:01:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210080945.02b34eb0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9A654.6040106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210093540.02b2a4a0@pop.starpower.net> <000101c4dfcd$9bf12b60$796e893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <007201c4dffe$560a0140$db50fd3e@James> Most players make the same mistake as Herman, assuming that the laws are written in English, with ordinary dictionary meanings for words like "irrational". When I first learnt that the law assumes that the claimer will play rationally, I asked David Stevenson if I'm allowed to improve my results by always claiming at trick one :) He patiently explained that it is not that simple (: --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.809 / Virus Database: 551 - Release Date: 09/12/2004 From agrkr@terra.cl Sun Dec 12 03:42:16 2004 From: agrkr@terra.cl (Lorraine Alston) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 06:42:16 +0300 Subject: [blml] Re: momentarily extinguished the May Message-ID: <12715961655783.58078.qmail@terra.cl> Re: Your Information Sat, 11 Dec 2004 21:50:16 -0600 Your m or tga g e process is approved starting at 3.25 %. Please use our site to fill-out your info. http://www.lddho.com/ Thank you. Best regards, Lorraine Alston Support Department From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Dec 12 10:59:02 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 11:59:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <1102709489.2055.210544427@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20041210171103.23752.65544.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102709489.2055.210544427@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <41BC2476.5030400@hdw.be> David Babcock wrote: > > >>Well, the Director did not disbelieve the player when he said "I never >> counted them > > > A few hours ago, we had a declarer who, we were told, could be > relied on to count to 13. Now, we have his own words that he > could not actually be troubled to do so at the table. > Well, there is nothing contradictory in that, is there? Yes he can count; No he did not count. I urge all of you to re-read the "strange claim". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Dec 12 11:08:25 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 12:08:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera, with a twist In-Reply-To: <000201c4dfcd$9ca400a0$796e893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000201c4dfcd$9ca400a0$796e893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <41BC26A9.9050800@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ 33% rather than 67% may be an inferior line of > play; bridge is littered with rulings that say it is not of > itself irrational. ~ G ~ +=+ > I am rather of the opinion that Grattan is wrong here. The laws say that a player is not allowed to take a non-proven line, unless it is irrational for him to do so. I believe that means that in some cases at least, from two otherwise normal lines, claimer is allowed to choose the clearly superior one. Certainly it must be irrational to play a 1% line if there is a 99% line available. I am not certain if 66/33 is sufficiently "clear" to make choosing the 33% line irrational or not. However - we must be very careful in saying whether lines are simply 33% or not. What about this line: in the original, declarer cashes all clubs and all but one diamond, leaving East with one spade and a top diamond. Next he presents the Queen of Spades and tries to notice a slight hesitation in West. When he does not notice such a hesitation, he concludes he has successfully squeezed East into bearing his SK and cashes the Ace. One down. Rather than admit that I have some problem with my interpretation of allowing a claimer who has not made a plan, to make such a plan, I will grant that there are too many variables to allow this claim. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Dec 12 10:59:08 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 10:59:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210080945.02b34eb0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9A654.6040106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210093540.02b2a4a0@pop.starpower.net> <000101c4dfcd$9bf12b60$796e893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <007201c4dffe$560a0140$db50fd3e@James> Message-ID: <000201c4e03d$48b45060$ce9787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** ".... perchance to dream; ay, there's the rub ..." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 2:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim at Riviera > Most players make the same mistake as Herman, assuming that > the laws are written in English, with ordinary dictionary > meanings for words like "irrational". > > When I first learnt that the law assumes that the claimer > will play rationally, I asked David Stevenson if I'm allowed > to improve my results by always claiming at trick one :) > > He patiently explained that it is not that simple (: > +=+ And no doubt cited the law under which the Director could refuse to give a ruling if a player were to claim at trick one, providing an exhaustive statement of clarification? ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Dec 12 11:17:15 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 11:17:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <000501c4dea3$e6525f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000401c4e03d$4a4c0760$ce9787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** ".... perchance to dream; ay, there's the rub ..." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 12:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim at Riviera > >> - > > Look Herman, we all know declarer would > probably have made it if he hadn't claimed. > We also know that people misplay KTxx > facing AQ9xx. > > 8 tricks John > +=+ Do you think Herman is defending one of his rulings or one of his claims? ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Dec 12 11:41:40 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 12:41:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <000401c4e03d$4a4c0760$ce9787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <000501c4dea3$e6525f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000401c4e03d$4a4c0760$ce9787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <41BC2E74.3040902@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ Do you think Herman is defending one > of his rulings or one of his claims? > ~ G ~ +=+ > Grattan hits the nail on the head. Of course this player was me. I did not call the director but gave a "ruling" at the table. Of course I ruled ... ... down one. I then joked that I wanted to appeal the silly ruling of that silly director. Turns out I would have gotten little sympathy on that appeal. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ymhlfyoh@california.com Sun Dec 12 11:48:57 2004 From: ymhlfyoh@california.com (Andrea Bernard) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 07:48:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] pain is killing your boyfriend Message-ID: <427535361667.KXU46076@freezemail.com>belt.dora.com> nervous info H*Y.D*R.o.C-o-D_0'N_E 7.5/5OO m^g 3O P!|LS 139.0O 6o P|llS 219.0O 9O PillS 289.oo 0.r.d.e.r : http://frogsaregoodfood.com/indexv.shtml?aa5163 Same Day Sh1pp1ng To St0p : http://frogsaregoodfood.com/please my appologizes Ian Sandoval Diplomat A-Syntese Biotech ApS, DK-2100 Copenhagen OE, Denmark Phone: 133-711-4714 Mobile: 944-417-3444 Email: ymhlfyoh@california.com This message is being sent to confirm your account. Please do not reply directly to this message This file is a 28 hour definite shareware NOTES: The contents of this paper is for your exclusive use and should not be cacti ligget quartz mist newborn Time: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:50:57 +0200 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Dec 12 15:41:34 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:41:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <000501c4dea3$e6525f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000401c4e03d$4a4c0760$ce9787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41BC2E74.3040902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c4e074$fedb7580$4f9087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** ".... perchance to dream; ay, there's the rub ..." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim at Riviera > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > +=+ Do you think Herman is defending one > > of his rulings or one of his claims? > > ~ G ~ +=+ > Grattan hits the nail on the head. > Of course this player was me. > I did not call the director but gave a "ruling" at the table. > Of course I ruled ... > > ... down one. > I then joked that I wanted to appeal the silly ruling of that silly > director. > Turns out I would have gotten little sympathy on that appeal. > +=+ Herman, could you not have appointed yourself to the AC? ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 13 00:03:05 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:03:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Kiwi fruit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Imps >>Dlr: North >>Vul: Nil >> >>You are playing the Precision system. >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 1NT(1) Dble 2S >>Pass 3C Pass ? >> >>(1) 13-15 hcp, balanced (no 5-card major) >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>KJ8632 >>95 >>J84 >>Q9 Harald Skjaran: [snip] >There are two hypothetical reasons for partner >to bid 3C. > >1) He's got two small spades and a good 6-card >club suit. > >Playing precision club, he should open 2C with >that hand. I'll discount that possibility. > >2) He's got a maximum hand with 4-card spade >support and strong clubs. > >I'll need him to have something like Axxx, Axx, >xx, AKxx or Axxx, xx, Axx, AKxx to make 4S. > >I've got two possible bids to make. > >Either just shoot 4S and go down when partner's >got three small diamonds or some other holding >that wan't allow me to make ten tricks. > >Or bid 3D as a game try asking for help. Partner >should raise to 4S on both proposed hands. [snip] John (MadDog) Probst: >Pass. you haven't agreed whether system is on or >off have you? Richard Hills: At the table, South signed off again in 3S. This problem came from the 2003 New Zealand Women's Inter-Provincial Teams Championship. In issue number 40 of the Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin, New Zealand CTD Arie Geursen revealed: [snip] >>>2S - Systemically it shows two touching suits, >>>alerted and explained as such. [snip] >>>The Directors on duty concluded that after 1NT- >>>Dbl-3C there was plenty of authorised >>>information that the wheels had come off and >>>that at least 75% of women players would >>>confidently bid their 6-2 spade fit. Therefore, >>>Pass was not a logical alternative under our >>>regulations and they ruled the table result >>>stood. [snip] >>>The appellants reasoned that Law 73C required >>>East to pass and had the Directors consulted a >>>few good players (as they had done) it would >>>have become quickly obvious that Pass was a >>>logical alternative to 3S! Puzzled, the >>>committee asked what would they expect the >>>Director to do if West had been sitting with >>>good spades and South had passed 3C, and found >>>partner with a singleton spade? Surely that >>>would have been evidence of fielding the >>>psychic 1NT? >>> >>>While the committee acknowledged that the alert >>>of 2S conveyed unauthorised information, they >>>enquired of East that if she had not seen her >>>partners alert (i.e. screens were up) what >>>would 3C be if 2S was natural? "I've never seen >>>such a sequence!" was the reply. They then >>>asked her how many times she had seen her >>>partner open 1NT with a six-card suit and a >>>singleton? To which she confidently replied >>>"Never". >>> >>>The committee dismissed the appeal, without any >>>comment on its merit. That, however, is not the >>>end of the story. Some days later I picked my >>>Daily Bulletin up from under my hotel door to >>>find the hand and bidding featured in the daily >>>bulletin's "Bidding Challenge", apparently at >>>the request of the NPC. The result? Greater than >>>80% for 3S! [snip] Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From ogan@fas.harvard.edu Mon Dec 13 01:34:12 2004 From: ogan@fas.harvard.edu (Alex Ogan) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 20:34:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] UI Problem Message-ID: <200412130134.iBD1YFtc019401@us20.unix.fas.harvard.edu> I haven't been on BLML for a while, and I apologize in advance if this is too simple a problem for this list... In any case, I couldn't think of a particularly useful way to frame this other than explicitly stating what happened. So here goes: White vs. red at imps, you hold: KQJxx-xx-KQxx-KJ. Partner opens 1C in first seat. RHO bids 2NT, showing hearts and diamonds. You're not sure whether you've agreed to play some form of Unusual vs. Unusual or not, and decide that you haven't, so you bid 3S, believing it to be forcing. Partner alerts; LHO asks and is told 3S is natural and not forcing; partner bids 5C; RHO passes. You might well want to pass regardless of any UI considerations... But are you now allowed to bid 6C? -- Alex Ogan ogan@fas.harvard.edu From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Dec 13 01:44:03 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:44:03 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera, with a twist Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > I believe that means that in some cases at least, from two otherwise > normal lines, claimer is allowed to choose the clearly superior one. > Certainly it must be irrational to play a 1% line if there is a 99% > line available. > I am not certain if 66/33 is sufficiently "clear" to make choosing the > 33% line irrational or not. It's not obvious to me if 99% is good enough (at least most of the time it probably is); it is very obvious at 66/33 is not. Would you prefer to guarantee 8 tricks, or take an X% chance shot at 9 tricks but receive only 7 if it fails? At matchpoints it is easy to construct cases were trying for 9 is right even when X<10% ("everyone" is in the easy partscore, while you are in an awful 21-poiont 3NT) and when guaranteeing 8 is right even if X~90% ("everyone" is going to be in 4 of a major except you, and will make 4 if your finesse for 3 succeeds, but some of them will go down 2 if it fails.) If I can imagine two lines that might, under some circumstances, be taken, I will assign the worse of them. On the actual case, that means I award 8 tricks as the cards lie, but only 7 if the SK is in East. (He might cash his top tricks in any order; if he sees the 5-1 break while he still has 2 spades in each hand, he might try for his contract by finessing; if the finesse succeeds I make him cash the diamonds last and get the bad news too late; if the finesse fails, I let him cash the diamonds first and try to recover.) Since I don't know if declarer would rather guarantee off one or try for his contract, I resolve this doubtful point against the claimer. If he'd like to argue in front of a committee why, in his particular circumstances, only one of these lines was reasonable, he's welcome to. Indeed, if I were on a committee, I'd rule in favour of someone who was playing a team match and said he had to take a 30 or 40% shot at making his game or slam contract. (On the actual hand, he's still down one, because he might not discover that diamonds aren't working in time.) GRB Apologies to Herman who will get this twice since I mis-addressed it the first time. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 13 01:44:17 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:44:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <000901c4dea6$bf8a0f10$9f834c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >Is there any suggestion that if a pair through >their own inconceivable judgement concede a >score of -1700 on a part score hand the field >should not be required to compare with it? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Many sponsoring organisations have used Law 78D to create special Conditions of Contest to score Butler Pairs events. In such Butler scoring, "outrider" results of -1700 on a part score hand are often excluded when striking the datum, so the field does not *directly* compare its normal partials with that inconceivable 1700 penalty. Of course, *indirectly* the lucky beneficiary of the 1700 penalty may gain extra Victory Points relative to the other contestants in its field. On the other hand, since Victory Point scales usually have a maximum "ceiling" and a minimum "floor", it is possible that a 1700 penalty in a Butler Pairs event is neither directly nor indirectly compared with the field. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Dec 13 02:35:38 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:35:38 +1300 Subject: [blml] Last Round of Pairs Message-ID: <001b01c4e0bc$6ebc6390$0801010a@Desktop> In the last round of a pairs event the opponents go home thinking that the event had finished. What score do you give the pair that is due to play them? 1. At MP Pairs 2. At IMPed Swiss Pairs 8 board rounds converted to VPs. TIA Wayne From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 13 05:44:16 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 05:44:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210080945.02b34eb0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9A654.6040106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210093540.02b2a4a0@pop.starpower.net> <000101c4dfcd$9bf12b60$796e893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <007201c4dffe$560a0140$db50fd3e@James> <000201c4e03d$48b45060$ce9787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <003901c4e0d6$ca831d30$019468d5@James> [Brattan Endicott] > +=+ And no doubt cited the law under which the > Director could refuse to give a ruling if a > player were to claim at trick one, providing an > exhaustive statement of clarification? [Nigel] Is this an insider joke for legal gurus? Can directors really ignore claims that fail to provide adequate clarification? Or perhaps you mean that the law assumes the claimer will play rationally; hence the claimer must give an exhaustive statement of any *irrational* plays that he intends to make? :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.809 / Virus Database: 551 - Release Date: 09/12/2004 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 13 07:26:05 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:26:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera, with a twist References: Message-ID: <001201c4e0e5$d62c8130$b5cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 1:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim at Riviera, with a twist > > > On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> I believe that means that in some cases at least, from two otherwise >> normal lines, claimer is allowed to choose the clearly superior one. >> Certainly it must be irrational to play a 1% line if there is a 99% >> line available. >> I am not certain if 66/33 is sufficiently "clear" to make choosing the >> 33% line irrational or not. > > It's not obvious to me if 99% is good enough (at least most of the time it > probably is); it is very obvious at 66/33 is not. > +=+ None of the words quoted here are mine. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 13 07:31:49 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:31:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210080945.02b34eb0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9A654.6040106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210093540.02b2a4a0@pop.starpower.net> <000101c4dfcd$9bf12b60$796e893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <007201c4dffe$560a0140$db50fd3e@James> <000201c4e03d$48b45060$ce9787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <003901c4e0d6$ca831d30$019468d5@James> Message-ID: <001301c4e0e5$d72204c0$b5cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 5:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim at Riviera > [Brattan Endicott] >> +=+ And no doubt cited the law under which the >> Director could refuse to give a ruling if a >> player were to claim at trick one, providing an >> exhaustive statement of clarification? > [Nigel] > Is this an insider joke for legal gurus? > Can directors really ignore claims that fail to provide > adequate clarification? > Or perhaps you mean that the law assumes the claimer will > play rationally; hence the claimer must give an exhaustive > statement of any *irrational* plays that he intends to make? > :) > +=+ I thought David's thoughts had been inadequately aired, almost certainly, and that the pot needed another stir. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 13 08:44:45 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:44:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera, with a twist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41BD567D.1030502@hdw.be> I think you have misunderstood my point, Gordon. Gordon Bower wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >>I believe that means that in some cases at least, from two otherwise >>normal lines, claimer is allowed to choose the clearly superior one. >>Certainly it must be irrational to play a 1% line if there is a 99% >>line available. >>I am not certain if 66/33 is sufficiently "clear" to make choosing the >>33% line irrational or not. > > > It's not obvious to me if 99% is good enough (at least most of the time it > probably is); it is very obvious at 66/33 is not. > > Would you prefer to guarantee 8 tricks, or take an X% chance shot at 9 > tricks but receive only 7 if it fails? > That is not the case I am talking of. I am talking of 2 lines, both guaranteeing 8 tricks and having a chance of gaining 9. > At matchpoints it is easy to construct cases were trying for 9 is right > even when X<10% ("everyone" is in the easy partscore, while you are in an > awful 21-poiont 3NT) and when guaranteeing 8 is right even if X~90% > ("everyone" is going to be in 4 of a major except you, and will make 4 if > your finesse for 3 succeeds, but some of them will go down 2 if it fails.) > > If I can imagine two lines that might, under some circumstances, be taken, Now my point is that one of the lines cannot be taken, under any circumstances. For that of course we need to be satisfied that: - the declarer cannot fail to notice both lines; - the declarer cannot fail to estimate that one line has more chance of success than the other; - both lines having the same outcome in failure. If those conditions are met, is it not irrational to assume that the second line be chosen? > I will assign the worse of them. So will I. I'm just saying that one line cannot possibly be taken. > On the actual case, that means I award 8 > tricks as the cards lie, but only 7 if the SK is in East. (He might cash > his top tricks in any order; if he sees the 5-1 break while he still has 2 > spades in each hand, he might try for his contract by finessing; if the > finesse succeeds I make him cash the diamonds last and get the bad news > too late; if the finesse fails, I let him cash the diamonds first and try > to recover.) > > Since I don't know if declarer would rather guarantee off one or try for > his contract, I resolve this doubtful point against the claimer. If he'd > like to argue in front of a committee why, in his particular > circumstances, only one of these lines was reasonable, he's welcome to. > Indeed, if I were on a committee, I'd rule in favour of someone who was > playing a team match and said he had to take a 30 or 40% shot at making > his game or slam contract. (On the actual hand, he's still down one, > because he might not discover that diamonds aren't working in time.) > > GRB > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From toddz@att.net Fri Dec 10 20:56:39 2004 From: toddz@att.net (toddz@att.net) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:56:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera Message-ID: <121020042056.5531.41BA0D87000171ED0000159B2160376316960B0B019B@att.net> --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_5531_1102712199_0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I'll bite. Declarer will cash diamonds first discovering the break on the second round and recount the hand. He'll discover that he has only 8 top tricks, with potential only in spades for a 9th. Losing the spade finesse early brings him to the same 8 tricks he had before, so it would be irrational not to. The alternate line of cashing clubs to advance a spade/diamond squeeze for the KS drop cannot be considered because declarer will not discover the diamond break until the 2nd round, after he's destroyed transportation. So the question becomes whether or not declarer would have gotten the count right without the opponent's help. Nope. Too bad. Tough luck. Since we can, should, and do require declarer to cash clubs first after his essentially statementless claim, that hypothetical is nothing more than a boring diversion. Down 1. -Todd --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_5531_1102712199_0 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I'll bite.  Declarer will cash diamonds first discovering the break on the second round and recount the hand.  He'll discover that he has only 8 top tricks, with potential only in spades for a 9th.  Losing the spade finesse early brings him to the same 8 tricks he had before, so it would be irrational not to.  The alternate line of cashing clubs to advance a spade/diamond squeeze for the KS drop cannot be considered because declarer will not discover the diamond break until the 2nd round, after he's destroyed transportation.  So the question becomes whether or not declarer would have gotten the count right without the opponent's help.  Nope.  Too bad.  Tough luck.  Since we can, should, and do require declarer to cash clubs first after his essentially statementless claim, that hypothetical is nothing more than a boring diversion.  Down 1.

 

-Todd

 

--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_5531_1102712199_0-- From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Mon Dec 13 09:50:02 2004 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:50:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI Problem Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64B3@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Alex Ogan > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 02:34 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] UI Problem >=20 >=20 > I haven't been on BLML for a while, and I apologize in=20 > advance if this is > too simple a problem for this list... >=20 > In any case, I couldn't think of a particularly useful way to=20 > frame this > other than explicitly stating what happened. So here goes: >=20 > White vs. red at imps, you hold: KQJxx-xx-KQxx-KJ. Partner=20 > opens 1C in > first seat. RHO bids 2NT, showing hearts and diamonds. =20 > You're not sure > whether you've agreed to play some form of Unusual vs.=20 > Unusual or not, and > decide that you haven't, so you bid 3S, believing it to be=20 > forcing. Partner > alerts; LHO asks and is told 3S is natural and not forcing;=20 > partner bids 5C; > RHO passes. >=20 > You might well want to pass regardless of any UI=20 > considerations... But are > you now allowed to bid 6C? If 3S is forcing, then 5C shows a minimum. If 3S is not forcing, then it shows extra values. You think that 3S is forcing, hence that partner now shows a minimum. However, partner told you by his explanation that he has not a minimum (he thinks 3S is not forcing). That information is UI to you. You should therefore pass - with a minimum opening it is easily possible that there are two aces missing. --=20 Martin Sinot martin.sinot at micronas.com From wzxojiezg@ctc.net Mon Dec 13 08:34:59 2004 From: wzxojiezg@ctc.net (Sherman Moody) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 02:34:59 -0600 Subject: [blml] hand at Abaddon, and Message-ID: <385151031599-9488585@166.82.94.169> Hello,

Our database records indicate we will be able to   a p prov e   you
for a   m ortga g e / re-fin a n ce   for up to 250k for 4.0 deal.

If you are interested we advise you to act ASAP.

We need some information from you to finish up the process.
Use this unique URL pkzxtyv

Have a nice day,
Sincerly
Sherman Moody
From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Dec 13 11:39:32 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:39:32 GMT Subject: [blml] Birmingham Fall 2000 case 15 Message-ID: <41bd7f74.4a1c.0@esatclear.ie> Lets try and apply abit of common sense. What happened on this hand ? 2C 2D 2NT pd I have 23/24 points balanced cool ... 3S pd relay to 4C's please and I'm going to bid 5C's 3S geeze what is that again. Is it both minors or Mss or something else ?? I can't remember. One thing for sure it isn't spades. Ok I'm not passing, so what can I bid to pass the buck. 3NT covers all bases. Pd can decide what to do then. 3NT .... 3NT !?? what the heck is that. Why didn't he alert and bid 4C's. 3NT means nothing. Ok fair enough seems he has forgotten what 3S's means or has he ... Maybe it is support for both minors, maybe no support to play, maybe a max hand. Well whatever it means, I was going to bid 5C's anyway and I dont want a disaster here so I'm going to bid 5C's. ... 5C's Hmmm well if pd can bid 5C's I'm surely worth 6. 6C's People are referring to the UI east recieved. Ok so he knows his pd most likely forgot the meaning of 3S's or that he has decided to make an undiscussed bid for whatever reason. Question : What has the UI conclusively imparted about the west hand that east didn't already know ?? People refer to 3NT as avoiding slam tries, support for the minors, maximum hands ... where on earth do you get this from. West bid 3NT having already shown a balanced 23/24 count. 3NT says zip, zilch, nothing. It imparts zero new information. So now everyone jumps on the band wagon. 3NT was meant as signoff. Why? It is one possible meaning and EVEN if it was meant as signoff, so what. Are you now going to stop east from bidding his hand ? If east feels like bidding 5C's, what is the problem ? Infact I'd be questioning east's bid if he didn't bid 5C's. In essence this ruling has said : West has forgotten the system, indeed a terrible event. West has not alerted the bid which indeed gives UI to east that indeed the partnership is not on the same wavelength. West now starts to hedge by bidding 3NT an undiscussed bid, seeking help from pd. Infact this is an excellent bid. It is undiscussed and will alert pd to west's plight allowing west to place the contract. Is this illegal?? Are we now going to stop partnerships from trying to land on their feet? Well if so I'm out of here. The AC have attributed UI to the 3NT bid implying it shows "something extra" which made east's 5C more attractive. This is a complete falacy. If it could be proven 3NT did infact show extra's, and in some way encouraged east to bid on as oppose to pass then fine 3NT+4. It didn't. Once 3NT imparted nothing about wests hand, east should be free to bid as he wants. >(c) East bidding on after West's deemed natural signoff, >on the given auction, is also a logical alternative. But >bidding on is demonstrably suggested by the UI of West's >non-alert of East's prior artificial 3S bid. +++ Explain to me how bidding on has been suggested by the non alert ? What do you know about easts hand that you didn't know from the non alert ?? >This is because West's non-alert suggests that West may >have chosen to avoid a slam try because West believed that >East held a spade suit, but West may have been interested >in a slam try if West had remembered that East's artificial >3S bid systemically promised both minors. +++ Sorry this is bordering on ludicrous. What slam try ?? 3S asked opener to bid 4C's which is passed if weak, 4D weak, anything else GF. It did not promise both minors. Opener cannot "avoid" a slam. He is not in control of this auction. He is the one describing his hand. He is expected to bid 4C's. Again tell me what the the 3NT imparted about west's hand please. Karel -- http://www.iol.ie From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 13 13:03:15 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:03:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <000101c4dfcd$9bf12b60$796e893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <41B9755A.2060108@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210080945.02b34eb0@pop.starpower.net> <41B9A654.6040106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041210093540.02b2a4a0@pop.starpower.net> <000101c4dfcd$9bf12b60$796e893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041213075428.02ae3d90@pop.starpower.net> At 04:48 PM 12/11/04, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > To respond to another set of messages, I would allow declarer the > > finesse for his claim if his least successful "normal" order of > playing > > his cards left him needing two tricks in a two-card ending with SQJ > > opposite SA9. > >+=+ I think you should perhaps qualify this statement, Eric, with a >clarification of the circumstances in which you would deem it irrational >to play for the drop. See Law 70E. Incidentally we may note that in >70E the word 'irrational' is not linked to the class of player. I confess that that's too hard for me. I intended the implicit qualifier to my original statement to be "for this particular claim". But it was a purely hypothetical aside -- I didn't analyze the hand in detail, but don't believe there's a distribution of the opponent's cards that could bring it about -- so perhaps I should have been more explicit. On the hand in question, if, for example, declarer had specified two spade tricks, I would deem it irrational to play for the drop and presume the finesse, win or lose. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 13 13:25:10 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:25:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41BC2476.5030400@hdw.be> References: <20041210171103.23752.65544.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102709489.2055.210544427@webmail.messagingengine.com> <41BC2476.5030400@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041213080529.02ae31d0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:59 AM 12/12/04, Herman wrote: >David Babcock wrote: >> >>>Well, the Director did not disbelieve the player when he said "I >>>never counted them >> >>A few hours ago, we had a declarer who, we were told, could be >>relied on to count to 13. Now, we have his own words that he >>could not actually be troubled to do so at the table. > >Well, there is nothing contradictory in that, is there? No. We believe him. Indeed, what he has told us is what we were assuming all along. >Yes he can count; No he did not count. Well, he should have, before he claimed. His failure to do what he manifestly could and should have done will cost him a trick this time. >I urge all of you to re-read the "strange claim". I think most of us remember it all too well. Thread bottom line: Herman believes that there is some "class of player" for whom it would be significantly less "irrational" to claim without counting his tricks than it would be for him to play on without re-counting them, but nobody else in this forum appears to agree with him. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 13 13:39:24 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:39:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera, with a twist In-Reply-To: <41BC26A9.9050800@hdw.be> References: <000201c4dfcd$9ca400a0$796e893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41BC26A9.9050800@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041213083233.02ae19c0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:08 AM 12/12/04, Herman wrote: >I am rather of the opinion that Grattan is wrong here. >The laws say that a player is not allowed to take a non-proven line, >unless it is irrational for him to do so. >I believe that means that in some cases at least, from two otherwise >normal lines, claimer is allowed to choose the clearly superior one. That would be a defensible position were it not for the famous footnote, which tells us quite explicity that "'normal' includes play that would be... inferior". Perhaps Herman does not realize that "clearly superior" and "inferior" are antonymous. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 13 14:02:47 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:02:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] UI Problem In-Reply-To: <200412130134.iBD1YFtc019401@us20.unix.fas.harvard.edu> References: <200412130134.iBD1YFtc019401@us20.unix.fas.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041213085253.02ad7a50@pop.starpower.net> At 08:34 PM 12/12/04, Alex wrote: >White vs. red at imps, you hold: KQJxx-xx-KQxx-KJ. Partner opens 1C in >first seat. RHO bids 2NT, showing hearts and diamonds. You're not sure >whether you've agreed to play some form of Unusual vs. Unusual or not, and >decide that you haven't, so you bid 3S, believing it to be >forcing. Partner >alerts; LHO asks and is told 3S is natural and not forcing; partner >bids 5C; >RHO passes. > >You might well want to pass regardless of any UI considerations... But are >you now allowed to bid 6C? No (in the sense that I would be inclined to adjust the score as TD if 6C succeeded). The UI tells you that you have a better hand than partner expects. To make 6C, partner must, for example, have first round control of three suits, and his willingness to play 5C opposite a non-forcing 3S bid demonstrably suggests a significantly higher probability that he has them than would a willingness to play 5C opposite a forcing 3S bid. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 13 14:30:27 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:30:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera, with a twist In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041213083233.02ae19c0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000201c4dfcd$9ca400a0$796e893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41BC26A9.9050800@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213083233.02ae19c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <41BDA783.6090607@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 06:08 AM 12/12/04, Herman wrote: > >> I am rather of the opinion that Grattan is wrong here. >> The laws say that a player is not allowed to take a non-proven line, >> unless it is irrational for him to do so. >> I believe that means that in some cases at least, from two otherwise >> normal lines, claimer is allowed to choose the clearly superior one. > > > That would be a defensible position were it not for the famous footnote, > which tells us quite explicity that "'normal' includes play that would > be... inferior". Perhaps Herman does not realize that "clearly > superior" and "inferior" are antonymous. > Herman recognises that these words are antonyms. However, he does not recognize that the two words were used in the same context. I was using "inferior" as a comparative pronoun. Line A is inferior to line B. The footnote uses "inferior" as a qualitative one. The play is careless or inferior. Do you not agree that when choosing line A over line B, a claimer makes a play. If we find that he cannot fail to notice that line B is "clearly inferior to" line A, then it is no longer "inferior" for him to choose line B, but it may become irrational to do so. OK? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 13 14:47:07 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:47:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041213080529.02ae31d0@pop.starpower.net> References: <20041210171103.23752.65544.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102709489.2055.210544427@webmail.messagingengine.com> <41BC2476.5030400@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213080529.02ae31d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <41BDAB6B.1070407@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:59 AM 12/12/04, Herman wrote: > >>> >>> A few hours ago, we had a declarer who, we were told, could be >>> relied on to count to 13. Now, we have his own words that he >>> could not actually be troubled to do so at the table. >> >> >> Well, there is nothing contradictory in that, is there? > > > No. We believe him. Indeed, what he has told us is what we were > assuming all along. > >> Yes he can count; No he did not count. > > > Well, he should have, before he claimed. His failure to do what he > manifestly could and should have done will cost him a trick this time. > Maybe he should have - but the fact remains that he didn't. Which leaves us with the question whether or not it is rational to play the first trick without counting it. Never mind what you think he should have done before claiming - we are there to decide what he would have done after claiming. Look, we accept that a claimer does not state that he will draw trumps, since we accept that it is irrational not do so when playing a grand slam with 11 top trumps. We also allow a claimer to notice whether the two outstanding trumps fall on the first trick or not. We also allow him to draw a second round of trumps if one is not enough. Why then should we not allow a claimer to count his tricks before making a plan? I agree that we should not allow him to re-count his tricks if he has previously mis-counted them. But why should we force on him the irrationality of not counting then a first time? (always presuming we believe that he never counted them in the first place) Let's assume a different story - one in which it is not clear that claimer made a mistake in claiming too soon. Say claimer is a doctor whose mobile phone (allowed for him) rings at the exact moment the DJ is put on the table. Without further thinking, he takes his phone and says to the table - they're all mine anyway. Surely we can accept that there is nothing wrong in this claimer's mind? Surely we can accept that he will play diamonds first, noticing the 1-5 split. Surely we can accept from him that he will recognise that he needs 2 spade tricks, and that the rational way to play for those is the finesse? So basically, what you are blaming me for is too fast a claim, not a bad one! Now meanwhile I have been convinced by other arguments that there are other normal lines that fail. Playing spades for the drop is maybe not so irrational after all. I accept that one has to be harsh on some claimers, but you are wrong - so wrong - so very very wrong - in not allowing a claimer who has not counted before claiming, to count before playing the second trick. >> I urge all of you to re-read the "strange claim". > > > I think most of us remember it all too well. > > Thread bottom line: Herman believes that there is some "class of > player" for whom it would be significantly less "irrational" to claim > without counting his tricks than it would be for him to play on without > re-counting them, but nobody else in this forum appears to agree with him. > I don't like the "class of player" here. There are a number of players who sometimes claim without counting out all the possibilities. That may well be foolish from them, but they should be protected to the extent that 100% plays should still be theirs. The rest of your sentence is also riddled with inacuracies. Is is not "irrational" to claim without counting. After all, the player has just done so. You seem to believe that the act of claiming without counting, whilst being foolish, is so irrational, that such a player must be deemed to turn irrational acts into normal ones. That is not my belief, and I refuse to think that absolutely no-one in the world thinks the way I do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 13 16:20:12 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:20:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim at Riviera, with a twist In-Reply-To: <41BDA783.6090607@hdw.be> References: <000201c4dfcd$9ca400a0$796e893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41BC26A9.9050800@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213083233.02ae19c0@pop.starpower.net> <41BDA783.6090607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041213111326.02acd2e0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:30 AM 12/13/04, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 06:08 AM 12/12/04, Herman wrote: >> >>>I am rather of the opinion that Grattan is wrong here. >>>The laws say that a player is not allowed to take a non-proven line, >>>unless it is irrational for him to do so. >>>I believe that means that in some cases at least, from two otherwise >>>normal lines, claimer is allowed to choose the clearly superior one. >> >>That would be a defensible position were it not for the famous >>footnote, which tells us quite explicity that "'normal' includes play >>that would be... inferior". Perhaps Herman does not realize that >>"clearly superior" and "inferior" are antonymous. > >Herman recognises that these words are antonyms. >However, he does not recognize that the two words were used in the >same context. I was using "inferior" as a comparative pronoun. Line A >is inferior to line B. The footnote uses "inferior" as a qualitative >one. The play is careless or inferior. The word "inferior" is always a comparative adjective in English; a thing cannot be simply "inferior" without being inferior to something else, whether that something else is explicit or implied. >Do you not agree that when choosing line A over line B, a claimer >makes a play. If we find that he cannot fail to notice that line B is >"clearly inferior to" line A, then it is no longer "inferior" for him >to choose line B, but it may become irrational to do so. No, I do not agree that line B can be "clearly inferior" to line A while at the same time not "inferior" to line A. Indeed, it is I who may become irrational if I continue to try to figure out what this could possibly mean. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 13 17:06:49 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:06:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41BDAB6B.1070407@hdw.be> References: <20041210171103.23752.65544.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102709489.2055.210544427@webmail.messagingengine.com> <41BC2476.5030400@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213080529.02ae31d0@pop.starpower.net> <41BDAB6B.1070407@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041213113804.02ad2860@pop.starpower.net> At 09:47 AM 12/13/04, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 05:59 AM 12/12/04, Herman wrote: >> >>>> >>>>A few hours ago, we had a declarer who, we were told, could be >>>>relied on to count to 13. Now, we have his own words that he >>>>could not actually be troubled to do so at the table. >>> >>>Well, there is nothing contradictory in that, is there? >> >>No. We believe him. Indeed, what he has told us is what we were >>assuming all along. >> >>>Yes he can count; No he did not count. >> >>Well, he should have, before he claimed. His failure to do what he >>manifestly could and should have done will cost him a trick this time. > >Maybe he should have - but the fact remains that he didn't. >Which leaves us with the question whether or not it is rational to >play the first trick without counting it. Never mind what you think he >should have done before claiming - we are there to decide what he >would have done after claiming. > >Look, we accept that a claimer does not state that he will draw >trumps, since we accept that it is irrational not do so when playing a >grand slam with 11 top trumps. We also allow a claimer to notice >whether the two outstanding trumps fall on the first trick or not. We >also allow him to draw a second round of trumps if one is not enough. > >Why then should we not allow a claimer to count his tricks before >making a plan? I agree that we should not allow him to re-count his >tricks if he has previously mis-counted them. But why should we force >on him the irrationality of not counting then a first time? (always >presuming we believe that he never counted them in the first place) It isn't that we don't allow a claimer to count his tricks before making his plan, it is that we don't allow him to make his plan after he claims, whether or not he would, if allowed to do so, count his tricks first. >Let's assume a different story - one in which it is not clear that >claimer made a mistake in claiming too soon. Say claimer is a doctor >whose mobile phone (allowed for him) rings at the exact moment the DJ >is put on the table. Without further thinking, he takes his phone and >says to the table - they're all mine anyway. >Surely we can accept that there is nothing wrong in this claimer's >mind? Surely we can accept that he will play diamonds first, noticing >the 1-5 split. Surely we can accept from him that he will recognise >that he needs 2 spade tricks, and that the rational way to play for >those is the finesse? Of course we accept that there's nothing wrong with this claimer's mind; it just doesn't matter. I have some sympathy -- I might even suggest to his opponents that they withdraw their contesting of the mis-claim -- but will not make a clearly illegal ruling out of sympathy. He has said "they're all mine", he has said it "without thinking", and he is liable for the consequences of having done so. >So basically, what you are blaming me for is too fast a claim, not a >bad one! No, I am blaming you for a bad claim, and saying that it is not an excuse that the reason it was bad was that you were "too fast" in making it. >Now meanwhile I have been convinced by other arguments that there are >other normal lines that fail. Playing spades for the drop is maybe not >so irrational after all. I accept that one has to be harsh on some >claimers, but you are wrong - so wrong - so very very wrong - in not >allowing a claimer who has not counted before claiming, to count >before playing the second trick. > >>>I urge all of you to re-read the "strange claim". >> >>I think most of us remember it all too well. >>Thread bottom line: Herman believes that there is some "class of >>player" for whom it would be significantly less "irrational" to claim >>without counting his tricks than it would be for him to play on >>without re-counting them, but nobody else in this forum appears to >>agree with him. > >I don't like the "class of player" here. There are a number of players >who sometimes claim without counting out all the possibilities. That >may well be foolish from them, but they should be protected to the >extent that 100% plays should still be theirs. >The rest of your sentence is also riddled with inacuracies. >Is is not "irrational" to claim without counting. After all, the >player has just done so. I am prepared to concede Herman's purely semantic point, since it doesn't matter. He has claimed without counting. Whether that was rational or not, it is what he did; play has ceased, and he is not allowed to "un-claim". >You seem to believe that the act of claiming without counting, whilst >being foolish, is so irrational, that such a player must be deemed to >turn irrational acts into normal ones. >That is not my belief, and I refuse to think that absolutely no-one in >the world thinks the way I do. He claimed. His stated plan was to take his nine top tricks. He has, in reality, only eight top tricks. His claim is erroneous because he claimed more top tricks than he could take. He was wrong about how many top tricks he had. What I believe is that it makes absolutely no difference in applying the Law whether he thought he had nine tricks because he added them up and got the wrong total or because he guessed at the answer without actually adding them up and got the wrong total. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 13 18:04:51 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:04:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041213113804.02ad2860@pop.starpower.net> References: <20041210171103.23752.65544.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102709489.2055.210544427@webmail.messagingengine.com> <41BC2476.5030400@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213080529.02ae31d0@pop.starpower.net> <41BDAB6B.1070407@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213113804.02ad2860@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <41BDD9C3.4070100@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > It isn't that we don't allow a claimer to count his tricks before making > his plan, it is that we don't allow him to make his plan after he > claims, whether or not he would, if allowed to do so, count his tricks > first. > But it is (or it can deemed to be) irrational not to count your tricks before playing on. (***) L70D explicitely allows a claimer to produce a new line of play. That line must be accepted if the "original" line is deemed irrational. If you accept that it is impossible for this player to play any trick after the first diamond trick without making a small plan first, then you must allow this player to make that plan. (***) I know what you are going to say - it is irrational to claim before counting your tricks - you would be wrong in sayingit. It happens all the time and while it is foolish, it is not irrational. >> Let's assume a different story - one in which it is not clear that >> claimer made a mistake in claiming too soon. Say claimer is a doctor >> whose mobile phone (allowed for him) rings at the exact moment the DJ >> is put on the table. Without further thinking, he takes his phone and >> says to the table - they're all mine anyway. >> Surely we can accept that there is nothing wrong in this claimer's >> mind? Surely we can accept that he will play diamonds first, noticing >> the 1-5 split. Surely we can accept from him that he will recognise >> that he needs 2 spade tricks, and that the rational way to play for >> those is the finesse? > > > Of course we accept that there's nothing wrong with this claimer's mind; > it just doesn't matter. I have some sympathy -- I might even suggest to > his opponents that they withdraw their contesting of the mis-claim -- > but will not make a clearly illegal ruling out of sympathy. He has said > "they're all mine", he has said it "without thinking", and he is liable > for the consequences of having done so. > Yes, he is liable for the consequences. If it turns out there are two possible "normal" lines, he gets the worst of those. But if it turns out that there is only one normal line - the consequences of him having done so are nill. You are almost on par with the 'if it hesitates, shoot it' - 'if it claims, shoot it' >> So basically, what you are blaming me for is too fast a claim, not a >> bad one! > > > No, I am blaming you for a bad claim, and saying that it is not an > excuse that the reason it was bad was that you were "too fast" in making > it. > >> Now meanwhile I have been convinced by other arguments that there are >> other normal lines that fail. Playing spades for the drop is maybe not >> so irrational after all. I accept that one has to be harsh on some >> claimers, but you are wrong - so wrong - so very very wrong - in not >> allowing a claimer who has not counted before claiming, to count >> before playing the second trick. >> >>>> I urge all of you to re-read the "strange claim". >>> >>> >>> I think most of us remember it all too well. >>> Thread bottom line: Herman believes that there is some "class of >>> player" for whom it would be significantly less "irrational" to claim >>> without counting his tricks than it would be for him to play on >>> without re-counting them, but nobody else in this forum appears to >>> agree with him. >> >> >> I don't like the "class of player" here. There are a number of players >> who sometimes claim without counting out all the possibilities. That >> may well be foolish from them, but they should be protected to the >> extent that 100% plays should still be theirs. >> The rest of your sentence is also riddled with inacuracies. >> Is is not "irrational" to claim without counting. After all, the >> player has just done so. > > > I am prepared to concede Herman's purely semantic point, since it > doesn't matter. He has claimed without counting. Whether that was > rational or not, it is what he did; play has ceased, and he is not > allowed to "un-claim". > Indeed - he is not allowed any more to state "I play spades to the left" if the spade suit is ATx opp KJx. But finessing a king can go only one way. >> You seem to believe that the act of claiming without counting, whilst >> being foolish, is so irrational, that such a player must be deemed to >> turn irrational acts into normal ones. >> That is not my belief, and I refuse to think that absolutely no-one in >> the world thinks the way I do. > > > He claimed. His stated plan was to take his nine top tricks. He has, > in reality, only eight top tricks. His claim is erroneous because he > claimed more top tricks than he could take. He was wrong about how many > top tricks he had. > That is true. And there are many wrong claims out there that do get given. > What I believe is that it makes absolutely no difference in applying the > Law whether he thought he had nine tricks because he added them up and > got the wrong total or because he guessed at the answer without actually > adding them up and got the wrong total. > It makes an enourmous difference. If he counted his tricks, and he counted nine of them, then it is rational for him to play them thus. But if he did not count his tricks, then it is irrational for him not to count them before playing. And that is so fundamental that I refuse to give way on that item. Read the strange claim again. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 13 19:14:11 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:14:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c4dca5$e5f4d980$6900a8c0@WINXP> <7nyRlnd2AztBFwih@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: WILLIAM SCHODER wrote >Hi,David. My wording of "dismal" was to indicate that I expected more of >you than what your showing was. Playing with a partner for the first time >is not what the Blue Ribbon is all about. It is an event for winners of ACBL >Regional Events, that have a proven record of high level performance. When >you were given a one time "entry" into the event it was to give you the >opportunity to show that you could perform at that level without having had >the opportunity to do so in the ACBL medium. I would have thought you would >use that chance to play an established partnership with sufficient >experience to >successfully compete, and place in the overall rankings. Those pairs that >placed high have earned entry into the subsequent Blue Ribbon, a >qualification you were unable to accomplish. Sorry if you were offended, but >I am offended by the anti-American bias your use of "debunking" of "American >Idea" (which isn't even accurate) which might sell well with some BLML'ers, >but is beneath what I expected of you. Coupled with what I was told about >your attitudes and words at the seminar you held with ACBL TDs some years >ago it cannot help but to detract, in my mind, from your ability to be >considered an objective guru. I have little idea of what you are talking about. I was not given a one time entry. I was not told that coming above average on the third day was not a high level - after all it means I beat 87% of the other pairs. I think the Americans have some excellent ideas and do not debunk them. It is difficult to see what this has got to do with anything. Sure, some of their ideas are different, but so what? Yes, I made a serious mistake at a seminar where my efforts to explain that I thought that North American TDs were the best in the world at what they do was misunderstood, but I cannot understand what that has to do with a Blue Ribbon entry. I do make mistakes: I am not arrogant enough to think I do not. As for anti-American bias, what bias? I am certainly not anti-American. I am disappointed in your posts. I am not really rich enough to travel 400 miles ot play in an event which I have been told I have a qualification for and be turned away at the door. You also might like to think of my poor partner who came to play with me in the Blue Ribbon. She certainly qualified, and some sympathy for her would not go amiss. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 13 19:16:52 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:16:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <000401c4de9e$c52323b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c4de9e$c52323b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7t0xHODkqevBFwil@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> >> >OK. Let me pose a straight question: On what legal basis can the >> Director >> >> >award an assigned adjusted score on a board for which no result has >> been >> >> >obtained nor can be obtained in any "normal" way? >> >> A result was obtained at one table, n'est-ce-pas? > >At another table, sure; not at the table where the irregularity occurred. > >With the comments from you and from Grattan I now assume this is a correct >understanding of Law 12A1 as it is today (but I don't like it): > >I am summoned to the table where Geir Helgemo is one of the players. They >report to me an irregularity, they have not started the auction and I rule >that the irregularity prevents the board from being played normally. > >Case 1: This is a teams match and a result will eventually be (or has >already been) obtained at the other table without any knowledge of what >occurred at this table. I look at the cards and knowing Geir rules that he >will certainly bid and make 7NT as the only player in the room. My ruling >isn't entirely outrageous; there is a definite chance for him to do so and I >expect him to see that chance. > >Case 2: This is a pairs event so regardless of how obvious it is that Geir >should bid and make 7NT like half the field has done for a score of 75% I >have no choice other than to award him an assigned artificial score of 60% >(which is about his average for the session) as L12A1 definitely does not >apply here. > >Will you confirm that this understanding is indeed correct? Seems pretty unreasonable. Of course in Case 1 we rule an average plus or minus as appropriate. But *if* the offending team knew it could have been to their advantage to infract at table 1 and that causes the board not to be played at table 2 then we are prepared to give an assigned score at table 2. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 13 19:21:24 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:21:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] Last Round of Pairs In-Reply-To: <001b01c4e0bc$6ebc6390$0801010a@Desktop> References: <001b01c4e0bc$6ebc6390$0801010a@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote >In the last round of a pairs event the opponents go home thinking that the >event had finished. > >What score do you give the pair that is due to play them? > >1. At MP Pairs Average Plus. >2. At IMPed Swiss Pairs 8 board rounds converted to VPs. It is helpful to have regulations covering such situations. In England or Wales I look in the White book and give them whatever it says. From memory I think they get the equivalent of 1.5 imps per board, ie half way between Average Plus and Average. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From toddz@att.net Mon Dec 13 19:46:57 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:46:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41BDD9C3.4070100@hdw.be> References: <20041210171103.23752.65544.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102709489.2055.210544427@webmail.messagingengine.com> <41BC2476.5030400@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213080529.02ae31d0@pop.starpower.net> <41BDAB6B.1070407@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213113804.02ad2860@pop.starpower.net> <41BDD9C3.4070100@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41BDF1B1.2020909@att.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > But it is (or it can deemed to be) irrational not to count your tricks > before playing on. (***) > > (***) I know what you are going to say - it is irrational to claim > before counting your tricks - you would be wrong in sayingit. It happens > all the time and while it is foolish, it is not irrational. I was going to say something different, actually, and will. A player who is so confident of his tricks that he's willing to claim them without actually counting them, could not conceivably be bothered to count them had he played on since he's already wasting precious time by not claiming. He may be jolted out of his arrogance by subsequent play, but on the given hand there are lots of normal lines of play that allow this discovery to happen well after the hand's beyond repair. I understand your point though. Would the following be a better example? AK - xx AQx - AKQ xx - x xxx xx - Spades are trumps, AD is lead and player claims, "Diamonds pitching clubs then a heart, AH, and trumps." Except the QD will be ruffed low with the only outstanding trump. Now declarer, if he knows south is void in clubs, will be allowed to take the heart finesse despite his bad claim. -Todd From john@asimere.com Mon Dec 13 19:48:40 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:48:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41BDD9C3.4070100@hdw.be> References: <20041210171103.23752.65544.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102709489.2055.210544427@webmail.messagingengine.com> <41BC2476.5030400@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213080529.02ae31d0@pop.starpower.net> <41BDAB6B.1070407@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213113804.02ad2860@pop.starpower.net> <41BDD9C3.4070100@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <41BDD9C3.4070100@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Eric Landau wrote: > >> >> It isn't that we don't allow a claimer to count his tricks before making >> his plan, it is that we don't allow him to make his plan after he >> claims, whether or not he would, if allowed to do so, count his tricks >> first. >> > >But it is (or it can deemed to be) irrational not to count your tricks >before playing on. (***) >L70D explicitely allows a claimer to produce a new line of play. That >line must be accepted if the "original" line is deemed irrational. If >you accept that it is impossible for this player to play any trick >after the first diamond trick without making a small plan first, then >you must allow this player to make that plan. > >(***) I know what you are going to say - it is irrational to claim >before counting your tricks - you would be wrong in sayingit. It >happens all the time and while it is foolish, it is not irrational. Far more to the point is that one of a number of careless lines is to cash the SA first. If you believe you have 9 tricks it makes no difference. As soon as you allow that this is *not irrational* then the result is 8 tricks. Why are we discussing it further? -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Mon Dec 13 19:52:44 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:52:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Last Round of Pairs In-Reply-To: <001b01c4e0bc$6ebc6390$0801010a@Desktop> References: <001b01c4e0bc$6ebc6390$0801010a@Desktop> Message-ID: In article <001b01c4e0bc$6ebc6390$0801010a@Desktop>, Wayne Burrows writes >In the last round of a pairs event the opponents go home thinking that the >event had finished. > >What score do you give the pair that is due to play them? > >1. At MP Pairs 60% or their score if better > >2. At IMPed Swiss Pairs 8 board rounds converted to VPs. Explain the nz version of imped Swiss Pairs > >TIA > >Wayne > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Dec 13 21:42:29 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:42:29 +1300 Subject: [blml] Last Round of Pairs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c4e15c$a8744710$0801010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: Tuesday, 14 December 2004 8:53 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Last Round of Pairs > > > In article <001b01c4e0bc$6ebc6390$0801010a@Desktop>, Wayne Burrows > writes > >In the last round of a pairs event the opponents go home > thinking that the > >event had finished. > > > >What score do you give the pair that is due to play them? > > > >1. At MP Pairs > > 60% or their score if better > > > >2. At IMPed Swiss Pairs 8 board rounds converted to VPs. > > Explain the nz version of imped Swiss Pairs This didn't happen in NZ. As I understand it there were 8 board matches. After each match new opponents were drawn on the Swiss principle - possibly one behind which is not a pure Swiss. Scores are IMPed against a datum based on the scores across the field or some subset of the entire field. These IMP scores are then converted to VPs using the WBF 8-board scale. In the actual event the director *generously* awarded the pair with no opponents 15 VPs which is just average on the 15-15 to 25-0 scale. Wayne From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 13 22:29:20 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:29:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <7t0xHODkqevBFwil@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c4e163$30b24d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............... > >> A result was obtained at one table, n'est-ce-pas? > > > >At another table, sure; not at the table where the irregularity = occurred. > > > >With the comments from you and from Grattan I now assume this is a > correct > >understanding of Law 12A1 as it is today (but I don't like it): > > > >I am summoned to the table where Geir Helgemo is one of the players. = They > >report to me an irregularity, they have not started the auction and I > rule > >that the irregularity prevents the board from being played normally. > > > >Case 1: This is a teams match and a result will eventually be (or has > >already been) obtained at the other table without any knowledge of = what > >occurred at this table. I look at the cards and knowing Geir rules = that > he > >will certainly bid and make 7NT as the only player in the room. My = ruling > >isn't entirely outrageous; there is a definite chance for him to do = so > and I > >expect him to see that chance. > > > >Case 2: This is a pairs event so regardless of how obvious it is that > Geir > >should bid and make 7NT like half the field has done for a score of = 75% I > >have no choice other than to award him an assigned artificial score = of > 60% > >(which is about his average for the session) as L12A1 definitely does = not > >apply here. > > > >Will you confirm that this understanding is indeed correct? >=20 > Seems pretty unreasonable. Of course in Case 1 we rule an average > plus or minus as appropriate. Good. We agree that this entire stuff is unreasonable. If we cannot = award or vary an artificial adjusted score outside +/- 10% (or +/- 3 IMPS) in = order to do equity then we risk ending up in many unreasonable situations.=20 =20 > But *if* the offending team knew it could have been to their = advantage > to infract at table 1 and that causes the board not to be played at > table 2 then we are prepared to give an assigned score at table 2. And how "do you know" who is the offending side? I can just hear North at table 2 saying: "The card was found boxed when = I counted my cards one by one placing them on the table in front of me!" = and then North at table 1 saying: "I certainly didn't box any card. He must = have accidentally dropped the card face up on the table when taking them from = the board and counting them unless somebody else has had access to the board = and fouled it in the meantime!" You have to establish an offending side (beyond doubt) before you may = apply Law 72B1. Sven From john@asimere.com Mon Dec 13 22:34:22 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:34:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Last Round of Pairs In-Reply-To: <000401c4e15c$a8744710$0801010a@Desktop> References: <000401c4e15c$a8744710$0801010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <98YOT6AujhvBFwyi@asimere.com> In article <000401c4e15c$a8744710$0801010a@Desktop>, Wayne Burrows writes > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst >> Sent: Tuesday, 14 December 2004 8:53 a.m. >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] Last Round of Pairs >> >> >> In article <001b01c4e0bc$6ebc6390$0801010a@Desktop>, Wayne Burrows >> writes >> >In the last round of a pairs event the opponents go home >> thinking that the >> >event had finished. >> > >> >What score do you give the pair that is due to play them? >> > >> >1. At MP Pairs >> >> 60% or their score if better >> > >> >2. At IMPed Swiss Pairs 8 board rounds converted to VPs. >> >> Explain the nz version of imped Swiss Pairs > >This didn't happen in NZ. ok, then we award 2 imps per board (since it's Butler) for half the match. (The opponents are deemed to concede after half the match is unplayed) This score (8 imps) should be converted to Veeps. On a 25-0 scale this'd be about 20-10, but would require the SO to have worked out a sensible Veep scale for this form of scoring. IMO the WBF scale is the wrong one to be using if indeed this is the form of scoring. The EBU White Book has it down to the last sordid detail. > >As I understand it there were 8 board matches. After each match >new opponents were drawn on the Swiss principle - possibly one >behind which is not a pure Swiss. Scores are IMPed against a >datum based on the scores across the field or some subset of the >entire field. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 13 22:38:33 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:38:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Last Round of Pairs In-Reply-To: <000401c4e15c$a8744710$0801010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <000101c4e164$7a1014f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows ................. > > >In the last round of a pairs event the opponents go home > > thinking that the > > >event had finished. > > > > > >What score do you give the pair that is due to play them? > > > > > >1. At MP Pairs > > > > 60% or their score if better > > > > > >2. At IMPed Swiss Pairs 8 board rounds converted to VPs. > > ........... > As I understand it there were 8 board matches. After each match > new opponents were drawn on the Swiss principle - possibly one > behind which is not a pure Swiss. Scores are IMPed against a > datum based on the scores across the field or some subset of the > entire field. >=20 > These IMP scores are then converted to VPs using the WBF 8-board > scale. >=20 > In the actual event the director *generously* awarded the pair > with no opponents 15 VPs which is just average on the 15-15 to > 25-0 scale. >=20 > Wayne In Norway we have clear-cut regulations covering all this: At matchpoints we award A+ (60%) to the pair who must take a sit-out (whether scheduled or not). At teams matches where a number of boards (minimum 7) are played in each round, scored in IMPs and then converted to VP we award the pair or team = who find themselves without opponents a VP victory of 18 - 0 (recently = increased from 17 - 0) and an IMP result of 0 - 0. (There are certain ifs and buts to take care of equity in special situations). Sven=20 From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Dec 13 22:41:01 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:41:01 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Last Round of Pairs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, David Stevenson wrote: > Wayne Burrows wrote > >In the last round of a pairs event the opponents go home thinking that the > >event had finished. > > > >What score do you give the pair that is due to play them? > > > >2. At IMPed Swiss Pairs 8 board rounds converted to VPs. > > It is helpful to have regulations covering such situations. In Yes it is. Were it a forfeited match in a Swiss teams game, you'd probably assign 18 VPs. This seems like a sensible approach too, if you convert to VPs after every round and can regard this as "missing one round" instead of "missing 8 boards." It seems no-one yet has a regulation that, in the event of multiple average-pluses in an IMP game, the award shall be 3*sqrt(#boards) imps, which would have the effect of awarding 18-12 in any length match. GRB From dpb3@fastmail.fm Mon Dec 13 22:55:13 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:55:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <20041213180503.4356.34056.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20041213180503.4356.34056.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1102978513.15151.210718786@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Maybe he should have - but the fact remains that he didn't. > Which leaves us with the question whether or not it is rational to > play the first trick without counting it. Never mind what you think he > should have done before claiming - we are there to decide what he > would have done after claiming. He would--had he not been awakened by the contest of his claim-- have (tried to) run his diamonds and been surprised by the 9 on his right beating his 7. He told us he would do this by saying he had 9 top tricks, and his later statement that he did not actually count the hand can hardly support the cheerful assumption that he would suddenly have started to do so if left to his own devices (let alone the assumption that a declarer not in the habit of counting will necessarily get it right). Declarer's statement binds him except to the irrational, and miscounting or failing to count is not irrational. Lousy bridge, maybe, but the director doesn't get to fix that. David Babcock Florida USA From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 13 22:58:48 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:58:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? References: <000001c4e163$30b24d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c4e168$39e6ec60$74a887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Culture itself is neither education nor law-making; it is an atmosphere and a heritage." [Mencken] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 10:29 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 12A1? > You have to establish an offending side (beyond doubt) before you may apply Law 72B1. < +=+ I think the words 'beyond doubt' are questionable. The situation appears ripe for a Law 85 ruling. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 13 23:11:52 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:11:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera References: <20041213180503.4356.34056.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102978513.15151.210718786@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000801c4e169$3fa414b0$74a887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Culture itself is neither education nor law-making; it is an atmosphere and a heritage." [Mencken] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Babcock" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 10:55 PM Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera > miscounting or failing to count is not irrational. Lousy > bridge, maybe, but the director doesn't get to fix that. > > David Babcock > Florida USA > +=+ Yes, David, but for some time now I have bundled this thread into a drawer labelled 'pathetic'. ~ G ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 14 00:28:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:28:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <000001c4e163$30b24d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <7t0xHODkqevBFwil@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000001c4e163$30b24d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <+ghgULBzOjvBFwyX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >And how "do you know" who is the offending side? Do we really have to discuss the fact that TDs make judgement decisions every time we have a judgement decision? >You have to establish an offending side (beyond doubt) before you may apply >Law 72B1. Proof is for courts of Law - and disciplinary hearings. Rulings are based on judgement decisions. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 14 00:48:17 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 01:48:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <+ghgULBzOjvBFwyX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c4e176$9a635c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............ > Do we really have to discuss the fact that TDs make judgement > decisions every time we have a judgement decision? > > >You have to establish an offending side (beyond doubt) before you may > apply > >Law 72B1. > > Proof is for courts of Law - and disciplinary hearings. Rulings are > based on judgement decisions. Establishing who is guilty of an offence is not a matter of judgment decision; it is a matter of establishing facts to the satisfaction of the proper authority (i.e. the Director). There is a major difference between ruling the nature and extent of an established irregularity with a known offender and ruling who (if any) is the offender when there is an irregularity. I have never accepted the statement: "An offence requires an offender. To the best of our ability we penalize the correct person". Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 14 05:49:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:49:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] Last Round of Pairs In-Reply-To: <000401c4e15c$a8744710$0801010a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >In the actual event the director *generously* awarded >the pair with no opponents 15 VPs which is just >average on the 15-15 to 25-0 scale. Richard Hills: There is an absence of a specific Law defining Ave+ for Butler Pairs, since Law 86A applies only to imped teams. Apparently the sponsoring organisation infracted Law 78D by publishing incomplete advance conditions of contest. Therefore, the TD is empowered to rectify the SO's error of omission, by creating an ex post facto regulation defining the value of a forfeit for this type of Butler Pairs, pursuant to Law 81C3: "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to establish *suitable* conditions of play and to announce them to the contestants." Of course, it seems that an Ave score of 15 vps was not a *suitable* exercise of the TD's Law 81C3 power. Better would have been an Ave+ score of either: (a) 18 vps for the NOS, or (b) the mean of the NOS's vp scores in other matches, whichever was higher. Laws 92A and 93C permit a contestant to appeal a *ruling* by the TD. However, the Chapter 1 Definitions of the Laws do not define "ruling". It is an arguable point whether or not a decision by the TD to create conditions of contest can be called a "ruling". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 14 06:09:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:09:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <009501c4deb5$bef1c8e0$9f834c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>In that case, there is an anomaly in Law 12A1 as it >>is currently written. >> >>Both "contestant" and "assigned adjusted score" are >>included in Law 12A1. The Chapter 1 definition of >>"assigned adjusted score" is predicated on adjusting >>the score for a "side". >> >>The Chapter 1 definition of "side" is narrower than >>the Chapter 1 definition of "contestant". Perhaps >>the 2006 edition of the Lawbook could resolve this >>anomaly by deleting all references to "side" from >>the Laws, retaining only "contestant". Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Law 12A1 deals with specific circumstances.. >In so doing it overrides the general. +=+ Richard Hills: This begs the question, asked by Sven Pran and myself, as to *which* specific circumstances Law 12A1 deals with. It is reasonable to argue that a specific Law in TFLB would over-ride a general Law in TFLB. But the specific Law 12A1 contains two terms - "contestant" and "assigned adjusted score" - which are both specifically defined in Chapter 1 of the Laws, and whose juxtaposition in Law 12A1 causes a partial paradox. A barber shaves every man in his town who does not shave himself. Who shaves the barber? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From toddz@att.net Tue Dec 14 06:31:11 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 01:31:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41BE88AF.6090307@att.net> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > A barber shaves every man in his town who does not > shave himself. > > Who shaves the barber? No one. The barber also moonlights as the bearded lady. -Todd From Lynchffoza@eli.net Tue Dec 14 07:39:43 2004 From: Lynchffoza@eli.net (May Brooks) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:39:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] YOU JUST WONT A FREE GREENCARD! Message-ID: <20041214073943.97021F93@rhubarb.custard.org> Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:35:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID:











