From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Mar 1 06:41:29 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Feb 28 18:45:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Why the drop in numbers? (was EBU Orange book) References: <398AE010-8923-11D9-8F82-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003b01c51e21$beeec400$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Duplicate bridge here in San Diego is undergoing a renaissance, becoming more popular than ever. One reason is that Wirt Gilliam has taken over Adventures in Bridge, San Diego's only sizeable club. He is concentrating on promoting "299er" sections, giving non-Life Masters separate games so that peers play against peers (if they wish). The higher-ranked players benefit also, now having a sharper and more enjoyable game. The San Diego Unit even held a 299er sectional that was very successful. A well-conducted lesson program helps the cause, and membership is growing with fewer "dropouts." San Diego's sectional championships now have all pair games "flighted," with B&C-level pairs playing separately if they wish (as most do). My conclusion: Letting peers play against peers, as in the ACBL's routinely-flighted Swiss teams and bracketed knockout teams, makes pair games more enjoyable for all. Other promotional measures adopted by both Wirt's club and the San Diego and La Jolla units: Preduplicated boards and hand records for every game. Food at every game Game results (all deals, everyone's result on each board, with names) on a website the next morning. Swiss team games in which all matches play the same set of preduplicated boards, with hand records Occasional barometer-scored games Winners' pictures posted with game scores along the walls A round-timer to help keep games moving A quality playing environment, clean and well-furnished Evan Bailey has provided a computer program that attractively formats the ACBLScore output for the various bridge websites. Go to www.sandiegobridge.com to see its output. This website is devoted to the Wed night "Masters Club," a game restricted to pairs with 2000+ masterpoiints. It averages 7-8 tables of San Diego's best when there is no competition from one of the many regional championships in southern California. A concurrent 299er game, with a preceding bridge lesson, is held in a separate room. Taking all of this together, I predict a continuing boom for duplicate bridge in San Diego. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From john at asimere.com Tue Mar 1 01:06:42 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Mar 1 01:08:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Her first psyche In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050226173021.03f0e2c0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050226173021.03f0e2c0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In article <6.2.0.14.2.20050226173021.03f0e2c0@pop- server.bigpond.net.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >With East dealer and nil vulnerable, the hands were > > Q 9 > 10 9 7 3 > A K 10 2 > Q 9 3 > > K 10 7 6 5 8 4 3 > A Q 6 5 8 4 2 > Q 7 8 5 3 > 7 2 J 10 6 5 > A J 2 > K J > J 9 6 4 > A K 8 4 > >and the bidding > > West North East South > 1C 1NT > 2S X pass 2NT > all pass > >East's 1C was psychic, her first so with heart pounding she >alerted her partner's 2S bid as "opening values showing two >non touching suits". (They are not too experienced but are >taking lessons from some bid master or other). so North has just said "Hello world! I believe the opponents and not my partner". Serves the b****r right :) I'll book him for fielding his partners non-psyche, I suppose. cheers John > >At the end of the auction, West remonstrated with East about >her explanation, and it became clear the West's bid was natural. > >I was called by North, who claimed to be damaged. I allowed him >to take back his last pass, and reopen the bidding from that point, >but he elected not to change his bid. > >Upon making 10 tricks, I was again summoned and damages were >claimed, misinformation etc. I have some sympathy for East, whose >bid may well have deflected the opposition from their game, which >of course was routinely bid and made around the room. So, how >much weight should I give for the misexplanation, the UI between >the offenders before the end of the hand, the offering of a change of >bid to North, and his refusal? > > >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) > > > > > -- 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 swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 1 03:29:51 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Mar 1 03:30:21 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional Message-ID: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> Here's one I hadn't seen before. The event was the usual ACBL Swiss Teams, 8 rounds, 7 boards per round, 20 VP scale, three flights. The directors matched two teams in different flights for a second-round match, and nobody caught it until too late. In fact, there were two of these wrong matches, involving four teams. The match results have to be cancelled, and no players are at fault. How many VP's do you assign to the four teams involved? Is there an ACBL regulation? The only other ruling at our table was a UI case. Our opponents' unopposed auction went 1S-2D-4D-..4NT-..5D-...5S-6S-ap. The .. were about 10 seconds (and harmless), the ... about 15. 5D showed 0 or 3 keycards, but the pair in question were not clear whether the key suit was diamonds or spades. Opener thought diamonds, responder spades, not that it much matters. The ruling (after consultation, I am happy to report, or at least the director took the board away from the table for awhile) was "result stands," because "some pairs agree that opener must continue if he has three key cards." No evidence that the pair in question had such an agreement: given that they disagreed on the key suit, it seems unlikely. This may have been the right ruling for a different reason, though. This pair, as you may guess, was not a strong one, and it isn't obvious that their hesitations suggest anything in particular. Still, we'll never know what opener would have done over a firm, in-tempo 5S bid. The opponents commented that they would have appealed had the ruling gone the other way. I think that might have been interesting to witness. Comments welcome on the UI case, but mostly I'm interested in the regulation for the lost match. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Mar 1 04:57:25 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue Mar 1 04:57:54 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20050228223109.01d7c6e8@mail.comcast.net> At 09:29 PM 2/28/2005, Steve Willner wrote: >Here's one I hadn't seen before. The event was the usual ACBL Swiss >Teams, 8 rounds, 7 boards per round, 20 VP scale, three flights. The >directors matched two teams in different flights for a second-round match, >and nobody caught it until too late. In fact, there were two of these >wrong matches, involving four teams. The match results have to be >cancelled, and no players are at fault. How many VP's do you assign to >the four teams involved? Is there an ACBL regulation? I would treat this as equivalent to a forfeit, which is scored as a victory by 3 IMP's (12 VP) for purposes of assigned later matches. At the end of the event, the team gets the higher of the temporary score or the average number of VP the team scored in the matches it actually played. (Under the forfeit rules, the team winning by forfeit may also have its score adjusted upwards to the average VP given up by its opponents in matches actually played, but there is no clear definition of "opponents" here; if a team had 5 VP in its first match, it could have played any of a large number of teams with 4-6 VP in its second match.) The Conditions of Contest at http://www.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/coc/swissEvents.pdf don't deal with the situation of a match that is unplayable through no fault of either team specifically. However, this ruling seems fair by analogy. In pairs, average-plus is awarded to a pair which is unable to play a board if neither pair is at fault, or if the opponents are at fault (such as a forfeit for showing up late). Thus, in teams, it makes sense to give the same award to a team which is unable to play a match if neither team is at fault, or if the opponents are at fault. From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 1 05:50:17 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Mar 1 05:51:24 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional References: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 20:29 PM Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional > Here's one I hadn't seen before. The event was the usual ACBL Swiss > Teams, 8 rounds, 7 boards per round, 20 VP scale, three flights. The > directors matched two teams in different flights for a second-round > match, and nobody caught it until too late. In fact, there were two of > these wrong matches, involving four teams. The match results have to be > cancelled, and no players are at fault. How many VP's do you assign to > the four teams involved? Is there an ACBL regulation? It is interesting that the Acbl tech files give a procedure for the instance in a KO event but not Swiss. imo L82B applies. first cancel the odd-lotter pairing; then if [a] there is sufficient time to reorganize a few matches aka early first round of random assignment then look to 82B2 to cancel the appropriate pairings and reassign the odd lotters, possibly delaying the next round a few minutes. but if [b] 'a' isn't appropriate then treat the odd-lotters as if their opponents didn't show up [ie reassign for R2 the odd-lotters Phantom-Opponents] awarding a forfeit-win L80F/ assigning an adjusted score L12c1 Then looking to the tech files- a general CC for swiss in the tech files provides under ccsw.33 Tardiness 2. If four players are not seated when one-third of the time allotted for the match has expired, that team shall forfeit the match. At any method of scoring, the teams are assigned a result as though the non-offending team had won by 3 IMPs and the loser is assigned 0. At victory point scoring, the total of the non-offending team is adjusted at the conclusion of the event (or of a two session qualifying stage) such that it receives the highest of: a) the temporary assignment; b) the average per match of the victory points they accumulated in the matches actually played in that period; or, c) the average per match of the victory points scored against the offending team in the matches actually played in that In other words the real teams score AVE+ VPs and the Phantoms "get" zero VP. regards roger pewick From LYCVQSFJERK at tyroneward.com Tue Mar 1 06:00:02 2005 From: LYCVQSFJERK at tyroneward.com (Nathaniel Klein) Date: Tue Mar 1 06:05:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Experience Multiple Orgasm's! Message-ID: <337CDE9B.3020006@the-moons.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050301/ef247566/attachment-0001.html From Mikeamosbridge at aol.com Tue Mar 1 04:12:01 2005 From: Mikeamosbridge at aol.com (Mikeamosbridge@aol.com) Date: Tue Mar 1 07:14:11 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional Message-ID: In a message dated 01/03/2005 02:30:28 GMT Standard Time, swillner@cfa.harvard.edu writes: Here's one I hadn't seen before. The event was the usual ACBL Swiss Teams, 8 rounds, 7 boards per round, 20 VP scale, three flights. The directors matched two teams in different flights for a second-round match, and nobody caught it until too late. In fact, there were two of these wrong matches, involving four teams. The match results have to be cancelled, and no players are at fault. How many VP's do you assign to the four teams involved? Is there an ACBL regulation? The EBU certainly has a regulation. We award A+ ie 3 imps for Swiss teams for half the boards and A for the remainder - ie 0 imps - we then apply the VP scale For a 7 board match this comes to 10.5 imps and 15 Vps for non-offending teams. (and also incidentally means different Vp scores for matches of differing length but generally 14,15 or 16 on a 20vp scale with the higher scores for longer matches Mike Amos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050301/b4743ddd/attachment.html From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Mar 1 09:00:19 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Mar 1 09:00:47 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional Message-ID: <20050301080019.8B1CBB9F73@poczta.interia.pl> Steve Willner napisa?(a): > The only other ruling at our table was a UI case. Our opponents' > unopposed auction went 1S-2D-4D-..4NT-..5D-...5S-6S-ap. The .. were > about 10 seconds (and harmless), the ... about 15. 5D showed 0 or 3 > keycards, but the pair in question were not clear whether the key suit > was diamonds or spades. Opener thought diamonds, responder spades, not > that it much matters. The ruling (after consultation, I am happy to > report, or at least the director took the board away from the table for > awhile) was "result stands," because "some pairs agree that opener must > continue if he has three key cards." No evidence that the pair in > question had such an agreement: This is not a question of an agreement. If partner Blackoods and you have 3 KC then kicking on is compulsary by bridge logic alone. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tapety na pulpit! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f185d From john at asimere.com Tue Mar 1 09:04:29 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Mar 1 09:06:28 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In article <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >Here's one I hadn't seen before. The event was the usual ACBL Swiss >Teams, 8 rounds, 7 boards per round, 20 VP scale, three flights. The >directors matched two teams in different flights for a second-round >match, and nobody caught it until too late. In fact, there were two of >these wrong matches, involving four teams. The match results have to be >cancelled, and no players are at fault. How many VP's do you assign to >the four teams involved? Is there an ACBL regulation? Can't speak for the ADBL m but in the UL I'd award the VPs for12 imps to both sides. (Half the boards at 3 imps a piece, rounded up. John > >The only other ruling at our table was a UI case. Our opponents' >unopposed auction went 1S-2D-4D-..4NT-..5D-...5S-6S-ap. The .. were >about 10 seconds (and harmless), the ... about 15. 5D showed 0 or 3 >keycards, but the pair in question were not clear whether the key suit >was diamonds or spades. Opener thought diamonds, responder spades, not >that it much matters. The ruling (after consultation, I am happy to >report, or at least the director took the board away from the table for >awhile) was "result stands," because "some pairs agree that opener must >continue if he has three key cards." No evidence that the pair in >question had such an agreement: given that they disagreed on the key >suit, it seems unlikely. This may have been the right ruling for a >different reason, though. This pair, as you may guess, was not a strong >one, and it isn't obvious that their hesitations suggest anything in >particular. Still, we'll never know what opener would have done over a >firm, in-tempo 5S bid. The opponents commented that they would have >appealed had the ruling gone the other way. I think that might have >been interesting to witness. You can bid on over hesitation blackwood if you have 3 more keycards than you might have had, in the uk. John > >Comments welcome on the UI case, but mostly I'm interested in the >regulation for the lost match. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.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 aadrews1 at netscape.net Tue Mar 1 10:25:38 2005 From: aadrews1 at netscape.net (vliAndrew Adams) Date: Tue Mar 1 10:26:04 2005 Subject: [blml] WISHES hstgp Message-ID: <20050301092540.885B2F3@rhubarb.custard.org> Dear Friend, As you read this, I don't want you to feel sorry for me, because, I believe everyone will die someday. My name is Andrew Adams a merchant in PHILLIPINES .I have been diagnosed with Esophageal cancer . It has defiled all forms of medical treatment, and right now I have only about a few months to live, according to medical experts. I have not particularly lived my life so well, as I never really cared for anyone(not even myself)but my business. Though I am very rich, I was never generous, I was always hostile to people and only focused on my business as that was the only thing I cared for. But now I regret all this as I now know that there is more to life than just wanting to have or make all the money in the world. I believe when God gives me a second chance to come to this world I would live my life a different way from how I have lived it. Now that God has called me, I have willed and given most of my property and assets to my immediate and extended family members as well as a few close friends. I want God to be merciful to me and accept my soul so, I have decided to give also to charity organizations, tsunami victims, and orphanage homes, as I want this to be one of the last good deeds I do on earth. So far, I have distributed money to some charity organizations in the U.A.E, Algeria and Malaysia. Now that my health has deteriorated so badly, I cannot do this myself anymore. I once asked members of my family to close one of my accounts and distribute the money which I have there to charity organization in Bulgaria and Pakistan, they refused and kept the money to themselves. Hence, I do not trust them anymore, as they seem not to be contended with what I have left for them. The last of my money which no one knows of is the huge cash deposit of eighteen million dollars that I have with a finance/Security Company abroad. I will want you to help me collect this deposit and dispatched it to charity organizations. I have set aside twenty percent for you and some expences that may incure during the proccess of these transaction. God be with you. Andrew Adams clinhuwvskwrsepvqyn From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 1 10:28:13 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 1 10:27:27 2005 Subject: [blml] dealing Message-ID: <422435AD.7000005@hdw.be> In a recent edition of the flemish bridge magazine, the leading belgian director (also called Herman but not me) states that one is not allowed to deal the hand in the way that many people have started doing recently: deal in five piles, thus: 12345432123454321, finishing 1234, then taking together the piles one and five, which contain 7 and 6 cards respectively, into four hands of 13 cards. This is certainly a fine procedure, producing truly random hands, but is it legal? Of course you may gather from the introduction that I believe it is, but who's right: Herman or Herman? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.1 - Release Date: 27/02/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 1 10:42:45 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 1 10:42:04 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: References: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42243915.2010501@hdw.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > You can bid on over hesitation blackwood if you have 3 more keycards > than you might have had, in the uk. John > But can you bid on if you have one KC more? In some cases it should be clear to you that it is clear to your partner that you have 'at least' 3 KC. If partner then hesitates and bids 5S, you cannot then suddenly find the fourth. We don't have the hands in question, nor the systems of the pair, so we cannot really say. I believe a Blackwood bidder should always work out his response before bidding Blackwood, so any hesitation thereafter must be the final contract. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.1 - Release Date: 27/02/2005 From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Mar 1 10:55:22 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue Mar 1 10:55:59 2005 Subject: [blml] dealing Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64C7@rama.micronas.com> Who is right? Well, Herman of course :) Seriously, 6B seems to say mainly that cards must be dealt face down into four hands of thirteen cards, one at a time, i.e. two subsequent cards must go into different hands. The preferred way is then that they be dealt in clockwise rotation. So the described dealing method is not the preferred one, but it is not illegal either, since it results in four hands of thirteen cards with two subsequent cards in different hands. It is in fact identical to dealing 1234143212341... i.e. you start with yourself, dealing clockwise, but everytime you give yourself a card, you change rotation next. The effect is that of piles 2 and 4, half of the cards are exchanged compared with the preferred method, but piles 1 and 3 are identical. The "lazy" method, which I see sometimes (dealing 12344321...) would not be legal, since this violates the rule that two subsequent cards must go to different hands. What do you think of the following method: Deal the cards into five piles 1234512345... , resulting in two piles of eleven cards and three of ten cards. Then take one of the smaller piles and continue dealing, starting with the two remaining smaller piles. Of course, when the pack is really thoroughly shuffled, it doesn't really matter how you deal. The problem is that this is often not the case. That is probably the reason that on an average club session balanced hands are far more frequent than can be statistically expected. -- Martin Sinot > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:28 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] dealing > > > In a recent edition of the flemish bridge magazine, the leading > belgian director (also called Herman but not me) states that one is > not allowed to deal the hand in the way that many people have started > doing recently: > > deal in five piles, thus: 12345432123454321, finishing 1234, then > taking together the piles one and five, which contain 7 and 6 cards > respectively, into four hands of 13 cards. > > This is certainly a fine procedure, producing truly random hands, but > is it legal? > > Of course you may gather from the introduction that I believe it is, > but who's right: Herman or Herman? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.1 - Release Date: 27/02/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 1 11:22:56 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Mar 1 11:26:21 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU Orange book References: <200502250135.RAA22518@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <003501c51e48$be722f40$43b787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "My faith in the people governing is, on the whole, infinitesimal; my faith in The People governed is, on the whole, illimitable." ~ Charles Dickens. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 1:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU Orange book > > > > I'm not saying that we should ban all conventions > > or anything like that. I'm just questioning the > > oft-assumed notion that we won't be able to attract > > young players unless we allow everything. I haven't > > seen any compelling reason to believe this is true. > > > > -- Adam > > +=+ Personally I do not see any disadvantage in permitting each NBO to settle what is best in its own sphere. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 1 11:29:17 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 1 11:28:35 2005 Subject: [blml] dealing In-Reply-To: <42243BC0.5030004@xtra.co.nz> References: <422435AD.7000005@hdw.be> <42243BC0.5030004@xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: <422443FD.2000000@hdw.be> Maybe it's because of the time difference (NZ is far ahead of the rest of the world) but Wayne's reply reached me before my own question went all the way up to Amsterdam and back. Wayne Burrows wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >> Of course you may gather from the introduction that I believe it is, >> but who's right: Herman or Herman? >> > I think Herman is correct here. > > Wayne > Wayne gets the prize of the fastest mail with the obvious answer. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.1 - Release Date: 27/02/2005 From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Tue Mar 1 11:32:25 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Tue Mar 1 11:33:28 2005 Subject: [blml] dealing In-Reply-To: <422435AD.7000005@hdw.be> Message-ID: >From: Herman De Wael >To: blml >Subject: [blml] dealing >Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:28:13 +0100 > >In a recent edition of the flemish bridge magazine, the leading belgian >director (also called Herman but not me) states that one is not allowed to >deal the hand in the way that many people have started doing recently: > >deal in five piles, thus: 12345432123454321, finishing 1234, then taking >together the piles one and five, which contain 7 and 6 cards respectively, >into four hands of 13 cards. > >This is certainly a fine procedure, producing truly random hands, but is it >legal? ----- Law 6B 1987 laws read: The cards must be dealt face down, one card at a time in rotation, into four hands of thirteen cards each; each hand is then placed face down in one of the four pockets of the board. In the 1997 laws this is changed. The words "in rotation" has been removed. In the end is added: "The recommended procedure is that the cards be dealt in rotation, clockwise." Thus, it is legal, but not recommended to deal in the fashion described. As a matter of fact, I often deal that way myself. Regards, Harald Skj?ran > >Of course you may gather from the introduction that I believe it is, but >who's right: Herman or Herman? > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > > > > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.1 - Release Date: 27/02/2005 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/messenger Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Tue Mar 1 11:32:24 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Tue Mar 1 11:33:29 2005 Subject: [blml] dealing In-Reply-To: <422435AD.7000005@hdw.be> Message-ID: >From: Herman De Wael >To: blml >Subject: [blml] dealing >Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:28:13 +0100 > >In a recent edition of the flemish bridge magazine, the leading belgian >director (also called Herman but not me) states that one is not allowed to >deal the hand in the way that many people have started doing recently: > >deal in five piles, thus: 12345432123454321, finishing 1234, then taking >together the piles one and five, which contain 7 and 6 cards respectively, >into four hands of 13 cards. > >This is certainly a fine procedure, producing truly random hands, but is it >legal? ----- Law 6B 1987 laws read: The cards must be dealt face down, one card at a time in rotation, into four hands of thirteen cards each; each hand is then placed face down in one of the four pockets of the board. In the 1997 laws this is changed. The words "in rotation" has been removed. In the end is added: "The recommended procedure is that the cards be dealt in rotation, clockwise." Thus, it is legal, but not recommended to deal in the fashion described. As a matter of fact, I often deal that way myself. Regards, Harald Skj?ran > >Of course you may gather from the introduction that I believe it is, but >who's right: Herman or Herman? > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > > > > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.1 - Release Date: 27/02/2005 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/messenger Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Mar 1 11:35:47 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Mar 1 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 1 Mar 2005, at 02:29, Steve Willner wrote: > The ruling (after consultation, I am happy to report, or at least the > director took the board away from the table for awhile) was "result > stands," because "some pairs agree that opener must continue if he has > three key cards." This seems like understatement. It's normal practice to continue from the five level with the higher number of key cards. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Mar 1 11:39:13 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Mar 1 11:39:37 2005 Subject: [blml] dealing In-Reply-To: <422435AD.7000005@hdw.be> References: <422435AD.7000005@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 1 Mar 2005, at 09:28, Herman De Wael wrote: > In a recent edition of the flemish bridge magazine, the leading > belgian director (also called Herman but not me) states that one is > not allowed to deal the hand in the way that many people have started > doing recently: Did he quote a law to support his assertion? > > deal in five piles, thus: 12345432123454321, finishing 1234, then > taking together the piles one and five, which contain 7 and 6 cards > respectively, into four hands of 13 cards. > > This is certainly a fine procedure, producing truly random hands, but > is it legal? Yes, though not the recommended method. > > -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 1 11:57:50 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Mar 1 12:01:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Why the drop in numbers? (was EBU Orange book) References: <002801c51d79$533b4a10$55f6f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <00d301c51e4d$9d600d40$43b787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "My faith in the people governing is, on the whole, infinitesimal; my faith in The People governed is, on the whole, illimitable." ~ Charles Dickens. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > If the ACBL believes that an ever-increasing > > average age of its members is nothing to worry > > about, then indeed we are talking about apples > > and oranges. But, if the ACBL believes that > > an average age of 55ish is more useful for its > > long-term survival than an average age of 65+, > > then indeed it might be advantageous for the > > ACBL if it learned from The Netherlands. > > +=+ 1. One could think the bridge membership should, as a norm, vary consistently as to age with the demographic pattern of the nation? 2. As to the presumptuous aspect of one individual giving advice to another, I would doubt we could expect bridge players to learn the benefits of an unassuming style such as that adopted, say, by President Bush. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From MMUNJBNQ at hotmail.com Tue Mar 1 12:13:39 2005 From: MMUNJBNQ at hotmail.com (Trevor Monroe) Date: Tue Mar 1 12:20:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Woww..8o-% 0ff 3dblml In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45831002160051.GI32419@staunton.tech.sitadelle.com> This Months speciial: Vi-codinn - 199.00 Valiuum - 169.00 Viagraa - 199.00 Cia-llis - 269.00 Codeinne - 219.00 Xa-naax - 179.00 All orderrs are delivered by UPS with full tracking 24/7. Satisfactiionnss guaaranteeed... http://www.ilovemeds.com/index.php?aid=8 This is 1 -time mailing. N0-re m0val are re'qui-red lLWzlTVgtkAFBuQqjWDLSo6fYHpKOZHB6CMKc90vfgq From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Tue Mar 1 12:41:54 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (Koen Grauwels) Date: Tue Mar 1 12:42:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play Message-ID: On BBO forums there was a question on declarer play. http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=6808&hl= => Can declarer take back his last card played if he does that without thought? Is there a difference if he played a card from his hand, played a card from dummy (pointing to it) or called a card from dummy (say it)? Thanks, Koen _________________________________________________________________ From blml at blakjak.com Tue Mar 1 13:53:07 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Mar 1 13:55:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Her first psyche In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050226173021.03f0e2c0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article <6.2.0.14.2.20050226173021.03f0e2c0@pop- >server.bigpond.net.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >>With East dealer and nil vulnerable, the hands were >> >> Q 9 >> 10 9 7 3 >> A K 10 2 >> Q 9 3 >> >> K 10 7 6 5 8 4 3 >> A Q 6 5 8 4 2 >> Q 7 8 5 3 >> 7 2 J 10 6 5 >> A J 2 >> K J >> J 9 6 4 >> A K 8 4 >> >>and the bidding >> >> West North East South >> 1C 1NT >> 2S X pass 2NT >> all pass >> >>East's 1C was psychic, her first so with heart pounding she >>alerted her partner's 2S bid as "opening values showing two >>non touching suits". (They are not too experienced but are >>taking lessons from some bid master or other). > >so North has just said "Hello world! I believe the opponents and not my >partner". Serves the b****r right :) I'll book him for fielding his >partners non-psyche, I suppose. cheers John I expect you have most of you heard of our aid to TDs, the traffic light principle of psyches. A Red psyche is a psyche where partner's actions appear to cater for a psyche. An Amber psyche is a psyche where partner's actions might appear to cater for a psyche. A Green psyche is any other psyche. Several English TDs also refer to a "Blue Psyche". This is where partner's actions appear to cater for a psyche - but he hasn't psyched! -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at blakjak.com Tue Mar 1 13:56:54 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Mar 1 13:58:28 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote >Here's one I hadn't seen before. The event was the usual ACBL Swiss >Teams, 8 rounds, 7 boards per round, 20 VP scale, three flights. The >directors matched two teams in different flights for a second-round >match, and nobody caught it until too late. In fact, there were two of >these wrong matches, involving four teams. The match results have to >be cancelled, and no players are at fault. How many VP's do you assign >to the four teams involved? Is there an ACBL regulation? There may not be an ACBL reg, but what do they do when they mismatch within the same flight? The EBU has a mis-match reg in its White book. While this was not intended for mis-matches between flights, no doubt we would apply it. Why do the match results "have" to be cancelled? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at blakjak.com Tue Mar 1 13:57:43 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Mar 1 13:59:07 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote >In a message dated 01/03/2005 02:30:28 GMT Standard Time, >swillner@cfa.harvard.edu writes: > Here's one I hadn't seen before.? The event was the usual ACBL Swiss > Teams, 8 rounds, 7 boards per round, 20 VP scale, three flights.? > The > directors matched two teams in different flights for a second-round > match, and nobody caught it until too late.? In fact, there were two > of > these wrong matches, involving four teams.? The match results have > to be > cancelled, and no players are at fault.? How many VP's do you assign > to > the four teams involved?? Is there an ACBL regulation? >The EBU certainly has a regulation. >We award A+ ie 3 imps for Swiss teams for half the boards and A for the >remainder - ie 0 imps - we then apply the VP scale >For a 7 board match this comes to 10.5 imps and 15 Vps for >non-offending teams.? (and also incidentally means different Vp scores >for matches of differing length but generally 14,15 or 16 on a 20vp >scale with the higher scores for longer matches As I wrote in another post, why do we have to cancel the result? Why not treat it as a mis-match? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Tue Mar 1 13:59:48 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Mar 1 14:01:48 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: References: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote >On 1 Mar 2005, at 02:29, Steve Willner wrote: > >> The ruling (after consultation, I am happy to report, or at least the >>director took the board away from the table for awhile) was "result >>stands," because "some pairs agree that opener must continue if he has >>three key cards." > >This seems like understatement. It's normal practice to continue from >the five level with the higher number of key cards. An interesting view. While I agree wit a 4-or-1 case, I have my doubts whether this is true with 3-or-0 for most people. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at starpower.net Tue Mar 1 14:02:37 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Mar 1 14:02:32 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <20050301080019.8B1CBB9F73@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050301080019.8B1CBB9F73@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050301075303.02b9a130@pop.starpower.net> At 03:00 AM 3/1/05, Konrad wrote: >Steve Willner napisa?(a): > > > The only other ruling at our table was a UI case. Our opponents' > > unopposed auction went 1S-2D-4D-..4NT-..5D-...5S-6S-ap. The .. were > > about 10 seconds (and harmless), the ... about 15. 5D showed 0 or 3 > > keycards, but the pair in question were not clear whether the key suit > > was diamonds or spades. Opener thought diamonds, responder spades, > not > > that it much matters. The ruling (after consultation, I am happy to > > report, or at least the director took the board away from the table > for > > awhile) was "result stands," because "some pairs agree that opener > must > > continue if he has three key cards." No evidence that the pair in > > question had such an agreement: > >This is not a question of an agreement. If partner Blackoods >and you have 3 KC then kicking on is compulsary by >bridge logic alone. "Bridge logic alone" tells me that one should never bid Blackwood knowing so little about partner's hand that one cannot predict partner's response to within three key cards. So unless partner is a complete moron, when you show zero key cards he must know you cannot have three, and when you show three he must know you cannot have zero. The agreement Konrad describes would preclude asking for key cards when your plan would be to bid slam opposite four (or five). It makes no sense at all. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml at blakjak.com Tue Mar 1 14:04:40 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Mar 1 14:06:29 2005 Subject: [blml] dealing In-Reply-To: <422435AD.7000005@hdw.be> References: <422435AD.7000005@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >In a recent edition of the flemish bridge magazine, the leading belgian >director (also called Herman but not me) states that one is not allowed >to deal the hand in the way that many people have started doing >recently: > >deal in five piles, thus: 12345432123454321, finishing 1234, then >taking together the piles one and five, which contain 7 and 6 cards >respectively, into four hands of 13 cards. > >This is certainly a fine procedure, producing truly random hands, but >is it legal? > >Of course you may gather from the introduction that I believe it is, >but who's right: Herman or Herman? No doubt people will produce fairly illogical arguments based on the actual wording, but it is logically clear from the wording that [a] you do not *have* to deal traditionally, otherwise it would not refer to a recommended procedure, and [b] consecutive cards may not go onto the same pile. Since the cited method follows both [a] and [b] I believe it be acceptable: furthermore, a number of authorities have said so. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Tue Mar 1 14:08:25 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Mar 1 14:09:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Koen Grauwels wrote >On BBO forums there was a question on declarer play. > >http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=6808&hl= > >=> >Can declarer take back his last card played if he does that without thought? >Is there a difference if he played a card from his hand, played a card >from dummy (pointing to it) or called a card from dummy (say it)? A played card may not be withdrawn. A designated card may be withdrawn in certain cases [inadvertence, speed of change, etc]. So when declarer plays a card from hand it may not be changed: when he designates a card it may sometimes be. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Mar 1 14:19:29 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Mar 1 14:19:55 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: References: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 1 Mar 2005, at 12:59, David Stevenson wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote >> On 1 Mar 2005, at 02:29, Steve Willner wrote: >> >>> The ruling (after consultation, I am happy to report, or at least >>> the director took the board away from the table for awhile) was >>> "result stands," because "some pairs agree that opener must continue >>> if he has three key cards." >> >> This seems like understatement. It's normal practice to continue from >> the five level with the higher number of key cards. > > An interesting view. While I agree wit a 4-or-1 case, I have my > doubts whether this is true with 3-or-0 for most people. To want to sign off at the five level opposite three key-cards would necessitate the 4NT bidder having taken charge without holding any key-cards. Except in exceptional circumstances, when the responder to 4NT has already guaranteed a hand with great high-card strength, one would expect three key-cards to be sufficient to continue to slam. I note that the advice on dealing with Hesitation Blackwood contained in the EBU's White Book, edited by David Stevenson, seems to regard the situation of 0/3 keycards as similar to 1/4, or 0/4. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml at blakjak.com Tue Mar 1 16:54:58 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Mar 1 16:56:46 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: References: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote > >On 1 Mar 2005, at 12:59, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Gordon Rainsford wrote >>> On 1 Mar 2005, at 02:29, Steve Willner wrote: >>> >>>> The ruling (after consultation, I am happy to report, or at least >>>>the director took the board away from the table for awhile) was >>>>"result stands," because "some pairs agree that opener must continue >>>>if he has three key cards." >>> >>> This seems like understatement. It's normal practice to continue >>>from the five level with the higher number of key cards. >> >> An interesting view. While I agree wit a 4-or-1 case, I have my >>doubts whether this is true with 3-or-0 for most people. > >To want to sign off at the five level opposite three key-cards would >necessitate the 4NT bidder having taken charge without holding any >key-cards. Except in exceptional circumstances, when the responder to >4NT has already guaranteed a hand with great high-card strength, one >would expect three key-cards to be sufficient to continue to slam. > >I note that the advice on dealing with Hesitation Blackwood contained >in the EBU's White Book, edited by David Stevenson, seems to regard the >situation of 0/3 keycards as similar to 1/4, >or 0/4. Perhaps you should actually quote it, rather than give a totally erroneous impression that I have disagreed with myself. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Mar 1 17:24:00 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Mar 1 17:24:24 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: References: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <600b79ef64cb70f2d58959c9ca399951@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 1 Mar 2005, at 15:54, David Stevenson wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote >> >> On 1 Mar 2005, at 12:59, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Gordon Rainsford wrote >>>> On 1 Mar 2005, at 02:29, Steve Willner wrote: >>>> >>>>> The ruling (after consultation, I am happy to report, or at least >>>>> the director took the board away from the table for awhile) was >>>>> "result stands," because "some pairs agree that opener must >>>>> continue if he has three key cards." >>>> >>>> This seems like understatement. It's normal practice to continue >>>> from the five level with the higher number of key cards. >>> >>> An interesting view. While I agree wit a 4-or-1 case, I have my >>> doubts whether this is true with 3-or-0 for most people. >> >> To want to sign off at the five level opposite three key-cards would >> necessitate the 4NT bidder having taken charge without holding any >> key-cards. Except in exceptional circumstances, when the responder to >> 4NT has already guaranteed a hand with great high-card strength, one >> would expect three key-cards to be sufficient to continue to slam. >> >> I note that the advice on dealing with Hesitation Blackwood contained >> in the EBU's White Book, edited by David Stevenson, seems to regard >> the situation of 0/3 keycards as similar to 1/4, >> or 0/4. > > Perhaps you should actually quote it, rather than give a totally > erroneous impression that I have disagreed with myself. White Book ? November 2003 ? Chapter IV 16.4 "Hesitation Blackwood" The partner of a Blackwood bidder is normally expected to accept his partner's decision, and when that decision is after a pause for thought, it is not permitted to continue except when partner "cannot" have a hand on which slam will fail. While this is the normal case there are particular positions where it might be acceptable for a player to continue, which include: ? Responder holds an unshown but useful void. ? Because he has miscounted responder has more aces than he has shown ? After a response showing 0/3, 0/4 or 1/4, responder has the higher value. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From adam at irvine.com Tue Mar 1 17:51:20 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Mar 1 17:51:45 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: Your message of "01 Mar 2005 09:00:19 +0100." <20050301080019.8B1CBB9F73@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <200503011651.IAA23264@mailhub.irvine.com> > Steve Willner napisał(a): > > > The only other ruling at our table was a UI case. Our opponents' > > unopposed auction went 1S-2D-4D-..4NT-..5D-...5S-6S-ap. The .. were > > about 10 seconds (and harmless), the ... about 15. 5D showed 0 or 3 > > keycards, but the pair in question were not clear whether the key suit > > was diamonds or spades. Opener thought diamonds, responder spades, not > > that it much matters. The ruling (after consultation, I am happy to > > report, or at least the director took the board away from the table for > > awhile) was "result stands," because "some pairs agree that opener must > > continue if he has three key cards." No evidence that the pair in > > question had such an agreement: > > > This is not a question of an agreement. If partner Blackoods > and you have 3 KC then kicking on is compulsary by > bridge logic alone. Blackwood and "bridge logic" in the same sentence??? That's dangerous. For what it's worth: I used to believe what Konrad says about bridge logic, but no longer. If a Blackwood bidder can't tell the difference between 0 and 3 keycards, or 1 and 4, then he shouldn't be bidding Blackwood---he risks having to sign off at the five level missing three keycards. So I tend to believe that a five-level signoff should be respected regardless---if you have three keycards and partner signs off, you should assume he was assuming you wouldn't have zero. There are some exceptions (such as cases where opposing preemption has cramped the bidding, and the best alternative may be to try Blackwood and pray that you're not going to get too high). Of course, this doesn't affect the ruling, since we can't assume that the pair in question was required by law to think this hard before using Blackwood. Steve said this wasn't a strong pair, and many non-strong pairs just wheel out Blackwood whenever they think there are slam possibilities. Like I said, using "Blackwood" and "bridge logic" in the same sentence is dangerous . . . -- Adam From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Mar 1 17:51:23 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Mar 1 17:51:48 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: References: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <210e932756febfa36ec890cd869953dd@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 1 Mar 2005, at 13:19, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > To want to sign off at the five level opposite three key-cards would > necessitate the 4NT bidder having taken charge without holding any > key-cards. Except in exceptional circumstances, when the responder to > 4NT has already guaranteed a hand with great high-card strength, one > would expect three key-cards to be sufficient to continue to slam. I've just had a look on the web for resources dealing with this situation. Of the dozen or so that I looked at, most sidestep the issue. The one I found (firesides.net) that did deal with it said: '"How do I know if Partner has 0 as opposed to 3 Key Cards?" The simple answer is that sometimes you don't. If Clubs are trump and you are playing 0314, you must guess: 1C:4NT:5C. If Diamonds are trump and you chose to play 1403, you must also guess: 1D:4NT:5D. If any higher ranked suit is trump, though, 4NT bidder can stop in the agreed trump suit, after which Partner _must_ bid on with 3 Key Cards.' I also found a Ron Klinger booklet on my bookshelf that says: 'Most of the time, the bidding will indicate whether 5C is 0 key cards or 3 key cards, and likewise whether 5D is 1 key card or 4 key cards. However, if you are not sure, always assume that partner has the lower number and check whether that is feasible on the bidding. If not, continue with the slam exploration. If the lower number of key cards is conceivable, sign off in your trump suit. _Partner will ALWAYS bid on if holding the higher number of key cards._' -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From adam at irvine.com Tue Mar 1 17:53:02 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Mar 1 17:53:27 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:42:45 +0100." <42243915.2010501@hdw.be> Message-ID: <200503011653.IAA23278@mailhub.irvine.com> Herman wrote: > I believe a Blackwood bidder should always work out his response > before bidding Blackwood You're joking, right? The proper way to play bridge is that when you sense that a slam might be possible, your hand must automatically head straight for the 4NT bidding card and pull it out of the box without pause for thought. :) -- Adam From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Mar 1 17:57:53 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Mar 1 17:58:17 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional Message-ID: <20050301165753.AFFE2173E70@poczta.interia.pl> David Stevenson napisa?(a): > Gordon Rainsford wrote > >On 1 Mar 2005, at 02:29, Steve Willner wrote: > > > >> The ruling (after consultation, I am happy to report, or at least the > >>director took the board away from the table for awhile) was "result > >>stands," because "some pairs agree that opener must continue if he has > >>three key cards." > > > >This seems like understatement. It's normal practice to continue from > >the five level with the higher number of key cards. > > An interesting view. While I agree wit a 4-or-1 case, I have my > doubts whether this is true with 3-or-0 for most people. > I cannot imagine Blackwooding with 0 zero key cards. So the possesion of 3 KC guarantees that the partnership has at least 4 of them so a slam must be bid. I cannot imagine a player bidding 4NT and then, having learnt that only one KC is missing (except for the special case when he can ask for the trump queen) he signs off in five. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tapety na pulpit! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f185d From adam at irvine.com Tue Mar 1 17:58:18 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Mar 1 17:58:43 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:51:23 GMT." <210e932756febfa36ec890cd869953dd@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <200503011658.IAA23306@mailhub.irvine.com> Gordon wrote: > On 1 Mar 2005, at 13:19, Gordon Rainsford [actually Eric Landau] wrote: > > > > To want to sign off at the five level opposite three key-cards would > > necessitate the 4NT bidder having taken charge without holding any > > key-cards. Except in exceptional circumstances, when the responder to > > 4NT has already guaranteed a hand with great high-card strength, one > > would expect three key-cards to be sufficient to continue to slam. > > I've just had a look on the web for resources dealing with this > situation. Of the dozen or so that I looked at, most sidestep the > issue. The one I found (firesides.net) that did deal with it said: > > '"How do I know if Partner has 0 as opposed to 3 Key Cards?" > The simple answer is that sometimes you don't. If Clubs are trump and > you are playing 0314, you must guess: 1C:4NT:5C. And this "resource" didn't suggest that if you were going to have to guess how many keycards partner has, MAYBE YOU SHOULD BID A WHOLE LOT SLOWER INSTEAD OF JUST LAUNCHING OVER FOUR BIDDING LEVELS INTO BLACKWOOD????????? Sorry, I disagree that this web site you found should be called a "resource". Sheesh. Not that I have any strong feelings about this topic or anything. -- Adam From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Mar 1 18:08:53 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Mar 1 18:09:19 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <200503011658.IAA23306@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200503011658.IAA23306@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On 1 Mar 2005, at 16:58, Adam Beneschan wrote: > And this "resource" didn't suggest that if you were going to have to > guess how many keycards partner has, MAYBE YOU SHOULD BID A WHOLE LOT > SLOWER INSTEAD OF JUST LAUNCHING OVER FOUR BIDDING LEVELS INTO > BLACKWOOD????????? Sorry, I disagree that this web site you found > should be called a "resource". Sheesh. > > Not that I have any strong feelings about this topic or anything. Let me guess, Adam: if asked for advice to help someone get out of an awkward current financial position, you would say "YOU SHOULD HAVE SPENT LESS!" -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Mar 1 18:38:31 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Mar 1 18:38:56 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional Message-ID: <20050301173831.53018173E68@poczta.interia.pl> Adam Beneschan napisa?(a): > > > Steve Willner napisa?(a): > > > > > The only other ruling at our table was a UI case. Our opponents>#039; > > > > unopposed auction went 1S-2D-4D-..4NT-..5D-...5S-6S-ap. The .. were > > > about 10 seconds (and harmless), the ... about 15. 5D showed 0 or 3 > > > keycards, but the pair in question were not clear whether the key suit > > > > was diamonds or spades. Opener thought diamonds, responder spades, > not > > > that it much matters. The ruling (after consultation, I am happy to > > > report, or at least the director took the board away from the table > for > > > awhile) was "result stands," because "some pairs agree that opener > must > > > continue if he has three key cards." No evidence that the pair in > > > question had such an agreement: > > > > > > This is not a question of an agreement. If partner Blackoods > > and you have 3 KC then kicking on is compulsary by > > bridge logic alone. > > Blackwood and "bridge logic" in the same sentence??? That's > dangerous. > > For what it's worth: I used to believe what Konrad says about bridge > logic, but no longer. If a Blackwood bidder can't tell the difference > between 0 and 3 keycards, or 1 and 4, then he shouldn't be bidding > Blackwood---he risks having to sign off at the five level missing > three keycards. Maybe I am biased. I regularly sign-off at the five level knowing for sure that partner holds 3/4 KC for his response. The reason for this is that it allows me to save bidding space to explore grand slam possibilities eg. ask for the trump queen at a lower level. Let's say hearts are trumps: 4BA 5D (0/3) 5H 5S/NT = I have 3 KC without/with the trump queen (responder with 3 KC acts as if 5H were the trump queen ask) Otherwise opener would have to ask for the trump queen with 5S and he would have less room at the six level on the next round. I have been playing this treatment for so many years that now the idea of passing partner's five-of-the-agreed-suit bid with 3/4 KC seems insane to me. But perhaps you are right - weak players very often bid 4NT first, and think later. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tapety na pulpit! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f185d From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 1 19:44:52 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Mar 1 19:45:16 2005 Subject: [blml] dealing In-Reply-To: <422435AD.7000005@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000701c51e8e$c142d8a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > In a recent edition of the flemish bridge magazine, the leading > belgian director (also called Herman but not me) states that one is > not allowed to deal the hand in the way that many people have started > doing recently: > > deal in five piles, thus: 12345432123454321, finishing 1234, then > taking together the piles one and five, which contain 7 and 6 cards > respectively, into four hands of 13 cards. > > This is certainly a fine procedure, producing truly random hands, but > is it legal? > > Of course you may gather from the introduction that I believe it is, > but who's right: Herman or Herman? As several posters already have said this is (of course) legal. I always deal that way myself for two reasons: 1 (not seriously): To see the astonished comments from players trying to tell me that we are only four players, or similar comments to the same effect. (Alas, most players know me and this routine by now!) 2 (seriously): With the "recommended" procedure each player receives exactly every fourth card through the pile which increases the probability for "resonance" effects from something like two ripple shuffles. The five pile dealing results in two players receiving cards with alternating intervals one and three cards which slightly increases the randomness in the dealing process (unless the pack was already perfectly shuffled in which case any dealing procedure will do). The difference is hardly noticeable, but it is there and in such a way that the "recommended" procedure is slightly inferior to the five pile procedure. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 1 19:55:14 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Mar 1 19:55:37 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <42243915.2010501@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c51e90$33ffc050$6900a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > You can bid on over hesitation blackwood if you have 3 more keycards > > than you might have had, in the uk. John > > > > But can you bid on if you have one KC more? > In some cases it should be clear to you that it is clear to your > partner that you have 'at least' 3 KC. If partner then hesitates and > bids 5S, you cannot then suddenly find the fourth. > We don't have the hands in question, nor the systems of the pair, so > we cannot really say. > I believe a Blackwood bidder should always work out his response > before bidding Blackwood, so any hesitation thereafter must be the > final contract. Auction: (Spades is agreed for trumps) 4NT (RKCB) - response zero or three key cards 5S after hesitation - PASS If responder holds three key cards he may argue till he loses his breath that opener must have known that he could not be without key cards. If 5S just makes I shall adjust to 6S-1 The hesitation can hardly suggest anything but pass, and correcting to 6 with maximum is (almost) a part of the RKCB convention. Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 1 19:59:36 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Mar 1 19:59:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c51e90$d047d6a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Koen Grauwels > On BBO forums there was a question on declarer play. > > http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=6808&hl= > > => > Can declarer take back his last card played if he does that without > thought? > Is there a difference if he played a card from his hand, played a card > from > dummy (pointing to it) or called a card from dummy (say it)? He can correct a misnomer and he can take back a card exposed but apparently not for the purpose (or with the intention) of playing it. He may not "change his mind" once the card has been brought to a position where opponents have reason to believe it is his intended play. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 1 20:11:31 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Mar 1 20:11:54 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <600b79ef64cb70f2d58959c9ca399951@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000a01c51e92$7a53d4e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford ............... > White Book - November 2003 - Chapter IV > 16.4 "Hesitation Blackwood" > The partner of a Blackwood bidder is normally > expected to accept his partner's decision, and > when that decision is after a pause for thought, > it is not permitted to continue except when > partner "cannot" have a hand on which slam will > fail. > While this is the normal case there are particular > positions where it might be acceptable > for a player to continue, which include: > . Responder holds an unshown but useful void. > . Because he has miscounted responder has more aces than he has shown > . After a response showing 0/3, 0/4 or 1/4, responder has the higher > value. Does this say that the Director cannot adjust a five-level contract just made into a six-level contract one down when a responder decided to pass although he held three or four key cards (instead of zero or one as the case may be) and the Blackwood bidder then signed off in five after a hesitation? I have had cases where we did indeed adjust five just made to six with one down after similar hesitations. Regards Sven From unwaxed at didamail.com Tue Mar 1 21:37:31 2005 From: unwaxed at didamail.com (Erick Lujan) Date: Tue Mar 1 21:37:32 2005 Subject: [blml] 3.25% rate approval Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.fastlenderz.com/x/loan.php?id=nu Best Regards, Arron Jackson to be remov(ed: http://www.fastlenderz.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From QJXDUIAQHH at businessecurity.lv Tue Mar 1 22:04:01 2005 From: QJXDUIAQHH at businessecurity.lv (Sherrie Milton) Date: Tue Mar 1 22:10:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Your penis on call instantly Message-ID: <1026622284.475.1.camel@azrael> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050301/6058455d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 1 23:28:53 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 1 23:29:27 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <20050301080019.8B1CBB9F73@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski -> >>This is not a question of an agreement. If partner Blackoods >>and you have 3 KC then kicking on is compulsory by bridge >>logic alone. Ludwig Wittgenstein -> >Die Logik muss f?r sich selber sorgen. Richard Hills -> If: (a) I have previously promised extra values in the earlier auction, and (b) pard uses Keycard Blackwood, and (c) I show zero or three keycards, and (d) pard signs off at the 5-level, but (e) I actually hold three keycards, then (f) my bridge logic tells me to respect pard's signoff, since (g) my previously promised extra values told pard that zero keycards was impossible, so pard only desired slam if I had an "a priori" possible *four* keycards. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 1 23:41:04 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 1 23:41:41 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <42243915.2010501@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael suggested: [snip] >I believe a Blackwood bidder should always work out his response >before bidding Blackwood, so any hesitation thereafter must be the >final contract. Richard Hills quibbles: (a) Echeloning one's hesitation, so one hesitates *before* one has a problem, could, in some circumstances, be an infraction of Law 73F2 (Player Injured by Illegal Deception). (b) "Must" is too strong a word, if the partner of a Hesitation Blackwooder has a useful and undisclosed void. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From adam at irvine.com Tue Mar 1 23:47:55 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Mar 1 23:48:17 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:41:04 +1100." Message-ID: <200503012247.OAA25428@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Herman De Wael suggested: > > [snip] > > >I believe a Blackwood bidder should always work out his response > >before bidding Blackwood, so any hesitation thereafter must be the > >final contract. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > (a) Echeloning one's hesitation, so one hesitates *before* one has > a problem, could, in some circumstances, be an infraction of Law > 73F2 (Player Injured by Illegal Deception). NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. If pausing to plan ahead in the auction is ever considered to be an infraction of the Law, then this game of bridge is no longer worth playing. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 1 23:55:12 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 1 23:55:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Her first psyche In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson: [snip] > Several English TDs also refer to a "Blue Psyche". This is where >partner's actions appear to cater for a psyche - but he hasn't psyched! Richard Hills: I was once the beneficiary of a "Pink with Purple Spots Psyche". In a match a few years age, an opponent made the reasonable assumption that I had psyched, so the opponent doubled my baby-psyche contract of 3NT. After the dust had settled, I had scored +1800 in 3NT redoubled. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Mar 2 01:02:38 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Mar 2 01:03:03 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <000a01c51e92$7a53d4e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c51e92$7a53d4e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <08d0d9e5a118cfbd721e98d20fd8ac30@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 1 Mar 2005, at 19:11, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > ............... >> White Book - November 2003 - Chapter IV >> 16.4 "Hesitation Blackwood" >> The partner of a Blackwood bidder is normally >> expected to accept his partner's decision, and >> when that decision is after a pause for thought, >> it is not permitted to continue except when >> partner "cannot" have a hand on which slam will >> fail. >> While this is the normal case there are particular >> positions where it might be acceptable >> for a player to continue, which include: >> . Responder holds an unshown but useful void. >> . Because he has miscounted responder has more aces than he has shown >> . After a response showing 0/3, 0/4 or 1/4, responder has the higher >> value. > > Does this say that the Director cannot adjust a five-level contract > just > made into a six-level contract one down when a responder decided to > pass > although he held three or four key cards (instead of zero or one as > the case > may be) and the Blackwood bidder then signed off in five after a > hesitation? No, it doesn't say that - at least not according to my reading of it. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml at blakjak.com Wed Mar 2 02:01:00 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Mar 2 02:02:40 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <600b79ef64cb70f2d58959c9ca399951@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> <600b79ef64cb70f2d58959c9ca399951@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote >On 1 Mar 2005, at 15:54, David Stevenson wrote: >> Gordon Rainsford wrote >>> >>> On 1 Mar 2005, at 12:59, David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>>> Gordon Rainsford wrote >>>>> On 1 Mar 2005, at 02:29, Steve Willner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The ruling (after consultation, I am happy to report, or at least >>>>>>the director took the board away from the table for awhile) was >>>>>>"result stands," because "some pairs agree that opener must >>>>>>continue if he has three key cards." >>>>> >>>>> This seems like understatement. It's normal practice to continue >>>>>from the five level with the higher number of key cards. >>>> >>>> An interesting view. While I agree wit a 4-or-1 case, I have my >>>>doubts whether this is true with 3-or-0 for most people. >>> >>> To want to sign off at the five level opposite three key-cards would >>>necessitate the 4NT bidder having taken charge without holding any >>>key-cards. Except in exceptional circumstances, when the responder to >>>4NT has already guaranteed a hand with great high-card strength, one >>>would expect three key-cards to be sufficient to continue to slam. >>> >>> I note that the advice on dealing with Hesitation Blackwood >>>contained in the EBU's White Book, edited by David Stevenson, seems >>>to regard the situation of 0/3 keycards as similar to 1/4, >>> or 0/4. >> >> Perhaps you should actually quote it, rather than give a totally >>erroneous impression that I have disagreed with myself. > >White Book ? November 2003 ? Chapter IV >16.4 "Hesitation Blackwood" >The partner of a Blackwood bidder is normally expected to accept his >partner's >decision, and when that decision is after a pause for thought, it is >not permitted to >continue except when partner "cannot" have a hand on which slam will >fail. >While this is the normal case there are particular positions where it >might be acceptable >for a player to continue, which include: >? Responder holds an unshown but useful void. >? Because he has miscounted responder has more aces than he has shown >? After a response showing 0/3, 0/4 or 1/4, responder has the higher >value. Exactly. Some very generalised advice on how to approach Hesitation Blackwood. Gordon wrote: >>>> This seems like understatement. It's normal practice to continue >>>>from the five level with the higher number of key cards. David replied: >>> An interesting view. While I agree wit a 4-or-1 case, I have my >>>doubts whether this is true with 3-or-0 for most people. Doesn't seem to be affected in any way by the WB advice above, does it? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Mar 2 02:03:07 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Mar 2 02:04:39 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <000a01c51e92$7a53d4e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <600b79ef64cb70f2d58959c9ca399951@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000a01c51e92$7a53d4e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford >............... >> White Book - November 2003 - Chapter IV >> 16.4 "Hesitation Blackwood" >> The partner of a Blackwood bidder is normally >> expected to accept his partner's decision, and >> when that decision is after a pause for thought, >> it is not permitted to continue except when >> partner "cannot" have a hand on which slam will >> fail. >> While this is the normal case there are particular >> positions where it might be acceptable >> for a player to continue, which include: >> . Responder holds an unshown but useful void. >> . Because he has miscounted responder has more aces than he has shown >> . After a response showing 0/3, 0/4 or 1/4, responder has the higher >> value. > >Does this say that the Director cannot adjust a five-level contract just >made into a six-level contract one down when a responder decided to pass >although he held three or four key cards (instead of zero or one as the case >may be) and the Blackwood bidder then signed off in five after a hesitation? No, it does not say that at all. Is it not possible to just read what it says and assume it means what it says and nothing more? >I have had cases where we did indeed adjust five just made to six with one >down after similar hesitations. Of course. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 2 02:18:44 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Mar 2 02:19:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Gold standard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gold Coast Congress, February?2005 Matchpoint Pairs; Section H consolation final Board 13; both vul; North dealer The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2H(1) Pass ? (1) 6-10hcp; 5+ hearts and 4+ cards in an unspecified second suit (but the unspecified second suit is *usually* 5+ cards also). You, South, hold: J982 K8 Q3 AK972 In your system: (a) 2S = pass or correct (b) 2NT = artificial strong enquiry (c) 3C = undiscussed What call do you make? What other call do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From blml at blakjak.com Wed Mar 2 02:46:21 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Mar 2 02:48:03 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: References: <600b79ef64cb70f2d58959c9ca399951@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000a01c51e92$7a53d4e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote >Sven Pran wrote >>> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford >>............... >>> White Book - November 2003 - Chapter IV >>> 16.4 "Hesitation Blackwood" >>> The partner of a Blackwood bidder is normally >>> expected to accept his partner's decision, and >>> when that decision is after a pause for thought, >>> it is not permitted to continue except when >>> partner "cannot" have a hand on which slam will >>> fail. >>> While this is the normal case there are particular >>> positions where it might be acceptable >>> for a player to continue, which include: >>> . Responder holds an unshown but useful void. >>> . Because he has miscounted responder has more aces than he has shown >>> . After a response showing 0/3, 0/4 or 1/4, responder has the higher >>> value. >> >>Does this say that the Director cannot adjust a five-level contract just >>made into a six-level contract one down when a responder decided to pass >>although he held three or four key cards (instead of zero or one as the case >>may be) and the Blackwood bidder then signed off in five after a hesitation? > > No, it does not say that at all. > > Is it not possible to just read what it says and assume it means what >it says and nothing more? On thinking about this and other comments on this thread I still find it surprising that anyone can misread this to such a degree. however, since it is so I feel I should explain. >>> The partner of a Blackwood bidder is normally >>> expected to accept his partner's decision, and >>> when that decision is after a pause for thought, >>> it is not permitted to continue except when >>> partner "cannot" have a hand on which slam will >>> fail. This is the normal situation. If there is nothing special then to continue after Hesitation Blackwood would need something pretty compelling. >>> While this is the normal case there are particular >>> positions where it might be acceptable >>> for a player to continue, which include: >>> . Responder holds an unshown but useful void. >>> . Because he has miscounted responder has more aces than he has shown >>> . After a response showing 0/3, 0/4 or 1/4, responder has the higher >>> value. Now this shows some positions where it "might be acceptable" for a player to continue. Might is not a certainty. It does not mean the same as "it is acceptable" but suggests the possibility. If a player has gone on in such a situation "might be acceptable" does not mean that automatically such a player gets a ruling in their favour. If the WB meant that it would probably say something like "It is always acceptable". By saying might they have not said that any such ruling is always given. This is, after all, merely guidelines to help. Let us take a specific situation, where a response shows 3 or 0. It is followed by a slow signoff. Some people in this thread appear to feel the above means you now have to rule in favour of a pair who has used Hesitation Blackwood, but that is not the case: "might be acceptable" merely allows for the possibility, and suggests that the TD considers the case on its merits. It has also been inferred that the above means that I personally always consider a player with 3 having shown 3 or 0 should go on, even though I said otherwise. It is difficult to see how this can be inferred from this statement in the WB, which refers to a view of the Committee about how to approach a ruling, not the view of one member of the Committee on what correct bidding implies. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at tameware.com Wed Mar 2 05:25:04 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed Mar 2 05:25:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Orlando cases posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 7:55 PM -0500 2/26/05, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >I've posted the case write-ups from the Fall NABC under my bridge laws page at > > http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/orlando2004 > >If you spot any typos please drop me a line and I'll pass the info on. My thanks to Alex Ogan, David Grabiner, and Harald Skj?ran who sent me corrections which I forwarded to Dave Smith at the ACBL. Dave prepared updated version of the appeals from NABC+ events which I've posted. I've now posted my comments on the appeals from NABC+ events. As always, your remarks, corrections, and suggestions are welcome. -- Adam Wildavsky http://www.tameware.com From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 1 15:40:06 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Mar 2 08:05:19 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 6:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Sectional > wrote > >In a message dated 01/03/2005 02:30:28 GMT Standard Time, > >swillner@cfa.harvard.edu writes: > > Here's one I hadn't seen before. The event was the usual ACBL Swiss > > Teams, 8 rounds, 7 boards per round, 20 VP scale, three flights. > > The > > directors matched two teams in different flights for a second-round > > match, and nobody caught it until too late. In fact, there were two > > of > > these wrong matches, involving four teams. The match results have > > to be > > cancelled, and no players are at fault. How many VP's do you assign > > to > > the four teams involved? Is there an ACBL regulation? > > >The EBU certainly has a regulation. > >We award A+ ie 3 imps for Swiss teams for half the boards and A for the > >remainder - ie 0 imps - we then apply the VP scale > >For a 7 board match this comes to 10.5 imps and 15 Vps for > >non-offending teams. (and also incidentally means different Vp scores > >for matches of differing length but generally 14,15 or 16 on a 20vp > >scale with the higher scores for longer matches > > As I wrote in another post, why do we have to cancel the result? Why > not treat it as a mis-match? I would think that if the teams were entered in the same event that would make sense- but they were not entered in the same event at the time of the mis pairing. As at least one team was not entered in the event of the other, it is necessary to disqualify it. Yet, disqualification can be averted [can it not] if the lower team agreed to join the higher event then the first two rounds can be treated as a mismatch [and it is reasonable to not adjust the score of the 'easier' first round lower flight pairing of the team that changed events]. There may be some contentiousness over the new team having gotten an 'easy first round draw' but I would consider it some compensation for bumping up a flight [and not attempt to adjust for it]. regards roger pewick > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 2 08:05:24 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 2 08:05:48 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c51ef6$34b9d830$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote > >> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > >............... > >> White Book - November 2003 - Chapter IV > >> 16.4 "Hesitation Blackwood" > >> The partner of a Blackwood bidder is normally > >> expected to accept his partner's decision, and > >> when that decision is after a pause for thought, > >> it is not permitted to continue except when > >> partner "cannot" have a hand on which slam will > >> fail. > >> While this is the normal case there are particular > >> positions where it might be acceptable > >> for a player to continue, which include: > >> . Responder holds an unshown but useful void. > >> . Because he has miscounted responder has more aces than he has shown > >> . After a response showing 0/3, 0/4 or 1/4, responder has the higher > >> value. > > > >Does this say that the Director cannot adjust a five-level contract just > >made into a six-level contract one down when a responder decided to pass > >although he held three or four key cards (instead of zero or one as the > case > >may be) and the Blackwood bidder then signed off in five after a > hesitation? > > No, it does not say that at all. > > Is it not possible to just read what it says and assume it means what > it says and nothing more? I read it (and I still read it) as follows: "When the decision is after a pause for thought it is not permitted to continue except when ..." There is nothing there to the effect that "it is not permitted to pass (not continue) when the responder has the maximum variant of a two-way response except when ..." I am however satisfied that this rule apparently is implied. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Mar 2 09:24:01 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Mar 2 09:23:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play (2) In-Reply-To: <000901c51e90$d047d6a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c51e90$d047d6a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42257821.1090201@hdw.be> A similar case occured to me on sunday: Dummy has Ace-seven of diamonds, which are trumps. RHO of declarer leads diamonds, declarer plays low, and LHO produces the eight. Declarer says "small diamond". We establish that declarer's intention is incontrovertibly that he wanted to take this trick with the ace and return the small diamond; but that is not what he said. Do the Laws allow him to change his designation and make thie trick? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.1 - Release Date: 27/02/2005 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 2 10:24:48 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 2 10:28:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play (2) References: <000901c51e90$d047d6a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <42257821.1090201@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002901c51f09$d42fdb40$b3af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "My faith in the people governing is, on the whole, infinitesimal; my faith in The People governed is, on the whole, illimitable." ~ Charles Dickens. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:24 AM Subject: [blml] Declarer play (2) > A similar case occured to me on sunday: > > Dummy has Ace-seven of diamonds, which > are trumps. RHO of declarer leads diamonds, > declarer plays low, and LHO produces > the eight. Declarer says "small diamond". > > We establish that declarer's intention is incontrovertibly > that he wanted to take this trick with the ace > and return the small diamond; but that is not what he said. > > Do the Laws allow him to change his designation and > make thie trick? > +=+ The answer is "no". The fact that his different intention was incontrovertible removes the restrictions in Law 46. It has no effect whatsoever upon Laws 47C and 45C4(b) which are the relevant laws and not part of the restrictions in Law 46. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 2 10:39:54 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 2 10:40:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play (2) In-Reply-To: <42257821.1090201@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c51f0b$ca8ac300$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > A similar case occured to me on sunday: > > Dummy has Ace-seven of diamonds, which are trumps. > RHO of declarer leads diamonds, declarer plays low, and LHO produces > the eight. Declarer says "small diamond". > > We establish that declarer's intention is incontrovertibly that he > wanted to take this trick with the ace and return the small diamond; > but that is not what he said. > > Do the Laws allow him to change his designation and make thie trick? There may be circumstances not evident from your description under which I would rule otherwise but the way you have described the situation my ruling is that he played the seven. Regards Sven From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Mar 2 10:43:07 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Mar 2 10:43:31 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: References: <4223D39F.9060006@cfa.harvard.edu> <600b79ef64cb70f2d58959c9ca399951@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: On 2 Mar 2005, at 01:01, David Stevenson wrote: > Gordon wrote: > >>>> This seems like understatement. It's normal practice to continue > >>>>from the five level with the higher number of key cards. > > David replied: > >>> An interesting view. While I agree wit a 4-or-1 case, I have my > >>>doubts whether this is true with 3-or-0 for most people. > > Doesn't seem to be affected in any way by the WB advice above, does > it? No, and nor did I say it was. What I actually said was that the advice "seems to regard the situation of 0/3 keycards as similar to 1/4, or 0/4." Or are you arguing that the advice distinguishes between them? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Mar 2 10:50:27 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Mar 2 10:50:51 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: References: <600b79ef64cb70f2d58959c9ca399951@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000a01c51e92$7a53d4e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2e64f2f6e7a22eb424a713e06089fd54@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 2 Mar 2005, at 01:46, David Stevenson wrote: > Let us take a specific situation, where a response shows 3 or 0. It > is followed by a slow signoff. Some people in this thread appear to > feel the above means you now have to rule in favour of a pair who has > used Hesitation Blackwood, but that is not the case: "might be > acceptable" merely allows for the possibility, and suggests that the > TD considers the case on its merits. I've not seen anyone in this thread make such a suggestion. One person asked a question about this situation and was given the same answer by you and by me. > It has also been inferred that the above means that I personally > always consider a player with 3 having shown 3 or 0 should go on, even > though I said otherwise. It is difficult to see how this can be > inferred from this statement in the WB, which refers to a view of the > Committee about how to approach a ruling, not the view of one member > of the Committee on what correct bidding implies. No, such a thing has not been inferred by anyone in this thread. Is it not possible to just read what was said and assume it meant what it said and nothing more? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Mar 2 11:37:26 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed Mar 2 11:37:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play (2) References: <000801c51f0b$ca8ac300$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002901c51f13$d7766f30$8ee5f1c3@LNV> > > Dummy has Ace-seven of diamonds, which are trumps. > > RHO of declarer leads diamonds, declarer plays low, and LHO produces > > the eight. Declarer says "small diamond". > > > > We establish that declarer's intention is incontrovertibly that he > > wanted to take this trick with the ace and return the small diamond; > > but that is not what he said. > > > > Do the Laws allow him to change his designation and make thie trick? > > There may be circumstances not evident from your description under which I > would rule otherwise but the way you have described the situation my ruling > is that he played the seven. > > Regards Sven The facts are multi interpretable. What we need to know is whether while having decided to say 'ace' the word 'small' escaped from his throat, in which case he is allowed to play the ace (see L45C4b), or that some lazy thing happened, in which case he has to play the small diamond. ton From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Wed Mar 2 12:43:58 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed Mar 2 12:48:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play (2) References: <000901c51e90$d047d6a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <42257821.1090201@hdw.be> Message-ID: <011601c51f1d$dba28120$3f493dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:24 AM Subject: [blml] Declarer play (2) > A similar case occured to me on sunday: > > Dummy has Ace-seven of diamonds, which are trumps. > RHO of declarer leads diamonds, declarer plays low, and LHO produces > the eight. Declarer says "small diamond". > > We establish that declarer's intention is incontrovertibly that he > wanted to take this trick with the ace and return the small diamond; > but that is not what he said. > > Do the Laws allow him to change his designation and make thie trick? > > In the Netherlands we know Law46B, but I remember a lot of decisions where it was not allowed. Ben From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 2 12:55:20 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 2 12:59:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play (2) References: <000801c51f0b$ca8ac300$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001d01c51f1e$daec8220$7068893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "My faith in the people governing is, on the whole, infinitesimal; my faith in The People governed is, on the whole, illimitable." ~ Charles Dickens. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:39 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Declarer play (2) > > There may be circumstances not evident from your > description under which I would rule otherwise but > the way you have described the situation my ruling > is that he played the seven. > > Regards Sven > +=+ The required circumstance would be that he had attempted to correct an inadvertent designation without pause for thought. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Mar 2 13:00:05 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Mar 2 13:00:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Gold standard Message-ID: <20050302120005.70FDD23352F@poczta.interia.pl> richard.hills@immi.gov.au napisa?(a): > > > > > Gold Coast Congress, February?2005 > Matchpoint Pairs; > Section H consolation final > Board 13; both vul; North dealer > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2H(1) Pass ? > > (1) 6-10hcp; 5 hearts and 4 cards in an > unspecified second suit (but the unspecified > second suit is *usually* 5 cards also). > > You, South, hold: > > J982 > K8 > Q3 > AK972 > > In your system: > > (a) 2S = pass or correct > (b) 2NT = artificial strong enquiry > (c) 3C = undiscussed > > What call do you make? pass - partner has the red suits so let's stay as low as possible. > What other call do you consider making? I consider making a call for an ambulance. Anyone playing such a convention with the 3C response undiscussed is mad and needs to be kept in a safe place. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1837 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 2 13:54:25 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 2 13:54:13 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: References: <600b79ef64cb70f2d58959c9ca399951@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000a01c51e92$7a53d4e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050302074747.02ac95a0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:03 PM 3/1/05, David wrote: >Sven Pran wrote >> >>Does this say that the Director cannot adjust a five-level contract just >>made into a six-level contract one down when a responder decided to pass >>although he held three or four key cards (instead of zero or one as >>the case >>may be) and the Blackwood bidder then signed off in five after a >>hesitation? > > No, it does not say that at all. > > Is it not possible to just read what it says and assume it means > what it says and nothing more? > >>I have had cases where we did indeed adjust five just made to six >>with one >>down after similar hesitations. > > Of course. That is not the complimentary case. If you "allow" a player to bid six with the higher number of key cards when partner hesitates, you should be requiring that player to bid six with the higher number of key cards when partner *doesn't* hesitate. But, of course, those cases do not make themselves known via director calls. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 2 13:55:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Mar 2 13:56:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play (2) In-Reply-To: <002901c51f09$d42fdb40$b3af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ The answer is "no". The fact that his different intention > was incontrovertible removes the restrictions in Law 46. It has > no effect whatsoever upon Laws 47C and 45C4(b) which > are the relevant laws and not part of the restrictions in Law 46. I'm struggling a bit here. We are agreed (I think) that we are dealing with "An erroneous designation where declarer's different intention has been established as incontrovertible". We are thus agreed that none of the restrictions in L46 apply. For me the natural step of having an incomplete or erroneous call with no restriction on what may be changed is to rule "you may change without restriction". Although I agree that L46 doesn't actually tell us what to do in this case! However, I can also see the case for treating the "erroneous" designation as "inadvertent" and using L45C4b (nobody would deliberately make an erroneous designation in this situation). However if we do this the test is "was there pause for thought?". I wasn't there but I'd assume that the moment he noticed that the D7 was played prematurely declarer actually said something to indicate an attempt to change. Thus I don't understand at all the absolute "No" from Grattan, although I would have understood "Maybe, it depends on whether there was deemed a pause for thought using L47C4b". Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 2 13:55:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Mar 2 13:56:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Gold standard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RH wrote: > Board 13; both vul; North dealer > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2H(1) Pass ? > > (1) 6-10hcp; 5+ hearts and 4+ cards in an > unspecified second suit (but the unspecified > second suit is *usually* 5+ cards also). > > You, South, hold: > > J982 > K8 > Q3 > AK972 > > In your system: > > (a) 2S = pass or correct > (b) 2NT = artificial strong enquiry > (c) 3C = undiscussed > > What call do you make? Pass (probably). Pard's other suit is usually D when I try to be clever and if it isn't 4th seat may well act. > What other call do you consider making? 2S+2NT (if I can still bid a non-forcing 3H subsequently) and 3C (if there is hope that pard will read it as constructive but non-forcing). Tim From BQEZGIXES at advent.it Wed Mar 2 13:50:11 2005 From: BQEZGIXES at advent.it (Martha Henderson) Date: Wed Mar 2 13:58:56 2005 Subject: [blml] traffic cameras are watching you Message-ID: <1026622284.847.1.camel@azrael> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050302/e9257dde/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 2 14:44:07 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 2 14:44:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play (2) In-Reply-To: <001d01c51f1e$daec8220$7068893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000901c51f2d$e80a5db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] ........... > > There may be circumstances not evident from your > > description under which I would rule otherwise but > > the way you have described the situation my ruling > > is that he played the seven. > > > > Regards Sven > > > +=+ The required circumstance would be that he > had attempted to correct an inadvertent designation > without pause for thought. as for instance if he suffers from some handicap which might open the door for correcting a misnomer although it is not immediately recognized as "without pause for thought" Or for instance ..... I would have had to be there and investigate before making my ruling. As the facts were described my ruling was obvious. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 2 15:04:15 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 2 15:04:39 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050302074747.02ac95a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000a01c51f30$b7f93120$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >Sven Pran wrote > >> > >>Does this say that the Director cannot adjust a five-level contract just > >>made into a six-level contract one down when a responder decided to pass > >>although he held three or four key cards (instead of zero or one as > >>the case > >>may be) and the Blackwood bidder then signed off in five after a > >>hesitation? > > > > No, it does not say that at all. > > > > Is it not possible to just read what it says and assume it means > > what it says and nothing more? > > > >>I have had cases where we did indeed adjust five just made to six > >>with one > >>down after similar hesitations. > > > > Of course. > > That is not the complimentary case. If you "allow" a player to bid six > with the higher number of key cards when partner hesitates, you should > be requiring that player to bid six with the higher number of key cards > when partner *doesn't* hesitate. But, of course, those cases do not > make themselves known via director calls. The main question is not whether we allow a player to bid six, it is instead: Do we allow a player to PASS rather than to bid six with the higher number of key cards when partner hesitates and then bids five? Without any hesitation from partner the player is of course entitled to make whatever call he wants. In an ordinary RKCB sequence I shall expect my partner to raise my 5 level "signoff" bid to six if he holds the higher number of key cards; in fact I do consider that to be part of the RKCB convention. The consequence from this cannot be anything other than that a hesitation before I bid 5 could suggest to partner that he should NOT raise to six even with the higher number of key cards. Thus, in such a situation if five just makes I shall normally adjust the board from five made to six down one. (If six makes I shall of course not adjust!) Sven From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Mar 2 15:36:18 2005 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed Mar 2 15:35:46 2005 Subject: [blml] UI or bridge knowledge: ruling Message-ID: Hi all, The auction: N E S W 2C P 2D P 2NT P 3D P 3NT P 4NT P 5H P P P....Director 2D: waiting bid 3D: they play Transfer but N did not alert 3NT: no special agreement 4NT: Blackwood 5H just making. Swiss teams, 6H down 1 at the other table. South had 13 H, 5 cards in H, balanced (3-5-3-3), no Ace. He told the TD he did not use UI (3D non alerted). For him, 3NT shows the maximum (23H) and only 2 Hs. When N bid 5H, he realised something was going wrong: 2 Aces were missing, but they had 36 H..... So, he just took the risk of a Pass. Just bridge knowledge he said. Your ruling: 1) Let the score stand (S request). 2) Change to 6H (-1) using Law 16A (the no-alert may suggest the P). 3) Other option. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 2 15:43:23 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 2 15:43:15 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <000a01c51f30$b7f93120$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050302074747.02ac95a0@pop.starpower.net> <000a01c51f30$b7f93120$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050302092716.02b884b0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:04 AM 3/2/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > >Sven Pran wrote > > >> > > >>Does this say that the Director cannot adjust a five-level > contract just > > >>made into a six-level contract one down when a responder decided > to pass > > >>although he held three or four key cards (instead of zero or one as > > >>the case > > >>may be) and the Blackwood bidder then signed off in five after a > > >>hesitation? > > > > > > No, it does not say that at all. > > > > > > Is it not possible to just read what it says and assume it means > > > what it says and nothing more? > > > > > >>I have had cases where we did indeed adjust five just made to six > > >>with one > > >>down after similar hesitations. > > > > > > Of course. > > > > That is not the complimentary case. If you "allow" a player to bid six > > with the higher number of key cards when partner hesitates, you should > > be requiring that player to bid six with the higher number of key cards > > when partner *doesn't* hesitate. But, of course, those cases do not > > make themselves known via director calls. > >The main question is not whether we allow a player to bid six, it is >instead: Do we allow a player to PASS rather than to bid six with the >higher >number of key cards when partner hesitates and then bids five? I thought the "main" question that started the thread was whether we allow a player to bid six with the higher number of key cards after partner hesitates. >Without any hesitation from partner the player is of course entitled >to make >whatever call he wants. Is he? If he bids six when partner hesitates, but passes five when partner doesn't hesitate, isn't there equivalent UI in both cases? Isn't the latter as much an infraction as the former? Just because, in the latter case, the TD will not be called and the player will never be "caught out" doesn't make what he's doing legal. >In an ordinary RKCB sequence I shall expect my partner to raise my 5 level >"signoff" bid to six if he holds the higher number of key cards; in fact I >do consider that to be part of the RKCB convention. Well, I was taught the opposite, namely that a player who will not be able to distinguish between no and three key cards, or one and four key cards, has no business whatsoever asking for key cards. >The consequence from this cannot be anything other than that a hesitation >before I bid 5 could suggest to partner that he should NOT raise to >six even >with the higher number of key cards. > >Thus, in such a situation if five just makes I shall normally adjust the >board from five made to six down one. (If six makes I shall of course not >adjust!) That's quite sensible *if* the pair involved actually has an agreement that they must raise five to six with the higher number of key cards. (Does this mean that they must raise six to seven with the higher number of key cards? It should logically follow, shouldn't it, as silly as it sounds? Think about it.) In my experience, though, despite all those claims of "I had three key cards; it was automatic" from players raising hesitation Blackwood auctions, very few partnerships actually have an explicit agreement on the subject. If it turns out that they do, we have, as Sven suggests, no difficulty with ruling after a hesitation, which can then only suggest the non-systemic action (whether it is a pass or a raise) over the systemic one. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower,net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Karla at custard.org Wed Mar 2 15:45:47 2005 From: Karla at custard.org (Karla@custard.org) Date: Wed Mar 2 15:45:47 2005 Subject: [blml] High rates? Not with us! 3.25 fixed Message-ID: <27673729.1097937559808.JavaMail.root@dezilu.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.fastlenderz.com/x/loan.php?id=nu Best Regards, Rodrick Yates to be remov(ed: http://www.fastlenderz.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Mar 2 16:21:21 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Mar 2 16:21:50 2005 Subject: [blml] dealing In-Reply-To: <422435AD.7000005@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Mar 1, 2005, at 04:28 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > In a recent edition of the flemish bridge magazine, the leading > belgian director (also called Herman but not me) states that one is > not allowed to deal the hand in the way that many people have started > doing recently: > > deal in five piles, thus: 12345432123454321, finishing 1234, then > taking together the piles one and five, which contain 7 and 6 cards > respectively, into four hands of 13 cards. > > This is certainly a fine procedure, producing truly random hands, but > is it legal? > > Of course you may gather from the introduction that I believe it is, > but who's right: Herman or Herman? You are. :-) From sprung at doramail.com Wed Mar 2 16:26:23 2005 From: sprung at doramail.com (Courtney Livingston) Date: Wed Mar 2 16:26:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Notification: We offer 3.25% rates Message-ID: <200410031461.i93JbwTw008157@www9.warnerreprise.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.fastlenderz.com/x/loan.php?id=nu Best Regards, Monty Roper to be remov(ed: http://www.fastlenderz.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Mar 2 16:29:18 2005 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed Mar 2 16:28:41 2005 Subject: [blml] UI or bridge knowledge: ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: . South had 13 H, 5 cards in H, balanced (3-5-3-3), no Ace. ________________________________________________________ 3-5-3-2 indeed.................. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From kallfelz at yebox.com Wed Mar 2 17:24:05 2005 From: kallfelz at yebox.com (Isabel William) Date: Wed Mar 2 17:24:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Your account #600V7423 Message-ID: <200410031484.i93OhvTw005481@www8.warnerreprise.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.fastlenderz.com/x/loan.php?id=nu Best Regards, Ignacio Toney to be remov(ed: http://www.fastlenderz.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 2 17:43:00 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 2 17:43:32 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050302092716.02b884b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000b01c51f46$e7023320$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............... > >Without any hesitation from partner the player is of course > >entitled to make whatever call he wants. > > Is he? If he bids six when partner hesitates, but passes > five when partner doesn't hesitate, isn't there equivalent > UI in both cases? Isn't the latter as much an infraction > as the former? What UI do you have in an auction where your partner makes all his calls in a uniform tempo? Without UI from your partner you are at liberty to make whatever calls you want. My understanding of RKCB is that he raises a signoff in five to slam with the higher number of key cards. > Just because, in the latter case, the TD will not be called and the > player will never be "caught out" doesn't make what he's doing legal. That is of course true, so in a hesitation case TD should establish what style that partnership normally uses in RKCB. > >In an ordinary RKCB sequence I shall expect my partner to raise > >my 5 level "signoff" bid to six if he holds the higher number of > >key cards; in fact I do consider that to be part of the RKCB > >convention. > > Well, I was taught the opposite, namely that a player who will not be > able to distinguish between no and three key cards, or one and four key > cards, has no business whatsoever asking for key cards. OK, we have a different style and understanding of RKCB. I have however a big problem with your logic: Say that at the time I must decide whether or not to bid 4NT I know that we have values in the order of 33 HCP between us but there is a significant possibility that up to 11 of these points are distributional values together with some insignificant honour cards rather than the crucial two Aces and the King in trumps. Shall I not be allowed by our system to bid 4NT and sign off in five if partner's response does not clarify the situation for me; trusting partner to bid six if he really has the important key cards? > >The consequence from this cannot be anything other than that a > >hesitation before I bid 5 could suggest to partner that he should > >NOT raise to six even with the higher number of key cards. > > > >Thus, in such a situation if five just makes I shall normally adjust the > >board from five made to six down one. (If six makes I shall of course not > >adjust!) > > That's quite sensible *if* the pair involved actually has an agreement > that they must raise five to six with the higher number of key > cards. As TD I shall assume that as part of their RKCB agreement unless they show convincing evidence to the contrary! > (Does this mean that they must raise six to seven with the > higher number of key cards? It should logically follow, shouldn't it, > as silly as it sounds? Think about it.) No. "Thou shalt not bid 4NT unless thou are searching for slam". If you are searching for a grand then there is so little values missing that partner's response can hardly be ambiguous for you and he shall abide by your decision. But when you sign off in five your partner knows that you were searching for a small slam, opponents quite likely hold up to 8 HCP and your partner cannot feel completely sure whether your values are Aces or lower ranked honours etc. Now you give him that information by either passing his five or by bidding six. > In my experience, though, > despite all those claims of "I had three key cards; it was automatic" > from players raising hesitation Blackwood auctions, very few > partnerships actually have an explicit agreement on the subject. If it > turns out that they do, we have, as Sven suggests, no difficulty with > ruling after a hesitation, which can then only suggest the non-systemic > action (whether it is a pass or a raise) over the systemic one. Well, where I play I believe the "standard" is as I assume. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 2 18:02:04 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 2 18:01:54 2005 Subject: [blml] UI or bridge knowledge: ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050302114439.02b910b0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:36 AM 3/2/05, Laval wrote: >Hi all, > >The auction: > > N E S W >2C P 2D P >2NT P 3D P >3NT P 4NT P >5H P P P....Director > >2D: waiting bid >3D: they play Transfer but N did not alert >3NT: no special agreement >4NT: Blackwood > >5H just making. Swiss teams, 6H down 1 at the other table. > >South had 13 H, 5 cards in H, balanced (3-5-3-3), no Ace. >He told the TD he did not use UI (3D non alerted). >For him, 3NT shows the maximum (23H) and only 2 Hs. >When N bid 5H, he realised something was going wrong: >2 Aces were missing, but they had 36 H..... >So, he just took the risk of a Pass. >Just bridge knowledge he said. > >Your ruling: >1) Let the score stand (S request). >2) Change to 6H (-1) using Law 16A (the no-alert may > suggest the P). >3) Other option. Let the score stand. And at least think about lecturing W about calling the director frivolously. S bid Blackwood and discovered that two aces were missing. Does W really believe that without UI S might have bid a slam off two aces? Or needed UI to tell him that the partnership can't hold 36 HCP with only two aces? Or used UI to decide that it was more likely that partner forgot the presumptively agreed meaning of a 3NT transfer break on the third round of an artificial auction than that he forgot how to respond to Blackwood? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 2 18:25:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Mar 2 18:25:37 2005 Subject: [blml] UI or bridge knowledge: ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Hi all, > > The auction: > > N E S W > 2C P 2D P > 2NT P 3D P > 3NT P 4NT P > 5H P P P....Director > > 2D: waiting bid > 3D: they play Transfer but N did not alert > 3NT: no special agreement > 4NT: Blackwood > > 5H just making. Swiss teams, 6H down 1 at the other table. > > South had 13 H, 5 cards in H, balanced (3-5-3-3), no Ace. > He told the TD he did not use UI (3D non alerted). > For him, 3NT shows the maximum (23H) and only 2 Hs. > When N bid 5H, he realised something was going wrong: > 2 Aces were missing, but they had 36 H..... > So, he just took the risk of a Pass. Well, pass is less of a risk than bidding 6 missing 2 cashing Aces :) OK, so pard didn't alert the 3D but the 2 ace response is AI and nothing before that looks suggested by the UI. I think there is an LA to pass (5S intending to pass 5N by pard). However I don't see the UI as suggesting 5H over 5N (open to persuasion). Indeed I suspect that 5N will make so an adjustment to 5N probably makes no difference. Tim > Just bridge knowledge he said. > > Your ruling: > 1) Let the score stand (S request). > 2) Change to 6H (-1) using Law 16A (the no-alert may > suggest the P). > 3) Other option. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From adam at irvine.com Wed Mar 2 18:42:17 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Mar 2 18:42:43 2005 Subject: [blml] UI or bridge knowledge: ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:02:04 EST." <6.1.1.1.0.20050302114439.02b910b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200503021742.JAA32512@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > At 09:36 AM 3/2/05, Laval wrote: > > >Hi all, > > > >The auction: > > > > N E S W > >2C P 2D P > >2NT P 3D P > >3NT P 4NT P > >5H P P P....Director > > > >2D: waiting bid > >3D: they play Transfer but N did not alert > >3NT: no special agreement > >4NT: Blackwood > > > >5H just making. Swiss teams, 6H down 1 at the other table. > > > >South had 13 H, 5 cards in H, balanced (3-5-3-3), no Ace. > >He told the TD he did not use UI (3D non alerted). > >For him, 3NT shows the maximum (23H) and only 2 Hs. > >When N bid 5H, he realised something was going wrong: > >2 Aces were missing, but they had 36 H..... > >So, he just took the risk of a Pass. > >Just bridge knowledge he said. To answer the question in the subject line: I'd consider the notion that slams usually go down missing two aces to be "general bridge knowledge". Not that that keeps me from bidding them. :) > >Your ruling: > >1) Let the score stand (S request). > >2) Change to 6H (-1) using Law 16A (the no-alert may > > suggest the P). > >3) Other option. > > Let the score stand. And at least think about lecturing W about > calling the director frivolously. S bid Blackwood and discovered that > two aces were missing. Does W really believe that without UI S might > have bid a slam off two aces? Or needed UI to tell him that the > partnership can't hold 36 HCP with only two aces? Or used UI to decide > that it was more likely that partner forgot the presumptively agreed > meaning of a 3NT transfer break on the third round of an artificial > auction than that he forgot how to respond to Blackwood? I was all set to agree with you 100%, but then I got to thinking: What, exactly, are we going to lecture West about? Should we tell him that he should't call the Director unless there was unauthorized information and the recipient of unauthorized information selected, from among logical alternatives, an alternative that was demonstrably suggested by the UI? We have enough trouble figuring out how to apply this on BLML. If we tried to explain this to an average West, the result would likely be that his eyeballs would pop out, exposing the springs attached to the back of them, and a cuckoo would pop up out of the top of his head and start singing. OK, so I've been watching too many cartoons lately. Since I have 7- and a 5-year-old boys, cartoons seem to be the only programs our television is capable of receiving. But the point is that understanding and applying the Laws correctly is hard, and (unless, perhaps, West is quite experienced) we shouldn't be discouraging them from calling the Director and letting the TD sort out whether there was a problem. However, IMHO, we *should* be discouraging players from thinking they're *entitled* to a good score after the opponents have a misunderstanding. A West who calls the TD here and says something like, "The opponents had a failure to alert, and I'm not sure there was a problem so I wanted to call you to make sure", probably does not need a lecture. A West who says "The opponents had a misunderstanding and landed on their feet, and we deserve an adjustment", probably does. I think it's clear to rule "no adjustment" in this case. -- Adam From mlipenza at hotmail.com Thu Mar 3 02:53:23 2005 From: mlipenza at hotmail.com (Micheal Ipenza) Date: Wed Mar 2 18:52:02 2005 Subject: [blml] CONFIDENTIAL Message-ID: Dear PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR, My name is Mr. Micheal Ipenza, I am an auditor in Standard Bank of South Africa . I am contacting you of a business transfer, of a huge sum of money from a deceased account. Though I know that a transaction of this magnitude will make any one apprehensive and worried, but I am assuring you that everything has been well taken care off, and all will be well at the end of the day. I decided to contact you due to the urgency of this transaction. To ease your apprehension, I got your contact from the British chambers of commerce and industry, foreign trade division. An account was open by a foreigner named Gerald Welsh who died in an air crash along with his wife on the 31st October 1999 in an Egyptian airline 990 with other passengers on board. PROPOSITION; Since his death, none of his next-of-kin are alive to make claims for this money as his heir, because they all died in the same accident(May his soul rest in peace). We cannot release the fund from his account unless someone applies for claim as the next-of-kin to the deceased as indicated in our banking guidelines. Upon this discovery, I now seek your permission to have you stand as a next of kin to the deceased, as all documentations will be carefully worked out by a lawyer for the funds Twenty- five million United States dollars (US$25,000,000.00) in a domiciliary account to be released in your favour as the beneficiary's next of kin. Because after six years the money will be called back to the bank treasury as unclaimed bills and the money shared amongst the directors of the bank. so it is on this note i decided to seek for whom his name shall be used as the next of kin/beneficiary to this funds rather than allow the bank directors to share this money amongst themselves at the end of the year. It may interest you to know that we have secured from the probate an order of mandamus to locate any of the deceased beneficiaries. Please acknowledge receipt of this message in acceptance of our mutual business endeavor by furnishing me with the following information if you are interested. 1.A Beneficiary name;. In order for me to prepare the PAPER WORK for transfer of the funds in your name. And also I want you to come down to South Africa to open a non-resident account for onward transfer to your overseas account, and for us to see face to face. 2. Details, particulars of your contact address. 3. Direct Telephone and fax numbers;. For our personal contact and for the confidentiality of this transactions. I shall be compensating you with 25% of the total sum on final conclusion of this project for your assistance, as I have also thought of doling out 5% to charity organisation from your locality based on your recommendation another 5% for the services of the lawyer while the balance 65% shall be for me for investment purposes in your country as I cannot bring back this cash to my country. If this proposal is acceptable by you, please endeavor to contact me immediately. Do not take undue advantage of the trust I have bestowed in you by informing you of this transaction from my bank as I will advise you to kindly desist from responding at all if you do NOT intend to render any assistance. Endeavor to respond via this my confidential direct e-mail address michealipenza1@netscape.net. Thanks and best regards, Mr. Micheal Ipenza. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 2 19:53:03 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 2 19:52:49 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <000b01c51f46$e7023320$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050302092716.02b884b0@pop.starpower.net> <000b01c51f46$e7023320$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050302131234.02ad3c30@pop.starpower.net> At 11:43 AM 3/2/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > > >In an ordinary RKCB sequence I shall expect my partner to raise > > >my 5 level "signoff" bid to six if he holds the higher number of > > >key cards; in fact I do consider that to be part of the RKCB > > >convention. > > > > Well, I was taught the opposite, namely that a player who will not be > > able to distinguish between no and three key cards, or one and four key > > cards, has no business whatsoever asking for key cards. > >OK, we have a different style and understanding of RKCB. > >I have however a big problem with your logic: Say that at the time I must >decide whether or not to bid 4NT I know that we have values in the >order of >33 HCP between us but there is a significant possibility that up to 11 of >these points are distributional values together with some insignificant >honour cards rather than the crucial two Aces and the King in trumps. > >Shall I not be allowed by our system to bid 4NT and sign off in five if >partner's response does not clarify the situation for me; trusting partner >to bid six if he really has the important key cards? You're welcome to systemically allow whatever you want, but I wouldn't tolerate such a silly agreement in my partnership. How useful is an agreement designed to get you to 6H when it makes or 5H when it's down two off the top or, at best, on a finesse for down one? In my system, you don't leap to 4NT with that kind of uncertainty; you bid "around the bush" until one or the other possibility is ruled out by partner's willingness or unwillingness to cooperate in moving towards slam. OTOH, an agreement that allows you to ask for key cards holding none, intending to bid a slam when partner has four, could actually come in handy some time. > > >The consequence from this cannot be anything other than that a > > >hesitation before I bid 5 could suggest to partner that he should > > >NOT raise to six even with the higher number of key cards. > > > > > >Thus, in such a situation if five just makes I shall normally > adjust the > > >board from five made to six down one. (If six makes I shall of > course not > > >adjust!) > > > > That's quite sensible *if* the pair involved actually has an agreement > > that they must raise five to six with the higher number of key > > cards. > >As TD I shall assume that as part of their RKCB agreement unless they show >convincing evidence to the contrary! I'd have thought that when someone takes an action that could have been either prompted by UI they are known to possess or required by their system, we should assume the former unless they show convincing evidence to the contrary. Perhaps not, but I don't see how the standard of evidence for the existence of a systemic agreement leaving no LA to the suggested call depends on what that agreement is. > > (Does this mean that they must raise six to seven with the > > higher number of key cards? It should logically follow, shouldn't it, > > as silly as it sounds? Think about it.) > >No. "Thou shalt not bid 4NT unless thou are searching for slam". > >If you are searching for a grand then there is so little values >missing that >partner's response can hardly be ambiguous for you and he shall abide by >your decision. > >But when you sign off in five your partner knows that you were >searching for >a small slam, opponents quite likely hold up to 8 HCP and your partner >cannot feel completely sure whether your values are Aces or lower ranked >honours etc. Now you give him that information by either passing his >five or >by bidding six. It sounds like the advice in my last sentence above hasn't been taken. If it makes sense to cater to a hand that can make six with three (or four) key cards when partner could have none (or one), how can it not make sense to cater to a hand that can make seven with three (or four) key cards when partner could have none (or one)? If it makes sense to risk playing five down two if there's no small, how can it not make sense to risk playing six down two if there's no grand? > > In my experience, though, > > despite all those claims of "I had three key cards; it was automatic" > > from players raising hesitation Blackwood auctions, very few > > partnerships actually have an explicit agreement on the subject. If it > > turns out that they do, we have, as Sven suggests, no difficulty with > > ruling after a hesitation, which can then only suggest the non-systemic > > action (whether it is a pass or a raise) over the systemic one. > >Well, where I play I believe the "standard" is as I assume. When a player takes an action that appears to have been suggested by UI, offering in his defense, without supporting evidence, the "self-serving" testimony that his systemic agreements left him with no LA to the call he chose, how much weight, if any, do we give to the question of whether the claimed agreement is unusual, fairly common, or "standard"? I'd have said none at all, but Sven has convinced me to question that opinion. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 2 20:04:11 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 2 20:03:59 2005 Subject: [blml] UI or bridge knowledge: ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050302135740.03ab3eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:25 PM 3/2/05, twm wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The auction: > > > > N E S W > > 2C P 2D P > > 2NT P 3D P > > 3NT P 4NT P > > 5H P P P....Director > > > > 2D: waiting bid > > 3D: they play Transfer but N did not alert > > 3NT: no special agreement > > 4NT: Blackwood > > > > 5H just making. Swiss teams, 6H down 1 at the other table. > > > > South had 13 H, 5 cards in H, balanced (3-5-3-3), no Ace. > > He told the TD he did not use UI (3D non alerted). > > For him, 3NT shows the maximum (23H) and only 2 Hs. > > When N bid 5H, he realised something was going wrong: > > 2 Aces were missing, but they had 36 H..... > > So, he just took the risk of a Pass. > >Well, pass is less of a risk than bidding 6 missing 2 cashing Aces :) >OK, so pard didn't alert the 3D but the 2 ace response is AI and nothing >before that looks suggested by the UI. I think there is an LA to pass >(5S >intending to pass 5N by pard). However I don't see the UI as suggesting >5H over 5N (open to persuasion). Indeed I suspect that 5N will make so >an adjustment to 5N probably makes no difference. I'd have made an even stronger case than Tim does. Had it gone ...5H-P-5S-P-5NT, there would be a case for S having taken advantage of the UI: The UI suggests that N thinks S has diamonds, in which case he is sure to read 5S as a transfer to 5NT. But S must bid as though he is confident that N knows he has hearts, in which case he should "worry" that N might take 5S as a try for 7H. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 2 20:23:07 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 2 20:22:54 2005 Subject: [blml] UI or bridge knowledge: ruling In-Reply-To: <200503021742.JAA32512@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200503021742.JAA32512@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050302140750.02ad51d0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:42 PM 3/2/05, Adam wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > Let the score stand. And at least think about lecturing W about > > calling the director frivolously. S bid Blackwood and discovered that > > two aces were missing. Does W really believe that without UI S might > > have bid a slam off two aces? Or needed UI to tell him that the > > partnership can't hold 36 HCP with only two aces? Or used UI to > decide > > that it was more likely that partner forgot the presumptively agreed > > meaning of a 3NT transfer break on the third round of an artificial > > auction than that he forgot how to respond to Blackwood? > >I was all set to agree with you 100%, but then I got to thinking: >What, exactly, are we going to lecture West about? Either of two things, or nothing at all. >Should we tell him >that he should't call the Director unless there was unauthorized >information and the recipient of unauthorized information selected, >from among logical alternatives, an alternative that was demonstrably >suggested by the UI? We have enough trouble figuring out how to apply >this on BLML. If we tried to explain this to an average West, the >result would likely be that his eyeballs would pop out, exposing the >springs attached to the back of them, and a cuckoo would pop up out of >the top of his head and start singing. OK, so I've been watching too >many cartoons lately. Since I have 7- and a 5-year-old boys, cartoons >seem to be the only programs our television is capable of receiving. >But the point is that understanding and applying the Laws correctly is >hard, and (unless, perhaps, West is quite experienced) we shouldn't be >discouraging them from calling the Director and letting the TD sort >out whether there was a problem. > >However, IMHO, we *should* be discouraging players from thinking >they're *entitled* to a good score after the opponents have a >misunderstanding. A West who calls the TD here and says something >like, "The opponents had a failure to alert, and I'm not sure there >was a problem so I wanted to call you to make sure", probably does not >need a lecture. I agree. That's why I wrote "think about lecturing" rather than "lecture". Although I'd have left out the "quite" in Adam's parenthetical. >A West who says "The opponents had a misunderstanding >and landed on their feet, and we deserve an adjustment", probably >does. Right. Lecture #1 is about how we don't adjust scores in the absense of damage. Lecture #2 is a lot harsher, and is about what we think of damage claims so flimsy as to require the assertion that without UI someone might bid a slam knowing that two cashing aces are missing. We only give that one to an opponent who knows that he needs to claim damage and so does. >I think it's clear to rule "no adjustment" in this case. So clear, indeed, as to merit having a word or two with anyone with enough experience that it is reasonable to expect him to have some basic general knowledge about the laws and some concomitant understanding of when it's appropriate to call the TD. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From nf at glo.be Thu Mar 3 00:44:21 2005 From: nf at glo.be (Norbert Fornoville) Date: Wed Mar 2 23:50:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Her first psyche Message-ID: <20050302224934.EE1B78588@carno.brus.online.be> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > Sent: 26. februar 2005 07:44 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Her first psyche > > With East dealer and nil vulnerable, the hands were > > Q 9 > 10 9 7 3 > A K 10 2 > Q 9 3 > > K 10 7 6 5 8 4 3 > A Q 6 5 8 4 2 > Q 7 8 5 3 > 7 2 J 10 6 5 > A J 2 > K J > J 9 6 4 > A K 8 4 > > and the bidding > > West North East South > 1C 1NT > 2S X pass 2NT > all pass > > East's 1C was psychic, her first so with heart pounding she > alerted her partner's 2S bid as "opening values showing two > non touching suits". (They are not too experienced but are > taking lessons from some bid master or other). > > At the end of the auction, West remonstrated with East about > her explanation, and it became clear the West's bid was natural. Does one ever bid 2S with 11 HCP and a non one-suited hand after a opening by partner and 1 NT by opponent, any valid reason not to double ? I can not avoid thinking that the whole truth was not told here by E/W; wrong explanation and MI were not the reason for the bad N/S result but they seem to have stopped W from bidding on? Maybe a case for a split score ? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 2 23:53:28 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Mar 2 23:52:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Gold standard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gold Coast Congress, February?2005 Matchpoint Pairs; Section H consolation final Board 13; both vul; North dealer AKT65 ????????????Q7652 ????????? J6 ????????6 Q7 ????????????????????? 43 A93 ???????????????????? JT4 KT2????????????????????? A98754 QJT83??????????????????? 54 ????????? J982 ?????????? K8 ????????????Q3 ????????? AK972 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2H(1) Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3S Pass 4S (1) 6-10hcp; 5+ hearts and 4+ cards in an unspecified second suit (but the unspecified second suit is *usually* 5+ cards also). (2) Artificial strong enquiry. DA led, 4S made 10 tricks for +620 to North-South. The Facts:?Most Aussie events use written bidding. North originally wrote 1H on the bidding pad; kept her pen on the bid, saying "Wait a minute"; then she changed the 1 to a 2. As TD, what ruling do you make? As TD, what other rulings do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From john at asimere.com Thu Mar 3 00:14:23 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Mar 3 00:16:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Her first psyche In-Reply-To: <20050302224934.EE1B78588@carno.brus.online.be> References: <20050302224934.EE1B78588@carno.brus.online.be> Message-ID: In article <20050302224934.EE1B78588@carno.brus.online.be>, Norbert Fornoville writes > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org >[mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove >> Sent: 26. februar 2005 07:44 >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Subject: [blml] Her first psyche >> >> With East dealer and nil vulnerable, the hands were >> >> Q 9 >> 10 9 7 3 >> A K 10 2 >> Q 9 3 >> >> K 10 7 6 5 8 4 3 >> A Q 6 5 8 4 2 >> Q 7 8 5 3 >> 7 2 J 10 6 5 >> A J 2 >> K J >> J 9 6 4 >> A K 8 4 >> >> and the bidding >> >> West North East South >> 1C 1NT >> 2S X pass 2NT >> all pass >> >> East's 1C was psychic, her first so with heart pounding she >> alerted her partner's 2S bid as "opening values showing two >> non touching suits". (They are not too experienced but are >> taking lessons from some bid master or other). >> >> At the end of the auction, West remonstrated with East about >> her explanation, and it became clear the West's bid was natural. > >Does one ever bid 2S with 11 HCP and a non one-suited hand after a opening >by partner and 1 NT by opponent, any valid reason not to double ? I can not >avoid thinking that the whole truth was not told here by E/W; wrong >explanation and MI were not the reason for the bad N/S result but they seem >to have stopped W from bidding on? > >Maybe a case for a split score ? I am ever at odds with the EBU over this. Weak, intermediate and many above average players *never* double so the bid just isn't a logical alternative. They routinely bid 2S with this sort of hand. I personally can't see any point in doubling a 1NT overcall for one off either, as they will have somewhere to go. I just make my value bid. Yes, you may occasionally steal a game from me, but when I do double, you are looking down the barrel of sticks and wheels (Yay, I like this mixed metaphor!). > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.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 gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Mar 3 00:46:44 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu Mar 3 00:47:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Gold standard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2cd406e2250506816dd9c69c31ec1106@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 2 Mar 2005, at 22:53, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > The Facts:?Most Aussie events use written bidding. > North originally wrote 1H on the bidding pad; kept > her pen on the bid, saying "Wait a minute"; then > she changed the 1 to a 2. Do the regulations for written bidding allow her to do this? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Mar 3 01:45:45 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Mar 3 01:46:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Gold standard References: Message-ID: <007401c51f8a$5604a4e0$059468d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > Gold Coast Congress, February 2005 > Matchpoint Pairs; Section H consolation final > Board 13; both vul; North dealer > You, South: J982 K8 Q3 AK972 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2H(1) Pass ? > (1) 6-10hcp; 5+ hearts and 4+ cards in an > unspecified second suit (but the unspecified > second suit is *usually* 5+ cards also). > In your system: > (a) 2S = pass or correct > (b) 2NT = artificial strong enquiry > (c) 3C = undiscussed [Nigel] IMO P=10 2S=8 2N=3 3C=2 3H=1 2S may result in an unlikely game. Similarly 2N -- but you feel a bit sick if partner jumps to 4D. 3C is lead-directional but is at least invitational by inference. Also, you don't expect opponents to bid. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 3 02:02:37 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 3 02:03:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Gold standard In-Reply-To: <2cd406e2250506816dd9c69c31ec1106@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>The Facts:?Most Aussie events use written bidding. >>North originally wrote 1H on the bidding pad; kept >>her pen on the bid, saying "Wait a minute"; then >>she changed the 1 to a 2. Gordon Rainsford: >Do the regulations for written bidding allow her to >do this? Richard Hills: The regulations state that an incomplete call of "1" is not a call, therefore merely UI to partner. So, a change from "1" to "2H" would be always legal. In the actual case, changing "1H" to "2H" was either a Law 25B irregularity or a Law 25A non-irregularity. If it was a Law 25B irregularity, then UI would have been transmitted. If, however, it was a Law 25A non- irregularity, then UI cannot have been transmitted. If changing "1H" to "2H" was a Law 25B irregularity, then that irregularity was condoned by the opponents. Only at the end of play did the opponents use Law 16A2 to draw the director's attention to a possible consequent UI irregularity. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Mar 3 02:14:45 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Mar 3 02:15:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Gold standard References: Message-ID: <00a701c51f8e$6325dcd0$059468d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > Gold Coast Congress, February 2005 > Matchpoint Pairs; Section H consolation final > Board 13; both vul; North dealer > North: AKT65 Q7652 J6 6 > South: J982 K8 Q3 AK972 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2H(1) Pass 2M > Pass 3S Pass 4S End > (1) 6-10hcp; 5+ hearts and 4+ cards in an > unspecified second suit (but the unspecified > second suit is *usually* 5+ cards also). > In your system: > (a) 2S = pass or correct > (b) 2NT = artificial strong enquiry > (c) 3C = undiscussed > The Facts: Most Aussie events use written bidding. > North originally wrote 1H on the bidding pad; kept > her pen on the bid, saying "Wait a minute"; then > she changed the 1 to a 2. [Nigel] IMO the TD should wind the contract back to 2H and impose a PP on East because (1) The bidding change seems to have been UI. (2) Pass for East is the most likely LA. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From blml at blakjak.com Thu Mar 3 02:52:35 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Mar 3 02:54:02 2005 Subject: [blml] UI or bridge knowledge: ruling In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050302114439.02b910b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050302114439.02b910b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 09:36 AM 3/2/05, Laval wrote: > >>Hi all, >> >>The auction: >> >> N E S W >>2C P 2D P >>2NT P 3D P >>3NT P 4NT P >>5H P P P....Director >> >>2D: waiting bid >>3D: they play Transfer but N did not alert >>3NT: no special agreement >>4NT: Blackwood >> >>5H just making. Swiss teams, 6H down 1 at the other table. >> >>South had 13 H, 5 cards in H, balanced (3-5-3-3), no Ace. >>He told the TD he did not use UI (3D non alerted). >>For him, 3NT shows the maximum (23H) and only 2 Hs. >>When N bid 5H, he realised something was going wrong: >>2 Aces were missing, but they had 36 H..... >>So, he just took the risk of a Pass. >>Just bridge knowledge he said. >> >>Your ruling: >>1) Let the score stand (S request). >>2) Change to 6H (-1) using Law 16A (the no-alert may >> suggest the P). >>3) Other option. > >Let the score stand. And at least think about lecturing W about >calling the director frivolously. S bid Blackwood and discovered that >two aces were missing. Does W really believe that without UI S might >have bid a slam off two aces? Or needed UI to tell him that the >partnership can't hold 36 HCP with only two aces? Or used UI to decide >that it was more likely that partner forgot the presumptively agreed >meaning of a 3NT transfer break on the third round of an artificial >auction than that he forgot how to respond to Blackwood? Whatever the merits of the actual case, when there is UI made available to partner and a strange sequence it is routine to call the TD and let him decide. It is completely inappropriate to lecture a player against calling a TD at such a time. Others may have an unrivalled knowledge of the UI Laws and their effects: why should this poor player? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 3 03:56:42 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 3 03:57:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Why the drop in numbers? (was EBU Orange book) In-Reply-To: <003b01c51e21$beeec400$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marv: >Duplicate bridge here in San Diego is undergoing a >renaissance, becoming more popular than ever. One >reason is that Wirt Gilliam has taken over Adventures >in Bridge, San Diego's only sizeable club. Richard: Yes, global pessimism is invalid. Local conditions have a huge effect on the local popularity of bridge. In my opinion, national organisations should resist the temptation to micro-manage with overly restrictive and detailed "one size fits all" regulations (as the EBU for some time did when it banned the local "perversion" of the Roche convention). An extreme example of my ideal of a *macro*-managing national organisation is the ABF. It does not regulate *any* conventions or bidding systems. The ABF now merely *classifies* conventions and bidding systems by colour code and brown sticker, leaving the regulation entirely within the scope of Aussie local sponsoring organisations. (Of course, for national Aussie events, the ABF *is* the local sponsoring organisation, so it does arrange varying supplementary system regulations to suit the needs of the varying national events.) Marv: >He is concentrating on promoting "299er" sections, >giving non-Life Masters separate games so that peers >play against peers (if they wish). The higher-ranked >players benefit also, now having a sharper and more >enjoyable game. The San Diego Unit even held a 299er >sectional that was very successful. Richard: In Australia, Swiss Butler Pairs are rapidly gaining in popularity for a similar reason - after the first few matches, peers play against peers. Marv: >A well-conducted lesson program helps the cause, and >membership is growing with fewer "dropouts." Richard: In the Canberra Bridge Club, in addition to beginners' lessons, regular intermediate and advanced lessons are also conducted. Marv: [snip] >Other promotional measures adopted by both Wirt's club >and the San Diego and La Jolla units: > >Preduplicated boards and hand records for every game. Richard Hills: Preduplicated boards and hand records are provided at most *evening* sessions at the Canberra Bridge Club. (They are also provided at the South Canberra Bridge Club, whose only session is on Wednesday evening.) But, at most *daytime* sessions, this is not done. It is a consequence of differential fields; most daytime players prefer the flatter distributions of imperfectly hand-shuffled boards. Marv: >Food at every game >Game results (all deals, everyone's result on each >board, with names) on a website the next morning. >Swiss team games in which all matches play the same set >of preduplicated boards, with hand records >Occasional barometer-scored games >Winners' pictures posted with game scores along the >walls >A round-timer to help keep games moving >A quality playing environment, clean and well-furnished [snip] Yes, the Canberra Bridge Club and the South Canberra Bridge Club proactively provide many of the above services also. The South Canberra Bridge Club even has a section on its website called "Master Class", in which local experts such as myself provide strategy tips for members. The website of the Canberra Bridge Club is: http://www.canberrabridgeclub.com.au/ The website of the South Canberra Bridge Club is: http://www.southcanberrabc.org/ Marv: >Taking all of this together, I predict a continuing >boom for duplicate bridge in San Diego. Richard: Likewise, I predict a continuing boom for duplicate bridge in Canberra. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 3 04:16:05 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 3 04:16:53 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050301075303.02b9a130@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau asserted: >"Bridge logic alone" tells me that one should never >bid Blackwood knowing so little about partner's hand >that one cannot predict partner's response to within >three key cards. Richard Hills recalls: In the 1971 Bermuda Bowl, keycard Blackwood had not yet been invented, so participants used old-fashioned Blackwood, in which a 5C response showed zero or four aces. "Bridge logic alone" told a French pair that the theoretically ambiguous 5C response could never cause a real-life problem. That French pair freely bid to 7H after using old- fashioned Blackwood. Alas, 7H was doubled when all four aces were offside. And the French team was good enough to win the Silver Medal that year. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 3 04:30:11 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 3 04:30:42 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <200503012247.OAA25428@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan asserted: >NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. If pausing to plan ahead in the auction >is ever considered to be an infraction of the Law, then this >game of bridge is no longer worth playing. Richard Hills asks: Pausing to plan ahead in the play may be an infraction. Law 73D2 gives a specific example, "as in hesitating before playing a singleton". What Lawful justification is there to treat auctions in a contrary way? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From adam at irvine.com Thu Mar 3 04:41:51 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Mar 3 04:42:15 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:30:11 +1100." Message-ID: <200503030341.TAA03702@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Adam Beneschan asserted: > > >NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. If pausing to plan ahead in the auction > >is ever considered to be an infraction of the Law, then this > >game of bridge is no longer worth playing. > > Richard Hills asks: > > Pausing to plan ahead in the play may be an infraction. Law > 73D2 gives a specific example, "as in hesitating before > playing a singleton". > > What Lawful justification is there to treat auctions in a > contrary way? There's hardly ever a singleton in the auction. A singleton during the play means you have only one legal play. The only case in the auction where you have only one legal call is if the auction has reached 7NT, or you've been barred. There are perhaps some cases where there is only one "thinkable" call, such as when partner has asked a question (e.g. how many aces do you have?) and you have a clear-cut answer. But this subthread had to do with planning ahead in the auction before bidding 4NT, Blackwood---and there is no such thing as a case where Blackwood is the only possible call. -- Adam From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Mar 3 05:02:45 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu Mar 3 05:03:09 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: References: <200503012247.OAA25428@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20050302225621.01e11250@mail.comcast.net> At 10:30 PM 3/2/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Adam Beneschan asserted: > > >NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. If pausing to plan ahead in the auction > >is ever considered to be an infraction of the Law, then this > >game of bridge is no longer worth playing. > >Richard Hills asks: > >Pausing to plan ahead in the play may be an infraction. Law >73D2 gives a specific example, "as in hesitating before >playing a singleton". > >What Lawful justification is there to treat auctions in a >contrary way? Law 73D2 forbids misleading an opponent with a hesitation; it does not forbid a hesitation which will not mislead an opponent. If you pause before bidding Blackwood, it is unlikely that you will mislead an opponent about your hand. Likewise, if you pause before playing low on an opponent's lead of the ace at trick one, in order to plan the play, it is unlikely that you will mislead the defenders. From lpmugdieo at msn.com Thu Mar 3 04:51:22 2005 From: lpmugdieo at msn.com (Scottie Vang) Date: Thu Mar 3 05:04:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Woww..8o-% 0ff 3dblml Message-ID: Look at this of-fers: Vi-codinn - 225.00 (90 pi-lls) Hydro-codonee - 297.00 (90 pi=lls) Valliuum - 153.00 (90 pi-lls) Viagraa - 270.00 (90 pi-lls) Cia-llis - 348.00 (90 pi-lls) Codeinne - 126.00 (90 pi-lls) Xa-naax - 171.00 (90 pi-lls) All orderrs are delivered by Fedex with full tracking 24/7. Satisfactiionnss guaaranteeed... http://1094kdsd.com/_fd5977142df59d3662baa654773c6a8e/ This is 1 -time mailing. N0-re m0val are re'qui-red x5YIYYvO6NJl7bKzibkdHYoe1fNSoIzFXDJbr8CI From arichabala at mailAccount.com Thu Mar 3 05:15:59 2005 From: arichabala at mailAccount.com (Erma Quinones) Date: Thu Mar 3 05:16:00 2005 Subject: [blml] You've been selected for a low rate Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.fastlenderz.com/x/loan.php?id=nu Best Regards, Rosalinda Vargas to be remov(ed: http://www.fastlenderz.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 3 09:23:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Mar 3 09:23:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Gold standard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RH wrote: > Gold Coast Congress, February 2005 > Matchpoint Pairs; > Section H consolation final > Board 13; both vul; North dealer > > AKT65 >             Q7652 >           J6 >         6 > Q7                       43 > A93                      JT4 > KT2                      A98754 > QJT83                    54 >           J982 >            K8 >             Q3 >           AK972 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2H(1) Pass 2NT(2) > Pass 3S Pass 4S > > (1) 6-10hcp; 5+ hearts and 4+ cards in an > unspecified second suit (but the unspecified > second suit is *usually* 5+ cards also). > (2) Artificial strong enquiry. > > DA led, 4S made 10 tricks for +620 to North-South. > > The Facts: Most Aussie events use written bidding. > North originally wrote 1H on the bidding pad; kept > her pen on the bid, saying "Wait a minute"; then > she changed the 1 to a 2. > > As TD, what ruling do you make? I investigate whether L25a applies when, give my ruling (may change 1H to 2H, no UI please continue) - I assume. Obviously I consider explaining L25b but had I got that far I believe opener would let 1H stand (albeit her pard will have some UI). > As TD, what other rulings do you consider making? If I have been called at the end of the hand then "result stands" opps have accepted the change of call as inadvertent and there is damn all I can do now. Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Mar 3 10:06:53 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Mar 3 10:06:19 2005 Subject: [blml] UI or bridge knowledge: ruling In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050302135740.03ab3eb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050302135740.03ab3eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4226D3AD.2070606@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Well, pass is less of a risk than bidding 6 missing 2 cashing Aces :) >> OK, so pard didn't alert the 3D but the 2 ace response is AI and nothing >> before that looks suggested by the UI. I think there is an LA to pass >> (5S >> intending to pass 5N by pard). However I don't see the UI as suggesting >> 5H over 5N (open to persuasion). Indeed I suspect that 5N will make so >> an adjustment to 5N probably makes no difference. > > > I'd have made an even stronger case than Tim does. Had it gone > ...5H-P-5S-P-5NT, there would be a case for S having taken advantage of > the UI: The UI suggests that N thinks S has diamonds, in which case he > is sure to read 5S as a transfer to 5NT. But S must bid as though he is > confident that N knows he has hearts, in which case he should "worry" > that N might take 5S as a try for 7H. > Me too, I was thinking that South knows something he should not: from the non-alert, it is obvious that North, who has denied 3 cards in hearts, may still have them. So there is UI suggesting to South that 5H is a safer haven than it should look without UI. Passing is suggested and bidding 5S to land in 5N is a LA, so I'd force that bid. Then I'd also like to know what methods NS ought to be playing and what this should mean according to North. I had not thought of the grand-slam ask, but this is a way of changing the score to 7H-2. Or 6H-1. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005 From Mikeamosbridge at aol.com Thu Mar 3 10:11:16 2005 From: Mikeamosbridge at aol.com (Mikeamosbridge@aol.com) Date: Thu Mar 3 10:41:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Gold standard Message-ID: <68.50a56c26.2f582eb4@aol.com> In a message dated 03/03/2005 08:23:38 GMT Standard Time, twm@cix.co.uk writes: > The Facts: Most Aussie events use written bidding. > North originally wrote 1H on the bidding pad; kept > her pen on the bid, saying "Wait a minute"; then > she changed the 1 to a 2. > > As TD, what ruling do you make? I investigate whether L25a applies when, give my ruling (may change 1H to 2H, no UI please continue) - I assume. Obviously I consider explaining L25b but had I got that far I believe opener would let 1H stand (albeit her pard will have some UI). > As TD, what other rulings do you consider making? If I have been called at the end of the hand then "result stands" opps have accepted the change of call as inadvertent and there is damn all I can do now. Tim I am taking the risk of replying to a post without reading from the .......... BUT how can Law 25.A apply here - when the player concerned says "Wait a minute"; then she changed the 1 to a 2. - looks remarkably like a pause for thought to me (By the way - do you write "Stop" on your bidding pads in Australia ?? If so more evidence that it's not inadvertent) The player comcerned is going to have to work hard to convince me that this was inadvertent (This of course assumes the TD was called - obviously the real problem is that the TD was not) I'm not sure about Tim's comments about 25.B - if the player has changed 1H to 2H and I am called then she cannot go back to 1H without silencing her partner for one round Elsewhere Richard has commented on the effect of the player writing "1" (not a call) "Wait a minute"; then changing the 1 to 2H - This would be UI and I think that most comments have suggested Pass would be in that situation a LA. The difficult question for me is whether by accepting the change the opponen ts have accepted that 1H was inadvertent and that she intended to bid 2H all the time - a correction of inadvertency can not in my opinion contain UI - merely evidence of a scrambled brian. I think I'm beginning to incline to the view that both sides are offenders here. The 1H/2H player for not calling the TD - If she had I would I imagine have ruled under 25B - so I need to try and work out where that would have lead to The opponents are also offenders for failing to call the TD and my thoughts here incline to leaving them with the table score I guess this is not yet a final ruling but the sort of thing I would be raising with TD colleagues for their comment and consideration - I think for example that i don't know when the TD was called - but what I do think at this stage is that this is more than a simple UI case Mike Anos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050303/7399213c/attachment.html From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Thu Mar 3 12:21:39 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (Koen Grauwels) Date: Thu Mar 3 12:22:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play Message-ID: I assume David's Statement is correct here: " A played card may not be withdrawn. A designated card may be withdrawn in certain cases [inadvertence, speed of change, etc]. So when declarer plays a card from hand it may not be changed: when he designates a card it may sometimes be. " => If declarer designates a card then he may sometimes change it. - What does it mean: designate a card? Are the following correct examples? - Is it saying f.i. low diamond to call a card from dummy? - Is it saying f.i. diamond 2 to play a card from own hand (f.i. not able to play it because cleaning up a spoiled beer)? - Is it pointing to a card from dummy? => The law say it may be changed if it is done with thought. But even if the change is done immediatly, how do you know it is done without thought? It can very well be that while declarer disgnates a card he realises that it is the wrong play and corrects it immediatly; or that he expects a certain card from opponent and is ready to designate a card from dummy, sees that opp did play another card and corrects immediatly (see Herman's example). I would tend to allow this change only for misclick in on-line Bridge and would otherwise rather assume that there was a change of thought (expect if 'evidence' of contrary). What do you think? Thanks, Koen _________________________________________________________________ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 3 12:12:24 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 3 13:12:56 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU Orange book References: <003801c51c52$a8abbb10$609468d5@James> Message-ID: <000301c51fe9$f4049830$017d893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "My faith in the people governing is, on the whole, infinitesimal; my faith in The People governed is, on the whole, illimitable." ~ Charles Dickens. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU Orange book > [Richard James Hills] > > > In my opinion, that > > moratorium was the tipping point for the current ACBL > > culture, in which even an expert such as Larry Cohen > > is reflexively critical of the (only slightly esoteric) > > Polish Club system. > +=+ I recoil from the term 'esoteric', however quietly spoken, when it is used in reference to a method conceived and developed by excellent bridge theorists and played in diverse bridge forums for, is it, 25, 30, 35 years? Mr Cohen wishes to play his bridge in an ivory tower. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml at blakjak.com Thu Mar 3 14:07:11 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Mar 3 14:08:52 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: References: <200503012247.OAA25428@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: rjh wrote >Adam Beneschan asserted: > >>NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. If pausing to plan ahead in the auction >>is ever considered to be an infraction of the Law, then this >>game of bridge is no longer worth playing. >Pausing to plan ahead in the play may be an infraction. Law >73D2 gives a specific example, "as in hesitating before >playing a singleton". Because it may mislead the opposition. If, for example in a potential slam auction, a player pauses early in the auction, in what way is this misleading anyone? >What Lawful justification is there to treat auctions in a >contrary way? It is not contrary: it is just that you have to look at the whole thing, not just some parrot cry along the lines of "If he hesitates then ...". After all, you are permitted to hesitate with a singleton if [a] it cannot mislead declarer, as for example, when he knows you have a singleton, or [b] if you issue a disclaimer -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at blakjak.com Thu Mar 3 14:12:20 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Mar 3 14:14:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Koen Grauwels wrote >I assume David's Statement is correct here: > >" A played card may not be withdrawn. A designated card may be >withdrawn in certain cases [inadvertence, speed of change, etc]. > > So when declarer plays a card from hand it may not be changed: when he >designates a card it may sometimes be. " > >=> If declarer designates a card then he may sometimes change it. >- What does it mean: designate a card? Are the following correct examples? > - Is it saying f.i. low diamond to call a card from dummy? > - Is it saying f.i. diamond 2 to play a card from own hand (f.i. not >able to play it because cleaning up a spoiled beer)? > - Is it pointing to a card from dummy? >=> The law say it may be changed if it is done with thought. But even >if the change is done immediatly, how do you know it is done without >thought? It can very well be that while declarer disgnates a card he >realises that it is the wrong play and corrects it immediatly; or that >he expects a certain card from opponent and is ready to designate a >card from dummy, sees that opp did play another card and corrects >immediatly (see Herman's example). >I would tend to allow this change only for misclick in on-line Bridge >and would otherwise rather assume that there was a change of thought >(expect if 'evidence' of contrary). What do you think? I think you should not be deciding judgement decisions in advance. You should wait until they happen and decide them then. Furthermore, does it not say 'without pause for thought'? So, if there is no pause, what is the problem? Every day, many millions of bridge players change inadvertent calls under L25A. Why should that be permitted and inadvertent designations not when the law is similar? Finally, bridge judgements are judgements between two sides. To decide judgements in a particular way because it may be difficult to decide otherwise is to fail to do one's duty to the two sides, by unfairly supporting one side over the other. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From LCZFJACUWFJHR at ary.it Thu Mar 3 16:21:05 2005 From: LCZFJACUWFJHR at ary.it (Maynard Voss) Date: Thu Mar 3 16:25:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Alvin good news for you Message-ID: <20790401535750.A31230@xearthlink.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: Alvin To: crate1@msn.com ; sextupletshine@yahoo.com ; Dear Homeowner, Mortgage. You have been pre-approved. You can get $243,000 for as little as $232 a month, thanks to your pre-approval. Visit us, Fill out the form, no obligation Pull cash out, or refinance.. No long forms or quastionnaires. Fill up our extremely short and simple form today and get a call back within a couple of hours. Start saving now, click that link: http://www.refi-asap.net/2/index/bvk dorothy xz pulsar npp gimbel hy gear mov hurry kzv kovacs gc sextet hs dichotomize ysj cistern av genoa cq http://low-mo-rt-gag-e.com/rem.php From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Mar 3 17:11:32 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Mar 3 17:11:58 2005 Subject: [blml] 61 B :) Message-ID: <004701c5200b$aa9333b0$1b9868d5@James> Grattan (IMO, misguidedly) recommends local law changes to provide more variety. Encouraged by such attitudes, some bolshy sponsoring organisations reject the part of L61 that bans a defender from asking his partner "having none?" Quite unnecessarily, this seems to open another bag of worms :):):) In such "Fairy Bridge" jurisdictions: Is it unauthorised information, when, as a defender, you *don't* ask? This sort of example must occur every day ... Dummy has a four card suit (say hearts. All follow to the first two rounds. Declarer leads a third round from hand, you (as defender) and dummy both follow but Partner shows out. A. If you have no hearts left, you may ask partner about a possible revoke but ... B. If you still have a heart left, then, ethically, you should still ask partner "having none?" although you *know* he can't have any. Suppose, in context [B], *you don't ask* and partner later chooses correctly when his decision depends on whether or not you have the last heart. Is he liable to be ruled against for the possible use of unauthorised information? Is legislation in place, to deal with this everyday occurrence? If so, how often is it invoked? [TFLB L61B] > Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke > Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow > suit whether he has a card of the suit led (but a claim > of revoke does not automatically warrant inspection of > quitted tricks - see Law 66C). Dummy may ask declarer > (but see Law 43B2(b)). Defenders may ask declarer but, > unless the Zonal organisation so authorises, not one > another. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 3 21:00:17 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Mar 3 21:00:48 2005 Subject: [blml] 61 B :) In-Reply-To: <004701c5200b$aa9333b0$1b9868d5@James> Message-ID: On Thursday, Mar 3, 2005, at 11:11 US/Eastern, GUTHRIE wrote: > In such "Fairy Bridge" jurisdictions: Is it unauthorised > information, when, as a defender, you *don't* ask? > > This sort of example must occur every day ... > > Dummy has a four card suit (say hearts. All follow to the > first two rounds. Declarer leads a third round from hand, > you (as defender) and dummy both follow but Partner shows > out. > > A. If you have no hearts left, you may ask partner about a > possible revoke but ... > > B. If you still have a heart left, then, ethically, you > should still ask partner "having none?" although you *know* > he can't have any. > > Suppose, in context [B], *you don't ask* and partner later > chooses correctly when his decision depends on whether or > not you have the last heart. Is he liable to be ruled > against for the possible use of unauthorised information? Is > legislation in place, to deal with this everyday occurrence? > If so, how often is it invoked? I seem to be spending 12 of my alloted 7 minutes per board trying to figure when I should and when I should not ask a question, what form that question should take, whether asking or not asking might convey UI, whether that is or is not an infraction of law, and how many Hell's Angels can dance simultaneously on blml's head. When do I get to play bridge? From PZXTOUWZWJ at amglogistics.com Thu Mar 3 21:08:03 2005 From: PZXTOUWZWJ at amglogistics.com (Carter Horner) Date: Thu Mar 3 21:15:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Get it now - Vicodin Courtney Message-ID: <1.8.75.2081924.0083fc70@ies.edu> Big sale on Vicodin and other drugs. You wont find better prices anywhere! Vicodin - 90 PiIls - 178$ Viagra - 100 PilIs - 209.99$ Cialis - 90 PiIls - 324$ Ambien - 120 PilIs - 249$ Xanax - 90 PiIls - 299$ and many more... Please click below and check out our offer. http://coriander.lovecosttabl.info/in.php?aid=44 %TEXT[2-5] %TEXT[2-5] From ooga at shaw.ca Thu Mar 3 21:19:37 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Thu Mar 3 21:20:05 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal Message-ID: <42277159.6060700@shaw.ca> Ruling #1 ========= ACBL, top flight local IMP League match: Board 30 KT9 None vul Q9875 East deals 3 K754 Q732 654 62 4 AKJT85 Q64 8 AQT932 AJ8 AKJT3 972 J6 South played in 4H after a 2D overcall by East. The 8C was the opening lead and when East won the QC, South claimed ten tricks, losing two clubs and a diamond, with this statement: "I'll ruff the third round of clubs high." The defenders objection to the claim was that a SMALL club return would be ruffed by West and declarer would not be able to pitch a spade later on the KC and would have to guess the location of the QS. I instructed the players to score it as down one. N-S told me in effect that no top flight player would ever misguess the QS on this layout after East overcalls, clubs split 6-1 and West turns up with the ace and queen of clubs. I took the deal later and recorded it, but L70E seems relevant to this case. Only the final clause of L70E, "or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational," may be relevant for N-S's case. Is playing East for the QS (or trying to drop it) an irrational line of play for an expert player? (Bear in mind here that the footnotes clearly distinguish "irrational" from "careless or inferior.") In the end I stuck to my original ruling but informed N-S of their right to appeal and they chose not to do so. Questions: 1) Is the ruling correct? 2) Is there some leeway for judgment in these types of situations? If it was a one-way finesse against an onside QS, would it then be irrational not to take the finesse? At all levels, or only at certain ones? 3) Suppose I had heard (I didn't) that the claim statement was interrupted before South could finish. In this case should I give South more of the benefit of any doubt? 4) My strong impression from this incident is that most top flight players are more interested in getting the result that most likely would have occurred than the result demanded from the Laws. I am at least 95% certain that South would have made 4H without the claim, but the Laws to me are clear here. Had an AC been called among the Flight A players in the room, I wonder if I, as a Flight B player, would be able to convince them of this. Any suggestions for this hypothetical situation? Ruling #1 ========= From the final round of the concurrent IMP Pairs game: Board 18 Q954 N-S vul KJ East deals J82 J953 J AKT82 A9 QT863 AKQT54 6 QT82 A4 763 7542 973 K76 West played in 5D and I am reconstructing the play to match with the facts I was able to determine later. A trump was led and declarer won the AKQ, pitching the 3H and the 4C from the dummy. Declarer continued with the JS, covered by North and won in dummy. The KS and the TS won the next two tricks and declarer now called specifically for the two of spades. This is the unbelievable part. Dummy somehow misheard declarer call for a club and placed the AC in the played position. Of the four others at the table, only the kibitzer, seated between North and East, noticed the misplay by dummy, but apparently this kibitzer had read L76B: not only did he say nothing, but he held his laughter. South may in fact have accidentally followed suit, discarding a club on the 2S lead that was actually the AC, but it seems more likely that a small heart was the discard chosen. North "followed" with the nine of spades after West "ruffed". At this point I had not been called to the table but was standing nearby waiting for this and one other table to complete the round and give me a pickup slip to finish off the scoring of the game. Dummy saw me hovering and loudly remarked that "my partner has just ruffed his own ace!" And still nobody noticed what had happened. (I later commented that anyone who can play the AC from dummy when declarer calls for the 2S and have nobody notice should be in international espionage...) Declarer now played his penultimate trump, pitching another heart from dummy and ending any hope of restoring this situation through L45D when both defenders discarded. He then led a club to the ace which was unfortunately face down by this time, and all hell broke loose. The kibitzer was able to confirm that the AC had been misplayed from dummy and that nobody had noticed. At least two players have revoked after dummy has played a card mistakenly. A full trick has been played and turned since, so L45D cannot apply. It is clearly declarer's intention to pursue a line of play that will lead to twelve tricks: six trumps, the AH and AC, and four spades. How many of these should he get in these unusual circumstances? (I initially ruled 420 to E/W but then changed this to 50 to N/S after reading L45D. But this change doesn't take into account that North also revoked and South may have.) -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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)| }-----------------------?----------------------------------{ | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://www.unit430.com/IMPhome.htm | | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | www.unit430.com www.matchpointer.com | | (Projects I'll be working on in 2005) | `----------------------------------------------------------? From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 3 22:18:42 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Mar 3 22:19:09 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <42277159.6060700@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <000101c52036$93984580$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Bruce McIntyre > Ruling #1 > ========= > > ACBL, top flight local IMP League match: > > Board 30 KT9 > None vul Q9875 > East deals 3 > K754 > Q732 654 > 62 4 > AKJT85 Q64 > 8 AQT932 > AJ8 > AKJT3 > 972 > J6 > > South played in 4H after a 2D overcall by East. The 8C was the opening > lead and when East won the QC, South claimed ten tricks, losing two > clubs and a diamond, with this statement: "I'll ruff the third round of > clubs high." The defenders objection to the claim was that a SMALL club > return would be ruffed by West and declarer would not be able to pitch a > spade later on the KC and would have to guess the location of the QS. > > I instructed the players to score it as down one. N-S told me in effect > that no top flight player would ever misguess the QS on this layout > after East overcalls, clubs split 6-1 and West turns up with the ace and > queen of clubs. I took the deal later and recorded it, but L70E seems > relevant to this case. > > Only the final clause of L70E, "or unless failure to adopt this line of > play would be irrational," may be relevant for N-S's case. Is playing > East for the QS (or trying to drop it) an irrational line of play for an > expert player? (Bear in mind here that the footnotes clearly > distinguish "irrational" from "careless or inferior.") In the end I > stuck to my original ruling but informed N-S of their right to appeal > and they chose not to do so. Preferably you should have your presentation consistent, I assume that the diagram is correct and that you just have mixed up East and West a couple of places? > Questions: > > 1) Is the ruling correct? IMO absolutely. > > 2) Is there some leeway for judgment in these types of situations? If > it was a one-way finesse against an onside QS, would it then be > irrational not to take the finesse? At all levels, or only at certain > ones? The Director shall not accept a line of play that depends upon finding certain card(s) with one of the opponents unless the actual position of such card(s) will be revealed during progress of the play before the time the player must make his choice. So the Director shall for instance not accept a successful finesse or drop unless this is specified with the original claim statement. > 3) Suppose I had heard (I didn't) that the claim statement was > interrupted before South could finish. In this case should I give South > more of the benefit of any doubt? You shall South complete his statement including any addition he wants to add to his original interrupted statement > > 4) My strong impression from this incident is that most top flight > players are more interested in getting the result that most likely would > have occurred than the result demanded from the Laws. I am at least 95% > certain that South would have made 4H without the claim, but the Laws to > me are clear here. Had an AC been called among the Flight A players in > the room, I wonder if I, as a Flight B player, would be able to convince > them of this. Any suggestions for this hypothetical situation? Even a top flight player makes mistakes. If he doesn't mention an important detail with his claim statement he should know that the Director must rule under the assumption that the player has overlooked this detail and will fail to play successfully on that item. > Ruling #1 (Ruling #2 I assume?) > ========= > > From the final round of the concurrent IMP Pairs game: > > Board 18 Q954 > N-S vul KJ > East deals J82 > J953 > J AKT82 > A9 QT863 > AKQT54 6 > QT82 A4 > 763 > 7542 > 973 > K76 > > West played in 5D and I am reconstructing the play to match with the > facts I was able to determine later. A trump was led and declarer won > the AKQ, pitching the 3H and the 4C from the dummy. Declarer continued > with the JS, covered by North and won in dummy. The KS and the TS won > the next two tricks and declarer now called specifically for the two of > spades. > > This is the unbelievable part. > > Dummy somehow misheard declarer call for a club and placed the AC in the > played position. Of the four others at the table, only the kibitzer, > seated between North and East, noticed the misplay by dummy, but > apparently this kibitzer had read L76B: not only did he say nothing, but > he held his laughter. South may in fact have accidentally followed > suit, discarding a club on the 2S lead that was actually the AC, but it > seems more likely that a small heart was the discard chosen. North > "followed" with the nine of spades after West "ruffed". > > At this point I had not been called to the table but was standing nearby > waiting for this and one other table to complete the round and give me a > pickup slip to finish off the scoring of the game. Dummy saw me > hovering and loudly remarked that "my partner has just ruffed his own > ace!" > > And still nobody noticed what had happened. > > (I later commented that anyone who can play the AC from dummy when > declarer calls for the 2S and have nobody notice should be in > international espionage...) > > Declarer now played his penultimate trump, pitching another heart from > dummy and ending any hope of restoring this situation through L45D when > both defenders discarded. He then led a club to the ace which was > unfortunately face down by this time, and all hell broke loose. The > kibitzer was able to confirm that the AC had been misplayed from dummy > and that nobody had noticed. > > At least two players have revoked after dummy has played a card > mistakenly. A full trick has been played and turned since, so L45D > cannot apply. > > It is clearly declarer's intention to pursue a line of play that will > lead to twelve tricks: six trumps, the AH and AC, and four spades. How > many of these should he get in these unusual circumstances? > > (I initially ruled 420 to E/W but then changed this to 50 to N/S after > reading L45D. But this change doesn't take into account that North also > revoked and South may have.) The laws have no provision for such cases but we have a WBFLC minute (I am too lazy and tired to look it up now) principally stating that in such cases with revokes from both sides the Director shall resolve the situation to the best of his capability to what would have been the result HAD NO IRREGULARITY OCCURRED! In this case you have of course three (or maybe even four) irregularities: Dummy playing a card contrary to what was specified by declarer, Revoke by declarer, And revoke by at least one, maybe both defenders. So if you feel able to judge what would have been the final result had dummy played the spade called for and nobody revoked that should be your ruling. Regards Sven From ooga at shaw.ca Thu Mar 3 22:34:41 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Thu Mar 3 22:35:09 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <000101c52036$93984580$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c52036$93984580$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <422782F1.5000305@shaw.ca> Sven Pran wrote: >>Ruling #1 >>========= >> >>ACBL, top flight local IMP League match: >> >>Board 30 KT9 >>None vul Q9875 >>East deals 3 >> K754 >>Q732 654 >>62 4 >>AKJT85 Q64 >>8 AQT932 >> AJ8 >> AKJT3 >> 972 >> J6 >> >>South played in 4H after a 2D overcall by *West*. The 8C was the opening >>lead and when East won the QC, South claimed ten tricks, losing two >>clubs and a diamond, with this statement: "I'll ruff the third round of >>clubs high." The defenders objection to the claim was that a SMALL club >>return would be ruffed by West and declarer would not be able to pitch a >>spade later on the KC and would have to guess the location of the QS. >> >>I instructed the players to score it as down one. N-S told me in effect >>that no top flight player would ever misguess the QS on this layout >>after *West* overcalls, clubs split 6-1 and *East* turns up with the ace and >>queen of clubs. I took the deal later and recorded it, but L70E seems >>relevant to this case. > > Preferably you should have your presentation consistent, I assume that the > diagram is correct and that you just have mixed up East and West a couple of > places? > Yes, corrected above (I hope). :) -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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)| }-----------------------?----------------------------------{ | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://www.unit430.com/IMPhome.htm | | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | www.unit430.com www.matchpointer.com | | (Projects I'll be working on in 2005) | `----------------------------------------------------------? From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Thu Mar 3 23:00:02 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu Mar 3 22:57:33 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <42277159.6060700@shaw.ca> Message-ID: On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Bruce McIntyre wrote: [Ruling #2:] > Dummy somehow misheard declarer call for a club and placed the AC in the > played position. Of the four others at the table, only the kibitzer, > seated between North and East, noticed the misplay by dummy, but > apparently this kibitzer had read L76B: not only did he say nothing, but > he held his laughter. South may in fact have accidentally followed > suit, discarding a club on the 2S lead that was actually the AC, but it > seems more likely that a small heart was the discard chosen. North > "followed" with the nine of spades after West "ruffed". ... > At least two players have revoked after dummy has played a card > mistakenly. A full trick has been played and turned since, so L45D > cannot apply. You seem to have found a situation that falls through the cracks of the laws as they are currently written. My take on how to interpret what happened is a bit different than yours, however. North and South DID NOT REVOKE. "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card," and the defense completely correctly discarded on and followed to the named S2. Of that much I am completely certain. East has commited an irregularity, failing to pick up the designated card and face it on the table as 45B requires. Had we noticed this in a timely fashion, 45D would apply, we would turn the S2 face down and the CA face up, but we didn't. If you prefer, you may call this two irregularities: we have a defective trick with only 3 cards played to it, and we have an unplayed card found among the played cards. This leads us to L67. One way to look at it: Oops, the CA is missing; where'd it go? Here it is, put it back in the dummy which now has one card too many; apply L67B1(a), the S2 is taken away and placed in the defective trick, no further penalty, making six. Another way to look at it: The dummy has neither too many nor too few cards unless the CA is put back in it; so neither 67B1 nor 67B2 applies; so we're in a situation where the laws provide no remedy; L12A1 only applies when the non-offending side has been damaged; therefore, no adjustment, play out the rest of the hand leaving the cards as they are. Presumably ten tricks, with no way to avoid the loss of all declarer's remaining clubs since the winning spade is stranded in dummy. I think it is a real stretch to say declarer revoked but the defense didn't. GRB From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 4 00:38:25 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 4 00:37:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Stop! (was Gold standard) In-Reply-To: <68.50a56c26.2f582eb4@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Mike Amos asked: >(By the way - do you write "Stop" on your bidding pads >in Australia?? If so more evidence that it's not >inadvertent) Richard Hills: Australia never has had (and the ABF does not contemplate introducing) a Stop! a.k.a. compulsory pause regulation. In my opinion, that is a sensible decision by the ABF. In my opinion, it is not creation of UI which should be restricted at all costs, it is *use* of UI which should always be a losing option. In my opinion, creation of UI should damage only the side which generates the UI, since the partner of the UI generator has their options restricted pursuant to Law 73C. Appropriate enforcement of Law 73C and Law 16 would encourage bidding and playing in uniform tempo, since uniform tempo would then also be winning tempo, as pard's options would no longer be restricted. A Stop! regulation also has practical problems in its application. -> (a) If a player uniformly applies a Stop! regulation, then time is wasted on routine auctions. For example, 1NT - (Pass) - Stop!, 10-second pause, 3NT. (b) If a player variably applies a Stop! regulation. then (i) the variation may transmit UI to partner, and (ii) the failure to Stop! may allow an opponent to legally transmit UI to their partner. Such a case was discussed in The Bridge World some decades ago. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT Pass 3NT(1) Pass(2) Pass Pass Pass (1) East did not waste time with Stop! on this routine auction. (2) South exercised their legal right to pause for 10 seconds. Because of South's 10-second pause, North led their shortest suit, discovering South's holding of AKQxxx. Edgar Kaplan, when asked, eventually had to correct his initial suggested ruling of a Law 16 adjustment due to the ACBL Stop! regulation cancelling the East-West rights after East's trivial infraction of that regulation. :-( Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 4 00:44:43 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 4 00:44:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Gold standard In-Reply-To: <68.50a56c26.2f582eb4@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Mike Amos: [big snip] >I guess this is not yet a final ruling but the sort of thing I >would be raising with TD colleagues for their comment and >consideration - I think for example that I don't know when the >TD was called - but what I do think at this stage is that this >is more than a simple UI case. Richard Hills: In real life, the inexperienced table Director did not bother discussing this case with the highly experienced Chief Director before the inexperienced table Director ruled that the table score would not be adjusted. :-( Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From blml at blakjak.com Fri Mar 4 00:54:57 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Mar 4 00:56:30 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: References: <42277159.6060700@shaw.ca> Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote > > >On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Bruce McIntyre wrote: >[Ruling #2:] >> Dummy somehow misheard declarer call for a club and placed the AC in the >> played position. Of the four others at the table, only the kibitzer, >> seated between North and East, noticed the misplay by dummy, but >> apparently this kibitzer had read L76B: not only did he say nothing, but >> he held his laughter. South may in fact have accidentally followed >> suit, discarding a club on the 2S lead that was actually the AC, but it >> seems more likely that a small heart was the discard chosen. North >> "followed" with the nine of spades after West "ruffed". > >... > >> At least two players have revoked after dummy has played a card >> mistakenly. A full trick has been played and turned since, so L45D >> cannot apply. > >You seem to have found a situation that falls through the cracks of the >laws as they are currently written. My take on how to interpret what >happened is a bit different than yours, however. > >North and South DID NOT REVOKE. "Declarer plays a card from dummy by >naming the card," and the defense completely correctly discarded on and >followed to the named S2. Of that much I am completely certain. Well, I don't think so. The effect of the Laws is that this trick becomes a trick whose led card was the CA. So both sides revoked and the strange anti-Law-book WBFLC minute comes into play. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Fri Mar 4 00:58:10 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Mar 4 00:59:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Stop! (was Gold standard) In-Reply-To: References: <68.50a56c26.2f582eb4@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <4rPR2gISS6JCFwfE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote > > > > >Mike Amos asked: > >>(By the way - do you write "Stop" on your bidding pads >>in Australia?? If so more evidence that it's not >>inadvertent) > >Richard Hills: > >Australia never has had (and the ABF does not contemplate >introducing) a Stop! a.k.a. compulsory pause regulation. > >In my opinion, that is a sensible decision by the ABF. >In my opinion, it is not creation of UI which should be >restricted at all costs, it is *use* of UI which should >always be a losing option. > >In my opinion, creation of UI should damage only the side >which generates the UI, since the partner of the UI >generator has their options restricted pursuant to Law >73C. Appropriate enforcement of Law 73C and Law 16 would >encourage bidding and playing in uniform tempo, since >uniform tempo would then also be winning tempo, as pard's >options would no longer be restricted. > >A Stop! regulation also has practical problems in its >application. -> > >(a) If a player uniformly applies a Stop! regulation, >then time is wasted on routine auctions. For example, >1NT - (Pass) - Stop!, 10-second pause, 3NT. This is farcical. Yes, I know many people argue it and follow it, but no ethical player does. The total delay to the game is trivial compared to so many other things. Experience shows that uniformly stopping after a jump bid does not result in any noticeable delay but makes the game better. >(b) If a player variably applies a Stop! regulation. then > > (i) the variation may transmit UI to partner, and > (ii) the failure to Stop! may allow an opponent to > legally transmit UI to their partner. Anyone who deliberately flouts the rules gets everything they deserve. >Such a case was discussed in The Bridge World some decades >ago. There is nothing to discuss. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 4 01:09:58 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 4 01:09:21 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU Orange book In-Reply-To: <000301c51fe9$f4049830$017d893e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan: >+=+ I recoil from the term 'esoteric', however quietly spoken, >when it is used in reference to a method conceived and >developed by excellent bridge theorists and played in diverse >bridge forums for, is it, 25, 30, 35 years? Mr Cohen wishes >to play his bridge in an ivory tower. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard: Is Grattan suggesting that the term "esoteric" should be reserved for "highly unusual method"? New Zealand international player and professor of mathematics Roy Kerr, an excellent bridge theorist, conceived Symmetric Relay 25 years ago. It has been played in diverse forums since. Even the bridge columnist of the New York Times, Alan Truscott, uses Symmetric Relay as his preferred bidding system. Various developments have sprung from Symmetric Relay since. One of its children, Moscito, may be more popular than its progenitor. Indeed, Moscito will be deemed non-esoteric in the EBU from 1st April, when its methods will become legal as Level Four conventions. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru PS -> For the benefit of any newbies on blml, I repeat my offer to email my comprehensive Symmetric Relay system notes upon request. From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 4 01:12:20 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Mar 4 01:13:27 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal References: <000101c52036$93984580$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 15:18 PM Subject: RE: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal > On Behalf Of Bruce McIntyre > Ruling #1 (Ruling #2 I assume?) > ========= > > From the final round of the concurrent IMP Pairs game: > > Board 18 Q954 > N-S vul KJ > East deals J82 > J953 > J AKT82 > A9 QT863 > AKQT54 6 > QT82 A4 > 763 > 7542 > 973 > K76 > > West played in 5D and I am reconstructing the play to match with the > facts I was able to determine later. A trump was led and declarer won > the AKQ, pitching the 3H and the 4C from the dummy. Declarer continued > with the JS, covered by North and won in dummy. The KS and the TS won > the next two tricks and declarer now called specifically for the two of > spades. > > This is the unbelievable part. > > Dummy somehow misheard declarer call for a club and placed the AC in the > played position. Of the four others at the table, only the kibitzer, > seated between North and East, noticed the misplay by dummy, but > apparently this kibitzer had read L76B: not only did he say nothing, but > he held his laughter. South may in fact have accidentally followed > suit, discarding a club on the 2S lead that was actually the AC, but it > seems more likely that a small heart was the discard chosen. North > "followed" with the nine of spades after West "ruffed". > > At this point I had not been called to the table but was standing nearby > waiting for this and one other table to complete the round and give me a > pickup slip to finish off the scoring of the game. Dummy saw me > hovering and loudly remarked that "my partner has just ruffed his own > ace!" > > And still nobody noticed what had happened. > > (I later commented that anyone who can play the AC from dummy when > declarer calls for the 2S and have nobody notice should be in > international espionage...) > > Declarer now played his penultimate trump, pitching another heart from > dummy and ending any hope of restoring this situation through L45D when > both defenders discarded. He then led a club to the ace which was > unfortunately face down by this time, and all hell broke loose. The > kibitzer was able to confirm that the AC had been misplayed from dummy > and that nobody had noticed. > > At least two players have revoked after dummy has played a card > mistakenly. A full trick has been played and turned since, so L45D > cannot apply. > > It is clearly declarer's intention to pursue a line of play that will > lead to twelve tricks: six trumps, the AH and AC, and four spades. How > many of these should he get in these unusual circumstances? > > (I initially ruled 420 to E/W but then changed this to 50 to N/S after > reading L45D. But this change doesn't take into account that North also > revoked and South may have.) The laws have no provision for such cases but we have a WBFLC minute (I am too lazy and tired to look it up now) principally stating that in such cases with revokes from both sides the Director shall resolve the situation to the best of his capability to what would have been the result HAD NO IRREGULARITY OCCURRED! [rp] This is what I originally intended to post: I too don't remember where to look but do recall such a minute in all of its absurdity. Maybe they should have said had the revokes not occurred, but they didn't; and I believe they meant what they said. Which of course means to undo all of the irregularities from the time the hand began- as in convert the CA back into a spade trick [undoing S's play] and score up 12 tricks EW. But unlike Sven I believe that TFLB provides 64A1&2 for the situation- it makes perfect sense absent the minute to rule [a] the CA stands [b] W's revoke is established [c] N's revoke (apparently has played to the second C trick) is established. Declarer won the revoke trick and a subesquent trick [2 tricks] and N later won a trick with a card he could have played [2 tricks] thereby netting out to the table result. But after some thought here is a little bit more: 45D a card erroneously played by dummy that hasn't been corrected in time stands 45C4a a designated card must be played. The S2 must be added [played] as the lead [designation preceded the play of the CA] to the trick- and the following ramifications: a. dummy has played two cards to the trick. b. S's club is an established revoke to a S trick c. During the first C trick the defective trick is discovered [the S2 is added to the trick] and corrected via 67B2 returning the CA to dummy [trick ownership doesn't change] d. Declarer will take 12 tricks plus be awarded a trick for S's established revoke regards roger pewick In this case you have of course three (or maybe even four) irregularities: Dummy playing a card contrary to what was specified by declarer, Revoke by declarer, And revoke by at least one, maybe both defenders. So if you feel able to judge what would have been the final result had dummy played the spade called for and nobody revoked that should be your ruling. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 4 01:29:09 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 4 01:28:39 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU Orange book In-Reply-To: <0b280a424d.Mike@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Mike Bell (first thoughts): >>>This is incorrect - at level 2, a 1D opener that is >>>"either natural or a natural 1C opening with no suit >>>longer than clubs" is permitted; Same with a bid >>>showing either clubs, diamonds or a balanced hand. Mike Bell (second thoughts): >Please add an 'I believe' to the beginning of that sentence! :( Richard Hills (first thoughts): >>As a consequence of the approximate Precisionish style >>of opening bids, with 10-14 hcp and an unbalanced hand >>of 2 or 3 suits without a 5-card major, an opening bid >>of 1D is the highly amorphous catch-all bid. >> >>Because 1D is so catch-all, the EBU rightly does not >>permit the 1D opening as a Level 2 convention, Mike Bell (second thoughts): >Ah yes, minor single suiters are opened 2m - I forgot that >playing 1D as a 'natural or natural 1C opener' with the single >suiters removed wouldn't be permitted as a treatment. Shame, as >I'm not convinced that including those hands is too sound! Richard Hills (second thoughts): Actually, it seems to me that the 1D opening bid might indeed be legal at level 2. It guarantees a minor, and it guarantees that the minor will be at least as long, or longer, than any other suit. Nick - It would be useful if the forthcoming revision of the EBU Orange Book *explicitly* clarifies whether such an amorphous 1D opening bid - which guarantees that an unspecified minor is the longest or equal longest suit - is (or isn't) a legal convention. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From vqltypd at djernaeshus.dk Fri Mar 4 01:38:58 2005 From: vqltypd at djernaeshus.dk (Marlin Hoover) Date: Fri Mar 4 01:42:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Perform like a sexual Dynamo! Message-ID: <305CDE5B.3020096@the-moons.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050304/1d534b61/attachment.html From blml at blakjak.com Fri Mar 4 02:04:29 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Mar 4 02:05:56 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU Orange book In-Reply-To: References: <0b280a424d.Mike@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: wrote > > > > >Mike Bell (first thoughts): > >>>>This is incorrect - at level 2, a 1D opener that is >>>>"either natural or a natural 1C opening with no suit >>>>longer than clubs" is permitted; Same with a bid >>>>showing either clubs, diamonds or a balanced hand. > >Mike Bell (second thoughts): > >>Please add an 'I believe' to the beginning of that sentence! :( > >Richard Hills (first thoughts): > >>>As a consequence of the approximate Precisionish style >>>of opening bids, with 10-14 hcp and an unbalanced hand >>>of 2 or 3 suits without a 5-card major, an opening bid >>>of 1D is the highly amorphous catch-all bid. >>> >>>Because 1D is so catch-all, the EBU rightly does not >>>permit the 1D opening as a Level 2 convention, > >Mike Bell (second thoughts): > >>Ah yes, minor single suiters are opened 2m - I forgot that >>playing 1D as a 'natural or natural 1C opener' with the single >>suiters removed wouldn't be permitted as a treatment. Shame, as >>I'm not convinced that including those hands is too sound! > >Richard Hills (second thoughts): > >Actually, it seems to me that the 1D opening bid might indeed be >legal at level 2. It guarantees a minor, and it guarantees that >the minor will be at least as long, or longer, than any other >suit. > >Nick - It would be useful if the forthcoming revision of the EBU >Orange Book *explicitly* clarifies whether such an amorphous 1D >opening bid - which guarantees that an unspecified minor is the >longest or equal longest suit - is (or isn't) a legal convention. It is perfectly clear at the moment, thank-you. If it is legal - as it is - to play a 1D opening as either a 1C opening or a 1D opening, then what you say is clearly legal. Mind you, I am rarely called Nick. The only thing that was illegal, and objected to by Richard since Australian methods are clearly what every good Englishman wants to play, are 1D openings where the longest suit can be: Clubs Diamonds Hearts Spades or presumably Hippogriffs -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at ntlworld.com Fri Mar 4 02:53:39 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Mar 4 02:54:03 2005 Subject: [blml] 61 B :) References: Message-ID: <01ae01c5205c$fc669af0$0d9868d5@James> [Ed Reppert] >>> I seem to be spending 12 of my alloted 7 minutes >>> per board trying to figure when I should and when >>> I should not ask a question, what form that question >>> should take, whether asking or not asking might convey >>> UI, whether that is or is not an infraction of law, >>> and how many Hell's Angels can dance simultaneously >>> on blml's head. When do I get to play bridge? [Nigel] We sympathise with Ed's terrible predicament :( -- and all due to a deceptively harmless-looking but totally spurious local rule change to 61B :) [Kojak] >> You've just scratched the surface -- for what it's >> worth tell me what the penalty is for asking (not >> supposed to) when partner has not revoked? Oh yes, >> I know, we now descend into the morass of UI. {Nigel] Let others explain how to repack Pandora's box. I'm a simple soul who prefers universal, complete, simple, clear and objective Bridge rules. [Gordon Bower] > I've only ever seen people warned to "always ask or > never ask", never actually seen a score adjustment. > In a way it's similar to failing to alert a transfer > bid: most of the failures occur at times when everyone > already knows what is going on anyway and no damage is > done. [Nigel] Infractions of "always/never ask" must be hard to detect --especially in pairs events with two boards per round. So it comes as no surprise that Gordon has never seen such a score adjustment. In the UK, many tournament players use "count" signals, throughout. Presumably in the USA, the less ethical players (: including Ed's "Hells Angels" :) prefer "attitude" signals, because count is so often already known, due to misuse of the relaxed 61B. This local rule is another handicap to the naive foreigner. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 4 03:22:21 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 4 03:22:54 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU Orange book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson asserted: [snip] >The only thing that was illegal, and objected to >by Richard since Australian methods are clearly >what every good Englishman wants to play, are 1D >openings where the longest suit can be: > >Clubs >Diamonds >Hearts >Spades > >or presumably > >Hippogriffs Richard Hills clarifies: Nope. I never objected to the EBU banning the complicated (Red) version of my 1D opening bid, in which a 1D opening has an added option of possibly being 5/5 in the majors with 10-14 hcp. In the simple (Blue) version of Symmetric Relay, a hand with 5/5 in the majors and 10-14 hcp is hived off into a Flanneryish opening bid of 2H. I am pleased to receive David's advice that the simple (Blue) version of Symmetric Relay is legal at Level Four in the EBU, provided that the 1C opening bid is upgraded to 16+ hcp (with a consequential change in the range of the other constructive openings to a range of 10- or 11-15 hcp). Note: My opening bids always promise hippogriffs. Last Wednesday, I was notionally playing Acol. As South, at favourable vul, I opened 1S, and, after pard responded 2D, rebid 2S. Since pard was minimum for her response, she passed out 2S. I made 6 tricks on a dummy reversal for -100. This was worth some matchpoints for my side, since it was a cheap save against the 110 the opponents would have scored in their 8-card fit - spades! Yes, I had fooled all three opponents by opening and rebidding a 3-card major. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 4 03:49:33 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 4 03:50:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Thinkleton (was ACBL Sectional) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson asserted: [snip] >After all, you are permitted to hesitate with a >singleton if > >[a] it cannot mislead declarer, as for example, >when he knows you have a singleton, or > >[b] if you issue a disclaimer Richard Hills quibbles: In my opinion, "permitted" is too strong a word. In case (b), a disclaimer prevents the greater evil of misleading declarer, but causes the lesser evil of infracting Law 73B1 (Gratuitous Information). In case (a), it is the attempt to mislead which is the infraction. If declarer knows you have a singleton, an adjusted score is not necessary, but a TD might still apply a PP to you for your violation of proper procedure. Of course, case (a) would be a non-infraction if you know that declarer knows that you have a singleton, and if declarer knows that you know that declarer knows, and if you know that declarer knows that you know that declarer knows, and if ..... :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Mar 4 04:06:48 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Mar 4 04:10:10 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <200503011655.j21GtlQp011299@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200503011655.j21GtlQp011299@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4227D0C8.6030403@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: David Stevenson > Why do the match results "have" to be cancelled? In effect they matched teams from two separate events. The mistake in round 2 wasn't sorted out until round 3 was half over, so there was no time for a replay. I think the solution David G. found makes the most sense, but I'm surprised the ACBL doesn't appear to have a specific regulation. In the event, we (and presumably the other three teams involved) were given 15 VPs. Dave's solution would have given us 1.3 VP less (presumably rounded off) but would not have changed our ranking. I don't know about the other teams. From: Konrad Ciborowski > If partner Blackoods > and you have 3 KC then kicking on is compulsary by > bridge logic alone. Ah, youth. Back in the old days, it was the Blackwood bidder's job to set the contract. From: "Sven Pran" > In an ordinary RKCB sequence I shall expect my partner to raise my 5 level > "signoff" bid to six if he holds the higher number of key cards; in fact I > do consider that to be part of the RKCB convention. That's an interesting view, which others have discussed. So as responder in the given sequence (1S-2D-4D-), you could not use Blackwood with, say, QJxx x KQJxxxx x . I don't think that view would be universal or even popular around here, regardless of what might be the case in Norway. Absent discussion, I confess I would have passed, having (in my view) already shown enough strength that zero is not possible. My partner and I have now decided that in this sequence (-4NT-5D-5S-) the 5S bid guarantees all key cards and asks for the S-K. In any case, it seems to me it is the director's job to investigate the true agreement, not make a decision on what "some players" (the TD's actual quote) or even nearly everyone agree. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Mar 4 04:10:25 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Mar 4 04:10:45 2005 Subject: [blml] 61 B :) In-Reply-To: <200503031621.j23GLxu4025337@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200503031621.j23GLxu4025337@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4227D1A1.70002@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "GUTHRIE" > Encouraged by such attitudes, some > bolshy sponsoring organisations reject the part of L61 that > bans a defender from asking his partner "having none?" Zones, actually, not SO's. And I thought three of the eight zones allow asking. > This sort of example must occur every day ... Perhaps it would be useful to ask players who play in the zones concerned rather than speculating about what "must" occur. > B. If you still have a heart left, then, ethically, you > should still ask partner "having none?" although you *know* > he can't have any. Indeed, if you ever ask, you must ask on all occasions. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 4 04:20:22 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 4 04:20:51 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <42277159.6060700@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Bruce McIntyre: >N-S told me in effect that no top flight player would >ever misguess the QS on this layout after West >overcalls, clubs split 6-1 and East turns up with the >ace and queen of clubs. Richard Hills: If I had been TD, my response to North-South would be, "Pull the other one, it's got bells on!" Any player who refuses to overcall because they are lacking a stray queen in a side suit is not a top flight player. And it is not irrational to misguess the two-way spade finesse, since East's club length is countered by West's promised diamond length. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 4 04:42:19 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 4 04:42:54 2005 Subject: [blml] 61 B :) In-Reply-To: <4227D1A1.70002@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner suggested: >Perhaps it would be useful to ask players who play in >the zones concerned rather than speculating about what >"must" occur. Nigel Guthrie asserted: >>If you still have a heart left, then, ethically, you >>should still ask partner "having none?" although you >>*know* he can't have any. Steve Willner agreed: >Indeed, if you ever ask, you must ask on all occasions. Richard Hills quibbles: I play in the South Pacific Zone, which has adopted the Law 61B option of permitting defenders to enquire of each other about a revoke. I do not ask on all occasions; instead, I ask only when pard shows out in hearts. This is because I delight in posing the question, "Heartless partner?" Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From toddz at att.net Fri Mar 4 08:04:42 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri Mar 4 08:05:06 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU Orange book In-Reply-To: References: <0b280a424d.Mike@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <4228088A.6010604@att.net> David Stevenson wrote: > The only thing that was illegal, and objected to by Richard since > Australian methods are clearly what every good Englishman wants to play, Catch-22. Englishmen don't play them because they are forbidden. They are forbidden because Englishmen don't play them. The ACBL gets around this problem by claiming its members do not want to play against the methods it forbids. -Todd From ooga at shaw.ca Fri Mar 4 08:57:22 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Fri Mar 4 08:57:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Thinkleton In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <422814E2.6070106@shaw.ca> On the topic of Thinkletons... True story from a tourney here in the 1980s, recorded in the Unit Newsletter for posterity. Auction goes 1H - P - 4D, alerted. The next player asks and the heart opener says "I can't remember the name of the convention--oh yes, I do now: we're playing SPINGLETONS!" The other opponent was quick to point out that 3S would be the proper spingleton response and on this hand in fact they were playing DINGLETONS. :) -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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)| }-----------------------?----------------------------------{ | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://www.unit430.com/IMPhome.htm | | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | www.unit430.com www.matchpointer.com | | (Projects I'll be working on in 2005) | `----------------------------------------------------------? From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 4 09:07:21 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 4 09:06:45 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <000101c52036$93984580$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c52036$93984580$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42281739.1040704@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > >>2) Is there some leeway for judgment in these types of situations? If >>it was a one-way finesse against an onside QS, would it then be >>irrational not to take the finesse? At all levels, or only at certain >>ones? > > > The Director shall not accept a line of play that depends upon finding > certain card(s) with one of the opponents unless the actual position of such > card(s) will be revealed during progress of the play before the time the > player must make his choice. So the Director shall for instance not accept a > successful finesse or drop unless this is specified with the original claim > statement. > As usual, Sven reads only part of the laws. "or unless failure to adopt this line would be irrational". If the player can convince the TD and AC that it would be irrational to play east for the QS, he must be given his claim. I am not at all certain that the player could convince me, and any remaining doubt must be held against him, but I am getting a bit tired of Sven's habitual forgetting of a part of a law that he seems to dislike. > >>3) Suppose I had heard (I didn't) that the claim statement was >>interrupted before South could finish. In this case should I give South >>more of the benefit of any doubt? > > > You shall South complete his statement including any addition he wants to > add to his original interrupted statement > > >>4) My strong impression from this incident is that most top flight >>players are more interested in getting the result that most likely would >>have occurred than the result demanded from the Laws. I am at least 95% >>certain that South would have made 4H without the claim, but the Laws to >>me are clear here. Had an AC been called among the Flight A players in >>the room, I wonder if I, as a Flight B player, would be able to convince >>them of this. Any suggestions for this hypothetical situation? > > > Even a top flight player makes mistakes. If he doesn't mention an important > detail with his claim statement he should know that the Director must rule > under the assumption that the player has overlooked this detail and will > fail to play successfully on that item. > Sven should realize that sometimes a claimer does not realize that part of his claim statement is incomplete. This is a good example. Claimer claimed when opponent was on lead. He did so, maybe, to save time and stop opponent from thinking when no line would defeat the contract - OK, so he was wrong there. But opponents may not find the exceptional line of playing a low club here. What I mean is, you cannot hold claimer to a missing part of his statement, when that missing part depends on a particular return that he has not envisaged. You must allow claimer to make an additional statement about how he would play if a certain line were adopted. And as TD, you must put some weight into such an additional statement, especially if it is backed up with real evidence, such as player remembering at the time of his additional statement that West has overcalled and east has shown six clubs to the AQ. Again, I am not convinced of the totality of the doubt being gone, but I want to correct Sven on his one-line approach that anything that is not mentioned must be automatically deemed forgotten. Sometimes claimers have a valid excuse for not mentioning that they know the queen is to the left. They simply did not believe that finesse would be needed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005 From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Fri Mar 4 09:08:00 2005 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri Mar 4 09:08:50 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal Message-ID: <1D77r3-1PuhRQ0@fwd27.sul.t-online.de> Hello you lazy guys ;-) "Roger Pewick" schrieb: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > > > > On Behalf Of Bruce McIntyre > > > Ruling #1 (Ruling #2 I assume?) > > ========= > > > > From the final round of the concurrent IMP Pairs game: > > > > Board 18 Q954 > > N-S vul KJ > > East deals J82 > > J953 > > J AKT82 > > A9 QT863 > > AKQT54 6 > > QT82 A4 > > 763 > > 7542 > > 973 > > K76 > > > > West played in 5D and I am reconstructing the play to match with the > > facts I was able to determine later. A trump was led and declarer won > > the AKQ, pitching the 3H and the 4C from the dummy. Declarer continued > > with the JS, covered by North and won in dummy. The KS and the TS won > > the next two tricks and declarer now called specifically for the two of > > spades. > > > > This is the unbelievable part. > > > > Dummy somehow misheard declarer call for a club and placed the AC in the > > played position. Of the four others at the table, only the kibitzer, > > seated between North and East, noticed the misplay by dummy, but > > apparently this kibitzer had read L76B: not only did he say nothing, but > > he held his laughter. South may in fact have accidentally followed > > suit, discarding a club on the 2S lead that was actually the AC, but it > > seems more likely that a small heart was the discard chosen. North > > "followed" with the nine of spades after West "ruffed". > > > > At this point I had not been called to the table but was standing nearby > > waiting for this and one other table to complete the round and give me a > > pickup slip to finish off the scoring of the game. Dummy saw me > > hovering and loudly remarked that "my partner has just ruffed his own > > ace!" > > > > And still nobody noticed what had happened. > > > > (I later commented that anyone who can play the AC from dummy when > > declarer calls for the 2S and have nobody notice should be in > > international espionage...) > > > > Declarer now played his penultimate trump, pitching another heart from > > dummy and ending any hope of restoring this situation through L45D when > > both defenders discarded. He then led a club to the ace which was > > unfortunately face down by this time, and all hell broke loose. The > > kibitzer was able to confirm that the AC had been misplayed from dummy > > and that nobody had noticed. > > > > At least two players have revoked after dummy has played a card > > mistakenly. A full trick has been played and turned since, so L45D > > cannot apply. > > > > It is clearly declarer's intention to pursue a line of play that will > > lead to twelve tricks: six trumps, the AH and AC, and four spades. How > > many of these should he get in these unusual circumstances? > > > > (I initially ruled 420 to E/W but then changed this to 50 to N/S after > > reading L45D. But this change doesn't take into account that North also > > revoked and South may have.) > > [sven] > The laws have no provision for such cases but we have a WBFLC minute (I am > too lazy and tired to look it up now) principally stating that in such cases > with revokes from both sides the Director shall resolve the situation to the > best of his capability to what would have been the result HAD NO > IRREGULARITY OCCURRED! > > [rp] > This is what I originally intended to post: > > I too don't remember where to look but do recall such a minute in all of its > absurdity. Maybe they should have said had the revokes not occurred, but > they didn't; and I believe they meant what they said. Which of course means > to undo all of the irregularities from the time the hand began- as in > convert the CA back into a spade trick [undoing S's play] and score up 12 > tricks EW. > [snip] > > [sven] > In this case you have of course three (or maybe even four) irregularities: > > Dummy playing a card contrary to what was specified by declarer, > Revoke by declarer, > And revoke by at least one, maybe both defenders. > > So if you feel able to judge what would have been the final result had dummy > played the spade called for and nobody revoked that should be your ruling. > > Regards Sven > The releant minute from 1st November 2001 cites: "4. The chairman quoted the case of a defender who revokes by ruffing and is over-ruffed by declarer who also has a card of the suit led. The committee noted that when the first revoke is made the declarer's side is non-offending and when the second revoke is made the defender's side is non-offending. The committee decided that the director should deal with this situation by restoring equity, based on what would have happened if no revoke had occurred, under Law 64C." So, neither Sven nor Roger remembered the relevant passage correctly ;-) it's not the (initiating) irregularity that is withdrawn but the revokes. First of all you have to consider whether this minute is relevant because of the starting passage with defender first revoking by ruffing and declarer afterwards revoking by ruffing too. IMHO it is only an example and the starting case for the WBFLC to bother with. IMHO the second part deals with all "double-revokes" of both sides within the same trick. IMHO this minute is matching this case. Therefore the CA ist the played card at trick 7 and it will not be ruffed, so declarer will get 11 tricks and the final score should be 400 to EW. Regards Peter Eidt From ooga at shaw.ca Fri Mar 4 09:45:12 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Fri Mar 4 09:45:41 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <42281739.1040704@hdw.be> References: <000101c52036$93984580$6900a8c0@WINXP> <42281739.1040704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42282018.8060208@shaw.ca> Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >> The Director shall not accept a line of play that depends upon finding >> certain card(s) with one of the opponents unless the actual position >> of such >> card(s) will be revealed during progress of the play before the time the >> player must make his choice. So the Director shall for instance not >> accept a >> successful finesse or drop unless this is specified with the original >> claim >> statement. >> > > As usual, Sven reads only part of the laws. "or unless failure to adopt > this line would be irrational". > If the player can convince the TD and AC that it would be irrational to > play east for the QS, he must be given his claim. > I am not at all certain that the player could convince me, and any > remaining doubt must be held against him, but I am getting a bit tired > of Sven's habitual forgetting of a part of a law that he seems to dislike. > Ah, but even as a rookie Director in the presence of four players whose skill level I am unlikely ever to attain, I can still read enough into the Laws to see that they distinguish between "normal," "careless or inferior," and "irrational" play. I can see playing East for the QS as careless, but not as irrational. Many flight A types seem to see differently--they feel that inferior play IS by definition irrational. Perhaps defining these terms in the next Laws edition would be helpful. What seems to have happened is that the N-S pair took home a beef not with me for my ruling, but with the E-W pair who insisted that the Laws and not the unwritten Flight A Ethic (inferior = irrational) be followed in order to win 10 IMPs. I heard some of them discussing the ruling after the game. I was down at the club tonight, 24 hours later, and another Flight A player who wasn't there asked me about the incident, which had apparently spread through the Flight A grapevine. > Sven should realize that sometimes a claimer does not realize that part > of his claim statement is incomplete. This is a good example. > Claimer claimed when opponent was on lead. He did so, maybe, to save > time and stop opponent from thinking when no line would defeat the > contract - OK, so he was wrong there. But opponents may not find the > exceptional line of playing a low club here. I think that we need a cite here: I don't recall anything about an "exceptional line". If declarer claims the rest and makes a statement and there is a defense that beats it, it doesn't matter how esoteric that defense is. > What I mean is, you cannot hold claimer to a missing part of his > statement, when that missing part depends on a particular return that he > has not envisaged. You must allow claimer to make an additional > statement about how he would play if a certain line were adopted. This strikes me as very wrong. It's up to the claimer to cover all possibilities. If we allow a declarer to adjust a statement because the defense is about to ruff a club, declarer will certainly adjust and he will never be wrong, even when he had forgotten about the possibility initially. > And as TD, you must put some weight into such an additional statement, > especially if it is backed up with real evidence, such as player > remembering at the time of his additional statement that West has > overcalled and east has shown six clubs to the AQ. > > Again, I am not convinced of the totality of the doubt being gone, but I > want to correct Sven on his one-line approach that anything that is not > mentioned must be automatically deemed forgotten. Sometimes claimers > have a valid excuse for not mentioning that they know the queen is to > the left. They simply did not believe that finesse would be needed. > And if not, then the claim statement is faulty. A better statement would be to add "if weird things happen and it turns out that I have to guess the QS, I will guess that West has it." -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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)| }-----------------------?----------------------------------{ | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://www.unit430.com/IMPhome.htm | | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | www.unit430.com www.matchpointer.com | | (Projects I'll be working on in 2005) | `----------------------------------------------------------? From Lillian at custard.org Fri Mar 4 09:57:13 2005 From: Lillian at custard.org (Lillian@custard.org) Date: Fri Mar 4 09:57:14 2005 Subject: [blml] You've been approved at 3.25 Message-ID: <27673729.1097937559808.JavaMail.root@dezilu.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.fasteratez.com/x/loan.php?id=nu Best Regards, Scottie Toney to be remov(ed: http://www.fasteratez.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 4 10:17:02 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Mar 4 10:17:28 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <42281739.1040704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c5209a$ed0ad650$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................ > As usual, Sven reads only part of the laws. "or unless failure to > adopt this line would be irrational". As usual I try to extract the essential part when I quote in order not to obscure the picture. And the player should know that the "irrational" clause is no excuse for a lousy claim. "Of course I would play West for the QS" is afterthought not the only "rational" play. > If the player can convince the TD and AC that it would be irrational > to play east for the QS, he must be given his claim. > I am not at all certain that the player could convince me, and any > remaining doubt must be held against him, but I am getting a bit tired > of Sven's habitual forgetting of a part of a law that he seems to dislike. It is not a matter of dislike, IMO it was irrelevant in this case. And it appears to me that you have the same opinion here? > > > > >>3) Suppose I had heard (I didn't) that the claim statement was > >>interrupted before South could finish. In this case should I give South > >>more of the benefit of any doubt? > > > > > > You shall South complete his statement including any addition he wants > to > > add to his original interrupted statement > > > > > >>4) My strong impression from this incident is that most top flight > >>players are more interested in getting the result that most likely would > >>have occurred than the result demanded from the Laws. I am at least 95% > >>certain that South would have made 4H without the claim, but the Laws to > >>me are clear here. Had an AC been called among the Flight A players in > >>the room, I wonder if I, as a Flight B player, would be able to convince > >>them of this. Any suggestions for this hypothetical situation? > > > > > > Even a top flight player makes mistakes. If he doesn't mention an > important > > detail with his claim statement he should know that the Director must > rule > > under the assumption that the player has overlooked this detail and will > > fail to play successfully on that item. > > > > Sven should realize that sometimes a claimer does not realize that > part of his claim statement is incomplete. This is a good example. > Claimer claimed when opponent was on lead. He did so, maybe, to save > time and stop opponent from thinking when no line would defeat the > contract - OK, so he was wrong there. But opponents may not find the > exceptional line of playing a low club here. That uncertainty is at the risk of the claimer. > What I mean is, you cannot hold claimer to a missing part of his > statement, when that missing part depends on a particular return that > he has not envisaged. You must allow claimer to make an additional > statement about how he would play if a certain line were adopted. > And as TD, you must put some weight into such an additional statement, > especially if it is backed up with real evidence, such as player > remembering at the time of his additional statement that West has > overcalled and east has shown six clubs to the AQ. > Herman and I apparently have fundamentally different understandings of the claim laws. If I have understood Herman correctly he wants to consider claiming a regular feature in Bridge in such a way that any doubtful point shall be resolved as a double dummy problem considering what could be expected of the players had play continued without the claim. My principal view is that a claim represents an interruption of the play intended by the laws to be available when there are no more doubtful situations left. The way I understand the laws the claimer bears all the risks of situations he may possibly have overlooked (or forgotten) as judged from his claim statement. This implies for instance that if the player is of a quality for which a double squeeze is routine then he should also be able to point out the double squeeze when he makes his claim. I shall never listen to him if he afterwards claims that it would be irrational for him not to execute that squeeze when he failed to indicate the squeeze with his claim except if the squeeze must appear automatically as the play would go on. Claiming when the lead is with an opponent bears a special "danger" as he must cater for whatever lead that opponent makes. And it is the opponent's privilege to select his lead after he has heard the claim and seen all four hands. > Again, I am not convinced of the totality of the doubt being gone, but > I want to correct Sven on his one-line approach that anything that is > not mentioned must be automatically deemed forgotten. Sometimes > claimers have a valid excuse for not mentioning that they know the > queen is to the left. They simply did not believe that finesse would > be needed. And Law 70E is very specific to the point that he shall not be allowed to successfully make that finesse unless RHO will have shown out before he must use it. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 4 10:42:24 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 4 10:42:01 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <42282018.8060208@shaw.ca> References: <000101c52036$93984580$6900a8c0@WINXP> <42281739.1040704@hdw.be> <42282018.8060208@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <42282D80.5060801@hdw.be> Hello Bruce, let me first repeat that I was not commenting on your case and your ruling, but rather on Sven's approach to it. That approach was IMO far too simplistic and did not take into account some points the claimer might raise in his defence. That being said: Bruce McIntyre wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> The Director shall not accept a line of play that depends upon finding >>> certain card(s) with one of the opponents unless the actual position >>> of such >>> card(s) will be revealed during progress of the play before the time the >>> player must make his choice. So the Director shall for instance not >>> accept a >>> successful finesse or drop unless this is specified with the original >>> claim >>> statement. >>> >> >> As usual, Sven reads only part of the laws. "or unless failure to >> adopt this line would be irrational". >> If the player can convince the TD and AC that it would be irrational >> to play east for the QS, he must be given his claim. >> I am not at all certain that the player could convince me, and any >> remaining doubt must be held against him, but I am getting a bit tired >> of Sven's habitual forgetting of a part of a law that he seems to >> dislike. >> > Ah, but even as a rookie Director in the presence of four players whose > skill level I am unlikely ever to attain, I can still read enough into > the Laws to see that they distinguish between "normal," "careless or > inferior," and "irrational" play. I can see playing East for the QS as > careless, but not as irrational. Many flight A types seem to see > differently--they feel that inferior play IS by definition irrational. > Perhaps defining these terms in the next Laws edition would be helpful. > I repeat I have never commented on this part of the ruling. I agree that to play the SQ to the right might be careless rather than irrational. > What seems to have happened is that the N-S pair took home a beef not > with me for my ruling, but with the E-W pair who insisted that the Laws > and not the unwritten Flight A Ethic (inferior = irrational) be followed > in order to win 10 IMPs. I heard some of them discussing the ruling > after the game. I was down at the club tonight, 24 hours later, and > another Flight A player who wasn't there asked me about the incident, > which had apparently spread through the Flight A grapevine. > >> Sven should realize that sometimes a claimer does not realize that >> part of his claim statement is incomplete. This is a good example. >> Claimer claimed when opponent was on lead. He did so, maybe, to save >> time and stop opponent from thinking when no line would defeat the >> contract - OK, so he was wrong there. But opponents may not find the >> exceptional line of playing a low club here. > > > I think that we need a cite here: I don't recall anything about an > "exceptional line". If declarer claims the rest and makes a statement > and there is a defense that beats it, it doesn't matter how esoteric > that defense is. > That's true only in part. If defence find, open book, a defence that they would not have found, not in a million years, at the table, and there is no counterdefence, then indeed, the claim is invalid. But if there is an easy counterdefence, then surely we cannot blame claimer for not mentioning that counterdefence in his claim statement. Look at it like this: If someone claims while opponents are on play and he states: "if you play diamonds, I take the ace discarding a club and draw trumps, if you play clubs, I ruff and draw trumps adn discar the other club on the ace of diamonds" then surely you cannot rule that he would not know what to do if defence plays hearts in double ruff. And certainly you won't rule against this fellow because he has not stated in which hand he shall ruff that heart, so it might be careless for him to ruff in either or both of them. >> What I mean is, you cannot hold claimer to a missing part of his >> statement, when that missing part depends on a particular return that >> he has not envisaged. You must allow claimer to make an additional >> statement about how he would play if a certain line were adopted. > > > This strikes me as very wrong. It's up to the claimer to cover all > possibilities. If we allow a declarer to adjust a statement because the > defense is about to ruff a club, declarer will certainly adjust and he > will never be wrong, even when he had forgotten about the possibility > initially. > That's true, and it is up to us to rule if his omitting is an indication of forgetting or not. Don't forget however that claimer is trying to save time, by not requiring defence to think too long. If we then ask him to state, unasked, his line after each and every one of the cards defender might still lead, that time is wasted once more. So we must be satisfied with a token line against a normal return, and deduce from this the other lines against the more exotic ones. And sometimes this means we have to decide whether some lines are careless or irrational. We should be able to judge on those cases without a Sven-like rule that says that anything which is not mentioned automatically becomes careless rather than irrational. >> And as TD, you must put some weight into such an additional statement, >> especially if it is backed up with real evidence, such as player >> remembering at the time of his additional statement that West has >> overcalled and east has shown six clubs to the AQ. >> >> Again, I am not convinced of the totality of the doubt being gone, but >> I want to correct Sven on his one-line approach that anything that is >> not mentioned must be automatically deemed forgotten. Sometimes >> claimers have a valid excuse for not mentioning that they know the >> queen is to the left. They simply did not believe that finesse would >> be needed. >> > And if not, then the claim statement is faulty. A better statement > would be to add "if weird things happen and it turns out that I have to > guess the QS, I will guess that West has it." > But no-one ever does that! And this declarer has no idea that such a finesse will still be needed. You simply cannot hold the claimer to his not saying this line. You HAVE to judge if he would find the queen 100% of the time. The laws state this. There's no shying away from your TD duties by saying "you never mentioned the finesse so you can't find the queen". Please add once more that I tend to agree with your ruling, Bruce. I don't find the argument about the overcall compelling enough. But there is nothing to be gained from people like Sven spouting his idea of claim rulings over blml. His approach is wrong and I will continue to say so. I'm always tempted to construct 'easy' claim cases which everyone, including Sven, would find natural, and then apply Sven's rules onto it. How about if we change the layout: Board 30 KQ2 None vul Q98753 East deals 3 K75 JT9 876 62 4 AKJT854 Q6 8 AQT9432 A543 AKJT 972 J6 I have changed the spade suit and given West an additional diamond to compensate. Now again, although claimer suspects he can discard the losing spade on the club king, defence can thwart this by playing a small club to trick 2 rather than three. That leaves claimer with only one option, to hope for spades being 3-3. Would you now rule that since claimer did not mention that spades would fall 3-3, that he be deemed to play a small spade from both hands? Or that he would block the suit by playing the spade ace first? I know that constructing cases is very hard, and probably there are a myriad other lines still possible, but do you see what I mean? While the finding of the SQ is open to discussion, the winning line for 4 tricks in spades here is no discussion whatsoever, but according to Sven, that does not matter since claimer did not mention how he would play the spades for 4 tricks. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005 From ukcovb at emailaccount.com Fri Mar 4 10:45:14 2005 From: ukcovb at emailaccount.com (Odis Leary) Date: Fri Mar 4 10:45:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Pre-approved Application #OTJSP162 Message-ID: bqeyhc33juy5vubacxr8sdz18joj52.i93HbwTw007297@vais.net> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.fasteratez.com/x/loan.php?id=nu Best Regards, Madeline Singer to be remov(ed: http://www.fasteratez.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Mar 4 10:09:35 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Mar 4 10:58:15 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU Orange book References: <0b280a424d.Mike@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <00b601c520a0$4cb0ab70$40824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If it were done when 'tis done, Then 'twere well it were done quickly... " ['Macbeth'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU Orange book > > > >Nick - It would be useful if the forthcoming revision of the EBU > >Orange Book *explicitly* clarifies whether such an amorphous 1D > >opening bid - which guarantees that an unspecified minor is the > >longest or equal longest suit - is (or isn't) a legal convention. > > It is perfectly clear at the moment, thank-you. If it is legal - as > it is - to play a 1D opening as either a 1C opening or a 1D opening, > then what you say is clearly legal. > > Mind you, I am rarely called Nick. > +=+ He meant Old Nick. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Mar 4 10:15:20 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Mar 4 10:58:17 2005 Subject: [blml] 61 B :) References: <200503031621.j23GLxu4025337@cfa.harvard.edu> <4227D1A1.70002@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00b701c520a0$4d7b4e70$40824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If it were done when 'tis done, Then 'twere well it were done quickly... " ['Macbeth'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 3:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 61 B :) > > Zones, actually, not SO's. And I thought three of the > eight zones allow asking. > +=+ Zone 1 delegates the options in the laws to NBOs to decide in their own territories. I think they nearly all, perhaps all, follow the EBL Championship regulations in this item by applying the law as it stands. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Mar 4 10:51:43 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Mar 4 10:58:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Endplay References: <000101c5197f$49ad6ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00b801c520a0$4e3eec90$40824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If it were done when 'tis done, Then 'twere well it were done quickly... " ['Macbeth'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:11 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Endplay > > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > In the "played 2 wrong boards" thread, Ed Reppert asserted: > > > > >The Laws define the beginning and end of the auction > > >period, and the beginning of the play period. They do not > > >define the end of the play period. > > > > Richard Hills asks: > > > > Does not Law 65D imply that the play period ends after > > agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won? > > True, but Laws 8B and 8C may also give a hint. > > Sven > +=+ Do you not think, perhaps, that in principle the play period ends at different times for different matters of law? Relevant laws set their own time limits within which the Director may act ? The Cheshire Cat "vanished quite slowly beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin which remained some time after the rest of it had gone". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 4 11:56:06 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Mar 4 11:56:34 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <42282D80.5060801@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c520a8$c43bb8d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > That's true only in part. If defence find, open book, a defence that > they would not have found, not in a million years, at the table, and > there is no counterdefence, then indeed, the claim is invalid. > But if there is an easy counterdefence, then surely we cannot blame > claimer for not mentioning that counterdefence in his claim statement. I am glad we agree on accepting this "not in a million years" defense against the claim. Have I anywhere indicated that the claimer may not execute an easy counterdefence? My line is that I will not let the claimer execute one out of multiple possible ("normal") counterdefences where his choice could have been simplified from his claim being contested. ............. > >> What I mean is, you cannot hold claimer to a missing part of his > >> statement, when that missing part depends on a particular return that > >> he has not envisaged. You must allow claimer to make an additional > >> statement about how he would play if a certain line were adopted. > > > > > > This strikes me as very wrong. It's up to the claimer to cover all > > possibilities. If we allow a declarer to adjust a statement because the > > defense is about to ruff a club, declarer will certainly adjust and he > > will never be wrong, even when he had forgotten about the possibility > > initially. > > > > That's true, and it is up to us to rule if his omitting is an > indication of forgetting or not. Don't forget however that claimer is > trying to save time, by not requiring defence to think too long. How can you feel sure his objective is not (inadvertently?) to pull a fast one against opponents who he hopes will not see the killing defense? Maybe he doesn't even see that defense himself when he claims? If he claims in order to save time that must be because he doesn't at the time of his claim realize that the situation is more complicated than he thinks. This itself is evidence that he must have overlooked important features of the claim situation and the laws specifically prevents him from "becoming aware" of such features from the fact that his claim is contested. (He may certainly become aware of such features from for instance the "would have been" progress of the play but the fact that the claim is contested must be treated as UI to the claimer). > If we > then ask him to state, unasked, his line after each and every one of > the cards defender might still lead, that time is wasted once more. The claimer's duty is to give a statement clarifying each and every aspect that might be important on his claim. > So > we must be satisfied with a token line against a normal return, and > deduce from this the other lines against the more exotic ones. And > sometimes this means we have to decide whether some lines are careless > or irrational. We should be able to judge on those cases without a > Sven-like rule that says that anything which is not mentioned > automatically becomes careless rather than irrational. To my knowledge I have never indicated such an opinion. What I have said, and still say is that the Director when ruling on a claim should assume that a player who failed to mention in his claim statement a possible position that turns out to be essential was indeed unaware of that position and its importance. ............. > You simply cannot hold the claimer to his not saying this line. You > HAVE to judge if he would find the queen 100% of the time. The laws > state this. There's no shying away from your TD duties by saying "you > never mentioned the finesse so you can't find the queen". Just consult Law 70E > > Please add once more that I tend to agree with your ruling, Bruce. I > don't find the argument about the overcall compelling enough. But > there is nothing to be gained from people like Sven spouting his idea > of claim rulings over blml. His approach is wrong and I will continue > to say so. So I understand > I'm always tempted to construct 'easy' claim cases which everyone, > including Sven, would find natural, and then apply Sven's rules onto it. > > How about if we change the layout: > > Board 30 KQ2 > None vul Q98753 > East deals 3 > K75 > JT9 876 > 62 4 > AKJT854 Q6 > 8 AQT9432 > A543 > AKJT > 972 > J6 > > I have changed the spade suit and given West an additional diamond to > compensate. Now again, although claimer suspects he can discard the > losing spade on the club king, defence can thwart this by playing a > small club to trick 2 rather than three. > That leaves claimer with only one option, to hope for spades being > 3-3. Would you now rule that since claimer did not mention that spades > would fall 3-3, that he be deemed to play a small spade from both > hands? Or that he would block the suit by playing the spade ace first? > I know that constructing cases is very hard, and probably there are a > myriad other lines still possible, but do you see what I mean? > While the finding of the SQ is open to discussion, the winning line > for 4 tricks in spades here is no discussion whatsoever, but according > to Sven, that does not matter since claimer did not mention how he > would play the spades for 4 tricks. It may astonish you but in this case I would rule the claimer to win four tricks in spades because as you say, he has no other way to play that suit after all other options have failed, and he will eventually discover that the fourth spade was not a loser after all. The claim itself is faulty, but as the cards lie it must work out anyway. I don't believe I have ever said anything contrary to this? So maybe it is time for you to start guessing my thoughts correctly? Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 4 12:11:22 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Mar 4 12:12:28 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal References: <1D77r3-1PuhRQ0@fwd27.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal Hello you lazy guys ;-) "Roger Pewick" schrieb: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > > > > On Behalf Of Bruce McIntyre > > > Ruling #1 (Ruling #2 I assume?) > > ========= > > > > From the final round of the concurrent IMP Pairs game: > > > > Board 18 Q954 > > N-S vul KJ > > East deals J82 > > J953 > > J AKT82 > > A9 QT863 > > AKQT54 6 > > QT82 A4 > > 763 > > 7542 > > 973 > > K76 > > > > West played in 5D and I am reconstructing the play to match with the > > facts I was able to determine later. A trump was led and declarer won > > the AKQ, pitching the 3H and the 4C from the dummy. Declarer continued > > with the JS, covered by North and won in dummy. The KS and the TS won > > the next two tricks and declarer now called specifically for the two of > > spades. > > > > This is the unbelievable part. > > > > Dummy somehow misheard declarer call for a club and placed the AC in the > > played position. Of the four others at the table, only the kibitzer, > > seated between North and East, noticed the misplay by dummy, but > > apparently this kibitzer had read L76B: not only did he say nothing, but > > he held his laughter. South may in fact have accidentally followed > > suit, discarding a club on the 2S lead that was actually the AC, but it > > seems more likely that a small heart was the discard chosen. North > > "followed" with the nine of spades after West "ruffed". > > > > At this point I had not been called to the table but was standing nearby > > waiting for this and one other table to complete the round and give me a > > pickup slip to finish off the scoring of the game. Dummy saw me > > hovering and loudly remarked that "my partner has just ruffed his own > > ace!" > > > > And still nobody noticed what had happened. > > > > (I later commented that anyone who can play the AC from dummy when > > declarer calls for the 2S and have nobody notice should be in > > international espionage...) > > > > Declarer now played his penultimate trump, pitching another heart from > > dummy and ending any hope of restoring this situation through L45D when > > both defenders discarded. He then led a club to the ace which was > > unfortunately face down by this time, and all hell broke loose. The > > kibitzer was able to confirm that the AC had been misplayed from dummy > > and that nobody had noticed. > > > > At least two players have revoked after dummy has played a card > > mistakenly. A full trick has been played and turned since, so L45D > > cannot apply. > > > > It is clearly declarer's intention to pursue a line of play that will > > lead to twelve tricks: six trumps, the AH and AC, and four spades. How > > many of these should he get in these unusual circumstances? > > > > (I initially ruled 420 to E/W but then changed this to 50 to N/S after > > reading L45D. But this change doesn't take into account that North also > > revoked and South may have.) > > [sven] > The laws have no provision for such cases but we have a WBFLC minute (I am > too lazy and tired to look it up now) principally stating that in such cases > with revokes from both sides the Director shall resolve the situation to the > best of his capability to what would have been the result HAD NO > IRREGULARITY OCCURRED! > > [rp] > This is what I originally intended to post: > > I too don't remember where to look but do recall such a minute in all of its > absurdity. Maybe they should have said had the revokes not occurred, but > they didn't; and I believe they meant what they said. Which of course means > to undo all of the irregularities from the time the hand began- as in > convert the CA back into a spade trick [undoing S's play] and score up 12 > tricks EW. > [snip] > > [sven] > In this case you have of course three (or maybe even four) irregularities: > > Dummy playing a card contrary to what was specified by declarer, > Revoke by declarer, > And revoke by at least one, maybe both defenders. > > So if you feel able to judge what would have been the final result had dummy > played the spade called for and nobody revoked that should be your ruling. > > Regards Sven > The releant minute from 1st November 2001 cites: "4. The chairman quoted the case of a defender who revokes by ruffing and is over-ruffed by declarer who also has a card of the suit led. The committee noted that when the first revoke is made the declarer's side is non-offending and when the second revoke is made the defender's side is non-offending. The committee decided that the director should deal with this situation by restoring equity, based on what would have happened if no revoke had occurred, under Law 64C." So, neither Sven nor Roger remembered the relevant passage correctly ;-) it's not the (initiating) irregularity that is withdrawn but the revokes. First of all you have to consider whether this minute is relevant because of the starting passage with defender first revoking by ruffing and declarer afterwards revoking by ruffing too. IMHO it is only an example and the starting case for the WBFLC to bother with. IMHO the second part deals with all "double-revokes" of both sides within the same trick. IMHO this minute is matching this case. Therefore the CA ist the played card at trick 7 and it will not be ruffed, so declarer will get 11 tricks and the final score should be 400 to EW. Regards Peter Eidt Thank you for the correction. Glad my memory was faulty. Also, I noticed an error [sorry] in the snipped part [b]...on the 'fourth spade trick' S would not revoke whatever he played. And thus no revoke penalty after the 67 correction. However. According to the language of the minute the conditions of the minute do not apply [only] when defender revokes first; to apply to all two-sided revokes on the same trick it would say so. Which takes the ruling not from the minute but from the written FLB. As to your assertion that the revoke trick was a club trick instead of a spade trick, I'm less than sure. As I explained if TFLB is applied as written the designated spade came before the misplay of the CA making it a spade trick. And assuming 67 is applied before dummy plays to the aceless CA designation the net effect is for the table result. Which comes to your assertion that declarer will get an adjusted 11 tricks. I don't see how that determination can be made on the information because it certainly can't be from play. In your case [an adjusted score undoing the revokes] what card does dummy lead after winning the CA? H or S or C? And if a C then which C from declarer? Upon what basis is the 'quality of adjudicated play' to be assigned? That can be 11 tricks or 12. regards roger pewick From Nigel.Guthrie at NTLWorld.com Fri Mar 4 13:24:20 2005 From: Nigel.Guthrie at NTLWorld.com (NIGEL) Date: Fri Mar 4 13:24:44 2005 Subject: [blml] 61 B :) References: <200503031621.j23GLxu4025337@cfa.harvard.edu> <4227D1A1.70002@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000a01c520b5$17d03e60$379468d5@James> [Steve Willner] > Perhaps it would be useful to ask players who play > in the zones concerned rather than speculating about > what "must" occur ... > Indeed, if you ever ask, you must ask on all occasions. {Nigel] I assume deal-patterns are similar in the USA and UK. So that partner must often show out of a suit, even in the land of plenty :) and the question asked was how the local rules were extended to cope with potential unauthorised information. You and others have replied that you must always ask or never ask. Assuming that human nature is the same the world over, you would expect *inconsistency in asking* to be a frequent accidental infraction. If the rule is unenforceable, then the less ethical may actively ignore it. If it is enforceable, you would expect many rulings every day, especially in large tournaments. What is the actual frequency of such rulings? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Mar 4 13:43:30 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri Mar 4 13:44:03 2005 Subject: [blml] 61 B :) Message-ID: <20050304124330.D4BFDEB2E9@poczta.interia.pl> NIGEL napisa?(a): > [Steve Willner] > > Perhaps it would be useful to ask players who play > > in the zones concerned rather than speculating about > > what "must" occur > ... > > Indeed, if you ever ask, you must ask on all occasions. > > {Nigel] > I assume deal-patterns are similar in the USA and UK. So > that partner must often show out of a suit, even in the land > of plenty :) and the question asked was how the local rules > were extended to cope with potential unauthorised > information. You and others have replied that you must > always ask or never ask. > > Assuming that human nature is the same the world over, you > would expect *inconsistency in asking* to be a frequent > accidental infraction. If the rule is unenforceable, then > the less ethical may actively ignore it. If it is > enforceable, you would expect many rulings every day, > especially in large tournaments. What is the actual > frequency of such rulings? >From my very limited experience of playing for 3 months in Denver I can say that it is zero. I didn't play in any major tournaments but at the club I did play people asked very incosistently and no one seemed to care. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Portal z najlepsza wyszukiwarka... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f185f From blml at blakjak.com Fri Mar 4 14:24:39 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Mar 4 14:26:42 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU Orange book In-Reply-To: <4228088A.6010604@att.net> References: <0b280a424d.Mike@immi.gov.au> <4228088A.6010604@att.net> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> The only thing that was illegal, and objected to by Richard since >>Australian methods are clearly what every good Englishman wants to >>play, > > Catch-22. Englishmen don't play them because they are >forbidden. They are forbidden because Englishmen don't play them. We ask people at regular intervals to send us things for us to consider. Most such things get permitted. > The ACBL gets around this problem by claiming its members do not >want to play against the methods it forbids. Do they encourage their members to submit things? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at blakjak.com Fri Mar 4 14:37:07 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Mar 4 14:38:44 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU Orange book In-Reply-To: References: <0b280a424d.Mike@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote >>Actually, it seems to me that the 1D opening bid might indeed be >>legal at level 2. It guarantees a minor, and it guarantees that >>the minor will be at least as long, or longer, than any other >>suit. >> >>Nick - It would be useful if the forthcoming revision of the EBU >>Orange Book *explicitly* clarifies whether such an amorphous 1D >>opening bid - which guarantees that an unspecified minor is the >>longest or equal longest suit - is (or isn't) a legal convention. > It is perfectly clear at the moment, thank-you. If it is legal - as >it is - to play a 1D opening as either a 1C opening or a 1D opening, >then what you say is clearly legal. I am told I made the mistake in just replying to this post, and not reading what went before. Apparently some possibility has been extracted from the 1D opening and put in some other opening. That does not make it illegal, just less obviously legal, so 'perfectly clear' is an over-statement: perhaps 'clear' would be closer. It is permitted to exclude a defined suit length from an opening: that is a treatment, and was clarified recently. Also "further distributional constraints" are allowed for opening bids: that is a treatment, and was clarified recently. So if you are looking at an Orange book without the addenda you might be misled since the section on Treatments is somewhat ambiguous. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at blakjak.com Fri Mar 4 14:41:12 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Mar 4 14:42:45 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <4227D0C8.6030403@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200503011655.j21GtlQp011299@cfa.harvard.edu> <4227D0C8.6030403@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote >> From: David Stevenson >> Why do the match results "have" to be cancelled? > >In effect they matched teams from two separate events. The mistake in >round 2 wasn't sorted out until round 3 was half over, so there was no >time for a replay. I understand that. Two different flights, yes. I am still not sure why the results "have" to be cancelled. Suppose I am playing in the Grand Masters, which I shall be doing this coming weekend. Half-way through, a pair is found to be playing who are not Grand Masters. Do their results "have" to be cancelled? Despite everyone but me thinking it is obvious to cancel the results, my instinct is to let the results stand, and apply the mis-match formula - or the equivalent local regulation. Bridge was played, a result obtained. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at blakjak.com Fri Mar 4 14:44:02 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Mar 4 14:46:06 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <42282018.8060208@shaw.ca> References: <000101c52036$93984580$6900a8c0@WINXP> <42281739.1040704@hdw.be> <42282018.8060208@shaw.ca> Message-ID: Bruce McIntyre wrote >Ah, but even as a rookie Director in the presence of four players whose >skill level I am unlikely ever to attain, I can still read enough into >the Laws to see that they distinguish between "normal," "careless or >inferior," and "irrational" play. I can see playing East for the QS as >careless, but not as irrational. Many flight A types seem to see >differently--they feel that inferior play IS by definition irrational. >Perhaps defining these terms in the next Laws edition would be helpful. I don't think so. Al that will happen is the arguments on BLML will increase. People have a fair idea what the terms mean, despite any moaning here, and it is a just a judgement decision whether something is irrational or not. If the players involved are better than you, poll a dozen others, and abide by the results of the poll. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at blakjak.com Fri Mar 4 14:48:29 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Mar 4 14:50:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Thinkleton (was ACBL Sectional) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: rjh wrote > > > > >David Stevenson asserted: > >[snip] > >>After all, you are permitted to hesitate with a >>singleton if >> >>[a] it cannot mislead declarer, as for example, >>when he knows you have a singleton, or >> >>[b] if you issue a disclaimer > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >In my opinion, "permitted" is too strong a word. > >In case (b), a disclaimer prevents the greater >evil of misleading declarer, but causes the >lesser evil of infracting Law 73B1 (Gratuitous >Information). > >In case (a), it is the attempt to mislead which >is the infraction. If declarer knows you have >a singleton, an adjusted score is not necessary, >but a TD might still apply a PP to you for your >violation of proper procedure. > >Of course, case (a) would be a non-infraction >if you know that declarer knows that you have a >singleton, and if declarer knows that you know >that declarer knows, and if you know that >declarer knows that you know that declarer >knows, and if ..... > >:-) You having problems finding things to do? I stand by my comments, subject to the obvious over-riding comment that I do not have to spell out tiny detail. Nor do I expect to have to say that each time either. I am quite sure that everyone knows what i meant in my post, and I stand by the answer in the circumstances that were obviously meant. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at blakjak.com Fri Mar 4 14:49:27 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Mar 4 14:51:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Endplay In-Reply-To: <00b801c520a0$4e3eec90$40824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000101c5197f$49ad6ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00b801c520a0$4e3eec90$40824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <7BxxcTQndGKCFwkV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Grattan Endicott wrote >+=+ Do you not think, perhaps, that in principle the play >period ends at different times for different matters of law? >Relevant laws set their own time limits within which the >Director may act ? The Cheshire Cat "vanished quite >slowly beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with >the grin which remained some time after the rest of it had >gone". Now I know who writes the Laws Committee minutes. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 4 15:53:21 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 4 15:52:53 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <000101c520a8$c43bb8d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c520a8$c43bb8d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42287661.6080409@hdw.be> Hello Sven, I see you still pay attention to my rantings. I will do you the same honour. Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............. > >>That's true only in part. If defence find, open book, a defence that >>they would not have found, not in a million years, at the table, and >>there is no counterdefence, then indeed, the claim is invalid. >>But if there is an easy counterdefence, then surely we cannot blame >>claimer for not mentioning that counterdefence in his claim statement. > > > I am glad we agree on accepting this "not in a million years" defense > against the claim. > I don't think you would get all claims wrong, why should you think such a thing of me? In fact, I am absolutely certain that we will rule 999 cases out of 1000 in the same manner - that is why I say that there are no problems about the claim laws. > Have I anywhere indicated that the claimer may not execute an easy > counterdefence? > > My line is that I will not let the claimer execute one out of multiple > possible ("normal") counterdefences where his choice could have been > simplified from his claim being contested. > And there you are wrong. It is not the claim being contested that you should be looking at, it is the claim situation. There are a number of claims where the contestation will not teach claimer anything, yet we shall both rule against him anyway. And there are those where the contestation teaches him something, but he would find that out anyway (or it may not matter) and then I shall rule in claimer's favour. Your insistence that the contestation matters is simply wrong. And indeed, in the sentence above, I will also rule against claimer, not because his choice has simplified, but because he had a choice to begin with. And in that case, he will always get it wrong. Contestation or not. > ............. > >>>>What I mean is, you cannot hold claimer to a missing part of his >>>>statement, when that missing part depends on a particular return that >>>>he has not envisaged. You must allow claimer to make an additional >>>>statement about how he would play if a certain line were adopted. >>> >>> >>>This strikes me as very wrong. It's up to the claimer to cover all >>>possibilities. If we allow a declarer to adjust a statement because the >>>defense is about to ruff a club, declarer will certainly adjust and he >>>will never be wrong, even when he had forgotten about the possibility >>>initially. >>> >> >>That's true, and it is up to us to rule if his omitting is an >>indication of forgetting or not. Don't forget however that claimer is >>trying to save time, by not requiring defence to think too long. > > > How can you feel sure his objective is not (inadvertently?) to pull a fast > one against opponents who he hopes will not see the killing defense? Maybe > he doesn't even see that defense himself when he claims? > Well, thowe two are quite opposite things. In the first sentence you are talking about a claimer who would see a defence but try to claim before opponents find it - a very dangerous tactic. By waiting, he can hope the opponents don't find it, but by claiming, the chance of them finding it increases enourmously. The second sentence is indeed the case I am thinking of. Claimer did not see there still was a defence. OK, so now he will suffer this defence. But only if there is an unsuccessful counterdefence. If the only normal line still reaches the contract, the claim was na?ot faulty to begin with, was it? > If he claims in order to save time that must be because he doesn't at the > time of his claim realize that the situation is more complicated than he > thinks. This itself is evidence that he must have overlooked important > features of the claim situation and the laws specifically prevents him from > "becoming aware" of such features from the fact that his claim is contested. > On the contrary, the laws specifically allow him to become aware of those features. They don't allow him to find the correct defensive line against them, if there is more than one such line, but they do allow him to bring the contract in, if there is only one normal line (or if all normal lines lead to the good result). Specifically when claiming when opponents are on lead, a claimer will often say something like 'I'll ruff your return and draw trumps'. Does that mean that if opponents now return a trump, the claim statement was faulty? Surely not. So we do allow a claimer some additional lines to the one he stated, provided those lines are the only normal ones. You seem to be saying that we don't. We do. > > (He may certainly become aware of such features from for instance the "would > have been" progress of the play but the fact that the claim is contested > must be treated as UI to the claimer). > No, not UI - simply information he does not have when executing his play. Information not available to him when the TD selects which lines are normal and which are not. > >>If we >>then ask him to state, unasked, his line after each and every one of >>the cards defender might still lead, that time is wasted once more. > > > The claimer's duty is to give a statement clarifying each and every aspect > that might be important on his claim. > And many claimers fail in that duty - you yourself do as well. When you say 'I draw trumps', you fail to say in which order, and that you won't drop kings under aces. It is up to the TD to determine which aspects are important and which are not. Simply saying that something unmentioned cannot happen is a mistake, and you continue to make that mistake. I make some of these examples deliberately very stupid. You will say 'that's not what I meant', but it is what you write. And specifically when you write such things against my saying that TD needs to decide, you simply continue to show that you have no grasp for what I am saying. > >>So >>we must be satisfied with a token line against a normal return, and >>deduce from this the other lines against the more exotic ones. And >>sometimes this means we have to decide whether some lines are careless >>or irrational. We should be able to judge on those cases without a >>Sven-like rule that says that anything which is not mentioned >>automatically becomes careless rather than irrational. > > > To my knowledge I have never indicated such an opinion. > Well, when you told us you were ruling against Bruce's claimer, you said that it was because claimer failed to mention the spade finesse. That is a Sven-like rule. The real reason why we rule against Bruce's declarer is because we deem finessing to the right is also normal, not because the claimer did not state he would finesse to the left. > What I have said, and still say is that the Director when ruling on a claim > should assume that a player who failed to mention in his claim statement a > possible position that turns out to be essential was indeed unaware of that > position and its importance. > Its importance, yes. I agree that we shall rule that claimer is not, at the time of his claim, aware that the finesse may become important later. But I shall not rule that he will not be allowed to finesse once it does become clear that the finesse has become important, and I shall not rule that he does not know the SQ is to his left simply because he failed to tell us that in his claim statement. Surely you see that you cannot deduce one from the other. He did not mention the spades. This means he did not believe they were important, but it does not mean he did not know where they were. > ............. > >>You simply cannot hold the claimer to his not saying this line. You >>HAVE to judge if he would find the queen 100% of the time. The laws >>state this. There's no shying away from your TD duties by saying "you >>never mentioned the finesse so you can't find the queen". > > > Just consult Law 70E > That's what I've been asking you to do all along. But please also consult the last sentence of that Law! > >>Please add once more that I tend to agree with your ruling, Bruce. I >>don't find the argument about the overcall compelling enough. But >>there is nothing to be gained from people like Sven spouting his idea >>of claim rulings over blml. His approach is wrong and I will continue >>to say so. > > > So I understand > Thank you. > >>I'm always tempted to construct 'easy' claim cases which everyone, >>including Sven, would find natural, and then apply Sven's rules onto it. >> >>How about if we change the layout: >> >>Board 30 KQ2 >>None vul Q98753 >>East deals 3 >> K75 >>JT9 876 >>62 4 >>AKJT854 Q6 >>8 AQT9432 >> A543 >> AKJT >> 972 >> J6 >> >>I have changed the spade suit and given West an additional diamond to >>compensate. Now again, although claimer suspects he can discard the >>losing spade on the club king, defence can thwart this by playing a >>small club to trick 2 rather than three. >>That leaves claimer with only one option, to hope for spades being >>3-3. Would you now rule that since claimer did not mention that spades >>would fall 3-3, that he be deemed to play a small spade from both >>hands? Or that he would block the suit by playing the spade ace first? >>I know that constructing cases is very hard, and probably there are a >>myriad other lines still possible, but do you see what I mean? >>While the finding of the SQ is open to discussion, the winning line >>for 4 tricks in spades here is no discussion whatsoever, but according >>to Sven, that does not matter since claimer did not mention how he >>would play the spades for 4 tricks. > > > It may astonish you but in this case I would rule the claimer to win four > tricks in spades because as you say, he has no other way to play that suit > after all other options have failed, and he will eventually discover that > the fourth spade was not a loser after all. > I'm glad we agree on that one. Now how is this case different from the previous one? In neither case did he specifically mention the extra spade trick, in both cases we allow him to play on spades, in neither case we should ask him to play spades irrationally. So if we were to accept (which we are not - I repeat) that Bruce's claimer does indeed have a full count of the hand and would not fail to finesse the SQ the right way, why would you give this new claim and not Bruce's? > The claim itself is faulty, but as the cards lie it must work out anyway. > Which is what Bruce's claim does too. > I don't believe I have ever said anything contrary to this? > > So maybe it is time for you to start guessing my thoughts correctly? > Or for you to understand mine? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 4 15:58:31 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 4 15:57:55 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <000001c5209a$ed0ad650$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5209a$ed0ad650$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42287797.3030602@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ................ > >>As usual, Sven reads only part of the laws. "or unless failure to >>adopt this line would be irrational". > > > As usual I try to extract the essential part when I quote in order not to > obscure the picture. And the player should know that the "irrational" clause > is no excuse for a lousy claim. "Of course I would play West for the QS" is > afterthought not the only "rational" play. > But that is precisely what you, as TD, are supposed to rule on. If you, as TD, in that Bruce's appeal, were to says "I rule you down one because you failed to mention the spade finesse at the time of your claim", then I, as AC would rule "incorrect ruling, deposit refunded, correct ruling also one down". You, as TD, should rule "I accept that in the defence as outlined, you would detect the necessity of the spade finesse - however, I do not believe that your arguments for finding the SQ on your left are convincing enough and I rule that finessing for the SQ on your right is also a normal line, therefor, one down". It is your duty to read the whole of the law. You are entitled, on blml, to quote just part of the law if you believe the rest is not important. Here, you were plainly wrong in doing so. > >>If the player can convince the TD and AC that it would be irrational >>to play east for the QS, he must be given his claim. >>I am not at all certain that the player could convince me, and any >>remaining doubt must be held against him, but I am getting a bit tired >>of Sven's habitual forgetting of a part of a law that he seems to dislike. > > > It is not a matter of dislike, IMO it was irrelevant in this case. And it > appears to me that you have the same opinion here? > IMO it was the most important part of the claim dispute! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 4 16:04:58 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 4 16:04:23 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <000001c5209a$ed0ad650$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5209a$ed0ad650$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4228791A.4000400@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > > Herman and I apparently have fundamentally different understandings of the > claim laws. > > If I have understood Herman correctly he wants to consider claiming a > regular feature in Bridge in such a way that any doubtful point shall be > resolved as a double dummy problem considering what could be expected of the > players had play continued without the claim. > Then you have understood Herman particularly incorrectly! > My principal view is that a claim represents an interruption of the play > intended by the laws to be available when there are no more doubtful > situations left. The way I understand the laws the claimer bears all the > risks of situations he may possibly have overlooked (or forgotten) as judged > from his claim statement. > Risks yes, and doubtful points will be resolved against him. But you and I are at odds as to what constitute doubtful points. And we are particularly at odds about what constitutes evidence for what. You continue to say things like "if he has failed to mention the spades, then he is deemed to get them wrong". Those things are very very very wrong. The one is no evidence for the other. > This implies for instance that if the player is of a quality for which a > double squeeze is routine then he should also be able to point out the > double squeeze when he makes his claim. I shall never listen to him if he > afterwards claims that it would be irrational for him not to execute that > squeeze when he failed to indicate the squeeze with his claim except if the > squeeze must appear automatically as the play would go on. > Read that one again Sven, especially the thing about "except". Your statements in claim disputes so far have always excluded those "except". Mine have always included them. Do you really believe I would give a claim on a double squeeze? (even with the except!) > Claiming when the lead is with an opponent bears a special "danger" as he > must cater for whatever lead that opponent makes. And it is the opponent's > privilege to select his lead after he has heard the claim and seen all four > hands. > That is particularly true. But you are wrong in assuming that when a particular lead is then chosen, claimer can not do it right unless he has stated every single line on every single return. It is up to the TD to decide whether or not a particular counterdefence is the only normal line or not. > >>Again, I am not convinced of the totality of the doubt being gone, but >>I want to correct Sven on his one-line approach that anything that is >>not mentioned must be automatically deemed forgotten. Sometimes >>claimers have a valid excuse for not mentioning that they know the >>queen is to the left. They simply did not believe that finesse would >>be needed. > > > And Law 70E is very specific to the point that he shall not be allowed to > successfully make that finesse unless RHO will have shown out before he must > use it. > or unless failure to adopt the line would be irrational. When needing two tricks from AQxxx x any line other than small to the queen is irrational. > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.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: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005 From WGOBEIKGARCLJ at sac.com.tw Fri Mar 4 16:17:00 2005 From: WGOBEIKGARCLJ at sac.com.tw (Gabriel Shoemaker) Date: Fri Mar 4 16:26:31 2005 Subject: [blml] New Year in good health Grace Message-ID: <20660408455750.A31340@xearthlink.net> Offshore pharm wish you all best in New Year! We will offer you best prices on any meds you need Viagra Cialis Valium Xanax and much more.. Please click below and check out our offer. http://brood.salepricedtoday.com/?wid=100069 indentation tj chloroplast xy smash zcb collage tx clinch dhm build av atalanta tj steradian ys annals sef showdown sz colgate huo homozygous dux intoxicant cuq covalent kl kelsey aq footage ie phosphine md bewilder xag http://mummy.salepricedtoday.com/nomore.html From toddz at att.net Fri Mar 4 17:30:20 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri Mar 4 17:30:48 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU Orange book In-Reply-To: References: <0b280a424d.Mike@immi.gov.au> <4228088A.6010604@att.net> Message-ID: <42288D1C.60701@att.net> David Stevenson wrote: > Do they (acbl) encourage their members to submit things? I've seen the results. Locally results vary. District 19 was a strange beast to live in. I remember asking someone associated with the tournament planning why they ran the two-day weekend events Friday afternoon/evening then Saturday afternoon/evening, when more people who aren't retired would be able to come if it were run Friday evening then three sessions on Saturday. I was told no one (including myself, despite what I had just said) wanted to do that. As far as regulation of conventions, I remember hearing, "Work your way to Flight A and you can play anything you'd like." Not that anything special was allowed in Flight A. There was also some hubbub about use of win/loss, 20pt or 30pt scale for Swiss teams. I believe Gordon Bower did a survey at a Regional on this question, but I never saw the results or the effect. District 6 (or at least the Washington (DC) Bridge League), by comparison, has run several lengthy surveys asking its members what they want and has tried several experiments. Breaking tradition, they are trying to move start times from 1pm and 7:30pm down to 11am and 3:30pm for the Saturday games, allowing people to have their Saturday evenings free for non-bridge social events. One of their previous experiments with 3-session compact ko's did not fare too well, though the same format is found at many tournament in Pennsylvania, which isn't far away. It depends who's in charge locally whether suggestions are considered. A few places try. -Todd From blml at blakjak.com Fri Mar 4 18:29:29 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Mar 4 18:31:15 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <4228791A.4000400@hdw.be> References: <000001c5209a$ed0ad650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <4228791A.4000400@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >When needing two tricks from > > AQxxx > > x > >any line other than small to the queen is irrational. How about ruffing the suit out? It seems to me to be far better than 50%! OK, it was only a joke. We all know what Herman means, and he is right. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 4 22:32:28 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Mar 4 22:32:11 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <42287797.3030602@hdw.be> References: <000001c5209a$ed0ad650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <42287797.3030602@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050304162450.02b10990@pop.starpower.net> At 09:58 AM 3/4/05, Herman wrote: >Sven Pran wrote: > >>>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>................ >> >>>As usual, Sven reads only part of the laws. "or unless failure to >>>adopt this line would be irrational". >> >>As usual I try to extract the essential part when I quote in order not to >>obscure the picture. And the player should know that the "irrational" >>clause >>is no excuse for a lousy claim. "Of course I would play West for the >>QS" is >>afterthought not the only "rational" play. > >But that is precisely what you, as TD, are supposed to rule on. >If you, as TD, in that Bruce's appeal, were to says "I rule you down >one because you failed to mention the spade finesse at the time of >your claim", then I, as AC would rule "incorrect ruling, deposit >refunded, correct ruling also one down". > >You, as TD, should rule "I accept that in the defence as outlined, you >would detect the necessity of the spade finesse - however, I do not >believe that your arguments for finding the SQ on your left are >convincing enough and I rule that finessing for the SQ on your right >is also a normal line, therefor, one down". > >It is your duty to read the whole of the law. You are entitled, on >blml, to quote just part of the law if you believe the rest is not >important. Here, you were plainly wrong in doing so. > >>>If the player can convince the TD and AC that it would be irrational >>>to play east for the QS, he must be given his claim. >>>I am not at all certain that the player could convince me, and any >>>remaining doubt must be held against him, but I am getting a bit tired >>>of Sven's habitual forgetting of a part of a law that he seems to >>>dislike. >> >>It is not a matter of dislike, IMO it was irrelevant in this case. And it >>appears to me that you have the same opinion here? > >IMO it was the most important part of the claim dispute! As one who has argued for guidelines to help TDs and ACs distinguish between "'normal'" and "irrational" plays, I would like to suggest one that would cut through the debate on this particular case. Something like, "It shall not be considered irrational to take an inferior line of play when the superiority of an alternative line of play is the result of an inference from the opponents' auction or of an inferentially obtained count of the opponents' cards." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 4 22:49:52 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Mar 4 22:49:35 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <4228791A.4000400@hdw.be> References: <000001c5209a$ed0ad650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <4228791A.4000400@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050304163706.02b11700@pop.starpower.net> At 10:04 AM 3/4/05, Herman wrote: >Sven Pran wrote: >> >>And Law 70E is very specific to the point that he shall not be allowed to >>successfully make that finesse unless RHO will have shown out before >>he must >>use it. > >or unless failure to adopt the line would be irrational. > >When needing two tricks from > > AQxxx > > x > >any line other than small to the queen is irrational. Imagine that RHO opened a strong 1C, promising 16+ HCP. Declarer and dummy have 24 HCP between them. What's more, there is an inferential count in the other three suits that indicates that RHO holds a singleton spade. Is it still irrational to play small to the ace, when you expect it to gain over small to the queen 99.9999% of the time? Obviously not. But if small to the ace may not be an irrational play for a declarer who has remembered the bidding and counted out the defender's hands, how can we possibly call it an irrational play for a declarer who (as we must presume absent any statement to the contrary) has done neither? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From KUNGDZPA at plumtree.org.uk Fri Mar 4 23:15:20 2005 From: KUNGDZPA at plumtree.org.uk (Waldo Carrillo) Date: Fri Mar 4 23:13:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Be her hero in bed! Message-ID: <18F743B-966065CB0118@mac.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050304/0ff793ed/attachment.html From ooga at shaw.ca Sat Mar 5 02:08:53 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Sat Mar 5 02:09:23 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <42282D80.5060801@hdw.be> References: <000101c52036$93984580$6900a8c0@WINXP> <42281739.1040704@hdw.be> <42282018.8060208@shaw.ca> <42282D80.5060801@hdw.be> Message-ID: <422906A5.20006@shaw.ca> Herman De Wael wrote: > Hello Bruce, > > let me first repeat that I was not commenting on your case and your > ruling, but rather on Sven's approach to it. That approach was IMO far > too simplistic and did not take into account some points the claimer > might raise in his defence. That being said: (snipping points of agreement) >>> What I mean is, you cannot hold claimer to a missing part of his >>> statement, when that missing part depends on a particular return that >>> he has not envisaged. You must allow claimer to make an additional >>> statement about how he would play if a certain line were adopted. >> >> This strikes me as very wrong. It's up to the claimer to cover all >> possibilities. If we allow a declarer to adjust a statement because >> the defense is about to ruff a club, declarer will certainly adjust >> and he will never be wrong, even when he had forgotten about the >> possibility initially. >> > That's true, and it is up to us to rule if his omitting is an indication > of forgetting or not. Don't forget however that claimer is trying to > save time, by not requiring defence to think too long. If we then ask > him to state, unasked, his line after each and every one of the cards > defender might still lead, that time is wasted once more. So we must be > satisfied with a token line against a normal return, and deduce from > this the other lines against the more exotic ones. And sometimes this > means we have to decide whether some lines are careless or irrational. > We should be able to judge on those cases without a Sven-like rule that > says that anything which is not mentioned automatically becomes careless > rather than irrational. The "I was only trying to save time" defense was presented to me. In this particular case it seems to me that if declarer had decided to sacrifice a few moments of time for the possibility that someone might go wrong, the result would certainly have been +420 and possibly even +450. We were at trick one of the seventh board of a 28-board match and the concurrent pairs game (with the same start time) was still in the first round! It made no sense to me to be working so hard to save time when an IMP might be won (and, as it turned out, a loss of 10 might be avoided). I disagree with the general notion that a claimer should be given some benefits for the attempt to save time, especially when the claimer has claimed after only one trick with an opponent on lead and has not visualized the possibility that LHO is about to ruff a club. It's one card: let the opponent lead and then claim--if you can. I do see the point that we can't call every unmentioned line careless without judgment. But when a contested claimer argues that a play is irrational because they are so good that they never make a careless play, I'm not going to forget that they just made a careless claim. :) >>> And as TD, you must put some weight into such an additional >>> statement, especially if it is backed up with real evidence, such as >>> player remembering at the time of his additional statement that West >>> has overcalled and east has shown six clubs to the AQ. >>> >>> Again, I am not convinced of the totality of the doubt being gone, >>> but I want to correct Sven on his one-line approach that anything >>> that is not mentioned must be automatically deemed forgotten. >>> Sometimes claimers have a valid excuse for not mentioning that they >>> know the queen is to the left. They simply did not believe that >>> finesse would be needed. >>> >> And if not, then the claim statement is faulty. A better statement >> would be to add "if weird things happen and it turns out that I have >> to guess the QS, I will guess that West has it." >> > > But no-one ever does that! And this declarer has no idea that such a > finesse will still be needed. > You simply cannot hold the claimer to his not saying this line. You HAVE > to judge if he would find the queen 100% of the time. The laws state > this. There's no shying away from your TD duties by saying "you never > mentioned the finesse so you can't find the queen". You understand that this was not my reasoning, right? Had it been, for example, a one-way finesse that would work, I would certainly have ruled +420. I ruled down one because I saw two ways to guess the location of the queen, one of which would fail. At the table, I didn't have the time to look closely at the cards, but I made sure to look at the board later and ensure that there was no chance for an endplay or another way out. > Please add once more that I tend to agree with your ruling, Bruce. I > don't find the argument about the overcall compelling enough. But there > is nothing to be gained from people like Sven spouting his idea of claim > rulings over blml. His approach is wrong and I will continue to say so. > > I'm always tempted to construct 'easy' claim cases which everyone, > including Sven, would find natural, and then apply Sven's rules onto it. > > How about if we change the layout: How about if I respectfully withdraw here to a comfortable seat where I can kibitz the Battle of the Directing Stars - Herman v. Sven, round 147 or so... :) -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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)| }-----------------------?