bazaar lilliancommentator coddington lasciviousbogy disyllable obtaindeliberate grow clingcontretemps cyclic decouplegesticulate staircase hillymeadowland absorb ketchupcoastal remitted bestowalanastigmatic lobotomy denotativeleeds From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 14 11:59:20 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:59:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41B9D647.4000003@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000b01c4e1d4$58a15160$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 10. desember 2004 18:01 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: claim at Riviera >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > > > It is indeed. And even if there had only been eight top tricks (e.g. > South > > only had four diamonds) he should not be permitted to go fishing for = the > > ninth trick once he discovered that he had miscounted his (top) = tricks. > > > > The moment he claims for his top tricks those are what he gets, = nothing > > more. > > >=20 > No Sven, totally wrong. > Read L70D again. Law 70D: The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line = of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal (including careless or inferior but not irrational) = line of play that would be less successful. > I'm not saying it applies here (well, I am - but that's not my point), > but you are wrong in categorically refusing to give this player the SQ > (or SJ). It does indeed apply: The original clarification statement implied = playing among other cards the SA; it certainly did not embrace playing the SQ = with finesse for the SK. It is not irrational to top the spade for instance if he believes that = East has been squeezed in spades and diamonds or if he believes that East has held the SK stiff all the time. South has declared that he intended to cash his top tricks, and he is = stuck with that statement. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 14 16:32:10 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:32:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <000b01c4e1d4$58a15160$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c4e1d4$58a15160$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41BF158A.5020909@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > South has declared that he intended to cash his top tricks, and he is stuck > with that statement. > No Sven, he is NOT. L70D clearly says so. I accept from you that he might be awarded one down on the basis of topping the spade. I accept that he might be held to the normalcy of playing the spade ace before the second diamond. But I do NOT accept that he must per force play out some claim statement which has become irrational after the second diamond is played. And if you still haven't understood what I've been saying in this thread, then so be it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 14 16:38:47 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:38:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <1102978513.15151.210718786@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20041213180503.4356.34056.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102978513.15151.210718786@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <41BF1717.2010905@hdw.be> David Babcock wrote: >>Maybe he should have - but the fact remains that he didn't. >>Which leaves us with the question whether or not it is rational to >>play the first trick without counting it. Never mind what you think he >>should have done before claiming - we are there to decide what he >>would have done after claiming. > > > He would--had he not been awakened by the contest of his claim-- > have (tried to) run his diamonds and been surprised by the 9 > on his right beating his 7. No he would not. He had not counted the diamonds before claiming. It is irrational not to count diamonds while playing. It is not irrational not to count them before claiming, so he gets the same treatment as any declarer who is deemed to notice a discard on the second diamond. > He told us he would do this by saying he > had 9 top tricks, and his later statement that he did not actually > count the hand can hardly support the cheerful assumption that he would > suddenly have started to do so if left to his own devices Again, he did not say he had "counted 9 tricks", he said he "had 9 top tricks". I know. It was I. > (let alone the > assumption that a declarer not in the habit of counting will necessarily > get it right). Declarer's statement binds him except to the irrational, > and miscounting or failing to count is not irrational. Lousy bridge, > maybe, but the director doesn't get to fix that. > Yes, failing to count a suit is irrational. No-one plays like that. Miscounting a suit is deemed irrational by the claim laws. Else all claims would be invalid because claimer "might miscount". A claimer must be held to a miscount if it is proven that he has miscounted before claiming. But here there is no such proof - claimer has not miscounted, he has "misestimated". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Dec 14 17:01:08 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:01:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41BF1717.2010905@hdw.be> References: <20041213180503.4356.34056.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102978513.15151.210718786@webmail.messagingengine.com> <41BF1717.2010905@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 14 Dec 2004, at 16:38, Herman De Wael wrote: > Miscounting a suit is deemed irrational by the claim laws. Else all > claims would be invalid because claimer "might miscount". Only those where declarer has demonstrably failed to count accurately, as here. It doesn't matter whether declarer has miscounted or just didn't bother to count. > > A claimer must be held to a miscount if it is proven that he has > miscounted before claiming. But here there is no such proof I think you have the onus in the wrong place. > - claimer has not miscounted, he has "misestimated". Misestimated!!! Ha! -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Dec 14 17:37:34 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 14 Dec 2004 18:37:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] A /A- in BAM Message-ID: <20041214173734.D5B763B2226@poczta.interia.pl> The "Last Round of Pairs" thread reminded me of a problem I was once contemplating. Do your SOs have any regulations saying what an A and A- score is board-a-match competitions? If not perhaps you remember some CoC for BAM tournaments dealing with this problem. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dzwon kilka razy taniej! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1840 From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Dec 14 17:37:53 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 14 Dec 2004 18:37:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] A /A- in BAM Message-ID: <20041214173753.9A9563B2226@poczta.interia.pl> The "Last Round of Pairs" thread reminded me of a problem I was once contemplating. Do your SOs have any regulations saying what an A and A- score is board-a-match competitions? If not perhaps you remember some CoC for BAM tournaments dealing with this problem. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1837 From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Dec 14 17:38:46 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 14 Dec 2004 18:38:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] A /A- in BAM Message-ID: <20041214173846.AE8C43B21E9@poczta.interia.pl> The "Last Round of Pairs" thread reminded me of a problem I was once contemplating. Do your SOs have any regulations saying what an A and A- score is board-a-match competitions? If not perhaps you remember some CoC for BAM tournaments dealing with this problem. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dzwonisz za granice? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f183f From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Dec 14 21:48:43 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:48:43 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] A /A- in BAM In-Reply-To: <20041214173753.9A9563B2226@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Do your SOs have any regulations > saying what an A and A- score is > board-a-match competitions? Pasted below is the relevant ACBL regulation. Rather complicated. There is a similar procedure for fouled boards (120%+ = win, 80 to 120% = tie, <80% = loss). ADJUSTED SCORE A strong effort must be made to achieve a valid table result at each table. When both tables achieve a valid result and they have played the identical deal, then the results are compared in the normal manner, with a BAM score for each team of zero, half, or one. A score assigned by a director or a committee is considered a valid result if it is assigned in total points prior to matchpointing (140, 400, etc.) The scores awarded to each side need not balance. The assigned score or scores are then compared against the result at the other table in the normal manner to reach a BAM score of zero, half, or one. When the scores assigned to the opposing sides are different, the BAM matchpoints for that deal need not total one. NOTE: Directors and committees shall assign adjusted scores only to the table at which an irregularity occurred, NOT to the whole team. An adjusted score at one table shall not invalidate a legitimate result at the other table. If a board is unplayable for any reason, then: 1. If the board has not yet been played at the other table, the director shall substitute a new board if practical. 2. If the board has already been played at the other table, or if substituting a new board is not practical, the director shall assign percentage scores to the pairs at the affected table, as follows: a. If neither side is responsible for the irregularity, each pair receives a matchpoint score of 50%. b. If only one side is responsible, that pair receives 40% and their opponents receive 60%. c. If both sides are responsible, they both receive 40%. These percentage assignments are NOT Average-Plus and Average-Minus. A 60-40 assignment is exactly that. 3. The result obtained at the other table is matchpointed across the field of pairs in the same comparison group who played the same board. The matchpoint percentage scores achieved by the pairs at that table are added to the assigned percentage scores at the table with the irregularity, and: a. A team that totals 120% or more receives a win. b. A team that totals 80% or less receives a loss. c. A team that totals more than 80% and less than 120% receives a half. 4. If a board is unplayable at BOTH tables, then: a. If both teams are responsible, they both receive zero. b. If neither team is responsible, they both receive half. c. If one team is responsible, it receives zero, and their opponents receive their TEAM percentage of game. This is the ONLY case in which percentage of game (of any kind) is used. 5. Any team or teams responsible for an irregularity requiring the assignment of an artificial adjusted score (percentage) shall be penalized 1/4 board. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 14 22:41:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:41:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <000101c4dfcd$9bf12b60$796e893e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >See Law 70E. Incidentally we may note that in >70E the word 'irrational' is not linked to the >class of player. > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: In my opinion, this seems to be a formatting error in Law 70E. The word "irrational" is used only twice in the Laws. Those two places are only in the claim Laws. And in the other place (the general footnote to Laws 69, 70 and 71) there is a definitional linkage between "irrational" and "class of player". Therefore, it seems to me that the Law 70E use of the word "irrational" should be interpreted consistently with the footnote to the claim Laws, thus including an implied reference to the "class of player". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 15 00:20:59 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:20:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <41BF158A.5020909@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c4e23b$f3bb9040$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > > > South has declared that he intended to cash his top tricks, and he = is > stuck > > with that statement. > > >=20 > No Sven, he is NOT. >=20 > L70D clearly says so. >=20 > I accept from you that he might be awarded one down on the basis of > topping the spade. > I accept that he might be held to the normalcy of playing the spade > ace before the second diamond. > But I do NOT accept that he must per force play out some claim > statement which has become irrational after the second diamond is = played. >=20 > And if you still haven't understood what I've been saying in this > thread, then so be it. I do understand perfectly well this law. What I do not understand is why = you keep on arguing a case where nobody has shown any support for your = opinion. South is NOT permitted to "play it out" after the claim. His claim is to = be ruled upon from his claim statement and inevitable developments which = will be revealed regardless of which line of play consistent with his claim statement he might choose to follow. He may not change his stated line of play from the fact that the claim = is contested.=20 He may not finesse a particular card unless this finesse is becoming = marked before he must choose between finesse or top.=20 And he may specifically not finesse a particular card even when this = becomes his only chance of making the claimed number of tricks unless he has mentioned this finesse with his original claim statement. The only way South could be awarded his claimed nine tricks is with a = claim statement like: "I have nine top tricks unless Diamonds do not break. In that case I = have the finesse in spades as my last chance". Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 15 00:41:48 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:41:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c4e23e$dca0c530$6900a8c0@WINXP> Does the English language syntax allow for using the following two alternative constructions to distinguish between different meanings? ..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational. ..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior but not irrational for the class of player involved. I am fully aware that the last construction in case expresses the understanding we all have of the footnote in question and I have no intention of suggesting that WBFLC had any other understanding in mind when the wrote the Laws. Incidentally as this footnote refers to Laws 69, 70 and 71, I cannot follow Grattan's suggestion that the word "irrational" when explicitly used in Law 70E should not be understood subject to "class of player" exactly like elsewhere in these Laws. (That I am not comfortable with "class of player" in this context is another matter). Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 15 01:18:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:18:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <000501c4e23e$dca0c530$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran asked: >Does the English language syntax allow for using >the following two alternative constructions to >distinguish between different meanings? > >..."normal" includes play that would be careless >or inferior for the class of player involved, but >not irrational. > >..."normal" includes play that would be careless >or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of >player involved. > >I am fully aware that the last construction in >case expresses the understanding we all have of >the footnote in question and I have no intention >of suggesting that WBFLC had any other >understanding in mind when they wrote the Laws. Richard Hills: English is a subtle language, which permits a sentence to radically change in meaning by the appropriate insertion of punctuation. The most famous textbook example is this pair of sentences -> King Charles spoke half an hour after his head was cut off. King Charles spoke; half an hour after, his head was cut off. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Dec 14 07:31:42 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:31:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera References: <20041210171103.23752.65544.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102709489.2055.210544427@webmail.messagingengine.com> <41BC2476.5030400@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213080529.02ae31d0@pop.starpower.net> <41BDAB6B.1070407@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213113804.02ad2860@pop.starpower.net> <41BDD9C3.4070100@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c4e24a$61cd7a90$acb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Culture itself is neither education nor law-making; it is an atmosphere and a heritage." [Mencken] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 6:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera > > > It makes an enourmous difference. If he counted > his tricks, and he counted nine of them, then it is > rational for him to play them thus. > But if he did not count his tricks, then it is irrational > for him not to count them before playing. > > And that is so fundamental that I refuse to give > way on that item. Read the strange claim again. > +=+ If he thought he had counted them there is no reason for him to count them again. But if this kind of debate can arise it is evident that the law is inadequately expressed. People have a fondness for the trite saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and this can be a lazy excuse for labouring on with the inferior with which we are familiar. However, the Belgians have ensured that the claims laws will be scrutinized in some detail. What is it with the Belgians and claims? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 15 02:09:46 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:09:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <000001c4e176$9a635c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <+ghgULBzOjvBFwyX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000001c4e176$9a635c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............ >> Do we really have to discuss the fact that TDs make judgement >> decisions every time we have a judgement decision? >> >> >You have to establish an offending side (beyond doubt) before you may >> apply >> >Law 72B1. >> >> Proof is for courts of Law - and disciplinary hearings. Rulings are >> based on judgement decisions. > >Establishing who is guilty of an offence is not a matter of judgment >decision; it is a matter of establishing facts to the satisfaction of the >proper authority (i.e. the Director). > >There is a major difference between ruling the nature and extent of an >established irregularity with a known offender and ruling who (if any) is >the offender when there is an irregularity. > >I have never accepted the statement: "An offence requires an offender. To >the best of our ability we penalize the correct person". Fine. But if you are not prepared to back your judgement you are not doing the job of a tournament director. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Dec 15 02:20:38 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:20:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) References: <000501c4e23e$dca0c530$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001e01c4e24c$c2b5e930$acb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Culture itself is neither education nor law-making; it is an atmosphere and a heritage." [Mencken] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:41 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) > > Incidentally as this footnote refers to Laws 69, 70 and 71, I cannot follow > Grattan's suggestion that the word "irrational" when explicitly used in Law > 70E should not be understood subject to "class of player" exactly like > elsewhere in these Laws. (That I am not comfortable with "class of player" > in this context is another matter). > +=+ The footnote is a definition of 'normal'. The word 'irrational' in 70E is not linked to any use of 'normal'. The only use of 'normal' in 70E is limited to lines of play in which an opponent would show out. ~ G ~ +=+ From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Dec 15 02:47:14 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:47:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Three UI cases Message-ID: <41BFA5B2.7090207@cfa.harvard.edu> After not seeing a UI case for months, there were three in one weekend at an ACBL sectional. Case 1: Matchpoints, both vul, in second seat you pick up T96 AT7 KQT953 4 and open a natural, weak 2D. With opponents silent, the bidding is: 2D 2S 3H 3NT ? What do you bid now, assuming everything is in tempo? And what if partner's 3NT bid was slow -- say 4-5 seconds, a definite pause for thought but not an extreme one? I have an opinion, but I'm prejudiced by knowing the full deal. Case 2: IMPs. The bidding went 1S-(2H)-3H-P; ...3S-P-4S-all pass. Again a definite break in tempo for 3S but not a huge pause. Responder had something like a 4144 8-count. After the auction, it turned out that responder thought 3H was a limit raise or better, but opener thought it asked him to bid 3NT with a heart stopper. Eleven tricks were automatic, and any possible MI made no difference. After consulting (good!), the director ruled the contract back to 3S+2. The only interesting part of the ruling was the aftermath. The director didn't explain the ruling at all, and responder was upset. She kept insisting that "everyone in the room" knew she was "a very aggressive bidder," and that she could have bid 4S the first time. The tirade lasted quite some time and was very emotional in tone. It seemed to me that reading L73C out of the FLB might have helped, but the director did not appear to have a copy of the book in his possession. Or the director could simply have explained the restrictions after UI -- and might well have done so in the first place. Responder wanted to appeal, but eventually her teammates (who know the Laws) talked her out of it. I hope they explained the ruling to her. Case 3: Alex posted the relevant hand a few days ago: pass or bid 6C after partner gives UI that he thinks your 3S bid is non-forcing. Alex held the hand in question and of course passed as required. Making 6. I'm not sure what happened at the other table, but somehow our teammates brought in 400 to win 14 IMPs. Thinking about it, I bet the opponents with our hands got to 6NT-4, and our teammates defended well to extract the full penalty. None of these is extraordinary, but I'd like opinions on case 1, and I thought the other two might be of some interest. The same director handled both cases 1 and 2; that may be relevant when I describe the outcome of case 1 in a couple of days. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 15 03:00:28 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:00:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <001e01c4e24c$c2b5e930$acb887d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ The footnote is a definition of 'normal'. The word 'irrational' >>in 70E is not linked to any use of 'normal'. The only use of 'normal' >>in 70E is limited to lines of play in which an opponent would show >>out. ~ G ~ +=+ Footnote number 20, current version: >For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 "normal" includes play that >would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of >player involved. Richard Hills: It seems to me that footnote 20 both defines "normal" and defines "irrational". It seems to me that the WBF LC is using Aristotle's Principle of the Excluded Middle in this footnote, to wit that any play which is not deemed to be defined "normal" must be deemed to be defined "irrational". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Dec 15 03:38:18 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:38:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <20041215022202.13737.38896.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20041215022202.13737.38896.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1103081898.28229.210824559@webmail.messagingengine.com> > ... He had not counted the diamonds before claiming. It > is irrational not to count diamonds while playing. It is not > irrational not to count them before claiming with the TD you had, maybe. With the rest of us, oh yes it is, because you risk your contract by doing it, and to risk a contract for no possible gain is irrational. And, 'fess up here, Herman-- since you learned, by whatever emans, that the TD who let you get away with that did not have universal support-- or you would not have posted about this--you *do* count before claiming since that episode, do you not? :-)) David Babcock Florida USA From toddz@att.net Wed Dec 15 03:37:57 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:37:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Three UI cases In-Reply-To: <41BFA5B2.7090207@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <41BFA5B2.7090207@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41BFB195.7090604@att.net> Steve Willner wrote: > Case 1: > > Matchpoints, both vul, in second seat you pick up T96 AT7 KQT953 4 and > open a natural, weak 2D. With opponents silent, the bidding is: > 2D 2S > 3H 3NT > ? > What do you bid now, assuming everything is in tempo? And what if > partner's 3NT bid was slow -- say 4-5 seconds, a definite pause for > thought but not an extreme one? RONF? And what's the alert on 3H? If 3H showed some support for spades I pass. If 3H did not show support for spades, I don't see how the hitch demonstrably suggests anything. I now show my support for spades by bidding 4S, which I hope is the safer contract. I'm less comfortable with this latter scenario. -Todd From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 15 03:53:08 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:53:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Three UI cases References: <41BFA5B2.7090207@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002301c4e259$97bc8e20$029468d5@James> > at an ACBL sectional. Case 1: > Matchpoints, both vul, in second seat you pick up > T96 AT7 KQT953 4 and open a natural, weak 2D. > With opponents silent, the bidding is: > 2D 2S > 3H ..3NT > ? [Nigel] Without the hesitation, I would correct to 4H - or even better 4C; but after the hesitation, suggesting doubt about 3N, I hope I would select the logical alternative of pass. The real problem with such hesitations is that a practised partnership will almost always guess the reason: the director can do little better than chance. > Case 2: > IMPs. The bidding went > 1S-(2H)-3H-P; ...3S-P-4S-all pass. > Again a definite break in tempo for 3S but not a > huge pause. Responder had something like a 4144 > 8-count. After the auction, it turned out that > responder thought 3H was a limit raise or better, > but opener thought it asked him to bid 3NT with a > heart stopper. Eleven tricks were automatic, and > any possible MI made no difference. After consulting > (good!), the director ruled the contract back to 3S+2. > The only interesting part of the ruling was the > aftermath. The director didn't explain the ruling > at all, and responder was upset. She kept insisting > that "everyone in the room" knew she was "a very > aggressive bidder," and that she could have bid 4S > the first time. The tirade lasted quite some time > and was very emotional in tone. It seemed to me that > reading L73C out of the FLB might have helped, but the > director did not appear to have a copy of the book in > his possession. Or the director could simply have > explained the restrictions after UI -- and might well > have done so in the first place. Responder wanted to > appeal, but eventually her teammates (who know the > Laws) talked her out of it. I hope they explained the > ruling to her. [Nigel] If her team-mates knew the law, it was cruel of them to let her boil for so long. The director may have felt that if he returned to the table, he would first have to impose a PP on her; not only would that have been cruel but it might result in krakatoa. > Case 3: > Alex posted the relevant hand a few days ago: pass or > bid 6C after partner gives UI that he thinks your 3S > bid is non-forcing. Alex held the hand in question > and of course passed as required. Making 6. I'm > not sure what happened at the other table, but somehow > our teammates brought in 400 to win 14 IMPs. Thinking > about it, I bet the opponents with our hands got to > 6NT-4, and our teammates defended well to extract > the full penalty. [Nigel] A rare case of virtue rewarded :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.809 / Virus Database: 551 - Release Date: 09/12/2004 From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Dec 15 04:35:13 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:35:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <20041215022202.13737.38896.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20041215022202.13737.38896.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1103085313.915.210826082@webmail.messagingengine.com> > He had not counted the diamonds before claiming. It > is irrational not to count diamonds while playing. It is irrational not to count the diamonds while playing, but it is not irrational to count *incorrectly*. Rationality does not imply infallibility. The same footnotes that use the word "irrational" offer the option of "careless", which fits a counting error much better. David Babcock Florida USA From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 15 05:48:20 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:48:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] Out of step with the majority Message-ID: Club Championship Swiss Pairs (IMPs against a Datum) Bd. 24 / W / Nil T9842 83 832 AJ4 63 Q K965 JT742 AJT65 Q4 T5 K8732 AKJ75 AQ K97 Q96 West North East South Pass Pass 2H(1) Dbl(2) 4H Pass(3) Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) 6-9 HCP, 5+ hearts and 5+ of another suit (2) Take-out, opening values or better (3) Preceded by an agreed hesitation The Play: H5 - H3 - HT - HQ SA - S3 - S2 - SQ SK - S6 - S4 - H2 HA - H6 - H8 - H4 C6 - C5 - CA - C2 C4 - CK - C9 - CT D4 - D9 - DJ - D2 HK - S8 - H7 - D7 Result: N/S +420 Datum: -30 As TD, how would you rule? As AC, how would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru 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) From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 15 06:31:39 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 06:31:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Out of step with the majority References: Message-ID: <005701c4e26f$bc5c9d90$029468d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > Club Championship Swiss Pairs (IMPs against a Datum) > Bd. 24 / W / Nil T9842 > 83 > 832 > AJ4 > 63 Q > K965 JT742 > AJT65 Q4 > T5 K8732 > AKJ75 > AQ > K97 > Q96 > West North East South > Pass Pass 2H(1) Dbl(2) > 4H Pass(3) Pass 4S > Pass Pass Pass > (1) 6-9 HCP, 5+ hearts and 5+ of another suit > (2) Take-out, opening values or better > (3) Preceded by an agreed hesitation > The Play: > H5 - H3 - HT - HQ > SA - S3 - S2 - SQ > SK - S6 - S4 - H2 > HA - H6 - H8 - H4 > C6 - C5 - CA - C2 > C4 - CK - C9 - CT > D4 - D9 - DJ - D2 > HK - S8 - H7 - D7 Result: N/S +420 Datum: -30 > As TD/AC, how would you rule? [Nigel] I assume that the hesitation was longer than 10 seconds and that South is not a beginner. AS a player, I regard weighted scores as just another excuse for rulings that depend on personalities; so IMO the TD and AC should both rule 4HX= by E EW+590. IMO South's logical alternatives were Pass and Double. North might remove a Double but IMO the director should assume that he would Pass (giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOS). South's actual choice of 4S is outside three sigma (as John McLaren would say)-- but North's hesitation did suggest bidding rather than doubling. IMO the play in 4S is irrelevant because E-W just played badly - nothing they did was wild or gambling. Maybe the AC should also consider a PP against South -- although I think South will consider -590 to be tough enough. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.809 / Virus Database: 551 - Release Date: 09/12/2004 From mustikka@charter.net Wed Dec 15 09:18:17 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (raija d) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:18:17 -0800 Subject: [blml] Out of step with the majority References: Message-ID: <000f01c4e287$03de0200$a0d3cd18@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 9:48 PM Subject: [blml] Out of step with the majority > > > > > Club Championship Swiss Pairs > (IMPs against a Datum) > > Bd. 24 / W / Nil > > T9842 > 83 > 832 > AJ4 > 63 Q > K965 JT742 > AJT65 Q4 > T5 K8732 > AKJ75 > AQ > K97 > Q96 > > West North East South > Pass Pass 2H(1) Dbl(2) > 4H Pass(3) Pass 4S > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) 6-9 HCP, 5+ hearts and 5+ of another suit > (2) Take-out, opening values or better > (3) Preceded by an agreed hesitation > > The Play: > H5 - H3 - HT - HQ > SA - S3 - S2 - SQ > SK - S6 - S4 - H2 > HA - H6 - H8 - H4 > C6 - C5 - CA - C2 > C4 - CK - C9 - CT > D4 - D9 - DJ - D2 > HK - S8 - H7 - D7 > > Result: N/S +420 > Datum: -30 > > As TD, how would you rule? > As AC, how would you rule? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills I have been following a few threads here on blml involving hesitations/UI, as just an "interested reader". Based on blml opinions, it seems that the hesitation itself has become an infraction even when hesitation is mandated (such as here, North is obligated to pause when opponent skips a level of bidding) or when auction is competitive at a high level (well, not VERY high here), or when the hesitation does not demonstrably suggest a particular thing (as in this hand IMO it doesn't, when North is mandated to pause). IMO South is free to make any call he wishes. Even if the hesitation was longer than 10 seconds (which is not supported by the writeup), action rather than passing is natural with that hand and bid rather than pass is natural by North should South's action be a Double instead of 4S. Was there a timer involved to measure whether the pause was 7-8-9-10-11-12-13 or 14 seconds - I imagine there was no timer so anywhere in the vicinity of ten seconds should be acceptable range for the pause as I understand. Maybe I am wrong, in which case I will look forward to educational comments from y'all. EW produced a horrible defense, allowing 4S make. Raija From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 15 09:37:38 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:37:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <1103081898.28229.210824559@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20041215022202.13737.38896.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1103081898.28229.210824559@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <41C005E2.6060301@hdw.be> David Babcock wrote: >>... He had not counted the diamonds before claiming. It >>is irrational not to count diamonds while playing. It is not >>irrational not to count them before claiming > > > with the TD you had, maybe. With the rest of us, oh yes it is, > because you risk your contract by doing it, and to risk a contract > for no possible gain is irrational. And, 'fess up here, Herman-- > since you learned, by whatever emans, that the TD who let you > get away with that did not have universal support-- > or you would not have posted about this--you *do* count before claiming > since that episode, do you not? :-)) > No I don't. And I have lost many a trick over it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 15 09:34:03 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:34:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <000401c4e23b$f3bb9040$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c4e23b$f3bb9040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41C0050B.9000505@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>South has declared that he intended to cash his top tricks, and he is >> >>stuck >> >>>with that statement. >>> >> >>No Sven, he is NOT. >> >>L70D clearly says so. >> >>I accept from you that he might be awarded one down on the basis of >>topping the spade. >>I accept that he might be held to the normalcy of playing the spade >>ace before the second diamond. >>But I do NOT accept that he must per force play out some claim >>statement which has become irrational after the second diamond is played. >> >>And if you still haven't understood what I've been saying in this >>thread, then so be it. > > > I do understand perfectly well this law. What I do not understand is why you > keep on arguing a case where nobody has shown any support for your opinion. > Because no-one is interested in this case. And because I myself have come to the conclusion that not all conditions are met for the awarding of nine tricks. But where you continue to be wrong, Sven, is in your refusal to accept that alternate lines can be accepted. Let's see what you write below: > South is NOT permitted to "play it out" after the claim. His claim is to be > ruled upon from his claim statement and inevitable developments which will > be revealed regardless of which line of play consistent with his claim > statement he might choose to follow. > Of course Claimer is not allowed to play it out - it is the director who will do the "playing" for him. You talk of inevitable developments - my point is that the playing of a second diamond, the noticing of the bad split, and the subsequent realization that the original claim statement breaks down, can all be considered as "inevitable developments". > He may not change his stated line of play from the fact that the claim is > contested. > And I have never said that he does - from that. > He may not finesse a particular card unless this finesse is becoming marked > before he must choose between finesse or top. > That is your interpretation, it is not universal. Many people have agreed with me that playing for the finesse is the only normal line after claimer recognises that his claim is flawed. > And he may specifically not finesse a particular card even when this becomes > his only chance of making the claimed number of tricks unless he has > mentioned this finesse with his original claim statement. > And there you are so wrong, so wrong, so wrong, as to absolutely loose any credibility. "unless failure to do so would be irrational" L70E. > The only way South could be awarded his claimed nine tricks is with a claim > statement like: > > "I have nine top tricks unless Diamonds do not break. In that case I have > the finesse in spades as my last chance". > Absolutely false, Sven. The laws provide claimer with extra protection. Your refusal to investigate whether the conditions for that extra protection are met show that you have a lack of comprehension for those laws. I repeat once more - I no longer believe this claimer is entitled to 9 tricks. But absolutely not for the reasons Sven sets out. I believe that there are far too many possibilities for Claimer to get it wrong even when he discovers the bad break. For one, he might believe there is a line about squeezing East into bearing his spade king and plauing the spade ace to the penultimate trick. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 15 09:36:09 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:36:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <000001c4e24a$61cd7a90$acb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <20041210171103.23752.65544.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102709489.2055.210544427@webmail.messagingengine.com> <41BC2476.5030400@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213080529.02ae31d0@pop.starpower.net> <41BDAB6B.1070407@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213113804.02ad2860@pop.starpower.net> <41BDD9C3.4070100@hdw.be> <000001c4e24a$61cd7a90$acb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <41C00589.2020900@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>It makes an enourmous difference. If he counted >>his tricks, and he counted nine of them, then it is >>rational for him to play them thus. >>But if he did not count his tricks, then it is irrational >>for him not to count them before playing. >> >>And that is so fundamental that I refuse to give >>way on that item. Read the strange claim again. >> > > +=+ If he thought he had counted them there is no reason > for him to count them again. He did not count them - he did not even think he counted them. He thought he had them. > But if this kind of debate > can arise it is evident that the law is inadequately expressed. > People have a fondness for the trite saying "if it ain't broke, > don't fix it" and this can be a lazy excuse for labouring on > with the inferior with which we are familiar. > However, the Belgians have ensured that the claims > laws will be scrutinized in some detail. What is it with the > Belgians and claims? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Dec 15 09:39:08 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:39:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <1103085313.915.210826082@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20041215022202.13737.38896.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1103085313.915.210826082@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <41C0063C.1010906@hdw.be> David Babcock wrote: > > >>He had not counted the diamonds before claiming. It >>is irrational not to count diamonds while playing. > > > It is irrational not to count the diamonds while playing, > but it is not irrational to count *incorrectly*. Yes it is. Not that this matters a lot to our present discussion. But if miscounting is considered normal, then all claims have turned invalid once again. > Rationality > does not imply infallibility. The same footnotes that use > the word "irrational" offer the option of "careless", > which fits a counting error much better. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 15 09:48:34 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:48:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc Message-ID: <41C00872.2060304@hdw.be> Would I dare? Yes I would. 3NT in a Butler tournament: J964 KJ5 A6 A874 AT73 82 42 A873 Q97 J532 T963 QJ2 KQ5 QT96 KT84 K5 The lead is hearts, for king and ace. East returns hearts, taken in dummy. Declarer claims: "I chase out the Ace and take 2 spades, 3 hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs". Would you grant that claim? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Dec 15 10:05:56 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:05:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Three UI cases Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018172D5@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Case 1: Matchpoints, both vul, in second seat you pick up T96 AT7 KQT953 4 and=20 open a natural, weak 2D. With opponents silent, the bidding is: 2D 2S 3H 3NT ? What do you bid now, assuming everything is in tempo? And what if=20 partner's 3NT bid was slow -- say 4-5 seconds, a definite pause for=20 thought but not an extreme one? -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------------- - I see no LA to 4S [even if pass is a LA, one could argue that partner could have been = trying to work out what I meant by 3H, and the hesitation actually suggests bidding on as = he might not think I've shown support - so I think the UI doesn't really suggest = pass or bid] -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------- From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Dec 15 10:18:28 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:18:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Out of step with the majority Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018172D7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Club Championship Swiss Pairs (IMPs against a Datum) Bd. 24 / W / Nil T9842 83 832 AJ4 63 Q K965 JT742 AJT65 Q4 T5 K8732 AKJ75 AQ K97 Q96 West North East South Pass Pass 2H(1) Dbl(2) 4H Pass(3) Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) 6-9 HCP, 5+ hearts and 5+ of another suit (2) Take-out, opening values or better (3) Preceded by an agreed hesitation The Play: Result: N/S +420 ------------------------------------------------------------------ a) South waited for 10 seconds before doubling. North waited for 10 seconds before passing. Was there a hesitation in addition to that by North? if indeed so, b) The UI suggests acting over passing.=20 I do not think pass is a LA for South when 4H comes round. c) South's LAs are 4S and double. It depends slightly on what North's double of 4H would have meant, and what South's double means, but if anything the UI might suggest double rather than 4S -=20 simply because it caters better for whatever partner was thinking of = doing. d) Suppose you then convince me that the UI suggests 4S over double. If = South doubles, North has no LA to 4S. So the score stands 3 times over... From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Dec 15 11:21:52 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:21:52 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC76@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: Would I dare? Yes I would. 3NT in a Butler tournament: J964 KJ5 A6 A874 AT73 82 42 A873 Q97 J532 T963 QJ2 KQ5 QT96 KT84 K5 The lead is hearts, for king and ace. East returns hearts, taken in=20 dummy. Declarer claims: "I chase out the Ace and take 2 spades, 3=20 hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs". Would you grant that claim? ----- Declarer has claimed with a statement as to how he plans to take his tricks. He's not given a detailed trick by trick line of play, but what he's stated is adequate. The statement starts with pressing out the ace of spades, so that's how the play should proceed in trick three. There's no way you can rule him to cash his other winners first, allowing the defence to take 1 spade, 1 heart and 3 minor suit tricks. If the layout were a little different, with the spade ten doubleton or third, I would as defender insist on ten tricks. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Dec 15 11:24:09 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:24:09 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] A /A- in BAM Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900019E0EEC@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: The "Last Round of Pairs" thread reminded me of a problem I was once contemplating. Do your SOs have any regulations saying what an A and A- score is board-a-match competitions? If not perhaps you remember some CoC for BAM tournaments dealing with this problem. ----- In Norway we award 60%. As we score 2-0/1-1 that means 1.2 points. Which could be increased, depending upon the contestants session score. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dzwon kilka razy taniej! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1840 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Dec 15 11:43:04 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:43:04 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Out of step with the majority Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC77@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Hinden, Frances wrote: Club Championship Swiss Pairs (IMPs against a Datum) Bd. 24 / W / Nil T9842 83 832 AJ4 63 Q K965 JT742 AJT65 Q4 T5 K8732 AKJ75 AQ K97 Q96 West North East South Pass Pass 2H(1) Dbl(2) 4H Pass(3) Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) 6-9 HCP, 5+ hearts and 5+ of another suit (2) Take-out, opening values or better (3) Preceded by an agreed hesitation The Play: Result: N/S +420 ------------------------------------------------------------------ a) South waited for 10 seconds before doubling. North waited for 10 seconds before passing. Was there a hesitation in addition to that by North? if indeed so, ----- >From the write-up I would believe that there's been an hesitation longer than the proscribed stop pause. ----- b) The UI suggests acting over passing.=20 I do not think pass is a LA for South when 4H comes round. ----- I agree that pass is not a LA for South over 4H. West is a passed hand and east made a weak bid (it might probably be stronger in 3rd hand), so you don't let them play 4H undoubled. ----- c) South's LAs are 4S and double. It depends slightly on what North's double of 4H would have meant, and what South's double means, but if anything the UI might suggest double rather than 4S -=20 simply because it caters better for whatever partner was thinking of doing. ----- Agreed. ----- d) Suppose you then convince me that the UI suggests 4S over double. If South doubles, North has no LA to 4S. ----- If someone convince you that UI suggest 4S over double, and you maintain that Norht has no LA to 4S, then the contract should be 4S by North. There's no conceivable way for that contract to make, as you won't be given a heart trick when the lead is by east. The same defensive error as in the actual play would still beat the contract once. So in case d) 4S should be ruled to go down. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- So the score stands 3 times over... _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 15 12:23:46 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:23:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <001e01c4e24c$c2b5e930$acb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000201c4e2a0$ecba65e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott .............. > > Incidentally as this footnote refers to Laws 69, 70 and 71, I cannot > follow > > Grattan's suggestion that the word "irrational" when explicitly used = in > Law > > 70E should not be understood subject to "class of player" exactly = like > > elsewhere in these Laws. (That I am not comfortable with "class of > player" > > in this context is another matter). > > > +=3D+ The footnote is a definition of 'normal'. The word 'irrational' > in 70E is not linked to any use of 'normal'. The only use of 'normal' > in 70E is limited to lines of play in which an opponent would show > out. ~ G ~ = +=3D+ Yes, but the footnote also (implicitly) defines "irrational" as "not = normal" doesn't it? Regards Sven From federacionbridge@netscape.net Tue Dec 14 16:51:52 2004 From: federacionbridge@netscape.net (Club de bridge) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:51:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] XVIII International tournament of bridge Costa Calida, Spain Message-ID: <41BF1A28.90706@netscape.net> --------------090907060609050809050002 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Friends: Once again we would like to announce our XVIII International tournament of bridge Costa Calida, Spain, so that you can inform your players about this event. It is an interesting option for those who would like to enjoy our sun and beaches while practising their favourite hobbies: bridge . It would be an honour to be included in your calendar of events and web page. Please, do not hesitate to ask any questions you may have about this event. Our dates are: 16-17 may 2005 Mixed Couples Tournament 18-19 may 2005 Team Tournament 20-21-22 may 2005 Open Tournament For more details, and information about schedule, prizes and lodging, etc., please visit our web page: http://bridgecc.com If you have any questions, please, write to: bridgecc@bridgecc.com With our best wishes PS. This venue is for all level bridge players, from beginners to experts Organizer of the tournament of bridge Maribel Corchero Mendez C/ Santa Quiteria,10-1 30001 Murcia-Espaa bridgecostacalida@yahoo.es Tel:00 34 968 21 86 13--00 34 687 40 75 85 --------------090907060609050809050002 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Friends:
Once again we would like to announce our XVIII International tournament of bridge Costa Calida, Spain, so that you can inform your players about this event. It is an interesting option for those who would like to enjoy our sun and beaches while practising their favourite hobbies: bridge .
It would be an honour to be included in your calendar of events and web page. Please, do not hesitate to ask any questions you may have about this event.
Our dates are:
16-17 may 2005 Mixed Couples Tournament
18-19 may 2005 Team Tournament
20-21-22 may 2005 Open Tournament
For more details, and information about schedule, prizes and lodging, etc., please visit our web page: http://bridgecc.com
If you have any questions, please, write to: bridgecc@bridgecc.com

With our best wishes
 
PS. This venue is for all level bridge players, from beginners to experts

Organizer of the tournament of bridge
Maribel Corchero Mendez
C/ Santa Quiteria,10-1º
30001 Murcia-España
bridgecostacalida@yahoo.es
Tel:00 34 968 21 86 13--00 34 687 40 75 85