----------------------------------{ | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://www.unit430.com/IMPhome.htm | | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | www.unit430.com www.matchpointer.com | | (Projects I'll be working on in 2005) | `----------------------------------------------------------? From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Mar 5 03:25:28 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Mar 5 03:25:49 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <200503041605.j24G5Qnm001598@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200503041605.j24G5Qnm001598@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42291898.8020003@cfa.harvard.edu> [declarer calls for a spade, but dummy puts C-A in played position, and nobody notices for a few tricks] > From: David Stevenson > The effect of the Laws is that this trick > becomes a trick whose led card was the CA. This is, of course, the key question. What Law are you using? Based on L45B, I would have said the spade was the card played. I don't see anything that allows changing it, and if not, L47F seems definitive. Of course dummy has committed an irregularity by putting the wrong card in played position and later putting it amongst the quitted tricks, but I don't see why the played card is not still a spade. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Mar 5 03:34:04 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Mar 5 03:34:22 2005 Subject: [blml] 61 B :) In-Reply-To: <200503041628.j24GS4pU003291@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200503041628.j24GS4pU003291@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42291A9C.9070106@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "NIGEL" > To: "BLML" > Assuming that human nature is the same the world over, you > would expect *inconsistency in asking* to be a frequent > accidental infraction. Instead of assuming, why don't you ask? In my experience, poor players transmit UI all the time. If you want to talk about UI, look at irregular observance of the stop card regulations! Or just ordinary hesitations in bidding and play. As to revoke queries, many poor players are fairly consistent about asking, and overall this is one of the least important ways they transmit UI. Most of them don't know what to do with the UI once they have it anyway. Good players, in my experience, are quite consistent about asking or not asking about revokes. This may, of course, be specific to my own location (Boston area) and experience, but it's what I've observed. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Mar 5 03:40:14 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Mar 5 03:40:34 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <200503041629.j24GTWRe003395@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200503041629.j24GTWRe003395@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42291C0E.4080600@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: David Stevenson > I understand that. Two different flights, yes. I am still not sure > why the results "have" to be cancelled. > > Suppose I am playing in the Grand Masters, which I shall be doing this > coming weekend. Half-way through, a pair is found to be playing who are > not Grand Masters. Do their results "have" to be cancelled? If an ineligible pair enters an event from the beginning, that is a completely different case. Suppose there is a simultaneous "Non-GM Pairs" being held in the same room as the GM, and accidentally a GM pair and a non-GM pair switch places and play one round in the other event. Wouldn't you cancel their results? Of course in my example, it is probably the players' fault, and the artificial score you assign will be avg-, but suppose it turns out a TD has directed them to the wrong tables? Regardless of how they got to the wrong tables, would you really contemplate letting their one-round results stand? Good luck in the event! From jbulyk at mailAccount.com Sat Mar 5 04:31:25 2005 From: jbulyk at mailAccount.com (Lacey Burton) Date: Sat Mar 5 04:31:27 2005 Subject: [blml] You've been selected for a low rate Message-ID: <200410031460.i93JasTw009198@www1.warnerreprise.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.gr8lendez.com/x/loan.php?id=nu Best Regards, Nancy Faulk to be remov(ed: http://www.gr8lendez.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From hzkjjf at politicalvine.com Sat Mar 5 08:58:24 2005 From: hzkjjf at politicalvine.com (Frederick Erwin) Date: Sat Mar 5 09:00:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Extending Loans with options. Message-ID: <0.1073214968.1197980757-216966658@topica.com> If you are paying more than 3.5% on your mortgage, you may be paying too much! Our US Lenders will provide you with the absolute best rates possible. Click the link below for an insta-quote and monthly savings calculation: http://www.easy-as-1-2-3.com/2/index/bvk No other way to so quickly and easily lower your monthly bill payments while putting cash now in your pocket! tray mg bent ai [2-4 From etkmgt at ncseagles.net Sat Mar 5 11:00:37 2005 From: etkmgt at ncseagles.net (Dannie Holt) Date: Sat Mar 5 11:01:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Gain the Erection, Lose the risk with 100% natural viagra! Message-ID: <11D6-8A1D2490E4C59064@apple20.mhpcc.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050305/8de90d06/attachment-0001.html From rasjn at firthbrown.com Sat Mar 5 11:24:33 2005 From: rasjn at firthbrown.com (Drew Byrne) Date: Sat Mar 5 11:27:38 2005 Subject: [blml] 0vernight to your door Message-ID: <230222294617.KAA14381@strong.mrec.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050305/234ebc92/attachment.html From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sat Mar 5 15:26:37 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sat Mar 5 15:56:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play References: Message-ID: <00d501c52193$a4fbc640$88493dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koen Grauwels" To: Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer play > I assume David's Statement is correct here: > > " A played card may not be withdrawn. A designated card may be withdrawn > in certain cases [inadvertence, speed of change, etc]. > > So when declarer plays a card from hand it may not be changed: when he > designates a card it may sometimes be. " > > => If declarer designates a card then he may sometimes change it. > - What does it mean: designate a card? Are the following correct examples? > - Is it saying f.i. low diamond to call a card from dummy? > - Is it saying f.i. diamond 2 to play a card from own hand (f.i. not able > to play it because cleaning up a spoiled beer)? > - Is it pointing to a card from dummy? > => The law say it may be changed if it is done with thought. But even if the > change is done immediatly, how do you know it is done without thought? It > can very well be that while declarer disgnates a card he realises that it is > the wrong play and corrects it immediatly; > > According to me, realising is a very short pause for thought. Ben From witwer at doramail.com Sat Mar 5 17:09:04 2005 From: witwer at doramail.com (Linwood Cooke) Date: Sat Mar 5 17:09:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Need a 3.25% mortage rate? Message-ID: bqeyhc33juy5vubacxr8sdz18joj26.i93YdcTw008412@vais.net> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.gr8lendez.com/x/loan.php?id=nu Best Regards, Hilario Bowden to be remov(ed: http://www.gr8lendez.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From qycmgieikvrpy at funland.de Sun Mar 6 06:55:48 2005 From: qycmgieikvrpy at funland.de (Kerry Sewell) Date: Sun Mar 6 06:56:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Unbelievable Credit Loans at low rates Message-ID: <0103811062800.01145@jfuertes.maz.es> Dear Homeowner, You have been pre-approved for a $402,000 Home Loan at 3.45% Fixed Rate. This offer is being extended to you unconditionally and your credit is in no way a factor. To take Advantage of this Limited Time opportunity all we ask is that you visit our Website and complete the 1 minute post Approval Form. http://www.low-rates-for-you.com/1/index/bvk Best Regards, Kerry Sewell Regional CEO dahomey oyg corey hgq friedrich ri sleep nov basketball wr byword otc hence slq gorgeous ldk grievous wi confuse yf http://easy-home-loans.net/rem.php From vvbppa at drehscheibe-deutschland.de Sun Mar 6 09:35:28 2005 From: vvbppa at drehscheibe-deutschland.de (Savannah Connolly) Date: Sun Mar 6 09:35:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Get it now - Vicodin Nola Message-ID: <299601141618.AA1486110@client.comcast.net> Big sale on Vicodin and other drugs. You wont find better prices anywhere! Vicodin - 90 PiIls - 178$ Viagra - 100 PilIs - 209.99$ Cialis - 90 PiIls - 324$ Ambien - 120 PilIs - 249$ Xanax - 90 PiIls - 299$ and many more... Please click below and check out our offer. http://vesicular.lovecosttabl.info/in.php?aid=44 %TEXT[2-5] %TEXT[2-5] From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 6 16:44:41 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Mar 6 16:45:09 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <42287661.6080409@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c52263$697b1d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............. > > My line is that I will not let the claimer execute one out of multiple > > possible ("normal") counterdefences where his choice could have been > > simplified from his claim being contested. > > > > And there you are wrong. It is not the claim being contested that you > should be looking at, it is the claim situation. There are a number of > claims where the contestation will not teach claimer anything, yet we > shall both rule against him anyway. And there are those where the > contestation teaches him something, but he would find that out anyway > (or it may not matter) and then I shall rule in claimer's favour. > Your insistence that the contestation matters is simply wrong. > And indeed, in the sentence above, I will also rule against claimer, > not because his choice has simplified, but because he had a choice to > begin with. And in that case, he will always get it wrong. > Contestation or not. My point is that if the claimer "could have been alerted from the fact that the claim was contested" about a successful line of play which he not obviously from his claim statement or play leading up to his claim was aware of when he claimed then I shall not allow him that line of play. ............... > The second sentence is indeed the case I am thinking of. Claimer did > not see there still was a defence. OK, so now he will suffer this > defence. But only if there is an unsuccessful counterdefence. If the > only normal line still reaches the contract, the claim was na?ot > faulty to begin with, was it? If he has no alternative, yes. If he has one successful and another unsuccessful alternative none of which is "irrational" then I will not grant him the claim. > > > If he claims in order to save time that must be because > > he doesn't at the time of his claim realize that the > > situation is more complicated than he thinks. This itself > > is evidence that he must have overlooked important features > > of the claim situation and the laws specifically prevents > > him from "becoming aware" of such features from the fact > > that his claim is contested. > > > > On the contrary, the laws specifically allow him to become aware of > those features. They don't allow him to find the correct defensive > line against them, if there is more than one such line, but they do > allow him to bring the contract in, if there is only one normal line > (or if all normal lines lead to the good result). I am not sure whether we are splitting hairs or discussing realities here. I think we are saying the same thing in slightly different ways. There is no doubt that when the claimer has only one available line of play that is the line he must follow. > > Specifically when claiming when opponents are on lead, a claimer will > often say something like 'I'll ruff your return and draw trumps'. Does > that mean that if opponents now return a trump, the claim statement > was faulty? Surely not. Not disputed. > > So we do allow a claimer some additional lines to the one he stated, > provided those lines are the only normal ones. You seem to be saying > that we don't. We do. Not disputed. > > > > (He may certainly become aware of such features from for instance the > "would > > have been" progress of the play but the fact that the claim is contested > > must be treated as UI to the claimer). > > > > No, not UI - simply information he does not have when executing his > play. Information not available to him when the TD selects which lines > are normal and which are not. Is that not exactly what I state? ............ > I make some of these examples deliberately very stupid. You will say > 'that's not what I meant', but it is what you write. I didn't believe I was that poor in expressing my thoughts? > Well, when you told us you were ruling against Bruce's claimer, you > said that it was because claimer failed to mention the spade finesse. > That is a Sven-like rule. > The real reason why we rule against Bruce's declarer is because we > deem finessing to the right is also normal, not because the claimer > did not state he would finesse to the left. I cannot accept that this is any peculiarity in my view on claims? Law 70E is very specific on these conditions. > > > What I have said, and still say is that the Director when ruling on a > claim > > should assume that a player who failed to mention in his claim statement > a > > possible position that turns out to be essential was indeed unaware of > that > > position and its importance. > > > > Its importance, yes. I agree that we shall rule that claimer is not, > at the time of his claim, aware that the finesse may become important > later. But I shall not rule that he will not be allowed to finesse > once it does become clear that the finesse has become important, and I > shall not rule that he does not know the SQ is to his left simply > because he failed to tell us that in his claim statement. > > Surely you see that you cannot deduce one from the other. > > He did not mention the spades. This means he did not believe they were > important, but it does not mean he did not know where they were. I repeat: Look to Law 70E .............. > > Just consult Law 70E > > > > That's what I've been asking you to do all along. But please also > consult the last sentence of that Law! And I just do not accept a claimer stating that "of course anything else would be irrational for me". > >>Board 30 KQ2 > >>None vul Q98753 > >>East deals 3 > >> K75 > >>JT9 876 > >>62 4 > >>AKJT854 Q6 > >>8 AQT9432 > >> A543 > >> AKJT > >> 972 > >> J6 > >> > >>I have changed the spade suit and given West an additional diamond to > >>compensate. Now again, although claimer suspects he can discard the > >>losing spade on the club king, defence can thwart this by playing a > >>small club to trick 2 rather than three. > >>That leaves claimer with only one option, to hope for spades being > >>3-3. Would you now rule that since claimer did not mention that spades > >>would fall 3-3, that he be deemed to play a small spade from both > >>hands? Or that he would block the suit by playing the spade ace first? > >>I know that constructing cases is very hard, and probably there are a > >>myriad other lines still possible, but do you see what I mean? > >>While the finding of the SQ is open to discussion, the winning line > >>for 4 tricks in spades here is no discussion whatsoever, but according > >>to Sven, that does not matter since claimer did not mention how he > >>would play the spades for 4 tricks. > > > > > > It may astonish you but in this case I would rule the claimer to win > four > > tricks in spades because as you say, he has no other way to play that > suit > > after all other options have failed, and he will eventually discover > that > > the fourth spade was not a loser after all. > > > > I'm glad we agree on that one. Now how is this case different from the > previous one? In neither case did he specifically mention the extra > spade trick, in both cases we allow him to play on spades, in neither > case we should ask him to play spades irrationally. In one case he has a choice, in the other case he has only one available line of play (Cash three spade tricks and concede the fourth, except that the fourth trick develops automatically) > So if we were to accept (which we are not - I repeat) that Bruce's > claimer does indeed have a full count of the hand and would not fail > to finesse the SQ the right way, why would you give this new claim and > not Bruce's? Because he has no 100% knowledge of which way to finesse the Queen, he still has a choice. > > > The claim itself is faulty, but as the cards lie it must work out > anyway. > > > > Which is what Bruce's claim does too. No, not (as I remember) if he guesses the way to finesse wrong. Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 6 16:52:48 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Mar 6 16:53:17 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <422906A5.20006@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <000201c52264$8ba900f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Bruce McIntyre .............. > The "I was only trying to save time" defense was presented to me. In > this particular case it seems to me that if declarer had decided to > sacrifice a few moments of time for the possibility that someone might > go wrong, the result would certainly have been +420 and possibly even > +450. We were at trick one of the seventh board of a 28-board match and > the concurrent pairs game (with the same start time) was still in the > first round! It made no sense to me to be working so hard to save time > when an IMP might be won (and, as it turned out, a loss of 10 might be > avoided). I disagree with the general notion that a claimer should be > given some benefits for the attempt to save time, especially when the > claimer has claimed after only one trick with an opponent on lead and > has not visualized the possibility that LHO is about to ruff a club. > It's one card: let the opponent lead and then claim--if you can. > > I do see the point that we can't call every unmentioned line careless > without judgment. But when a contested claimer argues that a play is > irrational because they are so good that they never make a careless > play, I'm not going to forget that they just made a careless claim. :) IMO Bruce here hit the nail precisely! ................ > > You simply cannot hold the claimer to his not saying this line. You HAVE > > to judge if he would find the queen 100% of the time. The laws state > > this. There's no shying away from your TD duties by saying "you never > > mentioned the finesse so you can't find the queen". > > You understand that this was not my reasoning, right? Had it been, for > example, a one-way finesse that would work, I would certainly have ruled > +420. I ruled down one because I saw two ways to guess the location of > the queen, one of which would fail. And again! > > How about if I respectfully withdraw here to a comfortable seat where I > can kibitz the Battle of the Directing Stars - Herman v. Sven, round 147 > or so... :) No chance, I am going to withdraw long before that. In fact I consider it time to end my submissions on this thread now. Regards Sven From chey at doneasy.com Sun Mar 6 17:06:03 2005 From: chey at doneasy.com (Will Fair) Date: Sun Mar 6 17:06:04 2005 Subject: [blml] 3.25% rate approval Message-ID: bqeyhc33juy5vubacxr8sdz18joj25.i93MbmTw008722@vais.net> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.gr8lendez.com/x/loan.php?id=nu Best Regards, Delmer Hogue to be remov(ed: http://www.gr8lendez.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Mar 6 19:33:38 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun Mar 6 19:33:18 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <000101c52263$697b1d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <42287661.6080409@hdw.be> <000101c52263$697b1d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050306132550.02b0be20@pop.starpower.net> At 10:44 AM 3/6/05, Sven wrote: >I am not sure whether we are splitting hairs or discussing realities >here. I >think we are saying the same thing in slightly different ways. There is no >doubt that when the claimer has only one available line of play that >is the >line he must follow. No doubt? So the opening lead is made against 6NT, and declarer faces his hand saying, "Twelve tricks." But we only see 11. Then we realize that if he ducks the opening lead, it will rectify the count for a triple backwash unblock double squeeze, a variant of which we just happened to read about on page 347 of Ottlik the previous evening while trying to put ourselves to sleep. It's definitely the only available line for the contract, so we automatically rule 6NT making. Really? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 6 20:19:05 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Mar 6 20:19:33 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050306132550.02b0be20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000301c52281$5d026210$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............. > >I am not sure whether we are splitting hairs or discussing realities > >here. I > >think we are saying the same thing in slightly different ways. There is > no > >doubt that when the claimer has only one available line of play that > >is the > >line he must follow. > > No doubt? > > So the opening lead is made against 6NT, and declarer faces his hand > saying, "Twelve tricks." But we only see 11. Then we realize that if > he ducks the opening lead, it will rectify the count for a triple > backwash unblock double squeeze, a variant of which we just happened to > read about on page 347 of Ottlik the previous evening while trying to > put ourselves to sleep. It's definitely the only available line for > the contract, so we automatically rule 6NT making. Really? Do I really make such a poor job of explaining my thoughts? I was not referring to "only one line of play that substantiates his claim"; I was referring to "only one line of play". Sven From YRFWRPYHEVIV at compudance.com Mon Mar 7 00:51:31 2005 From: YRFWRPYHEVIV at compudance.com (Fran Sumner) Date: Mon Mar 7 00:54:53 2005 Subject: [blml] online meds store Travis Message-ID: <1096892523.402000-77647YRFWRPYHEVIV@compudance.com> America's #1 online pharmacy If you need high quality medication and would love to save on outrageous retail pricing, then PharmacyUSA is for you. Why would you need a visit to the doctor, answering unnecessary or embarrassing questions to get the treatment you already know you need? PharmacyUSA has been dedicated to serving its online clientel since 2001. Try us to find out why ordering your medications online has never been easier. You will be glad that you did. Visit us today: http://www.336fastman.biz/rx2/?66 Sincerely, Fran Sumner http://www.336fastman.biz/rmv/ you wet you tdq you novak you fpyou calcutta you na you eskimo you tvyou acknowledge you lrk you cleavage you ha you berlioz you bkt you radio you tlyou iowa you cy you pagoda you wcoyou scrimmage you hbb you yachtsman you qiyou endomorphism you alz you workaday you zcyou tavern you tn you parolee you ji From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Mar 7 01:28:48 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon Mar 7 01:29:10 2005 Subject: [blml] 61 B :) References: <200503041628.j24GS4pU003291@cfa.harvard.edu> <42291A9C.9070106@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <037101c522ac$a49d03c0$0a9868d5@James> [Steve willner] > Instead of assuming [that human naturee is the same > the world over], why don't you ask? In my experience, > poor players transmit UI all the time. If you want to > talk about UI, look at irregular observance of the > stop card regulations! Or just ordinary hesitations > in bidding and play. As to revoke queries, many poor > players are fairly consistent about asking, and overall > this is one of the least important ways they transmit > UI. Most of them don't know what to do with the UI > once they have it anyway. Good players, in my > experience, are quite consistent about asking or not > asking about revokes. This may, of course, be specific > to my own location (Boston area) and experience, but > it's what I've observed. [Konrad Ciborowski] > From my very limited experience of playing for 3 > months in Denver I can say that [the frequency of > adverse rulings about use of UI from inconsistent revoke > questions] is zero. I didn't play in any major > tournaments but at the club I did play people asked very > inconsistently and no one seemed to care. {Nigel I'm interested in UI from inconsistent questioning when partner shows out in a suit. Thank you Konrad for a outsider view. Do other US BLMers agree with Steve's experience? Here are the two of the latest questions posed ... (A) Is the consistency rule enforced in jurisdictions that relax law 61B? (in particular, how frequent are such rulings in major tournaments)? (B) When following suit in such jurisdictions, what is the most popular signalling method? Count, Attitude, Suit preference, or Smith? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005 From blml at blakjak.com Mon Mar 7 02:13:52 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Mar 7 02:15:55 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional In-Reply-To: <42291C0E.4080600@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200503041629.j24GTWRe003395@cfa.harvard.edu> <42291C0E.4080600@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote >> From: David Stevenson >> I understand that. Two different flights, yes. I am still not >>sure why the results "have" to be cancelled. >> Suppose I am playing in the Grand Masters, which I shall be doing >>this coming weekend. Half-way through, a pair is found to be playing >>who are not Grand Masters. Do their results "have" to be cancelled? > >If an ineligible pair enters an event from the beginning, that is a >completely different case. > >Suppose there is a simultaneous "Non-GM Pairs" being held in the same >room as the GM, and accidentally a GM pair and a non-GM pair switch >places and play one round in the other event. Wouldn't you cancel >their results? Of course in my example, it is probably the players' >fault, and the artificial score you assign will be avg-, but suppose it >turns out a TD has directed them to the wrong tables? Regardless of >how they got to the wrong tables, would you really contemplate letting >their one-round results stand? Yes, I would. The most important thing in bridge is results obtained by playing bridge fairly. This is more important than artificial aids. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at blakjak.com Mon Mar 7 02:18:02 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Mar 7 02:19:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play In-Reply-To: <00d501c52193$a4fbc640$88493dd4@c6l8v1> References: <00d501c52193$a4fbc640$88493dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: Ben Schelen wrote > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Koen Grauwels" >To: >Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 12:21 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer play > > >> I assume David's Statement is correct here: >> >> " A played card may not be withdrawn. A designated card may be withdrawn >> in certain cases [inadvertence, speed of change, etc]. >> >> So when declarer plays a card from hand it may not be changed: when he >> designates a card it may sometimes be. " >> >> => If declarer designates a card then he may sometimes change it. >> - What does it mean: designate a card? Are the following correct examples? >> - Is it saying f.i. low diamond to call a card from dummy? >> - Is it saying f.i. diamond 2 to play a card from own hand (f.i. not >able >> to play it because cleaning up a spoiled beer)? >> - Is it pointing to a card from dummy? >> => The law say it may be changed if it is done with thought. But even if >the >> change is done immediatly, how do you know it is done without thought? It >> can very well be that while declarer disgnates a card he realises that it >is >> the wrong play and corrects it immediatly; >> >> >According to me, realising is a very short pause for thought. That is hardly helpful. Are you saying that everyone who changes their call when they see they have the wrong one out should be topped? It is not good enough at this game ot try and find some particular interpretation that can by some means be deduced form a wording: it is more important that we have sensible interpretations, and that if there is an interpretation that 99.8% of all players and officials have, the 0.2% fall in line. Do you really, when you play, put a card out, look at it, realise it is wrong, and say to yourself "I know everyone else in the world would change it and the TD would allow it, but I know it is illegal" so you leave it down? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at blakjak.com Mon Mar 7 02:23:06 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Mar 7 02:25:11 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <42291898.8020003@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200503041605.j24G5Qnm001598@cfa.harvard.edu> <42291898.8020003@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <1pWymSC6z6KCFwmw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Steve Willner wrote >[declarer calls for a spade, but dummy puts C-A in played position, and >nobody notices for a few tricks] > >> From: David Stevenson >> The effect of the Laws is that this trick >> becomes a trick whose led card was the CA. > >This is, of course, the key question. What Law are you using? > >Based on L45B, I would have said the spade was the card played. I >don't see anything that allows changing it, and if not, L47F seems >definitive. Of course dummy has committed an irregularity by putting >the wrong card in played position and later putting it amongst the >quitted tricks, but I don't see why the played card is not still a spade. L45B does not tell you that the spade was played. It tells you what is done to make it played - declarer's statement, dummy's physical action - but that has not happened. L45D refers to when a wrong card may be withdrawn. So it is an obvious inference that if it may not be withdrawn under this Law ***then it has not been withdrawn** - the text in L45D does not make sense otherwise. Thus the CA is played and may not be withdrawn. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at blakjak.com Mon Mar 7 02:34:54 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Mar 7 02:36:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Concession Message-ID: You open 3C in third seat, double pass, 3NT by a good and reliable player. You lead a spade which looks like a failure since this goes Sx Sx S9 SJ Dummy held AT9x, you held Kxx. Partner gets in and leads a small club, showing an honour. You hold AQT9xx and dummy x, so presumably if partner had led his jack you could have taken this contract three off. Great. Get a new partner. Anyway, you win the 9, get off lead, and the end position with you West [and the contract already made] is: AT x - - Kx - - A At trick 11 declarer cashes a winning heart. Since you know declarer holds the CK - marked on the bidding - and the SQ - marked on the play to T1 - you concede by dropping your cards on the table face-down. Partner immediately objects, the TD is called. Now, there are two questions. [1] What should happen? OK, play continues, we all know that, but are there any UI constraints on you? And if so, what do they mean in practice? [2] In a few days I shall discuss what did happen, and we can consider what the effect should be. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at blakjak.com Mon Mar 7 03:43:25 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Mar 7 03:44:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Concession In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <+Zrw6NGN$7KCFw1V@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Stevenson wrote > > You open 3C in third seat, double pass, 3NT by a good and reliable >player. You lead a spade which looks like a failure since this goes > > Sx Sx S9 SJ Try Sx Sx S8 SJ > Dummy held AT9x, you held Kxx. > > Partner gets in and leads a small club, showing an honour. You hold >AQT9xx and dummy x, so presumably if partner had led his jack you could >have taken this contract three off. Great. Get a new partner. > > Anyway, you win the 9, get off lead, and the end position with you >West [and the contract already made] is: > > AT > x > - > - > Kx > - > - > A > > At trick 11 declarer cashes a winning heart. Since you know declarer >holds the CK - marked on the bidding - and the SQ - marked on the play >to T1 - you concede by dropping your cards on the table face-down. > > Partner immediately objects, the TD is called. Now, there are two >questions. > >[1] What should happen? OK, play continues, we all know that, but are >there any UI constraints on you? And if so, what do they mean in >practice? > >[2] In a few days I shall discuss what did happen, and we can consider >what the effect should be. > -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at tameware.com Mon Mar 7 04:28:10 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon Mar 7 04:29:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Orlando cases posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 11:25 PM -0500 3/1/05, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 7:55 PM -0500 2/26/05, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>I've posted the case write-ups from the Fall NABC under my bridge >>laws page at >> >> http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/orlando2004 >> >>If you spot any typos please drop me a line and I'll pass the info on. > >I've now posted my comments on the appeals from NABC+ events. As >always, your remarks, corrections, and suggestions are welcome. No remarks yet. Surely not everyone agrees with me! I've just posted my comments on the appeals from Regional events in Orlando. I've also updated my summary spreadsheet at http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/nabc_casebook_summaries.html -- Adam Wildavsky http://www.tameware.com From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Mon Mar 7 10:43:35 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Mon Mar 7 10:44:06 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <1pWymSC6z6KCFwmw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: >From: David Stevenson >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal >Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 01:23:06 +0000 > >Steve Willner wrote >>[declarer calls for a spade, but dummy puts C-A in played position, and >>nobody notices for a few tricks] >> >>>From: David Stevenson >>> The effect of the Laws is that this trick >>>becomes a trick whose led card was the CA. >> >>This is, of course, the key question. What Law are you using? >> >>Based on L45B, I would have said the spade was the card played. I don't >>see anything that allows changing it, and if not, L47F seems definitive. >>Of course dummy has committed an irregularity by putting the wrong card in >>played position and later putting it amongst the quitted tricks, but I >>don't see why the played card is not still a spade. > > L45B does not tell you that the spade was played. It tells you what is >done to make it played - declarer's statement, dummy's physical action - >but that has not happened. > > L45D refers to when a wrong card may be withdrawn. So it is an obvious >inference that if it may not be withdrawn under this Law ***then it has not >been withdrawn** - the text in L45D does not make sense otherwise. Thus >the CA is played and may not be withdrawn. I abolutely agree with David here. All other notions does not make sense. Regards, Harald Skj?ran > >-- >David Stevenson 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@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/messenger Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 7 11:54:18 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 7 11:53:50 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <000101c52263$697b1d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c52263$697b1d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <422C32DA.7080701@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > My point is that if the claimer "could have been alerted from the fact that > the claim was contested" about a successful line of play which he not > obviously from his claim statement or play leading up to his claim was aware > of when he claimed then I shall not allow him that line of play. > But your point is wrong, Sven. Your condition is neither true nor necessary. You can imagine two cases in which your rule is simply wrong. A) there can be cases where, despite claimer being alerted to the problem by the contestation, you still rule in his favour simply because you deem there to be no failing normal lines; and B) there can be cases where, even without any contestation (well, there always has to be some contestation), you would rule against a claimer. So your point that "if the contestation leads claimer to the solution, then I rule against him" is neither here nor there. Sorry Sven. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 7 11:58:52 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 7 11:58:12 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <000101c52263$697b1d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c52263$697b1d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <422C33EC.1070406@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>>(He may certainly become aware of such features from for instance the >> >>"would >> >>>have been" progress of the play but the fact that the claim is contested >>>must be treated as UI to the claimer). >>> >> >>No, not UI - simply information he does not have when executing his >>play. Information not available to him when the TD selects which lines >>are normal and which are not. > > > Is that not exactly what I state? > No it is not - exactly not. If you would have said it with other words, then I might agree with you, but by using a bridge term (UI) that has no bearing in this situation, your sentence becomes just plainly wrong. The information that claimer receives from the fact of his claim being contested is of no consequence whatsoever. We should judge the normalcy of the lines he could play on the basis of the information he has before his claim. Any information received afterwards is not to be counted towards that normalcy. But the way you are expressing it seems to indicate that if he receives no information, you rule in his favour, and if he does receive information, you rule against him. The one has no bearing whatsoever on the other. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 7 12:01:43 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 7 12:01:12 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <000101c52263$697b1d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c52263$697b1d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <422C3497.9000104@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > >>Well, when you told us you were ruling against Bruce's claimer, you >>said that it was because claimer failed to mention the spade finesse. >>That is a Sven-like rule. >>The real reason why we rule against Bruce's declarer is because we >>deem finessing to the right is also normal, not because the claimer >>did not state he would finesse to the left. > > > I cannot accept that this is any peculiarity in my view on claims? Law 70E > is very specific on these conditions. > Yes indeed, L70E is very specific, but it says exatly the opposite of what you are trying to use it for. By its last sentence, L70E specifically caters for rulings in favour of claimer. Rulings against claimers don't need L70E, they can easily be dealt with under L70A. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 7 12:04:34 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 7 12:03:52 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <000101c52263$697b1d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c52263$697b1d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <422C3542.1010802@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > I repeat: Look to Law 70E > > .............. > >>>Just consult Law 70E >>> >> >>That's what I've been asking you to do all along. But please also >>consult the last sentence of that Law! > > > And I just do not accept a claimer stating that "of course anything else > would be irrational for me". > > Just like that - no way, never? You're a very bad director if that is truely the case. You should look at each ruling on its own merits and there should be some (even if it's as few as one in ten years) in which you do accept that to play differently would be irrational. Just saying that you never accept this means that you disregard the Law. L70E specifically allows for these things to happen, and you should accept that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005 From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Mon Mar 7 10:24:25 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon Mar 7 12:18:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play References: <00d501c52193$a4fbc640$88493dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <003401c52307$7607e7e0$4d063dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 2:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer play > Ben Schelen wrote > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Koen Grauwels" > >To: > >Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 12:21 PM > >Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer play > > > > > >> I assume David's Statement is correct here: > >> > >> " A played card may not be withdrawn. A designated card may be withdrawn > >> in certain cases [inadvertence, speed of change, etc]. > >> > >> So when declarer plays a card from hand it may not be changed: when he > >> designates a card it may sometimes be. " > >> > >> => If declarer designates a card then he may sometimes change it. > >> - What does it mean: designate a card? Are the following correct examples? > >> - Is it saying f.i. low diamond to call a card from dummy? > >> - Is it saying f.i. diamond 2 to play a card from own hand (f.i. not > >able > >> to play it because cleaning up a spoiled beer)? > >> - Is it pointing to a card from dummy? > >> => The law say it may be changed if it is done with thought. But even if > >the > >> change is done immediatly, how do you know it is done without thought? It > >> can very well be that while declarer disgnates a card he realises that it > >is > >> the wrong play and corrects it immediatly; > >> > >> > >According to me, realising is a very short pause for thought. > > That is hardly helpful. Are you saying that everyone who changes > their call when they see they have the wrong one out should be topped? > > That is not my point. My point is: Declarer designates a card and he realises . . . Two actions at the same time? Hardly possible, that must be one after the other. In the Netherlands we learned to act like hawks: A Q 3 2 Declarer wants to finesse and plays small to the queen. He starts saying qu before west can follow. West plays the king and declarer bends his wording immediately to quace. We regard this as a change of mind: so there was a time for thought. Our interpretation is that thought is far more important than time. Ben From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Mon Mar 7 10:47:44 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon Mar 7 12:18:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play References: <00d501c52193$a4fbc640$88493dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <003501c52307$7664fc00$4d063dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 2:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer play > Ben Schelen wrote > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Koen Grauwels" > >To: > >Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 12:21 PM > >Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer play > > > > > >> I assume David's Statement is correct here: > >> > >> " A played card may not be withdrawn. A designated card may be withdrawn > >> in certain cases [inadvertence, speed of change, etc]. > >> > >> So when declarer plays a card from hand it may not be changed: when he > >> designates a card it may sometimes be. " > >> > >> => If declarer designates a card then he may sometimes change it. > >> - What does it mean: designate a card? Are the following correct examples? > >> - Is it saying f.i. low diamond to call a card from dummy? > >> - Is it saying f.i. diamond 2 to play a card from own hand (f.i. not > >able > >> to play it because cleaning up a spoiled beer)? > >> - Is it pointing to a card from dummy? > >> => The law say it may be changed if it is done with thought. But even if > >the > >> change is done immediatly, how do you know it is done without thought? It > >> can very well be that while declarer disgnates a card he realises that it > >is > >> the wrong play and corrects it immediatly; > >> > >> > >According to me, realising is a very short pause for thought. > > That is hardly helpful. Are you saying that everyone who changes > their call when they see they have the wrong one out should be topped? > > It is not good enough at this game ot try and find some particular > interpretation that can by some means be deduced form a wording: it is > more important that we have sensible interpretations, and that if there > is an interpretation that 99.8% of all players and officials have, the > 0.2% fall in line. > > Do you really, when you play, put a card out, look at it, realise it > is wrong, and say to yourself "I know everyone else in the world would > change it and the TD would allow it, but I know it is illegal" so you > leave it down? > > No, that is not my point: this is Law 45C2. My point is: declarer designates a card and realises . . . Law45C4. These are two actions and cannot be done at the same time. In the Netherlands we have the following example: A Q 3 2 Declarer wants to finesse and plays the 2. Before west can follow he starts saying clearly qu, but west produces the king. Declarer now bends his wording to quace. We regard this as a change of mind: a pause for thought. Our interpretation of this notion is that thought is far more important than time. Ben From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 7 13:07:24 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Mar 7 13:07:52 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <422C33EC.1070406@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000b01c5230e$39146780$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>>(He may certainly become aware of such features from for instance the > >> > >>"would > >> > >>>have been" progress of the play but the fact that the claim is > contested > >>>must be treated as UI to the claimer). > >>> > >> > >>No, not UI - simply information he does not have when executing his > >>play. Information not available to him when the TD selects which lines > >>are normal and which are not. > > > > > > Is that not exactly what I state? > > > > No it is not - exactly not. > If you would have said it with other words, then I might agree with > you, but by using a bridge term (UI) that has no bearing in this > situation, your sentence becomes just plainly wrong. > > The information that claimer receives from the fact of his claim being > contested is of no consequence whatsoever. We should judge the > normalcy of the lines he could play on the basis of the information he > has before his claim. Any information received afterwards is not to be > counted towards that normalcy. But the way you are expressing it seems > to indicate that if he receives no information, you rule in his > favour, and if he does receive information, you rule against him. > > The one has no bearing whatsoever on the other. Example: Declarer's claim statement is good except in the (unexpected) case that a particular suit breaks 5-0. There is however an obvious alternative line of play that makes the claim good regardless of how the suit breaks. This alternative line of play is not in any way indicated with the claim. The fact that the claim is contested "could make" declarer aware of the (now) increased probability that the suit indeed breaks 5-0. The claimer has been warned from an opponent contesting his claim that there quite likely could be a bad break, this is UI to him and he shall not be allowed to change his line of play from that information alone. I shall only allow him to change to the successful line of play if the bad break must become revealed to him (when applying the specified line of play) before it is too late to change. A fact that the originally specified line of play may even have become completely "irrational" in view of the possibility of a bad break does not alter my opinion that he must have some event, some information from the play as such and not only from an opponent contesting his claim to be allowed a change to another line of play however "irrational" the originally specified line of play is when we judge the situation as a whole. Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 7 13:13:52 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Mar 7 13:14:26 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <422C3542.1010802@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000c01c5230f$2121c4f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > > And I just do not accept a claimer stating that "of course anything else > > would be irrational for me". > > > > > > Just like that - no way, never? > You're a very bad director if that is truely the case. > You should look at each ruling on its own merits and there should be > some (even if it's as few as one in ten years) in which you do accept > that to play differently would be irrational. Just saying that you > never accept this means that you disregard the Law. L70E specifically > allows for these things to happen, and you should accept that. Yes, if the only reason he has for discovering the need for another line of play "could have been" the fact that his claim was contested I shall never allow him to change to another (successful) line of play unless the need for such change must become evident (in time to change) from how the play would develop along his originally indicated line of play. We have absolutely no indication that he would have selected that successful line of play had he not claimed because then he would not have been alerted by an opponent contesting his claim. Sven From RMGQS at puentefinance.com Mon Mar 7 13:17:45 2005 From: RMGQS at puentefinance.com (Jim Reilly) Date: Mon Mar 7 13:23:40 2005 Subject: [blml] 1 a day for your man's sexual health! Message-ID: <11D6-8A1D0340E4C59064@apple20.mhpcc.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050307/3b0ce0f5/attachment.html From blml at blakjak.com Mon Mar 7 14:21:04 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Mar 7 14:23:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play In-Reply-To: <003401c52307$7607e7e0$4d063dd4@c6l8v1> References: <00d501c52193$a4fbc640$88493dd4@c6l8v1> <003401c52307$7607e7e0$4d063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <12ZCRJAAVFLCFwfm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ben Schelen wrote >From: "David Stevenson" >> That is hardly helpful. Are you saying that everyone who changes >> their call when they see they have the wrong one out should be topped? >That is not my point. >My point is: Declarer designates a card and he realises . . . >Two actions at the same time? Hardly possible, that must be one after the >other. Exactly. You designate a card, then you realise it is wrong. It is understood generally that this is the normal action. Everyone now allows an inadvertent action to be changed so long a there is no pause for thought after the *realisation*. >In the Netherlands we learned to act like hawks: > > A Q > > > 3 2 > >Declarer wants to finesse and plays small to the queen. >He starts saying qu before west can follow. >West plays the king and declarer bends his wording immediately to quace. >We regard this as a change of mind: so there was a time for thought. It is completely irrelevant whether there is a pause for thought: it is a change of mind. It is only inadvertent actions that may be changed. >Our interpretation is that thought is far more important than time. I think you are mixing interpretations. You may only change inadvertent designations: you may do so if there is no pause for thought from the realisation you have designated the wrong thing. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at msn.com Mon Mar 7 14:45:39 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Mar 7 14:46:02 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal References: <000c01c5230f$2121c4f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: As an aside to the semantics argument that Sven and HDW are involved in where Herman is getting close to rude - I say "close to" since he is using a foreign language and surely would not mean to be rude - it again brings to mind the following. >> And I just do not accept a claimer stating that "of course anything else >> would be irrational for me". There is the "nut" for me in applying the law and taking into account the footnote. The original statement was clearly and intentionally constructed so that irrational was separated from careless or inferior -- therefore the "for me" above has nothing to do with rationality. Unfortunately the WBFLC has muddied the waters by removing the comma. Without a statement to which of lines of play available he is taking, the claimer can carelessly and inferiorly take the losing one - to which I will help him. Kojak (IMHO, of course) From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 7 15:10:49 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Mar 7 15:11:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play In-Reply-To: <12ZCRJAAVFLCFwfm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000d01c5231f$772d8f40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson > Ben Schelen wrote ......... > >That is not my point. > >My point is: Declarer designates a card and he realises . . . > >Two actions at the same time? Hardly possible, that must be one after the > >other. > > Exactly. You designate a card, then you realise it is wrong. It is > understood generally that this is the normal action. Everyone now > allows an inadvertent action to be changed so long a there is no pause > for thought after the *realisation*. > > >In the Netherlands we learned to act like hawks: > > > > A Q > > > > > > 3 2 > > > >Declarer wants to finesse and plays small to the queen. > >He starts saying qu before west can follow. > >West plays the king and declarer bends his wording immediately to quace. > >We regard this as a change of mind: so there was a time for thought. > > It is completely irrelevant whether there is a pause for thought: it > is a change of mind. It is only inadvertent actions that may be > changed. > > >Our interpretation is that thought is far more important than time. > > I think you are mixing interpretations. > > You may only change inadvertent designations: you may do so if there > is no pause for thought from the realisation you have designated the > wrong thing. After enjoying the pleasure of Ton introducing a discussion on the term "inadvertent" at our Directors convention this weekend I must agree completely with Ben. (And this does not imply that I have changed my own mind on the matter!): When ruling on "inadvertent" it becomes necessary to establish what the player's original intention was. We can only correctly rule "inadvertent" when we are convinced that the player never intended the action he took. As strange as it may seem establishing whether there was "pause for thought" is irrelevant except as a factor when deciding whether the player probably changed his mind or not. The example from Ben where the player designates the "QuAce" is a good one; playing the Queen under the King is for all relevant discussions "irrational", but from the facts given we must still rule that the player intended to play the Queen and then changed his mind to play the Ace the moment he noticed the King. The fact that this change of mind occurred within a split second; too short for anybody to notice anything like a "pause for thought" is irrelevant. The player started to designate the Queen and changed this designation to the Ace "in flight" when he noticed the King. We cannot establish with certainty what goes on in a player's mind, but when ruling on "inadvertent" we have to determine to the best of our ability what PROBABLY was going on. Regards Sven From Mikeamosbridge at aol.com Mon Mar 7 06:50:57 2005 From: Mikeamosbridge at aol.com (Mikeamosbridge@aol.com) Date: Mon Mar 7 15:13:21 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Sectional Message-ID: <198.3a227593.2f5d45c1@aol.com> In a message dated 07/03/2005 01:15:50 GMT Standard Time, blml@blakjak.com writes: Steve Willner wrote >> From: David Stevenson >> I understand that. Two different flights, yes. I am still not >>sure why the results "have" to be cancelled. >> Suppose I am playing in the Grand Masters, which I shall be doing >>this coming weekend. Half-way through, a pair is found to be playing >>who are not Grand Masters. Do their results "have" to be cancelled? > >If an ineligible pair enters an event from the beginning, that is a >completely different case. > >Suppose there is a simultaneous "Non-GM Pairs" being held in the same >room as the GM, and accidentally a GM pair and a non-GM pair switch >places and play one round in the other event. Wouldn't you cancel >their results? Of course in my example, it is probably the players' >fault, and the artificial score you assign will be avg-, but suppose it >turns out a TD has directed them to the wrong tables? Regardless of >how they got to the wrong tables, would you really contemplate letting >their one-round results stand? Yes, I would. The most important thing in bridge is results obtained by playing bridge fairly. This is more important than artificial aids. -- David Stevenson 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@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml So Accrington Stanley turn up by accident at Anfield instead of Chelsea. Liverpool win 117-0. Do the Red Devils get three points? I dont think so. David I admire your attitude that results count but when players from seperate events meet I dont see how even the mismatch rule helps us. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050307/805226c6/attachment.html From Mikeamosbridge at aol.com Mon Mar 7 11:08:32 2005 From: Mikeamosbridge at aol.com (Mikeamosbridge@aol.com) Date: Mon Mar 7 15:13:23 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal Message-ID: <1e4.3688cf2c.2f5d8220@aol.com> In a message dated 07/03/2005 09:43:54 GMT Standard Time, haraldskjaran@hotmail.com writes: > L45D refers to when a wrong card may be withdrawn. So it is an obvious >inference that if it may not be withdrawn under this Law ***then it has not >been withdrawn** - the text in L45D does not make sense otherwise. Thus >the CA is played and may not be withdrawn. I abolutely agree with David here. All other notions does not make sense. Regards, Harald Skj?ran > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ and i also agree Club Ace is not withdrawn it becomes by default the lead to the trick Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050307/296adac9/attachment.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 7 15:15:03 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Mar 7 15:15:29 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Skj?ran" To: Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 3:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal > > > >From: David Stevenson > >To: blml@rtflb.org > >Subject: Re: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal > >Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 01:23:06 +0000 > > > >Steve Willner wrote > >>[declarer calls for a spade, but dummy puts C-A in played position, and > >>nobody notices for a few tricks] > >> > >>>From: David Stevenson > >>> The effect of the Laws is that this trick > >>>becomes a trick whose led card was the CA. > >> > >>This is, of course, the key question. What Law are you using? I should thnik that it is the Law [in its entirety] that is relevant. There are three relevant passages [a] 45C4- a designated card must be played; [b] 45D- an uncorrected misplayed card by dummy must be played/ not withdrawn. As such the law says that dummy has contributed two cards to the trick. The [c] Definitions state that the first card played to a trick is the lead which resolves whether it was a C or a S trick. There also is [d] 67 which goes about remedying a trick where a player has contributed more than one card. imo a process that is a bit tortous. regards roger pewick > >>Based on L45B, I would have said the spade was the card played. I don't > >>see anything that allows changing it, and if not, L47F seems definitive. > >>Of course dummy has committed an irregularity by putting the wrong card in > >>played position and later putting it amongst the quitted tricks, but I > >>don't see why the played card is not still a spade. > > > > L45B does not tell you that the spade was played. It tells you what is > >done to make it played - declarer's statement, dummy's physical action - > >but that has not happened. > > > > L45D refers to when a wrong card may be withdrawn. So it is an obvious > >inference that if it may not be withdrawn under this Law ***then it has not > >been withdrawn** - the text in L45D does not make sense otherwise. Thus > >the CA is played and may not be withdrawn. > > I abolutely agree with David here. All other notions does not make sense. > > Regards, > Harald Skj?ran > > > >-- > >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 7 15:25:39 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Mar 7 15:26:09 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c52321$89a8c840$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER ............... > There is the "nut" for me in applying the law and taking into > account the footnote. The original statement was clearly and > intentionally constructed so that irrational was separated from > careless or inferior -- therefore the "for me" above has nothing > to do with rationality. Unfortunately the WBFLC has muddied the > waters by removing the comma. Without a statement to which of > lines of play available he is taking, the claimer can carelessly > and inferiorly take the losing one - to which I will help him. Personally I would prefer "irrational" to be an absolute term not associated with "class of player". Unfortunately the terms "careless" and "inferior" are indeed associated with "class of player" and were so also before the revision of the laws in 1997. Unless we want there to be an undefined "gap" (or an undesirable overlap) we must accept that either all or none of these terms shall be associated with "class of players" or we must introduce still another term to handle such gap/overlap. I am not easily convinced when a player claims that some action would be "irrational" for him unless that same action would indeed be irrational for (almost) any player (regardless of his class) in the same situation. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 7 15:48:21 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Mar 7 15:48:00 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <000301c52281$5d026210$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050306132550.02b0be20@pop.starpower.net> <000301c52281$5d026210$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050307094332.02ed7eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:19 PM 3/6/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau >............. > > >I am not sure whether we are splitting hairs or discussing realities > > >here. I > > >think we are saying the same thing in slightly different ways. > There is > > no > > >doubt that when the claimer has only one available line of play that > > >is the > > >line he must follow. > > > > No doubt? > > > > So the opening lead is made against 6NT, and declarer faces his hand > > saying, "Twelve tricks." But we only see 11. Then we realize that if > > he ducks the opening lead, it will rectify the count for a triple > > backwash unblock double squeeze, a variant of which we just happened to > > read about on page 347 of Ottlik the previous evening while trying to > > put ourselves to sleep. It's definitely the only available line for > > the contract, so we automatically rule 6NT making. Really? > >Do I really make such a poor job of explaining my thoughts? > >I was not referring to "only one line of play that substantiates his >claim"; >I was referring to "only one line of play". Perhaps I do a poor job of understanding. I don't understand what "only one line of play", as distinct from "only one line of play that substantiates his claim", can mean, other than in reference to a one-card end position. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 7 15:48:17 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Mar 7 15:48:46 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001401c52324$b3117df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ................ > I should thnik that it is the Law [in its entirety] that is relevant. > There are three relevant passages > [a] 45C4- a designated card must be played; > [b] 45D- an uncorrected misplayed card by dummy must be played/ > not withdrawn. > As such the law says that dummy has contributed two cards to the trick. > [c] The Definitions state that the first card played to a trick is the > lead which resolves whether it was a C or a S trick. There also is > [d] 67 which goes about remedying a trick where a player has > contributed more than one card. > > imo a process that is a bit tortous. Sure it is, but only because you do not read the laws correctly: Your [b] L45D says that a card misplayed by Dummy must be corrected "if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick" This condition is not satisfied here so Law 45D does not apply in this case and Dummy has not contributed more than one card to the trick in question. The card actually played by Dummy is the card played whether or not it was the card designated by declarer because nobody called attention to the irregularity in time. Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 7 15:56:01 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Mar 7 15:58:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play References: <000d01c5231f$772d8f40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 8:10 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Declarer play > On Behalf Of David Stevenson > Ben Schelen wrote ........ > >That is not my point. > >My point is: Declarer designates a card and he realises . . . > >Two actions at the same time? Hardly possible, that must be one after the > >other. > > Exactly. You designate a card, then you realise it is wrong. It is > understood generally that this is the normal action. Everyone now > allows an inadvertent action to be changed so long a there is no pause > for thought after the *realisation*. > > >In the Netherlands we learned to act like hawks: > > > > A Q > > > > > > 3 2 > > > >Declarer wants to finesse and plays small to the queen. > >He starts saying qu before west can follow. > >West plays the king and declarer bends his wording immediately to quace. > >We regard this as a change of mind: so there was a time for thought. > > It is completely irrelevant whether there is a pause for thought: it > is a change of mind. It is only inadvertent actions that may be > changed. > > >Our interpretation is that thought is far more important than time. > > I think you are mixing interpretations. > > You may only change inadvertent designations: you may do so if there > is no pause for thought from the realisation you have designated the > wrong thing. After enjoying the pleasure of Ton introducing a discussion on the term "inadvertent" at our Directors convention this weekend I must agree completely with Ben. (And this does not imply that I have changed my own mind on the matter!): When ruling on "inadvertent" it becomes necessary to establish what the player's original intention was. We can only correctly rule "inadvertent" when we are convinced that the player never intended the action he took. As strange as it may seem establishing whether there was "pause for thought" is irrelevant except as a factor when deciding whether the player probably changed his mind or not. The example from Ben where the player designates the "QuAce" is a good one; playing the Queen under the King is for all relevant discussions "irrational", but from the facts given we must still rule that the player intended to play the Queen and then changed his mind to play the Ace the moment he noticed the King. The fact that this change of mind occurred within a split second; too short for anybody to notice anything like a "pause for thought" is irrelevant. The player started to designate the Queen and changed this designation to the Ace "in flight" when he noticed the King. We cannot establish with certainty what goes on in a player's mind, but when ruling on "inadvertent" we have to determine to the best of our ability what PROBABLY was going on. Regards Sven Many times I have heard invoked that a call wasn't made due to the player not 'removing' the bidding card or the bidding card not touching the table. Typically my reaction was that I disagree- if bidding were spoken, wouldn't the corresponding point of no return have past? And isn't it right to hold the player accountable? I point out that a large part of the difference in view point is the [lack of] wisdom displayed in the relevant regulation. The regulation encourages such behavior so it proliferates. What TFLB says is 46B4 If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card. For whatever wisdom that created that passage of law I for one cannot find a QuAce in dummy. And the law is unequivocal on the matter-it doesn't matter what anyone believes was going within declarer.. Now, I do have a comment about the defender. Any defender that wishes to hoist declarer upon his own petard, it is a necessary condition that the petard exist- upon which patience** is a factor. ** The law provides so much changing one's mind that one should wait until after the point of no return before asserting one's right for his King to win the trick. regards roger pewick From blml at blakjak.com Mon Mar 7 16:29:15 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Mar 7 16:31:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play In-Reply-To: <000d01c5231f$772d8f40$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <12ZCRJAAVFLCFwfm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000d01c5231f$772d8f40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of David Stevenson >> I think you are mixing interpretations. >> >> You may only change inadvertent designations: you may do so if there >> is no pause for thought from the realisation you have designated the >> wrong thing. > >After enjoying the pleasure of Ton introducing a discussion on the term >"inadvertent" at our Directors convention this weekend I must agree >completely with Ben. (And this does not imply that I have changed my own >mind on the matter!): Sven: everything you say is correct except one things: you are agreeing with me and disagreeing with Ben. >When ruling on "inadvertent" it becomes necessary to establish what the >player's original intention was. We can only correctly rule "inadvertent" >when we are convinced that the player never intended the action he took. > >As strange as it may seem establishing whether there was "pause for thought" >is irrelevant except as a factor when deciding whether the player probably >changed his mind or not. > >The example from Ben where the player designates the "QuAce" is a good one; >playing the Queen under the King is for all relevant discussions >"irrational", but from the facts given we must still rule that the player >intended to play the Queen and then changed his mind to play the Ace the >moment he noticed the King. > >The fact that this change of mind occurred within a split second; too short >for anybody to notice anything like a "pause for thought" is irrelevant. The >player started to designate the Queen and changed this designation to the >Ace "in flight" when he noticed the King. > >We cannot establish with certainty what goes on in a player's mind, but when >ruling on "inadvertent" we have to determine to the best of our ability what >PROBABLY was going on. That is *exactly* what I said. Ben, however, was confusing whether there was a pause for thought with whether it was inadvertent. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at blakjak.com Mon Mar 7 16:31:33 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Mar 7 16:33:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c5231f$772d8f40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Roger Pewick wrote >Many times I have heard invoked that a call wasn't made due to the player >not 'removing' the bidding card or the bidding card not touching the table. >Typically my reaction was that I disagree- if bidding were spoken, wouldn't >the corresponding point of no return have past? And isn't it right to hold >the player accountable? If, using spoken bidding, a player says "One" then no call has been made. Whatever the form of bidding, spoken, written, bidding boxes, there comes a moment when a call is made: before that the call is not made. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 7 16:53:19 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Mar 7 16:53:43 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal References: <001401c52324$b3117df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 8:48 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > ................ > > I should thnik that it is the Law [in its entirety] that is relevant. > > There are three relevant passages > > [a] 45C4- a designated card must be played; > > [b] 45D- an uncorrected misplayed card by dummy must be played/ > > not withdrawn. > > As such the law says that dummy has contributed two cards to the trick. > > [c] The Definitions state that the first card played to a trick is the > > lead which resolves whether it was a C or a S trick. There also is > > [d] 67 which goes about remedying a trick where a player has > > contributed more than one card. > > > > imo a process that is a bit tortous. > > Sure it is, but only because you do not read the laws correctly: > > Your [b] L45D says that a card misplayed by Dummy must be corrected "if > attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick" > > This condition is not satisfied here so Law 45D does not apply in this case > and Dummy has not contributed more than one card to the trick in question. > The card actually played by Dummy is the card played whether or not it was > the card designated by declarer because nobody called attention to the > irregularity in time. That is what I said. the CA must be played......however- What also I said was that 45C2 requires the spade be played [as in the CA was a fifth card to the trick] and because the spade came first [DEFINITIONS] it was the lead to the trick. The problem with your reading of law is that you came to a personal decision as to what the outcome of the ruling was to be, then you sought out a passage of law that supports it, and ignored the passage of law that says your ruling is incorrect [even though part of your ruling was correct- the part that the CA must be played]. regards roger pewick > Regards Sven From ANPPPY at damadol.com Mon Mar 7 16:54:56 2005 From: ANPPPY at damadol.com (Erwin Foote) Date: Mon Mar 7 17:04:07 2005 Subject: [blml] New Drug store Zachary Message-ID: <3DF4FB83.35004@ubp.edu.ar> Refill Notification Ref: NM-23826793826 Dear blml@rtflb.org, Our automated system has identified that you most likely are ready to refill your recent online pharmaceutical order. To help you get your needed supply, we have sent this reminder notice. Please use the refill system http://woo.salepricedtoday.com/?wid=100069 to obtain your item in the quickest possible manner. Thank you for your time and we look forward to assisting you. Sincerely, Erwin Foote trounce vb chaparral xv prescriptive xk bedside uz dally kle roster ev bun gx zebra hcg suey oj nirvana jfo glacial arm nashua wf saxony eo drudge gde sandra yu sanders ntf From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 7 17:05:08 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Mar 7 17:05:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001a01c5232f$6f427ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > ........ > After enjoying the pleasure of Ton introducing a discussion on the term > "inadvertent" at our Directors convention this weekend I must agree > completely with Ben. (And this does not imply that I have changed my own > mind on the matter!): > > When ruling on "inadvertent" it becomes necessary to establish what the > player's original intention was. We can only correctly rule "inadvertent" > when we are convinced that the player never intended the action he took. > > As strange as it may seem establishing whether there was "pause for > thought" > is irrelevant except as a factor when deciding whether the player probably > changed his mind or not. > > The example from Ben where the player designates the "QuAce" is a good > one; > playing the Queen under the King is for all relevant discussions > "irrational", but from the facts given we must still rule that the player > intended to play the Queen and then changed his mind to play the Ace the > moment he noticed the King. > > The fact that this change of mind occurred within a split second; too > short > for anybody to notice anything like a "pause for thought" is irrelevant. > The > player started to designate the Queen and changed this designation to the > Ace "in flight" when he noticed the King. > > We cannot establish with certainty what goes on in a player's mind, but > when > ruling on "inadvertent" we have to determine to the best of our ability > what > PROBABLY was going on. > > Regards Sven > > > Many times I have heard invoked that a call wasn't made due to the player > not 'removing' the bidding card or the bidding card not touching the > table. > Typically my reaction was that I disagree- if bidding were spoken, > wouldn't > the corresponding point of no return have past? And isn't it right to > hold > the player accountable? The original law permitted a player to correct a misnomer when making a spoken call on the condition that it appeared evident for the other players that he did not change his mind. With the introduction of bid boxes the corresponding rule became that you may correct a call that apparently was not what you intended to make. An example was the 1NT card stuck together with the 1S bid which is what you intended to make. I have not seen a single law or regulation (except the unlucky Law 25B which I feel pretty confident will disappear with the next revision) that allowed a player to change his mind however fast he did so. But I am aware of a great many variations in how regulations try to quantify what constitutes a change of mind and what does not. ............... > What TFLB says is 46B4 If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the > call is void and declarer may designate any legal card. > > For whatever wisdom that created that passage of law I for one cannot find > a QuAce in dummy. And the law is unequivocal on the matter-it doesn't > matter what anyone believes was going within declarer.. Are you the least in doubt what really happened in the situation Ben described? Sure there is no card ranked QuAce in the deck of cards, but equally sure that player started with the intention to play the Queen and changed his mind when he saw LHO presenting the King. > Now, I do have a comment about the defender. Any defender that wishes to > hoist declarer upon his own petard, it is a necessary condition that the > petard exist- upon which patience** is a factor. > > > ** The law provides so much changing one's mind that one should wait until > after the point of no return before asserting one's right for his King to > win the trick. Agreed. Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 7 17:26:02 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Mar 7 17:37:33 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal References: <000001c5209a$ed0ad650$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005301c52333$8c61efa0$7e974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If it were done when 'tis done, Then 'twere well it were done quickly... " ['Macbeth'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:17 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal > > > > Even a top flight player makes mistakes. If he > > doesn't mention an important detail with his claim > > statement he should know that the Director must > > rule under the assumption that the player has > > overlooked this detail and will fail to play successfully > > on that item. > > +=+ I wonder if this is all that might be said. Let us take the case of a skilled player who makes a claim, saying to opponents that if they hold what their bidding has shown (as indeed they do) he will make his contract on a squeeze. He does not specify the precise order in which he will play the cards. Law 70D is then interesting. A normal line of play would include a careless play. The question is whether such careless play is excluded because not embraced within the clarification statement or again because the claimer has not proposed it (in which event we go to 70E?). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 7 17:33:58 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Mar 7 17:37:36 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal References: <000c01c5230f$2121c4f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005401c52333$8db48750$7e974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If it were done when 'tis done, Then 'twere well it were done quickly... " ['Macbeth'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > There is the "nut" for me in applying the law and > taking into account the footnote. The original > statement was clearly and intentionally constructed > so that irrational was separated from careless or > inferior -- therefore the "for me" above has nothing > to do with rationality. Unfortunately the WBFLC > has muddied the waters by removing the comma. < +=+ My recollection is that the comma was retained but the sentence reordered? However, this affects the point Kojak is making not a whit. What occurs to me is that it is difficult to construe 70E if you do not share Kojak's (and my) view. The 'or unless' in 70E seems juxtaposed to the use of 'normal' which precedes it and has nothing about 'class of player' to it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 7 17:48:16 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Mar 7 17:48:46 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <005301c52333$8c61efa0$7e974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000001c52335$760e3a90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] ................ > > > Even a top flight player makes mistakes. If he > > > doesn't mention an important detail with his claim > > > statement he should know that the Director must > > > rule under the assumption that the player has > > > overlooked this detail and will fail to play successfully > > > on that item. > > > > +=+ I wonder if this is all that might be said. Let us take > the case of a skilled player who makes a claim, saying to > opponents that if they hold what their bidding has shown > (as indeed they do) he will make his contract on a > squeeze. He does not specify the precise order in which > he will play the cards. > Law 70D is then interesting. A normal line of play > would include a careless play. The question is whether > such careless play is excluded because not embraced > within the clarification statement or again because the > claimer has not proposed it (in which event we go to > 70E?). During our convention for Directors this weekend the question was raised for discussion on how we felt about a suggestion that claims should not be allowed with statements like: "I have the rest on a double squeeze" (or as in your case: ..."on a squeeze"). We concluded that the main difficulty would be to draw the line between claims that would be allowed and those that would not be allowed. But I believe we all fancied the idea that the validity of a claim should be obvious to all four players (regardless of their class) to be legal. It remains to be seen if such a rule can possibly be made into words. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 7 18:25:53 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 7 18:25:18 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <000b01c5230e$39146780$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c5230e$39146780$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <422C8EA1.2030802@hdw.be> Sven, I understand perfectly what you mean, but it holds no sense. Sven Pran wrote: >> >>The one has no bearing whatsoever on the other. > > > Example: > > Declarer's claim statement is good except in the (unexpected) case that a > particular suit breaks 5-0. > > There is however an obvious alternative line of play that makes the claim > good regardless of how the suit breaks. This alternative line of play is not > in any way indicated with the claim. > > The fact that the claim is contested "could make" declarer aware of the > (now) increased probability that the suit indeed breaks 5-0. > Now there is no need whatsoever to introduce a condition which says that claimer might be awoken by the contestation. This claim is faulty and will be ruled against, no matter what the information is that the contestation holds. Now imagine the same case, but with a lay-out such that the claim will be accepted even if the suit breaks 5-0. I have no idea what such a lay-out might be, but it will obviously entail claimer noticing that this suit does not break and a 100% recovery rate. Such a claim will be ruled in favour, regardles of the fact that Sven's condition applies. All I am saying, Sven, is that you have created a condition which is neither necessary nor sufficient for claim rulings. Yes, of course your condition will lead to more rulings against claimer than in his favour, but since there are non-empty classes in all four combinations, your rule has no value whatsoever. You might do better in teaching our fellow directors here in no longer maintaining it as a rule. > The claimer has been warned from an opponent contesting his claim that there > quite likely could be a bad break, this is UI to him and he shall not be > allowed to change his line of play from that information alone. > Again the completely wrongful use of the word UI. I shan't go into that one again. You don't want to learn anything from our exchanges. > I shall only allow him to change to the successful line of play if the bad > break must become revealed to him (when applying the specified line of play) > before it is too late to change. > So you apply the law - very well. Why then do you need to add a rule that does not conform to the law, and create an exception to that rule in order to conform to the law once again? Just drop your insistance that information arising from the contestation is in any way important. It is not. > A fact that the originally specified line of play may even have become > completely "irrational" in view of the possibility of a bad break does not > alter my opinion that he must have some event, some information from the > play as such and not only from an opponent contesting his claim to be > allowed a change to another line of play however "irrational" the originally > specified line of play is when we judge the situation as a whole. > Of course, such is the law - why do you keep insisting on this? My only problem with you, Sven, is that although you understand the law quite correctly, you insist on paraphrasing it in totally wrong ways. I know what you mean, and you know what exceptions there are to your "rule", but there are a lot of TDs out there who might read your "rule" and accept it as a substitute for the real law. You are proving them a disservice. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 7 18:27:21 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 7 18:26:49 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <000c01c5230f$2121c4f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c5230f$2121c4f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <422C8EF9.3080908@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Yes, if the only reason he has for discovering the need for another line of > play "could have been" the fact that his claim was contested I shall never > allow him to change to another (successful) line of play unless the need for > such change must become evident (in time to change) from how the play would > develop along his originally indicated line of play. > > We have absolutely no indication that he would have selected that successful > line of play had he not claimed because then he would not have been alerted > by an opponent contesting his claim. > But we don't need such an assertion. All we need is the fact that a particular -failing- line is a normal one. And that line is normal whether or not the claim was contested. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005 From ZCALSF at ita.es Mon Mar 7 18:25:57 2005 From: ZCALSF at ita.es (Shelby Nava) Date: Mon Mar 7 18:28:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Top Notch Mortgages made easy In-Reply-To: <3920929.00b0a2640@designs.com> Message-ID: <244.0@melbpc.org.au> Would you REFINANCE if you knew you'd save THOUSANDZ? Or get a Loan of 405,000.00, you already qualified. We'll get you the lowest possible rate. Don't believe me? Fill out our small online questionaire and we'll show you how. Get the home/house or car you always wanted, it only takes 35 seconds of your time. Click this link: http://www.your-re-finance.com/2/index/bvk Best Regards, Shelby Nava unite koe nihilist qx contradistinction guk parishioner dqq happen vb diana bpy bobolink sxt insidious jhb upkeep ebs contend yb derision ldz adulterate az http://your-re-finance.com/rem.php From schoderb at msn.com Mon Mar 7 18:37:58 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Mar 7 18:38:20 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal References: <000001c5209a$ed0ad650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <005301c52333$8c61efa0$7e974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Yes Grattan, I agree. The problem, as you describe it, does not include a complete statement. "Squeeze" by itself is not enough for me. I would make the declarer answer a series of questions as to what he would play when the affected defender(s) hand plays etc., etc., etc. Only if that statement were complete and accurate would I allow the squeeze. Unfortunately we did not have the opportunity for the TD to do that in Maastricht - though I still feel that THAT declarer would have gotten the answers right to the pertinent questions. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" ; "Sven Pran" Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > **************************** > "If it were done when 'tis done, > Then 'twere well it were done > quickly... " > ['Macbeth'] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:17 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal > > > > > > > > > Even a top flight player makes mistakes. If he > > > doesn't mention an important detail with his claim > > > statement he should know that the Director must > > > rule under the assumption that the player has > > > overlooked this detail and will fail to play successfully > > > on that item. > > > > +=+ I wonder if this is all that might be said. Let us take > the case of a skilled player who makes a claim, saying to > opponents that if they hold what their bidding has shown > (as indeed they do) he will make his contract on a > squeeze. He does not specify the precise order in which > he will play the cards. > Law 70D is then interesting. A normal line of play > would include a careless play. The question is whether > such careless play is excluded because not embraced > within the clarification statement or again because the > claimer has not proposed it (in which event we go to > 70E?). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Mon Mar 7 18:38:05 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Mar 7 18:38:27 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal References: <000e01c52321$89a8c840$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: I don't have a problem with the "gap." To me putting careless, inferior, and irrational into a continuum is a misuse of the language. You can be careless and irrational, inferior and irrational, careless and rational, and inferior and rational. The terms are like apples and oranges -- both fruits but far from being steps in a continuum. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 9:25 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER .............. > There is the "nut" for me in applying the law and taking into > account the footnote. The original statement was clearly and > intentionally constructed so that irrational was separated from > careless or inferior -- therefore the "for me" above has nothing > to do with rationality. Unfortunately the WBFLC has muddied the > waters by removing the comma. Without a statement to which of > lines of play available he is taking, the claimer can carelessly > and inferiorly take the losing one - to which I will help him. Personally I would prefer "irrational" to be an absolute term not associated with "class of player". Unfortunately the terms "careless" and "inferior" are indeed associated with "class of player" and were so also before the revision of the laws in 1997. Unless we want there to be an undefined "gap" (or an undesirable overlap) we must accept that either all or none of these terms shall be associated with "class of players" or we must introduce still another term to handle such gap/overlap. I am not easily convinced when a player claims that some action would be "irrational" for him unless that same action would indeed be irrational for (almost) any player (regardless of his class) in the same situation. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Mon Mar 7 19:53:21 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon Mar 7 20:26:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play References: <000d01c5231f$772d8f40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006601c5234b$9ef98840$3d493dd4@c6l8v1> > > > Many times I have heard invoked that a call wasn't made due to the player > not 'removing' the bidding card or the bidding card not touching the table. > Typically my reaction was that I disagree- if bidding were spoken, wouldn't > the corresponding point of no return have past? And isn't it right to hold > the player accountable? > > I point out that a large part of the difference in view point is the [lack > of] wisdom displayed in the relevant regulation. The regulation encourages > such behavior so it proliferates. > > Like in chess, a player in the Netherlands has to touch a bidding card not before he has decided what call he wants to make. A call is deemed made when the card(s) has left the bidding box. Replacing or touching cards is UI. Ben From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Mon Mar 7 20:25:58 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon Mar 7 20:26:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play References: <00d501c52193$a4fbc640$88493dd4@c6l8v1><003401c52307$7607e7e0$4d063dd4@c6l8v1> <12ZCRJAAVFLCFwfm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <006701c5234b$9f4d74a0$3d493dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 2:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer play > Ben Schelen wrote > >From: "David Stevenson" > > >> That is hardly helpful. Are you saying that everyone who changes > >> their call when they see they have the wrong one out should be topped? > > >That is not my point. > >My point is: Declarer designates a card and he realises . . . > >Two actions at the same time? Hardly possible, that must be one after the > >other. > > Exactly. You designate a card, then you realise it is wrong. It is > understood generally that this is the normal action. Everyone now > allows an inadvertent action to be changed so long a there is no pause > for thought after the *realisation*. > > >In the Netherlands we learned to act like hawks: > > > > A Q > > > > > > 3 2 > > > >Declarer wants to finesse and plays small to the queen. > >He starts saying qu before west can follow. > >West plays the king and declarer bends his wording immediately to quace. > >We regard this as a change of mind: so there was a time for thought. > > It is completely irrelevant whether there is a pause for thought: it > is a change of mind. It is only inadvertent actions that may be > changed. > > >Our interpretation is that thought is far more important than time. > > I think you are mixing interpretations. > > You may only change inadvertent designations: you may do so if there > is no pause for thought from the realisation you have designated the > wrong thing. > > I try to follow you: it is up to the director to find out what is going on. The problem is when the player realises that he made a wrong decision because he was inattended. Is realising not away of recognizing, awaking? Ben From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 7 20:26:55 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 7 20:26:19 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: References: <000e01c52321$89a8c840$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <422CAAFF.2010906@hdw.be> Sorry Kojak, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > I don't have a problem with the "gap." To me putting careless, inferior, > and irrational into a continuum is a misuse of the language. You can be > careless and irrational, inferior and irrational, careless and rational, and > inferior and rational. The terms are like apples and oranges -- both fruits > but far from being steps in a continuum. > Kojak > Sorry, but you are forgetting one thing. We are not talking about a continuum but about a dichotomy, that of "normal" vs "non-normal". So we have to define one of these terms, and we have done so. I agree that the words still leave us with a bit of a problem about just where to draw the line, but that is where experience helps us. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005 From adam at tameware.com Mon Mar 7 20:26:05 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon Mar 7 20:26:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Orlando cases posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:28 PM -0500 3/6/05, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>At 7:55 PM -0500 2/26/05, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>>I've posted the case write-ups from the Fall NABC under my bridge >>>laws page at >>> >> http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/orlando2004 >> >>I've now posted my comments on the appeals from NABC+ events. As >>always, your remarks, corrections, and suggestions are welcome. > >No remarks yet. Surely not everyone agrees with me! Todd Zimnoch sent some helpful suggestions. Thanks Todd! As a result I've updated my comments on cases R-2, R-3, N-5, N-9, and N-12. I've also updated the ACBL's document to make it clear that "The Appeal" section from case N-16 is missing and is expected to be available later. -- Adam Wildavsky http://www.tameware.com From wayne at ebridgenz.com Mon Mar 7 20:49:19 2005 From: wayne at ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Mar 7 20:49:05 2005 Subject: [blml] System Regulations Message-ID: <422CB03F.6080303@ebridgenz.com> I am looking for any similar regulations to the following New Zealand regulations. Does anyone know of other places where there are restrictions of the following types. These regulations occur as part of the New Zealand HUM or Brown Sticker regulations. This means that systems that exhibit these features can only be played in teams-type matches in which 8 or more boards are played against the same pair: 1. 1NT openings are prohibited if they could contain a singleton "An opening 1NT bid which either could be less than 8 high card points or where the possibility of a singleton is more than just a rare exception. If however 1NT promises at least 17 HCP then any distribution is permitted;" 2. Strong constructive artificial openings are categorized as Brown Sticker Conventions "An opening bid of 2C up to and including 3S, which does not promise at least one specified suit of at least 4 cards" Note on this last point other regulations such as the WBF regulations have the additional condition that the opening needs to be weak before it is classified as Brown Sticker. "2.4 Brown Sticker Conventions and Treatments The following conventions or treatments are categorised as 'Brown Sticker': a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that: i) could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below average strength) AND ii) does not promise at least four cards in a known suit." WBF regulation. TIA Wayne From gvupwlarqma at utilitran.com Mon Mar 7 22:30:31 2005 From: gvupwlarqma at utilitran.com (Luther Quintero) Date: Mon Mar 7 22:31:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Dont let age deter you from great sex! Message-ID: <1024462514.9995.11.camel@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050307/49ee01f1/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 7 23:00:02 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Mar 7 23:00:53 2005 Subject: [blml] System Regulations In-Reply-To: <422CB03F.6080303@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows anathematises New Zealand system regulations: [snip] >2. Strong constructive artificial openings are categorised >as Brown Sticker Conventions > >"An opening bid of 2C up to and including 3S, which does >not promise at least one specified suit of at least 4 cards" > >Note on this last point other regulations such as the WBF >regulations have the additional condition that the opening >needs to be weak before it is classified as Brown Sticker. [snip] Richard Hills pedagogy: So the New Zealand sponsoring authority made a typographical error when adapting the WBF Brown Sticker regulation for local use. That is no justification for recusancy; a simple proof-reading note to the New Zealand authorities will correct their nescience. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Mon Mar 7 23:05:35 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon Mar 7 23:03:03 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <001401c52324$b3117df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > ................ > > I should thnik that it is the Law [in its entirety] that is relevant. > > There are three relevant passages > > [a] 45C4- a designated card must be played; > > [b] 45D- an uncorrected misplayed card by dummy must be played/ > > not withdrawn. > > As such the law says that dummy has contributed two cards to the trick. > > [c] The Definitions state that the first card played to a trick is the > > lead which resolves whether it was a C or a S trick. There also is > > [d] 67 which goes about remedying a trick where a player has > > contributed more than one card. > > > > imo a process that is a bit tortous. I am basically in agreement with Roger here, as I said in a previous post of my own. > Sure it is, but only because you do not read the laws correctly: > > Your [b] L45D says that a card misplayed by Dummy must be corrected "if > attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick" > > This condition is not satisfied here so Law 45D does not apply in this case I think Roger correctly read 45D. He specifically said that the club *could not be* withdrawn - because the time period in 45D had expired. > and Dummy has not contributed more than one card to the trick in question. That is where we disagree. It's a reasonable disagreement, I can see both sides of it. Declarer designated a spade. To some of us, the spade becomes a played card as soon as declarer speaks. (For instance, if defender plays after declarer calls but before dummy moves the card into the played position, this is a valid play, not a premature play nor a lead out of turn.) In our view, dummy committed an irregularity (failing to fulfill the "after" part of 45B, and moving a club to the played position instead.) If someone protests immediately, the club is put back and we have a perfectly normal spade trick. If no-one notices until 45D expires.... now some of us think we have a normal spade trick with an extra CA stuck in the middle of it, and some of us think we have a club lead. > The card actually played by Dummy is the card played whether or not it was > the card designated by declarer because nobody called attention to the > irregularity in time. We agree the club has been played if noone calls attention in time. We just don't agree that dummy can "un-play" the spade by not turning it over. GRB From blml at blakjak.com Tue Mar 8 01:07:34 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Mar 8 01:09:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play In-Reply-To: <006701c5234b$9f4d74a0$3d493dd4@c6l8v1> References: <00d501c52193$a4fbc640$88493dd4@c6l8v1> <003401c52307$7607e7e0$4d063dd4@c6l8v1> <12ZCRJAAVFLCFwfm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006701c5234b$9f4d74a0$3d493dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: Ben Schelen wrote > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 2:21 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer play > > >> Ben Schelen wrote >> >From: "David Stevenson" >> >> >> That is hardly helpful. Are you saying that everyone who changes >> >> their call when they see they have the wrong one out should be topped? >> >> >That is not my point. >> >My point is: Declarer designates a card and he realises . . . >> >Two actions at the same time? Hardly possible, that must be one after the >> >other. >> >> Exactly. You designate a card, then you realise it is wrong. It is >> understood generally that this is the normal action. Everyone now >> allows an inadvertent action to be changed so long a there is no pause >> for thought after the *realisation*. >> >> >In the Netherlands we learned to act like hawks: >> > >> > A Q >> > >> > >> > 3 2 >> > >> >Declarer wants to finesse and plays small to the queen. >> >He starts saying qu before west can follow. >> >West plays the king and declarer bends his wording immediately to quace. >> >We regard this as a change of mind: so there was a time for thought. >> >> It is completely irrelevant whether there is a pause for thought: it >> is a change of mind. It is only inadvertent actions that may be >> changed. >> >> >Our interpretation is that thought is far more important than time. >> >> I think you are mixing interpretations. >> >> You may only change inadvertent designations: you may do so if there >> is no pause for thought from the realisation you have designated the >> wrong thing. >> >> >I try to follow you: it is up to the director to find out what is going on. >The problem is when the player realises that he made a wrong decision >because he was inattended. >Is realising not away of recognizing, awaking? Yes. You make a mistake. You know you have made a mistake when you realise that you have made the mistake. Now the interpretation generally accepted is that once you realise you have made a mistake you may not pause for thought before trying to change it, also the mistake must be of a type - an inadvertent call/designation. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From mcginnis at kentucky.com Mon Mar 7 09:23:33 2005 From: mcginnis at kentucky.com (mcginnis@kentucky.com) Date: Tue Mar 8 01:24:40 2005 Subject: [blml] International Asc. Message-ID: <199723439.43080247757644@kentucky.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050308/d48343f5/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 6662 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050308/d48343f5/attachment.gif From JMLUWTRFSTYZXZ at segl.dk Tue Mar 8 01:39:24 2005 From: JMLUWTRFSTYZXZ at segl.dk (Isidro Dunham) Date: Tue Mar 8 01:45:18 2005 Subject: [blml] no more red light tickets! Message-ID: <104004553237.camel@naldoco> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050308/65a65216/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 8 02:43:20 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 8 02:43:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Is Law 25A insufficient? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2NT(1) Pass 2H(2) 4S(3) Pass(4) Pass(5) (6) (1) 21-22 balanced (2) Intended as an opening bid of a weak 2 in hearts - TD summoned - TD determines that a sufficient bid of 3H would be a transfer to spades - so TD rules that North must pass for the rest of the auction and South can correct their insufficient bid to any call that they want. (3) Confused by the mention of a transfer to spades, South inadvertently corrects to 4S with their weak 2 in hearts. (4) In tempo pass with a spade stack. (5) In tempo pass in accordance with Law 28A - RHO Required to Pass. (6) South now wishes to invoke Law 25A - Immediate Correction of Inadvertency - which South is entitled to do if North has not yet passed. How do you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 8 03:02:03 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Mar 8 03:02:40 2005 Subject: [blml] 61 B :) In-Reply-To: <200503071513.j27FDU8A029087@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200503071513.j27FDU8A029087@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <422D079B.4030806@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "GUTHRIE" > (A) Is the consistency rule enforced in jurisdictions that > relax law 61B? (in particular, how frequent are such rulings > in major tournaments)? In my experience, rulings are rare largely because problems are rare -- practically nonexistent in decent competition. Rulings are also rare on skip bid pauses, despite problems being more than an order of magnitude more common. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 8 03:12:38 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Mar 8 03:13:11 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <200503071514.j27FEpvR029209@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200503071514.j27FEpvR029209@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <422D0A16.3040502@cfa.harvard.edu> [declarer calls for a spade, but dummy puts C-A in played position, and nobody notices for a few tricks] > From: David Stevenson > L45B does not tell you that the spade was played. It tells you what > is done to make it played - declarer's statement, dummy's physical > action - but that has not happened. So you think both the statement and physical action are needed before the spade is played? But then why doesn't that apply equally to the club, for which there has been physical action but no statement? > L45D refers to when a wrong card may be withdrawn. So it is an > obvious inference that if it may not be withdrawn under this Law ***then > it has not been withdrawn** - the text in L45D does not make sense > otherwise. Thus the CA is played and may not be withdrawn. Why not also the spade? (There is no problem if you read L45B the way I do; it has indeed been played and may not be withdrawn.) It seems odd that dummy can play a card despite declarer's designation of a different card. Grattan: I know the hour is late, but could you possibly put it in your notebook to consider adding a new sentence to L45D saying what happens if dummy's misplay is not noticed in time to correct it? P.S. I shall be on vacation for the next two weeks, including the last four days of the Pittsburgh NABC. If anyone notices my name on a convention card or otherwise, please introduce yourself and say hello. It would be nice to meet other BLML readers there. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 8 03:20:47 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Mar 8 03:21:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play In-Reply-To: <200503071625.j27GPQDh005837@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200503071625.j27GPQDh005837@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <422D0BFF.809@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > I have not seen a single law or regulation (except the unlucky Law 25B which > I feel pretty confident will disappear with the next revision) that allowed > a player to change his mind however fast he did so. It has been awhile, and perhaps I'm wrong, but you might want to refer to Kaplan's commentary on the 1987 Law changes. One of the changes was in L25A, supposedly making it more liberal in allowing changes. In those days, the emphasis was on "without pause" and in 1987 "without pause for thought." A change was always allowed provided it was attempted within the relevant time frame. Sometime after 1987, the emphasis shifted to "inadvertent," i.e., the player's intention when making the call. At least that was the history in the ACBL; I have no knowledge of practices elsewhere. I still wish we could go back to a rule by which the player's intention had no effect on the ruling. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 8 03:41:08 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Mar 8 03:41:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play In-Reply-To: <003401c52307$7607e7e0$4d063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <866D760A-8F7B-11D9-8CE8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Mar 7, 2005, at 04:24 US/Eastern, Ben Schelen wrote: > We regard this as a change of mind: so there was a time for thought. Isn't this backwards? The laws requires a "pause for thought" to disallow the change. You seem to be saying you want to disallow it, so you rule there *must have been* a pause. Doesn't seem right to me. :-( From coachuhhar at free-scripts.net Tue Mar 8 01:27:07 2005 From: coachuhhar at free-scripts.net (eulalia bennett) Date: Tue Mar 8 03:55:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Health Update Message-ID: Your Body is No Longer Your Prison. Visit here to increase your quality of life http://ptw.F63n.productdelightsite.com/o/ I haven't had a cold or flu since starting with this Axis spray. Doug G., Milwaukee, WI not now, then the post office address is listed in link Fatality was not significantly different Failures were significantly more common with combination therapy Among all trials we found no evidence for any potential prevention of infection by resistant isolates with combination therapy . Why, oh why did not some intelligent person strike the Master Key! he moaned That's it! exclaimed Rob. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 8 07:03:30 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 8 07:04:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Orlando cases posted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >I've also updated the ACBL's document to make it clear >that "The Appeal" section from case N-16 is missing and >is expected to be available later. CASE N-16 Subject: MI DIC: Steve Bates Reisinger Teams 1st Semi-Final [RJH note - point-a-board scoring, overtricks significant] Brd: 15 Adam Wildavsky Dlr: South T9 Vul: NS KJT9 A85 \ A632 \ \ Larry Cohen \ David Berkowitz AQ8652 \ 7 6 \ Q87542 K76 \ T432 K94 \J8 \ Doug Doub \ KJ43 A3 QJ9 QT75 West North East South --- --- --- 1NT(1) 2D(2) Dbl(3) 2H(4) Pass 2S 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 (2) Hearts or Spades (3) "cards" (4) See Facts below The Facts: The final contract was 3NT making 3 for +600 after a spade was led. The director was called after the round ended. When asked about the 2H bid, East said Hearts. West said he was unsure but that over pass (instead of double) it would be pass or correct. The Ruling: The director decided that EW did not have an agreement as to the meaning of the 2H bid resulting in MI. This is not an unusual auction and EW are expected to have discussed it. Damage to NS resulted so the score was adjusted to +630, Law 75C. The Appeal: {missing} The Decision: The Committee changed the contract back to 3NT making 3 for +600 for NW and -600 for EW. The Committee: Michael Huston, non-voting Chairperson, Mike Passell, Danny Sprung, Eddie Wold, Jeff Roman, and Chris Moll. * * * Richard Hills notes: A few interesting features here. (1) Adam Wildavsky and his partner sensibly use the weak 1NT opening even at adverse vulnerability. Among other advantages, a weak 1NT preemptively cramps the opponents' auction (as Berkowitz-Cohen showed on this deal with their ambiguous groping for the best spot). (2) The TD's ruling was apparently influenced by the idiosyncratic ACBL regulation that it is illegal for a partnership to fail to discuss "usual auctions". In my opinion, that ACBL regulation itself would be illegal if it were not for the idiosyncratic WBF LC official interpretation of Law 80F. In my opinion, the idiosyncratic WBF LC official interpretation of Law 80F would be illegal if "L'etat, c'est moi" did not apply to WBF LC interpretation of the Laws. Of course, my opinion is merely a semantic quibble. The language of the Laws will be harmonised with the intent of the Laws when a "plain English" edition of the Laws is promulgated in late 2006 or early 2007. (3) The TD did not consider an split score of +630 for North-South and -800 for 2Sx for East-West. Even in a point-a-board event, it might be "at all probable" for North - without MI - to make another card-showing double and "at all probable" for South - without MI - to pass North's double of 2S - and "at all probable" for North-South to time their defence to avoid being endplayed for a penalty of only 500 and/or for West to mistime his declarer play. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 8 07:49:05 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 8 07:49:42 2005 Subject: [blml] 61 B :) In-Reply-To: <037101c522ac$a49d03c0$0a9868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: >(B) When following suit in such jurisdictions, what is the >most popular signalling method? Count, Attitude, Suit >preference, or Smith? Richard Hills: Almost a meaningless question, since different bridge cultures and sub-cultures have different traditions. But according to Rosler & Rubens in their classic book on signals, "Journalist Leads", American experts (more or less) tend to prefer attitude signals and European experts (more or less) tend to prefer count signals. However, this tendency antedates the 1987 introduction of Law 61B, so cannot have developed as a response to Zonal options for Law 61B. Contrariwise, Edgar Kaplan noted that the pre-1987 Law 61 permitted "extraneous count" signals. This would mesh better with notional attitude signals. Asking "no hearts, partner?" is useless when playing Vinje count signals, since you already have a count of partner's hand. Historical records from the 1950s suggest that "That Old Black Magic" of deliberate use of UI was as much a problem in Europe as it was in the ACBL. But anecdotal evidence suggests that it was not until the 1960s that senior ACBL bridge icons started criticising use of UI, while senior English bridge icons - such as Maurice Harrison-Gray - were already publicly decrying use of UI in the 1950s. On yet another hand, one reason that I prefer automatic natural count signals when defending against suit contracts is that my autopilot selection of a card minimises any UI to pard. If I played natural attitude signals, I would be more likely to inadvertently vary tempo and constrain my partner's options. The intrinsic design of some signalling methods, such as Roman signals or Encrypted signals, causes more inadvertent variation of tempo than most other signalling methods. This is one of the reasons why some jurisdictions prohibit the use of Roman signals and/or Encrypted signals under their Law 40D power to regulate conventions. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Tue Mar 8 08:39:00 2005 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue Mar 8 08:39:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Is Law 25A insufficient? Message-ID: <1D8ZIk-0fJSZU0@fwd16.sul.t-online.de> Hi, wrote: > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2NT(1) Pass 2H(2) > 4S(3) > Pass(4) Pass(5) (6) > > > (1) 21-22 balanced > > (2) Intended as an opening bid of a > weak 2 in hearts - TD summoned - > TD determines that a sufficient > bid of 3H would be a transfer to > spades - so TD rules that North > must pass for the rest of the > auction and South can correct > their insufficient bid to any > call that they want. > > (3) Confused by the mention of a > transfer to spades, South > inadvertently corrects to 4S > with their weak 2 in hearts. > > (4) In tempo pass with a spade stack. > > (5) In tempo pass in accordance with > Law 28A - RHO Required to Pass. > > (6) South now wishes to invoke Law > 25A - Immediate Correction of > Inadvertency - which South is > entitled to do if North has not > yet passed. > > How do you rule? Confusion is not a valid argument in a 25A case. The 4S bid does not make much sense, but at the time (s)he bid it, (s)he wanted to bid 4S. This is a typical 25B case, when you realize a silly mistake; like passing a cuebid or the answer to RCKB. For 25B the timelimit has passed, so let South play 4S. BTW For the purpose of the timelimit in L 25A I would assume the time East bids or a 'normal' time after West has bid - whatever comes first. Regards Peter Eidt > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and general guru > From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 8 08:42:24 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 8 08:41:50 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <422D5760.6040003@hdw.be> I have not been following this thread in detail, but I'll add my opinion to the question that seems to be remaining: Gordon Bower wrote: > > > That is where we disagree. It's a reasonable disagreement, I can see both > sides of it. > > Declarer designated a spade. To some of us, the spade becomes a played > card as soon as declarer speaks. (For instance, if defender plays after > declarer calls but before dummy moves the card into the played position, > this is a valid play, not a premature play nor a lead out of turn.) In our > view, dummy committed an irregularity (failing to fulfill the "after" part > of 45B, and moving a club to the played position instead.) If someone > protests immediately, the club is put back and we have a perfectly normal > spade trick. If no-one notices until 45D expires.... now some of us think > we have a normal spade trick with an extra CA stuck in the middle of it, > and some of us think we have a club lead. > > >>The card actually played by Dummy is the card played whether or not it was >>the card designated by declarer because nobody called attention to the >>irregularity in time. > > > We agree the club has been played if noone calls attention in time. We > just don't agree that dummy can "un-play" the spade by not turning it > over. > It is clear that L45 is one of those laws where the WBF has said what should happen if some condition applies, but not what to do if it doesn't. Perhaps a bit sloppy, but I would propose to keep things simple. If they don't say what should happen, then by all means interpret that as being the contrary of what they say should happen when the condition does apply. So L45D says: if the wrong play is noticed before each side has played to the next trick, then the wrong play must be restored. I conclude: if it is not noticed until after that time, the wrong play may not be restored. So the CA has now become the played card, it is a club trick, some people have revoked to it, and yes, the dummy can un-play a played card, but only if there are 5 other cards played afterwards without any of 3 players noticing! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 8 08:48:28 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 8 08:47:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Is Law 25A insufficient? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <422D58CC.2070204@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2NT(1) Pass 2H(2) > 4S(3) > Pass(4) Pass(5) (6) > > > (1) 21-22 balanced > > (2) Intended as an opening bid of a > weak 2 in hearts - TD summoned - > TD determines that a sufficient > bid of 3H would be a transfer to > spades - so TD rules that North > must pass for the rest of the > auction and South can correct > their insufficient bid to any > call that they want. > > (3) Confused by the mention of a > transfer to spades, South > inadvertently corrects to 4S > with their weak 2 in hearts. > > (4) In tempo pass with a spade stack. > > (5) In tempo pass in accordance with > Law 28A - RHO Required to Pass. > > (6) South now wishes to invoke Law > 25A - Immediate Correction of > Inadvertency - which South is > entitled to do if North has not > yet passed. > > How do you rule? > Easy - South has not yet passed! West has passed, and this pass is not considered out of turn, but that does not mean South has also passed. South is required to pass, and he must do so. But he hasn't (yet). I would not allow South to wait for an inordinate amount of time, but if North is still judged to be within L25A territory, then South probably has not waited too long. The problem can continue, even. East could produce an opening lead. Still we could rule this way. But if South now produces a dummy, I would say that he has now completed the auction and indicated he has indeed passed and simply forgot to produce a green card for that. (the way third passes are sometimes forgotten but implied through further action). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005 From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Mar 8 08:50:20 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Mar 8 08:50:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Is Law 25A insufficient? Message-ID: <20050308075020.70B6C173E73@poczta.interia.pl> richard.hills@immi.gov.au napisa?(a): > > > > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2NT(1) Pass 2H(2) > 4S(3) > Pass(4) Pass(5) (6) > > > (1) 21-22 balanced > > (2) Intended as an opening bid of a > weak 2 in hearts - TD summoned - > TD determines that a sufficient > bid of 3H would be a transfer to > spades - so TD rules that North > must pass for the rest of the > auction and South can correct > their insufficient bid to any > call that they want. > > (3) Confused by the mention of a > transfer to spades, South > inadvertently corrects to 4S > with their weak 2 in hearts. > > (4) In tempo pass with a spade stack. > > (5) In tempo pass in accordance with > Law 28A - RHO Required to Pass. > > (6) South now wishes to invoke Law > 25A - Immediate Correction of > Inadvertency - which South is > entitled to do if North has not > yet passed. I rule that North *has* passed. I also rule that the change was not immediate - a slip of mind rather than a slip of tongue. In any way - no L25A. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Portal z najlepsza wyszukiwarka! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1861 From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Mar 8 10:28:29 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Mar 8 10:29:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Is Law 25A insufficient? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <038f3f61eaf1ef9fc95cd94bba4f4cad@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 8 Mar 2005, at 01:43, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2NT(1) Pass 2H(2) > 4S(3) > Pass(4) Pass(5) (6) > > > (1) 21-22 balanced > > (2) Intended as an opening bid of a > weak 2 in hearts - TD summoned - > TD determines that a sufficient > bid of 3H would be a transfer to > spades - so TD rules that North > must pass for the rest of the > auction and South can correct > their insufficient bid to any > call that they want. > > (3) Confused by the mention of a > transfer to spades, South > inadvertently corrects to 4S > with their weak 2 in hearts. I think we'd have to investigate more to establish inadvertency. > > (4) In tempo pass with a spade stack. > > (5) In tempo pass in accordance with > Law 28A - RHO Required to Pass. Did North not Pass? L27B2 tells us that North must Pass (not that North is assumed to have passed), so the director should be on hand to check that it happens. > > (6) South now wishes to invoke Law > 25A - Immediate Correction of > Inadvertency - which South is > entitled to do if North has not > yet passed. It seems North has not yet passed, so that condition for correction is fulfilled. We still need to see whether we're satisfied about the inadvertency, and the 'without pause for thought'. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From egeovqwozq at cerebralsource.com Tue Mar 8 11:02:26 2005 From: egeovqwozq at cerebralsource.com (Benjamin Purvis) Date: Tue Mar 8 11:05:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Top Notch Credit Loans made simple Message-ID: <345901141618.AA1484886@client.comcast.net> Dear Homeowner, You have been pre-approved for a $402,000 Home Loan at 3.45% Fixed Rate. This offer is being extended to you unconditionally and your credit is in no way a factor. To take Advantage of this Limited Time opportunity all we ask is that you visit our Website and complete the 1 minute post Approval Form. http://www.easy-finances.net/1/index/bvk Best Regards, Benjamin Purvis Regional CEO crowley ki hyperboloidal sij white rkm freckle nul blight urs docile iq clutch ju ancestral ov http://your-re-finance.com/rem.php From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 8 12:32:23 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 8 12:31:45 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <422D8D47.50903@hdw.be> Gordon Bower wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>So L45D says: >>if the wrong play is noticed before each side has played to the next >>trick, then the wrong play must be restored. >>I conclude: >>if it is not noticed until after that time, the wrong play may not be >>restored. > > > We reached that same inference. That is how we reach L67, by agreeing the > club is played. We just also feel the spade remains played too. > I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion. If we agree that the law is incomplete in not saying that the CA remains the played card, can we not also agree that the law is incomplete in not saying that the spade is now "not played"? Surely you cannot now rule that dummy is no longer allowed to play that spade since it has already been "played" before. Surely you do not suggest that the law now forces dummy to play this card at the earliest opportunity, or that you are left with a trick with one card, or a trick with five of them, or any other such nonsense. So I would rule that the spade has not been played. It has indeed, as has been so called, been "un-played". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.4 - Release Date: 7/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 8 12:41:46 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 8 12:41:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Is Law 25A insufficient? In-Reply-To: <20050308075020.70B6C173E73@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050308075020.70B6C173E73@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <422D8F7A.5040009@hdw.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > I rule that North *has* passed. You might rule that but I believe you would be wrong > I also rule that the change was not > immediate - a slip of mind rather > than a slip of tongue. That is up to the TD to decide - he can certainly make the difference between a mental error and a manual one. And for the sake of the case here on blml, it is far more interesting that he'd rule inadvertent, because only then the question of whether or not North has passed becomes important. > In any way - no L25A. > could be your decision if you rule north has passed. You should defer to the table director on the question of inadvertency. > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.4 - Release Date: 7/03/2005 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 8 12:02:51 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Mar 8 12:48:34 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal References: <000001c5209a$ed0ad650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <005301c52333$8c61efa0$7e974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <007401c523d4$59047370$13b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If it were done when 'tis done, Then 'twere well it were done quickly... " ['Macbeth'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Sven Pran" ; "Endicott Grattan" Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal > Yes Grattan, I agree. The problem, as you describe it, does > not include a complete statement. "Squeeze" by itself is not > enough for me. I would make the declarer answer a series > of questions as to what he would play when the affected > defender(s) hand plays etc., etc., etc. Only if that statement > were complete and accurate would I allow the squeeze. > Unfortunately we did not have the opportunity for the TD to > do that in Maastricht - though I still feel that THAT declarer > would have gotten the answers right to the pertinent > questions. > > Kojak < +=+ Hmmm... "answer a series of questions" ... is this not inviting him to add to the original statement? Quote: "The Director requires the claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim" Quote: "Next, the Director requires all players to put their remaining cards face up on the table" Quote: "The Director then hears the opponents' objections to the claim" We then go on to 70C...D...E. Where is the authority to question the claimer before adjudicating the claim? If it is not clear from the original statement of clarification what is included in the statement, does it not fail? - especially so when the claimer is an advanced player? As for Maastricht, the WBFLC minute says: "On the occasion in question the appeals committee found that the intended play was entirely clear from the statement, but in any case the continued play was void and could not affect the issue." This stops short of saying that the appeals committee was right - the WBFLC should in any case not seek to judge the facts of a case, only to establish the principles of law, and here it is saying that the appeals committee did not err in the principles it applied. The judgemental issue is one entirely for the appeals committee; it is as a member of the standing appeals committee that, after long reflection, I reach a position as to the ruling in the particular case by some of my colleagues and others on the appeals committee. As I did not hear the evidence I cannot, even then, say they were wrong; all I can do is to clarify in my mind the process to be followed. As for what the Director should do, this is a matter for the CTD; it is by no means necessarily identical with what the AC should do. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 8 12:42:43 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Mar 8 12:48:37 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal References: <200503071514.j27FEpvR029209@cfa.harvard.edu> <422D0A16.3040502@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <007501c523d4$5a29b990$13b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If it were done when 'tis done, Then 'twere well it were done quickly... " ['Macbeth'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 2:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal > > Grattan: I know the hour is late, but could you > possibly put it in your notebook to consider adding > a new sentence to L45D saying what happens if > dummy's misplay is not noticed in time to correct it? > +=+ I have not been following this thread, thinking it a Directors' procedures item rather than a question of law. But when shortening the blml folder my name suddenly jumped out at me! Declarer has called for a Spade. Dummy, mishearing, places a club; play continues for more than the completion of the trick on which the irregularity occurred. Is that it? Are we minded that the club is an illegal play? Has anyone discussed the effect of Law 45D, *compelling* the change of the card up to the point at which both sides play to the next trick, as compared with the effect of Law 47B, *permitting* the withdrawal (without time limit) of an illegal play? What has been the argument on this? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Mar 8 13:31:45 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Mar 8 13:32:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Is Law 25A insufficient? Message-ID: <20050308123145.5D76E173E6C@poczta.interia.pl> Herman De Wael napisa?(a): > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > > > > > I rule that North *has* passed. > > You might rule that but I believe you would be wrong > What about L28A? After RHO's bid it is too late for L25A. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Portal z najlepsza wyszukiwarka! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1861 From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 8 13:42:26 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Mar 8 13:42:59 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <007501c523d4$5a29b990$13b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000201c523dc$48d345f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott ............. > +=+ I have not been following this thread, thinking it > a Directors' procedures item rather than a question of > law. But when shortening the blml folder my name > suddenly jumped out at me! > Declarer has called for a Spade. Dummy, mishearing, > places a club; play continues for more than the completion > of the trick on which the irregularity occurred. Is that it? > Are we minded that the club is an illegal play? Has > anyone discussed the effect of Law 45D, *compelling* > the change of the card up to the point at which both sides > play to the next trick, as compared with the effect of > Law 47B, *permitting* the withdrawal (without time limit) > of an illegal play? > What has been the argument on this? I think the main "problem" is: What is the status on declarer's play of a spade after it is too late to apply Law 45D? We have "only" inference from Law 45D to make us consider this card as not having been played. Law 45D does not explicitly state that the card called by declarer has not been played in such cases. This question is especially important in the case of an opponent following suit with a spade and not discovering that Dummy instead had played a club. Should he for instance be subject to a revoke penalty? Regards Sven From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Tue Mar 8 13:59:17 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue Mar 8 14:15:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play References: <866D760A-8F7B-11D9-8CE8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <009301c523e0$ff49cbc0$77063dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 3:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer play > > On Monday, Mar 7, 2005, at 04:24 US/Eastern, Ben Schelen wrote: > > > We regard this as a change of mind: so there was a time for thought. > > Isn't this backwards? The laws requires a "pause for thought" to > disallow the change. You seem to be saying you want to disallow it, so > you rule there *must have been* a pause. Doesn't seem right to me. :-( > > No time, just thought. The thought is not allowed, independent of the time. Ben From schoderb at msn.com Tue Mar 8 14:27:33 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Mar 8 14:28:07 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal References: <000001c5209a$ed0ad650$6900a8c0@WINXP><005301c52333$8c61efa0$7e974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> <007401c523d4$59047370$13b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Hmm - no Grattan it is not giving the claimer a chance to add to his/her original claim. I know better than that. It is an unfortunate choice of words, by me. My "series of questions" was meant to elicit an explanation of the word "squeeze." Once this is effected, then we move to the second step as outlined in the laws, should the opponent's continue to object. Many times this no longer becomes necessary when the opponents understand or "see" the claim. As you well know, I am familiar with Law 70, having had ample opportunity to use it, and am not proposing some exotic departure. It is analogous to my dislike of answers to questions at other times like "Lebensohl" "Baron" "reverse Drury" "Smolen" and the host of other names used as shorthand instead of explanation, by giving the claimer the opportunity to explain in more specific words. It also gives me the opportunity to determine if the demand/request to "play it out" was made with full understanding and knowledge that the claim is valid, which could be violation of Law 74 A 2 and more specifically 74 B 4. Unfortunately, gamesmanship is not foreign to bridge. As to your words on the ACs, I generally agree. My statutory and sole interest in the ruling on an appeal by an AC is that the AC not try to overrule on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of disciplinary powers, as required by Law 93 B 3. Though I believe it is inferred in 93 B 3, nowhere do I find in the Laws that the AC's judgement is otherwise constrained, nor would I so suggest. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" ; "WILLIAM SCHODER" Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 6:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > **************************** > "If it were done when 'tis done, > Then 'twere well it were done > quickly... " > ['Macbeth'] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" ; "Sven Pran" ; > "Endicott Grattan" > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 5:37 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal > > > > Yes Grattan, I agree. The problem, as you describe it, does > > not include a complete statement. "Squeeze" by itself is not > > enough for me. I would make the declarer answer a series > > of questions as to what he would play when the affected > > defender(s) hand plays etc., etc., etc. Only if that statement > > were complete and accurate would I allow the squeeze. > > Unfortunately we did not have the opportunity for the TD to > > do that in Maastricht - though I still feel that THAT declarer > > would have gotten the answers right to the pertinent > > questions. > > > > Kojak > < > +=+ Hmmm... "answer a series of questions" ... is this not > inviting him to add to the original statement? > Quote: "The Director requires the claimer to repeat the > clarification statement he made at the time of his claim" > Quote: "Next, the Director requires all players to put > their remaining cards face up on the table" > Quote: "The Director then hears the opponents' > objections to the claim" > We then go on to 70C...D...E. Where is the authority > to question the claimer before adjudicating the claim? If it is > not clear from the original statement of clarification what is > included in the statement, does it not fail? - especially so > when the claimer is an advanced player? > As for Maastricht, the WBFLC minute says: "On the > occasion in question the appeals committee found that the > intended play was entirely clear from the statement, but in > any case the continued play was void and could not affect > the issue." This stops short of saying that the appeals > committee was right - the WBFLC should in any case not > seek to judge the facts of a case, only to establish the > principles of law, and here it is saying that the appeals > committee did not err in the principles it applied. The > judgemental issue is one entirely for the appeals committee; > it is as a member of the standing appeals committee that, > after long reflection, I reach a position as to the ruling in > the particular case by some of my colleagues and others > on the appeals committee. As I did not hear the evidence > I cannot, even then, say they were wrong; all I can do is > to clarify in my mind the process to be followed. As for > what the Director should do, this is a matter for the CTD; > it is by no means necessarily identical with what the AC > should do. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 8 14:40:26 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Mar 8 14:48:55 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal References: <000201c523dc$48d345f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001901c523e5$289f2b10$489b4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If it were done when 'tis done, Then 'twere well it were done quickly... " ['Macbeth'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 12:42 PM Subject: RE: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal > > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > ............. > > +=+ I have not been following this thread, thinking it > > a Directors' procedures item rather than a question of > > law. But when shortening the blml folder my name > > suddenly jumped out at me! > > Declarer has called for a Spade. Dummy, mishearing, > > places a club; play continues for more than the completion > > of the trick on which the irregularity occurred. Is that it? > > Are we minded that the club is an illegal play? Has > > anyone discussed the effect of Law 45D, *compelling* > > the change of the card up to the point at which both sides > > play to the next trick, as compared with the effect of > > Law 47B, *permitting* the withdrawal (without time limit) > > of an illegal play? > > What has been the argument on this? > > I think the main "problem" is: What is the status on > declarer's play of a spade after it is too late to apply > Law 45D? > > We have "only" inference from Law 45D to make us > consider this card as not having been played. Law 45D > does not explicitly state that the card called by declarer > has not been played in such cases. > > This question is especially important in the case of an > opponent following suit with a spade and not discovering > that Dummy instead had played a club. Should he for > instance be subject to a revoke penalty? > +=+ Hi Sven, I am suggesting its status may be that of an illegal play. Players following to it, including declarer, have treated it as played and I think declarer may be considered to have condoned the placing of the card as a play. I doubt that declarer can convert the card into a legal play by its condonation, but I am not dogmatic about it - just seems unlikely that what was an illegal card when placed can become a legal card a trick and a half later..... although stranger things do perhaps happen. That is why I was asking what had been said as to the relevance of 47B. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 8 15:06:49 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 8 15:06:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Is Law 25A insufficient? In-Reply-To: <20050308123145.5D76E173E6C@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050308123145.5D76E173E6C@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <422DB179.7010901@hdw.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Herman De Wael napisa?(a): > >>Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >> >>> >>>I rule that North *has* passed. >> >>You might rule that but I believe you would be wrong >> > > > What about L28A? > > After RHO's bid it is too late > for L25A. > No Konrad, that is precisely why the question was asked in the first place. L25A states that partner must not have called. He hasn't, in reality. RHO bid is "out of turn" and by L28A it is "considered in turn". But there is no law that states that a player who is obliged to pass has in fact passed when his LHO calls. A LHO who waits for the player to pass, even when he must, is not doing anything wrong. After all, the player may forget he should pass, and bid something. That bid is not considered to be a "second bid in the same round", but rather a "bid by a player who was obliged to pass"; L37 applies, as does L35 when the next player calls without asking for the non-pass to be withdrawn. So, IMO, partner has not passed and the deadline for applying L25A has not yet gone by. Of course, if the partner does nothing, he will be deemed to have passed at some point in the proceedings. But not necessarily right away. And we should not accept that opponents take the offender by speed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.4 - Release Date: 7/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 8 15:17:16 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 8 15:16:34 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke Message-ID: <422DB3EC.5060006@hdw.be> Let me try and reconstruct the hands for an interesting case: - KQJ9732 T854 A6 this is the diamond suit, with South declarer in 3NT. The diamond K is led to the four and six. Next the DQ, D5, for South. South finesses (in spades) and East wins the trick, and returns the DT. West overtakes this trick with the Jack, and he plays the 9. East revokes. In the next trick the seven is played, and the D8 also shows up in East. Nobody notices, and West leads the D3, to which everyone discards. He then takes another trick with the D2, and South makes the rest. How many tricks have east west made (it appears 7 - six diamonds and a spade)? How many tricks must be returned for the revoke? Do we apply L64C? If needed, South could have made 10 tricks after a successfull spade finesse - he still has all the tricks whenever East-West stop their run of the diamonds. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.4 - Release Date: 7/03/2005 From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Mar 8 15:38:46 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue Mar 8 15:39:22 2005 Subject: FW: [blml] A blocking revoke Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5CC5@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 15:17 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke > > > Let me try and reconstruct the hands for an interesting case: > > - > KQJ9732 T854 > A6 > > this is the diamond suit, with South declarer in 3NT. > > The diamond K is led to the four and six. Next the DQ, D5, for South. > South finesses (in spades) and East wins the trick, and > returns the DT. > West overtakes this trick with the Jack, and he plays the 9. East > revokes. In the next trick the seven is played, and the D8 also shows > up in East. Nobody notices, and West leads the D3, to which everyone > discards. He then takes another trick with the D2, and South > makes the > rest. > How many tricks have east west made (it appears 7 - six > diamonds and a > spade)? > How many tricks must be returned for the revoke? > Do we apply L64C? > > If needed, South could have made 10 tricks after a successfull spade > finesse - he still has all the tricks whenever East-West stop their > run of the diamonds. EW made six diamonds and a spade. The fifth diamond trick has been won by East; after that, however, West led a diamond out of turn and everybody accepted, thereby making it legal. This means two tricks to NS - East didn't make the trick in which he revoked, but several tricks were made from that point; also, East won a diamond trick, which means a second trick. For 64C, we have to look at the play if there were no revoke. Without a revoke, declarer would have lost six diamonds and a spade - just as he did in the actual case. The two trick compensation is therefore more than sufficient, and there is no need for 64C. And indeed, if NS had noticed that East was on lead with the D8, then South would have made the rest of the tricks, and with the revoke compensation of two tricks would have finished with ten tricks. But that is not the situation we have to compare with for 64C. -- Martin Sinot From davidgrabiner at comcast.net Tue Mar 8 15:49:03 2005 From: davidgrabiner at comcast.net (grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu) Date: Tue Mar 8 15:49:38 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke Message-ID: <030820051449.22525.422DBB5F0004839D000057FD22058863609D0A02070D0E9D090B07900E0B@comcast.net> First, let's consider the analogous situation without the revoke: - KQJ9732 T8654 A West leads the DK, which South wins. South loses a finesse to East, and East (irrationally) blocks the suit, winning the fifth round of diamonds with the D8. West leads the D3 anyway, and South does not call attention to the lead out of turn until after he has played from dummy. West could have known at the time of his lead out of turn that the infraction would work to his advantage if not caught and could not hurt him (if the D3 became a penalty card, it would be his normal discard at the first opportunity anyway). He should not be allowed to benefit from this infraction, so we would rule five tricks for E-W and six tricks for N-S. Now, adding the revoke, we work the same way. Without the revoke, E-W won five tricks and N-S won six tricks. The revoke penalty is two tricks, so we rule three tricks to E-W (-630) and eight tricks to N-S (-100). In general, after a revoke, we just play bridge, and then add the revoke penalty at the end; the only exception occurs if the revoke penalty was insufficient redress for the damage from the revoke. (And for this revoke, which cost the offenders two tricks, there is no need to protect the non-offenders.) > Let me try and reconstruct the hands for an interesting case: > > - > KQJ9732 T854 > A6 > > this is the diamond suit, with South declarer in 3NT. > > The diamond K is led to the four and six. Next the DQ, D5, for South. > South finesses (in spades) and East wins the trick, and returns the DT. > West overtakes this trick with the Jack, and he plays the 9. East > revokes. In the next trick the seven is played, and the D8 also shows > up in East. Nobody notices, and West leads the D3, to which everyone > discards. He then takes another trick with the D2, and South makes the > rest. > How many tricks have east west made (it appears 7 - six diamonds and a > spade)? > How many tricks must be returned for the revoke? > Do we apply L64C? > > If needed, South could have made 10 tricks after a successfull spade > finesse - he still has all the tricks whenever East-West stop their > run of the diamonds. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.4 - Release Date: 7/03/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Mar 8 16:01:44 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue Mar 8 16:02:18 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5CC6@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of > grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 15:49 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] A blocking revoke > > > First, let's consider the analogous situation without the revoke: > - > KQJ9732 T8654 > A > You changed the case. The D6 belonged to South, so if East does not revoke, there is no blockage: in the third diamond trick, East plays the D10, overtaken by West. West then plays the D9, under which East plays his last (smaller) diamond. No block. -- Martin Sinot From CWFHLWMPU at boreal.owlnet.rice.edu Tue Mar 8 18:38:38 2005 From: CWFHLWMPU at boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Sharlene Mullins) Date: Tue Mar 8 18:39:36 2005 Subject: [blml] New Year with Vicodin Viola Message-ID: <242601141618.AA1480564@client.comcast.net> Big sale on Vicodin and other drugs. You wont find better prices anywhere! Vicodin - 90 PiIls - 178$ Viagra - 100 PilIs - 209.99$ Cialis - 90 PiIls - 324$ Ambien - 120 PilIs - 249$ Xanax - 90 PiIls - 299$ and many more... Please click below and check out our offer. http://desire.goodviagra.info/in.php?aid=44 %TEXT[2-5] %TEXT[2-5] From davidgrabiner at comcast.net Tue Mar 8 20:10:38 2005 From: davidgrabiner at comcast.net (grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu) Date: Tue Mar 8 20:11:13 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke Message-ID: <030820051910.10852.422DF8AE000A35CC00002A6422007589429D0A02070D0E9D090B07900E0B@comcast.net> My change was deliberate; I wanted to create a situation in which East blocked the fifth round of diamonds by an irrational play which was not a revoke, so that we could discuss that case first. Once we know how to rule in a similar case without a revoke (and thus only one infraction), we can then adjust for the revoke. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of > > grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu > > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 15:49 > > To: blml > > Subject: Re: [blml] A blocking revoke > > > > > > First, let's consider the analogous situation without the revoke: > > - > > KQJ9732 T8654 > > A > > > > You changed the case. The D6 belonged to South, so if East > does not revoke, there is no blockage: in the third diamond > trick, East plays the D10, overtaken by West. West then plays > the D9, under which East plays his last (smaller) diamond. No block. > > -- > Martin Sinot > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jwdpc at mailAccount.com Tue Mar 8 20:11:42 2005 From: jwdpc at mailAccount.com (Zelma Fisher) Date: Tue Mar 8 20:11:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Rates fixed at 3.25 Message-ID: 200410150705.i9F750Kk01345745.i93PdiTw000427@b-mail09.real-email.net> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.qklenders.com/x/loan.php?id=nu Best Regards, Erma Dudley to be remov(ed: http://www.qklenders.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From hadvab at doneasy.com Tue Mar 8 20:13:57 2005 From: hadvab at doneasy.com (Adan Cornelius) Date: Tue Mar 8 20:13:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Become one of the low 3.25% rates Message-ID: <200410031466.i93DerTw005328@www4.gmail.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.qklenders.com/x/loan.php?id=nu Best Regards, Maynard Myers to be remov(ed: http://www.qklenders.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From chittom at fadmail.com Tue Mar 8 20:26:00 2005 From: chittom at fadmail.com (Gerald Bartley) Date: Tue Mar 8 20:26:01 2005 Subject: [blml] High rates? Not with us! 3.25 fixed Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.qklenders.com/x/loan.php?id=nu Best Regards, Garth Massey to be remov(ed: http://www.qklenders.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 8 22:55:25 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Mar 8 22:55:59 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal In-Reply-To: <001901c523e5$289f2b10$489b4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000001c52429$88ed2870$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott ................ > > I think the main "problem" is: What is the status on > > declarer's play of a spade after it is too late to apply > > Law 45D? > > > > We have "only" inference from Law 45D to make us > > consider this card as not having been played. Law 45D > > does not explicitly state that the card called by declarer > > has not been played in such cases. > > > > This question is especially important in the case of an > > opponent following suit with a spade and not discovering > > that Dummy instead had played a club. Should he for > > instance be subject to a revoke penalty? > > > +=+ Hi Sven, > I am suggesting its status may be that > of an illegal play. Players following to it, > including declarer, have treated it as > played and I think declarer may be > considered to have condoned the > placing of the card as a play. I doubt > that declarer can convert the card into > a legal play by its condonation, but I > am not dogmatic about it - just seems > unlikely that what was an illegal card > when placed can become a legal card > a trick and a half later..... although > stranger things do perhaps happen. > That is why I was asking what had > been said as to the relevance of 47B. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Sorry Grattan, you lost me. Could you be specific about which card you are discussing? Declarer asks for a spade, dummy leads a club to which everybody play. Initially the card played must be the spade because that is what declarer requested. However this card was never physically led by Dummy. Is it the spade or the club you tend to consider an illegal play? My first question was actually what the status should be for the spade that was called but never physically played? My second question concerned how we should rule if RHO followed suit (a spade) to the incorrect lead of a club by Dummy (although declarer had asked for a spade) My personal opinion is that we should consider the incorrect lead of a club condoned as if the spade had never been called and treat the following plays to this trick accordingly. However, I am not so sure this is fair towards the defender who plays according to the spoken request by declarer for a card from Dummy. Maybe we should let him replace his card without any penalty? Regards Sven From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Tue Mar 8 23:40:51 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue Mar 8 23:38:18 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: <422DB3EC.5060006@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Herman De Wael wrote: > Let me try and reconstruct the hands for an interesting case: > > - > KQJ9732 T854 > A6 > > The diamond K is led to the four and six. Next the DQ, D5, for South. > South finesses (in spades) and East wins the trick, and returns the DT. > West overtakes this trick with the Jack, and he plays the 9. East > revokes. In the next trick the seven is played, and the D8 also shows > up in East. Nobody notices, and West leads the D3, to which everyone > discards. He then takes another trick with the D2, and South makes the > rest. I see no reason not to handle it in the simple, straightforward manner. > How many tricks have east west made (it appears 7 - six diamonds and a > spade)? Appears that way to me too. > How many tricks must be returned for the revoke? Two, since the D8 won a trick. > Do we apply L64C? No. The revoke didnt damage declarer at all, in fact it gave him a chance to make his doomed contract. He then condoned a lead out of turn and gave it back to his opponents. The "could have known" argument re the lead out of turn is interesting. My personal taste is to reserve 72B1 for villains rather than people who don't know they've committed an irregularity at all. West knows his suit is running (unless someone else revokes), and is on auto-pilot cashing his suit and then conceding. I'm not saying it is wrong if you use 72B1 to adjust - but I think it's unusual and very heavyhanded to do so, and as South I'd not feel right about accepting the adjustment, when all I had to do to earn the score legitimately was refuse the LOOT. GRB From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 8 23:45:32 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Mar 8 23:46:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play In-Reply-To: <009301c523e0$ff49cbc0$77063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Mar 8, 2005, at 07:59 US/Eastern, Ben Schelen wrote: > No time, just thought. The thought is not allowed, independent of the > time I do not understand. From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Tue Mar 8 23:55:38 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue Mar 8 23:53:06 2005 Subject: [blml] More on 61B Message-ID: Herman has recently posted a question concerning a revoke which blocks a normally cashing suit. (KQJ9xxx opposite T8xx, Ax with declarer.) We are told North is Void, East and South both follow to the second round of the suit. A third round is led; South discards. A fourth round is led; East and South both discard. If West is counting, he will now realize there are only 12 diamonds in the deck. In the ACBL, West now simply asks who revoked, gets the 8 out of the way under the 9, and finishes cashing the suit. In Europe, West is allowed to ask *South* if he has revoked, but not East. What happens if West exercises his option to ask South on the fourth round? "Why didn't you ask on the third round?" is an obvious question - but West thinks it's a 7-4-2-0 distribution on the third round, and only has a reason for concern on the fourth round when he knows a card is missing. West's question to South will probably wake East up. Has he violated 61B? (Literally, it seems not, but East HAS been alerted to his revoke indirectly by his partner, so I am sure many people will say yes.) Notice that even if you rule 63B applies, West has still saved his side at least one trick: it's only a 1-trick revoke if the D8 doesn't win a trick and the suit doesn't block. What if West simply calls the director, tells him an irregularity has occured, but he doesn't know who did it? That is his L9A2(a) right and L9B1(a) obligation, and L9B1(c) says you don't forfeit any rights (such as correction of a non-established revoke) by calling a director. You may put this one down as an example of a case where things work out much tidier when defenders are allowed to inquire. GRB From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Mar 9 02:39:44 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Mar 9 02:39:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play Message-ID: <008701c52448$df964660$049868d5@James> [Steve Willner] > I still wish we could go back to a rule by which > the player's intention had no effect on the ruling. [Nigel] Steve is right. The simplest rule would be that you get no reprieve from your mechanical mistakes. Admittedly this is tough on directors who pride themselves on their judgement -- but it is more acceptable to players. * Naturally, non-offenders would still ask the director to waive the law in exceptional cases* A similar example occurred st the weekend. Using bidding boxes, the auction started 1N (P)2C*(P) [2C=Puppet Stayman] 2D*(P) [2D=No 5 card major] Now I mistakenly faced "2S" (which would show 4H), simultaneously uttering a shocked expletive. When I told the director that I intended to bid "2H" (which would show 4S), he allowed me to change by bid without penalty. As a director in this case, how would you rule if the fumbler is ... (1) George Washington. (2) A notorious liar. (3) A rival with whom you often cross swords. (4) A frequent team-mate. (5) A shifty looking foreigner. Such contexts are so common that most so-called "judgement" cases are fraught with difficulty and the resulting rulings cause resentment. In the case of faulty claims (see hundreds of other interminable threads) the current law requires that the director to exercise powers of precognition, telepathy and clairvoyance ... A. To guess what the law-makers really mean by "inferior but not irrational". B. To assess the ability of the claimer (or his class of player), given his manifestly confused and befuddled state. (Presumably, in a more coherent frame of mind, the claimer would have made a better job of the claim statement). C. To predict the claimer's likely future "thoughts" when completing or amending his "claim" while implementing it. Luckily all such rules that depend on the director's parapsychological expertise are completely superfluous. They cause a lot of grief but add almost zero value. Scrapping them all would result in a much simpler, fairer and more enjoyable game :) :) :) :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 9 03:54:47 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Mar 9 03:55:33 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <008701c52448$df964660$049868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [big snip] >Luckily all such rules that depend on the director's >parapsychological expertise are completely superfluous. They >cause a lot of grief but add almost zero value. Scrapping >them all would result in a much simpler, fairer and more >enjoyable game :) :) :) :) Richard Hills: Scrapping Law 16, which requires parapsychological expertise in assessing logical alternatives for a class of player, would *not* (in my opinion) result in a fairer game. True, it would be a simpler game if no adjusted scores were ever awarded after use of UI. True, players who use UI would enjoy avoiding adverse rulings. But bridge would no longer be a game that I would enjoy. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 9 19:23:41 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Mar 9 07:24:40 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> > > Richard Hills: > > Scrapping Law 16, which requires parapsychological expertise > in assessing logical alternatives for a class of player, > would *not* (in my opinion) result in a fairer game. > L16 does not use the words "class of player," which is an unwarranted assumption by some of those applying the Laws. While assessing logical alternatives may be difficult, it becomes easier if everyone in the event is treated as equal to all others. Then, you need only assess LAs for a generic player who typifies those in the event. Equality under the law is not a novel idea. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From eyquemjg at free.fr Wed Mar 9 10:42:11 2005 From: eyquemjg at free.fr (Jean Galtier) Date: Wed Mar 9 10:42:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Revoke ? Message-ID: <422EC4F3.80608@free.fr> Strange things Kxxx AQxx (K)x xxx Facing AQxx 1098 xxx KQx North left the DK in his pocket and became dummy in 2S (1C - 1H - 1S - 2S). The players noticed dummy had only 12 cards at trick 10, and called me. Of course, declarer had ruffed losing diamonds. What is your ruling ? From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Wed Mar 9 10:57:59 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Wed Mar 9 10:58:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Revoke ? Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64CC@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Jean Galtier > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 10:42 > To: blml@amsterdamned.org > Subject: [blml] Revoke ? > > > Strange things > Kxxx > AQxx > (K)x > xxx > > Facing > > AQxx > 1098 > xxx > KQx > > North left the DK in his pocket and became dummy in 2S (1C - > 1H - 1S - 2S). > The players noticed dummy had only 12 cards at trick 10, and > called me. > Of course, declarer had ruffed losing diamonds. > What is your ruling ? You add the DK to dummy immediately (14B1b). The DK is deemed to have belonged continuously to the North hand, and failing to play it constitutes a revoke (14B3). However, there is no penalty for a revoke by dummy (64B3), so no tricks are transferred. 64C must still be applied, even for a revoke not subject to penalty, so the TD must check if the revoke damages EW, and if so, adjust the score. I cannot determine whether that is the case, because I don't know the EW hands and the play. -- Martin Sinot From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Mar 9 11:24:49 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Mar 9 11:24:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Revoke ? In-Reply-To: <422EC4F3.80608@free.fr> References: <422EC4F3.80608@free.fr> Message-ID: <422ECEF1.9000901@hdw.be> Jean Galtier wrote: > Strange things > Kxxx > AQxx > (K)x > xxx > > Facing > > AQxx > 1098 > xxx > KQx > > North left the DK in his pocket and became dummy in 2S (1C - 1H - 1S - 2S). > The players noticed dummy had only 12 cards at trick 10, and called me. > Of course, declarer had ruffed losing diamonds. > What is your ruling ? > Fairly simple, really There is no penalty from a revoke out of dummy (or out of a hand that is open on the table) L64B3. The director will simply restore to a result which would be normal without a revoke L64C. This can be difficult sometimes, but without the full lay-out it is impossible, of course. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.4 - Release Date: 7/03/2005 From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 9 11:36:39 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 9 11:37:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Revoke ? In-Reply-To: <422EC4F3.80608@free.fr> Message-ID: <000001c52493$e0ee8e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jean Galtier > Sent: 9. mars 2005 10:42 > To: blml@amsterdamned.org > Subject: [blml] Revoke ? > > Strange things > Kxxx > AQxx > (K)x > xxx > > Facing > > AQxx > 1098 > xxx > KQx > > North left the DK in his pocket and became dummy in 2S (1C - 1H - 1S - > 2S). > The players noticed dummy had only 12 cards at trick 10, and called me. > Of course, declarer had ruffed losing diamonds. > What is your ruling ? Law 64B3 - No penalty for revoke by Dummy Law 64C - Director is responsible for restoring equity I suppose defenders made one Diamond trick. If LHO holds the AD declarer should not lose more than one diamond trick anyway so in that case there is no cause for adjustment. But with RHO holding the AD the defense should make two diamond tricks; one of which was lost because of the revoke. This trick should then be restored to the defense. Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 9 10:11:43 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 9 11:48:06 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <009e01c52495$0efff670$748c4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** " Forcing raw beginners to sink or swim on a level playing field " ~ Mixed metaphor of the Year, 2004. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > L16 does not use the words "class of player," which is an > unwarranted assumption by some of those applying the > Laws. While assessing logical alternatives may be difficult, > it becomes easier if everyone in the event is treated as equal > to all others. Then, you need only assess LAs for a generic > player who typifies those in the event. > > Equality under the law is not a novel idea. > +=+ Marv is right, of course, as far as he goes. The greater difficulty is to get TDs and ACs to put themselves inside the skin of the player in terms of his methods and not just judge his logical alternatives by what would be logical alternatives for them. Often it is the strongest players with the most inflexible mind-sets who dispense with the requirement most easily. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 9 11:42:41 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 9 11:48:09 2005 Subject: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal References: <000001c5209a$ed0ad650$6900a8c0@WINXP><005301c52333$8c61efa0$7e974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> <007401c523d4$59047370$13b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <009f01c52495$0fe72220$748c4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If it were done when 'tis done, Then 'twere well it were done quickly... " ['Macbeth'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Endicott Grattan" Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A pair of rulings for your perusal > > Hmm - no Grattan it is not giving the claimer a chance to add to his/her > original claim. I know better than that. It is an unfortunate choice of > words, by me. My "series of questions" was meant to elicit an explanation of > the word "squeeze." Once this is effected, then we move to the second step > as outlined in the laws, should the opponent's continue to object. Many > times this no longer becomes necessary when the opponents understand or > "see" the claim. As you well know, I am familiar with Law 70, having had > ample opportunity to use it, and am not proposing some exotic departure. It > is analogous to my dislike of answers to questions at other times like > "Lebensohl" "Baron" "reverse Drury" "Smolen" and the host of other names > used as shorthand instead of explanation, by giving the claimer the > opportunity to explain in more specific words. It also gives me the > opportunity to determine if the demand/request to "play it out" was made > with full understanding and knowledge that the claim is valid, which could > be violation of Law 74 A 2 and more specifically 74 B 4. Unfortunately, > gamesmanship is not foreign to bridge. > +=+ Not for one minute am I challenging Kojak's knowledge of the laws or his experience as a TD and CTD. However, the discussion here centres on practices taught to Directors by the bodies to which they are affiliated. They are not procedures wholly defined in the laws. In the circumstances under examination I have quoted as much as the laws require - what Kojak adds as to his approach is not a universal truth and different organizations, different CTDs, will have differing practices depending upon the training they have received and its source. I am very dubious as to the source of an authority to obtain from the claimer a restatement in fresh words of his original statement of claim since this is not what the law says and my impression is that the claimer must stand or fall by his original words. It is the Director, initially, who must interpret their scope - that is to say, objectively, uninfluenced by the claimer, after hearing the opponents' objections. An area to which I have not previously given public address concerns the assessment of potential careless play in claims such as the one K has referred to. As the law stands nothing can be learnt from the voided play, and the question is a 'pure' one to be assessed as things were at the point of claim - not easy when carelessness has been demonstrated for all to see. However, I doubt very much that it is good enough to have the player show by his answers to questions that he knows how to execute the play - the matter to determine is 'could he go wrong carelessly, and thus within the scope of 'normal' play?'. On this every Director and every AC member must fend for himself, or as training and precedent urge, when the claimer's original statement lacks detail of the order in which he will play the cards. I do wonder if the opponents in the case did themselves a disservice by seeking to put the voided play in evidence - could they have done better by objecting simply that claimer could go wrong by careless execution of the squeeze? ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Mar 9 12:27:44 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Mar 9 12:27:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Revoke ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <422EDDB0.1080204@hdw.be> Mikeamosbridge@aol.com wrote: > > I'd just like to question "normal" in your answer here Herman. I know > it's probably only shorthand but I don't see the word "normal" in 64C. > EW are non-offending here and should be treated accordingly. > > Mike > You are right, Mike. I was trying to translate the word equitable into a more arcane language. Perhaps "normal" with all its claim connotations was a poor choice of word. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 9/03/2005 From blml at blakjak.com Wed Mar 9 14:28:52 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Mar 9 14:30:52 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >> Richard Hills: >> >> Scrapping Law 16, which requires parapsychological expertise >> in assessing logical alternatives for a class of player, >> would *not* (in my opinion) result in a fairer game. >> >L16 does not use the words "class of player," which is an unwarranted >assumption by some of those applying the Laws. While assessing logical >alternatives may be difficult, it becomes easier if everyone in the event is >treated as equal to all others. Then, you need only assess LAs for a generic >player who typifies those in the event. Absolutely. Of course, the game would be poorer, since people would have justified cause for resentment. >Equality under the law is not a novel idea. No, merely an impossible dream. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Mar 9 14:32:02 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Mar 9 14:34:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Revoke ? In-Reply-To: <000001c52493$e0ee8e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <422EC4F3.80608@free.fr> <000001c52493$e0ee8e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of Jean Galtier >> Sent: 9. mars 2005 10:42 >> To: blml@amsterdamned.org >> Subject: [blml] Revoke ? >> >> Strange things >> Kxxx >> AQxx >> (K)x >> xxx >> >> Facing >> >> AQxx >> 1098 >> xxx >> KQx >> >> North left the DK in his pocket and became dummy in 2S (1C - 1H - 1S - >> 2S). >> The players noticed dummy had only 12 cards at trick 10, and called me. >> Of course, declarer had ruffed losing diamonds. >> What is your ruling ? > >Law 64B3 - No penalty for revoke by Dummy >Law 64C - Director is responsible for restoring equity > >I suppose defenders made one Diamond trick. If LHO holds the AD declarer >should not lose more than one diamond trick anyway so in that case there is >no cause for adjustment. But with RHO holding the AD the defense should make >two diamond tricks; one of which was lost because of the revoke. This trick >should then be restored to the defense. I have already replied ot this privately since it was sent to me privately. But the public replies I have seen seem to have forgotten something. When a card is not in dummy the TD will restore equity under L64C for any revokes, *and* restore equity under L12A1 for any misplays by the defence caused by the card not being visible. There was an infraction of L41D: L12A1 kicks in because there is no stated penalty or redress in L41D. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 at starpower.net Wed Mar 9 14:49:41 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 9 14:49:17 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net> At 08:28 AM 3/9/05, David wrote: >Marvin French wrote >>L16 does not use the words "class of player," which is an unwarranted >>assumption by some of those applying the Laws. While assessing logical >>alternatives may be difficult, it becomes easier if everyone in the >>event is >>treated as equal to all others. Then, you need only assess LAs for a >>generic >>player who typifies those in the event. > > Absolutely. Of course, the game would be poorer, since people > would have justified cause for resentment. In my book, having the rules treat everyone equally may be "cause for resentment" among those accustomed to being favored, but hardly "justified". >>Equality under the law is not a novel idea. > > No, merely an impossible dream. And, like so many impossible dreams, one which we make the world a better place by coming as close to as we can. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml at blakjak.com Wed Mar 9 14:53:24 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Mar 9 14:55:35 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net> References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 08:28 AM 3/9/05, David wrote: > >>Marvin French wrote >>>L16 does not use the words "class of player," which is an unwarranted >>>assumption by some of those applying the Laws. While assessing logical >>>alternatives may be difficult, it becomes easier if everyone in the >>>event is >>>treated as equal to all others. Then, you need only assess LAs for a >>>generic >>>player who typifies those in the event. >> >> Absolutely. Of course, the game would be poorer, since people >>would have justified cause for resentment. > >In my book, having the rules treat everyone equally may be "cause for >resentment" among those accustomed to being favored, but hardly >"justified". Hang on: treating everyone equally is not favouring them, but the opposite. Equality means: Refusing to allow blind players braille cards. Refusing to allow deaf/dumb players anything but spoken bidding in spoken bidding events Issuing PPs to novices and beginners for things they do not understand and so 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 cibor at poczta.fm Wed Mar 9 15:16:37 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Mar 9 15:17:11 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: <20050309141637.ED3FFEB2E8@poczta.interia.pl> David Stevenson napisa?(a): > Equality means: > > Refusing to allow blind players braille cards. > Refusing to allow deaf/dumb players anything but spoken bidding in > spoken bidding events > Issuing PPs to novices and beginners for things they do not understand > > and so on. And this exactly how it should work. In sports the only way to treat people fair is by treating them equal. "Equal injustice for all" as David Burn once wrote on this list. People aren't the same, people have different skills and different talents, people are disabled in a different way. True. Tall people have better chances of winning in basketball (for obvious reasons), black people have better chance of being good in sprints (because of certain small physicall differences between the black race and white race). So what? Sport, by definition, ignores these differences between us. Yes, sometimes seperate competitions are created for different groups (junior, women etc) but within one event all the participants are treated equally whether they are white, black, green, tall, short, experienced, novices, deaf etc. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Portal z najlepsza wyszukiwarka! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1861 From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Mar 9 15:38:39 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Mar 9 15:39:13 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) Message-ID: <20050309143839.DDA4EEB2E8@poczta.interia.pl> David Stevenson napisa?(a): > > When a card is not in dummy the TD will restore equity under L64C for > any revokes, *and* restore equity under L12A1 Not relevant for the specific case we are discussing but let me say this - I hate L12A1. What it does is making the TD a God. Using this law he can, whenver an infraction occurs, do practically everything what he wants. "According to TFLB, gentelmen, the penalty for the LOOT is one these five options but in my opinion this is not enough compensation so I rule 7NT xx -13". OK, this never happens in practice because the TD who would rule like that would be shot dead by the OS but this doesn't make L12A1 a good law. It also contradicts L12B. This is a typical case - David cannot find any law to save defenders' skin for not being able to count so he wheels out L12A1. Dummy committed an infraction. His side is penalized under 67B2 & 64C. Why penalize them even further? Because of L12A1 David's ruling is, of course, legal. But everything would be - such is the concept of L21A1. If we want to protect the defending side from any misplays they might make because dummy's cards aren't spread properly then let's create a specific law saying that this is want we want. But then let's shoot down L12A1 because it makes most of the laws in TFLB meaningless. Not to mention that it contradicts L12B. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Najlepsze MOTO w sieci! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1862 From Mikeamosbridge at aol.com Wed Mar 9 10:59:24 2005 From: Mikeamosbridge at aol.com (Mikeamosbridge@aol.com) Date: Wed Mar 9 15:45:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Revoke ? Message-ID: In a message dated 09/03/2005 09:42:34 GMT Standard Time, eyquemjg@free.fr writes: Strange things Kxxx AQxx (K)x xxx Facing AQxx 1098 xxx KQx North left the DK in his pocket and became dummy in 2S (1C - 1H - 1S - 2S). The players noticed dummy had only 12 cards at trick 10, and called me. Of course, declarer had ruffed losing diamonds. What is your ruling ? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml K of D belongs to dummy and play continues (Law 14.B.1.(b)) A result is obtained Now we need to consider the revoke(s) (Law 14.B.3) Law 64.B.3. tells us that there is no penalty assessed, but 64.C tells the Director to assign an adjusted score to establish equity for the non-offending side. We need therefore to apply 12.C.2 or maybe 12.C.3. If the D Ace was onside the revoke may have gained nothing and so there will be no change in the score - Otherwise the revoke may have gained Director a trick (perhaps even more) and so we shall award a score for one (or more) trick less than the table score. (I quite often involve the players in this sort of discussion -"What do you think would have happened if the D K had been there all the time?" If they can all agree it makes life simpler) Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050309/661fcb4a/attachment-0001.html From Mikeamosbridge at aol.com Wed Mar 9 11:35:44 2005 From: Mikeamosbridge at aol.com (Mikeamosbridge@aol.com) Date: Wed Mar 9 15:45:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Revoke ? Message-ID: In a message dated 09/03/2005 10:24:00 GMT Standard Time, hermandw@hdw.be writes: Jean Galtier wrote: > Strange things > Kxxx > AQxx > (K)x > xxx > > Facing > > AQxx > 1098 > xxx > KQx > > North left the DK in his pocket and became dummy in 2S (1C - 1H - 1S - 2S). > The players noticed dummy had only 12 cards at trick 10, and called me. > Of course, declarer had ruffed losing diamonds. > What is your ruling ? > Fairly simple, really There is no penalty from a revoke out of dummy (or out of a hand that is open on the table) L64B3. The director will simply restore to a result which would be normal without a revoke L64C. This can be difficult sometimes, but without the full lay-out it is impossible, of course. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.4 - Release Date: 7/03/2005 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml I'd just like to question "normal" in your answer here Herman. I know it's probably only shorthand but I don't see the word "normal" in 64C. EW are non-offending here and should be treated accordingly. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050309/47fc9aa7/attachment-0001.html From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Mar 9 16:12:45 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Mar 9 16:13:20 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <992cf1490ad667254beb5b6e0a58fe1f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 9 Mar 2005, at 13:53, David Stevenson wrote: > > Equality means: > > Refusing to allow blind players braille cards. > Refusing to allow deaf/dumb players anything but spoken bidding in > spoken bidding events > Issuing PPs to novices and beginners for things they do not understand There's a difference between variations of procedure that may be made to accommodate people with particular needs, and applying the essential rules of the game in an uneven way. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Wed Mar 9 16:23:06 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed Mar 9 16:39:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Declarer play References: <008701c52448$df964660$049868d5@James> Message-ID: <00fc01c524be$383041c0$e1063dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 2:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer play > [Steve Willner] > > I still wish we could go back to a rule by which > > the player's intention had no effect on the ruling. > > [Nigel] > Steve is right. The simplest rule would be that you get no > reprieve from your mechanical mistakes. Admittedly this is > tough on directors who pride themselves on their > judgement -- but it is more acceptable to players. > > * Naturally, non-offenders would still ask the director to > waive the law in exceptional cases* > > A similar example occurred st the weekend. Using bidding > boxes, the > auction started > 1N (P)2C*(P) [2C=Puppet Stayman] > 2D*(P) [2D=No 5 card major] > Now I mistakenly faced "2S" (which would show 4H), > simultaneously uttering a shocked expletive. When I told the > director that I intended to bid "2H" (which would show 4S), > he allowed me to change by bid without penalty. As a > director in this case, how would you rule > > The director has to find out the following: - mistakenly taken the wrong bidding card, or - mistakenly taken the 2S-card because you had 4S in your hand and realised later that you had the agreement to bid the other major suit. In the first situation we call it a fault by hand; in the second situation we call it a fault between the ears. I would allow only in the first situation. In an SO where it is allowed to replace a bidding card just before it touches the table, there is more time for thought.(realising) Ben From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Mar 9 16:39:53 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Mar 9 16:39:22 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <992cf1490ad667254beb5b6e0a58fe1f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net> <992cf1490ad667254beb5b6e0a58fe1f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <422F18C9.9060004@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 9 Mar 2005, at 13:53, David Stevenson wrote: > >> >> Equality means: >> >> Refusing to allow blind players braille cards. >> Refusing to allow deaf/dumb players anything but spoken bidding in >> spoken bidding events >> Issuing PPs to novices and beginners for things they do not understand > > > There's a difference between variations of procedure that may be made to > accommodate people with particular needs, and applying the essential > rules of the game in an uneven way. > But if such are the desires of the administrators, and of the competitors, where's the harm? What's the difference with haveing weight categories for boxers, wrestlers, and others? What is more inherently fair: judging a beginner according to expert habits, judging an expert according to beginner's habits, or judging both by their own habits? And which is the more difficult to define: an expert's habits (which expert?), a beginnner's habits (which teacher?) or a player's own habits. I know the answer to these two sets of questions, but of course many of you will disagree. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 9/03/2005 From frazier at nevada.com Wed Mar 9 00:44:12 2005 From: frazier at nevada.com (frazier@nevada.com) Date: Wed Mar 9 16:45:42 2005 Subject: [blml] US KAV Cyber Message-ID: <876852876.58293427503573@nevada.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050309/cbc7583d/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 7758 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050309/cbc7583d/attachment.gif From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 9 17:12:10 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 9 17:12:14 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <422F18C9.9060004@hdw.be> References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net> <992cf1490ad667254beb5b6e0a58fe1f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <422F18C9.9060004@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050309105201.02ba1eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:39 AM 3/9/05, Herman wrote: >Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >>There's a difference between variations of procedure that may be made >>to accommodate people with particular needs, and applying the >>essential rules of the game in an uneven way. > >But if such are the desires of the administrators, and of the >competitors, where's the harm? Nobody wishes to "harm" anyone. If the administrators and competitors would rather play tiddlywinks than bridge, there's no "harm" in running a tiddlywinks competition instead of a bridge competition. And if they'd rather play a bridge game in which some competitors are given an advantage over others by the rules, there's no "harm" in running a handicap game instead of a fair game with a level playing field. >What's the difference with haveing weight categories for boxers, >wrestlers, and others? Boxers, wrestlers and others can compete in weight categories just as bridge players can compete in events with master point limits. But when a lightweight fights a heavyweight, they both fight by the same rules. In bridge, Herman would have them fight by different rules. That's the difference. >What is more inherently fair: judging a beginner according to expert >habits, judging an expert according to beginner's habits, or judging >both by their own habits? What is inherently fair is judging everyone by criteria that have nothing to do with their individual, idiosyncratic "habits". >And which is the more difficult to define: an expert's habits (which >expert?), a beginnner's habits (which teacher?) or a player's own habits. The first two may be difficult, but the third is impossible, unless one happens to be personally acquainted with (but nevertheless totally objective in one's opinion of) the particular player involved. >I know the answer to these two sets of questions, but of course many >of you will disagree. I detect a bit of epistomological presumptuousness in a statement that says, in effect, that we may disagree with Herman, but should understand that if we do so we will be wrong. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 9 17:22:12 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 9 17:27:18 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <20050309141637.ED3FFEB2E8@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <004001c524c4$6fb28e90$4d8487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If it were done when 'tis done, Then 'twere well it were done quickly... " ['Macbeth'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 2:16 PM Subject: Re: Re: [blml] A player's view David Stevenson napisa?(a): > Equality means: > > Refusing to allow blind players braille cards. > Refusing to allow deaf/dumb players anything > but spoken bidding in spoken bidding events > Issuing PPs to novices and beginners for things > they do not understand > > and so on. And this exactly how it should work. In sports the only way to treat people fair is by treating them equal. "Equal injustice for all" as David Burn once wrote on this list. < +=+ First, my opinion is that players should be treated equitably. This is not synonymous with equally. Second, even equal treatment is not necessarily as described above. It may be, for example, that all players should have the use of braille cards ... etc. ~ G ~ +=+ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Mar 9 17:31:47 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Mar 9 17:33:34 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <992cf1490ad667254beb5b6e0a58fe1f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net> <992cf1490ad667254beb5b6e0a58fe1f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote >On 9 Mar 2005, at 13:53, David Stevenson wrote: > >> >> Equality means: >> >> Refusing to allow blind players braille cards. >> Refusing to allow deaf/dumb players anything but spoken bidding in >> spoken bidding events >> Issuing PPs to novices and beginners for things they do not understand > >There's a difference between variations of procedure that may be made >to accommodate people with particular needs, and applying the essential >rules of the game in an uneven way. Not really. either you allow positive discrimination, or you don't. And if you do, you have ot draw a line. The thing about BLML generally is that the people on it like the theory, but are not trying to run a game. Ok, many do, but not when they are posting. A lot of posts on BLML suggest ways of upsetting players. But because the posters are only looking at the theory, not the practice, they don't realise this. At it's very simplest, you are required to do certain things. BLML would tell you that if you do not understand, that's tough luck. People that run games believe that treating everyone the same is unfair and makes the game poorer. To keep this game alive, we need to encourage the poorer players. Treating them the same as the better players does not do that. Putting it another way, I "apply the essential needs of the game in an even way" in my view: but treating everyone as the same does not do this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Mar 9 17:33:33 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Mar 9 17:35:34 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050309105201.02ba1eb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net> <992cf1490ad667254beb5b6e0a58fe1f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <422F18C9.9060004@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309105201.02ba1eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 10:39 AM 3/9/05, Herman wrote: >>What is more inherently fair: judging a beginner according to expert >>habits, judging an expert according to beginner's habits, or judging >>both by their own habits? > >What is inherently fair is judging everyone by criteria that have >nothing to do with their individual, idiosyncratic "habits". No, it is very unfair. You expect people to follow rules they do not understand, and apply levels of bridge that are beyond them, and you call it fair. I know what I call it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Mar 9 17:34:55 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Mar 9 17:36:53 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: <20050309143839.DDA4EEB2E8@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050309143839.DDA4EEB2E8@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote >David Stevenson napisa?(a): > >> >> When a card is not in dummy the TD will restore equity under L64C for >> any revokes, *and* restore equity under L12A1 > >Not relevant for the specific case we are discussing but let me >say this - I hate L12A1. What it does is making >the TD a God. Using this law he can, whenver an infraction >occurs, do practically everything what he wants. > >"According to TFLB, gentelmen, the penalty for the LOOT >is one these five options but in my opinion this is >not enough compensation so I rule 7NT xx -13". You have misread the Law completely. It only ever applies when there is no other compensation. So you cannot use it for a LOOT because there is a compensatory 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 at blakjak.com Wed Mar 9 17:40:51 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Mar 9 17:42:54 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <004001c524c4$6fb28e90$4d8487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <20050309141637.ED3FFEB2E8@poczta.interia.pl> <004001c524c4$6fb28e90$4d8487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote >David Stevenson napisa?(a): > >> Equality means: >> >> Refusing to allow blind players braille cards. >> Refusing to allow deaf/dumb players anything >> but spoken bidding in spoken bidding events >> Issuing PPs to novices and beginners for things >> they do not understand >> >> and so on. > > >And this exactly how it should work. >In sports the only way to treat people >fair is by treating them equal. >"Equal injustice for all" as David >Burn once wrote on this list. >< >+=+ First, my opinion is that players >should be treated equitably. This is not >synonymous with equally. Equitably I can live with - but that is what current UI rules do: they favour no-one. But equally is unfair - and that is what is suggested. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 9 18:13:10 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Mar 9 18:44:47 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com><6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net><992cf1490ad667254beb5b6e0a58fe1f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > Gordon Rainsford wrote > >On 9 Mar 2005, at 13:53, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> > >> Equality means: > >> > >> Refusing to allow blind players braille cards. > >> Refusing to allow deaf/dumb players anything but spoken bidding in > >> spoken bidding events > >> Issuing PPs to novices and beginners for things they do not understand > >There's a difference between variations of procedure that may be made > >to accommodate people with particular needs, and applying the essential > >rules of the game in an uneven way. > > Not really. either you allow positive discrimination, or you don't. > And if you do, you have ot draw a line. > > The thing about BLML generally is that the people on it like the > theory, but are not trying to run a game. Ok, many do, but not when > they are posting. > > A lot of posts on BLML suggest ways of upsetting players. But because > the posters are only looking at the theory, not the practice, they don't > realise this. > > At it's very simplest, you are required to do certain things. BLML > would tell you that if you do not understand, that's tough luck. People > that run games believe that treating everyone the same is unfair and > makes the game poorer. > > To keep this game alive, we need to encourage the poorer players. > Treating them the same as the better players does not do that. > > Putting it another way, I "apply the essential needs of the game in an > even way" in my view: but treating everyone as the same does not do > this. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ It is one thing when the rules are there for all and quite another when they are not. I for one feel whether one understands the rules, or not, one should accept the consequences of one's actions. That is fair[presuming that the rules are there]. What is not fair is when the rules have been hidden. Yet you assert that it is fair when the rules are hidden. I will clarify. The novice [or anyone else] breaks a rule that he doesn't understand and the ruling is that he did not understand so there is no penalty. Well, the opponents broke no rule and the rule on the wall says they are to receive the benefit of penalizing the offender. And you now tell them there is no rule broken in this case. The rule has been hidden from the non offenders. maybe they would never have shown up had they known they would be mistreated for expecting the rules be followed. The thread raised the notion that L16 was unwise and consequently unfair. The assertion was right. The suggested course was somewhat unwise, but in a way contained a respite of wisdom- in a back handed kind of way. regards roger pewick From blml at blakjak.com Wed Mar 9 18:56:41 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Mar 9 18:58:36 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net> <992cf1490ad667254beb5b6e0a58fe1f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Roger Pewick wrote > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 10:31 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > >> Gordon Rainsford wrote >> >On 9 Mar 2005, at 13:53, David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Equality means: >> >> >> >> Refusing to allow blind players braille cards. >> >> Refusing to allow deaf/dumb players anything but spoken bidding in >> >> spoken bidding events >> >> Issuing PPs to novices and beginners for things they do not understand > >> >There's a difference between variations of procedure that may be made >> >to accommodate people with particular needs, and applying the essential >> >rules of the game in an uneven way. >> >> Not really. either you allow positive discrimination, or you don't. >> And if you do, you have ot draw a line. >> >> The thing about BLML generally is that the people on it like the >> theory, but are not trying to run a game. Ok, many do, but not when >> they are posting. >> >> A lot of posts on BLML suggest ways of upsetting players. But because >> the posters are only looking at the theory, not the practice, they don't >> realise this. >> >> At it's very simplest, you are required to do certain things. BLML >> would tell you that if you do not understand, that's tough luck. People >> that run games believe that treating everyone the same is unfair and >> makes the game poorer. >> >> To keep this game alive, we need to encourage the poorer players. >> Treating them the same as the better players does not do that. >> >> Putting it another way, I "apply the essential needs of the game in an >> even way" in my view: but treating everyone as the same does not do >> this. >> >> -- >> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > > >It is one thing when the rules are there for all and quite another when they >are not. I for one feel whether one understands the rules, or not, one >should accept the consequences of one's actions. That is fair[presuming >that the rules are there]. What is not fair is when the rules have been >hidden. > >Yet you assert that it is fair when the rules are hidden. I will clarify. >The novice [or anyone else] breaks a rule that he doesn't understand and the >ruling is that he did not understand so there is no penalty. Well, the >opponents broke no rule and the rule on the wall says they are to receive >the benefit of penalizing the offender. And you now tell them there is no >rule broken in this case. The rule has been hidden from the non offenders. >maybe they would never have shown up had they known they would be mistreated >for expecting the rules be followed. Please explain 'they are to receive the benefit of penalizing the offender'. If I issue a PP to a pair of novices because they did something wrong then their opponents gain nothing - except fewer opponents next week. >The thread raised the notion that L16 was unwise and consequently unfair. >The assertion was right. The suggested course was somewhat unwise, but in a >way contained a respite of wisdom- in a back handed kind of way. L16 is fine. But some people want to make it inequitable, by treating people the same. And this benefits someone how? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 9 19:40:44 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Mar 9 19:41:09 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com><6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net><992cf1490ad667254beb5b6e0a58fe1f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > Roger Pewick wrote > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "David Stevenson" > >To: > >Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 10:31 AM > >Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > > > > >> Gordon Rainsford wrote > >> >On 9 Mar 2005, at 13:53, David Stevenson wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> Equality means: > >> >> > >> >> Refusing to allow blind players braille cards. > >> >> Refusing to allow deaf/dumb players anything but spoken bidding in > >> >> spoken bidding events > >> >> Issuing PPs to novices and beginners for things they do not understand > > > >> >There's a difference between variations of procedure that may be made > >> >to accommodate people with particular needs, and applying the essential > >> >rules of the game in an uneven way. > >> > >> Not really. either you allow positive discrimination, or you don't. > >> And if you do, you have ot draw a line. > >> > >> The thing about BLML generally is that the people on it like the > >> theory, but are not trying to run a game. Ok, many do, but not when > >> they are posting. > >> > >> A lot of posts on BLML suggest ways of upsetting players. But because > >> the posters are only looking at the theory, not the practice, they don't > >> realise this. > >> > >> At it's very simplest, you are required to do certain things. BLML > >> would tell you that if you do not understand, that's tough luck. People > >> that run games believe that treating everyone the same is unfair and > >> makes the game poorer. > >> > >> To keep this game alive, we need to encourage the poorer players. > >> Treating them the same as the better players does not do that. > >> > >> Putting it another way, I "apply the essential needs of the game in an > >> even way" in my view: but treating everyone as the same does not do > >> this. > >> > >> -- > >> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > > > > > >It is one thing when the rules are there for all and quite another when they > >are not. I for one feel whether one understands the rules, or not, one > >should accept the consequences of one's actions. That is fair[presuming > >that the rules are there]. What is not fair is when the rules have been > >hidden. > > > >Yet you assert that it is fair when the rules are hidden. I will clarify. > >The novice [or anyone else] breaks a rule that he doesn't understand and the > >ruling is that he did not understand so there is no penalty. Well, the > >opponents broke no rule and the rule on the wall says they are to receive > >the benefit of penalizing the offender. And you now tell them there is no > >rule broken in this case. The rule has been hidden from the non offenders. > >maybe they would never have shown up had they known they would be mistreated > >for expecting the rules be followed. > > Please explain 'they are to receive the benefit of penalizing the > offender'. If I issue a PP to a pair of novices because they did > something wrong then their opponents gain nothing - except fewer > opponents next week. If a rule prescribes a penalty and the penalty is not given because it is perceived as being unfair [or for whatever reason] then there is something wrong with the rule. If the law is good and well presented it will act as a magnet, not a bomb. > >The thread raised the notion that L16 was unwise and consequently unfair. > >The assertion was right. The suggested course was somewhat unwise, but in a > >way contained a respite of wisdom- in a back handed kind of way. > > L16 is fine. But some people want to make it inequitable, by treating > people the same. And this benefits someone how? I can think of very little about L16 that is fine. For one thing it treats cotestants as children, nay, infants. I will point out that there is wisdom in treating constestants the same as can be done practically. For one thing it minimizes the exceptions which if nothing else leaves more brain power to focus on 'winning'. But it takes wisdom to construct the rules. If you are intent on quibbling upon what equality means, then there is a shallowness present I do not intend to deal with. regards roger pewick > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 9 19:54:00 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 9 19:53:39 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net> <992cf1490ad667254beb5b6e0a58fe1f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050309134347.02ba15c0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:31 AM 3/9/05, David wrote: >Gordon Rainsford wrote >>On 9 Mar 2005, at 13:53, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Equality means: >>> >>>Refusing to allow blind players braille cards. >>>Refusing to allow deaf/dumb players anything but spoken bidding in >>>spoken bidding events >> >>There's a difference between variations of procedure that may be made >>to accommodate people with particular needs, and applying the >>essential rules of the game in an uneven way. > > Not really. either you allow positive discrimination, or you > don't. And if you do, you have ot draw a line. Why should we need to discriminate at all? Equality means neither refusing to allow blind players to use braille cards nor allowing them to. Equality means either refusing to allow *any* players to use braille cards or allowing them to. So we allow them to, and if only the blind ones find any advantage in this, so be it. Same rules for everybody, no discrimination of any kind, WTP? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 9 20:20:06 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 9 20:19:42 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net> <992cf1490ad667254beb5b6e0a58fe1f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <422F18C9.9060004@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309105201.02ba1eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050309140114.02ba41d0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:33 AM 3/9/05, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >>At 10:39 AM 3/9/05, Herman wrote: > >>>What is more inherently fair: judging a beginner according to expert >>>habits, judging an expert according to beginner's habits, or judging >>>both by their own habits? >> >>What is inherently fair is judging everyone by criteria that have >>nothing to do with their individual, idiosyncratic "habits". > > No, it is very unfair. You expect people to follow rules they do > not understand, and apply levels of bridge that are beyond them, If that were true, bridge would be the only game played "fairly" anywhere. In every other game, if you commit a foul you pay the penalty, whether or not you understand the rule by which your action was a foul, and whether or not the ability to avoid committing it was beyond you. Does "fairness" require that the color-blind be allowed to run red lights with impunity? >and you call it fair. I know what I call it. I do call it "fair", and so does my dictionary: "Free of favoritism or bias; impartial." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 9 21:06:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Mar 9 21:06:38 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > L16 does not use the words "class of player," which is an unwarranted > assumption by some of those applying the Laws. While assessing logical > alternatives may be difficult, it becomes easier if everyone in the > event is treated as equal to all others. Then, you need only assess LAs > for a generic player who typifies those in the event. I don't think there is any such thing as a "typical" player for an event. However there is a type of player *common* in most events. This player is pretty clueless, won't notice subtle UI from minor tempo breaks by partner and wouldn't know how to take advantage of UI most of the time they had it. Is this the right standard for us to use? If we set a higher standard do we have to start ruling against all these poor players when our current rulings are "result stands"? > Equality under the law is not a novel idea. Indeed not. And taking circumstances into account when making judgements does not necessarily mean inequality. What is fair compensation (in law) for 2 weeks loss of earnings - doesn't it depend on how much one expected the person to earn? Tim From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Mar 9 23:01:41 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Mar 9 23:11:34 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) References: <20050309143839.DDA4EEB2E8@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <001601c524f3$94f42bd0$6a071d53@kocurzak> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" > You have misread the Law completely. I did indeed. That's because this law has been poorly translated into Polish. The Polish version says "the laws don't provide enough compensation" I have just checked the original version - you are correct. > It only ever applies when there > is no other compensation. So you cannot use it for a LOOT because there > is a compensatory rule. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Portal z najlepsza wyszukiwarka! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1861 From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Thu Mar 10 00:06:51 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu Mar 10 00:04:20 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Konrad Ciborowski wrote > >Not relevant for the specific case we are discussing but let me > >say this - I hate L12A1. What it does is making > >the TD a God. Using this law he can, whenver an infraction > >occurs, do practically everything what he wants. > > > >"According to TFLB, gentelmen, the penalty for the LOOT > >is one these five options but in my opinion this is > >not enough compensation so I rule 7NT xx -13". What happened to L12B? "in my opinion this is not enough compensation" is explicitly ruled out as the basis for an adjustment. L12A1 says "do not provide," not "provide a smaller or larger penalty than the director likes". A catchall for when things fall through the cracks. GRB From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 10 01:10:10 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Mar 10 01:11:01 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net> <992cf1490ad667254beb5b6e0a58fe1f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <422F18C9.9060004@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c52505$aa0f49c0$93e5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > What is more inherently fair: judging a beginner > according to expert habits, judging an expert > according to beginner's habits, or judging > both by their own habits? > +=+ Judging each by his announced methods, objectivrly assessed. +=+ From jfgjm at dagherrotipia.it Thu Mar 10 02:25:42 2005 From: jfgjm at dagherrotipia.it (Bobbi Slater) Date: Thu Mar 10 02:34:57 2005 Subject: [blml] More sexual confidence. More sex. More fun. Message-ID: <11D6-8A1D8870E4C59064@apple20.mhpcc.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050310/80fd6b85/attachment.html From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Mar 10 03:14:56 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Mar 10 03:15:33 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <002c01c52516$f4ddc510$269468d5@James> [Richard Hills] > Scrapping Law 16, which requires parapsychological > expertise in assessing logical alternatives for a > class of player, would *not* (in my opinion) result > in a fairer game. True, it would be a simpler game > if no adjusted scores were ever awarded after use of > UI. True, players who use UI would enjoy avoiding > adverse rulings. But bridge would no longer be a > game that I would enjoy. [Nigel] Richard is right that unauthorised information is the bugbear of bridge; but is law 16 a good way to deal with it? As has been pointed out may times: a director will do little better than chance in choosing which logical alternative is suggested by unauthorised information, whereas an experienced partnership will guess the significance almost all the time. In theory, only an unethical player will act to use that knowledge; but in practice, normally honest people seem to rationalize such behaviour. For the frequent victim, the chance of detection, reporting, and redress is rare. The honest player suffers. The most sensible solution is to provide redress for the transmission of unauthorised information (tempo breaks and the like), rather than attempt to judge whether or not it is used. Generous non-offenders can ask the director to waive the penalty if they aren't damaged. This may result in some anomalies but none so blatantly unfair as the current law 16. For the player, the revised law would be objective, clear, and simple to understand. The game would be fairer and more fun. Some directors who pride themselves on their judgement may regard this as l?se majest? -- an erosion of their droit de seigner -- but they perhaps they can put up with it in the interests of players. More objective rulings are likely to occasion less resentment from players. This a big law change and would have many consequences ... It would simplify the law to *authorize* information from some sources. For example: alerts and explanations because it is impossible to police the use of such information by the alerting side. As a corollary, a partnership should have the right to insist that their opponents do not alert. From dhxmijkrogt at multihuset.dk Thu Mar 10 03:09:51 2005 From: dhxmijkrogt at multihuset.dk (Kirk Mayberry) Date: Thu Mar 10 03:21:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Wanna be a bedroom superstar? Message-ID: <102613292.7451.23.camel@pdx.osdl.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050310/0f3ac329/attachment.html From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Mar 10 03:59:50 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Mar 10 04:00:25 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com><6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net><992cf1490ad667254beb5b6e0a58fe1f@gordonrainsford.co.uk><422F18C9.9060004@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309105201.02ba1eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005101c5251d$3a642c90$269468d5@James> [David Stevenson] > Equality means: Refusing to allow blind players > braille cards. Refusing to allow deaf/dumb players > anything but spoken bidding in spoken bidding events > Issuing PPs to novices and beginners for things they > do not understand [Gordon Rainsford] > There's a difference between variations of procedure > that may be made to accommodate people with particular > needs, and applying the essential rules of the game in > an uneven way. [Konrad Ciborowski] > And this exactly how it should work. In sports the only > way to treat people fair is by treating them equal. > "Equal injustice for all" as David Burn once wrote on > this list. [Eric Landau] > Boxers, wrestlers and others can compete in weight > categories just as bridge players can compete in > events with master point limits. But when a > lightweight fights a heavyweight, they both fight by > the same rules. In bridge, Herman would have them > fight by different rules. That's the difference. > ... > I detect a bit of epistemological presumptuousness > in a statement that says, in effect, that we may > disagree with Herman, but should understand that > if we do so we will be wrong. [Nigel] (: A fair summary of BLML :) Wow! I agree with Konrad and Gordon and Eric! I love this thread! Thank you for starting it, Richard! There is an element of truth in David Stevenson's bald statement: A game is its rules. So, special dispensations and handicapping should be explicit and up front. Now... what about trying to make the laws even more objective by trying to restrict the *sources* of unauthorised information? rather than vainly trying to detect and police its use? From kgzbjpgfj at qvhd.org Thu Mar 10 05:41:01 2005 From: kgzbjpgfj at qvhd.org (June Yeager) Date: Thu Mar 10 05:54:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Presenting Financing simplified Message-ID: <3DF4FB83.33004@ubp.edu.ar> Dear Homeowner, You have been pre-approved for a $402,000 Home Loan at as low as 3.45% Fixed Rate. This offer is being extended to you unconditionally and your credit is in no way a factor. To take Advantage of this Limited Time opportunity all we ask is that you visit our Website and complete the 1 minute post Approval Form. http://www.re-finance-forever.info/real.asp Best Regards, June Yeager Regional CEO abrogate jw bulgaria mh cowmen wsr cucumber ef camellia dv plain rh debacle zo psalter avo octahedral bot stagestruck gn improper nor beer vui http://re-finance-forever.info/gone.asp From WDSJIE at dekanat.pmf.hr Thu Mar 10 07:06:19 2005 From: WDSJIE at dekanat.pmf.hr (Hillary Witherspoon) Date: Thu Mar 10 07:15:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Amazing New Homes for Americans Message-ID: <3DF4FB83.07004@ubp.edu.ar> If you are paying more than 3.5% on your mortgage, you may be paying too much! Our US Lenders will provide you with the absolute best rates possible. Click the link below for an insta-quote and monthly savings calculation: http://www.re-finance-forever.info/real.asp No other way to so quickly and easily lower your monthly bill payments while putting cash now in your pocket! savagery xqf shadbush ch lipton aun coronado jc spa tfm placenta jn pinscher yn archfool yaz http://re-finance-forever.info/gone.asp From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 10 07:26:22 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 10 07:27:07 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marvin French asserted: >L16 does not use the words "class of player," which is an >unwarranted assumption by some of those applying the Laws. Richard Hills quibbles: In my opinion, "unwarranted assumption" has a flavour of the Yes-or-No question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" To which my answer would be No, since I am a bachelor who has not made the same mistake once. :-) A more neutral term would be "a not universally popular interpretation" of Law 16 by the ACBL and also by the WBF Code of Practice. Marvin French asserted: >While assessing logical alternatives may be difficult, it >becomes easier if everyone in the event is treated as >equal to all others. Then, you need only assess LAs for a >generic player who typifies those in the event. > >Equality under the law is not a novel idea. Richard Hills quibbles: I believe in equality of opportunity, not in uniformity of outcomes. In my opinion, Marv is suggesting that (in a weak field) this generic auction - oft perpetrated by a bunny - should be deemed to be a logical alternative for a rebid by West when West is an expert: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 3S Pass Pass 4H 4S In my opinion, Marv's suggestion has a flavour of Kurt Vonnegut's classic short story, "Harrison Bergeron": >>Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send >>out some sharp noise to keep people like George from >>taking unfair advantage of their brains.... Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From adam at irvine.com Tue Mar 8 20:23:10 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Mar 10 07:49:14 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:49:03 GMT." <030820051449.22525.422DBB5F0004839D000057FD22058863609D0A02070D0E9D090B07900E0B@comcast.net> Message-ID: <200503081923.LAA13222@mailhub.irvine.com> David Grabiner wrote: > First, let's consider the analogous situation without the revoke: > - > KQJ9732 T8654 > A > > West leads the DK, which South wins. South loses a finesse to East, > and East (irrationally) blocks the suit, winning the fifth round of > diamonds with the D8. West leads the D3 anyway, and South does not > call attention to the lead out of turn until after he has played > from dummy. > > West could have known at the time of his lead out of turn that the > infraction would work to his advantage if not caught and could not > hurt him (if the D3 became a penalty card, it would be his normal > discard at the first opportunity anyway). He should not be allowed > to benefit from this infraction, so we would rule five tricks for > E-W and six tricks for N-S. No, I believe this is a misapplication of Law 72B1. If someone commits an infraction and the opponents don't catch it because they're asleep at the wheel, you can't then go back and penalize the infraction on the grounds that the offender "could have known" that it would work out in his favor if he didn't get caught. In your example, West led out of turn but South didn't notice because he wasn't paying attention, so South loses. IMHO, this isn't at all the type of situation that Law 72B1 was meant to address. Unless there's case law to the contrary ... -- Adam From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Mar 10 09:07:45 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Mar 10 09:07:06 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: <200503081923.LAA13222@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200503081923.LAA13222@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <42300051.6030603@hdw.be> I agree with Adam, but I would like a nuance painted in: Adam Beneschan wrote: > David Grabiner wrote: > >> >>West could have known at the time of his lead out of turn that the >>infraction would work to his advantage if not caught and could not >>hurt him (if the D3 became a penalty card, it would be his normal >>discard at the first opportunity anyway). He should not be allowed >>to benefit from this infraction, so we would rule five tricks for >>E-W and six tricks for N-S. > > > No, I believe this is a misapplication of Law 72B1. If someone > commits an infraction and the opponents don't catch it because they're > asleep at the wheel, you can't then go back and penalize the > infraction on the grounds that the offender "could have known" that it > would work out in his favor if he didn't get caught. In your example, > West led out of turn but South didn't notice because he wasn't paying > attention, so South loses. IMHO, this isn't at all the type of > situation that Law 72B1 was meant to address. > > Unless there's case law to the contrary ... > I agree that we should not apply L72B1 when it should be clear to the offender that if his offence IS noticed, he will pay dearly. There are cases where offender could know that if his infraction is noticed, it costs nothing (or very little), while if it is not noticed it brings in some (or great) award. In those cases we might apply L72B1. David might well be right in saying that once East has overtaken the D7 with the D8, there is nothing to lose for West. He knows partner has revoked (although he is not obliged to tell this to the table) and he knows partner has just made a trick with that revoking card, at the same time cutting him off from 2 more tricks. Leading to the next trick cannot cost anything, while if it goes unnoticed he makes 2 more tricks (and this might well be the case, since apparently no-one noticed the revoke, so why would they notice that East now has the lead). So we might rule that West does not get his 2 diamond tricks by applying L72B1, and that East costs his side 2 more diamond tricks (one for the revoke, one for making the D8), so that EW end up with just 2 diamond tricks and the SK. (strange, when I started writing this I was going to agree with Adam - thinking about it, I end up agreeing with David - who says I never change my mind ?) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 9/03/2005 From GWOJNSWISOTBQ at reverseaddresses.com Thu Mar 10 10:41:04 2005 From: GWOJNSWISOTBQ at reverseaddresses.com (Julio Pike) Date: Thu Mar 10 10:52:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Sexually outperform anyone in the world! Message-ID: <200207600004.g6A67XX02208@eng2.beaverton.ibm.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050310/bf588632/attachment.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 10 12:03:10 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 10 12:06:57 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) References: Message-ID: <004f01c52560$dadef4a0$919187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If it were done when 'tis done, Then 'twere well it were done quickly... " ['Macbeth'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) > > "in my opinion this is not enough compensation" is > explicitly ruled out as the basis for an adjustment. > > L12A1 says "do not provide," not "provide a smaller > or larger penalty than the director likes". A catchall > for when things fall through the cracks. > +=+ Beware, gentlemen. Law 12A1 is concerned with provision of 'indemnity'. This has nothing to do with any penalty that the laws may impose. Indemnity has to do with the compensation of loss for the side offended against. If any damage suffered is not fully reinstated by the application of other laws Law 12A1 provides the reserve authority by which the Director may ensure that a non-offending contestant does not lose out in his score because of the violation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Mar 10 12:49:06 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Mar 10 12:49:39 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) Message-ID: <20050310114906.53EEFD54F7@poczta.interia.pl> Grattan Endicott napisa?(a): > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > **************************** > "If it were done when 'tis done, > Then 'twere well it were done > quickly... " > ['Macbeth'] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gordon Bower" >siegmund@mosquitonet.com> > To: >blml@rtflb.org> > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:06 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) > > > > > > "in my opinion this is not enough compensation" is > > explicitly ruled out as the basis for an adjustment. > > > > L12A1 says "do not provide," not "provide a smaller > > or larger penalty than the director likes". A catchall > > for when things fall through the cracks. > > > = Beware, gentlemen. Law 12A1 is concerned with > provision of 'indemnity'. This has nothing to do with any > penalty that the laws may impose. Indemnity has to do > with the compensation of loss for the side offended > against. If any damage suffered is not fully reinstated by > the application of other laws Law 12A1 provides the > reserve authority by which the Director may ensure that > a non-offending contestant does not lose out in his score > because of the violation. > ~ Grattan ~ = > > David, are you listening? "is not fully reinstated" - so it means my reading of L12A1 is correct. So it means TD *can* theoretically rule 7NTxx -13 for a LOOT. Stupid ruling but legal. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Portal z najlepsza wyszukiwarka! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1861 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 10 12:46:25 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 10 12:50:08 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke References: <200503081923.LAA13222@mailhub.irvine.com> <42300051.6030603@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001c01c52566$dfd642a0$a29b4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Egad, I think the interpreter is the hardest to be understood of the two." ~ Richard Brinsley Sheridan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Subject: Re: [blml] A blocking revoke > > No, I believe this is a misapplication of Law 72B1. > > If someone commits an infraction and the opponents > > don't catch it because they're asleep at the wheel, > > you can't then go back and penalize the infraction on > > the grounds that the offender "could have known" > > that it would work out in his favour if he didn't get > > caught. In your example, West led out of turn but > > South didn't notice because he wasn't paying > > attention, so South loses. IMHO, this isn't at all the > > type of situation that Law 72B1 was meant to > > address. > > > > Unless there's case law to the contrary ... > > +=+ I do not see any comment here on the knowing violation of Laws 72B2 and 74A3. As for the application of Law 72B1, the only time limit for this is in Law 81C6. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 10 13:29:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Mar 10 13:29:55 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <20050309141637.ED3FFEB2E8@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Cibor wrote: > And this exactly how it should work. > In sports the only way to treat people > fair is by treating them equal. Bridge isn't a sport so there is no reason why similar principles should apply. However, should you wish to use a sporting analogy why not consider a sport which is similar to bridge in the sense that competitors of grossly mismatched ability often play in the same event? Golfers (in most competitions) get to apply their handicaps to their scores. A fair, but by no means equal, treatment. Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Mar 10 13:54:00 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Mar 10 13:53:28 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: <20050310114906.53EEFD54F7@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050310114906.53EEFD54F7@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <42304368.2000804@hdw.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Grattan Endicott napisa?(a): > >> >> = Beware, gentlemen. Law 12A1 is concerned with >>provision of 'indemnity'. This has nothing to do with any >>penalty that the laws may impose. Indemnity has to do >>with the compensation of loss for the side offended >>against. If any damage suffered is not fully reinstated by >>the application of other laws Law 12A1 provides the >>reserve authority by which the Director may ensure that >>a non-offending contestant does not lose out in his score >>because of the violation. >> ~ Grattan ~ = >> >> > > > > David, are you listening? "is not fully reinstated" - > so it means my reading of L12A1 is correct. > > So it means TD *can* theoretically rule 7NTxx -13 > for a LOOT. Stupid ruling but legal. > > I don't believe you are correct, Konrad. You are concerned with L12A1 being misuded by directors. You believe that L12A1 gives the TD authority to do "anything". It does not. Under L12A1, the TD can restore whatever damage he feels being done. But he cannot do more than restore damage. Of course the TD can transgress in his estimate of damage, and award, as you say 7NTXX-13. But if he uses L12A1 to warrant this ruling, the offenders will have it easy in proving that their opponents were never damaged to that extent. So the misuse of this law is in no way larger than the possible misuse of several other laws, including L12C2 and L12C3. That was what Grattan was trying to tell you. > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Portal z najlepsza wyszukiwarka! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1861 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.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: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 9/03/2005 From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Mar 10 14:14:59 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Mar 10 14:15:32 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) Message-ID: <20050310131459.0883AD54EB@poczta.interia.pl> Herman De Wael napisa?(a): > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott napisa?(a): > > > >> > >> = Beware, gentlemen. Law 12A1 is concerned with > >>provision of >#039;indemnity>#039;. This has nothing to do with any > >>penalty that the laws may impose. Indemnity has to do > >>with the compensation of loss for the side offended > >>against. If any damage suffered is not fully reinstated by > >>the application of other laws Law 12A1 provides the > >>reserve authority by which the Director may ensure that > >>a non-offending contestant does not lose out in his score > >>because of the violation. > >> ~ Grattan ~ = > >> > >> > > > > > > > > David, are you listening? "is not fully reinstated" - > > so it means my reading of L12A1 is correct. > > > > So it means TD *can* theoretically rule 7NTxx -13 > > for a LOOT. Stupid ruling but legal. > > > > > > I don't believe you are correct, Konrad. > > You are concerned with L12A1 being misuded by directors. Yes, this is exactly my point. I would like to give the TDs as little power as possible. As few judgement & equity rulings as possible. Then I feel a lot safer as a player. The most crazy rulings I have seen in my bridge career were the equity rulings. So whenever a TD approaches my table and gives a ruling based on, say, L12A1 I never know what is going to happen and I can feel some strange itching on my back. This is not going to be something as idiotic as 7NTxx -13 but it may come close. OTOH - I am never scared when the guy with a rulebook in his hand is about to do his job about LOOTs, BOOTs, cards dropped on the table and the like. Put me in the "more mechanical rulings" camp. You revoke - you lose X tricks. That's my idea of equity. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Najlepsze MOTO w sieci! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1862 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 10 14:58:06 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Mar 10 14:57:44 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <005101c5251d$3a642c90$269468d5@James> References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309084132.02b9a010@pop.starpower.net> <992cf1490ad667254beb5b6e0a58fe1f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <422F18C9.9060004@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309105201.02ba1eb0@pop.starpower.net> <005101c5251d$3a642c90$269468d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050310084826.02a83be0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:59 PM 3/9/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >Now... what about trying to make the laws even more >objective by trying to restrict the *sources* of >unauthorised information? rather than vainly trying to >detect and police its use? That would indeed solve the problem of UI being used by players who are less than entirely honest or ethical. But what about the honest and ethical players? The vast majority of UI transmitted by them comes from long hesitations when they really do have a problem and really do need time to think it through, and causes no difficulties, because their honest and ethical partners are careful not to take advantage of it. Bridge is a "mind sport"; solving difficult problems is what it's about. We certainly don't want to make it illegal to think a problem through for 20 or 30 seconds before acting, UI considerations notwithstanding. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schmied at didamail.com Mon Mar 7 20:23:38 2005 From: schmied at didamail.com (Terrence Hudson) Date: Thu Mar 10 15:31:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Your account #4V7485 Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.gga4.info/now.asp Best Regards, Rosalie Vann to be remov(ed: http://www.gga4.info/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 10 15:36:05 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Mar 10 15:36:47 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <007a01c524d5$2153c820$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050310090513.02daa080@pop.starpower.net> At 01:26 AM 3/10/05, richard.hills wrote: >I believe in equality of opportunity, not in uniformity of >outcomes. In my opinion, Marv is suggesting that (in a >weak field) this generic auction - oft perpetrated by a >bunny - should be deemed to be a logical alternative for >a rebid by West when West is an expert: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >3S Pass Pass 4H >4S I think I see where Richard is going, but I'd like to see a better example. The problem with this one is that I can imagine a scenario in which an expert might perpetrate that auction tactically, but have a hard time imagining what East might possibly have done to engender UI suggesting that an expert West *shouldn't* bid 4S after South balances. I suppose East might have done something ridiculously blatant ("I pass and don't you dare bid again, partner"), but I would take that as compelling evidence that E-W is not an expert partnership. If Richard's concern is justified, we need to see a case of a bid which an expert would see as the only logical action, but a bunny might contemplate alternatives to, where the expert has UI from his partner that demonstrably suggests he take one of the alternative actions that only a bunny would consider. Not only have I never seen such a situation in real life, I find myself at a loss trying to make one up. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Mar 10 15:49:45 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Mar 10 15:50:22 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: <20050310144945.31C8ED54EA@poczta.interia.pl> Tim West-Meads napisa?(a): > Cibor wrote: > > > And this exactly how it should work. > > In sports the only way to treat people > > fair is by treating them equal. > > Bridge isn't a sport so there is no reason why similar principles should > apply. It is to me. So is chess, for instance. > However, should you wish to use a sporting analogy why not > consider a sport which is similar to bridge in the sense that competitors > > of grossly mismatched ability often play in the same event? Golfers (in > most competitions) get to apply their handicaps to their scores. A fair, > > but by no means equal, treatment. > I know almost but nothing about golf but I don't like this treatment in the least. I wouldn't want to get any artificial help simply because I cannot play. When I get a chance to play golf I will simply do my best. If I lose because I am a poor golfer - well, that's competition. Winning with Tiger Woods by adding some gzillion of points to my final score (or whatever unit they use in golf to calculate scores) wouldn't give me any satisfation in the least. If I cannot beat him on equal terms - so be it. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Portal z najlepsza wyszukiwarka! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1861 From thad at emailaccount.com Mon Mar 7 20:23:38 2005 From: thad at emailaccount.com (Linda Daniels) Date: Thu Mar 10 16:14:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Become a homeowner with low rates Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.gga4.info/now.asp Best Regards, Marlene Haines to be remov(ed: http://www.gga4.info/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From adam at irvine.com Thu Mar 10 17:39:35 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Mar 10 17:40:11 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:46:25 GMT." <001c01c52566$dfd642a0$a29b4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <200503101639.IAA28182@mailhub.irvine.com> I wrote: > > > No, I believe this is a misapplication of Law 72B1. > > > If someone commits an infraction and the opponents > > > don't catch it because they're asleep at the wheel, > > > you can't then go back and penalize the infraction on > > > the grounds that the offender "could have known" > > > that it would work out in his favour if he didn't get > > > caught. In your example, West led out of turn but > > > South didn't notice because he wasn't paying > > > attention, so South loses. IMHO, this isn't at all the > > > type of situation that Law 72B1 was meant to > > > address. > > > > > > Unless there's case law to the contrary ... Grattan wrote: > +=+ I do not see any comment here on the > knowing violation of Laws 72B2 and 74A3. There wasn't any suggestion that West knowingly violated the Law. In the original post, West was running a suit, and East showed out on the suit on one trick and then blocked it on the next trick, but West kept leading. The presumption here is that since all players had already showed out on the fourth round, West assumed he was just going to be on lead to run the suit and didn't notice anything amiss had happened. David didn't suggest that West knowingly violated the Law, but thought this was a time when the "could have known" criterion should apply. IMHO, this criterion is there to deal with cases where the Law has been violated and the "penalty" makes things more favorable to the violator. We need to make sure scurrilous players don't intentionally violate Laws to take advantage of such loopholes; we say "could have known" instead of "knowingly" so that we can make sure offenders don't benefit in such cases without having to read their minds. This case is not such a case, though. Of course, if we can convince ourselves that West did knowingly lead out of turn, we should throw the Lawbook at him (although throwing a larger book, such as the OED, would probably be more effective). But nobody has a reason to think that's what actually happened here. > As for the application of Law 72B1, the only > time limit for this is in Law 81C6. This isn't relevant to my point. If you interpreted my phrase "you can't then go back and..." as having something to do with applying a penalty after a board is over, my apologies---I didn't mean it that way. It's just a colloquialism, and perhaps I need to be more careful about how I phrase things since we have so many readers from so many different parts of the world. On the other hand, I did notice that for some strange reason I accidentally spelled "favor" correctly (from your point of view, anyway). -- Adam From areal at doramail.com Mon Mar 7 20:23:38 2005 From: areal at doramail.com (Sandra Woodruff) Date: Thu Mar 10 17:54:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Lowest rate approval Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.gga4.info/now.asp Best Regards, Carissa Goode to be remov(ed: http://www.gga4.info/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From LIBMEHBPKDDIG at fue.ducub.com Thu Mar 10 20:29:00 2005 From: LIBMEHBPKDDIG at fue.ducub.com (Leann Blake) Date: Thu Mar 10 20:34:04 2005 Subject: [blml] New Year with Vicodin Mickey Message-ID: <430501141618.AA1481902@client.comcast.net> Big sale on Vicodin and other drugs. You wont find better prices anywhere! Vicodin - 90 PiIls - 178$ Viagra - 100 PilIs - 209.99$ Cialis - 90 PiIls - 324$ Ambien - 120 PilIs - 249$ Xanax - 90 PiIls - 299$ and many more... Please click below and check out our offer. http://merlin.hotybatl.info/in.php?aid=44 %TEXT[2-5] %TEXT[2-5] From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 10 21:47:55 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Mar 10 21:47:30 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <20050310144945.31C8ED54EA@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050310144945.31C8ED54EA@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050310151742.03173210@pop.starpower.net> At 09:49 AM 3/10/05, Konrad wrote: >Tim West-Meads napisa?(a): > > > However, should you wish to use a sporting analogy why not > > consider a sport which is similar to bridge in the sense that > competitors > > > > of grossly mismatched ability often play in the same > event? Golfers (in > > most competitions) get to apply their handicaps to their scores. A > fair, > > but by no means equal, treatment. > >I know almost but nothing about golf >but I don't like this treatment in the least. >I wouldn't want to get any artificial >help simply because I cannot play. >When I get a chance to play golf >I will simply do my best. If I lose because >I am a poor golfer - well, that's >competition. Winning with Tiger Woods >by adding some gzillion of points >to my final score (or whatever unit >they use in golf to calculate scores) wouldn't give >me any satisfation in the least. >If I cannot beat him on equal terms - >so be it. Handicap events exist in virtually every sport; in a few -- golf and horseracing come to mind -- it is the most common form of competition. What they all have in common is that the handicaps are predetermined before the event starts and known to anyone who cares. Once the event starts, the rules are the same for everyone. And even in golf and horseracing, handicaps are not used in high-level championship events. There's no analogy between what is normally meant by a handicap event and an event where the stronger (or weaker) players are "handicapped" by different rules for things like penalties for fouls. In serious golf, anyone who touches their ball on the lie pays a two-stroke penalty, whether they are a world-class expert or a complete duffer. In a friendly game, that penalty might well not be enforced, but would, in that case, not be enforced for anyone, expert and duffer alike. If you suggested to mixed group of golfers that the penalty should be zero, one or two strokes depending on the "class of player involved" they would think you had totally lost your mind. Some bridge administrators, however, would, apparently, think such a suggestion unremarkable, even routine. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 10 21:59:21 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 10 21:58:37 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: <200503081923.LAA13222@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: >No, I believe this is a misapplication of Law 72B1. > >If someone commits an infraction and the opponents don't >catch it because they're asleep at the wheel, you can't >then go back and penalize the infraction on the grounds >that the offender "could have known" that it would work >out in his favor if he didn't get caught. [snip] >Unless there's case law to the contrary ... Richard Hills: Actually, there is case law to the contrary. Declarer was due to lead to the next trick. Dummy had zillions of winners but no entry. Declarer "inadvertently" led a winner from dummy. A sleepy RHO inadvertently - without quotation marks - followed to the trick. A not-so-sleepy LHO summoned the TD. A not-so-gullible TD created case law by correctly applying Law 72B1. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 10 23:02:09 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 10 23:01:27 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050310090513.02daa080@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >If Richard's concern is justified, we need to see a case of >a bid which an expert would see as the only logical action, >but a bunny might contemplate alternatives to, where the >expert has UI from his partner that demonstrably suggests he >take one of the alternative actions that only a bunny would >consider. Not only have I never seen such a situation in >real life, I find myself at a loss trying to make one up. Richard Hills: Truth is stranger than fiction. See attached real life case from the Mixed Pairs at the Reno Nationals, from the second unofficial casebook that I edited. Note: I am currently in post-production of the third unofficial casebook, editing and adding special effects. If any blmler wants a copy of either or both of the first two unofficial casebooks, please send me a private email (which specifies whether Word or pdf format is desired). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru * * * Appeal Number Fifteen Subject: Tempo, UI NABC Mixed Pairs, 2nd Qualifying Board: 6 Dealer: East Vul: EW Marc Nathan 85 8 KJ987 A5432 Kamla Chawla Simon Kantor --- A64 QT976542 AJ T6 Q5432 QJ8 K96 Cathy Nathan KQJT9732 K3 A T7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D 4S 5H Pass(1) Pass 5S Pass Pass Dbl Pass Pass Pass (1) BIT The Facts: 5S doubled made five for +650. The opening lead was the diamond 10-spot. East called the director at his third turn to call. The director was called back at the end of the hand. There was a hesitation by North over 5. A 20- second hesitation was agreed on at the time. The Ruling: The director ruled 5 by West down 1 for +100. South did not have a 5S call opposite the hesitation (Law 16 unauthorized information). The Appeal: NS appealed. South said that she would always bid 5S over 5H. She stated she had a powerful suit and could not possibly be set more than the value of the opponent's game. She was annoyed because she claimed that a director told her that she was barred from bidding further after the hesitation. Additionally, EW could have gone plus if West had found the winning club lead. East thought that the South hand had enough defensive potential that it was not automatic for South to save in 5S. It was pretty clear that North was thinking about bidding 5S and that made it more attractive for South to bid 5S. Other important facts that were discovered: South had used the stop card before bidding 4S and West had waited 10 seconds before bidding 5H. It was likely that a director had told South that she was barred from bidding 5S with the hand that she held. North said that he might not have hesitated for 20 seconds but it was at least 15. The Decision: North clearly broke tempo over 5H. During the 10 second skip bid pause, the only bid by West that could give North a problem was 5H so North had plenty of time to make up his mind what to do without passing UI to his partner. What did North's hesitation suggest? He was thinking about raising spades (South's hand was too strong defensively for North to have been considering a double). A hand that contained no tricks would pass since the opponents would either double 5S for 800 or bid on to a successful slam. (The 4S bidder would be assumed to have seven offensive tricks and one defensive trick.) With one trick, North would be inclined to raise to 5S, expecting it to cost less than the value of the opponent's game, but could hope to set the opponents at the six-level. With 1 1/2 to 2 tricks, North would be in between bidding as a save and passing, hoping for a set. South had a much better than average 4S bid, both offensively and defensively. However, double is not attractive, both because of the questionable value of the heart King, and because the hand lacked the ace. The choice is between pass and 5S. Without the hesitation, pass would be a logical alternative to bidding 5S. Partner might have one or no spades, so South could take a spade trick on defense, while 4S was going down. Further, it would not be surprising if many other EW pairs defended 4S. If a significant number of other pairs are allowed to play 4S, going down, then South would automatically lost to these players by bidding 5S. On the other hand, she has a chance to beat those pairs by passing if 5H can be defeated. When North hesitates before passing, South knows that he can be counted on for at least a couple of spades and a trick or two. Thus, 4S was very likely making, and South will automatically lose to those allowed to play 4S if she passes. Therefore, the hesitation demonstrably suggests that pass is a losing action by South and that 5S is more than likely to be successful. Since pass is a logical alternative to the suggested 5S bid, the contract was changed to 5H, down one on a spade lead. It is quite possible that most other players of South's experience and ability would automatically bid 5S without considering the hand's defensive potential or likely contracts at the other tables. Nevertheless, in a national event players are expected to be at least close to the standard of the event when considering logical alternatives. The appeal was found to have substantial merit. Committee: Doug Doub, Chairperson, Michael Huston and John Lusky. Casebook panellists -> Doug Couchman: I understand, but don't agree. South's spade bid has put substantial pressure on the opponents, and West guessed hearts at the five level. I believe that as often as not a good North will be thinking about doubling hearts as bidding spades. Unless it is established that South's preempts in this sort of position are particularly sound, I believe that double is indicated by the hesitation (catering to all possibilities), but 5S is likely to be worse, because now it is often going to be a bad sacrifice (and will almost never make). Hence, no adjustment. Grattan Endicott: What this appears to confirm is that the player in question has chosen an action that could have been suggested by the UI received from partner but did not have a logical alternative (see Law 16A2). So the UI has not influenced his action at all, in that judgement, and there is no infraction. If the judgement is sound the UI did not assist him at all, even if it would have done had there been any margin of doubt for the player. Whilst levels of interpretation vary from one authority to another, we do appear to have gained widespread credence for the description of a logical alternative in the CoP - with slight variations of wording in one place or another. The latest wording that I now have in my notes, reads: "no other potential action or actions less suggested would be seriously considered by at least a noteworthy minority of players of similar ability, and possibly adopted by some, when using the player's announced methods and not in possession of unauthorized information." The value placed on 'possibly adopted by some' has been a subject of discussion with colleagues since it is felt this is a crucial component of the concept. There is also a WBF Laws Committee minute from 1992 in which Edgar and I were jointly emphasising that a call not made "should be deemed a logical alternative if quite a number of players of like standard could be expected to make it". Marvin French: If the TD really told South that she was barred from bidding 5S, that's pretty outrageous. Perhaps she was referring to another deal, as she did bid 5S. The discussion about North's thinking is off the mark, as it doesn't matter what North was thinking when he broke tempo. South's remarks show a misunderstanding of the Laws. What she says "she would always do" is irrelevant, as is the defense against 5S. What matters is that passing was an LA, making the 5S bid illegal, and E-W were damaged by it. The AC says "in a national event players are expected to be at least close to the standard of the event when considering logical alternatives." This is incorrect. In any event players are expected to follow L16A, regardless of their experience or ability. Are NABCs to be run like little club games? Jim Hudson: Whether North was thinking of bidding or doubling, his hesitation (I'd give him 10 seconds, but not 15, let alone 20) made it more attractive for South to do something other than pass. Pass is a LA, in spite of both extra offense and extra defense; there is almost always a LA to bidding five over five. ("South said that she would always bid 5S over 5H"--such self-serving statements are routinely discounted.) EW's defense was unfortunate but nowhere near egregious. So the Director's ruling was straightforward; the appeal lacked merit. The Committee's bridge analysis was dogmatic and simplistic, apparently influenced by their knowledge of the full deal. "South?s hand was too strong defensively for North to have been considering a double"--this is stated too confidently. West was probably taking a shot in the dark; North might have had, say, Q10x in hearts and a probable trick in the minors. In spite of the Committee's assertion, without the hesitation South might well have doubled, giving partner a choice. "The 4S bidder would be assumed to have seven offensive tricks and one defensive trick"--a perilous assumption, white against red! Finally, given the hesitation, "South knows th[at] he [North] can be counted on for at least a couple of spades and a trick or two"; no, the Committee knows this, from the hand record. But these details are not needed to support the Committee's decision. I doubt that South's level of competence is germane, but the Committee raised the issue, and so it should have told us how many masterpoints she had. The Committee offers the principle that even an inexperienced player in a top-rated event is to be treated as a near-expert; if the ACBL is going to use this principle, it should somewhere say so explicitly. In general, we need more guidance about whom to count as a player's "peers" in figuring score adjustments. Hilda Lirsch: Substantial merit??? Substantial merit exists only if South is deemed to be a patzer of limited experience and ability. For a patzer of limited experience and ability, an automatic re-preempt of 5S is the only logical alternative.(17) In that case, the AC should have ruled that South did not commit an infraction, so consequently reinstate the table score. Indeed, it seems that the AC was indeed on the verge of deeming South to be a patzer of limited experience and ability. The AC finessed the issue of what South's peers would call by arbitrarily ruling that (in a mere Mixed Pairs qualifying session) South was close to a national standard of player. In my opinion, the AC was substantially inconsistent. Either South is a player who deserves an AWMW and a PP, or South is a patzer who deserves to have their table result reinstated. In my opinion, the justified contempt that all players (of substantial experience and substantial ability) have for a re-preempt after UI, meant that this AC was unjust to this patzer (of limited experience and ability). David Stevenson: A simple case: is pass an LA? Not in my view! * * * (17) Editorial footnote: The term Logical Alternative is a misnomer. An LA has been defined in the WBF Code of Practice as: "A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it." The ACBL definition of LA differs in some respects from the WBF definition, but also includes a reference to "class of players/peers". If all of a player's peer-group would automatically and illogically re-preempt 5S over 5H in this auction, then that automatic and illogical 5S re-preempt is technically the only Logical Alternative, so therefore a legal call. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 11 05:47:19 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 11 05:48:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Is Law 25A insufficient? In-Reply-To: <422DB179.7010901@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski asked: >>What about L28A? >> >>After RHO's bid it is too late for L25A. Herman De Wael replied: >No Konrad, that is precisely why the question was asked >in the first place. L25A states that partner must not >have called. He hasn't, in reality. RHO bid is "out of >turn" and by L28A it is "considered in turn". But there >is no law that states that a player who is obliged to >pass has in fact passed when his LHO calls. A LHO who >waits for the player to pass, even when he must, is not >doing anything wrong. After all, the player may forget >he should pass, and bid something. That bid is not >considered to be a "second bid in the same round", but >rather a "bid by a player who was obliged to pass"; L37 >applies, as does L35 when the next player calls without >asking for the non-pass to be withdrawn. > >So, IMO, partner has not passed and the deadline for >applying L25A has not yet gone by. > >Of course, if the partner does nothing, he will be >deemed to have passed at some point in the proceedings. >But not necessarily right away. And we should not accept >that opponents take the offender by speed. Richard Hills reveals: A historic moment. I fully agree with everything that Herman has said. Is this a day that will live in infamy? :-) Since truth is stranger than fiction, this situation actually occurred in Canberra last week, during our Trials to select our representative Seniors Team for the forthcoming Interstate Teams. The CTD told me another unique aspect of the case. The CTD had naturally remained at the table while the ramifications of the insufficient bid were being resolved. After South inadvertently called 4S instead of 4H, South turned a whiter shade of pale, and merely gave a glazed look upwards at the hovering CTD - a *non- verbal* call for the CTD. So, before North could pull out their Pass card, the CTD acted in response to South's non-verbal summoning, and allowed South to exercise their Law 25A right to change their inadvertent 4S to 4H. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 11 09:25:45 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 11 09:25:13 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: <200503101639.IAA28182@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200503101639.IAA28182@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <42315609.1060200@hdw.be> Adam, be consistent, please: Adam Beneschan wrote: > There wasn't any suggestion that West knowingly violated the Law. indeed, from no-one. > David didn't suggest that West knowingly violated the Law, not even from David. > IMHO, the "could have known" criterion is there to deal with cases where the Law has > been violated and the "penalty" makes things more favorable to the > violator. Exactly. > we say "could have known" instead of "knowingly" so that we can make sure offenders don't benefit in such cases without having to read their minds Precisely. > This case > is not such a case, though. Isn't it? > Of course, if we can convince ourselves > that West did knowingly lead out of turn, we should throw the Lawbook > at him (although throwing a larger book, such as the OED, would > probably be more effective). But nobody has a reason to think that's > what actually happened here. > You start off by saying that you don't need to read offender's mind, so a "could have known" is enough, and then you say that there is no case here, because he did not do it "knowingly"? Are you saying that you use the "could have known" criterion solely when you suspect the offender did know? Surely that is not a correct way to rule. We should in fact be able to say "I know you did not do it knowingly, but you acted exactly as if you did, and we don't want to let some less ethical player off the hook, so we're ruling against you as well". And we want to be able to say that also when we mean it, not just when we don't and want to cover our tracks. Or are you saying that he could not have known - that seems far-fetched. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 9/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 11 10:12:55 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 11 10:12:19 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050310151742.03173210@pop.starpower.net> References: <20050310144945.31C8ED54EA@poczta.interia.pl> <6.1.1.1.0.20050310151742.03173210@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <42316117.5050101@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > In serious golf, anyone who touches their ball on the lie pays a > two-stroke penalty, whether they are a world-class expert or a complete > duffer. In a friendly game, that penalty might well not be enforced, > but would, in that case, not be enforced for anyone, expert and duffer > alike. If you suggested to mixed group of golfers that the penalty > should be zero, one or two strokes depending on the "class of player > involved" they would think you had totally lost your mind. Some bridge > administrators, however, would, apparently, think such a suggestion > unremarkable, even routine. > But golf has no laws that return to a "would have happened" status. If they had, I would be sure they would also include the level of pleyer. Suppose golf would need a law stating what the score would be if a golfer gets struck by lightning when on the green. Surely a law that says that a putt of less than one metre be considered made would be considered grossly unfair for Tiger Woods, and for a beginner alike. TW would want the rule to extend to 5m, the beginner would be happy if he'd get a 20cm putt awarded. This just to say that comparisons with other sports just don't go. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 9/03/2005 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Mar 11 10:48:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Mar 11 10:49:34 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050310151742.03173210@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Wrote: > Handicap events exist in virtually every sport; in a few -- golf and > horseracing come to mind -- it is the most common form of > competition. What they all have in common is that the handicaps are > predetermined before the event starts and known to anyone who > cares. Once the event starts, the rules are the same for > everyone. As are the rules for bridge. Judgements made within those rules will vary. The point is that different sports and games require different types of rules/judgements. Those where players of grossly mismatched ability meet frequently need mechanisms to handle the issues that arise. If MI prevents a top player reaching a slam that makes only on a delicate criss-cross squeeze (best line) there is no doubt in my mind that he has been damaged. If similar MI prevents a typical club player from finding the same slam I am equally sure no damage has occurred (nb I'd likely need the squeeze explained to me as it is). I see nothing "fair" in denying the top player the benefits of redress (and I see nothing "fair" in giving the club player the bonus from adjusting to a making slam). The concept of saying that good players are allowed to use UI because average players wouldn't understand the implications of a given situation appals me. Novices hesitate in every auction (the hesitations usually don't mean anything as we all know) but in this "fair" world are we to penalise them against the implications of an expert hesitation? How long before they give up the game? Perhaps equity is too deeply ingrained in my psyche but I can't see a playable version of the game in which rulings ignore the player's abilities. > And even in golf and horseracing, handicaps are not used in > high-level championship events. The Grand National (possibly the greatest event in the racing calendar) is handicapped, but that is by-the-by. Tim From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Fri Mar 11 10:57:49 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri Mar 11 10:55:16 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: <42315609.1060200@hdw.be> Message-ID: > Are you saying that you use the "could have known" criterion solely > when you suspect the offender did know? Surely that is not a correct > way to rule. We should in fact be able to say "I know you did not do > it knowingly, but you acted exactly as if you did, and we don't want > to let some less ethical player off the hook, so we're ruling against > you as well". And we want to be able to say that also when we mean it, > not just when we don't and want to cover our tracks. There isn't anything in Law 72 that *says* that's the only time we can apply it. But I can tell you that in ten years of real-life directing I've not once had occasion to use this law. It really IS my understanding that it is only used when you are sure someone is cheating but don't have firm enough proof to bring charges at a C&E hearing. Even in BLML we hear very rarely about its use. The only example I can remember is the Rottweiler Coup case - where I felt it was abused to punish a spur-of-the-moment inspiration that worked. (Sort of like all those red psyches I don't think are even pink.) Just one person's limited experience. GRB From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Mar 11 10:58:22 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Mar 11 11:04:14 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke References: <200503101639.IAA28182@mailhub.irvine.com> <42315609.1060200@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004901c52621$411a8340$82a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Egad, I think the interpreter is the hardest to be understood of the two." ~ Richard Brinsley Sheridan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Subject: Re: [blml] A blocking revoke > > > Of course, if we can convince ourselves > > that West did knowingly lead out of turn, > > we should throw the Lawbook at him > > (although throwing a larger book, such as > > the OED, would probably be more effective). > > But nobody has a reason to think that's > > what actually happened here. > > +=+ In the message that I read the possibility of his having done it knowingly was postulated, if only to deny it. The offender knows what he knew when he did what he did and, for his own comfort or discomfort, should be aware of the heinous nature of the crime. As a separate issue I have not the slightest doubt that the Director may apply Law 72B1 in the case. It is my opinion that he should do so. ~ G ~ +=+ From toddz at att.net Fri Mar 11 12:03:20 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri Mar 11 12:04:02 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <42316117.5050101@hdw.be> References: <20050310144945.31C8ED54EA@poczta.interia.pl> <6.1.1.1.0.20050310151742.03173210@pop.starpower.net> <42316117.5050101@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42317AF8.3090307@att.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > But golf has no laws that return to a "would have happened" status. > If they had, I would be sure they would also include the level of pleyer. > Suppose golf would need a law stating what the score would be if a > golfer gets struck by lightning when on the green. > Surely a law that says that a putt of less than one metre be considered > made would be considered grossly unfair for Tiger Woods, and for a > beginner alike. TW would want the rule to extend to 5m, the beginner > would be happy if he'd get a 20cm putt awarded. > > This just to say that comparisons with other sports just don't go. Some people, or at least myself, see this as a good argument for why such things shouldn't be allowed in bridge. If it's absurd for other sports, it can't be unquestionably good for bridge. And yet other sports do allow handicaps, so such can't be unquestionably bad for bridge either. I think the analogies are useful, even broken ones. They allow you to ask why are such rules good or acceptable for bridge, but poor or unsatisfactory for golf? I reiterate that the renege rule in tournament pinochle is very severe. You lose everything on the hand and your score goes back the bid. The renege rule in tournament cribbage is fairly weak -- a few pegs. Each rule works for each game, so why does bridge align itself more with cribbage's philosophy than pinochle's? It's interesting to make comparisons with sports and other games. -Todd From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Mar 11 13:03:15 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Mar 11 13:03:27 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <009b01c52632$4f2bfbb0$209868d5@James> [Tm West-Meads] > The concept of saying that good players are allowed > to use UI because average players wouldn't understand > the implications of a given situation appals me. [Nigel] Me too but nobody has suggested such an argument. Richard would call it a "straw-man". [Tim] > Novices hesitate in every auction (the hesitations > usually don't mean anything as we all know) but in > this "fair" world are we to penalise them against > the implications of an expert hesitation? How > long before they give up the game? Perhaps equity > is too deeply ingrained in my psyche but I can't > see a playable version of the game in which rulings > ignore the player's abilities. [Nigel] As far as 99% of BLMers are concerned, this is snother straw-man. Under current rules, it is the *use* of UI rather than the UI itself that is penalized. AFAIK, I am the *only* BLMer who advocates that the the emphasis should be changed to reducing the UI itself -- for example, by penalizing it directly, where appropriate. I argue that it is simple amd fair to treat infractions by poor players in the same way as infractions by good players. Abiding by the rules is a central skill in all games; no rational player objects to standard penalties for infractions; if players adopted Tim's atttitude to adverse rulings, no poor player would play any game. [Tim] > The Grand National (possibly the greatest event in > the racing calendar) is handicapped, but that is > by-the-by. [Nigel] Handicapping is a red-herring. It is completely irrelevant to this argument. If upfront and explicit, handicapping is accepted by most players of most games. A more germane analogy is with trying to decide whether a foul (at football or whatever) is professional and deliberate; and basing your ruling on that assessment. In a criminal court, the competence and thought-processes of the accused may have some relevance to his guilt. IMO, however, such subjective assessments are an unnecessary complication in the rules of a game. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Mar 11 12:57:18 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Mar 11 13:06:26 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <20050310144945.31C8ED54EA@poczta.interia.pl> <6.1.1.1.0.20050310151742.03173210@pop.starpower.net><42316117.5050101@hdw.be> <42317AF8.3090307@att.net> Message-ID: <000201c52632$5317b4d0$2fad87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Egad, I think the interpreter is the hardest to be understood of the two." ~ Richard Brinsley Sheridan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > I think the analogies are useful, even broken > ones. They allow you to ask why are such > rules good or acceptable for bridge, but poor > or unsatisfactory for golf? > +=+ I find it interesting to learn what analogies fellow players see/do not see. It broadens the cloth on which to lay out conditions for bridge. But the selection of conditions is unique to each game/sport. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 11 14:29:08 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Mar 11 14:29:26 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050310090513.02daa080@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050311081824.02b03e60@pop.starpower.net> At 05:02 PM 3/10/05, richard.hills wrote: >Eric Landau: > > >If Richard's concern is justified, we need to see a case of > >a bid which an expert would see as the only logical action, > >but a bunny might contemplate alternatives to, where the > >expert has UI from his partner that demonstrably suggests he > >take one of the alternative actions that only a bunny would > >consider. Not only have I never seen such a situation in > >real life, I find myself at a loss trying to make one up. > >Richard Hills: > >Truth is stranger than fiction. See attached real life case >from the Mixed Pairs at the Reno Nationals, from the second >unofficial casebook that I edited. [case snipped] Richard's example case raises some interesting issues, but fails to meet the criteria I was looking for. It is a routine circumstance, in which a preemptor (4S) raised himself (bidding 5S over 5H) having UI suggesting that he do so (partner's huddle, presumably indicating a reluctance to pass out 5H); the committee decided that pass was an LA, and adjusted to the result in 5H. To make Richard's original case, what we need is a case where, for example, the 4S bidder, having some UI from some action by his partner, passed 5H out, and a TD or AC subsequently adjusted (or contemplated adjusting) to the result that would have occurred had he bid 5S. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Mar 12 02:19:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Mar 12 02:20:04 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <009b01c52632$4f2bfbb0$209868d5@James> Message-ID: > [Tm West-Meads] > > The concept of saying that good players are allowed > > to use UI because average players wouldn't understand > > the implications of a given situation appals me. > > [Nigel] > Me too but nobody has suggested such an argument. > Richard would call it a "straw-man". If we use a "fixed standard" for determining what is/isn't allowed it is absolutely inevitable that players of a higher standard will, on occasion, have inferences not available to lesser players. Since the new law will constrain their action only to "fixed standard" they will be free to take advantage of such inferences. A good player can draw inferences from a flicker that "standard" players would miss - or derive more information from a hesitation, etc. > [Tim] > > Novices hesitate in every auction (the hesitations > > usually don't mean anything as we all know) but in > > this "fair" world are we to penalise them against > > the implications of an expert hesitation? How > > long before they give up the game? Perhaps equity > > is too deeply ingrained in my psyche but I can't > > see a playable version of the game in which rulings > > ignore the player's abilities. > > [Nigel] > As far as 99% of BLMers are concerned, this is snother > straw-man. Under current rules, it is the *use* of UI rather > than the UI itself that is penalized. It is a step process: 1) Does UI exist? 2) Does it suggest an action? 3) Are there LAs? Currently poorer players have leeway on these issues. Were we unable to take ability into account we couldn't rule "A novice hesitation in this sequence doesn't say anything about the hand". We couldn't rule "A novice wouldn't realise that this hesitation suggested extras". We couldn't rule "A novice would never consider making a slam try". Come to that we would be ruling "deceptive hesitation" in 90% of novice auctions (albeit there wouldn't always be damage). > AFAIK, I am the *only* > BLMer who advocates that the the emphasis should be changed > to reducing the UI itself -- for example, by penalizing it > directly, where appropriate. What do you mean by "where appropriate"? > I argue that it is simple amd fair to treat infractions by > poor players in the same way as infractions by good players. Of course. But that is far from the same as saying that the same action by a poor player is an infraction just because it would be if done by a good player. > Abiding by the rules is a central skill in all games; no > rational player objects to standard penalties for > infractions; if players adopted Tim's atttitude to adverse > rulings, no poor player would play any game. It is not adverse rulings, per se, that drive away such players. It is the frequency of rulings perceived as unfair. As for standard penalties, that just sets a threshhold for the expected gain from using UI. If the penalty is 3 IMPs it is well worth abusing UI for a likely 12 IMP gain. If the penalty is 12 IMPs the committees will end up taking longer than the matches. Tim From acwjiu at plig.net Sat Mar 12 04:07:43 2005 From: acwjiu at plig.net (Nadia Ouzas) Date: Sat Mar 12 03:14:39 2005 Subject: [blml] GTVCF-OB_MicroCapSt0ck Report shin Message-ID: <188264167.2.4975824@precipitous-yay66.plig.net> handbag * Wallstreet Insider Alert Newsletter * Information you can Trust and Profit from. Our extensive research shows GTVCF is on the move with big gains expected on Monday. They will be having a big promotion promotion going all weekend for there new press release with big gains expected monday. So don't miss it get in as soon as possible to profit. Company:Globetech Ventures Ticker:GTVCF Industry:Gold/Molybendum Mining Current Price:$0.32 52Wk High:$1.73 Market Cap:4.34M Estimated 3months-target:1.00 Estimated 6months-target:2.50 Analysis:Industry Outperform Brief Profile: Globetech Ventures Corp. is a global mining company engaged in acquiring and developing mineral properties and, if warranted, the processing of related mineral resources. Company owns through its Brazilian subsidiary title to 197,000 acres (80,000 hectars ) of mineral rights in Brazil’s gold and other mineral rich Vila Nova greenstone Belt. This month company acquired 100% interest in a molybendum (metallic element used principally as an alloying agent in steel, cast iron, and superalloys) rich property in British Colombia. Gold Mining Potential: The Vila Nova greenstone belt forms part of a stable Precambrian Guinan Shield rock formation, which in the adjacent countries of Venezuela, French Guiana and Guyana, hosts world class gold deposits. The Omai gold deposit in Guyana, has a reserve of approximately 4.2 million ounces of gold. The Guinan shield has historically produced large amounts of gold, some 4.8 million ounces having been mined in the 19th century alone. In the Vila Nova greenstone belt, in similar rocks to those found in Globetech's claim area, the Amapari gold deposit lies north of the Corporation's claim area. The Amapari gold deposit which has a resource in excess of 2 million ounces of gold, was recently acquired by Wheaton River Minerals for $105 million. Strong Buy. Why Now? The stock is incredibly cheap and it has been off the radar screen of Canadian mining funds until now. All indicators point to an expected sharp rise in the value of this company. There’s been talk of heavy institutional investments in Globetech. Technically the stock is near it’s 2 months support line and looks ready to retest the $1.73 high. Gold has been declining for nearly three months, but despite the short term correction gold is still above the 65-week moving average and is ready to resume it’s strong bull trend. Increasing gold prices will push Globetech’s value as well. In addition to its current operations the company is pursuing and evaluating potential mineral properties that can potential double or triple the company’s value. Don't Miss Out On This One Big Gains Expected Monday! Infor. mation-within this email c ontains for. ward looki. ng statem, ents within the meaning of Se. ction 2 7. A of the Secur. ities A. ct of 1933 and Se. ction 2 1. B of the Secur. iti es Ex cha nge A. ct of 1934. Any stat. eme. nts that ex. press or involve di. scuss. ions with respect to predi. ctions, goals, expectat. ions, beliefs, plans, projections, object. ives, assump. tions or future events or per. formance are not state. ments of his. torical fact and may be for. ward loo. king stat. ements. This newsl. etter is neither a reg. istered inve. stment advi sor nor affi. liated with any br. oker or dea. ler. This newsl. etter was pa. id 50400 from th. ird p. arty to se. nd this re. port.labia syrian From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Mar 12 14:27:41 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Mar 12 14:28:10 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <012c01c52707$44ac15f0$599468d5@James> [Tim] > Of course [it is simple amd fair to treat infractions by > > poor players in the same way as infractions by good > players]. But that is far from the same as saying that > the same action by a poor player is an infraction just > because it would be if done by a good player. It is not > adverse rulings, per se, that drive away such players. > It is the frequency of rulings perceived as unfair. As > for standard penalties, that just sets a threshhold for > the expected gain from using UI. If the penalty is 3 > IMPs it is well worth abusing UI for a likely 12 IMP > gain. If the penalty is 12 IMPs the committees will end > up taking longer than the matches. [Nigel] But I *am* saying "an action by a poor player is an infraction if it would be by a good player." That is the basis of most games. In the context of a game, this is completely fair and perceived by sensible players as such. The problem with subjective "judgements" produce different rulings on identical facts (just look at any BLML thread). Rulings may then appear to depend on the chemistry between the director and players and naturally cause resentment, especially when the injured party gets inadequate redress. "Equity" and other fudged rulings stifle dissent because: A. The law-breaker is delighted that on this rare occasion when one of his infractions has been detected, he has still escaped with such a mild penalty. B. Naturally, the victim is aware that the compensation is inadequate but feels it churlish to complain. After several such experiences, the most common reaction is likely to be "If you can't beat them, join them." From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Mar 12 14:30:04 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Mar 12 14:30:30 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: <013301c52707$9a5f5340$599468d5@James> [Tim replying to "Under current rules, it is the *use* of UI rather than the UI itself that is penalized"] > It is a step process: > 1) Does UI exist? > 2) Does it suggest an action? > 3) Are there LAs? > Currently poorer players have leeway on these issues. > Were we unable to take ability into account we couldn't > > rule "A novice hesitation in this sequence doesn't say > anything about the hand". We couldn't rule "A novice > wouldn't realise that this hesitation suggested > extras". We couldn't rule "A novice would never > consider making a slam try". Come to that we would be > ruling "deceptive hesitation" in 90% of novice auctions > (albeit there wouldn't always be damage). {Nigel] I agree with Tim that if you take away consideration of the ability of that class of player, then you will be ruling against the tempo-break, itself, rather than its illicit beneficial use. IMO "TFLB emphasis should be changed to emphasize the reducing UI itself -- for example, by penalizing it directly, where appropriate". [Tim] > What do you mean by "where appropriate"? [Nigel] A. It might be inapporpriate to penalize UI from a kibitser (for example). B. It might be sensible to "authorise" some information that is currently considered to be UI. For example: information from partner's systemically correct alerts and explanations. I've never heard of a case in the UK of anybody admitting to receiving or using UI from partner's alert or explanation (except in cases where opponents would probably detect that a wheel had come off, anyway). I guess that such UI is quite frequent, because, when you could ask opponents not to alert, opponents would have several misunderstandings that escallated into disasters, every session; although there were fewer conventions then than now. BTW, It is not that people are cheats. Some don't think about it at all. Others convince themeselves that they would have eventually reached the right interpretation. Most think that all such unenforceable rules are there just for the amusement of directors and law-makers. If the law-book must include unenforceable rules (and I tend to agree with Richard that perhaps it should) then it is better to hive them off to a "Proprieties" section as in the old days. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Mar 12 14:36:35 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Mar 12 14:37:03 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: <014001c52708$8357acf0$599468d5@James> [1Tim West-Maads] > If we use a "fixed standard" for determining what > is/isn't allowed it is absolutely inevitable that > players of a higher standard will, on occasion, > have inferences not available to lesser players. > Since the new law will constrain their action only > to "fixed standard" they will be free to take > advantage of such inferences. A good player can > draw inferences from a flicker that "standard" > players would miss - or derive more information > from a hesitation, etc. [Nigel] I reckon that some players are already better at picking up and interpreting UI than others. This does not necessarily correlate highly with other bridge abilities. So I don't think you should base the law on it. And there may still be a small rump of players who don't rationalise the illicit use of UI even when they are sure the can get away with it. Richard Hills once told us of a case in Australia but I don't think this is a common phenomenon. On reflectiona, I concede that experienced players tend to be better at all aspects of the game than beginners -- and that may well include taking advantage of unathorised information. But beginners are perfectly capable of detecting and using UI -- many beginners believe that this is a legitimate part of the game; this opinion will be re-inforced if beginners find they can offend with impunity. From ewill at fadmail.com Mon Mar 7 14:36:10 2005 From: ewill at fadmail.com (Damon Fowler) Date: Sat Mar 12 14:56:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Lowest rates in 45 years Message-ID: <200410031481.i93WyoTw003608@www8.warnerreprise.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.m-tg-today.com/nowss.asp Best Regards, Thad Bergman to be remov(ed: http://www.m-tg-today.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From tscdrepeebjta at kmobeurs.be Sat Mar 12 17:50:04 2005 From: tscdrepeebjta at kmobeurs.be (Vilma Hurst) Date: Sat Mar 12 18:01:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Erectile Dysfunction ruining your sex life? Message-ID: <1021122514.9995.11.camel@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050312/4a9dc000/attachment.html From fsija at computingsolutions-us.com Sat Mar 12 21:39:21 2005 From: fsija at computingsolutions-us.com (Naomi Rubio) Date: Sat Mar 12 21:50:37 2005 Subject: [blml] 100% natural longer, harder, erections Guaranteed! Message-ID: <041701141618.AA1482801@mhpcc.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050312/861003f6/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Mar 12 23:58:56 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat Mar 12 23:58:28 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <009b01c52632$4f2bfbb0$209868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050312173411.02b7b180@pop.starpower.net> At 08:19 PM 3/11/05, twm wrote: > > [Tm West-Meads] > > > The concept of saying that good players are allowed > > > to use UI because average players wouldn't understand > > > the implications of a given situation appals me. > > > > [Nigel] > > Me too but nobody has suggested such an argument. > > Richard would call it a "straw-man". > >If we use a "fixed standard" for determining what is/isn't allowed it is >absolutely inevitable that players of a higher standard will, on >occasion, >have inferences not available to lesser players. Since the new law will >constrain their action only to "fixed standard" they will be free to take >advantage of such inferences. A good player can draw inferences from a >flicker that "standard" players would miss - or derive more information >from a hesitation, etc. > > > [Tim] > > > Novices hesitate in every auction (the hesitations > > > usually don't mean anything as we all know) but in > > > this "fair" world are we to penalise them against > > > the implications of an expert hesitation? How > > > long before they give up the game? Perhaps equity > > > is too deeply ingrained in my psyche but I can't > > > see a playable version of the game in which rulings > > > ignore the player's abilities. > > > > [Nigel] > > As far as 99% of BLMers are concerned, this is snother > > straw-man. Under current rules, it is the *use* of UI rather > > than the UI itself that is penalized. > >It is a step process: >1) Does UI exist? >2) Does it suggest an action? >3) Are there LAs? > >Currently poorer players have leeway on these issues. Were we unable to >take ability into account we couldn't rule "A novice hesitation in this >sequence doesn't say anything about the hand". We couldn't rule "A >novice >wouldn't realise that this hesitation suggested extras". We couldn't >rule >"A novice would never consider making a slam try". Come to that we would >be ruling "deceptive hesitation" in 90% of novice auctions (albeit there >wouldn't always be damage). > > > AFAIK, I am the *only* > > BLMer who advocates that the the emphasis should be changed > > to reducing the UI itself -- for example, by penalizing it > > directly, where appropriate. > >What do you mean by "where appropriate"? > > > I argue that it is simple amd fair to treat infractions by > > poor players in the same way as infractions by good players. > >Of course. But that is far from the same as saying that the same action >by a poor player is an infraction just because it would be if done by a >good player. > > > Abiding by the rules is a central skill in all games; no > > rational player objects to standard penalties for > > infractions; if players adopted Tim's atttitude to adverse > > rulings, no poor player would play any game. > >It is not adverse rulings, per se, that drive away such players. It is >the frequency of rulings perceived as unfair. As for standard penalties, >that just sets a threshhold for the expected gain from using UI. If the >penalty is 3 IMPs it is well worth abusing UI for a likely 12 IMP gain. >If the penalty is 12 IMPs the committees will end up taking longer than >the matches. I am in agreement with everything Tim says, and I'll be surprised if I'm not part of a clear consensus. But the kind of "fixed standard" he's talking about is a whole different issue from where we started, which was the applicability of "'normal'", with its class-of-player related variability, to UI/MI adjudications -- an issue which really isn't about UI or MI at all, but which seems to have echoes of our ongoing disagreements about the claims laws. "It is a step process: "1) Does UI exist? "2) Does it suggest an action? "3) Are there LAs?" ...The answers to any of which may be quite different for a novice or an expert, given the identical table action. If we find that the answer is yes to all three, we determine that there has been an infraction of L16A. So we proceed on to L12C2, which is where "'normal'" either does or doesn't come into play... 4) What is the most favorable result that was likely for the NOS absent the infraction? 5) What is the least favorable result that was at all probable for the OS absent the infraction? These tend to be trickier in UI and MI situations than in others, and it is here that there is room for substantive disagreement over whether we make the same determination for everyone, or make differing adjustments depending on the class(es) of player(s) involved. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From qgjxquxnqqe at chartertn.net Sun Mar 13 11:43:21 2005 From: qgjxquxnqqe at chartertn.net (Sheldon Kerns) Date: Sun Mar 13 11:40:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Evreythnig your looikng 4 Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 3140 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050313/bfbcecc4/attachment.gif From willard at richmond.com Sun Mar 13 02:57:03 2005 From: willard at richmond.com (willard@richmond.com) Date: Sun Mar 13 18:58:26 2005 Subject: [blml] SOK Net. Message-ID: <959199594.87330224832963@richmond.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050313/7eb95fad/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 6048 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050313/7eb95fad/attachment.gif From wobnqcdj at kathyhenkelschoolofdance.com Sun Mar 13 19:44:51 2005 From: wobnqcdj at kathyhenkelschoolofdance.com (Toby Newman) Date: Sun Mar 13 19:50:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Solid Mortgages made easy Message-ID: <0105611096790.01145@jfuertes.maz.es> ----- Original Message ----- From: Letha To: convalesce1@msn.com ; archdiocesedukedom@yahoo.com ; Dear Homeowner, Mortgage. You have been pre-approved. You can get $243,000 for as little as $232 a month, thanks to your pre-approval. Visit us, Fill out the form, no obligation Pull cash out, or refinance.. No long forms or quastionnaires. Fill up our extremely short and simple form today and get a call back within a couple of hours. Start saving now, click that link: http://www.e-m-now.info/real.asp kayo etn nitrous zef eccentric eo biltmore wf perpetuity da prop yo psalter fez quantify jk http://e-m-now.info/gone.asp From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Mar 13 21:15:09 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sun Mar 13 21:15:33 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: <002801c52809$5be88930$5c9468d5@James> [Eric Landau] > I am in agreement with everything Tim says, and > I'll be surprised if I'm not part of a clear > consensus. [Nigel] Players, Directors and Law-makers are almost unanimous that TFLB should be simpler and clearer. Directors seem to agree broadly with Law-makers that Bridge law is sufficiently complete, objective, equitable, accessible, and enforceable. In vain, do a handful of players argue the opposite case. For the sake of the future of Bridge, I hope that we are wrong and that Tim and co are right. From schoderb at msn.com Mon Mar 14 02:40:29 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Mar 14 02:41:07 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <002801c52809$5be88930$5c9468d5@James> Message-ID: Sorry, I can't get my hands off the keys. DELETE is always available if anyone feels imposed upon. Not only do most Tournament Directors, most players, and most bridge administrators feel the the Laws are "OK" albeit could use some dressing up, but they are the people most served by them. They are the people who daily work with them, are subject to their provisions, and are satisfied that these Laws provide them with an equitable, protected, reasonable, and justifiable framework. Of course, they can't possibly be RIGHT if a small minority of "savants" find otherwise! So these pitiable "in vain(s)" find righteous indignation in that they are not being "serviced." The idea that they are right and are the guiding light for the future of bridge is presumptuous, egotistical, and self serving, besides being WRONG (IMHO). Nor should any single administrator "decide," what is right, or TD "decide" to deviate from the Laws, nor player "decide" to ignore the Laws while participating in this game. Violating the structure of bridge is as bad as violating any single provision within the game, and the game will hopefully survive it's idealistic and all knowing "protectors." Get off the high horse so often provided by the ilk of HDW and those addicted to "last night at the game...." postings. Get real, and care about the game. Leave your personal politics, be they self aggrandizement, sucking up to a TD so that might get you some work or recognition by a favorite politician, showing your brilliance is solving age-old problems (what a unworkable idea!), and help those of us tasked to NOT destroy bridge in the 200X laws by assisting by your thoughts and musings. In particular, stop the Bull---t about Zone 1 versus Zone 2. That's a dream only those who enjoy adversity can enjoy. I can assure you (NOT IMHO) that the diversity of bridge, across the many zones, NBOs, clubs, and even kitchen ladies games will long survive the handcuffs and chains proposed by many. Above all, don't dream that a game as complicated, diverse, difficult, and intricate as bridge can ever be "directed" or "administrated" by knee jerk laws or rules applied by robotic TDs -- you get what you are willing to pay for! In other words, broaden your horizons. And above all, not the greatest part of this is directed at "GUTHRIE" the one who engendered my immediate response. and gave me a "reply all" chance to write. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 3:15 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [blml] A player's view > [Eric Landau] > > I am in agreement with everything Tim says, and > > I'll be surprised if I'm not part of a clear > > consensus. > > [Nigel] > Players, Directors and Law-makers are almost unanimous that > TFLB should be simpler and clearer. > > Directors seem to agree broadly with Law-makers that Bridge > law is sufficiently complete, objective, equitable, > accessible, and enforceable. > > In vain, do a handful of players argue the opposite case. > For the sake of the future of Bridge, I hope that we are > wrong and that Tim and co are right. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 14 03:58:34 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Mar 14 04:00:08 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William Schoder: [snip] >I can assure you (NOT IMHO) that the diversity of bridge, across >the many zones, NBOs, clubs, and even kitchen ladies games will >long survive the handcuffs and chains proposed by many. Above >all, don't dream that a game as complicated, diverse, difficult, >and intricate as bridge can ever be "directed" or "administrated" >by knee jerk laws or rules applied by robotic TDs -- you get what >you are willing to pay for! In other words, broaden your >horizons. Richard Hills: Kojak and I differ on many issues, but on this issue I am in full agreement. The Laws should be merely a *framework* which permits local diversity. Mao Zedong: >>Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of >>thought contend is the policy. Richard Hills: After all, the popular Swiss Teams would never have been started if overly detailed and rigid rules had mandated that *only* matchpoint pairs and knockout teams were legal. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 14 04:01:43 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon Mar 14 04:01:55 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <009b01c52632$4f2bfbb0$209868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050312173411.02b7b180@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001001c52842$31facdc0$da05e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 10:58 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [blml] A player's view > > I am in agreement with everything Tim says, and I'll be > surprised if I'm not part of a clear consensus. But the > kind of "fixed standard" he's talking about is a whole > different issue from where we started, which was the > applicability of "'normal'", with its class-of-player related > variability, to UI/MI adjudications -- an issue which really > isn't about UI or MI at all, but which seems to have echoes > of our ongoing disagreements about the claims laws. > +=+ I find myself wondering why there is talk of class of player in regard to Law 16. I struggle to follow the argument that says (quote) >Currently poorer players have leeway on these issues. >Were we unable to take ability into account we couldn't rule > "A novice hesitation in this sequence doesn't say anything about > the hand". We couldn't rule "A novice wouldn't realise that this > hesitation suggested extras". We couldn't rule >"A novice would never consider making a slam try". Come to > that we would be ruling "deceptive hesitation" in 90% of novice > auctions (albeit there wouldn't always be damage). (unquote) The basis for the argument in these words appears to miss the core of the subject. The UI is created whatever the class of player. If the action of the partner is seen to lean on it, no matter what the class of player it breaches Law 16. The Director is required to "assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage". The Director has to judge, no matter the class of player, whether there was UI. If so, his opinion as to whether the partner was capable of realising this or that is then immaterial; he has only to determine whether with UI available to him the partner has not selected the least successful of his logical alternative actions. And if so, whether there is damage to reinstate. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 14 04:32:57 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon Mar 14 04:34:01 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <002801c52809$5be88930$5c9468d5@James> Message-ID: <001f01c52846$add36020$da05e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" ; "Nigel Guthrie" ; "Gerard Joan" Cc: "Wignall John" Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 1:40 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [blml] A player's view >. In particular, > stop the Bull---t about Zone 1 versus Zone 2. That's > a dream only those who enjoy adversity can enjoy. I > can assure you (NOT IMHO) that the diversity of bridge, > across the many zones, NBOs, clubs, and even kitchen > ladies games will long survive the handcuffs and chains > proposed by many. Above all, don't dream that a game > as complicated, diverse, difficult, and intricate as bridge > can ever be "directed" or "administrated" by knee jerk laws > or rules applied by robotic TDs -- you get what you are > willing to pay for! In other words, broaden your horizons. > +=+ I don't really know what brought William to the surface on this. Broadly, but not in everything, I agree with what he says - although there is certainly diversity not only between Zones 1 & 2, but also between these and certain other Zones. As for Zone 1, let us not run away with the idea that we have a single uniform approach - we have over 40 NBOs in the Zone and you will find chasms in some things between the practices and attitudes of Scandinavian countries and those of Southern Europe, wide differences between Eastern European countries and those in western Europe, significant differences between, say, The Netherlands and France, and Italy, and England. So I agree it is not Zone 1 versus Zone 2; it is much more complex than that and it calls for sufficient flexibility in the laws to accommodate the diversity present in styles of administration across the world. Unless the laws provide the capacity to bend, something will break. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 14 04:48:02 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Mar 14 05:03:55 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick: [snip] >Yet you assert that it is fair when the rules are >hidden. I will clarify: > >The novice [or anyone else] breaks a rule that he >doesn't understand and the ruling is that he did >not understand so there is no penalty. Well, the >opponents broke no rule and the rule on the wall >says they are to receive the benefit of penalizing >the offender. And you now tell them there is no >rule broken in this case. The rule has been hidden >from the non offenders. Maybe they would never >have shown up had they known they would be >mistreated for expecting the rules be followed. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, Roger's argument contains muddled logic based on inconsistent definitions. If a novice inadvertently infracts a Law in a "real" bridge event (not in a supervised play session), and consequently damages the non-offending side, then as TD I adjust the score, carefully explaining the reason for so doing to the novice. If, however, the *only* logical alternative for a novice is to re-preempt 5S after previously bidding 4S, and the novice does re-preempt 5S, then the novice has *not infracted* Law 16. It is true that most of the Laws are hidden from players. But most of the players do know enough of the Laws to summon the TD if an irregularity has possibly occurred. There is no philosophical problem in the application of Law 16, unless one shares the Nigel Guthrie worldview that *zero* Laws should involve a judgement decision (after appropriate consultation, if necessary) by the TD. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Mar 14 05:35:31 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon Mar 14 05:35:54 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <002801c52809$5be88930$5c9468d5@James> Message-ID: <002301c5284f$42501880$0a9468d5@James> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > Sorry, I can't get my hands off the keys. DELETE is > always available if anyone feels imposed upon. Not only > do most Tournament Directors, most players, and most > bridge administrators feel the the Laws are "OK" albeit > could use some dressing up, but they are the people most > served by them. They are the people who daily work with > them, are subject to their provisions, and are satisfied > that these Laws provide them with an equitable, > protected, reasonable, and justifiable framework. Of > course, they can't possibly be RIGHT if a small minority > of "savants" find otherwise! So these pitiable "in > vain(s)" find righteous indignation in that they are > not being "serviced." The idea that they are right and > are the guiding light for the future of bridge is > presumptuous, egotistical, and self serving, besides > being WRONG (IMHO). Nor should any single administrator > "decide," what is right, or TD "decide" to deviate from > the Laws, nor player "decide" to ignore the Laws while > participating in this game. Violating the structure of ? bridge is as bad as violating any single provision > within the game, and the game will hopefully survive > it's idealistic and all knowing "protectors." Get off > the high horse so often provided by the ilk of HDW and > those addicted to "last night at the game...." postings. > Get real, and care about the game. Leave your personal > politics, be they self aggrandizement, sucking up to a > TD so that might get you some work or recognition by a > favorite politician, showing your brilliance is solving > age-old problems (what a unworkable idea!), and help > those of us tasked to NOT destroy bridge in the 200X > laws by assisting by your thoughts and musings. In > particular, stop the Bull---t about Zone 1 versus Zone > 2. That's a dream only those who enjoy adversity can > enjoy. I can assure you (NOT IMHO) that the diversity > of bridge, across the many zones, NBOs, clubs, and even > kitchen ladies games will long survive the handcuffs > and chains proposed by many. Above all, don't dream > that a game as complicated, diverse, difficult, and > intricate as bridge can ever be "directed" or > "administrated" by knee jerk laws or rules applied by > robotic TDs -- you get what you are willing to pay for! > > In other words, broaden your horizons. And above all, > not the greatest part of this is directed at "GUTHRIE" > the one who engendered my immediate response. and gave > me a "reply all" chance to write. ]Nigel] Kojak is right that in BLML, compared to those who are also administrators or directors, concerned players are a "pitiable minority". On WBFLC, I suspect that we are not represented at all. Kojak makes another good point: Players seem to feel that it is not worthwhile to voice legal dissent. Were Kojak's a typical reaction to constructive suggestions, then that would be no surprise; but I suspect that the main reason for apathy is that the more sophisticated Bridge-rules are incomprehensible to most players. I am beginning to see some sense in the diversity argument. In the light of the carefully reasoned and liberal views that Kojak and others express, perhaps complete and uniform rules may be inappropriate to Bridge. Kojak's diatribe against Robot rule-enforcers may be unfair: in fact, the best hope for Bridge is probably the "Wild West" of its on-line manifestation where programmers seem to have coped brilliantly with the rule-vacuum of the new medium. In the meantime. we players must trust right-thinking tolerant, selfless, apolitical, modest, and unassuming administrators (like Kojak) to protect the integrity Bridge rules. P.S. what are "Zone I" and "Zone II"? And why are they full of "bullshit"? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 14 05:49:03 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Mar 14 05:52:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 73D1 (was A player's view) In-Reply-To: <002c01c52516$f4ddc510$269468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asserted: >Richard is right that unauthorised information is >the bugbear of bridge; but is law 16 a good way to >deal with it? Richard Hills quibbles: (1) A secondary bugbear; *the* bugbear (in my opinion) would be infractions of the courtesy Law 74A2. However, use of UI often is the proximate *excuse* (but *never* justification) for rudeness at the bridge table. (2) Education of players in Law 73D1 (in conjunction with education of players in Law 73C) is, in my opinion, the best way to deal with use of UI. Nigel Guthrie asserted: >As has been pointed out may times: a director will >do little better than chance in choosing which >logical alternative is suggested by unauthorised >information [snip] >The honest player suffers. Richard Hills quibbles: Change "pointed out" to "asserted by mere anecdotal evidence". Unless semi-competent cheats are using reverse hesitations (which is, in my anecdotal opinion, rare), it is usually easy, in my anecdotal opinion, for all three opponents (and the TD) to deduce the reason for a hesitation. So, it is usually easy, in my anecdotal opinion, for a TD to apply Law 16 *if a TD wants to*. Nigel does have one anecdotal point. In some very low level clubs, the dominant culture is that a call for the TD for a Law 16 adjusted score is tantamount to an accusation of serious cheating. So, some very low level TDs at those low level clubs refuse to apply Law 16 against users of UI. In the long run, self-censorship of Law 16 TD calls by honest players occurs, so they suffer in silence. And some players who would be honest under a more proactive TD slip into bad habits, once they note that those bad habits are rewarded. But some deficient local bridge cultures, and some deficient local TDs, is *not*, in my opinion, a valid reason to junk a basic principle of bridge. Nigel Guthrie asserted: >The most sensible solution is to provide redress >for the transmission of unauthorised information >(tempo breaks and the like), rather than attempt to >judge whether or not it is used. [big snip] Richard Hills quibbles: In my opinion, Nigel's cure is worse than the disease. On every deal I play, I notice all three opponents constantly transmitting inadvertent information via twitches, pauses, frowns et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I believe that procedural penalty sanctions against the current infraction of *creation* of UI would be impractical - there would be a logarithmic increase in calls for the TD. Like John (MadDog) Probst, I am somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun on the issue of whether *creation* of UI should be an infraction. If I was El Supremo of the WBF LC, I would rewrite Law 73D1 thusly: >>It is desirable, though not always required, for >>players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying >>manner. A variation of the tempo or manner in which >>a call or play is made does not in itself constitute >>an infraction, but inferences from such variation >>may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and >>at the opponent's own risk. >> >>Exception: A variation of tempo or manner, with no >>demonstrable bridge reason, which a player could >>have known would deceive an opponent, is an >>infraction. See Law 73F2 Of course, my preference for a Law 73D1 rewrite - to drop the current "However" / "Otherwise" caveat - is somewhat impractical, since a significant number of bridge players have not yet been educated in the nuances of the Law 73C requirement to "carefully avoid taking any advantage". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Mar 14 05:59:27 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon Mar 14 05:59:49 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <003e01c52852$9a26cab0$0a9468d5@James> [Richard Hills] > Kojak and I differ on many issues, but on this issue > I am in full agreement. The Laws should be merely a > *framework* which permits local diversity. [Nigel] Yes. TFLB is a skeleton -- with bones missing. What possible harm is there in completing it? If local legislators so wish, they can continue to introduce rule variants; but with TFLB gaps filled, they would not have to do so. Diversity vs. uniformity is a related but separate argument. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 14 07:33:09 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Mar 14 07:55:15 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: <004f01c52560$dadef4a0$919187d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Beware, gentlemen. Law 12A1 is concerned with >>provision of 'indemnity'. This has nothing to do with any >>penalty that the laws may impose. Indemnity has to do >>with the compensation of loss for the side offended >>against. If any damage suffered is not fully reinstated by >>the application of other laws Law 12A1 provides the >>reserve authority by which the Director may ensure that >>a non-offending contestant does not lose out in his score >>because of the violation. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 12B: >The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground >that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly >severe or advantageous to either side. Richard Hills: In my opinion, either Grattan has made a rare error in interpreting the Laws, or Grattan is being convoluted and opaque. In my opinion, Law 12A1 and Law 12B are Yin and Yang, with a TD having zero power under Law 12A1 to override Law 12B. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 14 07:23:18 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Mar 14 08:01:42 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 21:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > > > > Roger Pewick: > > [snip] > > >Yet you assert that it is fair when the rules are > >hidden. I will clarify: > > > >The novice [or anyone else] breaks a rule that he > >doesn't understand and the ruling is that he did > >not understand so there is no penalty. Well, the > >opponents broke no rule and the rule on the wall > >says they are to receive the benefit of penalizing > >the offender. And you now tell them there is no > >rule broken in this case. The rule has been hidden > >from the non offenders. Maybe they would never > >have shown up had they known they would be > >mistreated for expecting the rules be followed. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, Roger's argument contains muddled > logic based on inconsistent definitions. Without the context most things can be seen as muddled. iirc it was DWS that asserted that if bunnies suffered the laws' prescriptions for infractions they would not show up again. I went so far to counter assert that applying different rules [his solution] to some players may very well motivate the non-offenders to not show up. I was perhaps so bold to suggest that if the TD fears his players won't show up if the consequences of law are applied then it is very likely that the law is lacking wisdom. [anecdotally, 95% of infractions do not cause a director call, need I wonder why?] >From a player's view, law ought to go about solving the problems of players. > If a novice inadvertently infracts a Law in a "real" > bridge event (not in a supervised play session), and > consequently damages the non-offending side, then as > TD I adjust the score, carefully explaining the > reason for so doing to the novice. Very sensible. May I be very bold? My experience has been that even if the reason for adjustment is explained, what is not explained is the bridge used in devining the adjustment. Without the bridge it is difficult to see that the adjustment was the right one; or if the wrong one, upon what to argue an appeal. > If, however, the *only* logical alternative for a > novice is to re-preempt 5S after previously bidding > 4S, and the novice does re-preempt 5S, then the > novice has *not infracted* Law 16. Well, if the hand will take 11 tricks without his partner I won't quibble that it is the only alternative. But otherwise I would think that the best view in judging what is an only alternative is to consider the value of the hand in light of AI and the agreements of the two sides; and to ignore that it is a novice. To do otherwise is to muddle his belief for perhaps his entire bridge playing days- and from my veiwpoint that is not the kind of service that novices, or any bridge players, need. regards roger pewick > It is true that most of the Laws are hidden from > players. But most of the players do know enough of > the Laws to summon the TD if an irregularity has > possibly occurred. > There is no philosophical > problem in the application of Law 16, I think there is much philosophical problem, and I strongly disagree with [the so called] 'Nigel's solution' [whatever it seems to be]. > unless one > shares the Nigel Guthrie worldview that *zero* Laws > should involve a judgement decision (after > appropriate consultation, if necessary) by the TD. > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and general guru From moscovic at doneasy.com Mon Mar 7 22:04:18 2005 From: moscovic at doneasy.com (Eddie Cullen) Date: Mon Mar 14 08:43:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Become a homeowner with low rates Message-ID: 200410150705.i9F750Kk01345778.i93BdqTw009515@b-mail09.real-email.net> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.best-mtg.net/nowss.asp Best Regards, Herman Aragon to be remov(ed: http://www.best-mtg.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From schoderb at msn.com Mon Mar 14 09:50:56 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Mar 14 09:51:35 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <002801c52809$5be88930$5c9468d5@James> <001f01c52846$add36020$da05e150@Mildred> Message-ID: My comment was not about diversity, and I now realize the "versus" I used is not clear on that. I am fully supportive of diversity as needed. It is when examples are given, when procedures are discussed, when comments on working Rules and Regulations perhaps unique to any Zone or NBO are couched in snide, dismissive, and condescending tones for whatever reasons that we depart from rational argument. I'm aware of diversity within zones, and can safely state that it is alive and well in the ACBL, for example. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" ; "blml" ; "Nigel Guthrie" ; "Gerard Joan" Cc: "Wignall John" Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 10:32 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [blml] A player's view > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "Improvement makes straight roads, but > the crooked roads without improvement > are works of genius." > ~ William Blake. > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" ; > "Nigel Guthrie" ; > "Gerard Joan" > Cc: "Wignall John" > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 1:40 AM > Subject: Re: Re: Re: [blml] A player's view > > > > >. In particular, > > stop the Bull---t about Zone 1 versus Zone 2. That's > > a dream only those who enjoy adversity can enjoy. I > > can assure you (NOT IMHO) that the diversity of bridge, > > across the many zones, NBOs, clubs, and even kitchen > > ladies games will long survive the handcuffs and chains > > proposed by many. Above all, don't dream that a game > > as complicated, diverse, difficult, and intricate as bridge > > can ever be "directed" or "administrated" by knee jerk laws > > or rules applied by robotic TDs -- you get what you are > > willing to pay for! In other words, broaden your horizons. > > > +=+ I don't really know what brought William to the surface > on this. Broadly, but not in everything, I agree with what he > says - although there is certainly diversity not only between > Zones 1 & 2, but also between these and certain other > Zones. As for Zone 1, let us not run away with the idea that > we have a single uniform approach - we have over 40 NBOs > in the Zone and you will find chasms in some things between > the practices and attitudes of Scandinavian countries and those > of Southern Europe, wide differences between Eastern > European countries and those in western Europe, significant > differences between, say, The Netherlands and France, and > Italy, and England. So I agree it is not Zone 1 versus > Zone 2; it is much more complex than that and it calls for > sufficient flexibility in the laws to accommodate the diversity > present in styles of administration across the world. Unless > the laws provide the capacity to bend, something will break. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 14 14:20:31 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Mar 14 14:26:48 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <001001c52842$31facdc0$da05e150@Mildred> References: <009b01c52632$4f2bfbb0$209868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050312173411.02b7b180@pop.starpower.net> <001001c52842$31facdc0$da05e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050314075902.02b66eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:01 PM 3/13/05, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 10:58 PM >Subject: Re: Re: Re: [blml] A player's view [Eric:] >>I am in agreement with everything Tim says, and I'll be >>surprised if I'm not part of a clear consensus. But the >>kind of "fixed standard" he's talking about is a whole >>different issue from where we started, which was the >>applicability of "'normal'", with its class-of-player related >>variability, to UI/MI adjudications -- an issue which really >>isn't about UI or MI at all, but which seems to have echoes >>of our ongoing disagreements about the claims laws. [Grattan:] >+=+ I find myself wondering why there is talk of class of >player in regard to Law 16. I struggle to follow the argument >that says (quote) [Tim:] > >Currently poorer players have leeway on these issues. >>Were we unable to take ability into account we couldn't rule >>"A novice hesitation in this sequence doesn't say anything about >>the hand". We couldn't rule "A novice wouldn't realise that this >>hesitation suggested extras". We couldn't rule >>"A novice would never consider making a slam try". Come to >>that we would be ruling "deceptive hesitation" in 90% of novice >>auctions (albeit there wouldn't always be damage). [Grattan:] >The basis for the argument in these words appears to miss the >core of the subject. The UI is created whatever the class of player. >If the action of the partner is seen to lean on it, no matter what >the class of player it breaches Law 16. The Director is required >to "assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of >law has resulted in damage". The Director has to judge, no >matter the class of player, whether there was UI. If so, his >opinion as to whether the partner was capable of realising this or >that is then immaterial; he has only to determine whether with UI >available to him the partner has not selected the least successful >of his logical alternative actions. And if so, whether there is >damage to reinstate. I believe we are in agreement to this point: the "class of player" issue does not affect the question of whether or not an infraction has been committed. It comes into play only at Grattan's last sentence, when we turn to L12C2 to determine damage. Let's try a hypothetical case. South has played 6D, which was cold, off an ace, for +920. During the auction, however, North bid a very reluctant 3NT, over which South pulled to 4D, eventually bidding the slam. The committee agrees unanimously, with minimal discussion needed, that whatever the reason might have been for North's obvious reluctance, it suggested bidding on, that passing 3NT was an LA, etc. It takes 20 seconds to come to the conclusion that South has violated L16 and the score should be adjusted to the result in 3NT. So far no problem. The committee now examines the deal, and notices that: (a) Declarer has two finesses he might take; if either succeeds, or if a third suit breaks 3-3, 3NT will make. Both finesses are offside, however, and the third suit does not break. (b) Declarer has a 100% line for 3NT on a relatively straightforward double squeeze, sure to be found by any player who understands the basics of squeeze play -- which describes about half the players in the room. Should the adjusted score in the presumptive 3NT contract be -50, or +400, or does it depend on the "class" of the player who committed the infraction? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 14 15:31:06 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Mar 14 15:35:53 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) References: Message-ID: <001c01c528a2$ae524f50$35a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Egad, I think the interpreter is the hardest to be understood of the two." ~ Richard Brinsley Sheridan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 6:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) > Law 12B: > > >The Director may not award an adjusted > > score on the ground that the penalty provided > > in these Laws is either unduly severe or > > advantageous to either side. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, either Grattan has made a rare > error in interpreting the Laws, or Grattan is > being convoluted and opaque. > > In my opinion, Law 12A1 and Law 12B are > Yin and Yang, with a TD having zero power > under Law 12A1 to override Law 12B. > +=+ Law 12B refers to the *penalty* assessed under the laws. Law 12A1 refers to the indemnity afforded to the non-offending side. The penalty may incidentally provide indemnity to the NOS but that is not its primary purpose. The penalty deals with the violation committed by the OS. Score adjustment is the means of indemnifying the NOS and 12B does not refer to indemnity nor prevent the Director from ensuring the NOS receives it in the score. The distinction between 'penalty' and 'indemnity' is one that Richard needs to grasp if he is to begin to remove the cloud from his vision. They may overlap but the considerations for the Director are different. The Director may not adjust a score on grounds that the penalty is unduly advantageous to one side or the other but he may adjust the score to indemnify the NOS against any unrepaired damage it has suffered. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hendrickson at utah.com Mon Mar 14 01:14:47 2005 From: hendrickson at utah.com (hendrickson@utah.com) Date: Mon Mar 14 17:16:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Delta RT Worldwide Net. Message-ID: <169558506.55970127274001@utah.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050314/625bc229/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 8058 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050314/625bc229/attachment.gif From adam at irvine.com Mon Mar 14 18:01:58 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Mar 14 18:02:39 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:25:45 +0100." <42315609.1060200@hdw.be> Message-ID: <200503141701.JAA24618@mailhub.irvine.com> Herman wrote: > Adam, be consistent, please: > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > There wasn't any suggestion that West knowingly violated the Law. > > indeed, from no-one. > > > David didn't suggest that West knowingly violated the Law, > > not even from David. > > > IMHO, the "could have known" criterion is there to deal with cases where > > the Law has ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > been violated and the "penalty" makes things more favorable to the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > violator. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Exactly. > > > we say "could have known" instead of "knowingly" so that we can make > sure offenders don't benefit in such cases without having to read > their minds > > > Precisely. > > > This case > > is not such a case, though. > > Isn't it? No, it is not a case where the *penalty* for breaking a Law makes things more favorable to the one who broke the Law. (The infraction is a lead out of turn. Had South noticed in time, East would have been required to lead and West would have had a penalty card which he would have had to discard right away. This would not have benefited the violating side.) I've highlighted the place where I tried to explain what I was talking about. I'm talking about cases where, say, offender's partner is required to pass and this helps the offending side get to a better contract. I'm having trouble figuring out the argument on the other side. Law 72B1 says, (1) Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he is allowed to award an adjusted score. What I'm seeing here is that some people seem to believe that (2) Whenever one side commits an irregularity and they benefit from it, the Director is allowed to award an adjusted score. The way you and Grattan and others (sorry, I had a long weekend and don't remember who) are interpreting the Law, there isn't anything that would distinguish (1) from (2). Under what conditions would an offending side commit an irregularity and benefit from it where you would say the Director cannot adjust? Do you believe there are any? -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 14 20:19:37 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Mar 14 20:39:01 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: <001c01c528a2$ae524f50$35a387d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Law 12B refers to the *penalty* assessed >under the laws. Law 12A1 refers to the indemnity >afforded to the non-offending side. The penalty may >incidentally provide indemnity to the NOS but that is >not its primary purpose. The penalty deals with the >violation committed by the OS. Score adjustment is >the means of indemnifying the NOS and 12B does >not refer to indemnity nor prevent the Director from >ensuring the NOS receives it in the score. The >distinction between 'penalty' and 'indemnity' is one >that Richard needs to grasp if he is to begin to >remove the cloud from his vision. They may overlap >but the considerations for the Director are different. >The Director may not adjust a score on grounds >that the penalty is unduly advantageous to one side >or the other but he may adjust the score to indemnify >the NOS against any unrepaired damage it has suffered. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. It was not Grattan who was convoluted and opaque; rather, it is the Lawbook which is convoluted and opaque. No doubt Grattan has added to his notebook a plain English version of Laws 12A1 and 12B for the 2007 edition of the Lawbook. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From hmkhfblml at rtflb.org Mon Mar 14 21:37:20 2005 From: hmkhfblml at rtflb.org (Washington Jerold) Date: Mon Mar 14 21:37:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Susana Message-ID: <612009451.NJYlpsQ7I1xyH@82.158.148.84> Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:36:21 -0500 Shop for On Sale Pharmacy Medications Here -> http://6U8enbzsS6dV.ji2.net/ph/promo/rJbilTO6Nqjd73 draftsman agricultural moisten flint sulphur endow armload b's ague cowardice literacy cheery spokesmen antaeus quixote ancestral brash testicle black atlantis clairvoyant dennis approximable butyrate craft From wopzbblml at rtflb.org Mon Mar 14 22:28:03 2005 From: wopzbblml at rtflb.org (Trent Ervin) Date: Mon Mar 14 22:28:04 2005 Subject: [blml] blml@rtflb.org gouge Message-ID: <3530174446533402.gYdQNKpctbTWI@82.223.0.50> Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:26:53 -0500 Cialis_Softtabs Get ready for romance in just 15minutes Increase your Sex_Drive Boost Sexual_Performance Fuller and Harder_Erections Increase Stamina and Endurance Quicker Recharges Special Ends Soon... Order Here ->http://mq68f2r.puerperal.com/cs/?unxx From COLSM at thedales.karoo.co.uk Mon Mar 14 22:46:15 2005 From: COLSM at thedales.karoo.co.uk (Aurora Kelly) Date: Mon Mar 14 22:51:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Why not become a sex machine? Message-ID: <517CDE4B.3020055@the-moons.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050314/2a0ab430/attachment.html From monarque at emailaccount.com Mon Mar 7 14:36:10 2005 From: monarque at emailaccount.com (Brittany Boswell) Date: Mon Mar 14 23:13:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Become a homeowner with low rates Message-ID: bqeyhc33juy5vubacxr8sdz18joj93.i93YryTw000751@vais.net> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.best-mtg.net/nowss.asp Best Regards, Rosie Harrell to be remov(ed: http://www.best-mtg.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Mar 15 00:07:50 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue Mar 15 00:08:28 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: <200503141701.JAA24618@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200503141701.JAA24618@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20050314174402.01d729d0@mail.comcast.net> At 12:01 PM 3/14/2005, Adam Beneschan wrote: >I'm having trouble figuring out the argument on the other side. Law >72B1 says, > >(1) Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have > known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be > likely to damage the non-offending side, he is allowed to award an > adjusted score. > >What I'm seeing here is that some people seem to believe that > >(2) Whenever one side commits an irregularity and they benefit from > it, the Director is allowed to award an adjusted score. > >The way you and Grattan and others (sorry, I had a long weekend and >don't remember who) are interpreting the Law, there isn't anything >that would distinguish (1) from (2). Under what conditions would an >offending side commit an irregularity and benefit from it where you >would say the Director cannot adjust? Do you believe there are any? If the offender could have known that his side would be likely to benefit from the irregularity, we adjust. The standard situation is a penalty which the offender knows could work to his advantage. In this situation, we adjust for both sides. For example, 1C-1H-3H-4NT-5S-5H, corrected to 5NT and partner is barred. If 5NT makes, losing only the two missing aces, adjust to 6H down one. However, there is also a precedent in ruling that the offender is not entitled to benefit if the penalty would cost nothing and there was a reasonable probability of gain from an overlooked offense. In this situation, we adjust so that the offending side does not gain, but we do not adjust for the non-offending side. For example, declarer in 3NT has three good tricks in dummy but no entry. After winning a trick in hand, he leads from dummy, and a defender plays to the trick, accepting the lead and allowing 3NT to make. The accepted ruling in this situation is 3NT down 3 for the declarer, 3NT making for the defenders. In contrast, if attention is drawn to an infraction, and the offenders benefit in a way that they could not have known, there is no adjustment. The example from the old Law book is that East has dropped the DT during the auction, and South chooses, as a penalty, to require a diamond lead. West, having no diamonds, leads something else, and East wins the trick and returns a diamond for West to ruff. As another example, South opens 1NT out of turn, barring North. When South's turn to bid comes, he opens 3NT, which would normally be gambling, and then makes 3NT when the field is in 4S down one. In neither situation could the offender have known that he would benefit, so we let the table result stand. In the case which started this discussion, West was running a suit, and East blocked it with a card he should not have held. West led to the next trick anyway, and got away with it. It is not clear whether we should adjust. If West noticed the revoke and follow-up, he could have known that the missing card would stop his suit, so we might adjust the E-W score. On the other hand, West already knew that his suit was solid, and it is normal play for a player who knows that his suit is solid to keep leading it. From PCNOAKJUBUPL at monma-web.com Tue Mar 15 00:10:31 2005 From: PCNOAKJUBUPL at monma-web.com (Deirdre Hogue) Date: Tue Mar 15 00:14:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Now you can shag more frequently. Message-ID: <1026622284.052.1.camel@azrael> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050315/0c5dab0b/attachment.html From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Mar 15 01:11:48 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Mar 15 01:13:19 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <00af01c528f3$95c31040$229468d5@James> [Richard James Hills] ... unless one shares the Nigel Guthrie worldview that *zero* Laws should involve a judgement decision ... [Nigel] Close .. but no cigar! A. Richard misrepresents *Nigel's view* -- Nigel just thinks that Bridge rules should depend as little on subjective judgement as is practicable and sensible (the rules have a long way to go, in this respect). B. And Nigel's view is not a *worldview* -- just his opinion about the rules of the game of Bridge. C. And it is not only *Nigel's* view -- he shares his aim with the rule-makers of most games. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Mar 15 02:52:06 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Mar 15 02:53:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 73D1 (was A player's view) References: Message-ID: <000e01c52901$989ed7a0$149468d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > Change "pointed out" to "asserted by mere anecdotal > evidence". Unless semi-competent cheats are using > reverse hesitations (which is, in my anecdotal > opinion, rare), it is usually easy, in my anecdotal > opinion, for all three opponents (and the TD) to > deduce the reason for a hesitation. I am afraid we may have to make do with anecdotal evidence until somebody undertakes a parapsychological investigation of director's telepathic abilities. The experience of the players I consult remains that the message of opponent's hesitation is "Pass unless you can justify your action to an AC". The hesitator isn't a cheat -- after starting to hesitate, he would lean over backwards to take some action, so as not to compromise his partner. The passer knows his partner has a hand on which he cannot stretch to a double of bid but, typically, he finds it easy to rationalise his inactivity -- he may even misquote law. Most players are familiar with an analogous phenomenon: players enquire about RHO's suit bid only when they don't want that suit led. Richard may regard all this as cheating but although such trends are deplorable, I question whether such players are "cheats". It is hard for people to abide, masochistically, by incomprehensible and unenforceable laws that everyone else breaks profitably. Just as, nowadays, much illness is estrogenic, so rulings by directors, especially "equity"-rulings, are themselves increasingly responsible for creating and fostering "cheats". From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Mar 15 02:56:14 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Mar 15 02:57:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 73D1 (was A player's view) Message-ID: <001901c52902$2c3e9720$149468d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > Change "pointed out" to "asserted by mere anecdotal > evidence". Unless semi-competent cheats are using > reverse hesitations (which is, in my anecdotal > opinion, rare), it is usually easy, in my anecdotal > opinion, for all three opponents (and the TD) to > deduce the reason for a hesitation. I am afraid we may have to make do with anecdotal evidence until somebody undertakes a parapsychological investigation of director's telepathic abilities. The experience of the players I consult remains that the message of opponent's hesitation is "Pass unless you can justify your action to an AC". The hesitator isn't a cheat -- after starting to hesitate, he would lean over backwards to take some action, so as not to compromise his partner. The passer knows his partner has a hand on which he cannot stretch to a double of bid but, typically, he finds it easy to rationalise his inactivity -- he may even misquote law. Most players are familiar with an analogous phenomenon: players enquire about RHO's suit bid only when they don't want that suit led. Richard may regard all this as cheating but although such trends are deplorable, I question whether such players are "cheats". It is hard for people to abide, masochistically, by incomprehensible and unenforceable laws that everyone else breaks profitably. Just as, nowadays, much illness is iattrogenic, so rulings by directors, especially "equity"-rulings, are themselves increasingly responsible for creating and fostering "cheats". From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Mar 15 02:58:00 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Mar 15 02:59:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 73D1 (was A player's view) Message-ID: <001e01c52902$6b5e9040$149468d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > Change "pointed out" to "asserted by mere anecdotal > evidence". Unless semi-competent cheats are using > reverse hesitations (which is, in my anecdotal > opinion, rare), it is usually easy, in my anecdotal > opinion, for all three opponents (and the TD) to > deduce the reason for a hesitation. I am afraid we may have to make do with anecdotal evidence until somebody undertakes a parapsychological investigation of director's telepathic abilities. The experience of the players I consult remains that the message of opponent's hesitation is "Pass unless you can justify your action to an AC". The hesitator isn't a cheat -- after starting to hesitate, he would lean over backwards to take some action, so as not to compromise his partner. The passer knows his partner has a hand on which he cannot stretch to a double of bid but, typically, he finds it easy to rationalise his inactivity -- he may even misquote law. Most players are familiar with an analogous phenomenon: players enquire about RHO's suit bid only when they don't want that suit led. Richard may regard all this as cheating but although such trends are deplorable, I question whether such players are "cheats". It is hard for people to abide, masochistically, by incomprehensible and unenforceable laws that everyone else breaks profitably. Just as, nowadays, much illness is iatrogenic, so rulings by directors, especially "equity"-rulings, are themselves increasingly responsible for creating and fostering "cheats". From ouopsbaws at jyrk.com Tue Mar 15 05:10:59 2005 From: ouopsbaws at jyrk.com (Madge Shearer) Date: Tue Mar 15 05:21:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Amazing Funding in 24 hours. Message-ID: <0105311056910.01145@jfuertes.maz.es> If you are paying more than 3.5% on your mortgage, you may be paying too much! Our US Lenders will provide you with the absolute best rates possible. Click the link below for an insta-quote and monthly savings calculation: http://www.mt-g-today.com/43.asp No other way to so quickly and easily lower your monthly bill payments while putting cash now in your pocket! biopsy ku hungry co abernathy uo implode wr conakry jg imaginate kue http://mt-g-today.com/gone.asp From Mikeamosbridge at aol.com Tue Mar 15 08:14:28 2005 From: Mikeamosbridge at aol.com (Mikeamosbridge@aol.com) Date: Tue Mar 15 08:33:31 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: In a message dated 15/03/2005 00:14:39 GMT Standard Time, Guthrie@ntlworld.com writes: [Richard James Hills] ... unless one shares the Nigel Guthrie worldview that *zero* Laws should involve a judgement decision ... [Nigel] Close .. but no cigar! A. Richard misrepresents *Nigel's view* -- Nigel just thinks that Bridge rules should depend as little on subjective judgement as is practicable and sensible (the rules have a long way to go, in this respect). B. And Nigel's view is not a *worldview* -- just his opinion about the rules of the game of Bridge. C. And it is not only *Nigel's* view -- he shares his aim with the rule-makers of most games. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml As a TD who actually directs a wide variety of events but who "works" perhaps 20 or 30 sessions a month at club level, local level, national and even international level, I don't mind making judgement rulings. In some senses I enjoy them, trying to unravel the complexities and to make the game enjoyable as well as equitable. I dont agree with Nigel that judgement is not involved in the Laws of other games. I'm no expert on other sports but some examples spring to mind. Judgement is involved in soccer - was the player offside? was his tackle dangerous? was the ball over the line? (As I reread this I recall a recent controversy in soccer about "interfering with the play" in the offside situation) Now for sure we can use technology to help at the highest level but this doeasn't mean that judgement is still not relevant, and the average Sunday morning pub-game does not have action replays yet but the ref has still got to give "rulings" often made in split seconds. At least we can consult. Similar points could be made about cricket, rugby, perhaps even snooker (the miss rule?) Now I don't expect everyone to agree with my judgement rulings. Just as I imagine a cricket umpire will feel about his LBW decisions. I do have the advantage of experience, the ability and opportunity to consult fellow TDs and players and case law and guidance from the Law-makers. I'll still get it wrong sometimes as will any referee in any sport. I want the maximum assistance - action replays, clear guidance and the like. Appeal Committees in theory at least comprise players who can balance legal opinion with their own experience of the game. Nor do I think 73C opaque or obscure. "...he must carefully avoid ......." seems clear to me. I'm not sure we always rule properly in UI cases because I think in Europe at least we may be too lenient towards the recipient of UI and the ACBL approach may be more appropriate. There are some interesting examples in Adam's recent reports which I will discuss in a new thread shortly. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050315/c33bde0e/attachment-0001.html From eypyqblml at rtflb.org Tue Mar 15 09:34:38 2005 From: eypyqblml at rtflb.org (Boyd Carson) Date: Tue Mar 15 09:34:39 2005 Subject: [blml] liveth Alan Message-ID: <3203521.lgadaJ2n3szzV@80.148.29.6> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:33:54 -0800 Cialis_Softtabs Get ready for romance in just 15minutes Increase your Sex_Drive Boost Sexual_Performance Fuller and Harder_Erections Increase Stamina and Endurance Quicker Recharges Special Ends Soon... Order Here ->http://p1UHu.puerperal.com/cs/?unxx From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 15 09:50:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 15 09:50:10 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: <200503141701.JAA24618@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200503141701.JAA24618@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4236A1E1.5010500@hdw.be> Hello Adam, I don't think I understand what you are trying to convey: Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >>>IMHO, the "could have known" criterion is there to deal with cases where >>>the Law has > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>>been violated and the "penalty" makes things more favorable to the > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>>violator. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> >>>This case >>>is not such a case, though. >> >>Isn't it? > > > No, it is not a case where the *penalty* for breaking a Law makes > things more favorable to the one who broke the Law. (The infraction Look Adam, a penalty is (usually) negative for the offender. So you cannot have it that the penalty makes things more favourable. It is always the infraction that makes things more favourable, and if this is still the case, after taking into account the penalty, then we need to find a law to redress that situation. > is a lead out of turn. Had South noticed in time, East would have > been required to lead and West would have had a penalty card which he > would have had to discard right away. This would not have benefited > the violating side.) I've highlighted the place where I tried to No, but in reality it would not have cost them anything either. West has not tricks and no way of getting back in hand. East has no diamonds which he could be required or forbidden to lead. So the penalty card costs really nothing. Yet the potential gain from the infraction, if it goes unnoticed, is considerable. > explain what I was talking about. I'm talking about cases where, say, > offender's partner is required to pass and this helps the offending > side get to a better contract. > But it is never the required pass which is the gain - it is the contract which is bid (with required pass) that is the gain. > I'm having trouble figuring out the argument on the other side. Law > 72B1 says, > > (1) Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have > known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be > likely to damage the non-offending side, he is allowed to award an > adjusted score. > You see: the irregularity, not the penalty. West benefits from leading the diamond and taking the two diamond tricks. > What I'm seeing here is that some people seem to believe that > > (2) Whenever one side commits an irregularity and they benefit from > it, the Director is allowed to award an adjusted score. > Well, basically (and after reintroducing a "could have known") that IS what the law says indeed. If you commit an irregularity and you are better off, even after the penalties are assessed, than if you had not committed it, then the TD must check if you "could have known" that this might happen. > The way you and Grattan and others (sorry, I had a long weekend and > don't remember who) are interpreting the Law, there isn't anything > that would distinguish (1) from (2). Under what conditions would an > offending side commit an irregularity and benefit from it where you > would say the Director cannot adjust? Do you believe there are any? > Of course there are. Say that you bar partner, and then gamble on 3NT. You make 11 tricks. Sadly enough, partner has a massive hand that would go to slam if not barred, but 3 bad breaks see the slam going off. The whole room is in 6-1, and you score a top. You have committed an infraction, and you have benefitted, but no-one in their right mind could suggest that you could have known, at the time of the infraction, that 3NT would be the winning contract. > -- Adam > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 11/03/2005 From david.barton at boltblue.com Tue Mar 15 13:04:41 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Tue Mar 15 13:00:20 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? Message-ID: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> Dummy contains Q86 K96 J86 void RHO leads a Club, Declarer plays a higher Club, and LHO ruffs with the 2 of Spades. Case 1 - Declarer says "The ....." Case 2 - Declarer says "The s...." Case 3 - Declarer says "The six of ...." In each case this is followed by "Oh you have ruffed. Better make it the six of Spades". Which card must be played from dummy? If you ask, Declarer will claim that even though he had started speaking he had not decided which card to play. He only noticed the ruff after he started speaking. **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 11/03/2005 From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Mar 15 13:31:58 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Mar 15 13:32:39 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: On 15 Mar 2005, at 12:04, David Barton wrote: > Dummy contains > Q86 > K96 > J86 > void > > RHO leads a Club, Declarer plays a higher Club, and LHO ruffs with the > 2 of Spades. > Case 1 - Declarer says "The ....." > Case 2 - Declarer says "The s...." > Case 3 - Declarer says "The six of ...." > > In each case this is followed by "Oh you have ruffed. Better make it > the six of Spades". > Which card must be played from dummy? > > If you ask, Declarer will claim that even though he had started > speaking he had not decided > which card to play. He only noticed the ruff after he started speaking. If we go to L46B3(b) (I'm aware that we might go to other places as well, or instead) we find "...declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more such cards that can be legally played, declarer must designate which is intended." I note that the wording says "is intended" rather than "was intended". -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 15 14:14:44 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Mar 15 14:34:23 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <003e01c52963$3f595f50$919287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Egad, I think the interpreter is the hardest to be understood of the two." ~ Richard Brinsley Sheridan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > [Gordon] > If we go to L46B3(b) (I'm aware that we might go > to other places as well, or instead) we find "...declarer > must play a card from dummy of the designated rank > if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more > such cards that can be legally played, declarer must > designate which is intended." I note that the wording > says "is intended" rather than "was intended". > +=+1. Agree. 2. Wholly reprehensible peep under the curtain: ".... and if this allows him a choice of cards he must specify one of them. " - but it does suggest what my colleagues think is intended. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 15 14:48:17 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 15 14:47:48 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <4236E7A1.1040007@hdw.be> Just change the lay-out somewhat, and you'll have your answer: David Barton wrote: > Dummy contains > Q86 change this to Q85 - or better still, to Q65 > K96 > J86 > void > > RHO leads a Club, Declarer plays a higher Club, and LHO ruffs with the 2 > of Spades. > Case 1 - Declarer says "The ....." > Case 2 - Declarer says "The s...." > Case 3 - Declarer says "The six of ...." > > In each case this is followed by "Oh you have ruffed. Better make it the > six of Spades". > Which card must be played from dummy? > > If you ask, Declarer will claim that even though he had started speaking > he had not decided > which card to play. He only noticed the ruff after he started speaking. > I think we can all agree that if declarer says "the six ... no the five of spades", we cannot allow this. I believe we should not allow either "the six ... no the six of spades". If declarer is a well enough actor to say "the six ... of spades" without showing that he has changed his mind, then he might get away with something, but if he, in all honesty, admits he has not seen the ruff then I believe he should complete his initial designation in the way he intended it originally. Or to answer the question in the thread's title: I believe a card is nominated the instant declarer utters a first sound. He should be allowed to complete his designation, but he must not change his mind once he has started. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 11/03/2005 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 15 14:49:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Mar 15 14:50:01 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <001001c52842$31facdc0$da05e150@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > The basis for the argument in these words appears to miss the > core of the subject. The UI is created whatever the class of player. Let me give a simple auction: 2C-(2S)-hesitation by novice. With a novice this hesitation shows "13 cards" (nb, it is faintly possible that a hand exists where a novice will *not* break tempo in a contested 2C auction but I have yet to see one at the table). There is no "information" in the hesitation and with no "I" there cannot be "UI". > If so, his > opinion as to whether the partner was capable of realising this or > that is then immaterial; he has only to determine whether with UI > available to him the partner has not selected the least successful > of his logical alternative actions. Now suppose the 2C opener is a novice and his expert partner hesitates. Now there is "UI" available, but we all know the novice has *no idea* what would cause his expert partner to hesitate and that there are no inferences he can draw to suggest (or not suggest) any particular action. If there is no "suggested action" then it doesn't matter a damn what the novice chooses to do. There is no infraction. Obviously situations exist where we judge that a novice hesitation *does* create UI, or where we judge that the suggestive value of the UI is clear. In these situations we rule against novices just as we rule against anyone else (maybe taking a bit more care to explain our ruling). Tim From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Mar 15 15:57:17 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Mar 15 15:57:36 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <001801c5296f$48ce8590$299468d5@James> [Mike] I dont agree with Nigel that judgement is not involved in the Laws of other games. [Nigel] Once again, Let me clear up possible confusion. I, Nigel "Guthrie", am not the "Nigel" that Mike and Richard quote. Are they quoting Nigel "Strawman", perchance? :) From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Mar 15 16:46:48 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Mar 15 16:47:28 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <4236E7A1.1040007@hdw.be> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <4236E7A1.1040007@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 15 Mar 2005, at 13:48, Herman De Wael wrote: > I believe a card is nominated the instant declarer utters a first > sound. He should be allowed to complete his designation, but he must > not change his mind once he has started. I find this hard to accept, and wonder on what you base your belief? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Mar 15 18:10:50 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Mar 15 18:11:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Time limit Message-ID: <000501c52981$f0cbdf60$559468d5@James> [Nigel] [1] in L64b (below), is "attention first drawn to the revoke" when ... a ... a player points it out to the table? or b ... his opponents also agree to the fact? or c ... the director is called? [2] Does TFLB specify time-limits for penalty/redress/correction with other infractions? I guess that the answer to [1] is [1a] but a debate on RGB confuses me. Certainly, [1c] is more official and verifiable. I don't know the answer to [2] but its seems to me that if TFLB doe not specify time-limits, then it should. [TFLB L64b] > The penalty for an established revoke does not apply: [SNIP] > if attention was first drawn to the revoke after a > member of the non-offending side has made a call on > the subsequent deal. [SNIP] > if attention was first drawn to the revoke after the > round has ended. [SNIP] From john at asimere.com Tue Mar 15 18:57:32 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Mar 15 18:59:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 73D1 (was A player's view) In-Reply-To: <000e01c52901$989ed7a0$149468d5@James> References: <000e01c52901$989ed7a0$149468d5@James> Message-ID: In article <000e01c52901$989ed7a0$149468d5@James>, GUTHRIE writes >else breaks profitably. > >Just as, nowadays, much illness is estrogenic, so rulings by >directors, especially "equity"-rulings, are themselves >increasingly responsible for creating and fostering >"cheats". Nigel, I have sat through months of your witterings. I finally come out. TOTAL FUCKING BOLLOCKS. Give it a miss, you lost. cheers john > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.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 at asimere.com Tue Mar 15 18:58:39 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Mar 15 19:00:58 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: In article <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david>, David Barton writes >Dummy contains >Q86 >K96 >J86 >void > >RHO leads a Club, Declarer plays a higher Club, and LHO ruffs with the 2 of >Spades. >Case 1 - Declarer says "The ....." >Case 2 - Declarer says "The s...." >Case 3 - Declarer says "The six of ...." the card is not yet designated. wtp? > >In each case this is followed by "Oh you have ruffed. Better make it the six >of Spades". >Which card must be played from dummy? > >If you ask, Declarer will claim that even though he had started speaking he >had not decided >which card to play. He only noticed the ruff after he started speaking. > >**************************************** > david.barton@boltblue.com >**************************************** > > > -- 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 JLJZMM at ciport.com Tue Mar 15 19:42:52 2005 From: JLJZMM at ciport.com (Kaye) Date: Tue Mar 15 19:49:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Your Pharmacy Message-ID: <1096522523.484000-77692JLJZMM@ciport.com> Do you want inexpensive XanaX? http://www.900mg.com/p/viks/23 or 160 other drugs: http://www.900mg.com/p/viks you youth me peltry me you catsup me chris me you downey me hadron me you glued me third me you who've me strauss me you inapt me cram me http://pflzer.com/1.php From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 15 23:18:58 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 15 23:21:33 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050314075902.02b66eb0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >I believe we are in agreement to this point: the "class >of player" issue does not affect the question of whether >or not an infraction has been committed. [big snip] Richard Hills: Not so for Australia. The ABF has adopted the most of the WBF Code of Practice (except for the part permitting TDs to use Law 12C3). In particular, the ABF has adopted the WBF CoP definition of "logical alternative": >>A "logical alternative" is a different action that, >>amongst the class of players in question and using the >>methods of the partnership, would be given serious >>consideration by a significant proportion of such >>players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might >>adopt it. A particular "class of player" has not infracted Law 16 by choosing a demonstrably suggested logical alternative if it is their *only* logical alternative. Contrariwise, a different "class of player" who faced the same decision in the same auction would have infracted Law 16 if they chose the demonstrably suggested logical alternative, and - for that different "class of player" - an alternative non-demonstrably suggested unsuccessful logical alternative existed. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From david.barton at boltblue.com Wed Mar 16 01:25:05 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Wed Mar 16 01:20:40 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> David Barton wrote:- >>Dummy contains >>Q86 >>K96 >>J86 >>void >> >>RHO leads a Club, Declarer plays a higher Club, and LHO ruffs with the 2 >>of >>Spades. >>Case 1 - Declarer says "The ....." >>Case 2 - Declarer says "The s...." >>Case 3 - Declarer says "The six of ...." > snip John (MadDog) Probst opined:- > the card is not yet designated. wtp? I agree 100% with John (that should worry him) that at least in cases 1 and 2 no card has been designated. However, if that is the case I wish to advance the following chain of logic:- If "The s...." does not designate a card, then neither does "The Qu..." If no card has been designated declarer is free to designate ANY legal card (In particular declarer is not attempting to change a designation because he has not made one to change). So in the case of leading towards AQ in the dummy, with LHO playing the K, if declarer has only got as far as "The Qu..." when he realises the K has been played, he should be free to nominate the A as the card he wishes to play. Now I know this is heresy, but welcome any comments. **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 11/03/2005 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 16 04:03:08 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Mar 16 04:04:04 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050311081824.02b03e60@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >To make Richard's original case, what we need is a case >where, for example, the 4S bidder, having some UI from >some action by his partner, passed 5H out, and a TD or >AC subsequently adjusted (or contemplated adjusting) to >the result that would have occurred had he bid 5S. Richard Hills: Most UI from tempo cases are from overly slow tempo. However, an earlier blml thread a year or so ago discussed an overly fast tempo case: WEST EAST 2NT 3NT(1) Pass(2) (1) East-West had just adopted a daft convention in which 3NT promised both majors, but East bid 3NT in a faster tempo than their usual deliberate tempo. (2) West had a logical alternative to convert to 4S, but East's fast tempo demonstrably suggested that East had forgotten the partnership agreement. Sure enough, East had indeed forgotten their daft convention. The TD therefore adjusted the score from 3NT making to 4S failing. Therefore, in a modification of my original example: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 3S Pass Pass(1) 4H Pass(2) Pass Pass (1) Fast pass (2) On the West cards, re-preempting 4S is a logical alternative for a bunny I could conceive a TD ruling that a bunny's score is adjusted to a result in 4S, since re-preempting 4S is a logical alternative for a bunny, but an expert's score is *not* adjusted to a score in 4S, since re- preempting 4S is *not* a logical alternative for an expert. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From david.barton at boltblue.com Wed Mar 16 05:19:14 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Wed Mar 16 05:14:47 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <21b9227b214515946078a8a538ded117@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000601c529df$503b5a40$0307a8c0@david> > > On Mar 15, 2005, at 7:25 PM, David Barton wrote: > >> However, if that is the case I wish to advance the following chain of >> logic:- >> If "The s...." does not designate a card, then neither does "The Qu..." >> If no card has been designated declarer is free to designate ANY legal >> card >> (In particular declarer is not attempting to change a designation because >> he has >> not made one to change). >> So in the case of leading towards AQ in the dummy, with LHO playing the >> K, >> if declarer has only got as far as "The Qu..." when he realises the K has >> been played, >> he should be free to nominate the A as the card he wishes to play. > > Apples and oranges. In the example case, there are 3 sixes on the dummy, > and he is void in the suit led. In your case, there's only one queen of > the suit led. So declarer leading a heart, starting to say "Qu..." and > then noticing his LHO has played the king, *must* be changing his mind. > Besides, if you rule "Qu..." is an inadvertant designation, allowing > declarer to change it to "Ace of " then declarer's LHO can > withdraw his King and play something else [L45C4(b)] - if it's not > singleton, anyway. > I am NOT saying that "The Qu.." is an inadvertant designation, I am saying that it does not meet the requirements of being a designation of any sort, inadvertant or otherwise. If there is NO designation, there cannot be any change of designation. (in the same way that 1 sp.. does not meet the requirements of being a bid when using spoken bidding. The fact that you can "guess" what the bid would have been if completed matters not - other than possible UI) **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 16 05:50:41 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Mar 16 05:51:30 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050314075902.02b66eb0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [big snip] >sure to be found by any player who understands the basics of >squeeze play -- which describes about half the players in the >room. > >Should the adjusted score in the presumptive 3NT contract be >-50, or +400, or does it depend on the "class" of the player >who committed the infraction? Richard Hills: This hypothetical is merely a variation on a theme. There has been endless discussion on parallel claim threads about the meaning of "careless or inferior" and what "careless or inferior" means for a "class of player". Here, Eric has cunningly used the word "sure" to beg the question. In my opinion, no matter what the "class of player", a double squeeze is *never* "sure". It is always possible for an English international player at a World Championship to be careless or inferior in their attempt at executing a double squeeze. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 16 06:35:10 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Mar 16 06:35:59 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <00af01c528f3$95c31040$229468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Close .. but no cigar! > >A. Richard misrepresents *Nigel's view* -- Nigel just thinks >that Bridge rules should depend as little on subjective >judgement as is practicable and sensible (the rules have a >long way to go, in this respect). [snip] Richard Hills: In which case we differ on our interpretations of practical and sensible; especially since Procrustean one-size-fits-all is (in my opinion) neither practical nor sensible. Nigel Guthrie: >C. And it is not only *Nigel's* view -- he shares his aim >with the rule-makers of most games. Richard Hills: An untestable assertion - there are many many games with many many different styles in their rule sets. Also, an irrelevant assertion. A more interesting comparison would be to see if "subjective judgement" was an integral part of the rules of a game which was closely analogous to bridge. For example, see the international Laws of the trick-taking card game Skat: >>http://ispaworld.org/ >> >>Rule 4.3 The organizer and committees reserve the right >>to expel any player from the tournament who arbitrarily >>infringes on rules and regulations and or behaves in an >>unruly manner. The entry fee is nonrefundable. Entry to a >>new competition can be denied. The organizer has the right >>to ban a participant from a tournament without stating >>reasons. That rule gives a referee *huge* power to make a subjective judgement, thanks to subjectively defined terms such as "arbitrarily", "unruly" and "without stating reasons". This is despite Skat avoiding the UI problems that bridge has, since Skat is not a partnership game. In my opinion, subjective judgements by referees in a trick- taking cardgame of imperfect information are an inevitable consequence of the nature of those types of games. In my opinion, the amounts of subjective judgements required are increased when those games involve partnerships jointly seeking a desired outcome, but with each partner knowing non-congruent amounts of imperfect information. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 16 07:09:16 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Mar 16 07:10:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 73D1 (was A player's view) In-Reply-To: <001901c52902$2c3e9720$149468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asserted: >I am afraid we may have to make do with anecdotal evidence [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: No, sufficient data is out there for some reliable statistical results. If Nigel would take the trouble to aggregate the UI cases from the ACBL and EBU appeals casebooks, he would find that TDs' assessment of what is "demonstrably suggested" was significantly better than chance, contrary to Nigel's earlier unfounded assertion (which was apparently influenced by Nigel's pessimistic view-of-the-world). Nigel Guthrie asserted: >The hesitator isn't a cheat [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: Indeed, not a cheat by *definition* of Law 73D1. Almost. Due to the "however" / "otherwise" caveat in Law 73D1, hesitating is still an infraction of Law 73A1. But it shouldn't be. The big problem is that there is a popular misconception that inadvertently hesitating is so-called "cheating". Which is why I started this thread. I would prefer Edgar Kaplan's pioneering decriminalisation of hesitating to be carried to its logical conclusion, with only "coffee-house" deceptive hesitations remaining infractions of Law. I have a dream that in 2007 all players learn that any of their (non-deceptive) hesitations are totally legal, merely restricting the number of their partner's legal logical alternatives. I have a dream that in 2007 a patzer never implies that another player is "cheating" merely because that player hesitated. I have a dream that in 2007 all players carefully avoid taking any advantage after their partner has hesitated. And I have a dream that in 2007 Nigel Guthrie, and the De Wael School, do not worry about the (not intrinsically damaging) *creation* of UI. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From functor at doneasy.com Mon Mar 7 14:36:10 2005 From: functor at doneasy.com (Yesenia Crocker) Date: Wed Mar 16 08:08:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Instant 3.25 low rates Message-ID: <200410031408.i93VexTw007825@www0.gmail.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.nowratez.com/x/loan.php?id=nm Best Regards, Jacques Belcher to be remov(ed: http://www.nowratez.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Wed Mar 16 08:44:40 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Wed Mar 16 08:45:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Time limit In-Reply-To: <000501c52981$f0cbdf60$559468d5@James> Message-ID: >From: "GUTHRIE" >To: "BLML" >Subject: [blml] Time limit >Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:10:50 -0000 > >[Nigel] >[1] in L64b (below), is "attention first drawn to the >revoke" when ... >a ... a player points it out to the table? or >b ... his opponents also agree to the fact? or >c ... the director is called? > >[2] Does TFLB specify time-limits for >penalty/redress/correction with other infractions? > >I guess that the answer to [1] is [1a] but a debate on RGB >confuses me. Certainly, [1c] is more official and >verifiable. 1a, read law 9. But remember 64C. > >I don't know the answer to [2] but its seems to me that if >TFLB doe not specify time-limits, then it should. Why, you always have law12A1? Regards, Harald Skj?ran > >[TFLB L64b] > > The penalty for an established revoke does not apply: >[SNIP] > > if attention was first drawn to the revoke after a > > member of the non-offending side has made a call on > > the subsequent deal. >[SNIP] > > if attention was first drawn to the revoke after the > > round has ended. >[SNIP] > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Wed Mar 16 08:50:54 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Wed Mar 16 08:51:36 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000601c529df$503b5a40$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: >>On Mar 15, 2005, at 7:25 PM, David Barton wrote: >> >>>However, if that is the case I wish to advance the following chain of >>>logic:- >>>If "The s...." does not designate a card, then neither does "The Qu..." >>>If no card has been designated declarer is free to designate ANY legal >>>card >>>(In particular declarer is not attempting to change a designation because >>>he has >>>not made one to change). >>>So in the case of leading towards AQ in the dummy, with LHO playing the >>>K, >>>if declarer has only got as far as "The Qu..." when he realises the K has >>>been played, >>>he should be free to nominate the A as the card he wishes to play. >> >>Apples and oranges. In the example case, there are 3 sixes on the dummy, >>and he is void in the suit led. In your case, there's only one queen of >>the suit led. So declarer leading a heart, starting to say "Qu..." and >>then noticing his LHO has played the king, *must* be changing his mind. >>Besides, if you rule "Qu..." is an inadvertant designation, allowing >>declarer to change it to "Ace of " then declarer's LHO can >>withdraw his King and play something else [L45C4(b)] - if it's not >>singleton, anyway. NO, HE CANNOT. The king was played PRIOR to declarers "designation", and can not be withdrawn if declarer changes designation. Whether we accept this from declarer or not. Regards, Harald Skj?ran >> _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From henk at ripe.net Wed Mar 16 07:56:31 2005 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed Mar 16 09:07:48 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050316075022.02be98d0@localhost> At 01:25 16/03/2005, David Barton wrote: >If "The s...." does not designate a card, then neither does "The Qu..." I'd say that anything up to "the six of" designates a card, namely one of the 6's in the dummy. However, declarer still has to specify the suit. When he adds "oh, you ruffed, better overruff", it is clear that he intended to discard a red 6. This is a change of mind and should not be allowed. The same applies to a "que.., no the ace". So, yes, a declarer who can do this without the "oh, you ruffed" remark, _is_ lucky. 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 hermandw at hdw.be Wed Mar 16 09:22:21 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Mar 16 09:21:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 73D1 (was A player's view) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4237ECBD.3000807@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > I have a dream that in 2007 all players learn that any of > their (non-deceptive) hesitations are totally legal, merely > restricting the number of their partner's legal logical > alternatives. I have a dream that in 2007 a patzer never > implies that another player is "cheating" merely because > that player hesitated. I have a dream that in 2007 all > players carefully avoid taking any advantage after their > partner has hesitated. > > And I have a dream that in 2007 Nigel Guthrie, and the De > Wael School, do not worry about the (not intrinsically > damaging) *creation* of UI. > Well, I don't want to speak for Nigel, but I for one do not agree with this sentiment. If you dream that by 2007 my partner will bend over backwards to avoid using UI, then by all means allow me to prevent giving him UI. You say UI is not intrinsically damaging. You are correct in one sense. It does not damage the opponents. But it does damage the partnership. The partner with UI is bound by it to take one course of action, where another could possibly be taken, and be advantageous, in the absence of UI. In that sense, the creation of the UI is damaging, and I should be allowed to bend over backwards in not giving UI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 11/03/2005 From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 16 10:16:40 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 16 10:17:21 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050316075022.02be98d0@localhost> Message-ID: <000101c52a08$dd056370$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal > >If "The s...." does not designate a card, then neither does "The Qu..." > > I'd say that anything up to "the six of" designates a card, namely one of > the 6's in the dummy. However, declarer still has to specify the suit. > > When he adds "oh, you ruffed, better overruff", it is clear that he > intended to discard a red 6. This is a change of mind and should not > be allowed. The same applies to a "que.., no the ace". We may like it or not but under the current laws Declarer may change his mind as much as he cares within the limits in Law 46 so long as he has not completely designated the card to be played from Dummy. In particular this includes his right under Law 46B3(b) to eventually specify the suit for a card of a specified rank regardless of what seems to have been his original intention. Whether "que..." shall be considered the designation of a rank is a matter of judgment, there is certainly no such rank although we can infer that he intended to designate a Queen. But what about "s..."? We cannot tell if it referred to a six or a seven? What about "a..."? Is he about to designate an ace or is he about to say for instance "a club", "a small" or anything else? And in any case we shall have a problem ruling that there is not a misnomer for which Law 45C4(b) is applicable whenever Declarer changes his designation half way through. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Mar 16 10:26:37 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Mar 16 10:26:01 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <4236E7A1.1040007@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4237FBCD.3070805@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 15 Mar 2005, at 13:48, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I believe a card is nominated the instant declarer utters a first >> sound. He should be allowed to complete his designation, but he must >> not change his mind once he has started. > > > I find this hard to accept, and wonder on what you base your belief? > Very good question, Gordon, and quite central to this and many other issues concerning dummy play. Let me see if I can base my belief on some laws, at least. L45B tells us how a card is played: declarer names it and dummy (the person, not the entity) places it in a played position. It should be clear to us that this does not define the "when" a card has been played. We all agree that a card has become played even if no-one has yet touched it. So the "naming" of the card does not in itself fulfil the conditiong for "when it is played" either. At least not by L45B. So L45B does not teach us anything in this matter. L45C3 does not help us either - it tells us of an alternative action by declarer which also makes that a card has been played - the act of touching it except for rearranging. L46A tells us that declarer should clearly state both suit and rank. However, this is a "should", which means that if declarer states less than this, the card should not considered to be "not played". If there is only one spade in dummy, saying "spade" definitely makes the spade a played card. So why should saying "sp" be anything less. Certainly not by L46A. So we come to L46B. This law deals with "incomplete call". It tells us in which manner an incomplete call is deemed to be interpreted. Nowhere does it say that an incomplete call means the card is not played, it merely tells us how the rest should be filled in. Among other things, L46B2 tells us that if declarer says "spade", he is deemed to have played the lowest one. This means that it is not legal to say "spade ..." and only then start thinking of the rank of the card one wishes to play. Once the word "spade" is said, and allowing for a very short interval in which to say "ace", the spade 2 is considered played. Now please also note that L46B2 talks of "designates". I interpret this as saying that "sp.." is enough to designate spades, and the card one intended to complete the "sp.." with has already become the played card, pending potential clarification. Which is what leads me to say that a card from dummy is played the instant the first letter of its designation leaves declarer's lips. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From david.barton at boltblue.com Wed Mar 16 10:54:43 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Wed Mar 16 10:50:13 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <4236E7A1.1040007@hdw.be> <4237FBCD.3070805@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000d01c52a0e$2da11f90$0307a8c0@david> > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> >> On 15 Mar 2005, at 13:48, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> I believe a card is nominated the instant declarer utters a first >>> sound. He should be allowed to complete his designation, but he must >>> not change his mind once he has started. >> >> >> I find this hard to accept, and wonder on what you base your belief? >> HDW wrote > > Very good question, Gordon, and quite central to this and many other > issues concerning dummy play. > > Let me see if I can base my belief on some laws, at least. > > L45B tells us how a card is played: declarer names it and dummy (the > person, not the entity) places it in a played position. > > It should be clear to us that this does not define the "when" a card > has been played. We all agree that a card has become played even if > no-one has yet touched it. So the "naming" of the card does not in > itself fulfil the conditiong for "when it is played" either. At least > not by L45B. > > So L45B does not teach us anything in this matter. > > L45C3 does not help us either - it tells us of an alternative action > by declarer which also makes that a card has been played - the act of > touching it except for rearranging. > > L46A tells us that declarer should clearly state both suit and rank. > However, this is a "should", which means that if declarer states less > than this, the card should not considered to be "not played". If there > is only one spade in dummy, saying "spade" definitely makes the spade > a played card. So why should saying "sp" be anything less. Certainly > not by L46A. > > So we come to L46B. > This law deals with "incomplete call". It tells us in which manner an > incomplete call is deemed to be interpreted. Nowhere does it say that > an incomplete call means the card is not played, it merely tells us > how the rest should be filled in. > > Among other things, L46B2 tells us that if declarer says "spade", he > is deemed to have played the lowest one. This means that it is not > legal to say "spade ..." and only then start thinking of the rank of > the card one wishes to play. Once the word "spade" is said, and > allowing for a very short interval in which to say "ace", the spade 2 > is considered played. > > Now please also note that L46B2 talks of "designates". I interpret > this as saying that "sp.." is enough to designate spades, and the card > one intended to complete the "sp.." with has already become the played > card, pending potential clarification. > > Which is what leads me to say that a card from dummy is played the > instant the first letter of its designation leaves declarer's lips. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > Does this then mean that the ruling will be different when declarer leads towards A10 ( K and Q having been played on a previous trick) and nominates "The t..." (ambiguous between ten and top) than it would be if declarer lead towards AQ and nominates "The qu..."? (no ambiguity). Also would the rulings be different under identical circumstances but different languages being used eg Dutch instead of English? **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From henk at ripe.net Wed Mar 16 10:58:51 2005 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed Mar 16 11:08:32 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000101c52a08$dd056370$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050316075022.02be98d0@localhost> <000101c52a08$dd056370$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050316103517.02bef510@localhost> At 10:16 16/03/2005, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal > > >If "The s...." does not designate a card, then neither does "The Qu..." > > > > I'd say that anything up to "the six of" designates a card, namely one of > > the 6's in the dummy. However, declarer still has to specify the suit. > > > > When he adds "oh, you ruffed, better overruff", it is clear that he > > intended to discard a red 6. This is a change of mind and should not > > be allowed. The same applies to a "que.., no the ace". > >We may like it or not but under the current laws Declarer may change his >mind as much as he cares within the limits in Law 46 so long as he has not >completely designated the card to be played from Dummy. In particular this >includes his right under Law 46B3(b) to eventually specify the suit for a >card of a specified rank regardless of what seems to have been his original >intention. > >Whether "que..." shall be considered the designation of a rank is a matter >of judgment, there is certainly no such rank although we can infer that he >intended to designate a Queen. 46B3b requires declarer to play a card of the designated rank if he can legally do so. So, if declarer leads up to AQ of a suit and asks for the queen, he must play the queen of the suit. It does not matter if there are other queens in the dummy, as they cannot be legally played. >But what about "s..."? We cannot tell if it referred to a six or a seven? In this case, I'd accept a designation for any 6, 7 or small card. I would not accept declarer asking for an ace (or whatever else that doesn't start with an S). >And in any case we shall have a problem ruling that there is not a misnomer >for which Law 45C4(b) is applicable whenever Declarer changes his >designation half way through. In this specific case, I think it is easy. Declarer said "better make it a trump", which is a change of mind. 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 svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 16 11:08:31 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 16 11:09:11 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <4237FBCD.3070805@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000901c52a10$1b991df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > L45B tells us how a card is played: declarer names it and dummy (the > person, not the entity) places it in a played position. > > It should be clear to us that this does not define the "when" a card > has been played. We all agree that a card has become played even if > no-one has yet touched it. So the "naming" of the card does not in > itself fulfil the conditiong for "when it is played" either. At least > not by L45B. > > So L45B does not teach us anything in this matter. Law 45B: Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from dummy's hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself. IMO this defines the action "by naming the card" as the actual play. Everything else is subsequent activities except that if declarer for some reason selects to pick up the card himself without first naming it then the card is played at the moment he touches it. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Mar 16 11:19:21 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Mar 16 11:18:54 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000d01c52a0e$2da11f90$0307a8c0@david> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <4236E7A1.1040007@hdw.be> <4237FBCD.3070805@hdw.be> <000d01c52a0e$2da11f90$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <42380829.4000401@hdw.be> David Barton wrote: >> > > Does this then mean that the ruling will be different when declarer leads > towards A10 ( K and Q having been played on a previous trick) > and nominates "The t..." (ambiguous between ten and top) than it would > be if declarer lead towards AQ and nominates "The qu..."? > (no ambiguity). > > Also would the rulings be different under identical circumstances but > different languages being used eg Dutch instead of English? > I don't think the principle of the ruling will be any different, although the actual ruling will be. I deem that saying "the q.." is enough to render the queen being played. Similarly, saying "the t.." is enough to render the ten being played, if such was the intention of the player. If his intention was to play the ace and he was trying to say "the top", then the ace would be played. I regard it as being very difficult to pronounce "the t..op" without pause for thought while seeing the king arrive, so I would probably rule that the intention was the ten after all. And indeed, in different languages, different problems can arise, but the solution ought to be the same. Once declarer starts speaking, the card he intended to pronounce has become the played card. Determining what his intention was can be difficult but probably not too difficult. For example, in dutch you cannot have the problem with the sixes, because we say "harten zes" not "six of hearts". But we have other problems. I don't believe the laws should be interpreted in such a way that it is possible for an english speaking declarer to change his intention halfway through saying "the six ... of spades", while for a dutch speaker in the same situation it would be impossible to change "ruiten ... nee schoppen zes". Both declarers have _played_ the six of diamonds the instant the words "the six of ..." or "ruiten ..." have left their lips. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 16 10:34:44 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 16 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <000b01c52a13$922dd6b0$1c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Egad, I think the interpreter is the hardest to be understood of the two." ~ Richard Brinsley Sheridan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:49 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [blml] A player's view > With a novice this hesitation shows "13 cards" > (nb, it is faintly possible that a hand exists where > a novice will *not* break tempo in a contested > 2C auction but I have yet to see one at the table). > There is no "information" in the hesitation and > with no "I" there cannot be "UI". > +=+ Sloppy language on my part. For 'hesitates' read 'breaks tempo'. The point is that where the novice is *always* slow there is no breach of tempo. The question for the Director is whether his slow (or quick) play is meaningful or merely reflects his regular normal speed of reaction rather than indecision. *Variation* of tempo creates UI because it shows variable speeds of decision making. The reason this defence is not available to the experoenced player is that experienced players develop an "I have been here before" syndrome. removing the need for thought in common situations when in possession of UI. The CoP makes a point about unexpected situations. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 16 11:03:53 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 16 11:36:43 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><21b9227b214515946078a8a538ded117@rochester.rr.com> <000601c529df$503b5a40$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000c01c52a13$93177360$1c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Egad, I think the interpreter is the hardest to be understood of the two." ~ Richard Brinsley Sheridan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > > I am NOT saying that "The Qu.." is an inadvertant > designation, I am saying that it does not meet the > requirements of being a designation of any sort, > inadvertant or otherwise. If there is NO designation, > there cannot be any change of designation. > (in the same way that 1 sp.. does not meet the > requirements of being a bid when using spoken > bidding. The fact that you can "guess" what the bid > would have been if completed matters not - other than possible UI) > +=+ The declarer has evidently done something. He has not done nothing. What he has done is to commence an instruction to dummy to play a card. You say 'but he has not designated a card'. Your argument thus appears to be that Law 46B5 applies, as against the generally received wisdom that if he gets as far as incompletely naming a card he must complete that designation without rethink. Something about the frying pan and the fire comes to mind.. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Mar 16 11:52:24 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Mar 16 11:57:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 73D1 (was A player's view) References: Message-ID: <000d01c52a16$3d7b3920$219468d5@James> [Richard Hills] No, sufficient data is out there for some reliable statistical results. If Nigel would take the trouble to aggregate the UI cases from the ACBL and EBU appeals casebooks, he would find that TDs' assessment of what is "demonstrably suggested" was significantly better than chance, contrary to Nigel's earlier unfounded assertion (which was apparently influenced by Nigel's pessimistic view-of-the-world). [Nigel] My contention was that the director and his advisers are sometimes wrong about what was suggested by UI; whereas a player in an experienced partnership will almost always correctly interpret UI from his partner. How can you know how an alleged offender interpreted UI or whether he chose to take advantage of it, unless he tells you his thoughts - and you believe him?. How can you glean statististical evidence on this issue from AC decisions? Interestingly, a brief perusal of AC reports reveals no cases of what Richard calls "reverse cheating" (I hate that term). I suppose Richard would adduce this as evidence that it hardly ever occurs? From david.barton at boltblue.com Wed Mar 16 12:17:18 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Wed Mar 16 12:12:49 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><21b9227b214515946078a8a538ded117@rochester.rr.com><000601c529df$503b5a40$0307a8c0@david> <000c01c52a13$93177360$1c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <002c01c52a19$b7171760$0307a8c0@david> >> > >> I am NOT saying that "The Qu.." is an inadvertant >> designation, I am saying that it does not meet the >> requirements of being a designation of any sort, >> inadvertant or otherwise. If there is NO designation, >> there cannot be any change of designation. >> (in the same way that 1 sp.. does not meet the >> requirements of being a bid when using spoken >> bidding. The fact that you can "guess" what the bid >> would have been if completed matters not - other > than possible UI) >> > +=+ The declarer has evidently done something. He > has not done nothing. What he has done is to commence > an instruction to dummy to play a card. You say 'but he > has not designated a card'. Your argument thus appears > to be that Law 46B5 applies, as against the generally > received wisdom that if he gets as far as incompletely > naming a card he must complete that designation > without rethink. Something about the frying pan and > the fire comes to mind.. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > That is most certainly NOT my arguement! My arguement is that "The qu..." does NOT indicate a play, and most certainly does NOT contain words of like import to "play anything"!!!!!! **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 16 12:33:20 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 16 12:37:56 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><21b9227b214515946078a8a538ded117@rochester.rr.com><000601c529df$503b5a40$0307a8c0@david><000c01c52a13$93177360$1c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002c01c52a19$b7171760$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <001301c52a1c$1fae61a0$ca76893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Egad, I think the interpreter is the hardest to be understood of the two." ~ Richard Brinsley Sheridan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > That is most certainly NOT my arguement! > My arguement is that "The qu..." does NOT > indicate a play, and most certainly does NOT > contain words of like import to "play anything"!!!!!! > +=+ In the words of a very competent TD: "Pull the other one." ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 16 12:54:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Mar 16 12:55:19 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <4237FBCD.3070805@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Now please also note that L46B2 talks of "designates". I interpret > this as saying that "sp.." is enough to designate spades, and the card > one intended to complete the "sp.." with has already become the played > card, pending potential clarification. However, that is not what the law says. If declarer calls for the "QuAce" he must play the Quace. If he calls for a "Spnoaclub" he must play a Spnoaclub. The packs I play with contain neither quaces nor spnoaclubs (they comply with law 1). Oh, if only there was a law that told us what to do if declarer calls for a card not dummy! Well hot-diggetty damn, lookit that - there is: L46b4. Designates Card Not in Dummy If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card. Two minor points. 1) Some players (irritatingly) say "Sp" or "Spa" when they mean spades or "Farts" for the four of hearts (or less irritatingly "the curse", or "the beer"). In these situations I am happy that they have indeed "designated". However, the tonality used in such situations is not ambiguous. 2) There has, in all such situations, been an infraction of L46a. This will not normally be a problem but if the confusion adversely affects *RHO* I will adjust. What I really don't understand is the references to "changes of mind". There is nothing in the law which forbids changes of mind (before a rank/suit has been designated). Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 16 14:08:32 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 16 14:08:00 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:25 PM 3/15/05, David wrote: >So in the case of leading towards AQ in the dummy, with LHO playing the K, >if declarer has only got as far as "The Qu..." when he realises the K >has been played, >he should be free to nominate the A as the card he wishes to play. > >Now I know this is heresy, but welcome any comments. I would think it would be routine to allow him to play the ace. ISTM that this must be exactly the situation that the authors of L46B had in mind when they wrote "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertable"; here there is no doubt that declarer's "intention" was to finesse the king. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From david.barton at boltblue.com Wed Mar 16 14:26:09 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Wed Mar 16 14:21:50 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><21b9227b214515946078a8a538ded117@rochester.rr.com><000601c529df$503b5a40$0307a8c0@david><000c01c52a13$93177360$1c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002c01c52a19$b7171760$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000301c52a2b$b7675510$0307a8c0@david> Let me ask another question which is (a) less emotive and (b) much more common but has similar considerations. The lead is in hand but declarer says " The Heart..." at which point he is interrupted by dummy saying "your hand partner". Has he (a) Got to finish his designation and play that card if required by a defender (b) Be deemed to have nominated the lowest Heart in dummy and be required to play that if required by either defender (c) Be deemed not to have nominated a card from dummy and lead any card from the correct hand? **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From john at jsnichols.com Wed Mar 16 14:20:45 2005 From: john at jsnichols.com (John Nichols) Date: Wed Mar 16 14:22:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 73D1 (was A player's view) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3437C8A9C4A70044900742F9273438AA047A83@mid1.midindy.local> [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: No, sufficient data is out there for some reliable statistical results. If Nigel would take the trouble to aggregate the UI cases from the ACBL and EBU appeals casebooks, he would find that TDs' assessment of what is "demonstrably suggested" was significantly better than chance, contrary to Nigel's earlier unfounded assertion (which was apparently influenced by Nigel's pessimistic view-of-the-world). John Nichols: I can't speak for the EBU casebooks, but the ACBL Appeals casebooks are by their nature a small and very non-random sample of TD decissions. The ACBL casebooks are only for the top three out of hundreds (thousands?) of ACBL sponsored events each year and they are only for TD rulings that are appealed. That does not make for a statisticaly valid sample. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 16 14:37:30 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 16 14:36:57 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050314075902.02b66eb0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050316081405.02baee60@pop.starpower.net> At 11:50 PM 3/15/05, richard.hills wrote: >Eric Landau: > >[big snip] > > >sure to be found by any player who understands the basics of > >squeeze play -- which describes about half the players in the > >room. > > > >Should the adjusted score in the presumptive 3NT contract be > >-50, or +400, or does it depend on the "class" of the player > >who committed the infraction? > >Richard Hills: > >This hypothetical is merely a variation on a theme. There >has been endless discussion on parallel claim threads about >the meaning of "careless or inferior" and what "careless or >inferior" means for a "class of player". Quite so, and leads to the point I've been trying to reach. Thanks to the infamous footnote, that theme must play when we apply L69-71. But lately I've been hearing variations on it in the background when we are attempting to apply L12C2, and I see nothing in TFLB to justify that. >Here, Eric has cunningly used the word "sure" to beg the >question. In my opinion, no matter what the "class of >player", a double squeeze is *never* "sure". It is always >possible for an English international player at a World >Championship to be careless or inferior in their attempt at >executing a double squeeze. I don't disagree. But my intention in asking the question wasn't to get an answer as to what would be "'normal'" in a L69-71 situation; it was to raise the question of whether that should matter in cases that have nothing to do with those particular laws. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 16 15:43:45 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 16 15:44:28 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000301c52a2b$b7675510$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <001601c52a36$8f6ad130$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton > Let me ask another question which is > (a) less emotive and > (b) much more common > but has similar considerations. > > The lead is in hand but declarer says " The Heart..." > at which point he is interrupted by dummy saying > "your hand partner". > > Has he > (a) Got to finish his designation and play that card if required by a > defender > (b) Be deemed to have nominated the lowest Heart in dummy and > be required to play that if required by either defender > (c) Be deemed not to have nominated a card from dummy and lead > any card from the correct hand? As you say, this is much more common, and it should cause no difficulty whatsoever. We have Law 42B2 which authorizes Dummy to try preventing any irregularity by declarer. And while Declarer definitely has not completed his designation of a card to be incorrectly led from dummy there can be no doubt that Dummy is still within the time frame where his action is that of trying to prevent an irregularity rather than to be calling attention to it. Once declarer has completed his designation of a card from Dummy but Dummy instead of "playing" that card says something like "your hand partner" we have a situation where there can indeed be some doubt whether Dummy is trying to correct the irregularity or calling attention to it. However in the case described above there can be no room for such doubt. So Declarer shall be ruled (c) not to have nominated any card from Dummy and to lead whatever card he desires from his own hand. Regards Sven From WJCHBPWHQPVQP at averagetoallamerican.com Wed Mar 16 16:01:44 2005 From: WJCHBPWHQPVQP at averagetoallamerican.com (Esther Short) Date: Wed Mar 16 16:02:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Professional Loans made simple Message-ID: <229212032200.47951.casey@outbacklinux.com> Dear Homeowner, You have been pre-approved for a $402,000 Home Loan at EXTREMELY low Fixed Rate. This offer is being extended to you unconditionally and your credit is in no way a factor. To take Advantage of this Limited Time opportunity all we ask is that you visit our Website and complete the 1 minute post Approval Form. http://www.mt-g-today.com/44.asp Best Regards, Esther Short Regional CEO agatha sl vitro wm sequin dv pagan bcs chuck wo temple bg bullock is twice af waite na carnage qd warsaw zet toot uh http://mt-g-today.com/gone.asp From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 16 16:25:38 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 16 16:29:34 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050314075902.02b66eb0@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316081405.02baee60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000e01c52a3c$7e733150$ce73893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Egad, I think the interpreter is the hardest to be understood of the two." ~ Richard Brinsley Sheridan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > Quite so, and leads to the point I've been trying > to reach. Thanks to the infamous footnote, that > theme must play when we apply L69-71. But > lately I've been hearing variations on it in the > background when we are attempting to apply > L12C2, and I see nothing in TFLB to justify that. > +=+ The definition in the footnote to L69-71 is specifically restricted to those laws. Therefore, unless otherwise defined the dictionary definition applies, so 'not deviating from the standard, regular, typical, ordinary'. However, if used in a regulation it can be ascribed a definition for regulatory purposes - which, of course, may be 'as defined in the footnote to Laws 69-71'. I note the reference to 12C2. The WBF CoP, if introduced by regulation, does of course limit redress to damage not caused by the side's own irrational, wild or gambling, action subsequent to the offence. Also the WBFLC determined (30 August 1998) that such a limitation applies to the non-offending side but will not restrict a full score adjustment for the offending side. It then went on to say that "the right to redress for a non-offending opponent is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action, but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling". (A 'double shot' type of action is stated to be 'gambling'; the words 'class of player' are not present in the minute.) This WBFLC interpretation of the laws extends to tournaments even where the CoP does not apply. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Mar 16 16:31:59 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Mar 16 16:31:25 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000901c52a10$1b991df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c52a10$1b991df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4238516F.4010105@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ........... > >>L45B tells us how a card is played: declarer names it and dummy (the >>person, not the entity) places it in a played position. >> >>It should be clear to us that this does not define the "when" a card >>has been played. We all agree that a card has become played even if >>no-one has yet touched it. So the "naming" of the card does not in >>itself fulfil the conditiong for "when it is played" either. At least >>not by L45B. >> >>So L45B does not teach us anything in this matter. > > > Law 45B: Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which > dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from dummy's > hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself. > > IMO this defines the action "by naming the card" as the actual play. > Everything else is subsequent activities except that if declarer for some > reason selects to pick up the card himself without first naming it then the > card is played at the moment he touches it. > Exactly "naming the card". This does not tell us when the card is played. Since at various other places in the book a partial naming is also enough, you cannot say that this is the instant the card becomes "played". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Mar 16 16:34:30 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Mar 16 16:34:07 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42385206.9040902@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Now please also note that L46B2 talks of "designates". I interpret >>this as saying that "sp.." is enough to designate spades, and the card >>one intended to complete the "sp.." with has already become the played >>card, pending potential clarification. > > > However, that is not what the law says. > If declarer calls for the "QuAce" he must play the Quace. If he calls for > a "Spnoaclub" he must play a Spnoaclub. The packs I play with contain > neither quaces nor spnoaclubs (they comply with law 1). > > Oh, if only there was a law that told us what to do if declarer calls for > a card not dummy! Well hot-diggetty damn, lookit that - there is: > > L46b4. Designates Card Not in Dummy > If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and > declarer may designate any legal card. > > Two minor points. > 1) Some players (irritatingly) say "Sp" or "Spa" when they mean spades or > "Farts" for the four of hearts (or less irritatingly "the curse", or "the > beer"). In these situations I am happy that they have indeed > "designated". However, the tonality used in such situations is not > ambiguous. > 2) There has, in all such situations, been an infraction of L46a. This > will not normally be a problem but if the confusion adversely affects > *RHO* I will adjust. > > What I really don't understand is the references to "changes of mind". > There is nothing in the law which forbids changes of mind (before a > rank/suit has been designated). > So you Tim, you allow the trick of saying "the queen ... of hypogriffs" in changing ones mind from the queen to the ace? Well, maybe your reading of the law is the correct one, but then all those who rule against the QuAce are equally mistaken, in your opinion? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Mar 16 16:37:04 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Mar 16 16:36:41 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000301c52a2b$b7675510$0307a8c0@david> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><21b9227b214515946078a8a538ded117@rochester.rr.com><000601c529df$503b5a40$0307a8c0@david><000c01c52a13$93177360$1c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002c01c52a19$b7171760$0307a8c0@david> <000301c52a2b$b7675510$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <423852A0.50703@hdw.be> David Barton wrote: > Let me ask another question which is > (a) less emotive and > (b) much more common > but has similar considerations. > > The lead is in hand but declarer says " The Heart..." > at which point he is interrupted by dummy saying > "your hand partner". > > Has he > (a) Got to finish his designation and play that card if required by a > defender I would say, yes. > (b) Be deemed to have nominated the lowest Heart in dummy and > be required to play that if required by either defender Surely you cannot ask him not to complete his designation when he was interrupted by someone else? > (c) Be deemed not to have nominated a card from dummy and lead > any card from the correct hand? > Not in my opinion, no. But then I'm in the camp of those that deem a card played from the moment a sound leaves the lips of declarer. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Mar 16 16:39:45 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Mar 16 16:39:20 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <001601c52a36$8f6ad130$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001601c52a36$8f6ad130$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42385341.4060904@hdw.be> Sorry Sven, but again you have the totally wrong end of the stick. Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of David Barton >>Let me ask another question which is >>(a) less emotive and >>(b) much more common >>but has similar considerations. >> >>The lead is in hand but declarer says " The Heart..." >>at which point he is interrupted by dummy saying >>"your hand partner". >> >>Has he >>(a) Got to finish his designation and play that card if required by a >> defender >>(b) Be deemed to have nominated the lowest Heart in dummy and >> be required to play that if required by either defender >>(c) Be deemed not to have nominated a card from dummy and lead >> any card from the correct hand? > > > As you say, this is much more common, and it should cause no difficulty > whatsoever. > > We have Law 42B2 which authorizes Dummy to try preventing any irregularity > by declarer. And while Declarer definitely has not completed his designation > of a card to be incorrectly led from dummy there can be no doubt that Dummy > is still within the time frame where his action is that of trying to prevent > an irregularity rather than to be calling attention to it. > I don't see it as such. Declarer has clearly started an irregularity, so there is no more preventing it. I allow a dummy to say "table partner" when declarer takes a card out of his hand, but not in this condition. > Once declarer has completed his designation of a card from Dummy but Dummy > instead of "playing" that card says something like "your hand partner" we > have a situation where there can indeed be some doubt whether Dummy is > trying to correct the irregularity or calling attention to it. > That is true, of course. > However in the case described above there can be no room for such doubt. > Well, there is clearly room where I am sitting. > So Declarer shall be ruled (c) not to have nominated any card from Dummy and > to lead whatever card he desires from his own hand. > > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Mar 16 16:39:25 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Mar 16 16:40:12 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On 16 Mar 2005, at 13:08, Eric Landau wrote: > At 07:25 PM 3/15/05, David wrote: > >> So in the case of leading towards AQ in the dummy, with LHO playing >> the K, >> if declarer has only got as far as "The Qu..." when he realises the K >> has been played, >> he should be free to nominate the A as the card he wishes to play. >> >> Now I know this is heresy, but welcome any comments. > > I would think it would be routine to allow him to play the ace. Me too - but for different reasons than those you give. > ISTM that this must be exactly the situation that the authors of L46B > had in mind when they wrote "except when declarer's different > intention is incontrovertable"; here there is no doubt that declarer's > "intention" was to finesse the king. So, declarer's intention was to finesse the king *by playing the queen*, not anticipating that the king would be played in advance of the tenace. At the moment that declarer started to name a card, the intention was to name the queen. However I also think it's routine to allow the ace to be played, but because the queen hadn't yet been played - rather than because the queen had been designated (by using L46B3(b)) but declarer had a different intention. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Mar 16 16:43:13 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Mar 16 16:42:47 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 07:25 PM 3/15/05, David wrote: > >> So in the case of leading towards AQ in the dummy, with LHO playing >> the K, >> if declarer has only got as far as "The Qu..." when he realises the K >> has been played, >> he should be free to nominate the A as the card he wishes to play. >> >> Now I know this is heresy, but welcome any comments. > > > I would think it would be routine to allow him to play the ace. ISTM > that this must be exactly the situation that the authors of L46B had in > mind when they wrote "except when declarer's different intention is > incontrovertable"; here there is no doubt that declarer's "intention" > was to finesse the king. > > It seems to me equally incontrovertible that his intention was to play the queen when he said "qu..". Besides, your mention of L46B says "except when ...". That means that this is an exception to the rules stated under there. There is no rule which says that if he says the "qu" he has designated the queen, so there can be no exception to that rule. Surely you don't apply this exception when he would have completed the word "the queen, no the ace" - so why apply it on "the qu". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Mar 16 16:42:20 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Mar 16 16:43:02 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <42385206.9040902@hdw.be> References: <42385206.9040902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4871463d343bd83fbbfce70fc251cd1d@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 16 Mar 2005, at 15:34, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well, maybe your reading of the law is the correct one, but then all > those who rule against the QuAce are equally mistaken, in your > opinion? I'd rule against the QueenAce, but not the QuAce. Another director recently played the QuAce against me, and we all laughed as I commented that he'd just caught it in time. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Mar 16 16:52:50 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Mar 16 16:53:32 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> Message-ID: <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 16 Mar 2005, at 15:43, Herman De Wael wrote: > There is no rule which says that if he says the "qu" he has designated > the queen... Earlier, Herman wrote: "I deem that saying "the q.." is enough to render the queen being played." Am I alone in being unclear what Herman's position actually is? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gzfelgkxxmzp at hotmail.com Wed Mar 16 17:13:58 2005 From: gzfelgkxxmzp at hotmail.com (Brittany Pittman) Date: Wed Mar 16 17:15:43 2005 Subject: [blml] re[7] Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050316/f59cce87/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: liverpool.GIF Type: image/gif Size: 11454 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050316/f59cce87/liverpool.gif From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 16 17:41:56 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 16 17:42:38 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <4238516F.4010105@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001701c52a47$10f5b570$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ........... > > Law 45B: Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, > > after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. > > In playing from dummy's hand declarer may, if necessary, pick > > up the desired card himself. > > > > IMO this defines the action "by naming the card" as the actual > > play. Everything else is subsequent activities except that if > > declarer for some reason selects to pick up the card himself > > without first naming it then the card is played at the moment > > he touches it. > > > > Exactly "naming the card". This does not tell us when the card is > played. Come on! If he plays the card by naming it the play occurs at the very moment he does name it! Being RHO and hearing Declarer call for a small spade I reserve myself the right to follow suit without waiting for Dummy to actually position that small spade in a played position and without running the risk of being ruled to having played out of turn. Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 16 16:47:34 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 16 18:43:41 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <001601c52a36$8f6ad130$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000801c52a4f$3b62a270$dabb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Egad, I think the interpreter is the hardest to be understood of the two." ~ Richard Brinsley Sheridan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:43 PM Subject: RE: [blml] When is a card nominated? Once declarer has completed his designation of a card from Dummy but Dummy instead of "playing" that card says something like "your hand partner" we have a situation where there can indeed be some doubt whether Dummy is trying to correct the irregularity or calling attention to it. < +=+ Dummy does not play the card. He places the played card in the played position. The card has been played and the irregularity has occurred. Whatever his intention, it is now illegal for dummy to 'try to prevent the irregularity' or to draw attention to it before the play of the hand is concluded. Moreover, 'The Heart..." is an incomplete designation. It is addressed to Dummy and unless he totally ignores Dummy's interruption and completes the designation declarer is in the area of Law 46B2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 16 20:03:39 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 16 20:03:07 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <000e01c52a3c$7e733150$ce73893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050314075902.02b66eb0@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316081405.02baee60@pop.starpower.net> <000e01c52a3c$7e733150$ce73893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050316134833.02bb46a0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:25 AM 3/16/05, Grattan wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > Quite so, and leads to the point I've been trying > > to reach. Thanks to the infamous footnote, that > > theme must play when we apply L69-71. But > > lately I've been hearing variations on it in the > > background when we are attempting to apply > > L12C2, and I see nothing in TFLB to justify that. > >+=+ The definition in the footnote to L69-71 is >specifically restricted to those laws. Therefore, >unless otherwise defined the dictionary definition >applies, so 'not deviating from the standard, >regular, typical, ordinary'. However, if used in >a regulation it can be ascribed a definition for >regulatory purposes - which, of course, may be >'as defined in the footnote to Laws 69-71'. > I note the reference to 12C2. The WBF >CoP, if introduced by regulation, does of >course limit redress to damage not caused by >the side's own irrational, wild or gambling, >action subsequent to the offence. Also the >WBFLC determined (30 August 1998) that >such a limitation applies to the non-offending >side but will not restrict a full score adjustment >for the offending side. It then went on to say >that "the right to redress for a non-offending >opponent is not annulled by a normal error >or misjudgement in the subsequent action, >but only by an action that is evidently >irrational, wild or gambling". (A 'double shot' >type of action is stated to be 'gambling'; the >words 'class of player' are not present in >the minute.) This WBFLC interpretation of >the laws extends to tournaments even where >the CoP does not apply. All well and good, but entirely irrelevant to the issue I'm trying to raise. No applicable regulations beyond what's in TFLB. No question as to the nature of the NOS's actions. Just your routine everyday score adjustment. Let's try again: N-S reach 6D, which is cold, after S takes illegal advantage of UI; table score N-S +920. The AC determines that absent the violation of L16A N-S would have rested in 3NT, and agrees that the score should be adjusted to the result that would have obtained had N-S played 3NT, which would have made S declarer on the auction to that point. For half the South players in the room, it is not at all likely or probable or whatever that they would take anything other than nine tricks in 3NT. For the other half, it is not at all likely or probable that they would take anything other than eight tricks. So now I have to decide whether to adjust to N-S +400 or to N-S -50. Am I or am I not required to base that decision on which particular N-S pair committed the original infraction? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 16 20:14:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Mar 16 20:15:33 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <000b01c52a13$922dd6b0$1c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > With a novice this hesitation shows "13 cards" > > (nb, it is faintly possible that a hand exists where > > a novice will *not* break tempo in a contested > > 2C auction but I have yet to see one at the table). > > There is no "information" in the hesitation and > > with no "I" there cannot be "UI". > > > +=+ Sloppy language on my part. For 'hesitates' > read 'breaks tempo'. The point is that where the > novice is *always* slow there is no breach of tempo. OK - but in principle we do indeed take the standard of the player into account when ruling on whether UI has been created by a hesitation. > The question for the Director is whether his slow > (or quick) play is meaningful or merely reflects his > regular normal speed of reaction rather than > indecision. Here we seem to differ slightly. It may well be "indecision", but that is because the novice doesn't know the right thing to do on *any* holding. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 16 20:14:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Mar 16 20:15:36 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <42385206.9040902@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > What I really don't understand is the references to "changes of > > mind". There is nothing in the law which forbids changes of mind > > (before a rank/suit has been designated). > > > So you Tim, you allow the trick of saying "the queen ... of > hypogriffs" in changing ones mind from the queen to the ace? Why would I do that? In this case a rank (Queen) has been designated and I have laws which tell me what to do (he'll have to play a Queen if he can legally do so). But the "Qu", "Quace", "Spart", "SmaTop" and whatever else people may stumble over aren't in dummy and thus we cannot force them to be played. > Well, maybe your reading of the law is the correct one, but then all > those who rule against the QuAce are equally mistaken, in your opinion? If there is a quace in dummy they are correct to require it to be played. If they rule that "Qu" constitutes a designation of rank then I'd suggest another reading of the law. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 16 20:15:24 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 16 20:16:06 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000801c52a4f$3b62a270$dabb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001801c52a5c$8162a290$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > From: "Sven Pran" > Once declarer has completed his designation of > a card from Dummy but Dummy instead of "playing" > that card says something like "your hand partner" we > have a situation where there can indeed be some > doubt whether Dummy is trying to correct the > irregularity or calling attention to it. > < > +=+ Dummy does not play the card. He places the > played card in the played position. The card has been > played and the irregularity has occurred. Whatever his > intention, it is now illegal for dummy to 'try to prevent > the irregularity' or to draw attention to it before the > play of the hand is concluded. This actually conforms to my own understanding (but I am aware that my understanding apparently is not unanimous). I use to teach Laws 42B and 43A as follows: Dummy may NOT BEFORE Declarer says or does anything that can be taken as initiating a lead say anything to the effect that the lead is with Declarer or Dummy as the case may be. (L43A1c) Dummy may NOT AFTER Declarer has made a lead from either hand (i.e. detached and exposed a card from his own hand or named a card from Dummy) say anything to the effect that Declarer led from the wrong hand. (L43A1b) Dummy MAY interrupt Declarer if he does so AFTER Declarer has started but BEFORE Declarer has completed an action of playing a card from the wrong hand. (L42B2) > Moreover, 'The Heart..." is an incomplete > designation. It is addressed to Dummy and unless > he totally ignores Dummy's interruption and completes > the designation declarer is in the area of Law 46B2. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Are you saying that the grace period for Dummy to prevent an irregularity (Declarer leading from the wrong hand) expires already when Declarer has begun sayinig something sufficient to identify which suit or which rank he has in mind (but not both)? Please consider the following "conversation" between Declarer and Dummy: Declarer: "Heart ....." Dummy interrupting: "Your own hand partner" Declarer: " " (pausing) Do you maintain that Declarer shall now be deemed to having requested the lowest heart from Dummy's hand (even regardless of which heart he actually had in mind)? IMO Dummy has successfully prevented Declarer from leading from the wrong hand? Regards Sven From klein at emailaccount.com Mon Mar 7 14:36:10 2005 From: klein at emailaccount.com (Madge Esposito) Date: Wed Mar 16 21:20:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Approved 3.25 mortage rate Message-ID: <200410031466.i93RbsTw004556@www6.warnerreprise.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.nowratez.com/x/loan.php?id=nm Best Regards, Julia Swan to be remov(ed: http://www.nowratez.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From rocha at colorado.com Wed Mar 16 06:23:57 2005 From: rocha at colorado.com (rocha@colorado.com) Date: Wed Mar 16 22:25:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Systems BQ Ent. Message-ID: <439640221.24501534697326@colorado.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050316/fa136213/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 6662 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050316/fa136213/attachment-0001.gif From justin.stark at thestarks.net Wed Mar 16 22:39:56 2005 From: justin.stark at thestarks.net (justin.stark@thestarks.net) Date: Wed Mar 16 22:40:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Non-Played Board in KO Match Message-ID: <1111009196.4238a7acb250e@thestarks.net> Hi, I am interested in the laws regards the awarding of an adjusted score in a Knock Out Match. Could you please let me know your opinion, and rulings based on the following facts; 1. This applies to a Knock Out team matchs 2. It is the 3rd last board of a 42 board match 3. The board has been played at the other table 4. The auction has proceeded as follows; 2C Pass 3D (Director) The director was called as the player whose turn it was to call had overheard the result in the bathroom a few minutes before. The director ruled that the board could not be played at our table, and sicnce the board had been played at the other table a replacement coard could not be subsituted. My interpretation of the laws does not agree with this as ai believe that Law 86C specifically states that Substitute boards can be played. We where not in the position to know the results at the other table. Hence, my first point is that I believed the director erred by not having a subsitute board played. I would appreciate any opinions on this point of law. On the basis that the director did not allow a substute board to be played, he then awarded an adjusted score. This is a point of contention as it changed the result of the match! Any thought or opinions on this ruling (the non-play of a subsitute board) would be greatly appreciated. This does not make sense to me as it does not seem equitable. Thanks, Justin. From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 16 23:27:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Mar 16 23:27:56 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000801c52a4f$3b62a270$dabb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > Dummy does not play the card. He places the > played card in the played position. The card has been > played and the irregularity has occurred. Whatever his > intention, it is now illegal for dummy to 'try to prevent > the irregularity' Really? Under what law? While it may be impossible to succeed it is still possible to "try" (just as I could try to run a 4 minute mile). I feel a Private Eye moment coming on - anybody got pictures of Grattan and "there is no try" Yoda? Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Mar 16 23:56:15 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Mar 16 23:57:05 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <001301c52a1c$1fae61a0$ca76893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <21b9227b214515946078a8a538ded117@rochester.rr.com> <000601c529df$503b5a40$0307a8c0@david> <000c01c52a13$93177360$1c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002c01c52a19$b7171760$0307a8c0@david> <001301c52a1c$1fae61a0$ca76893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <32dd1636ccb51bd786974e45f7ce4f7b@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 16, 2005, at 6:33 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> That is most certainly NOT my arguement! >> My arguement is that "The qu..." does NOT >> indicate a play, and most certainly does NOT >> contain words of like import to "play anything"!!!!!! >> > +=+ In the words of a very competent TD: "Pull > the other one." ~ G ~ +=+ One of the players who started in duplicate here shortly after I did a few years ago has the habit of saying "play" when he intends a low card (or perhaps doesn't care). Others have picked it up. The other day it occurred to me that when he leads to say, Kxx on the board and says "play" (because his LHO plunked down the ace), an opponent could require him to play the king. Right? Okay, it's "bridge lawyering", but it *is* legal, as I see it. From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Thu Mar 17 00:20:12 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu Mar 17 00:17:39 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000801c52a4f$3b62a270$dabb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Dummy does not play the card. He places the > played card in the played position Funny thing is, last week a deuce of spades was nominated by declarer, and a lot of people on here tried to tell us that because dummy moved an ace of clubs into the played position when no-one was looking, the spade hadn't been played. Let me ask, are we at least all being consistent and reading L45B the same way each time we look at it? GRB From john at asimere.com Thu Mar 17 00:32:19 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Mar 17 00:34:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Non-Played Board in KO Match In-Reply-To: <1111009196.4238a7acb250e@thestarks.net> References: <1111009196.4238a7acb250e@thestarks.net> Message-ID: In message <1111009196.4238a7acb250e@thestarks.net>, justin.stark@thestarks.net writes >Hi, > >I am interested in the laws regards the awarding of an adjusted score in a Knock >Out Match. > >Could you please let me know your opinion, and rulings based on the following >facts; > >1. This applies to a Knock Out team matchs >2. It is the 3rd last board of a 42 board match >3. The board has been played at the other table >4. The auction has proceeded as follows; > 2C Pass 3D (Director) > The director was called as the player whose turn it was to call had overheard >the result in the bathroom a few minutes before. fine, this is a matter of regulation as well as Law, and thus depends on which jurisdiction one is playing in.. In the ebu, a board made not playable during the last set is not substituted, if there is already a result. In an earlier set it is added back to the next set. now for the adjustment. It is normal to cancel the result of the board. However if the board has been made unplayable by the actions of 1 team, then a score of A+ (or 3 imps) would be awarded to the opponents. This A+ may be varied if the existing result on the board were exceptional. > >The director ruled that the board could not be played at our table, and sicnce >the board had been played at the other table a replacement coard could not be >subsituted. My interpretation of the laws does not agree with this as ai >believe that Law 86C specifically states that Substitute boards can be played. >We where not in the position to know the results at the other table. Hence, my >first point is that I believed the director erred by not having a subsitute >board played. > >I would appreciate any opinions on this point of law. > >On the basis that the director did not allow a substute board to be played, he >then awarded an adjusted score. This is a point of contention as it changed >the result of the match! > >Any thought or opinions on this ruling (the non-play of a subsitute board) would >be greatly appreciated. This does not make sense to me as it does not seem >equitable. > >Thanks, > >Justin. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.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 at asimere.com Thu Mar 17 00:41:22 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Mar 17 00:43:30 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000d01c52a0e$2da11f90$0307a8c0@david> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <4236E7A1.1040007@hdw.be> <4237FBCD.3070805@hdw.be> <000d01c52a0e$2da11f90$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: In article <000d01c52a0e$2da11f90$0307a8c0@david>, David Barton writes > > >> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >>> >>> On 15 Mar 2005, at 13:48, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> I believe a card is nominated the instant declarer utters a first >>>> sound. He should be allowed to complete his designation, but he must >>>> not change his mind once he has started. >>> >>> >>> I find this hard to accept, and wonder on what you base your belief? >>> > >HDW wrote >> >> Very good question, Gordon, and quite central to this and many other >> issues concerning dummy play. >> >> Let me see if I can base my belief on some laws, at least. >> >> L45B tells us how a card is played: declarer names it and dummy (the >> person, not the entity) places it in a played position. >> >> It should be clear to us that this does not define the "when" a card >> has been played. We all agree that a card has become played even if >> no-one has yet touched it. So the "naming" of the card does not in >> itself fulfil the conditiong for "when it is played" either. At least >> not by L45B. >> >> So L45B does not teach us anything in this matter. snip rest of Herman's exposition. I have some sympathy with HdW's position, but all the precedent we have in the uk suggests otherwise. We take examples like a card faced and covered such that one can see it's a heart but not which one. Is it a penalty card? We say no. Equally, a call of one ... err um. is not a call. There are may examples where a designation has not yet been made. and "the six of ... " is not a complete designation. I can't be allowed to give you truth serum to force you tell me what you were going to say. So I stick with my original one-liner. "Not designated, wtp" >> >> L45C3 does not help us either - it tells us of an alternative action >> by declarer which also makes that a card has been played - the act of >> touching it except for rearranging. >> >> L46A tells us that declarer should clearly state both suit and rank. >> However, this is a "should", which means that if declarer states less >> than this, the card should not considered to be "not played". If there >> is only one spade in dummy, saying "spade" definitely makes the spade >> a played card. So why should saying "sp" be anything less. Certainly >> not by L46A. >> >> So we come to L46B. >> This law deals with "incomplete call". It tells us in which manner an >> incomplete call is deemed to be interpreted. Nowhere does it say that >> an incomplete call means the card is not played, it merely tells us >> how the rest should be filled in. >> >> Among other things, L46B2 tells us that if declarer says "spade", he >> is deemed to have played the lowest one. This means that it is not >> legal to say "spade ..." and only then start thinking of the rank of >> the card one wishes to play. Once the word "spade" is said, and >> allowing for a very short interval in which to say "ace", the spade 2 >> is considered played. >> >> Now please also note that L46B2 talks of "designates". I interpret >> this as saying that "sp.." is enough to designate spades, and the card >> one intended to complete the "sp.." with has already become the played >> card, pending potential clarification. >> >> Which is what leads me to say that a card from dummy is played the >> instant the first letter of its designation leaves declarer's lips. >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://www.hdw.be >> >> > >Does this then mean that the ruling will be different when declarer leads >towards A10 ( K and Q having been played on a previous trick) >and nominates "The t..." (ambiguous between ten and top) >than it would be if declarer lead towards AQ and nominates "The qu..."? >(no ambiguity). > >Also would the rulings be different under identical circumstances but >different languages being used eg Dutch instead of English? > >**************************************** > david.barton@boltblue.com >**************************************** > > -- 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 17 00:59:35 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 17 00:59:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Time limit In-Reply-To: <000501c52981$f0cbdf60$559468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: [snip] >>[2] Does TFLB specify time-limits for >>penalty/redress/correction with other >>infractions? [snip] >>I don't know the answer to [2] but it seems >>to me that if TFLB does not specify time- >>limits, then it should. Law 81C6: >The Director's duties and powers normally >include the following: >..... >to rectify an error or irregularity of which >he becomes aware in any manner, within the >correction period established in accordance >with Law 79C. Law 79C: >An error in computing or tabulating the >agreed-upon score, whether made by a player >or scorer, may be corrected until the >expiration of the period specified by the >sponsoring organisation. Unless the >sponsoring organisation specifies a later (23) >time, this correction period expires 30 >minutes after the official score has been >made available for inspection. > >(23) An earlier time may be specified when >required by the special nature of a contest. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 17 01:11:48 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 17 01:11:14 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills (previous): >The ABF has adopted the most of the WBF Code of >Practice (except for the part permitting TDs to >use Law 12C3). Richard Hills (correction): The ABF has let the camel's nose enter the tent. National (Level 1) Directors when acting as CTD of a National ABF (sanctioned or licensed Gold Point) event are now permitted to use Law 12C3 when they deem it appropriate. In the 2005 Summer Festival of Bridge, CTDs used Law 12C3 twice, once during the National Senior's Teams, and once during the National Women's Teams.? A CTD also considered using Law 12C3 during the 2005 Gold Coast Congress. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 17 01:40:29 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 17 01:39:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 73D1 (was A player's view) In-Reply-To: <4237ECBD.3000807@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael axiom and conclusion: [snip] >You say UI is not intrinsically damaging. You >are correct in one sense. It does not damage the >opponents. But it does damage the partnership. >The partner with UI is bound by it to take one >course of action, where another could possibly >be taken, and be advantageous, in the absence of >UI. In that sense, the creation of the UI is >damaging, and I should be allowed to bend over >backwards in not giving UI. Richard Hills quibbles: The Laws are not written in English. Therefore, I was using "damage" in its Lawful sense, not in its dictionary meaning. The phrase "redress damage" in Law 72A6 refers to compensation for the non-offending side, *not* compensation for your non-offending pard. :-) As for "bend over backwards", I reject any idea, previously implied by the De Wael School, that bending over backwards to prevent UI should make an MI infraction permissible. In that context, I have a personal preference for the abolition of the wishy-washy compromise Law 75D2, which Law has the wishy-washy compromise aim of preventing UI by delaying the correction of MI. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 17 02:01:01 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 17 02:00:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 73D1 (was A player's view) In-Reply-To: <000d01c52a16$3d7b3920$219468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >>Interestingly, a brief perusal of AC reports >>reveals no cases of what Richard calls "reverse >>cheating" (I hate that term). I suppose Richard >>would adduce this as evidence that it hardly >>ever occurs? Law 73B2: >The gravest possible offence is for a partnership >to exchange information through prearranged >methods of communication other than those >sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership >risks expulsion. Richard Hills: What gets rewarded is what gets done. Cheating partnerships who have a prearranged agreement to hesitate when they do not have a problem get their just reward, in the form of no longer having to pay entry fees for events run by their erstwhile sponsoring organisation. Therefore, cheats do not get the opportunity to feature in subsequent casebooks. Normal partnerships who normally inadvertently hesitate with a problem, and normally delude themselves about the legality of an unLawful logical alternative, do get the normal reward of having to pay entry fees, and do get the normal opportunity to feature in subsequent casebooks. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From wnnfrarojuyvat at hotmail.com Thu Mar 17 02:30:09 2005 From: wnnfrarojuyvat at hotmail.com (Ray Block) Date: Thu Mar 17 02:35:58 2005 Subject: [blml] re [6]: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050317/5587f714/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: louvre.GIF Type: image/gif Size: 5676 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050317/5587f714/louvre.gif From justin.stark at thestarks.net Thu Mar 17 03:08:30 2005 From: justin.stark at thestarks.net (justin.stark@thestarks.net) Date: Thu Mar 17 03:09:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Non-Played Board in KO Match In-Reply-To: References: <1111009196.4238a7acb250e@thestarks.net> Message-ID: <1111025310.4238e69e95045@thestarks.net> Thanks John, The issue was not the actions of either table, but rather a third party discussing the hand whilst a member of the opposing side was in the bathroon. This made the board impossible to play and a split score was awarded. Given no side is technically at fault, how does this affect the decision process. I am also confused as to why you can substitute a board if the match is still being played, but not if it the last stanza of a long match. This sounds like an inequitable situation to me. Cheers, Justin. Quoting "John (MadDog) Probst" : > In message <1111009196.4238a7acb250e@thestarks.net>, > justin.stark@thestarks.net writes > >Hi, > > > >I am interested in the laws regards the awarding of an adjusted score in a > Knock > >Out Match. > > > >Could you please let me know your opinion, and rulings based on the > following > >facts; > > > >1. This applies to a Knock Out team matchs > >2. It is the 3rd last board of a 42 board match > >3. The board has been played at the other table > >4. The auction has proceeded as follows; > > 2C Pass 3D (Director) > > The director was called as the player whose turn it was to call had > overheard > >the result in the bathroom a few minutes before. > > fine, this is a matter of regulation as well as Law, and thus depends on > which jurisdiction one is playing in.. > > In the ebu, a board made not playable during the last set is not > substituted, if there is already a result. In an earlier set it is added > back to the next set. > > now for the adjustment. It is normal to cancel the result of the board. > However if the board has been made unplayable by the actions of 1 team, > then a score of A+ (or 3 imps) would be awarded to the opponents. This > A+ may be varied if the existing result on the board were exceptional. > > > > >The director ruled that the board could not be played at our table, and > sicnce > >the board had been played at the other table a replacement coard could not > be > >subsituted. My interpretation of the laws does not agree with this as ai > >believe that Law 86C specifically states that Substitute boards can be > played. > >We where not in the position to know the results at the other table. Hence, > my > >first point is that I believed the director erred by not having a subsitute > >board played. > > > >I would appreciate any opinions on this point of law. > > > >On the basis that the director did not allow a substute board to be played, > he > >then awarded an adjusted score. This is a point of contention as it changed > >the result of the match! > > > >Any thought or opinions on this ruling (the non-play of a subsitute board) > would > >be greatly appreciated. This does not make sense to me as it does not seem > >equitable. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Justin. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml@amsterdamned.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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 17 04:03:17 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 17 04:16:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Non-Played Board in KO Match In-Reply-To: <1111025310.4238e69e95045@thestarks.net> Message-ID: Justin Stark, of Melbourne, Australia: >Thanks John, > >The issue was not the actions of either table, but >rather a third party discussing the hand whilst a >member of the opposing side was in the bathroom. >This made the board impossible to play and a split >score was awarded. Given no side is technically >at fault, how does this affect the decision process. > >I am also confused as to why you can substitute a >board if the match is still being played, but not if >it the last stanza of a long match. This sounds >like an inequitable situation to me. Richard Hills, of Canberra, Australia: Justin is taking a parenthetical comment of John (MadDog) Probst out of context. MadDog noted that resolution of the irregularity depended on local regulations, and that the (comprehensive) system of regulations adopted by the English Bridge Union did in fact specify that a board cancelled in the last stanza of a long match would not be replayed. Since Melbourne is no longer an English colonial outpost, that English regulation is not relevant. Unless the sponsoring organisation and/or the VBA has a relevant supplementary regulation, Law 86 is the applicable Law: >>SECTION THREE >>CORRECTION OF IRREGULARITIES >> >>LAW 86 - IN TEAM PLAY >> >>A. Average Score at IMP Play >> >>When the Director chooses to award an artificial >>adjusted score of average plus or average minus in >>IMP play, that score is plus 3 IMPs or minus 3 IMPs >>respectively. >> >>B. Non-balancing Adjustments, Knockout Play >> >>When the Director assigns non-balancing adjusted >>scores (see Law 12C) in knockout play, each >>contestant's score on the board is calculated >>separately. The average of the two scores is then >>assigned to both contestants. >> >>C. Substitute Board >> >>The Director shall not exercise his Law 6 authority >>to order one board redealt when the final result of >>a match without that board could be known to a >>contestant. Instead, he awards an adjusted score. Note that Law 86C is a one-way street. It orders the TD not to redeal a board in a specified circumstance, but it *does not require* the TD to redeal the board if that circumstance does not apply. Therefore, the TD's decision to eschew redealing the board, and instead award an adjusted score, is a prima facie legal decision by the TD. A more interesting question is whether an *assigned* adjusted score was legal in the given circumstances, or whether (if the TD decides to adjust the score) only an *artificial* adjusted score was legal. I would be interested in seeing the complete deal, plus the auction and result at the other table. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 17 07:07:19 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 17 07:08:07 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick: [snip] >consider the value of the hand in light of AI and the >agreements of the two sides; and to ignore that it is >a novice. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, Roger's argument is contrary to the implications of Law 75B (Violations of Partnership Agreements). In my opinion, the *reason* that novices may have different logical alternatives compared to experts' logical alternatives, is because a novice has different implicit agreements to an expert's implicit agreements. In my opinion, it is a contradiction in terms for a novice and an expert to have identical implicit and explicit agreements. Therefore, if an expert partners a novice, their partnership agreements are necessarily asymmetrical. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Mar 17 09:19:12 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Mar 17 09:18:40 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 16 Mar 2005, at 15:43, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> There is no rule which says that if he says the "qu" he has designated >> the queen... > > > Earlier, Herman wrote: > > "I deem that saying "the q.." is enough to render the queen being played." > > Am I alone in being unclear what Herman's position actually is? > Gordon, you misquote. I was commenting on Sven who used the "except when declarer's intention is incontrovertible" to escape from the problem we are discussing. I was saying Sven was on the wrong track. That rule is an exception on a small set of other rules, and among those there is no rule that says that the "Qu" means the queen. So Sven cannot use the exception to rule that the ace is played because that is incontrovertibly declarer's intention. This has nothing to do with my main contention, which is that the "qu" does mean the queen has been played. But I seem to be in a minority there and I am willing to join the majority. Are we all agreed then that if a declarer says: "the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" then the ace of clubs is the played card? If you all agree on that one, then I am willing to join you. Show of hands, please! > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.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: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 17 10:25:06 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Mar 17 10:25:49 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c52ad3$3552ebe0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .................. > Gordon, you misquote. > I was commenting on Sven who used the "except when declarer's > intention is incontrovertible" to escape from the problem we are > discussing. I was saying Sven was on the wrong track. Herman, how are you quoting? I cannot remember having indicated any such opinion on this thread, and I certainly have had no such intention as you indicate above! My position is that a spoken initiating syllable like "qu" is not a designation of a card (rank). Neither is a spoken word like "low", "high", "six", "seven", "spade", "heart" (or any other word that would in itself be an incomplete designation) when Declarer is interrupted by Dummy using his Law 42B2 privilege trying to prevent Declarer from the irregularity of leading from the wrong hand. If Declarer says "QuAce" I would either rule that he has not designated any existing rank and that he will designate the card he actually wants to play, or possibly that he designated the Ace (which probably would lead to the same result). > That rule is an exception on a small set of other rules, and among > those there is no rule that says that the "Qu" means the queen. > So Sven cannot use the exception to rule that the ace is played > because that is incontrovertibly declarer's intention. I am not aware that I do. > This has nothing to do with my main contention, which is that the "qu" > does mean the queen has been played. > > But I seem to be in a minority there and I am willing to join the > majority. > > Are we all agreed then that if a declarer says: > > "the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" > > then the ace of clubs is the played card? > > If you all agree on that one, then I am willing to join you. > Show of hands, please! The way you pose this question I would probably rule AC played yes. I shall not exclude the possibility of a situation where I would rule differently, but at the moment I cannot envisage any such situation. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Mar 17 11:01:39 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Mar 17 11:01:09 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000001c52ad3$3552ebe0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c52ad3$3552ebe0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42395583.3050301@hdw.be> I apologize to you Sven, Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > .................. > >>Gordon, you misquote. >>I was commenting on Sven who used the "except when declarer's >>intention is incontrovertible" to escape from the problem we are >>discussing. I was saying Sven was on the wrong track. > > > Herman, how are you quoting? > > I cannot remember having indicated any such opinion on this thread, and I > certainly have had no such intention as you indicate above! > It was indeed not Sven who made that first remark, it was Eric Landau. > My position is that a spoken initiating syllable like "qu" is not a > designation of a card (rank). Neither is a spoken word like "low", "high", > "six", "seven", "spade", "heart" (or any other word that would in itself be > an incomplete designation) when Declarer is interrupted by Dummy using his > Law 42B2 privilege trying to prevent Declarer from the irregularity of > leading from the wrong hand. > > If Declarer says "QuAce" I would either rule that he has not designated any > existing rank and that he will designate the card he actually wants to play, > or possibly that he designated the Ace (which probably would lead to the > same result). > > >>That rule is an exception on a small set of other rules, and among >>those there is no rule that says that the "Qu" means the queen. >>So Sven cannot use the exception to rule that the ace is played >>because that is incontrovertibly declarer's intention. > > > I am not aware that I do. > Eric did - sorry. > >>This has nothing to do with my main contention, which is that the "qu" >>does mean the queen has been played. >> >>But I seem to be in a minority there and I am willing to join the >>majority. >> >>Are we all agreed then that if a declarer says: >> >>"the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" >> >>then the ace of clubs is the played card? >> >>If you all agree on that one, then I am willing to join you. >>Show of hands, please! > > > The way you pose this question I would probably rule AC played yes. > > I shall not exclude the possibility of a situation where I would rule > differently, but at the moment I cannot envisage any such situation. > If you cannot envisage it then why not simply exclude it? After all, this is an important decision to make. Either the six of spades is played or the ace of clubs. Either "six of sp..." is enough to render the S6 played, or it is not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 17 11:39:17 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Mar 17 11:40:00 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <42395583.3050301@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c52add$92075420$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > I apologize to you Sven, ............. > It was indeed not Sven who made that first remark, it was Eric Landau. Fair enough and thanks. ............ > > The way you pose this question I would probably rule AC played yes. > > > > I shall not exclude the possibility of a situation where I would rule > > differently, but at the moment I cannot envisage any such situation. > > > > If you cannot envisage it then why not simply exclude it? Because I will not exclude the possibility that certain circumstances in an actual case could make me see the case differently. After all this is a matter of Director's judgement on what really happened etc. > After all, this is an important decision to make. Either the six of > spades is played or the ace of clubs. Either "six of sp..." is enough > to render the S6 played, or it is not. On its own it is not, but as I say: Certain circumstances could ..... Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 17 14:19:36 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Mar 17 14:19:02 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <32dd1636ccb51bd786974e45f7ce4f7b@rochester.rr.com> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <21b9227b214515946078a8a538ded117@rochester.rr.com> <000601c529df$503b5a40$0307a8c0@david> <000c01c52a13$93177360$1c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002c01c52a19$b7171760$0307a8c0@david> <001301c52a1c$1fae61a0$ca76893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <32dd1636ccb51bd786974e45f7ce4f7b@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050317080424.02a91700@pop.starpower.net> At 05:56 PM 3/16/05, Ed wrote: >One of the players who started in duplicate here shortly after I did a >few years ago has the habit of saying "play" when he intends a low >card (or perhaps doesn't care). Others have picked it up. The other >day it occurred to me that when he leads to say, Kxx on the board and >says "play" (because his LHO plunked down the ace), an opponent could >require him to play the king. Right? > >Okay, it's "bridge lawyering", but it *is* legal, as I see it. I don't think we would rule that literally around here (we hear "play" occasionally too, but nobody has ever been called on it that I know of). I suspect that we'd decide that the way in which our players use the word "play" when following suit from dummy qualifies it as being "of like import" to "low" (L46B1 would apply) rather than to "play anything" (L46B5 would apply). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Mar 17 15:21:46 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Mar 17 15:21:34 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <000901c52afc$a7a01aa0$169868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] In my opinion, it is a contradiction in terms for a novice and an expert to have identical implicit and explicit agreements. Therefore, if an expert partners a novice, their partnership agreements are necessarily asymmetrical. [Nigel] If law-makers agree with Richard's view then local legislation banning assymetric systems should be scrapped. From david.barton at boltblue.com Thu Mar 17 15:40:20 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Thu Mar 17 15:36:04 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><21b9227b214515946078a8a538ded117@rochester.rr.com><000601c529df$503b5a40$0307a8c0@david><000c01c52a13$93177360$1c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002c01c52a19$b7171760$0307a8c0@david><001301c52a1c$1fae61a0$ca76893e@yourtkrv58tbs0><32dd1636ccb51bd786974e45f7ce4f7b@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050317080424.02a91700@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c52aff$3ee48d40$0307a8c0@david> Does declarer retain the right to complete an incomplete designation, if the completion is made after a pause for thought? Three scenarios I had in mind (I am sure there are others) are (a)Our old favourite, the lead towards the AQ of hearts, the nomination of "The Queen", followed by the delayed addition "of clubs" (b)Dummy holds AK32 of hearts and nominates "A heart", followed by the delayed addition of "honour". (c)The lead is in dummy and declarer nominates "The um" followed by a distinct pause for thought. **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Mar 17 15:42:40 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu Mar 17 15:43:24 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> Message-ID: <05de9052ee102ae4dcccb5d08d290856@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 17 Mar 2005, at 08:19, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> On 16 Mar 2005, at 15:43, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> There is no rule which says that if he says the "qu" he has >>> designated the queen... >> Earlier, Herman wrote: >> "I deem that saying "the q.." is enough to render the queen being >> played." >> Am I alone in being unclear what Herman's position actually is? > > Gordon, you misquote. No, I quoted exactly. > I was commenting on Sven who used the "except when declarer's > intention is incontrovertible" to escape from the problem we are > discussing. I was saying Sven was on the wrong track. > That rule is an exception on a small set of other rules, and among > those there is no rule that says that the "Qu" means the queen. > So Sven cannot use the exception to rule that the ace is played > because that is incontrovertibly declarer's intention. > > This has nothing to do with my main contention, which is that the "qu" > does mean the queen has been played. So, you'd like to believe that "the "qu" does mean the queen has been played" as well as that "there is no rule which says that if he says the "qu" he has designated the queen"? Is the queen in question perhaps the Queen of Hearts? > > But I seem to be in a minority there and I am willing to join the > majority. > > Are we all agreed then that if a declarer says: > > "the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" > > then the ace of clubs is the played card? > > If you all agree on that one, then I am willing to join you. > Show of hands, please! I agree with that. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 17 16:37:28 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Mar 17 16:47:07 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 0:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > Roger Pewick: > > [snip] > > >consider the value of the hand in light of AI and the > >agreements of the two sides; and to ignore that it is > >a novice. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, Roger's argument is contrary to the > implications of Law 75B (Violations of Partnership > Agreements). In my opinion, the *reason* that novices > may have different logical alternatives compared to > experts' logical alternatives, is because a novice > has different implicit agreements to an expert's > implicit agreements. Whether or not in actuality a system comprises the 'compendium' of good judgment, when a pair chooses a system, they have chosen a set of judgment equations which guide their bidding. When unfettered by UI I believe that a player should be able to bid as he wishes- unfettered in any way. Conversely, extraneous information as in UI can be a\the compelling motivation to judge to deviate from system and I believe that the appropriate approach [whether or not supported in law] is that [a] system ought to be a constraint and [b] it is inappropriate to agree to a multi-way method when it is common for a member of the partnership to create UI along the way. As to L75B. It is one thing for a player to up and deviate from system. It is quite another for someone else to do it for him in abstentia [which is what occurs in an adjusted score]. When reading 75B need I point out that the reference applies to the player, as opposed to an adjudicator. What I am getting at is that the approach [LA] of TFLB is less than satisfactory. A better approach depends on what a sensible player would do while being hamstrung by AI and the agreements purported to be in force. Such a view has the characteristic of the possibility of consistent rulings in similar situations. And perhaps much more important, the possibility that players will be capable of coming to the 'right' answer at the table thus obviating the need for a ruling altogether. > In my opinion, it is a contradiction in terms for a > novice and an expert to have identical implicit and > explicit agreements. Therefore, if an expert partners > a novice, their partnership agreements are necessarily > asymmetrical. I have a problem with the use of implicit here. I know that 'everyone' uses it that way. But it does not sound right to me and several years ago I tried to tie it down. To my mind when partners agree to 2/1 GF it is implicit that it includes 1NT forcing. In 5-card majors and 4-card diamonds it is implicit that 1C may be 4=4=3=2 if less than three. But an implicit agreement doesn't exist merely because a player did something [albeit, a 'deviation' from system]. When a player does something the only implication is that he thought it was a good idea at the time. To establish an agreement some sort of concurrence needs to happen- evidence of which can be that the partner behaves [consistently] as if there is agreement. The word that I am looking for establishing this concurrence by the consistent behavior of the partner is *tacit* agreement. But to the point, it sounds as if you are confusing what an agreement is with what players do. regards roger pewick > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and general guru From john at asimere.com Thu Mar 17 17:29:15 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Mar 17 17:31:25 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000201c52aff$3ee48d40$0307a8c0@david> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <21b9227b214515946078a8a538ded117@rochester.rr.com> <000601c529df$503b5a40$0307a8c0@david> <000c01c52a13$93177360$1c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002c01c52a19$b7171760$0307a8c0@david> <001301c52a1c$1fae61a0$ca76893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <32dd1636ccb51bd786974e45f7ce4f7b@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050317080424.02a91700@pop.starpower.net> <000201c52aff$3ee48d40$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: In article <000201c52aff$3ee48d40$0307a8c0@david>, David Barton writes >Does declarer retain the right to complete an incomplete >designation, if the completion is made after a pause >for thought? > >Three scenarios I had in mind (I am sure there are others) are > >(a)Our old favourite, the lead towards the AQ of hearts, the > nomination of "The Queen", followed by the delayed > addition "of clubs" Yes >(b)Dummy holds AK32 of hearts and nominates "A heart", > followed by the delayed addition of "honour". No >(c)The lead is in dummy and declarer nominates "The um" > followed by a distinct pause for thought. Yes > >**************************************** > david.barton@boltblue.com >**************************************** > > -- 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 at asimere.com Thu Mar 17 17:30:30 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Mar 17 17:32:49 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >> On 16 Mar 2005, at 15:43, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> There is no rule which says that if he says the "qu" he has designated >>> the queen... >> >> >> Earlier, Herman wrote: >> >> "I deem that saying "the q.." is enough to render the queen being played." >> snip > >This has nothing to do with my main contention, which is that the "qu" >does mean the queen has been played. > >But I seem to be in a minority there and I am willing to join the >majority. > >Are we all agreed then that if a declarer says: > >"the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" > >then the ace of clubs is the played card? > >If you all agree on that one, then I am willing to join you. >Show of hands, please! Raises hand > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Thu Mar 17 17:36:46 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Mar 17 17:38:54 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <000901c52afc$a7a01aa0$169868d5@James> References: <000901c52afc$a7a01aa0$169868d5@James> Message-ID: In article <000901c52afc$a7a01aa0$169868d5@James>, GUTHRIE writes >[Richard James Hills] >In my opinion, it is a contradiction in terms for a >novice and an expert to have identical implicit and >explicit agreements. Therefore, if an expert partners >a novice, their partnership agreements are necessarily >asymmetrical. > >[Nigel] >If law-makers agree with Richard's view then local >legislation banning assymetric systems should be scrapped. This is worth following up Nigel. Systems, I'm sure, can't be asymmetric (Tommy Tucker systems, after a poor rubber bridge player who wasn't allowed to bid majors or NT). But style differences are not banned. Just look at a traveller on a part score hand. Everyone, even if playing the same system, will have a different style here. The results tell us so. In effect you're saying it's an infraction to make a different bid from the "Nigel approved" bid aren't you? So I would expect an expert and a novice to play asymmetric bridge, even if both playing the same system, wouldn't you? cheers John. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Mar 17 17:45:04 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Mar 17 17:44:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 73D1 (was A player's view) Message-ID: <002001c52b10$abdd5f10$619868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > No, sufficient data is out there for some reliable > statistical results. If Nigel would take the trouble > to aggregate the UI cases from the ACBL and EBU appeals > casebooks, he would find that TDs' assessment of what > is "demonstrably suggested" was significantly better > than chance, contrary to Nigel's earlier unfounded > assertion (which was apparently influenced by Nigel's > pessimistic view-of-the-world). [Nigel] I doubt it; John Nichols worries that national ACs are not a representative sample but, faute de mieux, I am happy to accept them. The problem remains that there is no obvious way of using this data to assess whether TDs and their assessors correctly determine LAs, especially in the case of so-called "reverse cheating" [Richard] > Indeed, not a cheat by *definition* of Law 73D1. Almost. > Due to the "however" / "otherwise" caveat in Law 73D1, > hesitating is still an infraction of Law 73A1. But it > shouldn't be. The big problem is that there is a popular > misconception that inadvertently hesitating is so-called > "cheating". Which is why I started this thread. I would > prefer Edgar Kaplan's pioneering decriminalisation of > hesitating to be carried to its logical conclusion, with > only "coffee-house" deceptive hesitations remaining > infractions of Law. > I have a dream that in 2007 all players learn that any > of their (non-deceptive) hesitations are totally legal, > merely restricting the number of their partner's legal > logical alternatives. I have a dream that in 2007 a > patzer never implies that another player is "cheating" > merely because that player hesitated. I have a dream > that in 2007 all players carefully avoid taking any > advantage after their partner has hesitated. > And I have a dream that in 2007 Nigel Guthrie, and the > De Wael School, do not worry about the (not > intrinsically damaging) *creation* of UI. [Nigel] Insofar as we deplore offensive and insolent behaviour, we all share part of Richard's dream. But not all. I hope Bridge rules will become more objective and reliable. To some extent, I agree with Herman as to how the law on UI should be changed -- although I disagree with Herman's interpretation of the current law. IMO, it is easier to establish a player's tempo-break, itself, rather than its significance and whether his partner may have acted on that information. I think is worth discussing whether Bridge would better as a timed game so that tempo-breaks themselves could be penalized. From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Mar 17 17:54:24 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu Mar 17 17:55:13 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: from "John (MadDog) Probst" at Mar 17, 2005 04:36:46 PM Message-ID: <200503171654.j2HGsOqU021674@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> "John (MadDog) Probst" writes: > > In article <000901c52afc$a7a01aa0$169868d5@James>, GUTHRIE > writes > >[Richard James Hills] > >In my opinion, it is a contradiction in terms for a > >novice and an expert to have identical implicit and > >explicit agreements. Therefore, if an expert partners > >a novice, their partnership agreements are necessarily > >asymmetrical. > > > >[Nigel] > >If law-makers agree with Richard's view then local > >legislation banning assymetric systems should be scrapped. > > This is worth following up Nigel. Systems, I'm sure, can't be > asymmetric (Tommy Tucker systems, after a poor rubber bridge player who > wasn't allowed to bid majors or NT). But style differences are not > banned. Just look at a traveller on a part score hand. Everyone, even if > playing the same system, will have a different style here. The results > tell us so. In effect you're saying it's an infraction to make a > different bid from the "Nigel approved" bid aren't you? > > So I would expect an expert and a novice to play asymmetric bridge, even > if both playing the same system, wouldn't you? cheers John. So for that matter would experts. You can see it every month in the Master Solver's Club (or any bidding contest). At an extreme think Bobby Wolff and Al Roth (when Roth isn't abstaining because he thinks the system is insane or the problem is impossible) If you have access to old Bridge Worlds, at one time they also included the voting from 100 readers. Occasionally you'd get really big differences between the solvers and the experts. From david.barton at boltblue.com Thu Mar 17 20:08:42 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Thu Mar 17 20:04:23 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david> HDW asks >>Are we all agreed then that if a declarer says: >> >>"the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" >> >>then the ace of clubs is the played card? >> >>If you all agree on that one, then I am willing to join you. >>Show of hands, please! I am confused. - Nothing new there!!! Declarer has lead a diamond on which he is expecting to throw the six of spades. Half way through his designation he notices LHO has ruffed with the queen of clubs. So he changes his mind and the designation becomes "the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" The votes are that this CHANGE OF MIND is to be accepted. Have I got this right? **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From gmdtfg at skylightsystems.com Thu Mar 17 21:04:40 2005 From: gmdtfg at skylightsystems.com (Tasha Barajas) Date: Thu Mar 17 21:08:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Discover what it's like to perform like a pro! Message-ID: <106844353297.camel@naldoco> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050317/fd99d1d4/attachment.html From JSQVDU at damman.nl Thu Mar 17 21:29:55 2005 From: JSQVDU at damman.nl (Aileen Drummond) Date: Thu Mar 17 21:35:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you a 2 pump chump? Go all night and drive her crazy! Message-ID: <927701141618.AA1486990@mhpcc.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050317/5b56bd43/attachment.html From a.witzen at chello.nl Fri Mar 18 00:35:48 2005 From: a.witzen at chello.nl (Anton Witzen) Date: Fri Mar 18 00:36:38 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl> At 07:08 PM 3/17/2005 -0000, you wrote: >HDW asks > >>>Are we all agreed then that if a declarer says: >>> >>>"the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" >>> >>>then the ace of clubs is the played card? >>> >>>If you all agree on that one, then I am willing to join you. >>>Show of hands, please! > >I am confused. - Nothing new there!!! >Declarer has lead a diamond on which he is expecting to >throw the six of spades. Half way through his designation >he notices LHO has ruffed with the queen of clubs. >So he changes his mind and the designation becomes >"the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" >The votes are that this CHANGE OF MIND is to be >accepted. > >Have I got this right? > yes, at least in holland :), belgium, is perhaps a special case:) regards, anton >**************************************** > david.barton@boltblue.com >**************************************** > > > > > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > Anton Witzen. Tel: 020 7763175 boniplein 86 1094 SG Amsterdam From john at asimere.com Fri Mar 18 01:26:58 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Mar 18 01:28:54 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david> <3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl> Message-ID: <2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> In article <3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl>, Anton Witzen writes >At 07:08 PM 3/17/2005 -0000, you wrote: >>HDW asks >> >>>>Are we all agreed then that if a declarer says: >>>> >>>>"the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" >>>> >>>>then the ace of clubs is the played card? >>>> >>>>If you all agree on that one, then I am willing to join you. >>>>Show of hands, please! >> >>I am confused. - Nothing new there!!! >>Declarer has lead a diamond on which he is expecting to >>throw the six of spades. Half way through his designation >>he notices LHO has ruffed with the queen of clubs. >>So he changes his mind and the designation becomes >>"the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" >>The votes are that this CHANGE OF MIND is to be >>accepted. >> >>Have I got this right? >> > >yes, at least in holland :), belgium, is perhaps a special case:) I'd so rule in the UK. John >regards, >anton > > >>**************************************** >> david.barton@boltblue.com >>**************************************** >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >>Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >Anton Witzen. >Tel: 020 7763175 >boniplein 86 >1094 SG Amsterdam > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 18 02:02:09 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 18 02:07:21 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050316134833.02bb46a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau asked: [snip] >N-S reach 6D, which is cold, after S takes >illegal advantage of UI; table score N-S >+920. The AC determines that absent the >violation of L16A N-S would have rested in >3NT, and agrees that the score should be >adjusted to the result that would have >obtained had N-S played 3NT, which would have >made S declarer on the auction to that point. > >For half the South players in the room, it >is not at all likely or probable or whatever >that they would take anything other than >nine tricks in 3NT. For the other half, it >is not at all likely or probable that they >would take anything other than eight tricks. > >So now I have to decide whether to adjust to >N-S +400 or to N-S -50. Am I or am I not >required to base that decision on which >particular N-S pair committed the original >infraction? Richard Hills: If one makes the simplifying assumption that Eric's hypothetical adjusted score occurs in a Zone in which Law 12C3 is disabled, then I would rule that the hypothetical adjusted score pursuant to Law 12C2 would indeed depend on the ability of the notional declarer. Relevant advice on adjusting the score is in the WBF Code of Practice: >>Damage exists when, in consequence of the >>infraction, an innocent side obtains a >>table result less favourable than would >>have been the expectation in the instant >>prior to the infraction. In the instant before N-S infracted Law 73C and Law 16, the mathematical expectation of the innocent side was either -400 versus an expert South, or +50 versus an inpert South. Therefore, in my opinion, the Law 12C2 adjusted score should vary according to the mathematical expectation of the innocent side. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 18 02:14:43 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Mar 18 02:15:29 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david> <3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl> <2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> Message-ID: <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 17, 2005, at 7:26 PM, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl>, Anton > Witzen writes >> At 07:08 PM 3/17/2005 -0000, you wrote: >>> HDW asks >>> >>>>> Are we all agreed then that if a declarer says: >>>>> >>>>> "the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" >>>>> >>>>> then the ace of clubs is the played card? >>>>> >>>>> If you all agree on that one, then I am willing to join you. >>>>> Show of hands, please! >>> >>> I am confused. - Nothing new there!!! >>> Declarer has lead a diamond on which he is expecting to >>> throw the six of spades. Half way through his designation >>> he notices LHO has ruffed with the queen of clubs. >>> So he changes his mind and the designation becomes >>> "the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" >>> The votes are that this CHANGE OF MIND is to be >>> accepted. >>> >>> Have I got this right? >>> >> >> yes, at least in holland :), belgium, is perhaps a special case:) > > I'd so rule in the UK. John And this is different from the case where declarer leads a heart towards the ace-queen in dummy and calls "Qu...Ace" because...? Or is the ruling the same? Still the same if the utterance is "Queen I mean Ace"? Just trying to get it straight. :-) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 18 02:35:44 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 18 02:36:40 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick: [snip] >But an implicit agreement doesn't exist merely because a >player did something [albeit, a 'deviation' from >system]. When a player does something the only >implication is that he thought it was a good idea at the >time. To establish an agreement some sort of concurrence >needs to happen - evidence of which can be that the >partner behaves [consistently] as if there is agreement. >The word that I am looking for establishing this >concurrence by the consistent behavior of the partner is >*tacit* agreement. > >But to the point, it sounds as if you are confusing what >an agreement is with what players do. Richard Hills: As a basis for discussion, let us look at potential logical alternatives in a hypothetical auction -> You, North, are partnering an unknown partner from an unknown country for the first time. Your only partnership discussion before this first board was that you are playing Standard American Yellow Card. Due to your UI irregularity, the TD is summoned on your first board, and has to subsequently determine the logical alternatives of your partner. Imps Dlr: North Vul: Nil WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1C Pass ? Your partner, South, holds: 5432 5432 5432 2 The TD, during their determination of facts, finds out either (a) South is a novice, or (b) South is an expert. In my opinion, it is legal for the TD to rule that: Case (a) - Pass is not a logical alternative, since the novice abhors the possibility that pard might face the ultimate catastrophe, playing in a 3-1 trump fit. Case (b) - Pass is the only logical alternative, since the expert abhors the possibility that pard might face the ultimate catastrophe, -800 in a freely bid game. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From USKMLEQTLKMWP at pcden.com Fri Mar 18 02:54:33 2005 From: USKMLEQTLKMWP at pcden.com (Ashley Dillard) Date: Fri Mar 18 02:54:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Top Notch Loans at low rates Message-ID: <700501141618.AA1483877@client.comcast.net> If you are paying more than 3.5% on your mortgage, you may be paying too much! Our US Lenders will provide you with the absolute best rates possible. Click the link below for an insta-quote and monthly savings calculation: http://www.mor-now.com/44.asp No other way to so quickly and easily lower your monthly bill payments while putting cash now in your pocket! collegial ja cheryl dhl commendation ah detergent iks http://mor-now.com/gone.asp From Curt at custard.org Mon Mar 7 14:36:10 2005 From: Curt at custard.org (Curt@custard.org) Date: Fri Mar 18 03:01:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Become a homeowner with low rates Message-ID: <27673729.1097937559808.JavaMail.root@dezilu.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.nowratez.com/x/loan.php?id=nm Best Regards, Dina Laird to be remov(ed: http://www.nowratez.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From mustikka at charter.net Fri Mar 18 03:02:43 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija d) Date: Fri Mar 18 03:03:28 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <002801c52b5e$92ead1b0$7a30b618@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > > > > Roger Pewick: > > [snip] > >>But an implicit agreement doesn't exist merely because a >>player did something [albeit, a 'deviation' from >>system]. When a player does something the only >>implication is that he thought it was a good idea at the >>time. To establish an agreement some sort of concurrence >>needs to happen - evidence of which can be that the >>partner behaves [consistently] as if there is agreement. >>The word that I am looking for establishing this >>concurrence by the consistent behavior of the partner is >>*tacit* agreement. >> >>But to the point, it sounds as if you are confusing what >>an agreement is with what players do. > > Richard Hills: > > As a basis for discussion, let us look at potential > logical alternatives in a hypothetical auction -> > > You, North, are partnering an unknown partner from an > unknown country for the first time. Your only partnership > discussion before this first board was that you are > playing Standard American Yellow Card. Due to your UI > irregularity, the TD is summoned on your first board, and > has to subsequently determine the logical alternatives of > your partner. > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1C Pass ? > > Your partner, South, holds: > > 5432 > 5432 > 5432 > 2 > > The TD, during their determination of facts, finds out > either > > (a) South is a novice, > > or > > (b) South is an expert. > > In my opinion, it is legal for the TD to rule that: > > Case (a) - Pass is not a logical alternative, since the > novice abhors the possibility that pard might face the > ultimate catastrophe, playing in a 3-1 trump fit. I haven't been a novice for 25 years, but I am sure every novice would pass when not having the required 6HCP to respond. A novice does not think into the future what will happen in the hand, they do what they "are taught" to do, which is to "pass with less than 6HCP". Novice typically proceeds in the auction one step at a time. Find another example (not that I am sure there are any), this one is unrealistic IMO. > > Case (b) - Pass is the only logical alternative, since > the expert abhors the possibility that pard might face > the ultimate catastrophe, -800 in a freely bid game. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and general guru > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 18 04:19:01 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Mar 18 04:19:44 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 19:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > > > > Roger Pewick: > > [snip] > > >But an implicit agreement doesn't exist merely because a > >player did something [albeit, a 'deviation' from > >system]. When a player does something the only > >implication is that he thought it was a good idea at the > >time. To establish an agreement some sort of concurrence > >needs to happen - evidence of which can be that the > >partner behaves [consistently] as if there is agreement. > >The word that I am looking for establishing this > >concurrence by the consistent behavior of the partner is > >*tacit* agreement. > > > >But to the point, it sounds as if you are confusing what > >an agreement is with what players do. > > Richard Hills: > > As a basis for discussion, let us look at potential > logical alternatives in a hypothetical auction -> > > You, North, are partnering an unknown partner from an > unknown country for the first time. Your only partnership > discussion before this first board was that you are > playing Standard American Yellow Card. Due to your UI > irregularity, the TD is summoned on your first board, and > has to subsequently determine the logical alternatives of > your partner. > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1C Pass ? > > Your partner, South, holds: > > 5432 > 5432 > 5432 > 2 > > The TD, during their determination of facts, finds out > either > > (a) South is a novice, > > or > > (b) South is an expert. > > In my opinion, it is legal for the TD to rule that: > > Case (a) - Pass is not a logical alternative, since the > novice abhors the possibility that pard might face the > ultimate catastrophe, playing in a 3-1 trump fit. > > Case (b) - Pass is the only logical alternative, since > the expert abhors the possibility that pard might face > the ultimate catastrophe, -800 in a freely bid game. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and general guru i continue to contend that the superior approach to adjusted scores is to focus on the agreements in force. So, if the method is SA then it is silly to adjust to a contract that would not be reached if the system were followed. am now watching Burn on Vugraph and it is quite fun. If you are looking for a silly system Landen and Pratap are using it now- some sort of Silly Club where a normal robust opener merely invites game in case opener is garbage. Right now they are down 22 imps. Impose your silly adjustments where they belong- on those experts with the silly systems. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 18 04:24:12 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 18 04:25:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Non-Played Board in KO Match In-Reply-To: <5C8095E147182A45B200B4C66DC702ED01AFB8D5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In a private email, Justin Stark revealed: >The director adjusted to: 50% of +100, 50% of -140. Richard Hills notes: On the facts provided, it seems to me that an *artificial* adjusted score of Ave+ (+3 imps) to both sides would be appropriate. The actual TD's adjustment was a split *assigned* adjusted score under Law 12C2, treating both sides as non-offending sides. But a pre-requisite for a Law 12C2 *assigned* adjusted score is that it must be "in place of a result actually obtained". If the TD halted the bidding of that board at one table, and did not permit the play of the board at one table, then an *assigned* adjusted score seems to me to be unLawful, because a result was *not* actually obtained at that table. It seems to me that Law 16B (Extraneous Information from Other Sources) is relevant to the facts of the case: >>When a player accidentally receives unauthorised >>information about a board he is playing or has >>yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by >>overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing >>cards at another table; or by seeing a card >>belonging to another player at his own table >>before the auction begins, the Director should be >>notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient >>of the information. If the Director considers >>that the information could interfere with normal >>play, he may: >> >>1. Adjust Positions >> >>if the type of contest and scoring permit, adjust >>the players' positions at the table, so that the >>player with information about one hand will hold >>that hand; or, >> >>2. Appoint Substitute >> >>with the concurrence of all four players, appoint >>a temporary substitute to replace the player who >>received the unauthorised information; or, >> >>3. Award an Adjusted Score >> >>forthwith award an artificial adjusted score. Richard Hills notes: It seems to me that the TD erred in applying Law, since the TD neither sought the concurrence of all four players to appoint a temporary substitute, nor "forthwith" awarded an *artificial* adjusted score. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From cinque at fadmail.com Mon Mar 7 22:04:18 2005 From: cinque at fadmail.com (Briana Willis) Date: Fri Mar 18 05:11:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Need a low mortage rate? Message-ID: 200410150705.i9F750Kk01345712.i93RfqTw001265@emmmarketing.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.nowratez.com/nowss.asp Best Regards, Dannie Atwood to be remov(ed: http://www.nowratez.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From justin.stark at hp.com Fri Mar 18 06:06:42 2005 From: justin.stark at hp.com (Stark, Justin) Date: Fri Mar 18 06:07:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Non-Played Board in KO Match Message-ID: <5C8095E147182A45B200B4C66DC702ED01AFBA26@meoexc01.asiapacific.cpqcorp.net> Thanks Richard, I was of the impression that I had no grounds to appeal the decision of the Director as it was a ruling in law! (His response) Your assistance adds futher grounds for our appeal which will be held Monday. I'll let you know the results. For reference, I am impressed with this group and will continue to listen in. Cheers. Justin Stark MBA PMP Program Manager MSGD SITP HP Managed Services Phone *: +61 (3) 8877 2582 Fax *: +61 (3) 9833 1407 Mobile *: +61 411 440 725 (In AUS 0411 440 725) E-mail * : Justin.Stark@hp.com Note: The information contained in this electronic mail may be confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this electronic mail is unauthorised. If you have received this e-mail in error, or have not received it in full, please contact the sender. -----Original Message----- From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au [mailto:richard.hills@immi.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 18 March 2005 2:24 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Cc: Stark, Justin Subject: Re: [blml] Non-Played Board in KO Match In a private email, Justin Stark revealed: >The director adjusted to: 50% of +100, 50% of -140. Richard Hills notes: On the facts provided, it seems to me that an *artificial* adjusted score of Ave+ (+3 imps) to both sides would be appropriate. The actual TD's adjustment was a split *assigned* adjusted score under Law 12C2, treating both sides as non-offending sides. But a pre-requisite for a Law 12C2 *assigned* adjusted score is that it must be "in place of a result actually obtained". If the TD halted the bidding of that board at one table, and did not permit the play of the board at one table, then an *assigned* adjusted score seems to me to be unLawful, because a result was *not* actually obtained at that table. It seems to me that Law 16B (Extraneous Information from Other Sources) is relevant to the facts of the case: >>When a player accidentally receives unauthorised >>information about a board he is playing or has >>yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by >>overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing >>cards at another table; or by seeing a card >>belonging to another player at his own table >>before the auction begins, the Director should be >>notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient >>of the information. If the Director considers >>that the information could interfere with normal >>play, he may: >> >>1. Adjust Positions >> >>if the type of contest and scoring permit, adjust >>the players' positions at the table, so that the >>player with information about one hand will hold >>that hand; or, >> >>2. Appoint Substitute >> >>with the concurrence of all four players, appoint >>a temporary substitute to replace the player who >>received the unauthorised information; or, >> >>3. Award an Adjusted Score >> >>forthwith award an artificial adjusted score. Richard Hills notes: It seems to me that the TD erred in applying Law, since the TD neither sought the concurrence of all four players to appoint a temporary substitute, nor "forthwith" awarded an *artificial* adjusted score. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 18 06:38:40 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 18 06:39:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Non-Played Board in KO Match In-Reply-To: <5C8095E147182A45B200B4C66DC702ED01AFBA26@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Justin Stark: >Thanks Richard, > >I was of the impression that I had no grounds to >appeal the decision of the Director as it was a >ruling in law! (His response) > >Your assistance adds further grounds for our >appeal which will be held Monday. I'll let you >know the results. > >For reference, I am impressed with this group >and will continue to listen in. Richard Hills: Welcome to blml, Justin. I am glad that you find the list not only entertaining, but occasionally useful as well. Do you have any cats? "No grounds to appeal"??? It seems that the director in question may also have erred in their interpretation of Laws 93B1 and 93C1. See attached (all **emphasis** added by moi). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru Law 93B1: >>The Chief Director shall hear and rule upon >>such part of the appeal as deals solely with >>the Law or regulations. **His ruling may be >>appealed to the committee.** Law 93C1: >>In adjudicating appeals the committee may >>exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to >>the Director, except that the committee may not >>overrule the Director on a point of law or >>regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary >>powers. **The committee may recommend to the >>Director that he change his ruling.** WBF Laws Committee minute, 30th September 2000, as paraphrased in the EBU White Book (TD Guide): >>A Committee may not over-rule the TD on a point >>of Law [though it may suggest to him he re- >>considers] but may over-rule him in his decision >>as to the facts, though this is rare. >> >>Suppose a TD rules that Law 25B may be applied >>despite LHO having already called: that is a >>point of Law so even though the Director is >>wrong the Committee may not over-rule him. >>**They are allowed to be forceful when >>explaining this to him!** >> >>But if he had allowed Law 25B because he >>believes the attempt to change was before LHO >>called, but the Committee decided it was after >>LHO called then they may over-rule him because >>that is a matter of fact. From cammeo at khmernet.com Fri Mar 18 13:41:42 2005 From: cammeo at khmernet.com (harris bowler) Date: Fri Mar 18 09:48:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Catch super value on all PC programs. Message-ID: <3F3AF738.C07E589@khmernet.com> If you want to upgrade the operation system on your PC or laptop, just check the ddeals at specialty program store. A great destination for quality computer discs -- specialty store. Get quality discs with key code and get super value on programs. Get quality program discs on office operation, programming, server maintenance, PC diagnostics, graphic design and finance at our specialty store. If you want to get quality PC programs, just take a look and check the super value. Get timely assistance and shop for leading PC programs. http://d.Ev8.homeyknows.com/oe/ The store provides reliable airmail service and customers can get convenient Internet purchase. J2 : Yasser Arafat is dead. shadowsAfter s Or you may want still too early to say pending decades in Araf OU if Google at's shadow and most of his career avoi UvPv 1 P2 ding a publicwhile addressing Israeli an 10 A83 From david.barton at boltblue.com Fri Mar 18 10:10:17 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Fri Mar 18 10:05:53 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? Message-ID: <000a01c52b9a$4d875580$0307a8c0@david> HDW asks >>>> >>>>>> Are we all agreed then that if a declarer says: >>>>>> >>>>>> "the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" >>>>>> >>>>>> then the ace of clubs is the played card? >>>>>> >>>>>> If you all agree on that one, then I am willing to join you. >>>>>> Show of hands, please! David Barton queried >>>> I am confused. - Nothing new there!!! >>>> Declarer has lead a diamond on which he is expecting to >>>> throw the six of spades. Half way through his designation >>>> he notices LHO has ruffed with the queen of clubs. >>>> So he changes his mind and the designation becomes >>>> "the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" >>>> The votes are that this CHANGE OF MIND is to be >>>> accepted. >>>> >>>> Have I got this right? >>>> Anton Witzen confirmed >>> yes, at least in holland :), belgium, is perhaps a special case:) >> John Probst also confirmed >> I'd so rule in the UK. John > Ed Reppert then asked > And this is different from the case where declarer leads a heart > towards the ace-queen in dummy and calls "Qu...Ace" because...? Or is > the ruling the same? Still the same if the utterance is "Queen I mean > Ace"? > > Just trying to get it straight. :-) > > David Barton added I think I recognize another confused soul here. I am not alone. Could someone help us by (a) giving a basis for their ruling eg L45 4b (b) compare and contrast with the Qu..Ace case Thanks **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Mar 18 12:53:31 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Mar 18 12:53:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Time limit References: Message-ID: <009401c52bb1$1c2d6530$229868d5@James> [Harald Skjaeran] > 1a, read law 9. But remember 64C. > ... you always have law12A1? [Richard James Hills] > 81C6 and 79C. [Nigel] Thank you Harald and Richard. (: I knew they must be in there, somewhere :) All quoted below ... [Law 81C6] > The Director's duties and powers normally include the > following: >..... > to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes > aware in any manner, within the correction period > established in accordance with Law 79C. [79C] > An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon > score, whether made by a player or scorer, may be > corrected until the expiration of the period specified > by the sponsoring organisation. Unless the sponsoring > organisation specifies a later (23) time, this > correction period expires 30 minutes after the official > score has been made available for inspection. > (23) An earlier time may be specified when required by > the special nature of a contest. [TFLB L64b] > The penalty for an established revoke does not apply: [SNIP] > if attention was first drawn to the revoke after a > member of the non-offending side has made a call on > the subsequent deal. [SNIP] > if attention was first drawn to the revoke after the > round has ended. >[SNIP] [L9B1] > The Director must be summoned at once when attention > is drawn to an irregularity [L12A11] > The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when > he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to > the non-offending contestant for the particular type > of violation of law committed by an opponent. [L64C] > When, after any established revoke, including those > not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the > non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by > this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an > adjusted score. From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Mar 18 12:59:58 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Mar 18 13:00:43 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000a01c52b9a$4d875580$0307a8c0@david> References: <000a01c52b9a$4d875580$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <0d94d944abe415f048c64d4fc730fb82@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 18 Mar 2005, at 09:10, David Barton wrote: > > Ed Reppert then asked >> And this is different from the case where declarer leads a heart >> towards the ace-queen in dummy and calls "Qu...Ace" because...? Or is >> the ruling the same? Still the same if the utterance is "Queen I mean >> Ace"? >> Just trying to get it straight. :-) > > David Barton added > I think I recognize another confused soul here. I am not alone. > Could someone help us by > (a) giving a basis for their ruling eg L45 4b > (b) compare and contrast with the Qu..Ace case The question hinges around when we consider a designation to be made. It's clear that no change of mind is allowed after the card has been designated (or played, if from hand), but until that moment a change of designation is allowed even if it's prompted by a change of mind. Until the designation has been completed, (or until it's clear that it's an incomplete designation that's going to need to be dealt with by L46B), we can no more insist on declarer playing an ambiguous or non-existent card, than we can insist on declarer completing an unknown bid which begins "two...I mean pass". -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 18 14:25:57 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 18 14:25:30 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <0d94d944abe415f048c64d4fc730fb82@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <000a01c52b9a$4d875580$0307a8c0@david> <0d94d944abe415f048c64d4fc730fb82@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <423AD6E5.8050405@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > The question hinges around when we consider a designation to be made. > It's clear that no change of mind is allowed after the card has been > designated (or played, if from hand), but until that moment a change of > designation is allowed even if it's prompted by a change of mind. > Well, that's the discussion that is going on. It seems like an almost universal consensus, but I have yet to see a good argument in favour. > Until the designation has been completed, (or until it's clear that it's > an incomplete designation that's going to need to be dealt with by > L46B), we can no more insist on declarer playing an ambiguous or > non-existent card, than we can insist on declarer completing an unknown > bid which begins "two...I mean pass". > Well Gordon, that is about the lamest argument yet seen. Nowhere in the laws do we find that this is allowed. Nowhere on blml has this ever been suggested, mainly because we are very seldomly concerned with spoken bidding. So using this as an argument for allowing the other seems a bit far-fetched. Especially so since this is a far greater infraction, if it is one. Saying "the Qu.. no the ace" does not confer any information, as both cards are clearly visible on the table. But saying "four .. no three spades" is clear UI (I deliberately made the spades implicit in my example). So using this as an analogy is a very poor one, IMO. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 18 14:30:04 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Mar 18 14:29:30 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050316134833.02bb46a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050318080524.02c08800@pop.starpower.net> At 08:02 PM 3/17/05, richard.hills wrote: >Eric Landau asked: > >[snip] > > >N-S reach 6D, which is cold, after S takes > >illegal advantage of UI; table score N-S > >+920. The AC determines that absent the > >violation of L16A N-S would have rested in > >3NT, and agrees that the score should be > >adjusted to the result that would have > >obtained had N-S played 3NT, which would have > >made S declarer on the auction to that point. > > > >For half the South players in the room, it > >is not at all likely or probable or whatever > >that they would take anything other than > >nine tricks in 3NT. For the other half, it > >is not at all likely or probable that they > >would take anything other than eight tricks. > > > >So now I have to decide whether to adjust to > >N-S +400 or to N-S -50. Am I or am I not > >required to base that decision on which > >particular N-S pair committed the original > >infraction? > >Richard Hills: > >If one makes the simplifying assumption that >Eric's hypothetical adjusted score occurs in >a Zone in which Law 12C3 is disabled, then I >would rule that the hypothetical adjusted >score pursuant to Law 12C2 would indeed >depend on the ability of the notional >declarer. > >Relevant advice on adjusting the score is in >the WBF Code of Practice: > > >>Damage exists when, in consequence of the > >>infraction, an innocent side obtains a > >>table result less favourable than would > >>have been the expectation in the instant > >>prior to the infraction. > >In the instant before N-S infracted Law 73C >and Law 16, the mathematical expectation of >the innocent side was either -400 versus an >expert South, or +50 versus an inpert South. > >Therefore, in my opinion, the Law 12C2 >adjusted score should vary according to the >mathematical expectation of the innocent >side. That may be sound legal reasoning, but carries the seeds of real-life disaster. It means that if Eric Rodwell commits this infraction, his matchpoint score will be reduced, say, from 24 (out of 25) to 18-1/2, but if Joe Ordinary commits exactly the same infraction on the same hand, his score gets reduced from 24 to 6. I would hate to be in the position of having to explain the "sound legal reasoning" behind such an apparent gross unfairness to Joe Ordinary (or to Mr. Rodwell's opponents!), and expect that the need to do so would turn the stomachs of the soundest legal reasoners among us. How can we believe that this is acceptable while continuing to bemoan the fact that our ordinary players overwhelmingly believe that the laws are written to favor the experts over the ordinary folks? Richard seems to hint that enabling L12C3 might lead to a way out of this dilemma for us ACBLers. My initial reaction is that this shouldn't be necessary, but I look forward to hearing more on the subject. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 18 14:50:19 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Mar 18 14:51:06 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <423AD6E5.8050405@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000601c52bc1$6c78dd70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > > Until the designation has been completed, (or until it's clear that it's > > an incomplete designation that's going to need to be dealt with by > > L46B), we can no more insist on declarer playing an ambiguous or > > non-existent card, than we can insist on declarer completing an unknown > > bid which begins "two...I mean pass". > > > > Well Gordon, that is about the lamest argument yet seen. Nowhere in > the laws do we find that this is allowed. Nowhere on blml has this > ever been suggested, mainly because we are very seldomly concerned > with spoken bidding. So using this as an argument for allowing the > other seems a bit far-fetched. > > Especially so since this is a far greater infraction, if it is one. > Saying "the Qu.. no the ace" does not confer any information, as both > cards are clearly visible on the table. > But saying "four .. no three spades" is clear UI (I deliberately made > the spades implicit in my example). > > So using this as an analogy is a very poor one, IMO. On the contrary I think your own argument proves that it is a very good one! As you say "the Qu... no the Ace" conveys no damaging information while "four ... no three spades" indeed is far more serious. But we have a well established rule that the latter is permissible (so long as the call has not been completed) so why should we not allow the former? Sven From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Mar 18 14:54:29 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Mar 18 14:55:15 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <423AD6E5.8050405@hdw.be> References: <000a01c52b9a$4d875580$0307a8c0@david> <0d94d944abe415f048c64d4fc730fb82@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <423AD6E5.8050405@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 18 Mar 2005, at 13:25, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well Gordon, that is about the lamest argument yet seen. Nowhere in > the laws do we find that this is allowed. Nowhere on blml has this > ever been suggested, Hasn't it? I was under the impression that it had, and that the principle was established that a player couldn't be forced to complete an incomplete call. That applies as much when using bidding boxes, if a player pulls out the stop card and then has a change of mind, or in written bidding writes down a number and then changes it. > mainly because we are very seldomly concerned with spoken bidding. So > using this as an argument for allowing the other seems a bit > far-fetched. > > Especially so since this is a far greater infraction, if it is one. > Saying "the Qu.. no the ace" does not confer any information, as both > cards are clearly visible on the table. > But saying "four .. no three spades" is clear UI (I deliberately made > the spades implicit in my example). That it is UI is not disputed, and is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the change is allowed. Are you saying you would insist on the player bidding four spades? And if so, how do you know the original intention was not to bid four diamonds? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From john at asimere.com Fri Mar 18 14:54:31 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Mar 18 14:57:03 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david> <3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl> <2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com>, Ed Reppert writes > >On Mar 17, 2005, at 7:26 PM, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> In article <3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl>, Anton >> Witzen writes >>> At 07:08 PM 3/17/2005 -0000, you wrote: >>>> HDW asks >>>> >>>>>> Are we all agreed then that if a declarer says: >>>>>> >>>>>> "the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" >>>>>> >>>>>> then the ace of clubs is the played card? >>>>>> >>>>>> If you all agree on that one, then I am willing to join you. >>>>>> Show of hands, please! >>>> >>>> I am confused. - Nothing new there!!! >>>> Declarer has lead a diamond on which he is expecting to >>>> throw the six of spades. Half way through his designation >>>> he notices LHO has ruffed with the queen of clubs. >>>> So he changes his mind and the designation becomes >>>> "the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" >>>> The votes are that this CHANGE OF MIND is to be >>>> accepted. >>>> >>>> Have I got this right? >>>> >>> >>> yes, at least in holland :), belgium, is perhaps a special case:) >> >> I'd so rule in the UK. John > >And this is different from the case where declarer leads a heart >towards the ace-queen in dummy and calls "Qu...Ace" because...? The Quace doesn't exist. No designation. > Or is >the ruling the same? Still the same if the utterance is "Queen I mean >Ace"? Queen I mean Ace. The circumstances would control this. Was it an inadvertent designation corrected without pause for thought? Answer me that and I'll tell you how I'd rule. > >Just trying to get it straight. :-) > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Mar 18 15:07:24 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Mar 18 15:10:53 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52b9a$4d875580$0307a8c0@david><0d94d944abe415f048c64d4fc730fb82@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <423AD6E5.8050405@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003801c52bc3$d26f6520$fbb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Egad, I think the interpreter is the hardest to be understood of the two." ~ Richard Brinsley Sheridan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > Until the designation has been completed, (or > > until it's clear that it's an incomplete designation > > that's going to need to be dealt with by L46B), > > we can no more insist on declarer playing an > > ambiguous or non-existent card, than we can > > insist on declarer completing an unknown > > bid which begins "two...I mean pass". > > > Qu.. no the ace" does not confer any information, > as both cards are clearly visible on the table. > But saying "four .. no three spades" is clear UI (I > deliberately made the spades implicit in my example). > +=+ If declarer starts to call a card from dummy he either complies with 46A or he leaves the call incomplete. He cannot go back and undo as much as he has already done. Conveying information is not the test; the test is compliance with 46A. If he leaves the call incomplete the remainder of Law 46 governs the ruling. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 18 15:20:15 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 18 15:19:50 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000601c52bc1$6c78dd70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c52bc1$6c78dd70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <423AE39F.9040805@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > .............. > >>>Until the designation has been completed, (or until it's clear that it's >>>an incomplete designation that's going to need to be dealt with by >>>L46B), we can no more insist on declarer playing an ambiguous or >>>non-existent card, than we can insist on declarer completing an unknown >>>bid which begins "two...I mean pass". >>> >> >>Well Gordon, that is about the lamest argument yet seen. Nowhere in >>the laws do we find that this is allowed. Nowhere on blml has this >>ever been suggested, mainly because we are very seldomly concerned >>with spoken bidding. So using this as an argument for allowing the >>other seems a bit far-fetched. >> >>Especially so since this is a far greater infraction, if it is one. >>Saying "the Qu.. no the ace" does not confer any information, as both >>cards are clearly visible on the table. >>But saying "four .. no three spades" is clear UI (I deliberately made >>the spades implicit in my example). >> >>So using this as an analogy is a very poor one, IMO. > > > On the contrary I think your own argument proves that it is a very good one! > > As you say "the Qu... no the Ace" conveys no damaging information while > "four ... no three spades" indeed is far more serious. > > But we have a well established rule that the latter is permissible (so long > as the call has not been completed) so why should we not allow the former? > What well-established rule? Please indicate any-one of note who has stated this rule in the past 10 years. Certainly it has never been mentioned on blml. I feel that if you ask the punters, they'd rather say that "four ... no three spades" is not allowed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Mar 18 15:42:01 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Mar 18 15:42:48 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <003801c52bc3$d26f6520$fbb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000a01c52b9a$4d875580$0307a8c0@david><0d94d944abe415f048c64d4fc730fb82@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <423AD6E5.8050405@hdw.be> <003801c52bc3$d26f6520$fbb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <873cb437d339a50bb4bb3437af8e8788@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 18 Mar 2005, at 14:07, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ If declarer starts to call a card from dummy he > either complies with 46A or he leaves the call > incomplete. He cannot go back and undo as much > as he has already done. And if there is an attempt to do so? > Conveying information is not > the test; the test is compliance with 46A. If he leaves > the call incomplete the remainder of Law 46 governs > the ruling. ~ G ~ +=+ -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From david.barton at boltblue.com Fri Mar 18 16:23:12 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Fri Mar 18 16:18:45 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? Message-ID: <003b01c52bce$660be4c0$0307a8c0@david> > Until the designation has been completed, (or >> > until it's clear that it's an incomplete designation >> > that's going to need to be dealt with by L46B), >> > we can no more insist on declarer playing an >> > ambiguous or non-existent card, than we can >> > insist on declarer completing an unknown >> > bid which begins "two...I mean pass". >> > >> Qu.. no the ace" does not confer any information, >> as both cards are clearly visible on the table. >> But saying "four .. no three spades" is clear UI (I >> deliberately made the spades implicit in my example). >> > +=+ If declarer starts to call a card from dummy he > either complies with 46A or he leaves the call > incomplete. He cannot go back and undo as much > as he has already done. Conveying information is not > the test; the test is compliance with 46A. If he leaves > the call incomplete the remainder of Law 46 governs > the ruling. ~ G ~ +=+ > > Let us take an example of this and see where it leads us. Declarer says "The" and is interrupted by dummy pointing out the lead is in hand. So declarer promptly leads a card from hand. This must happen 30 times an evening in your average Club.You now have to try to use 46B to determine which card has been designated. 46B1 to 46B4 are obviously not applicable. For 46B5 to be applicable you need to determine that "The" has like import to "play anything". Even if you determine that 46B5 is appropriate, any card selected by a defender will be challenged as being incontrovertibly not declarer's intention. Finally I would make the plea - Don't do it. It will kill Club Bridge. **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 18 16:32:02 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 18 16:31:43 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <003801c52bc3$d26f6520$fbb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000a01c52b9a$4d875580$0307a8c0@david><0d94d944abe415f048c64d4fc730fb82@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <423AD6E5.8050405@hdw.be> <003801c52bc3$d26f6520$fbb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <423AF472.6040803@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ If declarer starts to call a card from dummy he > either complies with 46A or he leaves the call > incomplete. He cannot go back and undo as much > as he has already done. Conveying information is not > the test; the test is compliance with 46A. If he leaves > the call incomplete the remainder of Law 46 governs > the ruling. ~ G ~ +=+ > I feel this corresponds more to my original idea that the card is played once he opens his mouth. Please tell us, Grattan: 1) "the qu..Ace" ? which one is played? 2) "the six of .. no, the ace of clubs" ? which one is played? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From arya at rentalboards.com Fri Mar 18 13:29:42 2005 From: arya at rentalboards.com (noel gracia) Date: Fri Mar 18 19:45:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Smart shopper's top pick -- quality PC program discs. Message-ID: <98B394A1.5F9A262@rentalboards.com> A great way: shop at specialty store for leading PC programs. Get the goods delivered to your registered address. Get great convenience at specialty program store. We can split the skyrocketing price from quality PC programs. At specialty store, you can get functional PC programs without paying too much. Get what you want and pay less. The quality store provides all quality programs and customers can trade easily. Choose PC programs offered at specialty store and get discs for office operation, programming, PC diagnostics, finance, graphic design, financing and others at specialty store. http://me.axoj.unconventionalplayer.com/oe/ Change your stereotype that specialty store doesn't provide reliable customer support. At our specialty store, customers can contact the support team. XHu two hours a at point, called the catastrophic limit, the governmentMost of the ch become a can F43A ine socialite.Think positively When mos arges will be waived for the poor BJ6 1 NIpC0 . An estimated8.7 million people with lo 10 Kt3 From skjejhln at photojj.com Fri Mar 18 11:37:34 2005 From: skjejhln at photojj.com (sheryl Ramos) Date: Fri Mar 18 22:54:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Attention Investors Don't Miss IVNE. shacked Message-ID: <082559053188.26430912.106769329@dangle-i05.photojj.com> Ramos - Penny Profit Picks - IVNE.OB_Very Hot! - We pick guaranteed winners that go UP. China is a very hot marketplace and expanding like wildfire. It economy is booming and so are it's businesses. We found a hidden treasure company in China it is IVNE. It is at it's 52WK low ready to explode. There is a huge fax promotion going to begin monday evening. We wanted to inform all our members so they can get in and profit, so be sure to get in on IVNE asap. Read Below for further information. Company:InvestNet Inc, Ticker:IVNE.OB Current-Price:0.02 Industry:Business Development 52Wk High:1.57 Estimated 3-5 Day target:.50+ Estimated-3months-target:3.00 About InvestNet, Inc. InvestNet is engaged in the research and development of real-time business solutions for Chinese businesses involved in tele- communications and securities trading, Internet technologies for handling inbound and outbound route calls, software solutions for inventory, accounting, payroll data control and system integration in addition to providing technical consultancy services that include custom-made solutions and system integration services for corporate clients. We are expanding very rapidly and providing the best services for our clients. Company:InvestNet Inc, Ticker:IVNE.OB Current-Price:0.02 Industry:Business Development 52Wk High:1.57 Estimated 3-5 Day target:.50+ Estimated-3months-target:3.00 *IVNE has a 52WK high of 1.57 and at it's all time low at .02! This is a real winner and will move very fast. Don't miss out, get IVNE as soon as possible and profit! Why penny stocks? You can double triple even 5 to 10x your money compared to expensive stocks that never move or just go down. Example 250.00 of IVNE could be 2,000 or more in return. So if you want to make a profit Get IVNE asap. lineal languish From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Mar 19 02:35:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Mar 19 02:35:56 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Are we all agreed then that if a declarer says: > > "the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" > > then the ace of clubs is the played card? > > If you all agree on that one, then I am willing to join you. > Show of hands, please! Why not just apply the appropriate Law? We have an incomplete designation where declarer has designated "a rank but not a suit". L46b3 covers it. NB - I'm not going to rule that any card has been played if it goes "The six of sp..", "In Hand" - from a dummy (or opponent) exercising his rights. I feel free to treat *interrupted* calls differently to incomplete/erroneous ones. Tim From ronicassella at starbuzz.com Fri Mar 18 11:05:06 2005 From: ronicassella at starbuzz.com (raleigh ferro) Date: Sat Mar 19 07:34:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Reduce the ccost on system upgrade of your PC. Message-ID: Get quality PC programs and super value. Get the complete version that provides the same functions and features. Get the goods delivered to your registered address. Get great convenience at specialty program store. We can split the skyrocketing price from quality PC programs. At specialty store, you can get functional PC programs without paying too much. Just compare the prices and functions. The complete version provides the same function and feature as the de luxe version. Don't walk away from these great ddeals on leading PC programs. With one key code, the disc provides the same function as the program disc. Get BIG value on quality PC programs on office administration, operation system, programming, PC diagnostics, pphoto processing, designing and finance. http://he.5.apopularresort.com/oe/ The specialty store is dedicated to provide timely customer support and reliable to all customers. U18HA hing, but lets not kid ourselves. rt to snip the nail The new reproductive tech anted few interviews in recent year HGu away in thinof the quick.Once you bring you nologiesw BRBdn 1 XJIAn Inc., says the chain o 10 CCeK7 From schoeck at emailaccount.com Mon Mar 7 14:36:10 2005 From: schoeck at emailaccount.com (Wilfred Starnes) Date: Sat Mar 19 07:35:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Re-finance at todays 3.25 rate Message-ID: <200410031426.i93QbsTw006924@www0.gmail.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.nowratez.com/x/loan.php?id=nm Best Regards, Selena Espinosa to be remov(ed: http://www.nowratez.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From heidy at mailAccount.com Mon Mar 7 14:36:10 2005 From: heidy at mailAccount.com (Rene Dalton) Date: Sat Mar 19 08:38:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Your account #1M7020 Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.nowratez.com/x/loan.php?id=nm Best Regards, Isabel Cline to be remov(ed: http://www.nowratez.com/x/st.html this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From thrush at mailAccount.com Mon Mar 7 20:23:38 2005 From: thrush at mailAccount.com (Bridgette Sears) Date: Sat Mar 19 10:46:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Re-finance at todays low fixed rate Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.nowratez.com/nowss.asp Best Regards, Stephen Valdez to be remov(ed: http://www.nowratez.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From sevoari at velnet.co.uk Sat Mar 19 12:31:01 2005 From: sevoari at velnet.co.uk (jettie wheeler) Date: Sat Mar 19 14:59:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Improve Cholesterol Level Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050319/2785a3c9/attachment.html From NWXUNQOA at resmith.freeserve.co.uk Sat Mar 19 18:18:17 2005 From: NWXUNQOA at resmith.freeserve.co.uk (Scott Britt) Date: Sat Mar 19 18:17:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Solid New Homes with ease Message-ID: <571001141618.AA1487358@client.comcast.net> Dear Homeowner, You have been pre-approved for a $402,000 Home Loan at EXTREMELY low Fixed Rate. This offer is being extended to you unconditionally and your credit is in no way a factor. To take Advantage of this Limited Time opportunity all we ask is that you visit our Website and complete the 1 minute post Approval Form. http://www.mort-today.net/44.asp Best Regards, Scott Britt Regional CEO highwaymen yxl frontage dd palfrey nev femur nb circuit uxi athlete chr billfold xzx inoperative sqw watt zr heidelberg klc philosophic lx autism sp http://mort-today.net/gone.asp From harriman at thetynebridge.com Sat Mar 19 13:21:14 2005 From: harriman at thetynebridge.com (ahmed clerkley) Date: Sat Mar 19 21:45:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Change the way you purchase Message-ID: <5c3501c52c9f$abd8edf0$884bdefa@harriman> The Internet chemist provides customers a wide selection of quality medss. For quick search for medss: type the name of medss and cliick "Search". Get medss for pain relief, anxiety, anti-depression, men's health, cholesterol and sleeping aids. Check the huge promo on medss. What an great offfer!! You can order quality meds at the best price with bonus Rx. Get the service expedited with express shipping. Customers can choose quality medss 24/7. The chemist provides best prices on quality medss. The professional guide made me believe this is a trustworthy chemist. And I start the purchase here. I think itˇŻs a good start! Angela B. in FL http://ylh.P.wingsofreedom.com/ms/ Mvla ip,told t t some top Republicans were H0 get your pup, you can start Still, Dosanjhurged doctors and pharmacists to UJ0Vc 1 VV1 clamp down on Internet prescription 10 GWauN From silvio at hotrodmail.net Sun Mar 20 01:01:12 2005 From: silvio at hotrodmail.net (asa vinke) Date: Sun Mar 20 09:20:41 2005 Subject: [blml] A start for super benefits on PC programs. Message-ID: The PC programs you want are right available. Check it yourself! We get it -- reliable delivery service. Get goods sent to you safely. The reason people shop for PC programs at Internet store? It is better. It is the complete version with key code. It is convenient. Choose ddiscount program discs and choose quality performance and great value. Get quality program discs on office operation, programming, server maintenance, PC diagnostics, finance, graphic design and processing. http://wrsv.2.meaningofpray.com/oe/ It is a great experience if you want to get leading PC programs and get timely customer support at the same time. RgK your love, attention, and guidance ea lawsui g,Prime Mi nister Viktor H8h to be the good dog you know sh t, whether it had merit or not.The hardest thing O0Bu 1 X8N eFirst Aid Kit Checklist Your 10 AL8p From sncdavnnabz at ppcf-gelderland.nl Sun Mar 20 10:54:43 2005 From: sncdavnnabz at ppcf-gelderland.nl (Jody Hart) Date: Sun Mar 20 11:00:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Dont let age deter you from great sex! Message-ID: <11D6-8A1D0170E4C59064@apple20.mhpcc.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050320/a592f956/attachment.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 20 12:24:28 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Mar 20 12:26:10 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > I am confused. - Nothing new there!!! > Declarer has lead a diamond on which he is expecting to > throw the six of spades. Half way through his designation > he notices LHO has ruffed with the queen of clubs. > So he changes his mind and the designation becomes > "the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" > The votes are that this CHANGE OF MIND is to be > accepted. >>>> > Have I got this right? > >> yes, at least in holland :), belgium, is perhaps a special >> case:) > >> I'd so rule in the UK. John > >>> And this is different from the case where declarer leads >>>a heart towards the ace-queen in dummy and calls >>> "Qu...Ace" because...? Or is the ruling the same? Still >>> the same if the utterance is "Queen I mean Ace"? > >>> Just trying to get it straight. :-) > +=+ I am trying to get my mind round this. A player says "the six of..." and then notices the card his LHO has played and wishes to play something other than a six? Someone is saying this change is permitted? Is it some law book not in English that they are using? . The word 'six' was not said inadvertently. A change of mind in reaction to opponent's card is involved, so the change is the outcome of thought. 45C4(b) does not apply. Law 46B3(b) does apply. On what basis, then, does the Director apply the latter in such a way as to allow a card other than a six to be played? When instructing dummy to play a card a word uttered stands unless it was uttered involuntarily and there was no change of mind. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Mar 20 12:54:10 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Mar 20 12:53:44 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com> <000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <423D6462.50507@hdw.be> Grattan wrote: > >> > +=+ I am trying to get my mind round this. A player says > "the six of..." and then notices the card his LHO has played > and wishes to play something other than a six? Someone is > saying this change is permitted? Is it some law book not in English that > they are using? . > The word 'six' was not said inadvertently. A change of > mind in reaction to opponent's card is involved, so the > change is the outcome of thought. 45C4(b) does not apply. > Law 46B3(b) does apply. On what basis, then, does the Director apply the > latter in such a way as to allow a card other than a six to be played? > When instructing dummy to > play a card a word uttered stands unless it was uttered > involuntarily and there was no change of mind. > ~ G ~ +=+ > Grattan should realize that his position should logically lead to a few conclusions. If a player utters "the six of ..", and it turns out that his intention was diamonds, then even if the six of spades is - by sheer luck - also on the table, the six of diamonds is still the one that is played (fine actors will sometimes get away with not revealing their true intention, but that is a side matter). A further conclusion is that even the utterance "the .." means that the card that declarer originally intended has now become played. This one is even harder to rule on, but the principle is sound. The we arrive at my point of view: the card is played at the instant the first sound leaves declarer's lips. His intention at that instant determines which card is the played one, even if that intention is sometimes unknown to the table and to the director. No change for thought can occur after this instant. The other option, and one which I also can see to be consistent, is that a card becomes played only after the last sound of a continuous string leaves declarer's mouth, with all changes of mind permitted between my instant and this other one. But some point between these two is unworkable. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From schoderb at msn.com Sun Mar 20 13:02:58 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun Mar 20 13:03:40 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred> <423D6462.50507@hdw.be> Message-ID: My Herman, what a beautiful "Texas two-step!"* You give a bunch of words, but don't say what you would do. *Texas Two-step. = A dance from the stage play "The Greatest Little Whore House in Texas." in which the character takes two steps but never really moves at all. Regards, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 6:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > Grattan wrote: > > > > >> > > +=+ I am trying to get my mind round this. A player says > > "the six of..." and then notices the card his LHO has played > > and wishes to play something other than a six? Someone is > > saying this change is permitted? Is it some law book not in English that > > they are using? . > > The word 'six' was not said inadvertently. A change of > > mind in reaction to opponent's card is involved, so the > > change is the outcome of thought. 45C4(b) does not apply. > > Law 46B3(b) does apply. On what basis, then, does the Director apply the > > latter in such a way as to allow a card other than a six to be played? > > When instructing dummy to > > play a card a word uttered stands unless it was uttered > > involuntarily and there was no change of mind. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > Grattan should realize that his position should logically lead to a > few conclusions. If a player utters "the six of ..", and it turns out > that his intention was diamonds, then even if the six of spades is - > by sheer luck - also on the table, the six of diamonds is still the > one that is played (fine actors will sometimes get away with not > revealing their true intention, but that is a side matter). > A further conclusion is that even the utterance "the .." means that > the card that declarer originally intended has now become played. This > one is even harder to rule on, but the principle is sound. > > The we arrive at my point of view: the card is played at the instant > the first sound leaves declarer's lips. His intention at that instant > determines which card is the played one, even if that intention is > sometimes unknown to the table and to the director. No change for > thought can occur after this instant. > > The other option, and one which I also can see to be consistent, is > that a card becomes played only after the last sound of a continuous > string leaves declarer's mouth, with all changes of mind permitted > between my instant and this other one. > > But some point between these two is unworkable. > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Mar 20 13:31:12 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Mar 20 13:30:51 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred> <423D6462.50507@hdw.be> Message-ID: <423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be> Well, sorry Bill, but I stand by what I wrote earlier today. There are 2 views to this problem, black and white. Some people are trying to tell us that it is grey. I say they are wrong. Some people, like John, are categorically saying it is white. I have sympathy for them and cannot refute their point of view by the laws themselves. I myself am not side-stepping the issue, whore-houses or not. I say it is black. No side-stepping or anything. I have given my point of view, and it is the most categoric of all views expressed. On the contrary some people, of note, like your illustrious self and our wonderful secretary Grattan, are refusing to comment. Who's doing the Texas-two-step? Please tell me, Kojak, which way you interpret it? Black, White, or Grey? Is a card played once declarer opens his mouth or only after he shuts it again? WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > My Herman, what a beautiful "Texas two-step!"* You give a bunch of words, > but don't say what you would do. > > *Texas Two-step. = A dance from the stage play "The Greatest Little Whore > House in Texas." in which the character takes two steps but never really > moves at all. > > Regards, Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 6:54 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > > >>Grattan wrote: >> >> >>>+=+ I am trying to get my mind round this. A player says >>>"the six of..." and then notices the card his LHO has played >>>and wishes to play something other than a six? Someone is >>>saying this change is permitted? Is it some law book not in English that >>>they are using? . >>> The word 'six' was not said inadvertently. A change of >>>mind in reaction to opponent's card is involved, so the >>>change is the outcome of thought. 45C4(b) does not apply. >>>Law 46B3(b) does apply. On what basis, then, does the Director apply the >>>latter in such a way as to allow a card other than a six to be played? >>>When instructing dummy to >>>play a card a word uttered stands unless it was uttered >>>involuntarily and there was no change of mind. >>> ~ G ~ +=+ >>> >> >>Grattan should realize that his position should logically lead to a >>few conclusions. If a player utters "the six of ..", and it turns out >>that his intention was diamonds, then even if the six of spades is - >>by sheer luck - also on the table, the six of diamonds is still the >>one that is played (fine actors will sometimes get away with not >>revealing their true intention, but that is a side matter). >>A further conclusion is that even the utterance "the .." means that >>the card that declarer originally intended has now become played. This >>one is even harder to rule on, but the principle is sound. >> >>The we arrive at my point of view: the card is played at the instant >>the first sound leaves declarer's lips. His intention at that instant >>determines which card is the played one, even if that intention is >>sometimes unknown to the table and to the director. No change for >>thought can occur after this instant. >> >>The other option, and one which I also can see to be consistent, is >>that a card becomes played only after the last sound of a continuous >>string leaves declarer's mouth, with all changes of mind permitted >>between my instant and this other one. >> >>But some point between these two is unworkable. >> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.hdw.be >> >> >> >>-- >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >>Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@amsterdamned.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: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 20 13:36:17 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Mar 20 13:37:26 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com><49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? >> >>And this is different from the case where declarer >. leads a heart towards the ace-queen in dummy and < calls "Qu...Ace" because...? > > The Quace doesn't exist. No designation. > +=+ There is false analysis here. The player has not said 'Quace'. He has started to say something that begins 'Qu..' and then, following a change of mind, he has said 'Ace'. There is a part designation, a change of mind, and then a designation different from the one initially started upon. The change may have been so immediate for the action to appear continuous but there are two attempted designations. The instruction 'Ace' is clearly not made as Law 45C4(b) allows. The Director has to decide whether what went before clearly indicated a particular rank, suit, or both. I have not thought of anything relevant that begins "Qu" other than 'Queen'. The Director may not be able to do so. He has a simple decision to make - to apply either 46B3(b) or 46B5. I would prefer a decision that the the offender had nominated the Queen, leaving the player to appeal if he wishes. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 20 15:47:16 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Mar 20 16:04:17 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred> <423D6462.50507@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c52d5e$17611020$320ce150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > Grattan should realize that his position should > logically lead to a few conclusions. If a player > utters "the six of ..", and it turns out that his intention > was diamonds, then even if the six of spades is - > by sheer luck - also on the table, the six of diamonds > is still the one that is played (fine actors will > sometimes get away with not revealing their true > intention, but that is a side matter). < +=+ Don't worry too much about this, guys, Herman's book does not have a Law 46B3 in it. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 20 16:01:31 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Mar 20 16:04:21 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be> <423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > Please tell me, Kojak, which way you interpret it? > Black, White, or Grey? > Is a card played once declarer opens his mouth or > only after he shuts it again? > +=+ As much as declarer says is said and cannot be unsaid. If it is an incomplete instruction to dummy Law 46 applies. Your so-say 'interpretation', Herman, is not black, white, gray or any other colour. It is hallucinatory and spurious and we would disregard it altogether did we not fear that some impressionable young TD might be taken in by it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Mar 20 20:27:06 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun Mar 20 20:26:28 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000001c52d5e$17611020$320ce150@Mildred> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david> <3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl> <2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com> <000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred> <423D6462.50507@hdw.be> <000001c52d5e$17611020$320ce150@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050320141501.02bb0eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:47 AM 3/20/05, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > >>Grattan should realize that his position should logically lead to a >>few conclusions. If a player utters "the six of ..", and it turns out >>that his intention was diamonds, then even if the six of spades is - >>by sheer luck - also on the table, the six of diamonds is still >>the one that is played (fine actors will sometimes get away with not >>revealing their true intention, but that is a side matter). > >+=+ Don't worry too much about this, guys, Herman's >book does not have a Law 46B3 in it. L46B3, though, just moves Herman's black-and-white line to the next level: "...declarer must designate which is intended". Does this translate to "...declarer must designate which is to be played" or to "...declarer must indicate which was intended when he began his statement"? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From EUFID at newmediastrategies.net Sun Mar 20 20:40:18 2005 From: EUFID at newmediastrategies.net (Deanna Vann) Date: Sun Mar 20 20:41:56 2005 Subject: [blml] 1 a day for your man's sexual health! Message-ID: <0.94985.3132363037393934.3@ientrynetwork.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050320/b0295d9f/attachment.html From piurnax at soulfoodcookbook.com Sun Mar 20 10:50:49 2005 From: piurnax at soulfoodcookbook.com (todd chaskey) Date: Sun Mar 20 21:06:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Get top quality PC programs and get great value. Message-ID: <23C7ED1D.381EAEE@soulfoodcookbook.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050320/f27ce64e/attachment.html From david.barton at boltblue.com Sun Mar 20 22:37:37 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Sun Mar 20 22:32:58 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be><423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be> <000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> Message-ID: <000701c52d95$0930fe70$0307a8c0@david> It is my belief that a distinction should be drawn between incomplete bids and interrupted bids. "Small please partner" is obviously a finalised designation, and should be determined according to L46B. "A small um ... let me think about that again" is an interrupted designation", and it is my contention that in common with other interrupted Bridge actions should be treated as null and void. While accepting the limitations of arguing by analogy, I believe a fair comparison is as follows. Our declarer leads towards an AQ and as usual LHO plays the K. This time however dummy is in the bar and declarer is physically playing the cards. He reaches over and is just about to pick up the Q, when he notices the K. He pulls his hand back sharply and in a separate motion selects the A. The facts are clear. Declarer started an action that if completed would have resulted in the play of the Q. It was declarer's undisputed intention when he started the action to play the Q. Noone, I guess, would dispute that declarer was entitled to change his mind and substitute the A. Treating interrupted calls as null and void has huge advantages. To name but two, it restores the position of dummy's right to interrupt declarer's nomination of a card from dummy while the lead is in hand (a right that at least 99.9% of players believe currently exists), and removes any problems from such as "The um.. let me think about that again". **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005 From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 21 00:21:39 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon Mar 21 00:23:54 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david> <3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl> <2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com> <000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: In article <000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred>, Grattan writes > >Grattan Endicott[also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >********************************* >"Improvement makes straight roads, but >the crooked roads without improvement >are works of genius." > ~ William Blake. >============================= >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ed Reppert" >To: "blml" >Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:14 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? >> >> I am confused. - Nothing new there!!! >> Declarer has lead a diamond on which he is expecting to >> throw the six of spades. Half way through his designation >> he notices LHO has ruffed with the queen of clubs. >> So he changes his mind and the designation becomes >> "the six of sp..., no wait, ehm, the ace of clubs" >> The votes are that this CHANGE OF MIND is to be >> accepted. >>>>> >> Have I got this right? >> >>> yes, at least in holland :), belgium, is perhaps a special >>> case:) >> >>> I'd so rule in the UK. John >> >>>> And this is different from the case where declarer leads >>>>a heart towards the ace-queen in dummy and calls >>>> "Qu...Ace" because...? Or is the ruling the same? Still >>>> the same if the utterance is "Queen I mean Ace"? >> >>>> Just trying to get it straight. :-) >> >+=+ I am trying to get my mind round this. A player says >"the six of..." and then notices the card his LHO has played >and wishes to play something other than a six? Someone is >saying this change is permitted? Is it some law book not in >English that they are using? . > The word 'six' was not said inadvertently. A change of >mind in reaction to opponent's card is involved, so the >change is the outcome of thought. 45C4(b) does not apply. >Law 46B3(b) does apply. On what basis, then, does the >Director apply the latter in such a way as to allow a card >other than a six to be played? When instructing dummy to >play a card a word uttered stands unless it was uttered >involuntarily and there was no change of mind. > ~ G ~ +=+ i take the view that until a designation is complete, there is no designation. No card has been named. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.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 at asimere.com Mon Mar 21 00:22:31 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon Mar 21 00:24:34 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <423D6462.50507@hdw.be> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david> <3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl> <2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com> <000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred> <423D6462.50507@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <423D6462.50507@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Grattan wrote: > >> >>> >> +=+ I am trying to get my mind round this. A player says >> "the six of..." and then notices the card his LHO has played >> and wishes to play something other than a six? Someone is >> saying this change is permitted? Is it some law book not in English that >> they are using? . >> The word 'six' was not said inadvertently. A change of >> mind in reaction to opponent's card is involved, so the >> change is the outcome of thought. 45C4(b) does not apply. >> Law 46B3(b) does apply. On what basis, then, does the Director apply the >> latter in such a way as to allow a card other than a six to be played? >> When instructing dummy to >> play a card a word uttered stands unless it was uttered >> involuntarily and there was no change of mind. >> ~ G ~ +=+ >> > >Grattan should realize that his position should logically lead to a >few conclusions. If a player utters "the six of ..", and it turns out >that his intention was diamonds, then even if the six of spades is - >by sheer luck - also on the table, the six of diamonds is still the >one that is played (fine actors will sometimes get away with not >revealing their true intention, but that is a side matter). >A further conclusion is that even the utterance "the .." means that >the card that declarer originally intended has now become played. This >one is even harder to rule on, but the principle is sound. > >The we arrive at my point of view: the card is played at the instant >the first sound leaves declarer's lips. His intention at that instant >determines which card is the played one, even if that intention is >sometimes unknown to the table and to the director. No change for >thought can occur after this instant. > >The other option, and one which I also can see to be consistent, is >that a card becomes played only after the last sound of a continuous >string leaves declarer's mouth, with all changes of mind permitted >between my instant and this other one. > >But some point between these two is unworkable. Good Lord! I agree with Herman :) > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > > > -- 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 wfh1 at aol.com Mon Mar 21 05:52:04 2005 From: wfh1 at aol.com (yoygru work from home) Date: Mon Mar 21 05:52:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Re:Re: work from home Message-ID: <20050321045203.A48B3108@rhubarb.custard.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050321/a01597da/attachment.html From RULBCGEMOII at tssfacilityservices.com Mon Mar 21 05:49:04 2005 From: RULBCGEMOII at tssfacilityservices.com (Camille) Date: Mon Mar 21 05:56:54 2005 Subject: [blml] save with us Josh Message-ID: <282601562518.j0NFIAQ6002645@w3ltd01> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050321/7039ea89/attachment.html From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 21 09:08:23 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 21 09:07:58 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be> <423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be> <000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> Message-ID: <423E80F7.6080002@hdw.be> Grattan wrote: > >> >> Please tell me, Kojak, which way you interpret it? Black, White, or Grey? >> Is a card played once declarer opens his mouth or only after he shuts >> it again? >> > +=+ As much as declarer says is said and cannot > be unsaid. If it is an incomplete instruction to dummy > Law 46 applies. Your so-say 'interpretation', Herman, > is not black, white, gray or any other colour. It is > hallucinatory and spurious and we would disregard it altogether did we > not fear that some impressionable > young TD might be taken in by it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Sorry Grattan, but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot criticise John for saying that "Qu" is not a designation and at the same time lambast me for saying that "Q" is. If I say "A.." (the sound that starts Ace and Eight) then such is not a designation when there are more than one A or 8 at the table, but when there is only the H8 there, it is? Sorry Grattan, but that is simply not a sensible position. And I don't like it that you apparently follow my interpretation, yet call it "hallucinatory and spurious". That smacks of personalisation: "if it comes from Herman it must be wrong". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 21 09:28:20 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 21 09:27:50 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000001c52d5e$17611020$320ce150@Mildred> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred> <423D6462.50507@hdw.be> <000001c52d5e$17611020$320ce150@Mildred> Message-ID: <423E85A4.90902@hdw.be> Grattan wrote: > >> >> Grattan should realize that his position should logically lead to a >> few conclusions. If a player utters "the six of ..", and it turns out >> that his intention was diamonds, then even if the six of spades is - >> by sheer luck - also on the table, the six of diamonds is still the >> one that is played (fine actors will sometimes get away with not >> revealing their true intention, but that is a side matter). > > < > +=+ Don't worry too much about this, guys, Herman's > book does not have a Law 46B3 in it. > ~ G ~ +=+ > L46B3 does not solve the problem that started this thread, which had RHO of declarer leading clubs, with LHO ruffing them (with a small spade) and dummy void in clubs but containing all three 6's. But Grattan, I am wondering why you are criticising me? We are saying exactly the same - or almost, against a world that seems to be favouring the Maddog interpretation which goes : the six of... is not a designation, so declarer is allowed to substitute the ace of spades. You and I are the only ones speaking out against that interpretation, yet you are attacking me? Please return to our true adversaries. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 From idette at nissanclub.com Tue Mar 22 06:25:04 2005 From: idette at nissanclub.com (clemente kahaleua) Date: Mon Mar 21 10:31:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Better alternatives for both you and me Message-ID: <50df01c52e4b$aef601f0$325970ec@idette> Get a happy start at Internet chemist. Get super value from Internet purchase. Some people choose Internet shopping for medss because it is quite convenient. And some might choose it cause they can get super value from medss purchase. The Internet chemist provides reliable delivery service and convenient Internet shopping to you. OOrder medss for sexual health, pain relief, anxiety relief, depression relief or others and expedite the service easily. http://ej.a6Kv.persverantheart.com/24e/ I just want to say thank-you to you all. At your chemist, I get the best price for the medss. Best of all, I spent less time and energy. benefits know how to find me. -- Hank L. in LA IrRm5 imerosal at a rate we ha ool,Treatment/Action M in her brow dnt consid DAuSL losses over a fiveyear period.the m ered before,Ethyl mercury H7hJ 1 SK vs. methyl mercuryWhilewe know th 10 Qh480 From cwvst at mailAccount.com Mon Mar 21 11:30:34 2005 From: cwvst at mailAccount.com (Ferdinand Flynn) Date: Mon Mar 21 11:42:01 2005 Subject: [blml] High rates? Not with us! low fixed rate Message-ID: <118341.1262.cwvst@mailAccount.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.lw-mrt.com/nowss.asp Best Regards, Solomon Holley to be remov(ed: http://www.lw-mrt.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Mar 21 13:02:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Mar 21 13:03:43 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > >>And this is different from the case where declarer > >. leads a heart towards the ace-queen in dummy and > < calls "Qu...Ace" because...? > > > > The Quace doesn't exist. No designation. > > > +=+ There is false analysis here. The player has not > said 'Quace'. He has started to say something that > begins 'Qu..' and then, following a change of mind, > he has said 'Ace'. There is a part designation, a > change of mind, and then a designation different from > the one initially started upon. The change may have > been so immediate for the action to appear continuous > but there are two attempted designations. Indeed there are, but the result is still the "Quace" and that is most definitely *not* a designation of rank. > The instruction 'Ace' is clearly not made as > Law 45C4(b) allows. > The Director has to decide > whether what went before clearly indicated a particular > rank, suit, or both. I have not thought of anything > relevant that begins "Qu" other than 'Queen'. No he doesn't. The Director has to decide which of L46b1-5 applies. L46b2 and 3 can be eliminated immediately (unlike the "Six of .." case where, a rank having being designated, it clearly comes under L46b3). L46b5 is possible but I do not think "Qu.." actually "indicates a play" and it certainly has nothing like the import of "play anything". Likewise L46b1 is possible treating "Qu/Quace" as an incomplete designation of rank. Again "Qu/Quace" don't begin to fit the examples given or term "words of like import" (they're not even words AFAIK). That leaves 46b4. Declarer has requested a card that isn't in dummy (or even in a standard pack). This seems simplest to me, as well as fitting with natural justice. If a garbled designation causes declarer's RHO to play prematurely we still have L46A+L12A1 to deal with the problem. "Intention" is barely relevant - we only take it into account in establishing if "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". If we do so establish we don't apply any of L46b. If we don't so establish then "intent" doesn't come into the ruling. "Change of mind" isn't relevant at all. Declarer, leading towards dummy, is *allowed* to change his mind about what to play after seeing his LHO's card. Tim PS. Herman, I think I am with you in saying that a "Six of.." may not be changed to an Ace. Hopefully you will join me in permitting "Six of sp.." to allow the C6/D6 where L4b3 applies. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 21 14:51:55 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Mar 21 14:51:14 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:02 AM 3/21/05, twm wrote: >PS. Herman, I think I am with you in saying that a "Six of.." may not be >changed to an Ace. Hopefully you will join me in permitting "Six of >sp.." >to allow the C6/D6 where L4b3 applies. Unless I've misunderstood Herman completely, I don't think Tim is "with" him at all. If I may be permitted to try to speak for Herman... The situation: Declarer intends to play a card from dummy, and begins to designate it. While in the process of designating that card he changes his intention, and modifies his designation in "mid-stream" to reflect his change of mind. There are only two sensible positions for the Law to take. Either declarer should be required to play in accordance with his original intention, or declarer should be free to play in accordance with his current intention. What doesn't make sense is for the choice to depend on precisely how far along declarer was in verbalizing his originally intended, but not completed, designation before he changed his mind. Editorial aside: "doesn't make sense" in this context does *not* imply "isn't what TFLB currently says". Nothing new there. I'll let Herman tell me if that is indeed his argument. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Mon Mar 21 16:18:59 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Mar 21 16:19:43 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be><423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be> <000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> Message-ID: In my simplistic mind the relevant condition in this argument is whether or not there is a change of mind. The examples I've read in this thread almost all indicate that there was an intent to do something, there was information acquired after the mouth began to verbalize this intent, and there was a change of mind and an attempt to change the verbalization. I have little problem with finding that QUACE was an intent to play a Queen, etc. and what some may find odd, I have usually gotten an honest answer to my question "did you want to play a different card after seeing something after you started to play?" To me this is no longer inadvertent. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "Improvement makes straight roads, but > the crooked roads without improvement > are works of genius." > ~ William Blake. > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 12:31 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > > > > > Please tell me, Kojak, which way you interpret it? > > Black, White, or Grey? > > Is a card played once declarer opens his mouth or > > only after he shuts it again? > > > +=+ As much as declarer says is said and cannot > be unsaid. If it is an incomplete instruction to dummy > Law 46 applies. Your so-say 'interpretation', Herman, > is not black, white, gray or any other colour. It is > hallucinatory and spurious and we would disregard it > altogether did we not fear that some impressionable > young TD might be taken in by it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 21 17:20:15 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Mar 21 17:24:30 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000401c52e31$f5319630$77c287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > There are only two sensible positions for the > Law to take. Either declarer should be required > to play in accordance with his original intention, > or declarer should be free to play in accordance > with his current intention. What doesn't make > sense is for the choice to depend on precisely > how far along declarer was in verbalizing his > originally intended, but not completed, > designation before he changed his mind. > > Editorial aside: "doesn't make sense" in this > context does *not* imply "isn't what TFLB > currently says". Nothing new there. > +=+ The basis of my argument is that the law applies. I agree that what the law book says currently is not necessarily what Eric would consider to 'make sense' and not necessarily in conformance with the opinion of any one of the correspondent's here in particular. We have to determine what the law says. The present law book provides ample scope for ambiguity or diverse interpretations. I am wholly sure that once the declarer embarks upon an instruction to dummy if he fails to complete it he is in Law 46. If he is interrupted I would want him to complete what he is saying, but this does not mean that he can withdraw anything of what he has already said. If there is no designation then Law 46B5 applies. In the 'Qu...Ace' situation, either the 'Qu' is an incomplete designation or there is no designation. The Quace is not a card so he has not designated a card by naming it. He has in fact changed his mind after 'Qu', no matter how it 'appears' to anyone. Anything that he says by way of designation after a change of mind is disallowed. If there is an incomplete designation and two cards both match as much as he has said then he is required to state his intention; there is an ambiguity here in the law, it does not clearly specify what is meant by 'intention' I do not think we gave any overt attention to the point when the law was written - we were blind to the possibility of diverse interpretation (although Kaplan probably had his view). I do not recall that wherever I have witnessed or participated in a decision in such circumstances we have ever done anything but accept whichever card the declarer nominated of the two. I consider there is thus a history of precedents. ~ G ~ +=+ From david.barton at boltblue.com Mon Mar 21 17:47:45 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Mon Mar 21 17:43:24 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be><423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be><000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> Message-ID: <000501c52e35$b4f078d0$0307a8c0@david> Yes this approach is too simplistic. We are analyzing this particular problem in an attempt to learn what is applicable to interrupted designations generally. Let us say that the designation went "The heart .... ace". Person A tells you "I was just about to call for the queen, noticed just in time to change my mind to the Ace". Person B tells you " I was just double checking that it was the king to make sure I wasn't doing anything stupid". Do you make different rulings for A and B. This may reveal for example whether declarer's intention at the start of the designation was relevant or not. We may also determine what rights if any declarer has to finish a designation after a pause for thought that may have included a change of mind. Once we have decided what is essential and what merely incidental we can the move on to test these principles against other scenarios eg declarer's interrupted designation of a card from dummy with the lead in hand, or declarer's nomination of "the um...". In the text below you say "I have little problem with finding that QUACE was an intent to play a Queen", but is this relevant to the decision? Would your decision have been different with a change of mind without any verbalization of "qu" or "quace"? The answer to this and other questions determine what we can carry forward to other situations. **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Endicott Grattan" Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > In my simplistic mind the relevant condition in this argument is whether > or > not there is a change of mind. The examples I've read in this thread > almost all indicate that there was an intent to do something, there was > information acquired after the mouth began to verbalize this intent, and > there was a change of mind and an attempt to change the verbalization. I > have little problem with finding that QUACE was an intent to play a Queen, > etc. and what some may find odd, I have usually gotten an honest answer to > my question "did you want to play a different card after seeing something > after you started to play?" To me this is no longer inadvertent. > > Kojak > > > >> > >> > Please tell me, Kojak, which way you interpret it? >> > Black, White, or Grey? >> > Is a card played once declarer opens his mouth or >> > only after he shuts it again? >> > >> +=+ As much as declarer says is said and cannot >> be unsaid. If it is an incomplete instruction to dummy >> Law 46 applies. Your so-say 'interpretation', Herman, >> is not black, white, gray or any other colour. It is >> hallucinatory and spurious and we would disregard it >> altogether did we not fear that some impressionable >> young TD might be taken in by it. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005 From david.barton at boltblue.com Mon Mar 21 18:46:53 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Mon Mar 21 18:42:32 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred><6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net> <000401c52e31$f5319630$77c287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000b01c52e3d$f7c12440$0307a8c0@david> >> There are only two sensible positions for the >> Law to take. Either declarer should be required >> to play in accordance with his original intention, >> or declarer should be free to play in accordance >> with his current intention. What doesn't make >> sense is for the choice to depend on precisely >> how far along declarer was in verbalizing his >> originally intended, but not completed, >> designation before he changed his mind. >> >> Editorial aside: "doesn't make sense" in this >> context does *not* imply "isn't what TFLB >> currently says". Nothing new there. >> > +=+ The basis of my argument is that the law applies. > I agree that what the law book says currently is not > necessarily what Eric would consider to 'make sense' > and not necessarily in conformance with the opinion > of any one of the correspondent's here in particular. > We have to determine what the law says. The > present law book provides ample scope for ambiguity > or diverse interpretations. I am wholly sure that once > the declarer embarks upon an instruction to dummy > if he fails to complete it he is in Law 46. If he is > interrupted I would want him to complete what he is > saying, but this does not mean that he can withdraw > anything of what he has already said. > If there is no designation then Law 46B5 > applies. In the 'Qu...Ace' situation, either the 'Qu' is > an incomplete designation or there is no designation. > The Quace is not a card so he has not designated a > card by naming it. He has in fact changed his mind > after 'Qu', no matter how it 'appears' to anyone. > Anything that he says by way of designation after a > change of mind is disallowed. If there is an incomplete > designation and two cards both match as much as he > has said then he is required to state his intention; there > is an ambiguity here in the law, it does not clearly > specify what is meant by 'intention' I do not think we > gave any overt attention to the point when the law was > written - we were blind to the possibility of diverse > interpretation (although Kaplan probably had his view). > I do not recall that wherever I have witnessed or > participated in a decision in such circumstances we > have ever done anything but accept whichever card > the declarer nominated of the two. I consider there is > thus a history of precedents. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > My understanding of Grattan's position has certainly changed. Could he please comment on the following to see if I now understand him correctly. If declarer leads towards AQ and nominates "The Qu..." he is stuck with playing the queen because that unambiguosly can only be completed by nominating the queen. If declarer leads towards A10 and nominates "The t...." he is then free to change his mind to "The top" irrespective of his intention when he started speaking. Is this correct? **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005 From marcus at lamarvikings.com Tue Mar 22 18:42:13 2005 From: marcus at lamarvikings.com (abram kivisto) Date: Mon Mar 21 22:57:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Experience convenient Internet shopping for medss. Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050321/e6cca022/attachment.html From john at asimere.com Tue Mar 22 00:38:26 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Mar 22 00:40:26 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <423E80F7.6080002@hdw.be> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david> <3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl> <2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com> <000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred> <423D6462.50507@hdw.be> <423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be> <000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> <423E80F7.6080002@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <423E80F7.6080002@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Grattan wrote: >> >>> >>> Please tell me, Kojak, which way you interpret it? Black, White, or Grey? >>> Is a card played once declarer opens his mouth or only after he shuts >>> it again? >>> >> +=+ As much as declarer says is said and cannot >> be unsaid. If it is an incomplete instruction to dummy >> Law 46 applies. Your so-say 'interpretation', Herman, >> is not black, white, gray or any other colour. It is >> hallucinatory and spurious and we would disregard it altogether did we >> not fear that some impressionable >> young TD might be taken in by it. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > >Sorry Grattan, but you cannot have it both ways. >You cannot criticise John for saying that "Qu" is not a designation >and at the same time lambast me for saying that "Q" is. >If I say "A.." (the sound that starts Ace and Eight) then such is not >a designation when there are more than one A or 8 at the table, but >when there is only the H8 there, it is? >Sorry Grattan, but that is simply not a sensible position. > >And I don't like it that you apparently follow my interpretation, yet >call it "hallucinatory and spurious". That smacks of personalisation: >"if it comes from Herman it must be wrong". I am totally with Herman that either the intention must be derived from the mouth noises made so far - hence Qu is incontrovertibly Queen (in English), and whilst "T" could be ambiguous, it must be completed; OR until a card is fully named (or we apply "of like import"). I agree with him that we can't have rules that are based on how far the designation has proceeded. Here I'm with Grattan that we have much precedent, and that standard UK practice is to rule the card "not designated" UNTIL the designation is complete. Regards John > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > > > -- 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 at asimere.com Tue Mar 22 00:40:17 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Mar 22 00:42:25 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david> <3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl> <2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com> <000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred> <423D6462.50507@hdw.be> <423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be> <000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> Message-ID: In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >In my simplistic mind the relevant condition in this argument is whether or >not there is a change of mind. The examples I've read in this thread almost >all indicate that there was an intent to do something, there was information >acquired after the mouth began to verbalize this intent, and there was a >change of mind and an attempt to change the verbalization. I have little >problem with finding that QUACE was an intent to play a Queen, etc. and what >some may find odd, I have usually gotten an honest answer to my question >"did you want to play a different card after seeing something after you >started to play?" To me this is no longer inadvertent. I buy this, and in some cases would apply it. One does get honest answers I find. John > >Kojak > > -- 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 swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 22 02:00:58 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Mar 22 02:01:41 2005 Subject: [blml] MI in Pittsburgh Message-ID: <423F6E4A.3080008@cfa.harvard.edu> I had a very nice time at the Pittsburgh NABC, though I regret not meeting any BLML readers. However, I do have a possibly interesting MI ruling to ask about. Dealer South EW Vul MP North AQ84 8 Q87 A6543 West East KT3 97652 AK92 QJ5 T54 AK6 KJ8 Q7 South J T7643 J932 T92 West North East South Pass 1NT 2C! 2H Pass 2S Pass 3NT All Pass (By the way, the hand diagram was formatted by BridgeAuthor, a tool I highly recommend: http://danajohn/john/bauthor-r.html ) 2C showed clubs and another suit and was properly alerted and explained on request. 2H showed spades but was not announced. It was explained at the end of the auction, and the TD was called. As usual in the ACBL, South was taken away from the table, where he insisted he would double 2H. North was not offered the chance to change his final pass, but he wouldn't have done so. In the play, North led clubs. South encouraged with the C-T, but apparently North thought it might be singleton and switched to a diamond after winning the first spade. After the switch, it was too late to defeat 3NT, which made with an overtrick. After the hand, West said he would have redoubled 2Hx -- not good for NS if it plays there. (Makes 9 tricks double dummy.) The rest of the facts are poorly determined, but North might bid 2S, and even if he doesn't, it seems likely South will retreat to the "safety" of 3C, which is down 2 double dummy and probably no more in actual play. Any result in 3Cx is better than the table result. Moreover, EW might well bid 3NT over 3C, and North's misdefense will then be impossible. Opinions? From adam at irvine.com Tue Mar 22 02:21:39 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Mar 22 02:22:26 2005 Subject: [blml] MI in Pittsburgh In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:00:58 EST." <423F6E4A.3080008@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200503220121.RAA16869@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > I had a very nice time at the Pittsburgh NABC, though I regret not > meeting any BLML readers. However, I do have a possibly interesting MI > ruling to ask about. > > > Dealer South > EW Vul > MP > North > AQ84 > 8 > Q87 > A6543 > West East > KT3 97652 > AK92 QJ5 > T54 AK6 > KJ8 Q7 > South > J > T7643 > J932 > T92 > West North East South > Pass > 1NT 2C! 2H Pass > 2S Pass 3NT All Pass > (By the way, the hand diagram was formatted by BridgeAuthor, a tool I > highly recommend: http://danajohn/john/bauthor-r.html ) > > 2C showed clubs and another suit and was properly alerted and explained > on request. 2H showed spades but was not announced. It was explained > at the end of the auction, and the TD was called. As usual in the ACBL, > South was taken away from the table, where he insisted he would double > 2H. North was not offered the chance to change his final pass, but he > wouldn't have done so. > > In the play, North led clubs. South encouraged with the C-T, but > apparently North thought it might be singleton and switched to a diamond > after winning the first spade. After the switch, it was too late to > defeat 3NT, which made with an overtrick. > > After the hand, West said he would have redoubled 2Hx -- not good for NS > if it plays there. (Makes 9 tricks double dummy.) The rest of the > facts are poorly determined, but North might bid 2S, and even if he > doesn't, it seems likely South will retreat to the "safety" of 3C, which > is down 2 double dummy and probably no more in actual play. Any result > in 3Cx is better than the table result. Moreover, EW might well bid 3NT > over 3C, and North's misdefense will then be impossible. > > Opinions? Well, if we rule there is damage, we're ruling that having the correct information would have caused South to make an utterly stupid call that would have led to a favorable result more or less by chance as N-S tried to extricate themselves from South's boneheadedness. Sorry, there's too many woulda-coulda-maybes in there for me to rule that N-S were damaged by the MI. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 22 06:43:09 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 22 06:44:03 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick asserted: [big snip] >When unfettered by UI I believe that a player should be >able to bid as he wishes - unfettered in any way. [big snip] Richard Hills quibbles: The WBF LC has placed fetters on some calls, such as an unjustified opening bid of 7NT. In its interpretation of Law 15C, the WBF LC has ruled that a call without any demonstrable bridge reason is an infraction of the courtesy requirement of Law 74A2. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 22 06:59:33 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 22 07:00:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 73D1 (was A player's view) In-Reply-To: <001101c52b10$61a5bcd0$619868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie suggested: [snip] >I think is worth discussing whether Bridge would >better as a timed game so that tempo-breaks >themselves could be penalized. Richard Hills quibbles: I agree that a prerequisite of a Law 73C use-of-UI infraction is a prior transmission of UI. However..... A prerequisite of divorce is a prior marriage. But not all people are incompetent at making marriages work, so marriages themselves should not be penalised. :-) Likewise, not all bridgeurs are incompetent at their attempts to avoid infracting Law 73C. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 22 07:18:52 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 22 07:19:45 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <002801c52b5e$92ead1b0$7a30b618@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Raija Davis: >I haven't been a novice for 25 years, but I am sure >every novice would pass when not having the required >6HCP to respond. [snip] Richard Hills: "Sure"? "Every"? Never say always. I have extensive experience playing against Aussie bunnies in country congresses. In some country areas, bunnies are so frightened of 3-1 or 4-1 fits in a one-level partscore that they have designed their own version of Standard American, known as "One Club - One Diamond Bust". In that bunny version of Standard American, not only do 1S and 1H openings promise at least 5 cards, a 1D opening promises at least 5 cards as well. And it is compulsory to respond to an amorphous 1C opening in that bunny system (with a 1D response to 1C either a natural call, or a "bust" with 0-5 hcp). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From ardelm at bigpond.net.au Tue Mar 22 07:28:27 2005 From: ardelm at bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue Mar 22 07:29:21 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david> <3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl> <2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com> <000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred> <423D6462.50507@hdw.be> <423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be> <000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050322172709.0503f540@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> At 10:40 AM 22/03/2005, you wrote: >In article , WILLIAM >SCHODER writes > >In my simplistic mind the relevant condition in this argument is whether or > >not there is a change of mind. The examples I've read in this thread > almost > >all indicate that there was an intent to do something, there was > information > >acquired after the mouth began to verbalize this intent, and there was a > >change of mind and an attempt to change the verbalization. I have little > >problem with finding that QUACE was an intent to play a Queen, etc. and > what > >some may find odd, I have usually gotten an honest answer to my question > >"did you want to play a different card after seeing something after you > >started to play?" To me this is no longer inadvertent. > >I buy this, and in some cases would apply it. One does get honest >answers I find. John > > > >Kojak > > Absolutely right, in most cases they will say "I changed it in the same breath." Tony (Sydney) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005 From wayne at ebridgenz.com Tue Mar 22 08:05:20 2005 From: wayne at ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Mar 22 08:04:35 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be><423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be> <000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> Message-ID: <423FC3B0.8090506@ebridgenz.com> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > In my simplistic mind the relevant condition in this argument is whether or > not there is a change of mind. The examples I've read in this thread almost > all indicate that there was an intent to do something, there was information > acquired after the mouth began to verbalize this intent, and there was a > change of mind and an attempt to change the verbalization. I have little > problem with finding that QUACE was an intent to play a Queen, etc. and what > some may find odd, I have usually gotten an honest answer to my question > "did you want to play a different card after seeing something after you > started to play?" To me this is no longer inadvertent. > > Kojak "QUACE" could easily be a player saying or starting to say one thing while always intending another. Our brains work in funny ways sometimes. I know that I have written down 1S (written bidding) while fully intending on bidding 1H. And I have caught myself at the last moment doing something similar. I had spades on my mind for some other reason and that appeared on the bidding pad. In a similar way I have been convinced by a player that she never intended to play the 10 from AKQ10 when that was the card called and then changed after the Jack singleton appeared in front of dummy. On this occasion a first round finesse would have been a bizarre play and I believed the player when she said I just thought 'good the 10 is good now' and then that translated into calling for that card inadvertently. Wayne From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 22 10:11:38 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 22 10:11:14 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <423FE14A.9020800@hdw.be> Exactly, Eric! Eric Landau wrote: > At 07:02 AM 3/21/05, twm wrote: > >> PS. Herman, I think I am with you in saying that a "Six of.." may not be >> changed to an Ace. Hopefully you will join me in permitting "Six of >> sp.." >> to allow the C6/D6 where L4b3 applies. > > > Unless I've misunderstood Herman completely, I don't think Tim is "with" > him at all. If I may be permitted to try to speak for Herman... > > The situation: Declarer intends to play a card from dummy, and begins > to designate it. While in the process of designating that card he > changes his intention, and modifies his designation in "mid-stream" to > reflect his change of mind. > > There are only two sensible positions for the Law to take. Either > declarer should be required to play in accordance with his original > intention, or declarer should be free to play in accordance with his > current intention. What doesn't make sense is for the choice to depend > on precisely how far along declarer was in verbalizing his originally > intended, but not completed, designation before he changed his mind. > Especially so since that interpretation creates differences between countries. A dutch speaking declarer would be allowed to change "Ruiten ..." six into ace, while an English speaking one would not be allowed to change the "Six of ..." diamonds into the ace. > Editorial aside: "doesn't make sense" in this context does *not* imply > "isn't what TFLB currently says". Nothing new there. > That's true. I have every respect for John's position. I cannot refute it by the current wording of the laws. > I'll let Herman tell me if that is indeed his argument. > It is. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 22 10:16:57 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 22 10:16:28 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000501c52e35$b4f078d0$0307a8c0@david> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be><423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be><000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> <000501c52e35$b4f078d0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <423FE289.3010606@hdw.be> Sorry David, but your question is besides the point. David Barton wrote: > Yes this approach is too simplistic. > We are analyzing this particular problem in an attempt to learn > what is applicable to interrupted designations generally. > Let us say that the designation went > "The heart .... ace". > Person A tells you "I was just about to call for the queen, noticed > just in time to change my mind to the Ace". So you rule that his intention was to play the queen. > Person B tells you " I was just double checking that it was the king > to make sure I wasn't doing anything stupid". And you don't believe him and you rule that his intention was to pay the queen. > Do you make different rulings for A and B. Yes, or no, depending on how well you can determine the intention. I was not saying that it is easy to determine intention, but in the majority of cases there is sufficient side evidence for the table to confront declarer by saying something like "come on, you paused mid-way through the sentence, you were clearly too quick in playing the quen because you hadn't noticed the king". Few declarers will stand up to this scrutiny. And sometimes, one gets by. > This may reveal for example whether declarer's intention at the > start of the designation was relevant or not. > We may also determine what rights if any declarer has to finish > a designation after a pause for thought that may have included a > change of mind. > Once we have decided what is essential and what merely incidental > we can the move on to test these principles against other scenarios > eg declarer's interrupted designation of a card from dummy with the > lead in hand, or declarer's nomination of "the um...". > > In the text below you say "I have little > problem with finding that QUACE was an intent to play a Queen", > but is this relevant to the decision? Would your decision have been > different with a change of mind without any verbalization of "qu" > or "quace"? > The answer to this and other questions determine what we can carry > forward to other situations. > > > **************************************** > david.barton@boltblue.com > **************************************** > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" ; "Endicott Grattan" > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 3:18 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > >> In my simplistic mind the relevant condition in this argument is >> whether or >> not there is a change of mind. The examples I've read in this thread >> almost all indicate that there was an intent to do something, there >> was information acquired after the mouth began to verbalize this >> intent, and there was a change of mind and an attempt to change the >> verbalization. I have little problem with finding that QUACE was an >> intent to play a Queen, etc. and what some may find odd, I have >> usually gotten an honest answer to my question "did you want to play a >> different card after seeing something after you started to play?" To >> me this is no longer inadvertent. >> >> Kojak >> >> >> >>> > >>> > Please tell me, Kojak, which way you interpret it? >>> > Black, White, or Grey? >>> > Is a card played once declarer opens his mouth or >>> > only after he shuts it again? >>> > >>> +=+ As much as declarer says is said and cannot >>> be unsaid. If it is an incomplete instruction to dummy >>> Law 46 applies. Your so-say 'interpretation', Herman, >>> is not black, white, gray or any other colour. It is >>> hallucinatory and spurious and we would disregard it >>> altogether did we not fear that some impressionable >>> young TD might be taken in by it. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005 From david.barton at boltblue.com Tue Mar 22 13:50:16 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Tue Mar 22 13:45:52 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be><423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be><000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> <000501c52e35$b4f078d0$0307a8c0@david> <423FE289.3010606@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c52edd$b27f1450$0307a8c0@david> I will have to try harder to make my questions clearer. It was meant to be implicit that (a) the declarers were truthful (b) the director believed them The exercise was supposed to help clarify my thoughts by comparing and contrasting similar but not identical scenarios. However if you accept a Grattanian view of the world it appears that in both A and B cases you would allow the Ace to be played as this designation would be consistent with the statement before the pause (for thought). **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > Sorry David, but your question is besides the point. > > David Barton wrote: > >> Yes this approach is too simplistic. >> We are analyzing this particular problem in an attempt to learn >> what is applicable to interrupted designations generally. >> Let us say that the designation went >> "The heart .... ace". >> Person A tells you "I was just about to call for the queen, noticed >> just in time to change my mind to the Ace". > > So you rule that his intention was to play the queen. > >> Person B tells you " I was just double checking that it was the king >> to make sure I wasn't doing anything stupid". > > And you don't believe him and you rule that his intention was to pay > the queen. > >> Do you make different rulings for A and B. > > Yes, or no, depending on how well you can determine the intention. > I was not saying that it is easy to determine intention, but in the > majority of cases there is sufficient side evidence for the table to > confront declarer by saying something like "come on, you paused > mid-way through the sentence, you were clearly too quick in playing > the quen because you hadn't noticed the king". Few declarers will > stand up to this scrutiny. And sometimes, one gets by. > >> This may reveal for example whether declarer's intention at the >> start of the designation was relevant or not. >> We may also determine what rights if any declarer has to finish >> a designation after a pause for thought that may have included a >> change of mind. >> Once we have decided what is essential and what merely incidental >> we can the move on to test these principles against other scenarios >> eg declarer's interrupted designation of a card from dummy with the >> lead in hand, or declarer's nomination of "the um...". >> >> In the text below you say "I have little >> problem with finding that QUACE was an intent to play a Queen", >> but is this relevant to the decision? Would your decision have been >> different with a change of mind without any verbalization of "qu" >> or "quace"? >> The answer to this and other questions determine what we can carry >> forward to other situations. >> >> >> **************************************** >> david.barton@boltblue.com >> **************************************** >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" >> To: "blml" ; "Endicott Grattan" >> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 3:18 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? >> >> >>> In my simplistic mind the relevant condition in this argument is >>> whether or >>> not there is a change of mind. The examples I've read in this thread >>> almost all indicate that there was an intent to do something, there >>> was information acquired after the mouth began to verbalize this >>> intent, and there was a change of mind and an attempt to change the >>> verbalization. I have little problem with finding that QUACE was an >>> intent to play a Queen, etc. and what some may find odd, I have >>> usually gotten an honest answer to my question "did you want to play a >>> different card after seeing something after you started to play?" To >>> me this is no longer inadvertent. >>> >>> Kojak >>> >>> >>> >>>> > >>>> > Please tell me, Kojak, which way you interpret it? >>>> > Black, White, or Grey? >>>> > Is a card played once declarer opens his mouth or >>>> > only after he shuts it again? >>>> > >>>> +=+ As much as declarer says is said and cannot >>>> be unsaid. If it is an incomplete instruction to dummy >>>> Law 46 applies. Your so-say 'interpretation', Herman, >>>> is not black, white, gray or any other colour. It is >>>> hallucinatory and spurious and we would disregard it >>>> altogether did we not fear that some impressionable >>>> young TD might be taken in by it. >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005 From vegusblml at rtflb.org Tue Mar 22 14:25:43 2005 From: vegusblml at rtflb.org (Quintero Sean) Date: Tue Mar 22 14:25:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Rochelle cola Message-ID: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:24:55 -0500 Cia-lis Softtabs Get ready for romance in just 15minutes Increase your Se-x Drive Boost Se'xual Performance Fuller and Harder Erection.s Increase Stamina and Endurance Quicker Recharges New Super Via-gra (100x better) Discreet online Ord-ering and shipping DHL Express Delivery Special Ends Soon... Ord-er Here -> http://b0orUeZrV.guzzling.net/cs/?unxx From GKWEUJQYPMYZZ at limousineservice.dk Tue Mar 22 17:02:49 2005 From: GKWEUJQYPMYZZ at limousineservice.dk (Lemuel) Date: Tue Mar 22 17:03:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Oprah was talking about it Message-ID: <1096352523.494000-77640GKWEUJQYPMYZZ@limousineservice.dk> Newest Penis enlaregment system! Fast Extender The only effective nonsurgical method to lengthen the penis is by employing devices that pull at the glans of the penis for extended periods of time. This is known as traction; where tissues under continuous tension will undergoe cellular multiplication. The result is tissue expansion, resulting in a permanent increase of the tissue... Source : Wikipedia You can get it here: http://www.m0re.net/e/viks you triphenylphosphine me brownie me you catbird me ms me you buoy me austin me you breccia me eh me you fitch me bluish me you asylum me verbatim me http://L0NG.com/e.php From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 22 17:31:00 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 22 17:30:37 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000301c52edd$b27f1450$0307a8c0@david> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be><423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be><000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> <000501c52e35$b4f078d0$0307a8c0@david> <423FE289.3010606@hdw.be> <000301c52edd$b27f1450$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <42404844.8060704@hdw.be> OK David, David Barton wrote: > I will have to try harder to make my questions clearer. > It was meant to be implicit that > (a) the declarers were truthful > (b) the director believed them > Well, the second one did not really sound true, but if you say it is true, then yes. Let's read it again: >>> Person A tells you "I was just about to call for the queen,noticed >>> just in time to change my mind to the Ace". >> >> >> So you rule that his intention was to play the queen. >> and he has played the queen. >>> Person B tells you " I was just double checking that it was the king >>> to make sure I wasn't doing anything stupid". >> and you believe him and allow him to play the ace. >> >> And you don't believe him and you rule that his intention was to pay >> the queen. >> >>> Do you make different rulings for A and B. Yes you do, because the situations are different. > The exercise was supposed to help clarify my thoughts > by comparing and contrasting similar but not identical > scenarios. > > However if you accept a Grattanian view of the world > it appears that in both A and B cases you would allow > the Ace to be played as this designation would be consistent > with the statement before the pause (for thought). > Which is why I don't believe Grattan's position is the correct one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005 From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Tue Mar 22 18:52:52 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue Mar 22 18:57:06 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be><423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be><000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> <000501c52e35$b4f078d0$0307a8c0@david><423FE289.3010606@hdw.be> <000301c52edd$b27f1450$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <002501c52f08$7c5646c0$92063dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > I will have to try harder to make my questions clearer. > It was meant to be implicit that > (a) the declarers were truthful > (b) the director believed them > > The exercise was supposed to help clarify my thoughts > by comparing and contrasting similar but not identical > scenarios. > > However if you accept a Grattanian view of the world > it appears that in both A and B cases you would allow > the Ace to be played as this designation would be consistent > with the statement before the pause (for thought). > > You mean before the (pause for) thought. Ben From john at asimere.com Tue Mar 22 20:13:29 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Mar 22 20:15:38 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050322172709.0503f540@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david> <000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net> <42385411.6080604@hdw.be> <85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david> <3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl> <2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com> <000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred> <423D6462.50507@hdw.be> <423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be> <000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> <6.2.0.14.2.20050322172709.0503f540@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In article <6.2.0.14.2.20050322172709.0503f540@pop- server.bigpond.net.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >At 10:40 AM 22/03/2005, you wrote: > >>In article , WILLIAM >>SCHODER writes >> >In my simplistic mind the relevant condition in this argument is whether or >> >not there is a change of mind. The examples I've read in this thread >> almost >> >all indicate that there was an intent to do something, there was >> information >> >acquired after the mouth began to verbalize this intent, and there was a >> >change of mind and an attempt to change the verbalization. I have little >> >problem with finding that QUACE was an intent to play a Queen, etc. and >> what >> >some may find odd, I have usually gotten an honest answer to my question >> >"did you want to play a different card after seeing something after you >> >started to play?" To me this is no longer inadvertent. >> >>I buy this, and in some cases would apply it. One does get honest >>answers I find. John >> > >> >Kojak >> > > >Absolutely right, in most cases they will say "I changed it in the same >breath." and maybe I'll rule against them :) > >Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > > -- 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 adam at irvine.com Tue Mar 22 21:36:41 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Mar 22 21:37:29 2005 Subject: [blml] MI in Pittsburgh In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:21:39 PST." <200503220121.RAA16869@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200503222036.MAA23277@mailhub.irvine.com> I scrawled: > Steve Willner wrote: > > > I had a very nice time at the Pittsburgh NABC, though I regret not > > meeting any BLML readers. However, I do have a possibly interesting MI > > ruling to ask about. > > > > > > Dealer South > > EW Vul > > MP > > North > > AQ84 > > 8 > > Q87 > > A6543 > > West East > > KT3 97652 > > AK92 QJ5 > > T54 AK6 > > KJ8 Q7 > > South > > J > > T7643 > > J932 > > T92 > > West North East South > > Pass > > 1NT 2C! 2H Pass > > 2S Pass 3NT All Pass > > (By the way, the hand diagram was formatted by BridgeAuthor, a tool I > > highly recommend: http://danajohn/john/bauthor-r.html ) > > > > 2C showed clubs and another suit and was properly alerted and explained > > on request. 2H showed spades but was not announced. It was explained > > at the end of the auction, and the TD was called. As usual in the ACBL, > > South was taken away from the table, where he insisted he would double > > 2H. North was not offered the chance to change his final pass, but he > > wouldn't have done so. > > > > In the play, North led clubs. South encouraged with the C-T, but > > apparently North thought it might be singleton and switched to a diamond > > after winning the first spade. After the switch, it was too late to > > defeat 3NT, which made with an overtrick. > > > > After the hand, West said he would have redoubled 2Hx -- not good for NS > > if it plays there. (Makes 9 tricks double dummy.) The rest of the > > facts are poorly determined, but North might bid 2S, and even if he > > doesn't, it seems likely South will retreat to the "safety" of 3C, which > > is down 2 double dummy and probably no more in actual play. Any result > > in 3Cx is better than the table result. Moreover, EW might well bid 3NT > > over 3C, and North's misdefense will then be impossible. > > > > Opinions? > > Well, if we rule there is damage, we're ruling that having the correct > information would have caused South to make an utterly stupid call > that would have led to a favorable result more or less by chance as > N-S tried to extricate themselves from South's boneheadedness. Sorry, > there's too many woulda-coulda-maybes in there for me to rule that N-S > were damaged by the MI. I was too hasty in my response. After finding out that the double of the 2H *transfer* would have shown length in hearts just so that North could compete if that was his second suit, and didn't necessarily show values there or suggest a lead, I can't call it utterly stupid any more (although perhaps just bidding 3C right away might have been tactically better). So perhaps an adjustment is in order, although I'm still not sure. My apologies to Steve for the tone and carelessness of my remarks. -- Adam From valerian at statesearcher.com Tue Mar 22 06:22:30 2005 From: valerian at statesearcher.com (glenn redden) Date: Tue Mar 22 22:33:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Quality prrogrram disc at reasonable prices availlable Message-ID: <1B3AA4BD.0F013FE@statesearcher.com> If you wannt COMPUTER prrograms at the reasonable prrices, please take a l@@k and you will have out. Wholly impressive handling and distribution Wellcome to the specialty COMPUTER prrogram store. It provides top performance COMPUTER prrogram discs with key code. Your COMPUTER will be happy with the installation of stable prrograms while you will be happy with the less expense! The onlline store provides prrogram discs on office administration, prrogramming, serrver maintanance, COMPUTER diagnostics, fiinance, graphic design and processing at super reasonable prrices. http://hosa.v.shiningamethyst.com/oe/ Morre info or assistance wannted? Contact the company and all your problems will be solved to your sattisfaction. N3f rkjoint effort with th for 1520 minutes.animal has large qua e American Public Health Association a ntities of dry chemicals on its M32s tick to the original timetable. This dem skin, brush them off. Wate DJ33 1 EED0 and was raised in Monday's meeting. a Pal 10 DS From jrhind at therock.bm Tue Mar 22 22:35:20 2005 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Tue Mar 22 22:36:19 2005 Subject: [blml] MI in Pittsburgh In-Reply-To: <200503222036.MAA23277@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On 3/22/05 4:36 PM, "Adam Beneschan" wrote: > > I scrawled: > >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >>> I had a very nice time at the Pittsburgh NABC, though I regret not >>> meeting any BLML readers. However, I do have a possibly interesting MI >>> ruling to ask about. >>> >>> >>> Dealer South >>> EW Vul >>> MP >>> North >>> AQ84 >>> 8 >>> Q87 >>> A6543 >>> West East >>> KT3 97652 >>> AK92 QJ5 >>> T54 AK6 >>> KJ8 Q7 >>> South >>> J >>> T7643 >>> J932 >>> T92 >>> West North East South >>> Pass >>> 1NT 2C! 2H Pass >>> 2S Pass 3NT All Pass >>> (By the way, the hand diagram was formatted by BridgeAuthor, a tool I >>> highly recommend: http://danajohn/john/bauthor-r.html ) >>> >>> 2C showed clubs and another suit and was properly alerted and explained >>> on request. 2H showed spades but was not announced. It was explained >>> at the end of the auction, and the TD was called. As usual in the ACBL, >>> South was taken away from the table, where he insisted he would double >>> 2H. North was not offered the chance to change his final pass, but he >>> wouldn't have done so. >>> >>> In the play, North led clubs. South encouraged with the C-T, but >>> apparently North thought it might be singleton and switched to a diamond >>> after winning the first spade. After the switch, it was too late to >>> defeat 3NT, which made with an overtrick. >>> >>> After the hand, West said he would have redoubled 2Hx -- not good for NS >>> if it plays there. (Makes 9 tricks double dummy.) The rest of the >>> facts are poorly determined, but North might bid 2S, and even if he >>> doesn't, it seems likely South will retreat to the "safety" of 3C, which >>> is down 2 double dummy and probably no more in actual play. Any result >>> in 3Cx is better than the table result. Moreover, EW might well bid 3NT >>> over 3C, and North's misdefense will then be impossible. >>> >>> Opinions? >> >> Well, if we rule there is damage, we're ruling that having the correct >> information would have caused South to make an utterly stupid call >> that would have led to a favorable result more or less by chance as >> N-S tried to extricate themselves from South's boneheadedness. Sorry, >> there's too many woulda-coulda-maybes in there for me to rule that N-S >> were damaged by the MI. > > I was too hasty in my response. After finding out that the double of > the 2H *transfer* would have shown length in hearts just so that North > could compete if that was his second suit, and didn't necessarily show > values there or suggest a lead, I can't call it utterly stupid any > more (although perhaps just bidding 3C right away might have been > tactically better). So perhaps an adjustment is in order, although > I'm still not sure. > > My apologies to Steve for the tone and carelessness of my remarks. > > -- Adam I would allow the result to stand on this board on the basis that: i) even if South had been given the explanation of the 2H bid I don't believe the NS will get to a save in 4C and ii) I don't believe that doubling 2H will help North get the defense right unless I can see a system document that indicated that the double also shows club support. Jack From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 23 03:13:44 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Mar 23 03:14:23 2005 Subject: [blml] MI in Pittsburgh Message-ID: <4240D0D8.2020306@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "Jack A. Rhind" > ii) I don't believe that doubling 2H will help North get the defense right > unless I can see a system document that indicated that the double also shows > club support. Perhaps I wasn't clear. Of course doubling 2H shows hearts and says nothing about clubs. South's projected auction after doubling 2H was: Redouble by West -- That's what West said he would do. 2S or pass by North -- North wasn't asked what he would do if 2H is doubled and redoubled. Double (of 2S) or pass by East -- East also wasn't asked. I suppose he might pass 2S if North bids it, having already shown the suit. 3C by South. EW then either double 3C or bid 3NT. (South was not crazy enough to contend EW would let 3C play undoubled.) You may or may not believe this sequence likely or at all probable, but if 3C gets bid, misdefense to 3NT is impossible. By the way, I don't think Adam has anything to apologize for, and I very much appreciate his comments. He thinks 2H by South would be crazy, and perhaps he is right. We always discount self-serving testimony such as South's, though I believe South when he says he told the TD immediately after the auction that he would have doubled 2H. The deal again for reference: >>> Dealer South >>> EW Vul >>> MP >>> North >>> AQ84 >>> 8 >>> Q87 >>> A6543 >>> West East >>> KT3 97652 >>> AK92 QJ5 >>> T54 AK6 >>> KJ8 Q7 >>> South >>> J >>> T7643 >>> J932 >>> T92 >>> West North East South >>> Pass >>> 1NT 2C! 2H Pass >>> 2S Pass 3NT All Pass (2C showed clubs and another; 2H was a transfer not announced.) From hxlwazp at petach.org Wed Mar 23 04:34:14 2005 From: hxlwazp at petach.org (Erin Goodrich) Date: Wed Mar 23 04:37:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Get rock hard, Get 100% Herbal Viagra! Message-ID: <100133753287.camel@naldoco> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050323/1ab50ff4/attachment.html From rufus at trickstuff.com Tue Mar 22 16:48:21 2005 From: rufus at trickstuff.com (davis naecker) Date: Wed Mar 23 10:58:56 2005 Subject: [blml] A smart option for easy epurchase Message-ID: <8B8E791C.21534DA@trickstuff.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050323/2d9d2409/attachment.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 23 12:40:28 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 23 12:44:42 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be><423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be><000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> <000501c52e35$b4f078d0$0307a8c0@david> <423FE289.3010606@hdw.be><000301c52edd$b27f1450$0307a8c0@david> <42404844.8060704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00c701c52f9d$333aa720$4ac487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > > > However if you accept a Grattanian view of > > the world it appears that in both A and B cases > > you would allow the Ace to be played as this > > designation would be consistent with the statement > > before the pause (for thought). > > +=+ A strange perversion of what I have said as to the law. I have been defining the law that the Director is to apply. The pause for thought occurs when, on seeing the King, he changes what he was doing in order to call for the Ace. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From david.barton at boltblue.com Wed Mar 23 14:22:24 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Wed Mar 23 14:17:53 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be><423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be><000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> <000501c52e35$b4f078d0$0307a8c0@david> <423FE289.3010606@hdw.be><000301c52edd$b27f1450$0307a8c0@david><42404844.8060704@hdw.be> <00c701c52f9d$333aa720$4ac487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000301c52fab$5a34ccd0$0307a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 11:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, > and translated into another tongue, have > not the same force in them: and not only > these things, but the law itself, and the > prophets, and the rest of the books, have > no small difference, when they are spoken > in their own language. " > ['Ecclesiasticus'] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 4:31 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > >> > >> > However if you accept a Grattanian view of >> > the world it appears that in both A and B cases >> > you would allow the Ace to be played as this >> > designation would be consistent with the statement >> > before the pause (for thought). >> > > > +=+ A strange perversion of what I have said as to > the law. I have been defining the law that the Director > is to apply. The pause for thought occurs when, on > seeing the King, he changes what he was doing in > order to call for the Ace. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan - that is NOT helpful. If I have misrepresented your views it is SOLELY because I have yet to receive a straightforward statement in PLAIN English of how to apply the Law to the generality of interrupted statements. Please accept my assurance there is no willful "perversion", simply a genuine but, to date, completely unsuccessful attempt to understand this issue. **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005 From schoderb at msn.com Wed Mar 23 15:31:48 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Mar 23 15:32:33 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be><423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be><000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> <000501c52e35$b4f078d0$0307a8c0@david> <423FE289.3010606@hdw.be><000301c52edd$b27f1450$0307a8c0@david><42404844.8060704@hdw.be><00c701c52f9d$333aa720$4ac487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000301c52fab$5a34ccd0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: Gee, exactly which word(s) of Grattan's posting don't you understand? Seems clear to me even as an American English speaker. =K= ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 8:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 11:40 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > > > > > from Grattan Endicott > > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > > ******************************* > > "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, > > and translated into another tongue, have > > not the same force in them: and not only > > these things, but the law itself, and the > > prophets, and the rest of the books, have > > no small difference, when they are spoken > > in their own language. " > > ['Ecclesiasticus'] > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 4:31 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > > > > >> > > >> > However if you accept a Grattanian view of > >> > the world it appears that in both A and B cases > >> > you would allow the Ace to be played as this > >> > designation would be consistent with the statement > >> > before the pause (for thought). > >> > > > > > +=+ A strange perversion of what I have said as to > > the law. I have been defining the law that the Director > > is to apply. The pause for thought occurs when, on > > seeing the King, he changes what he was doing in > > order to call for the Ace. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Grattan - that is NOT helpful. > If I have misrepresented your views it is SOLELY because > I have yet to receive a straightforward statement in PLAIN > English of how to apply the Law to the generality of interrupted > statements. > > Please accept my assurance there is no willful "perversion", > simply a genuine but, to date, completely unsuccessful attempt > to understand this issue. > > **************************************** > david.barton@boltblue.com > **************************************** > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Mar 23 17:08:51 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Mar 23 17:08:25 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be><423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be><000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> <000501c52e35$b4f078d0$0307a8c0@david> <423FE289.3010606@hdw.be><000301c52edd$b27f1450$0307a8c0@david><42404844.8060704@hdw.be><00c701c52f9d$333aa720$4ac487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000301c52fab$5a34ccd0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <42419493.6040307@hdw.be> Come off it, Kojak. I too have great difficulty in understanding Grattan's view on this. Or yours, for that manner. David is asking for guidance on the laws, and all he gets from Grattan is "rtflb" (with the F meaning Fabulous, of course). While both John and I are admitting that the other one's position is impossible to break down using only the lawbook, Grattan keeps hovering in between. And when he is then asked a simple question, all you can add is "the law is the law". By the way, Kojak, you have never helped us either - where do you stand? With John or with me? Let me put the question simply: Declarer has two sixes on the table than a diamond and says "the six of ... oh no, the ace of clubs". We establish that he originally intended the D6 (not the H6). There has been no inadvertency. John says: the designation of the D6 has not taken place, declarer is free to play whatever he wants, the CA is played. I say: "the six of .." is a designation which he may not alter. He should complete this according to his original intention. Grattan says (I think): "the six of .." is a designation which he may not alter, but according to L46, he is allowed to complete it by either playing the D6 or the H6. If the H6 had not been there, the D6 would have been played (according to Grattan, and again "I think"). What do you say? WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Gee, exactly which word(s) of Grattan's posting don't you understand? > Seems clear to me even as an American English speaker. > =K= > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005 From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Mar 23 17:17:18 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Mar 23 17:18:15 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be><423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be><000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> <000501c52e35$b4f078d0$0307a8c0@david> <423FE289.3010606@hdw.be><000301c52edd$b27f1450$0307a8c0@david><42404844.8060704@hdw.be><00c701c52f9d$333aa720$4ac487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000301c52fab$5a34ccd0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: On 23 Mar 2005, at 14:31, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Gee, exactly which word(s) of Grattan's posting don't you understand? > Seems clear to me even as an American English speaker. > =K= I don't think it's the words that are the problem - just their position in relationship to each other. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 23 17:09:59 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Mar 23 17:39:38 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be><423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be><000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> <000501c52e35$b4f078d0$0307a8c0@david> <423FE289.3010606@hdw.be><000301c52edd$b27f1450$0307a8c0@david><42404844.8060704@hdw.be><00c701c52f9d$333aa720$4ac487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><000301c52fab$5a34ccd0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: ; "David Barton" Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 8:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > Gee, exactly which word(s) of Grattan's posting don't you understand? > Seems clear to me even as an American English speaker. > =K= I too am at some loss as to what passage of law that Grattan is quoting. In the English language when a person says 'qu' there is an expectation that there is more to come- that the person is not yet done. To assert that he is indeed done strikes me as ludicrous when more follows. There is a passage of law [L46A] that says that declarer's designation has the form of [a] rank plus [b] denomination. When it is declarer's turn to designate it is presumed that he will speak both [a] and [b]- unless he does not. So, if he speaks 'qu' and nothing further it is indeed reasonable to presume that he has completed his designation. As [a] and [b] were not satisfied there is law [46B] as how to deal with it. And so, if he speaks 'quace' and nothing further it is indeed reasonable to presume that 'quace' completed his designation [not designations] and again as [a] and [b] were not satisfied there is L46B as how to deal with it. >From the way the law is written what appears to be relevant is not so much a change of mind but a change of designation [perhaps brought about by a change of mind]: L45C4b: a player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation. I point out that in order for a designation to have changed there needs to be an existing designation to change from plus a second designation. Anyway, if it truly was the intent and is the intent of the LC that 'quace' is two designations then I will suggest that they have gone about it in all the wrong ways. One of the things to do differently is for dummy to have PC for withdrawn actions, impose revoke penalties for failure to follow suit when able, and to penalize POOT by declarer and dummy. Declarer will soon get the hang of thinking first and the wayward occurrences will become more rare than prevalent. regards roger pewick > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Barton" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 8:22 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" > > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 11:40 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > > from Grattan Endicott > > > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > > > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > > > ******************************* > > > "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, > > > and translated into another tongue, have > > > not the same force in them: and not only > > > these things, but the law itself, and the > > > prophets, and the rest of the books, have > > > no small difference, when they are spoken > > > in their own language. " > > > ['Ecclesiasticus'] > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > To: "blml" > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 4:31 PM > > > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > However if you accept a Grattanian view of > > >> > the world it appears that in both A and B cases > > >> > you would allow the Ace to be played as this > > >> > designation would be consistent with the statement > > >> > before the pause (for thought). > > >> > > > > > > > +=+ A strange perversion of what I have said as to > > > the law. I have been defining the law that the Director > > > is to apply. The pause for thought occurs when, on > > > seeing the King, he changes what he was doing in > > > order to call for the Ace. > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > Grattan - that is NOT helpful. > > If I have misrepresented your views it is SOLELY because > > I have yet to receive a straightforward statement in PLAIN > > English of how to apply the Law to the generality of interrupted > > statements. > > > > Please accept my assurance there is no willful "perversion", > > simply a genuine but, to date, completely unsuccessful attempt > > to understand this issue. > > > > **************************************** > > david.barton@boltblue.com From david.barton at boltblue.com Wed Mar 23 20:13:40 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Wed Mar 23 20:09:01 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred><6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net> <000401c52e31$f5319630$77c287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001101c52fdc$6c098140$0307a8c0@david> Let me try to get to grips with what Grattan is saying. Disclaimer. This is my personal understanding and may very well vary from the intended meaning. GE > +=+ The basis of my argument is that the law applies. > I agree that what the law book says currently is not > necessarily what Eric would consider to 'make sense' > and not necessarily in conformance with the opinion > of any one of the correspondent's here in particular. > We have to determine what the law says. The > present law book provides ample scope for ambiguity > or diverse interpretations. DB Disclaimer in case strategic wihdrawal is required. GE > I am wholly sure that once > the declarer embarks upon an instruction to dummy > if he fails to complete it he is in Law 46. DB I am not sure what this means. Does it mean that if he does complete he is not "in" Law 46. GE >If he is > interrupted I would want him to complete what he is > saying, but this does not mean that he can withdraw > anything of what he has already said. DB I notice that completion is expressed as a preference personal to GE rather than a legal right, obligation or whatever. I would also point out the statement below that "Anything that he says by way of designation after a change of mind is disallowed" so if I have this right the statement is to be completed so it can be disallowed later. GE > If there is no designation then Law 46B5 > applies. DB An assertion Grattan continues to make with no indication of how he justifies it to having like import to play anything > In the 'Qu...Ace' situation, either the 'Qu' is > an incomplete designation or there is no designation. > The Quace is not a card so he has not designated a > card by naming it. He has in fact changed his mind > after 'Qu', no matter how it 'appears' to anyone. DB Discussion of Qu ace case which was not the case under discussion when I "perverted" GE's views GE > Anything that he says by way of designation after a > change of mind is disallowed. If there is an incomplete > designation and two cards both match as much as he > has said then he is required to state his intention; DB Don't know whether this means (a) there are 2 cards after applying a L46B intrepretation to the pause in the statement or (b) there are 2 cards consistent with the statement up to the pause I assumed (b). GE >there > is an ambiguity here in the law, it does not clearly > specify what is meant by 'intention' I do not think we > gave any overt attention to the point when the law was > written - we were blind to the possibility of diverse > interpretation (although Kaplan probably had his view). > I do not recall that wherever I have witnessed or > participated in a decision in such circumstances we > have ever done anything but accept whichever card > the declarer nominated of the two. I consider there is > thus a history of precedents. > ~ G ~ +=+ > DB This I read as saying that if you had 2 cards as in (b) above it was accepted that declarer could nominate either. As an aside I did conclude that it would actually be an impossible task to produce a specification for intention to cover all situations. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005 From davidv at emailaccount.com Wed Mar 23 21:23:16 2005 From: davidv at emailaccount.com (Ebony Slaughter) Date: Wed Mar 23 21:22:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Need a low mortage rate? Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.sarefi.net/?id=n51 Best Regards, Lesley Riddle to be remov(ed: http://www.sarefi.net/byebye.php this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From SYGFS at rrk.cz Thu Mar 24 02:21:51 2005 From: SYGFS at rrk.cz (Ramon Carlson) Date: Thu Mar 24 02:35:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Professional Opportunity at low rates In-Reply-To: <6737929.00b0a2600@designs.com> Message-ID: <916.3@melbpc.org.au> ----- Original Message ----- From: Donald To: carrion1@msn.com ; bottleallude@yahoo.com ; Dear Homeowner, Mortgage. You have been pre-approved. You can get $243,000 for as little as $232 a month, thanks to your pre-approval. Visit us, Fill out the form, no obligation Pull cash out, or refinance.. No long forms or quastionnaires. Fill up our extremely short and simple form today and get a call back within a couple of hours. Start saving now, click that link: http://www.american-loans.org/2/index/bvk avocation xo edgerton dmm cathodic lks confectionery gp chairman ic bosonic zfr gash gfj allan tce precambrian zkt cease be fedora kgk skylark mh http://american-loans.org/rem.php From KTEEKNPUPNJSGI at klwan.com Thu Mar 24 06:37:22 2005 From: KTEEKNPUPNJSGI at klwan.com (Roman Goldstein) Date: Thu Mar 24 06:47:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Want more power in bed? Message-ID: <192CDE8B.3020074@the-moons.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050324/d5d5d1aa/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 24 07:29:16 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 24 07:30:14 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick: >I continue to contend that the superior approach >to adjusted scores is to focus on the agreements >in force. So, if the method is SA then it is >silly to adjust to a contract that would not be >reached if the system were followed. [snip] Richard Hills: Is it silly for adjusted scores to correspond to reality? There are many experts (such as Zia) who refuse to be straitjacketed by their system. And there are many inperts (such as me) who often misunderstand and/or forget their system. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 24 07:47:30 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 24 07:48:26 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050318080524.02c08800@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >That may be sound legal reasoning, but carries the seeds >of real-life disaster. It means that if Eric Rodwell >commits this infraction, his matchpoint score will be >reduced, say, from 24 (out of 25) to 18-1/2, but if Joe >Ordinary commits exactly the same infraction on the same >hand, his score gets reduced from 24 to 6. I would hate >to be in the position of having to explain the "sound >legal reasoning" behind such an apparent gross >unfairness to Joe Ordinary (or to Mr. Rodwell's >opponents!), and expect that the need to do so would >turn the stomachs of the soundest legal reasoners among >us. How can we believe that this is acceptable while >continuing to bemoan the fact that our ordinary players >overwhelmingly believe that the laws are written to >favor the experts over the ordinary folks? Richard Hills: A novel (perhaps courageous) straw man argument put forward by Eric Landau. (1) If I was TD, and Eric Rodwell infracted Law 73C, then I would impose a severe Law 90 procedural penalty upon Eric Rodwell. If I was TD, and Joe Ordinary infracted Law 73C, I would merely educate Joe Ordinary about proper procedure. Now Eric Rodwell might argue that the Laws are written to favour ordinary folks over experts. As TD, I would merely inform Eric Rodwell, "With great experience comes great responsibility." (2) Because Eric Rodwell is more expert at playing 3NT contracts than Joe Ordinary is, opponents are of course disadvantaged when playing against Eric Rodwell instead of playing against Joe Ordinary. It is the nature of bridge. For Eric Landau to argue otherwise is for Eric Landau to rush in (where angels fear to tread), with Eric Landau apparently adopting the Harrison Bergeron fallacy. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From owkea at krissoff.org Thu Mar 24 08:46:29 2005 From: owkea at krissoff.org (Alana Rowland) Date: Thu Mar 24 08:52:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Professional Home Loans in 24 hours. Message-ID: <276212032200.80951.casey@outbacklinux.com> Would you REFINANCE if you knew you'd save THOUSANDZ? Or get a Loan of 405,000.00, you already qualified. We'll get you the lowest possible rate. Don't believe me? Fill out our small online questionaire and we'll show you how. Get the home/house or car you always wanted, it only takes 35 seconds of your time. Click this link: http://www.american-loans.org/1/index/bvk Best Regards, Alana Rowland eke gul coot aa squawk wn anaconda kc stealthy hc ypsilanti gx contrariety isk discrepant exn http://its-simple.net/rem.php From blml at blakjak.com Thu Mar 24 08:53:44 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Mar 24 08:55:57 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: <20050310114906.53EEFD54F7@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050310114906.53EEFD54F7@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote >Grattan Endicott napisa?(a): >> >> from Grattan Endicott >> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >> [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >> **************************** >> "If it were done when 'tis done, >> Then 'twere well it were done >> quickly... " >> ['Macbeth'] >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Gordon Bower" >siegmund@mosquitonet.com> >> To: >blml@rtflb.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:06 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) >> >> >> > >> > "in my opinion this is not enough compensation" is >> > explicitly ruled out as the basis for an adjustment. >> > >> > L12A1 says "do not provide," not "provide a smaller >> > or larger penalty than the director likes". A catchall >> > for when things fall through the cracks. >> > >> = Beware, gentlemen. Law 12A1 is concerned with >> provision of 'indemnity'. This has nothing to do with any >> penalty that the laws may impose. Indemnity has to do >> with the compensation of loss for the side offended >> against. If any damage suffered is not fully reinstated by >> the application of other laws Law 12A1 provides the >> reserve authority by which the Director may ensure that >> a non-offending contestant does not lose out in his score >> because of the violation. >> ~ Grattan ~ = >> >> > > >David, are you listening? "is not fully reinstated" - >so it means my reading of L12A1 is correct. > >So it means TD *can* theoretically rule 7NTxx -13 >for a LOOT. Stupid ruling but legal. I am listening, and I do not believe that follows in any way from the Laws. OK, the Laws in English - i have not [for obvious reasons] read them in Polish. There is a penalty prescribed for a LOOT so L12A1 does not apply. Sorry, but Grattan's post does not follow the wording of the Law book. If a penalty is prescribed then you should read L12B. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From oqgnfbkfddhy at arttolive.de Thu Mar 24 08:53:07 2005 From: oqgnfbkfddhy at arttolive.de (Lindsey) Date: Thu Mar 24 09:01:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Need pharmacy Message-ID: <8.290407322.00b76d2c@pop.paonline.com> Do you want inexpensive XanaX? http://www.lzac.com/p/viks/23 or 160 other drugs: http://www.lzac.com/p/viks you cathy me profit me you utter me aboriginal me you conley me i'd me you primacy me fpc me you dirt me front me you attic me delaney me you inalienable me cheery me you divine me sting me you tattletale me autosuggestible me http://lzac.com/1.php From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 24 11:16:34 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 24 12:39:13 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) References: <20050310114906.53EEFD54F7@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <007a01c53065$95cc6e00$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) > >David, are you listening? "is not fully reinstated" - > >so it means my reading of L12A1 is correct. > > > >So it means TD *can* theoretically rule > >7NTxx -13 for a LOOT. Stupid ruling > >but legal. > > I am listening, and I do not believe > that follows in any way from the Laws. > OK, the Laws in English - i have not [for obvious reasons] read them in Polish. > > There is a penalty prescribed for a LOOT > so L12A1 does not apply. Sorry, but > Grattan's post does not follow the wording > of the Law book. If a penalty is prescribed > then you should read L12B. > +=+ I hope that what David is reading is what I wrote and not Konrad's stupid misrepresentation of it. 'Indemnity' involves reinstatement of damage, and nothing. more. The point I make is correct: 'indemnity' in 12A1 is not the same as 'penalty' in 12B. The innocent are entitled to indemnity for damage caused them by a violation and this is a separate issue from the effects of any penalty applied. Law 12B does not address the issue of damage but only the severity or mildness of the effects of the penalty. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 24 12:15:43 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 24 12:39:18 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred><6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net><000401c52e31$f5319630$77c287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001101c52fdc$6c098140$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <007d01c53065$985032b0$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > GE > > I am wholly sure that once > > the declarer embarks upon an instruction to dummy > > if he fails to complete it he is in Law 46. > > DB > I am not sure what this means. Does it mean that if > he does complete he is not "in" Law 46. > +=+ Non sequitur. He is not then in Law 46 by reason of incompletion. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 24 12:20:06 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 24 12:39:22 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred><6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net><000401c52e31$f5319630$77c287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001101c52fdc$6c098140$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <007e01c53065$98eff520$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > GE > >If he is > > interrupted I would want him to complete what he is > > saying, but this does not mean that he can withdraw > > anything of what he has already said. > > DB > I notice that completion is expressed as a preference > personal to GE rather than a legal right, obligation or > whatever. I would also point out the statement below > that "Anything that he says by way of designation after a > change of mind is disallowed" so if I have this right the > statement is to be completed so it can be disallowed later. > +=+ Completion of the original statement without change of mind. Anything that reflects his change of mind is not accepted. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 24 11:38:26 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 24 12:39:29 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000a01c52957$2b2a8e70$0307a8c0@david><000501c529be$9a582480$0307a8c0@david><6.1.1.1.0.20050316075951.02a321f0@pop.starpower.net><42385411.6080604@hdw.be><85cd7359dd4e860673783a52ff8c5fcc@gordonrainsford.co.uk><42393D80.6030206@hdw.be> <000901c52b24$bc459160$0307a8c0@david><3.0.5.32.20050318003548.011f6e08@mail.chello.nl><2$m8zdCSBiOCFwGz@asimere.com> <49f32633a034f5845f973247dc8a1e5e@rochester.rr.com><000001c52d3f$9eafad30$f8ca403e@Mildred><423D6462.50507@hdw.be><423D6D10.7070801@hdw.be><000101c52d5e$1869a680$320ce150@Mildred> <000501c52e35$b4f078d0$0307a8c0@david> <423FE289.3010606@hdw.be><000301c52edd$b27f1450$0307a8c0@david><42404844.8060704@hdw.be><00c701c52f9d$333aa720$4ac487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000301c52fab$5a34ccd0$0307a8c0@david> <42419493.6040307@hdw.be> Message-ID: <007b01c53065$96a0adf0$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > Declarer has two sixes on the table than a diamond and says "the six > of ... oh no, the ace of clubs". We establish that he originally > intended the D6 (not the H6). There has been no inadvertency. > John says: the designation of the D6 has not taken place, declarer is > free to play whatever he wants, the CA is played. > I say: "the six of .." is a designation which he may not alter. He > should complete this according to his original intention. > Grattan says (I think): "the six of .." is a designation which he may > not alter, but according to L46, he is allowed to complete it by > either playing the D6 or the H6. If the H6 had not been there, the D6 > would have been played (according to Grattan, and again "I think"). > +=+ If there is only one six that is designated. If there are two sixes one or the other is designated and declarer is required to 'designate which one is intended'. As I have noted in a past message there is some ambiguity about 'is intended' - does it mean the one he now chooses to play or the one he originally intended to play. (I believe it was probably meant to signify the latter, but my experience of the application of this law is that declarer's nomination of one or the other of the sixes has been accepted.) I am only repeating what I have already said, but it has been entangled with the parallel discussion of the "Qu...Ace" thing and I am seeking to disentangle it. Partly to stop all this thinking. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 24 12:11:46 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 24 12:39:32 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred><6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net><000401c52e31$f5319630$77c287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001101c52fdc$6c098140$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <007c01c53065$97831eb0$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > GE > > If there is no designation then Law 46B5 > > applies. > > DB > An assertion Grattan continues to make with no > indication of how he justifies it to having like > import to play anything > +=+ No such justification required. Substantively the law should be read with the parenthesis removed, since this is by way of illustration and not restrictive. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 24 12:33:05 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 24 12:39:35 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred><6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net><000401c52e31$f5319630$77c287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001101c52fdc$6c098140$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <007f01c53065$999e0f70$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > DB > This I read as saying that if you had 2 cards > as in (b) above it was accepted that declarer > could nominate either. > +=+ I cannot recall any occasion when in practice an appeals committee has rejected whichever of the two declarer has nominated. It seems likely that a basis for identifying the other as his 'intention' was never found.+=+ > > As an aside I did conclude that it would actually > be an impossible task to produce a specification > for intention to cover all situations. > +=+ I think it is, or remarkably difficult. Thus my opinion is in favour of drafting laws that do not require it. When 'intention' appears in a law its meaning in context should be circumscribed. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 24 13:08:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Mar 24 13:09:00 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > (1) If I was TD, and Eric Rodwell infracted Law 73C, > then I would impose a severe Law 90 procedural penalty > upon Eric Rodwell. If I was TD, and Joe Ordinary > infracted Law 73C, I would merely educate Joe Ordinary > about proper procedure. If, after much consideration, we rule that L73c was infracted but it was close judgement call over whether the selected alternative was, in fact, logical & suggested then no player should receive a PP. If the selected alternative is judged "obvious and should have known better abuse" then a PP, if in order, is in order for both Eric and Joe. I can, however, envisage a sequence in which a particular call would be "obvious.." for Eric but not for Joe. Tim From ZHCIGWGV at kempc17.me.tut.fi Thu Mar 24 13:24:33 2005 From: ZHCIGWGV at kempc17.me.tut.fi (Elvin) Date: Thu Mar 24 13:28:46 2005 Subject: [blml] online warehouse Juana Message-ID: <135.f2bdd58.2a2b3084@dilo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050324/70a3768d/attachment.html From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Mar 24 13:54:58 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Mar 24 13:55:54 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) Message-ID: <20050324125459.669CD3EE4AA@poczta.interia.pl> Grattan Endicott napisa?(a): > = I hope that what David is reading > is what I wrote and not Konrad's stupid > misrepresentation of it. 'Indemnity' involves > reinstatement of damage, and nothing. more. > The point I make is correct: 'indemnity' in > 12A1 is not the same as 'penalty' in 12B. > The innocent are entitled to indemnity for > damage caused them by a violation and > this is a separate issue from the effects of > any penalty applied. So I still don't see why rulling 7NTxx -13 for the LOOT is illegal. The TD applies the prescribed penalties but if, according to his judgement, the Laws don't provide indemnity to the LOOT on this particular deal he can rule whatever he wants to restore the equity. This is something I don't like at all. Why is my interpretation stupid? Simply because I used an unrealistic example? If you want I can construct a more realistic deal where a LOOT is committed and after the deal is over the TD decides that in his opinion the NOs have not been indemnified (despite the appropriate penalties) then the L12A1 gives him the power to adjust the score. Perhaps the problem is the word "indemnity" itself. All my English-Polish dictionaries define it as "compenasation". Perhaps there is a subtle distinction between "indemnity" and "compensation" which I don't feel as a non-native speaker. I wonder how this word has been translated in other non-English versions of the law. According to the Webster dictionary indemnity is a : security against hurt, loss, or damage b : exemption from incurred penalties or liabilities If in TFLB it is used in the second sense then it seems obvious to me that the TD *is* authorized to adjust the score even it there is a prescribed penalty for a particular violation. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1837 From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Mar 24 14:06:13 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Mar 24 14:05:44 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <007e01c53065$98eff520$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred><6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net><000401c52e31$f5319630$77c287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001101c52fdc$6c098140$0307a8c0@david> <007e01c53065$98eff520$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4242BB45.9080302@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ Completion of the original statement without change > of mind. Anything that reflects his change of mind is not > accepted. ~ G ~ +=+ > Sorry Grattan, but that is just a fancy way of saying that a change of mind is not permitted. Of course there will sometimes be "changes of mind" that are not reflected in the completion of the original statement. Such changes of mind will not be picked up and go "through the holes in the net" as we say in dutch. But do you really want to go around saying that this cheating is permitted? Why not just align yourself with my point of view which is that changes of mind are not permitted and that once a declarer opens his mouth he should let flow out his intention at the moment in time, with no changes of mind being permitted at the later stage. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 24 14:22:16 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Mar 24 14:21:34 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050318080524.02c08800@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050324081232.02b40600@pop.starpower.net> At 01:47 AM 3/24/05, richard.hills wrote: >Eric Landau: > > >That may be sound legal reasoning, but carries the seeds > >of real-life disaster. It means that if Eric Rodwell > >commits this infraction, his matchpoint score will be > >reduced, say, from 24 (out of 25) to 18-1/2, but if Joe > >Ordinary commits exactly the same infraction on the same > >hand, his score gets reduced from 24 to 6. I would hate > >to be in the position of having to explain the "sound > >legal reasoning" behind such an apparent gross > >unfairness to Joe Ordinary (or to Mr. Rodwell's > >opponents!), and expect that the need to do so would > >turn the stomachs of the soundest legal reasoners among > >us. How can we believe that this is acceptable while > >continuing to bemoan the fact that our ordinary players > >overwhelmingly believe that the laws are written to > >favor the experts over the ordinary folks? > >Richard Hills: > >A novel (perhaps courageous) straw man argument put >forward by Eric Landau. > >(1) If I was TD, and Eric Rodwell infracted Law 73C, >then I would impose a severe Law 90 procedural penalty >upon Eric Rodwell. If I was TD, and Joe Ordinary >infracted Law 73C, I would merely educate Joe Ordinary >about proper procedure. > >Now Eric Rodwell might argue that the Laws are written >to favour ordinary folks over experts. As TD, I would >merely inform Eric Rodwell, "With great experience comes >great responsibility." > >(2) Because Eric Rodwell is more expert at playing 3NT >contracts than Joe Ordinary is, opponents are of course >disadvantaged when playing against Eric Rodwell instead >of playing against Joe Ordinary. It is the nature of >bridge. > >For Eric Landau to argue otherwise is for Eric Landau to >rush in (where angels fear to tread), with Eric Landau >apparently adopting the Harrison Bergeron fallacy. I do not suggest that Eric Rodwell be made to wear HB-like handicaps when he is playing bridge (although it would certainly improve the scores of the likes of me). I do believe he should be forced to don them when required to Stand Before the August Might of the Law. We do not seek equality at the bridge table, whereas equality before the law is the fundamental principle of human rights. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 24 17:02:10 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Mar 24 17:01:24 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: <20050324125459.669CD3EE4AA@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050324125459.669CD3EE4AA@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050324104802.02aab8a0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:54 AM 3/24/05, Konrad wrote: >Grattan Endicott napisa?(a): > > > = I hope that what David is reading > > is what I wrote and not Konrad's stupid > > misrepresentation of it. 'Indemnity' involves > > reinstatement of damage, and nothing. more. > > The point I make is correct: 'indemnity' in > > 12A1 is not the same as 'penalty' in 12B. > > The innocent are entitled to indemnity for > > damage caused them by a violation and > > this is a separate issue from the effects of > > any penalty applied. > >So I still don't see why rulling 7NTxx -13 >for the LOOT is illegal. The TD applies the prescribed >penalties but if, according to his judgement, the >Laws don't provide indemnity to the LOOT on this >particular deal >he can rule whatever he wants to >restore the equity. This is something >I don't like at all. > >Why is my interpretation stupid? Simply >because I used an unrealistic example? >If you want I can construct a more >realistic deal where a LOOT is committed >and after the deal is over the TD >decides that in his opinion >the NOs have not been indemnified (despite >the appropriate penalties) then >the L12A1 gives him the power >to adjust the score. L12A1 doesn't say that the TD may "rule whatever he wants"; it says he may "award an assigned adjusted score". If he chooses to do so, he remains bound by L12C2. It may be perfectly legal and proper for him to adjust the score to 7NTXX -13, but only if he can justify the finding that 7NTXX -13 "was likely had the irregularity not occurred". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Thu Mar 24 17:49:32 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Mar 24 17:50:19 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred><6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net><000401c52e31$f5319630$77c287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001101c52fdc$6c098140$0307a8c0@david><007e01c53065$98eff520$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4242BB45.9080302@hdw.be> Message-ID: You know, Herman, sometimes you keep beating dead horses until it's no longer funny. You appear to have trouble with this foreign language - English - we use. Grattan clearly indicated that the EFFECT of a change of mind cannot be to change a play once selected - not that changes of mind are not permitted. And he did so, in what, to me, are simple, direct words and sentence structure. For you to read it otherwise is silly, and you can protest otherwise "'till the cows come home." Changes of mind happen all the time - to posit otherwise is ridiculous. "..... with no changes of mind being permitted at the later stage...." (your words) is not possible. Changes of PLAY are not permitted is what I think you mean. But then, you would have to find yourself in accord with what Grattan has written, and your "point of view" would disappear. It is not permitted to change a play because a change of mind occurred after the play was selected, begun to be effected, and you now possess information you did not have when you made that decision. It happens frequently when you decide to finessed for a king, call the Queen from dummy, AND THEN SEE THAT LHO played the King. You've made a mistake, and you live with it. It's analogous to decide to win a trick and THEN, after playing, notice that partner has already won the trick. These are mistakes of attention, procedure, haste, getting a step ahead of oneself by thinking you are on the next trick, etc. And, before you tell me that it's unfair and silly not to change a play when it is "obvious" or other such stuff, remember that even Meckwell has been known to revoke. A hell-of-a-lot less often than you or I, to be sure, but mistakes are part of this game. If the above still does not indicate to you what I believe, then someone else will have to interpret it to you - I'm outta here! Kojak Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > +=+ Completion of the original statement without change > > of mind. Anything that reflects his change of mind is not > > accepted. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > Sorry Grattan, but that is just a fancy way of saying that a change of > mind is not permitted. > Of course there will sometimes be "changes of mind" that are not > reflected in the completion of the original statement. Such changes of > mind will not be picked up and go "through the holes in the net" as we > say in dutch. But do you really want to go around saying that this > cheating is permitted? > > Why not just align yourself with my point of view which is that > changes of mind are not permitted and that once a declarer opens his > mouth he should let flow out his intention at the moment in time,> > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Mar 24 17:54:25 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Mar 24 17:55:15 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) Message-ID: <20050324165425.AC227F61E7@poczta.interia.pl> Eric Landau napisa?(a): > L12A1 doesn't say that the TD may "rule whatever he wants"; >it says he > may "award an assigned adjusted score". If he chooses to do so, he > remains bound by L12C2. It may be perfectly legal and proper for him > to adjust the score to 7NTXX -13, but only if he can justify the > finding that 7NTXX -13 "was likely had the irregularity not occurred". > > That's my point. Why should the TD be authorised to do this at all? We have automatic penalties for LOOTs, BOOTs and the like, we have the "could have known" law, we have L16 for for UI cases etc. Can you give me an example of an adjustment (not necessarily to 7NTxx -13) that can be done only on the grounds of L12A1 - where the TD has no legal basis for his action in L16 or the "could have known" law or cannot apply automatic penalties (or *can* apply them by thinks they were insufficient) or any other law from TFLB and must explicitely use L12A1 for his ruling? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wszystko o MOTORYZACJI >>> http://link.interia.pl/f186a From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 24 17:58:01 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Mar 24 17:58:16 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <4242BB45.9080302@hdw.be> References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net> <000401c52e31$f5319630$77c287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001101c52fdc$6c098140$0307a8c0@david> <007e01c53065$98eff520$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4242BB45.9080302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050324110858.02b3a6b0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:06 AM 3/24/05, Herman wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>+=+ Completion of the original statement without change >>of mind. Anything that reflects his change of mind is not >>accepted. ~ G ~ +=+ > >Sorry Grattan, but that is just a fancy way of saying that a change of >mind is not permitted. >Of course there will sometimes be "changes of mind" that are not >reflected in the completion of the original statement. Such changes of >mind will not be picked up and go "through the holes in the net" as we >say in dutch. But do you really want to go around saying that this >cheating is permitted? > >Why not just align yourself with my point of view which is that >changes of mind are not permitted and that once a declarer opens his >mouth he should let flow out his intention at the moment in time, with >no changes of mind being permitted at the later stage. If Herman and Grattan are indeed saying the same thing -- "that a change of mind is not permitted" -- (and I believe they are), then the notion that "this cheating is permitted" is a red herring, as it doesn't matter how you say it, it's the same rule. If we want the law to say that "a change of mind is not permitted", let it simply say that. When it comes time to make a determination as to whether a player did or did not change his mind, I have no problem with simply asking the player what he was thinking about. In my experience (and Kojak's, if I'm reading him correctly, whose experience is as extensive as anyone's here), I will get a truthful answer either way 99.9% of the time. 0.1% will "cheat" by giving whichever answer is most expedient. Let's assume that in those (rare) cases where we can't tell from the action whether the player actually changed his mind or not, he will have done so 50% of the time. Then... If we write the law as though players will not cheat, we will make the correct ruling 99.95% of the time. If we write the law to make certain that the cheaters who account for the 0.05% can't "get away with it", we will make the right ruling 50.05% of the time. That's 999 bum rulings to non-offenders for every cheater we thwart. It would be nice to make uniformly correct rulings. It would also be nice to have an ironclad policy that insures zero tolerance for cheating. But we can't do both, and which should take precedence is more a matter of personal philosophy than a subject that can be resolved by logical debate. My opinion is obvious from the above, but I may be way off base here. My thinking is colored, I must confess, by the fact that I have never understood what could possibly motivate a person to cheat for master points, and have a very hard time internalizing the idea that it really does happen. I will join the other side so fast they won't see me coming on the day we start playing for serious money instead of master points. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Thu Mar 24 18:02:12 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Mar 24 18:02:56 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) References: <20050324165425.AC227F61E7@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Well, Konrad, try Law 74 for a start. There are no indemnities specified throughout this law, yet violation of the specifics therein could result in "....these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent...." Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 11:54 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) Eric Landau napisa?(a): > L12A1 doesn't say that the TD may "rule whatever he wants"; >it says he > may "award an assigned adjusted score". If he chooses to do so, he > remains bound by L12C2. It may be perfectly legal and proper for him > to adjust the score to 7NTXX -13, but only if he can justify the > finding that 7NTXX -13 "was likely had the irregularity not occurred". > > That's my point. Why should the TD be authorised to do this at all? We have automatic penalties for LOOTs, BOOTs and the like, we have the "could have known" law, we have L16 for for UI cases etc. Can you give me an example of an adjustment (not necessarily to 7NTxx -13) that can be done only on the grounds of L12A1 - where the TD has no legal basis for his action in L16 or the "could have known" law or cannot apply automatic penalties (or *can* apply them by thinks they were insufficient) or any other law from TFLB and must explicitely use L12A1 for his ruling? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wszystko o MOTORYZACJI >>> http://link.interia.pl/f186a _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Mar 24 18:11:31 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Mar 24 18:11:05 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred><6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net><000401c52e31$f5319630$77c287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001101c52fdc$6c098140$0307a8c0@david><007e01c53065$98eff520$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4242BB45.9080302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4242F4C3.5020208@hdw.be> Sorry Kojak, to keep beating this dead horse, but what you are writing simply does not make sense: WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > You know, Herman, sometimes you keep beating dead horses until it's no > longer funny. You appear to have trouble with this foreign language - > English - we use. Grattan clearly indicated that the EFFECT of a change of > mind cannot be to change a play once selected - not that changes of mind > are not permitted. And what, pray, is the difference between these two? Of course changes of mind are permitted - not just women are allowed to change their minds. So of course it is the change of play which is not permitted. Now I ask you - when you say that a change of play is not permitted, what are you in fact changing? Well, obviously a play, from an intended one to a new one. So are you not simply stating that, once a designation has begun, a player is no longer permitted to change his intention? > And he did so, in what, to me, are simple, direct words > and sentence structure. Permit me to cough. Simple, direct words? cough. > For you to read it otherwise is silly, and you can > protest otherwise "'till the cows come home." Changes of mind happen all > the time - to posit otherwise is ridiculous. "..... with no changes of mind > being permitted at the later stage...." (your words) is not possible. OK, poor wording of my part - but are you not just saying that while my wording may be poor, my point of view corresponds to yours? > Changes of PLAY are not permitted is what I think you mean. But then, you > would have to find yourself in accord with what Grattan has written, and > your "point of view" would disappear. > Well, Kojak, isn't that exactly what you are trying to keep yourself from doing - saying that you agree with my point of view? I was asking you for your point of view, and whether you agreed with John, me, or Grattan. What you are saying is that I should instead agree with Grattan. You apparently agree with Grattan. OK. Seems we are in agreement then (sorry, John). > It is not permitted to change a play because a change of mind occurred after > the play was selected, begun to be effected, and you now possess information > you did not have when you made that decision. It happens frequently when you > decide to finessed for a king, call the Queen from dummy, AND THEN SEE THAT > LHO played the King. You've made a mistake, and you live with it. It's > analogous to decide to win a trick and THEN, after playing, notice that > partner has already won the trick. These are mistakes of attention, > procedure, haste, getting a step ahead of oneself by thinking you are on the > next trick, etc. > OK, folks - have you heard all that? Seems clear to me. If you say "the six" then you should play the six of the one you intended originally. Right Kojak?, right Grattan? Isn't that what I've been trying to say all along? But of course, I should not expect Kojak to agree with me. I should agree with Kojak. OK, so be it, I agree with Kojak. > And, before you tell me that it's unfair and silly not to change a play when > it is "obvious" or other such stuff, remember that even Meckwell has been > known to revoke. A hell-of-a-lot less often than you or I, to be sure, but > mistakes are part of this game. > I would never dare to suggest something like that. Nor have I ever done so. In fact Kojak, unless you misunderstood, our differences, if there ever were any, was that I went even further than you and Grattan do. > If the above still does not indicate to you what I believe, then someone > else will have to interpret it to you - I'm outta here! Well, sorry to say so, but you were never this clear before. You are clear now. And we apparently agree. Sorry! > Kojak > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005 From david.barton at boltblue.com Thu Mar 24 18:35:56 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Thu Mar 24 18:31:25 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred><6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net><000401c52e31$f5319630$77c287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><001101c52fdc$6c098140$0307a8c0@david> <007c01c53065$97831eb0$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <002101c53097$ef6e10d0$0307a8c0@david> >> GE >> > If there is no designation then Law 46B5 >> > applies. >> >> DB >> An assertion Grattan continues to make with no >> indication of how he justifies it to having like >> import to play anything >> > +=+ No such justification required. Substantively > the law should be read with the parenthesis removed, > since this is by way of illustration and not restrictive. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Totally unconvinced. If the words "as by saying "play anything"" were simply providing an example of the application of L46B5 then the words "or words of like import" are totally redundant. Only if it was to be restricted to the play anything situation would they be required to confirm that the exact wording "play anything" was not required because you would treat for example "whatever you like" as being words of like import. **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005 From schoderb at msn.com Thu Mar 24 18:36:13 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Mar 24 18:36:56 2005 Subject: [blml] cheating Message-ID: Eric Landau writes: "My opinion is obvious from the above, but I may be way off base here. My thinking is colored, I must confess, by the fact that I have never understood what could possibly motivate a person to cheat for master points, and have a very hard time internalizing the idea that it really does happen. I will join the other side so fast they won't see me coming on the day we start playing for serious money instead of master points." But Eric, its not about master points, or money, its about EGO. In fact, the serious money - Cavendish - probably has much less chance to be tainted by cheating than Regional/Sectional events. Master Points provide recognition, status, names and pictures in periodicals, titles, one-upmanship, the taste of winning, all stronger incentives than money. And getting away with deceit makes a heady cocktail -- it's like speeding on the turnpikes or running yellow-pink-red stop lights. Most real cheaters don't hurt for money. There are "kitchen" (my term) players who don't even know that they are cheating, and would be aghast and sorely angry to be accused of it. Inflections in bidding - and the bidding cards haven't stopped that at all - eye contacts, speeds of play, questions, answers, UI of almost every sort exists even for those who are not intending to be bad guys. In no way do I condone this, but I do think it a reality. Kojak From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 24 20:33:36 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Mar 24 20:35:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: cheating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050324133117.02b39710@pop.starpower.net> At 12:36 PM 3/24/05, WILLIAM wrote: >Eric Landau writes: > >"My opinion is obvious from the above, but I may be way off base >here. My thinking is colored, I must confess, by the fact that I have >never understood what could possibly motivate a person to cheat for >master points, and have a very hard time internalizing the idea that it >really does happen. I will join the other side so fast they won't see >me coming on the day we start playing for serious money instead of >master points." > >But Eric, its not about master points, or money, its about EGO. Of course it is. I play in competition for the pleasure I get feeling my ego expand when I outplay the other guys; if I didn't, I'd stay home and play at the kitchen table with my friends. But if I play my way into third place, and then cheat (or lawyer) my way into first, my ego still knows that I only played my way into third. I do understand intellectually that a perverted few do get some kind of ego-boost simply from knowing that they cheated and didn't get caught, but, as I said, I find myself unable to relate to that particular reality. >In fact, >the serious money - Cavendish - probably has much less chance to be >tainted >by cheating than Regional/Sectional events. Reading ahead, I see that Kojak has misunderstood my earlier message, where I was using "cheat" to mean "intentionally cheat", as opposed to "violate the rules out of ignorance". If we include the latter, then it's clear that we find much less "cheating" at the Cavendish, to which only players with enough experience to know what is expected of them -- and, I would assume, no reason for the selection committee to believe that they are dishonest -- get invited. >Master Points provide >recognition, status, names and pictures in periodicals, titles, >one-upmanship, the taste of winning, all stronger incentives than money. >And getting away with deceit makes a heady cocktail -- it's like >speeding on >the turnpikes or running yellow-pink-red stop lights. I admit that I occasionally (perhaps even a bit more than occasionally) speed, or run yellow lights, but I don't do it for the fun of it, nor do I do it on those (rare) occasions when the time I would save getting to wherever I'm going has no value to me. It's not a moral position; I do not claim that I wouldn't break the law, or cheat, or practice deception, to gain some outcome of value to me, because I'm pure and without sin. But I do not see how lawbreaking, or cheating, or deceiving, can have any intrinsic value of their own for anyone. Perhaps I am unrealistically discounting concerns -- that I can most certainly understand -- about professional players who make their living by playing with paying partners, for whom master points, recognition, status, names and pictures in periodicals, etc. may be directly connected to their prospects for future earnings. If that's the concern here, though, I want to go back to the old debate about whether we should have separate amateur and professional events with different rules. >Most real cheaters >don't hurt for money. Nor do I, but I could always use some more. Doesn't everyone feel that way, unless they are Bill Gates or the like? Of course, someone who is hurting for money may have a much lower threshhold for what "serious money" means than I do, but if someone can direct me to a market on which I can sell my master points for cash it will most certainly make my day! (Despite being affluent, I did get a meaningful ego-boost when I figured out how to "get away" (legally) with packing up two cartons of bridge trophies, giving them away, and taking a tax deduction on the transaction!) >There are "kitchen" (my term) players who don't even know that they are >cheating, and would be aghast and sorely angry to be accused of it. >Inflections in bidding - and the bidding cards haven't stopped that at >all - >eye contacts, speeds of play, questions, answers, UI of almost every sort >exists even for those who are not intending to be bad guys. > >In no way do I condone this, but I do think it a reality. Of course, no dispute there. But the "players who don't even know that they are cheating" are, like the rest of us, 99.9% honest, and they will -- to finally get back to the point under discussion! -- not lie when asked what they were thinking about when they unknowingly violated some law. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Chris at Pisarra.com Fri Mar 25 00:10:23 2005 From: Chris at Pisarra.com (Chris Pisarra) Date: Fri Mar 25 00:11:20 2005 Subject: [blml] cheating References: Message-ID: <024401c530c6$a88e8ee0$6601a8c0@user8iz3lqtpzs> WILLIAM SCHODER burbled to the world: > There are "kitchen" (my term) players who don't even know that they > are cheating, and would be aghast and sorely angry to be accused of > it. Inflections in bidding - and the bidding cards haven't stopped > that at all - eye contacts, speeds of play, questions, answers, UI of > almost every sort exists even for those who are not intending to be > bad guys. > In no way do I condone this, but I do think it a reality. Although this is all against the rules, I don't think you can actually call it "cheating" without some intent to infract. These people are just doing what seems natural and normal to them--they don't know better. With time and education, they can be cured. There are indeed real cheaters. It is my opinion that most of them are people who feel persecuted in general, and think they have to cheat to even things up--they really believe that "everyone is doing it". I doubt that they can be rehabilitated, since you would have to change their entire attitude toward life. And then there are the Steve Sion's of the world. Expulsion is the only answer, unless hanging becomes legal. Chris From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 25 00:13:39 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 25 00:12:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Unofficial ACBL casebook New York NABC In-Reply-To: <00dc01c52a1c$aa620a90$219468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: "Need brooks no delay, yet late is better than never." After much procrastination, I have finally completed compiling and editing an unofficial casebook of the ACBL New York appeals. Many thanks to those blmlers who provided commentary. Please send me a private email if you want a copy of this unofficial casebook (specifying whether you want it in Word or Adobe format). Copies of the two earlier unofficial casebooks I edited are also available on request. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From deairs at emailaccount.com Fri Mar 25 00:15:53 2005 From: deairs at emailaccount.com (Becky Foreman) Date: Fri Mar 25 00:27:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Pre-approved Application #DLVV038 Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/nowss.asp Best Regards, Shelby Queen to be remov(ed: http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From karel at esatclear.ie Fri Mar 25 02:37:14 2005 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri Mar 25 02:43:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: cheating In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050324133117.02b39710@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: [snip ] Of course, no dispute there. But the "players who don't even know that they are cheating" are, like the rest of us, 99.9% honest, and they will -- to finally get back to the point under discussion! -- not lie when asked what they were thinking about when they unknowingly violated some law. +++ I haven't really followed the complete thread as the e-mails are spread over a few pc's ... but in my experience I would question the above rosy view. Everyone knows there are laws. When a TD is called most players will generally know why and what the reason is. I have met very few who will readily admit to any detrimental facts. Worse are the few who have sufficient knowledge of the laws to know that one version of the facts will be more favourable than another for ruling. While it will almost be impossible to rule cheating, in my experience, a player will rarely volunteer any clear information willingly and will try to fudge matters where possible. Karel From david.barton at boltblue.com Fri Mar 25 02:56:56 2005 From: david.barton at boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Fri Mar 25 02:52:30 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred><6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net><000401c52e31$f5319630$77c287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001101c52fdc$6c098140$0307a8c0@david><007e01c53065$98eff520$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0><4242BB45.9080302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000a01c530dd$ecd9f5a0$0307a8c0@david> I will have one last attempt at getting my problem across. I don't know how Herman's (or is it Kojak's) dead horse is feeling, but I can assure you that banging one's head against a brick wall is not pleasant. Please consider the following scenario. Declarer with xxxx in hand and AQT8 in dummy leads small from hand, observes LHO following small, nominates "The heart um..." and settles down to determine which heart honour to play from dummy. Now as I see it whatever decision making process one went through in the "Qu .. ace" case is also applicable to this. (The outcome may be different because the facts are different but the process should be the same) In the Qu case it was determined that there had been a card incompletely designated, that card could be determined by application of L46B, and that the designation was not inadvertant so L454b did not apply. In my scenario above there has been a card incompletely designated, that designation can be determined by application of L46B2, and that any change from that, happened after pause for thought, so L45b does not apply. So we have a incompleted designation and a pause for thought. Now the incompleted designation is either a designation to which L45 and L46 apply in both cases or neither. I acknowledge that the reason for the change is different in each case, but the law only allows change if there is BOTH inadvertancy and no pause for thought. It gets murkier. Our honest declarer insists that only a heart honour was under consideration. But was that intention incontrovertible? So how do you rule? Why? Why is this different from the Qu.. situation? Now I have no really strong feelings about the Qu .. ace case, despite any indications to the contrary, but I feel there are many many innocent incompleted designations out there that are going to be caught in the same net. I am still struggling to get to grips with a general interrupted/incomplete designation. **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005 From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Mar 25 04:01:07 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri Mar 25 04:01:48 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: <20050324165425.AC227F61E7@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050324165425.AC227F61E7@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050324214238.030b2188@mail.comcast.net> At 11:54 AM 3/24/2005, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Eric Landau napisa?(a): > > > L12A1 doesn't say that the TD may "rule whatever he wants"; > >it says he > > may "award an assigned adjusted score". If he chooses to do so, he > > remains bound by L12C2. It may be perfectly legal and proper for him > > to adjust the score to 7NTXX -13, but only if he can justify the > > finding that 7NTXX -13 "was likely had the irregularity not occurred". > > > > > >That's my point. Why should the TD be authorised to do this at all? >We have automatic penalties for LOOTs, BOOTs and the like, >we have the "could have known" law, we have L16 for >for UI cases etc. > >Can you give me an example of an adjustment >(not necessarily to 7NTxx -13) that can be done >only on the grounds of L12A1 - where the >TD has no legal basis for his action in L16 >or the "could have known" law or cannot >apply automatic penalties (or *can* apply >them by thinks they were insufficient) >or any other law from TFLB >and must explicitely use L12A1 for >his ruling? Here's an example from one of Edgar Kaplan's articles in the _Bridge World_. South realizes after a trick is turned that he didn't see East's last play, so he picks up East's quitted card in violation of L66. He discovers that East discarded, and subsequently takes a marked finesse through West, making a contract which would go down if he thought East had followed. South might get a PP for his infraction, but it is also clear that an adjusted score to down one is needed. However, there is no case in L16 which covers this; if the card is UI, it cannot be covered by L16A, and L16B does not allow an assigned adjusted score. Or here's another case, with no deliberate infraction. South is playing 4S. North has 85 of diamonds, but the D5 is mixed in with his hearts when dummy is put down (in violation of L41D). West leads the DA, and seeing that dummy will ruff the next diamond, West cashes SAK and leads a third spade. South wins the third spade, sets up dummy's clubs, and pitches his diamond losers from hand to make ten tricks. However, when he claims, West notices that both North and South have the H5, and that North's is actually the D5. West could have cashed the DK to beat the contract. We should adjust here to 4S down one, but L12A1 is the only Law that seems to allow for it. From jimdb at yebox.com Fri Mar 25 04:32:22 2005 From: jimdb at yebox.com (Jodi Souza) Date: Fri Mar 25 04:32:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Notification: We offer low rates Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/nowss.asp Best Regards, Joshua Sneed to be remov(ed: http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From yeiser at fadmail.com Fri Mar 25 05:43:56 2005 From: yeiser at fadmail.com (Dan Cramer) Date: Fri Mar 25 05:55:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Lowest rates in 45 years Message-ID: <111641.4187.yeiser@fadmail.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/nowss.asp Best Regards, Virginia Hebert to be remov(ed: http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From tehlik at emailaccount.com Fri Mar 25 08:16:49 2005 From: tehlik at emailaccount.com (Thomas Sampson) Date: Fri Mar 25 08:17:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Lowest rates in 45 years Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/nowss.asp Best Regards, Frankie Rosenberg to be remov(ed: http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From mikedodson at yahoo.com Fri Mar 25 08:23:41 2005 From: mikedodson at yahoo.com (mike dodson) Date: Fri Mar 25 08:24:38 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? Message-ID: <20050325072341.42186.qmail@web90210.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Could we go back to basics in this discussion? L45b says declarer plays a card from dummy by naming it. Naming to me means words spoken. A spoken word is a sequence of sounds. Until a complete sequence is uttered there is no word, thus no naming. Intention is irrelevent, an incomplete word may be UI but it cannot get us to L46 or L45c4b. A complete word is still required for an incomplete designation (a suit but no rank, a rank but no suit). When we do get to L46b3b, intention(past tense) is still irrelevent. L46b3b says "is intended", present tense. "was intended" is not part of the law. Thus: "Qu " is not a card named, no incomplete or unadvertant designation. I can change my mind just as I can change it when reaching for the bidding box but not crossing the line drawn by local regulation, UI perhaps but no call. I have no problem with "QuAce" and little sympathy for "Queen", see lho's king, "no Ace". "the six" does not require mind reading, merely ask declarer for his present intention. This seems clear to me and at odds with most points of view offered in this discussion. How have I gone so wrong? Mike Dodson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 25 09:14:36 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 25 09:14:12 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000a01c530dd$ecd9f5a0$0307a8c0@david> References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred><6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net><000401c52e31$f5319630$77c287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001101c52fdc$6c098140$0307a8c0@david><007e01c53065$98eff520$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0><4242BB45.9080302@hdw.be> <000a01c530dd$ecd9f5a0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <4243C86C.7010400@hdw.be> Well David, you won't have any trouble using the Herman approach: Declarer is not allowed to change his play from the one he intended when he started speaking. In this case, I make a difference between a declarer saying "The ..." without having thought it through and another one who wants to play the queen and can stop just in time after "The ..." (continueing with something like "ehm, no, the ..."). I know it looks the same when you write it down, but if you phone me I'll let you hear the different intonations. David Barton wrote: > I will have one last attempt at getting my problem > across. I don't know how Herman's (or is it Kojak's) > dead horse is feeling, but I can assure you that banging > one's head against a brick wall is not pleasant. > > Please consider the following scenario. > Declarer with xxxx in hand and AQT8 in dummy > leads small from hand, observes LHO following small, > nominates "The heart um..." and settles down to determine > which heart honour to play from dummy. > > Now as I see it whatever decision making process one went > through in the "Qu .. ace" case is also applicable to this. > (The outcome may be different because the facts are > different but the process should be the same) > > In the Qu case it was determined that there had been a card > incompletely designated, that card could be determined by application of > L46B, and that the designation was not inadvertant so L454b > did not apply. > > In my scenario above there has been a card incompletely designated, > that designation can be determined by application of L46B2, and that > any change from that, happened after pause for thought, so L45b does > not apply. > > So we have a incompleted designation and a pause for thought. > Now the incompleted designation is either a designation to which L45 > and L46 apply in both cases or neither. > I acknowledge that the reason for the change is different in each case, > but the law only allows change if there is BOTH inadvertancy and no > pause for thought. > > It gets murkier. Our honest declarer insists that only a heart honour was > under consideration. But was that intention incontrovertible? > So how do you rule? > Why? > Why is this different from the Qu.. situation? > > > Now I have no really strong feelings about the Qu .. ace case, despite > any indications to the contrary, but I feel there are many many innocent > incompleted designations out there that are going to be caught > in the same net. > > I am still struggling to get to grips with a general interrupted/incomplete > designation. > > **************************************** > david.barton@boltblue.com > **************************************** > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 25 09:43:07 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 25 09:42:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: forfait en ex aequo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4243CF1B.5040005@hdw.be> Eric Smets wrote: > Herman, > > Niet of wel afronden, dat is uiteraard een beslissing die moet genomen > worden EN in het reglement ingeschreven. Wat er ook beslist wordt, het is er > mij om te doen dat het duidelijk in het reglement staat zodat er geen > discussies kunnen van kunnen komen. > dat is uiteraard juist. en daar moeten we over spreken. en mijn persoonlijke mening is alleen maar dat - ik sta hier niet op. > Ik was er mij niet van bewust dat zo ingewikkeld is: afronden en enkel > indien nodig de decimalen er terug aanplakken. > dat is wat we uiteindelijk wel zullen doen. en wat het huidige reglement ook voorschrijft (want als er niets staat kan je niet afronden). Maar het is verkeerd om dat zo neer te schrijven, want het heeft geen zin: de afgeronde uitslag dient nergens voor, want de enige keer dat de decimalen belangrijk worden, laten we de afronding toch terug weg. Dan maar beter niet afronden. Veel korter reglement. > mvg. Eric > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005 From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Mar 25 10:21:59 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri Mar 25 10:22:50 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) Message-ID: <20050325092159.C91BCE5B71@poczta.interia.pl> David J. Grabiner napisa?(a): > Here's an example from one of Edgar Kaplan's articles in the _Bridge > World_. > > South realizes after a trick is turned that he didn't see East's last > play, > so he picks up East's quitted card in violation of L66. He discovers that > > East discarded, and subsequently takes a marked finesse through West, > making a contract which would go down if he thought East had followed. > > South might get a PP for his infraction, but it is also clear that an > adjusted score to down one is needed. However, there is no case in L16 > which covers this; if the card is UI, it cannot be covered by L16A, and > L16B does not allow an assigned adjusted score. L72B1 covers this very well - the player certainly could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side > > Or here's another case, with no deliberate infraction. > > South is playing 4S. North has 85 of diamonds, but the D5 is mixed in > with > his hearts when dummy is put down (in violation of L41D). West leads the > > DA, and seeing that dummy will ruff the next diamond, West cashes SAK and > > leads a third spade. South wins the third spade, sets up dummy's clubs, > and pitches his diamond losers from hand to make ten tricks. However, > when > he claims, West notices that both North and South have the H5, and that > North's is actually the D5. West could have cashed the DK to beat the > contract. > > We should adjust here to 4S down one, but L12A1 is the only Law that seems > > to allow for it. L72B1 - for the same reason. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wszystko o MOTORYZACJI >>> http://link.interia.pl/f186a From piszczek at mailAccount.com Fri Mar 25 10:35:56 2005 From: piszczek at mailAccount.com (Tasha Malone) Date: Fri Mar 25 10:35:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Need a low mortage rate? Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/nowss.asp Best Regards, Stanley Page to be remov(ed: http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Mar 25 10:46:22 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Mar 25 10:50:49 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) References: <20050324165425.AC227F61E7@poczta.interia.pl> <6.2.1.2.0.20050324214238.030b2188@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <004901c5311f$9a8c4b80$778e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Grabiner" To: Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:01 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) Or here's another case, with no deliberate infraction. South is playing 4S. North has 85 of diamonds, but the D5 is mixed in with his hearts when dummy is put down (in violation of L41D). < +=+ No deliberate infraction, of course, but there is an infraction (as you say). The terms of 41D are such that it would not normally be the subject of a procedural penalty. On the other hand the Director is empowered to reinstate (make good) any damage in the score suffered by the non-offending side and occasioned by the violation of correct procedure. If a tile is cracked he may replace the tile, not rebuild the porch. Mr Ciborowski seems to argue that the game should be administered by mechanical laws, even in judgemental situations. The rigid nature of that would increase the injustices of the game and the distortion of the results. Judgemental rulings are subject to checks and balances through the appeals system and the regulatory structure. In principle we rely upon good judges to achieve fair results. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Fri Mar 25 11:22:11 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri Mar 25 11:23:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: forfait en ex aequo Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C61D@hotel.npl.co.uk> Herman has taken's Kojak's comments about his (Herman's) ability to use English. I guess all Herman's future posts will be in Flemish(Dutch?). Note the Latin(?) subject and English "wrote" (supplied by the mail agent?). No offence intended. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: blml Sent: 25/03/05 08:43 Subject: [blml] Re: forfait en ex aequo Eric Smets wrote: > Herman, > > Niet of wel afronden, dat is uiteraard een beslissing die moet genomen > worden EN in het reglement ingeschreven. Wat er ook beslist wordt, het is er > mij om te doen dat het duidelijk in het reglement staat zodat er geen > discussies kunnen van kunnen komen. > dat is uiteraard juist. en daar moeten we over spreken. en mijn persoonlijke mening is alleen maar dat - ik sta hier niet op. > Ik was er mij niet van bewust dat zo ingewikkeld is: afronden en enkel > indien nodig de decimalen er terug aanplakken. > dat is wat we uiteindelijk wel zullen doen. en wat het huidige reglement ook voorschrijft (want als er niets staat kan je niet afronden). Maar het is verkeerd om dat zo neer te schrijven, want het heeft geen zin: de afgeronde uitslag dient nergens voor, want de enige keer dat de decimalen belangrijk worden, laten we de afronding toch terug weg. Dan maar beter niet afronden. Veel korter reglement. > mvg. Eric > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From pramwblml at rtflb.org Fri Mar 25 13:36:19 2005 From: pramwblml at rtflb.org (Mobley Felicia) Date: Fri Mar 25 13:37:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Stay hard with Ciali.s Message-ID: <4526023059191.qWBkl5lUYwYLv@83.199.118.126> Fri, 25 Mar 2005 04:36:18 -0800 Ci.alis Softtabs Get ready for romance in just 15minutes Increase your S,ex Drive Boost S.exual Performance Fuller and Harder Erect,ions Increase Stamina and Endurance Quicker Recharges New Super V,iagra (100x better) Discreet online Ord.ering and shipping DHL Express Delivery Special Ends Soon... Ord.er Here -> http://jGfdqD6PTS32.guzzling.net/cs/?unxx From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 25 13:57:55 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Mar 25 13:57:09 2005 Subject: Fwd: Re: Re: Re: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050325075701.02aaa980@pop.starpower.net> Screwed up and sent this privately; meant it to go to the list yesterday. Apologies to Konrad for the double post. >Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:22:53 -0500 >From: Eric Landau >Subject: Re: Re: Re: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) > >At 11:54 AM 3/24/05, Konrad wrote: > >>Eric Landau napisa?(a): >> >> > L12A1 doesn't say that the TD may "rule whatever he wants"; >> >it says he >> > may "award an assigned adjusted score". If he chooses to do so, he >> > remains bound by L12C2. It may be perfectly legal and proper for him >> > to adjust the score to 7NTXX -13, but only if he can justify the >> > finding that 7NTXX -13 "was likely had the irregularity not occurred". >> >>That's my point. Why should the TD be authorised to do this at all? >>We have automatic penalties for LOOTs, BOOTs and the like, >>we have the "could have known" law, we have L16 for >>for UI cases etc. >> >>Can you give me an example of an adjustment >>(not necessarily to 7NTxx -13) that can be done >>only on the grounds of L12A1 - where the >>TD has no legal basis for his action in L16 >>or the "could have known" law or cannot >>apply automatic penalties (or *can* apply >>them by thinks they were insufficient) >>or any other law from TFLB >>and must explicitely use L12A1 for >>his ruling? > >I'd be glad to. > >Declarer leads the 13th club at trick 11. LHO holds QJ/J/-/-; dummy >shows A9/9/-/-. He has the count and knows that declarer is now >1-1-0-0 and his partner is 2-1-0-0, but the S10 and H10 are still out, >and he cannot know whether declarer or partner has either of them. He >must pitch, and has a 50-50 guess which suit to abandon. > >Declarer holds 10/3/-/- (RHO holds 64/10/-/-), so takes the rest if >LHO guesses to pitch a spade. But it happens that in the earlier >play, LHO dropped the HJ on the table accidentally, and it has become >a major PC. To "pay" the penalty, LHO is now required by law to >"guess" correctly! > >Neither L16 nor L73F2 are relevant. L50D1 specifies an automatic >penalty for LHO's violation, which leads to a trick for LHO, whereas >declarer would have been "likely" to take the rest "had the >irregularity not occurred". > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Mar 25 15:02:56 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri Mar 25 15:03:49 2005 Subject: Fwd: Re: Re: Re: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) Message-ID: <20050325140256.848D33031DC@poczta.interia.pl> Eric Landau napisa?(a): > Screwed up and sent this privately; meant it to go to the list > yesterday. Apologies to Konrad for the double post. > > >Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:22:53 -0500 > >From: Eric Landau >ehaa@starpower.net> > >Subject: Re: Re: Re: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) > > > >At 11:54 AM 3/24/05, Konrad wrote: > > > >>Eric Landau napisa?(a): > >> > >> > L12A1 doesn>#039;t say that the TD may "rule whatever he wants"; > >> >it says he > >> > may "award an assigned adjusted score". If he chooses to do so, he > >> > remains bound by L12C2. It may be perfectly legal and proper for > him > >> > to adjust the score to 7NTXX -13, but only if he can justify the > >> > finding that 7NTXX -13 "was likely had the irregularity not > occurred". > >> > >>That's my point. Why should the TD be authorised to do this at all? > >>We have automatic penalties for LOOTs, BOOTs and the like, > >>we have the "could have known" law, we have L16 for > >>for UI cases etc. > >> > >>Can you give me an example of an adjustment > >>(not necessarily to 7NTxx -13) that can be done > >>only on the grounds of L12A1 - where the > >>TD has no legal basis for his action in L16 > >>or the "could have known" law or cannot > >>apply automatic penalties (or *can* apply > >>them by thinks they were insufficient) > >>or any other law from TFLB > >>and must explicitely use L12A1 for > >>his ruling? > > > >I'd be glad to. > > > >Declarer leads the 13th club at trick 11. LHO holds QJ/J/-/-; dummy > >shows A9/9/-/-. He has the count and knows that declarer is now > >1-1-0-0 and his partner is 2-1-0-0, but the S10 and H10 are still out, > >and he cannot know whether declarer or partner has either of them. He > >must pitch, and has a 50-50 guess which suit to abandon. > > > >Declarer holds 10/3/-/- (RHO holds 64/10/-/-), so takes the rest if > >LHO guesses to pitch a spade. But it happens that in the earlier > >play, LHO dropped the HJ on the table accidentally, and it has become > >a major PC. To "pay" the penalty, LHO is now required by law to > >"guess" correctly! > > > >Neither L16 nor L73F2 are relevant. L50D1 specifies an automatic > >penalty for LHO's violation, which leads to a trick for LHO, whereas > >declarer would have been "likely" to take the rest "had the > >irregularity not occurred". > > 1. According to David (if I understand his position well) you are not allowed to adjust this case under L12A1 becasue there is already a prescribed penalty for a LOOT. David - can you confirm that this is what you think? 2. Assuming the TD is allowed to make the adjustment you are talking about I don't like this a bit. If the defender "could have known" that this infraction was likely to work to his advantage that it is a different story but if he couldn't - well, the luck of the man! That is the charm of automatic penalties. Sometimes they work to offender's advantage. You might consider making all fixed-penalty laws equity-based laws or you can make the fixed penalties more severe (my choice) but I don't like this scenario: 1. An infaction is committed. 2. An automatic penalty is applied. 3. The penalty happens to work to OS's advantage. 4. We wheel out a secret weapon from behind a corner - L12A1. Consider this. Suppose I accidentally drop two cards on the table. My partner is barred for one round. I hold: AKxxxx AKx xx xx Knowing that partner must pass I judge to open 4S. Partner tables: xxx xx Kxxx xxxx Spades are 2-2 and the DA is onside. Nobody else is in game - I score a top. Will you adjust the score using L12A1? If you don't - what is the difference between this case and your example? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1837 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 25 16:38:28 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Mar 25 16:38:43 2005 Subject: Fwd: Re: Re: Re: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: <20050325140256.848D33031DC@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050325140256.848D33031DC@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050325095753.02b3aeb0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:02 AM 3/25/05, Konrad wrote: > > >>Can you give me an example of an adjustment > > >>(not necessarily to 7NTxx -13) that can be done > > >>only on the grounds of L12A1 - where the > > >>TD has no legal basis for his action in L16 > > >>or the "could have known" law or cannot > > >>apply automatic penalties (or *can* apply > > >>them by thinks they were insufficient) > > >>or any other law from TFLB > > >>and must explicitely use L12A1 for > > >>his ruling? > > > > > >I'd be glad to. > > > > > >Declarer leads the 13th club at trick 11. LHO holds QJ/J/-/-; dummy > > >shows A9/9/-/-. He has the count and knows that declarer is now > > >1-1-0-0 and his partner is 2-1-0-0, but the S10 and H10 are still > out, > > >and he cannot know whether declarer or partner has either of > them. He > > >must pitch, and has a 50-50 guess which suit to abandon. > > > > > >Declarer holds 10/3/-/- (RHO holds 64/10/-/-), so takes the rest if > > >LHO guesses to pitch a spade. But it happens that in the earlier > > >play, LHO dropped the HJ on the table accidentally, and it has become > > >a major PC. To "pay" the penalty, LHO is now required by law to > > >"guess" correctly! > > > > > >Neither L16 nor L73F2 are relevant. L50D1 specifies an automatic > > >penalty for LHO's violation, which leads to a trick for LHO, > whereas > > >declarer would have been "likely" to take the rest "had the > > >irregularity not occurred". > >1. According to David (if I understand his position well) you are not >allowed to adjust this case under L12A1 becasue there >is already a prescribed penalty for a LOOT. >David - can you confirm that this is what you think? > >2. Assuming the TD is allowed to make the adjustment you are talking about >I don't like this a bit. If the defender "could have known" that >this infraction was likely to work to his advantage >that it is a different story but if he couldn't - well, >the luck of the man! That is the charm of automatic penalties. Sometimes >they work to offender's advantage. You might consider >making all fixed-penalty laws equity-based laws >or you can make the fixed penalties more severe (my choice) >but I don't like this scenario: > >1. An infaction is committed. >2. An automatic penalty is applied. >3. The penalty happens to work to OS's advantage. >4. We wheel out a secret weapon from behind >a corner - L12A1. FTR, I have no position on this as yet; I continue to follow the thread with interest and in the hope of learing something. My post was in reply to Konrad's request for a scenario where the infraction worked to the OS's advantage and neither L16 nor L73F2 applied. I believe that my example is a suitable case for discussion; if one believes that L12A1 can be used in such cases, this must be the sort of case where it would be appropriate. Let's see whether we can come to a consensus on whether we should or shouldn't adjust to allow declarer the rest of the tricks persuant to L12A1. >Consider this. Suppose I accidentally >drop two cards on the table. >My partner is barred for one round. > >I hold: > >AKxxxx >AKx >xx >xx > >Knowing that partner must pass >I judge to open 4S. Partner tables: > >xxx >xx >Kxxx >xxxx > >Spades are 2-2 and the DA is onside. >Nobody else is in game - I score a top. > >Will you adjust the score using L12A1? >If you don't - what is the difference >between this case and your example? L12A1 applies when the relevant law "do[es] not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant". The "provision of indemnity", AKA "restoration of equity", occurs, or doesn't, at the point at which the penalty for the violation is applied. In Konrad's example, the penalty was applied, and equity was presumptively restored, at the point at which his partner was barred. That his opponents got a bad score was not a consequence of the enforcement of the penalty per se; it was Konrad's subsequent decision to bid 4S that got him a top. L24C didn't mandate that he make the winning call. In the example I offered, L50D1 was applied when LHO was to discard at trick 11, and forced him into the winning play whether he wanted to make it or not. Declarer couldn't have been damaged by any subsequent action of the NOS, as there wasn't any; it was all over when the law was read. Equity never had its chance. I do not believe that L12A1 can be applied to Konrad's example. I am not particularly defending the proposition that it *should* be applied to mine, but I do argue that there would be no logical inconsistency in doing so. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john at asimere.com Sat Mar 26 00:56:56 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat Mar 26 00:59:41 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <4243C86C.7010400@hdw.be> References: <000001c52d49$942c2230$3c06e150@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20050321082437.02b6c7a0@pop.starpower.net> <000401c52e31$f5319630$77c287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001101c52fdc$6c098140$0307a8c0@david> <007e01c53065$98eff520$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4242BB45.9080302@hdw.be> <000a01c530dd$ecd9f5a0$0307a8c0@david> <4243C86C.7010400@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <4243C86C.7010400@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Well David, you won't have any trouble using the Herman approach: >Declarer is not allowed to change his play from the one he intended >when he started speaking. In this case, I make a difference between a >declarer saying "The ..." without having thought it through and >another one who wants to play the queen and can stop just in time >after "The ..." (continueing with something like "ehm, no, the ..."). > >I know it looks the same when you write it down, but if you phone me >I'll let you hear the different intonations. and if you're speaking through a voice synthesiser? 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 at asimere.com Sat Mar 26 00:58:16 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat Mar 26 01:01:01 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <20050325072341.42186.qmail@web90210.mail.scd.yahoo.com> References: <20050325072341.42186.qmail@web90210.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In article <20050325072341.42186.qmail@web90210.mail.scd.yahoo.com>, mike dodson writes >Could we go back to basics in this discussion? > >L45b says declarer plays a card from dummy by naming >it. Naming to >me means words spoken. A spoken word is a sequence of >sounds. Until >a complete sequence is uttered there is no word, thus >no naming. >Intention is irrelevent, an incomplete word may be UI >but it cannot >get us to L46 or L45c4b. A complete word is still >required for an >incomplete designation (a suit but no rank, a rank but >no suit). > >When we do get to L46b3b, intention(past tense) is >still irrelevent. >L46b3b says "is intended", present tense. "was >intended" is not part >of the law. > >Thus: >"Qu " is not a card named, no incomplete or >unadvertant designation. >I can change my mind just as I can change it when >reaching for the >bidding box but not crossing the line drawn by local >regulation, UI >perhaps but no call. I have no problem with "QuAce" >and little >sympathy for "Queen", see lho's king, "no Ace". > >"the six" does not require mind reading, merely ask >declarer for his >present intention. > >This seems clear to me and at odds with most points of >view offered >in this discussion. How have I gone so wrong? I find it very clear and totally obvious. Let's go plough (plow) our lone furrow together. John > >Mike Dodson > > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. >http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.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 at asimere.com Sat Mar 26 01:01:42 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat Mar 26 01:04:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: forfait en ex aequo In-Reply-To: <4243CF1B.5040005@hdw.be> References: <4243CF1B.5040005@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <4243CF1B.5040005@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Eric Smets wrote: > >> Herman, >> >> Niet of wel afronden, dat is uiteraard een beslissing die moet genomen >> worden EN in het reglement ingeschreven. Wat er ook beslist wordt, het is er >> mij om te doen dat het duidelijk in het reglement staat zodat er geen >> discussies kunnen van kunnen komen. >> > I realljy thooughtje there were more j's in dutchje. rgds jjohnje -- 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 Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Mar 26 02:48:52 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Mar 26 02:49:37 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) References: <20050324165425.AC227F61E7@poczta.interia.pl><6.2.1.2.0.20050324214238.030b2188@mail.comcast.net> <004901c5311f$9a8c4b80$778e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <007c01c531a5$f74ed230$269468d5@James> [Grattan Endicott] > Mr Ciborowski seems to argue that the game > should be administered by mechanical laws, even > in judgemental situations. The rigid nature of that > would increase the injustices of the game and the > distortion of the results. Judgemental rulings are > subject to checks and balances through the appeals > system and the regulatory structure. In principle we > rely upon good judges to achieve fair results. [Nigel] As usual, I agree with Konrad. The argument seems simple: A. Most enjoyable games have simple rules that players can understand. (e.g. Chess, Diplomacy, Scrabble, Go) B. The rules of a game have no need to comply with real-world concepts of justice. (e.g Liar Dice). C. Players regard a game as fair if identical infractions incur the same rulings (c.f. Bridge). D. The fewer spurious subjective judgements required of directors (e.g. about intentions, skills), the fairer the game. From AWUMAKC at lidbecks.com Sat Mar 26 05:17:28 2005 From: AWUMAKC at lidbecks.com (Theodore Negron) Date: Sat Mar 26 05:28:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Unbelievable New Homes for the USA! Message-ID: <20950402335750.A31560@xearthlink.net> Would you REFINANCE if you knew you'd save THOUSANDZ? Or get a Loan of 405,000.00, you already qualified. We'll get you the lowest possible rate. Don't believe me? Fill out our small online questionaire and we'll show you how. Get the home/house or car you always wanted, it only takes 35 seconds of your time. Click this link: http://www.ok-mrt-now.net/43.asp Best Regards, Theodore Negron medallion gc devotion kb epigram ca axe cny indestructible ho lance rbw allot br dalzell tc alveolar qwy cavalier vmi [2 From JEDELSCUYCL at 2wrandras.com Sat Mar 26 05:17:25 2005 From: JEDELSCUYCL at 2wrandras.com (Aileen Hensley) Date: Sat Mar 26 05:29:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Unleash the Beast with 100% Natural viagra! Message-ID: <200203200004.g6A52XX02708@eng2.beaverton.ibm.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050326/ef9a6884/attachment.html From rmugele at emailaccount.com Sat Mar 26 06:16:47 2005 From: rmugele at emailaccount.com (Horacio Payne) Date: Sat Mar 26 06:21:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Approved mortage rate Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/nowss.asp Best Regards, Carly Austin to be remov(ed: http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Mar 26 18:35:14 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat Mar 26 06:36:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh NABC Appeal 3 Message-ID: <007b01c5322a$32eaefc0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Silodor Open Pairs Second Final Session Board 5 Dlr: North Vul: N-S Larry Cohen ? 5 4 ? K 8 3 ? A J 10 7 5 3 ? J 3 Steve Weinstein Bobby Levin ? A K 7 3 ? Q 10 8 6 2 ? Q J 9 ? A 10 7 5 4 2 ? 8 6 4 2 ? K 9 ? 7 4 ?? David Berkowitz ? J 9 ? 6 ? Q ? A K Q 10 9 8 6 5 2 West North East South Pass 2? 5? Pass Pass 5? Pass Pass Dbl All Pass Facts: 2? was Alerted as Flannery. At his first turn to call West broke tempo 15?20 seconds. The contract was successful with an overtrick, plus 750 East-West. The director was not called at the time. The players agreed to some break in tempo at the table, but because of time pressure all agreed to bring the matter to a director after they caught up on the clock. Director?s Ruling: Law 16. The Director ruled that the Unauthorized Information arising from the slow pass demonstrably suggested further action by East. The contract was changed to 5? by South, minus 100 North-South. The Appeal: East, West and South attended the hearing. Flannery, as played by East-West, normally showed 4?5 in the majors, though occasionally 4?6. They had no agreement that it could be 5?6. East, with a passed hand on his right and a preempt on his left, would very likely find some values in partner?s hand. Since East had a club void and two extra cards in his suits it was clear to him to bid 5?. South believed that pass was a logical alternative. None of the players could remember if the STOP card had been used, but all agreed that West had clearly exceeded the ?normal? tempo break after a skip bid. The Decision: Was there a break in tempo? If yes, was a specific action demonstrably suggested? If yes, was there a logical alternative? All agreed to a break in tempo. From East?s viewpoint, West was very likely to have some values, given his hand and the auction. West, in hesitating, could have been contemplating 5?, 5?, double or even 5?. The committee judged that the likelihood of West?s thinking about doubling to be great enough, relative to the chance that he was considering bidding 5? or 5?, that the break in tempo did not demonstrably suggest the 5? call by East. The committee restored the table result of 5? doubled, plus 750 East-West. Director-in-Charge: Henry Cutoff Chairperson: Doug Doubt Committee Members: Chris Moll, Michael Huston, Jo Ann Sprung and Richard Popper ############# This decision makes me wish that the NABC AC could have a radical change in membership. The TD ruled correctly, a slow break in tempo suggests action, and passing was clearly a logical alternative to bidding. Had East doubled successfully, with West holding a different hand, no doubt this AC would rule that West could well have been thinking of bidding 5H or 5S, and therefore the double was not demonstratly suggested by the BIT. North's double was so ridiculous (wild, gambling, irrational?), perhaps prompted by the likelihood that the contract would be cancelled if it made, that another NABC AC might let N-S keep the table result. That would be wrong, as nothing N-S could do would avoid the damage caused by the 5H bid. There is no law against the so-called "double shot." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From summerall at yebox.com Sat Mar 26 10:33:59 2005 From: summerall at yebox.com (Christoper Rushing) Date: Sat Mar 26 10:37:10 2005 Subject: [blml] High rates? Not with us! low fixed rate Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/nowss.asp Best Regards, Noe Forbes to be remov(ed: http://www.ok-ref-yes.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From ksvgpkry at tpoint.com Sat Mar 26 17:29:40 2005 From: ksvgpkry at tpoint.com (Deena) Date: Sat Mar 26 17:33:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Fast Extender Message-ID: <141.83e558d5.2a9JFK44@sol.com> Newest Penis enlaregment system! Fast Extender The only effective nonsurgical method to lengthen the penis is by employing devices that pull at the glans of the penis for extended periods of time. This is known as traction; where tissues under continuous tension will undergoe cellular multiplication. The result is tissue expansion, resulting in a permanent increase of the tissue... Source : Wikipedia You can get it here: http://www.PENlS.net/e/viks you carcinogen me redwood me you submitted me lest me you globule me huntley me you cinematic me icebox me you because me tailor me http://PENlS.net/e.php From hamado at fadmail.com Sat Mar 26 22:24:04 2005 From: hamado at fadmail.com (Althea Boyer) Date: Sat Mar 26 22:21:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Re-finance at todays low rate Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.forever-mrt-now.net/nowss.asp Best Regards, Christoper Ellison to be remov(ed: http://www.forever-mrt-now.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From haisley at mailAccount.com Sat Mar 26 23:02:58 2005 From: haisley at mailAccount.com (Jana Abel) Date: Sat Mar 26 23:07:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Pre-approved Application #LZHQHV663 Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.forever-mrt-now.net/nowss.asp Best Regards, Lenny Huff to be remov(ed: http://www.forever-mrt-now.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From adam at tameware.com Sun Mar 27 01:31:16 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun Mar 27 01:35:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh NABC Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <007b01c5322a$32eaefc0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <007b01c5322a$32eaefc0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: >"The committee judged that the likelihood of West's thinking about >doubling to be great enough, relative to the chance that he was >considering bidding 5H or 5S, that the break in tempo did not >demonstrably suggest the 5H call by East." ... >This decision makes me wish that the NABC AC could have a radical change in >membership. The TD ruled correctly, a slow break in tempo suggests action, and >passing was clearly a logical alternative to bidding. I don't think the AC composition was so flawed, though I don't like their decision. They did not think that the UI demonstrably suggested 5H over pass. I spoke about the case with one AC member. I was unable to demonstrate to him that the UI suggested 5H over pass. Can anyone help? -- Adam Wildavsky http://www.tameware.com From art at about.com Sun Mar 27 18:49:34 2005 From: art at about.com (rassilka.com) Date: Sun Mar 27 03:55:45 2005 Subject: [blml] OEM Software Message-ID: <20050327015446.2A338196@rhubarb.custard.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050327/4ee8fa24/attachment.html From collinson at doneasy.com Sun Mar 27 04:11:35 2005 From: collinson at doneasy.com (Chauncey Bishop) Date: Sun Mar 27 04:17:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Become one of the low rates Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.forever-mrt-now.net/nowss.asp Best Regards, Wiley Kline to be remov(ed: http://www.forever-mrt-now.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From ansseau at emailaccount.com Sun Mar 27 04:56:25 2005 From: ansseau at emailaccount.com (Serena Weeks) Date: Sun Mar 27 04:56:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Need a low mortage rate? Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.forever-mrt-now.net/nowss.asp Best Regards, Casey Bain to be remov(ed: http://www.forever-mrt-now.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From hvqwomflcnoot at owensullivan.com Sun Mar 27 05:45:42 2005 From: hvqwomflcnoot at owensullivan.com (Laurence Terry) Date: Sun Mar 27 05:54:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Solid Mortgages at low rates Message-ID: <9.3.30.2081924.0083fc70@ies.edu> ----- Original Message ----- From: Emilio To: vulcan1@msn.com ; rebelledcosmology@yahoo.com ; Dear Homeowner, Mortgage. You have been pre-approved. You can get $420,000 with a small monthly payment, thanks to your pre-approval. Visit us, Fill out the form, no obligation Pull cash out, or refinance.. No long forms or quastionnaires. Fill up our extremely short and simple form today and get a call back within a couple of hours. Start saving now, click that link: http://www.ok-mrt-now.net/46.asp rhoda mxl adaptive fm asymmetry dkt sale cs caryatid ni cagey ag cb rol cadillac xf tee bl nanosecond yn http://ok-mrt-now.net/gone.asp From izcwjtg at yahoo.com Sun Mar 27 12:28:09 2005 From: izcwjtg at yahoo.com (Kimberly Giles) Date: Sun Mar 27 12:29:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Message subject In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:19:09 +0300." <20031002150239.GG32185@asuka.tech.sitadelle.com> Message-ID: w.o.w....highhest quality medds at great offfers V-codin - 179.00 Valliuum - 169.00 Vi graa - 199.00 Cai llis - 249.00 Codeinne - 189.00 Sooma - 179.00 All orderrs are delivered by Fedex with full tracking 24/7. Satisfactiionnss guaaranteeed... http://www.ltxmeds.com to get rid of maiiling list: http://www.ltxmeds.com/removeme.asp cardiod audition arabia deoxyribose tanh From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 27 15:49:55 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun Mar 27 15:50:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh NABC Appeal 3 References: <007b01c5322a$32eaefc0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 18:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Pittsburgh NABC Appeal 3 > Marv wrote: > > >"The committee judged that the likelihood of West's thinking about > >doubling to be great enough, relative to the chance that he was > >considering bidding 5H or 5S, that the break in tempo did not > >demonstrably suggest the 5H call by East." > > ... > > >This decision makes me wish that the NABC AC could have a radical change in > >membership. The TD ruled correctly, a slow break in tempo suggests action, and > >passing was clearly a logical alternative to bidding. > > I don't think the AC composition was so flawed, though I don't like > their decision. They did not think that the UI demonstrably suggested > 5H over pass. I spoke about the case with one AC member. I was unable > to demonstrate to him that the UI suggested 5H over pass. Can anyone > help? > > -- > Adam Wildavsky http://www.tameware.com fwiw..... Most matters of tempo variation involve the measurement of risk/ reward. In this case E argues that W is marked with good values. Well, I would argue that W is marked with good values, but not from the auction but from his tempo since S could have powerful honors. Also, N is not precluded from holding the balance of power. Nevertheless, it appears that it is tempo** that marks W's values as being good ones versus so-so ones. **The facts suggest that play had been slow so I would think that there was significant tempo variation. So, what occurred? Instead of W passing in the expected 9-13 seconds it was closer to 20sec. From W's point of view of the bidding E should have two defensive tricks and probably as many as three, also, his hand could be balanced: 4-5-2-2; so it is conceivable that E has 5C beat in his hand. With mediocre values [pass] there should be no problem with accepting opener's decision. With decent values but not a good fit there also is no problem with a business double. Being fourth hand he may or may not have hammerlock values; but failing to bid one of opener's suits [without a good fit] based on power infers he doesn't have power. So, the problem is [likely to be] even though 5C rates to go down it likely is not down enough which suggests that W holds not only decent honors but too many majors to take enough tricks in a club contract. I believe that these inferences, though perhaps not a thorough collection are valid and strong. Without such inferences there is doubtful reward from doubling [opener has only 1.5 defensive tricks] and though the reward from bidding is likely greater, is also very doubtful. OTOH adding such inferences clearly demonstrate that based on opener's values UI suggest bidding over double or pass, and suggest double over pass. regards roger pewick From BUKMULMAE at safeshop.com Sun Mar 27 16:44:45 2005 From: BUKMULMAE at safeshop.com (Sammy Atwood) Date: Sun Mar 27 16:58:15 2005 Subject: [blml] More sexual confidence. More sex. More fun. Message-ID: <105575053257.camel@naldoco> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050327/ad7f8645/attachment.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Mar 27 10:27:28 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun Mar 27 17:47:05 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) References: <20050324165425.AC227F61E7@poczta.interia.pl><6.2.1.2.0.20050324214238.030b2188@mail.comcast.net><004901c5311f$9a8c4b80$778e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <007c01c531a5$f74ed230$269468d5@James> Message-ID: <000401c532e3$b3003f30$f8d3883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 2:48 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) > > [Nigel] > As usual, I agree with Konrad. The argument seems simple: > > A. Most enjoyable games have simple rules that players can > understand. (e.g. Chess, Diplomacy, Scrabble, Go) > > B. The rules of a game have no need to comply with > real-world concepts of justice. (e.g Liar Dice). > > C. Players regard a game as fair if identical infractions > incur the same rulings (c.f. Bridge). > > D. The fewer spurious subjective judgements required of > directors (e.g. about intentions, skills), the fairer the > game. > +=+ B is true. I appreciate that there are some who share the Nigel point of view. As to demand, however, no deafening roar from the masses has reached the drafting subcommittee, and to my eyes he writes of a different game. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 27 20:15:45 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Mar 27 20:16:42 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: <20050325092159.C91BCE5B71@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050325092159.C91BCE5B71@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <21d05563efcc326f9bc3a801a01279b2@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 25, 2005, at 4:21 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > L72B1 covers this very well - the player certainly could have known > at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely > to > damage the non-offending side "Could have known" is wide open - anybody "could have known" just about anything. This phrase should be stricken from the laws. From ugo99 at latinnmail.com Sun Mar 27 20:38:41 2005 From: ugo99 at latinnmail.com (Daniel Solow) Date: Sun Mar 27 20:38:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Confirm receipt Message-ID: Daniel Solow Direct Tel: +27-839-494288, +871-762-535915 Direct Fax: +871-762-535916 Personal/private email: DSolow@latinmail.com I am Mr. Daniel Solow, a native of Cape Town in South Africa and I am an Executive Accountant with the South Africa Department of Mining & Natural Resources. First and foremost, I apologized using this medium to reach you for a transaction/business of this magnitude, but this is due to confidentiality and prompt access reposed on this medium. Be informed that a member of the South Africa Export Promotion Council (SEPC) who was at the Government delegation to your country during a trade exhibition gave your credentials/particulars to me. I have decided to seek a confidential co-operation with you in the execution of the deal described hereunder for the benefit of all parties and hope you will keep it as a top secret because of the nature of this transaction. Within the Department of Mining & Natural Resources where I work as an Executive Accountant, we have in our possession as overdue payment bills totaling Eighteen Million, Three Hundred Thousand U. S. Dollars, which we want to transfer abroad with the assistance and cooperation of a foreign individual to receive the said fund on our behalf or a reliable foreign account to receive such funds. More so, we are handicapped in the circumstances, as the South Africa Civil Service Code of Conduct does not allow us to operate offshore account hence your importance in the whole transaction. The fund represents the balance of the total contract value executed on behalf of my Department by a foreign contracting firm, which we the officials over-invoiced deliberately. Though the actual contract cost have been paid to the original contractor, leaving the balance in the tune of the said amount which we have in principles gotten approval to remit by Telegraphic Transfer (T.T) to any foreign bank account you will provide by filing in an application form which will be fax to you, with the Justice Ministry here in South Africa for the transfer of rights and privileges of the former contractor to you hence provide me with your private/direct fax number. I have the authority of my partners involved to propose that should you be willing to assist us in the transaction, your share of the sum will be 15% of the fund, 80% for us and 5% for taxation and miscellaneous expenses. The business itself is 100% safe, on your part provided you treat it with utmost secrecy and confidentiality. Also your area of specialization is not a hindrance to the successful execution of this transaction. I have reposed my confidence in you and hope that you will not disappoint me. Endeavor to contact me immediately through my above telephone and fax number or my e-mail address, whether or not you are interested in this deal. I want to assure you that my partner and myself are in a position to make the payment of this claim possible provided you can give us a very strong assurance and guarantee that our share will be secured and please remember to treat this matter as very confidential matter, because we will not comprehend with any form of exposure as we are still in active Government Service and remember once again that time is of the essence in this business. I wait in anticipation of your fullest co-operation. Yours truly, Daniel Solow From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Mar 27 22:00:53 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun Mar 27 22:01:51 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: <21d05563efcc326f9bc3a801a01279b2@rochester.rr.com> References: <20050325092159.C91BCE5B71@poczta.interia.pl> <21d05563efcc326f9bc3a801a01279b2@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050327143116.028925d0@mail.comcast.net> At 01:15 PM 3/27/2005, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Mar 25, 2005, at 4:21 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >>L72B1 covers this very well - the player certainly could have known >>at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to >>damage the non-offending side > >"Could have known" is wide open - anybody "could have known" just about >anything. This phrase should be stricken from the laws. But it is needed to distinguish consequent from subsequent damage. Auction A: 1C-1H-3H-4NT-5S-5H, corrected to 5NT. They are off two aces, and 5NT makes five. Auction B: North deals, but South opens 1C out of turn. North makes an enforced pass, and South bids 3NT, which would normally be gambling in their agreements. 3NT makes three and the normal 4S contract goes down. On Auction A, you adjust to 6H down one. Responder could have known, when he made an insufficient bid, that barring partner to get to 5NT would be to his advantage. On auction B, you let the table result stand. Opener could not have known, when he bid out of turn, that barring partner to get to 3NT would be to his advantage. Without the "could have known" rule, you have to accuse responder on auction A of deliberately violating the law in order to make an adjustment. (Before the "could have known" rule, Kaplan suggested that in this type of situation, if you want to make an adjustment by appeals committee, you should also be prepared to hold a C&E committee.) In my original example, dummy had a doubleton diamond but one of the diamonds was in with his hearts. It would be very difficult to accuse dummy of deliberately violating the Law to deceive the opponents, particularly if he had also bid his hand according to the mis-sort (say, bidding the heart suit which he thought was four cards long). Certainly, I wouldn't want to bring a player before a C&E committee for mis-sorting his hand. But the "could have known" rule, or L12A1, allows an adjustment. From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Mar 27 22:07:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Mar 27 22:09:01 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: > It happens frequently when you > decide to finessed for a king, call the Queen from dummy, AND THEN SEE > THAT LHO played the King. You've made a mistake, and you live with it. Singularly unhelpful Kojak. If the queen was called we can all get the ruling right. What we wish to know is how many *letters* into "The Queen" the player must get before we rule the queen played. I (and I think most other English TDs) will allow a change (whether of mis-speaking or mind) up to the second e of queen. Grattan might be saying "as of the first T of The" (he might not, damn hard to tell). Personally I can get by using "you can't take words back but syllables don't count" - doesn't seem to cause a problem with players even if Eric thinks it's nonsense :) Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Mar 27 22:08:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Mar 27 22:09:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh NABC Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I was unable to demonstrate to him that the UI suggested 5H over pass. > Can anyone help? Sorry, can't help. Absent a break in tempo, and having shown a likely 4531 hand I believe that with 5620 pass is just barely an LA opposite a partner with likely (albeit non-guaranteed) values. The hesitation confirms some values, but not their location. If partner was considering a X (or even 5D) then X and P are suggested over 5H. If partner was considering 5M then 5M and X are suggested over pass. The tempo clearly suggests that X is the superior action, since pard can act on whatever he was previously considering. The relative suggested superiority of pass/5M is not intrinsically demonstrable (albeit knowledge of the hesitating player, which I lack, might lead to identifying one as more likely to succeed than the other). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Mar 27 22:08:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Mar 27 22:09:12 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: <007c01c531a5$f74ed230$269468d5@James> Message-ID: > A. Most enjoyable games have simple rules that players can > understand. (e.g. Chess, Diplomacy, Scrabble, Go) Perhaps. But most players do not compete at the highest level and do not care about the rules to that extent. (Bridge is the only one of the many games I play where I am (possibly) good enough to worry about the rules). > B. The rules of a game have no need to comply with > real-world concepts of justice. (e.g Liar Dice). True, but one expects real-world concepts of justice to apply to situations not captured in the rules. > C. Players regard a game as fair if identical infractions > incur the same rulings (c.f. Bridge). Not particularly. Players of most games expect the penalties for infractions to reflect the level of competition/competitor. Fining a club tennis player Ł20,000 for racket abuse would be grotesque. > D. The fewer spurious subjective judgements required of > directors (e.g. about intentions, skills), the fairer the > game. Absolutely. Subjective judgements should be the result of carefully applied intelligence, luckily the laws require this of TDs and strongly discourage spurious judgements. Spurious automatic penalties applied regardless of context are more of a problem. Tim From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 27 22:34:13 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Mar 27 22:35:10 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <423AE39F.9040805@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002001c5330c$56b6eca0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > .............. > >>Saying "the Qu.. no the ace" does not confer any information, as both > >>cards are clearly visible on the table. > >>But saying "four .. no three spades" is clear UI (I deliberately made > >>the spades implicit in my example). > >> > >>So using this as an analogy is a very poor one, IMO. > > > > > > On the contrary I think your own argument proves that it is a very good > one! > > > > As you say "the Qu... no the Ace" conveys no damaging information while > > "four ... no three spades" indeed is far more serious. > > > > But we have a well established rule that the latter is permissible (so > long > > as the call has not been completed) so why should we not allow the > former? > > > > What well-established rule? An incomplete call is not a call. You can for instance not force a player to complete the action initiated by pulling a stop card by making a skip bid. And the player who says two...no three spades has made only one call. (That he in addition may have given UI is obvious but besides the point here). > Please indicate any-one of note who has stated this rule in the past > 10 years. Certainly it has never been mentioned on blml. I was not aware that it is required for a principle to having been mentioned on blml to be in force? > > I feel that if you ask the punters, they'd rather say that "four ... > no three spades" is not allowed. Under what law? "four..." is no call so he has not made more than one call. Sven From oicoluhm at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 03:21:52 2005 From: oicoluhm at yahoo.com (Mervin Pelletier) Date: Mon Mar 28 03:33:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Re [3]: Message-ID: <20050328013211.45D36390@rhubarb.custard.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050328/e901bfe9/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: fiend.GIF Type: image/gif Size: 7732 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050328/e901bfe9/fiend.gif From adam at tameware.com Mon Mar 28 04:09:48 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon Mar 28 04:10:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Unofficial ACBL casebook New York NABC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: With Richard's permission PDF copies of all his unofficial casebooks are available on my web site: http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/ -- Adam Wildavsky http://www.tameware.com From tvrphcdbeu at ackadia.com Mon Mar 28 05:25:09 2005 From: tvrphcdbeu at ackadia.com (krystal Vetter) Date: Mon Mar 28 04:23:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Investors are watching IGTpS climb higgh uninvited Message-ID: <927564545709620892.280.669@rummy-ba5.ackadia.com> jammest Exciting Easter Investor Alert Ticker:IGTS Current:0.01 Rating:Big Mover Next Week This st0ck receives our top rating - 10 out of 10 Breaking NEWS (released last night): Intelligent Sports, Inc. Offers Affordable Alternative This is the first news release the company put out since November - this is going to be exciting stock play Jump on board while you can - Don't regret It later About the Company: Youth And Amateur Sports Company Poised For Growth Intelligent Sports, Inc. is a publicly held company trading on the OTC markets under the ticker symbol “IGTS”. Intelligent Sports will be the holding company for several sports related businesses. Intelligent Sports provides business units with strategic guidance and support in the areas of marketing, sales, sponsorships, partnerships, policy & procedures, finance and expansion. Their initial business launch is to develop youth and amateur sports centers throughout the country that offers a year-round sports calendar with emphasis on youth and amateur sports programs and skill development. Their plan is to expand this concept into membership-based, multi-purpose sports facilities that will promote a diverse range of sports programs, leagues, tournaments, clinics, individual sports skill development and nutritional training. Fresh News: UPLAND, Calif., Mar 22, 2005 (PRIMEZONE via COMTEX) Participation fees for school sports programs continues to escalate, at the same time record obesity levels in children are being reported by the Center for Disease Control. Intelligent Sports, Inc. (Pink Sheets:IGTS) is working to do their part to curb this alarming trend of by offering affordable fitness centers to kids. "The time when school sports programs had enrollment fees of $10 is fading," said former NBA star and Intelligent Sports, Inc. board member, Reggie Theus. "Not every parent is willing to pay $300 enrollment fees for a sport their child is only casually interested in; some parents can't afford to pay that much for a sport their child excels at." According to the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, only 17 percent of middle and junior high schools and 2 percent of senior high schools require daily physical activity for all students. Hoping to fill the gap, The Sports Zone by Intelligent Sports will support a wide range of membership-based after-school sports programs, weekend leagues and tournaments promoting individual athletic skill development, the concepts of teamwork and discipline, and a love of the game. The Sports Zone opened in early October in Upland, California. It encompasses a 10,000 square foot facility featuring two basketball courts and caters to court sports including basketball, volleyball, cheerleading, and wrestling, and also has the ability to host soccer, football and other field-related athletic activity within the complex arena. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ IGTS is expected to Explode All Next Week Be Sure To Get It Immediately, and profit big! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Disclaimer This publication is not registered investment advisor, The information presented above is not an offer to buy or sell securities it 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." In compliance with Section 17(b), the publishers of this report disclose the holding of IGTS 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 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 41 500, from third party to send this report. Please do your own diligence before investing in any profiled company. You may lose money from investing. ingredient misdirect From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Mar 28 05:12:26 2005 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon Mar 28 05:19:10 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On this topic, lets say declarer leads a card toward AQ and says "finessing". LHO plays the K. Now what do you rule now ?? K. -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads Sent: 27 March 2005 21:07 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? Kojak wrote: > It happens frequently when you > decide to finessed for a king, call the Queen from dummy, AND THEN SEE > THAT LHO played the King. You've made a mistake, and you live with it. Singularly unhelpful Kojak. If the queen was called we can all get the ruling right. What we wish to know is how many *letters* into "The Queen" the player must get before we rule the queen played. I (and I think most other English TDs) will allow a change (whether of mis-speaking or mind) up to the second e of queen. Grattan might be saying "as of the first T of The" (he might not, damn hard to tell). Personally I can get by using "you can't take words back but syllables don't count" - doesn't seem to cause a problem with players even if Eric thinks it's nonsense :) Tim _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jrmayne at mindspring.com Mon Mar 28 05:39:51 2005 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Mon Mar 28 05:40:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Unofficial ACBL casebook New York NABC Message-ID: <5881465.1111981191455.JavaMail.root@wamui06.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Thanks to Richard for the outstanding job done in putting the casebook together, and thanks to Adam for putting it up on his webpage. It's good reading. --JRM -----Original Message----- From: Adam Wildavsky Sent: Mar 27, 2005 6:09 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Unofficial ACBL casebook New York NABC With Richard's permission PDF copies of all his unofficial casebooks are available on my web site: http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/ -- Adam Wildavsky http://www.tameware.com _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at tameware.com Mon Mar 28 07:49:47 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon Mar 28 07:51:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Orlando cases posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 5:03 PM +1100 3/8/05, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >(3) The TD did not consider an split score of +630 for >North-South and -800 for 2Sx for East-West. > >Even in a point-a-board event, it might be "at all >probable" for North - without MI - to make another >card-showing double and "at all probable" for South - >without MI - to pass North's double of 2S - and "at all >probable" for North-South to time their defence to >avoid being endplayed for a penalty of only 500 and/or >for West to mistime his declarer play. 1. I think the TD and AC were right not to adjust to 800. Declarer can always hold the damage to 500. In any case I had accurate information and chose not to defend. (My double would have been for penalties but I had a forcing pass available.) 2. I've received an updated write-up of this decision (N-16) and I've posted it. I've also posted my comments on the case and my summary comments for Orlando. The casebook will go to press shortly, so if you have any corrections or suggestions please get them to me ASAP. http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/ -- Adam Wildavsky http://www.tameware.com From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 28 10:55:57 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Mar 28 11:02:22 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: Message-ID: <002401c53374$52875170$ce974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 9:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > Kojak wrote: > > > It happens frequently when you > > decide to finesse for a king, call the Queen < < from dummy, AND THEN SEE THAT < < LHO played the King. You've made a < < mistake, and you live with it. > [Tim] > Singularly unhelpful Kojak. If the queen was > called we can all get the ruling right. What we > wish to know is how many *letters* into "The > Queen" the player must get before we rule the > queen played. I (and I think most other English > TDs) will allow a change (whether of mis-speaking > or mind) up to the second e of queen. Grattan > might be saying "as of the first T of The" (he might > not, damn hard to tell). > > Personally I can get by using "you can't take > words back but syllables don't count" - doesn't > seem to cause a problem with players even if Eric > thinks it's nonsense :) > [Grattan] +=+ Grattan has been concentrating on keeping the Law Book in view and not allowing the law to be set aside. He has said little about the detailed application and any doubt probably arises out of this. There are two factors that are to be examined by the Director: 1. Has there been a change of mind since the player commenced to call for a card? Did he start to call for a card and then, consequent upon his noticing the play of the King, attempt a change to play the Ace? 2. Has he said sufficient for the Director to identify the rank and/or the suit of the card he was originally calling for? Both of these require the Director to form an opinion as to the facts.or alternatively make an 85B ruling. If his answer to (1) is 'yes' the player will *not* be allowed to play the Ace. In that event the Director will apply the relevant section of Law 46, or Law 47F, determined by his answer to (2). It is absolutely not the case that the Director can say "I realise that it follows a change of mind but since you did not actually nominate rank or suit you may play the card of your choice". In that situation he still has Law 46B5 and this law is *not* restricted to 'play anything or words of like import', which is an example and not the main thrust of that law. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 28 15:08:29 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Mar 28 15:07:40 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050328080126.02ae76e0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:12 PM 3/27/05, Karel wrote: >On this topic, lets say declarer leads a card toward AQ and says >"finessing". LHO plays the K. Now what do you rule now ?? I rule the ace played; IMO the provisions of L45B do not apply, as "declarer's... intention [viz. to play the ace only if the king appeared, otherwise play the queen] is incontrovertable". But my opinion doesn't mean much to the debate, as I would make the same ruling, on the same grounds, in the "qu...ace" case. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From RURFV at sbw.at Mon Mar 28 18:36:08 2005 From: RURFV at sbw.at (Mable) Date: Mon Mar 28 18:40:34 2005 Subject: [blml] save with us Eunice Message-ID: <135.f4bdd58.2a2b9164@dilo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050328/40b19f66/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Mar 29 12:01:32 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Mar 29 00:02:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh NABC Appeal 3 References: Message-ID: <005601c53446$4a8df6e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" > > I was unable to demonstrate to him that the UI suggested 5H over pass. > > Can anyone help? > > Sorry, can't help. Absent a break in tempo, and having shown a likely > 4531 hand I believe that with 5620 pass is just barely an LA opposite a > partner with likely (albeit non-guaranteed) values. > > The hesitation confirms some values, but not their location. If partner > was considering a X (or even 5D) then X and P are suggested over 5H. If > partner was considering 5M then 5M and X are suggested over pass. > The tempo clearly suggests that X is the superior action, since pard can > act on whatever he was previously considering. The relative suggested > superiority of pass/5M is not intrinsically demonstrable (albeit knowledge > of the hesitating player, which I lack, might lead to identifying one as > more likely to succeed than the other). > There is an unavoidable tendency for well-established partnerships to read BITs rather accurately, albeit unconsciously. Most modern players seem to have no concern for reputation. Opposite such a BIT my hand goes automatically to the Pass card unless passing would be out of the question (and my opponents would agree). Those with a long memory may cite my pull of a slow penalty double of an overcall in St Louis (Appeal 2, I think). However, that pull was required by system. The AC (all of whom play negative doubles) did not believe me, and that was a lesson for me to have system notes on hand at NABCs. Jeff Rubens, Bridge World editor, maintains that players must go ahead and take their intended action, ignoring any UI. Others of us believe that is not what L16 says, is unsportsmanlike, and may have adverse consequences. If a table result is adjusted, the play of the OS will be assumed to be quite poor (although Jeff would probably say the assumed play should reflect the skill level of the OS, thereby achieving equity). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Mar 29 12:08:16 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Mar 29 00:09:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh NABC Appeal 3 References: <007b01c5322a$32eaefc0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <006401c53447$3ab092e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> > Marv wrote: > > >"The committee judged that the likelihood of West's thinking about > >doubling to be great enough, relative to the chance that he was > >considering bidding 5H or 5S, that the break in tempo did not > >demonstrably suggest the 5H call by East." > > ... > > >This decision makes me wish that the NABC AC could have a radical change in > >membership. The TD ruled correctly, , and > >passing was clearly a logical alternative to bidding. > > I don't think the AC composition was so flawed, though I don't like > their decision. I am unacquainted with the members of this AC, but their presumed unanimous decision calls their competence into question. >They did not think that the UI demonstrably suggested > 5H over pass. I spoke about the case with one AC member. I was unable > to demonstrate to him that the UI suggested 5H over pass. Can anyone > help? > ..".a slow break in tempo suggests action", and that is always, not sometimes. If there is an LA to action, it must be taken. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 29 00:12:09 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 29 00:11:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Unofficial ACBL casebook New York NABC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >With Richard's permission PDF copies of all his unofficial >casebooks are available on my web site: > >http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/ > >-- >Adam Wildavsky http://www.tameware.com Many thanks also to David Stevenson, for also hosting my unofficial casebooks on his website (alongside official English Bridge Union and Welsh Bridge Union appeals casebooks), at: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/appeals.htm Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Mar 29 01:09:04 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Mar 29 01:10:02 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <002401c53374$52875170$ce974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <002401c53374$52875170$ce974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <2b9701de8be4d771c8285a1045c6d5b3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 28 Mar 2005, at 09:55, Grattan Endicott wrote: > [Grattan] > +=+ Grattan has been concentrating on keeping the > Law Book in view and not allowing the law to be > set aside. He has said little about the detailed > application and any doubt probably arises out of this. > There are two factors that are to be examined by > the Director: > 1. Has there been a change of mind since the > player commenced to call for a card? Did he start > to call for a card and then, consequent upon his > noticing the play of the King, attempt a change to > play the Ace? > 2. Has he said sufficient for the Director to > identify the rank and/or the suit of the card he was > originally calling for? An interesting variation on this topic happened today at the Easter Congress Swiss Pairs. Declarer led a card from hand in a suit where dummy was void. She pointed unambiguously to the only trump in dummy (the 9) and then noticed that my partner had ruffed in front with the 10. Up to this point she hadn't spoken a word. Comments? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 29 03:49:45 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 29 03:50:47 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <002401c53374$52875170$ce974c51@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887): It was six men of Indostan To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind. The First approached the Elephant, And happening to fall Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl: "God bless me! but the Elephant Is very like a wall!" The Second, feeling of the tusk Cried, "Ho! what have we here, So very round and smooth and sharp? To me `tis mighty clear This wonder of an Elephant Is very like a spear!" The Third approached the animal, And happening to take The squirming trunk within his hands, Thus boldly up he spake: "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a snake!" The Fourth reached out an eager hand, And felt about the knee: "What most this wondrous beast is like Is mighty plain," quoth he; "'Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a tree!" The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said: "E'en the blindest man Can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can, This marvel of an Elephant Is very like a fan!" The Sixth no sooner had begun About the beast to grope, Than, seizing on the swinging tail That fell within his scope. "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a rope!" And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong! Moral: So oft in theologic wars, The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean, And prate about an Elephant Not one of them has seen! Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From joshua at mailAccount.com Tue Mar 29 04:30:08 2005 From: joshua at mailAccount.com (Tyson Rodriguez) Date: Tue Mar 29 04:32:33 2005 Subject: [blml] High rates? Not with us! low fixed rate Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.go-mrt-now.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Ronny Guevara to be remov(ed: http://www.go-mrt-now.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From XFYWLEVS at netscape.net Tue Mar 29 04:37:49 2005 From: XFYWLEVS at netscape.net (Tina Olsen) Date: Tue Mar 29 04:38:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Can age be reversed? prestige Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 10847 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050329/444ac01e/attachment.jpe From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 29 06:24:42 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Mar 29 06:25:39 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <2b9701de8be4d771c8285a1045c6d5b3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c53417$3aa5be40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford ............. > An interesting variation on this topic happened today at the Easter > Congress Swiss Pairs. Declarer led a card from hand in a suit where > dummy was void. She pointed unambiguously to the only trump in dummy > (the 9) and then noticed that my partner had ruffed in front with the > 10. Up to this point she hadn't spoken a word. > > Comments? IF your description is accurate then the trump 9 has been played. Regards Sven From wayne at ebridgenz.com Tue Mar 29 08:15:02 2005 From: wayne at ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Mar 29 08:14:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing Message-ID: <4248F266.4030701@ebridgenz.com> NZCBA regulations of HUMs and Brown Sticker conventions are unique in the world as far as I can determine. Here is the NZCBA Brown Sticker Convention definition. "Brown Sticker Conventions This category includes the following that do not fall under the definition of Highly Unusual Methods systems: An opening bid of 2C up to and including 3S, which does not promise at least one specified suit of at least 4 cards ; An overcall of a natural opening bid of one of a suit that does not promise at least four cards in a known suit; or None of the foregoing restrictions pertain to conventional defences against strong, artificial opening bids or defences against Brown Sticker or HUM conventions. Exceptions: Multi 2C/2D opening bid; 2C/2D opening bids that show a strong hand and is forcing for at least one round of bidding; and A natural overcall in no trumps." I think it is unwise to tie a regulation to whether or not a bid is forcing. This is the exception for a strong 2C or 2D opener to not be a Brown Sticker Convention. Because of this regulation an interesting problem occurs when someone passes a forcing bid. In fact in my youth I did once deliberately pass a Game Forcing 2C opener - I had been dealt a real yarborough with a seven-card club suit. On that occasion I was rewarded when 2C was very close to the last making contract. I am sure that we have all at sometime passed a forcing bid. Does passing a 'forcing' bid make it non-forcing? If not then what frequency of passing a bid would make it non-forcing. The NZCBA regulations state that a pair playing an illegal system may be penalized but the director should take into account among other things whether the players had sort clarification from the NZCBA. I did seek clarification on this point ("What would happen if a player passed a forcing opening?") but received only a one line answer to a multi-point email that did not address this point. How as a director would you attack this problem if the opponent's passed a forcing bid that was required to be forcing by regulation? Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 29 08:31:52 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 29 08:32:56 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West Meads asserted: >If, after much consideration, we rule that L73c was >infracted but it was close judgement call over whether >the selected alternative was, in fact, logical & >suggested then no player should receive a PP. > >If the selected alternative is judged "obvious and >should have known better abuse" then a PP, if in >order, is in order for both Eric and Joe. I can, >however, envisage a sequence in which a particular >call would be "obvious.." for Eric but not for Joe. Richard Hills quibbles: I both agree and disagree with Tim's argument: (a) Eric Rodwell is a multi-world champion *because* he consistently gets close judgement calls right. So, as TD, I may well fine Eric Rodwell a procedural penalty if he infracted Law 73C in a close judgement call. (This may be a hypothetical PP, since in my study of ACBL appeals casebooks I cannot recall a case in which Eric Rodwell was deemed by an AC to have infracted Law 73C.) (b) Joe Ordinary may not be aware of the true meaning of Law 73C, because Joe's only information about Law 73C may have come from reading editorials by Jeff Rubens in The Bridge World. :-) However, Jeff Rubens has candidly admitted in a recent editorial that he does not share his late co-editor's enthusiasm and interest in the Laws. Jeff's real hope is that the Laws will clearly say what they mean in their next edition. In my opinion, Law 73C is a prime target for unchanged meaning but clarified wording. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 29 08:50:31 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 29 08:51:29 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050324081232.02b40600@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>>(2) Because Eric Rodwell is more expert at playing 3NT >>>contracts than Joe Ordinary is, opponents are of course >>>disadvantaged when playing against Eric Rodwell instead >>>of playing against Joe Ordinary. It is the nature of >>>bridge. >>> >>>For Eric Landau to argue otherwise is for Eric Landau to >>>rush in (where angels fear to tread), with Eric Landau >>>apparently adopting the Harrison Bergeron fallacy. Eric Landau: >>I do not suggest that Eric Rodwell be made to wear HB-like >>handicaps when he is playing bridge (although it would >>certainly improve the scores of the likes of me). I do >>believe he should be forced to don them when required to >>Stand Before the August Might of the Law. >> >>We do not seek equality at the bridge table, whereas >>equality before the law is the fundamental principle of >>human rights. Anatole France (18844-1924): >The majestic equality of the law, which forbids rich and >poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, >and to steal bread. Richard Hills: I differ from Eric's philosophy. In my opinion, a higher principle than "equality before the law" is the principle of "let the punishment fit the crime". In most cases, experts receive more severe procedural penalties than bunnies, because punishment of experts fits their crime of *knowingly* (compared to a bunny's mere unwittingly) infracting a Laws. California's majestically equal "three strikes" law was imitated by local Aussie redneck governments in Western Australia and the Northern Territory, when they removed judges' discretion to "let the punishment fit the crime" by promulgating mandatory sentencing laws. Fortunately, more Jeffersonian governments now rule in those regions of Australia, so these pernicious (and covertly racist) majestically equal mandatory sentencing laws have been repealed. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 29 09:42:23 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 29 09:43:25 2005 Subject: [blml] cheating In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel asserted: >Everyone knows there are laws. When a TD is called most >players will generally know why and what the reason is. I >have met very few who will readily admit to any detrimental >facts. > >Worse are the few who have sufficient knowledge of the >laws to know that one version of the facts will be more >favourable than another for ruling. While it will almost >be impossible to rule cheating, in my experience, a player >will rarely volunteer any clear information willingly and >will try to fudge matters where possible. Richard quibbles: In my opinion, it depends on local cultural norms. And, in my opinion, local cultural norms are set by example from the top. If the local expert gives full and free information about their partnership agreements, and if the local expert will readily admit detrimental facts to the TD (and even go so far as to summon the TD against their own interest), then local bunnies will imitate the example set by the local expert. The Gospel of John, chapter 1, verse 3: >>And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness >>comprehended it not. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 29 10:06:10 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 29 10:07:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <4248F266.4030701@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne asked: [snip] >Because of this regulation an interesting problem >occurs when someone passes a forcing bid. In fact in >my youth I did once deliberately pass a Game Forcing >2C opener - I had been dealt a real yarborough with a >seven-card club suit. On that occasion I was rewarded >when 2C was very close to the last making contract. I >am sure that we have all at sometime passed a forcing >bid. Does passing a 'forcing' bid make it non-forcing? >If not then what frequency of passing a bid would make >it non-forcing. [snip] Richard remembers: In my youth, pard dealt and opened a Precision-style 1C, my RHO passed, and (holding a yarborough with six clubs) I passed also. My LHO balanced, so then pard (holding ten playing tricks in spades) rebid 4S. Pard then turned to my RHO, and opinionated, "I don't know whose partner is worse, yours or mine." :-) A bid transmogrifies from forcing to non-forcing if frequency of violations of the notional partnership agreement of "forcing" create an implicit partnership agreement of "non-forcing". Law 75B (and the WBF Code of Practice) provide guidance to TDs and ACs on the creation of implicit partnership agreements. I note that Wayne Burrows has a diametrically opposite philosophy to that of Herman De Wael; Wayne believes that implicit partnership agreements are hardly ever created; Herman believes that implicit partnership agreements are almost always created. In my opinion, a TD would approach truth if a TD steered a middle path through Wayne's Scylla and Herman's Charybdis. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From argeld at mailAccount.com Tue Mar 29 10:03:29 2005 From: argeld at mailAccount.com (Lucio Odom) Date: Tue Mar 29 10:08:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Lowest rates in 45 years Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.go-mrt-now.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Yolanda Pierce to be remov(ed: http://www.go-mrt-now.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From argeld at mailAccount.com Tue Mar 29 10:03:29 2005 From: argeld at mailAccount.com (Lucio Odom) Date: Tue Mar 29 10:08:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Lowest rates in 45 years Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.go-mrt-now.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Yolanda Pierce to be remov(ed: http://www.go-mrt-now.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From wayne at ebridgenz.com Tue Mar 29 13:17:01 2005 From: wayne at ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Mar 29 13:16:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4249392D.4080508@ebridgenz.com> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Wayne asked: > > [snip] > > >>Because of this regulation an interesting problem >>occurs when someone passes a forcing bid. In fact in >>my youth I did once deliberately pass a Game Forcing >>2C opener - I had been dealt a real yarborough with a >>seven-card club suit. On that occasion I was rewarded >>when 2C was very close to the last making contract. I >>am sure that we have all at sometime passed a forcing >>bid. Does passing a 'forcing' bid make it non-forcing? >>If not then what frequency of passing a bid would make >>it non-forcing. > > > [snip] > > Richard remembers: > > In my youth, pard dealt and opened a Precision-style 1C, > my RHO passed, and (holding a yarborough with six clubs) > I passed also. My LHO balanced, so then pard (holding > ten playing tricks in spades) rebid 4S. > > Pard then turned to my RHO, and opinionated, "I don't > know whose partner is worse, yours or mine." > > :-) > > A bid transmogrifies from forcing to non-forcing if > frequency of violations of the notional partnership > agreement of "forcing" create an implicit partnership > agreement of "non-forcing". Law 75B (and the WBF Code > of Practice) provide guidance to TDs and ACs on the > creation of implicit partnership agreements. > > I note that Wayne Burrows has a diametrically opposite > philosophy to that of Herman De Wael; Wayne believes > that implicit partnership agreements are hardly ever > created; Herman believes that implicit partnership > agreements are almost always created. In my opinion, a > TD would approach truth if a TD steered a middle path > through Wayne's Scylla and Herman's Charybdis. > I don't think this is really my position. I believe that there are lots of implicit agreements but I do not believe that because something happens once or twice or even many times it necessarily creates an implicit agreement. This view IMO is supported by the language of L75 which states that "but habitual violations within a partnership *may* create implicit agreements" - my emphasis. "May" conveys the implicit notion that it also "may not". In my view an experience partnership is likely to have lots of agreements and depending on the nature of the partnership a greater or smaller number of those agreements will be implicit agreements. In my most regular partnership we discuss most situations of dispute or habit and thus create explicit agreements. In other regular partnerships many things might go undiscussed but nevertheless there is an implicit agreement. An irregular partnership however may have very few implicit agreements and may legitimately claim 'undiscussed' as a full disclosure of their methods. For a regular partnership 'undiscussed' might be accurate but it is unlikely to be a full disclosure of their method. Wayne From wayne at ebridgenz.com Tue Mar 29 13:24:35 2005 From: wayne at ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Mar 29 13:23:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <1112083818.42490d6a25333@imp6-q.free.fr> References: <4248F266.4030701@ebridgenz.com> <1112083818.42490d6a25333@imp6-q.free.fr> Message-ID: <42493AF3.1010202@ebridgenz.com> eyquemjg@free.fr wrote: > As a player, I do not pass forcing bids, because, even if the result on the > board is goog, the partnership confidence will decrease, and I think confidence > is, in the long run, best than a good result on a board; > As a director, if a player passes a forcing bid, I take note of his (her) name, > and check this doesn't happen too often. This is the key question. How often is too often? > It is the same when you open 1NT with a singleton. In many organisations, 1NT > should show a balanced hand (unless brown sticker). If a player often open 1NT > with a singleton, I should penalize him, especially if it leads to some special > agrrements in his pair. I am also very interested in this regulation. We have this sort of regulation in New Zealand. Where else in the world is there a regulation severely limiting 1NT openings with a singleton. It seems a little out of place to me that we can open 2NT, overcall 1NT or 2NT, rebid 1NT or 2NT with singletons but that we cannot open 1NT with a singleton. I have asked the NZCBA for clarification on this point as well. Our regulation says opening 1NT with a singleton cannot be more often than a rare exception. But they give no guidance as to what constitutes a rare exception. Again they gave me no answer when I sought clarification. Counting only those hands you open 1NT - Is 1 in 10 hands rare, 1 in 40 rare, 1 in 100, 1 in ??? Wayne Wayne From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 29 13:54:40 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 29 13:54:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42494200.8050706@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Wayne asked: > > [snip] > > >>Because of this regulation an interesting problem >>occurs when someone passes a forcing bid. In fact in >>my youth I did once deliberately pass a Game Forcing >>2C opener - I had been dealt a real yarborough with a >>seven-card club suit. On that occasion I was rewarded >>when 2C was very close to the last making contract. I >>am sure that we have all at sometime passed a forcing >>bid. Does passing a 'forcing' bid make it non-forcing? >>If not then what frequency of passing a bid would make >>it non-forcing. > > > [snip] > > Richard remembers: > > In my youth, pard dealt and opened a Precision-style 1C, > my RHO passed, and (holding a yarborough with six clubs) > I passed also. My LHO balanced, so then pard (holding > ten playing tricks in spades) rebid 4S. > > Pard then turned to my RHO, and opinionated, "I don't > know whose partner is worse, yours or mine." > > :-) > > A bid transmogrifies from forcing to non-forcing if > frequency of violations of the notional partnership > agreement of "forcing" create an implicit partnership > agreement of "non-forcing". Law 75B (and the WBF Code > of Practice) provide guidance to TDs and ACs on the > creation of implicit partnership agreements. > > I note that Wayne Burrows has a diametrically opposite > philosophy to that of Herman De Wael; Wayne believes > that implicit partnership agreements are hardly ever > created; Herman believes that implicit partnership > agreements are almost always created. In my opinion, a > TD would approach truth if a TD steered a middle path > through Wayne's Scylla and Herman's Charybdis. > Wayne has already replied, so so shall I. Nothing Wayne has said in his reply seems terribly wrong to me. Certainly there is no wide gap between Wayne's position and mine. I do believe that the TD should be very careful in accepting from partnerships the answer that something is undiscussed. General style, common background (sometimes known to opponents and then not needing to be disclosed, but sometimes unlnown to the particular opponents and then certainly needed to be revealed), and even the experience of one previous board played together, all contribute to a list of partnership understanding which may not always be fully disclosed. In general, I am quite unwilling to accept the answer "that is the first time he has done this with me", when a player has just opened a weak two on a five or a seven card suit. That player has certainly done this before in his lifetime, and the fact that he has not yet done it with this particular partner does not deter me from saying "you might have known that your partner is apt to doing this, so your opponents should have been informed of the same". I know I go a lot further than some in ruling MI. Yet I seem to be on the same level at ruling damage. Most of these items of MI turn out to have little or no damage. I usually counter this to the opponent: "if you had been told that this is a six-card suit 95% of the time, and a 7-card 5% of the time, would you have played any differently?" Most of the time, the opponents seem not to grasp this and they reply "if I had known he had 7 hearts", to which I counter, but you would not be told he had 7 of them, only that he could have 7 of them, but more usually 6". When they fail to grasp that difference, my duty is done. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > That's resublimated thiotimoline, of course? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.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: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 27/03/2005 From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 29 14:28:49 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Mar 29 14:29:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: <4248F266.4030701@ebridgenz.com><1112083818.42490d6a25333@imp6-q.free.fr> <42493AF3.1010202@ebridgenz.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 5:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Forcing > eyquemjg@free.fr wrote: > > As a player, I do not pass forcing bids, because, even if the result on the > > board is goog, the partnership confidence will decrease, and I think confidence > > is, in the long run, best than a good result on a board; > > As a director, if a player passes a forcing bid, I take note of his (her) name, > > and check this doesn't happen too often. > > This is the key question. How often is too often? > > > It is the same when you open 1NT with a singleton. In many organisations, 1NT > > should show a balanced hand (unless brown sticker). If a player often open 1NT > > with a singleton, I should penalize him, especially if it leads to some special > > agrrements in his pair. > > I am also very interested in this regulation. We have this sort of > regulation in New Zealand. Where else in the world is there a > regulation severely limiting 1NT openings with a singleton. I know of a club in Houston that assigns a Zero whenever a player does not hold a balanced hand when opening NT; same for a bluff opening. Curiously, there was a club in Denver that had [the owner died so I don't know the current status] a lifetime allotment of one non-balanced 1N, and 2 bluffs. I never found out the consequences of exceeding those limits- early in my beginning days I quickly reached them and thus had to leave. regards roger pewick > Wayne From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 29 15:07:21 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Mar 29 15:06:30 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050324081232.02b40600@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050329075209.02b33010@pop.starpower.net> At 01:50 AM 3/29/05, richard.hills wrote: >Richard Hills: > >[snip] > > >>>(2) Because Eric Rodwell is more expert at playing 3NT > >>>contracts than Joe Ordinary is, opponents are of course > >>>disadvantaged when playing against Eric Rodwell instead > >>>of playing against Joe Ordinary. It is the nature of > >>>bridge. > >>> > >>>For Eric Landau to argue otherwise is for Eric Landau to > >>>rush in (where angels fear to tread), with Eric Landau > >>>apparently adopting the Harrison Bergeron fallacy. > >Eric Landau: > > >>I do not suggest that Eric Rodwell be made to wear HB-like > >>handicaps when he is playing bridge (although it would > >>certainly improve the scores of the likes of me). I do > >>believe he should be forced to don them when required to > >>Stand Before the August Might of the Law. > >> > >>We do not seek equality at the bridge table, whereas > >>equality before the law is the fundamental principle of > >>human rights. > >Anatole France (18844-1924): > > >The majestic equality of the law, which forbids rich and > >poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, > >and to steal bread. > >Richard Hills: > >I differ from Eric's philosophy. In my opinion, a higher >principle than "equality before the law" is the principle >of "let the punishment fit the crime". I do not see these as incompatible. >In most cases, experts receive more severe procedural >penalties than bunnies, because punishment of experts fits >their crime of *knowingly* (compared to a bunny's mere >unwittingly) infracting a Laws. No argument. Even in real life, there are things you can do that violate the law, or carry an increased penalty, only if done with intent to do harm or gain advantage. So experts should receive more severe PPs than bunnies. I can see where my rather sweeping rhetoric may have led some to read otherwise. But we weren't talking about procedural penalties; we were talking about scores assigned persuant to L12C2: When we determine "likely" and "at all probable" results, do we take class of player into account, so that in the 6D/3NT example, Mr. Rodwell's opponents receive a less favorable adjustment than Mrs. Guggenheim's? Any considerations of procedural penalties are entirely separate issues -- particularly as far as the opponents of the potential recipient of the PP are concerned. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 29 15:24:19 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Mar 29 15:23:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <4248F266.4030701@ebridgenz.com> References: <4248F266.4030701@ebridgenz.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050329081705.02bc7860@pop.starpower.net> At 01:15 AM 3/29/05, Wayne wrote: >Because of this regulation an interesting problem occurs when someone >passes a forcing bid. In fact in my youth I did once deliberately >pass a Game Forcing 2C opener - I had been dealt a real yarborough >with a seven-card club suit. On that occasion I was rewarded when 2C >was very close to the last making contract. I am sure that we have >all at sometime passed a forcing bid. Does passing a 'forcing' bid >make it non-forcing? If not then what frequency of passing a bid >would make it non-forcing. In theory, I don't think it's a function of frequency. It should "become" non-forcing the first time a member of the partnership, in selecting a call, takes into account the possibility that partner may pass. Of course, that's just theory, particularly since "takes into account" needn't imply takes a different action as a result. >The NZCBA regulations state that a pair playing an illegal system may >be penalized but the director should take into account among other >things whether the players had sort clarification from the NZCBA. I >did seek clarification on this point ("What would happen if a player >passed a forcing opening?") but received only a one line answer to a >multi-point email that did not address this point. > >How as a director would you attack this problem if the opponent's >passed a forcing bid that was required to be forcing by regulation? Now Wayne asks a practical question, and I don't have an answer. The theory is all well and good, but doesn't give the director any kind of "hook" on which to base a practical determination. Might this suggest that the whole concept of "implicit agreement" is ill-defined, perhaps even unworkable? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue Mar 29 20:20:30 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Tue Mar 29 20:15:37 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? Message-ID: <000501c5348b$fd61f100$0307a8c0@david> [Grattan] +=+ Grattan has been concentrating on keeping the Law Book in view and not allowing the law to be set aside. He has said little about the detailed application and any doubt probably arises out of this. There are two factors that are to be examined by the Director: 1. Has there been a change of mind since the player commenced to call for a card? Did he start to call for a card and then, consequent upon his noticing the play of the King, attempt a change to play the Ace? 2. Has he said sufficient for the Director to identify the rank and/or the suit of the card he was originally calling for? Both of these require the Director to form an opinion as to the facts.or alternatively make an 85B ruling. If his answer to (1) is 'yes' the player will *not* be allowed to play the Ace. In that event the Director will apply the relevant section of Law 46, or Law 47F, determined by his answer to (2). It is absolutely not the case that the Director can say "I realise that it follows a change of mind but since you did not actually nominate rank or suit you may play the card of your choice". In that situation he still has Law 46B5 and this law is *not* restricted to 'play anything or words of like import', which is an example and not the main thrust of that law. [David Barton] Unfortunately (for me at least) Grattan intertwines two factors into factor (1). The case I am interested in has a possible "yes" to a change of mind but "no" to the change being occasioned by noticing LHO's card. I would guess that this leaves factor (1) as a "yes" because the law does not distinguish reasons (other than inadvertancy). Since I have been wrong on Grattan's utterances on most of the previous occasions, I await contradiction. The case I have in mind is dummy holds AQT4, declarer has K32. Declarer cashes A and K and then leads towards dummy. Everyone has followed small throughout. Declarer says "The heart um.. " and then considers or reconsiders which of the QT to play. If asked declarer will say (a) "I ultimately chose the same card as when I first started speaking" (b) "I ultimately chose a different card to when I first started speaking" (c) "I didn't start thinking about which card to play until it was clear there was a decision to take ie after the "um..." " A ruling (in each case if different) with reasons and references to which laws are being applied please. Thanks ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.5 - Release Date: 29/03/2005 From WTNIOENOLLGH at publishon.com Wed Mar 30 05:55:53 2005 From: WTNIOENOLLGH at publishon.com (Reggie) Date: Wed Mar 30 06:09:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Help your Family Sofia Message-ID: <1096552523.474000-77633WTNIOENOLLGH@publishon.com> Help your Family This is recommendation of a webstore that may save someone's life We care about you, your family - your friends We are voted the "Best Online Health Store" for the year 2005 where you can have med requirements - securely, anonymously - without having to leave your door. **NEWS** Now we have CODEINE on stock Fast worldwide delivery right on your doorstep. http://www.topsaleofthedays.com/?wid=100069 ps: we apologise to any inconvenience caused to you, but please feel free to forward this email to any of your family/friends, it MAY save someone's life you djakarta me fisherman me you kruger me tomorrow me you basepoint me sera me you priestley me lessee me you furrow me cohomology me you oncology me pork me you contrive me berate me you bergland me ptarmigan me you september me archdiocese me you cannonball me circulate me http://salesmeisterz.com/nomore.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 30 07:55:13 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Mar 30 07:56:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Thiotimoline In-Reply-To: <42494200.8050706@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asked: >>That's resublimated thiotimoline, of course? >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: >Thiotimoline is a fictitious chemical compound conceived >by science fiction author Isaac Asimov and described in a >spoof scientific paper entitled The Endochronic Properties >of Resublimated Thiotimoline in 1948. > >The story of the genesis of this spoof was one of Asimov's >favourite personal anecdotes and he retold it a number of >times in print. At the time, Asimov was engaged in >doctoral research in chemistry and, as part of his >experimental procedure, he needed to dissolve catechol in >water. As he observed the crystals dissolve as soon as >they hit the water's surface, it occurred to him that if >catechol were any more soluble, then it would dissolve >before it encountered the water. > >By that time Asimov had been writing professionally for >nine years and was shortly to face the challenge of >writing up his research as a doctoral dissertation. He >feared that the experience of writing readable prose for >publication might have impaired his ability to write the >prose typical of academic discourse, and decided to >practice with a spoof article (including fake citations) >describing experiments on a compound, thiotimoline, that >was so soluble that it dissolved in water up to 1.3 >seconds before the water was added. Richard Hills points a moral: In my opinion, the Secretary of the Laws drafting sub- committee of the WBF should take note of the above phrase: ".....the experience of writing readable prose might have impaired his ability to write the prose typical of academic discourse....." In my opinion, the Secretary could suffer from the opposite fault. Has the Secretary's habit of writing prose typical of academic discourse impaired the Secretary's ability to draft the next Lawbook in readable prose? Of course, I would be delighted if my worries were phantoms. After all, some time ago, the Secretary did inform blml that he would take advice on the next Lawbook's prose from those who are both pithy and grammatical (such as Messrs Burn and Wignall). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 30 08:27:57 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Mar 30 08:29:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <42493AF3.1010202@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows asked: [big snip] >Counting only those hands you open 1NT - Is 1 in 10 hands >rare, 1 in 40 rare, 1 in 100, 1 in ??? Richard Hills: This issue has been discussed in blml before. In my opinion, Wayne is asking a meaningless question. The term "rare" is a concept in fuzzy logic, so one cannot apply excluded-middle Aristotelian logic to "rare" by a sharp numerical border of 1 in 40 splitting "rare" from "non-rare". The WBF Code of Practice deliberately uses fuzzy logic terms in its discussion of "rare" and "implicit agreements" (**emphasis** of fuzzy logic terms added by moi): >>.....**several** occasions in the past, and **not so long >>ago** that the memory of the actions has **faded** in the >>partner's mind..... (Extract from page 8 of the WBF CoP) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 30 10:40:20 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 30 10:45:06 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000501c5348b$fd61f100$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <003101c53504$3b7c2460$d29087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 7:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? . > > > [David Barton] > The case I have in mind is dummy holds AQT4, > declarer has K32. Declarer cashes A and K and > then leads towards dummy Everyone has followed > small throughout. Declarer says "The heart um.. " > and then considers or reconsiders which of > the QT to play. > +=+ It does not look to me that the Director would find that a change of mind had occurred if the player had not made up his mind what to play and identifiably nominated it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 30 10:48:02 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 30 10:52:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: Message-ID: <004301c53505$4e8f7420$d29087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Forcing > > The WBF Code of Practice deliberately > uses fuzzy logic terms in its discussion of "rare" > and "implicit agreements" (**emphasis** of fuzzy logic terms added by moi): > +=+ Deliberately leaving it to local judgement to apply values to the terms. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wayne at ebridgenz.com Wed Mar 30 11:49:42 2005 From: wayne at ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Mar 30 11:50:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <004301c53505$4e8f7420$d29087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <004301c53505$4e8f7420$d29087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <424A7636.9010001@ebridgenz.com> Grattan Endicott wrote: > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, > and translated into another tongue, have > not the same force in them: and not only > these things, but the law itself, and the > prophets, and the rest of the books, have > no small difference, when they are spoken > in their own language. " > ['Ecclesiasticus'] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 7:27 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Forcing > > > >>The WBF Code of Practice deliberately >>uses fuzzy logic terms in its discussion of "rare" >>and "implicit agreements" (**emphasis** of > > fuzzy logic terms added by moi): > > > +=+ Deliberately leaving it to local judgement to > apply values to the terms. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ There exists a boundary but we are not going to tell you where it is we are just going to beat you to a pulp when you overstep it. I find this policy singularly unhelpful to the players. It is like playing football with a rule ... There is an offside line but we are only going to penalize you when you overstep it we are not going to tell you where it is in advance. Oh and it might be different if you play under some other jurisdiction. Wayne From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 30 13:00:50 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 30 13:08:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: <004301c53505$4e8f7420$d29087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <424A7636.9010001@ebridgenz.com> Message-ID: <002b01c53518$4aa60a50$1ca087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Forcing > > > > > > +=+ Deliberately leaving it to local judgement to > > apply values to the terms. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > There exists a boundary but we are not going to tell you > where it is we are just going to beat you to a pulp when > you overstep it. > > I find this policy singularly unhelpful to the players. > +=+ The boundary is different with different CTDs, in different locations. The WBF has stated a principle. The application is in local hands and varies. You should have a fair idea where it is where you are. ~ G ~ +=+ From wayne at ebridgenz.com Wed Mar 30 14:06:16 2005 From: wayne at ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Mar 30 14:06:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <002b01c53518$4aa60a50$1ca087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <004301c53505$4e8f7420$d29087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <424A7636.9010001@ebridgenz.com> <002b01c53518$4aa60a50$1ca087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <424A9638.4030502@ebridgenz.com> Grattan Endicott wrote: > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, > and translated into another tongue, have > not the same force in them: and not only > these things, but the law itself, and the > prophets, and the rest of the books, have > no small difference, when they are spoken > in their own language. " > ['Ecclesiasticus'] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 10:49 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Forcing > > > >>> >>>+=+ Deliberately leaving it to local judgement to >>>apply values to the terms. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >>There exists a boundary but we are not going to tell you >>where it is we are just going to beat you to a pulp when >>you overstep it. >> >>I find this policy singularly unhelpful to the players. >> > > +=+ The boundary is different with different CTDs, in different > locations. The WBF has stated a principle. The application > is in local hands and varies. You should have a fair idea where > it is where you are. > ~ G ~ +=+ I have written to the National Authority to seek clarification and all I received in reply was a 'thankyou for your letter'. So I have very little idea where the boundaries lie. I specifically sought clarification on what constitutes a "rare exception" which is the only time a singleton is allowed in a 1NT opening and what happens when a "forcing bid is passed" which is required to make a strong artificial opening like 2C or 2D a non-Brown Sticker in our regulations. When I last explained to someone that our NT opening as a rare exception could contain a singleton they just laughed and said "quoting the manual". And our strong Mexican style 2D opening (18-20 Balanced) is in the strange position of being legal for teams events and 8-board round Swiss Pairs but being illegal for other pairs play unless we make it forcing - which we have done. The only hand that we would pass 2D is when responder was weak with diamonds. We have dutifully invented an escape route to 3D (which seems a bit silly) so that we can legally play the same (nearly) system at pairs as we do at teams. Nevertheless rarely we might choose to pass 2D. This might happen for a number of reasons e.g. we might momentarily forget we are playing the pairs system. I am seriously saying that is possible not trying to make an excuse for flouting the regulations. Alternatively we might take a view based on an opponent's interest in the auction etc. These occurances will of course be rare because it is rare in the first instance that we will pass 2D at IMPs where this action is allowed (we just have to disclose that we play a Brown Sticker in that case). I would think that it ought to be easy and appropriate to give an interpretation in advance so that law abiding players could determine that their system met the regulations. Wayne From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 30 14:12:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Mar 30 14:13:12 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <002401c53374$52875170$ce974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Grattan has been concentrating on keeping the > Law Book in view and not allowing the law to be > set aside. He has said little about the detailed > application and any doubt probably arises out of this. > There are two factors that are to be examined by > the Director: > 1. Has there been a change of mind since the > player commenced to call for a card? Did he start > to call for a card and then, consequent upon his > noticing the play of the King, attempt a change to > play the Ace? Why this constant harping on about "change of mind"? The only thing that stops us applying L46b is establishing that "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". Even if we consider it very likely there was no change of mind we are a bound by the (very strong) word "incontrovertible" - if the possibility of a change of mind is finite (however small) then we must apply L46b. > 2. Has he said sufficient for the Director to > identify the rank and/or the suit of the card he was > originally calling for? This applies only if we accept that "Qu" and the like are legal designations. This appears to conflict with Law45 and Law1. > Both of these require the Director to form > an opinion as to the facts.or alternatively make an > 85B ruling. If his answer to (1) is 'yes' the player > will *not* be allowed to play the Ace. ..or indeed, maybe, or probably not > In that > event the Director will apply the relevant section > of Law 46, or Law 47F, determined by his answer > to (2). It is absolutely not the case that the Director > can say "I realise that it follows a change of mind > but since you did not actually nominate rank or suit > you may play the card of your choice". In that > situation he still has Law 46B5 and this law is *not* > restricted to 'play anything or words of like import', > which is an example and not the main thrust of that > law. They may not be the main thrust of the law as intended but they are certainly a good part of the law as written. However, that's a little moot since if we deem that neither rank/suit has been designated we will be hard pushed to rule that declarer has "indicated a play". I admit that L46b4 isn't ideal either but whether a player has said "Th." or "The Qu.." before noticing LHO's card I keep thinking that basing his play on LHO's card is entirely legal and that using a law that appears intended to address situations where declarer *doesn't care* what card is played seems wholly wrong. Treating such cases as calls for a card not in dummy fits best with my concepts of natural justice. > > The case I have in mind is dummy holds AQT4, > > declarer has K32. Declarer cashes A and K and > > then leads towards dummy Everyone has followed > > small throughout. Declarer says "The heart um.. " > > and then considers or reconsiders which of > > the QT to play. > > > +=+ It does not look to me that > the Director would find that a change > of mind had occurred if the player had > not made up his mind what to play > and identifiably nominated it. Indeed not. But we are, equally clearly, not in "incontrovertibly otherwise" territory. However you apply L46b in a change of mind case applies equally in this one. Tim From larry at charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 30 15:04:55 2005 From: larry at charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Wed Mar 30 15:06:02 2005 Subject: [blml] lead rites Message-ID: <001501c53529$36cea210$53c5883e@p41600> I had to cancel a board, due to one player having (their own) cards from B2, whilst playing B1, everyone else having the correct cards. This hand was on lead however, and the situation was only discovered after the lead had been faced. What is the status of this card when the real B2 is played? I treated it (and a call they had made) as UI, but is it really a penalty card, thus silencing pard on B2? Larry From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Wed Mar 30 15:26:26 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Wed Mar 30 15:27:26 2005 Subject: [blml] lead rites Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64D1@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Larry Bennett > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 15:05 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] lead rites > > > I had to cancel a board, due to one player having > (their own) cards from B2, whilst playing B1, > everyone else having the correct cards. > This hand was on lead however, and the situation was > only discovered after the lead had been faced. > What is the status of this card when the real B2 is > played? > I treated it (and a call they had made) as UI, but > is it really a penalty card, thus silencing pard on > B2? > > Larry The card is a card shown before the auction has started on B2 (since it is shown during B1), so this can be handled through L16B - TD can let B2 play if he judges that seeing the card will not interfere with normal play, and gives A+/A- otherwise (the other options are not possible in this case). Concerning the bid, this is a different matter. According to L17D, if offender repeats his call on B2 (I understand there was only one), AND it means EXACTLY the same, play can continue; otherwise you will have to cancel B2 as well. -- Martin Sinot From john at asimere.com Wed Mar 30 15:35:32 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Mar 30 15:37:39 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <000001c53417$3aa5be40$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <2b9701de8be4d771c8285a1045c6d5b3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000001c53417$3aa5be40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3X38ptAksqSCFwEm@asimere.com> In article <000001c53417$3aa5be40$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford >............. >> An interesting variation on this topic happened today at the Easter >> Congress Swiss Pairs. Declarer led a card from hand in a suit where >> dummy was void. She pointed unambiguously to the only trump in dummy >> (the 9) and then noticed that my partner had ruffed in front with the >> 10. Up to this point she hadn't spoken a word. >> >> Comments? > >IF your description is accurate then the trump 9 has been played. totally in agreement. clearly completely designated. > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.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 Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Mar 30 16:22:17 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Mar 30 16:22:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: <004301c53505$4e8f7420$d29087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><424A7636.9010001@ebridgenz.com> <002b01c53518$4aa60a50$1ca087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <008401c53533$e16f7730$4e9868d5@James> [Grattan Endicott] >>> +=+ Deliberately leaving it to local judgement >> to apply values to the terms. [Wayne Burrows] >> There exists a boundary but we are not going to >> tell you where it is we are just going to beat >> you to a pulp when you overstep it. I find this >> policy singularly unhelpful to the players. {Grattan] > +=+ The boundary is different with different CTDs, > in different locations. The WBF has stated a > principle. The application is in local hands and > varies. You should have a fair idea where it is > where you are. [Nigel] As usual, sophisticated Bridge-Law confers an advantage on players who are also Royal Arch secretary birds and directors. Why are Bridge-players expected to join the local Mafia, Triad or Yakuza to be privy to secret local Bridge rites? Why can't Bridge law-makers simplify, standardise and open up the laws so that most players can understand them? Eventually, perhaps, quite ordinary directors might learn to apply them correctly and consistently? From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 30 17:05:03 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 30 17:06:00 2005 Subject: [blml] lead rites In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64D1@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <000001c53539$d9f1aef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Sinot Martin > > I had to cancel a board, due to one player having > > (their own) cards from B2, whilst playing B1, > > everyone else having the correct cards. > > This hand was on lead however, and the situation was > > only discovered after the lead had been faced. > > What is the status of this card when the real B2 is > > played? > > I treated it (and a call they had made) as UI, but > > is it really a penalty card, thus silencing pard on > > B2? > > > > Larry > > The card is a card shown before the auction has started > on B2 (since it is shown during B1), so this can be > handled through L16B - TD can let B2 play if he judges > that seeing the card will not interfere with normal play, > and gives A+/A- otherwise (the other options are not > possible in this case). This is correct but irrelevant. If the offender has not made any call at all on B1 (using his hand from B2) the Director can hardly have any reason to cancel either B1 or B2. Once the offender has made a call on B1 (using his hand from B2) Law 17D applies for both B1 and B2. Regards Sven > > Concerning the bid, this is a different matter. According > to L17D, if offender repeats his call on B2 (I understand > there was only one), AND it means EXACTLY the same, play can > continue; otherwise you will have to cancel B2 as well. (Right so). > -- > Martin Sinot From tubaugh at yebox.com Wed Mar 30 18:51:04 2005 From: tubaugh at yebox.com (Lakeisha Howe) Date: Wed Mar 30 18:52:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Need a low mortage rate? Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.go-mrt-now.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Kitty Mims to be remov(ed: http://www.go-mrt-now.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Mar 31 00:33:27 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Mar 31 00:36:13 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <200503281621.j2SGL6sH008060@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200503281621.j2SGL6sH008060@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <424B2937.4040009@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > 1. Has there been a change of mind since the > player commenced to call for a card? > 2. Has he said sufficient for the Director to > identify the rank and/or the suit of the card he was > originally calling for? ... > It is absolutely not the case that the Director > can say "I realise that it follows a change of mind > but since you did not actually nominate rank or suit > you may play the card of your choice". What I find fascinating about this is how much things have changed since the days I started playing. Perhaps it was only local custom, but back then changes "in the same breath" were accepted, regardless of the reason for them. (The actual 1963 Laws read "without pause," which is pretty much the same thing for practical purposes.) In 1987, according to Kaplan the LC intended to _liberalize_ the opportunity for change by replacing "without pause" by "without pause for thought." Instead what has happened is that intent has not only come into the picture, it has become (according to Herman, Grattan, and Kojak among others) the whole story. It seems to me bizarre that a declarer who says "Play the... umm... let's see..." can be deemed to have designated a card, but that's how I read Grattan's statement above, and Herman has very clearly written the same. I do not think this interpretation is consistent with the written text of the Laws, so if it really is the LC intent -- that slippery word again -- they will need a substantial change in wording to make it clear. Personally, I'm with Probst and Dodson on what the current Laws say. We wait until declarer comes to a distinct pause in speaking, and then rule on what he actually said. If no card was designated, declarer can play whatever he wants. If there was a partial designation, we follow L46. Only if there was a change in designation is intent relevant. As to future laws, my preference would be to remove intent altogether rather than keep it as a factor. Rule on what declarer actually said, not on why he might have said it. Seems fairer to me, not to mention a whole lot easier to put into practice. From aryush at didamail.com Thu Mar 31 01:39:20 2005 From: aryush at didamail.com (Savannah Feliciano) Date: Thu Mar 31 01:43:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Instant low rates Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.go-mrt-now.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Jeff Frost to be remov(ed: http://www.go-mrt-now.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 31 04:30:23 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 31 04:31:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <008401c53533$e16f7730$4e9868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >>There exists a boundary but we are not going to >>tell you where it is; we are just going to beat >>you to a pulp when you overstep it. I find this >>policy singularly unhelpful to the players. Nigel Guthrie: >As usual, sophisticated Bridge-Law confers an >advantage on players who are also Royal Arch >secretary birds and directors. > >Why are Bridge-players expected to join the local >Mafia, Triad or Yakuza to be privy to secret local >bridge rites? Why can't Bridge law-makers >simplify, standardise and open up the laws so that >most players can understand them? Eventually, >perhaps, quite ordinary directors might learn to >apply them correctly and consistently? Richard Hills: Wayne *understands* that his Mexican 2D opening bid is required to be forcing in New Zealand matchpoint pairs. Wayne is merely being a "secretary bird" by seeking a loophole in the definition of "forcing", so that he can pass pard's 2D opening bid 5% of the time (now illegal because "not rare"), instead of 0.5% of the time (now legal because "rare"). In my opinion, Lawful principles are more helpful to ordinary directors and players than over-specific arbitrary Laws. In my opinion, over-specific arbitrary Laws merely encourage "secretary birds" to search for loopholes. If Nigel and Wayne had their over-specific way, the Golden Rule would read: "Do unto 87% of others 75% of the time as you would have 95% of others do unto you 99% of the time." :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From keim at emailaccount.com Thu Mar 31 07:47:51 2005 From: keim at emailaccount.com (Debra Lindsay) Date: Thu Mar 31 07:57:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Lowest rates in 45 years Message-ID: <113241.9504.keim@emailaccount.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.go-mrt-now.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Jefferey Mcknight to be remov(ed: http://www.go-mrt-now.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 30 16:19:06 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 31 08:38:11 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: Message-ID: <000401c535bb$a9885d90$a89687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > Why this constant harping on about "change of mind"? > The only thing that stops us applying L46b is establishing > that "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". > Even if we consider it very likely there was no change of > mind we are a bound by the (very strong) word > "incontrovertible" - if the possibility of a change of mind > is finite (however small) then we must apply L46b. > +=+ Before he gets to 46B the Director considers whether Law 45C4(b) applies. +=+ From wayne at ebridgenz.com Thu Mar 31 08:43:03 2005 From: wayne at ebridgenz.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Mar 31 08:43:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <424B9BF7.9020705@ebridgenz.com> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > >>>There exists a boundary but we are not going to >>>tell you where it is; we are just going to beat >>>you to a pulp when you overstep it. I find this >>>policy singularly unhelpful to the players. > > > Nigel Guthrie: > > >>As usual, sophisticated Bridge-Law confers an >>advantage on players who are also Royal Arch >>secretary birds and directors. >> >>Why are Bridge-players expected to join the local >>Mafia, Triad or Yakuza to be privy to secret local >>bridge rites? Why can't Bridge law-makers >>simplify, standardise and open up the laws so that >>most players can understand them? Eventually, >>perhaps, quite ordinary directors might learn to >>apply them correctly and consistently? > > > Richard Hills: > > Wayne *understands* that his Mexican 2D opening bid > is required to be forcing in New Zealand matchpoint > pairs. > > Wayne is merely being a "secretary bird" by seeking > a loophole in the definition of "forcing", so that > he can pass pard's 2D opening bid 5% of the time > (now illegal because "not rare"), instead of 0.5% > of the time (now legal because "rare"). This is exactly what I am trying not to do. The problem occurs because there is no definition of "forcing". Therefore there can be no loophole in that nonexistent definition. I would be happy if there were a definition so long as that definition was practical. Without a definition I believe the regulation is unworkable and I have tried to demonstrate that by recounting an instance where I passed my partnership's strongest unlimited bid. If "forcing" means cannot pass then no bid is acceptable in terms of the regulation. If "forcing" has some other meaning then I would like to know it before the director rules at my table. We have no intention of deliberately flouting the regulations but since the regulators have chosen not to define or clarify what the regulation means then I am forced into a position where I do not know whether or not our method is legal nor what the consequence will be if we inadvertently infract. The NZCBA regulations state that penalties may be issued based on a number of criteria one of which is whether a clarification was sought from the NZCBA. I have sought clarification and been given no satisfactory reply. I have followed this up with a subsequent note saying that I note that "I have sought clarification of issues relating to the interpretation of the current regulations and that the NZCBA has chosen not to clarify the interpretation." > > In my opinion, Lawful principles are more helpful > to ordinary directors and players than over-specific > arbitrary Laws. In my opinion, over-specific > arbitrary Laws merely encourage "secretary birds" to > search for loopholes. Lawful principles without specific Laws encourage the directors and administrators of the Laws and Regulations to act as "Secretary Birds" searching for loopholes to clamp down on particular players or types of players while allowing others more liberty. Perhaps we need something more than ordinary directors. Games are full of arbitrary laws that is what makes them playable: The cricketer is out when the ball strikes his wicket removing the bails; The footballer scores a goal when the ball crosses the line goal line between and under the goalposts; The basketballer scores when the ball passes through the hoop; The chess player can move a bishop on the diagonal; The backgamoner moves according the throw of the dice; The athlete must run around the track or the designated course. It would be silly to make these rules based on loose principles: You are out the ball nearly hit the wickets; That nearly went in the net - "goal scored"; Nice basket you nearly got it through the hoop; Yes you can take my Queen it is nearly on a diagonal from your bishop. I didn't notice that; You threw a seven but needed eight why not just move eight and win the game; He was entitled to take that short cut if you had known the street layout better you to could have won the New York Marathon. It is loose imprecise laws and regulations that encourage the bridge lawyer not tight clear boundaries. How would bridge be if the requirement to follow suit was a loose guiding principle. But I played the same colour or but this is only one trick after diamonds were played sure there is some flexibility in the Lawful principles. They can't possibly mean that I must play my last heart on the same trick in which hearts were led. > > If Nigel and Wayne had their over-specific way, the > Golden Rule would read: > > "Do unto 87% of others 75% of the time as you would > have 95% of others do unto you 99% of the time." I fail to see how you come to this conclusion. Wayne Burrows > > :-) > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From FindlayBach at biddeford.com Thu Mar 31 08:46:59 2005 From: FindlayBach at biddeford.com (Cletus Penney) Date: Thu Mar 31 08:56:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: work Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050331/914e154a/attachment.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 31 09:03:02 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 31 09:07:40 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <200503281621.j2SGL6sH008060@cfa.harvard.edu> <424B2937.4040009@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <004501c535bf$c77b7630$a89687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > 1. Has there been a change of mind since the > > player commenced to call for a card? > > 2. Has he said sufficient for the Director to > > identify the rank and/or the suit of the card he was > > originally calling for? > ... > In 1987, according to Kaplan the LC intended to > _liberalize_ the opportunity for change by replacing > "without pause" by "without pause for thought." > Instead what has happened is that intent has not only > come into the picture, it has become (according to > Herman, Grattan, and Kojak among others) the whole > story. It seems to me bizarre that a declarer who > says "Play the... umm... let's see..." can be deemed to > have designated a card, but that's how I read Grattan's > statement above, < +=+ Then I am not making myself clear. I say that the Director must decide whether a change of mind has taken place. I say that I do not expect the Director to rule 'change of mind' in these circumstances. When the declarer's instruction is sufficiently enunciated to indicate a suit or rank (or of course both) there is no going back on that. Everything I have written in this thread has hinged upon the Director's ruling that he has evidence of a change of mind - that there has been a change of designation and that it has occurred after 'pause for thought', i.e. is not correction of an inadvertent slip of the tongue as 45C4(b) permits. The Director has to make his mind up about these things. It is, in particular, not inadvertent when declarer seeks to change after he becomes aware of what LHO has done and the Director decides this is what has occurred. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From custservice_id_514763394983443 at huntington.com Thu Mar 31 09:11:33 2005 From: custservice_id_514763394983443 at huntington.com (Huntington) Date: Thu Mar 31 09:21:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Huntington Bank - security maintenance Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050331/edb0a818/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: canvas.GIF Type: image/gif Size: 8797 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050331/edb0a818/canvas.gif From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Mar 31 11:24:12 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Thu Mar 31 11:19:02 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <000401c535bb$a9885d90$a89687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <004101c535d3$66857100$0307a8c0@david> >> Why this constant harping on about "change of mind"? >> The only thing that stops us applying L46b is establishing >> that "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". >> Even if we consider it very likely there was no change of >> mind we are a bound by the (very strong) word >> "incontrovertible" - if the possibility of a change of mind >> is finite (however small) then we must apply L46b. >> > +=+ Before he gets to 46B the Director considers > whether Law 45C4(b) applies. +=+ > > > This is surely backwards. (1)We decide that a card has been designated. (2) We decide what that card is. (3) We decide whether that designation can be changed. So in order we apply 46A, 46B then 45C4(b). ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 31 11:40:41 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Mar 31 11:41:40 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <004101c535d3$66857100$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000001c535d5$b46dad40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton .............. > > +=+ Before he gets to 46B the Director considers > > whether Law 45C4(b) applies. +=+ > > > > > > > > This is surely backwards. > (1)We decide that a card has been designated. > (2) We decide what that card is. > (3) We decide whether that designation can be changed. > > So in order we apply 46A, 46B then 45C4(b). The problem with this is that we cannot always tell whether we have a complete designation, an incomplete (or insufficient) designation, an interrupted designation or even no designation at all. As L45C4(b) allows a player to change even a complete designation on certain conditions it would seem obvious that we must always try such cases against this law _before_ progressing to Law 46. Regards Sven From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Mar 31 12:13:30 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Thu Mar 31 12:08:18 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <200503281621.j2SGL6sH008060@cfa.harvard.edu><424B2937.4040009@cfa.harvard.edu> <004501c535bf$c77b7630$a89687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <004501c535da$4977ae50$0307a8c0@david> >> > From: "Grattan Endicott" >> > 1. Has there been a change of mind since the >> > player commenced to call for a card? >> > 2. Has he said sufficient for the Director to >> > identify the rank and/or the suit of the card he was >> > originally calling for? >> ... >> In 1987, according to Kaplan the LC intended to >> _liberalize_ the opportunity for change by replacing >> "without pause" by "without pause for thought." >> Instead what has happened is that intent has not only >> come into the picture, it has become (according to >> Herman, Grattan, and Kojak among others) the whole >> story. It seems to me bizarre that a declarer who >> says "Play the... umm... let's see..." can be deemed to >> have designated a card, but that's how I read Grattan's >> statement above, > < Grattan > +=+ Then I am not making myself clear. David Barton Well at least we can agree on something. Grattan > I say that > the Director must decide whether a change of mind has > taken place. David Barton Why? We are in agreement that a change of call cannot take place AFTER it has been made (except in accordance with 45C4). Precisely what rule says that declarer may not change his mind DURING a call. Grattan >I say that I do not expect the Director to > rule 'change of mind' in these circumstances. David Barton Why not? It seems abolutely clear to me that declarer has, or at the very least, may have, changed his mind about what card he proposes to play. The point it appears that you do not wish to address is:- What difference is there between a change of mind occasioned by realisation of LHO's card, and one arising from a simple reassessment of what should be played. Grattan >When the > declarer's instruction is sufficiently enunciated to indicate > a suit or rank (or of course both) there is no going back > on that. > Everything I have written in this thread has hinged > upon the Director's ruling that he has evidence of a > change of mind - that there has been a change of > designation and that it has occurred after 'pause for > thought', i.e. is not correction of an inadvertent slip > of the tongue as 45C4(b) permits. The Director has > to make his mind up about these things. > It is, in particular, not inadvertent when declarer > seeks to change after he becomes aware of what > LHO has done and the Director decides this is what > has occurred. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Mar 31 13:28:41 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Mar 31 13:29:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: Message-ID: <008301c535e4$cb642240$6b9868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > Wayne *understands* that his Mexican 2D opening bid > is required to be forcing in New Zealand matchpoint > pairs. > Wayne is merely being a "secretary bird" by seeking > a loophole in the definition of "forcing", so that > he can pass pard's 2D opening bid 5% of the time > (now illegal because "not rare"), instead of 0.5% > of the time (now legal because "rare"). [Nigel] Poor Wayne is trying to play Bridge in spite of a wired local system restriction. Just as with other local rules, no two jurisdictions seem to impose the same restrictions. Pity the peripatetic player! But Grattan must be delighted! In the UK, the restrictions on our "Multi" 2D opener are equally quaint. For example, in addition to a weak two in major, the Multi must contain at least one strong option, of reasonable frequency. Furthermore, you may not pass the 2D opener if your hand could make game opposite the strong option(s). I'm told that Frances Hinden may have devised an ingenious way of circumventing this bizarre local rule: define only one strong option: eight playing tricks with a *solid diamond suit*. Then 2D forces a reply only when responder has a good opening bid or lacks a diamond honour. Most players have no idea whether this idea is really legal -- or whether Frances is indeed responsible for it; it is just one of a multitude of gravy "judgement" areas, created by spurious local rules. Wayne, you are not alone! From GDRBS at kkmof.com Thu Mar 31 14:45:26 2005 From: GDRBS at kkmof.com (Olin Dick) Date: Thu Mar 31 14:52:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Offering Purchases in 24 hours. Message-ID: <126901141618.AA1487835@client.comcast.net> Would you REFINANCE if you knew you'd save THOUSANDZ? Or get a Loan of 405,000.00, you already qualified. We'll get you the lowest possible rate. Don't believe me? Fill out our small online questionaire and we'll show you how. Get the home/house or car you always wanted, it only takes 35 seconds of your time. Click this link: http://www.forever-mrt-now.com/41.asp Best Regards, Olin Dick caucasus lic needlework avg compute kr nathan jk valuate lzu confederate wvz johanson ji fro gc [2 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 31 15:06:44 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Mar 31 15:05:54 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <004501c535bf$c77b7630$a89687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200503281621.j2SGL6sH008060@cfa.harvard.edu> <424B2937.4040009@cfa.harvard.edu> <004501c535bf$c77b7630$a89687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050331075421.02bb5eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:03 AM 3/31/05, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Then I am not making myself clear. I say that >the Director must decide whether a change of mind has >taken place. I say that I do not expect the Director to >rule 'change of mind' in these circumstances. When the >declarer's instruction is sufficiently enunciated to indicate >a suit or rank (or of course both) there is no going back >on that. > Everything I have written in this thread has hinged >upon the Director's ruling that he has evidence of a >change of mind - that there has been a change of >designation and that it has occurred after 'pause for >thought', i.e. is not correction of an inadvertent slip >of the tongue as 45C4(b) permits. The Director has >to make his mind up about these things. > It is, in particular, not inadvertent when declarer >seeks to change after he becomes aware of what >LHO has done and the Director decides this is what >has occurred. If Grattan is saying that the TD requires objective evidence based on what declarer has "enunciated to indicate a suit or rank", that would be a reasonable interpretation of the current law, and would deal with the "qu...ace" case. But most of us work at a level where we can gather pretty reliable evidence of declarer's intention by asking declarer what his intention was. That's where Steve's concern comes into play. If declarer says "play the um... uh... the ace", we can ask him whether he changed his mind in mid-statement, and expect an honest answer. Should we ask, and, assuming we judge the reply credible, make our ruling based on it? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 31 17:30:03 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 31 18:34:00 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <200503281621.j2SGL6sH008060@cfa.harvard.edu><424B2937.4040009@cfa.harvard.edu><004501c535bf$c77b7630$a89687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004501c535da$4977ae50$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <005001c5360e$e43cd080$9ba587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > > [David Barton] > It seems abolutely clear to me that declarer > has, or at the very least, may have, changed > his mind about what card he proposes to play. > The point it appears that you do not wish to > address is:- > What difference is there between a change > of mind occasioned by realisation of LHO's > card, and one arising from a simple > reassessment of what should be played. > > [Grattan} +=+ It would be fatuous to address a question that does not arise. The law does not relate to what card declarer proposes to play but to what card he has played, including a card determined as to its identity through the provisions of Law 46B. +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 31 17:45:21 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 31 18:34:04 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <200503281621.j2SGL6sH008060@cfa.harvard.edu><424B2937.4040009@cfa.harvard.edu><004501c535bf$c77b7630$a89687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050331075421.02bb5eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005101c5360e$e51a8650$9ba587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > If Grattan is saying that the TD requires objective evidence based on > what declarer has "enunciated to indicate a suit or rank", that would > be a reasonable interpretation of the current law, and would deal with > the "qu...ace" case. But most of us work at a level where we can > gather pretty reliable evidence of declarer's intention by asking > declarer what his intention was. That's where Steve's concern comes > into play. If declarer says "play the um... uh... the ace", we can ask > him whether he changed his mind in mid-statement, and expect an honest > answer. Should we ask, and, assuming we judge the reply credible, make > our ruling based on it? > +=+ But I do not consider that a change of play has occurred here. No card has been designated by declarer before he said 'Ace', not within the terms of Law 45B, even subject to the provisions in Law 46B. There is no attempt to change a designation as 45C4(b) allows, nor otherwise illegally. As described here, the Ace is the only card designated and thus played. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 31 18:29:25 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 31 18:34:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: <424B9BF7.9020705@ebridgenz.com> Message-ID: <005201c5360e$e619a6d0$9ba587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Forcing > > This is exactly what I am trying not to do. The problem > occurs because there is no definition of "forcing". Therefore > there can be no loophole in that nonexistent definition. > > I would be happy if there were a definition so long as > that definition was practical. Without a definition I believe > the regulation is unworkable and I have tried to demonstrate > that by recounting an instance where I passed my > partnership's strongest unlimited bid. If "forcing" means > cannot pass then no bid is acceptable in terms of the > regulation. If "forcing" has some other meaning then I would > like to know it before the director rules at my table. > +=+ When the laws or the regulations fail to define a word, the place to look for the definition is in a dictionary of the language. In Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus I find this: 'force' = (in bridge) to induce (a bid) from one's partner. In extension of this definition my opinion is that the condition imposed upon partner is not to pass if his RHO passes, so that the player who has forced cannot be denied a further turn in the auction. [A force may be qualified by adding a statement as to how far it remains operative in the auction - e.g. 'forcing to three diamonds' - but in the absence of such qualification it operates only when partner next calls.] ~ G ~ +=+ From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Mar 31 18:53:19 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu Mar 31 18:54:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <005201c5360e$e619a6d0$9ba587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from "Grattan Endicott" at Mar 31, 2005 05:29:25 PM Message-ID: <200503311653.j2VGrJQ9028709@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Grattan Endicott writes: > > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, > and translated into another tongue, have > not the same force in them: and not only > these things, but the law itself, and the > prophets, and the rest of the books, have > no small difference, when they are spoken > in their own language. " > ['Ecclesiasticus'] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:43 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Forcing > > > > > > This is exactly what I am trying not to do. The problem > > occurs because there is no definition of "forcing". Therefore > > there can be no loophole in that nonexistent definition. > > > > I would be happy if there were a definition so long as > > that definition was practical. Without a definition I believe > > the regulation is unworkable and I have tried to demonstrate > > that by recounting an instance where I passed my > > partnership's strongest unlimited bid. If "forcing" means > > cannot pass then no bid is acceptable in terms of the > > regulation. If "forcing" has some other meaning then I would > > like to know it before the director rules at my table. > > > +=+ When the laws or the regulations fail to define a word, > the place to look for the definition is in a dictionary of the > language. In Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus > I find this: > 'force' = (in bridge) to induce (a bid) from one's > partner. > In extension of this definition my opinion is that the condition > imposed upon partner is not to pass if his RHO passes, so > that the player who has forced cannot be denied a further turn > in the auction. [A force may be qualified by adding a statement > as to how far it remains operative in the auction - e.g. 'forcing > to three diamonds' - but in the absence of such qualification it > operates only when partner next calls.] > ~ G ~ +=+ > Can't disagree with that. But let's get practical. In the auction: 1C P 1S P 2H Kit Woolsey is on record as saying a) 2H is forcing b) he'd respond 1S on KJxx, Jxx, xxxx, xx c) he'd then pass 2H Saying that he knows partner thinks his 2H is 100% forcing but that: (quoting now) "[...]If I think passing a forcing call is the percentage action, then I will do it. It doesn't change the fact that it is forcing. My partner won't lose confidence in me when he has a monsterous hand and we miss a game [!] He knows that I know it is forcing and that I simply took what I thought was the percentage action. If he picks up the monster again, he will bid it the same way, without the slightest worry that I will pass." Do you believe that either Woolsey or his partner would be guilty of MI if they described that 2H bid as "forcing"? (It is interesting to note that one of Woolsey's former partners wrote some of the best stuff on captaincy and partnership discipline) From john at asimere.com Thu Mar 31 18:52:31 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Mar 31 18:55:12 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <004501c535bf$c77b7630$a89687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200503281621.j2SGL6sH008060@cfa.harvard.edu> <424B2937.4040009@cfa.harvard.edu> <004501c535bf$c77b7630$a89687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <5Pc$fLAPrCTCFwt8@asimere.com> In article <004501c535bf$c77b7630$a89687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >******************************* >"For the same things uttered in Hebrew, >and translated into another tongue, have >not the same force in them: and not only >these things, but the law itself, and the >prophets, and the rest of the books, have >no small difference, when they are spoken >in their own language. " > ['Ecclesiasticus'] >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Willner" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:33 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > >> > From: "Grattan Endicott" >> > 1. Has there been a change of mind since the >> > player commenced to call for a card? >> > 2. Has he said sufficient for the Director to >> > identify the rank and/or the suit of the card he was >> > originally calling for? >> ... >> In 1987, according to Kaplan the LC intended to >> _liberalize_ the opportunity for change by replacing >> "without pause" by "without pause for thought." >> Instead what has happened is that intent has not only >> come into the picture, it has become (according to >> Herman, Grattan, and Kojak among others) the whole >> story. It seems to me bizarre that a declarer who >> says "Play the... umm... let's see..." can be deemed to >> have designated a card, but that's how I read Grattan's >> statement above, >< >+=+ Then I am not making myself clear. I say that >the Director must decide whether a change of mind has >taken place. I say that I do not expect the Director to >rule 'change of mind' in these circumstances. When the >declarer's instruction is sufficiently enunciated to indicate >a suit or rank (or of course both) there is no going back >on that. > Everything I have written in this thread has hinged >upon the Director's ruling that he has evidence of a >change of mind - that there has been a change of >designation and that it has occurred after 'pause for >thought', i.e. is not correction of an inadvertent slip >of the tongue as 45C4(b) permits. The Director has >to make his mind up about these things. > It is, in particular, not inadvertent when declarer >seeks to change after he becomes aware of what >LHO has done and the Director decides this is what >has occurred. I'm very comfortable with what Grattan has here written. My inclination is that incomplete designations are inadvertent and so, whilst I investigate, I go along that route absent evidence to the contrary. I had one at Easter where a dummy had left the table, and declarer was more than just adjusting the cards. I promptly ruled "designated" (well, after I found that bit of the Law), as the Law is clear on this point. It is not clear at all to my mind in the case we have been arguing. I think that Grattan and I would actually not be far apart were it to come to a practical role play with a view to asking us each to give a judgement. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.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 adam at irvine.com Thu Mar 31 19:27:54 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Mar 31 19:28:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:53:19 EST." <200503311653.j2VGrJQ9028709@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <200503311727.JAA31281@mailhub.irvine.com> Ron Johnson wrote: > Grattan Endicott writes: > > In extension of this definition my opinion is that the condition > > imposed upon partner is not to pass if his RHO passes, so > > that the player who has forced cannot be denied a further turn > > in the auction. [A force may be qualified by adding a statement > > as to how far it remains operative in the auction - e.g. 'forcing > > to three diamonds' - but in the absence of such qualification it > > operates only when partner next calls.] > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > Can't disagree with that. > > But let's get practical. In the auction: > > 1C P 1S P > 2H > > Kit Woolsey is on record as saying > > a) 2H is forcing > b) he'd respond 1S on KJxx, Jxx, xxxx, xx > c) he'd then pass 2H > > Saying that he knows partner thinks his 2H > is 100% forcing but that: (quoting now) > > "[...]If I think passing a forcing call is the percentage action, then > I will do it. It doesn't change the fact that it is forcing. My partner > won't lose confidence in me when he has a monsterous hand and we miss > a game [!] He knows that I know it is forcing and that I simply took > what I thought was the percentage action. If he picks up the monster > again, he will bid it the same way, without the slightest worry that > I will pass." > > Do you believe that either Woolsey or his partner would be guilty > of MI if they described that 2H bid as "forcing"? This calls to mind a situation that happened with my regular partner. We're playing a runout system where after 1NT-(penalty dbl), pass forces opener to redouble, which responder can then pass for business or attempt to run out to one of two non-touching suits. [Our notrump range is 15-17, which raises questions about whether a runout system like this is really needed. Comments about this should be e-mailed to my partner, who wanted to play this system; his e-mail address is "/dev/null".] Anyway, he opened 1NT, RHO doubled for penalties, I passed intending to pass the later redouble. Partner alerted my pass, and LHO asked about it. Partner started by saying "Forces me to redouble, after which partner can ...", but LHO had heard everything she wanted to hear and cut him off. [This was UI for her partner, but that turned out not to be an issue on this hand.] So she passed. Partner then passed, ending the auction. LHO, who apparently had passed assuming she would have another turn to bid, made one of the loudest TD calls I have ever heard. The TD ruled, correctly, that partner was allowed to make any call he wanted as long as it wasn't part of a concealed partnership agreement. When the smoke cleared, we ended up with twelve tricks for +1180 (a different opening lead would have held us to seven), and LHO screamed for the TD again, to complain about the same thing, and of course she received the same ruling. Partner's hand was something like Qx/xxx/Ax/AKQxxx; not your typical 1NT opener (I don't think I would have), but he certainly was justified in preferring to take his chances in 1NT with seven possible tricks staring at him, rather than hear a follow-up call from me that showed a runout with 4-4 in diamonds and spades. (I actually had KQJxxx in diamonds and out.) Certainly there was no MI in this case since this was a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, and partner had never done this before. But if a player is known to pass forcing bids with some frequency, could it be MI to describe a bid as forcing? IMHO there are two issues. One has to do with the information the description provides about the bidder's hand. In the above auction, 1C-1S-2H, the 2H bidder is bidding on the assumption that he will get another turn; and thus, in some cases (for most players), 2H may be a "fake" bid planning to show three-card spade support next time (the Bridge World Death Hand). Even if the player knows that Woolsey occasionally passes forcing bids, BUT ASSUMING THAT THE PLAYER DOES NOT LET IT AFFECT HIS CHOICE OF CALLS, then there's no MI about the 2H bidder's hand. But if Woolsey's partners start thinking "Woolsey occasionally passes forcing bids so I'd better not make a fake reverse this time", then describing 2H as forcing *would* be MI. The other issue has to do with the information about whether the *opponents* will have a chance to call again (this was an issue in the hand my partner and I bid). If RHO's bid is described as forcing, I may pass with the knowledge that I will get another turn. If it turns out the bid was only 99% forcing [and the partnership knew it], and the auction gets passed out, then I probably was damaged. I'll admit that this is unlikely after an opener's reverse---opener's LHO is extremely unlikely to have a hand where he is considering a call over 2H but passes knowing he will get another turn. (Any hand like that would have taken action over 1C.) However, I do believe it's an issue in other auctions. If my partner occasionally passes a forcing pass after 1NT-(dbl), but still describes the pass as forcing, partner's RHO could well be damaged. So in this respect, describing a call as "forcing" when it's known to be only 99% forcing or so would be MI. P.S. I haven't been following this thread closely, so I apologize if this issue has been discussed already. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 31 20:03:33 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Mar 31 20:02:38 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <005101c5360e$e51a8650$9ba587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200503281621.j2SGL6sH008060@cfa.harvard.edu> <424B2937.4040009@cfa.harvard.edu> <004501c535bf$c77b7630$a89687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050331075421.02bb5eb0@pop.starpower.net> <005101c5360e$e51a8650$9ba587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050331124111.02ab3d00@pop.starpower.net> At 10:45 AM 3/31/05, Grattan wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > If Grattan is saying that the TD requires objective evidence based on > > what declarer has "enunciated to indicate a suit or rank", that would > > be a reasonable interpretation of the current law, and would deal with > > the "qu...ace" case. But most of us work at a level where we can > > gather pretty reliable evidence of declarer's intention by asking > > declarer what his intention was. That's where Steve's concern comes > > into play. If declarer says "play the um... uh... the ace", we can > ask > > him whether he changed his mind in mid-statement, and expect an honest > > answer. Should we ask, and, assuming we judge the reply credible, > make > > our ruling based on it? > >+=+ But I do not consider that a change of play has occurred here. If the player would, on being asked, say that he did indeed change his mind about what to play, then there has clearly been a change of intention. Whether or not that gives rise to a "change of play" is the question on the table. >No card has been designated by declarer before he said 'Ace', not >within the terms of Law 45B, even subject to the provisions in Law 46B. >There is no attempt to change a designation as 45C4(b) allows, nor >otherwise illegally. As described here, the Ace is the only card >designated and thus played. Grattan's answer, apparently, is that (in this context) the change of intention cannot by itself constitute a change of play; it must be accompanied by an "attempt to change a designation". That's an entirely reasonable and consistent reading of the laws. But it merely leads us back to where we started: At what point does a partial utterance become a "designation"? Until we decide that, we cannot know whether the completion of that utterance might constitute an "attempt to change" it. Declarer decides which card to play and phonemes come forth from his mouth sequentially. So when do we have a designation? There are four possibilities: a. When he starts. b. When he finishes. c. At some defined point in between, yet to be determined, viz. when he __________ (fill in the blank). d. At some undefined point in between, subject to the subjective determination of the TD and/or AC. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam at irvine.com Thu Mar 31 20:29:57 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Mar 31 20:30:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:27:54 PST." <200503311727.JAA31281@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200503311829.KAA31647@mailhub.irvine.com> I wrote: > Partner then passed, ending the auction. LHO, who apparently had > passed assuming she would have another turn to bid, made one of the > loudest TD calls I have ever heard. The TD ruled, correctly, that > partner was allowed to make any call he wanted as long as it wasn't > part of a concealed partnership agreement. When the smoke cleared, we > ended up with twelve tricks for +1180 (a different opening lead would > have held us to seven), and LHO screamed for the TD again, to complain > about the same thing, and of course she received the same ruling. > Partner's hand was something like Qx/xxx/Ax/AKQxxx; not your typical > 1NT opener (I don't think I would have), but he certainly was > justified in preferring to take his chances in 1NT with seven possible > tricks staring at him, rather than hear a follow-up call from me that > showed a runout with 4-4 in diamonds and spades. (I actually had > KQJxxx in diamonds and out.) Actually, I just remembered that I had another king somewhere. -- Adam From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Mar 31 21:08:47 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu Mar 31 21:09:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <200503311727.JAA31281@mailhub.irvine.com> from "Adam Beneschan" at Mar 31, 2005 09:27:54 AM Message-ID: <200503311908.j2VJ8lg4029272@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Adam Beneschan writes: > > Even if the player knows that Woolsey > occasionally passes forcing bids, BUT ASSUMING THAT THE PLAYER DOES > NOT LET IT AFFECT HIS CHOICE OF CALLS, then there's no MI about the 2H > bidder's hand. That's exactly the way I see it. I don't begrudge Meckwell being a consistent king light because partner never makes allowance for it (and if that means attempting 3NT on two balanced hands and 22 HCP, so be it) However the problem here is something close to all of those UI cases where the player with UI states confidently that the UI didn't affect the bidding at all. As such, I think it best that if you're playing with somebody like Woolsey you explain the bid as "Forcing, but ..." (As I said before the people he plays against are aware of his views. Ditto Meckwell being light all the time. They're also all aware that Meckwell have very solid agreements that enable them to redouble for business when they're not light -- also very important information.) > But if Woolsey's partners start thinking "Woolsey > occasionally passes forcing bids so I'd better not make a fake reverse > this time", then describing 2H as forcing *would* be MI. Makes sense to me, but tough for a TD/AC to deal with I think. I can't see the harm in erring on the side requiring additional disclosure. From adam at irvine.com Thu Mar 31 21:16:51 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Mar 31 21:17:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:08:47 EST." <200503311908.j2VJ8lg4029272@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <200503311916.LAA31948@mailhub.irvine.com> Ron wrote: > As such, I think it best that if you're playing with somebody like > Woolsey you explain the bid as "Forcing, but ..." Well, since Woolsey's partner would be the one making the forcing bid that Woolsey might pass, Woolsey would be the one doing the explaining (except behind screens or on online bridge). So would "Forcing, but I'm Kit Woolsey" be a sufficient explanation? :) :) -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 31 23:52:46 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Mar 31 23:53:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <200503311908.j2VJ8lg4029272@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200503311727.JAA31281@mailhub.irvine.com> <200503311908.j2VJ8lg4029272@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050331163951.02b45030@pop.starpower.net> At 02:08 PM 3/31/05, Ron wrote: >Adam Beneschan writes: > > > > Even if the player knows that Woolsey > > occasionally passes forcing bids, BUT ASSUMING THAT THE PLAYER DOES > > NOT LET IT AFFECT HIS CHOICE OF CALLS, then there's no MI about the 2H > > bidder's hand. > >That's exactly the way I see it. I don't begrudge Meckwell being a >consistent king light because partner never makes allowance for >it (and if that means attempting 3NT on two balanced hands and 22 >HCP, so be it) > >However the problem here is something close to all of those UI cases >where the player with UI states confidently that the UI didn't >affect the bidding at all. > >As such, I think it best that if you're playing with somebody like >Woolsey you explain the bid as "Forcing, but ..." (As I said before >the people he plays against are aware of his views. Ditto Meckwell >being light all the time. They're also all aware that Meckwell have >very solid agreements that enable them to redouble for business when >they're not light -- also very important information.) > > > But if Woolsey's partners start thinking "Woolsey > > occasionally passes forcing bids so I'd better not make a fake reverse > > this time", then describing 2H as forcing *would* be MI. > >Makes sense to me, but tough for a TD/AC to deal with I think. When a player takes an action that deviates from his partnership's explicit agreement, and the TD or AC must decide whether that deviation was based on an implicit agreement, I would think it would be much easier to make a determination as to whether the player may have taken the putative implicit agreement into account in choosing his call than to determine on some other basis whether the putative implicit agreement exists. We can -- and many SOs do -- define a guideline based on the frequency of violation, but that doesn't help the TD/AC, who will usually have little or no access to the partnership's history of deviations from their announced agreements. >I can't see the harm in erring on the side requiring additional >disclosure. No harm if the player errs on the side of "additional disclosure", but much potential harm if the TD or AC does. When a player honestly and correctly discloses his actual agreements, "erring on the side requiring additional disclosure" would lead the TD/AC to conclude that the player had failed to meet his legal obligation to fully and completely disclose his partnership's agreements when in reality he had not failed to do so. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607