--------------090907060609050809050002-- From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 15 12:35:00 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:35:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <41C00872.2060304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c4e2a2$7e5f9870$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > 3NT in a Butler tournament: > > J964 > KJ5 > A6 > A874 > AT73 82 > 42 A873 > Q97 J532 > T963 QJ2 > KQ5 > QT96 > KT84 > K5 > > The lead is hearts, for king and ace. East returns hearts, taken in > dummy. Declarer claims: "I chase out the Ace and take 2 spades, 3 > hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs". > Would you grant that claim? Yes, WTP? Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Dec 15 12:57:59 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:57:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <000001c4e24a$61cd7a90$acb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <20041210171103.23752.65544.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102709489.2055.210544427@webmail.messagingengine.com> <41BC2476.5030400@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213080529.02ae31d0@pop.starpower.net> <41BDAB6B.1070407@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213113804.02ad2860@pop.starpower.net> <41BDD9C3.4070100@hdw.be> <000001c4e24a$61cd7a90$acb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On 14 Dec 2004, at 07:31, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ If he thought he had counted them there is no reason > for him to count them again. But if this kind of debate > can arise it is evident that the law is inadequately expressed. > People have a fondness for the trite saying "if it ain't broke, > don't fix it" and this can be a lazy excuse for labouring on > with the inferior with which we are familiar. > However, the Belgians have ensured that the claims > laws will be scrutinized in some detail. What is it with the > Belgians and claims? Have Belgians other than Herman been involved in this? And if not, should we assume it to be his Belgian-ness rather than his Herman-ness that led to it? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Dec 15 13:01:29 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:01:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <20041215110004.22185.89193.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20041215110004.22185.89193.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1103115689.4320.210848237@webmail.messagingengine.com> > > It is irrational not to count the diamonds while playing, > > but it is not irrational to count *incorrectly*. > > Yes it is. Not that this matters a lot to our present discussion. It does matter, because if counting incorrectly is "careless", then declarer is left with no case for being allowed to hook the spade. The only alternative line the director can rule out is an irrational one: L70E, after the last "unless", together with the footnote that distinguishes "careless" from "irrational". > But if miscounting is considered normal, then all claims have turned > invalid once again. Only if the director lets himself get distracted by the counting issue in the first place. If I'm directing, I don't care whether you counted or didn't, or misread your 7 as a 9 in the bad light, or were hung over from the midnight side game and desperate to get to the hospitality desk for some aspirin. Getting away from the Laws for a moment, there is just something preposterous about the notion that one can avoid the trouble of counting by making a claim and waiting for the defenders to tell you whether you need to stir yourself or not. David Babcock Florida USA From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Dec 15 13:04:59 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:04:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Out of step with the majority In-Reply-To: <000f01c4e287$03de0200$a0d3cd18@DFYXB361> References: <000f01c4e287$03de0200$a0d3cd18@DFYXB361> Message-ID: On 15 Dec 2004, at 09:18, raija d wrote: > Based on blml opinions, it seems that the hesitation itself has become > an infraction even when hesitation is mandated (such as here, North is > obligated to pause when opponent skips a level of bidding) No - I think it's just that when we are told there was a hesitation in a situation where a pause was mandated, we are in effect being told that there was a hesitation over and above the mandated pause. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Dec 15 13:08:42 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:08:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <20041215093824.15639.72379.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20041215093824.15639.72379.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1103116122.4931.210850031@webmail.messagingengine.com> > > you "do* count before claiming > > since that episode, do you not? :-)) > No I don't. > And I have lost many a trick over it. Well, I admit I didn't expect *that* answer!!! LOL!! I congratulate you on your gift for finding extremely tolerant partners. :-)) David Babcock Florida USA From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 15 13:11:10 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:11:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: References: <000101c4dfcd$9bf12b60$796e893e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041215075211.02ba6e20@pop.starpower.net> At 05:41 PM 12/14/04, richard.hills wrote: >Grattan Endicott: > > >See Law 70E. Incidentally we may note that in > >70E the word 'irrational' is not linked to the > >class of player. > >Richard Hills: > >In my opinion, this seems to be a formatting >error in Law 70E. The word "irrational" is >used only twice in the Laws. Those two places >are only in the claim Laws. And in the other >place (the general footnote to Laws 69, 70 and >71) there is a definitional linkage between >"irrational" and "class of player". > >Therefore, it seems to me that the Law 70E use >of the word "irrational" should be interpreted >consistently with the footnote to the claim >Laws, thus including an implied reference to >the "class of player". I don't see any error. The footnote is referenced by "normal", which appears earlier than "irrational" in the same sentence; using anyone's English style guide it must apply to the entire sentence at least. A single footnote reference from a law must be sufficient to incorporate that footnote as part of that law. I have long held that Grattan is correct, although not because of the way the footnote is referenced, but rather because of the wording of the footnote itself. If you parse the sentence carefully it is clear that "for the class of player" modifies only "careless or inferior". The word "irrational" is not linked to the class of player in any law, other than by the WBF's post-publication interpretation, which has made it clear that a literal reading of the law is not what the lawmakers intended to say. But I suppose if they can tell us that the usual rules of English don't apply to the meaning of the footnote, they can tell us that they don't apply to the manner in which it is referenced either. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Dec 15 13:10:39 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:10:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <41C00872.2060304@hdw.be> References: <41C00872.2060304@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 15 Dec 2004, at 09:48, Herman De Wael wrote: > Would I dare? Yes I would. > 3NT in a Butler tournament: > > J964 > KJ5 > A6 > A874 > AT73 82 > 42 A873 > Q97 J532 > T963 QJ2 > KQ5 > QT96 > KT84 > K5 > > The lead is hearts, for king and ace. East returns hearts, taken in > dummy. Declarer claims: "I chase out the Ace and take 2 spades, 3 > hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs". > Would you grant that claim? Yes. I think the claim is premature, in that there are possibilities for more tricks that declarer has chosen not to test, but that's neither here nor there. The claim seems fine. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 15 13:16:01 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:16:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Three UI cases In-Reply-To: <41BFA5B2.7090207@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <41BFA5B2.7090207@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote >After not seeing a UI case for months, there were three in one weekend >at an ACBL sectional. > >Case 1: > >Matchpoints, both vul, in second seat you pick up T96 AT7 KQT953 4 and >open a natural, weak 2D. With opponents silent, the bidding is: > 2D 2S > 3H 3NT > ? >What do you bid now, assuming everything is in tempo? And what if >partner's 3NT bid was slow -- say 4-5 seconds, a definite pause for >thought but not an extreme one? > >I have an opinion, but I'm prejudiced by knowing the full deal. Assuming 2S is natural and forcing, and assuming that 4C now would be taken as a cue-bid [what else can it be?] then 4C is automatic, with no other choices. If 2S is not forcing, or 4C is ambiguous, then 4S. I can neither see an alternative, nor see what difference a slow 3NT makes. >Case 2: > >IMPs. The bidding went 1S-(2H)-3H-P; ...3S-P-4S-all pass. Again a >definite break in tempo for 3S but not a huge pause. Responder had >something like a 4144 8-count. After the auction, it turned out that >responder thought 3H was a limit raise or better, but opener thought it >asked him to bid 3NT with a heart stopper. Eleven tricks were >automatic, and any possible MI made no difference. > >After consulting (good!), the director ruled the contract back to 3S+2. >The only interesting part of the ruling was the aftermath. The >director didn't explain the ruling at all, and responder was upset. She >kept insisting that "everyone in the room" knew she was "a very >aggressive bidder," and that she could have bid 4S the first time. The >tirade lasted quite some time and was very emotional in tone. It >seemed to me that reading L73C out of the FLB might have helped, but >the director did not appear to have a copy of the book in his >possession. Or the director could simply have explained the >restrictions after UI -- and might well have done so in the first >place. Responder wanted to appeal, but eventually her teammates (who >know the Laws) talked her out of it. I hope they explained the ruling to her. TDs should be careful with UI cases. In many cases the players know the Laws but disagree with the judgement [often very strongly!] but it is important to explain the ruling where the Law is not understood. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Wed Dec 15 13:20:25 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:20:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <000501c4e23e$dca0c530$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c4e23e$dca0c530$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041215081252.02b0ae60@pop.starpower.net> At 07:41 PM 12/14/04, Sven wrote: >Does the English language syntax allow for using the following two >alternative constructions to distinguish between different meanings? > >..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class >of player involved, but not irrational. > >..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior but not >irrational for the class of player involved. Yes. 100% absolutely. It's not a question of "allow"; those two sentences mean two different things, period. >I am fully aware that the last construction in case expresses the >understanding we all have of the footnote in question and I have no >intention of suggesting that WBFLC had any other understanding in mind >when >the wrote the Laws. There must have been at least some confusion on someone's part; it stretches credibility to assume that our laws were written by someone with so little understanding of English grammar as to have chosen the first construction when it so clearly does not express what we are told is the intended meaning. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Dec 15 13:23:42 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:23:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] Three UI cases In-Reply-To: <41BFA5B2.7090207@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <41BFA5B2.7090207@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <8A42119A-4E9C-11D9-947B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 15 Dec 2004, at 02:47, Steve Willner wrote: > After not seeing a UI case for months, there were three in one weekend > at an ACBL sectional. > > Case 1: > > Matchpoints, both vul, in second seat you pick up T96 AT7 KQT953 4 and > open a natural, weak 2D. With opponents silent, the bidding is: > 2D 2S > 3H 3NT > ? > What do you bid now, assuming everything is in tempo? And what if > partner's 3NT bid was slow -- say 4-5 seconds, a definite pause for > thought but not an extreme one? I wonder why I bid 3H? (4C seems a better rebid, but maybe I wasn't sure that partner would take that as a splinter). Oh well, bidding 4S now seems to do almost the same job, and completes my hand description. I can't really imagine anything that would induce me to pass 3NT, however fast or slow. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Dec 15 13:35:26 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 15 Dec 2004 14:35:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Three UI cases Message-ID: <20041215133526.6E2B1D54E8@poczta.interia.pl> Steve Willner napisa=B3(a): > After not seeing a UI case for months, there were three in one weekend=20 > at an ACBL sectional. >=20 > Case 1: >=20 > Matchpoints, both vul, in second seat you pick up T96 AT7 KQT953 4 and=20 > open a natural, weak 2D. With opponents silent, the bidding is: > 2D 2S > 3H 3NT > ? > What do you bid now, assuming everything is in tempo? And what if=20 > partner's 3NT bid was slow -- say 4-5 seconds, a definite pause for= =20 > thought but not an extreme one? >=20 > I have an opinion, but I'm prejudiced by knowing the full deal. >=20 If 3H already conventionally showed spade support then I have no reason to pull 3NT. Otherwise the 4S bid is automatic: that is why I started the descriptive sequence on the previous round, didn't I? Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dzwonisz za granice? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f183f From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 15 13:40:16 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:40:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Three UI cases In-Reply-To: <41BFA5B2.7090207@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <41BFA5B2.7090207@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041215083203.02b03eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:47 PM 12/14/04, Steve wrote: >After not seeing a UI case for months, there were three in one weekend >at an ACBL sectional. > >Case 1: > >Matchpoints, both vul, in second seat you pick up T96 AT7 KQT953 4 and >open a natural, weak 2D. With opponents silent, the bidding is: > 2D 2S > 3H 3NT > ? >What do you bid now, assuming everything is in tempo? And what if >partner's 3NT bid was slow -- say 4-5 seconds, a definite pause for >thought but not an extreme one? > >None of these is extraordinary, but I'd like opinions on case 1... 4S, regardless of tempo. No LA. I can't not show my spade support, and I have a super-maximum for play in spades. 3H was (or certainly would have been, had I bid it) an advance cue to show first-round control of hearts in a maximum hand for spades after I bid spades on the next round, which I must do now. Had pard rebid 4S instead of 3NT, I would be committed to bidding on. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 15 13:40:53 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:40:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041215081252.02b0ae60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000601c4e2ab$b2f59360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau > At 07:41 PM 12/14/04, Sven wrote: > > >Does the English language syntax allow for using the following two > >alternative constructions to distinguish between different meanings? > > > >..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the > >class of player involved, but not irrational. > > > >..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior but not > >irrational for the class of player involved. > > Yes. 100% absolutely. It's not a question of "allow"; those two > sentences mean two different things, period. > > >I am fully aware that the last construction in case expresses the > >understanding we all have of the footnote in question and I have no > >intention of suggesting that WBFLC had any other understanding in mind > >when > >the wrote the Laws. > > There must have been at least some confusion on someone's part; it > stretches credibility to assume that our laws were written by someone > with so little understanding of English grammar as to have chosen the > first construction when it so clearly does not express what we are told > is the intended meaning. Usually I do not fancy reading a law "literally" when it is more or less obvious that the intention of the law is not "literally" what it says. However, I have always felt so uncomfortable with the term "irrational" being qualified with the class of player that I should appreciate some consideration by WBFLC: Is it possible that the intention with this footnote was indeed what they wrote; and if so is it possible to have some WBFLC "minute" stating this intention to be the rule from now on? The effect would of course be that "irrationality" should not be judged against the class of player but as an absolute term where the yardstick is the same for a world champion and a novice in the game of bridge. I'd love this effect. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 15 13:45:10 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:45:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <1103115689.4320.210848237@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20041215110004.22185.89193.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1103115689.4320.210848237@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <41C03FE6.3030804@hdw.be> Hello David, Nice constructive discussion, this. I mean it. Thanks. David Babcock wrote: > > >>>It is irrational not to count the diamonds while playing, >>>but it is not irrational to count *incorrectly*. >> >>Yes it is. Not that this matters a lot to our present discussion. > > > It does matter, because if counting incorrectly is > "careless", Sorry - I am talking larger view here. If counting incorrectly is considered careless then all claims become invalid, because in any claim one has to count some suits to 13. If miscounting is careless, some lines that are now considered irrational would become normal and all claims are off. You cannot solve the Riviera claim by saying that claimer might miscount diamonds and play the seven and be surprised at seeing the nine. You cannot solve the claim either by saying that claimer might not notice that West does not follow suit to the second diamond, as whitin claim execution, claimer is deemed to notice discards. The only ways out of the Riviera claim are by saying that it is normal to cash the SA before the second diamond, or by saying that it is normal to play the SA from the top in the two card-ending. Or to say that claimer will not count his diamonds, ever. I don't buy this as being rational, but some do. > then declarer is left with no case for > being allowed to hook the spade. The only alternative line > the director can rule out is an irrational one: L70E, > after the last "unless", together with the footnote that > distinguishes "careless" from "irrational". > > >>But if miscounting is considered normal, then all claims have turned >>invalid once again. > > > Only if the director lets himself get distracted by the > counting issue in the first place. If I'm directing, I > don't care whether you counted or didn't, or misread > your 7 as a 9 in the bad light, or were hung over from > the midnight side game and desperate to get to the > hospitality desk for some aspirin. > Well, that will make you a bad director. Because normalcy of otherwise irrational lines depends on it. > Getting away from the Laws for a moment, there is just > something preposterous about the notion that one can > avoid the trouble of counting by making a claim and > waiting for the defenders to tell you whether you need > to stir yourself or not. > That preposterousness is only important in about one claim in 100,000. I would not advise this as a tactic, even if I were to get away with this one. Besides, I did not get away with it here. However unlikely the line of topping the SA has been ruled normal (Well, in the one AC that gave a ruling that I would accept as being within the bounds of legality as I see it). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 15 13:59:07 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:59:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: References: <41C00872.2060304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41C0432B.7000900@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 15 Dec 2004, at 09:48, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Would I dare? Yes I would. >> 3NT in a Butler tournament: >> >> J964 >> KJ5 >> A6 >> A874 >> AT73 82 >> 42 A873 >> Q97 J532 >> T963 QJ2 >> KQ5 >> QT96 >> KT84 >> K5 >> >> The lead is hearts, for king and ace. East returns hearts, taken in >> dummy. Declarer claims: "I chase out the Ace and take 2 spades, 3 >> hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs". >> Would you grant that claim? > > > Yes. > I think the claim is premature, in that there are possibilities for more > tricks that declarer has chosen not to test, but that's neither here nor > there. > > The claim seems fine. > A unanimous verdict from three eminent critics of my claim rulings. OK, so what really happened. As you can guess, I was declarer, and I did not claim like this. Even I realize that it is not good bridge, even in a Butler tournament, to claim 9 tricks when 10 are possible. So I played on. I first played a spade to my king, and it held. Then I presented the sqpade queen, which was taken by LHO. He switched to diamonds, and I took the jack with my king. Then I played a small spade, but LHO did not flinch, so I was faced with the choice, and of course I chose wrong, putting in the Jack. Next I cashed the Diamond Ace, preparing some sort of Vienna coup. Next I cashed my two hearts, nothing happened. So I noticed that I still had 9 tricks, but that a tenth would come if the DQ and ST were in different hands, so I played the DT. LHO took the DQ and cashed the ST. ... and I discarded the D8 from hand. one down! I should have claimed! Just goes to show that indeed the claim laws are there to protect declarers from silly mistakes. And that this is not a bad thing either. Because if you are going to rule this claim one off - you'll have no claims left and you'll have added 30 minutes to every session! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 15 14:04:05 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:04:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <000601c4e2ab$b2f59360$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c4e2ab$b2f59360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41C04455.7070103@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Eric Landau > >>At 07:41 PM 12/14/04, Sven wrote: >> >> >>>Does the English language syntax allow for using the following two >>>alternative constructions to distinguish between different meanings? >>> >>>..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the >>>class of player involved, but not irrational. >>> >>>..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior but not >>>irrational for the class of player involved. >> >>Yes. 100% absolutely. It's not a question of "allow"; those two >>sentences mean two different things, period. >> >> >>>I am fully aware that the last construction in case expresses the >>>understanding we all have of the footnote in question and I have no >>>intention of suggesting that WBFLC had any other understanding in mind >>>when >>>the wrote the Laws. >> >>There must have been at least some confusion on someone's part; it >>stretches credibility to assume that our laws were written by someone >>with so little understanding of English grammar as to have chosen the >>first construction when it so clearly does not express what we are told >>is the intended meaning. > > > Usually I do not fancy reading a law "literally" when it is more or less > obvious that the intention of the law is not "literally" what it says. > > However, I have always felt so uncomfortable with the term "irrational" > being qualified with the class of player that I should appreciate some > consideration by WBFLC: > > Is it possible that the intention with this footnote was indeed what they > wrote; and if so is it possible to have some WBFLC "minute" stating this > intention to be the rule from now on? > > The effect would of course be that "irrationality" should not be judged > against the class of player but as an absolute term where the yardstick is > the same for a world champion and a novice in the game of bridge. > > I'd love this effect. > The problem with that effect is that you are left with a third class of lines of play, one of which we do not know what to do: - there are lines that are not "careless for the class of players" - there are lines that are irrational, period - and there would be lines that are "careless for that class of player" but not irrational. What are those third lines - normal or not? The way the footnote has been interpreted is that all lines are either normal, or irrational. I believe that the mention of irrational in L70E ought to follow the same distinction. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Dec 15 14:03:50 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:03:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <20041215131923.887.33053.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20041215131923.887.33053.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1103119430.10294.210852254@webmail.messagingengine.com> > > Would I dare? Yes I would. > > 3NT in a Butler tournament: > > > > J964 > > KJ5 > > A6 > > A874 > > AT73 82 > > 42 A873 > > Q97 J532 > > T963 QJ2 > > KQ5 > > QT96 > > KT84 > > K5 > > > > The lead is hearts, for king and ace. East returns hearts, taken in > > dummy. Declarer claims: "I chase out the Ace and take 2 spades, 3 > > hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs". > > Would you grant that claim? > > Yes. > I think the claim is premature, in that there are possibilities for > more tricks that declarer has chosen not to test, but that's neither > here nor there. > > The claim seems fine. > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK I think I see where this is going. I agree, the claim is fine on the hand we are given. But what happens if West turns out to have a small spade singleton? Playing K-Q of spades is certainly reasonable--but if East holds off, what then? Does declarer's claim oblige him to continue with a spade to the J? I cannot imagine ruling so at the table, but I confess I am not able to say that I see a clear line between this situation and the Riviera one. Declarer would have to miscount by 2 cards to think the A still out was stiff, but...miscounting is not irrational. Or so I said. Hmmmm. If Herman's point is that this entire area is too fuzzy, he has convinced me. David Babcock Florida USA From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Dec 15 14:10:31 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:10:31 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Three UI cases Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC78@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Eric Landau wrote: At 09:47 PM 12/14/04, Steve wrote: >After not seeing a UI case for months, there were three in one weekend=20 >at an ACBL sectional. > >Case 1: > >Matchpoints, both vul, in second seat you pick up T96 AT7 KQT953 4 and=20 >open a natural, weak 2D. With opponents silent, the bidding is: > 2D 2S > 3H 3NT > ? >What do you bid now, assuming everything is in tempo? And what if=20 >partner's 3NT bid was slow -- say 4-5 seconds, a definite pause for=20 >thought but not an extreme one? > >None of these is extraordinary, but I'd like opinions on case 1... 4S, regardless of tempo. No LA. I can't not show my spade support,=20 and I have a super-maximum for play in spades. 3H was (or certainly=20 would have been, had I bid it) an advance cue to show first-round=20 control of hearts in a maximum hand for spades after I bid spades on=20 the next round, which I must do now. Had pard rebid 4S instead of 3NT,=20 I would be committed to bidding on. ----- To me, a new suit over 2S is a cue bid showing spade support. Personally, I would have made a splinter bid of 4C over 2S. Over 3N pass is not a LA. If partner wanted to play in 3N he would have bid it immediately. 3H could have been a short suit, so would not induce him to bid 3N after I showed support. I presume 4C would show second round control now. That would be my bid over 2N. I've got to much playing strength to sign off in 4S. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Dec 15 14:15:33 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:15:33 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Re: Claim at Elkerlyc Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC79@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> David Babcock wrote: > > Would I dare? Yes I would. > > 3NT in a Butler tournament: > > > > J964 > > KJ5 > > A6 > > A874 > > AT73 82 > > 42 A873 > > Q97 J532 > > T963 QJ2 > > KQ5 > > QT96 > > KT84 > > K5 > > > > The lead is hearts, for king and ace. East returns hearts, taken in=20 > > dummy. Declarer claims: "I chase out the Ace and take 2 spades, 3=20 > > hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs". > > Would you grant that claim? >=20 > Yes. > I think the claim is premature, in that there are possibilities for=20 > more tricks that declarer has chosen not to test, but that's neither=20 > here nor there. >=20 > The claim seems fine. >=20 > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK I think I see where this is going. I agree, the claim is fine on the hand we are given. But what happens if West turns out=20 to have a small spade singleton? Playing K-Q of spades is certainly reasonable--but if East holds off, what then? Does declarer's claim oblige him to continue with a spade to the J? =20 ----- The claim statement was that he would take 2 spade tricks, 3 hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs. If 2 spades are ducked, the claim statement leads him to continue cashing his winners. (Even if you ruled like that, defenders would get 3 spades and the heart ace, and still nine tricks for declarer :-) ) Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- I cannot imagine ruling so at the table, but I confess I am not able to say that I see a clear line between this situation and the Riviera one. Declarer would have to miscount by 2 cards to think the A still out was stiff, but...miscounting is not irrational. Or so I said. Hmmmm. If Herman's point is that this entire area is too fuzzy, he has convinced me. =20 David Babcock Florida USA _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 15 14:31:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:31:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Out of step with the majority In-Reply-To: <000f01c4e287$03de0200$a0d3cd18@DFYXB361> References: <000f01c4e287$03de0200$a0d3cd18@DFYXB361> Message-ID: raija d wrote >----- Original Message ----- From: >> Club Championship Swiss Pairs >> (IMPs against a Datum) >> >> Bd. 24 / W / Nil >> >> T9842 >> 83 >> 832 >> AJ4 >> 63 Q >> K965 JT742 >> AJT65 Q4 >> T5 K8732 >> AKJ75 >> AQ >> K97 >> Q96 >> >> West North East South >> Pass Pass 2H(1) Dbl(2) >> 4H Pass(3) Pass 4S >> Pass Pass Pass >> >> (1) 6-9 HCP, 5+ hearts and 5+ of another suit >> (2) Take-out, opening values or better >> (3) Preceded by an agreed hesitation >> >> The Play: >> H5 - H3 - HT - HQ >> SA - S3 - S2 - SQ >> SK - S6 - S4 - H2 >> HA - H6 - H8 - H4 >> C6 - C5 - CA - C2 >> C4 - CK - C9 - CT >> D4 - D9 - DJ - D2 >> HK - S8 - H7 - D7 >> >> Result: N/S +420 >> Datum: -30 >> >> As TD, how would you rule? >> As AC, how would you rule? >I have been following a few threads here on blml involving >hesitations/UI, as just an "interested reader". Based on blml >opinions, it seems that the hesitation itself has become an infraction >even when hesitation is mandated (such as here, North is obligated to >pause when opponent skips a level of bidding) or when auction is >competitive at a high level (well, not VERY high here), or when the >hesitation does not demonstrably suggest a particular thing (as in this >hand IMO it doesn't, when North is mandated to pause). Hesitations are not infractions. They provide UI to partner, and his failure to avoid bending over backwards not to take advantage would be an infraction. There are no mandated pauses after skip bids in Australia. Since Richard is in Australia, and says it is a "Club Championship Swiss Pairs" I believe there was no mandated pause after the skip bid. This hand is an example why the skip bid regulations are considered a good idea in the rest of the world: I imagine there would have been no break in tempo elsewhere in the world so no ruling would have been required. When there is a required pause, generally ten seconds being recommended, such a pause does *not* provide UI to partner and there can be no adjustment as a result. There can be, and sometimes is, an adjustment where a player fails to make a mandated pause since this provides UI to partner [case in Brighton, England, where the bidding went 2H p 4H dbl p p p: the double was at the speed of light, and the TD correctly adjusted on the basis of partner removing the double]. When UI is passed to partner, but the UI does not suggest anything, then there is no infraction because partner does or does not do something. However, since bridge judgements differ, even if you think the hesitation shows nothing, others will think it does. There was a known problem, now fortunately disappearing with better education, that some TDs tended to adjust whenever there was a hesitation without considering what the hesitation suggested ["If it hesitates, shoot it!"]. Finally, 'hesitation' is a popular name, but a fairer and more accurate one is BIT, standing for Break in Tempo, since a call that is faster than normal, or faster than the regulations permit [when a pause is mandated] provides UI to partner just as much as a slow call. But a mandated pause provides no UI to partner. > IMO South is free to make any call he wishes. Even if the hesitation >was longer than 10 seconds (which is not supported by the writeup), >action rather than passing is natural with that hand and bid rather >than pass is natural by North should South's action be a Double instead >of 4S. Was there a timer involved to measure whether the pause was >7-8-9-10-11-12-13 or 14 seconds - I imagine there was no timer so >anywhere in the vicinity of ten seconds should be acceptable range for >the pause as I understand. Maybe I am wrong, in which case I will look >forward to educational comments from y'all. Since we can assume there was a BIT since there was no mandated pause the question is whether pass is an LA to 4S: whether dbl is an LA to 4S: whether 4S is suggested over pass by the UI: whether 4S is suggested over dbl by the UI. This hand actually reminds me of a hand I just played in Peebles: 1S dbl from me, 4S p p. Apparently I was the only one who did not double again with my 20 points! 4S doubled was cold - though one or two people went off. At my table 4S undoubled went one down with declarer kicking herself. The point is that I do not think that pass is an LA. Players with a good 19 points will not let 4H play undoubled. If pass is not an LA then "whether 4S is suggested over pass by the UI" becomes moot. So, is dbl an LA to 4S? Certainly! I am somewhat surprised that 4S was not found at the table. Finally, is 4S suggested over dbl by the UI? Well, I stand to be corrected, but I cannot see why. Partner must have a point or two to hesitate, which helps both 4S and double. I know some people will say he is more likely to think with four spades than without, but surely he is more likely to think *and bid* with 4S: without 4S he might easily think but realise there is no sensible alternative to pass. So, in my view, there is no reason to adjust. There was a BIT: there was an LA to the chosen action [dbl]: but the chosen action was not suggested by the UI. >EW produced a horrible defense, allowing 4S make. Irrelevant since we are not adjusting. If we were, there is a question of whether it was so horrible to deny redress for E/W only, and that depends on the standards in place in Australia. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 15 14:33:10 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:33:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Out of step with the majority In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018172D7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018172D7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <$X7Q5FDmsEwBFw5N@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >Club Championship Swiss Pairs >(IMPs against a Datum) > >Bd. 24 / W / Nil > > T9842 > 83 > 832 > AJ4 >63 Q >K965 JT742 >AJT65 Q4 >T5 K8732 > AKJ75 > AQ > K97 > Q96 > >West North East South >Pass Pass 2H(1) Dbl(2) >4H Pass(3) Pass 4S >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) 6-9 HCP, 5+ hearts and 5+ of another suit >(2) Take-out, opening values or better >(3) Preceded by an agreed hesitation > >The Play: > >Result: N/S +420 >------------------------------------------------------------------ >a) South waited for 10 seconds before doubling. North >waited for 10 seconds before passing. Was there a hesitation >in addition to that by North? See my other post: no mandated pauses in Australia. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 15 14:36:12 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:36:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <41C04455.7070103@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c4e2b3$6c9fc590$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ........... > > The effect would of course be that "irrationality" should not be = judged > > against the class of player but as an absolute term where the = yardstick > is > > the same for a world champion and a novice in the game of bridge. > > > > I'd love this effect. > > >=20 > The problem with that effect is that you are left with a third class > of lines of play, one of which we do not know what to do: > - there are lines that are not "careless for the class of players" > - there are lines that are irrational, period > - and there would be lines that are "careless for that class of > player" but not irrational. >=20 > What are those third lines - normal or not? Normal of course!=20 There is no limitation to how "careless" or "inferior" a line of play = can be. But only if they are "irrational" regardless of the class of player should it be ruled not "normal". > The way the footnote has been interpreted is that all lines are either > normal, or irrational. That would still be the case. In fact literally the footnote states that = any line of play that is not "irrational" regardless of the class of player shall be deemed "normal" in the context of Laws 69, 70 and 71. Sven From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Dec 15 14:35:59 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:35:59 -0500 Subject: SV: [blml] Re: Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC79@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC79@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <1103121359.13874.210855286@webmail.messagingengine.com> > The claim statement was that he would take 2 spade tricks, 3 hearts, 2 > diamonds and 2 clubs. > If 2 spades are ducked, the claim statement leads him to continue > cashing his winners. Except that he did say he would chase out the A, and it is fair to ask whether he is bound by that, given our several views on the Riviera case. I am guessing that Herman has set this as a problem, mainly because no sensible declarer would settle for just 9 tricks at this point. > (Even if you ruled like that, defenders would get 3 spades and the heart > ace, and still nine tricks for declarer :-) ) > > Regards, > Harald Skjaeran Oh, yeah. This is why I don't play morning sessions. Counting is too hard this early. :-))) Change the spades to 0-6. David Babcock Florida USA From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 15 14:35:05 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:35:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <41C00872.2060304@hdw.be> References: <41C00872.2060304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <7n0RFeDZuEwBFw6P@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >Would I dare? Yes I would. >3NT in a Butler tournament: > > J964 > KJ5 > A6 > A874 >AT73 82 >42 A873 >Q97 J532 >T963 QJ2 > KQ5 > QT96 > KT84 > K5 > >The lead is hearts, for king and ace. East returns hearts, taken in >dummy. Declarer claims: "I chase out the Ace and take 2 spades, 3 >hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs". >Would you grant that claim? Ok, I'll fall for it. Yes, Herman, I would accept the claim. Why? Because it is perfectly valid. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Wed Dec 15 14:46:59 2004 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:46:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5C88@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > David Stevenson > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 15:35 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc >=20 >=20 > Herman De Wael wrote > >Would I dare? Yes I would. > >3NT in a Butler tournament: > > > > J964 > > KJ5 > > A6 > > A874 > >AT73 82 > >42 A873 > >Q97 J532 > >T963 QJ2 > > KQ5 > > QT96 > > KT84 > > K5 > > > >The lead is hearts, for king and ace. East returns hearts, taken in=20 > >dummy. Declarer claims: "I chase out the Ace and take 2 spades, 3=20 > >hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs". > >Would you grant that claim? >=20 > Ok, I'll fall for it. >=20 > Yes, Herman, I would accept the claim. Why? Because it=20 > is perfectly=20 > valid. But if Herman were declarer, you probably would have to declare down one = :) (see horror story of Herman himself) --=20 Martin Sinot From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 15 14:46:12 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:46:12 +0000 Subject: SV: [blml] Out of step with the majority In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC77@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC77@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Skjaran, Harald wrote >Hinden, Frances wrote: > >Club Championship Swiss Pairs >(IMPs against a Datum) > >Bd. 24 / W / Nil > > T9842 > 83 > 832 > AJ4 >63 Q >K965 JT742 >AJT65 Q4 >T5 K8732 > AKJ75 > AQ > K97 > Q96 > >West North East South >Pass Pass 2H(1) Dbl(2) >4H Pass(3) Pass 4S >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) 6-9 HCP, 5+ hearts and 5+ of another suit >(2) Take-out, opening values or better >(3) Preceded by an agreed hesitation > >The Play: > >Result: N/S +420 >------------------------------------------------------------------ >a) South waited for 10 seconds before doubling. North >waited for 10 seconds before passing. Was there a hesitation >in addition to that by North? > >if indeed so, >----- >From the write-up I would believe that there's been an hesitation longer >than the proscribed stop pause. Australia - no proscribed pause. See other post. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 15 14:50:26 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:50:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <41C0432B.7000900@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000a01c4e2b5$6a25da00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > > On 15 Dec 2004, at 09:48, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >> Would I dare? Yes I would. > >> 3NT in a Butler tournament: > >> > >> J964 > >> KJ5 > >> A6 > >> A874 > >> AT73 82 > >> 42 A873 > >> Q97 J532 > >> T963 QJ2 > >> KQ5 > >> QT96 > >> KT84 > >> K5 > >> > >> The lead is hearts, for king and ace. East returns hearts, taken in > >> dummy. Declarer claims: "I chase out the Ace and take 2 spades, 3 > >> hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs". > >> Would you grant that claim? > > > > > > Yes. > > I think the claim is premature, in that there are possibilities for = more > > tricks that declarer has chosen not to test, but that's neither here = nor > > there. > > > > The claim seems fine. > > >=20 > A unanimous verdict from three eminent critics of my claim rulings. > OK, so what really happened. > As you can guess, I was declarer, and I did not claim like this. > Even I realize that it is not good bridge, even in a Butler > tournament, to claim 9 tricks when 10 are possible. >=20 > So I played on. > I first played a spade to my king, and it held. > Then I presented the sqpade queen, which was taken by LHO. > He switched to diamonds, and I took the jack with my king. > Then I played a small spade, but LHO did not flinch, so I was faced > with the choice, and of course I chose wrong, putting in the Jack. > Next I cashed the Diamond Ace, preparing some sort of Vienna coup. > Next I cashed my two hearts, nothing happened. > So I noticed that I still had 9 tricks, but that a tenth would come if > the DQ and ST were in different hands, so I played the DT. > LHO took the DQ and cashed the ST. >=20 > ... >=20 > and I discarded the D8 from hand. >=20 > one down! >=20 > I should have claimed! >=20 > Just goes to show that indeed the claim laws are there to protect > declarers from silly mistakes. And that this is not a bad thing = either. The claim is not there to protect the claimer from making silly = mistakes. If you had claimed I would have accepted the claim and awarded you = exactly nine tricks. Even if the cards had been positioned so that you should win more than = your nine tricks claimed you would only be awarded nine tricks unless the = extra tricks cannot be lost by ANY LEGAL play! There is no question of = irrational play here. (Law 71A). So by claiming nine tricks you abstain from the possibility of getting = more than your nine tricks. By instead playing on you took your chance of = getting more at the risk of failing your contract. Fair case. Sven=20 From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 15 14:57:56 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:57:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5C88@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <000b01c4e2b6$75f62f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Sinot Martin ............. > > Yes, Herman, I would accept the claim. Why? Because it > > is perfectly > > valid. >=20 > But if Herman were declarer, you probably would have to declare down = one > :) > (see horror story of Herman himself) No reason for that.=20 But as he with his claim conceded the remaining tricks there is no way = he would be awarded more than nine tricks even if he had to play irrational = not to win ten if there is at least one legal play (no question of irrationality!) that could hold him to nine. (See Law 71A) Sven From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 15 15:09:01 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:09:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5C88@rama.micronas.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5C88@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: Sinot Martin wrote > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of >> David Stevenson >> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 15:35 >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc >> >> >> Herman De Wael wrote >> >Would I dare? Yes I would. >> >3NT in a Butler tournament: >> > >> > J964 >> > KJ5 >> > A6 >> > A874 >> >AT73 82 >> >42 A873 >> >Q97 J532 >> >T963 QJ2 >> > KQ5 >> > QT96 >> > KT84 >> > K5 >> > >> >The lead is hearts, for king and ace. East returns hearts, taken in >> >dummy. Declarer claims: "I chase out the Ace and take 2 spades, 3 >> >hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs". >> >Would you grant that claim? >> >> Ok, I'll fall for it. >> >> Yes, Herman, I would accept the claim. Why? Because it >> is perfectly >> valid. > >But if Herman were declarer, you probably would have to declare down one :) >(see horror story of Herman himself) Not so. His actual line did not follow his stated line. I assume his stated line is the one he would have followed. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Dec 15 15:27:43 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:27:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <20041215143503.7250.79075.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20041215143503.7250.79075.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1103124463.20015.210859490@webmail.messagingengine.com> > one down! > > I should have claimed! > > Just goes to show that indeed the claim laws are there to protect > declarers from silly mistakes. And that this is not a bad thing either. Well, it wasn't a bad thing for you on that hand (or wouldn't have been), but it's a stretch to say that the claim laws are there *for that reason*. The claim laws are there to speed up the game, with, alas, an offsetting mess sometimes. I was right in figuring you had set us a problem here, but I sure misguessed what it was!! :-) David Babcock Florida USA From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Dec 15 16:11:40 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:11:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Out of step with the majority Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018172E6@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Bd. 24 / W / Nil T9842 83 832 AJ4 63 Q K965 JT742 AJT65 Q4 T5 K8732 AKJ75 AQ K97 Q96 West North East South Pass Pass 2H(1) Dbl(2) 4H Pass(3) Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) 6-9 HCP, 5+ hearts and 5+ of another suit (2) Take-out, opening values or better (3) Preceded by an agreed hesitation The Play: Result: N/S +420 ------------------------------------------------------------------ a) South waited for 10 seconds before doubling. North waited for 10 seconds before passing. Was there a hesitation in addition to that by North? if indeed so, ----- >From the write-up I would believe that there's been an hesitation longer than the proscribed stop pause. ----- b) The UI suggests acting over passing.=20 I do not think pass is a LA for South when 4H comes round. ----- I agree that pass is not a LA for South over 4H. West is a passed hand and east made a weak bid (it might probably be stronger in 3rd hand), so you don't let them play 4H undoubled. ----- c) South's LAs are 4S and double. It depends slightly on what North's double of 4H would have meant, and what South's double means, but if anything the UI might suggest double rather than 4S -=20 simply because it caters better for whatever partner was thinking of doing. ----- Agreed. ----- d) Suppose you then convince me that the UI suggests 4S over double. If South doubles, North has no LA to 4S. ----- If someone convince you that UI suggest 4S over double, and you maintain that Norht has no LA to 4S, then the contract should be 4S by North. There's no conceivable way for that contract to make, as you won't be given a heart trick when the lead is by east. The same defensive error as in the actual play would still beat the contract once. So in case d) 4S should be ruled to go down. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- Yes, you are correct. I should have stopped at part (c), and waited to = see if I could be convinced otherwise! From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 15 16:58:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:58:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <1103124463.20015.210859490@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20041215143503.7250.79075.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1103124463.20015.210859490@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: David Babcock wrote >> one down! >> >> I should have claimed! >> >> Just goes to show that indeed the claim laws are there to protect >> declarers from silly mistakes. And that this is not a bad thing either. > >Well, it wasn't a bad thing for you on that hand (or wouldn't >have been), but it's a stretch to say that the claim >laws are there *for that reason*. The claim laws are there >to speed up the game, with, alas, an offsetting mess >sometimes. I think it is easy to forget when reading RGB or BLML how rare the 'offsetting mess' is. Just consider my play. I claim about four times a session, so I claim about 110 hands a year, or so. The last person to challenge one of my claims seriously was myself, about four years ago, where after my claim was accepted halfway through the next board I realised that if trumps were 4-1 [I had played one round] then I was reduced to a guess. When I looked back at the board trumps were 4-1, so I agreed with opponents to reduce my score by one trick without benefit of TD. OK, so my claims may be doubtful one time in let us say 2000 times. Perhaps with the average player it is more like one time in a thousand. Perfectly good claims get challenged every so often, and the TD has to explain that they are good. So claims get adjusted under the laws - what? - perhaps one time in every 10,000 claims? Now of those adjustments probably 19 out of 20 are pretty obvious. So we have a tricky claim to sort out once in every 200,000 claims. And them people on BLML suggest that it would speed the game up if we were not allowed to claim! :)))))))))))))) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Wed Dec 15 17:09:01 2004 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:09:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64B4@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Sven Pran > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 15:58 > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc >=20 >=20 > > Sinot Martin > ............. > > > Yes, Herman, I would accept the claim. Why? Because it > > > is perfectly > > > valid. > >=20 > > But if Herman were declarer, you probably would have to=20 > declare down one > > :) > > (see horror story of Herman himself) >=20 > No reason for that.=20 >=20 > But as he with his claim conceded the remaining tricks there=20 > is no way he > would be awarded more than nine tricks even if he had to play=20 > irrational not > to win ten if there is at least one legal play (no question of > irrationality!) that could hold him to nine. (See Law 71A) I know that. I was only joking. Of course it is a valid claim. To me it seems impossible to go down even if you don't claim. Nevertheless, Herman managed to go down. Hence the joke. --=20 Martin Sinot From schoderb@msn.com Wed Dec 15 17:58:08 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:58:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Elkerlyc References: <20041215143503.7250.79075.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1103124463.20015.210859490@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: Amen!!!! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" > I think it is easy to forget when reading RGB or BLML how rare the > 'offsetting mess' is. > > Just consider my play. I claim about four times a session, so I claim > about 110 hands a year, or so. The last person to challenge one of my > claims seriously was myself, about four years ago, where after my claim > was accepted halfway through the next board I realised that if trumps > were 4-1 [I had played one round] then I was reduced to a guess. When I > looked back at the board trumps were 4-1, so I agreed with opponents to > reduce my score by one trick without benefit of TD. > > OK, so my claims may be doubtful one time in let us say 2000 times. > Perhaps with the average player it is more like one time in a thousand. > > Perfectly good claims get challenged every so often, and the TD has to > explain that they are good. > > So claims get adjusted under the laws - what? - perhaps one time in > every 10,000 claims? Now of those adjustments probably 19 out of 20 are > pretty obvious. > > So we have a tricky claim to sort out once in every 200,000 claims. > > And them people on BLML suggest that it would speed the game up if we > were not allowed to claim! :)))))))))))))) > > -- > David Stevenson 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 PeterEidt@T-Online.de Wed Dec 15 19:28:00 2004 From: PeterEidt@T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: 15 Dec 2004 19:28 GMT Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc Message-ID: <1Cedsv-1NNxZ20@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> Hi Herman et al., "Herman De Wael" wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: >=20 > >=20 > > On 15 Dec 2004, at 09:48, Herman De Wael wrote: > >=20 > >> Would I dare? Yes I would. > >> 3NT in a Butler tournament: > >> > >> J964 > >> KJ5 > >> A6 > >> A874 > >> AT73 82 > >> 42 A873 > >> Q97 J532 > >> T963 QJ2 > >> KQ5 > >> QT96 > >> KT84 > >> K5 > >> > >> The lead is hearts, for king and ace. East returns hearts, taken in=20 > >> dummy. Declarer claims: "I chase out the Ace and take 2 spades, 3=20 > >> hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs". > >> Would you grant that claim? > >=20 > >=20 > > Yes. > > I think the claim is premature, in that there are possibilities for mor= e=20 > > tricks that declarer has chosen not to test, but that's neither here no= r=20 > > there. > >=20 > > The claim seems fine. > >=20 >=20 > A unanimous verdict from three eminent critics of my claim rulings. > OK, so what really happened. > As you can guess, I was declarer, and I did not claim like this. > Even I realize that it is not good bridge, even in a Butler=20 > tournament, to claim 9 tricks when 10 are possible. >=20 > So I played on. > I first played a spade to my king, and it held. > Then I presented the sqpade queen, which was taken by LHO. > He switched to diamonds, and I took the jack with my king. > Then I played a small spade, but LHO did not flinch, so I was faced=20 > with the choice, and of course I chose wrong, putting in the Jack. > Next I cashed the Diamond Ace, preparing some sort of Vienna coup. > Next I cashed my two hearts, nothing happened. > So I noticed that I still had 9 tricks, but that a tenth would come if=20 > the DQ and ST were in different hands, so I played the DT. > LHO took the DQ and cashed the ST. >=20 > ... >=20 > and I discarded the D8 from hand. >=20 > one down! mhhhh ... perhaps I'm missing some point ... perhaps it doesn't matter ... perhaps - no, for sure - the story above was only for the reason of argume= nt ... ... but ... if I play the cards in the above mentioned way the outcome afte= r=20 the 9th trick were 9 - - A87 T - - - D 3 T9 DB2 - - T8 K5 At this time I had won 2 Spades, 3 Hearts, 2 Diamonds =3D total 7 tricks=20 and my opps had scored the two major aces =3D 2 tricks. Now I play the DT hoping to score the D8 before opps score the ST. Ok, it doesn't work and LHO plays the ST and I discard the ... D8. But why - for heavens sake - does this limit my total tricks to 8 ???? kindly regards Peter >=20 > I should have claimed! >=20 > Just goes to show that indeed the claim laws are there to protect=20 > declarers from silly mistakes. And that this is not a bad thing either. >=20 > Because if you are going to rule this claim one off - you'll have no=20 > claims left and you'll have added 30 minutes to every session! >=20 > --=20 > Herman DE WAEL From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 15 21:38:45 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:38:45 +1100 Subject: [blml] Out of step with the majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford: >>No - I think it's just that when we are told >>there was a hesitation in a situation where a >>pause was mandated, we are in effect being told >>that there was a hesitation over and above the >>mandated pause. George Bernard Shaw: >Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and >thinks that the customs of his tribe and island >are the laws of nature. Richard Hills: Since this problem was submitted by an Aussie blmler, perhaps blmlers should not be too hasty to assume that a mandatory pause applies. The ABF has _not_ yet exercised its Law 73A2 option to regulate a mandatory pause after a skip bid. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 15 21:54:48 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:54:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: References: <001e01c4e24c$c2b5e930$acb887d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041215164439.02a34890@pop.starpower.net> At 10:00 PM 12/14/04, richard.hills wrote: >Footnote number 20, current version: > > >For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 "normal" includes play that > >would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of > >player involved. That corrects the sentence syntax to say what the WBF wants, but still leaves us with "irrational" meaning something other than its dictionary definition. To avoid that ambiguity, I would suggest leaving the footnote as it is above but with quotes around "irrational". As with "normal", this cues the reader to the fact that we intend it to mean something a bit different than does the dictionary. Meanwhile, until I can order a law book with that footnote in it, I think "current version" is rather a gross overbid. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 15 22:25:15 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:25:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Out of step with the majority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041215171350.02a32a90@pop.starpower.net> At 12:48 AM 12/15/04, richard.hills wrote: >Bd. 24 / W / Nil > > T9842 > 83 > 832 > AJ4 >63 Q >K965 JT742 >AJT65 Q4 >T5 K8732 > AKJ75 > AQ > K97 > Q96 > >West North East South >Pass Pass 2H(1) Dbl(2) >4H Pass(3) Pass 4S >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) 6-9 HCP, 5+ hearts and 5+ of another suit >(2) Take-out, opening values or better >(3) Preceded by an agreed hesitation > >The Play: >H5 - H3 - HT - HQ >SA - S3 - S2 - SQ >SK - S6 - S4 - H2 >HA - H6 - H8 - H4 >C6 - C5 - CA - C2 >C4 - CK - C9 - CT >D4 - D9 - DJ - D2 >HK - S8 - H7 - D7 > >Result: N/S +420 >Datum: -30 > >As TD, how would you rule? >As AC, how would you rule? N-S -420 (against 4H). North's hesitation suggests 4S over pass, and IMO pass is an LA. West's play of the HK was an error, but hardly "egregious" or "IWoG". Not N-S -590; double is an LA, but the hesitation does not suggest 4S over double; moreover, it isn't "likely" that North would not have bid 4S had South doubled. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 15 22:27:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:27:07 +1100 Subject: [blml] Out of step with the majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson: [snip] >This hand actually reminds me of a hand I just played >in Peebles: 1S dbl from me, 4S p p. Apparently I was >the only one who did not double again with my 20 >points! 4S doubled was cold - though one or two >people went off. At my table 4S undoubled went one >down with declarer kicking herself. > >The point is that I do not think that pass is an LA. >Players with a good 19 points will not let 4H play >undoubled. If pass is not an LA then "whether 4S is >suggested over pass by the UI" becomes moot. [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, points schmoints. East has promised a two-suiter in hearts and a minor with 5/5 or better distribution. If East holds hearts and clubs (as East indeed does), then South's holding of 19 hcp is worth very few defensive tricks. Therefore, if South was an expert of Stevensonian calibre, pass would be a logical alternative. This deal was discussed by a panel in the most recent issue of the Australian Directors' Bulletin. I was out of step with the majority, since I was the only panellist who argued that pass was a logical alternative. In retrospect, I was wrong, and must agree with David's second paragraph. While pass would be a logical alternative for an expert, many experts are too proud to deign to play in a mere club championship. So it is unlikely that South was an expert, and more likely that South was Walter the Walrus. Passing with 19 hcp is not a logical alternative for Walter the Walrus. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 15 23:02:57 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:02:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] Out of step with the majority In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041215171350.02a32a90@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >>Bd. 24 / W / Nil >> >> T9842 >> 83 >> 832 >> AJ4 >>63 Q >>K965 JT742 >>AJT65 Q4 >>T5 K8732 >> AKJ75 >> AQ >> K97 >> Q96 >> >>West North East South >>Pass Pass 2H(1) Dbl(2) >>4H Pass(3) Pass 4S >>Pass Pass Pass >> >>(1) 6-9 HCP, 5+ hearts and 5+ of another suit >>(2) Take-out, opening values or better >>(3) Preceded by an agreed hesitation >> >>The Play: >>H5 - H3 - HT - HQ >>SA - S3 - S2 - SQ >>SK - S6 - S4 - H2 >>HA - H6 - H8 - H4 >>C6 - C5 - CA - C2 >>C4 - CK - C9 - CT >>D4 - D9 - DJ - D2 >>HK - S8 - H7 - D7 >> >>Result: N/S +420 >>Datum: -30 >> >>As TD, how would you rule? >>As AC, how would you rule? Eric Landau: >N-S -420 (against 4H). North's hesitation suggests >4S over pass, and IMO pass is an LA. West's play of >the HK was an error, but hardly "egregious" or "IWoG". Richard Hills: It did not matter what West played at trick eight, as West was endplayed. If West did not give a ruff-sluff by playing a heart, West would still have to concede a trick by leading up to South's king of diamonds. East committed the error by choosing to lead the four of diamonds at trick seven, since leading the queen of diamonds instead would guarantee the defeat of the 4S contract. Eric Landau: >Not N-S -590; double is an LA, but the hesitation >does not suggest 4S over double; moreover, it isn't >"likely" that North would not have bid 4S had South >doubled. Richard Hills: I disagree with Eric's reasoning. I agree that Pass, double and 4S are all logical alternatives for an expert South. I agree that pass is the logical alternative which is *least* suggested by UI. But I argue that 4S is the logical alternative which is *most* suggested by UI. In my experience of high level hesitations, such a hesitation invariably implies, "Pard. let's declare, not defend." Furthermore, in an expert North-South partnership, North may evaluate that for North's balanced shape it would be easier to score four tricks defending rather than ten tricks declaring, especially if South suggests defending by doubling 4H. + + + *If* the TD deems that North-South score should be adjusted to -590 in 4Hx, and *if* the TD deems that East's trick seven play of the four of diamonds was "irrational, wild or gambling", *then* what should the TD adjust the East-West score to? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 15 23:16:25 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:16:25 +1100 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041215164439.02a34890@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >To avoid that ambiguity, I would suggest leaving the >footnote as it is above but with quotes around "irrational". >As with "normal", this cues the reader to the fact that we >intend it to mean something a bit different than does the >dictionary. [snip] Richard Hills: Some years ago, I suggested that words which are defined with non-dictionary special meanings in the Chapter 1 Definitions should be *bolded* in the main body of the 2006 Laws, thus alerting a club TD to their non-dictionary meaning. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 15 23:48:23 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:48:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Out of step with the majority References: Message-ID: <001f01c4e300$913792a0$489468d5@James> [Richard James Hills] *If* the TD deems that North-South score should be adjusted to -590 in 4Hx, and *if* the TD deems that East's trick seven play of the four of diamonds was "irrational, wild or gambling", *then* what should the TD adjust the East-West score to? [Nigel] In justice and fairness, the ruling should obviously remain NS-590 :) In accord with the current law, however, it would not surprize me to learn that the TD/AC would award a split core of -590 to NS and -420 to EW :( --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.809 / Virus Database: 551 - Release Date: 09/12/2004 From schoderb@msn.com Thu Dec 16 00:25:12 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:25:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) References: Message-ID: I wonder why we can't just leave them the way they were originally posed, and educate those who can't read English correctly as to what it says. We need a WBFLC screwed up interpretation to satisfy all those who don't know what "irrational" means, don't we? And then , we can pose as gurus, no? Kojak (remember the delete key to keep from making you think.) ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) > > > > > Eric Landau: > > [snip] > > >To avoid that ambiguity, I would suggest leaving the > >footnote as it is above but with quotes around "irrational". > >As with "normal", this cues the reader to the fact that we > >intend it to mean something a bit different than does the > >dictionary. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Some years ago, I suggested that words which are defined > with non-dictionary special meanings in the Chapter 1 > Definitions should be *bolded* in the main body of the > 2006 Laws, thus alerting a club TD to their non-dictionary > meaning. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and general guru > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 16 01:09:00 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:09:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William Schoder: >I wonder why we can't just leave them the way they >were originally posed, and educate those who can't >read English correctly as to what it says. We >need a WBFLC screwed up interpretation to satisfy >all those who don't know what "irrational" means, >don't we? And then, we can pose as gurus, no? > >Kojak (remember the delete key to keep from making >you think.) Richard Hills: The problem is not that tournament directors do not understand standard bridge English, but rather that standard bridge English is often at variance with what is stated in the Definitions in Chapter 1 of the Laws. For example, the standard bridge English meaning of "psychic call" ranges more broadly than the narrow Chapter 1 definition of "psychic call". The standard bridge English meaning includes CPU pseudo-psyches as part of the definitional range of "psychic call", a misdefinition also used in the EBU "Red Psyche" regulation and the WBF Code of Practice. Likewise, the standard bridge English meaning of "convention" ranges more broadly than the narrow Chapter 1 definition of "convention". The standard bridge English meaning includes weak two bids as part of the definitional range of "convention", a misdefinition also used in the (repealed) ACBL "Marty Bergen" regulation. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From adam@irvine.com Thu Dec 16 01:36:25 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:36:25 -0800 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:57:56 +0100." <000b01c4e2b6$75f62f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200412160136.RAA01543@mailhub.irvine.com> > No reason for that. > > But as he with his claim conceded the remaining tricks there is no way he > would be awarded more than nine tricks even if he had to play irrational not > to win ten if there is at least one legal play (no question of > irrationality!) that could hold him to nine. (See Law 71A) Question: Suppose the S10 were doubleton. Would you, as TD, award the tenth trick? I suppose not, because of L71A. Now suppose the defenders notice that declarer's line would give him 10 tricks. In practice, many defenders would simply give declarer that trick, and declarer would agree, and they'd score it that way, and the TD wouldn't be called. No problem. I'd do that (and Harald said the same earlier). But do the defenders have a right to do this under the Laws? Are they committing an infraction if they do so? If they called the TD and said "Declarer claimed 9 tricks but it's obvious that his line of play will give him 10, so we're willing to give him the tenth trick", does the TD have the power to award the score that everyone has agreed upon? If not, do the Laws need to be changed to allow this sort of practice? It seems sort of piddling that players who aren't there to try to get extra points by narrow interpretations of the Laws but are rather there to play bridge, might actually not be allowed to do so under the Laws. -- Adam From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 16 07:56:11 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:56:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) References: Message-ID: <000001c4e344$d39364f0$ba8d403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) > > William Schoder: > >>I wonder why we can't just leave them the way they >>were originally posed, and educate those who can't >>read English correctly as to what it says. We >>need a WBFLC screwed up interpretation to satisfy >>all those who don't know what "irrational" means, >>don't we? And then, we can pose as gurus, no? >> >>Kojak (remember the delete key to keep from making >>you think.) > > Richard Hills: > > The problem is not that tournament directors do not > understand standard bridge English, but rather that > standard bridge English is often at variance with > what is stated in the Definitions in Chapter 1 of > the Laws. > +=+ When the WBFLC moved the comma in this footnote that was a change of law, not an interpretation. It brought the law into line with the practice (of some SOs at least). For the most part what is 'broke' about the laws is the language, not the intention of the law - although there are one or two significant areas where the intention of the law is regarded among some influential authorities as 'broke'. In some respects, perhaps, this is because the game is dynamic and constantly moving on from where it was when we last looked, although not all parts of the world, nor all individuals, move at the same speed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 16 08:42:10 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:42:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <1Cedsv-1NNxZ20@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> References: <1Cedsv-1NNxZ20@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> Message-ID: <41C14A62.6000908@hdw.be> Well done Peter, Peter Eidt wrote: > > mhhhh ... > > perhaps I'm missing some point ... > perhaps it doesn't matter ... > perhaps - no, for sure - the story above was only for the reason of argument ... > > ... but ... if I play the cards in the above mentioned way the outcome after > the 9th trick were > > 9 > - > - > A87 > T - > - - > D 3 > T9 DB2 > - > - > T8 > K5 > > At this time I had won 2 Spades, 3 Hearts, 2 Diamonds = total 7 tricks > and my opps had scored the two major aces = 2 tricks. > > Now I play the DT hoping to score the D8 before opps score the ST. > Ok, it doesn't work and LHO plays the ST and I discard the ... D8. > > But why - for heavens sake - does this limit my total tricks to 8 ???? > > kindly regards > Peter > Because LHO still had the D7. I must have messed up the hand, and it should be: >>>> J964 >>>> KJ5 >>>> A6 >>>> A874 >>>>AT73 82 >>>>42 A873 >>>>Q972 J53 >>>>T96 QJ32 >>>> KQ5 >>>> QT96 >>>> KT84 >>>> K5 (a diamond and a club switched between East and West) and so the 4-card ending becomes: > 9 > - > - > A87 > T - > - - > D7 - > T DB32 > - > - > T8 > K5 Sorry! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 16 08:47:39 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:47:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <200412160136.RAA01543@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000001c4e34b$e64af160$6900a8c0@WINXP> Adam Beneschan .......... > > But as he with his claim conceded the remaining=20 > > tricks there is no way he would be awarded more > > than nine tricks even if he had to play irrational > > not to win ten if there is at least one legal play > > (no question of irrationality!) that could hold=20 > > him to nine. (See Law 71A) >=20 > Question: >=20 > Suppose the S10 were doubleton. Would you, as TD,=20 > award the tenth trick? I suppose not, because of L71A. Correct, I would not. >=20 > Now suppose the defenders notice that declarer's line would give him > 10 tricks. In practice, many defenders would simply give declarer > that trick, and declarer would agree, and they'd score it that way, > and the TD wouldn't be called. No problem. I'd do that (and Harald > said the same earlier). But do the defenders have a right to do this > under the Laws? Are they committing an infraction if they do so? If > they called the TD and said "Declarer claimed 9 tricks but it's > obvious that his line of play will give him 10, so we're willing to > give him the tenth trick", does the TD have the power to award the > score that everyone has agreed upon? Yes, the defenders have the right (but not an obligation) to do so. They = are entitled to the tricks conceded by the claimer unless there is no legal = play where these tricks can be lost. No, they are not committing any infraction if they do so. They may = contest the concession implied with the claim if they feel for it. Yes the TD certainly has the power to award the tricks they agreed upon = in excess of the claim. So I believe we can forget the following consideration? Regards Sven >=20 > If not, do the Laws need to be changed to allow this sort of practice? > It seems sort of piddling that players who aren't there to try to get > extra points by narrow interpretations of the Laws but are rather > there to play bridge, might actually not be allowed to do so under the > Laws. >=20 > -- Adam >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 16 09:18:38 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:18:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) References: <000201c4e2a0$ecba65e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c4e351$4c1335c0$3d8f4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Culture itself is neither education nor law-making; it is an atmosphere and a heritage." [Mencken] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) > +=+ The footnote is a definition of 'normal'. The word 'irrational' > in 70E is not linked to any use of 'normal'. The only use of 'normal' > in 70E is limited to lines of play in which an opponent would show > out. ~ G ~ +=+ Yes, but the footnote also (implicitly) defines "irrational" as "not normal" doesn't it? Regards Sven +=+ The footnote defines the use of 'normal'; it does not define the word 'irrational' except to say that when you use the word 'normal' it excludes what is irrational 'for the class of player'. This last phrase only applied to what is irrational, and then only in relation to the use of 'normal', from the time the wording of the footnote was altered by the WBFLC - although that was the way it had developed with certain authorities. If the word 'irrational' is used without any link to 'normal' there is no definition of it except the one in the dictionary. In the dictionary the abnormality is not linked to 'class of player' but is an absolute of reason and logic. Once you link irrationality to the 'class of player' you are no longer with the dictionary; instead you are referring to what is thinkable of one class of player but not of another. The language is deliberately broken and, as I see it, to the advantage of certain classes of players over others, which means that the game is not played on a level playing field, something I find difficult to justify. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ PS - as adopted by the WBFLC on 30th August 2000, the footnote now reads: "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player concerned." From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 16 09:23:31 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:23:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera References: <20041210171103.23752.65544.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102709489.2055.210544427@webmail.messagingengine.com> <41BC2476.5030400@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213080529.02ae31d0@pop.starpower.net> <41BDAB6B.1070407@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213113804.02ad2860@pop.starpower.net> <41BDD9C3.4070100@hdw.be> <000001c4e24a$61cd7a90$acb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000101c4e351$4cfcd270$3d8f4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Culture itself is neither education nor law-making; it is an atmosphere and a heritage." [Mencken] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera < > > However, the Belgians have ensured that the claims > > laws will be scrutinized in some detail. What is it with the > > Belgians and claims? > > Have Belgians other than Herman been involved in this? And > if not, should we assume it to be his Belgian-ness rather than > his Herman-ness that led to it? > +=+ Oh, think Maastricht, dear boy, think Maastricht. +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 16 09:37:43 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:37:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera In-Reply-To: <000101c4e351$4cfcd270$3d8f4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <20041210171103.23752.65544.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102709489.2055.210544427@webmail.messagingengine.com> <41BC2476.5030400@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213080529.02ae31d0@pop.starpower.net> <41BDAB6B.1070407@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213113804.02ad2860@pop.starpower.net> <41BDD9C3.4070100@hdw.be> <000001c4e24a$61cd7a90$acb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000101c4e351$4cfcd270$3d8f4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <41C15767.2080908@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>> However, the Belgians have ensured that the claims >>>laws will be scrutinized in some detail. What is it with the >>>Belgians and claims? >> >>Have Belgians other than Herman been involved in this? And >>if not, should we assume it to be his Belgian-ness rather than >>his Herman-ness that led to it? >> > > +=+ Oh, think Maastricht, dear boy, think Maastricht. +=+ > What about Maastricht? I remember a Swede ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Dec 16 08:58:40 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:58:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) References: <000001c4e344$d39364f0$ba8d403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <006e01c4e353$6d7e4900$55ebf1c3@LNV> I am not so sure that our LC interpretation is screwed up. When I brought this problem in the LC I thought to have used logic to convince the committee that the comma had to be removed. Let me try again: The idea of the footnote should be to cover all kinds of play, excluding nothing. If not, there being a gap somewhere, the TD is left with cases in which he can't decide what to do. This means that play is either normal or irrational. You agree? Then you are fixed. Because then, if normal depends on the class of player, saying that the border between normal and irrational can move, irrational has to depend on that class as well. Then I found out that this was difficult to accept, the meaning of irrational not allowing such interpretation. Be brave then and agree that the footnote is wrong. To make it work we need to interpret 'irrational' as 'not-normal'. Which doesn't sound so strange to me and might lead to the conclusion that the problem is not the use of 'irrational' in this footnote but the description of what we consider to be 'normal'. ton William Schoder: > >>I wonder why we can't just leave them the way they > >>were originally posed, and educate those who can't > >>read English correctly as to what it says. We > >>need a WBFLC screwed up interpretation to satisfy > >>all those who don't know what "irrational" means, > >>don't we? And then, we can pose as gurus, no? > >> > >>Kojak (remember the delete key to keep from making > >>you think.) > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > The problem is not that tournament directors do not > > understand standard bridge English, but rather that > > standard bridge English is often at variance with > > what is stated in the Definitions in Chapter 1 of > > the Laws. > > > +=+ When the WBFLC moved the comma in this footnote > that was a change of law, not an interpretation. It brought the > law into line with the practice (of some SOs at least). > For the most part what is 'broke' about the laws is > the language, not the intention of the law - although there are > one or two significant areas where the intention of the law > is regarded among some influential authorities as 'broke'. In > some respects, perhaps, this is because the game is dynamic > and constantly moving on from where it was when we last > looked, although not all parts of the world, nor all individuals, > move at the same speed. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Dec 16 09:47:26 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:47:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) References: <000201c4e2a0$ecba65e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000001c4e351$4c1335c0$3d8f4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <007b01c4e354$449ca0d0$55ebf1c3@LNV> Good luck Sven, I never succeeded in convincing some of my collegues that this is the only reasonable way to read the footnote. See my previous message. ton > > +=+ The footnote is a definition of 'normal'. The word 'irrational' > > in 70E is not linked to any use of 'normal'. The only use of 'normal' > > in 70E is limited to lines of play in which an opponent would show > > out. ~ G ~ +=+ > > Yes, but the footnote also (implicitly) defines "irrational" as "not normal" > doesn't it? > > Regards Sven > > +=+ The footnote defines the use of 'normal'; it does not > define the word 'irrational' except to say that when you use > the word 'normal' it excludes what is irrational 'for the class > of player'. This last phrase only applied to what is irrational, > and then only in relation to the use of 'normal', from the time > the wording of the footnote was altered by the WBFLC > - although that was the way it had developed with certain > authorities. If the word 'irrational' is used without any link > to 'normal' there is no definition of it except the one in the > dictionary. In the dictionary the abnormality is not linked > to 'class of player' but is an absolute of reason and logic. > Once you link irrationality to the 'class of player' you > are no longer with the dictionary; instead you are referring to > what is thinkable of one class of player but not of another. > The language is deliberately broken and, as I see it, to the > advantage of certain classes of players over others, which > means that the game is not played on a level playing field, > something I find difficult to justify. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > PS - as adopted by the WBFLC on 30th August 2000, > the footnote now reads: "For the purposes of Laws 69, > 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or > inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player concerned." > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Dec 16 13:15:05 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:15:05 -0500 Subject: SV: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC76@exchange.idrettsf orbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC76@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041216080555.02a327a0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:21 AM 12/15/04, Skjaran wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: > > J964 > KJ5 > A6 > A874 >AT73 82 >42 A873 >Q97 J532 >T963 QJ2 > KQ5 > QT96 > KT84 > K5 > >The lead is hearts, for king and ace. East returns hearts, taken in >dummy. Declarer claims: "I chase out the Ace and take 2 spades, 3 >hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs". >Would you grant that claim? >----- >Declarer has claimed with a statement as to how he plans to take his >tricks. >He's not given a detailed trick by trick line of play, but what he's >stated is adequate. > >The statement starts with pressing out the ace of spades, so that's how >the play should proceed in trick three. >There's no way you can rule him to cash his other winners first, >allowing the defence to take 1 spade, 1 heart and 3 minor suit tricks. > >If the layout were a little different, with the spade ten doubleton or >third, I would as defender insist on ten tricks. Right on the ruling, but I wonder about that last. I would award 10 tricks for sure if the S10 is doubleton, but if the suit is Axx opposite 10xx it's not so clear. Declarer said he would "chase" the SA, not necessarily catch it. Given the statement, perhaps we should presume that if declarer cashes the first two spade tricks without the SA or S10 appearing, he will then cash his remaining seven winners. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Dec 16 13:37:18 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:37:18 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC7C@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Eric Landau wrote: At 06:21 AM 12/15/04, Skjaran wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: > > J964 > KJ5 > A6 > A874 >AT73 82 >42 A873 >Q97 J532 >T963 QJ2 > KQ5 > QT96 > KT84 > K5 > >The lead is hearts, for king and ace. East returns hearts, taken in >dummy. Declarer claims: "I chase out the Ace and take 2 spades, 3 >hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs". >Would you grant that claim? >----- >Declarer has claimed with a statement as to how he plans to take his >tricks. >He's not given a detailed trick by trick line of play, but what he's >stated is adequate. > >The statement starts with pressing out the ace of spades, so that's how >the play should proceed in trick three. >There's no way you can rule him to cash his other winners first, >allowing the defence to take 1 spade, 1 heart and 3 minor suit tricks. > >If the layout were a little different, with the spade ten doubleton or >third, I would as defender insist on ten tricks. Right on the ruling, but I wonder about that last. I would award 10=20 tricks for sure if the S10 is doubleton, but if the suit is Axx=20 opposite 10xx it's not so clear. Declarer said he would "chase" the=20 SA, not necessarily catch it. Given the statement, perhaps we should=20 presume that if declarer cashes the first two spade tricks without the=20 SA or S10 appearing, he will then cash his remaining seven winners. ----- You're absolutely correct about Axx - Txx in spades. Even though it's safe to play a third round of spades. So, as defender I would concede 10 tricks if the ten would drop when declarer plays two rounds of spades. As TD I would not change the result from 9 to 10 tricks if declarer after the opponents acquiescence to nine tricks discover that he could have got ten trick, because the ten of spades would fall. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Dec 16 13:38:55 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:38:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <41C04455.7070103@hdw.be> References: <000601c4e2ab$b2f59360$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41C04455.7070103@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041216082344.02a40100@pop.starpower.net> At 09:04 AM 12/15/04, Herman wrote: >Sven Pran wrote: > >>Eric Landau >> >>>At 07:41 PM 12/14/04, Sven wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Does the English language syntax allow for using the following two >>>>alternative constructions to distinguish between different meanings? >>>> >>>>..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the >>>>class of player involved, but not irrational. >>>> >>>>..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior but not >>>>irrational for the class of player involved. >>> >>>Yes. 100% absolutely. It's not a question of "allow"; those two >>>sentences mean two different things, period. >>> >>>>I am fully aware that the last construction in case expresses the >>>>understanding we all have of the footnote in question and I have no >>>>intention of suggesting that WBFLC had any other understanding in mind >>>>when >>>>the wrote the Laws. >>> >>>There must have been at least some confusion on someone's part; it >>>stretches credibility to assume that our laws were written by someone >>>with so little understanding of English grammar as to have chosen the >>>first construction when it so clearly does not express what we are told >>>is the intended meaning. >> >>Usually I do not fancy reading a law "literally" when it is more or less >>obvious that the intention of the law is not "literally" what it says. >>However, I have always felt so uncomfortable with the term "irrational" >>being qualified with the class of player that I should appreciate some >>consideration by WBFLC: >>Is it possible that the intention with this footnote was indeed what they >>wrote; and if so is it possible to have some WBFLC "minute" stating this >>intention to be the rule from now on? >>The effect would of course be that "irrationality" should not be judged >>against the class of player but as an absolute term where the >>yardstick is >>the same for a world champion and a novice in the game of bridge. >>I'd love this effect. > >The problem with that effect is that you are left with a third class >of lines of play, one of which we do not know what to do: >- there are lines that are not "careless for the class of players" >- there are lines that are irrational, period >- and there would be lines that are "careless for that class of >player" but not irrational. > >What are those third lines - normal or not? Normal, of course. That is exactly the question the footnote is there to answer: "'normal' includes play that would be careless... for the class of player involved, but not irrational." >The way the footnote has been interpreted is that all lines are either >normal, or irrational. >I believe that the mention of irrational in L70E ought to follow the >same distinction. All lines are either "normal" or irrational. If we used dictionary definitions (in which case we wouldn't need the quotes around "normal") this wouldn't be true, but the point of the footnote is to make it so, which it does by redefining "normal" (hence the quotes) to include anything that is not irrational. "Irrational", which is not in quotes, is used in its "dictionary" (I won't use the word "normal" here) sense, therefore the footnote has no effect on L70E, which does the same. To express the effect of the WBF interpretation requires us to use "irrational" as well as "normal" to mean something other than its dictionary definition, which is why I have previously suggested that the proposed rewording add quotes around "irrational". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Dec 16 13:45:42 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:45:42 -0500 Subject: SV: [blml] Three UI cases In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC78@exchange.idrettsf orbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC78@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041216084002.02ad5780@pop.starpower.net> At 09:10 AM 12/15/04, Skjaran wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >At 09:47 PM 12/14/04, Steve wrote: > > >After not seeing a UI case for months, there were three in one weekend > >at an ACBL sectional. > > > >Case 1: > > > >Matchpoints, both vul, in second seat you pick up T96 AT7 KQT953 4 and > >open a natural, weak 2D. With opponents silent, the bidding is: > > 2D 2S > > 3H 3NT > > ? > >What do you bid now, assuming everything is in tempo? And what if > >partner's 3NT bid was slow -- say 4-5 seconds, a definite pause for > >thought but not an extreme one? > > > >None of these is extraordinary, but I'd like opinions on case 1... > >4S, regardless of tempo. No LA. I can't not show my spade support, >and I have a super-maximum for play in spades. 3H was (or certainly >would have been, had I bid it) an advance cue to show first-round >control of hearts in a maximum hand for spades after I bid spades on >the next round, which I must do now. Had pard rebid 4S instead of 3NT, >I would be committed to bidding on. >----- >To me, a new suit over 2S is a cue bid showing spade support. >Personally, I would have made a splinter bid of 4C over 2S. >Over 3N pass is not a LA. >If partner wanted to play in 3N he would have bid it immediately. 3H >could have been a short suit, so would not induce him to bid 3N after I >showed support. >I presume 4C would show second round control now. That would be my bid >over 2N. I've got to much playing strength to sign off in 4S. No inconsistency here; I believe I must show my spade support, while Harald believes he has already done so. Without such an agreement, though, 3H sounds like a presumptive stopper (I interpret partner's 3NT bid as showing that he can stop clubs) unless I later support spades. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 16 13:34:58 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:34:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) References: <000001c4e344$d39364f0$ba8d403e@Mildred> <006e01c4e353$6d7e4900$55ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000001c4e375$6da78370$f99087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Culture itself is neither education nor law-making; it is an atmosphere and a heritage." [Mencken] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan" ; Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) > Then I found out that this was difficult to accept, the meaning > of irrational not allowing such interpretation. Be brave then > and agree that the footnote is wrong. To make it work we > need to interpret 'irrational' as 'not-normal'. Which doesn't > sound so strange to me and might lead to the conclusion that > the problem is not the use of 'irrational' in this footnote > but the description of what we consider to be 'normal'. > +=+ I agree that the footnote is a mess. In my view it was accurately written by Edgar. Inferiority and carelessness are functions of the skills of players and should be kept apart from irrationality which is a judgement to be made of an action by reference to the logic of the game. If we are looking at ways in which some classes of players would play but not other classes, then we are looking at inferior/superior exercise of choice. Use of 'irrational' in this wise is an abuse of the English language. Further, it is only in relation to the choices that the Director is permitted to contemplate that irrationality has to be judged - what the player proposes the Director does not preclude on grounds of irrationality if it is a legal play. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 16 13:42:42 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:42:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera References: <20041210171103.23752.65544.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1102709489.2055.210544427@webmail.messagingengine.com> <41BC2476.5030400@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213080529.02ae31d0@pop.starpower.net> <41BDAB6B.1070407@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041213113804.02ad2860@pop.starpower.net> <41BDD9C3.4070100@hdw.be> <000001c4e24a$61cd7a90$acb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000101c4e351$4cfcd270$3d8f4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41C15767.2080908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c4e375$6e9abd10$f99087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Culture itself is neither education nor law-making; it is an atmosphere and a heritage." [Mencken] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Claim at Riviera > > +=+ Oh, think Maastricht, dear boy, think Maastricht. +=+ > > > > What about Maastricht? > I remember a Swede ... > +=+ .... who was induced by his opponents into committing an unlawful act. But it was then the opponents who complained when the unlawful act was disregarded, as the law requires, in resolving the claim. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 16 14:03:42 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:03:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <000001c4e375$6da78370$f99087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000001c4e344$d39364f0$ba8d403e@Mildred> <006e01c4e353$6d7e4900$55ebf1c3@LNV> <000001c4e375$6da78370$f99087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <41C195BE.60208@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ I agree that the footnote is a mess. In my view it was > accurately written by Edgar. Inferiority and carelessness > are functions of the skills of players and should be kept apart > from irrationality which is a judgement to be made of an action > by reference to the logic of the game. If we are looking at ways > in which some classes of players would play but not other classes, > then we are looking at inferior/superior exercise of choice. Use > of 'irrational' in this wise is an abuse of the English language. > Further, it is only in relation to the choices that the Director is > permitted to contemplate that irrationality has to be judged - what > the player proposes the Director does not preclude on grounds > of irrationality if it is a legal play. > ~ G ~ +=+ Personally, I don't agree with that assessment. By its very nature, the word irrational refers to something that goes on in someone's mind. So an action can NOT be irrational in itself. It has to be judged according to the mind and the standard of someone, and who better to judge it by than by the standard of the claimer himself. Which is why both the words careless and irrational need to be judged within the framework of a particular claimer. I don't know how better to phrase that distinction. "but not something which the claimer would certainly not do" might feel better, but it does not exclude silly errors like the one I committed in Mechelen. It is not rational for a player of my general level to throw a card which one knows to be high, in order to keep one to cross to dummy with, when such crossing is no longer needed. I may do it some times, but it is not rational. I like the current wording and would not propose altering it, except perhaps to rewrite in a sense: normal includes careless and inferior, but not irrational. Those actions are to be judged according to the general level of the player involved. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.5.4 - Release Date: 15/12/2004 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 16 16:58:22 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:58:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) References: <000001c4e344$d39364f0$ba8d403e@Mildred> <006e01c4e353$6d7e4900$55ebf1c3@LNV> <000001c4e375$6da78370$f99087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41C195BE.60208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c4e390$f25885e0$658e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Culture itself is neither education nor law-making; it is an atmosphere and a heritage." [Mencken] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) > > Personally, I don't agree with that assessment. > By its very nature, the word irrational refers to something that goes > on in someone's mind. > So an action can NOT be irrational in itself. It has to be judged > according to the mind and the standard of someone, and who better to > judge it by than by the standard of the claimer himself. > +=+ You need a good dictionary, Herman. It is a judgement by an external standard, not subjectively within the individual. +=+ From schoderb@msn.com Thu Dec 16 17:21:47 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:21:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) References: <000001c4e344$d39364f0$ba8d403e@Mildred> <006e01c4e353$6d7e4900$55ebf1c3@LNV> <000001c4e375$6da78370$f99087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41C195BE.60208@hdw.be> <000001c4e390$f25885e0$658e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Might I add, Herman, here is another case where you remind me very much of Don Quixote - tilting at windmills. You find it impossible to be wrong, and your telling us that that is the way you interpret English just makes you look silly. Grattan's posting is completely accurate. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > **************************** > "Culture itself is neither education > nor law-making; it is an atmosphere > and a heritage." [Mencken] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 2:03 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) > > > > > > Personally, I don't agree with that assessment. > > By its very nature, the word irrational refers to something that goes > > on in someone's mind. > > So an action can NOT be irrational in itself. It has to be judged > > according to the mind and the standard of someone, and who better to > > judge it by than by the standard of the claimer himself. > > > +=+ You need a good dictionary, Herman. It is a judgement > by an external standard, not subjectively within the individual. +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 16 17:25:32 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:25:32 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC7C@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000001c4e394$3f402590$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Skjaran, Harald ............ > As TD I would not change the result from 9 to 10 tricks if declarer > after the opponents acquiescence to nine tricks discover that he could > have got ten trick, because the ten of spades would fall. Good! For a moment I was worried about you but I thought I knew you better than that! Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 16 17:43:04 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:43:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <41C195BE.60208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c4e396$b26fafc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............... > Personally, I don't agree with that assessment. > By its very nature, the word irrational refers to something that goes > on in someone's mind. > So an action can NOT be irrational in itself.=20 If declarer plays a small spade towards Ace Queen in dummy it is = irrational to play the Queen if LHO plays the King but it is not irrational to play = the Ace if LHO plays low. If declarer forgets an outstanding trump but has the highest remaining = trump in dummy and only high cards in his own hand it is irrational not to = cover a ruff by LHO with his trump in dummy (if that is legal play) but it is = not irrational to fail drawing that last outstanding trump before cashing = the rest. The following riddle comes to my mind; it was presented at the Norwegian bridge festival in 2003: Dummy holds King, Queen, Ten and two small spades Declarer holds Ace and two small spades He needs all tricks in spades and by routine plays the King, Ace and a = small spade towards dummy. LHO follows suit with a small spade. Declarer suddenly realizes he has been sleeping and has no idea which = cards were discarded on the first two rounds. Do you cover the small spade from LHO with the Ten or the Queen? Just imagine how many top ranked players who after answering began = laughing and admitted they had missed the point. Inferiority can be estimated for a class of player, irrationality is an absolute term. Irrationality is a function only on the visible cards, neither on cards previously played (and possibly forgotten) nor on cards = not yet seen. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 16 21:15:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 08:15:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <000001c4e34b$e64af160$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: >>Suppose the S10 were doubleton. Would you, as TD, >>award the tenth trick? I suppose not, because of L71A. Sven Pran: >Correct, I would not. Richard Hills: In my opinion, both Sven and Adam have misinterpreted Law 71 (Concession Cancelled). It is true that Law 71A contains this narrow rule for cancelling a concession, "or a trick his side could not have lost by any **legal** play of the remaining cards." But, in my opinion, the narrow Law 71A rule is redundant, because it is superseded by a more general rule for cancelling a concession in Law 71C, "if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any **normal** play of the remaining cards." Important note: The final sentence in Law 71C, "Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards," has been (in effect) ruled by the WBF LC to be a drafting error nullity. Shortly after the 1997 Laws were published, the WBF LC ruled that the longer correction time of Law 79C was still applicable to Law 71C. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From schoderb@msn.com Thu Dec 16 21:21:13 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:21:13 -0500 Subject: SV: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc References: <000001c4e394$3f402590$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On the right track, but don't forget Law 71 A. In the case in point it should not be hard to find a line of play that would not give the declarer the opportunity to lead the good spade. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:25 PM Subject: RE: SV: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc > > Skjaran, Harald > ............ > > As TD I would not change the result from 9 to 10 tricks if declarer > > after the opponents acquiescence to nine tricks discover that he could > > have got ten trick, because the ten of spades would fall. > > Good! For a moment I was worried about you but I thought I knew you better > than that! > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Dec 16 22:02:42 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:02:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <41C195BE.60208@hdw.be> References: <000001c4e344$d39364f0$ba8d403e@Mildred> <006e01c4e353$6d7e4900$55ebf1c3@LNV> <000001c4e375$6da78370$f99087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41C195BE.60208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041216164940.02a38eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:03 AM 12/16/04, Herman wrote: >By its very nature, the word irrational refers to something that goes >on in someone's mind. >So an action can NOT be irrational in itself. It has to be judged >according to the mind and the standard of someone, and who better to >judge it by than by the standard of the claimer himself. >Which is why both the words careless and irrational need to be judged >within the framework of a particular claimer. The word "irrational" describes what goes on in someone's mind relative to a baseline norm of what is considered rational within his culture. Therefore any standard of what is "irrational" depends not on what's in the mind of the person being judged, but what is in the minds of those members of the culture who are considered "rational". A 15th-century Aztec who removes and eats the heart of a fellow human being is perfectly rational, whereas a 20th-century Belgian who does the same is unarguably irrational, even if both of them were thinking exactly the same thoughts at the time. What is going on in the subject's mind doesn't matter. Perhaps the reason we are hung up on this point is that "irrational" means something different within the "bridge culture" than it does to the world at large. Hence the suggestion to put quotes around it in the forthcoming revision of the footnote. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 16 22:34:11 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:34:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c4e3bf$5d690980$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Adam Beneschan: >=20 > >>Suppose the S10 were doubleton. Would you, as TD, > >>award the tenth trick? I suppose not, because of L71A. >=20 > Sven Pran: >=20 > >Correct, I would not. >=20 > Richard Hills: >=20 > In my opinion, both Sven and Adam have misinterpreted > Law 71 (Concession Cancelled). >=20 > It is true that Law 71A contains this narrow rule for > cancelling a concession, "or a trick his side could not > have lost by any **legal** play of the remaining cards." >=20 > But, in my opinion, the narrow Law 71A rule is redundant, > because it is superseded by a more general rule for > cancelling a concession in Law 71C, "if a player has > conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any **normal** > play of the remaining cards." >=20 > Important note: The final sentence in Law 71C, "Until > the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or > until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the > concession of a trick that could not have been lost by > any normal play of the remaining cards," has been (in > effect) ruled by the WBF LC to be a drafting error > nullity. Shortly after the 1997 Laws were published, the > WBF LC ruled that the longer correction time of Law 79C > was still applicable to Law 71C. I am fully aware of all this and my reaction is (and was) that WBFLC = must have been completely unaware of what they really did at the time: =20 Law 71A has a very strict condition for canceling a concession but a = very wide time limit for such cancellations to be made. Law 71C as it originally was written had (and still has) a much less = strict condition but a much narrower time limit. What WBFLC did was to extend the time limit for L71C to coincide with = the limit applicable to L71A without altering any of the conditions in = either L71A or L71C, resulting in havoc within Law 71. Now we literally have = two laws inconsistent with each other for the same action.=20 I must assume that had WBFLC known and intended what they technically = did in deleting the last sentence from L71C they would at the same time have deleted the entire Law 71A. They did not, and I assume for a reason. Until I am told otherwise by the Norwegian LC I prefer to stick to L71A = and ignore L71C when a request for canceling a concession comes from the = party who made such a concession explicitly or implicitly with a claim. I have little sympathy for anybody attempting what appears to me to be a double shot by first claiming and then afterwards trying to get a better result from afterthoughts. Regards Sven=20 From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 16 22:44:01 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:44:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc Message-ID: <000801c4e3c0$bcf69880$6900a8c0@WINXP> Sven Pran > I am fully aware of all this and my reaction is (and was) that WBFLC = must > have been completely unaware of what they really did at the time: >=20 > Law 71A has a very strict condition for canceling a concession but a = very > wide time limit for such cancellations to be made. >=20 > Law 71C as it originally was written had (and still has) a much less > strict condition but a much narrower time limit. >=20 > What WBFLC did was to extend the time limit for L71C to coincide with = the > limit applicable to L71A without altering any of the conditions in = either > L71A or L71C, resulting in havoc within Law 71. Now we literally have = two > laws inconsistent with each other for the same action. >=20 > I must assume that had WBFLC known and intended what they technically = did > in deleting the last sentence from L71C they would at the same time = have > deleted the entire Law 71A. They did not, and I assume for a reason. >=20 > Until I am told otherwise by the Norwegian LC I prefer to stick to = L71A > and ignore L71C when a request for canceling a concession comes from = the > party who made such a concession explicitly or implicitly with a = claim. >=20 > I have little sympathy for anybody attempting what appears to me to be = a > double shot by first claiming and then afterwards trying to get a = better > result from afterthoughts. >=20 > Regards Sven I should have added that Law 71 remained essentially unchanged from the = 1987 laws to the 1997 laws, and in the commentaries to the 1987 laws the difference between what are now Laws 71A and 71C was enhanced. So the original Law 71 was in effect for ten years before somebody "discovered" = the "drafting error". I am sorry but as the text of 1987 makes sense what the revised text = from 1997 does not I should like some authority to enlighten me on what = really did happen with Law 71 at the time. Regards again Sven=20 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 17 00:58:17 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:58:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Douglas Adams: >It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet >stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying >"Beware of The Leopard".'" Richard Hills When debating the "Claim at Elkerlyc" thread with Sven Pran, and some years ago when debating with David Burn, I discovered that both of these knowledgeable gentleman were unaware of a 1997 WBF LC minute which has (in effect) deleted the final sentence of Law 71C. A paraphrase of this 1997 WBF LC minute has recently been published in the EBU White Book, but that has not yet gained a wide readership outside Britain. I therefore visited the WBF LC website, which contains easy electronic access to all WBF LC minutes which interpret the 1997 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Oops, not all. This vital 1997 WBF LC minute is missing from the WBF LC website, since WBF LC minutes have only been posted for 1998 and subsequent years. As a consequence of this administrative carelessness, we have a public statement from a respected Norwegian TD announcing, "Until I am told otherwise by the Norwegian LC I prefer to stick to L71A and ignore L71C when a request for cancelling a concession comes from the party who made such a concession explicitly or implicitly with a claim." Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 17 00:10:23 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:10:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: <000801c4e3c0$bcf69880$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >I should have added that Law 71 remained essentially >unchanged from the 1987 laws to the 1997 laws, and in >the commentaries to the 1987 laws the difference >between what are now Laws 71A and 71C was enhanced. So >the original Law 71 was in effect for ten years before >somebody "discovered" the "drafting error". Richard Hills: (1) As I noted in an earlier thread, relying on 1992 commentaries to the 1987 Laws is a supererogatory fallacy when determining 2004 rulings. Despite particular words and phrases fossilising in place from edition to the edition of the Laws, the official WBF LC interpretation of those words and phrase changes much more quickly. (2) I do not have a copy of the 1987 Laws available for reference, but I am unsure whether Sven's assertion of "essentially unchanged" is accurate. Law 71, as written in 1997, contains a paradox. The initial phrase of Law 71, which grammatically applies to parts A, B and C of Law 71, contains a reference to Law 79C; but Law 71C also contains a further reference to a shorter correction time. This anomaly in the 1997 wording of Law 71 was almost immediately drawn to the attention of the WBF LC in 1997, not (as Sven implies) after a ten year delay. Sven Pran: >I am sorry but as the text of 1987 makes sense what >the revised text from 1997 does not I should like >some authority to enlighten me on what really did >happen with Law 71 at the time. WBF LC minutes, 19th October 1997, item 6, as paraphrased in the EBU White Book (Directors' Guide): >>Law 71C [Implausible concession] [WBFLC] >> >>This reads [in part]: >> >>"Until the conceding side makes a call on a >>subsequent board, or until the round ends, the >>Director shall cancel the concession of a trick >>that could not have been lost by any normal* play >>of the remaining cards." >> >>This wording is superfluous, and easiest is to >>treat it as though this sentence was deleted. The >>Director is to cancel an implausible concession at >>any time within the correction period as the >>earlier part of the Law makes clear. >> >>[WBFLC minutes 1997-10-19#6] Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From jpguwf@francimel.com Fri Dec 17 01:21:40 2004 From: jpguwf@francimel.com (Connie Hendrix) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:21:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] pain tolerancy protocols Message-ID: <695211635238.TDT29762@einstein.eaglesnest.net> is your sister a sick person V,1-C_O^D'1^N 30/325 m-gg 3o PIl|S 109.OO 6o P!llS 189.99 9o PI||S 259.OO 18O PI|LS 429.00 place an 0.r.d.e.r : http://sled.medzstoreonline.com/s/?acc5 Same Day Sh1pp1ng To Qu1t : http://calendrical.medzstoreonline.com/rms.html confirm your email Janis Carpenter Composer Ningbo Shuanglin TCM Co., 315153, China Phone: 944-176-1451 Mobile: 354-173-5314 Email: jpguwf@francimel.com please do not reply to this message This shareware is a 36 day definite software NOTES: The contents of this info is for information and should not be afar youngster elite affine salesman Time: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:25:40 +0200 From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Dec 17 02:56:54 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:56:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Three UI cases In-Reply-To: <200412170233.iBH2XjUm004218@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200412170233.iBH2XjUm004218@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41C24AF6.20403@cfa.harvard.edu> Thanks for all the comments. Here's the outcome of case 1. > Matchpoints, both vul, in second seat you pick up T96 AT7 KQT953 4 and > open a natural, weak 2D. With opponents silent, the bidding is: > 2D 2S > 3H ...3NT > ? The full deal was T96 AT7 KQT953 4 7 J4 K843 QJ962 J742 86 AT63 KQ82 AKQ8532 5 A J975 No wonder South thought awhile before bidding 3NT! North bid 4S, and the BLML opinion was that pass was not a LA. I thought it was, which goes to show the difficulty of making a judgment in a case one is involved in. (I was West.) We managed one trick for 2/3 of the matchpoints. Now that I look at the deal, I'm a little surprised we didn't get more, but I didn't check the results. It may amuse (or distress) the people outside North America to know how hard it was to get a ruling in this case. We called the director as soon as dummy came down, as is proper. The director got the facts, then stood a little way off looking at his copy of the hand record while we played the deal. When play was over or maybe before, he walked away and never came back. We expected to hear a ruling after he had consulted, but when we finally chased him down after the session, he was surprised to see us. He was also confused about what had happened, but eventually he got it straight, consulted, and ruled (correctly it now appears) that pass was not a LA. OK in the end but a bit more trouble than it needed to be. Also, had he ruled for us (on different cards), the opponents would have been pretty upset to find out so late. From unsubscribe@usaregister.3322.org Fri Dec 17 04:45:40 2004 From: unsubscribe@usaregister.3322.org (unsubscribe@usaregister.3322.org) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:45:40 +0800 Subject: [blml] US GreenCard -Last 2 weeks Year 2004 Message-ID: US GreenCard -Last 2 weeks Year 2004-(English/Deutsch/Espanol) The last 2 weeks to get the US Greencard Live and Work in the United States legally. The US Government is giving away 50.000 Green Cards. Click here: http://www.usaregister.3322.org Espanol/Spanish: Las dos ultimas semanas para conseguir us green card , vive y trabaja en los estados unidos legalmente.. el gobierno esta dando 50.000 green card.. ahora puede aplicar.. http://www.usaregister.3322.org/es Deutsch/German: Jetzt registrieren fuer die US GreenCard! Es ist wieder soweit. Nur noch 2 Wochen Nur mit der GreenCard koennen Sie in Zukunft in Amerika leben - gleich ob fr immer oder einige Monate. Alle Chancen fr Ihre Karriere, Studium oder einfach ein Leben in Sonne , Freiheit, netten Menschen stehen Ihnen offen. Beachten Sie auch die neuen strengen Einreisevorschriften auf unserer Website unter News. Hier klicken: http://www.usaregister.3322.org/de USAGreenCard-Registration 2020 Pennsylvania AVE Washington DC, 20006 United States http://www.usaregister.3322.org You subscribed to our Newsletter this is a one time Information to unsubscribe fwd email to unsubscribe@usaregister.3322.org From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Dec 17 08:17:17 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:17:17 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Beware of the leopard Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC7E@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Richard Hills wrote: Douglas Adams: >It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet >stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying >"Beware of The Leopard".'" Richard Hills When debating the "Claim at Elkerlyc" thread with Sven Pran, and some years ago when debating with David Burn, I discovered that both of these knowledgeable gentleman were unaware of a 1997 WBF LC minute which has (in effect) deleted the final sentence of Law 71C. A paraphrase of this 1997 WBF LC minute has recently been published in the EBU White Book, but that has not yet gained a wide readership outside Britain. I therefore visited the WBF LC website, which contains easy electronic access to all WBF LC minutes which interpret the 1997 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Oops, not all. This vital 1997 WBF LC minute is missing from the WBF LC website, since WBF LC minutes have only been posted for 1998 and subsequent years. As a consequence of this administrative carelessness, we have a public statement from a respected Norwegian TD announcing, "Until I am told otherwise by the Norwegian LC I prefer to stick to L71A and ignore L71C when a request for cancelling a concession comes from the party who made such a concession explicitly or implicitly with a claim." ----- I believe Sven has missed something here. On a TD seminar in Trondheim in 2002, we were told by NBFLC that the last sentence in law 71C was cancelled. The information can be found in the document "Lovendringer 2002" (lovendringer=3Dchanges in laws) which was handed out at the seminar (the heading say: "Korrigeringer av tekster i lovboka mai 2002".) The document is also found on a CD with TD material later released by the NBFLC. Regards, Harald Skjaeran -----=20 Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 17 09:27:32 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:27:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC7E@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000101c4e41a$a2c29400$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Skjaran, Harald ................ > I believe Sven has missed something here. > On a TD seminar in Trondheim in 2002, we were told by NBFLC that the > last sentence in law 71C was cancelled. The information can be found = in > the document "Lovendringer 2002" (lovendringer=3Dchanges in laws) = which > was handed out at the seminar (the heading say: "Korrigeringer av > tekster i lovboka mai 2002".) The document is also found on a CD with = TD > material later released by the NBFLC. Yes I know, I was present and I had not forgotten. We were told that the sentence was deleted because that sentence was superfluous which in fact was incorrect. It was a real change in the = laws. I remember that I was puzzled but did not fully grasp the consequences at = the time or I would have raised the question there and then. I don't = remember any of us noticing that in fact the change was to make L71A a nullity. Regards Sven=20 From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 17 09:46:24 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:46:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim at Elkerlyc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c4e41d$45a37020$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ............... > (2) I do not have a copy of the 1987 Laws available > for reference, but I am unsure whether Sven's > assertion of "essentially unchanged" is accurate. >From the laws of 1987: _Law 71 Concession Cancelled_ A concession must stand, once made, except that: _A. False Concession_ Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a concession: _1. Trick Cannot be Lost_ if a player has conceded a trick his side, in fact, won, or a trick his = side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. _2. Contract Already Fulfilled or Defeated_ if declarer has conceded defeat of a contract he had already fulfilled, = or a defender has conceded fulfillment of a contract his side has already defeated. _B. Implausible Concession_ Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until = the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that = could not have been lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards. I still wonder what was the purpose of rearranging the text as they did = in 1997? If we assume the last version to be the intended version of L71 = why on earth did they not completely delete what is now L71A? Sven From j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk Fri Dec 17 11:57:23 2004 From: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk (Jeremy Rickard) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:57:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] Message-ID: I recently noticed that the EBU Orange Book (14.4.1) regulations about multi-way two of a suit bids (at Level 4) contain the words: "the hands permitted by the non-strong options [...] must either all guarantee or all deny the suit bid." My regular partner and I have been using 2D as a weak two in an unspecified major, and I'm sure that we must have done it on occasion with a 4-card (maybe even 5-card) diamond side-suit. Is this illegal? Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~majcr From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Dec 17 13:36:03 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:36:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98F299C0-5030-11D9-89E7-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 17 Dec 2004, at 11:57, Jeremy Rickard wrote: > I recently noticed that the EBU Orange Book (14.4.1) > regulations about multi-way two of a suit bids (at Level 4) > contain the words: > > "the hands permitted by the non-strong options [...] must > either all guarantee or all deny the suit bid." > > My regular partner and I have been using 2D as a weak two in > an unspecified major, and I'm sure that we must have done it > on occasion with a 4-card (maybe even 5-card) diamond > side-suit. Is this illegal? It could possibly be worded more accurately (though we know how hard it is to do that), but I'm sure that the point is that the bid suit must either be promised or denied as one of the suits shown by the bid. In your case the suits shown by the bid are hearts or spades, both of which deny being diamonds. It wouldn't be permissible for your two diamond opener to show diamonds or hearts, for example, but it would be fine for it to show diamonds and an unspecified major. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 17 13:59:51 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:59:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] In-Reply-To: <98F299C0-5030-11D9-89E7-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000401c4e440$adaad370$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford .......... > > I recently noticed that the EBU Orange Book (14.4.1) > > regulations about multi-way two of a suit bids (at Level 4) > > contain the words: > > > > "the hands permitted by the non-strong options [...] must > > either all guarantee or all deny the suit bid." > > > > My regular partner and I have been using 2D as a weak two in > > an unspecified major, and I'm sure that we must have done it > > on occasion with a 4-card (maybe even 5-card) diamond > > side-suit. Is this illegal? >=20 > It could possibly be worded more accurately (though we know how hard = it > is to do that), but I'm sure that the point is that the bid suit must > either be promised or denied as one of the suits shown by the bid. In > your case the suits shown by the bid are hearts or spades, both of > which deny being diamonds. It wouldn't be permissible for your two > diamond opener to show diamonds or hearts, for example, but it would = be > fine for it to show diamonds and an unspecified major. I am not familiar with this kind of regulations, our regulation on multi = 2D certainly has no such "deny" clause. And I understand the questioner very well; in my ears there is a = significant difference between "does not show a suit of diamonds" and "denies a suit = of diamonds". In Norway an opponent (or partner) cannot be certain that the player who opens multi 2D (eventually showing a weak major) does not in addition to = his major suit hold a hand with even as many as seven diamonds! (Although = with such a freak he should be able to find a better opening bid than 2D) Regards Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Dec 17 14:47:31 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:47:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] In-Reply-To: <000401c4e440$adaad370$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c4e440$adaad370$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <94B7273A-503A-11D9-89E7-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 17 Dec 2004, at 13:59, Sven Pran wrote: > I am not familiar with this kind of regulations, our regulation on > multi 2D > certainly has no such "deny" clause. This is not our Multi regulation - which would require a strong option that doesn't seem to be present in Jeremy's convention. This is a blanket regulation that covers a variety of types of bid. > > And I understand the questioner very well; in my ears there is a > significant > difference between "does not show a suit of diamonds" and "denies a > suit of > diamonds". I think this regulation is saying "denies that the indicated suit is diamonds". The point is whether or not partner is likely to pass the bid. > > In Norway an opponent (or partner) cannot be certain that the player > who > opens multi 2D (eventually showing a weak major) does not in addition > to his > major suit hold a hand with even as many as seven diamonds! (Although > with > such a freak he should be able to find a better opening bid than 2D) This is no different than in the EBU. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Dec 17 15:02:37 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:02:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000101c4e41a$a2c29400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <008c01c4e44a$1ec004f0$9df2f0c3@LNV> > Skjaran, Harald ................ > I believe Sven has missed something here. > On a TD seminar in Trondheim in 2002, we were told by NBFLC that the > last sentence in law 71C was cancelled. The information can be found in > the document "Lovendringer 2002" (lovendringer=changes in laws) which > was handed out at the seminar (the heading say: "Korrigeringer av > tekster i lovboka mai 2002".) The document is also found on a CD with TD > material later released by the NBFLC. Yes I know, I was present and I had not forgotten. We were told that the sentence was deleted because that sentence was superfluous which in fact was incorrect. It was a real change in the laws. I remember that I was puzzled but did not fully grasp the consequences at the time or I would have raised the question there and then. I don't remember any of us noticing that in fact the change was to make L71A a nullity. ****** That was not the real reason, the first part of 71A has its own merit, dealing with things that already did happen before the claim/concession. No, the last sentence of 71C is inconsistent with the first. The first sying that restore time is in accordance with 79C and the second that is in accordance with the penalty time for revokes. That was enough reason to delete at least one of the two. ton ***** Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 17 15:08:00 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:08:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] In-Reply-To: <94B7273A-503A-11D9-89E7-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000501c4e44a$33424370$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford > > I am not familiar with this kind of regulations, our regulation on > > multi 2D > > certainly has no such "deny" clause. >=20 > This is not our Multi regulation - which would require a strong option > that doesn't seem to be present in Jeremy's convention. This is a > blanket regulation that covers a variety of types of bid. We abandoned all requirements for "strong" options as part of the = agreements in such regulations. (BTW our "normal" multi 2D is weak Major or 20-21 = NT). Does your regulation allow the following agreement with for instance = multi 2D: Either a weak hand with at least 6 cards in an unknown major suit or a NoTrump distribution with at least 36 HCP (!) If not, why not? =20 > > > > And I understand the questioner very well; in my ears there is a > > significant > > difference between "does not show a suit of diamonds" and "denies a > > suit of > > diamonds". >=20 > I think this regulation is saying "denies that the indicated suit is > diamonds". That is definitely not the same as "denies Diamonds"! > The point is whether or not partner is likely to pass the bid. Then the regulation should simply state "shows a weak opening bid with = at least six cards in an unknown major suit, or ....." (Which I believe is = what you had in mind in your first comment?) =20 "Denies" asks for unnecessary misunderstandings. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 17 15:16:53 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:16:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <008c01c4e44a$1ec004f0$9df2f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000601c4e44b$715b1050$6900a8c0@WINXP> ............. > We were told that the sentence was deleted because that sentence > was superfluous which in fact was incorrect. It was a real change > in the laws. > I remember that I was puzzled but did not fully grasp the > consequences at the time or I would have raised the question > there and then. I don't remember any of us noticing that in fact > the change was to make L71A a nullity. > > ****** > That was not the real reason, the first part of 71A has its own merit, > dealing with things that already did happen before the claim/concession. > No, the last sentence of 71C is inconsistent with the first. The first > sying > that restore time is in accordance with 79C and the second that is in > accordance with the penalty time for revokes. > That was enough reason to delete at least one of the two. > > ton > ***** And the final outcome is that we have a Law 71A which is NEVER applicable because (unless I have overlooked something) it is impossible to find a situation where L71A is applicable unless also L71C is applicable with the same result. Was this intended? If so why did WBFLC not delete L71A together with the last sentence in Law 71C? Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 17 15:26:35 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:26:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <000601c4e44b$715b1050$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c4e44c$cbf2c930$6900a8c0@WINXP> > And the final outcome is that we have a Law 71A which is NEVER = applicable > because (unless I have overlooked something) it is impossible to find = a > situation where L71A is applicable unless also L71C is applicable with = the > same result. >=20 > Was this intended? If so why did WBFLC not delete L71A together with = the > last sentence in Law 71C? Just to clear up one possible mistake: I am considering this part of = L71A: "a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards" Versus L71C: "a trick that cannot be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards". A narrower correction period for the last makes sense, the same = correction period for both does not. Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Dec 17 10:37:19 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:37:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) References: <000001c4e344$d39364f0$ba8d403e@Mildred> <006e01c4e353$6d7e4900$55ebf1c3@LNV> <000001c4e375$6da78370$f99087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41C195BE.60208@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041216164940.02a38eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002301c4e453$d87ff720$64ca87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Culture itself is neither education nor law-making; it is an atmosphere and a heritage." [Mencken] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) > >> the forthcoming revision of the footnote. < +=+ ? +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Dec 17 16:43:32 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:43:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] References: <000501c4e44a$33424370$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003701c4e457$a658c660$64ca87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Culture itself is neither education nor law-making; it is an atmosphere and a heritage." [Mencken] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:08 PM Subject: RE: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] > I think this regulation is saying "denies that the indicated suit is > diamonds". That is definitely not the same as "denies Diamonds"! > The point is whether or not partner is likely to pass > the bid. Then the regulation should simply state "shows a weak opening bid with at least six cards in an unknown major suit, or ....." (Which I believe is what you had in mind in your first comment?) "Denies" asks for unnecessary misunderstandings. +=+ I believe the regulation requires that there be a specific understanding that diamonds are short. In particular the protection is against a hand which may be content to pass out a double of the suit. The common situations envisaged are those where the positive content is unspecified, but I think at the fringe it ropes in Multi. No doubt DWS will comment. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Dec 17 17:06:12 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:06:12 GMT Subject: [blml] Birmingham Fall 2000 case 15 Message-ID: <41c31204.2037.0@esatclear.ie> Guys A small bone to pick from the little guy. This forum is one of the best if not the best when it comes to bridge laws. I am a mino in this area and am trying through reading cases following threads etc get a better grasp of the whole thing. Still there are and always will be cases or ruling's I do not understand, due to some lack of knowledge, experience or misunderstanding. Alot of the threads chop up the laws word by word. They argue nuances, dictionary meanings, alternative meanings etc and to be quite honest are wayy over my head. But .. when I post a case (often not agreeing with the decision) it is not to vent my outrage at what occurred or to convince you all I'm right ... quite the opposite. I state my case from a players view point imperfect in the understandings of the law, apply a logical, common sense approach to how I arrived at my conclusion and then invite you, the experts to show and preferably prove, why I'm wrong. What you take as obvious is not so for me and I doubt I am alone. Take the recent case Case 15 birmingham. I got 2 replies which stated the case was an obvious open and close case. The argument as far as I can follow it goes " The non alert is UI to East. Wests 3NT carries a message to play (signoff) and alot of people would respect this message and pass. The non alert passes UI to east, which he shouldn't act on and so 5C's is not allowed " I asked what UI did east recieve and how it effects his 5C bid. To date I have got the folowing: (1) 3S's could be natural. By bidding 3NT, east knows there is a likely fit for clubs making 5C's more attractive. Quite reasonable except that 3S's as natural is not LA. That bid disappeared with the titantic. No one in competitive circles plays 3S's as Nat. Old acol 3S is signoff and so 3NT would never occur. This interpretation ascribes a meaning to a bid which is phenomenally unlikely and as such should not have a bearing on the ruling (2) 3NT is signoff. This is incorrect 3NT is undefined and is akin to a relay step in some systems. It says nothing further about the hand. In any event opener on this sequence can't signoff, they are not in charge of the auction. (3) 3NT denies/shows interest in a slam. As 3S could be based on zero points and some minor holding, how a tightly predefined hand can now deny/show slam interest opposite a complete unknown, is quite beyond me. I find it hard to accept that an undefined 3NT bid which tells us nothing more about the hand plus an unalerted bid can disallow a normal choice between 5C's and 3NT. >From a players point of view this case is saying we can't scramble anymore when uncertainty occurs. Surely a very dangerous precedent ??? Now if some of you could possibly come down from the clouds for a sec and explain to a mere mortal precisely what UI was passed onto east and how this demonstrably effected his 5C call, I'd be able to get some rest and get onto the next baffling case. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Dec 17 17:50:05 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:50:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000601c4e44b$715b1050$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001401c4e461$c833dfe0$56f5f0c3@LNV> > ............. > > We were told that the sentence was deleted because that sentence > > was superfluous which in fact was incorrect. It was a real change > > in the laws. > > I remember that I was puzzled but did not fully grasp the > > consequences at the time or I would have raised the question > > there and then. I don't remember any of us noticing that in fact > > the change was to make L71A a nullity. > > > > ****** > > That was not the real reason, the first part of 71A has its own merit, > > dealing with things that already did happen before the claim/concession. > > No, the last sentence of 71C is inconsistent with the first. The first > > sying > > that restore time is in accordance with 79C and the second that is in > > accordance with the penalty time for revokes. > > That was enough reason to delete at least one of the two. > > > > ton > > ***** > > And the final outcome is that we have a Law 71A which is NEVER applicable > because (unless I have overlooked something) it is impossible to find a > situation where L71A is applicable unless also L71C is applicable with the > same result. > > Was this intended? If so why did WBFLC not delete L71A together with the > last sentence in Law 71C? > > Regards Sven First tell me why in one message there are no marks as distinction between your and my contribution, so I have to use my *****, and in the next there are? About the laws I know something, this subject is too complicated. Now the answer, which I repeat since it is given above. The first part of 71A speaks about things happened before the claim/concession which is not repeated. The second part is redundent, the sample described by 71A indeed being part of the sample desribed by 71C. But is doesn't do harm. The second sentence did. Our policy has been to make as few changes as possible, just the really necessary ones. That is the only explanation there is. ton From schoderb@msn.com Fri Dec 17 19:08:43 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:08:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) References: <000001c4e344$d39364f0$ba8d403e@Mildred> <006e01c4e353$6d7e4900$55ebf1c3@LNV> <000001c4e375$6da78370$f99087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41C195BE.60208@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041216164940.02a38eb0@pop.starpower.net> <002301c4e453$d87ff720$64ca87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: I would very much like to return to the original thinking and meaning of the footnote, but incorporate it into the laws. Use Irrational in its dictionary sense and stop trying to fit it into continua for the various levels of play of the participants. Further, Laws with footnotes make me nervous, since it seems to indicate (to me) that the body of the Law was so poorly written that it needed explanation.. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 5:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > **************************** > "Culture itself is neither education > nor law-making; it is an atmosphere > and a heritage." [Mencken] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:02 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) > > > > > >> the forthcoming revision of the footnote. > < > +=+ ? +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb@msn.com Fri Dec 17 21:11:09 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:11:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000601c4e44b$715b1050$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven, If you would just erase 71C would that give you a problem? 71A can stand by itself, and is what the law was meant to say. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 10:16 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Beware of the leopard > ............. > > We were told that the sentence was deleted because that sentence > > was superfluous which in fact was incorrect. It was a real change > > in the laws. > > I remember that I was puzzled but did not fully grasp the > > consequences at the time or I would have raised the question > > there and then. I don't remember any of us noticing that in fact > > the change was to make L71A a nullity. > > > > ****** > > That was not the real reason, the first part of 71A has its own merit, > > dealing with things that already did happen before the claim/concession. > > No, the last sentence of 71C is inconsistent with the first. The first > > sying > > that restore time is in accordance with 79C and the second that is in > > accordance with the penalty time for revokes. > > That was enough reason to delete at least one of the two. > > > > ton > > ***** > > And the final outcome is that we have a Law 71A which is NEVER applicable > because (unless I have overlooked something) it is impossible to find a > situation where L71A is applicable unless also L71C is applicable with the > same result. > > Was this intended? If so why did WBFLC not delete L71A together with the > last sentence in Law 71C? > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Dec 17 21:47:09 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:47:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <002301c4e453$d87ff720$64ca87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000001c4e344$d39364f0$ba8d403e@Mildred> <006e01c4e353$6d7e4900$55ebf1c3@LNV> <000001c4e375$6da78370$f99087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41C195BE.60208@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041216164940.02a38eb0@pop.starpower.net> <002301c4e453$d87ff720$64ca87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041217164249.02b064d0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:37 AM 12/17/04, Grattan wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > >> the forthcoming revision of the footnote. >< >+=+ ? +=+ I was referring to the following exchange, but refusing to overbid: >At 10:00 PM 12/14/04, richard.hills wrote: > >Footnote number 20, current version: > >>For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 "normal" includes play that >>would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of >>player involved. > >Meanwhile, until I can order a law book with that footnote in it, I think "current version" is >rather a gross overbid. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From John Mac Gregor" Message-ID: <000b01c4e492$8a37fe20$0609110a@amnet.co.cr> 3S, what else? My club queen seems to be working, but looks like we have four red suit losers - pd AQxx ?? ??? AKJx John John A. MacGregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica johnmacg@racsa.co.cr www.cacbf.com ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 4:10 PM Subject: [blml] Kiwi fruit | | | | | Imps | Dlr: North | Vul: Nil | | You are playing the Precision system. | The bidding has gone: | | WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH | --- 1NT(1) Dble 2S | Pass 3C Pass ? | | (1) 13-15 hcp, balanced (no 5-card major) | | You, South, hold: | | KJ8632 | 95 | J84 | Q9 | | What call do you make? | What other calls do you consider making? | | | Best wishes | | Richard Hills | Movie grognard and general guru | 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 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.806 / Virus Database: 548 - Release Date: 12/5/04 From blml@blakjak.com Sat Dec 18 00:32:36 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:32:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] In-Reply-To: <000501c4e44a$33424370$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <94B7273A-503A-11D9-89E7-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000501c4e44a$33424370$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Gordon Rainsford >> > I am not familiar with this kind of regulations, our regulation on >> > multi 2D >> > certainly has no such "deny" clause. >> >> This is not our Multi regulation - which would require a strong option >> that doesn't seem to be present in Jeremy's convention. This is a >> blanket regulation that covers a variety of types of bid. >We abandoned all requirements for "strong" options as part of the agreements >in such regulations. (BTW our "normal" multi 2D is weak Major or 20-21 NT). > >Does your regulation allow the following agreement with for instance multi >2D: >Either a weak hand with at least 6 cards in an unknown major suit or a >NoTrump distribution with at least 36 HCP (!) > >If not, why not? Because we do not want this sort of Multi 2D at Level 3. Of course it is legal at Level 4, but them a large variety of multi-way bids are, including several Brown Sticker ones. >> > And I understand the questioner very well; in my ears there is a >> > significant >> > difference between "does not show a suit of diamonds" and "denies a >> > suit of >> > diamonds". >> >> I think this regulation is saying "denies that the indicated suit is >> diamonds". > >That is definitely not the same as "denies Diamonds"! No doubt, but the reg was not written for BLML, and has served perfectly well for years despite imperfect wording. Perfect wording is always easy for the critics, never so easy for the drafters. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Dec 18 00:33:17 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:33:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] In-Reply-To: <003701c4e457$a658c660$64ca87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000501c4e44a$33424370$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003701c4e457$a658c660$64ca87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote >"Denies" asks for unnecessary misunderstandings. > >+=+ I believe the regulation requires that there be a >specific understanding that diamonds are short. In >particular the protection is against a hand which may >be content to pass out a double of the suit. > The common situations envisaged are those where >the positive content is unspecified, but I think at the >fringe it ropes in Multi. No doubt DWS will comment. We know what it means. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 18 00:57:19 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:57:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <001401c4e461$c833dfe0$56f5f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000401c4e49c$8691f500$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman ........... > First tell me why in one message there are no marks as distinction = between > your and my contribution, so I have to use my *****, and in the next = there > are? The reason (as far as I can understand) is simply that I (accidentally) responded to the mail addressed directly to me instead of to the one = sent via blml. > About the laws I know something, this subject is too complicated. >=20 > Now the answer, which I repeat since it is given above. The first part = of > 71A speaks about things happened before the claim/concession which is = not > repeated. The second part is redundent, the sample described by 71A = indeed > being part of the sample desribed by 71C. But is doesn't do harm. The > second > sentence did. > Our policy has been to make as few changes as possible, just the = really > necessary ones. That is the only explanation there is. OK. So to avoid mistakes I had better strike out also the last part of = Law 71A in my book? (In other words there was a real change in L71 in 1997) Regards Sven From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 17 23:17:22 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:17:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) References: <000001c4e344$d39364f0$ba8d403e@Mildred> <006e01c4e353$6d7e4900$55ebf1c3@LNV> <000001c4e375$6da78370$f99087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41C195BE.60208@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041216164940.02a38eb0@pop.starpower.net> <002301c4e453$d87ff720$64ca87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20041217164249.02b064d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c4e49c$b4082400$8bd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) > At 05:37 AM 12/17/04, Grattan wrote: > >>From: "Eric Landau" >> >> >> the forthcoming revision of the footnote. >>< >> +=+ ? +=+ > > I was referring to the following exchange, but refusing to overbid: > > >At 10:00 PM 12/14/04, richard.hills wrote: > > > >Footnote number 20, current version: > > > >>For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 "normal" includes > >>play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for > >>the class of player involved. > > > >Meanwhile, until I can order a law book with that footnote in > > it, I think "current version" is rather a gross overbid. > +=+ Publishers were asked to implement the change when printing a fresh issue of the laws. The request is in the minute recording the change, which was distributed. As to the response to the request: "no comment". ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Dec 18 12:05:14 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:05:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000401c4e49c$8691f500$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001d01c4e4f9$ee3c10c0$69ab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Culture itself is neither education nor law-making; it is an atmosphere and a heritage." [Mencken] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 12:57 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Beware of the leopard OK. So to avoid mistakes I had better strike out also the last part of Law 71A in my book? (In other words there was a real change in L71 in 1997) Regards Sven +=+ It could be desirable to consider exactly what was done in 1997. The minute says: # "Mr. Kooijman added that if the intention expressed by Mr Kaplan were given effect there would be a notable difference of treatment as between Law 71 and Law 69" and "The committee adopted the opinion put forward by Mr Bavin that the sentence in 71C beginning "Until the conceding side...." does in fact make a provision that is incorporated within the wider provision existing in the immediately preceding words of the law. The Director is to cancel an implausible concession as defined in Law 71C at any time within the correction period established under Law 79C. (As proposed by Mr Kaplan this "changes the time period .... from the start of the next board to the usual protest period".) # It is useful to examine 'the immediately preceding words'. These say "A concession must stand, except that within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a concession:.... if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." I trust this helps. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Dec 18 12:26:22 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:26:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000601c4e44b$715b1050$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001701c4e4fc$dde30230$ea60893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Culture itself is neither education nor law-making; it is an atmosphere and a heritage." [Mencken] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 10:16 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Beware of the leopard > > > > ............. > > > We were told that the sentence was deleted > > > because that sentence was superfluous which > > >in fact was incorrect. It was a real change > > > in the laws. < +=+ Someone told you the true fact. What Max Bavin pointed out was that the preceding sytatement in Law 71C took the period beyond the period to which the final sentence referred. Therefore the final sentence was making a statement that was incorporated within the longer time period and which was therefore pointless and thus redundant. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 18 12:49:10 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:49:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <001d01c4e4f9$ee3c10c0$69ab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000301c4e4ff$f81cffe0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott > OK. So to avoid mistakes I had better strike out > also the last part of Law 71A in my book? (In other > words there was a real change in L71 in 1997) >=20 > Regards Sven >=20 > +=3D+ It could be desirable to consider exactly what was > done in 1997. The minute says: >=20 > # "Mr. Kooijman added that if the intention > expressed by Mr Kaplan were given effect there > would be a notable difference of treatment as between > Law 71 and Law 69" > and "The committee adopted the opinion put > forward by Mr Bavin that the sentence in 71C beginning > "Until the conceding side...." does in fact make a > provision that is incorporated within the wider provision > existing in the immediately preceding words of the law. > The Director is to cancel an implausible concession as > defined in Law 71C at any time within the correction > period established under Law 79C. (As proposed by > Mr Kaplan this "changes the time period .... from the > start of the next board to the usual protest period".) # >=20 > It is useful to examine 'the immediately preceding > words'. These say "A concession must stand, except > that within the correction period established in > accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel > a concession:.... if a player has conceded a trick that > cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." >=20 > I trust this helps. Indeed, and as I understand it this makes the following part of L71A completely irrelevant and in fact misleading: ",or a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the = remaining cards" As I wrote: Hadn't this sentence better be stricken out as well? (If a trick cannot be lost by any legal play then certainly there cannot exist any "normal" play by which the trick can be lost) Regards Sven From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 18 14:46:04 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:46:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000301c4e4ff$f81cffe0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c4e513$abdd1a70$8acb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 12:49 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Beware of the leopard > Grattan Endicott > OK. So to avoid mistakes I had better strike out > also the last part of Law 71A in my book? (In other > words there was a real change in L71 in 1997) > > Regards Sven > > +=+ It could be desirable to consider exactly what was > done in 1997. The minute says: > > # "Mr. Kooijman added that if the intention > expressed by Mr Kaplan were given effect there > would be a notable difference of treatment as between > Law 71 and Law 69" > and "The committee adopted the opinion put > forward by Mr Bavin that the sentence in 71C beginning > "Until the conceding side...." does in fact make a > provision that is incorporated within the wider provision > existing in the immediately preceding words of the law. > The Director is to cancel an implausible concession as > defined in Law 71C at any time within the correction > period established under Law 79C. (As proposed by > Mr Kaplan this "changes the time period .... from the > start of the next board to the usual protest period".) # > > It is useful to examine 'the immediately preceding > words'. These say "A concession must stand, except > that within the correction period established in > accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel > a concession:.... if a player has conceded a trick that > cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." > > I trust this helps. Indeed, and as I understand it this makes the following part of L71A completely irrelevant and in fact misleading: ",or a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards" As I wrote: Hadn't this sentence better be stricken out as well? (If a trick cannot be lost by any legal play then certainly there cannot exist any "normal" play by which the trick can be lost) Regards Sven +=+ The WBFLC did not strike out any part of the law. They confined themselves to observing that the time period in the final sentence of 71C was subsumed within the time provisions of the earlier text of Law 71 and thus redundant. If you choose to deface the text of your laws this is a matter for you; however, think carefully what you are doing. 'Normal' action is subsumed within 'legal' actions - what is normal will be legal but what is legal is not necessarily 'normal'. I don't think it is the 71A reference to 'legal' plays that you can afford to delete . ~ G ~ +=+ From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Dec 18 16:10:59 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:10:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <200412151541.iBFFfMRs011108@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200412151541.iBFFfMRs011108@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41C45693.6030108@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > I cannot follow > Grattan's suggestion that the word "irrational" when explicitly used in Law > 70E should not be understood subject to "class of player" exactly like > elsewhere in these Laws. (That I am not comfortable with "class of player" > in this context is another matter). We had a discussion on this a couple of years ago. What I remember Grattan writing at the time was that the LC intention many years ago was that "irrational" did not depend on the class of player, but that the current interpretation is that it does depend on class of player, and therefore class of player should be taken into account when ruling on claims. (This is the opposite of what I had guessed from reading the changes in language over the years -- I deduced that class of player was formerly taken into account but now should not be. So much for clarity!) From schoderb@msn.com Sat Dec 18 20:49:50 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:49:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) References: <200412151541.iBFFfMRs011108@cfa.harvard.edu> <41C45693.6030108@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Any chance that we might substitute "understanding" for the word "clarity" and put the shoe on your foot? Some of us lesser mortals had no problem understanding the old way, and I for one have never stopped objecting to the new way. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) > (This is the opposite of what I had guessed from reading the > changes in language over the years -- I deduced that class of player was > formerly taken into account but now should not be. So much for clarity!) > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 18 20:54:41 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:54:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <000001c4e513$abdd1a70$8acb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000201c4e543$cba711f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan ............. >=20 > Indeed, and as I understand it this makes the following part of L71A > completely irrelevant and in fact misleading: >=20 > ",or a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the > remaining > cards" >=20 > As I wrote: Hadn't this sentence better be stricken out as well? >=20 > (If a trick cannot be lost by any legal play then certainly there = cannot > exist any "normal" play by which the trick can be lost) >=20 > Regards Sven >=20 > +=3D+ The WBFLC did not strike out any part of the law. They > confined themselves to observing that the time period in the > final sentence of 71C was subsumed within the time provisions > of the earlier text of Law 71 and thus redundant. If you choose > to deface the text of your laws this is a matter for you; however, > think carefully what you are doing. 'Normal' action is subsumed > within 'legal' actions - what is normal will be legal but what is > legal is not necessarily 'normal'. I don't think it is the 71A > reference to 'legal' plays that you can afford to delete . > ~ G ~ +=3D+ Your comment in fact enhances the possible confusion from the present = texts. The reference to "legal" plays in Law 71A has become a nullity. Now let me define four possible (in theory) classes of plays: Class 1: both Legal and "normal" Class 2: Legal but not "normal"=20 Class 3: neither Legal nor "normal"=20 Class 4: "normal" but not Legal When do we cancel a concession once made? First of all I believe we can agree that we do not consider plays of = classes 3 or 4 at all (class 4 is in fact by its very nature empty). If there is at least one play of class 1 where conceded trick(s) can be = lost the concession stands both according to Law 71A and to Law 71C. But what happens if there is at least one play of class 2 (but none of = class 1) where conceded trick(s) can be lost? According to Law 71A the concession stands, according to Law 71C the concession is cancelled. I maintain that with the understanding of Law 71 now reached the last = part of Law 71A should have been deleted when they deleted the last part of = Law 71C. (WBFLC did indeed "strike out a part of the law"; they removed the last = part of Law 71C didn't they?) regards Sven From toddz@att.net Sat Dec 18 21:48:27 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:48:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <000001c4e513$abdd1a70$8acb403e@Mildred> References: <000301c4e4ff$f81cffe0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000001c4e513$abdd1a70$8acb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <41C4A5AB.6050102@att.net> Grattan wrote: > +=+ The WBFLC did not strike out any part of the law. They > confined themselves to observing that the time period in the > final sentence of 71C was subsumed within the time provisions > of the earlier text of Law 71 and thus redundant. I'm not seeing the redundancy and that bothers me. I thought its original wording implied you had only until the next board/round to correct an implausible concession, but you may have longer to correct an impossible concession. If 71C's narrower time limit has been expanded, then there was a change in effect in the law, no? If both 71A and 71C have effect for the same duration of time 71A is not needed since when it could apply 71C will necessarily also apply. This seems to be what Sven's arguing as I understand it, but I haven't figured out the objection to it yet. -Todd From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 18 22:21:40 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 23:21:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <41C4A5AB.6050102@att.net> Message-ID: <000301c4e54f$f2709ca0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Todd M. Zimnoch > Grattan wrote: > > +=+ The WBFLC did not strike out any part of the law. They > > confined themselves to observing that the time period in the > > final sentence of 71C was subsumed within the time provisions > > of the earlier text of Law 71 and thus redundant. > > I'm not seeing the redundancy and that bothers me. I > thought its original wording implied you had only until the > next board/round to correct an implausible concession, but > you may have longer to correct an impossible concession. If > 71C's narrower time limit has been expanded, then there was > a change in effect in the law, no? If both 71A and 71C have > effect for the same duration of time 71A is not needed since > when it could apply 71C will necessarily also apply. > > This seems to be what Sven's arguing as I understand it, > but I haven't figured out the objection to it yet. That is precisely my point which I have elaborated extensively in my latest contribution. Regards Sven From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 19 00:41:59 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 00:41:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000201c4e543$cba711f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c4e563$e72633a0$bd01e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 8:54 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Beware of the leopard But what happens if there is at least one play of class 2 (but none of class 1) where conceded trick(s) can be lost? According to Law 71A the concession stands, according to Law 71C the concession is cancelled. > +=+ In each case 71A , 71B, 71C , the first word is 'if ' and it attaches in each case to the preamble of Law 71 after the words "... the Director shall cancel the concession: ". So they present three alternative exceptions to the statement "A concession must stand... " to be applied within the correction period established in 79C. 71A does not have the effect that the concession must stand - what it does is not to create the circumstances in which that exception applies to it. Those circumstances are created in one of the alternative cases, the one prescribed in C. Law 71 reads that within the 79C time limit the Director shall cancel a concession: if the player has conceded a trick his side had won etc if declarer has conceded defeat etc if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play etc... the fact that one of these exceptions does not apply does not preclude the application of another of them. They are alternative grounds for cancellation, and all to be applied within the correction period established in accordance with 79C. Each of A, B, C, is a completion of the statement in the preamble of this Law. < I maintain that with the understanding of Law 71 now reached the last part of Law 71A should have been deleted when they deleted the last part of Law 71C. (WBFLC did indeed "strike out a part of the law"; they removed the last part of Law 71C didn't they?) +=+ No. They did not remove it. They pointed out that it prescribed a time period which was shorter than the general time limiit for all of these alternative possible circumstances, as above, and which therefore was ineffective. Please read the minute again with care. If you delete 71A you cease to cover in this Law the situation of a play that is a legal play but not a normal play. This is not the intention of the Law. It might help you perhaps if you were to rewrite each of 71A, 71B, 71C, in full - in each case with the 24 words of the preamble followed by 'if ' and the continuations of 71A, 71B, 71C respectively. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sun Dec 19 09:27:52 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:27:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <000001c4e563$e72633a0$bd01e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <000101c4e5ad$03a56390$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan .................. > If you delete 71A you cease to cover in this Law the situation = of a > play that is a legal play but not a normal play. This is not the = intention > of > the Law. It might help you perhaps if you were to rewrite each of = 71A, > 71B, 71C, in full - in each case with the 24 words of the preamble > followed by 'if ' and the continuations of 71A, 71B, 71C respectively. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Can you show me any situation where trick(s) "could not be lost by any = legal play of the remaining cards" (second clause in Law 71A) without also = "cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards" (Law 71C)? Law 71 would have been less confusing if L71A had been limited to exclusively concern tricks already played and not also mixing up with = L71C on tricks yet to be played. Regards Sven From axman22@hotmail.com Sun Dec 19 12:40:25 2004 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 06:40:25 -0600 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000101c4e5ad$03a56390$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 3:27 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Beware of the leopard > Grattan ................. > If you delete 71A you cease to cover in this Law the situation of a > play that is a legal play but not a normal play. This is not the intention > of > the Law. It might help you perhaps if you were to rewrite each of 71A, > 71B, 71C, in full - in each case with the 24 words of the preamble > followed by 'if ' and the continuations of 71A, 71B, 71C respectively. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Can you show me any situation where trick(s) "could not be lost by any legal play of the remaining cards" (second clause in Law 71A) without also "cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards" (Law 71C)? Law 71 would have been less confusing if L71A had been limited to exclusively concern tricks already played and not also mixing up with L71C on tricks yet to be played. Regards Sven >From what I have read Sven has asserted [given the change in the intention of the law] that for any instance described in 71A it would also be described in 71C . Hence, 71A is made superfluous by the change in the intention of the law and it would appropriate to delete the paragraph. I agree with that contention. Others have reported that it was the intention of the LC to change the time window of 71C to that of the correction period, but that intention did not get published in the 97 revision. I believe it is dangerous to look at a piece of law as independent. This is because rulings need to be in accordance with [the whole] law as opposed to merely a piece of the law. As such the law needs to be constructed not only with wise solutions, but also with the absence of philosophical and logical conflicts. The greatest danger arises when a piece of law, but not the whole, is 'fixed' and draws the framers and followers into complacency. So, keeping in mind that the ground I tread is dangerous, I write. what I think that Sven is driving at is that 71A should stay and it is the time period to which the 'new' 71C applies is bad. And if not, then I am driving at it. I believe that there needs to be a point when a hand is done so that the full concentration might bear upon the next one. It is right that there are exceptions, but they ought to be few and rare. So when considering the effects on the assertion of 'normal' the issue being what is and what is not normal is a contentious one which must rely on facts that are accurate. It is fascinating how forgetful humans can be even minutes after an experience. And it is incredible how after a more significant length of time facts are remembered that did not happen. To that end, if there is to be an argument over what is normal or not then it needs to be started while the facts are fresh and preservable. And this can not be accomplished with an acceptable level of confidence if minutes let alone hours are permitted to pass. After being hit out of the blue with an assertion that affects your score how much can a player be expected to focus on the hands yet to be played? At a minimum it is not only distracting, it is also intimidating; so care should be exercised when providing such a remedy. And there being no important reason for providing a large window for the purpose of arguing the cancellation of a concession because there is no legitimate line to lose the disputed tricks and compelling reasons for minimizing the window, the window should close at least by the time the cards are returned to the board. regards roger pewick From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 19 14:26:18 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:26:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000101c4e5ad$03a56390$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c4e5d6$eea32d90$120ae150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 9:27 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Beware of the leopard Can you show me any situation where trick(s) "could not be lost by any legal play of the remaining cards" (second clause in Law 71A) without also "cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards" (Law 71C)? < +=+ Irrational plays are legal but not normal. +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sun Dec 19 15:03:21 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:03:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <000001c4e5d6$eea32d90$120ae150@Mildred> Message-ID: <000101c4e5db$e1c81040$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan > From: "Sven Pran" > Can you show me any situation where trick(s) > "could not be lost by any legal play of the > remaining cards" (second clause in Law 71A) > without also "cannot be lost by any normal > play of the remaining cards" (Law 71C)? > < > +=+ Irrational plays are legal but not normal. +=+ You still do not understand the main point do you? L71A (second part): A concession is to be cancelled if there is no legal play of the remaining cards through which such trick(s) can be lost. L71C: A concession is to be cancelled if there is no "normal" play of the remaining cards through which such trick(s) can be lost. Can you show me any situation where there is a "normal" play through which such trick(s) can be lost and where this play is not also a legal play? Or in other words: Can you show me any situation where the second part of L71A applies (to cancel a concession) but where L71C does not also apply? When the time window for L71C ("normal play") extended only until the affected board was completed while the time window for L71A ("legal play") extended through the full correction period having both laws made sense. At that time a concession was cancelled if it was fairly immediately shown that a conceded trick could not be lost by any "normal" play, and the concession was also cancelled if it was shown before the correction period expired that a conceded trick could not be lost by any legal play. The present coexistence of the second part of L71A and L71C (with the same time window) just creates confusion; an allegation I consider confirmed by the contributions both from you (Grattan) and from Kojak. Regards Sven From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 19 19:38:17 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:38:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000101c4e5db$e1c81040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c4e602$edff2160$96ec403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 3:03 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Beware of the leopard >> Grattan >> From: "Sven Pran" >> Can you show me any situation where trick(s) >> "could not be lost by any legal play of the >> remaining cards" (second clause in Law 71A) >> without also "cannot be lost by any normal >> play of the remaining cards" (Law 71C)? >> < >> +=+ Irrational plays are legal but not normal. +=+ > > You still do not understand the main point do you? > > L71A (second part): A concession is to be cancelled > if there is no legal play of the remaining cards through > which such trick(s) can be lost. > > L71C: A concession is to be cancelled if there is no > "normal" play of the remaining cards through which > such trick(s) can be lost. > > Can you show me any situation where there is a > "normal" play through which such trick(s) can be lost > and where this play is not also a legal play? > +=+ No. That I agree. What I am pointing out to you is that there are legal plays by which such tricks can be lost that are not 'normal' plays. You do not seem to have grasped that 71A is retained because of that. But since the exceptions represented by 71A, 71B, and 71C, are not in conflict with each other but are alternative statements, which if any one (or more) of them applies calls for cancellation, I believe you are confusing yourself. You could delete 71C on the grounds that it is included within 71A, but the WBFLC chose not to do that; nothing required under the one is in conflict with what is said in another and the WBFLC has been of the mind to change the wording of the laws as little as possible in mid-term.. In earlier posts you seemed to say that 71A in some way meant that 71C was not applicable as the WBFLC minute defines it, or vice-versa. You need to rethink that, if such is your misconception. The only perceived conflict was between the time limit specified in the final sentence of 71C and the general time limit that applied. In response to ton's question of this the WBFLC established that the subject time limit has no effect because it is contained within the longer time limit of the prior statement in 71C. It is not my purpose to defend the way in which the WBFLC dealt with the matter but only to say 'this is what was decided, and this is where we are'. Of course the committee could have removed the overlap, but it did not since it creates no problem. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sun Dec 19 20:54:23 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:54:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <000001c4e602$edff2160$96ec403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000601c4e60c$eb755db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan ................... > > L71A (second part): A concession is to be cancelled > > if there is no legal play of the remaining cards through > > which such trick(s) can be lost. > > > > L71C: A concession is to be cancelled if there is no > > "normal" play of the remaining cards through which > > such trick(s) can be lost. > > > > Can you show me any situation where there is a > > "normal" play through which such trick(s) can be lost > > and where this play is not also a legal play? > > > +=3D+ No. That I agree. What I am pointing out to you > is that there are legal plays by which such tricks can be > lost that are not 'normal' plays. You do not seem to have > grasped that 71A is retained because of that. But L71A has no mission in such cases so this could not have been any = real reason to retain that part of L71A?=20 "A concession must stand, once made, except that ....." If there is any legal play by which such tricks can be lost then the = second part of L71A does NOT apply and can be ignored. If there is any "normal" play by which such tricks can be lost then L71C does NOT apply and can be ignored. And as we agree that there cannot be any "normal" play unless the same = play is also legal the second part of L71A is fully included within L71C (not = the other way round!) once the time window for L71C became extended to = include the entire time window for L71A. > But since the exceptions represented by 71A, 71B, > and 71C, are not in conflict with each other but are > alternative statements, which if any one (or more) of > them applies calls for cancellation, I believe you are > confusing yourself. You could delete 71C on the > grounds that it is included within 71A, but the WBFLC > chose not to do that; nothing required under the one is > in conflict with what is said in another and the WBFLC > has been of the mind to change the wording of the laws > as little as possible in mid-term.. No, L71C could not be deleted but the second part of L71A could, and in = my opinion should have been deleted so that there was no possible confusion from the use of "legal" play in L71A. > In earlier posts you seemed to say that 71A > in some way meant that 71C was not applicable as > the WBFLC minute defines it, or vice-versa. You need > to rethink that, if such is your misconception.=20 Yes, I considered the second part of L71A to be there for a reason, and = a reasonable reason could be to prevent a claimer from making a double = shot with his claim. That is why I considered the only reasonable reason for = a claimer to get more tricks than he claimed being that there was no LEGAL play by which he would only get what he claimed.=20 > The only > perceived conflict was between the time limit specified > in the final sentence of 71C and the general time limit > that applied. In response to ton's question of this the > WBFLC established that the subject time limit has no > effect because it is contained within the longer time > limit of the prior statement in 71C. I never saw this as a (serious) conflict:=20 If it is revealed almost immediately while the play is fresh in the = minds of the players that a conceded trick could only be lost by irrational play = then that concession should be cancelled. However if it is revealed considerably later although within the = correction period that a conceded trick was already won or could not be lost by any legal play then that concession should be cancelled. At such time it = should be too late to claim cancellation of a concession solely on the ground = that the play had to be "irrational". > It is not my purpose to defend the way in which > the WBFLC dealt with the matter but only to say 'this > is what was decided, and this is where we are'. Of > course the committee could have removed the overlap, > but it did not since it creates no problem. Well, this discussion tells me that it has indeed created problems. Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Dec 19 22:01:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:01:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <000201c4e543$cba711f0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >Now let me define four possible (in theory) classes of plays: > >Class 1: both Legal and "normal" > >Class 2: Legal but not "normal" > >Class 3: neither Legal nor "normal" > >Class 4: "normal" but not Legal > >When do we cancel a concession once made? > >First of all I believe we can agree that we do not consider >plays of classes 3 or 4 at all (class 4 is in fact by its >very nature empty). [snip] Richard Hills: Class 4 is not an empty set. Many beginners normally revoke. For those normally revoking beginners, Law 71A may provide them with protection which they do not receive from Law 71C. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Sun Dec 19 22:45:47 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:45:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c4e61c$7b8a7200$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > [snip] > > >Now let me define four possible (in theory) classes of plays: > > > >Class 1: both Legal and "normal" > > > >Class 2: Legal but not "normal" > > > >Class 3: neither Legal nor "normal" > > > >Class 4: "normal" but not Legal > > > >When do we cancel a concession once made? > > > >First of all I believe we can agree that we do not consider > >plays of classes 3 or 4 at all (class 4 is in fact by its > >very nature empty). > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Class 4 is not an empty set. Many beginners normally revoke. > For those normally revoking beginners, Law 71A may provide > them with protection which they do not receive from Law 71C. > > :-) The smiley is indeed called for. I think my position as a Director will be that these beginners have not yet reached a state of playing bridge! They actually play something which resembles bridge, and eventually they will hopefully graduate into our community. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 20 00:42:14 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:42:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <000001c4e563$e72633a0$bd01e150@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott suggested: [snip] >It might help you perhaps if you were to rewrite each >of 71A, 71B, 71C, in full - in each case with the 24 >words of the preamble followed by 'if ' and the >continuations of 71A, 71B, 71C respectively. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills suggests: In the 1997 edition of the Lawbook, a number of the Laws have the format of a preamble concluding with a colon (:), followed by a number of subclauses. Law 81C has a preamble followed by no less than 11 subclauses! This format for the 1997 Laws gains a certain amount of space at the cost of increasing a club TD's unforced errors. It is very easy for a club TD to read only a Law's subclause, but to forget to read that Law's preamble. For example, a club TD may erroneously believe that the requirement of subclause Law 81C6 ("to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner...") is unequivocal. But the Law 81C preamble contains the equivocal caveat "normally". Therefore, I suggest that the WBF LC rewrite all the 2006 Laws in full, eschewing colonic preambles. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 20 01:09:50 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:09:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000601c4e60c$eb755db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004801c4e630$c5502880$389087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 8:54 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Beware of the leopard >> I never saw this as a (serious) conflict: < +=+ But ton did, and he asked the committee to address the subject. He thought there was inconsistency with Law 69. +=+ < >> Well, this discussion tells me that it has indeed created >> problems. < +=+ Evidently the English language as used in the structure of Law 71 and as used in the minute of the WBFLC causes you a difficulty. However the position established is that within the correction period established under 79C: 1. The Director shall cancel the concession if a player has conceded a trick his side had in fact won; 2. The Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that the player's side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards; 3. The Director shall cancel the concession if declarer has conceded defeat of a contract he had already fulfilled; 4. The Director shall cancel the concession if a defender has conceded fulfilment of a contract that his side had already defeated; 5. The Director shall cancel the concession if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. If none of the circumstances in 1 to 5 is present the concession must stand. I agree there is an overlap between 2 and 5 but they are not in conflict (the possibilities in 5 all fall within the possibilities in 2, but in 2 there are to be considered additional possible plays - i.e. any that are legal but not 'normal' ) and the WBFLC has chosen not to strike out any of the wording but to give guidance on the interpretation of it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Dec 20 13:36:15 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:36:15 -0800 Subject: [blml] Birmingham Fall 2000 case 15 References: Message-ID: <003c01c4e698$e34e6640$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Karel" > Bracketed KO II > Dlr S > E/W Vul > > S KQ76 > H KT942 > D T6 > C T9 > > S A4 ST2 > H AQ865 H 7 > D AK D QJ73 > C AJ43 CQ87652 > > S J9853 > H J3 > D 98542 > C K > > W N E S > P > 2C P 2D P > 2NT P 3S(1) P > 3NT P 5C P > 6C all pass > > Result 6c+1 > > (1) Not alerted as a relay to 4C's to play in one of the minors > > Ruling 3NT+4 520 on the basis 3NT is a LA > > - 3NT was not defined in the system > - experts and flight B players polled thought non alert made bidding over > 3NT easier. > > > I disagree with this ruling. > > > [snip ..] > ".. easts 5C bid rather than 4C or pass is prima facie evidence that east > noticed the failure to alert " > > Why ?? Did anyone ask if 4C was F or Not ?? Certainly if I was in this > position I would never bid 4C's which could be passed out. I might torture > pd with a 4NT bid (an attempt to bring diamonds into the pictiure or is it > quantitive :>>), but I will never bid below game and give pd the chance to > pass. > > [snip] > " .. it has been already pointed out that on a practical level 3NT can only > have one meaning regardless of whether 3S is alerted or not ..." > > What utter rubbish. If the bid had a meaning it would have been given a > meaning (as I'm now sure it has) prior to the competition. In any event - > what gives you the right to attach meanings to peoples system ?? I have an > understanding with partners ... when in doubt bid the next suit up. The > amount of times pd has broken system or bid something anti systemic or new, > and I have at the table attached a meaning obvious or not to it, which it > turns out is completely utterly wrong to the intended meaning is too many to > recount. So now we pass the buck back and let the "new system" person > clarify or place the contract. > > In this case though I am not about to bid 4C's (next suit up) as pd could > well construe that as clubs and a zero count. 5C seems utterly normal. > > [snip..] > " ... the only effect of the non alert is to make east suspicious that west > might have a better hand for clubs than the 3NT signoff suggests ..." > > Again what signoff ?? Why does 3NT imply clubs ?? You can't assign 3NT as a > signoff. Why can't it be both minors or a hand which doesn't like the > minors. It is really irrelevant - I can come up with numerous meanings for > 3NT. Point is you can't force your view of what an undefined bid means on > some auction. > > And what would have happened had East passed and 3NT made while 5C's goes > down. They'd be screaming holy murder citing 64 7 loser distributional - > how can you pass 3NT when pd has implied NO fit. You can't win against > these people. > > 3S is not natural this was proven. 3NT was undefined. Whatever pd meant > 3NT as he knows you dont have spades or hearts. Chances are he just plain > forgot to alert - god shoot me. 5C's seems a good description of your hand > at this stage and (1) we still may have 6 on if 3NT is some kind of super > accept (2) We were always heading to 5C's, lets not have yet another > disaster and discus the meaning of 3NT afterwards and not unilaterally make > a decision for the partnership now (3) 5C is very very reasonable REGARDLESS > of the meaning of 3NT. Why are you 2nd guessing pd ?? > > Bottom line for me is that pass is not an LA. I would never pass this > auction with the east hand, never. Been there too often. And as for west, > he/she should not makeup system at the table ... it is a reciepe for > disaster. >From Danny Kleinman, to whom I look for guidance on these matters (He has given me blanket permission to quote him when I agree with what he writes, as I do here) Here is my appraisal of the situation. When West does not alert East's conventional 3S, I would presume that West forgot the convention, not that he forgot to alert. Furthermore, failure to alert a convention call stems so often from forgetting a convention that East was in position to infer from West's failure to alert that West had forgotten the convention. What could East have inferred if West had alerted 3S and explained it as a puppet to 3NT based on a desire to play in a minor, and then bid a non-systemic 3NT? A plausible interpretation of that 3NT would be, "Even if you have a weak hand with a six-card minor, I think we have good play for 3NT." A plausible hand for West on the auction: S-K983 H-KQ10 D-AK9 C-AK9. Other constructions of West's hand will also make 3NT the best contract. Is it clear for East to remove 3NT? No, passing 3NT is a logical alternative, as facing the West hand I constructed, 3NT is unbeatable except perhaps on a 4-0 club split (which always beats 5C), while 5C will often fail even with clubs 3-1 or 2-2. Given West's failure to alert 3S, East was in position to see the danger of bidding 4C, which was not only that West might pass but also that West might take 4C as showing a second suit (spades and clubs) or , coming over 3NT, as Gerber (if East and West play Gerber over notrump East's 5C bid is an insult to West's judgment, and appears to be based on the unauthorized information available from West's failure to alert 3S. [mlf] I would say "possibly based" I would adjust the result to 3NT making six, as the most favorable plausible lead for North (a spade) would hold West to twelve tricks. Danny Kleinman Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 20 03:24:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:24:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Footnotes (was Irrational) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak: [snip] >Further, Laws with footnotes make me nervous, since >it seems to indicate (to me) that the body of the >Law was so poorly written that it needed explanation. Richard Hills: Actually, since I am a mere club TD, I adore the indicative examples in the footnote to Law 75. And, since I am a mere club TD, I would adore _more_ indicative examples to be footnoted to other Laws in the 2006 Lawbook. Some decades ago, circa the promulgation of the 1975 Lawbook, Edgar Kaplan asked this (paraphrased) question: "Is it possible to write an unambiguous set of bridge laws?"* In my opinion, indicative examples in footnotes can assist in minimising unnecessary ambiguity when a club TD struggles to interpret the Laws. ---------------------------------------------------- *Footnote - The answer is No, since the fuzzy lingua franca of English has readers separated by a common language. If duplicate bridge had existed in the time of William of Ockham, perhaps he could have formulated unambiguous laws in the then non-fuzzy lingua franca of Latin. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From mrhsjrqy@winmarkcorporation.com Mon Dec 20 05:25:32 2004 From: mrhsjrqy@winmarkcorporation.com (Rebbecca Wadkins) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:25:32 -0600 Subject: [blml] Rebbecca St0x in Play UACP publicize Message-ID: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:27:37 -0600 Before We continue- very important - it is Expected that UACP will have very large PR campaign in the next 10 days and some very positive news are expected. Watch out for it monday morning a huge fax campaign will begin monday evening to over 4.5 Million investors. Jump on board while this stock is below $1 because from monday evening until friday it will be very heavily promoted. Symbol: UACP current price : 0.37 10 days target price : 1.25 3 Months target price :1.66 Breaking News: uAuthorize Corp. Announces Upgrades in Web Cam Watcher software “UACP” currently trading at .30 and is headed to 1.25 you do not want to miss this deal. The company released ground breaking news about its VOIP division! Although some would argue that VoIP is still maturing, corporate users are extremely interested in implementing the technology, creating exponential growth. Within the last four years, VoIP minutes increased from less than 0.5 to 2 percent of outbound international calls, according to research from TeleGeography. Additionally, predictions as to the size of the market itself vary, with Allied Business Intelligence projecting the VoIP market to grow from $3.7 billion in 2000 to $12.3 billion in 2006 and Synergy Research projecting the VoIP equipment market to grow to $13.3 billion by 2005.(fLfx23Bf(w62a Please Note: Our picks normally generate 200 to 400% grow with our promotions this one is expected to be our highest one this year, this week coming up so don't miss out on the possibility of explosive growth this week coming up. ------------------------------------------------- Please be advised that nothing within this email shall constitute a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any security mentioned herein. This newsletter is neither a registered investment advisor nor affiliated with any broker or dealer. All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such. We may own, buy and sell any securities mentioned at any time. This report includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. This newsletter was paid 35500 from third party to send this report. You may lose money from investing in Penny Stocks. yogurt motortruck johnny From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 20 08:40:42 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:40:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <004801c4e630$c5502880$389087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000101c4e66f$979c0780$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott ......... > However the position established is that within > the correction period established under 79C: > 1. The Director shall cancel the concession if a player has > conceded a trick his side had in fact won; > 2. The Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that > the player's side could not have lost by any legal play of the > remaining cards; > 3. The Director shall cancel the concession if declarer has > conceded defeat of a contract he had already fulfilled; > 4. The Director shall cancel the concession if a defender > has conceded fulfilment of a contract that his side had already > defeated; > 5. The Director shall cancel the concession if a player has > conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play > of the remaining cards. > If none of the circumstances in 1 to 5 is present > the concession must stand. >=20 > I agree there is an overlap between 2 and 5 but they are not > in conflict (the possibilities in 5 all fall within the possibilities > in 2, but in 2 there are to be considered additional possible > plays - i.e. any that are legal but not 'normal' ) and the > WBFLC has chosen not to strike out any of the wording > but to give guidance on the interpretation of it. Indeed. But again: Because of the negations ("not ... legal" and "not ... = normal") it is the possibilities in 2 that all fall within the possibilities in 5 = and not the other way round! So it is the second clause in L71A that is redundant and not L71C. Regards Sven=20 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Dec 17 15:26:56 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:26:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] In-Reply-To: <000501c4e44a$33424370$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c4e44a$33424370$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <160D42D8-5040-11D9-89E7-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-6-435964698 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On 17 Dec 2004, at 15:08, Sven Pran wrote: >> Gordon Rainsford >>> I am not familiar with this kind of regulations, our regulation on >>> multi 2D >>> certainly has no such "deny" clause. >> >> This is not our Multi regulation - which would require a strong option >> that doesn't seem to be present in Jeremy's convention. This is a >> blanket regulation that covers a variety of types of bid. > > We abandoned all requirements for "strong" options as part of the > agreements > in such regulations. (BTW our "normal" multi 2D is weak Major or 20-21 > NT). > > Does your regulation allow the following agreement with for instance > multi > 2D: > Either a weak hand with at least 6 cards in an unknown major suit or a > NoTrump distribution with at least 36 HCP (!) > > If not, why not? The full regulation for the Multi can be found at http://www.math.aau.dk/~nwp/bridge/orangebook/s13.html It includes: "(vi) at least one strong option must be of reasonable frequency" which I imagine would deal with your 36 hcp balanced idea. It also says: "(iii) you are expected to explore game possibilities if your hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of your partner's Multi-2D", which in the case of a 36hcp opener, would be all responder's hands. > >>> >>> And I understand the questioner very well; in my ears there is a >>> significant >>> difference between "does not show a suit of diamonds" and "denies a >>> suit of >>> diamonds". >> >> I think this regulation is saying "denies that the indicated suit is >> diamonds". > > That is definitely not the same as "denies Diamonds"! I said I thought the regulation wasn't perfectly written, though I think I've managed to interpret it as intended without too much trouble. If not, I'm sure someone involved in framing it will put me right. > >> The point is whether or not partner is likely to pass the bid. > > Then the regulation should simply state "shows a weak opening bid with > at > least six cards in an unknown major suit, or ....." (Which I believe > is what > you had in mind in your first comment?) No. As I said, the original question was not about the Multi-2D regulation, but about the regulation that covers other multi-meaning bids. That regulation is as follows, which I don't think your suggested alternative comes close to encompassing (however, if you do have suggestions for its improvement, it's probably better to pass them on to someone who's involved in this, which I'm not): "14.4 Two of a Suit and Two No trump Opening Bids 14.4.1 Basic. These may be played as any one of: (a) a strong hand, any one or more of: (i) game forcing. (ii) balanced (or semi-balanced) hand, defined range, minimum 18 HCPs: alternatively may be played so that on occasion it may contain a singleton (iii) Acol Two or Rule of 25: the suit need not be specified. (iv) a 3-suiter, minimum 16 HCPs. (b) a non-strong hand, any one or two of: (i) 1-suiter of defined values with one of no more than two specified suits. (ii) 2-suiter of defined values with at least one suit specified. (iii) 3-suiter of defined values with at least one suit specified. (c) strong and non-strong, any one or more of the options in (a) together with one, two or three of the options in (b). Notes: --Apple-Mail-6-435964698 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: image/gif; x-unix-mode=0666; name="s-dot.gif" Content-Disposition: inline; filename=s-dot.gif R0lGODlhBQAFAPAAAP///wAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAAFAAUAAAIHRG6nyxlQAAA7 --Apple-Mail-6-435964698 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed In the case of 2-of-a-suit openings, the hands permitted by the non-strong options (ie those in (b)) must either all guarantee or all deny the suit bid. --Apple-Mail-6-435964698 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: image/gif; x-unix-mode=0666; name="s-dot.gif" Content-Disposition: inline; filename=s-dot.gif R0lGODlhBQAFAPAAAP///wAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAAFAAUAAAIHRG6nyxlQAAA7 --Apple-Mail-6-435964698 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed You are expected to explore the possibility of game if your hand justifies it opposite the stronger types of your partner's opening bid. --Apple-Mail-6-435964698 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: image/gif; x-unix-mode=0666; name="s-dot.gif" Content-Disposition: inline; filename=s-dot.gif R0lGODlhBQAFAPAAAP///wAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAAFAAUAAAIHRG6nyxlQAAA7 --Apple-Mail-6-435964698 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed In the non-strong hands, the range of defined values may differ in different positions and at different vulnerabilities, but only one range is allowed at any one position/vulnerability. All continuations are allowed." -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-6-435964698-- From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 20 09:26:01 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:26:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] In-Reply-To: <160D42D8-5040-11D9-89E7-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000e01c4e675$ebc513a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Please avoid attachments. I (and I hope most people) will never open them without previous agreements. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Gordon Rainsford > Sent: 17. desember 2004 16:27 > Cc: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] ............. > "(vi) at least one strong option must be of reasonable frequency" which > I imagine would deal with your 36 hcp balanced idea. Sure. But what is the definition of "reasonable frequency"? (I have experienced whole tournaments without seeing a 20+ HCP NT-shaped hand. And yes, I know my stuff on probabilities). Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 20 10:27:47 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:27:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] References: <000501c4e44a$33424370$6900a8c0@WINXP> <160D42D8-5040-11D9-89E7-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <006701c4e67e$bf813400$ac9f4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] > (b) a non-strong hand, any one or two of: > (i) 1-suiter of defined values with one of no more than > two specified suits. > (ii) 2-suiter of defined values with at least one suit specified. > (iii) 3-suiter of defined values with at least one suit specified. > > Notes: > In the case of 2-of-a-suit openings, the hands permitted by > the non-strong options (ie those in (b)) must either all > guarantee or all deny the suit bid. > +=+ Where this applies 'deny' means it must say "I do not possess this suit" - this I would understand to say "I am short in this named suit", presumably denying a natural holding of the named suit. However I am far from clear from DWS' terse, dismissive response what he is saying about the EBU interpretation of this in relation to Multi - can there be three, or even four, diamonds? ~ G ~ +=+ From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Mon Dec 20 11:02:09 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:02:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C53F@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Rickard [mailto:j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk] Sent: 17 December 2004 11:57 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] I recently noticed that the EBU Orange Book (14.4.1) regulations about multi-way two of a suit bids (at Level 4) contain the words: "the hands permitted by the non-strong options [...] must either all guarantee or all deny the suit bid." My regular partner and I have been using 2D as a weak two in an unspecified major, and I'm sure that we must have done it on occasion with a 4-card (maybe even 5-card) diamond side-suit. Is this illegal? Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~majcr _______________________________________________ Jeremy I am sure this regulation is interpreted to mean that a suit is denied if it is not shown; i.e. given the description of the bid used to show that it conforms to 14.4.1, the suit bid is not one of the single suits in 14.4.1(b)(i), and is not one of the two suits in 14.4.1(b)(ii), and is not one of the three suits in 14.4.1(b)(iii). The problems with this approach were noted some time ago, in Cambridge 2D showing a 5 card suit (with 2M = 6, weak) was sometimes described as "the cheats' multi". The point is that "style and judgement" would preclude some players from ever opening 2D on 5332 because of the lack of playing strength (or perhaps what Robson & Segal termed low offense/defense ratio). 2D would then (by experience, if not explicit agreement) show 5-4 in a major and another suit. Because that other suit could be diamonds, this would fall foul of OB 14.4.1. The "cheats" way round this is to fudge disclosure. Robin P.S. The wording about denying diamonds (the suit bid) is not in OB 13.4.2 which permit the multi 2D at level three (with a strong option). But an agreement to exclude 5332 would change the basic character from single-suited to two-suited, this would not be an allowable treatment of any permitted bid, and since the level three multi can not even be subject to treatment, I presume such an agreement is not permitted. ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Dec 20 11:11:12 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:11:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817314@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > (b) a non-strong hand, any one or two of: > (i) 1-suiter of defined values with one of no more than=20 > two specified suits. > (ii) 2-suiter of defined values with at least one suit specified. > (iii) 3-suiter of defined values with at least one suit specified. >=20 > Notes: > In the case of 2-of-a-suit openings, the hands permitted by=20 > the non-strong options (ie those in (b)) must either all=20 > guarantee or all deny the suit bid. >=20 +=3D+ Where this applies 'deny' means it must say "I do not possess this suit" - this I would understand to say "I am short in this named suit", presumably denying a natural holding of the named suit. However I am far from clear from DWS' terse, dismissive response what he is saying about the EBU interpretation of this in relation to Multi - can there be three, or even four, diamonds? ~ G ~ +=3D+ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- There can be 3, 4, or even five diamonds. The regulation is trying to say that, however many weak options you play, they must all either a) promise the suit you have opened, or b) promise suit(s) excluding the suit opened in the same way as a 1S opening promises spades, it doesn't promise = hearts even though it may have 6 of them. perhaps the word "exclude" would be better than "deny". the reasoning behind the regulation is that it is generally harder to = defend against a weak opening which includes the suit opened as an option, but not a = gaurentee. From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Dec 20 11:40:10 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:40:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000101c4e66f$979c0780$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <009e01c4e688$ae4e3c00$0100007f@LNV> But again: Because of the negations ("not ... legal" and "not ... normal") it is the possibilities in 2 that all fall within the possibilities in 5 and not the other way round! So it is the second clause in L71A that is redundant and not L71C. Regards Sven ****** Yes Sven, you are right, repeating it for the 9th time. Could you please stop asking Grattan to admit it? ton ****** From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 20 17:05:28 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:05:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <009e01c4e688$ae4e3c00$0100007f@LNV> References: <000101c4e66f$979c0780$6900a8c0@WINXP> <009e01c4e688$ae4e3c00$0100007f@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote >Sven wrote >But again: Because of the negations ("not ... legal" and "not ... normal") >it is the possibilities in 2 that all fall within the possibilities in 5 and >not the other way round! > >So it is the second clause in L71A that is redundant and not L71C. --------- >Yes Sven, you are right, repeating it for the 9th time. >Could you please stop asking Grattan to admit it? Let us suppose the wording is not perfect in a document that is produced at several year intervals. It might be the use of the word 'deny' where a better word can be found: it might be using too many negatives and somewhat obscuring a meaning. People ask what these laws/regulations mean and are told. Actually, pure logic makes them pretty damn obvious anyway. Now, having been told, and having had their moan because the documents are not perfect [I would like ot see a Law book/Orange book written exclusively by the moaners], several BLMLers go on and on and on and on about it. Tell me, assuming these things will be corrected in the next Law book/Orange book/other document, what on earth do these BLMLers expect to be done now? What do they really think is the positive result of going on about it ad infinitum? Do they expect us to suddenly reprint and re-distribute every Law book/Orange book/other document every time a BLMLer sees a flaw? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Dec 20 19:20:49 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:20:49 +1300 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <000901c4e61c$7b8a7200$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <01ce01c4e6c9$03c8e910$0801010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Monday, 20 December 2004 11:46 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Beware of the leopard > > > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > Sven Pran: > > > > [snip] > > > > >Now let me define four possible (in theory) classes of plays: > > > > > >Class 1: both Legal and "normal" > > > > > >Class 2: Legal but not "normal" > > > > > >Class 3: neither Legal nor "normal" > > > > > >Class 4: "normal" but not Legal > > > > > >When do we cancel a concession once made? > > > > > >First of all I believe we can agree that we do not consider > > >plays of classes 3 or 4 at all (class 4 is in fact by its > > >very nature empty). > > > > [snip] > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Class 4 is not an empty set. Many beginners normally revoke. > > For those normally revoking beginners, Law 71A may provide > > them with protection which they do not receive from Law 71C. > > > > :-) > > The smiley is indeed called for. I think my position as a > Director will be > that these beginners have not yet reached a state of playing bridge! > > They actually play something which resembles bridge, and > eventually they > will hopefully graduate into our community. This position is unnecessarily elitist. In my opinion it is unbecoming of a TD. It also has many consequences: If they are not playing bridge then their opponents are also not playing bridge; If they are not playing bridge then the "bridge" director has no power to rule on their 'non-infractions'. 'Non-infractions' since there are no laws for the game they are playing - "not bridge". The position that beginners are not playing bridge is not one that a "bridge" director would make eventually such a director will hopefully graduate into our community. Wayne From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 20 22:06:42 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 23:06:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <01ce01c4e6c9$03c8e910$0801010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <000101c4e6e0$305e3680$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows ............... > > > Class 4 ("normal" but not legal) is not an empty set. =20 > > > Many beginners normally revoke. For those normally > > > revoking beginners, Law 71A may provide them with > > > protection which they do not receive from Law 71C. > > > > > > :-) > > > > The smiley is indeed called for. I think my position=20 > > as a Director will be that these beginners have not=20 > > yet reached a state of playing bridge! > > > > They actually play something which resembles bridge,=20 > > and eventually they will hopefully graduate into our > > community. >=20 > This position is unnecessarily elitist. In my opinion=20 > it is unbecoming of a TD. I don't think so. What these beginners need more than anything else is education and training (in a friendly way). And that is what they get = from all directors I know. We adapt our directing to the "class of players" = (how I hate that term!) without really abandon the laws. So far I have not = had any problem with that, not from top class players nor from beginners. Part of that training is to show them what plays are illegal so that = such plays shall never be "normal" even to beginners. We never throw the law = book at beginners for whom illegal play is still "normal", we just train = them. > It also has many consequences: >=20 > If they are not playing bridge then their opponents are also not > playing bridge; >=20 > If they are not playing bridge then the "bridge" director has no > power to rule on their 'non-infractions'. 'Non-infractions' since > there are no laws for the game they are playing - "not bridge". >=20 > The position that beginners are not playing bridge is not one that > a "bridge" director would make eventually such a director will = hopefully > graduate into our community. No it has just one consequence: The beginners become real bridge = players. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 20 22:42:10 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:42:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the painted jaguar In-Reply-To: <01ce01c4e6c9$03c8e910$0801010a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>>Class 4 is not an empty set. Many beginners normally revoke. >>>>For those normally revoking beginners, Law 71A may provide >>>>them with protection which they do not receive from Law 71C. >>>> >>>>:-) Sven Pran: >>>The smiley is indeed called for. I think my position as a >>>Director will be that these beginners have not yet reached a >>>state of playing bridge! [snip] Wayne Burrows: >>This position is unnecessarily elitist. In my opinion it is >>unbecoming of a TD. >> >>It also has many consequences: >> >>If they are not playing bridge then their opponents are also >>not playing bridge; >> >>If they are not playing bridge then the "bridge" director has >>no power to rule on their 'non-infractions'. [snip] Rudyard Kipling, Just So Stories: >'Now attend to me,' said Painted Jaguar, 'because this is very >important. My mother said that when I meet a Hedgehog I am to >drop him into the water and then he will uncoil, and when I meet >a Tortoise I am to scoop him out of his shell with my paw. Now >which of you is Hedgehog and which is Tortoise? because, to save >my spots, I can't tell.' > >'Are you sure of what your Mummy told you?' said Stickly-Prickly >Hedgehog. 'Are you quite sure? Perhaps she said that when you >uncoil a Tortoise you must shell him out the water with a scoop, >and when you paw a Hedgehog you must drop him on the shell.' > >'Are you sure of what your Mummy told you?' said Slow-and-Solid >Tortoise. 'Are you quite sure? Perhaps she said that when you >water a Hedgehog you must drop him into your paw, and when you >meet a Tortoise you must shell him till he uncoils.' > >'I don't think it was at all like that,' said Painted Jaguar, but >he felt a little puzzled; 'but, please, say it again more >distinctly.' Richard Hills: I will say it more distinctly; in my opinion, both Sven and Wayne are on the wrong track on this issue. Sven's proposed ruling of Painted Jaguar beginners "not playing bridge" is not necessary. In its interpretation of the claim laws, the WBF LC has ruled that a claim which incorporates a revoke should be applied only in its pre-revoke segment, but disregarded in its post-revoke segment. So, even if it is normal - in the dictionary sense - for a beginner to revoke, a TD must rule that it is not normal - in the Lawful sense - for a beginner to be deemed to revoke on a future trick. Wayne's proposed non-elitist format for Painted Jaguar beginners is not practical. Forcing raw beginners to sink or swim on a level playing field with experts will merely drive those beginners away from the game. Ideally, beginners who have just emerged from their initial lessons should participate in special "supervised play" events amongst themselves, with a supervising expert available to immediately answer their questions during the bidding and play. But if a club is too small to organise "supervised play" events, then expert opponents of beginners should exercise their Law 9A1 option ("may") of declining to draw attention to any Painted Jaguar beginner's irregularity. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 20 22:51:21 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 23:51:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c4e6e6$6cb4c7b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Ton Kooijman wrote > >Sven wrote > > >But again: Because of the negations > >("not ... legal" and "not ... normal") > >it is the possibilities in 2 that all fall > >within the possibilities in 5 and > >not the other way round! > > > >So it is the second clause in L71A that is > >redundant and not L71C. > > --------- > > >Yes Sven, you are right, repeating it for the 9th time. > >Could you please stop asking Grattan to admit it? Sure, but this is the first time I have received authoritative confirmation that I now have the correct understanding of the complete Law 71. My main purpose with this thread has all the time been to get my confusion on this law cleared up, but as long as I kept receiving comments sustaining those parts that confused me I felt no closer to the target. > > Let us suppose the wording is not perfect in a document that is > produced at several year intervals. It might be the use of the word > 'deny' where a better word can be found: it might be using too many > negatives and somewhat obscuring a meaning. > > People ask what these laws/regulations mean and are told. Actually, > pure logic makes them pretty damn obvious anyway. You may have noticed that the application of "pure logic" could lead to other results than the ones "obvious" to you? > > Now, having been told, and having had their moan because the documents > are not perfect [I would like ot see a Law book/Orange book written > exclusively by the moaners], several BLMLers go on and on and on and on > about it. > > Tell me, assuming these things will be corrected in the next Law > book/Orange book/other document, what on earth do these BLMLers expect > to be done now? What do they really think is the positive result of > going on about it ad infinitum? Do they expect us to suddenly reprint > and re-distribute every Law book/Orange book/other document every time a > BLMLer sees a flaw? I haven't noticed anybody expressing any expectation for such activities. What I and I believe others hope for is some authoritative clarifications when we discover that we have misunderstood something in the laws. Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen did a tremendous job with the commentaries they wrote back in 1992; I am afraid that it may be completely unrealistic to expect another similar job done, but at least it ought to be possible having sections that cause misunderstandings clarified. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 21 04:54:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:54:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] my dream In-Reply-To: <41820939.3080603@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >At the end of my dream this morning, someone asked about blml "isn't >that where people are discussing the number of angels dancing on a >pinhead?" > >Now fully awake, I came up with the answer: > >"No, that question was settled last week, there are 793 of them; >although some lunatics continue to assert there are only 792. This >week we are debating whether they are doing the waltz or the tango!". Richard Hills: I dreamt that Herman De Wael, myself and Wayne Burrows were in a train arguing about the definitional boundary between an "undiscussed" call, and an implicit concealed partnership agreement. I then dreamt that through the train's window, we observed a black sheep in a field. Herman said, "How interesting; all sheep are black." I said, "Not so; some sheep are black." Wayne said, "There exists at least one field, which contains at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black." :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Dec 21 06:48:03 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:48:03 +1300 Subject: [blml] Beware of the painted jaguar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <022701c4e729$0541cbd0$0801010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 21 December 2004 11:42 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the painted jaguar > > Wayne's proposed non-elitist format for Painted Jaguar beginners > is not practical. > > Forcing raw beginners to sink or swim on a level playing field > with experts will merely drive those beginners away from the > game. Ideally, beginners who have just emerged from their > initial lessons should participate in special "supervised play" > events amongst themselves, with a supervising expert available to > immediately answer their questions during the bidding and play. > But if a club is too small to organise "supervised play" events, > then expert opponents of beginners should exercise their Law 9A1 > option ("may") of declining to draw attention to any Painted > Jaguar beginner's irregularity. > I do not think that this summarizes my position well at all. I was merely commenting that I consider it inappropriate that a TD considers that beginners are not playing bridge. Wayne From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Dec 21 10:39:22 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:39:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] new 71 Message-ID: <000801c4e749$5adbf550$0feaf1c3@LNV> Let me as a X-mas gift tell blml how L71 should be written, giving the same information as the present terrible version: L71 Concession canceled A concession is canceled if within the correction period in accordance with L79C, it appears that the conceding side has either given up a trick it had in fact won or has conceded a trick it would not have lost by any normal play (of the remaining cards). That in my opinion is what the present L71 tells us. I think that 'of the remaining cards' is superfluous, but it might be helpful. ton From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 21 11:21:01 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:21:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] new 71 In-Reply-To: <000801c4e749$5adbf550$0feaf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000501c4e74f$272f9940$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman > Let me as a X-mas gift tell blml how L71 should be written, giving the > same > information as the present terrible version: > > L71 Concession canceled > > A concession is canceled if within the correction period in > accordance with L79C, it appears that the > conceding > side has either given up a trick it had in fact won or has conceded a > trick > it would not have lost by any normal play (of the remaining > cards). > > > > That in my opinion is what the present L71 tells us. I think that 'of the > remaining cards' is superfluous, but it might be helpful. > > > ton What an improvement! If only all the laws had been this clear and straight to the point. (I think the clause "of the remaining cards" has its mission to avoid any discussing whether the play that had already taken place before the concession was "normal" or not). Thanks and regards Sven From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Dec 21 17:00:07 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:00:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard Message-ID: <00e601c4e77e$86de07d0$239468d5@James> [David Stevenson] > Now, having been told, and having had their moan > because the documents are not perfect [I would like > to see a Law book/Orange book written exclusively > by the moaners], several BLMLers go on and on and > on and on about it. > Tell me, assuming these things will be corrected > in the next Law book/Orange book/other document, > what on earth do these BLMLers expect to be done > now? What do they really think is the positive > result of going on about it ad infinitum? Do > they expect us to suddenly reprint and re-distribute > every Law book/Orange book/other document every > time a BLMLer sees a flaw? [Nigel: Tell me, tell me, once again...] The reason so many of us players "moan" is that the law is incomplete and unclear; it is also complex and subjective. We don't *expect* the WBFLC to alleviate our predicament but you can't blame us for *hoping*. We realise that we have no effective WBFLC voice. If TFLB included default laws about licensing, convention cards, bidding boxes, alerting, screens, on-line Bridge (and so on ...) then there would be less need for local patches like the EBU Orange book. Also, players wouldn't need to learn so many new rules, from year to year and place to place. This would impose no strait-jacket on local jurisdictions and competition sponsors: if they wished, they could still invent their own local rules; but they wouldn't have to do so, as at present. It would improve the average players' enjoyment of Bridge if the laws were simple and clear enough for him to grasp. For a game, rules can be crude provided that they are clear and easy to enforce. A game legislator is free to invent simple rules - he is not constrained by all the precedents, subtleties and exceptions that legislators need to reflect real-life contexts. We moaners appreciate the difficulty of the job of legislator, administrator and director: all your training and hard work: we are grateful to you all; but in one practical way you are part of our problem: you have a vested interest in the status quo. BLML illustrates that even in simple cases, different directors rule differently on identical facts. If the laws were clearer, simpler and more objective, then such anomalies would be less frequent and the rulings more fair and just -- at least in the view of players -- especially when we have pulled the short straw in a ruling. Players would benefit if TFLB mistakes were corrected, in place, more frequently than every five of ten years. Nobody suggests that the WBFLC or EBU distribute each such edition or revision as *hardcopy*. It would, however, be a boon to all if a reasonably up-to-date and error-free edition were posted on a *web-site*. Local Bridge organisations need only supply a link to it. There could be a new edition every week or so, for the first month or two, as people pointed out anomalies and ambiguities; but after that if would be fairly stable until the next major revision. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 17/12/2004 From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Dec 21 17:02:17 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:02:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Played card? Message-ID: <00ed01c4e77e$d45a74d0$239468d5@James> I would appreciate BLML views on two similar rulings from the Groundhog day "A" Flight Swiss teams, yesterday in Brewon. Agreed facts: 1. Experienced players, sound in body and mind. 2. Declarer won the first trick in hand. 3. At trick two, declarer took a card from the fan in his left hand, holding it firmly between the thumb and forefinger of his right hand, and swept it in a smooth circular arc, never stationary, face up, before returning it whence it came. 4. All players at the table recognised the suit and rank of the card. 5. The manoeuvre took 2-3 seconds. 6. Declarer said "Oh! I don't want to play that" and started to play a different card. 7. A defender called the director and asked for a ruling as to whether or not the card was legally played. Table 1. The card was swept within three inches of the table but did not touch it. Table 2. The back of the card contacted and brushed the surface of the table for about half a second. Assuming that neither Torquemada nor truth-serum can elicit any more facts, how should the director rule? This question is being debated yet again in RGB without resolution. Odd because TFLB L45C2 (below) clearly rules that the card is played. Unless, in a Bridge Law context, "held" really is redefined to mean "held stationary"? or an obscure interpretation relegates "(nearly) touching the table" to a mere figure of speech? Does the world agree on such rulings or are there national variants? Is there an authoritative consensus? Other card games, even those for young children, seem to define the play of a card in a simple consistent way that does not permit recovery from mechanical error. Why are Bridge laws about such fundamental concepts so inconsistent sophisticated and subjective? [TFLB L45C1] Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 17/12/2004 From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 21 17:11:44 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:11:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Appeals booklets Message-ID: It is that time of year again! I am editing the EBU Appeals booklet for 2004, containing all the appeals from the EBU Summer Congress, Crockfords' Final and the Shapiro Spring Foursomes. This usually comes to something between 20 and 30 appeals. I am also editing the WBU Appeals booklet for 2004, containing all the appeals from any WBU event. This year there were three!!!!! We have some doubts as to whether all the Appeal forms made it through the system! I am looking for commentators, who will receive the usual remuneration - my thanks, plus the thanks of the EBU/WBU as appropriate. I do not worry too much about knowing EBU/WBU regulations since like most sets of appeals they are really mainly concerned with misinformation and unauthorised information. Commentators are welcome even from countries that do not use Law 12C3, though they must realise we do. I do very little editing of comments, and usually accept anyone who wishes to comment, including offerings form people who do not comment on all appeals. However, I reserve the right to refuse to accept a commentator or comment or edit the same, on rare occasions possibly without explanation. Comments tend to be short, and I certainly reserve the right to edit for length. Volunteers very welcome for one or other or both books! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 21 17:21:53 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:21:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Played card? In-Reply-To: <00ed01c4e77e$d45a74d0$239468d5@James> Message-ID: <000201c4e781$9076aab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> I recommend those who have access to Robert Darvas: "Right through the pack" to read the tale of the C2. Regards Sven PS.: For what it is worth: I should rule played card in both cases below! > GUTHRIE wrote: > I would appreciate BLML views on two similar rulings from > the Groundhog day "A" Flight Swiss teams, yesterday in > Brewon. > > Agreed facts: > 1. Experienced players, sound in body and mind. > 2. Declarer won the first trick in hand. > 3. At trick two, declarer took a card from the fan in his > left hand, holding it firmly between the thumb and > forefinger of his right hand, and swept it in a smooth > circular arc, never stationary, face up, before returning it > whence it came. > 4. All players at the table recognised the suit and rank of > the card. > 5. The manoeuvre took 2-3 seconds. > 6. Declarer said "Oh! I don't want to play that" and started > to play a different card. > 7. A defender called the director and asked for a ruling as > to whether or not the card was legally played. > > Table 1. The card was swept within three inches of the table > but did not touch it. > > Table 2. The back of the card contacted and brushed the > surface of the table for about half a second. > > Assuming that neither Torquemada nor truth-serum can elicit > any more facts, how should the director rule? > > This question is being debated yet again in RGB without > resolution. Odd because TFLB L45C2 (below) clearly rules > that the card is played. Unless, in a Bridge Law context, > "held" really is redefined to mean "held stationary"? or > an obscure interpretation relegates "(nearly) touching the > table" to a mere figure of speech? > > Does the world agree on such rulings or are there national > variants? > > Is there an authoritative consensus? > > Other card games, even those for young children, seem to > define the play of a card in a simple consistent way that > does not permit recovery from mechanical error. Why are > Bridge laws about such fundamental concepts so inconsistent > sophisticated and subjective? > > [TFLB L45C1] > Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, > touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such > a position as to indicate that it has been played. > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: > 17/12/2004 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Tue Dec 21 17:28:28 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:28:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4e782$7c2b6540$4e242b52@Zog> David Stevenson wrote: > Let us suppose the wording is not perfect in a document that is > produced at several year intervals. It might be the use of the word > 'deny' where a better word can be found: it might be using too many > negatives and somewhat obscuring a meaning. > > People ask what these laws/regulations mean and are told. Actually, > pure logic makes them pretty damn obvious anyway. > > Now, having been told, and having had their moan because the documents > are not perfect [I would like ot see a Law book/Orange book written > exclusively by the moaners], several BLMLers go on and on and on and on > about it. > > Tell me, assuming these things will be corrected in the next Law > book/Orange book/other document, what on earth do these BLMLers expect > to be done now? What do they really think is the positive result of > going on about it ad infinitum? Do they expect us to suddenly reprint > and re-distribute every Law book/Orange book/other document every time a > BLMLer sees a flaw? Come off it David, this diatribe is quite uncalled for. Some 200 or so postings ago Sven asserted: (1) the original 1987 version of L71 was flawed (no argument there), (2) that, for the next ten years, applying the 'pure logic' you espouse, the world assumed that L71C would only apply within the shorter time period stated in the last sentence of L71C, (3) that the 1997 WBFLC minute deleting the last sentence of L71C represented a genuine change of practice and that (4) the amended version rendered L71A redundant. Now these appear to be self evident truths and ISTM that the only reason Sven had to repeat himself (was it only nine times?) was that other BLMLers kept telling him he was wrong in one respect or another. As to the use of "deny" in the notes to EBU OB 14.4.1 - no ifs or buts, this is clearly an error. As written, a non-strong 2D bid promising majors must either promise or deny diamonds. Although this seems unlikely to be what was intended, the BLMLer who raised this was right to be concerned. The EBU orange book is a substantial work and appears to be remarkably error-free, for which everyone involved deserves praise. An appropriate response to anyone making a valid criticism is "Thank you for pointing this out, we'll sort it out on revision" rather than berating the writer for daring to find fault with the Magnum Opus. If I may offer you a couple of New Year resolutions David - (1) try not to take every adverse comment personally and (2) accept that occasionally you may have got something wrong. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Tue Dec 21 17:29:26 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:29:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appeals booklets Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C549@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson [mailto:blml@blakjak.com] Sent: 21 December 2004 17:12 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Appeals booklets > I am also editing the WBU Appeals booklet for 2004, containing > all the appeals from any WBU event. This year there were three!!!!! > We have some doubts as to whether all the Appeal forms made it > through the system! Considering the mauling that some appeals got in last year's booklets, whether or not there was a (properly completed) form, it is perhaps not surprising that the records of some appeals might have gone astray. With no intended malice to any TDs - Welsh or otherwise. A Happy Christmas (or your cultural equivalent) to all players, TD, AC members, and appeals booklets commentators and editors. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam@irvine.com Tue Dec 21 17:36:54 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:36:54 -0800 Subject: [blml] Played card? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:02:17 GMT." <00ed01c4e77e$d45a74d0$239468d5@James> Message-ID: <200412211736.JAA11787@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel wrote: > I would appreciate BLML views on two similar rulings from > the Groundhog day "A" Flight Swiss teams, yesterday in > Brewon. > > Agreed facts: > 1. Experienced players, sound in body and mind. > 2. Declarer won the first trick in hand. > 3. At trick two, declarer took a card from the fan in his > left hand, holding it firmly between the thumb and > forefinger of his right hand, and swept it in a smooth > circular arc, never stationary, face up, before returning it > whence it came. > 4. All players at the table recognised the suit and rank of > the card. > 5. The manoeuvre took 2-3 seconds. > 6. Declarer said "Oh! I don't want to play that" and started > to play a different card. > 7. A defender called the director and asked for a ruling as > to whether or not the card was legally played. > > Table 1. The card was swept within three inches of the table > but did not touch it. > > Table 2. The back of the card contacted and brushed the > surface of the table for about half a second. > > Assuming that neither Torquemada nor truth-serum can elicit > any more facts, how should the director rule? I believe the principle to be followed, when declarer plays a card, is that if declarer pulls the wrong card he has to have a chance to check the card he's pulled and take it back if it's not the card he intended. Once he's realized it's the wrong card, he should be allowed to take it back even if there is some mechanical difficulty in doing so---bridge isn't a test of physical ability, and we of course have to keep in mind the average age of the bridge-playing populace, so someone who realizes that that the card they've pulled is wrong may not be able to reverse the direction of their hand motion instantaneously. I know that isn't exactly what the Laws say, but IMHO the Laws leave room for judgment and that's the principle that should be used when there's a judgment call involved. Based on that, I'd probably rule that the card at Table 1 is not played, and I'd have to see what actually happened at Table 2. As TD, I'd try to determine whether declarer was trying to change his play or correct a mispull. > Other card games, even those for young children, seem to > define the play of a card in a simple consistent way that > does not permit recovery from mechanical error. Obviously you've never played cards (or any other game) with my children. There is no such thing as a consistent rule. The only consistent rule is that all the cards had better be picked up off the floor when they're done playing, and I'm very pleased on the (all-too-rare) occasions when that rule is followed. Oh, yeah, and no throwing cards at each other. But although I think there are some instances where the Laws need to be more precise, this case doesn't particularly bother me. The general principle, that we try not to penalize mechanical errors such as mispulls, is perfectly fine, and if it takes judgment and some fuzzy laws to try to accomplish that, it's not a problem. I actually think it would be *more* of a problem in a children's game, since children are prone to argue; but as adults (and arguably moreso in bridge than in poker or other games) we're supposed to be more mature and try to win by playing better bridge rather than by trying to catch the opponents every time their fingers get fumbled a bit. Then again, after having seen too many of these discussions on RGB and BLML and some of what goes on in actual practice, perhaps my faith in adult humanhood is misplaced. Anyway, that's just MHO for today---tomorrow it might be different. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 21 18:03:12 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:03:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <000001c4e782$7c2b6540$4e242b52@Zog> Message-ID: <000301c4e787$567eac80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Brambledown ............... > Some 200 or so postings ago Sven asserted: > (1) the original 1987 version of L71 was flawed (no argument there), > (2) that, for the next ten years, applying the 'pure logic' you espouse, > the world assumed that L71C would only apply within the shorter time > period stated in the last sentence of L71C, > (3) that the 1997 WBFLC minute deleting the last sentence of L71C > represented a genuine change of practice and that > (4) the amended version rendered L71A redundant. Only one single comment: Law 71 as of 1987 was unambiguous: A concession was to be cancelled if within the correction period it was established that a conceded trick was already won or could not be lost by any legal play. It was further to be cancelled if within a significantly shorter period it was established that a conceded trick could not be lost by any "normal" play. The revision of Law 71 in 1997 was real but confusing and the subsequent revision in a WBFLC minute failed to make it clear that there had in fact been a significant change in Law 71 as of 1997. This confusion has now been clarified, and if the suggestion by Ton makes its way into the laws we may even hope that the clarification will prevail. Regards Sven From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 21 01:43:48 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 01:43:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000201c4e6e6$6cb4c7b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c4e79c$15610210$3fea403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 10:51 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Beware of the leopard >> > >> >So it is the second clause in L71A that is >> >redundant and not L71C. >> >> --------- >> >> >Yes Sven, you are right, repeating it for the 9th time. >> >Could you please stop asking Grattan to admit it? > +=+ OK - so I'll step back a pace and have another look. ~ G ~ +=+ From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Dec 21 21:48:27 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:48:27 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Played card? Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC83@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Nigel Guthrie wrote: I would appreciate BLML views on two similar rulings from the Groundhog day "A" Flight Swiss teams, yesterday in Brewon. Agreed facts: 1. Experienced players, sound in body and mind. 2. Declarer won the first trick in hand. 3. At trick two, declarer took a card from the fan in his left hand, holding it firmly between the thumb and forefinger of his right hand, and swept it in a smooth circular arc, never stationary, face up, before returning it whence it came. 4. All players at the table recognised the suit and rank of the card. 5. The manoeuvre took 2-3 seconds. 6. Declarer said "Oh! I don't want to play that" and started to play a different card. 7. A defender called the director and asked for a ruling as to whether or not the card was legally played. Table 1. The card was swept within three inches of the table but did not touch it. ----- The card was face up and nearly touching the table. I would rule it a played card. ----- Table 2. The back of the card contacted and brushed the surface of the table for about half a second. ----- The card was face up and touching the table. I would rule it a played card. ----- Assuming that neither Torquemada nor truth-serum can elicit any more facts, how should the director rule? This question is being debated yet again in RGB without resolution. Odd because TFLB L45C2 (below) clearly rules that the card is played. Unless, in a Bridge Law context, "held" really is redefined to mean "held stationary"? or an obscure interpretation relegates "(nearly) touching the table" to a mere figure of speech? Does the world agree on such rulings or are there national variants? Is there an authoritative consensus? ----- I don't know about the world. In Norway there's an authoritative consensus. There might be a few TD's who disagree, but not at national level. ----- Other card games, even those for young children, seem to define the play of a card in a simple consistent way that does not permit recovery from mechanical error. Why are Bridge laws about such fundamental concepts so inconsistent sophisticated and subjective? ----- The problem with L45C1 is that the border between "nearly touching the table" and "not nearly touching the table" is impossible to define, unless the law specifies a distance from the table. The problem would not be solved completely anyway. If the defined border was 10 cm, 7-13 cm would be impossible to agree upon. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- [TFLB L45C1] Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date:=20 17/12/2004=20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 21 22:06:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:06:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the painted jaguar In-Reply-To: <022701c4e729$0541cbd0$0801010a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote: >>I do not think that this summarizes my position well at all. >> >>I was merely commenting that I consider it inappropriate >>that a TD considers that beginners are not playing bridge. Law 72A1 states: >General Obligation on Contestants > >Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict >accordance with the Laws. Richard Hills writes: Grattan Endicott and the late Edgar Kaplan have different interpretations of the word "tournaments". Grattan's position is that all events which use the Duplicate Laws are tournaments. But in his August 1977 editorial, Edgar Kaplan wrote: [snip] >>>The Proprieties begin, "Duplicate bridge tournaments >>>should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. In >>>duplicate tournaments it is improper to waive a penalty >>>for an opponent's infraction even if one feels that one >>>has not been damaged." Regardless, we might choose to >>>waive a penalty in a club duplicate against a beginner >>>(indeed, the Proprieties deliberately use the word >>>"tournaments" so as to imply tolerance for a less strict >>>attitude at lower levels.) [snip] Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 21 22:06:19 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:06:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] my dream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8ABB7FD0-539C-11D9-B541-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Dec 20, 2004, at 23:54 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Wayne said, "There exists at least one field, which contains at least > one sheep, at least one side of which is black." "What color is that house on the hill?" Jubal asked. "It's white on this side," she replied. Robert A. Heinlein, _Stranger in a Strange Land_ From adam@irvine.com Tue Dec 21 22:12:53 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:12:53 -0800 Subject: [blml] my dream In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:54:29 +1100." Message-ID: <200412212212.OAA13425@mailhub.irvine.com> > Richard Hills: > > I dreamt that Herman De Wael, myself and Wayne Burrows were in a > train arguing about the definitional boundary between an "undiscussed" > call, and an implicit concealed partnership agreement. I then dreamt > that through the train's window, we observed a black sheep in a field. > > Herman said, "How interesting; all sheep are black." > > I said, "Not so; some sheep are black." > > Wayne said, "There exists at least one field, which contains at least > one sheep, at least one side of which is black." > > :-) So did the sheep get caught and eaten by a leopard, or by a painted jaguar? -- Adam From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Dec 21 22:17:09 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:17:09 -0900 (AKST) Subject: SV: [blml] Played card? In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC83@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Skjaran, Harald wrote: > 3. At trick two, declarer took a card from the fan in his > left hand, holding it firmly between the thumb and > forefinger of his right hand, and swept it in a smooth > circular arc, never stationary, face up, before returning it > whence it came. > This question is being debated yet again in RGB without > resolution. Odd because TFLB L45C2 (below) clearly rules > that the card is played. Unless, in a Bridge Law context, > "held" really is redefined to mean "held stationary"? or > an obscure interpretation relegates "(nearly) touching the > table" to a mere figure of speech? > > Does the world agree on such rulings or are there national > variants? Well, until just now, I thought the world did. I thought it was perfectly clear that "held" meant stationary, both in bridge and in most daily-life contexts. I would have let the declarer play whatever he wished - frankly, I would have had a hard time not laughing at the defender for having called me. I have just learned today that, indeed, there ARE variations from place to place about how this type of ruling is made. > Other card games, even those for young children, seem to > define the play of a card in a simple consistent way that > does not permit recovery from mechanical error. Why are > Bridge laws about such fundamental concepts so inconsistent > sophisticated and subjective? Bridge tries to define the play of a card in a way that DOES permit recovery from mechanical error, obviously, for declarer. (But doesn't permit it for defenders because exposing a card to your partner can help your side.) > ----- > The problem with L45C1 is that the border between "nearly touching the > table" and "not nearly touching the table" is impossible to define, > unless the law specifies a distance from the table. The problem would > not be solved completely anyway. If the defined border was 10 cm, 7-13 > cm would be impossible to agree upon. I don't think that's the problem at all - and in fact that's why the second "maintained..." clause is there. The law says if the card is displayed and left on display purposefully, it is played, but if it is displayed only briefly or accidentally, it isn't. I guess in the RGB case some people are ruling played, and some are ruling not played --- but I hope they at least are all agreeing that it makes no difference whether the card touched the table as it was waved around, or exactly how many centimeters above the table it was. GRB From ayiana@dighty.com Wed Dec 22 04:26:44 2004 From: ayiana@dighty.com (rosella jones) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:26:44 +1200 Subject: [blml] Wealth is better than poverty Message-ID: <524ADC28.851763B@dighty.com> Substantial profit processing court awards. >From anywhere. In business for yourself but not by yourself. Determine your hours. 5,000US to 12,000US PM. Outstanding customer support and assistance. http://an.j.hugebusinesschance.com/3/ For more information or to stop receiving or to see our address. Don't worry about me! he called down to them. Good-by! Mrs Joslyn, with a scream of terror, hid her face in her hands From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Dec 22 08:18:47 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:18:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000301c4e787$567eac80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002001c4e7ff$07442640$7fe5f1c3@LNV> Sven: > Only one single comment: > > Law 71 as of 1987 was unambiguous: A concession was to be cancelled if > within the correction period it was established that a conceded trick was > already won or could not be lost by any legal play. > > It was further to be cancelled if within a significantly shorter period it > was established that a conceded trick could not be lost by any "normal" > play. > > The revision of Law 71 in 1997 was real but confusing and the subsequent > revision in a WBFLC minute failed to make it clear that there had in fact > been a significant change in Law 71 as of 1997. It is a pity Brambledown is wrong. When one makes such a firm statement you better check the facts more carefully. I don't understand your statement either. Our minutes tell you to remove the last sentence of 71C and then the first sentence reads what is wants to say: you get '79C' for a 'claim' of an extra trick in a concession. Why did we fail? ton > > This confusion has now been clarified, and if the suggestion by Ton makes > its way into the laws we may even hope that the clarification will prevail. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From haigt51@hotmail.com Wed Dec 22 09:40:45 2004 From: haigt51@hotmail.com (Haig Tchamitch) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 02:40:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] posting on blml Message-ID:



From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 22 10:40:20 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:40:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <002001c4e7ff$07442640$7fe5f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000001c4e812$a257e0a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman ............. > Sven: >=20 > > Only one single comment: > > > > Law 71 as of 1987 was unambiguous: A concession was to be cancelled=20 > > if within the correction period it was established that a conceded=20 > > trick was already won or could not be lost by any legal play. > > > > It was further to be cancelled if within a significantly shorter=20 > > period it was established that a conceded trick could not be lost=20 > > by any "normal" play. > > > > The revision of Law 71 in 1997 was real but confusing and the=20 > > subsequent revision in a WBFLC minute failed to make it clear that=20 > > there had in fact been a significant change in Law 71 as of 1997. >=20 .......... > I don't understand your statement either. Our minutes tell you to=20 > remove the last sentence of 71C and then the first sentence reads=20 > what is wants to say: > you get '79C' for a 'claim' of an extra trick in a concession.=20 > Why did we fail? I can just assume: >From the Law 71 of 1987 (simplified and abbreviated): A: False concession Within the correction period the Director shall cancel a concession: 1: Trick cannot be lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. 2: ... B: Implausible concession Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until = the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that = could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. What happened in 1997 was that section B of Law 71 was moved to become a = new point 3 under section A, but the time limitation in the old section B = was not removed. The result was plain confusion which I for one have = overlooked probably because I have never had any use for this law.=20 > > > > This confusion has now been clarified, and if the suggestion by Ton=20 > > makes its way into the laws we may even hope that the clarification=20 > > will prevail. > > > > Regards Sven From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 22 10:50:47 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:50:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Played card? References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC83@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <00b501c4e814$18fbed90$2e9868d5@James> [Harald Skjaeran] I don't know about the world. In Norway there's an authoritative consensus. There might be a few TD's who disagree, but not at national level. [Nigel] What exactly is that consensus? A player removes a card, from the fan in his left hand, touches the table with it, face-up, so that all players can name it, and returns it, holding it firmly in his right hand throughout, in one smooth movement, never stationary. Some directors seem to rule the card "unplayed". Does the local law committee of any jurisdiction deem the card to be *unplayed*? and have such jurisdictions published a local rule that over-rides TFLB? L45C2] Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 17/12/2004 From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Dec 22 11:20:56 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:20:56 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Played card? Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC88@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> [Harald Skjaeran] I don't know about the world. In Norway there's an authoritative consensus. There might be a few TD's who disagree, but not at national=20 level. [Nigel] What exactly is that consensus? A player removes a card, from the fan in his left hand,=20 touches the table with it, face-up, so that all players can=20 name it, and returns it, holding it firmly in his right hand=20 throughout, in one smooth movement, never stationary. [Harald] Such a card would be ruled played. That's how our national LC has interpreted the law from ancient times (at least since the 1975 laws, which were in effect when I became a TD), and how we're educated at TD courses at all levels. Cards touching of nearly touching the table in the manner you describe would be ruled played. [Nigel] Some directors seem to rule the card "unplayed". Does the local law committee of any jurisdiction deem the=20 card to be *unplayed*? and have such jurisdictions published=20 a local rule that over-rides TFLB? L45C2] Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date:=20 17/12/2004=20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Dec 22 12:02:49 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:02:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000001c4e812$a257e0a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000f01c4e81e$e08f09f0$0ffbf0c3@LNV> Sven: What happened in 1997 was that section B of Law 71 was moved to become a new point 3 under section A, but the time limitation in the old section B was not removed. The result was plain confusion which I for one have overlooked probably because I have never had any use for this law. > > > > This confusion has now been clarified, and if the suggestion by Ton > > makes its way into the laws we may even hope that the clarification > > will prevail. > > > > Regards Sven No wrong concessions in Norway? I probably was too much fixed on the restauration of C to imagine the confusion still existing. Once again the only important words in 71 are 'normal' and '79C'. ton From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 22 12:32:33 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:32:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <000f01c4e81e$e08f09f0$0ffbf0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000201c4e822$500b5ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman ............ > No wrong concessions in Norway? I can of course not tell generally for Norway, but I cannot remember having seen any Law 71 (or equivalent) case since I qualified as TD in 1980! Regards Sven From john@asimere.com Wed Dec 22 13:40:54 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:40:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] What does "deny" mean? [EBU] In-Reply-To: <160D42D8-5040-11D9-89E7-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <000501c4e44a$33424370$6900a8c0@WINXP> <160D42D8-5040-11D9-89E7-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <160D42D8-5040-11D9-89E7-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >On 17 Dec 2004, at 15:08, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Gordon Rainsford >>>> I am not familiar with this kind of regulations, our regulation on >>>> multi 2D >>>> certainly has no such "deny" clause. >>> >>> This is not our Multi regulation - which would require a strong option >>> that doesn't seem to be present in Jeremy's convention. This is a >>> blanket regulation that covers a variety of types of bid. >> >> We abandoned all requirements for "strong" options as part of the >> agreements >> in such regulations. (BTW our "normal" multi 2D is weak Major or 20-21 >> NT). >> >> Does your regulation allow the following agreement with for instance >> multi >> 2D: >> Either a weak hand with at least 6 cards in an unknown major suit or a >> NoTrump distribution with at least 36 HCP (!) we were chewing the fat on this; mamos DWS and myself. Mamos was against allowing a 27-28 point NT whereas I was for allowing it. I felt that one can have a reasonable NT structure agreed up to and about 28 points as this includes a reasonable degree of frequency. the Lightner double has the same order of magnitude, for example. Where does one draw the line however.? >> >> If not, why not? > >The full regulation for the Multi can be found at >http://www.math.aau.dk/~nwp/bridge/orangebook/s13.html > >It includes: > >"(vi) at least one strong option must be of reasonable frequency" which >I imagine would deal with your 36 hcp balanced idea. > >It also says: > >"(iii) you are expected to explore game possibilities if your hand >justifies it opposite the stronger options of your partner's Multi-2D", >which in the case of a 36hcp opener, would be all responder's hands. > >> >>>> >>>> And I understand the questioner very well; in my ears there is a >>>> significant >>>> difference between "does not show a suit of diamonds" and "denies a >>>> suit of >>>> diamonds". >>> >>> I think this regulation is saying "denies that the indicated suit is >>> diamonds". >> >> That is definitely not the same as "denies Diamonds"! > >I said I thought the regulation wasn't perfectly written, though I >think I've managed to interpret it as intended without too much >trouble. If not, I'm sure someone involved in framing it will put me >right. > >> >>> The point is whether or not partner is likely to pass the bid. >> >> Then the regulation should simply state "shows a weak opening bid with >> at >> least six cards in an unknown major suit, or ....." (Which I believe >> is what >> you had in mind in your first comment?) > >No. As I said, the original question was not about the Multi-2D >regulation, but about the regulation that covers other multi-meaning >bids. > >That regulation is as follows, which I don't think your suggested >alternative comes close to encompassing (however, if you do have >suggestions for its improvement, it's probably better to pass them on >to someone who's involved in this, which I'm not): > >"14.4 Two of a Suit and Two No trump Opening Bids >14.4.1 Basic. >These may be played as any one of: >(a) a strong hand, any one or more of: >(i) game forcing. >(ii) balanced (or semi-balanced) hand, defined range, minimum 18 HCPs: >alternatively may be played so that on occasion it may contain a >singleton >(iii) Acol Two or Rule of 25: the suit need not be specified. >(iv) a 3-suiter, minimum 16 HCPs. > >(b) a non-strong hand, any one or two of: >(i) 1-suiter of defined values with one of no more than two specified >suits. >(ii) 2-suiter of defined values with at least one suit specified. >(iii) 3-suiter of defined values with at least one suit specified. > >(c) strong and non-strong, any one or more of the options in (a) >together with one, two or three of the options in (b). > >Notes: > > >[ A MIME image / gif part was included here. ] > >In the case of 2-of-a-suit openings, the hands permitted by the >non-strong options (ie those in (b)) must either all guarantee or all >deny the suit bid. > > >[ A MIME image / gif part was included here. ] > >You are expected to explore the possibility of game if your hand >justifies it opposite the stronger types of your partner's opening bid. > > >[ A MIME image / gif part was included here. ] > >In the non-strong hands, the range of defined values may differ in >different positions and at different vulnerabilities, but only one >range is allowed at any one position/vulnerability. > >All continuations are allowed." > >-- >Gordon Rainsford >London UK -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Dec 22 13:46:59 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:46:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Played card? In-Reply-To: <000201c4e781$9076aab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <00ed01c4e77e$d45a74d0$239468d5@James> <000201c4e781$9076aab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000201c4e781$9076aab0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >I recommend those who have access to Robert Darvas: "Right through the pack" >to read the tale of the C2. > >Regards Sven > >PS.: For what it is worth: I should rule played card in both cases below! I probably would do so too. the brushing the table makes no difference here. I think it's be "indicated as played" > > >> GUTHRIE wrote: >> I would appreciate BLML views on two similar rulings from >> the Groundhog day "A" Flight Swiss teams, yesterday in >> Brewon. >> >> Agreed facts: >> 1. Experienced players, sound in body and mind. >> 2. Declarer won the first trick in hand. >> 3. At trick two, declarer took a card from the fan in his >> left hand, holding it firmly between the thumb and >> forefinger of his right hand, and swept it in a smooth >> circular arc, never stationary, face up, before returning it >> whence it came. >> 4. All players at the table recognised the suit and rank of >> the card. >> 5. The manoeuvre took 2-3 seconds. >> 6. Declarer said "Oh! I don't want to play that" and started snip -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Wed Dec 22 17:54:42 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:54:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <002001c4e7ff$07442640$7fe5f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000001c4e84f$556cf180$4e242b52@Zog> Ton Kooijman writes: > It is a pity Brambledown is wrong. When one makes such a firm statement you > better check the facts more carefully. I stand corrected on detail (for which I apologise), but not, I think, principle. The 1987 version of L71 is indeed unambiguous - the trouble starts not there, but with the confused 1997 version which seems to be trying to say much the same thing ... until the WBFLC minute, of course. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 22 22:14:55 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:14:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking Message-ID: In the latest issue of the Australian Directors' Bulletin, Michael Kent wondered what the best tie-breaking method for a Swiss teams was. In my opinion, the third-best method of breaking a tie in a Swiss teams is to sum the victory points of the opponents a team has faced. Unfortunately, unless this method is modified, anomalies are created when a team randomly meets an opponent who is very weak instead of an opponent who is merely somewhat weak. In my opinion, the second-best method of breaking a tie in a Swiss event is to sum the progressive victory point scores of each team. Example: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 Team A 21 40 65 88 102 112 127 138 Team B 10 19 27 38 63 88 113 138 Team A's tiebreak = 693 Team B's tiebreak = 496 Due to the mechanics of a Swiss draw, Team A would have met much stronger opposing teams than Team B, which this tiebreak method accurately reflects. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru 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) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 22 22:54:44 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:54:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <000201c4e822$500b5ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman: >>............ >>No wrong concessions in Norway? Sven Pran: >I can of course not tell generally for Norway, but I >cannot remember having seen any Law 71 (or >equivalent) case since I qualified as TD in 1980! Richard Hills: In an earlier thread, David Stevenson proudly related how he (accurately) claimed about four times in every session. This left me wondering why David was the declarer for only about four times in every session. :-) If players are unaware that time wasting can be avoided by claiming and conceding, then perhaps their local directors should educate them. And if players are unaware that their abnormal claims, concessions and acquiescences can be retracted, then definitely their local directors should educate them about their rights. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 22 23:37:18 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:37:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c4e87f$2d5fa4f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ............... > >>No wrong concessions in Norway? > > Sven Pran: > > >I can of course not tell generally for Norway, but I > >cannot remember having seen any Law 71 (or > >equivalent) case since I qualified as TD in 1980! > > Richard Hills: > > In an earlier thread, David Stevenson proudly related > how he (accurately) claimed about four times in every > session. This left me wondering why David was the > declarer for only about four times in every session. > > :-) > > If players are unaware that time wasting can be > avoided by claiming and conceding, then perhaps their > local directors should educate them. And if players > are unaware that their abnormal claims, concessions > and acquiescences can be retracted, then definitely > their local directors should educate them about their > rights. It is my firm opinion based on all my years of experience with this game that any claim which needs the slightest explanation to opponents in excess of a single sentenced claim statement wastes time rather than saves time. So no player should claim unless (s)he feels completely confident that the opponents (!) will understand and accept the situation without a question. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 23 00:37:55 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:37:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] timing of a claim Message-ID: This is probably a dumb question, but... Today, in a club game, one of our local club directors (not directing today, just playing), was on my right declaring a 4H contract. I won trick eleven (our third defensive trick). As I was considering my lead to trick twelve, declarer said something or other which sounded like he thought he had the rest of the tricks. That didn't surprise me; I thought so too. What did surprise me is that when I asked him if he was claiming, he said "No, I'm not allowed to claim; it's not my turn to play." So I led, and sure enough, he had the rest of the tricks. No big deal. But then I asked him if he was sure about what he'd said, and he said "yes. You're not allowed to do anything [presumably he meant here anything having to do with the play of the hand-ER] when it's not your turn to play." This struck me as odd, as I couldn't remember anything in the Laws that says that. Now I've checked, and I couldn't find anything, either. So was he all wet, or was I confused? From schoderb@msn.com Thu Dec 23 00:46:15 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:46:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] timing of a claim References: Message-ID: You'all were neither. I hope you took the opportunity to educate the man, as I know you would in a gentle, proper, respectful, and helpful manner. There's a lot of misinformation out there, and not all of it comes from partner. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 7:37 PM Subject: [blml] timing of a claim > This is probably a dumb question, but... > > Today, in a club game, one of our local club directors (not directing > today, just playing), was on my right declaring a 4H contract. I won > trick eleven (our third defensive trick). As I was considering my lead > to trick twelve, declarer said something or other which sounded like he > thought he had the rest of the tricks. That didn't surprise me; I > thought so too. What did surprise me is that when I asked him if he was > claiming, he said "No, I'm not allowed to claim; it's not my turn to > play." So I led, and sure enough, he had the rest of the tricks. No big > deal. But then I asked him if he was sure about what he'd said, and he > said "yes. You're not allowed to do anything [presumably he meant here > anything having to do with the play of the hand-ER] when it's not your > turn to play." This struck me as odd, as I couldn't remember anything > in the Laws that says that. Now I've checked, and I couldn't find > anything, either. So was he all wet, or was I confused? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb@msn.com Thu Dec 23 00:51:20 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:51:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: Message-ID: Ah come'on now, Mr. Hills. Are you trying to make bridge a game to be enjoyed all over again? Pity the poor analysts of the Laws -- you're not even looking for hidden and esoteric meanings! Why, if such were to continue, we'd even expect to be educating the novices, enforcing the laws for all, and there would be little difference in knowing that the rotation of bidding and play go to the left, and that the LHO of the declarer makes the opening lead, and that trumps are a good thing to have, and that the suits rank in a certain order, what takes a trick, etc., etc., and expecting the players to know what game they are playing. We might even include requiring people to know the voluminous and intricate rules (Laws)- which are a hell-of-a-lot shorter and more concise than cricket, football (American or otherwise), baseball, chess, and poker. And then, we might again find the joy, fun, gratification, and satisfaction of playing this game with a modicum or more of preparation and increased proper procedure and ethics at the tables. I most emphatically do NOT subscribe to the philosophy that the players don't need to know the Laws. What a radical thought, I must be heading for my dotage. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 5:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the leopard > > > > > Ton Kooijman: > > >>............ > >>No wrong concessions in Norway? > > Sven Pran: > > >I can of course not tell generally for Norway, but I > >cannot remember having seen any Law 71 (or > >equivalent) case since I qualified as TD in 1980! > > Richard Hills: > > In an earlier thread, David Stevenson proudly related > how he (accurately) claimed about four times in every > session. This left me wondering why David was the > declarer for only about four times in every session. > > :-) > > If players are unaware that time wasting can be > avoided by claiming and conceding, then perhaps their > local directors should educate them. And if players > are unaware that their abnormal claims, concessions > and acquiescences can be retracted, then definitely > their local directors should educate them about their > rights. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and general guru > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 23 00:54:07 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:54:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <000001c4e782$7c2b6540$4e242b52@Zog> References: <000001c4e782$7c2b6540$4e242b52@Zog> Message-ID: Brambledown wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Let us suppose the wording is not perfect in a document that is >> produced at several year intervals. It might be the use of the word >> 'deny' where a better word can be found: it might be using too many >> negatives and somewhat obscuring a meaning. >> >> People ask what these laws/regulations mean and are told. >Actually, >> pure logic makes them pretty damn obvious anyway. >> >> Now, having been told, and having had their moan because the >documents >> are not perfect [I would like ot see a Law book/Orange book written >> exclusively by the moaners], several BLMLers go on and on and on and >on >> about it. >> >> Tell me, assuming these things will be corrected in the next Law >> book/Orange book/other document, what on earth do these BLMLers expect >> to be done now? What do they really think is the positive result of >> going on about it ad infinitum? Do they expect us to suddenly reprint >> and re-distribute every Law book/Orange book/other document every time >a >> BLMLer sees a flaw? > >Come off it David, this diatribe is quite uncalled for. > >Some 200 or so postings ago Sven asserted: >(1) the original 1987 version of L71 was flawed (no argument there), >(2) that, for the next ten years, applying the 'pure logic' you espouse, >the world assumed that L71C would only apply within the shorter time >period stated in the last sentence of L71C, >(3) that the 1997 WBFLC minute deleting the last sentence of L71C >represented a genuine change of practice and that >(4) the amended version rendered L71A redundant. > >Now these appear to be self evident truths and ISTM that the only reason >Sven had to repeat himself (was it only nine times?) was that other >BLMLers kept telling him he was wrong in one respect or another. > >As to the use of "deny" in the notes to EBU OB 14.4.1 - no ifs or buts, >this is clearly an error. As written, a non-strong 2D bid promising >majors must either promise or deny diamonds. Although this seems >unlikely to be what was intended, the BLMLer who raised this was right >to be concerned. I am not worried about people who raise these sort of things. Yes, fine, they have a right to do so. It is the way that having had the answer explained to them, there are a number of BLMLers who will not accept that but want to go on and on telling us again and again that it is wrong. What use is that? When there appears to be an error it takes usually 45 posts or so for it to die down. I have no problem whatever with the first post. BLML used to be useful. The way it has gone is sad. When someone wanted to know something, he asked, someone explained, perhaps a couple of people. Now that is not enough: after the explanation we need another 30 posts. Why? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From adam@irvine.com Thu Dec 23 01:01:53 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:01:53 -0800 Subject: [blml] timing of a claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:37:55 EST." Message-ID: <200412230101.RAA23075@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > This is probably a dumb question, but... > > Today, in a club game, one of our local club directors (not directing > today, just playing), was on my right declaring a 4H contract. I won > trick eleven (our third defensive trick). As I was considering my lead > to trick twelve, declarer said something or other which sounded like he > thought he had the rest of the tricks. That didn't surprise me; I > thought so too. What did surprise me is that when I asked him if he was > claiming, he said "No, I'm not allowed to claim; it's not my turn to > play." So I led, and sure enough, he had the rest of the tricks. No big > deal. But then I asked him if he was sure about what he'd said, and he > said "yes. You're not allowed to do anything [presumably he meant here > anything having to do with the play of the hand-ER] when it's not your > turn to play." This struck me as odd, as I couldn't remember anything > in the Laws that says that. Now I've checked, and I couldn't find > anything, either. So was he all wet, or was I confused? I can't find anything, either. Law 41C indicates that players may not ask what the contract is unless it's their turn to play, and L20F2 says the same thing about asking questions about the opponents' agreements. There is no similar rule about claiming. Law 48B2 says, "When declarer faces his cards *at* *any* *time* other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be deemed to have made a claim..."; note that this says AT ANY TIME, not AT HIS (or dummy's) TURN TO PLAY. Putting it all together, I think it's clear that the intent of the Laws is that claiming is allowed at any time during the play period. So your TD is wrong. Really, I think the ACBL ought to publish something listing the common misbeliefs about the Laws and regulations (things like "When partner hesitates, you should make the bid you were going to make anyway" or "When partner hesitates, you have to pass"). This especially ought to be distributed to directors. It looks like the idea "You can't claim unless it's your turn to play" should be on that list. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 23 00:59:09 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:59:09 +1100 Subject: [blml] timing of a claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >>What did surprise me is that when I asked him if he was >>claiming, he said "No, I'm not allowed to claim; it's not >>my turn to play." [snip] Law 41C: >...declarer or either defender, *at his own turn to play,* >is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is... Richard Hills: In my opinion, Ed's opponent may have thought that the specific Law 41C created a general principle. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 23 03:05:25 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:05:25 +1100 Subject: [blml] A standout lead Message-ID: Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: Nil Screens are not in use. The bidding has gone: West North East South 1D(1) Pass 1H Pass 1S(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass 2H(4) Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass(5) (1) Alerted and explained as either: (a) 11-16 unbalanced with diamonds or; (b) 11-13 balanced or; (c) 11-16, 4-4-1-4. (2) Alerted and explained as either (a), or (b) but not (c). (3) Some sort of relay. (4) Alerted and explained as (a); diamonds & spades with secondary heart support. (5) In accordance with Law 75D2, West summoned the TD, and explained that the systemic meaning of 2H was actually option (b), 11-13 balanced. The TD, in accordance with Law 21B1, explained to North that North now had the option of changing North's final pass. North declined to exercise that option. You, South, hold: 652 952 873 JT63 What is your opening lead? What other opening leads do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru 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) From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Thu Dec 23 03:57:23 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 22:57:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] A standout lead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041222224418.01cbcb30@mail.comcast.net> At 10:05 PM 12/22/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: Nil >Screens are not in use. > > >The bidding has gone: > >West North East South >1D(1) Pass 1H Pass >1S(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass >2H(4) Pass 3NT Pass >Pass Pass(5) > >(1) Alerted and explained as either: > (a) 11-16 unbalanced with diamonds or; > (b) 11-13 balanced or; > (c) 11-16, 4-4-1-4. > >(2) Alerted and explained as either (a), > or (b) but not (c). > >(3) Some sort of relay. > >(4) Alerted and explained as (a); diamonds > & spades with secondary heart support. > >(5) In accordance with Law 75D2, West > summoned the TD, and explained that > the systemic meaning of 2H was actually > option (b), 11-13 balanced. The TD, in > accordance with Law 21B1, explained to > North that North now had the option of > changing North's final pass. North > declined to exercise that option. > > >You, South, hold: > >652 >952 >873 >JT63 > >What is your opening lead? >What other opening leads do you consider making? It's a hard choice between D8 and S6, with the C3 a LA; I pick the D8. At IMPs, my goal is to beat 3NT, and if we are going to do that, partner has to have an opening hand and I probably need to hit his suit rather than lead a safe C3 and wait for partner to be squeezed. If he had a good spade suit, he would have bid 1S over 1D, although he could still have four good spades or five bad ones. If he had a good diamond suit, even if 2D was natural, it would be a dangerous overcall when opener was likely to have diamonds. On the other hand, if partner really wanted a diamond lead, he could have doubled 3NT before the explanation was corrected; that would have demanded a diamond lead because it was dummy's first-bid natural suit. (What would a double after the correction mean? I don't know). I don't think the failure to double is enough to justify my leading a spade; if partner's diamonds are something like AQ652, he wouldn't demand a lead in a suit in which dummy had four cards and likely two stoppers. But now that dummy is balanced and may have only two or three diamonds, a diamond lead into that suit is clearly best. From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Dec 23 07:59:50 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:59:50 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Thai braking Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900019E0F39@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Richard Hills wrote: In the latest issue of the Australian Directors' Bulletin, Michael Kent wondered what the best tie-breaking method for a Swiss teams was. In my opinion, the third-best method of breaking a tie in a Swiss teams is to sum the victory points of the opponents a team has faced. Unfortunately, unless this method is modified, anomalies are created when a team randomly meets an opponent who is very weak instead of an opponent who is merely somewhat weak. ----- In Norway we tie-break by summing the VP's of the opponents a team has = faced, the VP's against the tie breaking team NOT included. It might = give a different result than the above method, but the anomalies Richard = mention will still be there. ----- In my opinion, the second-best method of breaking a tie in a Swiss event is to sum the progressive victory point scores of each team. Example: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 Team A 21 40 65 88 102 112 127 138 Team B 10 19 27 38 63 88 113 138 Team A's tiebreak =3D 693 Team B's tiebreak =3D 496 Due to the mechanics of a Swiss draw, Team A would have met much stronger opposing teams than Team B, which this tiebreak method accurately reflects. ----- An interesting method. I've never heard of it before. But that's the second best method on Richard's list. I'm still waiting for Richard's best method. Merry Christmas, Harald Skjaeran ----- Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please = advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally = privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is = prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to = be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and = Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Dec 23 08:11:33 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:11:33 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] A standout lead Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC8A@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Richard Hills wrote: Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: Nil Screens are not in use. The bidding has gone: West North East South 1D(1) Pass 1H Pass 1S(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass 2H(4) Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass(5) (1) Alerted and explained as either: (a) 11-16 unbalanced with diamonds or; (b) 11-13 balanced or; (c) 11-16, 4-4-1-4. (2) Alerted and explained as either (a), or (b) but not (c). (3) Some sort of relay. (4) Alerted and explained as (a); diamonds & spades with secondary heart support. (5) In accordance with Law 75D2, West summoned the TD, and explained that the systemic meaning of 2H was actually option (b), 11-13 balanced. The TD, in accordance with Law 21B1, explained to North that North now had the option of changing North's final pass. North declined to exercise that option. You, South, hold: 652 952 873 JT63 What is your opening lead? What other opening leads do you consider making? ----- My first reaction would be that it would be natural for partner to = double now for a diamond lead on some holdings, which it would not be = after the first explanation, placing dummy with 5(+) diamonds. But I'll = not exclude a diamond lead just because of that. But before deciding on what to lead, I would ask more questions, to = learn more about dummy's hand, as I don't know much about their system. 1. Does the 11-13 balanced hand promise 4 diamonds, or might dumy hold 2 = or 3 diamonds? 2. Has dummy promised 4-card spades? 3. Has dummy promised secondary heart support? All of these questions are relevant, as they would give negative = inferences about declarers hand. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please = advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally = privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is = prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to = be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and = Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 23 08:11:23 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:11:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41CA7DAB.2000605@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > In my opinion, the second-best method of breaking a tie in a Swiss > event is to sum the progressive victory point scores of each team. > Example: > > R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 > Team A 21 40 65 88 102 112 127 138 > Team B 10 19 27 38 63 88 113 138 > > Team A's tiebreak = 693 > Team B's tiebreak = 496 > > Due to the mechanics of a Swiss draw, Team A would have met much > stronger opposing teams than Team B, which this tiebreak method > accurately reflects. > Yes, but I would omit the last round (not that that matters) and also the penultimate one, in those swiss tournaments where the pairings are made on the ranking from a round earlier (the standard method in Belgium). And then this does not reflect the relative strength of the first opponent, which was maybe the main reason for the teams first score. In fact, those 21 VP may have been the result of a very bad first opponent, and now this works in team A's favour again (eight times in fact!) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.2 - Release Date: 20/12/2004 From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 23 08:31:23 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:31:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c4e8c9$c96f4680$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson .............. > Now that is not enough: after the explanation we need another 30 > posts. Why? Because as it turned out: The so called "explanations" were wrong! Sven From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Dec 23 10:07:46 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 23 Dec 2004 11:07:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] timing of a claim Message-ID: <20041223100746.0F5812334F2@poczta.interia.pl> Adam Beneschan napisa=B3(a): >AT ANY TIME, not AT HIS (or dummy's) TURN TO PLAY. =20 His or dummy's?=20 Are you sure you didn't mean "his or her"? Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Najlepsze auto, najlepsze moto... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1841 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Dec 23 11:17:51 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:17:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] A standout lead Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181733B@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: Nil Screens are not in use. The bidding has gone: West North East South 1D(1) Pass 1H Pass 1S(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass 2H(4) Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass(5) (1) Alerted and explained as either: (a) 11-16 unbalanced with diamonds or; (b) 11-13 balanced or; (c) 11-16, 4-4-1-4. (2) Alerted and explained as either (a), or (b) but not (c). (3) Some sort of relay. (4) Alerted and explained as (a); diamonds & spades with secondary heart support. (5) In accordance with Law 75D2, West summoned the TD, and explained that the systemic meaning of 2H was actually option (b), 11-13 balanced. The TD, in accordance with Law 21B1, explained to North that North now had the option of changing North's final pass. North declined to exercise that option. You, South, hold: 652 952 873 JT63 What is your opening lead? What other opening leads do you consider making? ------------------------------------------- 8 of diamonds (or 7, whatever is systemic) A club. Nothing stand-out here. From henk@ripe.net Thu Dec 23 11:32:14 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:32:14 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Maintainer out of town In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181733B@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181733B@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Hi all, This is to let you know that the moderator of blml@rtflb.org will be out of town for Xmas and New Year. BLML will (of course) continue to run, but I'm not sure if/when I have network access and can attend to administrative requests for the list. If your posting is delayed because of the spam-filters, then please be patient. I will approve it as soon as I'm back. If you feel that your contribution is really urgent then: * Start a brand new mail message * Keep the subject * cut&paste as little as possible from the previous mails in the thread into your new message * Enter your comments * Send the mail Switching off HTML posting will (as usual) help. Season's greetings, Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Look here junior, don't you be so happy. And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad. (Tom Verlaine) From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Dec 23 13:01:49 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:01:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000001c4e782$7c2b6540$4e242b52@Zog> Message-ID: <00e601c4e8ef$912deb70$6f9468d5@James> [David Stevenson] BLML used to be useful. The way it has gone is sad. When someone wanted to know something, he asked, someone explained, perhaps a couple of people. Now that is not enough: after the explanation we need another 30 posts. Why? [Nigel] In BLML, over half of the serious questions are answered, often with an amusing one-line putdown or quibble. If a question is deemed to merit a serious answer by one auhority, another authority often adds more value or contradicts. There is often a complete spectrum of opinions. Agreeement is unlikely because of, for example .... (a) TFLB ambiguities and mistakes (b) assumed redefinitons of common words like "irrational" (c) revisions and "interpretaions" by obscure minutes and commentaries of disputed validity (d) different completions and addenda by different local jurisdictions. Having read David Stevenson's answer, are we meant to delete the remaining posts on the subject? Anyway, that would be no use to me because he does not reply to my BLML questions :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 17/12/2004 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Dec 23 14:24:34 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:24:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: References: <000001c4e782$7c2b6540$4e242b52@Zog> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223085857.02b0a0a0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:54 PM 12/22/04, David wrote: > I am not worried about people who raise these sort of things. Yes, > fine, they have a right to do so. It is the way that having had the > answer explained to them, there are a number of BLMLers who will not > accept that but want to go on and on telling us again and again that > it is wrong. What use is that? When there appears to be an error it > takes usually 45 posts or so for it to die down. I have no problem > whatever with the first post. > > BLML used to be useful. The way it has gone is sad. When someone > wanted to know something, he asked, someone explained, perhaps a > couple of people. > > Now that is not enough: after the explanation we need another 30 > posts. Why? When I joined BLML it was not represented to me as an opportunity to post questions of interpretation and get definitive responses from the official gurus, but as an opportunity to have input into forthcoming revisions of the Laws. Members of BLML justifiably believe that they are a bit more sophisticated about reading and interpreting the Laws than most players -- just being a member of BLML will do that to you eventually. When we "raise [those] sorts of things" and "[have] the answer explained to [us]", we do not go on and on telling "us" (you? the official gurus?) that you are wrong. But we do sometimes go on and on telling you that if we couldn't get it right based on the words in TFLB, it is highly likely that others will be a least as wrong/confused as we are, and that, given that we are wrong on the substance, the words need to be changed to state clearly what is right. And sometimes it takes 30 or 45 "this is what it sounds like it means to me" posts before people get the message. We have a thread going on now about the last sentence of L71C. The "right answer", according to the official gurus, is this: If you carefully study the WBF commentaries on the issue (assuming you can find them) you will understand that that sentence, read in the light of the entire law, doesn't mean anything, has no effect on how the law is to be interpreted, and therefore it does no harm for it to be there. Now those 30 or 45 posts don't say "that's wrong"; they say "the damn sentence confused us and is sure to confuse others -- get it out of there". Unlike David, I am loath to call that attitude "an error". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb@msn.com Thu Dec 23 15:33:22 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:33:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000001c4e782$7c2b6540$4e242b52@Zog> <00e601c4e8ef$912deb70$6f9468d5@James> Message-ID: I tend to agree with David Stevenson on this. There is almost a mandatory knee-jerk response from someone to show that the answer to a question is not correct. Semantics, English language gurus, "experts", quibblers, and a host of well meaning people get on the horse and ride it to death. The simple answer to the simple question is quickly ignored in favor of posturing, out of context meanderings, and need to show the BLML world our great wisdom. There are those who believe only they have the "right" answers to the Laws revisions in progress - not a consensus to be arrived at by an experienced committee. My feeling is that bridge is alive and well partly because of the present Laws, and not in spite of them. They have served us to structure and regulate the game, and with some improvements will continue to do so for those entities who undertake the arduous task of writing lucid and cogent Rules and Regulations to supplement them for local and unique situations. They were never intended, and should not have been, to cover all situations that can arise. When BLML discussion leads to an answer for the NOW question, and helps to better present the material for the FUTURE laws I'm all for it. I'm fully amenable to improvement as long as we are talking about clarity, brevity, and language. When it comes to drastic changes in the nature of the game itself I'm not easy to convince. Before you reach for the "delete" key consider the following: Law 71. In l987 the Law was changed from the l975 one. In l997 it was almost repeated word for word, and certainly intended the same meaning as l987, but the paragraphing and labeling was incorrect. Therefore, according to some, it now means something different. Does it take genius to read both and see that they are identical in meaning but wrong in the presented order of A. B. and C with a time period specified in the prologue thereto, when it should have been A 1 and 2, and B as in l987 with the reference to 79C only in A? Is the INTENT that there be a different time period for "any legal" as opposed to "normal" play not evident? Did the WBFLC perhaps in their haste to publish overlook this? Did the WBFLC, in their haste to publish an interpretation make a further mistake? Or, shall we now segue smoothly into a Law change where "legal" disappears and everything goes to "normal" and there is only one time period - as suggested by one member of the drafting committee for the laws revision? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the leopard > [David Stevenson] > BLML used to be useful. The way it has gone is sad. When > someone wanted to know something, he asked, someone > explained, perhaps a couple of people. Now that is not > enough: after the explanation we need another 30 posts. > Why? > [Nigel] > In BLML, over half of the serious questions are answered, > often with an amusing one-line putdown or quibble. If a > question is deemed to merit a serious answer by one > auhority, another authority often adds more value or > contradicts. There is often a complete spectrum of opinions. > Agreeement is unlikely because of, for example .... > (a) TFLB ambiguities and mistakes > (b) assumed redefinitons of common words like "irrational" > (c) revisions and "interpretaions" by obscure minutes and > commentaries of disputed validity > (d) different completions and addenda by different local > jurisdictions. > > Having read David Stevenson's answer, are we meant to delete > the remaining posts on the subject? Anyway, that would be no > use to me because he does not reply to my BLML questions :) > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: > 17/12/2004 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 23 19:43:21 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:43:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England Message-ID: The following rules are proposed from January 2006 SECTION 1 - ALERTING AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.1 Announcements 1.1.1 Basic purpose of announcements "Instead of an alert in the traditional manner, the partner of the person who makes an announceable bid makes a short specified statement about the bidder's hand. "In effect, announcements are a specialist form of alert. "Questions can still be asked, as they can about alerted bids. "Announcements are not intended to provide comprehensive explanations - matters of detail will still be disclosed by means of information on convention cards and the answers to questions. 1.1.2 Scope of announcements "natural 1NT openings to be announced by stating the range; "where a 1NT opening which is in principle natural may be made by agreement on some hands which contain a singleton, the statement "may contain a singleton" to be added to the range announcement; "Stayman to be announced:- "in response to a natural 1NT opening; "where there has been no intervention; and "where it is used in the traditional manner to ask for a 4-card major; and "red suit transfers (i.e. "Ds to Hs and Hs to Ss) to be announced:- "in response to a natural 1NT opening; "where there has been no intervention; and "where the transfer guarantees at least 5 cards in the major suit concerned. 1.2 Basic alerting rules 1.2.1 Passes and bids You must alert a pass or bid if "it is not natural; or "it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning. 1.2.2 Doubles "doubles of natural suit bids or nebulous minor openings - not alertable if for takeout; alertable otherwise; "doubles of no trump bids - not alertable if for penalties; alertable otherwise; "doubles of artificial suit bids - not alertable if shows the suit doubled; alertable otherwise. 1.2.3 Calls above 3NT In principle no calls above 3NT to be alerted except for:- "artificial opening bids; "lead-directing passes; and "lead-directing doubles that ask for the lead of a suit other than the suit doubled. 1.3 Alerting rules - Exceptions and Specific instances 1.3.1 Exceptions The following will not require an alert:- "fourth suit forcing; "a 2NT strong enquiry response to a natural weak two opening. 1.3.2 Natural openings at the two level Not alertable (because not unexpected) if:- "natural and weak; or "natural and strong. Alertable (because potentially unexpected) if natural and intermediate. (Note - openings which show the suit bid, but include agreed distributional constraints relating to other suits are not considered natural for alerting purposes (and therefore will be alertable)). 1.3.3 Potentially short minor-suit openings Not alertable (because not unexpected) if in principle natural, but may be made on three cards in the suit, but not fewer. Alertable (because potentially unexpected) if in principle natural, but may be made on fewer than three cards in the suit. (Note - openings which are not in principle natural, such as strong clubs or diamonds or "either-or" clubs, will remain alertable). 1.3.4 Completion of transfers Not alertable unless it shows something specific, e.g. shows or specifically denies a particular length in responder's suit. ********************************************************************** I did not vote for several of the items, but I can live with all the decisions except one: I do personally think it a mistake that an unalerted two-bid is either Acol or Weak. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Dec 23 20:19:16 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:19:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> At 02:43 PM 12/23/04, David wrote: >The following rules are proposed from January 2006 > >SECTION 1 - ALERTING AND ANNOUNCEMENTS > >1.1 Announcements > >1.1.1 Basic purpose of announcements >"Instead of an alert in the traditional manner, the partner of the >person who makes an announceable bid makes a short specified statement >about the bidder's hand. >"In effect, announcements are a specialist form of alert. >"Questions can still be asked, as they can about alerted bids. >"Announcements are not intended to provide comprehensive explanations >- matters of detail will still be disclosed by means of information on >convention cards and the answers to questions. > >1.1.2 Scope of announcements >"natural 1NT openings to be announced by stating the range; >"where a 1NT opening which is in principle natural may be made by >agreement on some hands which contain a singleton, the statement "may >contain a singleton" to be added to the range announcement; >"Stayman to be announced:- > "in response to a natural 1NT opening; > "where there has been no intervention; and > "where it is used in the traditional manner to ask for a 4-card > major; and >"red suit transfers (i.e. "Ds to Hs and Hs to Ss) to be announced:- > "in response to a natural 1NT opening; > "where there has been no intervention; and > "where the transfer guarantees at least 5 cards in the major suit > concerned. > >1.2 Basic alerting rules > >1.2.1 Passes and bids >You must alert a pass or bid if >"it is not natural; or >"it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning. > >1.2.2 Doubles >"doubles of natural suit bids or nebulous minor openings - not >alertable if for takeout; alertable otherwise; >"doubles of no trump bids - not alertable if for penalties; alertable >otherwise; >"doubles of artificial suit bids - not alertable if shows the suit >doubled; alertable otherwise. > >1.2.3 Calls above 3NT >In principle no calls above 3NT to be alerted except for:- >"artificial opening bids; >"lead-directing passes; and >"lead-directing doubles that ask for the lead of a suit other than the >suit doubled. > >1.3 Alerting rules - Exceptions and Specific instances > >1.3.1 Exceptions >The following will not require an alert:- >"fourth suit forcing; >"a 2NT strong enquiry response to a natural weak two opening. > >1.3.2 Natural openings at the two level >Not alertable (because not unexpected) if:- >"natural and weak; or >"natural and strong. >Alertable (because potentially unexpected) if natural and intermediate. > >(Note - openings which show the suit bid, but include agreed >distributional constraints relating to other suits are not considered >natural for alerting purposes (and therefore will be alertable)). > >1.3.3 Potentially short minor-suit openings >Not alertable (because not unexpected) if in principle natural, but >may be made on three cards in the suit, but not fewer. > >Alertable (because potentially unexpected) if in principle natural, >but may be made on fewer than three cards in the suit. > >(Note - openings which are not in principle natural, such as strong >clubs or diamonds or "either-or" clubs, will remain alertable). > >1.3.4 Completion of transfers >Not alertable unless it shows something specific, e.g. shows or >specifically denies a particular length in responder's suit. I'd call those significantly better than the ACBL's, by virtue of being considerably simpler. Expecially given that it covers announcements as well as alerts, it's nice to see something that the average player can understand and remember. >********************************************************************* > > I did not vote for several of the items, but I can live with all > the decisions except one: I do personally think it a mistake that an > unalerted two-bid is either Acol or Weak. I can't comment on the wisdom of the rule, but I readily accept the wisdom of the rationale. If in fact both usages are common enough that neither would be considered "unexpected", then, indeed, neither should be alertable. David has never been in the "only one non-alertable meaning for any bid" camp, so I believe what he calls a mistake isn't the implication itself, but rather the assumption that the premise applies (about which I have no knowledge and cannot comment). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 23 21:36:44 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:36:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] timing of a claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Dec 22, 2004, at 19:59 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > In my opinion, Ed's opponent may have thought that the > specific Law 41C created a general principle. Perhaps so. We didn't get into details of *why* he believes what he does. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 23 21:43:44 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:43:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] timing of a claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Dec 22, 2004, at 19:46 US/Eastern, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > You'all were neither. I hope you took the opportunity to educate the > man, as > I know you would in a gentle, proper, respectful, and helpful manner. Thanks, Kojak. I didn't say anything at the time, because we needed to get moving to the next round. I'll mention it to him next week when I see him, though I don't expect he'll hear me. :-/ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 23 22:13:47 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:13:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <41CA7DAB.2000605@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>In my opinion, the second-best method of breaking a tie in a Swiss >>event is to sum the progressive victory point scores of each team. >>Example: >> >> R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 >>Team A 21 40 65 88 102 112 127 138 >>Team B 10 19 27 38 63 88 113 138 >> >>Team A's tiebreak = 693 >>Team B's tiebreak = 496 >> >>Due to the mechanics of a Swiss draw, Team A would have met much >>stronger opposing teams than Team B, which this tiebreak method >>accurately reflects. Herman De Wael: [snip] >And then this does not reflect the relative strength of the first >opponent, which was maybe the main reason for the teams first >score. In fact, those 21 VP may have been the result of a very bad >first opponent, and now this works in team A's favour again (eight >times in fact!) Richard Hills: I think that Herman's "eight times" mathematical analysis of the tie-breaking effect of the first round match is flawed. Because Team A scored more VPs in round 1 than Team B, Team A would have been playing a stronger opponent than team B in round 2. Second example: R1 R2 Team C 21 31 Team D 10 31 The 11-point tiebreak difference between Team C and Team D reflects the difference in quality between their opponents in the second round, with one-time effect, not eight-time effect. The point of this "summing the progressive scores" tiebreak method is to provide an appropriate counter-balance to what is known as the Swiss Gambit. In the Swiss qualifying rounds of the Aussie National Open Teams, a successful strategy to finish in the top eight is to lurk slightly behind the leading group, then score maximum 25 vp wins against mediocre teams in the last 2 or 3 rounds. Of course, the Aussie NOT uses the best tiebreak method of a four board playoff between teams tied for the last qualifying spot. But the format of other events may not be able to squeeze time for a four board playoff into their schedule. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From john@asimere.com Thu Dec 23 23:34:12 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:34:12 +0000 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >In the latest issue of the Australian Directors' Bulletin, Michael >Kent wondered what the best tie-breaking method for a Swiss teams >was. > >In my opinion, the third-best method of breaking a tie in a Swiss >teams is to sum the victory points of the opponents a team has >faced. Unfortunately, unless this method is modified, anomalies >are created when a team randomly meets an opponent who is very >weak instead of an opponent who is merely somewhat weak. > >In my opinion, the second-best method of breaking a tie in a Swiss >event is to sum the progressive victory point scores of each team. >Example: > > R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 >Team A 21 40 65 88 102 112 127 138 >Team B 10 19 27 38 63 88 113 138 > >Team A's tiebreak = 693 >Team B's tiebreak = 496 It's easier to sum their positions. same thing of course. > >Due to the mechanics of a Swiss draw, Team A would have met much >stronger opposing teams than Team B, which this tiebreak method >accurately reflects. > > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and general guru >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 -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 24 00:39:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:39:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 02:43 PM 12/23/04, David wrote: >> I did not vote for several of the items, but I can live with all >>the decisions except one: I do personally think it a mistake that an >>unalerted two-bid is either Acol or Weak. > >I can't comment on the wisdom of the rule, but I readily accept the >wisdom of the rationale. If in fact both usages are common enough that >neither would be considered "unexpected", then, indeed, neither should >be alertable. David has never been in the "only one non-alertable >meaning for any bid" camp, so I believe what he calls a mistake isn't >the implication itself, but rather the assumption that the premise >applies (about which I have no knowledge and cannot comment). The problem is that well over 90% of EBU members play one or the other. So when there is an unalerted two-bid you know nothing except that it is a normal action. So what do you do? My worry is that it brings back the infamous defence, unfortunately referred to in England as the "French defence" when used over 1NT. Ask and pass shows a fair hand, pass without asking a poor hand, ask and double a medium hand, double without asking a good 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 24 00:55:35 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 11:55:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] Common misbeliefs (was timing...) In-Reply-To: <200412230101.RAA23075@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [snip] >Really, I think the ACBL ought to publish something >listing the common misbeliefs about the Laws and >regulations (things like "When partner hesitates, >you should make the bid you were going to make >anyway" or "When partner hesitates, you have to >pass"). This especially ought to be distributed to >directors. It looks like the idea "You can't claim >unless it's your turn to play" should be on that >list. Richard Hills: With regard to, "When partner hesitates, you should make the bid you were going to make anyway" I was somewhat puzzled to find that the late Edgar Kaplan's colleague, Jeff Rubens, quoted Law 73C in a recent editorial, but still misinterpreted it. Rubens' position seemed to be that the "carefully avoid" criterion of Law 73C implies that you should carefully avoid taking a logical alternative other than the one you would normally take. (Rubens' main rationale for his position seemed to be the avoidance of a reverse hesitation Briar Patch coup by a cunning Br'er Rabbit.) Rubens also seemed to be arguing that Law 73C was inconsistent with Law 16. That is, he seemed to be saying that Law 73C sometimes requires a player to choose a call for which a TD will then be required to reverse via a Law 16 adjusted score. Perhaps this common misbelief could be reversed in the 2006 Lawbook via a rewording and amalgamation of Law 73C and Law 16. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 24 02:18:01 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 02:18:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Common misbeliefs (was timing...) In-Reply-To: References: <200412230101.RAA23075@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: RJH wrote >With regard to, "When partner hesitates, you should >make the bid you were going to make anyway" I was >somewhat puzzled to find that the late Edgar Kaplan's >colleague, Jeff Rubens, quoted Law 73C in a recent >editorial, but still misinterpreted it. > >Rubens' position seemed to be that the "carefully >avoid" criterion of Law 73C implies that you should >carefully avoid taking a logical alternative other >than the one you would normally take. > >(Rubens' main rationale for his position seemed to be >the avoidance of a reverse hesitation Briar Patch >coup by a cunning Br'er Rabbit.) > >Rubens also seemed to be arguing that Law 73C was >inconsistent with Law 16. That is, he seemed to be >saying that Law 73C sometimes requires a player to >choose a call for which a TD will then be required to >reverse via a Law 16 adjusted score. > >Perhaps this common misbelief could be reversed in >the 2006 Lawbook via a rewording and amalgamation of >Law 73C and Law 16. It has always been my belief that L73C tells the players in general what to do: L16A or L73F1 says the effect. While I think rewording would be a good idea - and amalgamating L16A and L73F1 as well - I think L73C should be kept separate. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 24 04:00:24 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:00:24 +1100 Subject: [blml] A standout lead In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: Nil Screens are not in use. The bidding has gone: West North East South 1D(1) Pass 1H Pass 1S(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass 2H(4) Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass(5) (1) Alerted and explained as either: (a) 11-16 unbalanced with diamonds or; (b) 11-13 balanced or; (c) 11-16, 4-4-1-4. (2) Alerted and explained as either (a), or (b) but not (c). (3) Some sort of relay. (4) Alerted and explained as (a); diamonds & spades with secondary heart support. (5) In accordance with Law 75D2, West summoned the TD, and explained that the systemic meaning of 2H was actually option (b), 11-13 balanced. The TD, in accordance with Law 21B1, explained to North that North now had the option of changing North's final pass. North declined to exercise that option. You, South, hold: 652 952 873 JT63 What is your opening lead? What other opening leads do you consider making? * * * The small sample of blmlers responding to this lead problem thought that AI from the East-West stuffed-up auction suggested that the East-West diamond stoppers might be a bit tenuous. Very true, since the complete deal (from this year's New Zealand National Teams Qualifying) was -> QT4 QT7 AKQT64 4 K873 AJ9 K83 AJ64 95 J2 KQ97 A852 652 952 873 JT63 Unfortunately for North-South, North was so irritated by the East-West super-scientific stuff-up that North made a gratuitous remark (Law 73B1) suggesting a diamond lead. Therefore, the TD's ruling was that there would be a split score, with EW -100 on the assumption of a diamond lead, but NS -430 on the assumption of a different lead. In the latest issue of the Australian Directors' Bulletin, New Zealand CTD Arie Geursen wrote: [snip] >Not surprisingly both pairs requested a Chief >Director review. While North reluctantly >accepted "the harsh punishment" for her >indiscreet comment, their more illustrious >opponents could not see why the Chief Director >did not think it was very equitable to let them >have +430 for 3NT with six top losers. >Appealing is not exactly an exercise without >its risk. Given that the Chief Director has >reviewed and confirmed the initial ruling, you >can lose a VP if your case is deemed to be >without merit. > >E/W's case was that in the absence of North's >comment South has a standout club lead and if >South had shown the same active ethics >(actually, Law 75C2 [sic - RJH] mandates it) as >West, he would not have led a diamond after his >partner's comment. > >What did South have to say about all this? Well >he claimed to have had the D8 in his hand when >all this started and felt no obligations after >West volunteered he had no diamonds. > >Now it was the committee's turn. Three of them >voted that on the authorized information >available (the corrected explanation), a >diamond lead is clearly a greater than 75% >action and therefore there is no logical >alternative. One was totally opposed and felt >that South should deliberately have led >something else and one abstained! The look on >North's face was a picture, when she was told >that her opponents had appealed, and she got >her score back! > >All this and another 3-2 decision later in the >week got me thinking. Traditionally appeal >committees at major events comprise 5 members. >However, if it is accepted that well qualified >and experienced Directors are the conduits to >achieving consistent rulings, then there is >real merit in the suggestion that these >committees are limited to 4 and that they must >be at least 3-1 to overturn the Director. Season's greetings Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 24 04:33:26 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:33:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>In my opinion, the second-best method of breaking a tie in a Swiss >>event is to sum the progressive victory point scores of each team. >>Example: >> >> R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 >>Team A 21 40 65 88 102 112 127 138 >>Team B 10 19 27 38 63 88 113 138 >> >>Team A's tiebreak = 693 >>Team B's tiebreak = 496 [snip] John (MadDog) Probst: >It's easier to sum their positions. same thing of course. Richard Hills: Maddog's method is indeed easier, but it is not quite the same thing. My method values the amount of the gap between placings, while MadDog's method treats the difference between 1st/2nd and 2nd/3rd as equivalent. Example: If the gap between 1st place and 2nd place is 11 vps, but the gap between 2nd place and 3rd place is only 1 vp, my tiebreaking method and MadDog's tiebreaking method will provide different results. Of course, even though MadDog's simpler method uses a slightly different paradigm, his paradigm may be preferable. MadDog's paradigm is better than my paradigm in rewarding teams who grind out narrow victories versus their peers. Season's greetings Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 24 08:27:51 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:27:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <41CBD307.80101@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Eric Landau wrote > >> At 02:43 PM 12/23/04, David wrote: > > >>> I did not vote for several of the items, but I can live with all >>> the decisions except one: I do personally think it a mistake that an >>> unalerted two-bid is either Acol or Weak. >> >> >> I can't comment on the wisdom of the rule, but I readily accept the >> wisdom of the rationale. If in fact both usages are common enough >> that neither would be considered "unexpected", then, indeed, neither >> should be alertable. David has never been in the "only one >> non-alertable meaning for any bid" camp, so I believe what he calls a >> mistake isn't the implication itself, but rather the assumption that >> the premise applies (about which I have no knowledge and cannot comment). > > > The problem is that well over 90% of EBU members play one or the > other. So when there is an unalerted two-bid you know nothing except > that it is a normal action. So what do you do? > Well, this system has been in use in Belgium for about 2 1/2 years now, and it has not proven unworking. Most people know which type of player they are meeting and guess correctly, others ask, and there is never a big problem. > My worry is that it brings back the infamous defence, unfortunately > referred to in England as the "French defence" when used over 1NT. Ask > and pass shows a fair hand, pass without asking a poor hand, ask and > double a medium hand, double without asking a good hand. > The difference between weak and strong twos is so big that such a defence is hardly likely. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 24 08:46:36 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:46:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <41CBD76C.3030902@hdw.be> Has this been thought through: Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:43 PM 12/23/04, David wrote: > >> The following rules are proposed from January 2006 >> >> SECTION 1 - ALERTING AND ANNOUNCEMENTS >> >> >> 1.3.2 Natural openings at the two level >> Not alertable (because not unexpected) if:- >> "natural and weak; or >> "natural and strong. >> Alertable (because potentially unexpected) if natural and intermediate. >> >> (Note - openings which show the suit bid, but include agreed >> distributional constraints relating to other suits are not considered >> natural for alerting purposes (and therefore will be alertable)). >> Most people agree that it is impossible to have four cards in the other major when opening a weak two - isn't that a distributional constraint? I guess this paragraph means that dutch twos (promising four in either minor) are alertable, but the phrasing suggests that normal weak twos would be alertable as well! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 24 08:51:20 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:51:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> 1.3.3 Potentially short minor-suit openings >> Not alertable (because not unexpected) if in principle natural, but >> may be made on three cards in the suit, but not fewer. >> >> Alertable (because potentially unexpected) if in principle natural, >> but may be made on fewer than three cards in the suit. >> It has been my experience that 2-card clubs (only if 4432) should not be alertable or considered conventional. There is so little difference between "5-cards major, better minor" and "5-card major, diamonds 4" that I play those two interchangeably and sometimes arrive half way through the tournament without having agreed with partner which of the two we play. Rendering one system alertable and giving opponents unlimited defences against 2-card clubs and the like is too big a difference and puts too much pressure on people who favour 4-card diamonds. >> (Note - openings which are not in principle natural, such as strong >> clubs or diamonds or "either-or" clubs, will remain alertable). >> Of course my plea is only for genuine 2-card clubs, only when 4432 and non-forcing, and on which 5-cards (and some 4-cards) are treated as support. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Fri Dec 24 09:59:49 2004 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:59:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64B7@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 23:14 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Thai braking >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Richard Hills: >=20 > [snip] >=20 > >>In my opinion, the second-best method of breaking a tie in a Swiss > >>event is to sum the progressive victory point scores of each team. > >>Example: > >> > >> R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 > >>Team A 21 40 65 88 102 112 127 138 > >>Team B 10 19 27 38 63 88 113 138 > >> > >>Team A's tiebreak =3D 693 > >>Team B's tiebreak =3D 496 > >> > >>Due to the mechanics of a Swiss draw, Team A would have met much > >>stronger opposing teams than Team B, which this tiebreak method > >>accurately reflects. >=20 > Herman De Wael: >=20 > [snip] >=20 > >And then this does not reflect the relative strength of the first > >opponent, which was maybe the main reason for the teams first > >score. In fact, those 21 VP may have been the result of a very bad > >first opponent, and now this works in team A's favour again (eight > >times in fact!) >=20 > Richard Hills: >=20 > I think that Herman's "eight times" mathematical analysis of the > tie-breaking effect of the first round match is flawed. Because > Team A scored more VPs in round 1 than Team B, Team A would have > been playing a stronger opponent than team B in round 2. >=20 > Second example: >=20 > R1 R2 > Team C 21 31 > Team D 10 31 >=20 > The 11-point tiebreak difference between Team C and Team D reflects > the difference in quality between their opponents in the second > round, with one-time effect, not eight-time effect. >=20 > The point of this "summing the progressive scores" tiebreak method > is to provide an appropriate counter-balance to what is known as > the Swiss Gambit. >=20 > In the Swiss qualifying rounds of the Aussie National Open Teams, a > successful strategy to finish in the top eight is to lurk slightly > behind the leading group, then score maximum 25 vp wins against > mediocre teams in the last 2 or 3 rounds. >=20 > Of course, the Aussie NOT uses the best tiebreak method of a four > board playoff between teams tied for the last qualifying spot. But > the format of other events may not be able to squeeze time for a > four board playoff into their schedule. The tiebreak sum according to your method equals R1 + (R1+R2) + ... + (R1+R2+R3+R4+R5+R6+R7+R8) =3D 8*R1 + 7*R2 + 6*R3 + ... + 1*R8 So Herman is absolutely right if he says that the first round counts eight times (the number of rounds played, in fact). In your second example, there are two rounds, hence the first round counts twice. Suppose in the remaining six rounds both teams score the same, then the first result does count eight times. However, the second result counts seven times, therefore the tiebreak sum difference is still eleven, and remains eleven, no matter how many equal scoring rounds you add. But a fact is, this tiebreak method favours early wins. --=20 Martin SInot From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 24 10:33:30 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 11:33:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64B7@rama.micronas.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64B7@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <41CBF07A.1080703@hdw.be> Sinot Martin wrote: >> >>>>In my opinion, the second-best method of breaking a tie in a Swiss >>>>event is to sum the progressive victory point scores of each team. >>>>Example: >>>> >>>> R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 >>>>Team A 21 40 65 88 102 112 127 138 >>>>Team B 10 19 27 38 63 88 113 138 >>>> >>>>Team A's tiebreak = 693 >>>>Team B's tiebreak = 496 >>>> >>>>Due to the mechanics of a Swiss draw, Team A would have met much >>>>stronger opposing teams than Team B, which this tiebreak method >>>>accurately reflects. >> >>Herman De Wael: >> >>[snip] >> >> >>>And then this does not reflect the relative strength of the first >>>opponent, which was maybe the main reason for the teams first >>>score. In fact, those 21 VP may have been the result of a very bad >>>first opponent, and now this works in team A's favour again (eight >>>times in fact!) >> >>Richard Hills: >> >>I think that Herman's "eight times" mathematical analysis of the >>tie-breaking effect of the first round match is flawed. Because >>Team A scored more VPs in round 1 than Team B, Team A would have >>been playing a stronger opponent than team B in round 2. >> >>Second example: >> >> R1 R2 >>Team C 21 31 >>Team D 10 31 >> >>The 11-point tiebreak difference between Team C and Team D reflects >>the difference in quality between their opponents in the second >>round, with one-time effect, not eight-time effect. >> >>The point of this "summing the progressive scores" tiebreak method >>is to provide an appropriate counter-balance to what is known as >>the Swiss Gambit. >> >>In the Swiss qualifying rounds of the Aussie National Open Teams, a >>successful strategy to finish in the top eight is to lurk slightly >>behind the leading group, then score maximum 25 vp wins against >>mediocre teams in the last 2 or 3 rounds. >> > > The tiebreak sum according to your method equals > > R1 + (R1+R2) + ... + (R1+R2+R3+R4+R5+R6+R7+R8) = > 8*R1 + 7*R2 + 6*R3 + ... + 1*R8 > > So Herman is absolutely right if he says that the first round counts > eight times (the number of rounds played, in fact). > In your second example, there are two rounds, hence the first round > counts twice. Suppose in the remaining six rounds both teams score > the same, then the first result does count eight times. However, > the second result counts seven times, therefore the tiebreak sum > difference is still eleven, and remains eleven, no matter how many > equal scoring rounds you add. > Richard is right in saying that this is not really important. After all, the early win is reflected in a higher placing all through the tournament, and consequently better opponents. But apart from being correct, a tie-breaking formula has to be acceptable to the average player. And Richard's method lacks in that one. If two teams have this road to a same final total: >>>> R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 >>>>Team A 21 40 65 88 102 112 127 138 >>>>Team B 10 19 27 38 63 88 113 138 then it is clear to all that team A has had the stronger opponents, and should be placed higher. But then the 'third best method' will also declare team A the winner. And that method (total points of opponents) seems more acceptable to the players. Look at it this way. TeamA will have met a team in round 2 that also scored 21 VP in round one. TeamA will have met in round 3 a team that scored 40 VP in their rounds 1 and 2. and so on. Now why should we exclude from their tie-breaking tally the results that their opponents had in aal rounds after the one in which they met team A. And why should the opponent from round 1 be totally excluded from that tally. Which is why I believe that the 'third best' method of Richard is actually the 'second best'. > But a fact is, this tiebreak method favours early wins. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 24 12:51:16 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:51:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <41CBD307.80101@hdw.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD307.80101@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote >> >>> At 02:43 PM 12/23/04, David wrote: >> >>>> I did not vote for several of the items, but I can live with all >>>>the decisions except one: I do personally think it a mistake that an >>>>unalerted two-bid is either Acol or Weak. >>> >>> >>> I can't comment on the wisdom of the rule, but I readily accept the >>>wisdom of the rationale. If in fact both usages are common enough >>>that neither would be considered "unexpected", then, indeed, neither >>>should be alertable. David has never been in the "only one >>>non-alertable meaning for any bid" camp, so I believe what he calls a >>>mistake isn't the implication itself, but rather the assumption that >>>the premise applies (about which I have no knowledge and cannot comment). >> The problem is that well over 90% of EBU members play one or the >>other. So when there is an unalerted two-bid you know nothing except >>that it is a normal action. So what do you do? >> > >Well, this system has been in use in Belgium for about 2 1/2 years now, >and it has not proven unworking. Most people know which type of >player they are meeting and guess correctly, others ask, and there is >never a big problem. > >> My worry is that it brings back the infamous defence, unfortunately >>referred to in England as the "French defence" when used over 1NT. Ask >>and pass shows a fair hand, pass without asking a poor hand, ask and >>double a medium hand, double without asking a good hand. >> > >The difference between weak and strong twos is so big that such a >defence is hardly likely. No? RHO opens 2H. What do you do [assuming you are *not* an ethical player with: xxxx xx xxx QTxx AKxx xx xxx QTxx AKxx xx KJx QTxx AKxx Qx KJx AQTx I am sorry, but I think a number of players will pass with the first, double with the fourth, but ask what 2H is with the second and third. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 24 12:53:29 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:53:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Eric Landau wrote: > >>> >>> 1.3.3 Potentially short minor-suit openings >>> Not alertable (because not unexpected) if in principle natural, but >>>may be made on three cards in the suit, but not fewer. >>> >>> Alertable (because potentially unexpected) if in principle natural, >>>but may be made on fewer than three cards in the suit. >>> > >It has been my experience that 2-card clubs (only if 4432) should not >be alertable or considered conventional. There is so little difference >between "5-cards major, better minor" and "5-card major, diamonds 4" >that I play those two interchangeably and sometimes arrive half way >through the tournament without having agreed with partner which of the >two we play. Rendering one system alertable and giving opponents >unlimited defences against 2-card clubs and the like is too big a >difference and puts too much pressure on people who favour 4-card diamonds. You are not suggesting gaining an unfair advantage, surely? That is not what this game is about. Over an artificial 1C I can play any defence I like: your method would be to gain an unfair advantage against someone playing a strange defence in this way. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 24 12:56:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:56:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <41CBF07A.1080703@hdw.be> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64B7@rama.micronas.com> <41CBF07A.1080703@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Sinot Martin wrote: > >>> >>>>>In my opinion, the second-best method of breaking a tie in a Swiss >>>>>event is to sum the progressive victory point scores of each team. >>>>>Example: >>>>> >>>>> R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 >>>>>Team A 21 40 65 88 102 112 127 138 >>>>>Team B 10 19 27 38 63 88 113 138 >>>>> >>>>>Team A's tiebreak = 693 >>>>>Team B's tiebreak = 496 >>>>> >>>>>Due to the mechanics of a Swiss draw, Team A would have met much >>>>>stronger opposing teams than Team B, which this tiebreak method >>>>>accurately reflects. >>> >>>Herman De Wael: >>> >>>[snip] >>> >>> >>>>And then this does not reflect the relative strength of the first >>>>opponent, which was maybe the main reason for the teams first >>>>score. In fact, those 21 VP may have been the result of a very bad >>>>first opponent, and now this works in team A's favour again (eight >>>>times in fact!) >>> >>>Richard Hills: >>> >>>I think that Herman's "eight times" mathematical analysis of the >>>tie-breaking effect of the first round match is flawed. Because >>>Team A scored more VPs in round 1 than Team B, Team A would have >>>been playing a stronger opponent than team B in round 2. >>> >>>Second example: >>> >>> R1 R2 >>>Team C 21 31 >>>Team D 10 31 >>> >>>The 11-point tiebreak difference between Team C and Team D reflects >>>the difference in quality between their opponents in the second >>>round, with one-time effect, not eight-time effect. >>> >>>The point of this "summing the progressive scores" tiebreak method >>>is to provide an appropriate counter-balance to what is known as >>>the Swiss Gambit. >>> >>>In the Swiss qualifying rounds of the Aussie National Open Teams, a >>>successful strategy to finish in the top eight is to lurk slightly >>>behind the leading group, then score maximum 25 vp wins against >>>mediocre teams in the last 2 or 3 rounds. >>> >> The tiebreak sum according to your method equals >> R1 + (R1+R2) + ... + (R1+R2+R3+R4+R5+R6+R7+R8) = >> 8*R1 + 7*R2 + 6*R3 + ... + 1*R8 >> So Herman is absolutely right if he says that the first round counts >> eight times (the number of rounds played, in fact). >> In your second example, there are two rounds, hence the first round >> counts twice. Suppose in the remaining six rounds both teams score >> the same, then the first result does count eight times. However, >> the second result counts seven times, therefore the tiebreak sum >> difference is still eleven, and remains eleven, no matter how many >> equal scoring rounds you add. >> > >Richard is right in saying that this is not really important. >After all, the early win is reflected in a higher placing all through >the tournament, and consequently better opponents. > >But apart from being correct, a tie-breaking formula has to be >acceptable to the average player. And Richard's method lacks in that >one. Acceptable to the average player means total imps, which is easily understandable, and totally fair. I should like to than the country of Australia for making me realise that this is the obvious tie-break method at Swiss Teams. When I returned form Australia a few years back I immediately re-wrote my Swiss Teams program to show VPs and IMPs, and to only show people as level if they were level on both. It also uses this for assignments, and everyone who plays thinks this is fair. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 24 13:01:29 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:01:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] A standout lead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4gLh0ZJpMBzBFwzP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> >In the latest issue of the Australian Directors' >Bulletin, New Zealand CTD Arie Geursen wrote: >>All this and another 3-2 decision later in the >>week got me thinking. Traditionally appeal >>committees at major events comprise 5 members. >>However, if it is accepted that well qualified >>and experienced Directors are the conduits to >>achieving consistent rulings, then there is >>real merit in the suggestion that these >>committees are limited to 4 and that they must >>be at least 3-1 to overturn the Director. I have sat on many Appeal Committees, and in my view the Committee has totally failed in its deliberations when it has to decide on a vote. A rule that an AC has to be 3-1 to overturn a TD is counter-productive because it suggests voting is an acceptable method of deciding. While the ACBL Panel method has quite a lot to recommend it, its one big disadvantage is that the good players involved do not get together to thrash out an answer. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Dec 24 19:03:46 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:03:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> At 07:53 AM 12/24/04, David wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote >> >>>>1.3.3 Potentially short minor-suit openings >>>>Not alertable (because not unexpected) if in principle natural, but >>>>may be made on three cards in the suit, but not fewer. >>>> >>>>Alertable (because potentially unexpected) if in principle natural, >>>>but may be made on fewer than three cards in the suit. >> >>It has been my experience that 2-card clubs (only if 4432) should not >>be alertable or considered conventional. There is so little >>difference between "5-cards major, better minor" and "5-card major, >>diamonds 4" that I play those two interchangeably and sometimes >>arrive half way through the tournament without having agreed with >>partner which of the two we play. Rendering one system alertable and >>giving opponents unlimited defences against 2-card clubs and the like >>is too big a difference and puts too much pressure on people who >>favour 4-card diamonds. > > You are not suggesting gaining an unfair advantage, surely? That > is not what this game is about. > > Over an artificial 1C I can play any defence I like: your method > would be to gain an unfair advantage against someone playing a > strange defence in this way. Herman makes a very good case, if indeed defenses are at issue. Systems that differ only in whether they open 1C or 1D with 4-4-3-2 patterns are essentially the same, while those that open two-card club suits with that pattern only differ greatly from systems that open 1C artificially. Allowing a wider range of defensive methods against Herman's 1C than against a "standard" 1C, under a rule intended to apply to defenses against artificial openings, would be put him at a disadvantage closer to "unfair" than the disadvantage to his opponents of not allowing them. That said, I see nothing in the quoted passages to suggest that that's the case, and nothing at all wrong with requiring an alert ("could be a two-card suit with 4-4 in the majors"). I would assume (hope) that Herman's method qualifies as "in principle natural", and that it is that which determines which defensive methods his opponents are allowed to play. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 24 19:52:06 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:52:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 07:53 AM 12/24/04, David wrote: > >>Herman De Wael wrote >>> >>>>>1.3.3 Potentially short minor-suit openings >>>>>Not alertable (because not unexpected) if in principle natural, but >>>>>may be made on three cards in the suit, but not fewer. >>>>> >>>>>Alertable (because potentially unexpected) if in principle natural, >>>>>but may be made on fewer than three cards in the suit. >>> >>>It has been my experience that 2-card clubs (only if 4432) should not >>>be alertable or considered conventional. There is so little >>>difference between "5-cards major, better minor" and "5-card major, >>>diamonds 4" that I play those two interchangeably and sometimes >>>arrive half way through the tournament without having agreed with >>>partner which of the two we play. Rendering one system alertable and >>>giving opponents unlimited defences against 2-card clubs and the like >>>is too big a difference and puts too much pressure on people who >>>favour 4-card diamonds. >> >> You are not suggesting gaining an unfair advantage, surely? That >>is not what this game is about. >> >> Over an artificial 1C I can play any defence I like: your method >>would be to gain an unfair advantage against someone playing a strange >>defence in this way. > >Herman makes a very good case, if indeed defenses are at issue. Systems >that differ only in whether they open 1C or 1D with 4-4-3-2 patterns >are essentially the same, while those that open two-card club suits >with that pattern only differ greatly from systems that open 1C >artificially. Allowing a wider range of defensive methods against >Herman's 1C than against a "standard" 1C, under a rule intended to >apply to defenses against artificial openings, would be put him at a >disadvantage closer to "unfair" than the disadvantage to his opponents >of not allowing them. Sorry, Eric, you are out of step with the world here. If you want to play a system including conventional 1-level opening bids, feel free: but you cannot say it is not conventional because the occasion when it is conventional is rare. It is like pregnant: either it is conventional, or it isn't. This is one of the very rare positions where nearly every authority has the same rule - including the ACBL - if it is conventional there is great freedom in defence to it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From avisbedell@velnet.co.uk Sat Dec 25 07:26:56 2004 From: avisbedell@velnet.co.uk (willy gordon) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 14:26:56 +0700 Subject: [blml] Improve your Muscle Strength Message-ID: <26E1A25F.88146E9@velnet.co.uk> "Discover...in the next few minutes... regardless of your age, sex, or current health status, how this common element can change the way you experience the next half of your life."

Learn how to increase your quality of life

"We really have something here which may be able to reverse some of the problems associated with aging."
 -Dr.Anthony Karpos, M.D.




-----original message-----
From: herb@fgnj.com [mailto:loris@f.com]
Sent: Friday, March 0, 2004 5:85PM
To: marjory; claudine@ug.com; azucena; odelia; paul
Subject: appreciate but no thank you PO 12 00 B , Oran ge sta d, A ruba


But I don't want any reward Good day, sir

He turned the indicator of his traveling machine and immediately rose into the air, followed by a startled exclamation from the President of FranceMoving leisurely over the city, he selected a deserted thoroughfare to alight in, from whence he wandered unobserved into the beautiful boulevards From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Dec 25 09:06:34 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 10:06:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64B7@rama.micronas.com> <41CBF07A.1080703@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41CD2D9A.8020804@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> But apart from being correct, a tie-breaking formula has to be >> acceptable to the average player. And Richard's method lacks in that one. > > > Acceptable to the average player means total imps, which is easily > understandable, and totally fair. I should like to than the country of > Australia for making me realise that this is the obvious tie-break > method at Swiss Teams. When I returned form Australia a few years back > I immediately re-wrote my Swiss Teams program to show VPs and IMPs, and > to only show people as level if they were level on both. It also uses > this for assignments, and everyone who plays thinks this is fair. > Total Imps? I should imagine the average player prefers IMP-difference. Total IMPs has one huge disadvantage: when 2 teams play one another and thye play the same basic system, more comparisons tend to even out than when they play different systems. A team that plays a very non-standard (in the field) system will score far more imps, yet have a similar imp-difference. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Dec 25 09:10:35 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 10:10:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD307.80101@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41CD2E8B.6040304@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > > No? RHO opens 2H. What do you do [assuming you are *not* an ethical > player with: > > xxxx > xx > xxx > QTxx > > AKxx > xx > xxx > QTxx > > AKxx > xx > KJx > QTxx > > AKxx > Qx > KJx > AQTx > > I am sorry, but I think a number of players will pass with the first, > double with the fourth, but ask what 2H is with the second and third. > And I am also sorry, but the number of times partner will be able to know that partner did not already realize what the 2H was, will be so small as to not make the non-asking a source of UI. This is not a problem - take it from someone who has directed in a country where this type of alerting procedure has existed for over 2 years now. Most people know what kind of 2-openings their opponents play even without having to ask anything, and when they don't, their partners do not draw any conclusions from them not asking. Most people always ask, even, when they don't know. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Dec 25 09:16:08 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 10:16:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41CD2FD8.3050809@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> It has been my experience that 2-card clubs (only if 4432) should not >> be alertable or considered conventional. There is so little difference >> between "5-cards major, better minor" and "5-card major, diamonds 4" >> that I play those two interchangeably and sometimes arrive half way >> through the tournament without having agreed with partner which of the >> two we play. Rendering one system alertable and giving opponents >> unlimited defences against 2-card clubs and the like is too big a >> difference and puts too much pressure on people who favour 4-card >> diamonds. > > > You are not suggesting gaining an unfair advantage, surely? That is > not what this game is about. > > Over an artificial 1C I can play any defence I like: your method would > be to gain an unfair advantage against someone playing a strange defence > in this way. > No David, playing 2-card club openers is NOT an unfair advantage. What you gain in the certainty of the diamonds being 4-cards, you lose in the certainty of the clubs not being 3-cards. Nor is the system so extraordinary that opponents cannot cope. In Belgium, where both types of 5-card majors are played in equal numbers, I know of not a single pair who have a different defence against clubs being 2 or 3. So when you allow "brown" defences against 2-card club openers, you give an unfair DISadvantage to those people wishing to play 4-card diamonds. To put it differently - I know of a pair who play 4-card diamonds in Belgium, but better minor in the Netherlands, because 2-card clubs are considered conventional there. I don't believe they have an unfair advantage in Belgium, I do believe they have an unfair disadvantage in the Netherlands. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Dec 25 09:18:33 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 10:18:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <41CD3069.6030807@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > That said, I see nothing in the quoted passages to suggest that that's > the case, and nothing at all wrong with requiring an alert ("could be a > two-card suit with 4-4 in the majors"). I would assume (hope) that > Herman's method qualifies as "in principle natural", and that it is that > which determines which defensive methods his opponents are allowed to play. > I too see no problems in requiring an alert, if the system is so uncommon as to be pointed to. My point was that considering 2-card club openings to be artificial usually also implies that all defences are allowed, and that goes a little too far. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Dec 25 10:08:04 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:08:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: <000001c4e782$7c2b6540$4e242b52@Zog> <00e601c4e8ef$912deb70$6f9468d5@James> Message-ID: <003c01c4ea69$a3aebce0$c5f3f0c3@LNV> From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" '................ > Before you reach for the "delete" key consider the following: > > Law 71. In l987 the Law was changed from the l975 one. In l997 it was > almost repeated word for word, and certainly intended the same meaning as > l987, but the paragraphing and labeling was incorrect. Therefore, according > to some, it now means something different. Does it take genius to read both > and see that they are identical in meaning but wrong in the presented order > of A. B. and C with a time period specified in the prologue thereto, when it > should have been A 1 and 2, and B as in l987 with the reference to 79C only > in A? Is the INTENT that there be a different time period for "any legal" as > opposed to "normal" play not evident? Did the WBFLC perhaps in their haste > to publish overlook this? Did the WBFLC, in their haste to publish an > interpretation make a further mistake? Or, shall we now segue smoothly into > a Law change where "legal" disappears and everything goes to "normal" and > there is only one time period - as suggested by one member of the drafting > committee for the laws revision? > > Kojak We need some dots on the historical i here. What we discovered in the LC long ago, it must have been '97 itself, was that law 71C mentioned two different time limits for the same problem: a conceded trick that had play progressed would not have been lost. Then we discussed in the LC how to solve this and there was a majority, I don't think there was anyone against, to allow the trick to go back using the 79C period. Yes that was a change, but don't we have revisions to change things we don't like? So my answer on your question: 'does it need a genius' is 'yes', and the end of the year 2004 as well. And if you say that I suggest to make it one time peroiod for the fututre laws, you didn't understand my message: I don't suggest anything. My contribution was to rewrite the present L71, keeping exactly the same meaning. No parts A, B and C anymore. Merry X-mas to all of you. ton From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Dec 25 11:28:39 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 12:28:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20041225105852.011d1e70@mail.chello.nl> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <3.0.5.32.20041225105852.011d1e70@mail.chello.nl> Message-ID: <41CD4EE7.5090004@hdw.be> Anton Witzen wrote: > At 10:18 AM 12/25/2004 +0100, you wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >>>That said, I see nothing in the quoted passages to suggest that that's >>>the case, and nothing at all wrong with requiring an alert ("could be a >>>two-card suit with 4-4 in the majors"). I would assume (hope) that >>>Herman's method qualifies as "in principle natural", and that it is that >>>which determines which defensive methods his opponents are allowed to play. >>> >> >>I too see no problems in requiring an alert, if the system is so >>uncommon as to be pointed to. >>My point was that considering 2-card club openings to be artificial >>usually also implies that all defences are allowed, and that goes a >>little too far. >> > > > you can say that again (to the dutch weko):) > anyway i hardly see people using this advantage here in holland which advantage? IMO, and please correct me if I am wrong: -pairs that want to play 'brown' (*) conventions feel restricted by the regulations (an I do believe those restrictions are generally a good thing) -those pairs are well aware that they are allowed to play 'brown' conventions against NT openings and artificial 1 clubs (and I agree that the restrictions need not apply to those) -those pairs will use their methods whenever allowed (ie in higher divisions and against NT and artificial clubs) -those pairs will also use their methods against 1Cl style 4432 if allowed (as they are in the Netherlands) -pairs playing strong clubs and the like know that they can be confronted with 'brown' overcalls -pairs playing 5 card majors are not so used to these overcalls -if 'brown' overcalls are permitted against "diamonds 4" but not against "better minor", then pairs wanting to play 5-card majors will quickly switch to "better minor". Ergo, in countries where diamonds-4 is classed as "artificial clubs" and 'brown' conventions are abundant, "diamonds-4" tends not to exist. so I ask again : > anyway i hardly see people using this advantage here in holland what advantage? - 'brown' overcalls? not likely, since there are bound to be few "diamonds 4" I repeat, there are no advantages here, just disadvantages created by unwise regulations. (*) throughout, I use 'brown' to indicate that the convention would be brown sticker, but for an exception (such as overcalls over artificial clubs) > regards, > anton > > > >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.hdw.be >> >> >> >>-- >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >>Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > Anton Witzen. > Tel: 020 7763175 > boniplein 86 > 1094 SG Amsterdam > > > > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From blml@blakjak.com Sat Dec 25 14:30:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 14:30:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <41CD2D9A.8020804@hdw.be> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64B7@rama.micronas.com> <41CBF07A.1080703@hdw.be> <41CD2D9A.8020804@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >>> >>> But apart from being correct, a tie-breaking formula has to be >>>acceptable to the average player. And Richard's method lacks in that >>> >> Acceptable to the average player means total imps, which is >>easily understandable, and totally fair. I should like to than the >>country of Australia for making me realise that this is the obvious >>tie-break method at Swiss Teams. When I returned form Australia a >>few years back I immediately re-wrote my Swiss Teams program to show >>VPs and IMPs, and to only show people as level if they were level on >>both. It also uses this for assignments, and everyone who plays >>thinks this is fair. >> > >Total Imps? > >I should imagine the average player prefers IMP-difference. > >Total IMPs has one huge disadvantage: when 2 teams play one another and >thye play the same basic system, more comparisons tend to even out than >when they play different systems. A team that plays a very non-standard >(in the field) system will score far more imps, yet have a similar >imp-difference. Total imps is imp difference. How on earth can it be different? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Dec 25 14:33:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 14:33:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <41CD3069.6030807@hdw.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <41CD3069.6030807@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Eric Landau wrote: > >> That said, I see nothing in the quoted passages to suggest that >>that's the case, and nothing at all wrong with requiring an alert >>("could be a two-card suit with 4-4 in the majors"). I would assume >>(hope) that Herman's method qualifies as "in principle natural", and >>that it is that which determines which defensive methods his >>opponents are allowed to play. >> > >I too see no problems in requiring an alert, if the system is so >uncommon as to be pointed to. >My point was that considering 2-card club openings to be artificial >usually also implies that all defences are allowed, and that goes a >little too far. What do you mean, it goes too far? If you play a 2-card opening, all defences are permitted - fact. Are you trying to get away with that? Surely not. I am sure you would not do it, but to avoid alerting so that opponents do not realise they can use their pet anti-convention defence would get you disciplinary action, and usually expulsion from the tournament. It's known as cheating. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Dec 25 14:36:27 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 14:36:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <41CD2FD8.3050809@hdw.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <41CD2FD8.3050809@hdw.be> Message-ID: <8ULg5VDrrXzBFwwH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >>> >>> It has been my experience that 2-card clubs (only if 4432) should >>>not be alertable or considered conventional. There is so little >>>difference between "5-cards major, better minor" and "5-card major, >>>diamonds 4" that I play those two interchangeably and sometimes >>>arrive half way through the tournament without having agreed with >>>partner which of the two we play. Rendering one system alertable and >>>giving opponents unlimited defences against 2-card clubs and the >>>like is too big a difference and puts too much pressure on people >>>who favour 4-card diamonds. >> You are not suggesting gaining an unfair advantage, surely? That >>is not what this game is about. >> Over an artificial 1C I can play any defence I like: your method >>would be to gain an unfair advantage against someone playing a >>strange defence in this way. >> > >No David, playing 2-card club openers is NOT an unfair advantage. What >you gain in the certainty of the diamonds being 4-cards, you lose in >the certainty of the clubs not being 3-cards. >Nor is the system so extraordinary that opponents cannot cope. In >Belgium, where both types of 5-card majors are played in equal numbers, >I know of not a single pair who have a different defence against clubs >being 2 or 3. > >So when you allow "brown" defences against 2-card club openers, you >give an unfair DISadvantage to those people wishing to play 4-card >diamonds. > >To put it differently - I know of a pair who play 4-card diamonds in >Belgium, but better minor in the Netherlands, because 2-card clubs are >considered conventional there. >I don't believe they have an unfair advantage in Belgium, I do believe >they have an unfair disadvantage in the Netherlands. None of this is on point. Players have a *right* to play their special defence against 2-card club openings. Not alerting to avoid opponents knowing is disgusting and totally unacceptable. If none of their opponents play anything different it is also pointless, risking expulsion for no gain. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Sat Dec 25 16:43:26 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:43:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64B7@rama.micronas.com> <41CBF07A.1080703@hdw.be> <41CD2D9A.8020804@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41CD98AE.5050901@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>> >>>> But apart from being correct, a tie-breaking formula has to be >>>> acceptable to the average player. And Richard's method lacks in that >>> >>> Acceptable to the average player means total imps, which is >>> easily understandable, and totally fair. I should like to than the >>> country of Australia for making me realise that this is the obvious >>> tie-break method at Swiss Teams. When I returned form Australia a >>> few years back I immediately re-wrote my Swiss Teams program to show >>> VPs and IMPs, and to only show people as level if they were level on >>> both. It also uses this for assignments, and everyone who plays >>> thinks this is fair. >>> >> >> Total Imps? >> >> I should imagine the average player prefers IMP-difference. >> >> Total IMPs has one huge disadvantage: when 2 teams play one another >> and thye play the same basic system, more comparisons tend to even out >> than when they play different systems. A team that plays a very >> non-standard (in the field) system will score far more imps, yet have >> a similar imp-difference. > > > Total imps is imp difference. How on earth can it be different? > Sorry, David, but when I read the english language, I interpret total Imps as the total imps scored 180-130 is 180 total imps. (or even 310) So please don't come off high and mighty - some of us are not native english speakers, and even most native english speakers (including lots of bridgers) would interpret the phrase total imps as 180 or 310, not +50. I am glad though that we see eye-to-eye as to using imp difference (or total imps if you prefer that word). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Dec 25 16:46:23 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:46:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <41CD3069.6030807@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41CD995F.7020000@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>I too see no problems in requiring an alert, if the system is so >>uncommon as to be pointed to. >>My point was that considering 2-card club openings to be artificial >>usually also implies that all defences are allowed, and that goes a >>little too far. > > > What do you mean, it goes too far? If you play a 2-card opening, all > defences are permitted - fact. Are you trying to get away with that? > Surely not. > No, not a fact. In Belgium, it is not. 2-card clubs are considered natural in Belgium (the systems policy says so) and 'brown' defences are not allowed. There is no reason why this should be one way or the other, and I do believe you can still influence system regulations in other countries to follow the belgian example. > I am sure you would not do it, but to avoid alerting so that opponents > do not realise they can use their pet anti-convention defence would get > you disciplinary action, and usually expulsion from the tournament. > We are not talking about cheating here, we are talking about how the belgian systems policy works. The alertability and the conventialness of a bid are two different things. > It's known as cheating. > Why must you always assume the worst? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Dec 25 16:50:14 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:50:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <8ULg5VDrrXzBFwwH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <41CD2FD8.3050809@hdw.be> <8ULg5VDrrXzBFwwH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <41CD9A46.1030803@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > > None of this is on point. Players have a *right* to play their > special defence against 2-card club openings. Not alerting to avoid > opponents knowing is disgusting and totally unacceptable. If none of > their opponents play anything different it is also pointless, risking > expulsion for no gain. > No David, you have completely missed the point. Players only have a right to play special defences against 2-card club openings because the Dutch regulations permit this. There is nothing natural, world-wide or (international) laws about this. Until 2 years ago, people were not permitted to play brown defences against NTs and strong clubs in Belgium. Then we changed this. But we also changed it so that brown defences are not allowed against 2-card club openings. And I think this is a good thing. The difference between "better minor" and "4-card diamonds" is so slight, that the systems policy ought not to distinguish between these. I am sure Belgium is not alone in this matter - what about France? Are brown defences permitted against strong clubs in France? and against "carreau-par-4"? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From blml@blakjak.com Sat Dec 25 17:09:18 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:09:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <41CD98AE.5050901@hdw.be> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64B7@rama.micronas.com> <41CBF07A.1080703@hdw.be> <41CD2D9A.8020804@hdw.be> <41CD98AE.5050901@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Herman De Wael wrote >> >>> David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> But apart from being correct, a tie-breaking formula has to be >>>>>acceptable to the average player. And Richard's method lacks in that >>>> >>>> Acceptable to the average player means total imps, which is >>>>easily understandable, and totally fair. I should like to than the >>>>country of Australia for making me realise that this is the obvious >>>>tie-break method at Swiss Teams. When I returned form Australia a >>>>few years back I immediately re-wrote my Swiss Teams program to >>>>show VPs and IMPs, and to only show people as level if they were >>>>level on both. It also uses this for assignments, and everyone >>>>who plays thinks this is fair. >>>> >>> >>> Total Imps? >>> >>> I should imagine the average player prefers IMP-difference. >>> >>> Total IMPs has one huge disadvantage: when 2 teams play one another >>>and thye play the same basic system, more comparisons tend to even >>>out than when they play different systems. A team that plays a very >>>non-standard (in the field) system will score far more imps, yet have >>>a similar imp-difference. >> Total imps is imp difference. How on earth can it be different? >> > >Sorry, David, but when I read the english language, I interpret total >Imps as the total imps scored 180-130 is 180 total imps. (or even 310) > >So please don't come off high and mighty - some of us are not native >english speakers, and even most native english speakers (including lots >of bridgers) would interpret the phrase total imps as 180 or 310, not >+50. > >I am glad though that we see eye-to-eye as to using imp difference (or >total imps if you prefer that word). Even for a non-English speaker, I am amazed. After all, if you have four matches +4 -5 +3 +1 do you mean total imps would be 13? As for 180-130, that's a 50 imp score, surely? I do understand the problems with English, but supposing you are speaking in Flemish or French do you not say you won/lost a match by 50 in that language? And if you want a total surely you add 50 to whatever came before, still speaking French/Flemish? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Dec 25 17:11:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:11:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <41CD995F.7020000@hdw.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <41CD3069.6030807@hdw.be> <41CD995F.7020000@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >>> >>>I too see no problems in requiring an alert, if the system is so >>>uncommon as to be pointed to. >>>My point was that considering 2-card club openings to be artificial >>>usually also implies that all defences are allowed, and that goes a >>>little too far. >> What do you mean, it goes too far? If you play a 2-card opening, >>all >> defences are permitted - fact. Are you trying to get away with that? >> Surely not. >> > >No, not a fact. >In Belgium, it is not. >2-card clubs are considered natural in Belgium (the systems policy says >so) and 'brown' defences are not allowed. > >There is no reason why this should be one way or the other, and I do >believe you can still influence system regulations in other countries >to follow the belgian example. > >> I am sure you would not do it, but to avoid alerting so that opponents >> do not realise they can use their pet anti-convention defence would get >> you disciplinary action, and usually expulsion from the tournament. >> > >We are not talking about cheating here, we are talking about how the >belgian systems policy works. The alertability and the conventialness >of a bid are two different things. > >> It's known as cheating. >> > >Why must you always assume the worst? Because you were suggesting originally not alerting to hide the fact of what you were playing: now you are saying it does not matter, which is somewhat different. I believe in playing to the rules. I am surprised, however, that you do not allow any defence to a conventional opening, whether it is also natural or not. I had assumed this was normal everywhere. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 25 17:26:53 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:26:53 -0000 Subject: With a little help from my friends [was Re: [blml] Beware of the leopard] References: <000001c4e782$7c2b6540$4e242b52@Zog> <00e601c4e8ef$912deb70$6f9468d5@James> <003c01c4ea69$a3aebce0$c5f3f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000001c4eaa7$7d4e2d90$e108e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" So my answer on your question: 'does it need a genius' > is 'yes', and the end of the year 2004 as well. > > And if you say that I suggest to make it one time > period for the fututre laws, you didn't understand my > message: I don't suggest anything. My contribution > was to rewrite the present L71, keeping exactly the > same meaning. No parts A, B and C anymore. > > Merry X-mas to all of you. > +=+ My immediate task is to satisfy both of you - and, of course, five others as well - within the parameters last established in Istanbul. ..... all of the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but not all of the people all the time.... ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 25 19:53:06 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 20:53:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c4eabb$5a331e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > WILLIAM SCHODER .............. > Law 71. In l987 the Law was changed from the l975 one. In l997 it was > almost repeated word for word, and certainly intended the same meaning = > as l987, but the paragraphing and labeling was incorrect. Therefore, > according to some, it now means something different. Does it take=20 > genius to read both and see that they are identical in meaning but=20 > wrong in the presented order of A. B. and C with a time period=20 > specified in the prologue thereto, when it should have been A 1 and 2, > and B as in l987 with the reference to 79C only in A? Is the INTENT=20 > that there be a different time period for "any legal" as opposed to > "normal" play not evident? Did the WBFLC perhaps in their haste to > publish overlook this? Did the WBFLC, in their haste to publish an > interpretation make a further mistake? Or, shall we now segue smoothly > into a Law change where "legal" disappears and everything goes to=20 > "normal" and there is only one time period - as suggested by one = member > of the drafting committee for the laws revision? >=20 > Kojak Christ! Just as I finally felt that all confusion with Law 71 had been cleared = up, here we go again? Facts: Law 71 was indeed changed in 1997, and the subsequent minute on = this law was issued to confirm that the change was intended and precisely in which way. However the wording of that minute was not clear enough to = avoid later confusion on the way the change was to be understood. All the available authoritative comments are presently unanimous: The = part of law 71 that includes the word "legal" has no function and that = particular part of L71A can safely be deleted or ignored without changing the was = L71 shall be understood. Ton's submission with a rewritten Law 71 has the unique feature of being extremely clear and seems to cover the current official interpretation = of Law 71 precisely. And a merry Xmas (late) to everybody Sven From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sun Dec 26 08:21:21 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:21:21 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <003c01c4ea69$a3aebce0$c5f3f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Dec 2004, Ton Kooijman wrote: > We need some dots on the historical i here. What we discovered in the LC > long ago, it must have been '97 itself, was that law 71C mentioned two > different time limits for the same problem: a conceded trick that had play > progressed would not have been lost. Then we discussed in the LC how to > solve this and there was a majority, I don't think there was anyone against, > to allow the trick to go back using the 79C period. Yes that was a change, > but don't we have revisions to change things we don't like? I appreciate you clarifying what the WBFLC did. I think the "rest of us" have two main points to make, which we have made to varying degrees of effectiveness: It is strange that the desire to change the "old" 71C time period was not felt while the 1997 laws were being drafted - but that, after the rewording was discovered, suddenly everyone liked the idea of changing 71C instead of restoring the effect of the 1987 law. Some of us think that the 1987 way was better (any normal play until the next hand, but any legal play until the scores are finalized.) Indeed, I thought it was "obviously" the first half of the new 71C that was the accident, until I was told otherwise on this mailing list. And, of course - there is the small detail that the law books are still being printed with the full original 1997 wording, and the subsequent "itnerpretations" of the WBFLC remain largely unknown, at least among the rink and file of North American TDs. GRB From ljtrent@adelphia.net Sun Dec 26 22:55:48 2004 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 14:55:48 -0800 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think alerting the passes and doubles is kinda scary -- way too much UI potential Linda From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Dec 27 00:39:50 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:39:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26 Dec 2004, at 22:55, Linda Trent wrote: > I think alerting the passes and doubles is kinda scary -- way too much > UI > potential > > Linda Which ones? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 27 01:15:06 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:15:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Linda Trent wrote >I think alerting the passes and doubles is kinda scary -- way too much UI >potential First, we already alert these positions, so there is no change. Second, what does it matter? All alerting has UI potential: what is special about these positions? Third, if we do not alert them people are going to be seriously misled. If you have Kx in a suit you cue-bid and LHO passes would it actually occur to you to ask whether that *suggests* the lead of that suit? Surely not without an alert? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From bogus@does.not.exist.com Mon Dec 27 07:46:20 2004 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com (eBay) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 02:46:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Update your billing informations. Message-ID: <200412270746.iBR7kKxt026982@wicked.internal.realitychecknetwork.com>
eBay logo Home My eBay Site Map Sign In/Out Home My eBay Site Map Sign In/Out

Dear eBay User,

During our regular update and verification of the accounts, we could not verify your current information. Either your information has changed or it is incomplete.

As a result, your access to bid or buy on eBay has been restricted. To start using fully your eBay account, please update and verify your information by clicking the link below :

CLICK HERE TO VERIFY YOUR ACCOUNT

Thank you
Accounts Management

From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 27 09:17:34 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:17:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64B7@rama.micronas.com> <41CBF07A.1080703@hdw.be> <41CD2D9A.8020804@hdw.be> <41CD98AE.5050901@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41CFD32E.20205@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > > Even for a non-English speaker, I am amazed. After all, if you have > four matches +4 -5 +3 +1 do you mean total imps would be 13? > > As for 180-130, that's a 50 imp score, surely? > > I do understand the problems with English, but supposing you are > speaking in Flemish or French do you not say you won/lost a match by 50 > in that language? And if you want a total surely you add 50 to whatever > came before, still speaking French/Flemish? > David, don't fall into the trap of thinking that anything you perceive as natural is also natural to people who live a mere 200 km down the road. In Belgium, we would never speak of +4, -5 and the like. People would speak of 18-14 and 19-24. The total imps would be 37-38, not -1. And yes, we would say IMPverschil. (IMP difference). Me too, I was surprised to hear that IMP total would be used in English for -1. So we've both learnt something. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 27 09:21:59 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:21:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <41CD3069.6030807@hdw.be> <41CD995F.7020000@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41CFD437.7010802@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> It's known as cheating. >>> >> >> Why must you always assume the worst? > > > Because you were suggesting originally not alerting to hide the fact > of what you were playing: now you are saying it does not matter, which > is somewhat different. I believe in playing to the rules. > No David, I was suggesting the EBU follow the BBF example of not having 2-card club openings (if 4432) be alertable. After all, you were posting proposed regulations for 2006, were you not? I would not drean of not alerting my 1Cl opener in Holland, although I would probably not play my same system there. Nor would I dream of alerting that same 1Cl opener in Belgium; the regulations are different after all! > I am surprised, however, that you do not allow any defence to a > conventional opening, whether it is also natural or not. I had assumed > this was normal everywhere. > Yes, we do allow (now - not before 2003) all defences against conventional openings, but we do not consider this a conventional opening. So again your assumption was wrong. And in this case you have no excuse. I have told you how our regulations work, and you have climbed on your high horse and assumed that Belgian regulations are not as I explained them. David, I wrote them! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 23 11:05:28 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:05:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the painted jaguar References: Message-ID: <000d01c4ebfc$7946b720$a2a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the painted jaguar . > > Forcing raw beginners to sink or swim > on a level playing field < +=+ "Your land never pleads for showers, nor does its parched grass pray to Jupiter the Rain-giver". +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 27 10:52:54 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:52:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <41CD3069.6030807@hdw.be> <41CD995F.7020000@hdw.be> <41CFD437.7010802@hdw.be> Message-ID: <010901c4ec06$d31cdea0$a2a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Drill: to make a monkey of you." ~ Wry definitions ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting in England > > Yes, we do allow (now - not before 2003) all > defences against conventional openings, but we > do not consider this a conventional opening. > So again your assumption was wrong. < +=+ Whilst I have no interest at all in what you choose to regulate for alerts, I am opposed to any suggestion that you can overturn the law book on what is or is not conventional. So I presume you deem a two-card club opener to be a suit in which you are willing to play? ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 27 11:24:15 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:24:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appeals booklets References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C549@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <010b01c4ec06$d4dd0530$a2a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "To drill: to make a monkey of you." ~ Wry definitions ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: Cc: "'David Stevenson'" Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 5:29 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Appeals booklets > Considering the mauling that some appeals got in > last year's booklets, whether or not there was a > (properly completed) form, it is perhaps not surprising > that the records of some appeals might have gone > astray. > +=+ And, of course, if they go around drilling holes in people's heads we are not surprised if the victims do not get around to completing all they had in hand. +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 27 11:23:00 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:23:00 -0000 Subject: SV: [blml] Played card? References: Message-ID: <010a01c4ec06$d3ff4f60$a2a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "I don't like the family Stein! There is Gert, there is Ep, there is Ein. Gert's writings are punk, Ep's statues are junk, Nor can anyone understand Ein." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:17 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Played card? > > > Does the world agree on such rulings or are there > > national variants? > +=+ I suspect it would not be difficult in the case cited to find directors of the same nationality who ruled diversely. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 27 11:48:31 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:48:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <010901c4ec06$d31cdea0$a2a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <41CD3069.6030807@hdw.be> <41CD995F.7020000@hdw.be> <41CFD437.7010802@hdw.be> <010901c4ec06$d31cdea0$a2a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <41CFF68F.3080603@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > < > +=+ Whilst I have no interest at all in what you > choose to regulate for alerts, I am opposed to > any suggestion that you can overturn the law > book on what is or is not conventional. So I > presume you deem a two-card club opener to > be a suit in which you are willing to play? > ~ G ~ +=+ > Considering that the opening is non-forcing, yes! With 12 opposite 2 HCP I don't mind playing in a 2-2 fit, undoubled. But your point is moot, Grattan. Nowhere in any internationally binding regulation or law does it state that all defences are allowed against conventional openings. This has become practice, yes, and Belgian regulations have aligned with that practice, yes, but there is no mention anywhere in that this practice must per force use the same definition for 'convention' as the law book says. In fact, both in Belgian and in Dutch regulations, the question of the 4432-1 club opening is specifically addressed, and neither of us relies on the very hazy wording of the laws. The fact that we choose different solutions for that particular question is not important here. May I return once more to my point? Considering that "better minor" and "4-card diamonds" are so alike, don't you find it strange that system regulations would treat them so differently as to effectively abolish one system rather than another? IMO, Dutch style regulations mean that if you want to play 5-card majors, you should do so with better minor. That stifles experimentation. I see no reason why the 1Cl opening is so "strange" or "advantageous" that one would wish to treat it as harshly as a Polish or a Precision club. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 27 12:47:42 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 07:47:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041227074119.02b8c870@pop.starpower.net> At 02:52 PM 12/24/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >>At 07:53 AM 12/24/04, David wrote: >> >>>Herman De Wael wrote >>>> >>>>>>1.3.3 Potentially short minor-suit openings >>>>>>Not alertable (because not unexpected) if in principle natural, >>>>>>but may be made on three cards in the suit, but not fewer. >>>>>> >>>>>>Alertable (because potentially unexpected) if in principle >>>>>>natural, but may be made on fewer than three cards in the suit. >>>> >>>>It has been my experience that 2-card clubs (only if 4432) should >>>>not be alertable or considered conventional. There is so little >>>>difference between "5-cards major, better minor" and "5-card major, >>>>diamonds 4" that I play those two interchangeably and sometimes >>>>arrive half way through the tournament without having agreed with >>>>partner which of the two we play. Rendering one system alertable >>>>and giving opponents unlimited defences against 2-card clubs and >>>>the like is too big a difference and puts too much pressure on >>>>people who favour 4-card diamonds. >>> >>> You are not suggesting gaining an unfair advantage, surely? That >>> is not what this game is about. >>> >>> Over an artificial 1C I can play any defence I like: your method >>> would be to gain an unfair advantage against someone playing a >>> strange defence in this way. >> >>Herman makes a very good case, if indeed defenses are at issue. >>Systems that differ only in whether they open 1C or 1D with 4-4-3-2 >>patterns are essentially the same, while those that open two-card >>club suits with that pattern only differ greatly from systems that >>open 1C artificially. Allowing a wider range of defensive methods >>against Herman's 1C than against a "standard" 1C, under a rule >>intended to apply to defenses against artificial openings, would be >>put him at a disadvantage closer to "unfair" than the disadvantage to >>his opponents of not allowing them. > > Sorry, Eric, you are out of step with the world here. If you want > to play a system including conventional 1-level opening bids, feel > free: but you cannot say it is not conventional because the occasion > when it is conventional is rare. It is like pregnant: either it is > conventional, or it isn't. > > This is one of the very rare positions where nearly every authority > has the same rule - including the ACBL - if it is conventional there > is great freedom in defence to it. Nothing David says is wrong, but ISTM that this particular agreement is not to be regarded as conventional. The cited rule specifically addresses 1C calls that are "in principle natural, but may be made on fewer that three cards in the suit". It says only that they are "alertable"; it does not say they are "conventional". Surely if a 1C bid on a two-card suit can ever be "in principle natural" it is (perhaps only) Herman's 1C opening that qualifies. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 27 13:01:04 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:01:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <41CD3069.6030807@hdw.be> <41CD995F.7020000@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041227075702.02b7b030@pop.starpower.net> At 12:11 PM 12/25/04, David wrote: > I am surprised, however, that you do not allow any defence to a > conventional opening, whether it is also natural or not. I had > assumed this was normal everywhere. No wonder we're confused about what it is we're discussing. Are there really regulations that cover "a conventional opening, whether it is also natural or not"? Is there really such a thing as "a convnentional opening [which] is also natural"? Don't our laws and regulations use "conventional" and "natural" as mutually exclusive terms? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 27 13:58:52 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 13:58:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <41CFD32E.20205@hdw.be> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64B7@rama.micronas.com> <41CBF07A.1080703@hdw.be> <41CD2D9A.8020804@hdw.be> <41CD98AE.5050901@hdw.be> <41CFD32E.20205@hdw.be> Message-ID: <0yBCQLAcUB0BFwL8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> Even for a non-English speaker, I am amazed. After all, if you >>have four matches +4 -5 +3 +1 do you mean total imps would be 13? >> As for 180-130, that's a 50 imp score, surely? >> I do understand the problems with English, but supposing you are >>speaking in Flemish or French do you not say you won/lost a match by >>50 in that language? And if you want a total surely you add 50 to >>whatever came before, still speaking French/Flemish? >> > >David, don't fall into the trap of thinking that anything you perceive >as natural is also natural to people who live a mere 200 km down the >road. >In Belgium, we would never speak of +4, -5 and the like. People would >speak of 18-14 and 19-24. The total imps would be 37-38, not -1. >And yes, we would say IMPverschil. (IMP difference). > >Me too, I was surprised to hear that IMP total would be used in English >for -1. > >So we've both learnt something. No-one would use imp total for -1, but for the total of a number of results. So tell me, after you have played six matches, would say your "imp total" was 178-172? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 27 14:02:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:02:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041227074119.02b8c870@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041227074119.02b8c870@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <9SfA4gAmXB0BFwoL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Eric Landau wrote >At 02:52 PM 12/24/04, David wrote: >> Sorry, Eric, you are out of step with the world here. If you want >>to play a system including conventional 1-level opening bids, feel >>free: but you cannot say it is not conventional because the occasion >>when it is conventional is rare. It is like pregnant: either it is >>conventional, or it isn't. >> >> This is one of the very rare positions where nearly every authority >>has the same rule - including the ACBL - if it is conventional there >>is great freedom in defence to it. >Nothing David says is wrong, but ISTM that this particular agreement is >not to be regarded as conventional. The cited rule specifically >addresses 1C calls that are "in principle natural, but may be made on >fewer that three cards in the suit". It says only that they are >"alertable"; it does not say they are "conventional". Surely if a 1C >bid on a two-card suit can ever be "in principle natural" it is >(perhaps only) Herman's 1C opening that qualifies. A 1C opening that may be on a doubleton *is* conventional: read the Law book. Whether it is natural, in principle natural - whatever that means - or anything else is a matter for regulation. It seems to me that you are assuming that natural is the opposite of conventional, but there is no reason to suppose that. However, I did believe that most if not all authorities allowed any defence to conventional openings at the one-level. Apparently 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 Mon Dec 27 14:04:33 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:04:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <41CFD437.7010802@hdw.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <41CD3069.6030807@hdw.be> <41CD995F.7020000@hdw.be> <41CFD437.7010802@hdw.be> Message-ID: <1iaCk5AxZB0BFwqf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >>> >>>> It's known as cheating. >>>> >>> >>> Why must you always assume the worst? >> Because you were suggesting originally not alerting to hide the >>fact of what you were playing: now you are saying it does not matter, >>which is somewhat different. I believe in playing to the rules. >> > >No David, I was suggesting the EBU follow the BBF example of not having >2-card club openings (if 4432) be alertable. After all, you were >posting proposed regulations for 2006, were you not? >I would not drean of not alerting my 1Cl opener in Holland, although I >would probably not play my same system there. >Nor would I dream of alerting that same 1Cl opener in Belgium; the >regulations are different after all! > >> I am surprised, however, that you do not allow any defence to a >>conventional opening, whether it is also natural or not. I had >>assumed this was normal everywhere. >> > >Yes, we do allow (now - not before 2003) all defences against >conventional openings, but we do not consider this a conventional >opening. >So again your assumption was wrong. >And in this case you have no excuse. I have told you how our >regulations work, and you have climbed on your high horse and assumed >that Belgian regulations are not as I explained them. David, I wrote >them! Perhaps it is time you re-wrote them, then, using not natural instead of conventional. A 1C opening that may be on a doubleton is conventional. Since that is a matter of Law it may not be changed by regulation. Apparently Belgium does not allow any defence to a conventional opening. No wonder I am confused if they say they do. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 27 14:07:18 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:07:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <41CFF68F.3080603@hdw.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <41CD3069.6030807@hdw.be> <41CD995F.7020000@hdw.be> <41CFD437.7010802@hdw.be> <010901c4ec06$d31cdea0$a2a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41CFF68F.3080603@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> < >> +=+ Whilst I have no interest at all in what you choose to regulate >>for alerts, I am opposed to >> any suggestion that you can overturn the law >> book on what is or is not conventional. So I >> presume you deem a two-card club opener to >> be a suit in which you are willing to play? >> ~ G ~ +=+ >> > >Considering that the opening is non-forcing, yes! >With 12 opposite 2 HCP I don't mind playing in a 2-2 fit, undoubled. > >But your point is moot, Grattan. >Nowhere in any internationally binding regulation or law does it state >that all defences are allowed against conventional openings. Nowhere. And now we know that Belgium doe snot follow the international practice on this. Sorry: I presumed they did. >This has become practice, yes, and Belgian regulations have aligned >with that practice, yes, but there is no mention anywhere in that this >practice must per force use the same definition for 'convention' as the >law book says. You cannot overturn the Law book. >In fact, both in Belgian and in Dutch regulations, the question of the >4432-1 club opening is specifically addressed, and neither of us relies >on the very hazy wording of the laws. The fact that we choose different >solutions for that particular question is not important here. > >May I return once more to my point? > >Considering that "better minor" and "4-card diamonds" are so alike, >don't you find it strange that system regulations would treat them so >differently as to effectively abolish one system rather than another? > >IMO, Dutch style regulations mean that if you want to play 5-card >majors, you should do so with better minor. That stifles >experimentation. I see no reason why the 1Cl opening is so "strange" or >"advantageous" that one would wish to treat it as harshly as a Polish >or a Precision club. OK, so you do not want to follow international rules here. Fine. But in England we do, we allow any defence to conventional openings, so we think not alerting a conventional opening is not fair on opponents who may be taking advantage of this rule. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 27 14:08:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:08:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041227075702.02b7b030@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <41CD3069.6030807@hdw.be> <41CD995F.7020000@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041227075702.02b7b030@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 12:11 PM 12/25/04, David wrote: > >> I am surprised, however, that you do not allow any defence to a >>conventional opening, whether it is also natural or not. I had >>assumed this was normal everywhere. > >No wonder we're confused about what it is we're discussing. Are there >really regulations that cover "a conventional opening, whether it is >also natural or not"? Is there really such a thing as "a convnentional >opening [which] is also natural"? Don't our laws and regulations use >"conventional" and "natural" as mutually exclusive terms? The Laws certainly do not. The English regulations certainly do not. I am pretty sure - though I stand to be corrected - that the ACBL regulations do not. Why should they? Conventional does not mean non-natural! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 27 15:50:36 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:50:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <0yBCQLAcUB0BFwL8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64B7@rama.micronas.com> <41CBF07A.1080703@hdw.be> <41CD2D9A.8020804@hdw.be> <41CD98AE.5050901@hdw.be> <41CFD32E.20205@hdw.be> <0yBCQLAcUB0BFwL8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <41D02F4C.6050708@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Even for a non-English speaker, I am amazed. After all, if you >>> have four matches +4 -5 +3 +1 do you mean total imps would be 13? >>> As for 180-130, that's a 50 imp score, surely? >>> I do understand the problems with English, but supposing you are >>> speaking in Flemish or French do you not say you won/lost a match by >>> 50 in that language? And if you want a total surely you add 50 to >>> whatever came before, still speaking French/Flemish? >>> >> >> David, don't fall into the trap of thinking that anything you perceive >> as natural is also natural to people who live a mere 200 km down the >> road. >> In Belgium, we would never speak of +4, -5 and the like. People would >> speak of 18-14 and 19-24. The total imps would be 37-38, not -1. >> And yes, we would say IMPverschil. (IMP difference). >> >> Me too, I was surprised to hear that IMP total would be used in >> English for -1. >> >> So we've both learnt something. > > > No-one would use imp total for -1, but for the total of a number of > results. > > So tell me, after you have played six matches, would say your "imp > total" was 178-172? > Well, no-one would actually say this, but I'm sure if I would ask a team for their total imps - they would look at me strangely and then reply either 178 or 350. Just the way it's said locally. I would ask them for their IMPverschil and they'd answer +6. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 27 16:01:06 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:01:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <41CD3069.6030807@hdw.be> <41CD995F.7020000@hdw.be> <41CFD437.7010802@hdw.be> <010901c4ec06$d31cdea0$a2a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41CFF68F.3080603@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41D031C2.70208@hdw.be> Again David, you are missing the point completely. You are talking about regulations that would enter in force on 1/1/2006. Surely you would be allowed to discuss those regulations, yes? OK, so we are asking the question, would we allow 'brown' defences over a system in which 1Cl can be made on 4432. Your answer seems to be that: -such an opening, cfr the lawbook, is a convention (only because the lawbook adds (minimum 3 cards) in parenthesis, no other reason qualifies. -it is a rule written in stone that all defences are allowed against conventional openings -therefor, brown defences must be allowed against this system. I guess my wording already shows you where I believe you are wrong. Surely a better idea would be to go back to the reasons for this rule: -we believe that, in principle, 'brown' defences are to be banned -we admit however that, against 'strong' clubs, where no suits are known from the opener, some more leniency must be given, and 'brown' defences can be allowed And then we ask ourselves: do we need to punish people who play basically natural openings with the burden of having to face brown defences? That should be the question, not whether or not this opening is conventional! And then I give you one more argument: "better minor" is a system against which 'brown' defences are not permitted - should we make that big a distinction with "diamonds four"? Look at this from a bridge point of view, not from an overly legalistic one, and you'll see that there is no reason to allow brown defences against 1 club openings that can be from a 4432. David Stevenson wrote: > > OK, so you do not want to follow international rules here. Fine. But > in England we do, we allow any defence to conventional openings, so we > think not alerting a conventional opening is not fair on opponents who > may be taking advantage of this rule. > There is no link between this and an alert procedure. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 27 16:05:00 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:05:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20041227153936.011dcbe8@mail.chello.nl> References: <3.0.5.32.20041225105852.011d1e70@mail.chello.nl> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <3.0.5.32.20041225105852.011d1e70@mail.chello.nl> <3.0.5.32.20041227153936.011dcbe8@mail.chello.nl> Message-ID: <41D032AC.3010706@hdw.be> Anton Witzen wrote: >> >>which advantage? > > > hi, > i mean the advantage for the opponents of course. > i agree with the belgean ruling that a 2cd+ club opening shouldnt be > treated as conventional :) > i have seldom seen opponents here in holland that use bsc aganst this kind > of opening > regards, > anton > Yet I am certain there are those that do. I am convinced that there are sharks out there that use bsc against strong clubs, and who, once they discover that they are also allowed to use those bsc against 2-card clubs, will start doing so. Which will leave an innocent player who has just switched from acol to 5-card majors, 4-card diamonds (the natural progression, btw!!!) flabbergasted! And you will have to tell them that if they switch to better minor, they will not have to deal sith such sharks, because then their methods will be outlawed! Crazy! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Dec 27 16:54:46 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:54:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <41D032AC.3010706@hdw.be> References: <3.0.5.32.20041225105852.011d1e70@mail.chello.nl> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <3.0.5.32.20041225105852.011d1e70@mail.chello.nl> <3.0.5.32.20041227153936.011dcbe8@mail.chello.nl> <41D032AC.3010706@hdw.be> Message-ID: <03C3F61F-5828-11D9-B50C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 27 Dec 2004, at 16:05, Herman De Wael wrote: > I am convinced that there are sharks out there that use bsc against > strong clubs, Why should they be considered sharks for doing as they are allowed? > and who, once they discover that they are also allowed to use those > bsc against 2-card clubs, will start doing so. I can't say I've noticed many employing BSC defences against 2-card clubs here, although they are allowed to. It wouldn't bother me if my opponents chose to do so though, and it wouldn't discourage me from playing my system. And if it did discourage others from playing their system, that wouldn't be a sufficient argument against allowing the defences. > Which will leave an innocent player who has just switched from acol to > 5-card majors, 4-card diamonds (the natural progression, btw!!!) > flabbergasted! Natural progression - how? Flabbergasted - why? > And you will have to tell them that if they switch to better minor, > they will not have to deal sith such sharks, because then their > methods will be outlawed! > Crazy! Such emotive language makes it hard to have a sensible discussion. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From john@asimere.com Mon Dec 27 16:57:47 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:57:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041227075702.02b7b030@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <41CD3069.6030807@hdw.be> <41CD995F.7020000@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041227075702.02b7b030@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In article <6.1.1.1.0.20041227075702.02b7b030@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 12:11 PM 12/25/04, David wrote: > >> I am surprised, however, that you do not allow any defence to a >> conventional opening, whether it is also natural or not. I had >> assumed this was normal everywhere. > >No wonder we're confused about what it is we're discussing. Are there >really regulations that cover "a conventional opening, whether it is >also natural or not"? Is there really such a thing as "a convnentional >opening [which] is also natural"? Don't our laws and regulations use >"conventional" and "natural" as mutually exclusive terms? I've said it before: "I find it remarkable that there exists a nation that can land men on the moon which also believes that the best way to show a balanced 19 count is to open the small doubleton". Of course 1C on 2 cards is conventional. That it is approach forcing is also true but it does not in any degree represent the salient features of the hand (balanced) majors held etc etc. Now if you aver that 1C is technically advantageous for this sort of hand then you can accept I may wish to disrupt your methods, (and will). cheers John > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Mon Dec 27 16:59:52 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:59:52 +0000 Subject: SV: [blml] Played card? In-Reply-To: <010a01c4ec06$d3ff4f60$a2a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <010a01c4ec06$d3ff4f60$a2a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article <010a01c4ec06$d3ff4f60$a2a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >**************************** >"I don't like the family Stein! >There is Gert, there is Ep, > there is Ein. >Gert's writings are punk, >Ep's statues are junk, >Nor can anyone understand Ein." > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Gordon Bower" >Cc: "BLML" >Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:17 PM >Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Played card? > > >> >> > Does the world agree on such rulings or are there >> > national variants? >> >+=+ I suspect it would not be difficult in the case >cited to find directors of the same nationality who >ruled diversely. ~ G ~ +=+ I think in a blml context that is true. I think at the table EBU TDs would rule the same. We're pretty clear, all of us, when a card has been played by declarer. > > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 27 18:27:29 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:27:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <41D031C2.70208@hdw.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <41CD3069.6030807@hdw.be> <41CD995F.7020000@hdw.be> <41CFD437.7010802@hdw.be> <010901c4ec06$d31cdea0$a2a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41CFF68F.3080603@hdw.be> <41D031C2.70208@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >There is no link between this and an alert procedure. This thread was about alerting. I never realised you were talking about something different until your last post - to which I have no intention of replying. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 27 20:01:01 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:01:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <03C3F61F-5828-11D9-B50C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <3.0.5.32.20041225105852.011d1e70@mail.chello.nl> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <3.0.5.32.20041225105852.011d1e70@mail.chello.nl> <3.0.5.32.20041227153936.011dcbe8@mail.chello.nl> <41D032AC.3010706@hdw.be> <03C3F61F-5828-11D9-B50C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <41D069FD.7060106@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 27 Dec 2004, at 16:05, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I am convinced that there are sharks out there that use bsc against >> strong clubs, > > > Why should they be considered sharks for doing as they are allowed? > Because I believe this should not be allowed. And because I fail to see why one should choose to use methods that are disruptive, unless to disrupt. >> and who, once they discover that they are also allowed to use those >> bsc against 2-card clubs, will start doing so. > > > I can't say I've noticed many employing BSC defences against 2-card > clubs here, although they are allowed to. It wouldn't bother me if my > opponents chose to do so though, and it wouldn't discourage me from > playing my system. And if it did discourage others from playing their > system, that wouldn't be a sufficient argument against allowing the > defences. > You may not be discouraged, others might. >> Which will leave an innocent player who has just switched from acol to >> 5-card majors, 4-card diamonds (the natural progression, btw!!!) >> flabbergasted! > > > Natural progression - how? Because Dutch and Flemish players start off using acol, and they switch to 5-card spades first, and to 5-cards hearts next. Keeping the 4-card diamonds and getting to 3-card, then 2-card clubs in a natural progression. > Flabbergasted - why? > Because they are faced with systems that don't show any suit named. Which is precisely why those defensive methods are prohibited in the first place - well, against 3-card club openings they are. >> And you will have to tell them that if they switch to better minor, >> they will not have to deal sith such sharks, because then their >> methods will be outlawed! >> Crazy! > > > Such emotive language makes it hard to have a sensible discussion. > I know - but this is an emotive discussion, not a sensible one. My point is simply that there is too little actual difference between two systems that it seems strange to me to create an artificial difference. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From rwilley@sloan.mit.edu Mon Dec 27 20:22:17 2004 From: rwilley@sloan.mit.edu (richard willey) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:22:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <41D069FD.7060106@hdw.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <3.0.5.32.20041225105852.011d1e70@mail.chello.nl> <3.0.5.32.20041227153936.011dcbe8@mail.chello.nl> <41D032AC.3010706@hdw.be> <03C3F61F-5828-11D9-B50C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <41D069FD.7060106@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e04122712222a55e620@mail.gmail.com> Just out of curiousity, I'd be curious how far you would be willing to extend this argument... Why should players be allowed to use destructive methods over my Conventional Strong club but not over your conventional short club? >From my perspective, methods are methods. I'm perfectly happy if BSC's they are allowed - either as an overcall structure or an opening preemptive structure. Equivalently, I can accept that this class of methods should be banned at cerrain levels of play. However, it seems perverse to suggest that some players need to devise defenses to these methods while others deserve protection. The ACBL: Making the world safe for bad bridge! > Because I believe this should not be allowed. > And because I fail to see why one should choose to use methods that > are disruptive, unless to disrupt. > > >> and who, once they discover that they are also allowed to use those > >> bsc against 2-card clubs, will start doing so. > > > > > > I can't say I've noticed many employing BSC defences against 2-card > > clubs here, although they are allowed to. It wouldn't bother me if my > > opponents chose to do so though, and it wouldn't discourage me from > > playing my system. And if it did discourage others from playing their > > system, that wouldn't be a sufficient argument against allowing the > > defences. From steve@nhcc.net Mon Dec 27 21:06:01 2004 From: steve@nhcc.net (steve@nhcc.net) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:06:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <200412222251.iBMMpMO1022264@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200412222251.iBMMpMO1022264@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <1104181561.41d07939d7bb7@209.161.31.194> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > In my opinion, the third-best method of breaking a tie in a Swiss > teams is to sum the victory points of the opponents a team has > faced. Unfortunately, unless this method is modified, anomalies > are created when a team randomly meets an opponent who is very > weak instead of an opponent who is merely somewhat weak. I have suggested before that Swiss scoring -- never mind tie breaks -- should take into account the strength of opponents a team has met. One method is to add to the raw VP scores some fraction of the opponents' scores other than in the head to head match. The exact value of "some fraction" is open to debate, but I believe 0.5 is probably close to the mark. The fraction 1.0 as Richard suggests is too high, but the usual fraction 0.0 is too low. As Richard says, it enables the "Swiss gambit." This has nothing to do with tie breaking, of course, except indirectly. The "mathematically correct" way to solve the Swiss scoring problem would be to solve coupled linear equations to find the "best fit rating" of every team. Nothing wrong with this except that it is utterly opaque to the players. (Also to most directors, but it would be simple to write a computer program to do it.) The method does have the nice property that dumping is not advisable. Considering only the tie-break problem, Richard's suggestion of giving extra weight to early matches is a poor substitute for systematic consideration of opponents' strengths. What is wrong with just using the head to head result? Steve Willner, sending from a temporary email address use swillner@cfa.harvard.edu to reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From steve@nhcc.net Mon Dec 27 21:13:26 2004 From: steve@nhcc.net (steve@nhcc.net) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:13:26 -0700 Subject: [blml] Played card? In-Reply-To: <200412212327.iBLNR75q001725@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200412212327.iBLNR75q001725@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <1104182006.41d07af67a7e2@209.161.31.194> > From: "GUTHRIE" > Agreed facts: ... > 3. At trick two, declarer took a card from the fan in his > left hand, holding it firmly between the thumb and > forefinger of his right hand, and swept it in a smooth > circular arc, never stationary, face up, before returning it > whence it came. ... > 6. Declarer said "Oh! I don't want to play that" and started > to play a different card. When was this statement made? During the motion or after the card was returned to declarer's hand? > Table 1. The card was swept within three inches of the table > but did not touch it. > > Table 2. The back of the card contacted and brushed the > surface of the table for about half a second. Is that last consistent with "never stationary?" Do you mean the card was brushed in a continuous motion along the table? If so, the ruling at the two tables should be the same, whatever it is. As others have said, the key to the ruling is whether "held" means "held stationary" or "held rather than dropped." I don't think there is any clear answer from the Laws text alone, but one might hope that TD training in any jurisdiction would be consistent. Steve Willner, posting from a temporary email address Use swillner@cfa.harvard.edu to reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From steve@nhcc.net Mon Dec 27 21:21:20 2004 From: steve@nhcc.net (steve@nhcc.net) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:21:20 -0700 Subject: [blml] Irrational (was Claim at Riviera) In-Reply-To: <200412202239.iBKMdjKA007816@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200412202239.iBKMdjKA007816@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <1104182480.41d07cd0d52ca@209.161.31.194> > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" [in regard to history of claim laws and their changes] > Any chance that we might substitute "understanding" for the word "clarity" > and put the shoe on your foot? No doubt possible. All I know is what I read in various editions of TFLB and what people post on BLML. (Well, to be fair, I have also read many commentaries and of course the posted LC minutes.) For this subject, Grattan's posts on the LC intention are the ones I remember. > Some of us lesser mortals had no problem > understanding the old way, and I for one have never stopped objecting to the > new way. The trouble with this is that I am not sure what you mean by "old way" and "new way." If you mean that "class of player" should not matter in judging a claim, we are in agreement about what we would prefer. Unfortunately (at least from my point of view), that seems not to be the current state of things. Steve Willner, posting from a temporary email address Use swillner@cfa.harvard.edu to reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 27 22:37:00 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:37:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <9SfA4gAmXB0BFwoL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041227074119.02b8c870@pop.starpower.net> <9SfA4gAmXB0BFwoL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041227165500.02b8c410@pop.starpower.net> At 09:02 AM 12/27/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >>At 02:52 PM 12/24/04, David wrote: > >>> Sorry, Eric, you are out of step with the world here. If you >>> want to play a system including conventional 1-level opening bids, >>> feel free: but you cannot say it is not conventional because the >>> occasion when it is conventional is rare. It is like pregnant: >>> either it is conventional, or it isn't. >>> >>> This is one of the very rare positions where nearly every >>> authority has the same rule - including the ACBL - if it is >>> conventional there is great freedom in defence to it. > >>Nothing David says is wrong, but ISTM that this particular agreement >>is not to be regarded as conventional. The cited rule specifically >>addresses 1C calls that are "in principle natural, but may be made on >>fewer that three cards in the suit". It says only that they are >>"alertable"; it does not say they are "conventional". Surely if a 1C >>bid on a two-card suit can ever be "in principle natural" it is >>(perhaps only) Herman's 1C opening that qualifies. > > A 1C opening that may be on a doubleton *is* conventional: read the > Law book. My lawbook says that a bid is not conventional if it shows "willingness to play in the denomination named". I have no trouble classifying the usual "better minor" 1C opening as non-conventional on that basis, without reference to the "strength or length" clause (which contains the "three cards or more" requirement. If Herman's methods call for passing a possibly-two-card 1C opening with all of the hands that would pass a "better minor" at-least-three-card 1C opening, it must show the same "willingness to play". > Whether it is natural, in principle natural - whatever that means - > or anything else is a matter for regulation. It seems to me that you > are assuming that natural is the opposite of conventional, but there > is no reason to suppose that. What I said I was assuming was that "natural" and "conventional" are mutually exclusive. That is not the same as "opposite". The opposite of "natural" is "not natural" and the opposite of "conventional" is "not conventional". In my view, a bid can be both "not natural" and "not conventional", but not neither. > However, I did believe that most if not all authorities allowed any > defence to conventional openings at the one-level. Apparently not. I believe the ACBL allows any defense to "artificial" openings at the one-level. Herman's 1C opening is not considered "artificial", however, notwithstanding that it may be (irrelevantly) considered "conventional". It is definitely alertable (as are many non-artificial calls), but does not provide license to the opponents to use any defenses that they would not have available over the usual "better minor" variant. I suspect the reason the ACBL uses the term "artificial" is specifically to avoid running into TFLB's definition of "conventional", which would constrain their ability to determine when various regulations or policies would apply. It's their word, so it can mean whatever they like. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 27 22:52:06 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:52:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England References: <3.0.5.32.20041225105852.011d1e70@mail.chello.nl> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <3.0.5.32.20041225105852.011d1e70@mail.chello.nl> <3.0.5.32.20041227153936.011dcbe8@mail.chello.nl> <41D032AC.3010706@hdw.be> <03C3F61F-5828-11D9-B50C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <41D069FD.7060106@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000901c4ec66$d3a287c0$439287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "I don't like the family Stein! There is Gert, there is Ep, there is Ein. Gert's writings are punk, Ep's statues are junk, Nor can anyone understand Ein." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting in England > >> and who, once they discover that they are > >> also allowed to use those bsc against 2-card > >> clubs, will start doing so. > > +=+ The argument seems circular. They are able to use the defence not because the opener is, by Law, conventional but because the regulations permit the defence to be used when they could forbid it. ~ Grattan ~ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 27 23:16:01 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:16:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041227074119.02b8c870@pop.starpower.net> <9SfA4gAmXB0BFwoL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.1.1.1.0.20041227165500.02b8c410@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005701c4ec6b$27bdc320$439287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "All things are artificial, for nature is the art of God. " - Sir Thomas Browne. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 10:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting in England > > I suspect the reason the ACBL uses the term > "artificial" is specifically to avoid running into > TFLB's definition of "conventional", which > would constrain their ability to determine > when various regulations or policies would > apply. It's their word, so it can mean > whatever they like. > +=+ Not exclusively theirs. The EBL uses it in its alerting regulations (in which the word 'conventional' does not appear.). I have not seen a bridge definition for it that I recall and the dictionary definition has its problems. (By one authority we need to know who is God). ~ G ~ +=+ From rassilka.com Mon Dec 27 23:11:21 2004 From: rassilka.com (rassilka.com) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:11:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] OEM Message-ID: <20041227232742.6E5591D4@rhubarb.custard.org>

OEM=20 Software Most popular

http://rkacmv.abc-soft.info/?lkndnwz44= 0zpjfsor

http://oupeox.altsoft.info/?pcpvfbz440= zidxclp

http://gqxehj.wise-sol.info/?demhokz44= 0zcuwguw

http://kcfeca.wisesoft.info/?bptpeqz44= 0zrpkemc

=D3=C1=D9=CF=D1=CB =D4=CC=D9=D9=D3=CC=CE=C5 =D3=D2= =D7=C4 =C1=CB=C7=CE=C1=CF =D5=C1=D0=C5=D3=CF=CC=C5=CC=CE=D5 =C9=D6=CF=D8=CC= =D1=D3=D1=D2=CE =CF=C7=C5=C9=D2=C5=D1 =CD=CF=D9=D4 =CF=C4=D5=D3 =C1=D8=CF= =CC=D9=C2=CF=D0 =CC=C5=D9=CE =CF=C0=C9=C1 =CC=C9=DA=C1=C4=CC

=00 From wxevmd@worldpassage.net Tue Dec 28 07:43:02 2004 From: wxevmd@worldpassage.net (Katherine Soto) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:43:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Legit SOftware at a tenth of the prce Message-ID: <297738921419.VRU70965@mobile.worldsite.net> Legit sOftware at a tenth of the pr!ce W1nd0ws X,P PrOfessional + 0ffice X'P Professional for as low as 8o$ get info: http://commentator.cheapsoftshop.com/ The offer is valid till january 22th stock is limited see you soon Willard Benavides Quivermaker Sunrise Toothbrush Company Limited, 225100, China Phone: 534-466-3671 Mobile: 521-977-4444 Email: wxevmd@worldpassage.net This message is being sent to confirm your account. Please do not reply directly to this message This shareware is a 3[2 From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 28 08:09:00 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:09:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041227165500.02b8c410@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041227074119.02b8c870@pop.starpower.net> <9SfA4gAmXB0BFwoL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.1.1.1.0.20041227165500.02b8c410@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <41D1149C.9060107@hdw.be> Exactly, thank you, Eric, Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:02 AM 12/27/04, David wrote: > >> >> A 1C opening that may be on a doubleton *is* conventional: read the >> Law book. > > > My lawbook says that a bid is not conventional if it shows "willingness > to play in the denomination named". I have no trouble classifying the > usual "better minor" 1C opening as non-conventional on that basis, > without reference to the "strength or length" clause (which contains the > "three cards or more" requirement. If Herman's methods call for passing > a possibly-two-card 1C opening with all of the hands that would pass a > "better minor" at-least-three-card 1C opening, it must show the same > "willingness to play". > Thank you, Eric. I had assumed David and Grattan knew what they were talking of in classing my 1Cl opening as conventional in the lawbook. It is not. Not that this is in any way important - since I have always maintained that an SO can regulate how it wants. On another note, I have been browsing through French regulations. I could not find anything regarding 'brown' defences against 1Cl, but I did find this: When considering L27B2, the FFB has explicitely stated that both a 1Cl under "better minor" and a 1Cl under "diamonds 4" are to be considered as natural. The 2-card 1Cl is alertable in France (not in Belgium), but otherwise there should be no difference in regulations between the two systems. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 28 08:17:45 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:17:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e04122712222a55e620@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <3.0.5.32.20041225105852.011d1e70@mail.chello.nl> <3.0.5.32.20041227153936.011dcbe8@mail.chello.nl> <41D032AC.3010706@hdw.be> <03C3F61F-5828-11D9-B50C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <41D069FD.7060106@hdw.be> <2da24b8e04122712222a55e620@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <41D116A9.8040000@hdw.be> richard willey wrote: > Just out of curiousity, I'd be curious how far you would be willing to > extend this argument... > > Why should players be allowed to use destructive methods over my > Conventional Strong club but not over your conventional short club? > That is not my argumentation. I have no particular adversity to bsc methods. My point is that it is a given, within a number of SO's, to allow bsc against strong clubs but not against better minor. Within that frame, I place diamonds four, and I say that this method is far closer to better minor than to any other system - so my conclusion is that if a line has to be drawn somewhere, the exact place where it is drawn nowadays in most countries is the wrong one. >>From my perspective, methods are methods. I'm perfectly happy if > BSC's they are allowed - either as an overcall structure or an opening > preemptive structure. Equivalently, I can accept that this class of > methods should be banned at cerrain levels of play. > > However, it seems perverse to suggest that some players need to devise > defenses to these methods while others deserve protection. > Well, that is a choice that's very hard to make - every country has a number of playing levels, at which different methods are allowed. Belgium has no less than 8 classes of tournaments (A to G) and in addition two levels of competition in which only elementary and then "2nd level" conventions are allowed. Every such distinction is open to debate. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 28 08:21:42 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:21:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in England In-Reply-To: <000901c4ec66$d3a287c0$439287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <3.0.5.32.20041225105852.011d1e70@mail.chello.nl> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041223150846.02a42e20@pop.starpower.net> <41CBD888.7050106@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041224134126.02b25560@pop.starpower.net> <3.0.5.32.20041225105852.011d1e70@mail.chello.nl> <3.0.5.32.20041227153936.011dcbe8@mail.chello.nl> <41D032AC.3010706@hdw.be> <03C3F61F-5828-11D9-B50C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <41D069FD.7060106@hdw.be> <000901c4ec66$d3a287c0$439287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <41D11796.8020906@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>>> and who, once they discover that they are >>>>also allowed to use those bsc against 2-card >>>>clubs, will start doing so. >>> > +=+ The argument seems circular. They are able > to use the defence not because the opener is, by > Law, conventional but because the regulations > permit the defence to be used when they could > forbid it. > ~ Grattan ~ > Exactly - I was talking about the Netherlands. There, people will start using bsc against 2-card 1cl openers. And the openers will start complaining to the NBB (I hope). And the NBB will change their regulation. Nothing circular about that. Now I am trying to get the EBU to see the benefit of our experience, and write the regulation "correctly" from the start. But of course, when something comes from Belgium, what good can it be. I could try saying it's the same in France, but that would probably work even less well on Englishmen. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004 From wxqxel@australia.edu Wed Dec 29 00:05:56 2004 From: wxqxel@australia.edu (Tabitha Thacker) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:05:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Little st0cks Can Mean Dollars For You Message-ID: <012406050400.EYU25185@lithium.freedomnet.com> Baird, IOGN - GET IN NOW - WILL EXPLODE AFTER CHRISTMAS - THIS STOCK IS UNDISCOVERED ST0CK GEM GET IN "IOGN" NOW! HUGE NEWS - iStorage Networks, Inc. Receives Orders for its Network Storage Products AND It has executed a lease for a 3000 square foot facility in Nashua, New Hampshire. IOGN issue will explode in next 2-3 days - big PR campaign underway Watch out for it . Jump on board on Monday by Friday.. Stock expected to SOAR - Read news at the end of this profile. It will explode!! Speculative target price in 1-2 days: $0.37 - 0.39 Speculative target price in 10 days : $0.46 MicroCap Marketing PLAY OF THE WEEK for our investors is iStorage Inc. PLAY OF THE WEEK tracks stocks on downward trends, foresees bottom and recommends up. IOGN is our next profile : IOGN** IOGN ** IOGN** iStorage Inc. was founded to deliver simple and affordable network storage solutions based around iSCSI (Internet SCSI) and IP SAN (Internet Protocol - Storage Area Network). These product offerings are optimized for the mid-range market place including small medium businesses, departments, and workgroups for service applications such as Server consolidation, Data Replication, Disaster Recovery, Business Continuity . The key to iStorage products is simplicity. Easy to install. Easy to manage. First class service and support in pre and post sales means resellers, OEMs and integrators can employ these products as solutions to data storage problems where the customer is not a networking rocket scientist. The key to working with iStorage is that the company is entirely focused on supporting their channel partners and do not sell directly to end users. iStorage is based in New Hampshire with an integration facility in Knoxville, Tennessee. Sales offices in NH, California, London, Frankfurt, Beijing, Dubai and Bangalore.. Speculative target price in 1-2 days: $0.37 - 0.39 Speculative target price in 10 days : $0.46 NEWS GILFORD, N.H., Dec 20, 2004 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- iStorage Networks, Inc. (Pink Sheets: IOGN) announced today that it has been issued purchase orders valued at $90,000 (ninety thousand USD) for its network storage products. About iStorage Networks: iStorage Networks, Inc. develops and markets network storage solutions that are specifically designed for the small to medium business. Computer activity has obviously grown over the last few years, especially driven by electronic mail (e-mail). This demand is further propagated by digital photos, video files and new high image applications. Federal requirements for audit trails, medical records and as well as security, add to this acceleration for the need of network storage capacity. iStorage with its expertise and experience in the worldwide storage industry, coupled with its technology and channel partners, can deliver products that are simple to use and affordable to meet these needs. iStorage products utilize a new and emerging technology called iSCSI. ISCSI, is an IP (Internet Protocol) based standard for linking data storage devices over a network and transferring the users data. From the storage side, iSCSI uses the SCSI command set, the core storage commands used throughout all storage configurations. On the networking side, iSCSI uses IP and Ethernet, which are the basis for most corporate networks. This revolutionary technology utilizes a standard disk drive interface and Internet communications techniques, and provides an easy method for user's to manage data. The purchase orders have been issued through the company's International Resellers for projects in the automotive manufacturing and petrochemical refinery industry. "These orders are the result of our efforts to date in developing the worldwide sales channel for our product offerings", said Roger Kirkland, VP Sales and Marketing for iStorage. He also added "the company is well positioned to support the growing marketplace in the small to medium business sector." These orders are for immediate shipment Speculative target price in 1-2 days: $0.37 - 0.39 Speculative target price in 10 days : $0.46 Read below before you invest: Information within this email contains "forward looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, goals, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward looking statements." Forward looking statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through the use of words such as: "projects", "foresee", "expects", "estimates," "believes," "understands" "will," "part of: "anticipates," or that by statements indicating certain actions "may," "could," or "might " occur. All information provided within this email pertaining to investing, stocks, securities must be understood as information provided and not investment advice. Emerging Equity Alert advises all readers and subscribers to seek advice from a registered professional securities representative before deciding to trade in stocks featured within this email. None of the material within this report shall be construed as any kind of investment advice. Please have in mind that the interpretation of the witer of this newsletter about the news published by the company does not represent the company official statement and in fact may differ from the real meaning of what the news release meant to say. Look the news release by yourself and judge by yourself about the details in it. In compliance with Section 17(b), we disclose the holding of IOGN shares prior to the publication of this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such holdings due to our intent to profit from the liquidation of these shares. Shares may be sold at any time, even after positive statements have been made regarding the above company. Since we own shares, there is an inherent conflict of interest in our statements and opinions. Readers of this publication are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and expectations involving various risks and uncertainties, that could cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward- looking statements. Please be advised that nothing within this email shall constitute a solicitation or an invitation to get position in or sell any security mentioned herein. This newsletter is neither a registered investment advisor nor affiliated with any broker or dealer. This newsletter was paid $21300 from third party to send this report. All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such. We may own, take position and sell any securities mentioned at any time. This report includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may include terms as "expect", "believe", "may", "will", "move","undervalued" and "intend" or similar terms. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 29 02:04:53 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:04:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws Message-ID: <07CB0C56-593E-11D9-863F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Couple things happened at the club today which got me thinking - what are the top ten, or twenty-five maybe, misconceptions about the laws? The two that came up today: 1. When a player makes an insufficient bid, she can change it to the lowest sufficient bid in the same suit without penalty. The Director need not be called. 2. "Dummy can't revoke." Candidates for the rest of the list? From anne.jones1@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 29 04:07:25 2004 From: anne.jones1@ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:07:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws References: <07CB0C56-593E-11D9-863F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001501c4ed5b$e8efc110$7a310952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 2:04 AM Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws > Couple things happened at the club today which got me thinking - what > are the top ten, or twenty-five maybe, misconceptions about the laws? > The two that came up today: > > 1. When a player makes an insufficient bid, she can change it to the > lowest sufficient bid in the same suit without penalty. The Director > need not be called. > > 2. "Dummy can't revoke." > > Candidates for the rest of the list? > > 3. Declarer can do no wrong. > > 4. Any player at any time can opt to "Take an average" 4. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ooga@shaw.ca Wed Dec 29 04:57:14 2004 From: ooga@shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:57:14 -0800 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws In-Reply-To: <07CB0C56-593E-11D9-863F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <07CB0C56-593E-11D9-863F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <41D2392A.5090401@shaw.ca> Ed Reppert wrote: > Couple things happened at the club today which got me thinking - wh= at=20 > are the top ten, or twenty-five maybe, misconceptions about the law= s?=20 > The two that came up today: >=20 > 1. When a player makes an insufficient bid, she can change it to th= e=20 > lowest sufficient bid in the same suit without penalty. The Directo= r=20 > need not be called. >=20 > 2. "Dummy can't revoke." >=20 > Candidates for the rest of the list? >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 What about this one: "You have to EARN an AVG+." Two problems here: --the ACBL(usually)-based belief that the only possible restitution t= o the NOS=20 is AVG+ --the belief that the NOS loses their right to an adjusted score when= ever they=20 take a subsequent "non-bridge action," usually defined as a bid the T= D thinks is=20 imperfect. No points for NOS who claim that they made a bad bid beca= use they=20 had no idea who could make what after the irregularity: you have to E= ARN your=20 AVG+.... How about this: Dummy may NEVER {any one of these: call the TD, ask declarer to clari= fy which=20 card he called, tell declarer he is leading from the wrong hand, give= an opinion=20 when the TD asks, and on and on}. I especially love the players who = value their=20 'right' to muse accusingly about whether the TD should be called, and= their=20 outrage when you as dummy do it for them. --=20 =2E-----------------------.----------------------------------. | Bruce McIntyre | email: ooga@shaw.ca | | 6636 Dow Ave., #203 | "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca" | | Burnaby BC CANADA | Editor, the Matchpointer | | V5H 3C9 604/438-9735 |(ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Publication)| }-----------------------=88----------------------------------{ | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://unit430.com/imps/IMPhome.htm | | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://members.shaw.ca/ooga/alphapts.htm | | (Bridge Base Online Alphabet Points Tournament Series) | `----------------------------------------------------------=B4 From adam@tameware.com Wed Dec 29 04:49:21 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:49:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Birmingham Fall 2000 case 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 2:03 PM +0000 12/7/04, Karel wrote: >I disagree with this ruling. Your position is quite reasonable. I can follow the panel's reasoning and it also has merit. It's a close case and I'm glad I didn't have to decide it. I don't expect panels or ACs to get all the close cases right. I'd be delighted if they could consistently decide the straightforward cases properly. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam@tameware.com Wed Dec 29 06:24:59 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:24:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws In-Reply-To: <07CB0C56-593E-11D9-863F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <07CB0C56-593E-11D9-863F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: At 9:04 PM -0500 12/28/04, Ed Reppert wrote: >Candidates for the rest of the list? A player who has received unauthorized information must take the action he would have taken without the UI. Partner is barred after a hesitation. -- Adam Wildavsky http://www.tameware.com From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Wed Dec 29 08:02:42 2004 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:02:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws References: <07CB0C56-593E-11D9-863F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <004401c4ed7c$cb56af80$0a6bcc0a@olivier> > Couple things happened at the club today which got me thinking - what > are the top ten, or twenty-five maybe, misconceptions about the laws? > The two that came up today: > > 1. When a player makes an insufficient bid, she can change it to the > lowest sufficient bid in the same suit without penalty. The Director > need not be called. why "she" ??? never "he" ??? or may be my english is this poor! I know ships are always "she", perhaps it's the same for bridge players, > > 2. "Dummy can't revoke." > > Candidates for the rest of the list? a big one : * You lose right to ajusted scrore if you don't call TD after a break in tempo by opponents and a close one * After partner's break in tempo, you must pass, searching for more ... Olivier From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 29 12:51:18 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:51:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws In-Reply-To: <07CB0C56-593E-11D9-863F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <07CB0C56-593E-11D9-863F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041229074814.02bbceb0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:04 PM 12/28/04, Ed wrote: >Couple things happened at the club today which got me thinking - what >are the top ten, or twenty-five maybe, misconceptions about the laws? >The two that came up today: > >1. When a player makes an insufficient bid, she can change it to the >lowest sufficient bid in the same suit without penalty. The Director >need not be called. > >2. "Dummy can't revoke." > >Candidates for the rest of the list? If partner hesitates, the ethical thing to do is to pass. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Wed Dec 29 13:45:46 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:45:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws References: <07CB0C56-593E-11D9-863F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <41D2392A.5090401@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <008401c4edad$67d2a640$7b053dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce McIntyre" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 5:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] misconceptions about the laws Ed Reppert wrote: > Couple things happened at the club today which got me thinking - what > are the top ten, or twenty-five maybe, misconceptions about the laws? > The two that came up today: > > 1. When a player makes an insufficient bid, she can change it to the > lowest sufficient bid in the same suit without penalty. The Director > need not be called. > > 2. "Dummy can't revoke." > > Candidates for the rest of the list? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > What about this one: "You have to EARN an AVG+." Two problems here: --the ACBL(usually)-based belief that the only possible restitution to the NOS is AVG+ --the belief that the NOS loses their right to an adjusted score whenever they take a subsequent "non-bridge action," usually defined as a bid the TD thinks is imperfect. No points for NOS who claim that they made a bad bid because they had no idea who could make what after the irregularity: you have to EARN your AVG+.... How about this: Dummy may NEVER {any one of these: call the TD, ask declarer to clarify which card he called, tell declarer he is leading from the wrong hand, ----------- I do not agree: Whenever declarer has led a card according to Law 45C2 or 3, it is too late. Dummy may not draw attention to any irregularity: Law42B3. Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity; so he may warn declarer when he starts pulling a card in his hand or starts pointing to a card in dummy: Law42B2. Ben From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Dec 29 14:10:30 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:10:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: misconceptions about the laws In-Reply-To: <20041229110004.3363.86882.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20041229110004.3363.86882.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1104329430.18738.211658349@webmail.messagingengine.com> > >Candidates for the rest of the list? > > A player who has received unauthorized information must take the > action he would have taken without the UI. Unfortunately, the "Ruling the Game" column in this month's _Bridge Bulletin_ (p. 38) may perpetuate this one: "...When partner hesitates, however, we must try to base our calls on the auction, not the hesitation. When we have a choice of calls, we should try as best we can not to make a call that could have been based on information drawn from the hesitation if there is a logical alternative action that is not sugegsted by the hesitation. "To always pass when partner hesitates could be an infraction of law just as much as always bidding. The idea is to ignore the hesitation and bid as though it has not occurred..." The second sentence above follows the interpretation that I have seen on this list. The first and last sentences, however, seem to me to be restating the fallacious view, whether that was the writer's intention or not, and, being shorter, may stick better in players' minds. David Babcock Florida USA From SeniorKibitzer@aol.com Wed Dec 29 16:39:37 2004 From: SeniorKibitzer@aol.com (SeniorKibitzer@aol.com) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 11:39:37 EST Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws Message-ID: <1c4.21c2b9aa.2f0437c9@aol.com> In a message dated 29/12/04 06:27:05 GMT Standard Time, adam@tameware.com writes: > At 9:04 PM -0500 12/28/04, Ed Reppert wrote: > >Candidates for the rest of the list? > > Partner is barred after a hesitation. This is probably the No 1 misconception. I encountered an interesting case a couple of weeks ago playing in a county league match at some smallish club somewhere in England. In a competitive auction, my partner hesitated before passing a bid on my left. RHO passed and I doubled. LHO looked at me and told me I couldn't double after the hesitation. I smiled and explained the action required of me and his rights. I was later amused to find out that LHO was the club's TD! Happy new year to all, Barrie Partridge Derbyshire, England. Posted 29 Dec 16.30 GMT (and the doubled contract made!) From schoderb@msn.com Wed Dec 29 17:08:12 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:08:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws References: <07CB0C56-593E-11D9-863F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <41D2392A.5090401@shaw.ca> <008401c4edad$67d2a640$7b053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: It's always refreshing to find someone who reads the ENTIRE law and understands the difference between trying to PREVENT an irregularity and DRAWING ATTENTION TO AN IRREGULARITY. Bravo, Ben. Kojak > > > How about this: > > Dummy may NEVER {any one of these: call the TD, ask declarer to clarify > which > card he called, tell declarer he is leading from the wrong hand, > ----------- > I do not agree: > Whenever declarer has led a card according to Law 45C2 or 3, it is too > late. > Dummy may not draw attention to any irregularity: Law42B3. > Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity; so he may warn declarer when he > starts pulling a card in his hand or starts pointing to a card in dummy: > Law42B2. > > Ben > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 29 21:12:58 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:12:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws In-Reply-To: <004401c4ed7c$cb56af80$0a6bcc0a@olivier> Message-ID: <6A526960-59DE-11D9-8CCE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 29, 2004, at 03:02 US/Eastern, Olivier Beauvillain wrote: > why "she" ??? > never "he" ??? > or may be my english is this poor! > I know ships are always "she", perhaps it's the same for bridge > players, "He" is still grammatically correct. The occassional "she" is politically correct. In the case in point, the player who made the insufficient bid was in fact female. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 29 21:26:25 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:26:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws In-Reply-To: <008401c4edad$67d2a640$7b053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <4B8DD8E3-59E0-11D9-8CCE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 29, 2004, at 08:45 US/Eastern, Ben Schelen wrote: > How about this: > > Dummy may NEVER {any one of these: call the TD, ask declarer to clarify > which > card he called, tell declarer he is leading from the wrong hand, > ----------- > I do not agree: > Whenever declarer has led a card according to Law 45C2 or 3, it is too > late. > Dummy may not draw attention to any irregularity: Law42B3. > Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity; so he may warn declarer > when he > starts pulling a card in his hand or starts pointing to a card in > dummy: > Law42B2. I think you've missed the boat, Ben . 1. Dummy may (and in fact *must*, if no one else does) call the TD after attention is drawn to an irregularity. 2. Dummy may certainly ask Declarer to clarify which card he called. Law 45 has nothing to do with this. Law 46 may come into play if Declarer's original call was ambiguous, or if his clarification changes its meaning, but that too is irrelevant. There was a case discussed here some time ago in which dummy called the director because a defender was badgering declarer. This is a violation of the proprieties. Whether or not it's an irregularity, the consensus on the list was, iirc, that dummy not only can, but should call the TD in such a case. Besides, the operative word up there is "NEVER", and the point is that with that word included, the claimed prohibitions are not valid. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 29 21:35:56 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:35:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9FA172A8-59E1-11D9-8CCE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 29, 2004, at 12:08 US/Eastern, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > It's always refreshing to find someone who reads the ENTIRE law and > understands the difference between trying to PREVENT an irregularity > and > DRAWING ATTENTION TO AN IRREGULARITY. Bravo, Ben. > > Kojak > >> >> >> How about this: >> >> Dummy may NEVER {any one of these: call the TD, ask declarer to >> clarify >> which >> card he called, tell declarer he is leading from the wrong hand, >> ----------- >> I do not agree: >> Whenever declarer has led a card according to Law 45C2 or 3, it is too >> late. >> Dummy may not draw attention to any irregularity: Law42B3. >> Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity; so he may warn declarer >> when he >> starts pulling a card in his hand or starts pointing to a card in >> dummy: >> Law42B2. There is of course a difference, and I did not intend to denigrate Ben's contribution when I previously said I thought he'd missed the boat. I said that because it seems to me that point of the original post is that NEVER is too strong for these things; there *are* times dummy can do them. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 29 21:52:26 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:52:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in Australia (was England) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>Herman makes a very good case, if indeed defenses are at >>issue. Systems that differ only in whether they open 1C >>or 1D with 4-4-3-2 patterns are essentially the same, >>while those that open two-card club suits with that >>pattern only differ greatly from systems that open 1C >>artificially. Allowing a wider range of defensive >>methods against Herman's 1C than against a "standard" >>1C, under a rule intended to apply to defenses against >>artificial openings, would be put him at a disadvantage >>closer to "unfair" than the disadvantage to his >>opponents of not allowing them. David Stevenson: >Sorry, Eric, you are out of step with the world here. If >you want to play a system including conventional 1-level >opening bids, feel free: but you cannot say it is not >conventional because the occasion when it is conventional >is rare. It is like pregnant: either it is conventional, >or it isn't. [snip] Richard Hills: Perhaps the world is out of step with Australia? :-) In Australia, a system which differs from Aussie Standard American only by opening 1C with 4-4-3-2 is still classified as a Green (natural) System under the ABF system classification regulation. However, in Australia, a 1C opening bid which promises 3+ clubs is not alertable, but a 1C opening bid which may be based on as few as 2 clubs is alertable. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 29 22:31:09 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:31:09 +1100 Subject: [blml] A standout lead In-Reply-To: <200412272009.iBRK9SHh001086@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In a private email, Steve Willner wrote: >Hi, Richard. Very strange case! The split score >looks illegal to me. A diamond lead is either legal >or illegal; if illegal, the NOS can be given no part >of the score for it. If legal, then of course the >table result stands. However, after the CTD rules >the split score is legal, I wouldn't appeal. This >is effectively a ruling on a point of law. I >suppose in an important event I might appeal but >only if intending to carry the appeal all the way to >the National Authority. Anyway, I hope the legal >issue got straightened out somehow. [snip] >Feel free to quote any of the above either to BLML or >within the ABF, as may be useful. Richard Hills casuistry: *If* there had been only one offending side, *then* I agree that a split score would be illegal (see the discussion in the recent thread "An LA for one side only"). But in this particular case, both sides were offending sides - one giving MI, the other giving UI - so, in my opinion, a split score which gave both offending sides their worst reasonable result was legal. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 29 23:22:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:22:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson: >Acceptable to the average player means total imps, which is easily >understandable, and totally fair. I should like to thank the >country of Australia for making me realise that this is the >obvious tie-break method at Swiss Teams. When I returned from >Australia a few years back I immediately re-wrote my Swiss Teams >program to show VPs and IMPs, and to only show people as level if >they were level on both. It also uses this for assignments, and >everyone who plays thinks this is fair. Richard Hills: Tossing a coin is "totally fair", but unfortunately is random. Totalling net imps for each team benefits those teams which are good at bunny-bashing. Example: If, in an eight-board match, Team A beats Team Z by 80 imps (25vps to 0vps), but Team B beats Team Z by 30 imps (25vps to 5vps), then Team A gains a disproportionate 50 imps tie-break advantage. Totalling net imps also ignores the effects of the "Swiss Gambit", taking no account of the strength of the opposing teams played. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 30 00:15:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:15:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <1104181561.41d07939d7bb7@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >Considering only the tie-break problem, Richard's suggestion >of giving extra weight to early matches is a poor substitute >for systematic consideration of opponents' strengths. What >is wrong with just using the head to head result? Richard Hills: The Aussie South West Pacific Teams (traditionally known as the NOT) is a _huge_ event. It is so big that the field had to be split into two heats at two different venues, with each heat containing about 150 teams. Last January, in the 14th and final 20-board qualifying match, my team met the leading team at table 1. Since they were certain to qualify, the leading team rested both of their sponsors (so that the two sponsors would be fresh for their required 50% of the boards in the ensuing round-of-16 knockout match). Despite playing the strongest lineup of the top team, my team ground out a 16vp to 14vp victory. We therefore tied for the last qualifying place with another team who had had a big victory against lesser opposition. Steve's suggestion of a head to head tiebreak would not have worked; since we had played only 14 matches against the other 150-odd teams, our two tied teams had not played against each other before. (I did, however, achieve a "personal best" result when my team won the mandated 4-board playoff, thus qualifying for the NOT knockout rounds for the first time after many frustrating near-misses.) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 30 04:50:56 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:50:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws In-Reply-To: <07CB0C56-593E-11D9-863F-0030656F6826@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >1. When a player makes an insufficient bid, she can change it to the >lowest sufficient bid in the same suit without penalty. [snip] Bruce McIntyre: >--the ACBL(usually)-based belief that the only possible restitution >to the NOS is AVG+ [snip] >Dummy may NEVER call the TD, [snip] Olivier Beauvillain: >a big one : >* You lose your right to an adjusted score if you don't call the >TD after a break in tempo by the opponents. [snip] Cicero: >>O tempora, O mores! Richard Hills: During the Christmas break, I have been rereading old Bridge World magazines. *All* of the above quoted misconceptions were in fact supported by the late Laws authority, Edgar Kaplan, thirty or forty years ago. The point is that, although the Laws and their interpretations have changed radically over the past three or four decades, memories of the old Laws have been handed down from generation to generation. The obvious solution to this Ciceronic clinging to the past is for sponsoring organisations to regularly update their directors on changes to Law and interpretation, and for directors to subsequently regularly update their local customers. Example: The Bridge Federation of the ACT (BFACT) is planning a refresher course for its TDs towards the end of 2005, in order to update them on changes in the forthcoming 2006 edition of the Laws. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 30 08:40:17 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:40:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41D3BEF1.7020602@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Tossing a coin is "totally fair", but unfortunately is random. > Totalling net imps for each team benefits those teams which are > good at bunny-bashing. > > Example: If, in an eight-board match, Team A beats Team Z by 80 > imps (25vps to 0vps), but Team B beats Team Z by 30 imps (25vps to > 5vps), then Team A gains a disproportionate 50 imps tie-break > advantage. > One could of course say, Richard, that team A has already had a disproportionate VP-disadvantage, in getting only 25VP from a great win! Surely if all other matches are equal, and teams A and B end up with the same number of points, the 50IMPs should tip the balance in favour of team A. I agree with you that these 50 IMPs are less hard-earnt than some others. For example, team B might have gained all their other VPs from the top of their VP scale (+5s for 16-14 as opposed to +3s for the same 16-14) and might have a huge IMP-advantage which is cancelled by that one freak result (they might even have won against team Z with 55IMPs, also 25-0, and still end up the loser. But I feel that to cap the IMPs at +55 (as could be a solution then) would be a less interesting solution. After all, some 25-0s are because all decisions fell the right way. > Totalling net imps also ignores the effects of the "Swiss Gambit", > taking no account of the strength of the opposing teams played. > That is true - a method that counts the opponent's value is to be preferred. I am still curious however. Suppose we were to use an even more refined VP-table. +1 = 15.3-14.7 and so on. Now the chances of getting a tie are even more remote than before. Two teams that were previously tied, and on which we would use the tie-breaking method, are now 0.3 VP apart (one way or the other). What's changed? Nothing really. Which is why I prefer tie-breaking methods that are nothing more than refinements of the original process. Such as IMP-difference. Maybe even IMP-difference after topping to 25-0. That is simply refined VPs. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and general guru > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.6 - Release Date: 28/12/2004 From mmcxpbsjdef@freemessage.com Thu Dec 30 11:07:43 2004 From: mmcxpbsjdef@freemessage.com (Duncan Justice) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:07:43 -0600 Subject: [blml] Why make them richer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <663676317089.WCT99837@detention.worldsite.net> Totally legal M1crOsOft for a tenth of the pr!ce W!nd0ws X.P Pr0fessional + 0ffice X'P PrOfessional for as low as 8o$ full info: http://aphasia.cheapsoftshop.com/ The offer is valid till january 22th stock is limited nice meeting you Mandy Cody Mesmerist Scientific Systems Design Inc, Mississauga, Ontario, L5M 4J7, Canada Phone: 634-171-3926 Mobile: 797-629-6734 Email: mmcxpbsjdef@freemessage.com THIS IS AN AUTO-GENERATED MESSAGE - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE This file is a 5[2 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Dec 30 13:02:29 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:02:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting in Australia (was England) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041230075609.02b03a70@pop.starpower.net> At 04:52 PM 12/29/04, richard.hills wrote: >Perhaps the world is out of step with Australia? > >:-) > >In Australia, a system which differs from Aussie Standard >American only by opening 1C with 4-4-3-2 is still >classified as a Green (natural) System under the ABF >system classification regulation. > >However, in Australia, a 1C opening bid which promises 3+ >clubs is not alertable, but a 1C opening bid which may be >based on as few as 2 clubs is alertable. The ACBL takes (or took) essentially the same position as the ABF. But I was recently told of a (rumored? proposed? forthcoming? already implemented but yet to be published?) change that would make the 1C opening announcable ("could be two") instead of alertable. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Dec 30 14:46:15 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:46:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Dec 30, 2004 03:50:56 PM Message-ID: <200412301446.iBUEkFCL012808@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > Ed Reppert: > > >1. When a player makes an insufficient bid, she can change it to the > >lowest sufficient bid in the same suit without penalty. > > [snip] > > Bruce McIntyre: > > >--the ACBL(usually)-based belief that the only possible restitution > >to the NOS is AVG+ > > [snip] > > >Dummy may NEVER call the TD, > > [snip] > > Olivier Beauvillain: > > >a big one : > >* You lose your right to an adjusted score if you don't call the > >TD after a break in tempo by the opponents. > > [snip] > > Cicero: > > >>O tempora, O mores! > > Richard Hills: > > During the Christmas break, I have been rereading old Bridge World > magazines. *All* of the above quoted misconceptions were in fact > supported by the late Laws authority, Edgar Kaplan, thirty or forty > years ago. I can add to that list. You know the old "one psyche per partnership" widely attributed to Don Oakie. In fact Kaplan advocated that well before Oakie's piece. From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 30 15:34:15 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 16:34:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws In-Reply-To: <200412301446.iBUEkFCL012808@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200412301446.iBUEkFCL012808@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <41D41FF7.2080008@hdw.be> in that same vein: Ron Johnson wrote: > > I can add to that list. You know the old "one psyche per partnership" > widely attributed to Don Oakie. In fact Kaplan advocated that well > before Oakie's piece. > 'you can do only one psyche per tournament' -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.6 - Release Date: 28/12/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 30 21:39:57 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 16:39:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws In-Reply-To: <200412302127.iBULR6Cj023003@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <59CB2CC8-5AAB-11D9-AA27-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 30, 2004, at 16:27 US/Eastern, Steve Willner wrote: > I'm missing something... the D-3 is a major pc, so why wouldn't it have > to be played regardless? No, you're not. It was a bad example, because it *is* a major penalty card. My bad. :-/ > That captures the major/minor issue but not the lead penalties. > Maybe good enough, though; better than I can do! Once you make someone aware that what he thinks is true of the laws isn't, the rest should be easy. I hope. :-) From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Dec 30 21:45:43 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:45:43 +1300 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws Message-ID: <20041230214543.KLCR29485.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.86.15.135]> > > From: Herman De Wael > Date: 2004/12/31 Fri AM 04:34:15 GMT+13:00 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] misconceptions about the laws > > in that same vein: > > Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > > I can add to that list. You know the old "one psyche per partnership" > > widely attributed to Don Oakie. In fact Kaplan advocated that well > > before Oakie's piece. > > > > 'you can do only one psyche per tournament' In fact in NZ we have an illegal regulation that restricts a player to two psyches per session. Further at the 2004 National Interprovincial Championships the Chief Director announced on his own initiative that that restriction meant only one psyche per 12 board match. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 31 02:42:54 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:42:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in Australia (was England) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041230075609.02b03a70@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau asked: [snip] >>>Don't our laws and regulations use "conventional" and "natural" as >>>mutually exclusive terms? David Stevenson replied: >>The Laws certainly do not. The English regulations certainly do >>not. I am pretty sure - though I stand to be corrected - that the >>ACBL regulations do not. >> >>Why should they? Conventional does not mean non-natural! ABF System Regulations, section 1.2, definitions: >Natural A call or play that is not a convention RJH note: The ABF System Regulations definition of "convention" replicates the definition of "convention" in Chapter 1 of the Laws. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 31 03:10:33 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:10:33 +1100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in Australia (was England) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpSaWNoYXJkIFdpbGxleToNCg0KPj5KdXN0IG91dCBvZiBjdXJpb3NpdHksIEknZCBi ZSBjdXJpb3VzIGhvdyBmYXIgeW91IHdvdWxkIGJlDQo+PndpbGxpbmcgdG8gZXh0ZW5kIHRoaXMg YXJndW1lbnQuLi4NCj4+DQo+PldoeSBzaG91bGQgcGxheWVycyBiZSBhbGxvd2VkIHRvIHVzZSBk ZXN0cnVjdGl2ZSBtZXRob2RzIG92ZXIgbXkNCj4+Q29udmVudGlvbmFsIFN0cm9uZyBjbHViIGJ1 dCBub3Qgb3ZlciB5b3VyIGNvbnZlbnRpb25hbCBzaG9ydA0KPj5jbHViPw0KPj4NCj4+RnJvbSBt eSBwZXJzcGVjdGl2ZSwgbWV0aG9kcyBhcmUgbWV0aG9kcy4gIEknbSBwZXJmZWN0bHkgaGFwcHkN Cj4+aWYgQlNDJ3MgYXJlIGFsbG93ZWQgLSBlaXRoZXIgYXMgYW4gb3ZlcmNhbGwgc3RydWN0dXJl IG9yIGFuDQo+Pm9wZW5pbmcgcHJlZW1wdGl2ZSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUuICBFcXVpdmFsZW50bHksIEkg Y2FuIGFjY2VwdCB0aGF0DQo+PnRoaXMgY2xhc3Mgb2YgbWV0aG9kcyBzaG91bGQgYmUgYmFubmVk IGF0IGNlcnRhaW4gbGV2ZWxzIG9mDQo+PnBsYXkuDQo+Pg0KPj5Ib3dldmVyLCBpdCBzZWVtcyBw ZXJ2ZXJzZSB0byBzdWdnZXN0IHRoYXQgc29tZSBwbGF5ZXJzIG5lZWQgdG8NCj4+ZGV2aXNlIGRl ZmVuc2VzIHRvIHRoZXNlIG1ldGhvZHMgd2hpbGUgb3RoZXJzIGRlc2VydmUNCj4+cHJvdGVjdGlv bi4NCj4+DQo+PlRoZSBBQ0JMOiBNYWtpbmcgdGhlIHdvcmxkIHNhZmUgZm9yIGJhZCBicmlkZ2Uh DQoNCkFCRiBTeXN0ZW0gUmVndWxhdGlvbnMsIGRlZmVuc2l2ZSBtZXRob2RzIGNsYXNzaWZpZWQg YXMgQnJvd24NClN0aWNrZXIsIHNlY3Rpb24gMi4yIChiKSAmIChjKToNCg0KPmIpIEFuIG92ZXJj YWxsIG9mIGEgbmF0dXJhbCBvcGVuaW5nIGJpZCBvZiBvbmUgb2YgYSBzdWl0IHRoYXQNCj5kb2Vz IG5vdCBwcm9taXNlIGF0IGxlYXN0IGZvdXIgY2FyZHMgaW4gYSBrbm93biBzdWl0Lg0KPg0KPkV4 Y2VwdGlvbnM6DQo+DQo+KGkpICAgQSBuYXR1cmFsIG92ZXJjYWxsIGluIG5vIHRydW1wcy4NCj4o aWkpICBBbnkgY3VlIGJpZCB0aGF0IHNob3dzIGEgc3Ryb25nIGhhbmQuDQo+KGlpaSkgQSBjdWUg YmlkIGluIG9wcG9uZW504oCZcyBrbm93biBzdWl0IHRoYXQgYXNrcyBwYXJ0bmVyIHRvDQo+ICAg ICAgYmlkIDNOVCB3aXRoIGEgc3RvcHBlciBpbiB0aGF0IHN1aXQuDQo+DQo+YykgQW55IHdlYWsg dHdvLXN1aXRlZCBiaWRzIGF0IHRoZSB0d28gb3IgdGhyZWUgbGV2ZWwsIHdoZXRoZXINCj5vZmZl bnNpdmUgb3IgZGVmZW5zaXZlLCB0aGF0IG1heSBieSBhZ3JlZW1lbnQgYmUgbWFkZSB3aXRoDQo+ dGhyZWUgY2FyZHMgb3IgZmV3ZXIgaW4gb25lIG9mIHRoZSBzdWl0cy4NCj4NCj5Ob3RlOiBOb25l IG9mIHRoZSBmb3JlZ29pbmcgcmVzdHJpY3Rpb25zIChhLWMpIHBlcnRhaW4gdG8NCj5jb252ZW50 aW9uYWwgZGVmZW5jZXMgYWdhaW5zdCBzdHJvbmcsIGFydGlmaWNpYWwgb3BlbmluZyBiaWRzIG9y DQo+ZGVmZW5jZXMgYWdhaW5zdCAnQnJvd24gU3RpY2tlcicgb3IgSFVNIGNvbnZlbnRpb25zLg0K PkNvbnZlbnRpb25hbCBkZWZlbmNlcyB0byAxTlQgYXJlIGFsc28gdW5yZXN0cmljdGVkLg0KDQpS aWNoYXJkIEhpbGxzOg0KDQpJbiBteSBvcGluaW9uLCB0aGUgQUNCTCBhbmQgdGhlIEFCRiBhcmUg Km5vdCogbWFraW5nIHRoZSB3b3JsZA0Kc2FmZSBmb3IgYmFkIGJyaWRnZS4NCg0KQSBzZW1pLW5h dHVyYWwgMUMgb3BlbmluZywgd2hpY2ggbWF5IHJhcmVseSBiZSBvcGVuZWQgb24gYXMNCmxpdHRs ZSBhcyBhIGRvdWJsZXRvbiAod2hlbiBob2xkaW5nIHNwZWNpZmljYWxseSBhIDQtNC0zLTINCnNo YXBlIHdpdGggdGhlIHdyb25nIHJhbmdlIGZvciBhIDFOVCBvcGVuaW5nKSwgaXMgZWFzeSB0bw0K ZGVmZW5kIGFnYWluc3QuICBNb3N0IG9mIHRoZSB0aW1lLCB0aGUgMUMgb3BlbmVyIHdpbGwgaG9s ZCA0Kw0KY2x1YnMgZm9yIHRoZWlyIG9wZW5pbmcgYmlkLCBzbyBpdCBpcyBlYXN5IHRvIGdldCBp bnRvIHRoZQ0KYWN0aW9uIHdpdGggYSB0YWtlb3V0IGRvdWJsZSBvciBNaWNoYWVsJ3MgY3VlYmlk LiAgT3ZlcmNhbGxzIGluDQpvdGhlciBzdWl0cyBhcmUgYWxzbyByZWFzb25hYmx5IHNhZmUsIHNp bmNlIGFsbW9zdCBhbHdheXMgdGhlDQpzZW1pLW5hdHVyYWwgMUMgb3BlbmluZyBiaWQgZGVuaWVz IGZpdmUgY2FyZHMgaW4gYW5vdGhlciBzdWl0Lg0KDQpDb250cmFyaXdpc2UsIGl0IGlzIHJpc2t5 IHRvIGdldCBpbnRvIHRoZSBhdWN0aW9uIG92ZXIgYQ0KY29udmVudGlvbmFsIHN0cm9uZyBjbHVi LCBzaW5jZSB0aGUgY2hhbmNlcyBvZiBpbm5vY2VudGx5DQp3YW5kZXJpbmcgaW4gb24gYSBtaXNm aXQgZGVhbCBhcmUgbXVjaCBoaWdoZXIuICBUbyBjb21wZW5zYXRlDQpmb3IgYSBzdHJvbmcgMUMg b3BlbmluZyBub3QgcHJvbWlzaW5nIGFuIGFuY2hvciBzdWl0LCBpdCBpcw0Kb25seSBmYWlyIHRo YXQgZGVmZW5zaXZlIGJpZGRlcnMgZG8gbm90IGhhdmUgdG8gcHJvbWlzZSBhbg0KYW5jaG9yIHN1 aXQgZWl0aGVyLg0KDQoNCkJlc3Qgd2lzaGVzDQoNClJpY2hhcmQgSGlsbHMNCk1vdmllIGdyb2du YXJkIGFuZCBnZW5lcmFsIGd1cnU= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 31 03:29:15 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:29:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <41D3BEF1.7020602@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >I am still curious however. >Suppose we were to use an even more refined VP-table. >+1 = 15.3-14.7 and so on. >Now the chances of getting a tie are even more remote than before. >Two teams that were previously tied, and on which we would use the >tie-breaking method, are now 0.3 VP apart (one way or the other). >What's changed? Nothing really. >Which is why I prefer tie-breaking methods that are nothing more than >refinements of the original process. Such as IMP-difference. Maybe >even IMP-difference after topping to 25-0. That is simply refined VPs. Richard Hills: Excellent point. Due to a decades-old tradition, the Aussie Interstate Teams is the sole ABF event which does not use the WBF vp scale. Instead, for each 24-board match, imps are one-to-one converted to vps up to an initial cutoff of +35 or -35. For matches which have a greater than 35-imp margin, each surplus imp is converted to 1/10's of a vp, up to a final cutoff of +37.5 or -40. Since this scale has been in use for the Aussie Interstate Teams, a tiebreak method has _never_ been needed to determine the second qualifying team. (As I recall, the most efficient team was a South Australian Women's Team, which qualified for its final by a fraction of a vp, then won its final by 4 imps.) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 31 03:34:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:34:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] Alerting in Australia (was England) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041230075609.02b03a70@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >The ACBL takes (or took) essentially the same position as the ABF. But >I was recently told of a (rumored? proposed? forthcoming? already >implemented but yet to be published?) change that would make the 1C >opening announcable ("could be two") instead of alertable. Richard Hills: I can justifiably be accused of being parochial, but I believe that the ABF "pre-alert" policy causes fewer unforced errors (plus less UI) than the ACBL "announce" policy. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 31 18:16:45 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 18:16:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >David Stevenson: > >>Acceptable to the average player means total imps, which is easily >>understandable, and totally fair. I should like to thank the >>country of Australia for making me realise that this is the >>obvious tie-break method at Swiss Teams. When I returned from >>Australia a few years back I immediately re-wrote my Swiss Teams >>program to show VPs and IMPs, and to only show people as level if >>they were level on both. It also uses this for assignments, and >>everyone who plays thinks this is fair. > >Richard Hills: > >Tossing a coin is "totally fair", but unfortunately is random. >Totalling net imps for each team benefits those teams which are >good at bunny-bashing. People see it as fair, which is what is important. Too many BLML posts forget we are running a game here for the benefit of our customers. Your comment about bunny-bashing is just irrelevant. What does it matter? Goal difference in football may come down to which poor teams you beat by 5 goals, but so what? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 31 18:22:07 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 18:22:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws In-Reply-To: <1c4.21c2b9aa.2f0437c9@aol.com> References: <1c4.21c2b9aa.2f0437c9@aol.com> Message-ID: wrote >In a message dated 29/12/04 06:27:05 GMT Standard Time, adam@tameware.com >writes: > >> At 9:04 PM -0500 12/28/04, Ed Reppert wrote: >> >Candidates for the rest of the list? >> >> Partner is barred after a hesitation. > >This is probably the No 1 misconception. I encountered an interesting case a >couple of weeks ago playing in a county league match at some smallish club >somewhere in England. In a competitive auction, my partner hesitated before >passing a bid on my left. RHO passed and I doubled. LHO looked at me >and told me I >couldn't double after the hesitation. > >I smiled and explained the action required of me and his rights. I was later >amused to find out that LHO was the club's TD! My partner thought for a very long time before passing. I then doubled. 1 I was accused of cheating. 2 The TD agreed with my opponents. 3 One of my opponents turned out to be the Club Secretary. 4 My application to join the club was turned down. Ahh, shame, I hear you thinking [or even "He deserved that" as one of BLML's more respected members said in a similar position recently]. Of course we had forced to game earlier and partner's pass was 100% forcing. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 31 18:26:08 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 18:26:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] misconceptions about the laws In-Reply-To: References: <07CB0C56-593E-11D9-863F-0030656F6826@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: wrote >During the Christmas break, I have been rereading old Bridge World >magazines. *All* of the above quoted misconceptions were in fact >supported by the late Laws authority, Edgar Kaplan, thirty or forty >years ago. > >The point is that, although the Laws and their interpretations have >changed radically over the past three or four decades, memories of >the old Laws have been handed down from generation to generation. At the Blackpool Year End event I put two boards on each table in a seven board Swiss Teams. Every so often they get boards 1 and 7, and must play 7 first to stop messing it up for tables around the room. I stressed this at each such table. One table had no N/S pair yet, so I told the E/W pair. "Why are you telling us? We are not North." Apart form the complete stupidity of this reaction with N/S not yet arrived, it is also interesting how many people think there is some validity in this rule, which was a law forty years ago. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 31 18:28:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 18:28:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting in Australia (was England) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <$fzQ7TXTpZ1BFwhd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote >In Australia, a system which differs from Aussie Standard >American only by opening 1C with 4-4-3-2 is still >classified as a Green (natural) System under the ABF >system classification regulation. How about a system where you open 2C with a game force? A "natural" system is not one with no conventional bids. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From henk@amsterdamned.org Fri Dec 31 23:00:01 2004 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 00:00:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Usenet bridge abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: *3m 3C or 3D [minor] *3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm