From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 1 00:03:40 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri Apr 1 00:21:04 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><005101c5360e$e51a8650$9ba587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050331124111.02ab3d00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c5363f$e9e95630$2ee8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > Grattan's answer, apparently, is that (in this context) > the change of intention cannot by itself constitute a > change of play; it must be accompanied by an "attempt > to change a designation". That's an entirely reasonable > and consistent reading of the laws. But it merely leads > us back to where we started: At what point does a > partial utterance become a "designation"? Until we > decide that, we cannot know whether the completion > of that utterance might constitute an "attempt to change" > it. > +=+ What I say here is that in each instance severally the determination is in the Director's hands. He must decide whether enough has been said for him to apply a subsection of Law 46. He must take the facts of the specific case and apply the law to them. For this reason I have been repeating the principles of this law and seeking, as far as possible, to leave the Director free to judge each case according to his view of the facts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 1 00:18:37 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri Apr 1 00:21:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: <200503311727.JAA31281@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000101c5363f$ee61bef0$2ee8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Forcing > >> >> Do you believe that either Woolsey or his >> partner would be guilty of MI if they described >> that 2H bid as "forcing"? > +=+ I think the answer to this is found in Law 75C. However, I would add that I would expect all at the table in a high quality game to be aware that, rarely, a player will pass a call that is by agreement forcing. With mixed quality of players at the table I suggest that the strong players have a greater responsibility to state their methods carefully according to 75C. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 1 09:43:59 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 1 09:43:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <200503311653.j2VGrJQ9028709@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200503311653.j2VGrJQ9028709@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <424CFBBF.5060002@hdw.be> Ron Johnson wrote: > > 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"? > Well, maybe the sentence "2H is forcing" is not MI, but "2H is 100% forcing" certainly is. Especially given the explanation. The correct explanation should be "2H is 90% forcing". Whether "forcing" equates to "100% forcing" or to "90% forcing" is for the TD to decide. In some sense, opponents should know that nothing is 100% forcing, so they should not complain when "forcing" turns out to mean "90% forcing". > (It is interesting to note that one of Woolsey's former partners > wrote some of the best stuff on captaincy and partnership discipline) > -- 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 svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 1 10:41:57 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 1 10:43:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424CFBBF.5060002@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c53696$aa78e090$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > Kit Woolsey is on record as saying > > > > a) 2H is forcing > > b) he'd respond 1S on KJxx, Jxx, xxxx, xx > > c) he'd then pass 2H > > > > Saying that he knows partner thinks his 2H > > is 100% forcing but that: (quoting now) > > > > "[...]If I think passing a forcing call is the percentage action, then > > I will do it. It doesn't change the fact that it is forcing. My partner > > won't lose confidence in me when he has a monsterous hand and we miss > > a game [!] He knows that I know it is forcing and that I simply took > > what I thought was the percentage action. If he picks up the monster > > again, he will bid it the same way, without the slightest worry that > > I will pass." > > > > Do you believe that either Woolsey or his partner would be guilty > > of MI if they described that 2H bid as "forcing"? > > > > Well, maybe the sentence "2H is forcing" is not MI, but "2H is 100% > forcing" certainly is. Especially given the explanation. > The correct explanation should be "2H is 90% forcing". > > Whether "forcing" equates to "100% forcing" or to "90% forcing" is for > the TD to decide. In some sense, opponents should know that nothing is > 100% forcing, so they should not complain when "forcing" turns out to > mean "90% forcing". > > > (It is interesting to note that one of Woolsey's former partners > > wrote some of the best stuff on captaincy and partnership discipline) Disregarding the question of concealed partnership understandings I frankly cannot see the point in this discussion: I don't know of any law to the effect that PASS is an illegal call when partner made a forcing call and RHO passed? Can a regulation to such effect be legal? (Remember Laws 40A and 40D!) Regards Sven From toddz at att.net Fri Apr 1 10:54:27 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri Apr 1 10:55:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000201c53696$aa78e090$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c53696$aa78e090$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <424D0C43.4080900@att.net> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>Well, maybe the sentence "2H is forcing" is not MI, but "2H is 100% >>forcing" certainly is. Especially given the explanation. >>The correct explanation should be "2H is 90% forcing". > > Disregarding the question of concealed partnership understandings I frankly > cannot see the point in this discussion: > > I don't know of any law to the effect that PASS is an illegal call when > partner made a forcing call and RHO passed? > > Can a regulation to such effect be legal? (Remember Laws 40A and 40D!) I thought Herman did hit at a relevant point. I'd be disappointed if I asked about a bid, explained as forcing, I pass and find I don't have another round of bidding to get a penalty double in. If the explanation of forcing was MI, then I'd like to be able to change my pass. -Todd From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Apr 1 11:46:02 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Apr 1 11:50:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: <200503311727.JAA31281@mailhub.irvine.com><200503311908.j2VJ8lg4029272@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <6.1.1.1.0.20050331163951.02b45030@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001601c5369f$aa92bb10$149d87d9@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'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >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. > > +=+ A common misunderstanding of the law. The requirement to disclose "all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience" is not affected by the use that the player may or may not make of that information. The information must be disclosed so that the opponent may take it into account, if he judges to do so, even when the player does not. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 1 11:59:35 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 1 12:00:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424D0C43.4080900@att.net> Message-ID: <000301c536a1$824212d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Todd M. Zimnoch ............. > > Disregarding the question of concealed partnership > > understandings I frankly cannot see the point in > > this discussion: > > > > I don't know of any law to the effect that PASS > > is an illegal call when partner made a forcing > > call and RHO passed? > > Can a regulation to such effect be legal? > > (Remember Laws 40A and 40D!) > > I thought Herman did hit at a relevant point. I'd be > disappointed if I asked about a bid, explained as forcing, I > pass and find I don't have another round of bidding to get a > penalty double in. If the explanation of forcing was MI, > then I'd like to be able to change my pass. _IF_ the explanation of forcing was MI you should certainly be entitled to redress in case of damage from the MI. But with me as the Director you would not be guaranteed another round if the explanation of "forcing" was indeed correct but your LHO just didn't care and passed anyway. (Unless of course when there is reason to rule concealed partnership understandings) You should also be aware that your question (to your LHO) is authorized information for him and could legally be taken by him as a warning signal. (Your asking is of course unauthorized for your partner so HE may not take any action that could have been suggested by you asking an explanation) Regards Sven From EHFKVOSVR at waltdisneylife.com Fri Apr 1 12:06:35 2005 From: EHFKVOSVR at waltdisneylife.com (Lola Fowler) Date: Fri Apr 1 12:14:07 2005 Subject: [blml] 1 a day for your man's sexual health! Message-ID: <104300153257.camel@naldoco> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050401/822d69f8/attachment.html From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 1 12:20:32 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 1 12:20:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000201c53696$aa78e090$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c53696$aa78e090$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <424D2070.9000806@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>Ron Johnson wrote: >> >>>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"? >>> >> >>Well, maybe the sentence "2H is forcing" is not MI, but "2H is 100% >>forcing" certainly is. Especially given the explanation. >>The correct explanation should be "2H is 90% forcing". >> >>Whether "forcing" equates to "100% forcing" or to "90% forcing" is for >>the TD to decide. In some sense, opponents should know that nothing is >>100% forcing, so they should not complain when "forcing" turns out to >>mean "90% forcing". >> >> >>>(It is interesting to note that one of Woolsey's former partners >>>wrote some of the best stuff on captaincy and partnership discipline) > > > Disregarding the question of concealed partnership understandings I frankly > cannot see the point in this discussion: > Well, if a player describes a bid as "100% forcing" and he subsequently passes, then by his own admission he has given MI. > I don't know of any law to the effect that PASS is an illegal call when > partner made a forcing call and RHO passed? > Well, it's not the pass that is the infraction, it would be the explanation of the call as being 100% forcing. > Can a regulation to such effect be legal? (Remember Laws 40A and 40D!) > I don't care - there is no such regulation, only a ruling concerning MI. -- 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 cibor at poczta.fm Fri Apr 1 12:38:59 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri Apr 1 12:40:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing Message-ID: <20050401103859.D2578233518@poczta.interia.pl> Herman De Wael napisa?(a): > >>Whether "forcing" equates to "100% forcing" or to "90% forcing" is for > >>the TD to decide. "90% forcing" for me is contradiction in terms. It is like "she is 90% pregnant". Either systemically you can pass a bid or you cannot. Tertium non datur. If you can - it is not forcing. Yes, among the non-forcing bids there are those that convey different intentions as for the bidder's desire for his partner to keep the bidding open. For instance: a) 1NT - 3NT opener always passes b) 1NT - 2NT (NAT INV) opener passes some of the time c) 1D - 1S - 2H is non-forcing in Polish Club (1D is limited is limited to ca. 18 HCP) but responder passes only when he really has no place to hide (eg. Qxxx xxx x AJxxx) but they are all not forcing. To my ear a bid that is "forcing" can never be passed without violating the system. > Well, if a player describes a bid as "100% forcing" and he > subsequently passes, then by his own admission he has given MI. That is going too far. If I open 1NT on xx xx x Jxxxxxx and pass over partner's Stayman inquiry - does it make "by my own admission" the 2C response NF in my system? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1837 From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 1 12:58:42 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 1 12:59:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424D2070.9000806@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c536a9$c49725a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > > Disregarding the question of concealed partnership > > understandings I frankly cannot see the point in > > this discussion: > > > > Well, if a player describes a bid as "100% forcing" > and he subsequently passes, then by his own admission > he has given MI. Point one: I have never heard of scaling the term "forcing" until you (I believe) introduced it in this thread. To me a call can be described as forcing or not forcing. Declaring a call as "so many percent" forcing makes no more sense to me than the ancient attempt to declare a percentage for psychic call frequency. Point two: A player is entitled by Law 40A to make whatever call he chooses regardless of partnership agreements as long as this does not involve concealed partnership understandings. If he sees fit to pass out a "forcing" call by his partner (however absolute), possibly triggered by the fact that his RHO posed certain questions I shall have no problem with that. > > I don't know of any law to the effect that PASS is an illegal call when > > partner made a forcing call and RHO passed? > > > > Well, it's not the pass that is the infraction, it would be the > explanation of the call as being 100% forcing. Why, if the explanation is found to be correct; for instance as documented on the CC? > > Can a regulation to such effect be legal? (Remember Laws 40A and 40D!) > > > > I don't care - there is no such regulation, only a ruling concerning MI. You should care because in this case the (your?) ruling is unfounded. Even if a player very convincingly informs his opponents that partner's call is always and absolutely forcing he is still free to pass out that call as far as laws and regulations are concerned. (What eventually might happen to the partnership is a completely different matter) Sven From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Fri Apr 1 13:12:25 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Apr 1 13:13:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050401111225.91137.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> --- Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > > > 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"? > > > > > > > Well, maybe the sentence "2H is forcing" is not > MI, but "2H is 100% > > forcing" certainly is. Especially given the > explanation. > > The correct explanation should be "2H is 90% > forcing". > > > > Whether "forcing" equates to "100% forcing" or to > "90% forcing" is for > > the TD to decide. In some sense, opponents should > know that nothing is > > 100% forcing, so they should not complain when > "forcing" turns out to > > mean "90% forcing". > > > > > (It is interesting to note that one of Woolsey's > former partners > > > wrote some of the best stuff on captaincy and > partnership discipline) > > Disregarding the question of concealed partnership > understandings I frankly > cannot see the point in this discussion: > > I don't know of any law to the effect that PASS is > an illegal call when > partner made a forcing call and RHO passed? > > Can a regulation to such effect be legal? (Remember > Laws 40A and 40D!) This is exactly my point. There exists a regulation and it states that I can play a method so long as it is forcing. Specifically strong artificial 2C and 2D openings are allowed only if they are forcing. I believe the regulation is dubious at best. Since there is nothing in law that stops a player passing a forcing bid. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Fri Apr 1 13:14:48 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Apr 1 13:15:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050401111448.20806.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.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'] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >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. > > > > +=+ A common misunderstanding of the law. > The requirement to disclose "all special information > conveyed to him through partnership agreement > or partnership experience" is not affected by the > use that the player may or may not make of that > information. The information must be disclosed so > that the opponent may take it into account, if he > judges to do so, even when the player does not. ... but you leave out the out that a player does not need to disclose that which is general bridge knowledge and that certainly includes that forcing bids are sometimes passed. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 1 13:22:49 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 1 13:22:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <20050401103859.D2578233518@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050401103859.D2578233518@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <424D2F09.7020907@hdw.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Herman De Wael napisa?(a): > > >>>>Whether "forcing" equates to "100% forcing" or to "90% forcing" is for >>>>the TD to decide. > > > "90% forcing" for me is contradiction in terms. > It is like "she is 90% pregnant". > No it's not. Some bids are so forcing that we call them forcing, even if they are only 90% forcing. We all know these kinds of bids. > Either systemically you can pass a bid > or you cannot. Tertium non datur. > If you can - it is not forcing. > Yes, among the non-forcing bids there are those > that convey different intentions as for > the bidder's desire for his partner to keep the > bidding open. For instance: > > a) 1NT - 3NT opener always passes > b) 1NT - 2NT (NAT INV) opener passes some of the time > c) 1D - 1S - 2H is non-forcing in Polish Club > (1D is limited is limited to ca. 18 HCP) but > responder passes only when he really has no > place to hide (eg. Qxxx xxx x AJxxx) > I would call such a bid "90% forcing". > but they are all not forcing. To my ear > a bid that is "forcing" can never be > passed without violating the system. > Well, this is more a difference of hearing than of meaning. But it's not important anyway. > >>Well, if a player describes a bid as "100% forcing" and he >>subsequently passes, then by his own admission he has given MI. > > > > > That is going too far. If I open 1NT on > > xx > xx > x > Jxxxxxx > > and pass over partner's Stayman inquiry - does it > make "by my own admission" the 2C response > NF in my system? > OK, counter-example agreed on. But any director would accept this as a correct explanation. Of course 2Cl should never be explained as "forcing" but as "enquiry", with subsequent completion that there is no hand, consistent with the bidding so far, in which "pass" would be the answer. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 27/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 1 13:39:20 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 1 13:38:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424D2F09.7020907@hdw.be> References: <20050401103859.D2578233518@poczta.interia.pl> <424D2F09.7020907@hdw.be> Message-ID: <424D32E8.7060109@hdw.be> one sidebar though Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> That is going too far. If I open 1NT on >> >> xx >> xx >> x >> Jxxxxxx >> >> and pass over partner's Stayman inquiry - does it >> make "by my own admission" the 2C response >> NF in my system? >> > > OK, counter-example agreed on. But any director would accept this as a > correct explanation. Of course 2Cl should never be explained as > "forcing" but as "enquiry", with subsequent completion that there is no > hand, consistent with the bidding so far, in which "pass" would be the > answer. > Have I ever told you about my non-psyche? With a former partner I played that 2Cl showed, among others, 20-21 but had no weak options. Over this, we used 2He and 2Sp as "very weak", so 2Di was an almost automatic response and, of course, forcing. With my next partner I added a weak option to the 2Cl bid: six-cards in diamonds. Still, we played 2He and 2Sp as very weak, and 2NT would be a relay to investigate if the diamond hand was weak or very weak. So 2Di was no longer forcing. Now I start playing with the first partner again and I don't tell him about the weak diamond option. But the first time I have a weak hand in diamonds, I open 2Cl and pass over the 2Di (possibly missing 5Di, of course, but that's a very low probability). Since the 2Cl is a psyche, I should be OK if I explain 2Di as forcing but still pass. Well, I don't believe so. By the whole constuction (with the weak 2H and 2S bids), the 2Di has become "semi-automatic" and the 2Cl opening on a weak diamond suit has become a "psyche protected by system". So it is with the example Konrad gave. If the Director determines that the frequency of a 2Cl response to the 1NT opening is such that it can be expected (perhaps if they play puppet but no transfers), then the opening becomes a semi-automatic psyche and the 2Cl no longer forcing. I know that my example is far closer to being an automatic psyche than Konrad's, but it needed to be said as an aside. -- 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Apr 1 14:02:55 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Apr 1 14:07:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: <20050401111225.91137.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002901c536b2$d581cf60$45c387d9@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: "blml" Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:12 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Forcing > > This is exactly my point. There exists a regulation > and it states that I can play a method so long as it > is forcing. Specifically strong artificial 2C and 2D > openings are allowed only if they are forcing. > > I believe the regulation is dubious at best. Since > there is nothing in law that stops a player passing a > forcing bid. > > Wayne > +=+ In this and his previous post Wayne fails to note that things change when the matter becomes one of partnership experience and is not simply an unforeseen but legitimate departure from agreement. The frequency with which it occurs is a germane piece of the evidence. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 1 14:13:43 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 1 14:14:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424D32E8.7060109@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000501c536b4$3f4d2240$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > Have I ever told you about my non-psyche? > > With a former partner I played that 2Cl showed, among others, 20-21 > but had no weak options. Over this, we used 2He and 2Sp as "very > weak", so 2Di was an almost automatic response and, of course, forcing. > > With my next partner I added a weak option to the 2Cl bid: six-cards > in diamonds. Still, we played 2He and 2Sp as very weak, and 2NT would > be a relay to investigate if the diamond hand was weak or very weak. > So 2Di was no longer forcing. > > Now I start playing with the first partner again and I don't tell him > about the weak diamond option. But the first time I have a weak hand > in diamonds, I open 2Cl and pass over the 2Di (possibly missing 5Di, > of course, but that's a very low probability). > Since the 2Cl is a psyche, I should be OK if I explain 2Di as forcing > but still pass. > > Well, I don't believe so. By the whole constuction (with the weak 2H > and 2S bids), the 2Di has become "semi-automatic" and the 2Cl opening > on a weak diamond suit has become a "psyche protected by system". > > So it is with the example Konrad gave. If the Director determines that > the frequency of a 2Cl response to the 1NT opening is such that it can > be expected (perhaps if they play puppet but no transfers), then the > opening becomes a semi-automatic psyche and the 2Cl no longer forcing. > > I know that my example is far closer to being an automatic psyche than > Konrad's, but it needed to be said as an aside. You used a feature you had discovered in your system which made it almost safe to psyche a 2C opening bid holding a weak diamond hand. There is nothing wrong in doing that - ONCE! After that your partner is also aware of that feature, and from now on it has become a part of your (implied) partnership agreements. Provided you (or rather your partner) described your 2C opening bid properly everybody would have the same possibility to discover that same feature. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 1 15:14:29 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 1 15:14:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000401c536a9$c49725a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c536a9$c49725a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <424D4935.2040508@hdw.be> Hello Sven, as usual, we are at opposite ends of a discussion. Let's see if we can see a way into getting onto common ground. Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > >>>Disregarding the question of concealed partnership >>>understandings I frankly cannot see the point in >>>this discussion: >>> >> >>Well, if a player describes a bid as "100% forcing" >>and he subsequently passes, then by his own admission >>he has given MI. > > > Point one: I have never heard of scaling the term "forcing" until you (I > believe) introduced it in this thread. To me a call can be described as > forcing or not forcing. Declaring a call as "so many percent" forcing makes > no more sense to me than the ancient attempt to declare a percentage for > psychic call frequency. > Well, I don't think you can rule adequately using just that black/white distinction. Surely you would understand what I meant if I were to describe one of my partner's calls to you as "99% forcing". You might want to inquire further, specifically asking under what circumstances I might be induced to pass, but you'd understand what I mean, would you not? So surely describing a call as being 99% forcing is a better description than describing it as 100% forcing, or even simply as forcing. And surely too you realize that there is a difference between a call that is 99% forcing and one which is 90% forcing. Which leaves us with the question which of the three is most accurately described by the single word "forcing". In my opinion, that would be the "99%" variety, since no call is never passed out. As to your likening of this percentage to the psyche percentage, you are even more wrong there. Surely I am entitled to know the frequency with which a certain player will commit a certain kind of psyche, and expressing that frequency in a % seems one way of handling this. > Point two: A player is entitled by Law 40A to make whatever call he chooses > regardless of partnership agreements as long as this does not involve > concealed partnership understandings. If he sees fit to pass out a "forcing" > call by his partner (however absolute), possibly triggered by the fact that > his RHO posed certain questions I shall have no problem with that. > Neither shall I. But I will investigate why he passed. If he passed simply because of the type of questions he received, I'll be most likely to accept it. If he passed because he has psyched before, I will also accept (turning my main investigation into the psyche). If he passed because he is sub-minimal, I may accept, or I may treat it as the last one: if he passed because he is merely minimal for his previous bidding - then he provided evidence that the call was not "forcing" at all, and I shall probably rule MI. > >>>I don't know of any law to the effect that PASS is an illegal call when >>>partner made a forcing call and RHO passed? >>> >> >>Well, it's not the pass that is the infraction, it would be the >>explanation of the call as being 100% forcing. > > > Why, if the explanation is found to be correct; for instance as documented > on the CC? > But apparently it is not correct, after all, he has passed it! > >>>Can a regulation to such effect be legal? (Remember Laws 40A and 40D!) >>> >> >>I don't care - there is no such regulation, only a ruling concerning MI. > > > You should care because in this case the (your?) ruling is unfounded. Even > if a player very convincingly informs his opponents that partner's call is > always and absolutely forcing he is still free to pass out that call as far > as laws and regulations are concerned. (What eventually might happen to the > partnership is a completely different matter) > I agree that he is free to pass it. I don't agree that he will not be investigated for MI. A player bids 2H on a hand with spades. Don't you find that this is an element of evidence that he is in fact playing transfers? Are you not, by the footnote, required to rule MI, rather than misbid? -- 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 hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 1 15:22:21 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 1 15:22:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000501c536b4$3f4d2240$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c536b4$3f4d2240$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <424D4B0D.5040100@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > >>Have I ever told you about my non-psyche? >> >>With a former partner I played that 2Cl showed, among others, 20-21 >>but had no weak options. Over this, we used 2He and 2Sp as "very >>weak", so 2Di was an almost automatic response and, of course, forcing. >> >>With my next partner I added a weak option to the 2Cl bid: six-cards >>in diamonds. Still, we played 2He and 2Sp as very weak, and 2NT would >>be a relay to investigate if the diamond hand was weak or very weak. >>So 2Di was no longer forcing. >> >>Now I start playing with the first partner again and I don't tell him >>about the weak diamond option. But the first time I have a weak hand >>in diamonds, I open 2Cl and pass over the 2Di (possibly missing 5Di, >>of course, but that's a very low probability). >>Since the 2Cl is a psyche, I should be OK if I explain 2Di as forcing >>but still pass. >> >>Well, I don't believe so. By the whole constuction (with the weak 2H >>and 2S bids), the 2Di has become "semi-automatic" and the 2Cl opening >>on a weak diamond suit has become a "psyche protected by system". >> >>So it is with the example Konrad gave. If the Director determines that >>the frequency of a 2Cl response to the 1NT opening is such that it can >>be expected (perhaps if they play puppet but no transfers), then the >>opening becomes a semi-automatic psyche and the 2Cl no longer forcing. >> >>I know that my example is far closer to being an automatic psyche than >>Konrad's, but it needed to be said as an aside. > > > You used a feature you had discovered in your system which made it almost > safe to psyche a 2C opening bid holding a weak diamond hand. There is > nothing wrong in doing that - ONCE! > Well, that is something that I don't want to do. Considering that I discovered this feature off the table, that it is part of the "system", and that I cannot prove to the TD that I did it for the first time, and that I cannot prove that I told my partner about it and asked him to confirm that I'd done it for the first time (yes, I know, that would be cheating); I don't want to use the argument that it was a first-time occurence. As TD, I prefer to rule on the evidence at hand. System circumstances are far more certain than unsubstantiated sayings that something happens for the first time. > After that your partner is also aware of that feature, and from now on it > has become a part of your (implied) partnership agreements. > Well, who says he is not aware of it before then? He might even have developped the feature independently himself, and omits to tell me just to be able to also do it -once! > Provided you (or rather your partner) described your 2C opening bid properly > everybody would have the same possibility to discover that same feature. > That is true - but the people most able to deduce things from the system are the players themselves. I don't want to encourage players into keeping inferences hidden. Rather than saying: "the answer to 2Cl will be 2Di on almost all hands containing more than 5HCP", from which everyone can deduce that 2Cl might well be opened on a weak diamond hand I'd prefer saying: "2Cl is weak in diamonds or strong - partner will answer 2Di unless very weak" Don't you agree that the two explanations are the same but that the second one is far more helpful and the first one therefor liable to be judged MI? -- 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 john at asimere.com Fri Apr 1 16:09:17 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Apr 1 16:11:44 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Karel writes > >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. card designated unquestionably. "finesse", in this context means "Play the Queen unless LHO plays the King in which case play the Ace". Absoulutely no ambiguity and no change of mind. We've discussed this before and this ruling is nem con. 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 svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 1 16:35:40 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 1 16:36:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424D4935.2040508@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000a01c536c8$13fb69d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Hello Sven, > as usual, we are at opposite ends of a discussion. > Let's see if we can see a way into getting onto common ground. > > Sven Pran wrote: ................ > > Point one: I have never heard of scaling the term "forcing" > > until you (Ibelieve) introduced it in this thread. To me a > > call can be described as forcing or not forcing. > > Declaring a call as "so many percent" forcing makes > > no more sense to me than the ancient attempt to declare a > > percentage for psychic call frequency. > > > > Well, I don't think you can rule adequately using just that > black/white distinction. > Surely you would understand what I meant if I were to describe > one of my partner's calls to you as "99% forcing". You might > want to inquire further, specifically asking under what > circumstances I might be induced to pass, but you'd understand > what I mean, would you not? No, I would be greatly confused. I know perfectly well what it means when a call is described as "forcing to game", "forcing for a round", "invitational" or "signoff". It does not make any sense to me if there is a graded scale attached to any of these terms. And I do not feel bound by any law or regulation in choosing my (otherwise legal) call after partner has made any such call. Example: Logically a Splinter bid is forcing to game, but there is nothing else than partnership friendship and interest for the game that will prohibit me from passing a Splinter response to my opening bid. And if I do then that is no business for the Director although I shall expect some special comments from my partner. > So surely describing a call as being 99% forcing is a better > description than describing it as 100% forcing, or even simply as > forcing. And surely too you realize that there is a difference between > a call that is 99% forcing and one which is 90% forcing. Which leaves > us with the question which of the three is most accurately described > by the single word "forcing". In my opinion, that would be the "99%" > variety, since no call is never passed out. "Forcing for a round" simply means that the player demands at least one more round in the auction. "Forcing to game" means that he demands partner not to pass below game unless opponents have been doubled in their (sacrifice?) contract. Attaching any percentage to these terms seems ridiculous to me. And if partner selects to pass so that I am denied my requested next round in the auction that is a matter between me and my partner and no business for the Director as long as my partner has described my calls correctly. > > As to your likening of this percentage to the psyche percentage, you > are even more wrong there. Surely I am entitled to know the frequency > with which a certain player will commit a certain kind of psyche, and > expressing that frequency in a % seems one way of handling this. By the definition of a psychic call the occurrence of a psyche shall be unpredictable and unsystematic. So giving a percentage factor only makes sense for a statistical analysis over a lengthy period. And the very establishment of a percentage factor for psyches becomes part of the partnership agreements which implies that following this agreement disqualifies the call as a psyche! Actually IMHO a partnership is even free to state that they by agreement NEVER psyches and still make a psychic call out of a blue sky. A psychic call is a call that grossly violates the declared partnership agreements! This is the main reason why I consider that a system declaration shall include absolutely nothing on psyches. > > Point two: A player is entitled by Law 40A to make whatever call he > chooses > > regardless of partnership agreements as long as this does not involve > > concealed partnership understandings. If he sees fit to pass out a > "forcing" > > call by his partner (however absolute), possibly triggered by the fact > that > > his RHO posed certain questions I shall have no problem with that. > > > > Neither shall I. But I will investigate why he passed. If he passed > simply because of the type of questions he received, I'll be most > likely to accept it. If he passed because he has psyched before, I > will also accept (turning my main investigation into the psyche). If > he passed because he is sub-minimal, I may accept, or I may treat it > as the last one: if he passed because he is merely minimal for his > previous bidding - then he provided evidence that the call was not > "forcing" at all, and I shall probably rule MI. You cannot rule MI just because he violated the declared system agreements. You shall rule MI rather than misbid if the actual agreement cannot be established to the Director's satisfaction, but all this discussion is based on an assumption that satisfactory evidence is available. > > > > >>>I don't know of any law to the effect that PASS is an illegal call when > >>>partner made a forcing call and RHO passed? > >>> > >> > >>Well, it's not the pass that is the infraction, it would be the > >>explanation of the call as being 100% forcing. > > > > > > Why, if the explanation is found to be correct; for instance as > documented > > on the CC? > > > > But apparently it is not correct, after all, he has passed it! So you rule misinformation against evidence that the information was indeed correct (documented on the CC) simply because the player selected to misbid? ........... > I agree that he is free to pass it. I don't agree that he will not be > investigated for MI. At least that is a relief. And of course the Director may (and should) investigate for MI, but as I have stated several times: My basis is that the correctness of the information is established by other evidence and cannot be contradicted just because the player who gave the information selected to make a call that violated the declared agreements. > > A player bids 2H on a hand with spades. Don't you find that this is an > element of evidence that he is in fact playing transfers? Are you not, > by the footnote, required to rule MI, rather than misbid? I find it a strong indication that this player believes he is playing transfers. If his partner explains it as natural and week, and passes I may have to investigate their CC etc. for their actual agreements. If the agreement on this bid cannot be established to my satisfaction I shall rule misinformation and investigate for possible damage to their opponents. But none of this even touches the question on whether a player is entitled to pass out a partner's call which he describes as "forcing". And it has absolutely no bearing on a question of "so many percent" forcing. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 1 16:45:25 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 1 16:46:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424D4B0D.5040100@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000b01c536c9$7080c1e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > > > >>Have I ever told you about my non-psyche? > >> > >>With a former partner I played that 2Cl showed, among others, 20-21 > >>but had no weak options. Over this, we used 2He and 2Sp as "very > >>weak", so 2Di was an almost automatic response and, of course, forcing. > >> > >>With my next partner I added a weak option to the 2Cl bid: six-cards > >>in diamonds. Still, we played 2He and 2Sp as very weak, and 2NT would > >>be a relay to investigate if the diamond hand was weak or very weak. > >>So 2Di was no longer forcing. > >> > >>Now I start playing with the first partner again and I don't tell him > >>about the weak diamond option. But the first time I have a weak hand > >>in diamonds, I open 2Cl and pass over the 2Di (possibly missing 5Di, > >>of course, but that's a very low probability). > >>Since the 2Cl is a psyche, I should be OK if I explain 2Di as forcing > >>but still pass. > >> > >>Well, I don't believe so. By the whole constuction (with the weak 2H > >>and 2S bids), the 2Di has become "semi-automatic" and the 2Cl opening > >>on a weak diamond suit has become a "psyche protected by system". > >> > >>So it is with the example Konrad gave. If the Director determines that > >>the frequency of a 2Cl response to the 1NT opening is such that it can > >>be expected (perhaps if they play puppet but no transfers), then the > >>opening becomes a semi-automatic psyche and the 2Cl no longer forcing. > >> > >>I know that my example is far closer to being an automatic psyche than > >>Konrad's, but it needed to be said as an aside. > > > > > > You used a feature you had discovered in your system which made it > almost > > safe to psyche a 2C opening bid holding a weak diamond hand. There is > > nothing wrong in doing that - ONCE! > > > > Well, that is something that I don't want to do. Considering that I > discovered this feature off the table, that it is part of the > "system", and that I cannot prove to the TD that I did it for the > first time, and that I cannot prove that I told my partner about it > and asked him to confirm that I'd done it for the first time (yes, I > know, that would be cheating); I don't want to use the argument that > it was a first-time occurence. > > As TD, I prefer to rule on the evidence at hand. System circumstances > are far more certain than unsubstantiated sayings that something > happens for the first time. > > > After that your partner is also aware of that feature, and from now on > it > > has become a part of your (implied) partnership agreements. > > > > Well, who says he is not aware of it before then? He might even have > developped the feature independently himself, and omits to tell me > just to be able to also do it -once! HE might very well also be aware of it already but YOU would not know that he was. And HE would not know that YOU were aware of the feature until you either told him or used it the first time. > > > Provided you (or rather your partner) described your 2C opening bid > properly > > everybody would have the same possibility to discover that same feature. > > > > That is true - but the people most able to deduce things from the > system are the players themselves. I don't want to encourage players > into keeping inferences hidden. Neither do I. > Rather than saying: > > "the answer to 2Cl will be 2Di on almost all hands containing more > than 5HCP", from which everyone can deduce that 2Cl might well be > opened on a weak diamond hand > > I'd prefer saying: > > "2Cl is weak in diamonds or strong - partner will answer 2Di unless > very weak" > > Don't you agree that the two explanations are the same but that the > second one is far more helpful and the first one therefor liable to be > judged MI? As a Director I rule on explanations using Law 75C. And I am extremely cautious on what I accept as not being disclosed under cover of the last clause in Law 75C: "general knowledge and experience". Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Apr 1 17:33:24 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri Apr 1 17:34:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing Message-ID: <20050401153324.60F182334E3@poczta.interia.pl> Herman De Wael napisa?(a): > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > Herman De Wael napisa?(a): > > > > > >>>>Whether "forcing" equates to "100% forcing" or to "90% forcing" is > for > >>>>the TD to decide. > > > > > > "90% forcing" for me is contradiction in terms. > > It is like "she is 90% pregnant". > > > > No it's not. Some bids are so forcing that we call them forcing, even > if they are only 90% forcing. We all know these kinds of bids. > Who are "we"? I certainly don't - a forcing bid is a bid that, per agreement, cannot be passed. A non-forcing bid is a bid that, per agreement, can be passed. There in nothing between "can be passed" and "cannot be passed". A "90% forcing" reminds me of Clinton testyfing in the Lewinsky affair. One of his answers was - That depends on your definition of the word "is". Herman - according your definition of the word "forcing" a raise from 1NT to 3NT is forcing. Just "0% forcing". "But doctor - everything is forcing!". No, Herman. If a bid is "X% forcing" where X < 100 then it means that the system allows partner to pass - so the bid is non-forcing. In this case the "forcing" explanation is MI. OTOH if a bid is forcing and I decide to pass for whatever reason then the TD has nothing to do about it - there is no law that forbids me to make an anti-systemic bid - assuming I don't do make anti-systemic bids frequently and no pattern comes up - so that there is no question of an implicit agreement. There are no laws that punish non-systemic calls just as there are no laws that punish bad bridge (except for those in the SCORING section). Of course - if a bid is explained as forcing and then the bidder's partner passes and the opponents are damaged then the TD has to examine whether the given "forcing" explanation was correct. It is the job of the side that passed a bid explained as "forcing" to convince him that the bid was indeed systemically forcing - if the TD doesn't feel conviced he will rule MI rather than misbid but that's a completely separate issue. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f186c From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 1 17:35:11 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 1 17:34:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000a01c536c8$13fb69d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c536c8$13fb69d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <424D6A2F.3020902@hdw.be> I won't bother with some of your remarks, Sven, just this one: Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Neither shall I. But I will investigate why he passed. If he passed >>simply because of the type of questions he received, I'll be most >>likely to accept it. If he passed because he has psyched before, I >>will also accept (turning my main investigation into the psyche). If >>he passed because he is sub-minimal, I may accept, or I may treat it >>as the last one: if he passed because he is merely minimal for his >>previous bidding - then he provided evidence that the call was not >>"forcing" at all, and I shall probably rule MI. > > > You cannot rule MI just because he violated the declared system agreements. > You shall rule MI rather than misbid if the actual agreement cannot be > established to the Director's satisfaction, but all this discussion is based > on an assumption that satisfactory evidence is available. > But who violated the declared system agreement? The person who bid it, or the person who passed? How can you, as TD, be any more certain that one explanation is correct or another one? If partner passes a call, then that is evidence that the call was not 100% forcing. So when they say it was forcing, what evidence do I have? So I do believe the "actual agreement cannot be established" and I rule MI. And you may be discussing based on assumptions that "satisfactory evidence" is available - I am not. I am discussing cases where a player states that a call is forcing and then passes. No-where in this thread have I seen indications that we are only discussing cases that go further than that. >> >>But apparently it is not correct, after all, he has passed it! > > > So you rule misinformation against evidence that the information was indeed > correct (documented on the CC) simply because the player selected to misbid? > > ........... > No, I have evidence in two directions - I have evidence that it was not 100% forcing after all, since it got passed out. You are saying that I also have evidence for it being forcing, I was not working under that assumption. But even if there is such evidence, it is up to me (and you, as TD) to weigh such evidence. It strikes me as very strange that you are criticizing me for hypothetical rulings. At the very least let us get to real cases before we start to disagree which bit of evidence needs the strongest weight. >>I agree that he is free to pass it. I don't agree that he will not be >>investigated for MI. > > > At least that is a relief. And of course the Director may (and should) > investigate for MI, but as I have stated several times: My basis is that the > correctness of the information is established by other evidence and cannot > be contradicted just because the player who gave the information selected to > make a call that violated the declared agreements. > And my basis is that the correctness of the information is also established on the evidence of the bid being passed anyway. You are the one making very strong statements here: "cannot be contradicted". I don't see why 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: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 27/03/2005 From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Apr 1 17:41:13 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Apr 1 17:42:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000201c53696$aa78e090$6900a8c0@WINXP> from "Sven Pran" at Apr 01, 2005 10:41:57 AM Message-ID: <200504011541.j31FfDYf002975@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Sven Pran writes: > > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > > (It is interesting to note that one of Woolsey's former partners > > > wrote some of the best stuff on captaincy and partnership discipline) > > Disregarding the question of concealed partnership understandings I frankly > cannot see the point in this discussion: There is none -- that's why I put it in brackets. Just something I always found interesting. Ed Manfield clearly had very strong views on the importance of partnership discipline and captaincy. By contrast, Woolsey's on both sides of the issue. He's written a lot of stuff decrying the tendancy of experts to use their judgement when partner is better placed. And then there's his stated position on forcing. And yet Manfield and Woolsey had a long, very successful partnership despite very different views on a fundamental issue. I guess the key is that Woolsey can flat play. From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Apr 1 17:58:01 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Apr 1 17:59:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <001601c5369f$aa92bb10$149d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from "Grattan Endicott" at Apr 01, 2005 10:46:02 AM Message-ID: <200504011558.j31Fw2XF003307@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'] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >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. > > > > +=+ A common misunderstanding of the law. > The requirement to disclose "all special information > conveyed to him through partnership agreement > or partnership experience" is not affected by the > use that the player may or may not make of that > information. The information must be disclosed so > that the opponent may take it into account, if he > judges to do so, even when the player does not. OK, now we come to the area I'm interested in. Woolsey's partner makes a call that's described as forcing. Woolsey passes the call. Opposition calls the director. If the opposition is Meckwell (or any top flight pair), I simply can't see any way they could be damaged. They know Woolsey's position. I can see a possible procedural penalty for a sloppy explanation. In fact I'd be happy if more procedural penalties were handed out for sloppy explanations (Of course I'm not advocating death by a volley of muskets, just a formal warning that the information provided isn't adequate) From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Apr 1 18:22:04 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri Apr 1 18:23:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing Message-ID: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> Herman De Wael napisa?(a): ? So when they > say it was forcing, what evidence do I have? CC, perhaps? > No, I have evidence in two directions - I have evidence that it was > not 100% forcing after all, since it got passed out. So if a player (playing Acol) opens 1S with xxx Jxxxxxxxx x --- you have evidence that the 1S opening doesn't show 11-23 4 S as it was explained since it has just been given with the hand above. So you rule MI? I guess you don't. There must be a way to convince you (as a TD) that the explanation "bid X is forcing" was correct despite the fact that it the bid has just been passed out. Otherwise - why do we need CCs and the like. I have the impression that the mere fact that a player has just passed a forcing bid per se is enough evidence for you that a bid is indeed not forcing (not "100% forcing" according to your terminology). Is this the case? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f186c From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 1 18:44:58 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 1 18:45:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424D6A2F.3020902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c536da$24437be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ......... > And my basis is that the correctness of the information is also > established on the evidence of the bid being passed anyway. > You are the one making very strong statements here: "cannot be > contradicted". I don't see why not. If I am presented with a convention card clearly documenting an agreement I take that as evidence of the agreement unless I am also presented with similar written conflicting documentation. In the case of conflict between a written disclosure and a verbal explanation I consider the written documentation to be correct unless I am offered a very convincing reason why I should disregard it. If a player explains a call as being "forcing" and still passes I take that as convincing evidence that the call was indeed forcing and that he deliberately chose to violate partnership agreements unless I am also presented with other evidence to the contrary. I consider it highly improbable that a player would deliberately first give misinformation and then immediately make a "correct" call without correcting his own MI. Sven From adam at irvine.com Fri Apr 1 19:01:04 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Apr 1 19:02:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: Your message of "01 Apr 2005 12:38:59 +0200." <20050401103859.D2578233518@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <200504011701.JAA07108@mailhub.irvine.com> Konrad wrote: > Herman De Wael napisał(a): > > > >>Whether "forcing" equates to "100% forcing" or to "90% forcing" is for > > >>the TD to decide. > > "90% forcing" for me is contradiction in terms. > It is like "she is 90% pregnant". Live with it. The terminology abuses the English language; but the English language doesn't give us a really good concise way to describe what we mean. So we've come up with an idiom to describe a call that is "not absolutely forcing but is very rarely passed". English already has plenty of idioms (as does Polish, I'm sure), so there's not much point in complaining when someone comes up with a new one, as long as its meaning is generally understood. -- Adam From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Apr 1 20:45:34 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Apr 1 20:46:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <200504011701.JAA07108@mailhub.irvine.com> from "Adam Beneschan" at Apr 01, 2005 09:01:04 AM Message-ID: <200504011845.j31IjYR7004055@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Adam Beneschan writes: > > > Konrad wrote: > > > Herman De Wael napisa?(a): > > > > > >>Whether "forcing" equates to "100% forcing" or to "90% forcing" is for > > > >>the TD to decide. > > > > "90% forcing" for me is contradiction in terms. > > It is like "she is 90% pregnant". > > Live with it. The terminology abuses the English language; but the > English language doesn't give us a really good concise way to describe > what we mean. So we've come up with an idiom to describe a call that > is "not absolutely forcing but is very rarely passed". English > already has plenty of idioms (as does Polish, I'm sure), so there's > not much point in complaining when someone comes up with a new one, as > long as its meaning is generally understood. My issue is the 90%. I think that overstates the probability that a nominally forcing call will be passed. For all of the talk about Woolsey, I can think of only one hand in decades of top level play when he passed in forcing position. From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Fri Apr 1 21:19:34 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Apr 1 21:20:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050401191934.16944.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.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: "blml" > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:12 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Forcing > > > > > > This is exactly my point. There exists a > regulation > > and it states that I can play a method so long as > it > > is forcing. Specifically strong artificial 2C and > 2D > > openings are allowed only if they are forcing. > > > > I believe the regulation is dubious at best. > Since > > there is nothing in law that stops a player > passing a > > forcing bid. > > > > Wayne > > > +=+ In this and his previous post Wayne fails to > note that things change when the matter becomes > one of partnership experience and is not simply > an unforeseen but legitimate departure from > agreement. The frequency with which it occurs > is a germane piece of the evidence. > ~ G ~ +=+ 32 32 32 8765432 2C Pass ? Your call? If any would pass and your partner agrees then you have an implicit agreement that a strong GF 2C is not forcing. This is the flaw in a regulation that allows some action only based on whether or not it is forcing. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Fri Apr 1 21:28:17 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Apr 1 21:29:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050401192818.48111.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.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: "blml" > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:12 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Forcing > > > > > > This is exactly my point. There exists a > regulation > > and it states that I can play a method so long as > it > > is forcing. Specifically strong artificial 2C and > 2D > > openings are allowed only if they are forcing. > > > > I believe the regulation is dubious at best. > Since > > there is nothing in law that stops a player > passing a > > forcing bid. > > > > Wayne > > > +=+ In this and his previous post Wayne fails to > note that things change when the matter becomes > one of partnership experience and is not simply > an unforeseen but legitimate departure from > agreement. The frequency with which it occurs > is a germane piece of the evidence. > ~ G ~ +=+ Grattan earlier in this thread argued that when there is no definition of a term then we use the commonly accepted meaning. Here the commonly accepted meaning of the use of "or" determines the meaning of L75C. "...a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience..." L75C The law clearly treats "experience" as something different from "agreement" otherwise if one was completely contained within the other there would be no need to combine these concepts with an "or". Therefore it must be possible to have something as part of your "experience" that therefore needs to be disclosed appropriately but it is not part of your "agreements" that can be regulated. I am happy to disclose my "agreements" and "experience" but I am only happy that my "agreements" can be regulated by the SO and only those "agreements" that L40 gives them the power to regulate. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From toddz at att.net Fri Apr 1 22:43:50 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri Apr 1 22:44:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <20050401191934.16944.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050401191934.16944.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <424DB286.4060006@att.net> Wayne Burrows wrote: > 32 > 32 > 32 > 8765432 > > 2C Pass ? > > Your call? Whatever's my weakest option. Partner might still have game in hand, but it's not impossible to stop in 3C or 4C, which should have decent play. -Todd From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Sat Apr 2 00:26:43 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sat Apr 2 00:24:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424D2F09.7020907@hdw.be> Message-ID: > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > "90% forcing" for me is contradiction in terms. > > It is like "she is 90% pregnant". Absolutely right. "Forcing" means "by partnership agreement, if LHO passes, partner will ALWAYS bid." Partner may in fact pass - L40A still allows him to - but if he does so, it is AI to all that partner is operating outside the system. Whatever your usual rules about psychics and CPUs are, they now apply to this pass. No MI exists, unless a CPU is found to exist. And HdW replied: > No it's not. Some bids are so forcing that we call them forcing, even > if they are only 90% forcing. We all know these kinds of bids. Calling a nonforcing bid "forcing" is MISINFORMATION, Herman. Konrad provided this interesting example: > > c) 1D - 1S - 2H is non-forcing in Polish Club > > (1D is limited is limited to ca. 18 HCP) but > > responder passes only when he really has no > > place to hide (eg. Qxxx xxx x AJxxx) I am sure Konrad knows what standard Polish practice is better than I do. But I do need to point out that the published references strongly imply it IS forcing. (The translation of Jassem says "The reverse bid is not forcing to game. Responder has two nonforcing rebids: 3D and repeating his major. Both show that the first response was on a bad hand. Raising the major to the 3-level is forcing, and also forcing is 2N." (I think the textbook call on Konrad's problem hand is 2N intended to drop partner at the 3-level in something, I agree it's not an easy hand to bid.) A lot of Standard American textbooks call this sequence forcing too - but virtually no beginners, and a large minority of experienced players, treat it as nonforcing and don't know they are doing anything unusual. HdW says: > I would call such a bid "90% forcing". I don't have a problem with that. You have honestly conveyed that partner is expected to rebid but you are aware he will pass with some subminimum hands. Just don't say "forcing" or you'll be in trouble. HdW previously said in this thread: > >>Well, if a player describes a bid as "100% forcing" and he > >>subsequently passes, then by his own admission he has given MI. No, not at all. He has exposed a psych. If the agreement is that a bid is forcing, you say it is forcing regardless of what call you plan to make. Now, if you say "forcing" when your actual agreement is "90% forcing," THAT is MI. Indeed if you say "forcing" and then pass, and I find enough evidence of a CPU to adjust a score, you will be facing at least an ethics hearing if not a fullfledged accusation of cheating. [Comic 1NT, 2C Stayman response:] > correct explanation. Of course 2Cl should never be explained as > "forcing" but as "enquiry", with subsequent completion that there is > no hand, consistent with the bidding so far, in which "pass" would be > the answer. "There is no hand, consistent with the bidding so far, in which "pass" would be the answer" is precisely what the word "forcing" means. I couldn't have defined it better myself. GRB From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Apr 2 01:21:56 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Apr 2 01:22:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: <200503311653.j2VGrJQ9028709@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <003c01c53711$99612760$299468d5@James> [Ron Johnson] > 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 [Nigel] If Kit Woolsey made this claim, IMO he has been economical with the truth: For him, 2H is not forcing. If his partner knows that Kit routinely replies 1S on type (b) hands and that then, Kit will pass a 2H rebid, there is an implicit agreement. [Ron] > 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) [Nigel] If Meckwell do so, I deplore their behaviour: IMO they are not psyching. Their implicit agreement is that they often lack advertised requirements for their bids. Opponents are entitled to know this. If they are consistently "light", they should alter their card. If they vary their requirements, their explanations and card should explain how and when. Not just vulnerability, position at the table and calibre of opponents -- but also any other agreed tactical considerations. [Ron] > 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.) [Nigel] IMO Ron is right. It may be OK when they are playing with their cronies but otherwise they should disclose implicit agreements. We should not confuse this issue with ... A. Genuine psyche contexts (such as Konrad passing Stayman after opening 1NT on a weak hand and long clubs). B. The contention that when to pass a "forcing" bid is part of "General Knowledge and Experience". "General knowledge and Experience" is a cheats' charter that I hope will be expunged from the next edition of TFLB. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Apr 2 01:50:18 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Apr 2 01:51:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: Message-ID: <005501c53715$8fc461a0$299468d5@James> [Konrad Ciborowski] > "90% forcing" for me is contradiction in terms. > It is like "she is 90% pregnant". [: Pedant :] A useful and expressive idiom to describe the position of a call on a notional scale from "drop-dead" to "unpassable". Similar idioms are "half dead" "pretty unique" or "just about perfect". We realise that "half dead" or "pretty unique" or "just about perfect" or "90% forcing" are different from "dead" or "unique" or "perfect" or "forcing." Arguably, we should never describe a call as forcing but rather as "n% forcing"; but, otherwise, such terms are irrelevant to this discussion. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Apr 2 04:13:27 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Apr 2 04:14:22 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <002401c53374$52875170$ce974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> <2b9701de8be4d771c8285a1045c6d5b3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <00e901c53729$8f1b8760$179868d5@James> [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? [Nigel] I can't interpret current rules but I hope this issue is soon cleared up in the next edition of TFLB. The new law could be something like ... "Declarer may rearrange the dummy only after stating an intention to do so. Otherwise, to play a card from dummy: declarer points to it, picks it up, or names it unambiguously - usually by suit and rank. The card is played if the designation is unambiguous and the card would be a legal play. Thus, if declarer says "three" then the spade three is played if that card is the only three in dummy and it is a legal play. Declarer may not change a desgnation or partial designation if it applies to any of dummy's cards that may be played legally. For instance: if declarer says "spade" and dummy contains spades that may be played legally then declarer must designate one of them. Another example: if declarer says "Quace", a queen not an ace has been designated. Until declarer unambiguously designates a card, dummy must not touch a card; nor may declarer's RHO play a card to the trick." This form of rule would mean that If there are several spades in dummy and declarer says "spade" then there would be no automatic "default" like top spade or lowest spade. I reckon this would be a welcome change. There may be no real harm in allowing correctons, provided that ... (1) Directors are not expected to judge whether the mistake was a slip of the hand/tongue or a slip of the mind. (2) The rules define a demonstrable cut-off point after which dummy's legal card is deemed irretrievably played. Allowing corrections, however, does slow up the game. From gqkznjhrerbx at computermad.freeserve.co.uk Sat Apr 2 05:46:38 2005 From: gqkznjhrerbx at computermad.freeserve.co.uk (Hilda Medeiros) Date: Sat Apr 2 05:49:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Perform like a sexual Dynamo! Message-ID: <3.86688.3132363037393934.4@ientrynetwork.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050402/c5aa713b/attachment.html From hermandw at hdw.be Sat Apr 2 12:34:13 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Apr 2 12:33:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000001c536da$24437be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c536da$24437be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <424E7525.2040307@hdw.be> Yet this happens, Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > > If a player explains a call as being "forcing" and still passes I take that > as convincing evidence that the call was indeed forcing and that he > deliberately chose to violate partnership agreements unless I am also > presented with other evidence to the contrary. > So you believe his words and not his actions - strange! > I consider it highly improbable that a player would deliberately first give > misinformation and then immediately make a "correct" call without correcting > his own MI. > Yet this happens. My participation in this thread started only yesterday, because on thursday evening a player came up to me and asked: "my opponent explained a bid as forcing and then passed - this has happened to me twice, and I want to know what I should do". On those occasions, apparently, the player chose to pass his minimum opening hand even after describing his partner's 1NT reply as forcing. I would rule in those cases that the bid was not 100% forcing after all. Things like this do happen, Sven. Players take a delight in explaining a call in one way and then bidding on it in another way. That should not be encouraged. If a bid is forcing, you must bid. If you pass, that means it is not forcing. You are faced with two pieces of evidence, Sven, and you must weigh them. And it strikes me as singularly personalising that you choose to question my beliefs. Probably because they come from me. Stop it. > 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: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 27/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Sat Apr 2 12:38:02 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Apr 2 12:37:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <424E760A.3060308@hdw.be> Gordon Bower wrote: > > And HdW replied: > > >>No it's not. Some bids are so forcing that we call them forcing, even >>if they are only 90% forcing. We all know these kinds of bids. > > > Calling a nonforcing bid "forcing" is MISINFORMATION, Herman. > Precisely my point, Gordon! If a bid is "90% forcing", then calling it forcing is MI. Calling it "90% forcing" is not MI. By passing it, you implicitely tell the table that it was not forcing but "90% forcing". So you have committed MI. -- 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 hermandw at hdw.be Sat Apr 2 12:47:40 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Apr 2 12:47:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <20050401153324.60F182334E3@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050401153324.60F182334E3@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <424E784C.9020908@hdw.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > Of course - if a bid is explained as forcing > and then the bidder's partner passes and > the opponents are damaged then the TD > has to examine whether the given "forcing" explanation was > correct. It is the job of the side > that passed a bid explained as "forcing" > to convince him that the bid was indeed systemically > forcing - if the TD doesn't feel conviced he will > rule MI rather than misbid but that's > a completely separate issue. > No, that is precisely the issue. Some of you have stated that it is absolutely OK to first describe a bid as forcing and then to pass. Yet you have also all stated that this should be a rather uncommon occurence. Yet it happens. And there are two possible explanations. One of them being MI. It is the duty of the TD to investigate. That's all I've been saying all along. -- 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 hermandw at hdw.be Sat Apr 2 12:58:58 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Apr 2 12:58:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Herman De Wael napisa?(a): > ? So when they > >>say it was forcing, what evidence do I have? > > > CC, perhaps? > > > >>No, I have evidence in two directions - I have evidence that it was >>not 100% forcing after all, since it got passed out. > > > > So if a player (playing Acol) opens 1S with > > xxx > Jxxxxxxxx > x > --- > > you have evidence that the 1S opening doesn't show > 11-23 4 S as it was explained since it has just been given with > the hand above. So you rule MI? > Well Konrad. Here you give a hand. That hand is indeed evidence that the explanation is correct and the bid is a psyche. > I guess you don't. There must be a way to convince > you (as a TD) that the explanation "bid X is > forcing" was correct despite the fact that > it the bid has just been passed out. Otherwise - why > do we need CCs and the like. > > I have the impression that the mere fact > that a player has just passed a forcing > bid per se is enough evidence for you > that a bid is indeed not forcing > (not "100% forcing" according to your terminology). > Is this the case? > Buit here you don't give a hand. Show us the hand, and the fact that it is sub-minimum for the auction so far. Then you have evidence to the fact that there is correct info after all. But most of you don't give such hands. All you say is that a bid is described as forcing and then passed. So you provide me with two pieces of evidence, quite contradictory. The Lawbook says we must place less weight on the explanation and more weight on the hands. So how can you criticise me that I want more evidence before ruling that the explanation was correct? You are presumably assuming there must be some other evidence. I am working under Occam's razor. A case is presented to me and I rule as if there are no more important facts to be mentioned. A player explains a bid as forcing and then passes. No hands given. I rule MI. Give me a hand and a set of circumstances and I may well rule differently. Until then, such is my ruling. -- 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 svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 2 15:17:00 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Apr 2 15:18:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424E7525.2040307@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c53786$4160b790$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > If a player explains a call as being "forcing" and > > still passes I take that as convincing evidence that > > the call was indeed forcing and that he deliberately > > chose to violate partnership agreements unless I am > > also presented with other evidence to the contrary. > > > > So you believe his words and not his actions - strange! > > > I consider it highly improbable that a player would > > deliberately first give misinformation and then > > immediately make a "correct" call without correcting > > his own MI. > > > > Yet this happens. > My participation in this thread started only yesterday, > because on thursday evening a player came up to me and > asked: "my opponent explained a bid as forcing and then > passed - this has happened to me twice, and I want to > know what I should do". > On those occasions, apparently, the player chose to pass > his minimum opening hand even after describing his > partner's 1NT reply as forcing. > > I would rule in those cases that the bid was not 100% > forcing after all. > > Things like this do happen, Sven. Players take a delight > in explaining a call in one way and then bidding on it in > another way. That should not be encouraged. If a bid is > forcing, you must bid. If you pass, that means it is not > forcing. > > You are faced with two pieces of evidence, Sven, and you > must weigh them. And it strikes me as singularly > personalising that you choose to question my beliefs. > Probably because they come from me. Stop it. > Stop what? We have three main alternatives for a ruling: 1: The call is forcing: The player has given a correct disclosure but deliberately chosen to ignore this and pass. 2: The call is not forcing: The player has accidentally given an incorrect disclosure believing that the call was in fact forcing, realized that this disclosure was incorrect and passed. 3: The call is not forcing: The player has knowingly and deliberately given an incorrect disclosure and passed. As you say we have to consider the alternatives and weight the available evidence. If we find for alternative 1 we must consider the pass to be a psychic call and rule correspondingly. If we find for alternative 2 then we must rule a violation of Law 75D1 and consider possible adjustment for damage and also consider a procedure penalty. Normally this procedure penalty should just be a warning to the player on his duties under Law 75D1. If we find for alternative 3 the situation becomes extremely grave. We then have no choice other than to rule that the player is cheating: He has intentionally tried to mislead opponents by giving them false information. It appears to me that this alternative 3 is your preferred selection, I must say that we generally do not rule this way in Norway without very convincing evidence which excludes all other options. You may have your opinion; I prefer to stick to mine in this case. I don't know what kind of players you meet, I have so far had no problem with this. Sven From security at postbank.de Sun Apr 3 05:19:34 2005 From: security at postbank.de (security@postbank.de) Date: Sun Apr 3 05:07:12 2005 Subject: [blml] PostBank TAN-Absicherung Message-ID: <987001112498374@al-entrprse-cuda1-c4a-235.atlaga.adelphia.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050403/14c5fcfc/attachment.html From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Apr 3 10:55:53 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Apr 3 10:55:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000001c53786$4160b790$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c53786$4160b790$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <424FAF99.4010908@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Probably because they come from me. Stop it. >> > > > Stop what? > Criticizing my posts because they come from me. > We have three main alternatives for a ruling: > > 1: The call is forcing: > The player has given a correct disclosure but deliberately chosen to ignore > this and pass. > OK? I'm all-right with that. The player should have some good reason for this, and that must mean he's sub-minimal. Minimal just won't do, since the call is forcing. This type of happening is very easy to detect and you and I have no problems with it. > 2: The call is not forcing: > The player has accidentally given an incorrect disclosure believing that the > call was in fact forcing, realized that this disclosure was incorrect and > passed. > This simply cannot happen. Sorry. If the player realizes his original disclosure is incorrect, then he should correct it, call the TD, and allow his RHO to change his call - before passing. > 3: The call is not forcing: > The player has knowingly and deliberately given an incorrect disclosure and > passed. > You arrive at the same conclusion I do. This is the case I am talking about. We may be at odds at which is the more common (1 or 3) but you continue to criticize me for presenting case 3 to the world, and ruling against people who say a bid is forcing yet pass. > As you say we have to consider the alternatives and weight the available > evidence. > I agree - but you should agree with me that there are 2 possible reasons for the happening. And IMO the first is easy to detect, which leaves the third as a problem for blml. > If we find for alternative 1 we must consider the pass to be a psychic call > and rule correspondingly. > Indeed. I have never questioned this. > If we find for alternative 2 then we must rule a violation of Law 75D1 and > consider possible adjustment for damage and also consider a procedure > penalty. Normally this procedure penalty should just be a warning to the > player on his duties under Law 75D1. > Alternative 2 should not happen. The player should be made aware that he should change his explanation and offer to his RHO the chanve to change his call. > If we find for alternative 3 the situation becomes extremely grave. We then > have no choice other than to rule that the player is cheating: He has > intentionally tried to mislead opponents by giving them false information. > Precisely. > It appears to me that this alternative 3 is your preferred selection, I must > say that we generally do not rule this way in Norway without very convincing > evidence which excludes all other options. > No, it is not my preferred selection. Saying that you generally not rule this way in Norway is a very strange statement. Surely if these occasions come up, you should rule this way? Now maybe you and I are working under a different set of experiences. You have never seen case 3 in real life. I have. You automatically assume that a player who passes a forcing bid must be acting under case 1. You may be living in a country without people who cheat like in case 3. Lucky you. But in that case, Sven, say so. Say: in my experience, case 3 is extremely rare. I can then say: in my experience, sadly, it is quite common. Then Sven, we can move on and agree with one another that we are both correct if we deal with the cases appropriately, after weighing all the evidence. > You may have your opinion; I prefer to stick to mine in this case. I don't > know what kind of players you meet, I have so far had no problem with this. > Well, I have. So you should not tell me that I am ruling wrongly if I happen to be ruling on something you have never encountered. Believe me, Sven, these things happen. Twice in the experience of one player who approached me! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 27/03/2005 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 3 11:04:40 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Apr 3 11:05:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: <424E760A.3060308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003b01c5382c$4ae64a90$f1a2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Forcing > > Precisely my point, Gordon! > If a bid is "90% forcing", then calling it forcing > is MI. Calling it "90% forcing" is not MI. > By passing it, you implicitely tell the table that > it was not forcing but "90% forcing". So you > have committed MI. > +=+ I think this statement is slightly misleading. It omits reference to the nature of the requirement, which is to disclose what is agreed between the partners. This includes anything implicitly agreed by reason of partnership experience. Laws 40A, 40B, and 75C should be considered with care. So long as the action contrary to announced method remains unforeseen, unexpected in the partnership it falls under 40A as "not based upon a partnership understanding". The question to be addressed is the point at which it crosses the line and becomes "special information conveyed ..... through....partnership experience". An additional issue is the extent to which "an opposing pair may be expected to understand its meaning" (40B); in this regard I think the line in the sand is somewhat different when all four players at the table are experienced, quality players. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 3 11:31:14 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Apr 3 11:32:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424FAF99.4010908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c5382f$e1526920$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Stop what? > > > > Criticizing my posts because they come from me. I never have. > > We have three main alternatives for a ruling: > > > > 1: The call is forcing: > > The player has given a correct disclosure but deliberately chosen to > ignore > > this and pass. > > > > OK? I'm all-right with that. The player should have some good reason > for this, and that must mean he's sub-minimal. Minimal just won't do, > since the call is forcing. This type of happening is very easy to > detect and you and I have no problems with it. Do you always require "a good reason" for a player to psyche? We must assume that the player in question has been asked more or less specific questions on the forcing call when we know that he has explained it as such. Now what if that player smells a rat and decides for just that reason to pass it out? Would that be good enough reason for you as the Director? > > > 2: The call is not forcing: > > The player has accidentally given an incorrect disclosure believing > > that the call was in fact forcing, realized that this disclosure > > was incorrect and passed. > > > > This simply cannot happen. I simply don't see why not? In fact I have seen it happen. Haven't you? > Sorry. If the player realizes his original > disclosure is incorrect, then he should correct it, call the TD, and > allow his RHO to change his call - before passing. Of course, that is precisely Law 75D1. > > 3: The call is not forcing: > > The player has knowingly and deliberately given an incorrect > > disclosure and passed. > > > > You arrive at the same conclusion I do. This is the case I am talking > about. We may be at odds at which is the more common (1 or 3) but you > continue to criticize me for presenting case 3 to the world, and > ruling against people who say a bid is forcing yet pass. > > > As you say we have to consider the alternatives and weight the available > > evidence. > > > > I agree - but you should agree with me that there are 2 possible > reasons for the happening. And IMO the first is easy to detect, which > leaves the third as a problem for blml. > > > If we find for alternative 1 we must consider the pass to be a psychic > > call and rule correspondingly. > > > > Indeed. I have never questioned this. > > > If we find for alternative 2 then we must rule a violation of > > Law 75D1 and consider possible adjustment for damage and also > > consider a procedure penalty. Normally this procedure penalty > > should just be a warning to the player on his duties under > > Law 75D1. > > Alternative 2 should not happen. The player should be made aware that > he should change his explanation and offer to his RHO the chanve to > change his call. > > > If we find for alternative 3 the situation becomes extremely grave. > > We then have no choice other than to rule that the player is > > cheating: He has intentionally tried to mislead opponents by > > giving them false information. > > > > Precisely. > > > It appears to me that this alternative 3 is your preferred > > selection, I must say that we generally do not rule this way in > > Norway without very convincing evidence which excludes all > > other options. > > No, it is not my preferred selection. Saying that you generally not > rule this way in Norway is a very strange statement. Surely if these > occasions come up, you should rule this way? What I say is that we do not expel players from bridge without very convincing evidence which excludes all other options. And we have only one penalty for cheating: Expulsion. Everybody knows that, and frankly cheating is no problem in our tournaments according to my knowledge. > > Now maybe you and I are working under a different set of experiences. > You have never seen case 3 in real life. I have. You automatically > assume that a player who passes a forcing bid must be acting under > case 1. You may be living in a country without people who cheat like > in case 3. Lucky you. How do you treat cheats? I cannot tell from experience how we treat them in Norway (I have had none during my 25 years as licensed Director!) but I would expect such players to be disqualified from all organized bridge for at least several years and then only readmitted after a very careful evaluation whether we might at all be interested to have them play again. We have had a few cases of less severe disorderly conduct (no cheating!) that I know of and these cases have I believe usually resulted in suspension for up to a year. > > But in that case, Sven, say so. > Say: in my experience, case 3 is extremely rare. > I can then say: in my experience, sadly, it is quite common. > > Then Sven, we can move on and agree with one another that we are both > correct if we deal with the cases appropriately, after weighing all > the evidence. > > > You may have your opinion; I prefer to stick to mine in this case. I > don't > > know what kind of players you meet, I have so far had no problem with > this. > > > > Well, I have. So you should not tell me that I am ruling wrongly if I > happen to be ruling on something you have never encountered. > > Believe me, Sven, these things happen. Twice in the experience of one > player who approached me! And you ruled? Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Apr 3 12:34:27 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Apr 3 12:34:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000001c5382f$e1526920$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5382f$e1526920$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <424FC6B3.8020809@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>OK? I'm all-right with that. The player should have some good reason >>for this, and that must mean he's sub-minimal. Minimal just won't do, >>since the call is forcing. This type of happening is very easy to >>detect and you and I have no problems with it. > > > Do you always require "a good reason" for a player to psyche? Yes. And in fact, it would not be the pass that is the psyche. I would require the previous bid to be sub-minimal. If you mean "forcing" as "100% forcing", then nothing should prevent the player from bidding except him having previously strongly overbid. > We must assume > that the player in question has been asked more or less specific questions > on the forcing call when we know that he has explained it as such. Now what > if that player smells a rat and decides for just that reason to pass it out? > Would that be good enough reason for you as the Director? > It may well be. I would still investigate if the bids were explained sufficiently clearly however, without extra prompting. If there was insufficient explanation in the first place, requiring opponents to do more asking than they should have, I don't consider it fair to then conclude from the questioning that passing would be a good thing. > >>>2: The call is not forcing: >>>The player has accidentally given an incorrect disclosure believing >>>that the call was in fact forcing, realized that this disclosure >>>was incorrect and passed. >>> >> >>This simply cannot happen. > > > I simply don't see why not? In fact I have seen it happen. Haven't you? > No - what you are saying is that: a) the call is not forcing b) partner thinks it is forcing and informs opponents of this c) partner next changes his mind and now believes it to be non-forcing d) partner says nothing to opponents e) partner passes d) is a grave infraction - he should now change his information to opponents and we're in one of the other cases. This really should not happen, and if it does, we have other means of bringing this into the fould. > >>Sorry. If the player realizes his original >>disclosure is incorrect, then he should correct it, call the TD, and >>allow his RHO to change his call - before passing. > > > Of course, that is precisely Law 75D1. > So, this case is no longer of concern to us, is it? > >>>3: The call is not forcing: >>>The player has knowingly and deliberately given an incorrect >>>disclosure and passed. >>> >> >>You arrive at the same conclusion I do. This is the case I am talking >>about. We may be at odds at which is the more common (1 or 3) but you >>continue to criticize me for presenting case 3 to the world, and >>ruling against people who say a bid is forcing yet pass. >> >> >>>As you say we have to consider the alternatives and weight the available >>>evidence. >>> >> >>I agree - but you should agree with me that there are 2 possible >>reasons for the happening. And IMO the first is easy to detect, which >>leaves the third as a problem for blml. >> >> >>>If we find for alternative 1 we must consider the pass to be a psychic >>>call and rule correspondingly. >>> >> >>Indeed. I have never questioned this. >> >> >>>If we find for alternative 2 then we must rule a violation of >>>Law 75D1 and consider possible adjustment for damage and also >>>consider a procedure penalty. Normally this procedure penalty >>>should just be a warning to the player on his duties under >>>Law 75D1. >> >>Alternative 2 should not happen. The player should be made aware that >>he should change his explanation and offer to his RHO the chanve to >>change his call. >> >> >>>If we find for alternative 3 the situation becomes extremely grave. >>>We then have no choice other than to rule that the player is >>>cheating: He has intentionally tried to mislead opponents by >>>giving them false information. >>> >> >>Precisely. >> >> >>>It appears to me that this alternative 3 is your preferred >>>selection, I must say that we generally do not rule this way in >>>Norway without very convincing evidence which excludes all >>>other options. >> >>No, it is not my preferred selection. Saying that you generally not >>rule this way in Norway is a very strange statement. Surely if these >>occasions come up, you should rule this way? > > > What I say is that we do not expel players from bridge without very > convincing evidence which excludes all other options. And we have only one > penalty for cheating: Expulsion. Everybody knows that, and frankly cheating > is no problem in our tournaments according to my knowledge. > You call it cheating, I call it misinformation. A player explains a bid as "forcing" when in reality it is "nearly forcing" or "90% forcing". Simple misinformation. No cheating necessary. Education is necessary, explaning to people that calling something "forcing" when in fact it is not is misinformation and should not be done. And ruling against them. No cheating involved. > >>Now maybe you and I are working under a different set of experiences. >>You have never seen case 3 in real life. I have. You automatically >>assume that a player who passes a forcing bid must be acting under >>case 1. You may be living in a country without people who cheat like >>in case 3. Lucky you. > > > How do you treat cheats? I cannot tell from experience how we treat them in > Norway (I have had none during my 25 years as licensed Director!) but I > would expect such players to be disqualified from all organized bridge for > at least several years and then only readmitted after a very careful > evaluation whether we might at all be interested to have them play again. > > We have had a few cases of less severe disorderly conduct (no cheating!) > that I know of and these cases have I believe usually resulted in suspension > for up to a year. > > >>But in that case, Sven, say so. >>Say: in my experience, case 3 is extremely rare. >>I can then say: in my experience, sadly, it is quite common. >> >>Then Sven, we can move on and agree with one another that we are both >>correct if we deal with the cases appropriately, after weighing all >>the evidence. >> >> >>>You may have your opinion; I prefer to stick to mine in this case. I >> >>don't >> >>>know what kind of players you meet, I have so far had no problem with >> >>this. >> >>Well, I have. So you should not tell me that I am ruling wrongly if I >>happen to be ruling on something you have never encountered. >> >>Believe me, Sven, these things happen. Twice in the experience of one >>player who approached me! > > > And you ruled? > I was not called to the table, I was asked a question at the bar. Since I was not able to determine the exact circumstances, I could not give a ruling. But I suspect some form of MI ruling to be involved, most probably including a "no damage" finding, since the player obviously did not feel damaged enough to call the TD at the proper time. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 27/03/2005 From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 3 13:53:58 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Apr 3 13:55:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424FC6B3.8020809@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c53843$d1d18260$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > > Do you always require "a good reason" for a player to psyche? > > Yes. And in fact, it would not be the pass that is the psyche. I would > require the previous bid to be sub-minimal. If you mean "forcing" as > "100% forcing", then nothing should prevent the player from bidding > except him having previously strongly overbid. I have seen examples of players who decided to upgrade their marginal hand for some reason (which they might even only know themselves) and then in the next round regretting that they did because of how the auction developed. And I have seen them "compensating" for what turned out to be a (slight!) overbid by suppressing values in their next call and even pass out a forcing call. My main concern is (in all cases of possible MI) to establish what are the actual agreements. For this investigation I consider already written documentation like a correctly written CC to be the prime evidence. If no such documentation is available or if I find some discrepancy I investigate if the players apparently agree on the question and also what the common understanding is where they usually play. At this point I shall normally have established a clear opinion on whether there is a case of misbid or a case of misinformation, and if still in doubt I shall most often rule misinformation. I feel this procedure to be the correct handling of such questions. You may notice that the actual call made by a player who claims that his call was a deliberate or accidental violation of agreements is in my opinion not at all evidence of misinformation if other evidence appears to corroborate the given disclosure. ................ > No - what you are saying is that: > a) the call is not forcing > b) partner thinks it is forcing and informs opponents of this > c) partner next changes his mind and now believes it to be non-forcing > d) partner says nothing to opponents > e) partner passes > > d) is a grave infraction - he should now change his information to > opponents and we're in one of the other cases. This really should not > happen, and if it does, we have other means of bringing this into the > fould. You cannot imagine players who at this stage are so confused by their own mistake that they forget their duty under Law 74D1? As a matter of fact they may even think that on "correcting their faulty explanation" by making the "correct call" they have sufficiently alerted opponents about their mistake? I have seen this happen too! ........... > So, this case is no longer of concern to us, is it? Sure it is, but not as such a serious case of cheating. ............... > >>>If we find for alternative 3 the situation becomes extremely grave. > >>>We then have no choice other than to rule that the player is > >>>cheating: He has intentionally tried to mislead opponents by > >>>giving them false information. > >>> > >> > >>Precisely. .............. > You call it cheating, I call it misinformation. Is that your description of a player who knowingly and deliberately misinforms opponents keeping the actual agreement concealed apparently with the hope that he will gain from this irregularity? > A player explains a bid as "forcing" when in reality it is "nearly > forcing" or "90% forcing". Simple misinformation. No cheating Can we not leave out this "nearly forcing" or "90% forcing" please? A player making a "forcing" call demands from his partner the opportunity to make (at least) one more call in that same auction. If he doesn't demand such opportunity the call is not "forcing". Why not instead use the alternate common terms "invitational" or even "strong invitational"? I have never heard a call been described as "nearly forcing", "almost forcing" or anything similar and if I did I would probably ask "what on earth do you mean?" Maybe it is time to ask you describe the difference between a call that is "80% forcing" and a call that is "90% forcing"? I am sure you will agree that there must be a difference? Sven From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Sun Apr 3 14:02:11 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun Apr 3 14:03:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050403120211.17737.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> > > > +=+ I think this statement is slightly misleading. > It > omits reference to the nature of the requirement, > which is to disclose what is agreed between the > partners. This includes anything implicitly agreed > by reason of partnership experience. Laws 40A, > 40B, and 75C should be considered with care. But remembering that matters learnt from one's own general bridge knowledge and experience need not be disclosed. > So long as the action contrary to announced > method remains unforeseen, unexpected in the > partnership it falls under 40A as "not based upon > a partnership understanding". I believe this concept of being unforeseen is additional to the requirement of L40A. L40A's only restriction is that it is a partnership agreement. I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that I may forsee something that I do not have an agreement about. It is good general practice to try and forsee where problems may occur especially in situations where you do not have a partnership agreement - explicit or implicit. >The question to be > addressed is the point at which it crosses the line > and becomes "special information conveyed ..... > through....partnership experience". This is indeed the most important issue in this matter. > An additional > issue is the extent to which "an opposing pair may > be expected to understand its meaning" (40B); in > this regard I think the line in the sand is somewhat > different when all four players at the table are > experienced, quality players. This is a secondary matter since L40B only applies to special partnership understandings. Again I agree that the wording of this law indicates that it is the opponent's understanding that is important and hence the standard for disclosure is different depending on the knowledge and experience of the opponents. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From omega at wrongmail.com Mon Apr 4 11:41:18 2005 From: omega at wrongmail.com (omega@wrongmail.com) Date: Sun Apr 3 16:00:11 2005 Subject: [blml] beursverkoop carties, chopard, omega en gucci Message-ID: Wij hebben geheel nieuw in ons aanbod edel horloges opgenomen. Wij hebben bijna alle fantastische modelle voor u, die u zich maar wensen kunt. Alles van Bulgari, Cartier tot Chopard en Omega en Gucci uurwerken is te verkrijgen. Gesorteerd naar mannen en vrouwen uurwerken, of als geschenkbox is er ook voor u de juist. Wat is beter als geschenk dan een uurwerk dat lang mee gaat? Het is niet alleen een teken van goede smaak, maar ook een geheel persoonlijk geschenk voor uw geliefde. Direct naar de uurwerken hier. http://muv.djverninab.com/?2k44ADzCYCFa1yylbef Veel winkelplezier gewenst door uw uurwerk team. Uw Albert Schmitz From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Apr 3 16:53:40 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Apr 3 16:53:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000101c53843$d1d18260$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c53843$d1d18260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42500374.1000708@hdw.be> let's answer a small question first: Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > >>No - what you are saying is that: >>a) the call is not forcing >>b) partner thinks it is forcing and informs opponents of this >>c) partner next changes his mind and now believes it to be non-forcing >>d) partner says nothing to opponents >>e) partner passes >> >>d) is a grave infraction - he should now change his information to >>opponents and we're in one of the other cases. This really should not >>happen, and if it does, we have other means of bringing this into the >>fould. > > > You cannot imagine players who at this stage are so confused by their own > mistake that they forget their duty under Law 74D1? As a matter of fact they > may even think that on "correcting their faulty explanation" by making the > "correct call" they have sufficiently alerted opponents about their mistake? > > I have seen this happen too! > So have I. But in that case, or in the case of partner simply forgetting to correct the previous mention that it was forcing, the player will, upon question by the TD, again admit that he has now changed his mind, that it was indeed non-forcing. Since fourth player has not yet called, TD will allow second player to change his call, and we are back at an explanation of "non-forcing", which is not what this thread is about. > ........... > >>So, this case is no longer of concern to us, is it? > > > Sure it is, but not as such a serious case of cheating. > And not as a case where there has been an explanation of "forcing". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 27/03/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Apr 3 17:10:27 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Apr 3 17:10:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000101c53843$d1d18260$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c53843$d1d18260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42500763.30609@hdw.be> Now again to the main point of our discussion, Sven. Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............ > >>>Do you always require "a good reason" for a player to psyche? >> >>Yes. And in fact, it would not be the pass that is the psyche. I would >>require the previous bid to be sub-minimal. If you mean "forcing" as >>"100% forcing", then nothing should prevent the player from bidding >>except him having previously strongly overbid. > > > I have seen examples of players who decided to upgrade their marginal hand > for some reason (which they might even only know themselves) and then in the > next round regretting that they did because of how the auction developed. > And I have seen them "compensating" for what turned out to be a (slight!) > overbid by suppressing values in their next call and even pass out a forcing > call. > OK, so this is an example of a player overbidding in a previous round. So maybe I should have provided a caveat that we don't need to agree with the player that his previous bid was an overbid. The player telling us that he regarded it thusly should suffice. > My main concern is (in all cases of possible MI) to establish what are the > actual agreements. For this investigation I consider already written > documentation like a correctly written CC to be the prime evidence. If no > such documentation is available or if I find some discrepancy I investigate > if the players apparently agree on the question and also what the common > understanding is where they usually play. > > At this point I shall normally have established a clear opinion on whether > there is a case of misbid or a case of misinformation, and if still in doubt > I shall most often rule misinformation. I feel this procedure to be the > correct handling of such questions. > > You may notice that the actual call made by a player who claims that his > call was a deliberate or accidental violation of agreements is in my opinion > not at all evidence of misinformation if other evidence appears to > corroborate the given disclosure. > ................ We are now back at a serious difference of opinion between myself and the other directors in this forum. I simply refuse to accept that small deviances of a written system are just that: deviances. I consider them to be part of the system itself. Too often we see people telling us that "of course everyone knows that 15-17 includes some 14.5 hands". Well, if everyone knows this, then surely the players do know it too, and their system is in fact 14.5-17. Does this mean that an explanation of 15-17 is MI? Yes and no. I am always willing to accept that "everyone knows". But I am not at the same time willing to accept that the opening on 14 HCP is a deviance and not a systemic bid. I know I go a lot further than some in ruling MI. OTOH, I go a lot less far in ruling subsequent damage. "If they tell you it promises 15 points, but it is occasionally done on 14 with compensation, would you have bid or played differently? I don't believe you would have - no damage". And it's the same here. No matter how many times they give me a CC which states "1NT reply over major: F1", I will still rule that it was only 90% forcing if it got passed. > >>A player explains a bid as "forcing" when in reality it is "nearly >>forcing" or "90% forcing". Simple misinformation. No cheating > > > Can we not leave out this "nearly forcing" or "90% forcing" please? > Then how would you call a bid which I call "90% forcing". "Partner, I would like you to bid once more, but I'll accept that you don't if you are very minimal". My entry into this field is the American-style (2-over-1) 1NT forcing. I play that one myself. And we also play it over 3rd hand openings. Where it has been known to be passed out. We don't explain it as "forcing", but as "forcing in principle". Others do the same thing, but they explain it as "forcing" and then they pass anyway. What I am saying is that these people are mistaken in explaining the 1NT as forcing. They have given MI. Not a grave case of cheating, but an error nevertheless. What I won't do however, is read these people's CC, see there "F1" and rule in their favour. They should learn to properly fill out their CC and give perfect explanations. Maybe what divides us is that Norwegian players are far more dilligent in filling out CC, and in giving proper explanations. Maybe the players in your part of the world all have "F1 (in principle)" on their CC. Maybe you are right, in your neck of the woods, to regard a player who passes, as an honest guy whom you believe when he says that it is a very rare thing. People in Antwerp are not generally as dilligent. I have to rule MI. > A player making a "forcing" call demands from his partner the opportunity to > make (at least) one more call in that same auction. If he doesn't demand > such opportunity the call is not "forcing". > > Why not instead use the alternate common terms "invitational" or even > "strong invitational"? I have never heard a call been described as "nearly > forcing", "almost forcing" or anything similar and if I did I would probably > ask "what on earth do you mean?" > > Maybe it is time to ask you describe the difference between a call that is > "80% forcing" and a call that is "90% forcing"? I am sure you will agree > that there must be a difference? > Well Sven, I have given an example above of a call which can be described as "nearly forcing". I'm sure you won't pin me on the exact number 90%, nor on a quantification of "nearly". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 27/03/2005 From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 3 18:23:10 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Apr 3 18:24:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <42500763.30609@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c53869$6e186060$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ..................... > I simply refuse to accept that small deviances of a written system are > just that: deviances. I consider them to be part of the system itself. We all (including WBFLC) accept that a deviation of 1 HCP from a declared limit is acceptable pending for instance intangible values in the hand EXCEPT in one particular connection (Regulation, not Law): When deciding if a call is a brown sticker the 10HCP limit is absolute and cannot be adjusted for because of distributional or similar values. > Too often we see people telling us that "of course everyone knows that > 15-17 includes some 14.5 hands". Well, if everyone knows this, then > surely the players do know it too, and their system is in fact 14.5-17. We do not accept a declaration like 14.5 - 17 HCP, there is no such thing as half high-card points (in the Milton work's scale which is the one we use). If the 1NT opening bid is declared as 15-17 we allow it to be made occasionally on 14 or 18 HCP. If we because of this should require that it is declared as 14-18 we would similarly occasionally allow it to be made on 13 or 19 HCP. I trust you see the point? > Does this mean that an explanation of 15-17 is MI? Yes and no. Certainly not unless opening 1NT on 14 HCP becomes normal rather than exceptional. If it is used more than just exceptionally although not normally we require the declaration to be something like (14)15 - 17 > I am > always willing to accept that "everyone knows". But I am not at the > same time willing to accept that the opening on 14 HCP is a deviance > and not a systemic bid. With a declaration of 15-17 HCP I would have no problem accepting an opening bid of 1NT on something like: K Q T K Q T J T 9 8 Q J T ................ > > Can we not leave out this "nearly forcing" or "90% forcing" please? > > > > Then how would you call a bid which I call "90% forcing". "Partner, I > would like you to bid once more, but I'll accept that you don't if you > are very minimal". I have many such bid situations in my own system; they are described as "Invitational". What is the problem? .................... > > A player making a "forcing" call demands from his > > partner the opportunity to make (at least) one more > > call in that same auction. If he doesn't demand > > such opportunity the call is not "forcing". > > > > Why not instead use the alternate common terms "invitational" > > or even "strong invitational"? I have never heard a call been > > described as "nearly forcing", "almost forcing" or anything > > similar and if I did I would probably ask > > "what on earth do you mean?" > > > > Maybe it is time to ask you describe the difference between > > a call that is "80% forcing" and a call that is "90% forcing"? > > I am sure you will agree that there must be a difference? > > > > Well Sven, I have given an example above of a call which can be > described as "nearly forcing". I'm sure you won't pin me on the exact > number 90%, nor on a quantification of "nearly". Make your own selections with two different percentages (both less than 100%) and describe the criteria you use for differentiating between them. If you cannot tell the difference between say 60%, 70%, 80% or 90% forcing then please just admit it and we shall be through with this question. In your terms I know perfectly well the difference between 0% forcing and 100% forcing, anything in between is meaningless to me. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Apr 3 20:01:44 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun Apr 3 20:02:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424E760A.3060308@hdw.be> References: <424E760A.3060308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050403135354.02b92c20@pop.starpower.net> At 06:38 AM 4/2/05, Herman wrote: >Gordon Bower wrote: > >>And HdW replied: >> >>>No it's not. Some bids are so forcing that we call them forcing, even >>>if they are only 90% forcing. We all know these kinds of bids. >> >>Calling a nonforcing bid "forcing" is MISINFORMATION, Herman. > >Precisely my point, Gordon! >If a bid is "90% forcing", then calling it forcing is MI. >Calling it "90% forcing" is not MI. >By passing it, you implicitely tell the table that it was not forcing >but "90% forcing". So you have committed MI. But what if it *was* 100% forcing? Then by passing it, you implicitly tell the table that you have psyched a previous call. But Herman says that's MI. If he's right, you'd better not say that it was 100% forcing. But if you don't, you implicitly tell your partner that you psyched, without giving your opponents the benefit of the same inference. So Herman wants us to conceal our actual agreements to avoid giving MI. Oh well, I never understood the "De Wael tell-'em-whatever-you-think-is-a-good-idea-instead-of-describing-your-actual-agreement School" to begin with. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Apr 3 20:10:25 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Apr 3 20:10:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000201c53869$6e186060$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c53869$6e186060$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42503191.1040905@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ..................... > >>I simply refuse to accept that small deviances of a written system are >>just that: deviances. I consider them to be part of the system itself. > > > We all (including WBFLC) accept that a deviation of 1 HCP from a declared > limit is acceptable pending for instance intangible values in the hand > EXCEPT in one particular connection (Regulation, not Law): > > When deciding if a call is a brown sticker the 10HCP limit is absolute and > cannot be adjusted for because of distributional or similar values. > That is very true. But the reason for it is not as you describe. > >>Too often we see people telling us that "of course everyone knows that >>15-17 includes some 14.5 hands". Well, if everyone knows this, then >>surely the players do know it too, and their system is in fact 14.5-17. > > > We do not accept a declaration like 14.5 - 17 HCP, there is no such thing as > half high-card points (in the Milton work's scale which is the one we use). > You use the term (14)15-17, I use 14.5-17. I don't see what the problem is. Surely you realize that there is a difference between a system which includes a 1NT range of 14-16, of 15-17 or of something in between - regardles of how we describe it. So stop it. I do accept a declaration such as 15.5-17.5 (like someone described their range to me yesterday). > If the 1NT opening bid is declared as 15-17 we allow it to be made > occasionally on 14 or 18 HCP. If we because of this should require that it > is declared as 14-18 we would similarly occasionally allow it to be made on > 13 or 19 HCP. I trust you see the point? > Well, sorry, but you are very wrong. I _DO NOT_ accept that a 1 point difference is allowed. I, along with the WBF, accept that point ranges are not everything, but I don't accept that someone habitually opens on 14HCP yet explains his range as 15-17. > >>Does this mean that an explanation of 15-17 is MI? Yes and no. > > > Certainly not unless opening 1NT on 14 HCP becomes normal rather than > exceptional. If it is used more than just exceptionally although not > normally we require the declaration to be something like (14)15 - 17 > something like 14.5-17 in my case. > >>I am >>always willing to accept that "everyone knows". But I am not at the >>same time willing to accept that the opening on 14 HCP is a deviance >>and not a systemic bid. > > > With a declaration of 15-17 HCP I would have no problem accepting an opening > bid of 1NT on something like: > > K Q T > K Q T > J T 9 8 > Q J T > Of course not, but this is hardly 14.5, is it? More like 14.9, or even 15.2! > ................ > >>>Can we not leave out this "nearly forcing" or "90% forcing" please? >>> >> >>Then how would you call a bid which I call "90% forcing". "Partner, I >>would like you to bid once more, but I'll accept that you don't if you >>are very minimal". > > > I have many such bid situations in my own system; they are described as > "Invitational". What is the problem? > The 1NT response is certainly not well described as 'invitationel'. That would be a gross misnomer. Are you familiar with the 1NT response over a major in '2-over-1'? Surely that's not invitational - it is a gathering pot of many possible meanings, intending to clarify next round. None of the meanings precludes playing in 1NT, so passing it nevertheless is rather unobtrusive to partner. Describing it as 'forcing' is almost correct, since indeed a response is expected. Describing it as '100% forcing' is not correct, especially with a partner who sometimes decides to pass it. Describing it as 'invitational' is totally incorrect, since it can be done on 6pts and 2 cards in the opened major. So how would you describe it, then? I find '90% forcing' or 'nearly forcing' or 'forcing, in prinicple' a good way of stating this. Any problems with that? > .................... > >>>A player making a "forcing" call demands from his >>>partner the opportunity to make (at least) one more >>>call in that same auction. If he doesn't demand >>>such opportunity the call is not "forcing". >>> >>>Why not instead use the alternate common terms "invitational" >>>or even "strong invitational"? I have never heard a call been >>>described as "nearly forcing", "almost forcing" or anything >>>similar and if I did I would probably ask >>>"what on earth do you mean?" >>> >>>Maybe it is time to ask you describe the difference between >>>a call that is "80% forcing" and a call that is "90% forcing"? >>>I am sure you will agree that there must be a difference? >>> >> >>Well Sven, I have given an example above of a call which can be >>described as "nearly forcing". I'm sure you won't pin me on the exact >>number 90%, nor on a quantification of "nearly". > > > Make your own selections with two different percentages (both less than > 100%) and describe the criteria you use for differentiating between them. > hardly a worth-while endeavour. > If you cannot tell the difference between say 60%, 70%, 80% or 90% forcing > then please just admit it and we shall be through with this question. > I can differentiate between 90% and 100% as well as I can differentiate between nearly and absolutely. > In your terms I know perfectly well the difference between 0% forcing and > 100% forcing, anything in between is meaningless to me. > Well, it is not to me, nor to some players I know. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 27/03/2005 From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Apr 3 20:24:35 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun Apr 3 20:25:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:58 AM 4/2/05, Herman wrote: >Buit here you don't give a hand. Show us the hand, and the fact that >it is sub-minimum for the auction so far. Then you have evidence to >the fact that there is correct info after all. > >But most of you don't give such hands. All you say is that a bid is >described as forcing and then passed. >So you provide me with two pieces of evidence, quite contradictory. >The Lawbook says we must place less weight on the explanation and more >weight on the hands. >So how can you criticise me that I want more evidence before ruling >that the explanation was correct? > >You are presumably assuming there must be some other evidence. I am >working under Occam's razor. A case is presented to me and I rule as >if there are no more important facts to be mentioned. > >A player explains a bid as forcing and then passes. No hands given. I >rule MI. Give me a hand and a set of circumstances and I may well rule >differently. Until then, such is my ruling. Is Herman seriously suggesting that his "two pieces of evidence" are comparable? To deliberately misdescribe a non-forcing bid as forcing is a serious breach of law and ethics, obvious to the rankest beginner. To pass a forcing bid is perfectly legal and ethical. Until L40A is repealed, to presume that the explanation and the subsequent pass are "contradictory" is nothing less than an outright accusation of dishonesty. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 3 22:31:06 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Apr 3 22:32:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <42503191.1040905@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000c01c5388c$1034a670$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > > We all (including WBFLC) accept that a deviation of 1 HCP > > from a declared limit is acceptable pending for instance > > intangible values in the hand EXCEPT in one particular > > connection (Regulation, not Law): > > When deciding if a call is a brown sticker the 10HCP > > limit is absolute and cannot be adjusted for because > > of distributional or similar values. > > > > That is very true. > But the reason for it is not as you describe. Sure you must be able to do better than that? We are not small children arguing: "No it isn't", "yes it is"! What is the reason do you claim? ................... > You use the term (14)15-17, I use 14.5-17. I don't see what > the problem is. I didn't know that they use 14.5 to indicate a limit of 15 with occasional deviations to 14 in Belgium. If they do I have of course no objection, but I must say I am surprised that they do not follow the WBF instructions which are unambiguous in this respect. The WBF documentation on convention cards clearly specifies that this is to be written (14)15 - 17 HCP > > If the 1NT opening bid is declared as 15-17 we allow it to > > be made occasionally on 14 or 18 HCP. If we because of this > > should require that it is declared as 14-18 we would > > similarly occasionally allow it to be made on 13 or 19 HCP. > > I trust you see the point? > > > > Well, sorry, but you are very wrong. I _DO NOT_ accept that a 1 point > difference is allowed. I, along with the WBF, accept that point ranges > are not everything, but I don't accept that someone habitually opens > on 14 HCP yet explains his range as 15-17. If you had read what I wrote before "answering" you would have seen that neither do I. But there is a significant difference between habitually and occasionally or exceptionally. .............. > > With a declaration of 15-17 HCP I would have no problem accepting an > opening > > bid of 1NT on something like: > > > > K Q T > > K Q T > > J T 9 8 > > Q J T > > > > Of course not, but this is hardly 14.5, is it? More like 14.9, or even > 15.2! When and how did this become more than 14 HCP? I assume we refer to the same scale for high card points? That the hand has extra values because of the high spot cards is obvious but spot cards do not add to "high card points". If you begin manipulating the HCP value that way you must also deduct at least 1 HCP for lack of Aces and possibly another for poor distribution. > > ................ > > > >>>Can we not leave out this "nearly forcing" or "90% forcing" please? > >>> > >> > >>Then how would you call a bid which I call "90% forcing". "Partner, I > >>would like you to bid once more, but I'll accept that you don't if you > >>are very minimal". > > > > > > I have many such bid situations in my own system; they are described as > > "Invitational". What is the problem? > > > > The 1NT response is certainly not well described as 'invitationel'. > That would be a gross misnomer. I suppose that depends upon the actual system used? > Are you familiar with the 1NT response over a major in '2-over-1'? No, not unless it is similar to the same response bid in normal Goren-based systems. You say a bit further down that it can show values down to 6 HCP; can it also show values (significantly) stronger than 9 HCP? In my system (Goren-based) that bid is just a descriptive bid showing 6-9 HCP denying 4 cards in the opener's suit and any suit which could have been bid on the 1 level. The bid is neither invitational nor forcing. It is simply a bid giving the opener an option to make a second call if he wants to. If I have values above 9 HCP I certainly must find some other response bid that is at least forcing for a round so that we will not miss game when the opener has values in the range 15 - 18 HCP (in which case he would normally pass a 1NT response). > Surely that's not invitational - it is a gathering pot of many > possible meanings, intending to clarify next round. None of the > meanings precludes playing in 1NT, so passing it nevertheless is > rather unobtrusive to partner. > Describing it as 'forcing' is almost correct, since indeed a response > is expected. > Describing it as '100% forcing' is not correct, especially with a > partner who sometimes decides to pass it. > Describing it as 'invitational' is totally incorrect, since it can be > done on 6pts and 2 cards in the opened major. > > So how would you describe it, then? > I find '90% forcing' or 'nearly forcing' or 'forcing, in prinicple' a > good way of stating this. > Any problems with that? Sure: With no description on the bid I can hardly comment on it? My immediate question is: What is the upper limit for bidding 1NT over partners opening bid of 1 in a major suit? .................. > > Make your own selections with two different percentages (both less than > > 100%) and describe the criteria you use for differentiating between > them. > > > > hardly a worth-while endeavour. > > > If you cannot tell the difference between say 60%, 70%, 80% or 90% > forcing > > then please just admit it and we shall be through with this question. > > > > I can differentiate between 90% and 100% as well as I can > differentiate between nearly and absolutely. OK then, one last attempt: Can you differentiate between 40% forcing and 90% forcing and explain the difference so that other players know how you differentiate? Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 3 22:41:46 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Apr 3 22:42:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000d01c5388d$8dd07400$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > So you provide me with two pieces of evidence, quite contradictory. > The Lawbook says we must place less weight on the explanation and more > weight on the hands. Where do the Laws tell us to place less weight on evidence in the form of written documentation or on spoken explanations where both players are in complete agreement, and more weight on the actual hands? The footnote to Law 75 certainly contains no such instruction; it says "in the absence of evidence to the contrary" (of mistaken explanation). Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Apr 3 23:21:32 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun Apr 3 23:22:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Demon's table In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You are playing against expert opponents. (West has played internationally in the Australian Open Team; East has played internationally in the Australian Seniors Team.) They are using a variation of the Aussie Acol system. Imps Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1H 2S Pass Pass 3H Pass 6H Pass Pass Pass You, South, hold: QT8632 A72 J92 J What opening lead do you make? What other opening leads do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Apr 4 11:56:24 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun Apr 3 23:57:50 2005 Subject: [blml] My ACBL dossier Message-ID: <002101c538fc$9185b460$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Another addition to my dossier, second NABC in a row. The previous one was for opening 1S with a three-card suit when playing four-card majors, which my partner would never suspect. This time holding S-AQxxx H-KQ9 D-Q10974 C- void I responded 1S to partner's 1D opening. Next hand bid 1H and partner raised to 2S. This is possible slam territory, so I needed more information. With this partner I feared 3D might be passed, and besides might not elicit the information I needed. So I bid 3C, a natural bid in our system, and partner raised to 4C. That damped my thoughts of slam, so I quit with 4S. The club bid was questioned by my LHO and explained by partner as natural. LHO looked at me for confirmation, and I nodded yes. The opening lead was the club ace from Axxx, giving me three discards for my hearts and 13 tricks, dummy coming down with S-KJx H-xx D-Axxx C-KQJx, with the diamond king singleton on my left. LHO screamed for the TD, of course, who questioned me closely. Yes, we play this as a natural bid, no, I can't remember making this bid before. So the TD says it's a psych and wrote me up in a Player Report to be filed in my dossier. I guess it qualifies as a psych, even though deception was not the motivation. It certainly wasn't fielded, as partner made a normal raise. It strikes me that some high-level players make strange calls that don't get into dossiers, are they picking on me unfairly? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam at tameware.com Mon Apr 4 01:11:59 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon Apr 4 00:14:28 2005 Subject: [blml] My ACBL dossier In-Reply-To: <002101c538fc$9185b460$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <002101c538fc$9185b460$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: At 2:56 AM -0700 4/4/05, Marvin French wrote: >It strikes me that some high-level players make strange calls that don't get >into dossiers, are they picking on me unfairly? 1. Yes, perhaps. 2. Do you mind? Since you post the story here it seems as though it's something your proud of, and rightly so. I can't imagine that anyone will ever rule against you on account of the weight of your dossier. That's assuming you believe the ACBL is capable of keeping track of it in the first place. -- Adam Wildavsky http://www.tameware.com From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Apr 4 00:41:43 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon Apr 4 00:42:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: Message-ID: <006501c5389e$52dab3e0$082c1d53@kocurzak> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" > Konrad provided this interesting example: > > > > c) 1D - 1S - 2H is non-forcing in Polish Club > > > (1D is limited is limited to ca. 18 HCP) but > > > responder passes only when he really has no > > > place to hide (eg. Qxxx xxx x AJxxx) > > I am sure Konrad knows what standard Polish practice is better than I do. > But I do need to point out that the published references strongly imply it > IS forcing. (The translation of Jassem says "The reverse bid is not > forcing to game. Responder has two nonforcing rebids: 3D and repeating his > major. Both show that the first response was on a bad hand. Raising the > major to the 3-level is forcing, and also forcing is 2N." (I think the > textbook call on Konrad's problem hand is 2N intended to drop partner at > the 3-level in something, I agree it's not an easy hand to bid.) > The translation is correct - but to 2H is definitely not forcing although very rarely passed. One of my most vivid bridge memories is connected with this sequence. I once played in a big Swiss Teams and a my LHO, a very good player, playing on the team that was heavy favorite to win the whole thing miscounted his HCP and mistakenly opened 1D on some powerful 20 HCP and 3=1=7=2 (it more or less looked like this AKQ x AKQJxxx Jx). His partner responded with 1S and now he was in trouble. The system offers no forcing bid at this point. 3D would show a good hand but obviously not *that* good and would be NF. So would be 2NT (usually played as showing a hand that didn't qualify for a natural 1NT opener but regular partnerships sometimes assign other meanings to this call). So would be 3S. 4S would show a completely different hand type (weak hand with lots of shape and 4S). In natural systems some would opt for 3C (jump shift in a fake suit is a standard practice with nearly game-going one-suiters if one doesn't open them with multi 2D or the equivalent) but in Polish Club the 3C rebid would show some 16-18 HCP with 5+D-5+C - again NF! Opener thought he found a solution and tried 2H - the least of all evils. Partner will describe his hand further (2S, 2NT, 3C) and if he shows too much enthusiasm about hearts it will mean he has 5+S so we can always put him back to spades. Unfortunately Partner hand 6 HCP with that dreaded 5=3=1=4 and passed what he hoped would be the last making contract. As you can imagine opener failed to congratulate him for his good judgement. Actually opener went berserk ("how can you pass 2H, you know nothing about my hand, go back and study some f..cking book!") but I can understand him. He simply miscounted his point count (or perhaps made a manual mistake - I never discovered) which can happen to anyone, then made a very good effort to save the board (I rate 2H as a very good bid given the circumstances), was tremendously unlucky to hear a pass over a bid that is almost never passed, and the worst (reporting the result to his teammates) was yet to come. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f186c From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Apr 4 13:04:57 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Apr 4 01:06:23 2005 Subject: [blml] My ACBL dossier References: <002101c538fc$9185b460$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002e01c53906$25269640$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > Marvin French wrote: > >It strikes me that some high-level players make strange calls that don't get > >into dossiers, are they picking on me unfairly? > > 1. Yes, perhaps. > > 2. Do you mind? Since you post the story here it seems as though it's > something your proud of, and rightly so. I can't imagine that anyone > will ever rule against you on account of the weight of your dossier. > That's assuming you believe the ACBL is capable of keeping track of > it in the first place. > The close questioning by ACBL Recorder Gary Blaiss, who files Player Reports from NABCs and usually speaks to the players involved about them, was mildly irritating. He assures me that he does indeed keep track, and that further PRs showing similar acts may lead to unstated consequences. I was not written up for my psych of a strong 1NT opening at the Reno Midwinter Regional, perhaps because I won my appeal after the TD (high-level in the ACBL) ruled it was fielded when partner did not double 4S despite holding an ace. Of course I will now throw in such bids occasionally, just to test the system. Not frequently enough for partner to suspect, maybe one in 10 days of an NABC. My partners are not suspicious types anyway, they just bid what they see. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 4 01:24:49 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Apr 4 01:25:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <424D4935.2040508@hdw.be> References: <000401c536a9$c49725a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <424D4935.2040508@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Apr 1, 2005, at 8:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > A player bids 2H on a hand with spades. Don't you find that this is an > element of evidence that he is in fact playing transfers? Are you not, > by the footnote, required to rule MI, rather than misbid? Depends. What other evidence is available? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 4 01:32:46 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 4 01:33:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000401c536a9$c49725a0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran asserted: >You should care because in this case the (your?) ruling is >unfounded. Even if a player very convincingly informs his >opponents that partner's call is always and absolutely >forcing he is still free to pass out that call as far as >laws and regulations are concerned. (What eventually might >happen to the partnership is a completely different matter) Richard Hills quibbles: Sven's assertion may be in accordance with Norwegian law and regulations, but is incorrect as regards New Zealand law and regulations. Law 40D: >>The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of >>bidding or play conventions...... The New Zealand SO has regulated that a conventional Mexican 2D opening bid must be forcing when used in matchpoint pairs events. Ergo, if a partnership has an implicit partnership agreement that their "forcing" Mexican 2D actually means "sometimes non-forcing, if it seems a good idea at the time", then that New Zealand partnership is playing an illegal convention. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 4 01:58:35 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 4 01:59:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <20050401192818.48111.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: A Secretary Bird wrote: >Here the commonly accepted meaning of the use of "or" >determines the meaning of L75C. > >"...a player shall disclose all special information >conveyed to him through partnership agreement or >partnership experience..." L75C > >The law clearly treats "experience" as something >different from "agreement" otherwise if one was >completely contained within the other there would be >no need to combine these concepts with an "or". > >Therefore it must be possible to have something as >part of your "experience" that therefore needs to be >disclosed appropriately but it is not part of your >"agreements" that can be regulated. > >I am happy to disclose my "agreements" and >"experience" but I am only happy that my "agreements" >can be regulated by the SO and only those "agreements" >that L40 gives them the power to regulate. Richard Hills notes: To me, the intent of Law 75C clearly does *not* imply that partnership experience is beyond regulation. To avoid future Secretary Bird attempts to sidestep their sponsoring organisation's Lawful regulations, I suggest that the 2007 version of the Lawbook reword Law 75C to read: >>When explaining the significance of partner's call >>or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law >>20), a player shall disclose all special information >>conveyed to the player through: >> >>(a) explicit partnership agreement, >> >>and/or >> >>(b) implicit partnership agreement (also known as >>partnership experience). >> >>A player need not disclose anything which is not a >>partnership agreement. >>Example: Some inferences drawn from the player's >>general knowledge and experience (those which are >>neither explicit nor implicit partnership >>agreements) need not be disclosed. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From schoderb at msn.com Mon Apr 4 02:02:26 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Apr 4 02:03:17 2005 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: Dear Herman. When the following words are accurate, it will be a good time for me to pass on, and not try to keep some sort of sane semblance to what is being posted in BLML. Herman: We all (including WBFLC) Aren't these words a bit presumpteous? When did you become part of "we"? Kojak From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon Apr 4 02:19:00 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Apr 4 02:20:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050404001900.38418.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Sven Pran asserted: > > >You should care because in this case the (your?) > ruling is > >unfounded. Even if a player very convincingly > informs his > >opponents that partner's call is always and > absolutely > >forcing he is still free to pass out that call as > far as > >laws and regulations are concerned. (What > eventually might > >happen to the partnership is a completely different > matter) > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Sven's assertion may be in accordance with Norwegian > law > and regulations, but is incorrect as regards New > Zealand law > and regulations. > > Law 40D: > > >>The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use > of > >>bidding or play conventions...... > > The New Zealand SO has regulated that a conventional > Mexican > 2D opening bid must be forcing when used in > matchpoint pairs > events. Ergo, if a partnership has an implicit > partnership > agreement that their "forcing" Mexican 2D actually > means > "sometimes non-forcing, if it seems a good idea at > the time", > then that New Zealand partnership is playing an > illegal > convention. This is not necessarily correct. When I sought clarification on this issue the NZCBA chose not to address this point (or any other point) in their "Thank you for your letter" replay. "Forcing" could mean 100% must not be passed but there is an alternative meaning from general practice that "forcing" is an arrangement that you make with partner that you may sometimes violate. Using that later meaning to describe something as "forcing" and then pass would not be MI. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 4 02:35:28 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 4 02:36:41 2005 Subject: [blml] My ACBL dossier In-Reply-To: <002101c538fc$9185b460$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marvin French: >Another addition to my dossier, second NABC in a >row. The previous one was for opening 1S with a >three-card suit when playing four-card majors, >which my partner would never suspect. > >This time holding S-AQxxx H-KQ9 D-Q10974 C- void >I responded 1S to partner's 1D opening. Next hand >bid 1H and partner raised to 2S. This is possible >slam territory, so I needed more information. With >this partner I feared 3D might be passed, and >besides might not elicit the information I needed. >So I bid 3C, a natural bid in our system, and >partner raised to 4C. That damped my thoughts of >slam, so I quit with 4S. [snip] >So the TD says it's a psych and wrote me up in a >Player Report to be filed in my dossier. I guess >it qualifies as a psych, even though deception was >not the motivation. It certainly wasn't fielded, >as partner made a normal raise. > >It strikes me that some high-level players make >strange calls that don't get into dossiers, are >they picking on me unfairly? The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: >>Space is big - really big - you just won't >>believe how vastly, hugely mind-boggingly big it >>is. You may think it's a long way down the road >>to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space. Richard Hills: *If* the ACBL were consistent in recording Player Memos for both inperts and experts, Marv's dossier would be just peanuts to Zia's vastly, hugely mind- boggingly big dossier. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon Apr 4 02:44:11 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Apr 4 02:45:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050404004411.2901.qmail@web14721.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > A Secretary Bird wrote: > > >Here the commonly accepted meaning of the use of > "or" > >determines the meaning of L75C. > > > >"...a player shall disclose all special information > >conveyed to him through partnership agreement or > >partnership experience..." L75C > > > >The law clearly treats "experience" as something > >different from "agreement" otherwise if one was > >completely contained within the other there would > be > >no need to combine these concepts with an "or". > > > >Therefore it must be possible to have something as > >part of your "experience" that therefore needs to > be > >disclosed appropriately but it is not part of your > >"agreements" that can be regulated. > > > >I am happy to disclose my "agreements" and > >"experience" but I am only happy that my > "agreements" > >can be regulated by the SO and only those > "agreements" > >that L40 gives them the power to regulate. > > Richard Hills notes: > > To me, the intent of Law 75C clearly does *not* > imply > that partnership experience is beyond regulation. Where do you find this "intent"? We only have the language of the laws. That language clearly indicates that partnership experience may well be distinct from a partnership agreement. This distinction sits comfortably with my understanding of bridge agreements and experience. I think they are overlapping concepts ... All agreements and all experience needs to be disclosed however some experience cannot be regulated. > > To avoid future Secretary Bird attempts to sidestep > their sponsoring organisation's Lawful regulations, I suggest that it is the SO that attempts to regulate outside its powers given in L40 that is the one who is doing all of the side-stepping. > I > suggest that the 2007 version of the Lawbook reword > Law 75C to read: > > >>When explaining the significance of partner's call > >>or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law > >>20), a player shall disclose all special > information > >>conveyed to the player through: > >> > >>(a) explicit partnership agreement, > >> > >>and/or > >> > >>(b) implicit partnership agreement (also known as > >>partnership experience). I do not believe that "implicit partnership agreement" is synonymous with "partnership experience". An implicit agreement is something that your partnership agrees on your experience you may or may not agree on. Experience includes judgement and individual habits that may or may not be in agreement between the two players. > >> > >>A player need not disclose anything which is not a > >>partnership agreement. > >>Example: Some inferences drawn from the player's > >>general knowledge and experience (those which are > >>neither explicit nor implicit partnership > >>agreements) need not be disclosed. > Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 4 03:31:03 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 4 03:32:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <20050404004411.2901.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills point: >>>To avoid future Secretary Bird attempts to >>>sidestep their sponsoring organisation's >>>Lawful regulations, Wayne Burrows counterpoint: >>I suggest that it is the SO that attempts to >>regulate outside its powers given in L40 >>that is the one who is doing all of the >>side-stepping. Fowler, "Modern English Usage": >_Petitio principii_ or 'begging the >question'. The fallacy of founding a >conclusion on a basis that as much needs >to be proved as the conclusion itself. > >*Arguing in a circle* is a common variety >of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are >that capital punishment is necessary >because without it murders would increase, >and that democracy must be the best form >of government because the majority are >always right. Richard Hills rhetorical questions: Does not Law 40D give the New Zealand sponsoring organisation the power to regulate a conventional Mexican 2D call? Is it not Lawful for New Zealand to give conditional permission for a variation of the Mexican 2D to be used, provided that this variation of the Mexican 2D is "forcing"? Does not "forcing" have a different meaning from "usually forcing"? Is not a partnership which implicitly agrees to play the Mexican 2D as "usually forcing" attempting to sidestep their sponsoring organisation's Lawful regulation? Would Victor Mollo's Secretary Bird quibble about whether "forcing" was equivalent to "usually forcing"? Would Victor Mollo's Secretary Bird quibble about whether a frequent violation of system *necessarily* creates an implicit partnership agreement? :-) This is one issue where I agree with Nigel Guthrie. *If* an honest Secretary Bird has their interpretation of Law 75C's "general knowledge and experience" adopted, *then* this loophole will be exploited by a different player, the dishonest Charlie the Chimp. :-( I know Wayne's ethics are irreproachable. I know Wayne has a legitimate desire for as much Lawful freedom as possible to maximise the flexibility of his methods. But, with regards to Law 75C and Law 40D, it is sometimes necessary for the greater good of the greater number for Wayne (and other NZ experts) to have their flexibility restricted by Law and NZ regulation. This assists Wayne's bunny opponents avoiding unfair disadvantage in unfamiliar auctions. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon Apr 4 04:15:24 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Apr 4 04:16:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050404021524.12423.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Richard Hills point: > > >>>To avoid future Secretary Bird attempts to > >>>sidestep their sponsoring organisation's > >>>Lawful regulations, > > Wayne Burrows counterpoint: > > >>I suggest that it is the SO that attempts to > >>regulate outside its powers given in L40 > >>that is the one who is doing all of the > >>side-stepping. > > Fowler, "Modern English Usage": > > >_Petitio principii_ or 'begging the > >question'. The fallacy of founding a > >conclusion on a basis that as much needs > >to be proved as the conclusion itself. > > > >*Arguing in a circle* is a common variety > >of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are > >that capital punishment is necessary > >because without it murders would increase, > >and that democracy must be the best form > >of government because the majority are > >always right. > > Richard Hills rhetorical questions: > > Does not Law 40D give the New Zealand > sponsoring organisation the power to > regulate a conventional Mexican 2D call? > Is it not Lawful for New Zealand to give > conditional permission for a variation of > the Mexican 2D to be used, provided that > this variation of the Mexican 2D is > "forcing"? Does not "forcing" have a > different meaning from "usually forcing"? > Is not a partnership which implicitly > agrees to play the Mexican 2D as "usually > forcing" attempting to sidestep their > sponsoring organisation's Lawful > regulation? These questions illustrate the issue that prompted me to open up this question. The SO has regulated that certain bids - artificial 2C/D that do not show a specific four-card suit - need to be forcing. Building the regulation on the basis of forcing is flawed in my opinion. It is flawed since IMO even my strong unlimited 2C is only usually forcing or maybe for some players - I have passed it in the past and I might do it sometime in the future and i am sure that I am not the only player who might be willing to gamble on this action. I am sure that the intent of the regulation is not to restrict my strong 2C which is the cornerstone of most common systems. However beyond that I have no guidance as to what the intention of the law is. And as I have stated I did try and get a clarification from the NZCBA. Further even if the bid is played as forcing what happens when a player passes? I am not talking about a player that passes having described this bid as forcing just to circumvent the regulations. What if I pass with the equivalent hand that I would consider passing a strong 2C? What if I pass by mistake momentarily forgetting that this is not allowed in this event? What if I pass after receiving authorized information from the opponents that suggests they want the bidding to remain open? I am definitely not arguing about a deliberate ploy to nullify the regulations. > > Would Victor Mollo's Secretary Bird > quibble about whether "forcing" was > equivalent to "usually forcing"? > > Would Victor Mollo's Secretary Bird > quibble about whether a frequent > violation of system *necessarily* creates > an implicit partnership agreement? This is not merely a quibble. The laws simply do not support the arguement that frequent violations *necessarily* creates a partnership agreement. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 4 04:21:48 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 4 04:22:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000501c538b8$d58ea340$7a30b618@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: >>This assists Wayne's bunny opponents >>avoiding unfair disadvantage in >>unfamiliar auctions. Another blmler (private email) wrote: >You have a desire to protect bunnies? >Last time "protecting bunnies" was up >as a side issue, I am fairly certain >your attitude was that Aussie bunnies >are fearless and need no protection. > >:-) Richard Hills clarifies: The key words are "unfair" and "unfamiliar". Many whacky auctions are familiar to Aussie bunnies, so it is not unfair for expert opponents to use those whacky conventions (since the Aussie bunnies use those whacky conventions themselves). This is (I suspect) partly due to the huge popularity of imped Swiss Teams and imped Swiss Pairs in Australia. Contrariwise, the New Zealand culture has hugely popular matchpoint pairs with one-board rounds (so as to socialise with the maximum number of opponents). New Zealand experts often eschew playing in these one-board round matchpoint pairs. So, in my opinion, due to Swiss Teams, bunnies play against experts more frequently in Australia than in New Zealand, thus Aussie bunnies are more familiar with whacky expert methods than New Zealand bunnies are. In short, "familiarity breeds contempt". Aussie bunnies are so familiar and so contemptuous of experts trying to be clever with whacky two-bids that Aussie bunnies have no hesitation in fighting fire with fire - using the same whacky two-bids to disrupt their expert opponents' auctions. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 4 04:55:59 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 4 04:57:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <20050404021524.12423.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills rhetorical question: >>Would Victor Mollo's Secretary Bird >>quibble about whether a frequent >>violation of system *necessarily* creates >>an implicit partnership agreement? Wayne Burrows quibble: >This is not merely a quibble. The laws >simply do not support the argument that >frequent violations *necessarily* creates >a partnership agreement. Richard Hills notes: The official words of Law 75B have remained frozen for a few decades, allowing Wayne to quibble. But the official *interpretation* of Law 75B has more recently been clarified in the official WBF Code of Practice, on page 8: >>>....have occurred in the partnership with >>>such frequency, and sufficiently recently, >>>that the partner is clearly aware of the >>>tendency.... Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 4 06:43:35 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 4 06:45:02 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <424B9BF7.9020705@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In the thread "Forcing" Wayne Burrows asserted: [big snip] >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. [snip] >Games are full of arbitrary laws that is what makes >them playable: [big snip] Richard Hills quibbles: To paraphrase the famous song from Porgy and Bess -> "It ain't necessarily so It ain't necessarily so De things dat yo' liable to read in Wayne's Bible It ain't necessarily so." I argue the direct opposite to Wayne. In my opinion, principles without over-specificity prevent Secretary Birds from abiding by the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law. Let us walk down memory lane. Attached is an extract from my 15th July 2004 posting to this thrice-revived thread "A player's view", which showed the advantage of a non-specific principle in the Laws of Golf. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * Secondarily, I argue that (in some circumstances) non-objective or subjective Laws are highly desirable, despite Nigel Guthrie's vehement philosophical opposition. Edward Tenner, Why Things Bite Back, page 251: >For clubs, the rules become deliberately >subjective. The head must be "plain in shape". >This, for example, really means that it must >look like a golf clubhead. Defining plainness >precisely would have the revenge effect of >promoting a search for loopholes. A recent blml search for loopholes has been on the extensive thread discussing when, exactly, a card has been played. I like the plain in shape subjective solution proposed by John (MadDog) Probst that "a card has been played when the player stops waving it around". From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 4 07:26:00 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 4 07:27:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <000a01c536c8$13fb69d0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Parenthetical comment by Sven Pran in the thread "Forcing": [snip] >Actually IMHO a partnership is even free to state that >they by agreement NEVER psyches and still make a psychic >call out of a blue sky. A psychic call is a call that >grossly violates the declared partnership agreements! > >This is the main reason why I consider that a system >declaration shall include absolutely nothing on psyches. [snip] Richard Hills: I agree with Sven's first paragraph, but disagree with Sven's second paragraph. Sven is correct to argue that a player can take the Fifth Amendment, and refuse to answer the question, "Are you now a psycher?" But the opponents are entitled to know, "Have you ever been a psycher? If so, what has been your frequency of past psyches?" This historical information is part of prior partnership experience, so therefore must be fully disclosed. For the benefit of any Aussie blmlers, I disclose that: (a) my frequency of psyching in 2004 was circa once every fortnight, and (b) my frequency of psyching in 2005 (so far) is circa once every three months. But I cannot Lawfully give Aussie blmlers any guarantee that my saner reduced frequency of psyching will stay at its current rate. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 4 07:57:41 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 4 07:58:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <003b01c5382c$4ae64a90$f1a2403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>Precisely my point, Gordon! >> >>If a bid is "90% forcing", then calling it forcing >>is MI. Calling it "90% forcing" is not MI. >> >>By passing it, you implicitly tell the table that >>it was not forcing but "90% forcing". So you >>have committed MI. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I think this statement is slightly misleading. It >omits reference to the nature of the requirement, >which is to disclose what is agreed between the >partners. This includes anything implicitly agreed >by reason of partnership experience. Laws 40A, >40B, and 75C should be considered with care. > So long as the action contrary to announced >method remains unforeseen, unexpected in the >partnership it falls under 40A as "not based upon >a partnership understanding". The question to be >addressed is the point at which it crosses the line >and becomes "special information conveyed ..... >through....partnership experience". [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, I agree with Grattan's caveat. In my opinion, it would be useful if the WBF LC Laws Drafting Sub- Committee carefully reworded the footnote to Law 75. The De Wael School seems to misinterpret the famous phrase - "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary" - as a Prime Directive to boldly go where no Director has gone before. I, however, believe that the phrase defines a mere tiebreak to tip the scales, when conflicting or absent evidence is of equal weight between misbid and MI. It would also be useful if the footnote to Law 75 had a cross-reference to Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts). Furthermore, it would be useful if the over- succinct term "satisfied" / "satisfaction" in Law 85 was expanded to include a reference to "balance of probabilities (not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt)" as the criterion for a TD's "satisfaction". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 4 08:09:36 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 4 08:10:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c538dc$e0c7acb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au ................ > Sven Pran asserted: > > >You should care because in this case the (your?) ruling is > >unfounded. Even if a player very convincingly informs his > >opponents that partner's call is always and absolutely > >forcing he is still free to pass out that call as far as > >laws and regulations are concerned. (What eventually might > >happen to the partnership is a completely different matter) > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Sven's assertion may be in accordance with Norwegian law > and regulations, but is incorrect as regards New Zealand law > and regulations. > > Law 40D: > > >>The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of > >>bidding or play conventions...... > > The New Zealand SO has regulated that a conventional Mexican > 2D opening bid must be forcing when used in matchpoint pairs > events. Ergo, if a partnership has an implicit partnership > agreement that their "forcing" Mexican 2D actually means > "sometimes non-forcing, if it seems a good idea at the time", > then that New Zealand partnership is playing an illegal > convention. But my assertion did not in any way suggest that the partnership could have such an implicit agreement? Does the New Zeeland regulation make pass an illegal call after partner has opened Mexican 2s (whatever that is?) and RHO has passed? Or more generally do the regulations prohibit a player to violate partnership agreements in certain exceptional cases? I am not convinced that such regulations can be legal? Regards Sven From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon Apr 4 08:28:22 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Apr 4 08:29:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050404062822.79960.qmail@web14723.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Parenthetical comment by Sven Pran in the thread > "Forcing": > > [snip] > > >Actually IMHO a partnership is even free to state > that > >they by agreement NEVER psyches and still make a > psychic > >call out of a blue sky. A psychic call is a call > that > >grossly violates the declared partnership > agreements! > > > >This is the main reason why I consider that a > system > >declaration shall include absolutely nothing on > psyches. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Sven's first paragraph, but disagree > with > Sven's second paragraph. > > Sven is correct to argue that a player can take the > Fifth Amendment, and refuse to answer the question, > "Are > you now a psycher?" > > But the opponents are entitled to know, "Have you > ever > been a psycher? If so, what has been your frequency > of > past psyches?" This historical information is part > of > prior partnership experience, so therefore must be > fully disclosed. I disagree with this statement Richard. The opponents right to know stops at matters that relate to this particular partnership. They are only entitled to know your partnership experience not your experience in other partnerships. Therefore I do not believe that it was necessary for you disclose your general psyching frequency. I proper disclosure in the following baby psyche situation would go something like what follows: 1H (X) 1S This bid shows 4+ spades and 6+ he has psyched in this position two or three times in the last two years. Or he has never psyched in this situation but he has once psyched in a similar auction at the two-level 2H (X) 2S. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 4 08:29:20 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 4 08:30:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c538df$a2d11100$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Parenthetical comment by Sven Pran in the thread "Forcing": > > [snip] > > >Actually IMHO a partnership is even free to state that > >they by agreement NEVER psyches and still make a psychic > >call out of a blue sky. A psychic call is a call that > >grossly violates the declared partnership agreements! > > > >This is the main reason why I consider that a system > >declaration shall include absolutely nothing on psyches. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Sven's first paragraph, but disagree with > Sven's second paragraph. > > Sven is correct to argue that a player can take the > Fifth Amendment, and refuse to answer the question, "Are > you now a psycher?" I don't even need the fifth! > But the opponents are entitled to know, "Have you ever > been a psycher? If so, what has been your frequency of > past psyches?" This historical information is part of > prior partnership experience, so therefore must be > fully disclosed. I agree that an entry for "historic frequency of psyching" on a system declaration is in order. The point I tried to make is that the current frequency (or probability) of psyching should not be disclosed on any system declaration simply because a psyche by definition must not in any way be part of a system. > For the benefit of any Aussie blmlers, I disclose that: > > (a) my frequency of psyching in 2004 was circa once > every fortnight, and > > (b) my frequency of psyching in 2005 (so far) is circa > once every three months. > > But I cannot Lawfully give Aussie blmlers any guarantee > that my saner reduced frequency of psyching will stay at > its current rate. > > :-) Agreed. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 4 08:53:24 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 4 08:54:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <008301c535e4$cb642240$6b9868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >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 [snip] Richard Hills: This specially limited strong option would fail the required EBU test of "reasonable frequency", if the TD used any reasonable definition of "reasonable". Some players use the Western Cue Bid; if RHO opens 1 banana, a jump cue bid of 3 bananas by you promises an unspecified solid suit, and requests pard to bid 3NT with a stopper in bananas. This Western Cue Bid also fails the "reasonable frequency" criterion, since the chances of you holding a solid suit are dramatically reduced after an honour-promising opening bid on your right. Much more frequent is the Ruritanian Cue Bid; a jump cue bid of 3 bananas promises a stopper, and requests pard to bid 3NT with a solid suit. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 4 09:43:24 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 4 09:43:08 2005 Subject: [blml] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4250F01C.1000106@hdw.be> Sorry Bill, but when for once you all seem to agree with me, I have deigned to call myself part of a collective "we". And I resent your implication that I cannot be in any discussion in the right. "If Herman then Wrong" seems to be a common denominator of many postings on blml. WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Dear Herman. When the following words are accurate, it will be a good time > for me to pass on, and not try to keep some sort of sane semblance to what > is being posted in BLML. > > Herman: > We all (including WBFLC) > > Aren't these words a bit presumpteous? > > When did you become part of "we"? > > Kojak > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 1/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 4 09:49:27 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 4 09:49:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000c01c5388c$1034a670$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c5388c$1034a670$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4250F187.2010105@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ................. > >>>We all (including WBFLC) accept that a deviation of 1 HCP >>>from a declared limit is acceptable pending for instance >>>intangible values in the hand EXCEPT in one particular >>>connection (Regulation, not Law): >>>When deciding if a call is a brown sticker the 10HCP >>>limit is absolute and cannot be adjusted for because >>>of distributional or similar values. >>> >> >>That is very true. >>But the reason for it is not as you describe. > > > Sure you must be able to do better than that? > > We are not small children arguing: "No it isn't", "yes it is"! > > What is the reason do you claim? > The reason is that in the systems regulations we write things like "1NT that can be opened on 9HCP" in the definition of some unauthorized system. There, we don't accept that a hand that has 9HCP is described as "almost 10". Describing the system that opens on that hand by saying "10-12" may well be correct, but the system is unauthorized nevertheless. That's a different discussion altogether, ok? Which meant that you were right in saying that we accept openings that are 1HCP light except in one case. Sometimes I do agree with you, Sven. Most of the times in fact. You rarely say something that is totally wrong. You just don't seem ready to accept that there are cases where my rulings are the correct ones. -- 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: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 1/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 4 09:54:56 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 4 09:54:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050403135354.02b92c20@pop.starpower.net> References: <424E760A.3060308@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403135354.02b92c20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4250F2D0.3050803@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 06:38 AM 4/2/05, Herman wrote: > >> Gordon Bower wrote: >> >>> And HdW replied: >>> >>>> No it's not. Some bids are so forcing that we call them forcing, even >>>> if they are only 90% forcing. We all know these kinds of bids. >>> >>> >>> Calling a nonforcing bid "forcing" is MISINFORMATION, Herman. >> >> >> Precisely my point, Gordon! >> If a bid is "90% forcing", then calling it forcing is MI. >> Calling it "90% forcing" is not MI. >> By passing it, you implicitely tell the table that it was not forcing >> but "90% forcing". So you have committed MI. > > > But what if it *was* 100% forcing? Then by passing it, you implicitly > tell the table that you have psyched a previous call. But Herman says > that's MI. If he's right, you'd better not say that it was 100% > forcing. But if you don't, you implicitly tell your partner that you > psyched, without giving your opponents the benefit of the same > inference. So Herman wants us to conceal our actual agreements to avoid > giving MI. Oh well, I never understood the "De Wael > tell-'em-whatever-you-think-is-a-good-idea-instead-of-describing-your-actual-agreement > School" to begin with. > No Eric. Wrong argument. Either the bid is 100% forcing, and both you and your partner know it. Then by passing it, you tell your partner (as AI) that you psyched or overbid previously. And since you also tell your opponents that it was 100% forcing, you also tell them that you overbid, and you gave no MI. Or the bid is only 90% forcing. This too is known to both you and your partner. Now if you pass you merely tell you are subminimal. No UI, nothing to worry about. Except if you have told your RHO that it was "forcing" and he thought it would be "100% forcing" when it is only "90% forcing". Now he has been damaged, firstly by believing you would bid (and being deprived of a call", and secondly by believing you have beenn psyching when you are merely at the extreme bottom end of your systemic worths. Now do you understand? Because I really don't understand what _you_ are trying to say. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 1/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 4 09:57:42 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 4 09:57:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> You are presumably assuming there must be some other evidence. I am >> working under Occam's razor. A case is presented to me and I rule as >> if there are no more important facts to be mentioned. >> >> A player explains a bid as forcing and then passes. No hands given. I >> rule MI. Give me a hand and a set of circumstances and I may well rule >> differently. Until then, such is my ruling. > > > Is Herman seriously suggesting that his "two pieces of evidence" are > comparable? To deliberately misdescribe a non-forcing bid as forcing is > a serious breach of law and ethics, obvious to the rankest beginner. To > pass a forcing bid is perfectly legal and ethical. Until L40A is > repealed, to presume that the explanation and the subsequent pass are > "contradictory" is nothing less than an outright accusation of dishonesty. > Well, I see it happen all the time. Because people are taught that they can get away with opening on 14HCP and still correctly describe the bid as being 15-17, they also think that saying "forcing" when they mean "90% forcing" is no MI. So I don't need to call them dishonest. I merely have to teach them that they should not explain a call as "forcing" when they mean "nearly forcing". -- 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: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 1/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 4 10:01:49 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 4 10:01:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000d01c5388d$8dd07400$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000d01c5388d$8dd07400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4250F46D.7020405@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ................. > >>So you provide me with two pieces of evidence, quite contradictory. >>The Lawbook says we must place less weight on the explanation and more >>weight on the hands. > > > Where do the Laws tell us to place less weight on evidence in the form of > written documentation or on spoken explanations where both players are in > complete agreement, and more weight on the actual hands? The footnote to Law > 75 certainly contains no such instruction; it says "in the absence of > evidence to the contrary" (of mistaken explanation). > Usually, people who commit these acts of MI don't even realize that they have done so. "Yes, I said forcing, but everyone knows I sometimes pass a forcing hand". Partner will usually agree with the pass. I see the evidence, I weigh the evidence. We are talking hypothetical cases here - why do you insist on saying that there are no possible cases where the balance of the evidence weighs against the passer? What do you do when a player comes up to you (at the bar) and asks what he should do if his LHO describes a bid as forcing and then passes? Do you tell that player that obviously the bid was forcing and there is nothing wrong there? Or do you tell that player that it all depends on the circumstances and so on? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 1/04/2005 From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 4 11:09:02 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 4 11:10:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <4250F46D.7020405@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c538f5$f1cc53d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > What do you do when a player comes up to you (at the bar) and asks > what he should do if his LHO describes a bid as forcing and then > passes? Do you tell that player that obviously the bid was forcing and > there is nothing wrong there? Or do you tell that player that it all > depends on the circumstances and so on? I would tell him that there is little I can do at this time based on information from one side only and that he ought to have: 1: verified (if possible) the agreements as described on some written documentation like the CC. 2: called the Director at the time of the incidence rather than discuss the incident afterwards. Sven From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Mon Apr 4 11:14:58 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Mon Apr 4 11:16:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Demon's table In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > >You are playing against expert opponents. (West has played >internationally in the Australian Open Team; East has >played internationally in the Australian Seniors Team.) > >They are using a variation of the Aussie Acol system. > >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: East-West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass 1H 2S >Pass Pass 3H Pass >6H Pass Pass Pass > >You, South, hold: > >QT8632 >A72 >J92 >J > >What opening lead do you make? >What other opening leads do you consider making? West obviously planned to pass out partners reopening double of 2S. East didn't want to defende 2Sx, probalby because of a spade void and lack of defensive tricks. Thus a spade lead is out of the question - it would give declarer a finesse he most probably is unable to take. I won't lead a club, since I'm unable to cash partner's club trick later on. It's not probable that a club lead will trouble declarer's communications. That leaves a diamond lead or a trump lead. Diamond is correct if it establishes a trick for partner and declarer's got to many diamonds to discard on dummy's spade honors. Two rounds of trump might easily reduce ruffs in dummy and prevent declarer to come to 12 tricks. It's wrong if partner holds the singelton king of hearts (not probable) or if a diamond trick can disappear without a diamond lead. I would lead the ace of trumps and, most porbaly, continue trumps. Regards, Harald Skj?ran > > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Mon Apr 4 11:14:57 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Mon Apr 4 11:16:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Demon's table In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > >You are playing against expert opponents. (West has played >internationally in the Australian Open Team; East has >played internationally in the Australian Seniors Team.) > >They are using a variation of the Aussie Acol system. > >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: East-West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass 1H 2S >Pass Pass 3H Pass >6H Pass Pass Pass > >You, South, hold: > >QT8632 >A72 >J92 >J > >What opening lead do you make? >What other opening leads do you consider making? West obviously planned to pass out partners reopening double of 2S. East didn't want to defende 2Sx, probalby because of a spade void and lack of defensive tricks. Thus a spade lead is out of the question - it would give declarer a finesse he most probably is unable to take. I won't lead a club, since I'm unable to cash partner's club trick later on. It's not probable that a club lead will trouble declarer's communications. That leaves a diamond lead or a trump lead. Diamond is correct if it establishes a trick for partner and declarer's got to many diamonds to discard on dummy's spade honors. Two rounds of trump might easily reduce ruffs in dummy and prevent declarer to come to 12 tricks. It's wrong if partner holds the singelton king of hearts (not probable) or if a diamond trick can disappear without a diamond lead. I would lead the ace of trumps and, most porbaly, continue trumps. Regards, Harald Skj?ran > > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Apr 4 12:12:27 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 4 12:12:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000401c538f5$f1cc53d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c538f5$f1cc53d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4251130B.4030300@hdw.be> Crawl back into your shell, Sven, this is no reply. Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ................. > >>What do you do when a player comes up to you (at the bar) and asks >>what he should do if his LHO describes a bid as forcing and then >>passes? Do you tell that player that obviously the bid was forcing and >>there is nothing wrong there? Or do you tell that player that it all >>depends on the circumstances and so on? > > > I would tell him that there is little I can do at this time based on > information from one side only and that he ought to have: > > 1: verified (if possible) the agreements as described on some written > documentation like the CC. > > 2: called the Director at the time of the incidence rather than discuss the > incident afterwards. > > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 1/04/2005 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 4 13:41:19 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Apr 4 13:46:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: <000401c538f5$f1cc53d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <4251130B.4030300@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000f01c5390b$53fed400$64984c51@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: Monday, April 04, 2005 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Forcing > >>What do you do when a player comes up to > >> you (at the bar) and asks what he should do < >>if his LHO describes a bid as forcing and then > >>passes? Do you tell that player that obviously > >> the bid was forcing and there is nothing wrong > >>there? Or do you tell that player that it all > >>depends on the circumstances and so on? > > +=+ My colleagues on the EBL Laws Committee some years ago used to have a form of words that went: "An agreement with partner is not an undertaking to opponents." It was our way also, in those days, to deal with each other politely. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Mon Apr 4 14:01:04 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Apr 4 14:01:54 2005 Subject: [blml] (no subject) References: <4250F01C.1000106@hdw.be> Message-ID: Dear Herman, sorry to have incurred your wrath and hurt your feelings. There have been many cases in the past years where I have argued your view and agreed with you. Seems you can only remember those where I've taken exception and disagreed. Interesting. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 3:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] (no subject) > Sorry Bill, but when for once you all seem to agree with me, I have > deigned to call myself part of a collective "we". > And I resent your implication that I cannot be in any discussion in > the right. > "If Herman then Wrong" seems to be a common denominator of many > postings on blml. > > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > Dear Herman. When the following words are accurate, it will be a good > > time > > for me to pass on, and not try to keep some sort of sane semblance to > > what > > is being posted in BLML. > > > > Herman: > > We all (including WBFLC) > > > > Aren't these words a bit presumpteous? > > > > When did you become part of "we"? > > > > Kojak > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 1/04/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 4 14:07:46 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 4 14:08:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <20050404001900.38418.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050404001900.38418.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050404080501.02b09060@pop.starpower.net> At 08:19 PM 4/3/05, wayne.burrows wrote: >"Forcing" could mean 100% must not be passed but there >is an alternative meaning from general practice that >"forcing" is an arrangement that you make with partner >that you may sometimes violate. Using that later >meaning to describe something as "forcing" and then >pass would not be MI. Where I come from, to describe a bid as "forcing", when you have "an arrangement that you make with partner that you may sometimes" pass it, is so far from "general practice" that the term we would use instead is "cheating". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 4 14:24:43 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 4 14:25:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <4250F2D0.3050803@hdw.be> References: <424E760A.3060308@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403135354.02b92c20@pop.starpower.net> <4250F2D0.3050803@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050404081913.02afdac0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:54 AM 4/4/05, Herman wrote: >No Eric. Wrong argument. > >Either the bid is 100% forcing, and both you and your partner know it. >Then by passing it, you tell your partner (as AI) that you psyched or >overbid previously. And since you also tell your opponents that it was >100% forcing, you also tell them that you overbid, and you gave no MI. > >Or the bid is only 90% forcing. This too is known to both you and your >partner. Now if you pass you merely tell you are subminimal. No UI, >nothing to worry about. Except if you have told your RHO that it was >"forcing" and he thought it would be "100% forcing" when it is only >"90% forcing". Now he has been damaged, firstly by believing you would >bid (and being deprived of a call", and secondly by believing you have >beenn psyching when you are merely at the extreme bottom end of your >systemic worths. > >Now do you understand? >Because I really don't understand what _you_ are trying to say. Herman is right; I do not understand. I'm a simple-minded guy, and can't comprehend what we're talking about. "Forcing" means "100% forcing". "90% forcing" is a common bridge idiom, which is used to describe certain bids; those bids are understood to be *not* forcing. Just as we call things "90% finished" and understand that this means that they are *not* finished. Common English usage. What's the problem? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 4 14:46:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 4 14:46:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <200504011701.JAA07108@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200504011701.JAA07108@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <42513731.1050300@hdw.be> Adam Beneschan wrote: > Konrad wrote: > > >>Herman De Wael napisa?(a): >> >> >>>>>Whether "forcing" equates to "100% forcing" or to "90% forcing" is for >>>>>the TD to decide. >> >>"90% forcing" for me is contradiction in terms. >>It is like "she is 90% pregnant". > > > Live with it. The terminology abuses the English language; but the > English language doesn't give us a really good concise way to describe > what we mean. So we've come up with an idiom to describe a call that > is "not absolutely forcing but is very rarely passed". English > already has plenty of idioms (as does Polish, I'm sure), so there's > not much point in complaining when someone comes up with a new one, as > long as its meaning is generally understood. > > -- Adam > Maybe the confusion also arises from the fact that there is this convention which is called by some "1NT forcing". All my contributions in this thread have been with that convention is mind. The explanation is usually simply "forcing", when in fact it is not 100% forcing. If the convention had been called, say, "Adam", then the story : pass - pass - 1He- pass 1NT (A) / yes? / "Adam" / OK - pass - pass would not be so strange, provided all parties realize that "Adam" is no longer 100% forcing after a third hand opening. Which just emphasises my point. If "Adam" is commonly known to be 100% forcing, then replying "Adam" in this situation would be MI. (***) If "Adam" is 100% forcing, then this convention ought to be called Bedam and explained as "nearly forcing" and the reply "Adam" is MI. (***) again with the exceptions of the 1He opener having psyched. -- 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: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 1/04/2005 From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 4 14:52:09 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 4 14:53:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050404081913.02afdac0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002701c53915$1dbd7860$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ..................... > Herman is right; I do not understand. I'm a simple-minded guy, and > can't comprehend what we're talking about. > > "Forcing" means "100% forcing". "90% forcing" is a common bridge > idiom, which is used to describe certain bids; those bids are > understood to be *not* forcing. Just as we call things "90% finished" > and understand that this means that they are *not* finished. Common > English usage. What's the problem? Is "90% forcing" a common bridge idiom? I have never come across that one. But this reminds me of a saying at my work when we had follow-ups on project milestones: The last 5% of a project take as much time as has been spent on the first 95%! So even 95% finished is indeed "not finished". Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 4 15:59:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 4 16:01:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000c01c5388c$1034a670$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > You use the term (14)15-17, I use 14.5-17. I don't see what > > the problem is. > > I didn't know that they use 14.5 to indicate a limit of 15 with > occasional deviations to 14 in Belgium. Personally I expect 14.5-17 to mean 15 with fairly frequent upgrades (perhaps 30% or so of 14 counts) while (14)15-17 would be merely occasional (say 10%) upgrades. However, it's not really important since either the decimal or the bracket is enough to alert opps to ask if they care. The EBU accepts decimal ranges. While I regard "90% forcing" as an abuse of the English language I am able understand (near enough) what it means. As for "forcing", simple really. It means there are no hands where pass is the systemically correct response. A player might pass a forcing bid because he suddenly chooses to break system (perhaps after opp's questions), or because he has previously broken system (deliberately or otherwise) and thus has no call available to show the hand he currently holds. Neither of these situations makes the call anything other than systemically forcing (although experience may create an implicit understanding). Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 4 20:37:46 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 4 20:40:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <42513731.1050300@hdw.be> References: <200504011701.JAA07108@mailhub.irvine.com> <42513731.1050300@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050404142024.02b29400@pop.starpower.net> At 08:46 AM 4/4/05, Herman wrote: >Maybe the confusion also arises from the fact that there is this >convention which is called by some "1NT forcing". All my contributions >in this thread have been with that convention is mind. Maybe so. Where I come from, "1NT forcing" means that 1NT (by an unpassed hand) is really forcing. >The explanation is usually simply "forcing", when in fact it is not >100% forcing. We call that convention "1NT semi-forcing" (ACBL standard nomenclature). >If the convention had been called, say, "Adam", then the story : > >pass - pass - 1He- pass >1NT (A) / yes? / "Adam" / OK > - pass - pass >would not be so strange, provided all parties realize that "Adam" is >no longer 100% forcing after a third hand opening. > >Which just emphasises my point. If "Adam" is commonly known to be 100% >forcing, then replying "Adam" in this situation would be MI. (***) >If "Adam" is 100% forcing, then this convention ought to be called >Bedam and explained as "nearly forcing" and the reply "Adam" is MI. > >(***) again with the exceptions of the 1He opener having psyched. This would not be considered MI here. If you play the "1NT forcing" agreement (which is quite different from the "1NT semi-forcing" agreement), open in 3rd or 4th seat, and partner responds 1NT you are expected to announce "forcing" (this is an announcment, as opposed to an alert, in the ACBL). This is universally taken to mean, "He can hold any of the hands on which he would have bid 1NT (forcing) had he not been a passed hand except for those with which he would not have passed originally." That a normal response by a passed hand can be dropped even when it would be absolutely positively 100% forcing by an unpassed hand is considered -- and is, even in our novice games -- "general bridge knowledge". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon Apr 4 21:34:05 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Apr 4 21:35:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050404193405.38670.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:19 PM 4/3/05, wayne.burrows wrote: > > >"Forcing" could mean 100% must not be passed but > there > >is an alternative meaning from general practice > that > >"forcing" is an arrangement that you make with > partner > >that you may sometimes violate. Using that later > >meaning to describe something as "forcing" and then > >pass would not be MI. > > Where I come from, to describe a bid as "forcing", > when you have "an > arrangement that you make with partner that you may > sometimes" pass it, > is so far from "general practice" that the term we > would use instead is > "cheating". Have you ever passed a "forcing" bid? I agree that "forcing" as a complete explanation would be inadequate but we are not talking about that the issue that started this thread is what the regulation that states that something is "forcing" means. I would not explain a bid as simply "forcing". I would include a statement that clarified that issue if relevant. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 4 21:53:57 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 4 21:54:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <20050404192927.96719.qmail@web14726.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050404192927.96719.qmail@web14726.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050404154028.02b1fbb0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:29 PM 4/4/05, wayne.burrows wrote: >--- Eric Landau wrote: > > At 08:19 PM 4/3/05, wayne.burrows wrote: > > > > >"Forcing" could mean 100% must not be passed but > > there > > >is an alternative meaning from general practice > > that > > >"forcing" is an arrangement that you make with > > partner > > >that you may sometimes violate. Using that later > > >meaning to describe something as "forcing" and then > > >pass would not be MI. > > > > Where I come from, to describe a bid as "forcing", > > when you have "an > > arrangement that you make with partner that you may > > sometimes" pass it, > > is so far from "general practice" that the term we > > would use instead is > > "cheating". > >Have you ever passed a "forcing" bid? Sure, plenty of times. I've also passed plenty of highly constructive non-forcing bids. But if I've made "an arrangement... with partner that [I} may sometimes [pass]", then I will have described the bid as "highly constructive", certainly not as "forcing", which it isn't. IOW, my first two sentences above are about two entirely different things. >I agree that "forcing" as a complete explanation would >be inadequate but we are not talking about that the >issue that started this thread is what the regulation >that states that something is "forcing" means. > >I would not explain a bid as simply "forcing". I >would include a statement that clarified that issue if >relevant. I would find a word to use other than "forcing", e.g. "highly constructive", "strongly invitational", whatever. "Forcing" without a preceding modifier like "almost", "not quite" or even Herman's "90%" (all of which mean that the bid is in fact *non-forcing* by agreement), is just flat not true, whatever clarifying statement might follow. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml at blakjak.com Mon Apr 4 23:48:40 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Apr 4 23:50:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Non-Played Board in KO Match In-Reply-To: References: <1111025310.4238e69e95045@thestarks.net> Message-ID: <2qoCGxI4YbUCFwn0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> RJH wrote >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. Maybe not, but last I heard Australia was still part of the World community. The regulation to which RJH and JP refer is merely a re-statement of L86C. Thus it is illegal to redeal a board once the last stanza has been played and scored even in Australia. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Mon Apr 4 23:55:45 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Apr 4 23:58:16 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: Konrad Ciborowski wrote >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? If you mean me - I have been out of touch for some time and have difficulty reading some complex posts anyway - then I think I do. Only think because I am not sure that I have understood the problem! >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? Exactly: this has always been a case where we explain "rub-of-the-green" to the NOs. If there was no such approach why on earth would anyone keep playing on after their side has infracted? They might just as well go off to the bar. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Apr 4 23:58:26 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 5 00:00:55 2005 Subject: [blml] lead rites In-Reply-To: <000001c53539$d9f1aef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64D1@rama.micronas.com> <000001c53539$d9f1aef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of Sinot Martin >> > I had to cancel a board, due to one player having >> > (their own) cards from B2, whilst playing B1, >> > everyone else having the correct cards. >> > This hand was on lead however, and the situation was >> > only discovered after the lead had been faced. >> > What is the status of this card when the real B2 is >> > played? >> > I treated it (and a call they had made) as UI, but >> > is it really a penalty card, thus silencing pard on >> > B2? >> > >> > Larry >> >> The card is a card shown before the auction has started >> on B2 (since it is shown during B1), so this can be >> handled through L16B - TD can let B2 play if he judges >> that seeing the card will not interfere with normal play, >> and gives A+/A- otherwise (the other options are not >> possible in this case). > >This is correct but irrelevant. If the offender has not made any call at all >on B1 (using his hand from B2) the Director can hardly have any reason to >cancel either B1 or B2. If the player was on lead when it was found out then he must have made at least one call, surely? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 5 00:30:26 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Apr 5 00:31:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Demon's table References: Message-ID: <001401c53965$e6e69b40$619868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > West has played internationally in the Australian Open > Teams. East has played internationally in the Australian > Seniors Team. They are using a variation of the Aussie > Acol system. You South hold > Imps North/East-West: QT8632 A72 J92 J > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1H 2S > Pass Pass 3H Pass > 6H Pass Pass Pass > What opening lead do you make? > What other opening leads do you consider making? [Nigel] IMO S8=10 HA=9 DJ=6 D2=4 CJ=1 West has heart support, long spades and controls, say AKJxx Kx - AQxxx Why doesn't East reopen with a double? Perhaps he has something like xx QJTxxx AKQx K Why then doesn't North double 6H? Maybe, he is void in trumps or suspects that 6N makes or that one ruff will not defeat 6H. A sensible and experienced North never hesitates or asks questions before passing with a spade void. Instead, he passes or doubles in tempo. For such a partnerships, any such UI would *deny* a spade void and remove a spade lead from consideration. Pity the poor director :( Change the rules! From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 5 00:43:57 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 5 00:45:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Non-Played Board in KO Match In-Reply-To: <2qoCGxI4YbUCFwn0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: David Stevenson: [snip] >The regulation to which RJH and JP refer is merely a >re-statement of L86C. Thus it is illegal to redeal >a board once the last stanza has been played and >scored even in Australia. Richard Hills: In this particular case, as stated in the initial facts, Law 86C was irrelevant. The TD was summoned *during* the last stanza, *not* after the last stanza had been scored. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 5 01:05:13 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Apr 5 01:05:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: Message-ID: <004301c5396a$c2c8bfe0$619868d5@James> [Tim West-Meades] > Personally I expect 14.5-17 to mean 15 with fairly > frequent upgrades (perhaps 30% or so of 14 counts) while > (14)15-17 would be merely occasional (say 10%) > upgrades. However, it's not really important since > either the decimal or the bracket is enough to alert > opps to ask if they care. The EBU accepts decimal > ranges. [Nigel] When asked about your 14-17 1N opener (you open some 14 counts, by agreement) your dilemma is either ... A. To tell a blatant lie, declaring "15-17" ... or ... B. To try to tell the truth by admitting "14-17". Tim and Herman are right that best is to define it as "(14)15-17" or "14.5-17" or "14.2-17" or whatever is your actual understanding. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 5 01:12:34 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 5 01:13:44 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: >>1. According to David (if I understand his position >>well) you are not allowed to adjust this case under >>L12A1 because there is already a prescribed penalty >>for a LOOT. >> >>David - can you confirm that this is what you think? David Stevenson: >If you mean me - I have been out of touch for some >time and have difficulty reading some complex posts >anyway - then I think I do. Only think because I am >not sure that I have understood the problem! Richard Hills: According to Grattan Endicott, both David Stevenson and I have failed to understand the problem. Grattan has argued that the word "indemnity" (in Law 12A1) and the word "penalty" (in Law 12B) define unrelated concepts. Of course, if a TD as experienced as David can trip over Edgar Kaplan's over-succinct language, then what hope do less experienced TDs have in interpreting the fabulous Lawbook's gnomic statements? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 5 01:21:51 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Apr 5 01:22:59 2005 Subject: [blml] lead rites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5396d$15b9e510$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson ............ > >> 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. > > If the player was on lead when it was found out then he must have made > at least one call, surely? You disappoint me David by only quoting half of my answer and then commenting on that part alone. Surely when taken out of context the part above from my answer doesn't make much sense. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 5 01:34:48 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 5 01:35:57 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 The Australian Bridge Directors Association has also kindly published my three unofficial casebooks on its Appeals page: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/appeals.html In addition, many useful items for TDs are located on the ABDA's Resources page: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/resources.html Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From blml at blakjak.com Tue Apr 5 01:42:44 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 5 01:45:05 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: <200503081923.LAA13222@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <030820051449.22525.422DBB5F0004839D000057FD22058863609D0A02070D0E9D090B07900E0B@comcast.net> <200503081923.LAA13222@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote > >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 ... I think there is little doubt that the sort of problem that L72B1 was meant to address was those positions where a cheat would take advantage. L72B1 is written deliberately so the TD does not have to rule that the player had intent so was cheating, but is meant ot stop cheating by including both the cheats and the majority of players who do such things unintentionally. So would a cheat lead the D3 at this moment? Quite possibly, so it is a L72B1 case even though we are not saying this player did it intentionally. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 irvine.com Tue Apr 5 02:03:07 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Apr 5 02:04:10 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:42:44 BST." Message-ID: <200504050003.RAA31812@mailhub.irvine.com> David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote > > > >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 ... > > I think there is little doubt that the sort of problem that L72B1 was > meant to address was those positions where a cheat would take advantage. > L72B1 is written deliberately so the TD does not have to rule that the > player had intent so was cheating, but is meant ot stop cheating by > including both the cheats and the majority of players who do such things > unintentionally. > > So would a cheat lead the D3 at this moment? Quite possibly, so it is > a L72B1 case even though we are not saying this player did it > intentionally. After going back and reviewing the past discussion on this topic (it's been a few weeks), I'm still not convinced that it meets the standard set by L72B1. The law applies if an offender "could have known" at the time of the irregularity that it "would be likely to damage the non-offending side". Does this really apply here? Even someone who tries to cheat by leading the D3 would surely understand that it would be a rare occurrence that South would let him get away with it. This doesn't meet any definition of "likely" that I'm aware of. -- Adam From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 5 02:03:14 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 5 02:04:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57a798cab43fb68f6955cb85bd8cc84a@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 4, 2005, at 1:26 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > But the opponents are entitled to know, "Have you ever > been a psycher? If so, what has been your frequency of > past psyches?" This historical information is part of > prior partnership experience, so therefore must be > fully disclosed. > > For the benefit of any Aussie blmlers, I disclose that: > > (a) my frequency of psyching in 2004 was circa once > every fortnight, and > > (b) my frequency of psyching in 2005 (so far) is circa > once every three months. > > But I cannot Lawfully give Aussie blmlers any guarantee > that my saner reduced frequency of psyching will stay at > its current rate. I applaud your efforts to make full disclosure - but there's a flaw in your argument. It is not you, but your partner who must disclose what he knows of your psyching tendency. The "historical information" to which you allude is prior partnership experience *only* to the extent your current partner is aware of it. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 5 02:07:35 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 5 02:08:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050404062822.79960.qmail@web14723.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050404062822.79960.qmail@web14723.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <464672bcbd8f85aa85dbcad9715e3cfa@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:28 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > This bid shows 4+ spades and 6+ he has psyched in this > position two or three times in the last two years. Or > he has never psyched in this situation but he has once > psyched in a similar auction at the two-level 2H (X) > 2S. I am aware that psyches are part of the game. To the best of my knowledge however, I have only played with one partner who might have (probably did) psyche sometime or other. However, I am also certain that he didn't (and wouldn't) do it with me. So I would not even *mention* psyches until (a) it happens and (b) I notice. Other than that, I agree that a regular partnership in which psyches do occasionally occur should be aware of and disclose that fact. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 5 02:29:50 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 5 02:30:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0faf8f14bdb1600dbe4e8a1e3ed6eafe@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 3, 2005, at 9:31 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > But, with regards to Law 75C and Law 40D, > it is sometimes necessary for the greater > good of the greater number for Wayne (and > other NZ experts) to have their > flexibility restricted by Law and NZ > regulation. This assists Wayne's bunny > opponents avoiding unfair disadvantage in > unfamiliar auctions. Hm. I have heard that "in the old days" games were flighted - if you were an A player, you played in the A game, and if you were a C player, you played in the C game. Unless you wanted to "play up", in which case you were welcome to "dive into the deep end". But I would argue that in such a circumstance there is a limit to the extent to which law and regulation should assist bunnies toavoid unfair disadvantage. In the modern era, everybody gets tossed together, willy-nilly. My understanding is that the reason for this is the decline in the number of players available. It's kind of hard to give two groups separate fields in which to compete when you only have enough pairs for one decent sized field. So *perhaps* in that situation some assistance to the bunnies is necessary - or perhaps not. For myself, if the game (bridge or any other) is interesting enough, I'll stick to it until I drag myself out of the "bunny" category, at least. And it's not whether the "A players" beat me that governs, but how they act when they do it. A player who makes his contract by some esoteric squeeze against me has my applause - unless he sits there chortling and muttering "ha! gotcha, you bunny!" If he shows me how he did it, better, how I could have defeated it, much the better. I don't *want* to be protected against such things - I want to learn how to do them myself. Maybe I'm in the minority in that respect. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 5 02:48:13 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 5 02:49:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <4250F2D0.3050803@hdw.be> References: <424E760A.3060308@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403135354.02b92c20@pop.starpower.net> <4250F2D0.3050803@hdw.be> Message-ID: <0d3e75fd39f69a26b4c4f674122cbdb9@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Now he has been damaged, firstly by believing you would bid (and being > deprived of a call", and secondly by believing you have beenn psyching > when you are merely at the extreme bottom end of your systemic worths. Whatever happened to "A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding"? I agree with the principle that agreements must be fully disclosed - but I don't agree that a player making an explanation has to provide a precise definition of every pertinent word he uses to do so. To me (and I'm no expert) "forcing" clearly implies I will get another chance to call - but it also clearly implies that there's some chance that I won't, IOW that the "forced" player may pass. Too bad. Call it "breaks of the game", "rub of the green" or whatever you like, that's just the way the game is (and should be, imo) played. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 5 02:49:05 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 5 02:50:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> Message-ID: <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:57 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Because people are taught that they can get away with opening on 14HCP > and still correctly describe the bid as being 15-17, they also think > that saying "forcing" when they mean "90% forcing" is no MI. Why are these people incorrect? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 5 02:50:37 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 5 02:51:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <4251130B.4030300@hdw.be> References: <000401c538f5$f1cc53d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <4251130B.4030300@hdw.be> Message-ID: <799a7c5f82c61c05f90e140252972f31@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 4, 2005, at 6:12 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Crawl back into your shell, Sven, this is no reply. Please ignore my recent posts to this thread. Apparently I shoulda just stayed out of it. :( From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Tue Apr 5 02:55:53 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Apr 5 02:56:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050405005553.802.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> --- Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:28 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > This bid shows 4+ spades and 6+ he has psyched in > this > > position two or three times in the last two years. > Or > > he has never psyched in this situation but he has > once > > psyched in a similar auction at the two-level 2H > (X) > > 2S. > > I am aware that psyches are part of the game. To the > best of my > knowledge however, I have only played with one > partner who might have > (probably did) psyche sometime or other. However, I > am also certain > that he didn't (and wouldn't) do it with me. So I > would not even > *mention* psyches until (a) it happens and (b) I > notice. Other than > that, I agree that a regular partnership in which > psyches do > occasionally occur should be aware of and disclose > that fact. The lawful requirement goes beyond what you are aware of. You are required to disclose your partnership experience. Having forgotten or not noticed is not a defense against failing to disclose that experience. It is probably rare that this will cause a problem but it could. I have in the past protected my partner and my partnership and the opponents by saying things to my partner like "I think we should alert and explain ..." since it has now happened often enough that I think the opponents should be aware. This discussion alerts my partner to our partnership experience even if she has not been aware of the deviations from our agreements or my individual style in particular situations. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 5 03:05:22 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 5 03:06:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <42513731.1050300@hdw.be> References: <200504011701.JAA07108@mailhub.irvine.com> <42513731.1050300@hdw.be> Message-ID: <95a9f8a3c95fea3c3d0eb1f6ecaee3f5@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 4, 2005, at 8:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Maybe the confusion also arises from the fact that there is this > convention which is called by some "1NT forcing". All my contributions > in this thread have been with that convention is mind. The explanation > is usually simply "forcing", when in fact it is not 100% forcing. > If the convention had been called, say, "Adam", then the story : > > pass - pass - 1He- pass > 1NT (A) / yes? / "Adam" / OK > - pass - pass > would not be so strange, provided all parties realize that "Adam" is > no longer 100% forcing after a third hand opening. > > Which just emphasises my point. If "Adam" is commonly known to be 100% > forcing, then replying "Adam" in this situation would be MI. (***) > If "Adam" is 100% forcing, then this convention ought to be called > Bedam and explained as "nearly forcing" and the reply "Adam" is MI. > > (***) again with the exceptions of the 1He opener having psyched. "There are nine and sixty ways Of constructing tribal lays. And every single one of them is right." Rudyard Kipling People *will* misuse terms. Life's tough that way. When I was in England, lo these dozen years ago and more, I read Rubens and Rosler's book on Journalist leads. My partner and I decided to try them out, a bit at a time. So we started playing Rusinow leads against suit contracts. On this one hand, I made a lead a queen, I think, dummy came down, and declarer, who happened to be the TD, asked my partner about our leads. Partner said "it's Rusinow - partner has the king". Which I did. After the hand was over, the TD looked at our convention card and informed us "those aren't Rusinow leads, they're Roman leads. You must change your card and your explanation." The following week I brought in not only "Journalist Leads" but two other books which described what we were playing as "Rusinow leads". TD didn't care. To him, they were Roman leads, and always would be, and to willfully describe them as anything else would be cheating. Years later, I found that there is a subtle difference between the two (Roman and Rusinow) the details of which I do not now recall - but IMO we were in fact playing Rusinow and not Roman because of that difference. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 5 03:07:23 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 5 03:08:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <002701c53915$1dbd7860$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <002701c53915$1dbd7860$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Apr 4, 2005, at 8:52 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > But this reminds me of a saying at my work when we had follow-ups on > project > milestones: The last 5% of a project take as much time as has been > spent on > the first 95%! I recall it as "the first 90% of the project takes 90% of the time. The last 10% takes the other 90% of the time." From adam at irvine.com Tue Apr 5 03:14:08 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Apr 5 03:15:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:05:22 EDT." <95a9f8a3c95fea3c3d0eb1f6ecaee3f5@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200504050114.SAA32287@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Apr 4, 2005, at 8:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Maybe the confusion also arises from the fact that there is this > > convention which is called by some "1NT forcing". All my contributions > > in this thread have been with that convention is mind. The explanation > > is usually simply "forcing", when in fact it is not 100% forcing. > > If the convention had been called, say, "Adam", then the story : > > > > pass - pass - 1He- pass > > 1NT (A) / yes? / "Adam" / OK > > - pass - pass > > would not be so strange, provided all parties realize that "Adam" is > > no longer 100% forcing after a third hand opening. > > > > Which just emphasises my point. If "Adam" is commonly known to be 100% > > forcing, then replying "Adam" in this situation would be MI. (***) > > If "Adam" is 100% forcing, then this convention ought to be called > > Bedam and explained as "nearly forcing" and the reply "Adam" is MI. > > > > (***) again with the exceptions of the 1He opener having psyched. > > People *will* misuse terms. Life's tough that way. Especially for me, when it's *my* name that's being misused. :) :) -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 5 04:35:53 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 5 04:36:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Demon's table In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You are playing against expert opponents. (West has played internationally in the Australian Open Team; East has played internationally in the Australian Seniors Team.) They are using a variation of the Aussie Acol system. Imps Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1H 2S Pass Pass 3H Pass 6H Pass(1) Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo. The complete deal: 7 T84 KT65 QT953 AJ95 K4 96 KQJ53 873 AQ4 AK76 842 QT8632 A72 J92 J Does pard's break in tempo *demonstrably* suggest the killing spade lead over a logical alternative? (At the table a non-spade was led, so then declarer could not be prevented from making 6H on the obvious non-simultaneous double squeeze.) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 5 08:57:10 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Apr 5 08:58:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Demon's table In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c539ac$b09b8ef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > You are playing against expert opponents. (West has played > internationally in the Australian Open Team; East has > played internationally in the Australian Seniors Team.) > > They are using a variation of the Aussie Acol system. > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1H 2S > Pass Pass 3H Pass > 6H Pass(1) Pass Pass > > (1) Break in tempo. You must be kidding? North is entitled to 10 seconds pause for thought after West jumps from 3H to 6H. Without STOP used by West he has no protection against "break in tempo" by North, at least not the way we play in Norway. Is Australia different? Regards Sven From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Apr 5 09:17:57 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Apr 5 09:19:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? References: <20050404062822.79960.qmail@web14723.mail.yahoo.com> <464672bcbd8f85aa85dbcad9715e3cfa@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003301c539af$98b3afe0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" < > > On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:28 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > This bid shows 4+ spades and 6+ he has psyched in this > > position two or three times in the last two years. Or > > he has never psyched in this situation but he has once > > psyched in a similar auction at the two-level 2H (X) > > 2S. > > I am aware that psyches are part of the game. To the best of my > knowledge however, I have only played with one partner who might have > (probably did) psyche sometime or other. However, I am also certain > that he didn't (and wouldn't) do it with me. So I would not even > *mention* psyches until (a) it happens and (b) I notice. Other than > that, I agree that a regular partnership in which psyches do > occasionally occur should be aware of and disclose that fact. > And I believe that pairs who never psych should disclose that, since psyching is part of the game. At one time the ACBL required that psych tendencies be disclosed on the convention card, supplying check boxes for the purpose. That didn't work well, and the requirement was dropped. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Apr 5 09:36:47 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Apr 5 09:36:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <0d3e75fd39f69a26b4c4f674122cbdb9@rochester.rr.com> References: <424E760A.3060308@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403135354.02b92c20@pop.starpower.net> <4250F2D0.3050803@hdw.be> <0d3e75fd39f69a26b4c4f674122cbdb9@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4252400F.4040701@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Now he has been damaged, firstly by believing you would bid (and being >> deprived of a call", and secondly by believing you have beenn psyching >> when you are merely at the extreme bottom end of your systemic worths. > > > Whatever happened to "A player has no recourse if he has made a call on > the basis of his own misunderstanding"? > > I agree with the principle that agreements must be fully disclosed - but > I don't agree that a player making an explanation has to provide a > precise definition of every pertinent word he uses to do so. To me (and > I'm no expert) "forcing" clearly implies I will get another chance to > call - but it also clearly implies that there's some chance that I > won't, IOW that the "forced" player may pass. Too bad. Call it "breaks > of the game", "rub of the green" or whatever you like, that's just the > way the game is (and should be, imo) played. > To you, forcing means forcing, to the opponents, forcing means forcing, but apparently, to the partner, forcing means "90% forcing". If this player explains the bid as forcing, then he has committed MI, no? Sorry Ed, but you seem to be eager to believe a fact that was not in evidence - that the person explaining the bid as "forcing" meant it as "forcing". He did not, and he never brought that up in the discussion. He is not saying "it's forcing, but I pass anyway"; he is saying "we call it forcing, but I am allowed to pass it anyway". The first is indeed rub-of-the-green, the second is MI, even blatant ones according to some. -- 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: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 1/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Apr 5 09:39:31 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Apr 5 09:39:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:57 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Because people are taught that they can get away with opening on 14HCP >> and still correctly describe the bid as being 15-17, they also think >> that saying "forcing" when they mean "90% forcing" is no MI. > > > Why are these people incorrect? > Because "forcing" means "I will bid, 99% of the time"; while "90% forcing" means "I will bid, 90% of the time". Opponents are entitled to know this. And don't try and go all mathematical on me. You know what the difference is. In the first, they will pass with a sub-minimum, in the second with a severe miniumum. -- 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: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 1/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Apr 5 09:45:38 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Apr 5 09:45:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <57a798cab43fb68f6955cb85bd8cc84a@rochester.rr.com> References: <57a798cab43fb68f6955cb85bd8cc84a@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <42524222.4040401@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2005, at 1:26 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> But the opponents are entitled to know, "Have you ever >> been a psycher? If so, what has been your frequency of >> past psyches?" This historical information is part of >> prior partnership experience, so therefore must be >> fully disclosed. >> >> For the benefit of any Aussie blmlers, I disclose that: >> >> (a) my frequency of psyching in 2004 was circa once >> every fortnight, and >> >> (b) my frequency of psyching in 2005 (so far) is circa >> once every three months. >> >> But I cannot Lawfully give Aussie blmlers any guarantee >> that my saner reduced frequency of psyching will stay at >> its current rate. > > > I applaud your efforts to make full disclosure - but there's a flaw in > your argument. It is not you, but your partner who must disclose what he > knows of your psyching tendency. The "historical information" to which > you allude is prior partnership experience *only* to the extent your > current partner is aware of it. > Correct in theory, Ed, but unworkable in practice. How do you prove that you do not know something? If a player is known to psyche then I don't care who the partner is, the opponents should be able to know about the psyches. Of course it is very difficult to imagine a case in which opponents are damaged because they did not know whether a player psyches on 1 board in 50 or once every ten years. -- 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: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 1/04/2005 From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Tue Apr 5 09:51:08 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Apr 5 09:52:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050405075108.59765.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> --- Marvin French wrote: > From: "Ed Reppert" < > > > > On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:28 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > This bid shows 4+ spades and 6+ he has psyched > in this > > > position two or three times in the last two > years. Or > > > he has never psyched in this situation but he > has once > > > psyched in a similar auction at the two-level 2H > (X) > > > 2S. > > > > I am aware that psyches are part of the game. To > the best of my > > knowledge however, I have only played with one > partner who might have > > (probably did) psyche sometime or other. However, > I am also certain > > that he didn't (and wouldn't) do it with me. So I > would not even > > *mention* psyches until (a) it happens and (b) I > notice. Other than > > that, I agree that a regular partnership in which > psyches do > > occasionally occur should be aware of and disclose > that fact. > > > And I believe that pairs who never psych should > disclose that, since psyching > is part of the game. Absolutely a pair that does not disclose its zero frequency psyches is violating L40A by basing its calls on the special understanding that they never psyche. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 5 09:54:00 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 5 09:55:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Demon's table In-Reply-To: <000001c539ac$b09b8ef0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Imps >>Dlr: North >>Vul: East-West >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- Pass 1H 2S >>Pass Pass 3H Pass >>6H Pass(1) Pass Pass >> >>(1) Break in tempo. Sven Pran: >You must be kidding? > >North is entitled to 10 seconds pause for thought >after West jumps from 3H to 6H. Without STOP used >by West he has no protection against "break in >tempo" by North, at least not the way we play in >Norway. Is Australia different? Richard Hills: Australia has not adopted, nor is likely to adopt, a "compulsory pause" a.k.a. "Stop!" regulation. However, Australia has adopted most of the WBF Code of Practice. Appended to the WBF CoP are some "Guidelines for Rulings". Guideline #5 states: >>>An ACBL appeals committee passed comments >>>that fit well with WBF thinking in relation >>>to what they called "hot seat" auctions. It >>>is desirable to exhibit extra tolerance in >>>relation to a "hesitation" when a player >>>encounters an unprecedented situation in >>>the auction. [snip] >>>An aspect that has special significance, >>>when a player meets a quite unusual bidding >>>situation and takes time to deliberate, is >>>how clearly it is apparent to partner what >>>is the nature of his problem. [snip] >>>the first consideration is to judge whether it >>>can truly be said that one action is suggested >>>over another, or whether the message from the >>>"hesitation" is unclear. A sympathetic treatment >>>of the law here should be an aim and it is an >>>area in which regulating authorities may find it >>>helpful to give guidance. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From blml at blakjak.com Tue Apr 5 14:03:30 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 5 14:06:08 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: <200504050003.RAA31812@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200504050003.RAA31812@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Adam Beneschan wrote >> > >> >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 ... >> >> I think there is little doubt that the sort of problem that L72B1 was >> meant to address was those positions where a cheat would take advantage. >> L72B1 is written deliberately so the TD does not have to rule that the >> player had intent so was cheating, but is meant ot stop cheating by >> including both the cheats and the majority of players who do such things >> unintentionally. >> >> So would a cheat lead the D3 at this moment? Quite possibly, so it is >> a L72B1 case even though we are not saying this player did it >> intentionally. > >After going back and reviewing the past discussion on this topic (it's >been a few weeks), I'm still not convinced that it meets the standard >set by L72B1. The law applies if an offender "could have known" at >the time of the irregularity that it > >"would be likely to damage the non-offending side". > >Does this really apply here? Even someone who tries to cheat by >leading the D3 would surely understand that it would be a rare >occurrence that South would let him get away with it. This doesn't >meet any definition of "likely" that I'm aware of. OK, but I was merely arguing the Law. You are arguing a bridge judgement, which does not interest me. Sure, if you believe it does not meet the standard then L72B1 does not apply. This means that a player could appeal to an AC on the bridge judgement that L72B1 was inapplicable in a certain case. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Apr 5 14:22:29 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Apr 5 14:23:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050405075825.02af1eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:39 AM 4/5/05, Herman wrote: >Because "forcing" means "I will bid, 99% of the time"; while "90% >forcing" means "I will bid, 90% of the time". Opponents are entitled >to know this. "Forcing" has nothing to do with the percent of the time you will bid; it has to do with the percent of the time partner will expect you to bid. It means that *that* percent of the time is 100, not a fraction less. Opponents are entitled to know what partner knows, not what your intentions are. If you pass a bid which you describe as forcing, opponents are entitled to the inference that your partner chose his previous call without considering the possibility that you might pass. If you take Herman's approach -- describing partner's forcing bid as not 100% forcing, considering that de facto true *because* you're about to pass it -- you have withheld that inference falsely and deliberately. You have violated not only L75C (MI), but L40B (CPU) as well. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml at blakjak.com Tue Apr 5 14:30:18 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 5 14:32:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Non-Played Board in KO Match In-Reply-To: References: <2qoCGxI4YbUCFwn0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: wrote > > > > >David Stevenson: > >[snip] > >>The regulation to which RJH and JP refer is merely a >>re-statement of L86C. Thus it is illegal to redeal >>a board once the last stanza has been played and >>scored even in Australia. > >Richard Hills: > >In this particular case, as stated in the initial >facts, Law 86C was irrelevant. The TD was summoned >*during* the last stanza, *not* after the last stanza >had been scored. So the reg John cited is irrelevant, no? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Apr 5 14:31:55 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 5 14:34:17 2005 Subject: [blml] lead rites In-Reply-To: <000001c5396d$15b9e510$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5396d$15b9e510$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of David Stevenson >............ >> >> 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. >> >> If the player was on lead when it was found out then he must have made >> at least one call, surely? > >You disappoint me David by only quoting half of my answer and then >commenting on that part alone. Surely when taken out of context the part >above from my answer doesn't make much sense. I am so sorry to disappoint you. Quoting reams and reams of irrelevant stuff is bad Netiquette, a total bore, and detrimental to serious discussion. But you have not answered my question. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Apr 5 14:38:59 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 5 14:41:33 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: <007a01c53065$95cc6e00$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <20050310114906.53EEFD54F7@poczta.interia.pl> <007a01c53065$95cc6e00$05824c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: 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: "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. I think this is a mis-reading of L12B. You do not give an assigned score every time there is an infraction, the penalty is paid, and he OS then gains from further action. OK, perhaps I should instead have quoted L72A5. The point is, Grattan, that once the Law book provides us with a means of dealing with something, and the NOS seem to suffer anyway, L12A1 is not suitable. L72B1 applies to stop unethical action, but gains through 'rub-of-the-green' are legal. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Apr 5 14:41:02 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 5 14:43:33 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050324214238.030b2188@mail.comcast.net> References: <20050324165425.AC227F61E7@poczta.interia.pl> <6.2.1.2.0.20050324214238.030b2188@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: David J. Grabiner wrote >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. Both excellent example of L12A1, because in neither case is there a Law telling you how to penalise/adjust/deal with it. But these examples do not make it legal to adjust in a case where there is a Law telling you how ot deal with it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Tue Apr 5 14:42:10 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 5 14:44:53 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: 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. Not so. It is good wording, that practical people can use when making bridge judgements. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Apr 5 14:44:18 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 5 14:46:52 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >Konrad Ciborowski: > >>>1. According to David (if I understand his position >>>well) you are not allowed to adjust this case under >>>L12A1 because there is already a prescribed penalty >>>for a LOOT. >>> >>>David - can you confirm that this is what you think? > >David Stevenson: > >>If you mean me - I have been out of touch for some >>time and have difficulty reading some complex posts >>anyway - then I think I do. Only think because I am >>not sure that I have understood the problem! > >Richard Hills: > >According to Grattan Endicott, both David Stevenson >and I have failed to understand the problem. Grattan >has argued that the word "indemnity" (in Law 12A1) and >the word "penalty" (in Law 12B) define unrelated >concepts. > >Of course, if a TD as experienced as David can trip >over Edgar Kaplan's over-succinct language, then what >hope do less experienced TDs have in interpreting the >fabulous Lawbook's gnomic statements? When Grattan and I disagree it does not automatically make me wrong. I have not 'tripped up over the language': I understand the difference, thank-you. I merely disagree with Grattan's conclusion. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Apr 5 14:52:46 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Apr 5 14:53:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <42524222.4040401@hdw.be> References: <57a798cab43fb68f6955cb85bd8cc84a@rochester.rr.com> <42524222.4040401@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050405083242.02ae77d0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:45 AM 4/5/05, Herman wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: >> >>I applaud your efforts to make full disclosure - but there's a flaw >>in your argument. It is not you, but your partner who must disclose >>what he knows of your psyching tendency. The "historical information" >>to which you allude is prior partnership experience *only* to the >>extent your current partner is aware of it. > >Correct in theory, Ed, but unworkable in practice. How do you prove >that you do not know something? >If a player is known to psyche then I don't care who the partner is, >the opponents should be able to know about the psyches. > >Of course it is very difficult to imagine a case in which opponents >are damaged because they did not know whether a player psyches on 1 >board in 50 or once every ten years. It's enough to make one long for the good old days, way back when... Before the Don Oakie mafia took over the ACBL in the 1970s, partnerships didn't just psych. They discussed strategy, tactics and the effectiveness of various psychs. Some used psychic controls (e.g. the original Roth-Stone system). They knew what they were doing. They freely disclosed what their psychs tended to look like and the frequency with which they perpetrated them. After being forced by a coterie of high-level players who had actually read the lawbook to back off of their original intention to simply ban all psychs outright in gross violation of the laws, Oakie's boys came up with the double whammy: (1) all partnership agreements concerning psychs were banned outright, and (2) any partnership history of psyching was automatically deemed to create an implicit partnership agreement concerning psychs. Together these became known as the "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule. The ACBL has denied that their effective policy is as Draconian as that would make it sound, but has not told us what it is. The ACBL has had continuous problems with issues of disclosure related to psychs ever since. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml at blakjak.com Tue Apr 5 15:00:49 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 5 15:02:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Non-Played Board in KO Match In-Reply-To: References: <1111025310.4238e69e95045@thestarks.net> Message-ID: Somehow a number of BLML posts seem to have had the wrong heading or something and have not threaded properly. They apply to this thread so I have added my replies here, added to the wrong message, so they will not thread properly. [For those of you who do not have threading, you do not know what you are missing, but saying things about poor software gets me abused so I shall say no more.] ================================================================== Justin wrote >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. Why was he taking a bath during a match? >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. Of course it is not equitable in one sense, since one side gained, the other lost by this decision. But it is equitable in the normal sense since the TD would have no idea who would gain or lose. So long as the player did not hear something from one of the players at the other table which affects the issue since one side is to blame it is fair and equitable in the normal meaning of the term. But is it right? is it reasonable? is it legal? Let us deal with the easy bit first. Because of L6D3 and L12A1 it is legal to [a] cancel the board, and have it re-dealt, or [b] cancel the board, and apply an artificial adjusted score Whether it is right or reasonable depend on practicality [there may be no time to play an extra board, etc] and general views. The best solution *by far* for the TD is to have a regulation covering it from the SO. The EBU reg effectively means you re-deal in K/o except when L86C forbids it, and do not re-deal in a round robin or Swiss. ================================================================== >John P >> Justin S >>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. It appears John has not read his pretty little white book [available in three colours only, none of them white]. This does not apply except when the teams have scored. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Tue Apr 5 15:30:31 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Apr 5 15:30:17 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: References: <200504050003.RAA31812@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <425292F7.6070005@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> After going back and reviewing the past discussion on this topic (it's >> been a few weeks), I'm still not convinced that it meets the standard >> set by L72B1. The law applies if an offender "could have known" at >> the time of the irregularity that it >> >> "would be likely to damage the non-offending side". >> >> Does this really apply here? Even someone who tries to cheat by >> leading the D3 would surely understand that it would be a rare >> occurrence that South would let him get away with it. This doesn't >> meet any definition of "likely" that I'm aware of. > > > OK, but I was merely arguing the Law. You are arguing a bridge > judgement, which does not interest me. Sure, if you believe it does not > meet the standard then L72B1 does not apply. This means that a player > could appeal to an AC on the bridge judgement that L72B1 was > inapplicable in a certain case. > You are being too generous, David. Adam raises a point which is not, IMO, a case of bridge judgment. Let's resumate. A player has just seen his partner overtake his previous trick, with a card that no-one expects this partner to have. He has one winning card left in this suit and he has no re-entry. He leads that card and no-one notices, and he wins the trick. Your point, David (and mine as well on some previous walk round this particular block) is that offender could have known, at the time of his offence (the lead of the D3 out of turn) that this could damage his opponents. Adam's point is that it is impossible for a player to know that his opponents would fail to notice that he leads out of turn. He uses the word "likely" in his argumentation. You don't want to argue here, David, because you feel it is a case of judgment. I don't think it is. I think Adam is confusing a number of "likely"'s. He says it's not likely that there will be damage - because he feels it's not likely that opponents would not notice. But the likely is in the sentence "likely to damage". It is quite certain, in the eyes of offender, that there will be damage. One trick exactly, to be precise. Is it likely that opponents will not notice - I don't know, I would not want to argue about it. But is it likely that there will be damage if it's not noticed - certainly yes. And this is a case in law now: do we need the offence to be likely to be causing damage, or do we simply want it to be a certain plus. Whatever the likelihood of the opponents noticing, the damage is always positive (since the prescribed penalty just brings it back to the normal result). I feel there is a case in law for this to be ruled, and I think Adam is wrong here. You reopened the thread, what do you think, David? -- 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: 266.9.2 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Tue Apr 5 15:51:02 2005 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Tue Apr 5 15:52:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050405125255.931C25A1746@mx3.messagingengine.com> References: <20050405125255.931C25A1746@mx3.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <1112709062.12552.231152103@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Together these became known as the "one > psych per partnership per lifetime" rule. The ACBL has denied that > their effective policy is as Draconian as that would make it sound, but > has not told us what it is. Mike Flader of ACBL answered a club's question here: http://www.bridgemaniac.com/psyche.html ACBL is clear in this letter that it is the possible implicit agreement, not the psyche, that is at issue. If they are reluctant to define a cut-off point, well, maybe they are simply recognizing the whole issue to be as woolly as it is. David Babcock Florida USA From blml at blakjak.com Tue Apr 5 16:28:25 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 5 18:36:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050405083242.02ae77d0@pop.starpower.net> References: <57a798cab43fb68f6955cb85bd8cc84a@rochester.rr.com> <42524222.4040401@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405083242.02ae77d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Still having threading problems David Babcock wrote >> Together these became known as the "one >> psych per partnership per lifetime" rule. The ACBL has denied that >> their effective policy is as Draconian as that would make it sound, but >> has not told us what it is. > >Mike Flader of ACBL answered a club's question here: > >http://www.bridgemaniac.com/psyche.html > >ACBL is clear in this letter that it is the possible >implicit agreement, not the psyche, that is at issue. >If they are reluctant to define a cut-off point, >well, maybe they are simply recognizing >the whole issue to be as woolly as it is. Whether a psyche is fielded is a matter of bridge judgement. Of course the "whole issue is woolly" in the same way as whether there is UI and whether it has been used is. The interpretation of the Law is clear, whether the Law itself is clear or not. But using that interpretation is difficult, as with other bridge judgement Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Tue Apr 5 16:31:07 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 5 19:26:31 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: <425292F7.6070005@hdw.be> References: <200504050003.RAA31812@mailhub.irvine.com> <425292F7.6070005@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >>> >>> After going back and reviewing the past discussion on this topic (it's >>> been a few weeks), I'm still not convinced that it meets the standard >>> set by L72B1. The law applies if an offender "could have known" at >>> the time of the irregularity that it >>> >>> "would be likely to damage the non-offending side". >>> >>> Does this really apply here? Even someone who tries to cheat by >>> leading the D3 would surely understand that it would be a rare >>> occurrence that South would let him get away with it. This doesn't >>> meet any definition of "likely" that I'm aware of. >> OK, but I was merely arguing the Law. You are arguing a bridge >>judgement, which does not interest me. Sure, if you believe it does >>not meet the standard then L72B1 does not apply. This means that a >>player could appeal to an AC on the bridge judgement that L72B1 was >>inapplicable in a certain case. >> > >You are being too generous, David. >Adam raises a point which is not, IMO, a case of bridge judgment. > >Let's resumate. >A player has just seen his partner overtake his previous trick, with a >card that no-one expects this partner to have. >He has one winning card left in this suit and he has no re-entry. >He leads that card and no-one notices, and he wins the trick. > >Your point, David (and mine as well on some previous walk round this >particular block) is that offender could have known, at the time of his >offence (the lead of the D3 out of turn) that this could damage his >opponents. > >Adam's point is that it is impossible for a player to know that his >opponents would fail to notice that he leads out of turn. >He uses the word "likely" in his argumentation. > >You don't want to argue here, David, because you feel it is a case of >judgment. I don't think it is. > >I think Adam is confusing a number of "likely"'s. He says it's not >likely that there will be damage - because he feels it's not likely >that opponents would not notice. > >But the likely is in the sentence "likely to damage". It is quite >certain, in the eyes of offender, that there will be damage. One trick >exactly, to be precise. >Is it likely that opponents will not notice - I don't know, I would not >want to argue about it. >But is it likely that there will be damage if it's not noticed - >certainly yes. > >And this is a case in law now: do we need the offence to be likely to >be causing damage, or do we simply want it to be a certain plus. >Whatever the likelihood of the opponents noticing, the damage is always >positive (since the prescribed penalty just brings it back to the >normal result). > >I feel there is a case in law for this to be ruled, and I think Adam is >wrong here. > >You reopened the thread, what do you think, David? I do not see your point, unless it is the correct but trivial one that one needs the whole of L72B1 to be applicable before we apply it. I still think that whether L72B1 applies in a particular case is a matter of bridge judgement. I don't re-open threads: I reply to them when I am able! :) -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Tue Apr 5 16:56:34 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Apr 5 21:53:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050405075825.02af1eb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405075825.02af1eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4252A722.6090209@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:39 AM 4/5/05, Herman wrote: > >> Because "forcing" means "I will bid, 99% of the time"; while "90% >> forcing" means "I will bid, 90% of the time". Opponents are entitled >> to know this. > > > "Forcing" has nothing to do with the percent of the time you will bid; > it has to do with the percent of the time partner will expect you to > bid. It means that *that* percent of the time is 100, not a fraction less. > Well, there have been many instances mentioned in this thread of passing (real) forcing bids. So the percentag can really be no higher than 99%. > Opponents are entitled to know what partner knows, not what your > intentions are. > > If you pass a bid which you describe as forcing, opponents are entitled > to the inference that your partner chose his previous call without > considering the possibility that you might pass. If you take Herman's > approach -- describing partner's forcing bid as not 100% forcing, > considering that de facto true *because* you're about to pass it -- you > have withheld that inference falsely and deliberately. You have > violated not only L75C (MI), but L40B (CPU) as well. > > And so you dispute the fact Eric, that there exists partnerships who do not mind passing a (90%-)forcing bid? You simply deny that such a bid exists? I don't care if you want to call the meaning of this bid "Adam", "Eric" or "90%-*forcing", but such an agreement does exist and calling it "forcing" is MI, and you know it. I am doing nothing wrong in passing a bid which I call forcing. I am merely doing something wrong in calling a bid forcing when I know there are hands that I am going to pass on it (whether I have such a hand or not). More often than not, my partner will agree with my pass. Which means he was not expecting (100%) of a bid of me. So there is no question of CPU or whatever, simply a question of calling "Bedam" "Adam". Simple MI, nothing more or less. -- 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: 266.9.2 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 5 22:35:14 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Apr 5 22:39:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <4252A722.6090209@hdw.be> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405075825.02af1eb0@pop.starpower.net> <4252A722.6090209@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050405161020.02b9b560@pop.starpower.net> At 10:56 AM 4/5/05, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 03:39 AM 4/5/05, Herman wrote: >> >>>Because "forcing" means "I will bid, 99% of the time"; while "90% >>>forcing" means "I will bid, 90% of the time". Opponents are entitled >>>to know this. >> >>"Forcing" has nothing to do with the percent of the time you will >>bid; it has to do with the percent of the time partner will expect >>you to bid. It means that *that* percent of the time is 100, not a >>fraction less. > >Well, there have been many instances mentioned in this thread of >passing (real) forcing bids. So the percentag can really be no higher >than 99%. Earlier in the thread someone asked whether I've ever passed a forcing bid. My reply was, "Yes. Plenty of times." Of course, I bid rather than pass 99.9999% of the time. But I stand by my reply. This has absolutely nothing to do with how often I pass non-forcing bids, whether or not they are "99% forcing". >>Opponents are entitled to know what partner knows, not what your >>intentions are. >>If you pass a bid which you describe as forcing, opponents are >>entitled to the inference that your partner chose his previous call >>without considering the possibility that you might pass. If you take >>Herman's approach -- describing partner's forcing bid as not 100% >>forcing, considering that de facto true *because* you're about to >>pass it -- you have withheld that inference falsely and >>deliberately. You have violated not only L75C (MI), but L40B (CPU) >>as well. > >And so you dispute the fact Eric, that there exists partnerships who >do not mind passing a (90%-)forcing bid? You simply deny that such a >bid exists? Not at all. What I dispute is the fact that these partnerships would describe their non-forcing bids as "forcing". They would be cheating, they would know it, and so would everyone else. >I don't care if you want to call the meaning of this bid "Adam", >"Eric" or "90%-*forcing", but such an agreement does exist and calling >it "forcing" is MI, and you know it. Of course it is. You would be calling a non-forcing bid "forcing". And it is equally MI to call a forcing bid "non-forcing" (or "90% forcing", or "99% forcing", both of which mean that it is non-forcing). That you intend to pass it doesn't change that. >I am doing nothing wrong in passing a bid which I call forcing. Only if it is in fact forcing. Similarly, you are doing something wrong if you call it forcing even though it isn't. That you don't intend to pass it doesn't change that. >I am merely doing something wrong in calling a bid forcing when I know >there are hands that I am going to pass on it (whether I have such a >hand or not). Only if partner knows that there are hands that you are going to pass it on. If he doesn't, you are doing something wrong by not calling the bid forcing. Proper disclosure means telling the opponents what partner (thinks he) knows, not what your intentions are. >More often than not, my partner will agree with my pass. Which means >he was not expecting (100%) of a bid of me. Which means you cheat. >So there is no question of CPU or whatever, simply a question of >calling "Bedam" "Adam". Simple MI, nothing more or less. You know you might pass. Your partner knows you might pass. And yet you tell your opponents that the bid was forcing. Sounds to me like you're deliberately concealing your partnership's agreement. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 5 22:48:53 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Apr 5 22:49:40 2005 Subject: [blml] lead rites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c53a20$e1af3e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson > >............ > >> >> 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. > >> > >> If the player was on lead when it was found out then he must have > made > >> at least one call, surely? > > > >You disappoint me David by only quoting half of my answer and then > >commenting on that part alone. Surely when taken out of context the part > >above from my answer doesn't make much sense. > > I am so sorry to disappoint you. Quoting reams and reams of > irrelevant stuff is bad Netiquette, a total bore, and detrimental to > serious discussion. But you have not answered my question. The first part of my comment concerned the case when no call had been made (on B1) and was that the posters view (actually related to B2) was correct but irrelevant (as a call had indeed been made on B1). I then continued my comment (which you either overlooked or deliberately omitted) with: "Once the offender has made a call on B1 (using his hand from B2) Law 17D applies for both B1 and B2." Doesn't this cover the exact point which I understood you to criticize me for omitting? (And this second part of my comment can hardly be considered "reams and reams of irrelevant stuff"?) Sven From casino at nc.charter.com Tue Apr 5 07:59:33 2005 From: casino at nc.charter.com (Support) Date: Wed Apr 6 00:31:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Ihre Gutschrift: $500 Bonus Message-ID: <63d901c539e7$b1a7a5f0$d1301169@casino> Herzlichen Glückwünsch. Sie sind einer der glücklichen Menschen denen wir folgendes Super-Angebot unterbreiten können: Spielen Sie mit beim Casino Royal Las Vegas und freuen Sie sich auf bis zu 500 $ Extra beim ersten Kauf von Chips!! Ja Sie lesen richtig - bei Ihrem ersten Chipkauf geben wir ihnen bis zu 500$ extra - geschenkt ohne Verpflichtungen. Holen Sie sich das Casino-Game zum bequemen spielen von Zuhause. JETZT MIT TOLLEN NEUEN SPIELEN UND GEWINNCHANCEN Sie können das Spiel auch ohne Geldeinsatz spielen - allerdings können Sie dann auch nichts gewinnen. Aufladen können Sie ihr Konto auf den Verschiedensten Wegen - mit Kreditkarte. Banküberweisung und und und. Also worauf warten Sie noch - gehören auch Sie bald zu den glücklichen Gewinnern... http://www.yournews99.com/a22werde/ Mit freundlichem Gruß Das Casino-Team From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 6 00:48:54 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 6 00:49:46 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ 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. David Stevenson: >I think this is a mis-reading of L12B. You do >not give an assigned score every time there is >an infraction, the penalty is paid, and the OS >then gains from further action. OK, perhaps I >should instead have quoted L72A5. [snip] Richard Hills: I think that this is a mis-reading of Law 72A5. In my opinion, Law 72A5 defines *subsequent future* actions by an offending side *after* their lawful penalty has been payed as being legal actions (subject to the UI constraints of Law 16C2). Grattan, however, is correctly noting that a non-offending side is entitled to have all *consequent present* damage *already* caused by the offending side rectified, under the "indemnity" provision of Law 12A1. David Stevenson: >When Grattan and I disagree it does not >automatically make me wrong. Richard Hills: I think that this is a mis-reading of Grattan. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 6 01:40:38 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 6 01:41:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <003301c539af$98b3afe0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <20050404062822.79960.qmail@web14723.mail.yahoo.com> <464672bcbd8f85aa85dbcad9715e3cfa@rochester.rr.com> <003301c539af$98b3afe0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <821456de04797564506f6f6658c77484@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 5, 2005, at 3:17 AM, Marvin French wrote: > And I believe that pairs who never psych should disclose that, since > psyching > is part of the game. Depends on the venue. In the club games in which I mostly play, psyches are so rare I'm tempted to say they're non-existant - by anybody. In such a case a "we never psyche" disclosure would serve no useful purpose. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 6 01:47:47 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 6 01:48:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <42524222.4040401@hdw.be> References: <57a798cab43fb68f6955cb85bd8cc84a@rochester.rr.com> <42524222.4040401@hdw.be> Message-ID: <9ca7a384ac67892ce13ff499f8c2d2cf@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 5, 2005, at 3:45 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Correct in theory, Ed, but unworkable in practice. How do you prove > that you do not know something? Since when do I have to? > If a player is known to psyche then I don't care who the partner is, > the opponents should be able to know about the psyches. Depends what you mean by "is known to psyche". > Of course it is very difficult to imagine a case in which opponents > are damaged because they did not know whether a player psyches on 1 > board in 50 or once every ten years. Hm. Agreed. OTOH, players are likely to feel damaged if a psyche gives them a bad score on *this* board, regardless what the psycher's tendency is. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 6 01:57:20 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 6 01:58:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050405075108.59765.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050405075108.59765.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <702cd729dfcb26ca249fd0d1253bc045@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 5, 2005, at 3:51 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > Absolutely a pair that does not disclose its zero > frequency psyches is violating L40A by basing its > calls on the special understanding that they never > psyche. Really? Law 40A: A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. A player may make any call ... provided that such call is not based on a partnership understanding. Law 40B A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization. Now, are you saying that *every time* my partner (who never psyches) makes a call, I'm supposed to alert, and explain "it's not a psyche"? Keep in mind that the ACBL has no regulation requiring this. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 6 02:09:48 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 6 02:10:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <4252400F.4040701@hdw.be> References: <424E760A.3060308@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403135354.02b92c20@pop.starpower.net> <4250F2D0.3050803@hdw.be> <0d3e75fd39f69a26b4c4f674122cbdb9@rochester.rr.com> <4252400F.4040701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <7d2050c08b1b65169c426dfa41ab61a0@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 5, 2005, at 3:36 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sorry Ed, but you seem to be eager to believe a fact that was not in > evidence Are you attacking my argument, or me? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 6 02:15:36 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 6 02:16:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> Message-ID: <90c0dab9990988e2159b649815ad84af@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 5, 2005, at 3:39 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Because "forcing" means "I will bid, 99% of the time"; while "90% > forcing" means "I will bid, 90% of the time". Hm. I think The Bridge World disagrees with your definition. Why are they wrong? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 6 02:17:22 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 6 02:18:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <4252A722.6090209@hdw.be> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405075825.02af1eb0@pop.starpower.net> <4252A722.6090209@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Apr 5, 2005, at 10:56 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I am merely doing something wrong in calling a bid forcing when I know > there are hands that I am going to pass on it (whether I have such a > hand or not). Is there then *any* bid which is truly 'forcing" by your definition? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 6 02:21:51 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 6 02:22:49 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: References: <20050325092159.C91BCE5B71@poczta.interia.pl> <21d05563efcc326f9bc3a801a01279b2@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <53faf479ea5abdb5ab6cff698110c288@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 5, 2005, at 8:42 AM, David Stevenson wrote: > Not so. It is good wording, that practical people can use when > making bridge judgements. It is? Okay, prove it. :-) From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 6 02:22:56 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 6 02:23:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406002257.14378.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> --- Ed Reppert wrote: > On Apr 5, 2005, at 3:51 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > Absolutely a pair that does not disclose its zero > > frequency psyches is violating L40A by basing its > > calls on the special understanding that they never > > psyche. > > Really? > > Law 40A: > > A player may make any call or play (including an > intentionally > misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > or play that > departs from commonly accepted, or previously > announced, use of a > convention), without prior announcement, provided > that such call or > play is not based on a partnership understanding. > > A player may make any call ... provided that such > call is not based on > a partnership understanding. > > Law 40B > > A player may not make a call or play based on a > special partnership > understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably > be expected to > understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses > the use of such > call or play in accordance with the regulations of > the sponsoring > organization. > > Now, are you saying that *every time* my partner > (who never psyches) > makes a call, I'm supposed to alert, and explain > "it's not a psyche"? > Keep in mind that the ACBL has no regulation > requiring this. The way I read L40A you may only make a call or play based on a partnership understanding if there is prior announcement. This burden falls equally on those that never depart from their system as it does on those that frequently depart. There is no distinction in the law. I am not saying that this disclosure needs to come in the form of an alert. A note on a Convention Card would be sufficient. You are only allowed to not disclose if you have no understanding. If you have an understanding that you will never psyche then that is important information that should be readily available to the opponents. It is not a secret agreement that you can hide. The ACBL do not require a regulation - L40A requires a prior announcement. Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 6 03:09:20 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Apr 6 03:09:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Power to the People! Message-ID: <014601c53a45$43eb0f80$0e9468d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > Australia has not adopted, nor is likely to adopt, > a "compulsory pause" a.k.a. "Stop!" regulation. > However, Australia has adopted most of the WBF Code > of Practice. [WBF Guidelines for Rulings #5] >> An ACBL appeals committee passed comments that fit >> well with WBF thinking in relation to what they >> called "hot seat" auctions. It is desirable to >> exhibit extra tolerance in relation to a >> "hesitation" when a player encounters an >> unprecedented situation in the auction. [SNIP] If the ABF do not impose a compulsory pause, IMO there is a severe danger of overindulgence in treating tempo-breaks in "unprecedented auctions". Arguably, for example, bidding in "normal tempo" over a high pre-empt, might tell partner that you have nothing to think about. Does the ABF allow a partnership the option of always pausing over pre-empts, if they so elect? Then the ABF would have the best of both worlds! In the old days, most of us displayed a card with "WE PAUSE FOR 10 SECS OVER PRE-EMPTS" or some such form of words. Abiding by such cards drastically reduced unauthorised information. Nevertheless. it is understandable that Australia is reluctant to adopt a compulsory procedure. For example, since the UK made such a stop procedure official, many players spurn it and abuse it. If it were optional, instead, such players would be delighted to dispense with the formal protocol. Of course, they would then have to try to bid in tempo. Equally obvious: partnerships like mine would opt to retain the card. It would also be a great boon to players to allow them the option to prevent opponents from alerting,. We had that option, years ago, when alerts were first introduced in the UK. Some of us displayed a "PLEASE DO NOT ALERT" card which regularly earned good scores from escalating misunderstandings by opponents. Unfortunately, as systems grew more complex, players became more dependant on partners' alerts to confirm calls as conventional, so the law was changed to make the alert protocol mandatory. IMO, a sad retrograde step. Wouldn't it be wonderful if Bridge Law reverted to making adoption of both the STOP procedure and the ALERT procedure into partnership prerogatives? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 6 03:23:55 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 6 03:24:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050406002257.14378.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows (recent posting): >The way I read L40A you may only make a call or play >based on a partnership understanding if there is prior >announcement. [snip] Richard Hills: Correct, *prior* - not *subsequent* - announcement is required by Law. Therefore, an earlier posting by Wayne Burrows seems to give advice of dubious legality. Wayne Burrows (earlier posting): >>Therefore I do not believe that it was necessary for >>you disclose your general psyching frequency. >> >>I proper disclosure in the following baby psyche >>situation would go something like what follows: >> >>1H (X) 1S >> >>This bid shows 4+ spades and 6+ he has psyched in this >>position two or three times in the last two years. Or >>he has never psyched in this situation but he has once >>psyched in a similar auction at the two-level 2H (X) >>2S. Richard Hills: In my opinion, many partnerships who use so-called "baby psyches" to craunch bunnies are actually using illegal concealed partnership understanding pseudo-psyches. This is because the bunnies are not given *prior* warning, before the round starts, that the auction 1H (X) 1S will sometimes find the 1S bidder holding fewer than 4 cards in spades. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 6 03:34:32 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 6 03:35:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <000001c538dc$e0c7acb0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran asked: >Or more generally do the regulations prohibit a player to >violate partnership agreements in certain exceptional cases? > >I am not convinced that such regulations can be legal? Richard Hills replies: Edgar Kaplan was of the opinion that the power to regulate a convention pursuant to Law 40D was very broad; he stated that a sponsoring organisation could require a player to put on a silly hat when using a convention. If the WBF and the ACBL can give conditional approval to particular conventions provided that they are never psysched, then New Zealand can give conditional approval to particular conventions with a proviso that there is no subsequent violation of a partnership agreement of "forcing". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 6 04:13:19 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 6 04:14:09 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: <200504050003.RAA31812@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [snip] >The law applies if an offender "could have known" at >the time of the irregularity that it > >"would be likely to damage the non-offending side". > >Does this really apply here? Even someone who tries >to cheat by leading the D3 would surely understand >that it would be a rare occurrence that South would >let him get away with it. This doesn't meet any >definition of "likely" that I'm aware of. Richard Hills: In my opinion, the Law 72B1 phrase "the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side" should be interpreted to read, "the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side if the non-offending side failed to summon the Director". If Adam's alternative interpretation was adopted, the "could have known" Laws would become unenforceable. As a consequence cheating would be rewarded as a heads you win, tails you tie proposition. If oblivious or timid opponents did not summon the Director, a cheat would get away with a blocking revoke. If less oblivious or timid opponents did summon an Adamite Director, the Adamite Director would not penalise a cheat for infracting Law 72B1, since an Adamite Director would rule that it was not "likely" that opponents would be oblivious or timid. :-( Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 6 04:49:34 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 6 04:50:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406024934.65304.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Wayne Burrows (recent posting): > > >The way I read L40A you may only make a call or > play > >based on a partnership understanding if there is > prior > >announcement. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Correct, *prior* - not *subsequent* - announcement > is > required by Law. Therefore, an earlier posting by > Wayne Burrows seems to give advice of dubious > legality. > > Wayne Burrows (earlier posting): > > >>Therefore I do not believe that it was necessary > for > >>you disclose your general psyching frequency. > >> > >>I proper disclosure in the following baby psyche > >>situation would go something like what follows: > >> > >>1H (X) 1S > >> > >>This bid shows 4+ spades and 6+ he has psyched in > this > >>position two or three times in the last two years. > Or > >>he has never psyched in this situation but he has > once > >>psyched in a similar auction at the two-level 2H > (X) > >>2S. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, many partnerships who use so-called > "baby > psyches" to craunch bunnies are actually using > illegal > concealed partnership understanding pseudo-psyches. > > This is because the bunnies are not given *prior* > warning, > before the round starts, that the auction 1H (X) 1S > will > sometimes find the 1S bidder holding fewer than 4 > cards in > spades. > If you have a partnership agreement to make this baby psyche then you need prior disclosure. If you have no partnership agreement then no disclosure is required this is what L40A states. L75C goes further and tells you how we should answer questions. There we are told that not only partnership agreements but also partnership experience must be disclosed. Therefore a prior disclosure of our agreement is proper but an answer to a question may include addtional information : "This bid shows 4+ spades and 6+" - partnership agreement "...he has psyched in this position two or three times in the last two years" - partnership experience. I may psyche without a partnership agreement and therefore without any requirement of prior disclosure. If I have an agreement to "psyche" or not to "psyche" then that must be accompanied by prior disclosure. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 6 05:58:42 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 6 05:59:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050406024934.65304.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >Therefore a prior disclosure of our agreement is >proper but an answer to a question may include >additional information : "This bid shows 4+ spades and >6+" - partnership agreement "...he has psyched in this >position two or three times in the last two years" - >partnership experience. [snip] Richard Hills: In the classic "The Bishop's Gambit" episode of "Yes, Prime Minister", Sir Humphrey Appleby stated that, "Theology is a device for helping agnostics to stay within the Church of England". But, in my opinion, Wayne's theology is inconsistent with the WBF Code of Practice definition of "implicit partnership agreement". If a player remembers that their partner has recently "baby psyched" two or three times, then a current "baby psyche" is *not* a real psyche, but rather an implicit partnership agreement pseudo-psyche. If the possibility of a current pseudo-psyche is not disclosed in advance, then that current pseudo-psyche is an infraction of the Law 40B prohibition upon concealed partnership understandings. Even if advance disclosure is provided for the current pseudo-psyche, it may still be an illegal convention under local Law 40D regulation. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 6 06:12:05 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 6 06:13:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050406024934.65304.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050406024934.65304.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6003bc52dda9c3336080de42416ac7be@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 5, 2005, at 10:49 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > If I have an agreement to "psyche" or not to "psyche" > then that must be accompanied by prior disclosure. Do implicit agreements count? Many of the folks I play with wouldn't know a psyche if it bit 'em on the butt. Is prior disclosure that "my partner knows nothing about psyching" thus required because I know this? What of a pair neither member of which ever psyche, because it would never occur to either of them to do so? From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 6 06:57:12 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 6 06:57:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406045712.96932.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > [snip] > > >Therefore a prior disclosure of our agreement is > >proper but an answer to a question may include > >additional information : "This bid shows 4+ spades > and > >6+" - partnership agreement "...he has psyched in > this > >position two or three times in the last two years" > - > >partnership experience. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In the classic "The Bishop's Gambit" episode of > "Yes, > Prime Minister", Sir Humphrey Appleby stated that, > > "Theology is a device for helping agnostics to stay > within the Church of England". > > But, in my opinion, Wayne's theology is inconsistent > with the WBF Code of Practice definition of > "implicit > partnership agreement". > > If a player remembers that their partner has > recently > "baby psyched" two or three times, then a current > "baby > psyche" is *not* a real psyche, but rather an > implicit > partnership agreement pseudo-psyche. I guess this is a matter of definition. I would not consider two or three psyches in two years to necessarily mean this was a recent psychic. > > If the possibility of a current pseudo-psyche is not > disclosed in advance, then that current > pseudo-psyche > is an infraction of the Law 40B prohibition upon > concealed partnership understandings. I agree if something is a pseudo-psyche. > > Even if advance disclosure is provided for the > current > pseudo-psyche, it may still be an illegal convention > under local Law 40D regulation. > I agree. "This will be the case only if in the opinion of the committee one of the following circumstances is established: " This is the sentence in the Code of Practice that precedes the various descriptions of frequency for something to be considered a concealed agreement. The logic of this sentence is that we need one of the four things that follow to have occurred before something will be consider a concealed agreement however the converse does not follow from this statement. That is that if one of the following four pieces of evidence is present we will not necessarily find that there has been a concealed agreement. Where I work is at best 5 minutes drive from where I live. Therefore I can state that *only if* I leave home five minutes or more before I need to be at work will I get there on time. I cannot conclude from this that *if* I leave five minutes or more before I need to be at work that I will get there on time. There could be delays for Road Works, heavy traffic and once I was even pulled over by the police on a random test. There is a logical fallacy here. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 6 07:51:24 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 6 07:52:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Power to the People! In-Reply-To: <014601c53a45$43eb0f80$0e9468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: WBF Code of Practice, Guidelines for Rulings #5: >>An ACBL appeals committee passed comments that fit >>well with WBF thinking in relation to what they >>called "hot seat" auctions. It is desirable to >>exhibit extra tolerance in relation to a >>"hesitation" when a player encounters an >>unprecedented situation in the auction. [snip] Nigel Guthrie: >If the ABF do not impose a compulsory pause, IMO there >is a severe danger of overindulgence in treating >tempo-breaks in "unprecedented auctions". Richard Hills: Australia is big - really big - you just won't believe how vastly, hugely mind-boggingly big it is. So, I cannot unequivocally state that nowhere in Australia are there lax players being indulged by TDs who have read the WBF Code of Practice. But I can state that all CoP-literate Aussie TDs whom I know are *not* overindulgent. (In Australia, as elsewhere in the world, it is only the rare illiterate TDs who tend to be overindulgent towards offending sides who use UI.) Nigel Guthrie: >Arguably, for example, bidding in "normal tempo" over >a high pre-empt, might tell partner that you have >nothing to think about. Richard Hills: Due to early training in lightning chess (5 minutes per player per game), I have a naturally uniform quick tempo at the bridge table. Once I played against Eric Kokish, in the only year he visited the Aussie National Open Teams. He criticised me for an in-tempo decision during a competitive 5-level auction. Kokish thought my tempo should be slower, since he had the quaint belief that my tempo *should* vary according to the difficulty of my decision. Law 73E: >>.....It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving >>information to the opponents by making all calls and >>plays in unvarying tempo and manner. Nigel Guthrie: >Does the ABF allow a partnership the option of always >pausing over pre-empts, if they so elect? > >Then the ABF would have the best of both worlds! In >the old days, most of us displayed a card with "WE >PAUSE FOR 10 SECS OVER PRE-EMPTS" or some such form of >words. Abiding by such cards drastically reduced >unauthorised information. [snip] Richard Hills: The national Directors of the ABF definitely do *not* permit partnerships to voluntarily pause over preempts without cost to them. Any such pause is ruled to be UI. My understanding is that the reason for this ABF policy parallels their reason for avoiding a compulsory Stop! regulation; any such pausey policy is open to abuse by offending sides. >From a practical point of view, varied and/or weird preempts are so common in Aussie national championships that protecting expert opponents of pre-emptors with a Stop! regulation is unnecessary; those expert opponents have seen it all before, so usually have no excuse for not bidding in tempo. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From toddz at att.net Wed Apr 6 07:58:02 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed Apr 6 07:58:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Psychic Disclosure Message-ID: <42537A6A.6040209@att.net> Despite the abundance of recent posts about disclosing psychic tendencies, I'm still at a loss to understand why it's a good idea. Asking about psychic tendencies during the auction would give partner a huge UI problem. He'll know there's something about your hand that makes the auction very strange, perhaps too many points, too many cards in a suit opponents are advertising a fit in, etc. For example, if I ask about the frequency of the 1H-X-1S psyche, it really looks like I'm advertising a spade fit for partner. We may be hard-pressed to come up with an auction constrained by L16 that has us playing in spades. I can envision asking during play as declarer, specifically wanting to know what player X usually has when psyching in the given position. I don't see an answer coming to that question, the existence of an answer being evidence of a CPU. So, when would I ask opponents about their psychic tendencies and what knowledge can I gain that doesn't require me to be a psychic? -Todd From uitverkoop at programmer.net Tue Apr 5 12:15:36 2005 From: uitverkoop at programmer.net (uitverkoop@programmer.net) Date: Wed Apr 6 08:23:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Uitverkoop software Message-ID: <044c01c53a1c$3ac91880$b7c5ad21@uitverkoop> Geachte dames en heren, Ergert u zich ook altijd over de hoge prijzen die voor software gevraagd worden? Daar komt nu een einde aan. Wij leveren u alle mogelijke software voor een fractie van de normale prijs. De software wordt vanuit het buitenland direct naar uw adres verzonden, omdat het daar minder kost dan in de winkels alhier. Originele versies met originele serienummers en de normale support voor weinig geld, bijvoorbeeld: Microsoft Windows XP prof. voor 50 USD in plaats van 270 USD Adobe Photoshop 80 USD in plaats van 650 USD Deze en andere topprodukten kunt u verwachten. Aarzel niet en bezoek onze winkel. De winkel is geheel Engelstalig, maar alle produkten kunnen in elke taal geinstalleerd worden. Veel winkelplezier. Met vriendelijke groet, ResellerNews From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Apr 6 08:25:46 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Apr 6 08:27:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? References: <20050406024934.65304.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004401c53a71$79128720$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Wayne Burrows" > L75C goes further and tells you how we should answer > questions. There we are told that not only > partnership agreements but also partnership experience > must be disclosed. > Not quite right. We should not take words out of context. L75C says "a player must disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience." If there is no *special* information conveyed by partnership experience, then the partnership experience need not be disclosed. Special information is information peculiar to my partner(ship) that I may be able to utilize in some way. If I can't utilize it, I need not disclose it. And if it comes from my general knowledge of the game, it is not *special* and I need not disclose it even if I can utilize it. Let's say that I am aware that partner has knowledge of all the standard falsecards, which both he and I have obtained from general knowledge and experience. While I can utilize that information on occasion, I am not required to disclose (if asked) whether partner may falsecard in a given situation. The same principle applies to partnership bidding, but at the moment I can't find the book in whose margins I jotted down some examples. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 6 09:27:50 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 6 09:27:07 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: References: <200504050003.RAA31812@mailhub.irvine.com> <425292F7.6070005@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42538F76.7010306@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> And this is a case in law now: do we need the offence to be likely to >> be causing damage, or do we simply want it to be a certain plus. >> Whatever the likelihood of the opponents noticing, the damage is >> always positive (since the prescribed penalty just brings it back to >> the normal result). >> >> I feel there is a case in law for this to be ruled, and I think Adam >> is wrong here. >> >> You reopened the thread, what do you think, David? > > > I do not see your point, unless it is the correct but trivial one that > one needs the whole of L72B1 to be applicable before we apply it. > > I still think that whether L72B1 applies in a particular case is a > matter of bridge judgement. > > I don't re-open threads: I reply to them when I am able! :) > Yes David, and we're happy that you do - but some threads were "closed" in our eyes; we thought we'd said all. You've re-opened the debate. You don't see my point, then met me repeat it and try to make it more clear. I'm with you on this matter, David, but Adam is not. You have stated that you believe Adam just sees a difference in bridge judgment, but I believe you are wrong there. Adam raises a valid legal point, which I deem to be false, but which is interesting nevertheless. We all know of cases where after some infraction, and after the application of all the penalties, the offending side ends up with a better score than they could have. A gambling 3NT opposite a barred partner is a good example. Now on some of these infractions we apply L72B1, and on some we don't. We all know the words "could have known" and we know how to apply them. We realize that the player who led his D3 out of turn probably did not know he was doing anything wrong, but we rule that he could have known it. There's no problem there. Adam however looks at the second part of the sentence "would be likely to damage" and he states that it's so unlikely that the offence goes unnoticed that offender could not know he would do damage. We may well believe Adam's estimate of the likelihood of this fact. But I don't think they matter. At the point of the infraction (the lead out of turn), the player could know that if his infraction were noticed, he would be no worse off than if he didn't commit it. He could also know that if his infraction went unnoticed, he would be up one trick. He could even know that even if the infraction were detected after the hand was over, a normal TD could do nothing about it, and even a very wise one would first have to trawl through 3 weeks' worth of blml before deciding he could rule against. So offender could certainly know there would be damage. Adam says that since this damage is unlikely, because the not-noticing is unlikely, L72B1 does not apply. In terms of expected value of the damage, Adam says that a small expected value renders L72B1 unapplicable. I say that no matter how small, if the expected value of the damage is positive, the score should be altered. Only when the expected value is negative, an offender can keep his positive score. To go back to the 3NT case. At the moment of the infraction barring his partner, a player cannot know that playing in 3NT is the best place. He expects to get to the correct contract. That may be 3NT, but it's quite likely to be something else. -- 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: 266.9.2 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 6 09:28:37 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 6 09:28:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <7d2050c08b1b65169c426dfa41ab61a0@rochester.rr.com> References: <424E760A.3060308@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403135354.02b92c20@pop.starpower.net> <4250F2D0.3050803@hdw.be> <0d3e75fd39f69a26b4c4f674122cbdb9@rochester.rr.com> <4252400F.4040701@hdw.be> <7d2050c08b1b65169c426dfa41ab61a0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <42538FA5.2070201@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 5, 2005, at 3:36 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Sorry Ed, but you seem to be eager to believe a fact that was not in >> evidence > > > Are you attacking my argument, or me? > Both, I guess. -- 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: 266.9.2 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From raczad at netscape.net Wed Apr 6 10:27:49 2005 From: raczad at netscape.net (Clara Mccormick) Date: Wed Apr 6 09:30:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Software 3000 cormorant Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 6972 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050406/d99116f8/attachment.jpe From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 6 09:35:23 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 6 09:34:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050405161020.02b9b560@pop.starpower.net> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405075825.02af1eb0@pop.starpower.net> <4252A722.6090209@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405161020.02b9b560@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4253913B.6060704@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> And so you dispute the fact Eric, that there exists partnerships who >> do not mind passing a (90%-)forcing bid? You simply deny that such a >> bid exists? > > > Not at all. What I dispute is the fact that these partnerships would > describe their non-forcing bids as "forcing". They would be cheating, > they would know it, and so would everyone else. > Well, still they exist - and they don't realize they are doing something wrong. It's up to us, as TD, to educate the people. If you start by the premise that all players know all the rules and obey them, and that everytime a player infracts a rule, he does so willingly and knowingly, and that your ruling against him is tantamout to calling him a cheat - which you don't want to do - then you should give up directing, because you can never rule against anyone. These people exist (at least in Belgium), they are not cheats, and they need us TD's to tell them that what they are doing is wrong and that they should alter it. >> I don't care if you want to call the meaning of this bid "Adam", >> "Eric" or "90%-*forcing", but such an agreement does exist and calling >> it "forcing" is MI, and you know it. > > > Of course it is. You would be calling a non-forcing bid "forcing". > > And it is equally MI to call a forcing bid "non-forcing" (or "90% > forcing", or "99% forcing", both of which mean that it is non-forcing). > That you intend to pass it doesn't change that. > Yes, but my point is that it isn't forcing to start with! >> I am doing nothing wrong in passing a bid which I call forcing. > > > Only if it is in fact forcing. Similarly, you are doing something wrong > if you call it forcing even though it isn't. That you don't intend to > pass it doesn't change that. > >> I am merely doing something wrong in calling a bid forcing when I know >> there are hands that I am going to pass on it (whether I have such a >> hand or not). > > > Only if partner knows that there are hands that you are going to pass it > on. If he doesn't, you are doing something wrong by not calling the bid > forcing. Proper disclosure means telling the opponents what partner > (thinks he) knows, not what your intentions are. > But my point is precisely that those player's partners (the one that made the focing bids) don't appear to mind the pass (even on minimum, not just sub-minimum hands). >> More often than not, my partner will agree with my pass. Which means >> he was not expecting (100%) of a bid of me. > > > Which means you cheat. > No, which means I used a wrong word in describing the bid as "Adam" >> So there is no question of CPU or whatever, simply a question of >> calling "Bedam" "Adam". Simple MI, nothing more or less. > > > You know you might pass. Your partner knows you might pass. And yet > you tell your opponents that the bid was forcing. Sounds to me like > you're deliberately concealing your partnership's agreement. > Which is precisely why I rule MI. YOU are the one who seems to believe it is impossible to rule MI on a player who explains a bid as forcing and then passes. -- 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: 266.9.2 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 6 09:37:24 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 6 09:36:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405075825.02af1eb0@pop.starpower.net> <4252A722.6090209@hdw.be> Message-ID: <425391B4.1080206@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 5, 2005, at 10:56 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I am merely doing something wrong in calling a bid forcing when I know >> there are hands that I am going to pass on it (whether I have such a >> hand or not). > > > Is there then *any* bid which is truly 'forcing" by your definition? > Yes, all those that I would call "99% forcing" by some other words. Exactly the same ones you call forcing, even if you actually pass on them - what was the figure you quoted? 99.999% of the time. (or better 0.001% of the time you pass them) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.2 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 6 09:46:46 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 6 09:46:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <9ca7a384ac67892ce13ff499f8c2d2cf@rochester.rr.com> References: <57a798cab43fb68f6955cb85bd8cc84a@rochester.rr.com> <42524222.4040401@hdw.be> <9ca7a384ac67892ce13ff499f8c2d2cf@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <425393E6.4020005@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 5, 2005, at 3:45 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Correct in theory, Ed, but unworkable in practice. How do you prove >> that you do not know something? > > > Since when do I have to? > You will when you are up against me as TD. Your partner has just psyched, and your opponents (guests from Papua New Guinea) complain to me, saying that they had wanted to know how often your partner psyched, but your CC did not have that piece of info. It turns out that your partner is the most frequent psycher in the venue, and everyone knows this. Yet you state that you are also only a guest, from the nearby village 5 miles away, and you don't know how often your partner psyches. How are you going to prove this - you might well have read all the reports that went to the district secretary, ... Your point was that a psyching tendency needs to be disclosed only when the partner knows it - my point is that since you cannot prove that you don't know what "everyone knows", such distinction is valid only in theory but not in practice. >> If a player is known to psyche then I don't care who the partner is, >> the opponents should be able to know about the psyches. > > > Depends what you mean by "is known to psyche". > I think that sentence is sufficiently clear not to warrant a 5 page explanation of. >> Of course it is very difficult to imagine a case in which opponents >> are damaged because they did not know whether a player psyches on 1 >> board in 50 or once every ten years. > > > Hm. Agreed. OTOH, players are likely to feel damaged if a psyche gives > them a bad score on *this* board, regardless what the psycher's tendency > is. > Indeed - but that is not what they are entitled to. They are entitled to know that a particular player psyches with a particular frequency, so that they can base their decisions on that. You would like to refuse them even that bit of knowledge - I say, give it to them, so that they at least cannot complain about missing it! -- 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: 266.9.2 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 6 09:49:20 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 6 09:48:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <702cd729dfcb26ca249fd0d1253bc045@rochester.rr.com> References: <20050405075108.59765.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> <702cd729dfcb26ca249fd0d1253bc045@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <42539480.7090006@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > Now, are you saying that *every time* my partner (who never psyches) > makes a call, I'm supposed to alert, and explain "it's not a psyche"? > Keep in mind that the ACBL has no regulation requiring this. > No, I am saying that the opponents are entitled to know this. How they get that information is of no concern to me. Perhaps they could ask you - has your partner ever psyched? - to which you are required to respond in the negative. If the ACBL choose to omit the box psyches from their CC, they are being stupid. The WBF has such a box, and on my CC it is marked with: "now and then". -- 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: 266.9.2 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 6 10:13:28 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 6 10:14:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406081328.88322.qmail@web14726.mail.yahoo.com> --- Herman De Wael wrote: > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 2005, at 3:45 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >> Correct in theory, Ed, but unworkable in > practice. How do you prove > >> that you do not know something? > > > > > > Since when do I have to? > > > > You will when you are up against me as TD. Your > partner has just > psyched, and your opponents (guests from Papua New > Guinea) complain to > me, saying that they had wanted to know how often > your partner > psyched, but your CC did not have that piece of > info. It turns out > that your partner is the most frequent psycher in > the venue, and > everyone knows this. Yet you state that you are also > only a guest, > from the nearby village 5 miles away, and you don't > know how often > your partner psyches. How are you going to prove > this - you might well > have read all the reports that went to the district > secretary, ... Knowledge gained from reading reports to the district secretary are part of "his general knowledge and experience" L75C and not something that comes from his "partnership agreement or partnership experience". There is no requirement in the laws to disclose to the opponents that your partner who you have never played with is a frequent or for that matter an infrequent psycher. You are only burdened with this responsibility when you have a partnership agreement or partnership experience. > > Indeed - but that is not what they are entitled to. > They are entitled > to know that a particular player psyches with a > particular frequency, > so that they can base their decisions on that. Which law gives them this right? I have seen none. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 6 11:09:25 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 6 11:08:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050406081328.88322.qmail@web14726.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050406081328.88322.qmail@web14726.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4253A745.9040306@hdw.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > Knowledge gained from reading reports to the district > secretary are part of "his general knowledge and > experience" L75C and not something that comes from his no they are not - the players from PNG haven't read them! > "partnership agreement or partnership experience". > There is no requirement in the laws to disclose to the > opponents that your partner who you have never played > with is a frequent or for that matter an infrequent > psycher. You are only burdened with this > responsibility when you have a partnership agreement > or partnership experience. > Why should my partner explain to me, CTD of the Flemish Bridge League, that he is a well-known psycher, when he knows I have read all the reports on him. I don't care how I've come to know a particular piece of information - the fact that I have it means that it is partnership experience, and it must be disclosed as a result. > >>Indeed - but that is not what they are entitled to. >>They are entitled >>to know that a particular player psyches with a >>particular frequency, >>so that they can base their decisions on that. > > > Which law gives them this right? I have seen none. > Why are you reading the law with a tight mind? I am reading it with an open mind - why should any of us have to explain it to the other? I believe that all that I know, and all that I could know, must be available to my opponents as well. Any other reading of the law leads you down streets that are too slippery. Don't forget that the "general experience" is not a clause that you can use to keep info from opponents - it is a clause exonerating you from not telling something that you can expect the opponents to know as well. If they don't know it - then you were wrong in not telling them. It is impossible for you to know when your partner psyches, so you are not expected to tell your opponents this. But it is possible for you to know how often in the past he has psyched - so I believe the opponents are entitled to know this same fact, even when you don't actually know the answer yourself. -- 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: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From cartier at yahoo.co.in Tue Apr 5 15:30:38 2005 From: cartier at yahoo.co.in (cartier@yahoo.co.in) Date: Wed Apr 6 11:58:09 2005 Subject: [blml] uitverkoop horloges Message-ID: <479101c53a37$79877560$48d25f4d@cartier> Wij hebben geheel nieuw in ons aanbod edel horloges opgenomen. Wij hebben bijna alle fantastische modelle voor u, die u zich maar wensen kunt. Alles van Bulgari, Cartier tot Chopard en Omega en Gucci uurwerken is te verkrijgen. Gesorteerd naar mannen en vrouwen uurwerken, of als geschenkbox is er ook voor u de juist. Wat is beter als geschenk dan een uurwerk dat lang mee gaat? Het is niet alleen een teken van goede smaak, maar ook een geheel persoonlijk geschenk voor uw geliefde. Direct naar de uurwerken hier. http://g.gmmeadowld.com/?fxhhhQgj9jSnKLLbet Veel winkelplezier gewenst door uw uurwerk team. Uw Albert Schmitz From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 6 12:22:59 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 6 12:23:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406102259.48043.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> --- Herman De Wael wrote: > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > Knowledge gained from reading reports to the > district > > secretary are part of "his general knowledge and > > experience" L75C and not something that comes from > his > > no they are not - the players from PNG haven't read > them! "his general knowledge" the phrase used in the laws is different from and more specific than "general knowledge" with which you are confused. > > > "partnership agreement or partnership experience". > > > There is no requirement in the laws to disclose to > the > > opponents that your partner who you have never > played > > with is a frequent or for that matter an > infrequent > > psycher. You are only burdened with this > > responsibility when you have a partnership > agreement > > or partnership experience. > > > > Why should my partner explain to me, CTD of the > Flemish Bridge League, > that he is a well-known psycher, when he knows I > have read all the > reports on him. I don't care how I've come to know a > particular piece > of information - the fact that I have it means that > it is partnership > experience, and it must be disclosed as a result. > This is nonsense your disclosure requirements are limited in the laws to the agreements and understandings made explicitly or implicitly within your partnership and further to experience that you have had within that partnership. What my partner does when playing with some other player is inconsequential when I explain our partnership agreements and our partnership experience. > > > >>Indeed - but that is not what they are entitled > to. > >>They are entitled > >>to know that a particular player psyches with a > >>particular frequency, > >>so that they can base their decisions on that. > > > > > > Which law gives them this right? I have seen none. > > > > Why are you reading the law with a tight mind? I am > reading it with an > open mind - why should any of us have to explain it > to the other? I am reading what is written in the laws. I am not making it up to suit myself or some theory or other about what I think it should say. I am open minded about what it says. And what my open mind tells me is that it does not say what you want it to say. I have seen TDs before who are willing to make up the laws and regulations as it suits them. IMO this is not a quality that makes for a good TD. I would prefer to have a TD that rules according to the laws as they are written then we all know where we are. > I believe that all that I know, and all that I could > know, must be > available to my opponents as well. Any other reading > of the law leads > you down streets that are too slippery. I could not agree less. > > Don't forget that the "general experience" is not a > clause that you > can use to keep info from opponents - it is a clause > exonerating you > from not telling something that you can expect the > opponents to know > as well. If they don't know it - then you were wrong > in not telling them. This is simply not true. The general knowledge that I need not disclose is my own general knowledge - read the law "...his general knowledge...". It is not the general knowledge of the player that I am playing against. For all I know he may not know that the Milton Work Count ascribes four to an Ace and I am not going to explain that to him at the table. > > It is impossible for you to know when your partner > psyches, so you are > not expected to tell your opponents this. But it is > possible for you > to know how often in the past he has psyched - so I > believe the > opponents are entitled to know this same fact, even > when you don't > actually know the answer yourself. How can the law expect me to explain something that I do not know myself. That is absurd. The opponents are simply entitled to our agreements and to experience that we have had together as a partnership. Wayne Burrows Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 6 12:46:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 6 12:47:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > If the possibility of a current pseudo-psyche is not > disclosed in advance, then that current pseudo-psyche > is an infraction of the Law 40B prohibition upon > concealed partnership understandings. No it isn't. L40b says ..an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. For example in the EBU prior disclosure of any such partnership understanding is forbidden but subsequent disclosure (as through voluntary alerts, or through full answers to a question by opponents) is permitted/required. One cannot disclose if opponents don't ask (but that is true of every partnership understanding, not just psychic ones). In addition one can surely, in a game of bridge, "reasonably expect" opponents to be aware of common psychic auctions and false carding situations. (Or are you suggesting that all competent players are breaking the law by failing to disclose "we play mandatory false cards when we recognise such situations"). Nor should we take L40a to be too rigorous. Knowing that partner may suspect a psych is not the same as basing a decision to psych on such knowledge. There are plenty of situations where a belief in ones ability to control likely developments in the auction wouldn't change the decision even if one knew partner had never even heard of psyching. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 6 12:46:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 6 12:47:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <004401c53a71$79128720$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > Special information is information peculiar to my partner(ship) This bit is partially true. The information need not be peculiar to a single partnership, it could also be knowledge relating to the system/conventions the partnership has agreed. >that I may be able to utilize in some way. This bit is wholly false. The utility of information to partner has nothing whatsoever to do with the requirement to disclose. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 6 13:48:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 6 13:49:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <4253A745.9040306@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > Knowledge gained from reading reports to the district > > secretary are part of "his general knowledge and > > experience" L75C and not something that comes from his > > no they are not - the players from PNG haven't read them! So what? That just means that they are not part of *their* GKE. Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of ways (outside partnering) that one can build understanding. Discussions in the bar, opposing eachother at the table, on-line fora such as BLML/RGB. The key though is that there is interaction. It is necessary that both members of the partnership be aware of what the other knows. Thus merely reading the reports would not be enough. OTOH phoning the player up and saying "I've enjoyed reading the psych reports at district committees - fancy a game sometime?" *would* establish a mutual level of understanding. Note also that "undisclosed" does not equal "concealed". The difference would depend on local disclosure regulations. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 6 13:48:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 6 13:49:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050406102259.48043.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > This is nonsense your disclosure requirements are > limited in the laws to the agreements and > understandings made explicitly or implicitly within > your partnership and further to experience that you > have had within that partnership. What my partner > does when playing with some other player is > inconsequential when I explain our partnership > agreements and our partnership experience. This too is untrue. For example if partner tells you about a hand he played with someone else the mutual knowledge may contribute to a level of partnership understanding not previously attained. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 6 14:34:02 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Apr 6 14:37:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <4253913B.6060704@hdw.be> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405075825.02af1eb0@pop.starpower.net> <4252A722.6090209@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405161020.02b9b560@pop.starpower.net> <4253913B.6060704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050406075652.02b5c240@pop.starpower.net> At 03:35 AM 4/6/05, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >>Not at all. What I dispute is the fact that these partnerships would >>describe their non-forcing bids as "forcing". They would be >>cheating, they would know it, and so would everyone else. > >Well, still they exist - and they don't realize they are doing >something wrong. It's up to us, as TD, to educate the people. If you >start by the premise that all players know all the rules and obey >them, and that everytime a player infracts a rule, he does so >willingly and knowingly, and that your ruling against him is tantamout >to calling him a cheat - which you don't want to do - then you should >give up directing, because you can never rule against anyone. I have no such premise; quite the contrary. But if you start with the premise that whenever something unusual happens it must mean that some player has infracted some rule, I can see where you might mistake that conclusion from what I have written so far. >These people exist (at least in Belgium), they are not cheats, and >they need us TD's to tell them that what they are doing is wrong and >that they should alter it. My point is that there may be no reason to presume that they are doing anything wrong. >>>I don't care if you want to call the meaning of this bid "Adam", >>>"Eric" or "90%-*forcing", but such an agreement does exist and >>>calling it "forcing" is MI, and you know it. >> >>Of course it is. You would be calling a non-forcing bid "forcing". >>And it is equally MI to call a forcing bid "non-forcing" (or "90% >>forcing", or "99% forcing", both of which mean that it is non-forcing). >>That you intend to pass it doesn't change that. > >Yes, but my point is that it isn't forcing to start with! And my point is that you cannot presume that just because it was passed. Perhaps is *was* forcing to start with. Whatever it was to start with, it's still that, whether you choose to bid over it or not. >>>I am doing nothing wrong in passing a bid which I call forcing. >> >>Only if it is in fact forcing. Similarly, you are doing something >>wrong if you call it forcing even though it isn't. That you don't >>intend to pass it doesn't change that. >> >>>I am merely doing something wrong in calling a bid forcing when I >>>know there are hands that I am going to pass on it (whether I have >>>such a hand or not). >> >>Only if partner knows that there are hands that you are going to pass >>it on. If he doesn't, you are doing something wrong by not calling >>the bid forcing. Proper disclosure means telling the opponents what >>partner (thinks he) knows, not what your intentions are. > >But my point is precisely that those player's partners (the one that >made the focing bids) don't appear to mind the pass (even on minimum, >not just sub-minimum hands). (What they "mind" doesn't matter; what they expect does. But that's just a semantic quibble.) That point is nonsense, as it contains contradictory premises. Either partner didn't "[make a] fo[r]cing bid[]" or partner *did* "mind" that you might pass. By definition. >>>More often than not, my partner will agree with my pass. Which means >>>he was not expecting (100%) of a bid of me. >> >>Which means you cheat. > >No, which means I used a wrong word in describing the bid as "Adam" If you used a wrong word, you either (a) didn't know what the word meant, or (b) used the wrong word intentionally and misleadingly. The first is likely when we're talking about "Adam", but in my experience everyone, even the rankest beginner, knows what "forcing" means. With the possible exception of certain participants in this forum. >>>So there is no question of CPU or whatever, simply a question of >>>calling "Bedam" "Adam". Simple MI, nothing more or less. >> >>You know you might pass. Your partner knows you might pass. And yet >>you tell your opponents that the bid was forcing. Sounds to me like >>you're deliberately concealing your partnership's agreement. > >Which is precisely why I rule MI. YOU are the one who seems to believe >it is impossible to rule MI on a player who explains a bid as forcing >and then passes. Not impossible. Just not mandatory. Herman argues that it is impossible *not* to rule MI on a player who explains a bid as forcing and then passes. I rule MI if I believe that the bid explained as forcing was in fact non-forcing. I don't rule MI if I believe that the bid explained as forcing was in fact forcing. Herman seems to believe that *because you passed*, I *must* conclude that the bid was in fact non-forcing, and rule MI. I don't. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 6 15:09:01 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Apr 6 15:09:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <4253A745.9040306@hdw.be> References: <20050406081328.88322.qmail@web14726.mail.yahoo.com> <4253A745.9040306@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050406084516.02b597f0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:09 AM 4/6/05, Herman wrote: >Why should my partner explain to me, CTD of the Flemish Bridge League, >that he is a well-known psycher, when he knows I have read all the >reports on him. I don't care how I've come to know a particular piece >of information - the fact that I have it means that it is partnership >experience, and it must be disclosed as a result. But as CTD of the Flemish Bridge League, Herman would know that this player is a well-known psycher even if Herman had never laid eyes on this player, much less partnered him. It is therefore absurd to argue that Herman's knowledge "was conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience" [L75C]. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 6 15:33:40 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 6 15:33:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050406075652.02b5c240@pop.starpower.net> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405075825.02af1eb0@pop.starpower.net> <4252A722.6090209@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405161020.02b9b560@pop.starpower.net> <4253913B.6060704@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050406075652.02b5c240@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4253E534.3040609@hdw.be> Come off it Eric, don't try turning this around. I have never stated that mine was the only possible ruling - I have always stated when I would rule like this and which facts might induce me to rule the other way. It is you who have constantly criticized my presumed ruling. Don't now turn this whole thing around and make you seem like the good guy. Otherwise, no comments on what you write - you seem to have now grasped the full extent of this case. Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:35 AM 4/6/05, Herman wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> >>> Not at all. What I dispute is the fact that these partnerships would >>> describe their non-forcing bids as "forcing". They would be >>> cheating, they would know it, and so would everyone else. >> >> >> Well, still they exist - and they don't realize they are doing >> something wrong. It's up to us, as TD, to educate the people. If you >> start by the premise that all players know all the rules and obey >> them, and that everytime a player infracts a rule, he does so >> willingly and knowingly, and that your ruling against him is tantamout >> to calling him a cheat - which you don't want to do - then you should >> give up directing, because you can never rule against anyone. > > > I have no such premise; quite the contrary. But if you start with the > premise that whenever something unusual happens it must mean that some > player has infracted some rule, I can see where you might mistake that > conclusion from what I have written so far. > >> These people exist (at least in Belgium), they are not cheats, and >> they need us TD's to tell them that what they are doing is wrong and >> that they should alter it. > > > My point is that there may be no reason to presume that they are doing > anything wrong. > >>>> I don't care if you want to call the meaning of this bid "Adam", >>>> "Eric" or "90%-*forcing", but such an agreement does exist and >>>> calling it "forcing" is MI, and you know it. >>> >>> >>> Of course it is. You would be calling a non-forcing bid "forcing". >>> And it is equally MI to call a forcing bid "non-forcing" (or "90% >>> forcing", or "99% forcing", both of which mean that it is non-forcing). >>> That you intend to pass it doesn't change that. >> >> >> Yes, but my point is that it isn't forcing to start with! > > > And my point is that you cannot presume that just because it was > passed. Perhaps is *was* forcing to start with. Whatever it was to > start with, it's still that, whether you choose to bid over it or not. > >>>> I am doing nothing wrong in passing a bid which I call forcing. >>> >>> >>> Only if it is in fact forcing. Similarly, you are doing something >>> wrong if you call it forcing even though it isn't. That you don't >>> intend to pass it doesn't change that. >>> >>>> I am merely doing something wrong in calling a bid forcing when I >>>> know there are hands that I am going to pass on it (whether I have >>>> such a hand or not). >>> >>> >>> Only if partner knows that there are hands that you are going to pass >>> it on. If he doesn't, you are doing something wrong by not calling >>> the bid forcing. Proper disclosure means telling the opponents what >>> partner (thinks he) knows, not what your intentions are. >> >> >> But my point is precisely that those player's partners (the one that >> made the focing bids) don't appear to mind the pass (even on minimum, >> not just sub-minimum hands). > > > (What they "mind" doesn't matter; what they expect does. But that's > just a semantic quibble.) > > That point is nonsense, as it contains contradictory premises. Either > partner didn't "[make a] fo[r]cing bid[]" or partner *did* "mind" that > you might pass. By definition. > >>>> More often than not, my partner will agree with my pass. Which means >>>> he was not expecting (100%) of a bid of me. >>> >>> >>> Which means you cheat. >> >> >> No, which means I used a wrong word in describing the bid as "Adam" > > > If you used a wrong word, you either (a) didn't know what the word > meant, or (b) used the wrong word intentionally and misleadingly. The > first is likely when we're talking about "Adam", but in my experience > everyone, even the rankest beginner, knows what "forcing" means. With > the possible exception of certain participants in this forum. > >>>> So there is no question of CPU or whatever, simply a question of >>>> calling "Bedam" "Adam". Simple MI, nothing more or less. >>> >>> >>> You know you might pass. Your partner knows you might pass. And yet >>> you tell your opponents that the bid was forcing. Sounds to me like >>> you're deliberately concealing your partnership's agreement. >> >> >> Which is precisely why I rule MI. YOU are the one who seems to believe >> it is impossible to rule MI on a player who explains a bid as forcing >> and then passes. > > > Not impossible. Just not mandatory. Herman argues that it is > impossible *not* to rule MI on a player who explains a bid as forcing > and then passes. I rule MI if I believe that the bid explained as > forcing was in fact non-forcing. I don't rule MI if I believe that the > bid explained as forcing was in fact forcing. Herman seems to believe > that *because you passed*, I *must* conclude that the bid was in fact > non-forcing, and rule MI. I don't. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 6 15:44:13 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 6 15:43:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050406075652.02b5c240@pop.starpower.net> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405075825.02af1eb0@pop.starpower.net> <4252A722.6090209@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405161020.02b9b560@pop.starpower.net> <4253913B.6060704@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050406075652.02b5c240@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4253E7AD.5040906@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Which is precisely why I rule MI. YOU are the one who seems to believe >> it is impossible to rule MI on a player who explains a bid as forcing >> and then passes. > > > Not impossible. Just not mandatory. Herman argues that it is > impossible *not* to rule MI on a player who explains a bid as forcing > and then passes. I rule MI if I believe that the bid explained as > forcing was in fact non-forcing. I don't rule MI if I believe that the > bid explained as forcing was in fact forcing. Herman seems to believe > that *because you passed*, I *must* conclude that the bid was in fact > non-forcing, and rule MI. I don't. > OK Eric, so someone explains a bid as forcing and yet he passes. We have come accross a number of reasons why this may be without there being anything wrong, let me cite two (I believe all fall into one of these two categories): -the player has previously grossly overbid his hand; -the player draws inference from the questions of an opponent and decides to gamble on a pass; I believe we can recognize these cases and therefore leave them out of consideration from now on. Then there are a number of cases where the partner does something wrond. For example, he might forget it was forcing (the explanation being given in some other way, perhaps behind screens) and pass anyway, to great chagrin of his partner. Or he might decide to psych a pass holding an otherwise normal hand - again not to partner's pleasure. Again a number of cases gone. By now, you might think there are none left, but I remind you of the two that came to my attention yesterday. The player has a normal hand, and after explaining his partner's bid as forcing, he passes. Neither he nor his partner seem to find anything strange about passing a "forcing" bid. What other conclusion do you want to draw, other than that neither of them understand what "forcing" means, and that they have consequently given MI? Or what other circumstances might you still throw up which explain the story without recourse to a MI ruling? I have said all these things before. I am not in the habit of ruling MI on each and every case. But when the other explanations have been peeled off, what other ruling can there possibly remain? -- 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: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 6 15:56:45 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 6 15:56:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4253EA9D.8020807@hdw.be> A very small point, though: Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>>Knowledge gained from reading reports to the district >>>secretary are part of "his general knowledge and >>>experience" L75C and not something that comes from his >> >>no they are not - the players from PNG haven't read them! > > > So what? That just means that they are not part of *their* GKE. > > Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of ways (outside partnering) that > one can build understanding. Discussions in the bar, opposing eachother > at the table, on-line fora such as BLML/RGB. The key though is that there > is interaction. It is necessary that both members of the partnership be > aware of what the other knows. Thus merely reading the reports would not > be enough. OTOH phoning the player up and saying "I've enjoyed reading > the psych reports at district committees - fancy a game sometime?" *would* > establish a mutual level of understanding. > Do you really want to go digging as deep as that? A player is a "known" psycher - all opponents know this and then one from Papua New Guinea arrives. He could make a real good case for damage if only the CC were to have mentioned that this player is a frequent psycher. And then you want to go digging as deep as that in order to establish whether or not his partner knew, and even whether the player knew his partner knew? The main point about psyches is that partner not know when. Knowing how often is not a crime. I still maintain that an individual's psyching tendencies need to be available to opponents, regardless of how many times the psycher has played with the particular partner. > Note also that "undisclosed" does not equal "concealed". The difference > would depend on local disclosure regulations. > There is also a very heavy element of intent there. -- 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: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 6 16:02:03 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 6 16:01:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050406102259.48043.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050406102259.48043.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4253EBDB.5000900@hdw.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > This is nonsense your disclosure requirements are > limited in the laws to the agreements and > understandings made explicitly or implicitly within > your partnership and further to experience that you > have had within that partnership. What my partner > does when playing with some other player is > inconsequential when I explain our partnership > agreements and our partnership experience. > Since a psyche is something so completely individual, the psychic tendencies of my partner, when playing with anyone - are part of my partnership experience (unless we have specifically agreed not to psyche opposite one another). If my opponents ask me if my partner sometimes psyches, I refuse to hide under an umbrella of "I don't have to tell you what she has done in the past 3 tournaments because she was not playing with me", when I have been called to her table 3 times for a psyche and have suffered one myself as an opponent. OK, you could not punish me for not knowing these things if I had not been called to her table, but I feel that I need to tell them these things even if I was not the partner. -- 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: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From SSDRBZ at corombona.freeserve.co.uk Wed Apr 6 17:10:01 2005 From: SSDRBZ at corombona.freeserve.co.uk (Madge Cabrera) Date: Wed Apr 6 16:18:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Get rock hard, Get 100% Herbal Viagra! Message-ID: <8.61028.3132363037393934.8@ientrynetwork.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050406/96bef170/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Apr 6 17:45:37 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Apr 6 17:47:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Demon's table References: Message-ID: <001701c53abf$b0ce45c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> I forgot to send this out the other day. Richard Hills wrote: > > You are playing against expert opponents. (West has played > internationally in the Australian Open Team; East has > played internationally in the Australian Seniors Team.) > > They are using a variation of the Aussie Acol system. > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1H 2S > Pass Pass 3H Pass > 6H Pass Pass Pass > > You, South, hold: > > QT8632 > A72 > J92 > J > West's pass over 2S must have been forcing. > What opening lead do you make? Dummy should have a spade stack. I lead Ace of hearts, as maybe trump leads will prevent some necessary ruffs. Dummy is probably void in diamonds, with opener perhaps holding 0=7=4=2 distribution (e.g., void K109xxxx KQ10x Ax) and dummy possibly 6=3=0=4 (e.g., AKJ9xx QJx void Kxxxx). > What other opening leads do you consider making? None. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 6 17:53:33 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Apr 6 17:55:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <4253E534.3040609@hdw.be> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405075825.02af1eb0@pop.starpower.net> <4252A722.6090209@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405161020.02b9b560@pop.starpower.net> <4253913B.6060704@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050406075652.02b5c240@pop.starpower.net> <4253E534.3040609@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050406113107.02ab1d40@pop.starpower.net> At 09:33 AM 4/6/05, Herman wrote: >Come off it Eric, don't try turning this around. I have never stated >that mine was the only possible ruling - I have always stated when I >would rule like this and which facts might induce me to rule the other >way. It is you who have constantly criticized my presumed ruling. >Don't now turn this whole thing around and make you seem like the good >guy. > >Otherwise, no comments on what you write - you seem to have now >grasped the full extent of this case. Herman seems to think that we are essentially in agreement, and are arguing only about who is "the good guy". He is wrong. I remain in substantive disagreement with the stated premises of his position. Perhaps I can clarify exactly where I disagree. On 1 April, replying to Ron, Herman wrote, "Opponents should know that nothing is 100% forcing, so they should not complain when 'forcing' turns out to mean '90% forcing'." I disagree. I see no difference between that sentence and one which reads, "Opponents should know that nothing is forcing, so they should not complain when 'forcing' turns out to mean 'not forcing'." I believe that that is absurd prima facie. Then, replying to Sven, Herman wrote, "Well, if a player describes a bid as '100% forcing' and he subsequently passes, then by his own admission he has given MI." I disagree. I believe that there really is such a thing as a forcing bid, and that it's not the same thing as a non-forcing bid. I do not believe you have committed an infraction if you pass a forcing bid which you have correctly described as forcing. I do believe you have committed an infraction if you pass a forcing bid which you have incorrectly and misleadingly described as non-forcing, or "90% forcing", or "99% forcing", or any other subset of "non-forcing". Then, replying to Konrad, Herman wrote, "Some bids are so forcing that we call them forcing, even if they are only 90% forcing." I disagree. Where I come from we do *not* call non-forcing bids "forcing". Indeed, we call doing so "cheating". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 6 18:09:03 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 6 18:08:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050406084516.02b597f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <20050406081328.88322.qmail@web14726.mail.yahoo.com> <4253A745.9040306@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050406084516.02b597f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4254099F.4080701@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:09 AM 4/6/05, Herman wrote: > >> Why should my partner explain to me, CTD of the Flemish Bridge League, >> that he is a well-known psycher, when he knows I have read all the >> reports on him. I don't care how I've come to know a particular piece >> of information - the fact that I have it means that it is partnership >> experience, and it must be disclosed as a result. > > > But as CTD of the Flemish Bridge League, Herman would know that this > player is a well-known psycher even if Herman had never laid eyes on > this player, much less partnered him. It is therefore absurd to argue > that Herman's knowledge "was conveyed to him through partnership > agreement or partnership experience" [L75C]. > > But how would one know? If I learn of this through some other channel, but then have a long partnership conversation with the man, did I still learn it through some other means thatn 'partnership experience'. Why should the method through which I learn something make any difference as to the disclosability? "what is 2Cl?" - "Roudinesco" - "what's that?" - "I don't have to tell you, because the only thing we discussed was that we would play that convention, we never discussed what it meant, since we both read the same article on the subject". If something is part of partnership experience, then it does not matter how it got there, it has to be disclosed. -- 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: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 6 19:56:21 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 6 19:57:21 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: <42538F76.7010306@hdw.be> References: <200504050003.RAA31812@mailhub.irvine.com> <425292F7.6070005@hdw.be> <42538F76.7010306@hdw.be> Message-ID: <83a109cb5712204b9220760695b64954@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 6, 2005, at 3:27 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > We all know the words "could have known" This statement is, I suspect, true. > and we know how to apply them This statement is false - unless in "we" you do not include me. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 6 19:58:35 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 6 19:59:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <42538FA5.2070201@hdw.be> References: <424E760A.3060308@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403135354.02b92c20@pop.starpower.net> <4250F2D0.3050803@hdw.be> <0d3e75fd39f69a26b4c4f674122cbdb9@rochester.rr.com> <4252400F.4040701@hdw.be> <7d2050c08b1b65169c426dfa41ab61a0@rochester.rr.com> <42538FA5.2070201@hdw.be> Message-ID: <54559d9966ac46e39326b0284fcad2b5@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 6, 2005, at 3:28 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Apr 5, 2005, at 3:36 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> Sorry Ed, but you seem to be eager to believe a fact that was not in >>> evidence >> Are you attacking my argument, or me? > > Both, I guess. Uh, huh. Let's stick to the argument, okay? From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 6 20:00:31 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 6 20:01:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406180031.21276.qmail@web14723.mail.yahoo.com> --- Tim West-Meads wrote: > Wayne wrote: > > > This is nonsense your disclosure requirements are > > limited in the laws to the agreements and > > understandings made explicitly or implicitly > within > > your partnership and further to experience that > you > > have had within that partnership. What my partner > > does when playing with some other player is > > inconsequential when I explain our partnership > > agreements and our partnership experience. > > This too is untrue. For example if partner tells > you about a hand he > played with someone else the mutual knowledge may > contribute to a level of > partnership understanding not previously attained. > This will be one form of an implicit understanding. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 6 20:13:20 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 6 20:14:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050406075652.02b5c240@pop.starpower.net> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405075825.02af1eb0@pop.starpower.net> <4252A722.6090209@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405161020.02b9b560@pop.starpower.net> <4253913B.6060704@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050406075652.02b5c240@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <76ef7954cbb72a8a38fc9ed292340dd4@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 6, 2005, at 8:34 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > in my experience everyone, even the rankest beginner, knows what > "forcing" means. With the possible exception of certain participants > in this forum. I know what I *think* "forcing" means - but I am not now convinced that I know what SOs (or TDs) mean when they use the word. "It's all a matter of who's going to be in charge." -- Humpty Dumpty From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 6 20:16:07 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 6 20:16:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406181608.68266.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> --- Herman De Wael wrote: > I still maintain that an individual's psyching > tendencies need to be > available to opponents, regardless of how many times > the psycher has > played with the particular partner. I would still like to know what law book you are looking at. Is it bridge laws? Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 6 20:18:03 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 6 20:18:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406181803.25592.qmail@web14723.mail.yahoo.com> --- Herman De Wael wrote: > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > This is nonsense your disclosure requirements are > > limited in the laws to the agreements and > > understandings made explicitly or implicitly > within > > your partnership and further to experience that > you > > have had within that partnership. What my partner > > does when playing with some other player is > > inconsequential when I explain our partnership > > agreements and our partnership experience. > > > > Since a psyche is something so completely > individual, the psychic > tendencies of my partner, when playing with anyone - > are part of my > partnership experience (unless we have specifically > agreed not to > psyche opposite one another). > > If my opponents ask me if my partner sometimes > psyches, I refuse to > hide under an umbrella of "I don't have to tell you > what she has done > in the past 3 tournaments because she was not > playing with me", when I > have been called to her table 3 times for a psyche > and have suffered > one myself as an opponent. > OK, you could not punish me for not knowing these > things if I had not > been called to her table, but I feel that I need to > tell them these > things even if I was not the partner. > Tell them as much as you like. I will not stop you. But do not penalize other players who do not tell since it is not *partnership* experience. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From toddz at att.net Wed Apr 6 20:26:52 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed Apr 6 20:27:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050406181803.25592.qmail@web14723.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050406181803.25592.qmail@web14723.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <425429EC.6090302@att.net> Wayne Burrows wrote: > Tell them as much as you like. I will not stop you. > But do not penalize other players who do not tell > since it is not *partnership* experience. Although no one will (or ever can?) give me an example where it is a good, useful idea to ask, I do have to add to this statement. As a habitual psycher by ACBL standards, there are still partners I refuse to psyche with. Herman should be stopped because he's issuing misinformation. -Todd From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 6 20:29:57 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 6 20:30:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050406182957.27431.qmail@web14723.mail.yahoo.com> --- Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > > > At 05:09 AM 4/6/05, Herman wrote: > > > >> Why should my partner explain to me, CTD of the > Flemish Bridge League, > >> that he is a well-known psycher, when he knows I > have read all the > >> reports on him. I don't care how I've come to > know a particular piece > >> of information - the fact that I have it means > that it is partnership > >> experience, and it must be disclosed as a result. > > > > > > But as CTD of the Flemish Bridge League, Herman > would know that this > > player is a well-known psycher even if Herman had > never laid eyes on > > this player, much less partnered him. It is > therefore absurd to argue > > that Herman's knowledge "was conveyed to him > through partnership > > agreement or partnership experience" [L75C]. > > > > > > But how would one know? > If I learn of this through some other channel, but > then have a long > partnership conversation with the man, did I still > learn it through > some other means thatn 'partnership experience'. > > Why should the method through which I learn > something make any > difference as to the disclosability? > > "what is 2Cl?" - "Roudinesco" - "what's that?" - "I > don't have to tell > you, because the only thing we discussed was that we > would play that > convention, we never discussed what it meant, since > we both read the > same article on the subject". > > If something is part of partnership experience, then > it does not > matter how it got there, it has to be disclosed. In this case you have an explicit agreement to play "Roudinesco". L40B requires that you only make calls based on this understanding if the opponents can be expected to understand its meaning. If not you must disclose. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 6 20:35:34 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 6 20:36:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <425393E6.4020005@hdw.be> References: <57a798cab43fb68f6955cb85bd8cc84a@rochester.rr.com> <42524222.4040401@hdw.be> <9ca7a384ac67892ce13ff499f8c2d2cf@rochester.rr.com> <425393E6.4020005@hdw.be> Message-ID: <0af2ae65f9422637c37d9b3c70d12e97@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 6, 2005, at 3:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > You will when you are up against me as TD. Is that a threat? :-) > Your partner has just psyched, and your opponents (guests from Papua > New Guinea) complain to me, saying that they had wanted to know how > often your partner psyched, but your CC did not have that piece of > info. It turns out that your partner is the most frequent psycher in > the venue, and everyone knows this. Yet you state that you are also > only a guest, from the nearby village 5 miles away, and you don't know > how often your partner psyches. How are you going to prove this - you > might well have read all the reports that went to the district > secretary, ... > > Your point was that a psyching tendency needs to be disclosed only > when the partner knows it - my point is that since you cannot prove > that you don't know what "everyone knows", such distinction is valid > only in theory but not in practice. Yes, you here repeat that point - but you don't discuss its legal basis. *Why* is it "valid only in theory but not in practice"? What legal principles lead you to this conclusion? >>> If a player is known to psyche then I don't care who the partner is, >>> the opponents should be able to know about the psyches. >> Depends what you mean by "is known to psyche". > > I think that sentence is sufficiently clear not to warrant a 5 page > explanation of. Never said anything about 5 pages. You assume that I, who live in another village 5 miles away, and have never played in your club, or with or against your club members, know that the guy you partnered me with is known to *me* to psyche simply because everybody else in the club knows it, and I can't prove I don't. IMO, that's bullshit. Show me why it isn't. > You would like to refuse them even that bit of knowledge - I say, give > it to them, so that they at least cannot complain about missing it! I am trying to keep this discussion objective. You're trying to make it personal. Cut it out. What I want is to discover the correct way to rule according to the *Law* - not according to Herman (or Grattan, or any other individual). From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 6 20:41:21 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 6 20:42:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <42539480.7090006@hdw.be> References: <20050405075108.59765.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> <702cd729dfcb26ca249fd0d1253bc045@rochester.rr.com> <42539480.7090006@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4c53e27904559e3de6eb04cb452f34c9@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 6, 2005, at 3:49 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > No, I am saying that the opponents are entitled to know this. How they > get that information is of no concern to me. Perhaps they could ask > you - has your partner ever psyched? - to which you are required to > respond in the negative. If I am asked a question at the bridge table, I attempt to answer it as best - and as truthfully - as I can. Let's stipulate that I know and agree with the principle of full disclosure. > If the ACBL choose to omit the box psyches from their CC, they are > being stupid. I don't disagree, but so what? > The WBF has such a box, and on my CC it is marked with: "now and > then". If I remember correctly, ACBL regs used to allow WBF cards - at least in some contests. Lately I haven't seen them mentioned, so I presume they are *not* allowed, unless a specific exemption is granted, which would likely only be for high level contests. So I can fill out such a card, but it will be of no use to me, save perhaps as "evidence" when my case goes to trial. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 6 20:48:46 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 6 20:49:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <4253A745.9040306@hdw.be> References: <20050406081328.88322.qmail@web14726.mail.yahoo.com> <4253A745.9040306@hdw.be> Message-ID: <886d7e8d9bdd957dcf5ee30cba07f503@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:09 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I don't care how I've come to know a particular piece of information > - the fact that I have it means that it is partnership experience, and > it must be disclosed as a result. Main Entry: 1ex?pe?ri?ence Pronunciation: ik-'spir-E-&n(t)s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin experientia act of trying, from experient-, experiens, present participle of experiri to try, from ex- + -periri (akin to periculum attempt) -- more at FEAR 1 a : direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge b : the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation 2 a : practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. "Direct observation or participation". The fact that you know something does *not* make it partnership experience. > Don't forget that the "general experience" is not a clause that you > can use to keep info from opponents - it is a clause exonerating you > from not telling something that you can expect the opponents to know > as well. If they don't know it - then you were wrong in not telling > them. Bull. > It is impossible for you to know when your partner psyches, so you are > not expected to tell your opponents this. But it is possible for you > to know how often in the past he has psyched - so I believe the > opponents are entitled to know this same fact, even when you don't > actually know the answer yourself. Yes, and you believe that if I don't tell them - even though I *don't* know it myself - I should be sanctioned. Again, bull. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 6 20:55:41 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 6 20:56:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <4253EBDB.5000900@hdw.be> References: <20050406102259.48043.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> <4253EBDB.5000900@hdw.be> Message-ID: <38483d0bb64fbedbd40392c88f190500@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 6, 2005, at 10:02 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I feel that I need to tell them these things even if I was not the > partner. The law does not place constraints (save for those relating to UI) on what you may tell opponents. And there is a difference between volunteering information, and being required to provide it - and I, for one, am not convinced that what you feel you need to tell opponents is necessarily required by law. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 6 21:48:35 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Apr 6 21:51:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <76ef7954cbb72a8a38fc9ed292340dd4@rochester.rr.com> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405075825.02af1eb0@pop.starpower.net> <4252A722.6090209@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405161020.02b9b560@pop.starpower.net> <4253913B.6060704@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050406075652.02b5c240@pop.starpower.net> <76ef7954cbb72a8a38fc9ed292340dd4@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050406145129.02b5b580@pop.starpower.net> At 02:13 PM 4/6/05, Ed wrote: >On Apr 6, 2005, at 8:34 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >>in my experience everyone, even the rankest beginner, knows what >>"forcing" means. With the possible exception of certain participants >>in this forum. > >I know what I *think* "forcing" means - but I am not now convinced >that I know what SOs (or TDs) mean when they use the word. Let's see if we can provide a rigorous definition. For any given auction, there is some set of hands which you might hold consistent with your "system". The auction up to and including your last call has defined that set of hands. Partner makes a bid, and your RHO passes. Your system now defines a "correct action" for each possible hand in the set. If none of those actions is to pass, we call the bid "forcing". If there is any hand in the set for which it is systemically correct to pass, we call the bid "non-forcing". Sounds easy enough. Notice, however, that this definition is about systemically correct actions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the action you actually choose to take, since there is no prohibition against taking an action that violates your system. I hope to convince Herman that if a bid is forcing and you choose to violate system and pass, that doesn't make the bid retroactively not forcing, just as if partner bids 4NT, which asks for aces, and you choose to violate system and leap directly to a slam, that doesn't make 4NT retroactively not ace-asking. And that, moreover, if you intend to violate your system, it is illegal (and, in fact, outright cheating) to give your opponents a different explanation from the one you would have offered if you didn't so intend. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 7 01:46:55 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 7 01:45:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <4253EBDB.5000900@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >If my opponents ask me if my partner sometimes >psyches, I refuse to hide under an umbrella of "I >don't have to tell you what she has done in the >past 3 tournaments because she was not playing >with me", when I have been called to her table 3 >times for a psyche and have suffered one myself >as an opponent. > >OK, you could not punish me for not knowing these >things if I had not been called to her table, but >I feel that I need to tell them these things even >if I was not the partner. Richard Hills: I agree that Herman's broader definition of "implicit partnership agreement" is superior to Wayne's narrow definition of "implicit partnership agreement". At the moment, the Laws do not define the full scope of what an "implicit partnership agreement" is. Law 75B merely states that habitual violations of an explicit partnership agreement may create an implicit partnership agreement; Law 75B does *not* preclude implicit partnership agreements from being created in other ways. I hope that the 2007 edition of the Laws will have a comprehensive definition, with indicative examples, of "implicit partnership agreement", so that a Secretary Bird cannot wriggle out their Lawful obligation to give full disclosure. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 7 02:06:18 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 7 02:05:22 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <20050406181803.25592.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >Tell them as much as you like. I will not stop you. >But do not penalize other players who do not tell >since it is not *partnership* experience. Richard Hills: In my opinion, "partnership experience" is *not* a mandatory criterion for the creation of an "implicit partnership agreement". Therefore, if was Wayne's TD, I might indeed rule a procedural penalty upon Wayne for what I would deem to be his infraction of the "fully and freely available" disclosure requirement of Law 75A. If blml was AC to my TD, and Wayne appealed, would the blml AC vote to ask me to change my ruling, because the blml AC decided that my ruling was an error in Law? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist From toddz at att.net Thu Apr 7 02:18:32 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu Apr 7 02:19:19 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42547C58.9040408@att.net> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > If blml was AC to my TD, and Wayne appealed, would > the blml AC vote to ask me to change my ruling, > because the blml AC decided that my ruling was an > error in Law? I would suggest you reconsider. Bridge is a partnership game and not all players will play the same way in all partnerships. I think it's a damaging assumption to assume otherwise, whether for superficially obvious reasons (playing precision in some partnerships, ACOL in others) or more subtle reasons (bidding more conservatively with more aggressive partners). If opponents can demand to know my knowledge of my partner as I've experienced as a kibitzer, opponent, or TD, my opponents may as well be allowed to ask the people at the next table or the TD himself. Those people might have more such knowledge than myself anyways. -Todd From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Thu Apr 7 03:10:16 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Apr 7 03:11:03 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050407011016.70383.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > >Tell them as much as you like. I will not stop > you. > >But do not penalize other players who do not tell > >since it is not *partnership* experience. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, "partnership experience" is *not* a > mandatory criterion for the creation of an "implicit > partnership agreement". > > Therefore, if was Wayne's TD, I might indeed rule a > procedural penalty upon Wayne for what I would deem > to be his infraction of the "fully and freely > available" disclosure requirement of Law 75A. > > If blml was AC to my TD, and Wayne appealed, would > the blml AC vote to ask me to change my ruling, > because the blml AC decided that my ruling was an > error in Law? > I too do not believe that "partnership experience" is mandatory for an "implicit agreement". However individual characteristics if not part of your partnership experience are far from sufficient to create an implicit agreement and in most cases would not create an implicit agreement. I would be surprised if you wanted to penalize me for failure to disclose. In my regular partnership I try to go out of my way to provide the information that would be most helpful and accurate to the opponents. In irregular partnerships I am necessarily not so helpful since we have few explicit and implicit agreements and less experience as a partnership. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Thu Apr 7 03:24:57 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Apr 7 03:25:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050407012457.51067.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > > >If my opponents ask me if my partner sometimes > >psyches, I refuse to hide under an umbrella of "I > >don't have to tell you what she has done in the > >past 3 tournaments because she was not playing > >with me", when I have been called to her table 3 > >times for a psyche and have suffered one myself > >as an opponent. > > > >OK, you could not punish me for not knowing these > >things if I had not been called to her table, but > >I feel that I need to tell them these things even > >if I was not the partner. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree that Herman's broader definition of > "implicit partnership agreement" is superior to > Wayne's narrow definition of "implicit partnership > agreement". > My definition is as broad as "implicit partnership agreement" will allow. If it is not a partnership agreement then it cannot possibly be an "implicit partnership agreement". > At the moment, the Laws do not define the full > scope of what an "implicit partnership agreement" > is. Law 75B merely states that habitual violations > of an explicit partnership agreement may create an > implicit partnership agreement; Law 75B does *not* > preclude implicit partnership agreements from being > created in other ways. Nor does it require that habitual violations will create agreements. > > I hope that the 2007 edition of the Laws will have > a comprehensive definition, with indicative > examples, of "implicit partnership agreement", so > that a Secretary Bird cannot wriggle out their > Lawful obligation to give full disclosure. > I hope that 2007 TDs will rule according to what is written in the 2007 Laws. There seem to be plenty of TDs who are willing to rule according to what they think the laws should say rather than what in fact they do say. This is an unhealthy state for our game. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From cranor at emailaccount.com Thu Apr 7 04:40:36 2005 From: cranor at emailaccount.com (Maricela Poe) Date: Thu Apr 7 03:49:40 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.3-m-n.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Kieth Alston to be remov(ed: http://www.3-m-n.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 swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Apr 7 03:49:45 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Apr 7 03:50:30 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <200504042200.j34M0o6j024235@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504042200.j34M0o6j024235@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <425491B9.3040302@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > 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. This is exactly the right question. Herman says a), but I don't think that is tenable. How do proponents of a) plan to rule when even declarer may be unsure of his own intention? I vote for b) (along with Mike and John, I think). Of course we may at that time have a partial designation or multiple designations, but there are rules for dealing with either contingency. I don't see how either c) or d) could work. On second thought, I do see how d) could work, but I don't like it at all. Unfortunately, d) seems to have its advocates. From shippy at doneasy.com Thu Apr 7 04:57:20 2005 From: shippy at doneasy.com (Sanford Huff) Date: Thu Apr 7 04:04:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Pre-approved Application #CUOJV272 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.3-m-n.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Tanya Kurtz to be remov(ed: http://www.3-m-n.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 swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Apr 7 04:11:27 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Apr 7 04:12:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <200504041834.j34IYpki001262@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504041834.j34IYpki001262@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <425496CF.4090307@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > My entry into this field is the American-style (2-over-1) 1NT forcing. > I play that one myself. For Sven's benefit (and perhaps others), there are a couple of versions of this that are popular. in one version 1NT is "just as forcing" as a new suit or a 2/1. Often, but not always, this version can include some strong hands; normally it can include three-card support for opener's major. The other version is strictly limited to less than GF values and may well be passed. In the ACBL, the first version is announced "forcing" and the second "semi-forcing." I think the latter announcement is pretty silly, but that's what our rules require. Only if 1NT is limited to 10 points or so is it not announced at all. Consider now a pair who agree that 1NT is forcing and also that it is strictly limited to less than GF values. In those circumstances, opener might well "spontaneously" decide to pass a "forcing" bid. In such a case, as in all putative MI cases, the TD or AC will have to judge what the true agreement really was. If they judge the true agreement was "semi-forcing," then they have to see whether there was damage. There is nothing really special or unusual about any of this. > From: Eric Landau > If you play the "1NT forcing" > agreement (which is quite different from the "1NT semi-forcing" > agreement), open in 3rd or 4th seat, and partner responds 1NT you are > expected to announce "forcing" ... > That a normal response by a passed hand can be > dropped even when it would be absolutely positively 100% forcing by an > unpassed hand is considered -- and is, even in our novice games -- > "general bridge knowledge". I've never been clear on this. As Eric wrote, presumably all GF hands are now ruled out, and a sub-minimum opener will always pass, and this should be obvious to opponents. So damage is highly unlikely regardless. But technically, shouldn't the announcement be "semi-forcing?" This thread is also a good opportunity for me to ask another question that I've never been clear on. What is the difference between "misinformation" (L75A/C, L21B) and "concealed partnership understanding" (L40B)? I understand the different _consequences_; the respective score adjustments under L12C2 may differ (and some authorities mandate L12C1 for CPU). But how, in a given case of wrong information, does one decide which rule has been violated? From eswgjr at yebox.com Thu Apr 7 08:38:57 2005 From: eswgjr at yebox.com (Earnest Haines) Date: Thu Apr 7 07:43:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Rates 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.3-m-n.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Teri Schneider to be remov(ed: http://www.3-m-n.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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 7 08:48:14 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 7 08:49:07 2005 Subject: [blml] One - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the first of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-01 Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff LM Open Pair 2nd Qualification Bd: 7 Albert Lochli Dlr: South AK4 Vul: Both QJ73 KQ83 32 Fred Hamilton Mark Itabashi QT872 J5 A65 4 --- 9642 QJT86 AK9754 Stephen Brauss 963 KT982 AJT75 --- West North East South --- --- --- Pass Pass 1NT 3C 3H 5C Dbl(1) Pass 5D Pass 5H Pass Pass Pass (1) Agreed-upon break in tempo Facts: The director, who was called after the 5D bid, determined that the double was preceded by an extended break in tempo of about 25 seconds. The STOP card had been used prior to the 5C bid. NS play 15-17 1NT. NS had not discussed whether 3H was forcing, but both treated it as highly constructive. EW play DONT over opponents' 1NT opening bid. Director's Ruling: The director ruled that the break in tempo suggested doubt about the double of 5C, which in turn suggested that 5D would be a more attractive alternative for South, as pass is a logical alternative to bidding 5D. Hence, the result was adjusted to 5 doubled for +750 EW. The Appeal: South disagreed with the director's finding that pass was a logical alternative, especially against top level players. The Decision: The Committee considered many typical North hands and estimated that pulling the double would produce a better result than passing a little more than half the time. However, this clearly did not make passing an illogical alternative. Since the slowness of tempo suggested that bidding was more attractive than passing, the Committee determined that South must pass. The play in 5 would easily achieve eleven tricks and no more. Therefore, the adjustment of the board's result to +750 EW was made. The Committee determined that NS were experienced players and should have been familiar with Law 16, Unauthorized Information, which governs situations such as this. The Committee decided that the appeal was without merit and an AWMW was issued. The Panel: Richard Popper, chairperson, Gail Greenberg, Ellen Melson, Bob Schwartz, Larry Cohen. From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Apr 7 09:36:58 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Apr 7 09:36:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050406145129.02b5b580@pop.starpower.net> References: <20050401162204.1F54C2334E4@poczta.interia.pl> <424E7AF2.3000403@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403141712.02b919b0@pop.starpower.net> <4250F376.1090205@hdw.be> <195ab08bc18e5e3b97f0ba673152a4e6@rochester.rr.com> <425240B3.3090007@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405075825.02af1eb0@pop.starpower.net> <4252A722.6090209@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050405161020.02b9b560@pop.starpower.net> <4253913B.6060704@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050406075652.02b5c240@pop.starpower.net> <76ef7954cbb72a8a38fc9ed292340dd4@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050406145129.02b5b580@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4254E31A.8010605@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Let's see if we can provide a rigorous definition. > > For any given auction, there is some set of hands which you might hold > consistent with your "system". The auction up to and including your > last call has defined that set of hands. Partner makes a bid, and your > RHO passes. Your system now defines a "correct action" for each > possible hand in the set. If none of those actions is to pass, we call > the bid "forcing". If there is any hand in the set for which it is > systemically correct to pass, we call the bid "non-forcing". > > Sounds easy enough. > > Notice, however, that this definition is about systemically correct > actions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the action you actually > choose to take, since there is no prohibition against taking an action > that violates your system. I hope to convince Herman that if a bid is > forcing and you choose to violate system and pass, that doesn't make the > bid retroactively not forcing, just as if partner bids 4NT, which asks > for aces, and you choose to violate system and leap directly to a slam, > that doesn't make 4NT retroactively not ace-asking. And that, moreover, > if you intend to violate your system, it is illegal (and, in fact, > outright cheating) to give your opponents a different explanation from > the one you would have offered if you didn't so intend. > > Eric, you have said nothing new. You have said nothing that I don't understand, and nothing that I disagree with. In fact, my very first contribution to this thread was "provided passer has a sub-minimum hand". Exactly the things you cater for above. So you don't need to convince me of what you write above. Now let me please try and convince _you_ that this is not the only possible story. There are people on this planet who don't know or don't care about the definition you spelt out above. To them, the word "forcing" does not mean that they shall not pass with all hands that still lie within their stated range. They are wrong, of course, but they do exist. When someone like that explains a bid as forcing and then passes, he is easily discovered, since his hand does fall within formerly stated parameters and the reason for his passing is not the one you state above. Those people commit MI. I told you the story. A player comes up to me and recounts of two cases where a 1NT had been explained to him as forcing, yet the player passed. Now surely you realize that this player has also checked the hand of the passer, and that he would realize that if this is a sub-minimum, there is nothing wrong and nothing to go bother Herman about. So we assume that there is out there, at least one, probably two, people who have once called their partner's call forcing, and they have passed with a non-sub-minimal hand. Did these players commit MI or not? Do you need further information before knowing that you shall rule MI? -- 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: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Apr 7 09:47:42 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Apr 7 09:47:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <0af2ae65f9422637c37d9b3c70d12e97@rochester.rr.com> References: <57a798cab43fb68f6955cb85bd8cc84a@rochester.rr.com> <42524222.4040401@hdw.be> <9ca7a384ac67892ce13ff499f8c2d2cf@rochester.rr.com> <425393E6.4020005@hdw.be> <0af2ae65f9422637c37d9b3c70d12e97@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4254E59E.80204@hdw.be> Hello Ed, I don't want to appear rude by not answering you on blml, but I'd rather stop this thread. So here goes, for a (hopefully) last time: Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2005, at 3:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> You will when you are up against me as TD. > > > Is that a threat? :-) > No, but you mentioned that you'd never had a ruling like that, well, you would have, from me. >> Your partner has just psyched, and your opponents (guests from Papua >> New Guinea) complain to me, saying that they had wanted to know how >> often your partner psyched, but your CC did not have that piece of >> info. It turns out that your partner is the most frequent psycher in >> the venue, and everyone knows this. Yet you state that you are also >> only a guest, from the nearby village 5 miles away, and you don't know >> how often your partner psyches. How are you going to prove this - you >> might well have read all the reports that went to the district >> secretary, ... >> >> Your point was that a psyching tendency needs to be disclosed only >> when the partner knows it - my point is that since you cannot prove >> that you don't know what "everyone knows", such distinction is valid >> only in theory but not in practice. > > > Yes, you here repeat that point - but you don't discuss its legal basis. > *Why* is it "valid only in theory but not in practice"? What legal > principles lead you to this conclusion? > No legal principles, just directing issues. We tend to dismiss self-serving statements, so the answer "but I don't know that" can be disregarded in our ruling. So while you are right in theory, in practice you won't be able to have a ruling on that basis, since you cannot prove that you don't know something and so the director may well rule as if you did. Which is why I say you are right in theory (you are not obliged to disclose something you don't know), but not in practice (your opponents are entitled to know everything you "could have known"). >>>> If a player is known to psyche then I don't care who the partner is, >>>> the opponents should be able to know about the psyches. >>> >>> Depends what you mean by "is known to psyche". >> >> >> I think that sentence is sufficiently clear not to warrant a 5 page >> explanation of. > > > Never said anything about 5 pages. You assume that I, who live in > another village 5 miles away, and have never played in your club, or > with or against your club members, know that the guy you partnered me > with is known to *me* to psyche simply because everybody else in the > club knows it, and I can't prove I don't. IMO, that's bullshit. Show me > why it isn't. > Because you cannot prove that you don't know it. There are thousands of ways you might have learnt about your partner's psyching habits. Stories do travel 5 miles, if not to PNG, and at least you knew your partner sufficiently well to sit down accross from him. And maybe you are right - maybe you can prove that you had absolutely no idea who your partner was. But I believe those circumstances are far more infrequent that the general ones in which a player states "I don't know how often my partner psyches", when they have been playing in the same club for 20 years. I disregard those statements. >> You would like to refuse them even that bit of knowledge - I say, give >> it to them, so that they at least cannot complain about missing it! > > > I am trying to keep this discussion objective. You're trying to make it > personal. Cut it out. > I am trying to be objective as well - my "You" was being general. > What I want is to discover the correct way to rule according to the > *Law* - not according to Herman (or Grattan, or any other individual). > The law may well be as you state - but practice 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: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 5/04/2005 From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 7 10:00:24 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 7 10:01:37 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? (was Forcing) In-Reply-To: <425496CF.4090307@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c53b47$db4f95f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner ...................... > This thread is also a good opportunity for me to ask another question > that I've never been clear on. What is the difference between > "misinformation" (L75A/C, L21B) and "concealed partnership > understanding" (L40B)? I understand the different _consequences_; the > respective score adjustments under L12C2 may differ (and some > authorities mandate L12C1 for CPU). But how, in a given case of wrong > information, does one decide which rule has been violated? IMO this situation has some similarities with (fielding) psyches: If the actions of BOTH (!) players appear consistent with an agreement that differs from what has been disclosed to opponents then the Director should seriously consider CPU and so rule unless he also finds evidence to the contrary. If the actions by the player giving information are consistent with the information he gives then the case is most likely a simple case of either misinformation or misbid, but not a case of CPU. Regards Sven From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Thu Apr 7 13:01:42 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu Apr 7 13:05:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? Message-ID: <008701c53b61$7b897680$71063dd4@c6l8v1> West thinks he has gained the trick, but he has not seen that declarer has ruffed. In order to lead for the next trick he pulls a card from his hand. Reaching the table he is warned by east because he is not on lead. East could not see the face of the card. The director is summoned. He chides east because of improper communication which is UI for west. West is not allowed to make use of that information. Is west obliged to finish his action and to make an infraction? Has declarer a choice? Ben From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 7 13:57:02 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Apr 7 13:57:46 2005 Subject: [blml] One - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050407075051.02a81750@pop.starpower.net> At 02:48 AM 4/7/05, richard.hills wrote: >This is the first of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be >collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the >official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 >cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist > >* * * > >CASE N-01 >Subject: UI >DIC: Cukoff >LM Open Pair 2nd Qualification > >Bd: 7 Albert Lochli >Dlr: South AK4 >Vul: Both QJ73 > KQ83 > 32 >Fred Hamilton Mark Itabashi >QT872 J5 >A65 4 >--- 9642 >QJT86 AK9754 > Stephen Brauss > 963 > KT982 > AJT75 > --- > >West North East South >--- --- --- Pass >Pass 1NT 3C 3H >5C Dbl(1) Pass 5D >Pass 5H Pass Pass >Pass > >(1) Agreed-upon break in tempo > >Facts: The director, who was called after the 5D bid, determined >that the double was preceded by an extended break in tempo of about >25 seconds. The STOP card had been used prior to the 5C bid. NS >play 15-17 1NT. NS had not discussed whether 3H was forcing, but >both treated it as highly constructive. EW play DONT over >opponents' 1NT opening bid. > >Director's Ruling: The director ruled that the break in tempo >suggested doubt about the double of 5C, which in turn suggested >that 5D would be a more attractive alternative for South, as pass >is a logical alternative to bidding 5D. Hence, the result was >adjusted to 5 doubled for +750 EW. > >The Appeal: South disagreed with the director's finding that pass >was a logical alternative, especially against top level players. > >The Decision: The Committee considered many typical North hands >and estimated that pulling the double would produce a better result >than passing a little more than half the time. However, this >clearly did not make passing an illogical alternative. > >Since the slowness of tempo suggested that bidding was more >attractive than passing, the Committee determined that South must >pass. > >The play in 5 would easily achieve eleven tricks and no more. >Therefore, the adjustment of the board's result to +750 EW was >made. > >The Committee determined that NS were experienced players and >should have been familiar with Law 16, Unauthorized Information, >which governs situations such as this. The Committee decided that >the appeal was without merit and an AWMW was issued. > >The Panel: Richard Popper, chairperson, Gail Greenberg, Ellen >Melson, Bob Schwartz, Larry Cohen. I agree with the committee's decision. But, as they themselves noted, most players would bid absent the tempo break. While pass is, IMO, a logical alternative here, this is a close enough judgment that we shouldn't be expecting players to determine that definitively for themselves. I strongly disagree with the committee's finding that the appeal was without merit. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From con.holzscherer at philips.com Thu Apr 7 14:24:24 2005 From: con.holzscherer at philips.com (Con Holzscherer) Date: Thu Apr 7 14:26:12 2005 Subject: [blml] One - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050407075051.02a81750@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote: "While pass is, IMO, a logical alternative here, this is a close enough judgment that we shouldn't be expecting players to determine that definitively for themselves. I strongly disagree with the committee's finding that the appeal was without merit." I strongly disagree with Eric's disagreement. An immediate double would (or at least should) show a hand without a reasonable heart fit and certainly with wasted club values. At best (from South's viewpoint) something like: K J 10 x A x x K Q x Q J x which should yield about 800 against 5 clubs opposite a doubtful 5 hearts. My opinions is that after partner's double, pass is not only "an alternative", but the best bid. By the way, North's double is ridiculous. If South would have passed after half a minute and South would have bid 5 diamonds and the TD would not have accepted the 5 diamond bid, NS would have had a legitimate case, but after Norths double? NO! Regards, Con Holzscherer From blml at blakjak.com Thu Apr 7 15:21:46 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 7 15:24:12 2005 Subject: [blml] A blocking revoke In-Reply-To: <42538F76.7010306@hdw.be> References: <200504050003.RAA31812@mailhub.irvine.com> <425292F7.6070005@hdw.be> <42538F76.7010306@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >>> >>> And this is a case in law now: do we need the offence to be likely >>>to be causing damage, or do we simply want it to be a certain plus. >>> Whatever the likelihood of the opponents noticing, the damage is >>>always positive (since the prescribed penalty just brings it back to >>>the normal result). >>> >>> I feel there is a case in law for this to be ruled, and I think Adam >>>is wrong here. >>> >>> You reopened the thread, what do you think, David? >> I do not see your point, unless it is the correct but trivial one >>that one needs the whole of L72B1 to be applicable before we apply >>it. >> I still think that whether L72B1 applies in a particular case is a >>matter of bridge judgement. >> I don't re-open threads: I reply to them when I am able! :) >> > >Yes David, and we're happy that you do - but some threads were "closed" >in our eyes; we thought we'd said all. You've re-opened the debate. > >You don't see my point, then met me repeat it and try to make it more >clear. > >I'm with you on this matter, David, but Adam is not. You have stated >that you believe Adam just sees a difference in bridge judgment, but I >believe you are wrong there. Adam raises a valid legal point, which I >deem to be false, but which is interesting nevertheless. > >We all know of cases where after some infraction, and after the >application of all the penalties, the offending side ends up with a >better score than they could have. A gambling 3NT opposite a barred >partner is a good example. > >Now on some of these infractions we apply L72B1, and on some we don't. > >We all know the words "could have known" and we know how to apply them. >We realize that the player who led his D3 out of turn probably did not >know he was doing anything wrong, but we rule that he could have known >it. There's no problem there. > >Adam however looks at the second part of the sentence "would be likely >to damage" and he states that it's so unlikely that the offence goes >unnoticed that offender could not know he would do damage. > >We may well believe Adam's estimate of the likelihood of this fact. > >But I don't think they matter. > >At the point of the infraction (the lead out of turn), the player could >know that if his infraction were noticed, he would be no worse off than >if he didn't commit it. He could also know that if his infraction went >unnoticed, he would be up one trick. He could even know that even if >the infraction were detected after the hand was over, a normal TD could >do nothing about it, and even a very wise one would first have to trawl >through 3 weeks' worth of blml before deciding he could rule against. >So offender could certainly know there would be damage. > >Adam says that since this damage is unlikely, because the not-noticing >is unlikely, L72B1 does not apply. > >In terms of expected value of the damage, Adam says that a small >expected value renders L72B1 unapplicable. >I say that no matter how small, if the expected value of the damage is >positive, the score should be altered. And I say that it is a matter of bridge judgement, not Law, so let the TD/AC decide whether L72B1 applies. Of course from what I remember of the actual case this does not apply where the infractor cashed a trick when not on lead so he certainly knew it could damage the opponent. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Apr 7 15:23:10 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 7 15:25:28 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: <53faf479ea5abdb5ab6cff698110c288@rochester.rr.com> References: <20050325092159.C91BCE5B71@poczta.interia.pl> <21d05563efcc326f9bc3a801a01279b2@rochester.rr.com> <53faf479ea5abdb5ab6cff698110c288@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Apr 5, 2005, at 8:42 AM, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Not so. It is good wording, that practical people can use when >>making bridge judgements. > >It is? Okay, prove it. :-) Since you are one of the sensible people here, I presume you are joking. But the fact that people do use it happily is good enough for me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Thu Apr 7 15:25:50 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 7 15:28:08 2005 Subject: [blml] lead rites In-Reply-To: <000201c53a20$e1af3e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c53a20$e1af3e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of David Stevenson >> >............ >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> If the player was on lead when it was found out then he must have >> made >> >> at least one call, surely? >> > >> >You disappoint me David by only quoting half of my answer and then >> >commenting on that part alone. Surely when taken out of context the part >> >above from my answer doesn't make much sense. >> >> I am so sorry to disappoint you. Quoting reams and reams of >> irrelevant stuff is bad Netiquette, a total bore, and detrimental to >> serious discussion. But you have not answered my question. > >The first part of my comment concerned the case when no call had been made >(on B1) and was that the posters view (actually related to B2) was correct >but irrelevant (as a call had indeed been made on B1). > >I then continued my comment (which you either overlooked or deliberately >omitted) with: > >"Once the offender has made a call on B1 (using his hand from B2) Law 17D >applies for both B1 and B2." > >Doesn't this cover the exact point which I understood you to criticize me >for omitting? > >(And this second part of my comment can hardly be considered "reams and >reams of irrelevant stuff"?) OK, now you have answered it, and I have no idea what you are talking about. So i shall merely say that, in my view, a player on lead to a contract cannot not have made a call - and that was the scenario given, n'est-ce-pas? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Thu Apr 7 17:24:43 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 7 17:27:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Psychic Disclosure In-Reply-To: <42537A6A.6040209@att.net> References: <42537A6A.6040209@att.net> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch wrote > Despite the abundance of recent posts about disclosing psychic >tendencies, I'm still at a loss to understand why it's a good idea. This is a game where you tussle with opponents while knowing their agreements. It is a good idea for this to be consistently applied: it would be far more difficult to have a game where you know all your opponents' agreements expect one or two. It would also be far more difficult to police. The mistake is to think about psyches: we want an open agreement game: *any* exception is a poor idea. > Asking about psychic tendencies during the auction would give >partner a huge UI problem. He'll know there's something about your >hand that makes the auction very strange, perhaps too many points, too >many cards in a suit opponents are advertising a fit in, etc. For >example, if I ask about the frequency of the 1H-X-1S psyche, it really >looks like I'm advertising a spade fit for partner. We may be >hard-pressed to come up with an auction constrained by L16 that has us >playing in spades. Tough. But if you ask about the sequence when it is not psychic there are exactly the same UI and other problems. You wan tus to be allowed to ask the meaning of 1H (X) 1S and get an honest and complete answer if it is not as psyche, and a dishonest and/or incomplete answer when it is not? And this would help your UI problem how? > I can envision asking during play as declarer, specifically >wanting to know what player X usually has when psyching in the given >position. I don't see an answer coming to that question, the existence >of an answer being evidence of a CPU. > > So, when would I ask opponents about their psychic tendencies >and what knowledge can I gain that doesn't require me to be a psychic? Why are you not just asking about your agreements, as universally recommended, and mandated by regulation by the ACBL? As for useful info, suppose a pair plays - as I believe one BLML player has claimed to do - that a Spanish 1H or 1S opening shows either * a normal 1H/1S opening respectively, or * 2-4 HCP, three cards in the suit bid That might be a very useful thing to know in the bidding or play. Much of bidding is based on probabilities. I remember a hand form the Buxton congress of 25 or so years ago: AK987xxx Ax AK Ax P P 1S ? Your call? What oyu bid might depend somewhat on your estimate of the likelihood that RHO, playing five-card majors, and Green [nv v v], has psyched. You could ask LHO or look at the CC. Perhaps you will find out RHO *never* psyches - that might affect your decision. Richard Granville bid 3S natural, as 4S would have been, and made precisely nine tricks. RHO had his bid. When we asked him he said that RHO did not look to him like a man who psyches. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Thu Apr 7 17:40:37 2005 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Thu Apr 7 17:39:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Mistaken bid or mistaken explanation Message-ID: Hi all, N E S W Auction: 1NT (15-17) - 2C - 4H - Director West told he should have alert 2C. After some thought she finally said they play Brozel (H + C). The TD applied Law 21B and allowed South a change of call. South then P. The TD told N-S to call him back if they think E-W may have use information from the withdrawn call. 2C was the final bid. West had 4 cards in C and two in H. The TD was called back. East had 6 cards in D. She uses to play Brozel with this partner but told she misbid. North had A-Q-J in H and South had 7 cards in the suit of his withdrawn call. Some N-S pairs bid and made 4H. 2C was -2. The TD ruled: score stands. 2C was a misbid and N-S received all information they are entitle to (this pair play Brozel). West just made the normal call when passing with a C fit. When explaining his ruling to an appeal committee, he add that N-S, as good players should have bid 4H despite the misbid. The committee let the score stand. 1) Is this ruling OK when East and West have both a filled CC (with 2C = H + C) ? 2) Any difference if only one of them has a filled CC ? 3) Without any CC ? 4) At the club level, without 2 filled CCs, does the TD can take into account the fact that he knows this pair from a long time and he is sure they always played Brozel ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From dkent at sujja.com Thu Apr 7 18:15:04 2005 From: dkent at sujja.com (David Kent) Date: Thu Apr 7 18:13:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Psychic Disclosure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > David Stevenson wrote > Much of bidding is based on probabilities. I remember a hand form > the Buxton congress of 25 or so years ago: > > AK987xxx > Ax > AK > Ax > What is the world coming to when David Stevenson starts posting 14-card hands. ...Dave Kent From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Apr 7 19:13:02 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu Apr 7 19:13:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Who should call the TD for Law 21 Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C625@hotel.npl.co.uk> Elsewhere I suggested that the position expressed in the EBU White Book on Law 21 (that non-offender must call the TD to avoid being too late to apply L21B1 and not be allowed redress under L21B3) is "unreasonable and think the law could (should) be read differently". WB 21.1 > When is it too late to change a call? > When a player finds that he has been misinformed he should call the TD (indeed, both sides should call the TD). The TD will allow the last call by the non-offending side to be taken back unless dummy has been faced. Earlier calls cannot be taken back, and the TD may give an adjusted score after the board is finished. > If a player does not call the TD when he finds himself misinformed but asks for an adjustment later he seems to have gained an advantage: instead of having to decide whether to change this last call that can be changed he can rely on an adjustment that will give him the benefit of the doubt. > However, Law 21B3 only allows an adjustment when it is too late to apply Law 21B1. So no adjustment is given based on the one call that could have been changed since it was not too late to change it, and the failure of the players to call the TD does not change that. David Stevenson replied: > The problem with changing the Law is that you have to do one of two things. > Either you permit people not to call the TD at the right time and gain the advantage of an adjustment rather than having to actually correct a call. This gives them an enormous advantage because they do not have to decide whether they would have changed their call. As a result anyone knowledgeable will never call the TD at that time. > Or you do not allow a change of call, so many simple correctable situations have to be dealt with by adjustments afterwards leading to more of the reasonable dislike of adjusted scores. > So I do not think it is that simple. But anyway, in this forum [IFLB] our prime interest is the Law as it is, whether we approve of it or not. So I have taken it to this list where discussing what the law should be is fair game. David wants to avoid giving knowledgeable non-offenders a double shot, by putting the onus on them to call the TD. I suggest that if we put the onus on the offenders to call the TD, then it is up to knowledgeable offenders to stop their opponents getting a double shot by calling the TD themselves. Robin -- David Stevenson ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire RG27 9UY United Kingdom ------------------------------------------------------------------- From toddz at att.net Thu Apr 7 19:16:52 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu Apr 7 19:17:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Psychic Disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <42537A6A.6040209@att.net> Message-ID: <42556B04.9030205@att.net> David Stevenson wrote: > This is a game where you tussle with opponents while knowing their > agreements. It is a good idea for this to be consistently applied: it > would be far more difficult to have a game where you know all your > opponents' agreements expect one or two. It would also be far more > difficult to police. > > The mistake is to think about psyches: we want an open agreement game: > *any* exception is a poor idea. I'm not suggesting there be an exception. >> [1H-(X)-1S] snippage > Tough. But if you ask about the sequence when it is not psychic there > are exactly the same UI and other problems. You wan tus to be allowed > to ask the meaning of 1H (X) 1S and get an honest and complete answer if > it is not as psyche, and a dishonest and/or incomplete answer when it is > not? And this would help your UI problem how? I think I have been misunderstood. I think it can be useful to ask what 1S means and I expect an honest answer everytime. It could be conventional. When you find out that the bid is natural, I think it's poor practice to follow up that question with "does your partner ever psyche?" >> So, when would I ask opponents about their psychic tendencies >> and what knowledge can I gain that doesn't require me to be a psychic? > > Richard Granville bid 3S natural, as 4S would have been, and made > precisely nine tricks. RHO had his bid. When we asked him he said that > RHO did not look to him like a man who psyches. So ultimately he was left to his own devices and intuition, no? I congratulate the man for having good table feel. But I concede this is a situation where it can benefit a player to ask. I have not been playing bridge for 25 years yet, so in my inexperience I have not encountered such a situation myself. -Todd From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 7 19:25:38 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Apr 7 19:26:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: <008701c53b61$7b897680$71063dd4@c6l8v1> References: <008701c53b61$7b897680$71063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: On Apr 7, 2005, at 7:01 AM, Ben Schelen wrote: > West thinks he has gained the trick, but he has not seen that declarer > has > ruffed. > In order to lead for the next trick he pulls a card from his hand. > Reaching > the table he is warned by east because he is not on lead. East could > not see > the face of the card. > The director is summoned. He chides east because of improper > communication > which is UI for west. > > West is not allowed to make use of that information. Is west obliged to > finish his action and to make an infraction? > Has declarer a choice? Now this is an interesting question. :-) My take: I'm not sure that "West is not allowed to make use of that information" is correct. Law 73C says "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner... he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side." Is complying with the law "taking advantage"? I suppose you could argue that it is, but I disagree. First and foremost we are supposed to comply with the laws. So, since his partner could not have seen the face of the card, it is not led. I would rule IAW Law 45C1 that the card be placed back in the player's hand, and the lead made from the correct hand. If this kind of illegal communication is not unusual by this player, I might issue a procedural penalty. From blml at blakjak.com Thu Apr 7 19:27:16 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 7 19:29:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Mistaken bid or mistaken explanation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3k6ilBG01WVCFwfp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Laval Dubreuil wrote >Hi all, > > N E S W >Auction: 1NT (15-17) - 2C - 4H - Director > >West told he should have alert 2C. After some thought she >finally said they play Brozel (H + C). The TD applied Law 21B >and allowed South a change of call. South then P. The TD told N-S >to call him back if they think E-W may have use information >from the withdrawn call. 2C was the final bid. West had 4 cards >in C and two in H. > >The TD was called back. East had 6 cards in D. She uses to >play Brozel with this partner but told she misbid. North >had A-Q-J in H and South had 7 cards in the suit of his >withdrawn call. Some N-S pairs bid and made 4H. 2C was -2. > >The TD ruled: score stands. 2C was a misbid and N-S received >all information they are entitle to (this pair play Brozel). >West just made the normal call when passing with a C fit. >When explaining his ruling to an appeal committee, he add >that N-S, as good players should have bid 4H despite the >misbid. The committee let the score stand. > >1) Is this ruling OK when East and West have both a filled CC > (with 2C = H + C) ? Sure. It is up to the TD and AC to decide what constitutes adequate evidence. When making a judgement ruling part of the judgement is what happened based on what the TD/AC is told. Certainly some evidence is more persuasive than others, and eventually it often comes down to what the TD/AC is told, ie what weight they give to self-serving statements. >2) Any difference if only one of them has a filled CC ? The same answer applies: clearly whether the evidence is adequate to decide misbid is less clear. >3) Without any CC ? The same answer applies: clearly whether the evidence is adequate to decide misbid is less clear. >4) At the club level, without 2 filled CCs, does the TD can > take into account the fact that he knows this pair from a > long time and he is sure they always played Brozel ? The same answer applies: clearly whether the evidence is adequate to decide misbid is nore/less clear dependent on what Brozel means. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Thu Apr 7 19:29:54 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 7 19:32:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Who should call the TD for Law 21 In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C625@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C625@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <8EDg9bGS4WVCFw9h@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Robin Barker wrote >Elsewhere I suggested that the position expressed in the EBU White Book >on Law 21 (that non-offender must call the TD to avoid being too late >to apply L21B1 and not be allowed redress under L21B3) is >"unreasonable and think the law could (should) be read differently". > >WB 21.1 >> When is it too late to change a call? > >> When a player finds that he has been misinformed he should call the >>TD (indeed, both sides should call the TD). The TD will allow the last >>call by the non-offending side to be taken back unless dummy has been >>faced. Earlier calls cannot be taken back, and the TD may give an >>adjusted score after the board is finished. > >> If a player does not call the TD when he finds himself misinformed >>but asks for an adjustment later he seems to have gained an advantage: >>instead of having to decide whether to change this last call that can >>be changed he can rely on an adjustment that will give him the benefit >>of the doubt. > >> However, Law 21B3 only allows an adjustment when it is too late to >>apply Law 21B1. So no adjustment is given based on the one call that >>could have been changed since it was not too late to change it, and >>the failure of the players to call the TD does not change that. > >David Stevenson replied: > >> The problem with changing the Law is that you have to do one of two things. > >> Either you permit people not to call the TD at the right time and >>gain the advantage of an adjustment rather than having to actually >>correct a call. This gives them an enormous advantage because they do >>not have to decide whether they would have changed their call. As a >>result anyone knowledgeable will never call the TD at that time. > >> Or you do not allow a change of call, so many simple correctable >>situations have to be dealt with by adjustments afterwards leading to >>more of the reasonable dislike of adjusted scores. > >> So I do not think it is that simple. But anyway, in this forum [IFLB] >>our prime interest is the Law as it is, whether we approve of it or >>not. > >So I have taken it to this list where discussing what the law should be >is fair game. > >David wants to avoid giving knowledgeable non-offenders a double shot, >by putting the onus on them to call the TD. If the TD is not called, the NOS lose a right. Who calls the TD and when seems to be up to them. >I suggest that if we put the onus on the offenders to call the TD, then >it is up to knowledgeable offenders to stop their opponents getting a >double shot by calling the TD themselves. We must apply the Law. Whether we approve of it is another matter. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 7 19:32:53 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Apr 7 19:33:49 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: References: <20050325092159.C91BCE5B71@poczta.interia.pl> <21d05563efcc326f9bc3a801a01279b2@rochester.rr.com> <53faf479ea5abdb5ab6cff698110c288@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Apr 7, 2005, at 9:23 AM, David Stevenson wrote: > Since you are one of the sensible people here, I presume you are > joking. Well, half, anyway. :-) > But the fact that people do use it happily is good enough for me. Fair enough. From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 7 19:53:33 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 7 19:54:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: <008701c53b61$7b897680$71063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <000001c53b9a$b8b15940$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ben Schelen > West thinks he has gained the trick, but he has not seen that declarer has > ruffed. > In order to lead for the next trick he pulls a card from his hand. > Reaching > the table he is warned by east because he is not on lead. East could not > see > the face of the card. > The director is summoned. He chides east because of improper communication > which is UI for west. > > West is not allowed to make use of that information. Is west obliged to > finish his action and to make an infraction? > Has declarer a choice? The key question is whether a defender may try to prevent an irregularity by his partner. The laws are completely silent on this question; the closest we may get is Law 42B2 which explicitly allows Dummy to try to prevent any irregularity by declarer, no similar law exists for the defenders. To me it appears most reasonable to allow a defender such rights inasmuch as he (unless explicitly prohibited by Law) may call attention to any irregularity (after the fact - Law 9A). Following an argument that a defender does not enjoy such rights we shall need to know how to rule when he for instance stops partner from leading out of turn before the lead has actually been made. Law 12A1 is the only relevant law but can that law really be applicable? Forcing the defender to complete his irregularity should in any case be out of question. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 7 20:00:00 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 7 20:00:47 2005 Subject: [blml] lead rites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c53b9b$9e2c24f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson ................ > OK, now you have answered it, and I have no idea what you are talking > about. So i shall merely say that, in my view, a player on lead to a > contract cannot not have made a call - and that was the scenario given, > n'est-ce-pas? Sure, but not the complete question asked. The question was also how to treat B2 on which nobody had made any call. My point was that the asker's reasoning was correct (had B2 been an isolated case) but irrelevant just because B1 and B2 were connected and a call had indeed been made on B1. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 8 01:13:42 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 8 01:13:12 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <42547C58.9040408@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch: [snip] >If opponents can demand to know my knowledge of my partner >as I've experienced as a kibitzer, opponent, or TD, my >opponents may as well be allowed to ask the people at the >next table or the TD himself. Those people might have more >such knowledge than myself anyways. Richard Hills: Let us put some flesh on the bones of the hypothetical blml AC vote on the hypothetical appeal by a hypothetical appellant Wayne Burrows against a hypothetical TD Richard Hills. The Scene: The first board of the first round of a walk-in pairs at the 2006 Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. Wayne Burrows is partnering Tasmanian personality Hilda R. Lirsch for the first time. Their opponents are John (MadDog) Probst and David W. Stevenson. The bidding has gone: David Wayne John Hilda 1D Pass 1H 1NT ? It is general bridge knowledge to all four experts at the table that this sandwich 1NT has one of two meanings, either: (a) the old-fashioned inferior meaning, strong and balanced, or (b) the modern superior meaning, weak distributional takeout. David asks Wayne to describe the partnership agreement of Hilda's 1NT call. Wayne and Hilda have not explicitly discussed the meaning of this 1NT call in their 5-minute chat before the session. Therefore, Wayne's reply to David is, "Undiscussed." However.... Wayne has read a prepublication copy of "A History of Tasmanian Bridge", loaned to him by its author, TD Richard Hills. When returning it to Richard Hills, Wayne made a deprecating comment to Richard Hills about the page 42 reference to Hilda Lirsch, which stated, "Due to a personality quirk, Hilda Lirsch's sandwich 1NT overcalls, in all of her partnerships, have always had the old-fashioned inferior meaning of strong and balanced." After David and John go -1100, Hilda calls TD Richard Hills to the table, alleging that her partner, Wayne, gave misinformation. The TD agrees, ruling that Wayne's actual explanation should have been, "We have an implicit agreement that 1NT is strong and balanced, because I have read page 42 of 'A History of Tasmanian Bridge'." Therefore, TD Richard Hills adjusts the score from -1100 to -180. With Hilda's Law 92D permission, Wayne appeals the TD decision. As AC, how would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 8 01:29:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 8 01:30:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: <008701c53b61$7b897680$71063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: Ben wrote: > West thinks he has gained the trick, but he has not seen that declarer > has ruffed. In order to lead for the next trick he pulls a card from his > hand. Reaching the table he is warned by east because he is not on > lead. East could not see the face of the card. The director is summoned. > He chides east because of improper communication which is UI for west. Has the game finally become so bereft of common sense that we need a law explicitly permitting players from preventing infractions (by partner or opponents)? Oh well, it's declarer's lead and even in cloud cuckoo-land I can't see a deliberate lead out of turn as being a logical alternative. Tim From blml at blakjak.com Fri Apr 8 04:20:05 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Apr 8 04:22:08 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: References: <42547C58.9040408@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: RJH wrote >David Wayne John Hilda >1D Pass 1H 1NT >? > >It is general bridge knowledge to all four experts at the >table that this sandwich 1NT has one of two meanings, >either: > >(a) the old-fashioned inferior meaning, strong and balanced, > >or > >(b) the modern superior meaning, weak distributional takeout. My experience tells me that [a] is modern but inferior, [b] is old-fashioned but superior. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Apr 8 04:23:26 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Apr 8 04:25:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: References: <008701c53b61$7b897680$71063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >Ben wrote: >> West thinks he has gained the trick, but he has not seen that declarer >> has ruffed. In order to lead for the next trick he pulls a card from his >> hand. Reaching the table he is warned by east because he is not on >> lead. East could not see the face of the card. The director is summoned. >> He chides east because of improper communication which is UI for west. > >Has the game finally become so bereft of common sense that we need a law >explicitly permitting players from preventing infractions (by partner or >opponents)? Well, we need a Law. Whether that means the game is bereft of commonsense or just that there is more than one view is not so clear. I do not think it is commonsense that defenders communicate in a way not explicitly permitted by Law - I think it is the opposite of commonsense. Mind you, I would allow it, and would like to see a Law allowing it. But we have not got one now. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Apr 8 04:45:35 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 8 04:45:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Two - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the second of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-02 Subject: UI DIC: Ron Johnston Event LM Women's Pairs 4th Session Bd: 26 Kathleen Sulgrove Dlr: East J Vul: Both QT8 87632 J532 Cindy Sealy Patty Adamle KQ8532 A74 6 AK7 954 AKQJT KQ4 A6 JoAnn Sprung T96 J95432 --- T987 West North East South --- --- 2C Pass 2S Pass 4NT Pass 5D Pass 5H Pass 5S(1) Pass 7NT Pass Pass Pass (1) BIT Facts: The final contract was 7NT making for +2220 for EW after the lead of the C10. The 5D bid showed one key card. There was an extended pause (about 30 seconds) before the 5S bid, which happened to be observed by the director. East, in consultation with the director away from the table after the auction was completed, said that she thought that her partner was confused and that she thought the King sixth of spades would be enough for her to justify her bidding 7NT. Director's Ruling: The director ruled that unauthorized information existed from the hesitation and that it suggested that West was confused and might have the SQ, which was systemically denied by the 5S bid. Applying Law 16A, the director adjusted the score to 6S making seven, E-W +1460, per Law 12C2. The Appeal: The EW pair acknowledged that there was a significant BIT over the 5H queen ask. The pair also said that the positive 2S response could be made on as little as the king sixth of spades and an outside queen. East acknowledged that she thought her partner could be uncertain about the meaning of the 5H bid. The NS pair contended that the BIT should constrain EW from bidding at the seven level. NS also pointed out that 6 spades could be held to 6 with a diamond lead. The Decision: The Committee determined that the BIT suggested that West's 5S response might not be accurate and, therefore, made bidding a grand slam more attractive. The Committee found that without the BIT there were logical alternatives to bidding a grand slam. Applying Law 12C2, the AC determined that the most unfavorable result at all probable for EW was 6NT, not 6S. The Committee considered that the same rationale used by East to opt for 7NT instead of 7S would also lead East to choose NT at the six level, if a grand slam were not to be bid. Therefore, the best result likely for NS was 6NT by EW. Also the worst result at all probable for EW was 6NT. The contract easily makes all the tricks for reciprocal 1460s. Since the Committee's decision gave EW a better score than the director had done, the Committee did not seriously consider whether the appeal was without merit. Committee: Jon Wittes, chairperson, Riggs Thayer, John Solodar, Ed Lazarus, Aaron Silverstein From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 8 06:09:23 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 8 06:10:16 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RJH wrote: >>David Wayne John Hilda >>1D Pass 1H 1NT >>? >> >>It is general bridge knowledge to all four experts at the >>table that this sandwich 1NT has one of two meanings, >>either: >> >>(a) the old-fashioned inferior meaning, strong and balanced, >> >>or >> >>(b) the modern superior meaning, weak distributional takeout. DWS wrote: >My experience tells me that [a] is modern but inferior, [b] is >old-fashioned but superior. > >David Stevenson RJH writes: I agree with David Stevenson, especially given the modern trend of ultra-light opening bids and ultra-light responses. But of course, the cognoscenti deprecate our old-fashioned style. They claim that being required to systemically pass with a balanced 16 hcp in the sandwich position, thus losing a partscore or game swing, is too rare to worry about. I note that my bidding is old-fashioned, but am still happy to collect the not-so-rare imps gained due to my old-fashioned style. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Fri Apr 8 06:35:13 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Apr 8 06:36:05 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050408043513.41132.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > RJH wrote: > > >>David Wayne John Hilda > >>1D Pass 1H 1NT > >>? > >> > >>It is general bridge knowledge to all four experts > at the > >>table that this sandwich 1NT has one of two > meanings, > >>either: > >> > >>(a) the old-fashioned inferior meaning, strong and > balanced, > >> > >>or > >> > >>(b) the modern superior meaning, weak > distributional takeout. > > DWS wrote: > > >My experience tells me that [a] is modern but > inferior, [b] is > >old-fashioned but superior. > > > >David Stevenson > > RJH writes: > > I agree with David Stevenson, especially given the > modern > trend of ultra-light opening bids and ultra-light > responses. > > But of course, the cognoscenti deprecate our > old-fashioned > style. They claim that being required to > systemically pass > with a balanced 16 hcp in the sandwich position, > thus losing a > partscore or game swing, is too rare to worry about. > I note > that my bidding is old-fashioned, but am still happy > to collect > the not-so-rare imps gained due to my old-fashioned > style. > > :-) I see we have a topic on which there is agreement. I was going to write that the hypothetical case was clearly apochryphal. The evidence being 1. I would never read a history book let alone borrow one to read 2. I have never overcalled a sandwich NT to show a two-suiter or had that agreement. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 8 06:58:27 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 8 06:59:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Play up, and play the game! (was Forcing) In-Reply-To: <0faf8f14bdb1600dbe4e8a1e3ed6eafe@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Hm. I have heard that "in the old days" games were >flighted - if you were an A player, you played in >the A game, and if you were a C player, you played >in the C game. Unless you wanted to "play up", in >which case you were welcome to "dive into the deep >end". But I would argue that in such a >circumstance there is a limit to the extent to >which law and regulation should assist bunnies to >avoid unfair disadvantage. > >In the modern era, everybody gets tossed together, >willy-nilly. My understanding is that the reason >for this is the decline in the number of players >available. [snip] >I don't *want* to be protected against such things >- I want to learn how to do them myself. > >Maybe I'm in the minority in that respect. Richard Hills: The Canberra Bridge Club still has a large number, so can still retain de facto flighting; our club and territory championships are always held on Monday and Thursday nights. These "A game" nights naturally attract Aussie champions, but bunnies are welcome to "play up" on these nights, and many bunnies do indeed elect to "dive in the deep end". However, Canberra bunnies may have a special geographical advantage compared to other Aussie bunnies in their familiarity with funny systems. The strongest Aussie open event, the National Open Teams, is always held in Canberra in January, so a disproportionate percentage of Canberra bunnies are deemed to be Australian Grandmasters. So, a system that would be a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) in the rest-of-the-world is routinely used by bunny partnerships in Canberra - *because* they have imitated local champions and/or imitated other champions who visit in January. Only fertiliser/Forcing Pass systems are deemed to be HUM in Canberra. Unfair disadvantage due to unfamiliarity with opposing "funny" systems is therefore minimal in Canberra in our "A game". :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 8 08:19:55 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 8 08:20:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <9ca7a384ac67892ce13ff499f8c2d2cf@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asked: >>Correct in theory, Ed, but unworkable in >>practice. How do you prove that you do not >>know something? Ed Reppert asked: >Since when do I have to? Richard Hills: Again I have to agree with Herman De Wael. If: (a) your partner has regularly psyched in your partnership in the past and, (b) you assert that you do not remember the previous psyches in your partnership, so that, (c) you failed to pre-alert the opponents before the round about your partner's historical psyching tendencies, then as TD I might ask you to perform the difficult logical task of "proving a negative", *unless* partner's psychic habit was general bridge knowledge to the opponents. Which reminds me of a classic comment by Herman De Wael in the previous "Double- meaning double" thread. See attached. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist * * * John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>>This is rubbish. It's GBK [general bridge >>>>knowledge - RJH] to psyche against Danny >>>>early in a long match. >>>> >>>>Even he knows it. Another English blmler, who is a regular opponent of Danny, replied: >>>I didn't, until you brought it up. :-) Gordon Rainsford stated: >>Me neither. >> >>And I've played a match against him, >>partnering John. >> >>And John didn't psyche during the match. Grattan Endicott paradoxed: >+=+ So he has just now psyched....+=+ Herman De Wael continued: Furthermore, Gordon, who during that match reacted completely correctly to each and every one of John's bids, has fielded this psyche by successfully failing to cater for psyches by John. I suggest we cite the Probst-Rainsford to the EBL for a red fielded psyche. We should then also oblige said partnership, next time they play Danny, to psyche, and then strike them from the register for pre- announced psyching. Don't worry, John, there's always a place in the Monty Python Bridge Team for you! From ardelm at bigpond.net.au Fri Apr 8 08:22:00 2005 From: ardelm at bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri Apr 8 08:23:02 2005 Subject: [blml] More partnership UI to attempt to avoid an infraction Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050408160556.035d4d10@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> I have been following a similar thread in which one member of a partnership attempts to stop his partner from committing an infraction which may have given the opponents some advantage. In Oz, it is still general to bid by writing bids on a bidding pad. The bidding gets to the stage... 4NT pass 4 at which stage the 4NTer says, "not enough partner". The TD is called immediately, and observes that 4 is not a bid, so the auction can proceed under some constraints imposed by the UI. Unfortunately, the only logical alternative not suggested by the UI is to complete the attempt to insufficiently bid, and then pay the appropriate penalty. The TD says this is nonsense. The non offenders end up with a poor score, since this slam is not bid at most tables. They would like some restitution which gives them a good score. Alternatively they would like to see the TD shot. Beseiged TD (Sydney) would -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 7/04/2005 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 8 08:43:06 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 8 08:43:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050406045712.96932.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >"This will be the case only if in the opinion of the >committee one of the following circumstances is >established: " > >This is the sentence in the Code of Practice that >precedes the various descriptions of frequency for >something to be considered a concealed agreement. The >logic of this sentence is that we need one of the four >things that follow to have occurred before something >will be consider a concealed agreement however the >converse does not follow from this statement. That is >that if one of the following four pieces of evidence >is present we will not necessarily find that there has >been a concealed agreement. > >Where I work is at best 5 minutes drive from where I >live. > >Therefore I can state that *only if* I leave home five >minutes or more before I need to be at work will I get >there on time. > >I cannot conclude from this that *if* I leave five >minutes or more before I need to be at work that I >will get there on time. There could be delays for >Road Works, heavy traffic and once I was even pulled >over by the police on a random test. > >There is a logical fallacy here. Richard Hills: Yes, but... In my opinion, Wayne has committed the logical fallacy of reasoning by false analogy (a.k.a. comparing apples with oranges). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 8 08:51:27 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 8 08:52:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Psychic Disclosure In-Reply-To: <42537A6A.6040209@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch: >Despite the abundance of recent posts about disclosing >psychic tendencies, I'm still at a loss to understand why >it's a good idea. > >Asking about psychic tendencies during the auction would >give partner a huge UI problem. [snip] >So, when would I ask opponents about their psychic >tendencies and what knowledge can I gain that doesn't >require me to be a psychic? Richard Hills: *Unknown* opponents should pre-alert their historical psychic tendencies at the start of a round or match, thus giving the required Law 40A *prior* disclosure. But *frequent* opponents would not have to do so, since their historical psychic tendencies would already be known to you. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 8 09:19:46 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 8 09:20:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050407012457.51067.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >There seem to be plenty of TDs who are willing to rule >according to what they think the laws should say >rather than what in fact they do say. This is an >unhealthy state for our game. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Wayne is begging the question. The term "special partnership agreements...implicit" (Law 75A) is not defined in the Chapter 1 Definitions of the Laws. Therefore, in the absence of sponsoring organisation regulation, a Director has the power to define the under what circumstances an "implicit" agreement exists, by virtue of the power given to a Director pursuant to Law 81C5: ".....interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." Such TDs are indeed ruling according to what the Laws, and Law 81C5 in particular, "do say". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 8 09:29:24 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 8 09:30:17 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? (was Forcing) In-Reply-To: <000001c53b47$db4f95f0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >If the actions of BOTH (!) players appear consistent with an >agreement that differs from what has been disclosed to >opponents then the Director should seriously consider CPU >and so rule unless he also finds evidence to the >contrary. Richard Hills: So rule??? This is merely a restatement of the logical fallacy which was once known as "The Rule of Coincidence". "Should" is too powerful a statement; my view is that a lucky coincidence merely suggests that a Director *might* further investigate the possibility of a CPU. In my experience as TD, if I had applied "The Rule of Coincidence" in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I would have unjustly penalised many Rueful Rabbit - Timothy Toucan partnerships. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 8 09:37:00 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 8 09:37:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Who should call the TD for Law 21 In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C625@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robin Barker: >I suggest that if we put the onus on the offenders to call >the TD, then it is up to knowledgeable offenders to stop >their opponents getting a double shot by calling the TD >themselves. Richard Hills: What's the problem? Law 75D1 *already* places that onus upon a knowledgeable opponent: >>If a player subsequently realises that his own >>explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must >>immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or >>Law 40C). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Fri Apr 8 13:11:28 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Apr 8 13:12:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050408111128.28131.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > [snip] > > >"This will be the case only if in the opinion of > the > >committee one of the following circumstances is > >established: " > > > >This is the sentence in the Code of Practice that > >precedes the various descriptions of frequency for > >something to be considered a concealed agreement. > The > >logic of this sentence is that we need one of the > four > >things that follow to have occurred before > something > >will be consider a concealed agreement however the > >converse does not follow from this statement. That > is > >that if one of the following four pieces of > evidence > >is present we will not necessarily find that there > has > >been a concealed agreement. > > > >Where I work is at best 5 minutes drive from where > I > >live. > > > >Therefore I can state that *only if* I leave home > five > >minutes or more before I need to be at work will I > get > >there on time. > > > >I cannot conclude from this that *if* I leave five > >minutes or more before I need to be at work that I > >will get there on time. There could be delays for > >Road Works, heavy traffic and once I was even > pulled > >over by the police on a random test. > > > >There is a logical fallacy here. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, but... > > In my opinion, Wayne has committed the logical > fallacy > of reasoning by false analogy (a.k.a. comparing > apples > with oranges). I have reasoned nothing by logical fallacy of false analogy or any other kind. I have reasoned by simple logic and then provided an example of the the same construction. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Fri Apr 8 13:18:20 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Apr 8 13:19:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050408111820.28100.qmail@web14721.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > [snip] > > >There seem to be plenty of TDs who are willing to > rule > >according to what they think the laws should say > >rather than what in fact they do say. This is an > >unhealthy state for our game. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, Wayne is begging the question. > > The term "special partnership agreements...implicit" > (Law 75A) is not defined in the Chapter 1 > Definitions > of the Laws. > > Therefore, in the absence of sponsoring organisation > regulation, a Director has the power to define the > under what circumstances an "implicit" agreement > exists, by virtue of the power given to a Director > pursuant to Law 81C5: > > ".....interpret these Laws and to advise the players > of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." > > Such TDs are indeed ruling according to what the > Laws, and Law 81C5 in particular, "do say". > Earlier in this thread Grattan said "+=+ 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. " I believe that a TD has no power to interpret that "black" is "white" which is the power that Richard seems to be giving them. The plain language definition of "implict agreement" or "implicit partnership understanding" requires that there exists an "agreement' or an "understanding". No director has the right to say that such a thing exists when it does not. You might as well have the director say that an "implicit agreement" exists if the player wears a red shirt if you want it your way. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 8 14:13:17 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 8 14:14:57 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: References: <42547C58.9040408@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050408074318.02a807e0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:13 PM 4/7/05, richard.hills wrote: >Let us put some flesh on the bones of the hypothetical blml >AC vote on the hypothetical appeal by a hypothetical >appellant Wayne Burrows against a hypothetical TD Richard >Hills. > >The Scene: The first board of the first round of a walk-in >pairs at the 2006 Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. Wayne >Burrows is partnering Tasmanian personality Hilda R. Lirsch >for the first time. Their opponents are John (MadDog) >Probst and David W. Stevenson. > >The bidding has gone: > >David Wayne John Hilda >1D Pass 1H 1NT >? > >It is general bridge knowledge to all four experts at the >table that this sandwich 1NT has one of two meanings, >either: > >(a) the old-fashioned inferior meaning, strong and balanced, > >or > >(b) the modern superior meaning, weak distributional takeout. > >David asks Wayne to describe the partnership agreement of >Hilda's 1NT call. Wayne and Hilda have not explicitly >discussed the meaning of this 1NT call in their 5-minute >chat before the session. > >Therefore, Wayne's reply to David is, "Undiscussed." > >However.... > >Wayne has read a prepublication copy of "A History of >Tasmanian Bridge", loaned to him by its author, TD Richard >Hills. When returning it to Richard Hills, Wayne made a >deprecating comment to Richard Hills about the page 42 >reference to Hilda Lirsch, which stated, > >"Due to a personality quirk, Hilda Lirsch's sandwich 1NT >overcalls, in all of her partnerships, have always had the >old-fashioned inferior meaning of strong and balanced." > >After David and John go -1100, Hilda calls TD Richard Hills >to the table, alleging that her partner, Wayne, gave >misinformation. The TD agrees, ruling that Wayne's actual >explanation should have been, > >"We have an implicit agreement that 1NT is strong and >balanced, because I have read page 42 of 'A History of >Tasmanian Bridge'." Can Wayne be sure that Hilda hasn't read the rec.games.bridge post in which Wayne opined that 1NT strong and balanced in the sandwich seat was the worst agreement in bridge and anyone who employs it is seriously mentally defective? Aprez vous, Alphonse. IMO, Wayne should tell his opponents whatever he knows that may be relevant to choosing his next call: "We have no agreement. However, on page 42 of "A History of Tasmanian Bridge" it says..." What he needn't reveal is what weight he intends to put on those facts in choosing his call. >Therefore, TD Richard Hills adjusts the score from -1100 >to -180. > >With Hilda's Law 92D permission, Wayne appeals the TD >decision. As AC, how would you rule? MO notwithstanding, the Law requires Wayne to reveal only his partnership agreements, and a partnership agreement, implicit or otherwise, requires the knowledge of both partners. It would therefore appear that in order to rule correctly, I must determine whether Hilda knew that Wayne had read page 42 of "A History of Tasmanian Bridge"; only if so can there be an "implicit partnership agreement". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 8 15:02:52 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 8 15:03:39 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050408074318.02a807e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c53c3b$4606b970$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ................... > MO notwithstanding, the Law requires Wayne to reveal only his > partnership agreements, and a partnership agreement, implicit or > otherwise, requires the knowledge of both partners. It would therefore > appear that in order to rule correctly, I must determine whether Hilda > knew that Wayne had read page 42 of "A History of Tasmanian Bridge"; > only if so can there be an "implicit partnership agreement". The intention of the laws is to place opponents on equal terms with you and your partner in understanding an auction. Always keeping this in mind will help to resolve most if not all "problems" with Law 75. Regards Sven From hpwadfd at didamail.com Fri Apr 8 16:07:38 2005 From: hpwadfd at didamail.com (Janell Pereira) Date: Fri Apr 8 15:17:08 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.3-m-n.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Blair Brewster to be remov(ed: http://www.3-m-n.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 hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 8 15:27:57 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 8 15:27:37 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050408074318.02a807e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <42547C58.9040408@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050408074318.02a807e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <425686DD.7090508@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> After David and John go -1100, Hilda calls TD Richard Hills >> to the table, alleging that her partner, Wayne, gave >> misinformation. The TD agrees, ruling that Wayne's actual >> explanation should have been, >> >> "We have an implicit agreement that 1NT is strong and >> balanced, because I have read page 42 of 'A History of >> Tasmanian Bridge'." > > > Can Wayne be sure that Hilda hasn't read the rec.games.bridge post in > which Wayne opined that 1NT strong and balanced in the sandwich seat was > the worst agreement in bridge and anyone who employs it is seriously > mentally defective? Aprez vous, Alphonse. > The hand conforms to the strong option, and the director is to presume MI rather than misbid, so whether or not Hilda has read anything is not important. > IMO, Wayne should tell his opponents whatever he knows that may be > relevant to choosing his next call: "We have no agreement. However, on > page 42 of "A History of Tasmanian Bridge" it says..." What he needn't > reveal is what weight he intends to put on those facts in choosing his > call. > No, he does not - nor do we care. As TD, it is best to keep a low profile. She was strong? You explained it as two-suiter? Have you any evidence with regards to misbid? Then I treat it as MI. We don't have to worry about which books either of them has read, and Richard (IIRC) only mentioned the books to counter your argument that you had not discussed it. It is impossible to prove that you have _not_ discussed it, so leave it at that. >> Therefore, TD Richard Hills adjusts the score from -1100 >> to -180. >> >> With Hilda's Law 92D permission, Wayne appeals the TD >> decision. As AC, how would you rule? > > > MO notwithstanding, the Law requires Wayne to reveal only his > partnership agreements, and a partnership agreement, implicit or > otherwise, requires the knowledge of both partners. It would therefore > appear that in order to rule correctly, I must determine whether Hilda > knew that Wayne had read page 42 of "A History of Tasmanian Bridge"; > only if so can there be an "implicit partnership agreement". > Wayne is trying to wriggle out of a MI ruling. It is not up to the TD to determine that there has been understanding, he has the Laws telling him he can presume as much. You, as player, have a duty to prove misbid. Otherwise you shall be judged to have given MI. -- 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: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 7/04/2005 From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Apr 8 15:35:51 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri Apr 8 15:30:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 21 Message-ID: <000b01c53c3f$e19dab60$0307a8c0@david> East holds Qxxxxx x xxx xxx and the auction goes W N E S 1N(1) X(2) 2S(3) (1) 12-14 (2)Alerted by South AFTER the 2S call and described as a strong single suited hand (3) E-W are playing redouble as 2 places to play hence 2S is single suited East now wishes to change his call to a "psyche" of 2H in an effort to pick off N-S's suit. Does this meet the criterion of "it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation"? What action should the Director take? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 07/04/2005 From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 8 16:08:07 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 8 16:08:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 21 In-Reply-To: <000b01c53c3f$e19dab60$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000101c53c44$639a0c90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton > East holds Qxxxxx x xxx xxx and the auction goes > W N E S > 1N(1) X(2) 2S(3) > > (1) 12-14 > (2)Alerted by South AFTER the 2S call and described > as a strong single suited hand > (3) E-W are playing redouble as 2 places to play > hence 2S is single suited > > East now wishes to change his call to a "psyche" of 2H > in an effort to pick off N-S's suit. > > Does this meet the criterion of "it is probable that > he made the call as a result of misinformation"? > > What action should the Director take? I see no reason for the Director to challenge this request by East so yes, I would allow East to change his call. (NOTE that the Director must NOT look at East's hand before making his decision!) IMO the Director should be very alert on any indication that West somehow fields this psyche. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 8 15:51:01 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 8 16:13:30 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <000001c53c3b$4606b970$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050408074318.02a807e0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c53c3b$4606b970$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050408092840.02d50ad0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:02 AM 4/8/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau >................... > > MO notwithstanding, the Law requires Wayne to reveal only his > > partnership agreements, and a partnership agreement, implicit or > > otherwise, requires the knowledge of both partners. It would therefore > > appear that in order to rule correctly, I must determine whether Hilda > > knew that Wayne had read page 42 of "A History of Tasmanian Bridge"; > > only if so can there be an "implicit partnership agreement". > >The intention of the laws is to place opponents on equal terms with >you and >your partner in understanding an auction. Always keeping this in mind will >help to resolve most if not all "problems" with Law 75. Good. That's as it should be. When an opponent asks me a question, that's how it is. But, intention notwithstanding, that's not what L75C says. It should, IMO, require disclosure of all special knowledge relevant to the partnership's bidding methods. But that's much broader than "all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience", which is all that L75C requires be disclosed. If the authors intended L75C to cover "all special information", why on Earth would they go out of their way to add words constraining it by the way in which that information was "conveyed"? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 8 16:12:52 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 8 16:13:32 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <425686DD.7090508@hdw.be> References: <42547C58.9040408@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050408074318.02a807e0@pop.starpower.net> <425686DD.7090508@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050408095645.02e70c20@pop.starpower.net> At 09:27 AM 4/8/05, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>>After David and John go -1100, Hilda calls TD Richard Hills >>>to the table, alleging that her partner, Wayne, gave >>>misinformation. The TD agrees, ruling that Wayne's actual >>>explanation should have been, >>> >>>"We have an implicit agreement that 1NT is strong and >>>balanced, because I have read page 42 of 'A History of >>>Tasmanian Bridge'." >> >>Can Wayne be sure that Hilda hasn't read the rec.games.bridge post in >>which Wayne opined that 1NT strong and balanced in the sandwich seat >>was the worst agreement in bridge and anyone who employs it is >>seriously mentally defective? Aprez vous, Alphonse. > >The hand conforms to the strong option, and the director is to presume >MI rather than misbid, so whether or not Hilda has read anything is >not important. > >>IMO, Wayne should tell his opponents whatever he knows that may be >>relevant to choosing his next call: "We have no agreement. However, >>on page 42 of "A History of Tasmanian Bridge" it says..." What he >>needn't reveal is what weight he intends to put on those facts in >>choosing his call. > >No, he does not - nor do we care. >As TD, it is best to keep a low profile. >She was strong? You explained it as two-suiter? Have you any evidence >with regards to misbid? Then I treat it as MI. > >We don't have to worry about which books either of them has read, and >Richard (IIRC) only mentioned the books to counter your argument that >you had not discussed it. It is impossible to prove that you have >_not_ discussed it, so leave it at that. > >>>Therefore, TD Richard Hills adjusts the score from -1100 >>>to -180. >>> >>>With Hilda's Law 92D permission, Wayne appeals the TD >>>decision. As AC, how would you rule? >> >>MO notwithstanding, the Law requires Wayne to reveal only his >>partnership agreements, and a partnership agreement, implicit or >>otherwise, requires the knowledge of both partners. It would >>therefore appear that in order to rule correctly, I must determine >>whether Hilda knew that Wayne had read page 42 of "A History of >>Tasmanian Bridge"; only if so can there be an "implicit partnership >>agreement". > >Wayne is trying to wriggle out of a MI ruling. It is not up to the TD >to determine that there has been understanding, he has the Laws >telling him he can presume as much. You, as player, have a duty to >prove misbid. Otherwise you shall be judged to have given MI. Herman's analysis is based on the illustrative footnote to L75D2, which provides guidelines for disambiguating giving misinformation from misbidding. But in the hypothetical case on the table, there is no suggestion that there has been a misbid; either there was MI or this is a case in which "nothing happened". The misinformation-misbid issue would have come up had Wayne indeed (in the original hypothetical example) "explained it as two-suiter", but he didn't; he explained it as "undiscussed". A "misbid" is an unintentional violation of a partnership agreement. Without an agreement, there cannot be a misbid. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Apr 8 16:17:28 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Apr 8 16:18:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 21 In-Reply-To: <000101c53c44$639a0c90$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c53c44$639a0c90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 8 Apr 2005, at 15:08, Sven Pran wrote: > IMO the Director should be very alert on any indication that West > somehow > fields this psyche. Isn't there a bit of a problem with this, since L16C1 makes the original 2S bid authorised information for West? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Apr 8 16:56:57 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri Apr 8 16:52:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 21 References: <000101c53c44$639a0c90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000301c53c4b$363ba720$0307a8c0@david> > On Behalf Of David Barton > East holds Qxxxxx x xxx xxx and the auction goes > W N E S > 1N(1) X(2) 2S(3) > > (1) 12-14 > (2)Alerted by South AFTER the 2S call and described > as a strong single suited hand > (3) E-W are playing redouble as 2 places to play > hence 2S is single suited > > East now wishes to change his call to a "psyche" of 2H > in an effort to pick off N-S's suit. > > Does this meet the criterion of "it is probable that > he made the call as a result of misinformation"? > > What action should the Director take? I see no reason for the Director to challenge this request by East so yes, I would allow East to change his call. (NOTE that the Director must NOT look at East's hand before making his decision!) IMO the Director should be very alert on any indication that West somehow fields this psyche. Regards Sven Well therein lies the problem. West has the authorised information that East has a weakish single suited hand with SPADES. What action could he take that would be "fielding". North - South are also aware, but their actions are constrained. They are in a much worse position than if East had produced a genuine "psyche". ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 07/04/2005 From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Apr 8 16:58:50 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Apr 8 16:59:47 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Apr 08, 2005 03:20:05 AM Message-ID: <200504081458.j38EwoNj005353@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> David Stevenson writes: > > RJH wrote > > >David Wayne John Hilda > >1D Pass 1H 1NT > >? > > > >It is general bridge knowledge to all four experts at the > >table that this sandwich 1NT has one of two meanings, > >either: > > > >(a) the old-fashioned inferior meaning, strong and balanced, > > > >or > > > >(b) the modern superior meaning, weak distributional takeout. > > My experience tells me that [a] is modern but inferior, [b] is > old-fashioned but superior. I can tell you that in the 1960s Edgar Kaplan was arguing for super-strong, Jeff Rubens for distibutional and that the default was strong. Given the relatively heavy opening bids in general favor at the time, 16-18 overcalls were theoretically inferior in my opinion (and more to the point, Kaplan's experience) From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 8 17:20:24 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 8 17:21:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 21 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c53c4e$7d787890$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > On 8 Apr 2005, at 15:08, Sven Pran wrote: > > > IMO the Director should be very alert on any indication that West > > somehow > > fields this psyche. > > Isn't there a bit of a problem with this, since L16C1 makes the > original 2S bid authorised information for West? Yes there is, and I was fully aware of this when I wrote my comment. The laws can be read to permit East here making a psychic call in such a way that West is fully aware of the call being psychic while at the same time this same information is unauthorized for North and South. I do not accept that this is any intention of the laws so in a case like this I shall probably request West to disclose as part of his partnership agreement any special inference he makes from East changing his call which cannot be assumed understood by North and South. The special inference in this case is that East has either made or withdrawn a call that cannot possibly be in accordance with their partnership agreements. West does not need to disclose which of the two calls he suspects and the identity of the withdrawn call (2S) is unauthorized for North and South. Regards Sven From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Fri Apr 8 15:21:19 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri Apr 8 17:21:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? References: <008701c53b61$7b897680$71063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <00db01c53c4e$7725aa80$c0063dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 4:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? > Tim West-Meads wrote > >Ben wrote: > >> West thinks he has gained the trick, but he has not seen that declarer > >> has ruffed. In order to lead for the next trick he pulls a card from his > >> hand. Reaching the table he is warned by east because he is not on > >> lead. East could not see the face of the card. The director is summoned. > >> He chides east because of improper communication which is UI for west. > > > >Has the game finally become so bereft of common sense that we need a law > >explicitly permitting players from preventing infractions (by partner or > >opponents)? > > Well, we need a Law. Whether that means the game is bereft of > commonsense or just that there is more than one view is not so clear. > > I do not think it is commonsense that defenders communicate in a way > not explicitly permitted by Law - I think it is the opposite of > commonsense. > > Mind you, I would allow it, and would like to see a Law allowing it. > But we have not got one now. > > Hear, hear! What not is written in the Laws, is not permitted. Examples: Law42B2 just mentions declarer, not defenders. End of Law66 until 1987: "Any player may request that a card incorrectly pointed be turned in the proper direction". From 1987 onwards is should not be permitted any more. Ben From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Fri Apr 8 15:27:34 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri Apr 8 17:21:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Who should call the TD for Law 21 References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C625@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <00dc01c53c4e$777996e0$c0063dd4@c6l8v1> > > So I have taken it to this list where discussing what the law should be is fair game. > > David wants to avoid giving knowledgeable non-offenders a double shot, by putting the onus on them to call the TD. > > I suggest that if we put the onus on the offenders to call the TD, then it is up to knowledgeable offenders to stop their opponents getting a double shot by calling the TD themselves. > > The onus is on the player when he "realises that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he MUST immediately call the director". Law75D1. Ben From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Fri Apr 8 17:14:59 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri Apr 8 17:21:47 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: Message-ID: <00dd01c53c4e$77d6ab00$c0063dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 1:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) > > > > > Todd M. Zimnoch: > > [snip] > > >If opponents can demand to know my knowledge of my partner > >as I've experienced as a kibitzer, opponent, or TD, my > >opponents may as well be allowed to ask the people at the > >next table or the TD himself. Those people might have more > >such knowledge than myself anyways. > > Richard Hills: > > Let us put some flesh on the bones of the hypothetical blml > AC vote on the hypothetical appeal by a hypothetical > appellant Wayne Burrows against a hypothetical TD Richard > Hills. > > The Scene: The first board of the first round of a walk-in > pairs at the 2006 Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. Wayne > Burrows is partnering Tasmanian personality Hilda R. Lirsch > for the first time. Their opponents are John (MadDog) > Probst and David W. Stevenson. > > The bidding has gone: > > David Wayne John Hilda > 1D Pass 1H 1NT > ? > > It is general bridge knowledge to all four experts at the > table that this sandwich 1NT has one of two meanings, > either: > > (a) the old-fashioned inferior meaning, strong and balanced, > > or > > (b) the modern superior meaning, weak distributional takeout. > > David asks Wayne to describe the partnership agreement of > Hilda's 1NT call. Wayne and Hilda have not explicitly > discussed the meaning of this 1NT call in their 5-minute > chat before the session. > > Therefore, Wayne's reply to David is, "Undiscussed." > > However.... > > Wayne has read a prepublication copy of "A History of > Tasmanian Bridge", loaned to him by its author, TD Richard > Hills. When returning it to Richard Hills, Wayne made a > deprecating comment to Richard Hills about the page 42 > reference to Hilda Lirsch, which stated, > > "Due to a personality quirk, Hilda Lirsch's sandwich 1NT > overcalls, in all of her partnerships, have always had the > old-fashioned inferior meaning of strong and balanced." > > After David and John go -1100, Hilda calls TD Richard Hills > to the table, alleging that her partner, Wayne, gave > misinformation. The TD agrees, ruling that Wayne's actual > explanation should have been, > > "We have an implicit agreement that 1NT is strong and > balanced, because I have read page 42 of 'A History of > Tasmanian Bridge'." > > Therefore, TD Richard Hills adjusts the score from -1100 > to -180. > > With Hilda's Law 92D permission, Wayne appeals the TD > decision. As AC, how would you rule? > > > I would ask Hilda two questions: - Why are you so sure that Wayne has read the page 42 information? - What has been said about defensive and competitive bidding in these 5-minute chat? Ben From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 8 17:36:32 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 8 17:37:20 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050408092840.02d50ad0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000401c53c50$bdafc330$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >................... > >The intention of the laws is to place opponents on > >equal terms with you and your partner in understanding > >an auction. Always keeping this in mind will help to > >resolve most if not all "problems" with Law 75. > > Good. That's as it should be. When an opponent asks > me a question, that's how it is. > > But, intention notwithstanding, that's not what L75C says. > It should, IMO, require disclosure of all special knowledge > relevant to the partnership's bidding methods. But that's > much broader than "all special information conveyed to him > through partnership agreement or partnership experience", > which is all that L75C requires be disclosed. > > If the authors intended L75C to cover "all special > information", why on Earth would they go out of their way > to add words constraining it by the way in which that > information was "conveyed"? I assume you have in mind the clauses on "general knowledge" etc. when writing this. These clauses are there (I believe) to avoid complaints against a player who "failed" to quote the entire Culbertson Gold book or Goren's "Bridge in a Nutshell" etc. as part of his disclosure. But I have no sympathy for a player who deliberately conceals relevant facts about his partner's calls with the argument that these facts are part of his "general knowledge"! Regards Sven From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Apr 8 19:13:57 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri Apr 8 19:09:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 21 Message-ID: <000b01c53c5e$597b1c80$0307a8c0@david> > On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > On 8 Apr 2005, at 15:08, Sven Pran wrote: > > > IMO the Director should be very alert on any indication that West > > somehow > > fields this psyche. > > Isn't there a bit of a problem with this, since L16C1 makes the > original 2S bid authorised information for West? Yes there is, and I was fully aware of this when I wrote my comment. The laws can be read to permit East here making a psychic call in such a way that West is fully aware of the call being psychic while at the same time this same information is unauthorized for North and South. I do not accept that this is any intention of the laws so in a case like this I shall probably request West to disclose as part of his partnership agreement any special inference he makes from East changing his call which cannot be assumed understood by North and South. The special inference in this case is that East has either made or withdrawn a call that cannot possibly be in accordance with their partnership agreements. West does not need to disclose which of the two calls he suspects and the identity of the withdrawn call (2S) is unauthorized for North and South. Regards Sven I am having difficulty here understanding how N-S can be entitled to know that West has made 2 bids which cannot be in accordance with partnership agreements when N-S are NOT entitled to know that West has changed his bid at all. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 07/04/2005 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 8 19:41:51 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 8 19:42:27 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <000401c53c50$bdafc330$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050408092840.02d50ad0@pop.starpower.net> <000401c53c50$bdafc330$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050408130910.02b35860@pop.starpower.net> At 11:36 AM 4/8/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > >................... > > >The intention of the laws is to place opponents on > > >equal terms with you and your partner in understanding > > >an auction. Always keeping this in mind will help to > > >resolve most if not all "problems" with Law 75. > > > > Good. That's as it should be. When an opponent asks > > me a question, that's how it is. > > > > But, intention notwithstanding, that's not what L75C says. > > It should, IMO, require disclosure of all special knowledge > > relevant to the partnership's bidding methods. But that's > > much broader than "all special information conveyed to him > > through partnership agreement or partnership experience", > > which is all that L75C requires be disclosed. > > > > If the authors intended L75C to cover "all special > > information", why on Earth would they go out of their way > > to add words constraining it by the way in which that > > information was "conveyed"? > >I assume you have in mind the clauses on "general knowledge" etc. when >writing this. These clauses are there (I believe) to avoid complaints >against a player who "failed" to quote the entire Culbertson Gold book or >Goren's "Bridge in a Nutshell" etc. as part of his disclosure. > >But I have no sympathy for a player who deliberately conceals relevant >facts >about his partner's calls with the argument that these facts are part >of his >"general knowledge"! I have no sympathy for such a player either, but I did not, as Sven assumes, have the "general knowledge" clause in mind when I wrote the above. It would be patently silly to assert that what "A History of Tasmanian Bridge" has to say about Hilda's bidding peculiarities constituted "general knowledge"! I suspect that Sven has been misled by reading the words of L75C as saying what (he and I agree) they should say, rather than what they do say. He has inferred an inclusive dichotomy between "special information conveyed... through partnership agreement or partnership experience" and "general knowledge and experience", but that dichotomy is not an inclusive one. There is, however, an inclusive dichotomy to be found between "special information" and "general knowledge". Which means that, as written, L75C (a) tells us that we must disclose special information conveyed to us through partnership agreement or experience, (b) tells us that we need not disclose general knowledge, and (c) says nothing whatsoever about special information conveyed to us other than through partnership agremeent or experience. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From toddz at att.net Fri Apr 8 19:45:41 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri Apr 8 19:46:39 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4256C345.8070403@att.net> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > With Hilda's Law 92D permission, Wayne appeals the TD > decision. As AC, how would you rule? Ultimately I agree with you that data external to direct partnership experience can create implicit agreements. I assume that our hypothetical Wayne has a reason for appealing and Hilda reason for allowing. I would personally accept an argument along the lines that each player has given so many concessions to the other's style that they did not know whose preference applies to the given auction. I don't believe "undiscussed" would be good disclosure under the circumstances. The players in this story can limit the meaning of the bid to one of two possibilities and should do so. I'm certain the real Wayne would have done a better job. Assuming that the hypothetical Wayne is sincere in having to guess the meaning of the bid, are the hypothetical Maddog and Stevenson entitled to know what meaning Wayne and Hilda each prefer in their other partnerships? -Todd From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Apr 8 20:26:16 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Apr 8 20:27:13 2005 Subject: [blml] One - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Apr 07, 2005 04:48:14 PM Message-ID: <200504081826.j38IQGpU006282@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > (snippage) > > The Committee determined that NS were experienced players and > should have been familiar with Law 16, Unauthorized Information, > which governs situations such as this. The Committee decided that > the appeal was without merit and an AWMW was issued. > Good job by all concerned. I'm really surprised to see NS appeal what is a truly routine UI ruling. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 8 20:39:46 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 8 20:40:42 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <425686DD.7090508@hdw.be> References: <42547C58.9040408@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050408074318.02a807e0@pop.starpower.net> <425686DD.7090508@hdw.be> Message-ID: <8030698bbd3e24b53983964ec805bb70@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 8, 2005, at 9:27 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > The hand conforms to the strong option, true > and the director is to presume MI rather than misbid, Not entirely true - he is to so presume *in the absence of evidence to the contrary* > so whether or not Hilda has read anything is not important. I would suggest that the fact that the TD does not solicit evidence does not mean it does not exist. And I would also suggest that you can't just ignore the evidence out of hand. If you want to argue that there will rarely, in this kind of case, be evidence that would convince you to rule misbid, well, that's a matter of TD judgment, and I don't wish to go there. But you *must*, IMO, obtain and weigh *all* the evidence before you make your judgment. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 8 20:53:32 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 8 20:54:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 8, 2005, at 2:19 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Again I have to agree with Herman De Wael. > > If: > > (a) your partner has regularly psyched in > your partnership in the past > > and, > > (b) you assert that you do not remember the > previous psyches in your partnership, > > so that, > > (c) you failed to pre-alert the opponents > before the round about your partner's > historical psyching tendencies, > > then as TD I might ask you to perform the > difficult logical task of "proving a > negative", *unless* partner's psychic habit > was general bridge knowledge to the > opponents. "difficult"? I don't think that goes far enough. Be that as it may, you can ask for the moon, if you like. Doesn't mean you'll get it. :-) If you want to say that my mere statement that I don't know is insufficient evidence to sway your judgment in our favor, that's your privilege as TD. But it *is* a matter of judgment, subject to override on appeal. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 8 21:06:31 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 8 21:07:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6f2f109ea53cc950eeb8af39eb1cec0c@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 8, 2005, at 3:19 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Such TDs are indeed ruling according to what the > Laws, and Law 81C5 in particular, "do say". Do you consider such a ruling a matter of law, or a matter of judgment? From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 8 21:09:28 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 8 21:10:15 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050408130910.02b35860@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000501c53c6e$7cba9940$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ................ > >But I have no sympathy for a player who deliberately > >conceals relevant facts about his partner's calls > >with the argument that these facts are part of his > >"general knowledge"! > > I have no sympathy for such a player either, but I did not, as Sven > assumes, have the "general knowledge" clause in mind when I wrote the > above. It would be patently silly to assert that what "A History of > Tasmanian Bridge" has to say about Hilda's bidding peculiarities > constituted "general knowledge"! > > I suspect that Sven has been misled by reading the words of L75C as > saying what (he and I agree) they should say, rather than what they do > say. He has inferred an inclusive dichotomy between "special > information conveyed... through partnership agreement or partnership > experience" and "general knowledge and experience", but that dichotomy > is not an inclusive one. > > There is, however, an inclusive dichotomy to be found between "special > information" and "general knowledge". Which means that, as written, > L75C (a) tells us that we must disclose special information conveyed to > us through partnership agreement or experience, (b) tells us that we > need not disclose general knowledge, and (c) says nothing whatsoever > about special information conveyed to us other than through partnership > agremeent or experience. OK. Let me just sum up some of what we in Norway consider "partnership experience": It includes your experience of your partner's habits, style etc. as you have learned from playing with him or playing in the same environment as he has been playing and even from knowing literature he has read (and which you too have read) with some expectation that lacking express agreements he will most probably apply the principles learned from such literature. "General experience" includes knowledge which you must assume any player is familiar with and style which "everybody" should expect in the applicable environment unless deviations are explicitly disclosed. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 8 21:24:48 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 8 21:25:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 21 In-Reply-To: <000b01c53c5e$597b1c80$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000601c53c70$a193aa20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton ......... > I am having difficulty here understanding how N-S can be entitled to know > that West has made 2 bids which cannot be in accordance with partnership > agreements when N-S are NOT entitled to know that West has changed > his bid at all. And shall this dismiss West from his duty to disclose his "special partnership experience" learned just 5 seconds ago that partner obviously right now made a psychic call? The duties under Law 75C are not affected by Law 16C. I believe the best we can say is that we may have stumbled over another inconsistency in the laws and try to understand and apply the spirit of the laws while we await some resolution by WBFLC. Or we must find a way to rule the case if North/South even after the psyche finds their game (or even slam) in Hearts. Who shall tell them that although West passed the 2H bid there is no way you can reach your contract in Hearts after that psyche? To me this is an equivalent of CPU between East and West. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 8 22:43:19 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 8 22:43:56 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <000501c53c6e$7cba9940$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050408130910.02b35860@pop.starpower.net> <000501c53c6e$7cba9940$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050408162445.02d540b0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:09 PM 4/8/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau >................ > > There is, however, an inclusive dichotomy to be found between "special > > information" and "general knowledge". Which means that, as written, > > L75C (a) tells us that we must disclose special information conveyed to > > us through partnership agreement or experience, (b) tells us that we > > need not disclose general knowledge, and (c) says nothing whatsoever > > about special information conveyed to us other than through partnership > > agremeent or experience. > >OK. Let me just sum up some of what we in Norway consider "partnership >experience": > >It includes your experience of your partner's habits, style etc. as >you have >learned from playing with him or playing in the same environment as he has >been playing and even from knowing literature he has read (and which >you too >have read) with some expectation that lacking express agreements he will >most probably apply the principles learned from such literature. > >"General experience" includes knowledge which you must assume any >player is >familiar with and style which "everybody" should expect in the applicable >environment unless deviations are explicitly disclosed. I heartily approve of the Norwegian view as Sven has explained it. It can (arguably) be legally justified by interpreting "partnership experience" to mean "any of the player's experiences that pertain to the partnership". The Norwegians have, in effect, found a loophole in a badly written law that makes it work correctly, and they use it. Good for them! But the straightforward English interpretation of the phrase "partnership experience" would be "any of the partnership's experiences". I much prefer the Norwegian interpretation, and argue that L73C should be reworded to express that interpretation clearly. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam at irvine.com Fri Apr 8 20:58:20 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Sat Apr 9 02:51:43 2005 Subject: [blml] One - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Apr 2005 14:24:24 +0200." Message-ID: <200504081858.LAA32687@mailhub.irvine.com> Con Holzscherer wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > > "While pass is, IMO, a logical alternative here, this is a close enough > judgment that we shouldn't be expecting players to determine that > definitively for themselves. I strongly disagree with the committee's > finding that the appeal was without merit." > > I strongly disagree with Eric's disagreement. An immediate double > would (or at least should) show a hand without a reasonable heart fit > and certainly with wasted club values. At best (from South's viewpoint) > something like: > > K J 10 x > A x x > K Q x > Q J x > > which should yield about 800 against 5 clubs opposite a doubtful 5 hearts. Keep in mind that E-W were experts, and they were vulnerable. They're not going to be bidding like this, on holey club suits, without extra distribution. I think 200 is more likely than 800---you're counting on N-S taking three tricks in the red suits, which isn't all that likely IMHO. I agree with Eric---I think the committee was out of line to issue the AWMW. N-S can certainly be expected to know Law 16, but they should not be expected to know how a TD or AC member is going to judge which calls are logical alternatives. I think it's reasonable for South to see this as a close decision whether passing is a LA (mostly because of the club void), and he shouldn't be punished for thinking it might be, in spite of the TD's decision (especially if the TD made that decision without consultation). -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Fri Apr 8 17:29:27 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Sat Apr 9 02:51:47 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:09:23 +1000." Message-ID: <200504081529.IAA31465@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > >>David Wayne John Hilda > >>1D Pass 1H 1NT > >>? > >> > >>It is general bridge knowledge to all four experts at the > >>table that this sandwich 1NT has one of two meanings, > >>either: > >> > >>(a) the old-fashioned inferior meaning, strong and balanced, > >> > >>or > >> > >>(b) the modern superior meaning, weak distributional takeout. > > DWS wrote: > > >My experience tells me that [a] is modern but inferior, [b] is > >old-fashioned but superior. > > > >David Stevenson > > RJH writes: > > I agree with David Stevenson, especially given the modern > trend of ultra-light opening bids and ultra-light responses. > > But of course, the cognoscenti deprecate our old-fashioned > style. They claim that being required to systemically pass > with a balanced 16 hcp in the sandwich position, thus losing a > partscore or game swing, is too rare to worry about. I note > that my bidding is old-fashioned, but am still happy to collect > the not-so-rare imps gained due to my old-fashioned style. I'm not sure which cognoscenti deprecate this, but Bridge World Standard still assigns the strong, natural meaning to 1NT in this position, and the distributional alternative isn't even listed as a "leaf". So at least some cognoscenti prefer the old-fashioned approach. By the way, my initial reaction to the ruling question was to rule that the -1100 table result should stand because it was caused by John's erratic bidding and not by any MI, but in real life I would probably need more information before making such a ruling (such as the hands and the actual auction). :) :) :) -- Adam From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Apr 9 04:29:04 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sat Apr 9 04:29:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Two - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050408220549.03462598@mail.comcast.net> At 10:45 PM 4/7/2005, Richard Hills wrote: >This is the second of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be >collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the >official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 >cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie crauncher and thiotimoline theogonist > >* * * > >CASE N-02 >Subject: UI >DIC: Ron Johnston >Event LM Women's Pairs 4th Session > >Bd: 26 Kathleen Sulgrove >Dlr: East J >Vul: Both QT8 > 87632 > J532 >Cindy Sealy Patty Adamle >KQ8532 A74 >6 AK7 >954 AKQJT >KQ4 A6 > JoAnn Sprung > T96 > J95432 > --- > T987 > >West North East South >--- --- 2C Pass >2S Pass 4NT Pass >5D Pass 5H Pass >5S(1) Pass 7NT Pass >Pass Pass > >(1) BIT > >Facts: The final contract was 7NT making for +2220 for EW after the >lead of the C10. The 5D bid showed one key card. There was an >extended pause (about 30 seconds) before the 5S bid, which happened >to be observed by the director. East, in consultation with the >director away from the table after the auction was completed, said >that she thought that her partner was confused and that she thought >the King sixth of spades would be enough for her to justify her >bidding 7NT. > >Director's Ruling: The director ruled that unauthorized information >existed from the hesitation and that it suggested that West was >confused and might have the SQ, which was systemically denied by >the 5S bid. Applying Law 16A, the director adjusted the score to 6S >making seven, E-W +1460, per Law 12C2. The TD neglected to consider what would happen in a 6S contract; this argument came up in the appeal. It is surely "at all probable", and I believe "likely", that North would lead a diamond, so the director's ruling should be +1430. A split +1430/-1460 is also possible; if "likely" means 1/3, then I believe that the three suits are not equally likely, and I would prefer a heart lead. >The Appeal: The EW pair acknowledged that there was a significant >BIT over the 5H queen ask. The pair also said that the positive 2S >response could be made on as little as the king sixth of spades and >an outside queen. East acknowledged that she thought her partner >could be uncertain about the meaning of the 5H bid. > >The NS pair contended that the BIT should constrain EW from bidding >at the seven level. NS also pointed out that 6 spades could be held >to 6 with a diamond lead. > >The Decision: The Committee determined that the BIT suggested that >West's 5S response might not be accurate and, therefore, made >bidding a grand slam more attractive. The Committee found that >without the BIT there were logical alternatives to bidding a grand >slam. > >Applying Law 12C2, the AC determined that the most unfavorable >result at all probable for EW was 6NT, not 6S. The Committee >considered that the same rationale used by East to opt for 7NT >instead of 7S would also lead East to choose NT at the six level, >if a grand slam were not to be bid. Therefore, the best result >likely for NS was 6NT by EW. The Committee's claim is wrong here. If 7S makes, then 7NT must make, as there are at least five spades, two hearts, five diamonds, and one club. But it isn't clear whether 6S or 6NT is more likely to make, and 6S is more likely to make an overtrick. Give West Kxxxxx Jxx x Qxx, and if clubs aren't led against 6NT, East must duck the second spade to keep an entry to dummy; 6S makes seven on a 2-2 spade break. If clubs are led, the opening leader doesn't have the CK, and spades don't break, 6S might still make if the club losers can be pitched on the diamonds, and is otherwise down one, while 6NT is down two. Yes, I would bid 6NT after considering the issues (West might have the CK, or the HQ and no club lead, or the CQ and opening leader holds the CK), but 6S is a logical alternative. I could see +1430 for E-W and -1460 for N-S (ruling that it was not at all probable both that East would bid 6S and that North would lead a diamond). >Also the worst result at all probable for EW was 6NT. The contract >easily makes all the tricks for reciprocal 1460s. That should be 1470, but this appears to be a typo. >Since the Committee's decision gave EW a better score than the >director had done, the Committee did not seriously consider >whether the appeal was without merit. The argument that East would bid 6NT still has merit, regardless of how the AC rules, so this appeal has merit. And if N-S appealed as well, trying to get + >Committee: Jon Wittes, chairperson, Riggs Thayer, John Solodar, Ed >Lazarus, Aaron Silverstein > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ooga at shaw.ca Sat Apr 9 16:37:19 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Sat Apr 9 16:38:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 21 In-Reply-To: <000601c53c70$a193aa20$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c53c70$a193aa20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4257E89F.60500@shaw.ca> Sven Pran wrote: > (West's weak 1NT opener is doubled and East bids 2S with a weak hand. After making the 2S call East is told by South that the double shows hearts and spades, so East decides to change his call, based on the late alert, to a psyche of 2H.) > >>I am having difficulty here understanding how N-S can be entitled to know >>that West has made 2 bids which cannot be in accordance with partnership >>agreements when N-S are NOT entitled to know that West has changed >>his bid at all. > > And shall this dismiss West from his duty to disclose his "special > partnership experience" learned just 5 seconds ago that partner obviously > right now made a psychic call? > > The duties under Law 75C are not affected by Law 16C. Isn't the key here the first sentence of L75B? "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation..." East knows that west will be perfectly aware (because the discarded 2S call is AI to E-W) that his 2H correction is a psyche. If the TD has taken East away from the table to hear what he would have done, he should remind East that 2H is a clear violation of L75C. I agree that he need not see East's hand to give this reminder. > I believe the best we can say is that we may have stumbled over another > inconsistency in the laws and try to understand and apply the spirit of the > laws while we await some resolution by WBFLC. The main question seems to be whether East's breach of L75B is a greater offense than the late explanation/alert by South. I think the L75B breach is a greater offense. > Or we must find a way to rule the case if North/South even after the psyche > finds their game (or even slam) in Hearts. Who shall tell them that although > West passed the 2H bid there is no way you can reach your contract in Hearts > after that psyche? To me this is an equivalent of CPU between East and West. Surely we must allow the result to stand if South doubles with a fair hand and four or more hearts, or bids 3H to expose the psyche with a hand which clearly calls for this action. On borderline hands leading to a good result for N-S, one might make E-W eat their score and give N-S a procedural penalty (or perhaps simply a warning, if it is found that 2S was bid so quickly that South really never had a chance to alert on time.) -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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 Sat Apr 9 19:49:16 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Apr 9 19:50:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 21 In-Reply-To: <4257E89F.60500@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <000101c53d2c$73121f30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Bruce McIntyre > Sent: 9. april 2005 16:37 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 21 > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > (West's weak 1NT opener is doubled and East bids 2S with a weak hand. > After > making the 2S call East is told by South that the double shows hearts and > spades, so East decides to change his call, based on the late alert, to a > psyche > of 2H.) > > > >>I am having difficulty here understanding how N-S can be entitled to > know > >>that West has made 2 bids which cannot be in accordance with partnership > >>agreements when N-S are NOT entitled to know that West has changed > >>his bid at all. > > > > And shall this dismiss West from his duty to disclose his "special > > partnership experience" learned just 5 seconds ago that partner > obviously > > right now made a psychic call? > > > > The duties under Law 75C are not affected by Law 16C. > > Isn't the key here the first sentence of L75B? Indeed a very good point and thanks for calling my attention to that one! (I am a bit ashamed I wasn't aware of it myself). > > "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his > partner > is unaware of the violation..." > > East knows that west will be perfectly aware (because the discarded 2S > call is > AI to E-W) that his 2H correction is a psyche. If the TD has taken East > away > from the table to hear what he would have done, he should remind East that > 2H is > a clear violation of L75C. I agree that he need not see East's hand to > give > this reminder. If the Director is extremely cautious he might remind East that he must not in this position replace his call with any call that his partner "should understand" is a psyche. > > > I believe the best we can say is that we may have stumbled over another > > inconsistency in the laws and try to understand and apply the spirit of > the > > laws while we await some resolution by WBFLC. > > The main question seems to be whether East's breach of L75B is a greater > offense > than the late explanation/alert by South. I think the L75B breach is a > greater > offense. I do not believe there can be much discussion on that point. > > > Or we must find a way to rule the case if North/South even after the > psyche > > finds their game (or even slam) in Hearts. Who shall tell them that > although > > West passed the 2H bid there is no way you can reach your contract in > Hearts > > after that psyche? To me this is an equivalent of CPU between East and > West. > > Surely we must allow the result to stand if South doubles with a fair hand > and > four or more hearts, or bids 3H to expose the psyche with a hand which > clearly > calls for this action. On borderline hands leading to a good result for > N-S, > one might make E-W eat their score and give N-S a procedural penalty (or > perhaps > simply a warning, if it is found that 2S was bid so quickly that South > really > never had a chance to alert on time.) AFAIK there has never been any question of a rapid first call by East. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Apr 10 03:24:16 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun Apr 10 03:23:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the third of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-03 Subject: Claim DIC: Cukoff LM Pairs 1st Final Bd: 17 Marvin Shatz Dlr: North AJ854 Vul: None KJT764 K 4 Roger Lord Peggy Kaplan 9 KQ63 9 Q52 QJ643 T872 KQJ863 A5 Peter Wolf T72 A83 A95 T972 West North East South --- 1H Pass 2H 3C 3H 4C Dbl Pass Pass Pass The Facts: West played 4C doubled after the HJ lead. The result was disputed. The last four cards in declarer's (West) hand were CKQ8 and D6. The D6 was the only remaining diamond in play. South still held three clubs and the S10 and North held the SA. The play had gone: HJ led and won; heart to HA and ruffed; DQ losing to DK; heart winning (declarer pitching S9); another heart ruffed by the C5, C9, and CJ; a diamond to South's DA; a diamond ruffed by North; heart ruffed by the CA; a spade ruffed by declarer. At this point, West put the CK and CQ on the table and after a brief pause placed the D6 and the C8 on the table sequentially. Declarer did not immediately make a statement and a discussion arose. The director was summoned. West told the director that the diamond was good and that he would know about the bad club break when North failed to follow, in which case he would be unable to pick up the trump. The director ruled that under Law 70D, which governs contested claims, the play of the C8 before the D6 would have been careless or inferior, but not irrational for a declarer who had made no statement about trumps. Therefore, the director awarded the final two tricks to NS by forcing the lead of the C8 at trick 12. Down four for -800 for EW. The Appeal: EW said that when declarer put his cards on the table, South kept stating that the losing club had to be played first and did not give West a chance to state the order of play. So, the EW appeal was based on their perception that South had deprived West of the opportunity to make a timely statement and on their belief that the order in which West placed his cards on the table manifested his intent to play them in that order. The Decision: The Committee determined that since declarer had not made an oral statement of claim, his actions may be decisive. The Committee believed that declarer's play of the cards in the order he did manifested his intent to make his claim based on that order of play. Playing two high trumps, an off suit winner, and then the final trump is sufficiently unnatural for it to manifest declarer's intent to base his claim on the play of the cards in that order. Had he thought his whole hand was winners, he would likely have placed all the cards down at once or placed the clubs down first and then the diamonds. Therefore the Committee awarded only one of the last two tricks to NS. The result: EW -500, N-S +500. Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Michael Rosenberg, Danny Sprung, Jeff Roman, Chris Willenken From craigstamps at comcast.net Sun Apr 10 04:27:40 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Sun Apr 10 04:28:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: Message-ID: <001101c53d74$de7c5cc0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> At this level of play I would consider the attempt to draw all trump irrational after opponent clearly showed out. The order in which the cartds were laid on the table is indicative and so is the INITIAL statement of claim before the director. There might even have been a procedural warning to North-South for attempting to adressd the potential irregularity before the director was at the table. Law 66 "Play ceases" certainly forbids ANY order of play...if the claim is disputed the director must adjudicate. Compliments to Barry and committee for a decision that restores equity and the correct table result. In no case should claimant be denied the right to specify the line of play, especially since that has already been made clear verbally. Good claim, should have saved time for a more difficult board later on...the dispute was rather Secy Birdish to say the least. Give claimant credit for SOME ability and stop trying to steal boards by manufacturing specious technicalities. (While I probably would stop short of taking a quarter board this time, if the pair persisted in such ill-advised lawyering I would expect to impose a penalty the next time.) Craig Senior "Psyches are legal and claims are good." ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:24 PM Subject: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook > > > > > This is the third of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be > collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the > official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 > cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > > * * * > > CASE N-03 > Subject: Claim > DIC: Cukoff > LM Pairs 1st Final > > Bd: 17 Marvin Shatz > Dlr: North AJ854 > Vul: None KJT764 > K > 4 > Roger Lord Peggy Kaplan > 9 KQ63 > 9 Q52 > QJ643 T872 > KQJ863 A5 > Peter Wolf > T72 > A83 > A95 > T972 > > West North East South > --- 1H Pass 2H > 3C 3H 4C Dbl > Pass Pass Pass > > The Facts: West played 4C doubled after the HJ lead. The result was > disputed. The last four cards in declarer's (West) hand were CKQ8 > and D6. The D6 was the only remaining diamond in play. South still > held three clubs and the S10 and North held the SA. > > The play had gone: HJ led and won; heart to HA and ruffed; DQ > losing to DK; heart winning (declarer pitching S9); another heart > ruffed by the C5, C9, and CJ; a diamond to South's DA; a diamond > ruffed by North; heart ruffed by the CA; a spade ruffed by > declarer. > > At this point, West put the CK and CQ on the table and after a > brief pause placed the D6 and the C8 on the table sequentially. > Declarer did not immediately make a statement and a discussion > arose. The director was summoned. West told the director that the > diamond was good and that he would know about the bad club break > when North failed to follow, in which case he would be unable to > pick up the trump. > > The director ruled that under Law 70D, which governs contested > claims, the play of the C8 before the D6 would have been careless > or inferior, but not irrational for a declarer who had made no > statement about trumps. Therefore, the director awarded the final > two tricks to NS by forcing the lead of the C8 at trick 12. Down > four for -800 for EW. > > The Appeal: EW said that when declarer put his cards on the table, > South kept stating that the losing club had to be played first and > did not give West a chance to state the order of play. So, the EW > appeal was based on their perception that South had deprived West of > the opportunity to make a timely statement and on their belief that > the order in which West placed his cards on the table manifested his > intent to play them in that order. > > The Decision: The Committee determined that since declarer had not > made an oral statement of claim, his actions may be decisive. The > Committee believed that declarer's play of the cards in the order he > did manifested his intent to make his claim based on that order of > play. Playing two high trumps, an off suit winner, and then the > final trump is sufficiently unnatural for it to manifest declarer's > intent to base his claim on the play of the cards in that order. > > Had he thought his whole hand was winners, he would likely have > placed all the cards down at once or placed the clubs down first and > then the diamonds. Therefore the Committee awarded only one of the > last two tricks to NS. The result: EW -500, N-S +500. > > Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Michael Rosenberg, Danny > Sprung, Jeff Roman, Chris Willenken > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From david.j.barton at lineone.net Sun Apr 10 09:51:51 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Sun Apr 10 09:46:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 21 References: <000601c53c70$a193aa20$6900a8c0@WINXP> <4257E89F.60500@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <000e01c53da2$28316810$0307a8c0@david> Bruce wrote:- Isn't the key here the first sentence of L75B? "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation..." East knows that west will be perfectly aware (because the discarded 2S call is AI to E-W) that his 2H correction is a psyche. If the TD has taken East away from the table to hear what he would have done, he should remind East that 2H is a clear violation of L75C. I agree that he need not see East's hand to give this reminder. David Barton replies:- I have a problem with this interpretation of L75B. Compare my scenario with 1H(1) (P) 2S(2) (P) P(3) (1) West has psyched his 1H bid (2) Game Forcing (3) Clearly violating a partnership agreement - hence exposing a psyche Are you claiming that West's pass contravenes L75B because East will know it is a violation a partnership agreement? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 07/04/2005 From david.j.barton at lineone.net Sun Apr 10 10:48:33 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Sun Apr 10 10:43:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question Message-ID: <000501c53daa$138fe820$0307a8c0@david> Dealer West, the auction starts 1C 2D at which point East makes a late alert. North South are playing weak jump overcalls over artificial 1C, but strong over natural 1C. North South agreements are to pass initially and come back in later with a strong hand, so North changes his bid to pass. The auction then becomes 1C P 1D 2H 2H would be weak jump overcall in the auction as given but is understood by both North and South as a splinter agreeing diamonds. What explanation should North give of his partner's 2H bid, and what is UI and AI to East - West? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 07/04/2005 From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 10 18:58:23 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Apr 10 18:59:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 21 In-Reply-To: <000e01c53da2$28316810$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000001c53dee$81dc33d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton > Bruce wrote:- > > Isn't the key here the first sentence of L75B? > > "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his > partner > is unaware of the violation..." .............. > David Barton replies:- > > I have a problem with this interpretation of L75B. > Compare my scenario with > 1H(1) (P) 2S(2) (P) > P(3) > > (1) West has psyched his 1H bid > (2) Game Forcing > (3) Clearly violating a partnership agreement - hence exposing a psyche > > Are you claiming that West's pass contravenes L75B because East will > know it is a violation a partnership agreement? No, because this pass is no psyche, the psychic bid was the 1H bid. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 10 19:06:05 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Apr 10 19:06:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000501c53daa$138fe820$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000101c53def$95504130$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton > Dealer West, the auction starts > 1C 2D > at which point East makes a late alert. > > North South are playing weak jump overcalls > over artificial 1C, but strong over natural 1C. > North South agreements are to pass initially > and come back in later with a strong hand, so > North changes his bid to pass. > > The auction then becomes > 1C P 1D 2H > > 2H would be weak jump overcall in the auction > as given but is understood by both North and South > as a splinter agreeing diamonds. > > What explanation should North give of his partner's > 2H bid, and what is UI and AI to East - West? The retracted 2D bid is UI to East/West but North can hardly explain the 2H overcall as Splinter without informing opponents that he in fact had a 2D bid which was retracted. This 2D bid is of course AI to South; and from the moment North tells opponents about it in order to explain the subsequent Splinter bid then this 2D bid becomes AI also for East and West. I am however a bit curious as to what kind of agreements North and South have which will make the 2H bid from South a Splinter bid? Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Apr 10 19:06:36 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun Apr 10 19:07:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050410125957.02b31420@pop.starpower.net> At 09:24 PM 4/9/05, richard.hills wrote: >CASE N-03 >Subject: Claim >DIC: Cukoff >LM Pairs 1st Final > >Bd: 17 Marvin Shatz >Dlr: North AJ854 >Vul: None KJT764 > K > 4 >Roger Lord Peggy Kaplan >9 KQ63 >9 Q52 >QJ643 T872 >KQJ863 A5 > Peter Wolf > T72 > A83 > A95 > T972 > >West North East South >--- 1H Pass 2H >3C 3H 4C Dbl >Pass Pass Pass > >The Facts: West played 4C doubled after the HJ lead. The result was >disputed. The last four cards in declarer's (West) hand were CKQ8 >and D6. The D6 was the only remaining diamond in play. South still >held three clubs and the S10 and North held the SA. > >The play had gone: HJ led and won; heart to HA and ruffed; DQ >losing to DK; heart winning (declarer pitching S9); another heart >ruffed by the C5, C9, and CJ; a diamond to South's DA; a diamond >ruffed by North; heart ruffed by the CA; a spade ruffed by >declarer. > >At this point, West put the CK and CQ on the table and after a >brief pause placed the D6 and the C8 on the table sequentially. >Declarer did not immediately make a statement and a discussion >arose. The director was summoned. West told the director that the >diamond was good and that he would know about the bad club break >when North failed to follow, in which case he would be unable to >pick up the trump. > >The director ruled that under Law 70D, which governs contested >claims, the play of the C8 before the D6 would have been careless >or inferior, but not irrational for a declarer who had made no >statement about trumps. Therefore, the director awarded the final >two tricks to NS by forcing the lead of the C8 at trick 12. Down >four for -800 for EW. > >The Appeal: EW said that when declarer put his cards on the table, >South kept stating that the losing club had to be played first and >did not give West a chance to state the order of play. So, the EW >appeal was based on their perception that South had deprived West of >the opportunity to make a timely statement and on their belief that >the order in which West placed his cards on the table manifested his >intent to play them in that order. > >The Decision: The Committee determined that since declarer had not >made an oral statement of claim, his actions may be decisive. The >Committee believed that declarer's play of the cards in the order he >did manifested his intent to make his claim based on that order of >play. Playing two high trumps, an off suit winner, and then the >final trump is sufficiently unnatural for it to manifest declarer's >intent to base his claim on the play of the cards in that order. > >Had he thought his whole hand was winners, he would likely have >placed all the cards down at once or placed the clubs down first and >then the diamonds. Therefore the Committee awarded only one of the >last two tricks to NS. The result: EW -500, N-S +500. > >Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Michael Rosenberg, Danny >Sprung, Jeff Roman, Chris Willenken What we have here, IMO, is a case of the ACBL's instruction to its floor directors to rule in favor of the NOS in doubtful situations and let the AC sort it out taken a bit too far. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Apr 10 23:30:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Apr 10 23:31:37 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <000501c53c6e$7cba9940$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > OK. Let me just sum up some of what we in Norway consider "partnership > experience": > It includes your experience of your partner's habits, style etc. as you > have learned from playing with him or playing in the same environment as ..add "or from discussions with him" > he has been playing and even from knowing literature he has read (and > which you too have read) ..insert "and which he knows you to have read/learned" (mutuality is important). > with some expectation that lacking express agreements he will most > probably apply the principles learned from such literature. And I think it's close. > "General experience" includes knowledge which you must assume any > player is familiar with and style which "everybody" should expect in the > applicable environment unless deviations are explicitly disclosed. Completely the wrong end of the stick. *My* "General Experience" is everything *I* know about bridge (and life, the universe, etc) which is *not* encompassed in partnership understandings with the partner of the moment. My general experience (not disclosable) is not only different from everybody else's general experience but it changes depending on who is my partner (becoming a greater or less subset of my total experience based on what partner and I share). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Apr 10 23:30:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Apr 10 23:31:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Well, we need a Law. Whether that means the game is bereft of > commonsense or just that there is more than one view is not so clear. If we need a law the game is indeed bereft of commonsense. The wrong player makes a face down lead (as per Law41) but because there is no "law" nobody is allowed to say "It's not your turn." - ridiculous! > I do not think it is commonsense that defenders communicate in a way > not explicitly permitted by Law - I think it is the opposite of > commonsense. The case presented had nothing to do communication between partners. It was about preventing an infraction by another player (partner, opponent, who cares). Infractions are bad things, easily prevented infractions are just too stupid for words. It is AI whether or not it is ones turn to lead - and whether this info comes from partner, declarer the play or wherever doesn't change that. From blml at blakjak.com Mon Apr 11 00:54:17 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Apr 11 00:56:16 2005 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050309140114.02ba41d0@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> <6.1.1.1.0.20050309140114.02ba41d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <97SQiXKZ6aWCFwmY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Eric Landau wrote >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." If you have blind players do you not permit the cards to be read out because to do so would be favouritism? I don't think I like your kind of "fair". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 11 01:16:53 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 11 01:17:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Four - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the fourth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-04 Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff Event LM Pairs Final Session Bd: 19 Wayne Stuart Dlr: South J874 Vul: EW K876 JT QT3 Ralph Katz Michael Rosenberg KQ2 AT9653 AJ T5 542 K7 A8762 KJ4 Wafik Abdou --- Q9432 AQ9863 95 West North East South --- --- --- Pass 1C Pass 1S 2NT(1) Pass 3C Dbl 3D Pass 3H(2) 3S Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) Upon inquiry explained as for the minors. (2) South explained as red suits. The Facts: The final contract was 4S by East making four for EW +620 after the H2 opening lead. The director was called at the end of the hand. The director ruled that since passing 3C doubled was not a logical alternative, the result would not be adjusted, even though there was unauthorized information available to South. The Appeal: Only East attended the hearing. East's contention was that a pass of 3C doubled was a logical alternative: if North's 3C bid showed clubs, then South had a good hand for playing clubs. Furthermore, East said that his double of 3C was a card-showing double, not a penalty double. Accordingly, according to East, South could not tell from the auction that North did not have a hand of a 4216 pattern. Hence, on the basis of the auction, pass was a logical alternative. The Decision: The Committee tried to discover what the NS partnership understanding was. From what the Committee could determine from the screening director and East, NS had neither system notes nor convention card marks indicating the precise meaning of the 2NT bid. If South felt that his 2NT bid was clearly for red suits per partnership understanding, then North's explanation of 2NT constituted UI for South. If this were the case, then passing 3C might have been a logical alternative. However, at the pre-hearing screening, South stated that he always meant to bid 3D to show the red suits if North were to bid 3C. Therefore, the Committee found that passing 3C doubled was not a logical alternative. The Committee also felt that it was unlikely that North would have a club suit worth bidding at this point since he did not pre-empt clubs over West's opening club bid. The Committee asked its chairperson to counsel the NS pair about full disclosure of their agreements since this appeal would not have been made if North had said that the 2NT bid was for the minors but correctable to being for the red suits. Dissent (by Aaron Silverstein): I believe that without evidence that the conventional agreement for NS is that with red suits they show minors and convert (which the offending side never even claimed), the 3C bid must be treated as natural. For that reason, the contract should be changed to 3 doubled, down eight. Without the explanation it is possible that the final contract would have been 3C doubled. On a trump lead down eight is the natural result. South's testimony that he would always convert 3C to 3D is self- serving and should be discounted. No matter how much one believes and respects South, his professed state of mind is irrelevant. Committee: Jon Wittes, chairperson, Ed Lazarus, John Solodar, Aaron Silverstein, Bill Passell From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 11 01:46:44 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 11 01:47:42 2005 Subject: [blml] More partnership UI to attempt to avoid an infraction In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050408160556.035d4d10@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >I have been following a similar thread in which one member >of a partnership attempts to stop his partner from >committing an infraction which may have given the >opponents some advantage. > >In Oz, it is still general to bid by writing bids on a >bidding pad. > >The bidding gets to the stage... > 4NT pass 4 >at which stage the 4NTer says, "not enough partner". > >The TD is called immediately, and observes that 4 is not >a bid, so the auction can proceed under some constraints >imposed by the UI. Unfortunately, the only logical >alternative not suggested by the UI is to complete the >attempt to insufficiently bid, and then pay the >appropriate penalty. The TD says this is nonsense. > >The non offenders end up with a poor score, since this >slam is not bid at most tables. They would like some >restitution which gives them a good score. >Alternatively they would like to see the TD shot. > >Beseiged TD (Sydney) Richard Hills: I, as TD, would rule that the 4NTer has infracted Law 73A1: "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves." As TD, pursuant to Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts), I would also rule that, without the infraction of Law 73A1, the 4NTer's partner would have infracted Law 27 (Insufficient Bid). It is true that a TD cannot require a player to infract Law 27. However, as TD, I would use Law 12A1 to award an adjusted score which provided indemnity to the non- offending side, since the initial infraction of Law 73A1 prevented the otherwise likely infraction of Law 27. Therefore, I agree that the besieged TD should have been shot. Ready, aim, fire! :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Apr 11 02:19:06 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon Apr 11 02:19:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Two - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050408220549.03462598@mail.comcast.net> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050408220549.03462598@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050410201816.03499288@mail.comcast.net> At 10:29 PM 4/8/2005, David J. Grabiner wrote: >>Also the worst result at all probable for EW was 6NT. The contract >>easily makes all the tricks for reciprocal 1460s. > >That should be 1470, but this appears to be a typo. > >>Since the Committee's decision gave EW a better score than the >>director had done, the Committee did not seriously consider >>whether the appeal was without merit. > >The argument that East would bid 6NT still has merit, regardless of how >the AC rules, so this appeal has merit. And if N-S appealed as well, >trying to get + This comment got truncated; it should say, "And if N-S appealed as well, trying to get -1430 rather than the TD's -1460, that appeal also has merit." From schoderb at msn.com Mon Apr 11 02:36:51 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Apr 11 02:38:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050410125957.02b31420@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Addressing myself to Eric's closing remarks, I find myself anathema to the idea of making rulings provisionally and letting the AC work it out. I want the TD to make the best possible ruling, according to the facts available to him/her, and which the CTD is willing to defend before a committee. This is why I fought so tenaciously for 12C3 to include the TD, why I have required TD's to consult before ruling, and to do the best they are capable of. To me the route, sometimes championed by Edgar when to his benefit, to "let the AC work it out", "rule against the infractor". etc., really was to justify the existence of a highly active AC, and justify the costs thereby incurred. I want the TD to do the BEST THEY ARE CAPABLE OF, as though the players would not wish to have an AC review the decision. If that's too much work for some of you, selling shoes is a lot easier. Otherwise , we could save a bunch of money by having the caddies give a rule book to the involved contenders, and just pass it all on to the AC. I deplore, and will continue to deplore rulings of that ilk. If you are not willing to "stand the heat in the kitchen," "put your best foot forward," or do the job you are lucky enough to have, get out of the business for the good of the game and make room for those who are "willing to stand up and be counted." Kojak riginal Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook > At 09:24 PM 4/9/05, richard.hills wrote: > > >CASE N-03 > >Subject: Claim > >DIC: Cukoff > >LM Pairs 1st Final > > > >Bd: 17 Marvin Shatz > >Dlr: North AJ854 > >Vul: None KJT764 > > K > > 4 > >Roger Lord Peggy Kaplan > >9 KQ63 > >9 Q52 > >QJ643 T872 > >KQJ863 A5 > > Peter Wolf > > T72 > > A83 > > A95 > > T972 > > > >West North East South > >--- 1H Pass 2H > >3C 3H 4C Dbl > >Pass Pass Pass > > > >The Facts: West played 4C doubled after the HJ lead. The result was > >disputed. The last four cards in declarer's (West) hand were CKQ8 > >and D6. The D6 was the only remaining diamond in play. South still > >held three clubs and the S10 and North held the SA. > > > >The play had gone: HJ led and won; heart to HA and ruffed; DQ > >losing to DK; heart winning (declarer pitching S9); another heart > >ruffed by the C5, C9, and CJ; a diamond to South's DA; a diamond > >ruffed by North; heart ruffed by the CA; a spade ruffed by > >declarer. > > > >At this point, West put the CK and CQ on the table and after a > >brief pause placed the D6 and the C8 on the table sequentially. > >Declarer did not immediately make a statement and a discussion > >arose. The director was summoned. West told the director that the > >diamond was good and that he would know about the bad club break > >when North failed to follow, in which case he would be unable to > >pick up the trump. > > > >The director ruled that under Law 70D, which governs contested > >claims, the play of the C8 before the D6 would have been careless > >or inferior, but not irrational for a declarer who had made no > >statement about trumps. Therefore, the director awarded the final > >two tricks to NS by forcing the lead of the C8 at trick 12. Down > >four for -800 for EW. > > > >The Appeal: EW said that when declarer put his cards on the table, > >South kept stating that the losing club had to be played first and > >did not give West a chance to state the order of play. So, the EW > >appeal was based on their perception that South had deprived West of > >the opportunity to make a timely statement and on their belief that > >the order in which West placed his cards on the table manifested his > >intent to play them in that order. > > > >The Decision: The Committee determined that since declarer had not > >made an oral statement of claim, his actions may be decisive. The > >Committee believed that declarer's play of the cards in the order he > >did manifested his intent to make his claim based on that order of > >play. Playing two high trumps, an off suit winner, and then the > >final trump is sufficiently unnatural for it to manifest declarer's > >intent to base his claim on the play of the cards in that order. > > > >Had he thought his whole hand was winners, he would likely have > >placed all the cards down at once or placed the clubs down first and > >then the diamonds. Therefore the Committee awarded only one of the > >last two tricks to NS. The result: EW -500, N-S +500. > > > >Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Michael Rosenberg, Danny > >Sprung, Jeff Roman, Chris Willenken > > What we have here, IMO, is a case of the ACBL's instruction to its > floor directors to rule in favor of the NOS in doubtful situations and > let the AC sort it out taken a bit too far. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 11 02:46:29 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 11 02:47:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Logical fallacies (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <20050408111128.28131.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >I have reasoned nothing by logical fallacy of false >analogy or any other kind. > >I have reasoned by simple logic and then provided an >example of the same construction. Richard Hills: Balderdash. It is easy for apparently "simple logic" to conceal invalid logical operations. For example: (Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. (Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. (Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness. The invalidity of this syllogism is due to the word "nothing" in the first axiom meaning "the set of items better than eternal happiness is an empty set", while the word "nothing" in the second axiom means "the zero point base of a numerical ranking of items". Wayne has used a similarly invalid logical operation: (Axiom 1) Wayne's work location is at best 5 minutes drive from Wayne's home location. (Axiom 2) A random breath test may cause Wayne to take more than 5 minutes to travel from Wayne's work location to Wayne's home location. (Conclusion 1) The commutative law of logic does not apply to the above two axioms. (Conclusion 2) The commutative law of logic does not apply to the WBF CoP guidelines on determining when an implicit partnership agreement exists. The invalidity of this syllogism is due to the phrase "5 minutes" in the first axiom meaning a measure of distance, while the phrase "5 minutes" in the second axiom means a measure of time. Wayne Burrows: >>I would never read a history book let alone borrow >>one to read. G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831): >>>What experience and history teach is this - that >>>people and governments never have learned anything >>>from history, or acted on any principles deduced >>>from it. Alexander Pope (1688-1744): >>>A little learning is a dang'rous thing; >>>Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: >>>There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, >>>And drinking largely sobers us again. Richard Hills: A deep drink from the history of logic is Douglas Hofstadter's Pulitzer-prizewinning work, "Godel, Escher, Bach". Even Wayne might find it an entertaining read. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon Apr 11 03:51:28 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Apr 11 03:52:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Logical fallacies (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050411015128.54577.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Wayne Burrows: > > >I have reasoned nothing by logical fallacy of false > >analogy or any other kind. > > > >I have reasoned by simple logic and then provided > an > >example of the same construction. > > Richard Hills: > > Balderdash. It is easy for apparently "simple > logic" > to conceal invalid logical operations. > For example: > > (Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. > (Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. > (Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better > than > eternal happiness. > > The invalidity of this syllogism is due to the word > "nothing" in the first axiom meaning "the set of > items better than eternal happiness is an empty > set", > while the word "nothing" in the second axiom means > "the zero point base of a numerical ranking of > items". > > Wayne has used a similarly invalid logical > operation: > > (Axiom 1) Wayne's work location is at best 5 minutes > drive from Wayne's home location. > (Axiom 2) A random breath test may cause Wayne to > take > more than 5 minutes to travel from Wayne's work > location to Wayne's home location. > (Conclusion 1) The commutative law of logic does not > apply to the above two axioms. > (Conclusion 2) The commutative law of logic does not > apply to the WBF CoP guidelines on determining when > an implicit partnership agreement exists. This is not my logical operation. > > The invalidity of this syllogism is due to the > phrase > "5 minutes" in the first axiom meaning a measure of > distance, while the phrase "5 minutes" in the second > axiom means a measure of time. My logical operation was entirely based on the sentence in the CoP: "This will be the case only if in the opinion of the committee one of the following circumstances is established: " The use of "only if" implies that we need one of the following conditions to be valid however it does not mean that if one of the following conditions is valid then a concealed partnership understanding necessarily exists. If the CoP was reworded by omitting the word "only" then the logical meaning would be that if one of the following conditions was met then we would have a concealed partnership understanding. However there could be other conditions not mentioned that would also create a concealed partnership understanding. "only if" is a statement of necessity. "if" is a statement of sufficiency. "only if" means that it is necessary but not sufficient to have one of the following conditions to create a concealed partnership understanding. "if" means it is sufficient but not necessary to have one of the following conditions to create a concealed partnership understanding. "if and only if" is the construction required to make necessary and sufficient statement. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 11 04:15:37 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 11 04:16:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050408111820.28100.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >The plain language definition of "implicit agreement" >or "implicit partnership understanding" requires that >there exists an "agreement' or an "understanding". No >director has the right to say that such a thing exists >when it does not. [snip] Richard Hills: Wayne's first sentence is correct. Wayne's second sentence is incorrect. If facts are disputed, Law 85 gives the Director the power to determine facts. Therefore, a Director's binding and Lawful view of the facts may be that Wayne has an implicit agreement with Wayne's partner. Wayne's non-binding and Lawfully irrelevant view of the facts may be that Wayne does not have an implicit agreement with Wayne's partner. Of course, if Wayne disputes a Director's assessment of the facts, then Wayne may appeal, and hope that an Appeals Committee adopts Wayne's viewpoint on the facts and overrules the Director. But, as a player, Wayne has zero Lawful power to determine facts. Tant pis. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 11 04:56:11 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 11 04:57:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <6f2f109ea53cc950eeb8af39eb1cec0c@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Such TDs are indeed ruling according to what the >>Laws, and Law 81C5 in particular, "do say". Ed Reppert: >Do you consider such a ruling a matter of law, or a >matter of judgment? Richard Hills: Have you stopped beating your wife? The Law 81C5 power granted to TDs to interpret the Laws means that it is a matter of Law that TDs are entitled to exercise their judgement. :-) But, to answer the question that Ed intended to ask, an AC may not over-rule a TD on the TD's interpretation of Law, but an AC may over-rule a TD on whether or not the facts are relevant to the TD's interpretation of Law. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 30th August 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. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 11 05:11:49 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 11 05:12:44 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: [snip] >Completely the wrong end of the stick. *My* "General >Experience" is everything *I* know about bridge (and >life, the universe, etc) which is *not* encompassed >in partnership understandings with the partner of the >moment. My general experience (not disclosable) is >not only different from everybody else's general >experience but it changes depending on who is my >partner (becoming a greater or less subset of my >total experience based on what partner and I share). Richard Hills: Completely the wrong end of the stick. "My general experience" is an oxymoron. One of two alternate phrases should be used, depending on what is being described: (a) My special experience, or (b) *Both* sides' general experience. The WBF Code of Practice defines "Special" as: >>In the laws, regulations, and this Code of Practice, >>"special" means "additional to what is normal and >>general". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon Apr 11 05:28:49 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Apr 11 05:29:40 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050411032849.94795.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Tim West-Meads: > > [snip] > > >Completely the wrong end of the stick. *My* > "General > >Experience" is everything *I* know about bridge > (and > >life, the universe, etc) which is *not* encompassed > >in partnership understandings with the partner of > the > >moment. My general experience (not disclosable) is > >not only different from everybody else's general > >experience but it changes depending on who is my > >partner (becoming a greater or less subset of my > >total experience based on what partner and I > share). > > Richard Hills: > > Completely the wrong end of the stick. "My general > experience" is an oxymoron. One of two alternate > phrases should be used, depending on what is being > described: > > (a) My special experience, > > or > > (b) *Both* sides' general experience. > > The WBF Code of Practice defines "Special" as: > > >>In the laws, regulations, and this Code of > Practice, > >>"special" means "additional to what is normal and > >>general". Nevertheless the laws speak of "general knowledge" as if it is particular to an individual - "his general knowledge" L75C. If the laws meant "general knowledge" that was known by everyone then they would surely simply say "general knowledge" and omit "his". The addition of the qualifier "his" means that this "general knowledge" is something different from a universal "general knowledge". IMO the only sensible meaning to ascribe to "his general knowledge" in the context of L75C is knowledge that has been obtained by that particular player by means other than a "special partnership understanding" or from this particular "partnership's experience". Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From craigstamps at comcast.net Mon Apr 11 05:50:18 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Mon Apr 11 05:50:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050410125957.02b31420@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001201c53e49$93f77510$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Would that everyone had your ability, intelligence and insight, Bill. But I know that you are aware that very few TD's approach you in making effective, accurate and fair floor rulings. That does not forgive them from learning and improving continually, nor as you so correctly state doing "the best they are capable of". Nonetheless even with consultation there will be cases that are close decisions with bridge judgement inextricably linked to a correct ruling. When such a close call comes about, the NOS should get the table ruling with the opponents advised of their right to appeal. This should be no rubber stamp, but the exceptional case, and should be one in which there is no likelihood that an AC's time might be wasted. By the by, the quality and availability of a suitable AC should be weighed...if there is none the TD must try even harder to rule correctly in the first place. (In other words, since he should be ruling the very best that he can in the first place, like Alice he must do even better!) That being said, TD's are human and can err...that's why the important events should still have high quality and ethical AC's. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook > Addressing myself to Eric's closing remarks, I find myself anathema to the > idea of making rulings provisionally and letting the AC work it out. I > want the TD to make the best possible ruling, according to the facts > available to him/her, and which the CTD is willing to defend before a > committee. This is why I fought so tenaciously for 12C3 to include the TD, > why I have required TD's to consult before ruling, and to do the best they > are capable of. > > To me the route, sometimes championed by Edgar when to his benefit, to > "let the AC work it out", "rule against the infractor". etc., really was > to justify the existence of a highly active AC, and justify the costs > thereby incurred. > > I want the TD to do the BEST THEY ARE CAPABLE OF, as though the players > would not wish to have an AC review the decision. If that's too much work > for some of you, selling shoes is a lot easier. Otherwise , we could save > a bunch of money by having the caddies give a rule book to the involved > contenders, and just pass it all on to the AC. > > I deplore, and will continue to deplore rulings of that ilk. If you are > not willing to "stand the heat in the kitchen," "put your best foot > forward," or do the job you are lucky enough to have, get out of the > business for the good of the game and make room for those who are "willing > to stand up and be counted." > > Kojak > > > > riginal Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 1:06 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook > > >> At 09:24 PM 4/9/05, richard.hills wrote: >> >> >CASE N-03 >> >Subject: Claim >> >DIC: Cukoff >> >LM Pairs 1st Final >> > >> >Bd: 17 Marvin Shatz >> >Dlr: North AJ854 >> >Vul: None KJT764 >> > K >> > 4 >> >Roger Lord Peggy Kaplan >> >9 KQ63 >> >9 Q52 >> >QJ643 T872 >> >KQJ863 A5 >> > Peter Wolf >> > T72 >> > A83 >> > A95 >> > T972 >> > >> >West North East South >> >--- 1H Pass 2H >> >3C 3H 4C Dbl >> >Pass Pass Pass >> > >> >The Facts: West played 4C doubled after the HJ lead. The result was >> >disputed. The last four cards in declarer's (West) hand were CKQ8 >> >and D6. The D6 was the only remaining diamond in play. South still >> >held three clubs and the S10 and North held the SA. >> > >> >The play had gone: HJ led and won; heart to HA and ruffed; DQ >> >losing to DK; heart winning (declarer pitching S9); another heart >> >ruffed by the C5, C9, and CJ; a diamond to South's DA; a diamond >> >ruffed by North; heart ruffed by the CA; a spade ruffed by >> >declarer. >> > >> >At this point, West put the CK and CQ on the table and after a >> >brief pause placed the D6 and the C8 on the table sequentially. >> >Declarer did not immediately make a statement and a discussion >> >arose. The director was summoned. West told the director that the >> >diamond was good and that he would know about the bad club break >> >when North failed to follow, in which case he would be unable to >> >pick up the trump. >> > >> >The director ruled that under Law 70D, which governs contested >> >claims, the play of the C8 before the D6 would have been careless >> >or inferior, but not irrational for a declarer who had made no >> >statement about trumps. Therefore, the director awarded the final >> >two tricks to NS by forcing the lead of the C8 at trick 12. Down >> >four for -800 for EW. >> > >> >The Appeal: EW said that when declarer put his cards on the table, >> >South kept stating that the losing club had to be played first and >> >did not give West a chance to state the order of play. So, the EW >> >appeal was based on their perception that South had deprived West of >> >the opportunity to make a timely statement and on their belief that >> >the order in which West placed his cards on the table manifested his >> >intent to play them in that order. >> > >> >The Decision: The Committee determined that since declarer had not >> >made an oral statement of claim, his actions may be decisive. The >> >Committee believed that declarer's play of the cards in the order he >> >did manifested his intent to make his claim based on that order of >> >play. Playing two high trumps, an off suit winner, and then the >> >final trump is sufficiently unnatural for it to manifest declarer's >> >intent to base his claim on the play of the cards in that order. >> > >> >Had he thought his whole hand was winners, he would likely have >> >placed all the cards down at once or placed the clubs down first and >> >then the diamonds. Therefore the Committee awarded only one of the >> >last two tricks to NS. The result: EW -500, N-S +500. >> > >> >Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Michael Rosenberg, Danny >> >Sprung, Jeff Roman, Chris Willenken >> >> What we have here, IMO, is a case of the ACBL's instruction to its >> floor directors to rule in favor of the NOS in doubtful situations and >> let the AC sort it out taken a bit too far. >> >> >> Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >> 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >> Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 11 06:43:54 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 11 06:44:54 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <20050411032849.94795.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills defines "oxymoron" as: >>>Completely the wrong end of the stick. "My general >>>experience" is an oxymoron. The WBF Code of Practice defines "special" as: >>In the laws, regulations, and this Code of Practice, >>"special" means "additional to what is normal and >>general". Wayne Burrows defines "his general" as "not general": >Nevertheless the laws speak of "general knowledge" as >if it is particular to an individual - "his general >knowledge" L75C. If the laws meant "general >knowledge" that was known by everyone then they would >surely simply say "general knowledge" and omit "his". >The addition of the qualifier "his" means that this >"general knowledge" is something different from a >universal "general knowledge". > >IMO the only sensible meaning to ascribe to "his >general knowledge" in the context of L75C is knowledge >that has been obtained by that particular player by >means other than a "special partnership understanding" >or from this particular "partnership's experience". Richard Hills defines "sensible" as: In my opinion, the sensible and consistent way to interpret "his general knowledge" in Law 75C is that that player has access to knowledge that is general and shared by the opponents, so therefore superfluous to disclose. Example: "His general knowledge" would normally include the shared knowledge that, "It is risky to take a vulnerable save against a non-vulnerable game." In my opinion, it is *not* sensible to define "his general knowledge" to include "special knowledge of one's current partner, gained by observing one's current partner when one's current partner was previously an opponent." Exception: Unless this special knowledge is already shared by the opponents, in which case it is no longer special knowledge, but instead metamorphosed into normal and general knowledge. No doubt the WBF Laws Drafting Sub-Committee will be paying particular attention to the precise wording of the "general knowledge" caveat in the 2007 version of Law 75C. In my opinion, an overly broad interpretation of "general knowledge" (with or without the modifier "his") is not consistent with the current desired nature of proactively ethical "full disclosure" in the game of Duplicate Contract Bridge. The ABF Alert Regulation defines "full disclosure" as: >>>>Your principle should be to disclose, not as little >>>>as you must, but as much as you can, and as >>>>comprehensibly as you can. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 11 08:15:27 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 11 08:16:27 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <001401c53e53$e3ca97c0$7a30b618@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In a private email, another blmler asserted: >It need not be shared by opponents and yet it is still be superfluous >to disclose. Each individual has his/her own palette of General >Bridge Knowledge. For example, a novice most likely is not familiar >with many commonsense principles of the game that other players hold >self-evident (as an example, that *4th seat weak two is not really >weak* or some similar principles). Richard Hills asserts: This individual palette of General Bridge Knowledge is exactly what I have been arguing against. To a novice, I *would* Alert pard's fourth-seat preempt of 3C, since a novice is unlikely to share the "general knowledge" that pard's preempt in fourth seat is unusually *not* weak, but rather promises opening strength (circa 10-14 hcp). Of course, I agree that an Alert is superfluous for an expert opponent, since that expert opponent does share my General Bridge Knowledge about the strength of fourth-seat preempts. The other blmler continued: >Or is bridge table, according to what you say, a forum to teach others >about fundamentals and the obligation to teach is placed on more >experienced players per the Laws? I should hope not. Richard Hills continues: The teaching of novices is merely a side-effect of full disclosure. And I definitely do hope that all experienced players strive to attain a Spiderman epiphany, "With great experience comes great responsibility." In my opinion, experienced players are role models for their less experienced brethren. In my opinion, experienced players should take meticulous care in obeying the Law 74A2 courtesy and the Law 75A full disclosure requirements of the Laws. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 11 08:46:36 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 11 08:47:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Logical fallacies (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <20050411015128.54577.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >My logical operation was entirely based on the >sentence in the CoP: > >"This will be the case only if in the opinion of the >committee one of the following circumstances is >established: " [snip] >"only if" is a statement of necessity. "if" is a >statement of sufficiency. [snip] >"if and only if" is the construction required to >make necessary and sufficient statement. Richard Hills: Okay, so the WBF LC wrote "only if", understandable in normal speech, when a pedantic schoolboy would have written "if and only if". This pedantic schoolboy then argues that the New Zealand directors and/or the New Zealand sponsoring organisation are incorrectly interpreting Law 75B and Law 75C. Ahem. My apologies for any hurt to Wayne's feelings, and I withdraw the injudicious reference to a "pedantic schoolboy" above. I agree that a prime and useful purpose of blml is pedantry, since observers from the WBF Laws Drafting Sub-Committee gain useful information on where there are loopholes in the current Laws, thus allowing them to identify and eliminate those loopholes in the forthcoming version of the Laws. And, indeed, I am a pedantic schoolboy at heart myself, since I also love unearthing and debating quiddities in the Laws. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 11 08:59:17 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 11 09:00:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Five - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the fifth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-05 Subject: UI DIC: Bates Open BAM 2nd Qualifying Brd: 24 Bryan Maksymetz Dlr: West KJ9 Vul:None 76 QT74 8543 Daniel Dennison Mary Lou Dennison T6542 A3 K93 A 986 AKJ5 A6 KQT972 Lars Andersson Q87 QJT8542 32 J West North East South Pass Pass 2C 3H Pass Pass 4C Pass 5C(1) Pass 6C Pass Pass Pass (1) BIT of approximately 30 seconds agreed The Facts: The final contract was 6C by East making six for +920 for EW. The opening lead was not recorded. The director was called at the end of play. He ruled that passing was not a logical alternative for East. Therefore, there could be no adjustment under Law 12. The Appeal: NS appealed on the grounds that passing 5C was a logical alternative and should have been the adjusted result on the board. Other Facts: The case was not screened and EW could not be located to be notified of the existence of the appeal. The screening director was even unable to identify the parties sitting EW. The table director reported that East made no statements as to their methods while West said that the pass of 3H showed some values, but West was unsure about whether 4C was forcing. The Decision: The Committee found that there was a BIT. The BIT did convey UI. The UI did suggest bidding 6C. The Committee reasoned that the BIT certainly did not suggest that West's choice was between bidding and passing; it reflected West's uncertainty about what to bid. The Committee decided that since most of the bidding options other than 5C suggested a greater likelihood of the success of a 6C bid by East, 6C was demonstrably suggested by the BIT. The AC believed that while passing would likely not be a good matchpoint result - bidding on in a BAM team game was also problematic. Therefore, the Committee found that pass was a logical alternative to bidding 5C and the contract reverted to 5C, making 6 for +420 for EW. Committee: Bob Schwartz, chairperson; Gary Cohler, Ed Lazarus, Eddie Wold, Dar Afdahl From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 11 09:00:39 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 11 09:01:42 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c53e64$2b811a20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............ > > OK. Let me just sum up some of what we in Norway > > consider "partnership experience": > > > It includes your experience of your partner's habits, > > style etc. as you have learned from playing with him > > or playing in the same environment as > ..add "or from discussions with him" > > he has been playing and even from knowing literature > > he has read (and which you too have read) > ..insert "and which he knows you to have read/learned" > (mutuality is important). No, that is NOT important. Let me give a clarifying example: I once played an evening with an ad hoc partner from my club. I would rank him class A, and certainly above my own class. In one auction he bid 5NT with the (correct) assumption that I would understand it as the big free 5NT bid. We had never discussed or agreed upon that convention, he could not know for sure that I was familiar with it but from his general knowledge of me he assumed (and hoped) that I did. Had opponents asked about that call I would according to our practice in Norway not gotten away with "general knowledge", I would be expected to disclose what I understood from my special knowledge of that particular player. > > with some expectation that lacking express agreements he will most > > probably apply the principles learned from such literature. > > And I think it's close. > > > "General experience" includes knowledge which you must assume any > > player is familiar with and style which "everybody" should expect in the > > applicable environment unless deviations are explicitly disclosed. > > Completely the wrong end of the stick. *My* "General Experience" is > everything *I* know about bridge (and life, the universe, etc) which is > *not* encompassed in partnership understandings with the partner of the > moment. My general experience (not disclosable) is not only different > from everybody else's general experience but it changes depending on who > is my partner (becoming a greater or less subset of my total experience > based on what partner and I share). And we never accept a player refusing to disclose on the ground that it is "general knowledge". We do (of course) accept words to the effect: "I don't know", but then that player had better not be too lucky in continuing the auction with calls that statistically indicate he did in fact understand. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Sat Apr 9 19:01:17 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 11 09:46:18 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050408095645.02e70c20@pop.starpower.net> References: <42547C58.9040408@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050408074318.02a807e0@pop.starpower.net> <425686DD.7090508@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050408095645.02e70c20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <42580A5D.3070501@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Herman's analysis is based on the illustrative footnote to L75D2, which > provides guidelines for disambiguating giving misinformation from > misbidding. But in the hypothetical case on the table, there is no > suggestion that there has been a misbid; either there was MI or this is > a case in which "nothing happened". The misinformation-misbid issue > would have come up had Wayne indeed (in the original hypothetical > example) "explained it as two-suiter", but he didn't; he explained it as > "undiscussed". > So you would not rule aganst Wayne if he says "undiscussed", but you would rule if he says "two-suiter"? What if opponents wish to have a particular answer, because their bidding methods depend on it - do you allow Wayne to continue to say "undiscussed"? Surely Hilda has one or the other intention in mind, and if it's not a misbid, how are you going to prove that it is "undiscussed" rather than "strong"? My problem is not with the legal aspects of this case, but with the practical ruling issues. If the opponents don't mind the answer "undiscussed", then OK, they have not been misinformed. But if they want to know which one it is, how can you refuse them (even the guess). Suppose there is a system, but Wayne forgets. Do you allow him to say "I forgot", or do you rule that he must tell opponents a guess? What is the (practical) difference with this case? > A "misbid" is an unintentional violation of a partnership agreement. > Without an agreement, there cannot be a misbid. > But yet again, that is theory. In practice, you cannot (generally) prove that there is no agreement, so this principle is without practical value. > -- 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: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 7/04/2005 From jrmayne at mindspring.com Mon Apr 11 10:08:34 2005 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Mon Apr 11 10:09:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Five - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook Message-ID: <25989807.1113206914376.JavaMail.root@wamui08.slb.atl.earthlink.net> This is the fifth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-05 Subject: UI DIC: Bates Open BAM 2nd Qualifying Brd: 24 Bryan Maksymetz Dlr: West KJ9 Vul:None 76 QT74 8543 Daniel Dennison Mary Lou Dennison T6542 A3 K93 A 986 AKJ5 A6 KQT972 Lars Andersson Q87 QJT8542 32 J West North East South Pass Pass 2C 3H Pass Pass 4C Pass 5C(1) Pass 6C Pass Pass Pass (1) BIT of approximately 30 seconds agreed The Facts: The final contract was 6C by East making six for +920 for EW. The opening lead was not recorded. The director was called at the end of play. He ruled that passing was not a logical alternative for East. Therefore, there could be no adjustment under Law 12. The Appeal: NS appealed on the grounds that passing 5C was a logical alternative and should have been the adjusted result on the board. Other Facts: The case was not screened and EW could not be located to be notified of the existence of the appeal. The screening director was even unable to identify the parties sitting EW. The table director reported that East made no statements as to their methods while West said that the pass of 3H showed some values, but West was unsure about whether 4C was forcing. ======= JRM: The fact-finding is severely compromised by not notifying the respondents. I would be extremely hesitant to overturn a director's ruling here. This shows a break either in the process or the execution thereof. As to the ruling, it's critical to determine what the pass of 3H really showed. How much value? If it did show values, 4C should be forcing, but we don't know what East thought. That is, could the tank before 5C indicate thinking about passing from East's point of view? I would expect after a thorough review that the committee got it right. But through no fault of the respondents, such a review was made impossible. It is really questionable to rule against them under these circumstances. ======= The Decision: The Committee found that there was a BIT. The BIT did convey UI. The UI did suggest bidding 6C. The Committee reasoned that the BIT certainly did not suggest that West's choice was between bidding and passing; it reflected West's uncertainty about what to bid. The Committee decided that since most of the bidding options other than 5C suggested a greater likelihood of the success of a 6C bid by East, 6C was demonstrably suggested by the BIT. The AC believed that while passing would likely not be a good matchpoint result - bidding on in a BAM team game was also problematic. Therefore, the Committee found that pass was a logical alternative to bidding 5C and the contract reverted to 5C, making 6 for +420 for EW. Committee: Bob Schwartz, chairperson; Gary Cohler, Ed Lazarus, Eddie Wold, Dar Afdahl _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 11 11:00:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 11 11:01:07 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Completely the wrong end of the stick. "My general > experience" is an oxymoron. One of two alternate > phrases should be used, depending on what is being > described: > > (a) My special experience, > > or > > (b) *Both* sides' general experience. Perhaps it should (though it makes little sense to me in this context). However those are not the phrases used in the current law 75c. There experience is divided between "special" (relating to the partnership) and "*his* general..". I believe that a player's *total* bridge knowledge must fall into one of these two categories (for the purpose of this law). Tim From affined at a.imap.itd.umich.edu Mon Apr 11 11:11:04 2005 From: affined at a.imap.itd.umich.edu (Jamie Magee ) Date: Mon Apr 11 11:09:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Hello, Friend.. Message-ID: Dear Homeowner You have been pre-approved for a $400,000 Home Loan at a 3.25% 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.goodratezz.com/x/loan.php?id=ph15 From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon Apr 11 12:05:14 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Apr 11 12:06:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Logical fallacies (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050411100515.30602.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > [snip] > > >My logical operation was entirely based on the > >sentence in the CoP: > > > >"This will be the case only if in the opinion of > the > >committee one of the following circumstances is > >established: " > > [snip] > > >"only if" is a statement of necessity. "if" is a > >statement of sufficiency. > > [snip] > > >"if and only if" is the construction required to > >make necessary and sufficient statement. > > Richard Hills: > > Okay, so the WBF LC wrote "only if", understandable > in normal speech, when a pedantic schoolboy would > have written "if and only if". This pedantic > schoolboy then argues that the New Zealand directors > and/or the New Zealand sponsoring organisation are > incorrectly interpreting Law 75B and Law 75C. > > Ahem. Of course the construction of the Code of Practice could be deliberate and what is written is actually what is intended. It makes perfect sense to me. It is consistent with the use of "may" in L75B whilst the alternative necessary and sufficient meaning of the Code of Practice would be inconsistent with the use of "may" in the L75B. Also the assumption that the Code of Practice is incorrectly worded is inconsistent with the right to psyche given in L40A. > > My apologies for any hurt to Wayne's feelings, and I > withdraw the injudicious reference to a "pedantic > schoolboy" above. > > I agree that a prime and useful purpose of blml is > pedantry, since observers from the WBF Laws Drafting > Sub-Committee gain useful information on where there > are loopholes in the current Laws, thus allowing > them to identify and eliminate those loopholes in > the forthcoming version of the Laws. > > And, indeed, I am a pedantic schoolboy at heart > myself, since I also love unearthing and debating > quiddities in the Laws. Until there has been a pronouncement that the wording is incorrect then I think that it is best to interpret rulings according to what is written in a way that is consistent with what is written in the laws. The alternative gives too much unhealthy power to TDs and SOs IMO. I reiterate what I said earlier in this discussion that neither the director nor the SO have any right to rule outside what the law says. The minimum that is required for a ruling of a "partnership understanding" is that there is a "partnership understanding". That does not seem too much to ask to me. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Apr 11 12:18:07 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon Apr 11 12:12:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 21 References: <000001c53dee$81dc33d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002d01c53e7f$c1371b30$0307a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 5:58 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 21 >> On Behalf Of David Barton >> Bruce wrote:- >> >> Isn't the key here the first sentence of L75B? >> >> "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his >> partner >> is unaware of the violation..." > .............. >> David Barton replies:- >> >> I have a problem with this interpretation of L75B. >> Compare my scenario with >> 1H(1) (P) 2S(2) (P) >> P(3) >> >> (1) West has psyched his 1H bid >> (2) Game Forcing >> (3) Clearly violating a partnership agreement - hence exposing a psyche >> >> Are you claiming that West's pass contravenes L75B because East will >> know it is a violation a partnership agreement? > > No, because this pass is no psyche, the psychic bid was the 1H bid. > > Regards Sven > The fact that pass is NOT a psyche (and 1H is) is not relevant. The Pass is still a violation of an announced partnership agreement. Which of the following is a breach of L75B:- (1) Partner opens a 15-17 1NT and you hold 28 points. (2) Partner shows 2 (genuine) Aces in a known balanced hand and you are looking at 3 Aces. (3) Partner passes your Blackwood 4N (4) Partner passes your 2S response to his 1H opening bid. (5) Partner makes a bid not defined in your system eg bids 3N in response to your Lebensohl 2N (6) Makes 2 bids which are mutually contradictory eg makes a negative response showing 0 to 6 points and later shows 2 Aces. I cannot believe that because a player can work out from the authorised information in his possession that his partner has deviated from the partnership agreements, that that makes the deviation a breach of L75B. So in particular I do not believe that the case we were discussing (1N X 2S/2H) is a breach of L75B simply because the 1N opener can work out from authorised information that partner has deviated from a partnership agreement. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 07/04/2005 From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon Apr 11 12:22:25 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Apr 11 12:23:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050411102225.33586.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > [snip] > > >The plain language definition of "implicit > agreement" > >or "implicit partnership understanding" requires > that > >there exists an "agreement' or an "understanding". > No > >director has the right to say that such a thing > exists > >when it does not. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Wayne's first sentence is correct. Wayne's second > sentence is incorrect. If facts are disputed, Law > 85 > gives the Director the power to determine facts. > > Therefore, a Director's binding and Lawful view of > the > facts may be that Wayne has an implicit agreement > with > Wayne's partner. Wayne's non-binding and Lawfully > irrelevant view of the facts may be that Wayne does > not have an implicit agreement with Wayne's partner. > > Of course, if Wayne disputes a Director's assessment > of > the facts, then Wayne may appeal, and hope that an > Appeals Committee adopts Wayne's viewpoint on the > facts and overrules the Director. > > But, as a player, Wayne has zero Lawful power to > determine facts. Tant pis. > The director's lawful right to determine facts given in L85 is not absolute it is conditional : "If the Director is satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84." L85A The director must be satisfied that he has ascertained the facts. This is completely different than using an arbitrary rule to make a ruling. My experience is that directors make an arbitrary decision that certain evidence will be considered sufficient to determine that there is an "understanding" or that there has been a break in tempo etc. This is over-stepping the authority of L85A which only allows them to rule this way on disputed facts if they are satisfied that they have determined the facts. In all other cases they merely are allowed to make a ruling to allow play to continue - L85B. That is a director can say: "I am satisfied that I have determined that there is a concealed partnership understanding" and then make an appropriate ruling. However a director has no right to say according to some arbitrary rule or other I am assuming that there is a concealed partnership understanding. This is just an example of shirking their responsibility to investigate and determine the facts. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 11 12:23:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 11 12:24:35 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Richard Hills defines "oxymoron" as: > > >>>Completely the wrong end of the stick. "My general > >>>experience" is an oxymoron. > > The WBF Code of Practice defines "special" as: > > >>In the laws, regulations, and this Code of Practice, > >>"special" means "additional to what is normal and > >>general". > > Wayne Burrows defines "his general" as "not general": > > >Nevertheless the laws speak of "general knowledge" as > >if it is particular to an individual - "his general > >knowledge" L75C. If the laws meant "general > >knowledge" that was known by everyone then they would > >surely simply say "general knowledge" and omit "his". > >The addition of the qualifier "his" means that this > >"general knowledge" is something different from a > >universal "general knowledge". > > > >IMO the only sensible meaning to ascribe to "his > >general knowledge" in the context of L75C is knowledge > >that has been obtained by that particular player by > >means other than a "special partnership understanding" > >or from this particular "partnership's experience". > > Richard Hills defines "sensible" as: > > In my opinion, the sensible and consistent way to > interpret "his general knowledge" in Law 75C is that > that player has access to knowledge that is general > and shared by the opponents, so therefore superfluous > to disclose. > Example: "His general knowledge" would normally include > the shared knowledge that, "It is risky to take a > vulnerable save against a non-vulnerable game." Sorry, but if one knows that partner is aware of the risks (and knows that partner knows one knows) then this mutual awareness is "special" to the partnership. If one sits down with a stranger one has no idea whether he/she is aware of such risks (it is part of my general bridge experience that many players are blissfully unaware of this so-called "general knowledge") - it is part of my special understanding (when partnering Charlie) that he bids *as if* blissfully unaware of the risks. If playing with David my required disclosure might be "He won't make that bid unless he thinks he is extremely unlikely to go more than one off and has some chances of making. If he expects to go one off he will be almost certain he is not taking a phantom." > In my opinion, it is *not* sensible to define "his > general knowledge" to include "special knowledge of > one's current partner, gained by observing one's current > partner when one's current partner was previously an > opponent." Of course it isn't - that is why such knowledge (along with all sorts of other things) should included in one's definition of "special". > Exception: Unless this special knowledge is already > shared by the opponents, in which case it is no longer > special knowledge, but instead metamorphosed into normal > and general knowledge. What opponents know (or may be presumed to know) is not relevant in considering *what* must be disclosed (a judgement of what they know might affect the shorthand players use in disclosing) . However, a TD won't (except in very peculiar circumstances) rule damage if he determine opps knew something that wasn't explicitly disclosed. Experience and agreements transmute "general knowledge" to "special" in this context - sometimes very rapidly. If a stranger and I agree to play "SAYC" then opps are entitled to know what a given bid means in SAYC (the knowledge has become special). They are not (ab initio) entitled to my (still general) knowledge that many players think SAYC includes a 2 card 1C opening. Partner may know this aspect of SAYC, he may even know that many other players think otherwise but since we don't know the extent to which our respective general knowledge is shared we can't be obliged to disclose it. Tim From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Mon Apr 11 12:24:00 2005 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Mon Apr 11 12:24:56 2005 Subject: The Best we can do - Was: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200504111030.j3BAUNUb007868@canada.servidor-pt.com> I got my initial training as a TD during the "rule against the infractor" stage, but almost all my career happened during the "do the best we can" stage (so i?m quite young at this). Anyway, doing the best we can should be as natural as breathing. TDing becomes intelectually challenging that way. Players like us to do it that way and if they trust our judgment and our methods they will not go into an AC (at least they will go only a fraction of the time). The other way round is just a lazy (or self-protecting) way of TDing (apart from the other implications Kojak mentioned). The game gains a lot "our" way, IMHO. I can?t imagine myself going back to "rule against the infractor" or "send it to the AC because I can?t do it". Nobody should even think about it seriously. I guess that if that happens one day to me, I will change my job to selling shoes... Rui Marques -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER Sent: segunda-feira, 11 de Abril de 2005 1:37 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List; Eric Landau Subject: Re: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook Addressing myself to Eric's closing remarks, I find myself anathema to the idea of making rulings provisionally and letting the AC work it out. I want the TD to make the best possible ruling, according to the facts available to him/her, and which the CTD is willing to defend before a committee. This is why I fought so tenaciously for 12C3 to include the TD, why I have required TD's to consult before ruling, and to do the best they are capable of. To me the route, sometimes championed by Edgar when to his benefit, to "let the AC work it out", "rule against the infractor". etc., really was to justify the existence of a highly active AC, and justify the costs thereby incurred. I want the TD to do the BEST THEY ARE CAPABLE OF, as though the players would not wish to have an AC review the decision. If that's too much work for some of you, selling shoes is a lot easier. Otherwise , we could save a bunch of money by having the caddies give a rule book to the involved contenders, and just pass it all on to the AC. I deplore, and will continue to deplore rulings of that ilk. If you are not willing to "stand the heat in the kitchen," "put your best foot forward," or do the job you are lucky enough to have, get out of the business for the good of the game and make room for those who are "willing to stand up and be counted." Kojak From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Mon Apr 11 12:24:28 2005 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Mon Apr 11 12:25:22 2005 Subject: The Best we can do - Was: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook Message-ID: <200504111030.j3BAUnUb007961@canada.servidor-pt.com> And I sincerely think that one of the good things in Europe, regarding TDing, when comparing with the ABCL-land, is that TDs here are teached from the start on how to do the best possible decision in all circumstances. Learning to use judgment, to consult, etc., is a major landmark in the growing process of a TD. Rui Marques From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 11 12:31:27 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 11 12:32:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Five - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c53e81$9e8e0ce0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > CASE N-05 > Subject: UI > DIC: Bates > Open BAM 2nd Qualifying > > Brd: 24 Bryan Maksymetz > Dlr: West KJ9 > Vul:None 76 > QT74 > 8543 > Daniel Dennison Mary Lou Dennison > T6542 A3 > K93 A > 986 AKJ5 > A6 KQT972 > Lars Andersson > Q87 > QJT8542 > 32 > J > > West North East South > Pass Pass 2C 3H > Pass Pass 4C Pass > 5C(1) Pass 6C Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) BIT of approximately 30 seconds agreed > > The Facts: The final contract was 6C by East making six for +920 > for EW. The opening lead was not recorded. The director was called > at the end of play. He ruled that passing was not a logical > alternative for East. Therefore, there could be no adjustment > under Law 12. > > The Appeal: NS appealed on the grounds that passing 5C was a > logical alternative and should have been the adjusted result on > the board. > > Other Facts: The case was not screened and EW could not be located > to be notified of the existence of the appeal. The screening > director was even unable to identify the parties sitting EW. This is incredible. How was the appeal entered? Why was the appealing side unable to inform their opponents that they were going to appeal? Why was the Director unable to inform the responders that an appeal was forthcoming? And did the score sheet not show the names of all four players at that table? There seems to me to have been a lot of procedural errors here. I am not going to comment on the final verdict, but I am extremely surprised that the AC even agreed to handle the appeal hearing only one side. Sven From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Apr 11 12:45:27 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon Apr 11 12:40:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question References: <000101c53def$95504130$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003501c53e83$92dca9e0$0307a8c0@david> >> On Behalf Of David Barton >> Dealer West, the auction starts >> 1C 2D >> at which point East makes a late alert. >> >> North South are playing weak jump overcalls >> over artificial 1C, but strong over natural 1C. >> North South agreements are to pass initially >> and come back in later with a strong hand, so >> North changes his bid to pass. >> >> The auction then becomes >> 1C P 1D 2H >> >> 2H would be weak jump overcall in the auction >> as given but is understood by both North and South >> as a splinter agreeing diamonds. >> >> What explanation should North give of his partner's >> 2H bid, and what is UI and AI to East - West? > > The retracted 2D bid is UI to East/West but North can hardly explain the > 2H > overcall as Splinter without informing opponents that he in fact had a 2D > bid which was retracted. This 2D bid is of course AI to South; and from > the > moment North tells opponents about it in order to explain the subsequent > Splinter bid then this 2D bid becomes AI also for East and West. > > I am however a bit curious as to what kind of agreements North and South > have which will make the 2H bid from South a Splinter bid? > > Regards Sven > Well the concept that the answers to questions can convert UI into AI seems strange to me. Let us consider a slightly different scenario. 1C 1H/P 1D P where as usual pass is substituted for 1H after a late alert. Now the 1C opener asks his LHO what 3H (instead of pass) would have meant from his RHO. "Preemptive raise of my suit" answers the honest LHO. UI converted to AI at a stroke! As to the North/South agreements above, a jump in a new suit after partner has shown a strong jump overcall is defined as a splinter. What is strange about that? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 07/04/2005 From ooga at shaw.ca Mon Apr 11 13:06:14 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Mon Apr 11 13:07:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 21 In-Reply-To: <002d01c53e7f$c1371b30$0307a8c0@david> References: <000001c53dee$81dc33d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002d01c53e7f$c1371b30$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <425A5A25.90001@shaw.ca> David Barton wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 5:58 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 21 > > >>> On Behalf Of David Barton >>> Bruce wrote:- >>> >>> Isn't the key here the first sentence of L75B? >>> >>> "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his >>> partner >>> is unaware of the violation..." >> >> .............. >> >>> David Barton replies:- >>> >>> I have a problem with this interpretation of L75B. >>> Compare my scenario with >>> 1H(1) (P) 2S(2) (P) >>> P(3) >>> >>> (1) West has psyched his 1H bid >>> (2) Game Forcing >>> (3) Clearly violating a partnership agreement - hence exposing a psyche >>> >>> Are you claiming that West's pass contravenes L75B because East will >>> know it is a violation a partnership agreement? >> >> >> No, because this pass is no psyche, the psychic bid was the 1H bid. >> >> Regards Sven >> > > The fact that pass is NOT a psyche (and 1H is) is not relevant. > The Pass is still a violation of an announced partnership agreement. Interesting point. I think L75B refers to partnership agreements related to what sort of hand a call _just made_ or _under consideration_ promises. I think it is a stretch to apply L75B to "partnership agreements" that govern how the partner of the bidder must proceed. Perhaps it can even be argued that there are no such "partnership agreements" as "forcing," "promises another bid," "forcing to game," "signoff," etc. One could legitimately argue that these are not partnership agreements, only accepted strategy that follows logically from the true partnership agreement, which is the range of hands that might cause a certain bid to be made. > Which of the following is a breach of L75B:- > > (1) Partner opens a 15-17 1NT and you hold 28 points. You know partner hasn't got what he promised. But partner had no idea when psyching 1NT that you would be certain he had done so. No breach. > (2) Partner shows 2 (genuine) Aces in a known balanced hand and > you are looking at 3 Aces. Same as #1. For some reason partner showed two aces, but when he did so he had no idea you held three. No breach. > (3) Partner passes your Blackwood 4N A Blackwood 4NT is forcing, but one could presumably list all of the types of hands that would cause partner to consider an ace-asking bid, and discover that in some of them 4NT may be our last plus, especially if we haven't got our values for previous bids. No breach here, once again partner didn't know you were light when he bid 4NT, in fact, he probably based his bid on you having your values. Another way to argue this one is with the _reductio ad absurdum_ method. Do we really want a game where forcing bids can _never_ be legally passed? > (4) Partner passes your 2S response to his 1H opening bid. No breach. Nobody has made a bid that partner will know is a violation. There is no Law that I know of against making a bid that will show partner that a _previous_ call was a violation. > (5) Partner makes a bid not defined in your system eg bids > 3N in response to your Lebensohl 2N No breach but I hope this hasn't been done before in the partnership: if so the opponents should be informed about what the bid was made on then. > (6) Makes 2 bids which are mutually contradictory eg makes > a negative response showing 0 to 6 points and later shows > 2 Aces. No breach, partner had an ace hidden on the first round, or perhaps has drunk himself into a seeing-double situation during the auction. Maybe he feels that some feature of his hand is worth lying about his ace count. We don't know. Therefore no breach. > I cannot believe that because a player can work out from the authorised > information in his possession that his partner has deviated from the > partnership agreements, that that makes the deviation a breach of L75B. I agree, it doesn't. > So in particular I do not believe that the case we were discussing > (1N X 2S/2H) is a breach of L75B simply because the 1N opener can work > out from authorised information that partner has deviated from a > partnership agreement. Partner knows the 2H call is a violation at the time the call is made. Sure, there is a small chance that partner had x Qxxxxx xxx xxx and inadvertently pulled the wrong card and is using Law 21 instead of Law 25 to correct his error. But this seems unlikely and the overwhelmingly likely meaning of 2H is that it is a psyche. My interpretation of L75B prohibits this psyche, which partner can recognize _without even looking at his own cards to judge_. Perhaps L75B could be rewritten to make this clearer. Another way to cover this situation would be to create a specific clause for Law 21 prohibiting the player changing his MI-influenced call to take advantage of the AI/UI split by correcting to a clear violation of a partnership agreement. -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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 blml at blakjak.com Mon Apr 11 13:26:47 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Apr 11 13:29:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >> >> Well, we need a Law. Whether that means the game is bereft of >> commonsense or just that there is more than one view is not so clear. > >If we need a law the game is indeed bereft of commonsense. The wrong >player makes a face down lead (as per Law41) but because there is no "law" >nobody is allowed to say "It's not your turn." - ridiculous! > >> I do not think it is commonsense that defenders communicate in a way >> not explicitly permitted by Law - I think it is the opposite of >> commonsense. > >The case presented had nothing to do communication between partners. It >was about preventing an infraction by another player (partner, opponent, >who cares). Infractions are bad things, easily prevented infractions are >just too stupid for words. It is AI whether or not it is ones turn to >lead - and whether this info comes from partner, declarer the play or >wherever doesn't change that. When you prevent something by talking to someone about it, you have communicated with them. Be serious - you know this perfectly well. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 11 13:53:22 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 11 13:56:55 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <42580A5D.3070501@hdw.be> References: <42547C58.9040408@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050408074318.02a807e0@pop.starpower.net> <425686DD.7090508@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050408095645.02e70c20@pop.starpower.net> <42580A5D.3070501@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050411074220.02b86930@pop.starpower.net> At 01:01 PM 4/9/05, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >>Herman's analysis is based on the illustrative footnote to L75D2, >>which provides guidelines for disambiguating giving misinformation >>from misbidding. But in the hypothetical case on the table, there is >>no suggestion that there has been a misbid; either there was MI or >>this is a case in which "nothing happened". The >>misinformation-misbid issue would have come up had Wayne indeed (in >>the original hypothetical example) "explained it as two-suiter", but >>he didn't; he explained it as "undiscussed". > >So you would not rule aganst Wayne if he says "undiscussed", but you >would rule if he says "two-suiter"? Of course, given the stipulation that it is in fact undiscussed. Must I really justify ruling in Wayne's favor if he gives correct information and against him if he gives incorrect information? >What if opponents wish to have a particular answer, because their >bidding methods depend on it - do you allow Wayne to continue to say >"undiscussed"? The opponents are entitled to a description of Wayne's and Hilda's actual agreements, regardless of what else they might wish for. >Surely Hilda has one or the other intention in mind, >and if it's not a misbid, how are you going to prove that it is >"undiscussed" rather than "strong"? I needn't "prove" anything; I need only weigh the evidence. If Wayne says they haven't discussed it, and Hilda says they haven't discussed it, and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise, I am likely to conclude that they haven't discussed it. >My problem is not with the legal aspects of this case, but with the >practical ruling issues. If the opponents don't mind the answer >"undiscussed", then OK, they have not been misinformed. But if they >want to know which one it is, how can you refuse them (even the guess). Easy. Where in the laws does it say that if I *don't* have a partnership agreement I must guess what it would be if I did? >Suppose there is a system, but Wayne forgets. Do you allow him to say >"I forgot", or do you rule that he must tell opponents a guess? I tell him that if he does not correctly describe his agreement, the result may be subject to adjustment. >What >is the (practical) difference with this case? In one case Wayne and Hilda have an agreement, in the other they don't. When it comes to describing their agreements, that's a "practical" difference. >>A "misbid" is an unintentional violation of a partnership agreement. >>Without an agreement, there cannot be a misbid. > >But yet again, that is theory. In practice, you cannot (generally) >prove that there is no agreement, so this principle is without >practical value. Lucky for me that they only pay me to make findings based on the available evidence, and do not require me to "prove" anything. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Mon Apr 11 14:09:32 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Apr 11 14:10:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050410125957.02b31420@pop.starpower.net> <001201c53e49$93f77510$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Craig, I fully agree, and can give you chapter and verse where it worked the way you suggest. I have always felt less-than-professional when the law forced me to go to an AC with a ruling that I did not want to make, knew was inadequate or wrong, but did not have the 12C3 powers to DO IT RIGHT. In rare cases, with only minimally qualified ACs in some remote places, I've had to sort of guide them along to overrule and do the right thing. To me, this lessens the respect for the TD and the organization. That's why the Code of Practice vis-?-vis 12C3 for the TD is so important to me. It is NOT my wish to totally do away with ACs. It IS my wish to do away with the misinterpretations of the words of the first sentence of Law 92. 92A states "......a Contestant or his Captain MAY APPEAL FOR A REVIEW OF ANY RULING MADE at his table by the Director...." (Italics mine). An AC has the assigned job of reviewing the RULING, not starting from scratch and arriving at its own ruling which might coincide with or be different from that of the TD, without regard to the TD ruling. It is not to work out a puzzle, problem, etc., but to REVIEW THE RULING made by the TD, agree to it, modify it, or recommend that the TD change his ruling when it deals with a point of law, regulation, or disciplinary powers. Of course when doing this it has all the powers assigned to the TD, and should do a thorough job in understanding the case. When TDs do their job and earn the respect of the players the number of appeals will reduce, and the need for a great number of ACs will decline. It is a rare case where "doubt" is not involved in a situation, and it is a rare case where the "Well Kojak, we just don't have the time to do a thorough a job to determine the pertinent facts as the AC" is fact. If you need a greater number of TDs to properly service the players so be it; after all, service to the players is the main justification for having an organization. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "craig" To: Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 11:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook > Would that everyone had your ability, intelligence and insight, Bill. But > I > know that you are aware that very few TD's approach you in making > effective, > accurate and fair floor rulings. That does not forgive them from learning > and improving continually, nor as you so correctly state doing "the best > they are capable of". Nonetheless even with consultation there will be > cases > that are close decisions with bridge judgement inextricably linked to a > correct ruling. When such a close call comes about, the NOS should get the > table ruling with the opponents advised of their right to appeal. This > should be no rubber stamp, but the exceptional case, and should be one in > which there is no likelihood that an AC's time might be wasted. By the by, > the quality and availability of a suitable AC should be weighed...if there > is none the TD must try even harder to rule correctly in the first place. > (In other words, since he should be ruling the very best that he can in > the > first place, like Alice he must do even better!) That being said, TD's are > human and can err...that's why the important events should still have high > quality and ethical AC's. > > Craig > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" > > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 8:36 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook > > > > Addressing myself to Eric's closing remarks, I find myself anathema to > > the > > idea of making rulings provisionally and letting the AC work it out. I > > want the TD to make the best possible ruling, according to the facts > > available to him/her, and which the CTD is willing to defend before a > > committee. This is why I fought so tenaciously for 12C3 to include the > > TD, > > why I have required TD's to consult before ruling, and to do the best > > they > > are capable of. > > > > To me the route, sometimes championed by Edgar when to his benefit, to > > "let the AC work it out", "rule against the infractor". etc., really was > > to justify the existence of a highly active AC, and justify the costs > > thereby incurred. > > > > I want the TD to do the BEST THEY ARE CAPABLE OF, as though the players > > would not wish to have an AC review the decision. If that's too much > > work > > for some of you, selling shoes is a lot easier. Otherwise , we could > > save > > a bunch of money by having the caddies give a rule book to the involved > > contenders, and just pass it all on to the AC. > > > > I deplore, and will continue to deplore rulings of that ilk. If you are > > not willing to "stand the heat in the kitchen," "put your best foot > > forward," or do the job you are lucky enough to have, get out of the > > business for the good of the game and make room for those who are > > "willing > > to stand up and be counted." > > > > Kojak > > > > > > > > riginal Message ----- > > From: "Eric Landau" > > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 1:06 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook > > > > > >> At 09:24 PM 4/9/05, richard.hills wrote: > >> > >> >CASE N-03 > >> >Subject: Claim > >> >DIC: Cukoff > >> >LM Pairs 1st Final > >> > > >> >Bd: 17 Marvin Shatz > >> >Dlr: North AJ854 > >> >Vul: None KJT764 > >> > K > >> > 4 > >> >Roger Lord Peggy Kaplan > >> >9 KQ63 > >> >9 Q52 > >> >QJ643 T872 > >> >KQJ863 A5 > >> > Peter Wolf > >> > T72 > >> > A83 > >> > A95 > >> > T972 > >> > > >> >West North East South > >> >--- 1H Pass 2H > >> >3C 3H 4C Dbl > >> >Pass Pass Pass > >> > > >> >The Facts: West played 4C doubled after the HJ lead. The result was > >> >disputed. The last four cards in declarer's (West) hand were CKQ8 > >> >and D6. The D6 was the only remaining diamond in play. South still > >> >held three clubs and the S10 and North held the SA. > >> > > >> >The play had gone: HJ led and won; heart to HA and ruffed; DQ > >> >losing to DK; heart winning (declarer pitching S9); another heart > >> >ruffed by the C5, C9, and CJ; a diamond to South's DA; a diamond > >> >ruffed by North; heart ruffed by the CA; a spade ruffed by > >> >declarer. > >> > > >> >At this point, West put the CK and CQ on the table and after a > >> >brief pause placed the D6 and the C8 on the table sequentially. > >> >Declarer did not immediately make a statement and a discussion > >> >arose. The director was summoned. West told the director that the > >> >diamond was good and that he would know about the bad club break > >> >when North failed to follow, in which case he would be unable to > >> >pick up the trump. > >> > > >> >The director ruled that under Law 70D, which governs contested > >> >claims, the play of the C8 before the D6 would have been careless > >> >or inferior, but not irrational for a declarer who had made no > >> >statement about trumps. Therefore, the director awarded the final > >> >two tricks to NS by forcing the lead of the C8 at trick 12. Down > >> >four for -800 for EW. > >> > > >> >The Appeal: EW said that when declarer put his cards on the table, > >> >South kept stating that the losing club had to be played first and > >> >did not give West a chance to state the order of play. So, the EW > >> >appeal was based on their perception that South had deprived West of > >> >the opportunity to make a timely statement and on their belief that > >> >the order in which West placed his cards on the table manifested his > >> >intent to play them in that order. > >> > > >> >The Decision: The Committee determined that since declarer had not > >> >made an oral statement of claim, his actions may be decisive. The > >> >Committee believed that declarer's play of the cards in the order he > >> >did manifested his intent to make his claim based on that order of > >> >play. Playing two high trumps, an off suit winner, and then the > >> >final trump is sufficiently unnatural for it to manifest declarer's > >> >intent to base his claim on the play of the cards in that order. > >> > > >> >Had he thought his whole hand was winners, he would likely have > >> >placed all the cards down at once or placed the clubs down first and > >> >then the diamonds. Therefore the Committee awarded only one of the > >> >last two tricks to NS. The result: EW -500, N-S +500. > >> > > >> >Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Michael Rosenberg, Danny > >> >Sprung, Jeff Roman, Chris Willenken > >> > >> What we have here, IMO, is a case of the ACBL's instruction to its > >> floor directors to rule in favor of the NOS in doubtful situations and > >> let the AC sort it out taken a bit too far. > >> > >> > >> Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > >> 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > >> Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> blml mailing list > >> blml@amsterdamned.org > >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Mon Apr 11 14:13:58 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Apr 11 14:14:50 2005 Subject: The Best we can do - Was: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficialcasebook References: <200504111030.j3BAUNUb007868@canada.servidor-pt.com> Message-ID: Rui, My only comment on what you wrote is AMEN! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rui Marques" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 6:24 AM Subject: The Best we can do - Was: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficialcasebook I got my initial training as a TD during the "rule against the infractor" stage, but almost all my career happened during the "do the best we can" stage (so i?m quite young at this). Anyway, doing the best we can should be as natural as breathing. TDing becomes intelectually challenging that way. Players like us to do it that way and if they trust our judgment and our methods they will not go into an AC (at least they will go only a fraction of the time). The other way round is just a lazy (or self-protecting) way of TDing (apart from the other implications Kojak mentioned). The game gains a lot "our" way, IMHO. I can?t imagine myself going back to "rule against the infractor" or "send it to the AC because I can?t do it". Nobody should even think about it seriously. I guess that if that happens one day to me, I will change my job to selling shoes... Rui Marques -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER Sent: segunda-feira, 11 de Abril de 2005 1:37 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List; Eric Landau Subject: Re: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook Addressing myself to Eric's closing remarks, I find myself anathema to the idea of making rulings provisionally and letting the AC work it out. I want the TD to make the best possible ruling, according to the facts available to him/her, and which the CTD is willing to defend before a committee. This is why I fought so tenaciously for 12C3 to include the TD, why I have required TD's to consult before ruling, and to do the best they are capable of. To me the route, sometimes championed by Edgar when to his benefit, to "let the AC work it out", "rule against the infractor". etc., really was to justify the existence of a highly active AC, and justify the costs thereby incurred. I want the TD to do the BEST THEY ARE CAPABLE OF, as though the players would not wish to have an AC review the decision. If that's too much work for some of you, selling shoes is a lot easier. Otherwise , we could save a bunch of money by having the caddies give a rule book to the involved contenders, and just pass it all on to the AC. I deplore, and will continue to deplore rulings of that ilk. If you are not willing to "stand the heat in the kitchen," "put your best foot forward," or do the job you are lucky enough to have, get out of the business for the good of the game and make room for those who are "willing to stand up and be counted." Kojak _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 11 12:54:56 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Apr 11 15:20:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050410125957.02b31420@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000c01c53e98$a09e7ee0$d7a787d9@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: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 1:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook > Addressing myself to Eric's closing remarks, I find myself anathema to the > idea of making rulings provisionally and letting the AC work it out. I want > the TD to make the best possible ruling, according to the facts available to > him/her, and which the CTD is willing to defend before a committee. This is > why I fought so tenaciously for 12C3 to include the TD, why I have required > TD's to consult before ruling, and to do the best they are capable of. > > To me the route, sometimes championed by Edgar when to his benefit, to "let > the AC work it out", "rule against the infractor". etc., really was to > justify the existence of a highly active AC, and justify the costs thereby > incurred. > > I want the TD to do the BEST THEY ARE CAPABLE OF, as though the players > would not wish to have an AC review the decision. If that's too much work > for some of you, selling shoes is a lot easier. Otherwise , we could save a > bunch of money by having the caddies give a rule book to the involved > contenders, and just pass it all on to the AC. > > I deplore, and will continue to deplore rulings of that ilk. If you are not > willing to "stand the heat in the kitchen," "put your best foot forward," or > do the job you are lucky enough to have, get out of the business for the > good of the game and make room for those who are "willing to stand up and be > counted." > > Kojak > +=+ I agree 110% with Kojak. Always remember the many cases where players, for whatever reason, do not appeal rulings even when they have a fair argument. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 11 14:43:03 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Apr 11 15:20:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Logical fallacies (was Are you now?) References: Message-ID: <000e01c53e98$a2c52f70$d7a787d9@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: Monday, April 11, 2005 1:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Logical fallacies (was Are you now?) > > > > > >I have reasoned by simple logic and then provided an > >example of the same construction. > > Richard Hills: > > Balderdash. It is easy for apparently "simple logic" > to conceal invalid logical operations. > For example: > > (Axiom 1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness. > (Axiom 2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing. > (Conclusion) Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than > eternal happiness. > +=+ You mean this is not true? I'll take the immediate fulfilment above the idyllic dream, please! ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 11 13:59:32 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Apr 11 15:20:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? References: <20050405075108.59765.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com><702cd729dfcb26ca249fd0d1253bc045@rochester.rr.com> <42539480.7090006@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000d01c53e98$a1caf0f0$d7a787d9@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, April 06, 2005 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > Now, are you saying that *every time* my partner > > (who never psyches) makes a call, I'm supposed to > > alert, and explain "it's not a psyche"? Keep in mind > > that the ACBL has no regulation requiring this. > > +=+ The player who, by agreement, 'never psyches' is not barred from psyching. As for disclosure of an agreement never to psyche, this is to be disclosed "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation" - but a fine point is that to make a call or play based upon a partnership understanding the disclosure should be by "prior announcement" (sic). My personal view is that there is an inconsistency between L40A and L40B in that 40B does not seek, nor intend to seek, the measure of advance notice that 40A calls for. My opinion, currently, is that when a subsequent alert draws attention to something not previously disclosed and which has already caused damage to opponent, rectification* or redress is required by law notwithstanding any regulation. (* In some situations the auction can be rolled back.) ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 11 15:40:32 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 11 15:41:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 21 In-Reply-To: <002d01c53e7f$c1371b30$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <001601c53e9c$08d11e70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton ................ > >> On Behalf Of David Barton > >> Bruce wrote:- > >> > >> Isn't the key here the first sentence of L75B? > >> > >> "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, > >> so long as his partner is unaware of the violation..." > > .............. > >> David Barton replies:- > >> > >> I have a problem with this interpretation of L75B. > >> Compare my scenario with > >> 1H(1) (P) 2S(2) (P) > >> P(3) > >> > >> (1) West has psyched his 1H bid > >> (2) Game Forcing > >> (3) Clearly violating a partnership agreement - hence exposing a psyche > >> > >> Are you claiming that West's pass contravenes L75B because East will > >> know it is a violation a partnership agreement? > > > > No, because this pass is no psyche, the psychic bid was the 1H bid. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > The fact that pass is NOT a psyche (and 1H is) is not relevant. > The Pass is still a violation of an announced partnership agreement. And this violation is obvious to all other three players around the table. > > Which of the following is a breach of L75B:- > > (1) Partner opens a 15-17 1NT and you hold 28 points. > (2) Partner shows 2 (genuine) Aces in a known balanced hand and > you are looking at 3 Aces. > (3) Partner passes your Blackwood 4N > (4) Partner passes your 2S response to his 1H opening bid. > (5) Partner makes a bid not defined in your system eg bids > 3N in response to your Lebensohl 2N > (6) Makes 2 bids which are mutually contradictory eg makes > a negative response showing 0 to 6 points and later shows > 2 Aces. NONE! > I cannot believe that because a player can work out from the authorised > information in his possession that his partner has deviated from the > partnership agreements, that that makes the deviation a breach of L75B. Law 75B is not perfect when it appears that it opens up for "lawyering" like this. The important fact to remember is that a player may not deviate from agreements when he knows that his partner (only) and not his opponents should be aware of the deviation. > So in particular I do not believe that the case we were discussing > (1N X 2S/2H) is a breach of L75B simply because the 1N opener can work > out from authorised information that partner has deviated from a > partnership agreement. A player who decides to psyche 2H in this particular situation knows that the 1N opener must understand from the information legally available to him (the retracted 2S bid) that 2H is a psyche and that his opponents have no legal way of similarly understanding that 2H is a psyche because that same (important) information is not authorized for them. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 11 15:52:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 11 15:53:54 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > To a novice, I *would* Alert pard's fourth-seat preempt of 3C, This would be not be alertable in the EBU. A call's alertability is independent of ones knowledge of opponents. > since a novice is unlikely to share the "general knowledge" that pard's > preempt in fourth seat is unusually *not* weak, but rather promises > opening strength (circa 10-14 hcp). This is far from "general knowledge" (in the sense of universal). Firstly how do you that *partner* isn't a novice who thinks it is a normal pre- empt? Secondly, even knowing partner isn't a novice, how do you know he doesn't prefer to play 3 level 4th in hand pre-empts as being AKQxxxx or better, at most a queen outside? OK there may be technical advantages to treating 3C differently to 3d/h/s if one doesn't have a 2 level pre-empt available but there are KISS advantages to treating all 3 level pre-empts the same. And if you do know how partner plays it (and he expects you to know) then it's special not general and you can give expert or novice opps the same info "10-14 points, decent 6 card suit" (and the same alert if one is required). On a good day I regard the set "universal bridge knowledge amongst bridge players" as being congruent with Law 1. On most days I realise my good days are too ambitious. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 11 15:52:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 11 15:53:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <001201c53e49$93f77510$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: > Nonetheless even with consultation there will be cases > that are close decisions with bridge judgement inextricably linked to a > correct ruling. When such a close call comes about, the NOS should get > the table ruling with the opponents advised of their right to appeal. Why? In the EBU TDs are expected to give their best shot at getting such judgements right. If one considers it close (either way) one includes that information as part of the ruling and NOS/OS can appeal if they so desire. As a TD I'm happy to include "please take into account that the TD considers this close and would, on the above facts, consider an AWM penalty inappropriate" as part of my submission to an AC. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 11 15:52:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 11 15:54:03 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <000001c53e64$2b811a20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ............ > > > OK. Let me just sum up some of what we in Norway > > > consider "partnership experience": > > > > > It includes your experience of your partner's habits, > > > style etc. as you have learned from playing with him > > > or playing in the same environment as > > ..add "or from discussions with him" > > > he has been playing and even from knowing literature > > > he has read (and which you too have read) > > ..insert "and which he knows you to have read/learned" > > (mutuality is important). > > No, that is NOT important. > > Let me give a clarifying example: I once played an evening with an ad > hoc partner from my club. I would rank him class A, and certainly above > my own class. In one auction he bid 5NT with the (correct) assumption > that I would understand it as the big free 5NT bid. We had never > discussed or agreed upon > that convention, he could not know for sure that I was familiar with it > but from his general knowledge of me he assumed (and hoped) that I did. So there is "mutuality" from shared environmental experience wtp? That is a very different level of understanding from him making a bid based on something in a book he saw you reading when you didn't even know he was watching. > Had opponents asked about that call I would according to our practice in > Norway not gotten away with "general knowledge", I would be expected to > disclose what I understood from my special knowledge of that particular > player. ..and based on your knowledge of that player's knowledge of you. I'm happy to change "knows you to have.." to "expects you to have.." but mutuality is always important in these decisions. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 11 15:52:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 11 15:54:04 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <42580A5D.3070501@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > So you would not rule aganst Wayne if he says "undiscussed", but you > would rule if he says "two-suiter"? Since the former seems a reasonable summary of the sequence and the latter doesn't then I would rule differently depending on which answer he gave. > What if opponents wish to have a particular answer, because their > bidding methods depend on it - do you allow Wayne to continue to say > "undiscussed"? Yes (after all that is the truth). I will try to find out if Hilda has some reason to expect Wayne to know her intent, but absent that undiscussed works for me. > Surely Hilda has one or the other intention in mind, > and if it's not a misbid, how are you going to prove that it is > "undiscussed" rather than "strong"? Why I am trying to "prove" anything? I will listen to the testimony from the players concerned, look at their CCs, question them, and then make a judgement based on all the aforementioned evidence. Please recognise Herman that even the simple statement "We have not discussed it." is, of itself, evidence. The weight we choose, in particular circumstances, to place on such a statement as the sole piece of evidence is purely a judgement matter and in no way guided by the footnote. Tim From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Mon Apr 11 03:21:26 2005 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Mon Apr 11 16:54:57 2005 Subject: The Best we can do - Was: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook Message-ID: And I sincerely think that one of the good things in Europe, regarding TDing, when comparing with the ABCL-land, is that TDs here are teached from the start on how to do the best possible decision in all circumstances. Learning to use judgment, to consult, etc., is a major landmark in the growing process of a TD. Rui Marques From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Mon Apr 11 03:15:16 2005 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Mon Apr 11 16:55:43 2005 Subject: The Best we can do - Was: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I got my initial training as a TD during the "rule against the infractor" stage, but almost all my career happened during the "do the best we can" stage (so i?m quite young at this). Anyway, doing the best we can should be as natural as breathing. TDing becomes intelectually challenging that way. Players like us to do it that way and if they trust our judgment and our methods they will not go into an AC (at least they will go only a fraction of the time). The other way round is just a lazy (or self-protecting) way of TDing (apart from the other implications Kojak mentioned). The game gains a lot "our" way, IMHO. I can?t imagine myself going back to "rule against the infractor" or "send it to the AC because I can?t do it". Nobody should even think about it seriously. I guess that if that happens one day to me, I will change my job to selling shoes... Rui Marques -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER Sent: segunda-feira, 11 de Abril de 2005 1:37 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List; Eric Landau Subject: Re: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook Addressing myself to Eric's closing remarks, I find myself anathema to the idea of making rulings provisionally and letting the AC work it out. I want the TD to make the best possible ruling, according to the facts available to him/her, and which the CTD is willing to defend before a committee. This is why I fought so tenaciously for 12C3 to include the TD, why I have required TD's to consult before ruling, and to do the best they are capable of. To me the route, sometimes championed by Edgar when to his benefit, to "let the AC work it out", "rule against the infractor". etc., really was to justify the existence of a highly active AC, and justify the costs thereby incurred. I want the TD to do the BEST THEY ARE CAPABLE OF, as though the players would not wish to have an AC review the decision. If that's too much work for some of you, selling shoes is a lot easier. Otherwise , we could save a bunch of money by having the caddies give a rule book to the involved contenders, and just pass it all on to the AC. I deplore, and will continue to deplore rulings of that ilk. If you are not willing to "stand the heat in the kitchen," "put your best foot forward," or do the job you are lucky enough to have, get out of the business for the good of the game and make room for those who are "willing to stand up and be counted." Kojak From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 11 17:39:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 11 17:40:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <000d01c53e98$a1caf0f0$d7a787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > My opinion, currently, is that when > a subsequent alert draws attention to something not > previously disclosed and which has already caused > damage to opponent, rectification* or redress is > required by law notwithstanding any regulation. This may be workable in the new laws, but there are difficulties. If, properly completed CC notwithstanding, an opponent needs to ask a clarifying question about the intricacies of a particular call his opponent is currently allowed to draw inferences from such a question. Obviously one may be damaged when these inferences help declarer (and condemned for asking a misleading question sometimes when they do not!). This may be a pretty fine line. I fear that such an interpretation would render the game unplayable at most levels. Notwithstanding the above aside it is obviously impossible to apply Grattan's interpretation if the SO explicitly forbids prior disclosure. One cannot "unknow" partner's habits/style and even if one is prohibited from making use of that knowledge in some situations there *must* be a legitimate pathway to its disclosure. Tim From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Apr 11 18:28:01 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon Apr 11 18:28:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Flowcharts Message-ID: <2da24b8e05041109281a08f16c@mail.gmail.com> Quick request for help... Bridge Base Online permits end users to create tournaments and serve as Directors (I would argue that the word "Facilitators" is probably a better description of the role/function) The main responsibility of the facilitators is to ensure that the tournaments run smoothly - arranging for substitute players is by far most significant part of the job. However, in some cases the facilitators are required to perform functions traditionally associated with Directors - More specifically, on occasion the Facilitators need to make rulings and adjust scores. Some tournaments are run under the aegis of a existing Bridge Federation. For example, the ACBL and the Italian Bridge Federation both run online tournaments at BBO. When this happens, the federations provide certified Tournament Directors. From my perspective, most of these directors do a quite good job in providing consistent regulations in accordance with established practice. However, there are also a large number of private tournaments in which novice tournament directors are asked to provide rulings. Unfortunately, in many cases, some of these rulings can be idiosyncratic... Some players on BBO have suggested that a Tournament Director's "Wizard" might help novice directors produce better rulings... Ideally, the system would be based on some kind of Flowchart that would provide a step-by-step example regarding how to produce a ruling in a series of different cases. Such a system could be hosted on a web page and easily accessed by a TD during the course of an event. I was curious (hopeful) the the training materials for one of the existing bridge federations might have some materials that could be expropriated for this task... Richard (who doesn't speak for BBO in any way shape or form) -- There are only three guarantees in life: death, taxes, and direct-to-video shark movies From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Apr 11 17:40:40 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Apr 11 18:44:31 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 23:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) -s- There appears to be a contention, in general, that by whatever the specification of general knowledge, 75C provides that general knowledge is not disclosable. For instance Tim West-Meads: [snip] >Completely the wrong end of the stick. *My* "General >Experience" is everything *I* know about bridge (and >life, the universe, etc) which is *not* encompassed >in partnership understandings with the partner of the >moment. My general experience (not disclosable) is >not only different from everybody else's general >experience but it changes depending on who is my >partner (becoming a greater or less subset of my >total experience based on what partner and I share). And Wayne Burrows defines "his general" as "not general": >Nevertheless the laws speak of "general knowledge" as >if it is particular to an individual - "his general >knowledge" L75C. If the laws meant "general >knowledge" that was known by everyone then they would >surely simply say "general knowledge" and omit "his". >The addition of the qualifier "his" means that this >"general knowledge" is something different from a >universal "general knowledge". > >IMO the only sensible meaning to ascribe to "his >general knowledge" in the context of L75C is knowledge >that has been obtained by that particular player by >means other than a "special partnership understanding" >or from this particular "partnership's experience". And [but less so] Richard Hills defines "sensible" as: In my opinion, the sensible and consistent way to interpret "his general knowledge" in Law 75C is that that player has access to knowledge that is general and shared by the opponents, so therefore superfluous to disclose. Example: "His general knowledge" would normally include the shared knowledge that, "It is risky to take a vulnerable save against a non-vulnerable game." ### They are all wrong with respect to what the clause of 75C says. I think I just got a lot of people's attention :). Here is the relevant passage of 75C ", but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience." The things that need not be disclosed are inferences. What kind of inferences? Those drawn from general knowledge and experience. What the lawmakers have done is to mix apples and oranges- in such a way that those who read 75C presume that there are only apples. The passage 75C sets out what must be explained [special information- the apple] and an [the?] exception [inference- the orange]. This rendering of law is dubious because it is not very useful to be talking about apples when the real issue should be pears. regards roger pewick From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Apr 11 18:48:26 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Apr 11 18:49:23 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <000501c53c6e$7cba9940$6900a8c0@WINXP> from "Sven Pran" at Apr 08, 2005 09:09:28 PM Message-ID: <200504111648.j3BGmQ5q018192@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Sven Pran writes: > > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ................ > > >But I have no sympathy for a player who deliberately > > >conceals relevant facts about his partner's calls > > >with the argument that these facts are part of his > > >"general knowledge"! > > > > I have no sympathy for such a player either, but I did not, as Sven > > assumes, have the "general knowledge" clause in mind when I wrote the > > above. It would be patently silly to assert that what "A History of > > Tasmanian Bridge" has to say about Hilda's bidding peculiarities > > constituted "general knowledge"! > > > > I suspect that Sven has been misled by reading the words of L75C as > > saying what (he and I agree) they should say, rather than what they do > > say. He has inferred an inclusive dichotomy between "special > > information conveyed... through partnership agreement or partnership > > experience" and "general knowledge and experience", but that dichotomy > > is not an inclusive one. > > > > There is, however, an inclusive dichotomy to be found between "special > > information" and "general knowledge". Which means that, as written, > > L75C (a) tells us that we must disclose special information conveyed to > > us through partnership agreement or experience, (b) tells us that we > > need not disclose general knowledge, and (c) says nothing whatsoever > > about special information conveyed to us other than through partnership > > agremeent or experience. > > OK. Let me just sum up some of what we in Norway consider "partnership > experience": > > It includes your experience of your partner's habits, style etc. as you have > learned from playing with him or playing in the same environment as he has > been playing and even from knowing literature he has read (and which you too > have read) with some expectation that lacking express agreements he will > most probably apply the principles learned from such literature. > > "General experience" includes knowledge which you must assume any player is > familiar with and style which "everybody" should expect in the applicable > environment unless deviations are explicitly disclosed. > I remember when I was first starting to play duplicate one of the local veterans gave me a simple guide to disclosure. If you know something I don't, tell me. It's served me well over the years. (Yes, I'm aware that it's easier to express as a principal than as a regulation or Law) From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Apr 11 19:21:47 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon Apr 11 19:22:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Four - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: Message-ID: <013701c53eba$f1d31970$059868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > This is the fourth of 18 parallel threads, which > will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml > casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. > If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in > one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. [Richard: CASE N-04] > Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff Event LM Pairs Final Session > Bd: 19 Wayne Stuart > Dlr: South J874 > Vul: EW K876 > JT > QT3 > Ralph Katz Michael Rosenberg > KQ2 AT9653 > AJ T5 > 542 K7 > A8762 KJ4 > Wafik Abdou > --- > Q9432 > AQ9863 > 95 > West North East South > --- --- --- Pass > 1C Pass 1S 2NT(1) > Pass 3C Dbl 3D > Pass 3H(2) 3S Pass > 4S Pass Pass Pass > (1) Upon inquiry explained as for the minors. > (2) South explained as red suits. > The Facts: The final contract was 4S by East making > four for EW +620 after the H2 opening lead. The director > was called at the end of the hand. The director ruled > that since passing 3C doubled was not a logical > alternative, the result would not be adjusted, even > though there was unauthorized information available to > South. > The Appeal: Only East attended the hearing. East's > contention was that a pass of 3C doubled was a logical > alternative: if North's 3C bid showed clubs, then South > had a good hand for playing clubs. > Furthermore, East said that his double of 3C was a card- > showing double, not a penalty double. Accordingly, > according to East, South could not tell from the auction > that North did not have a hand of a 4216 pattern. Hence, > on the basis of the auction, pass was a logical > alternative. > The Decision: The Committee tried to discover what the > NS partnership understanding was. From what the > Committee could determine from the screening director > and East, NS had neither system notes nor convention > card marks indicating the precise meaning of the 2NT > bid. If South felt that his 2NT bid was clearly for > red suits per partnership understanding, then North's > explanation of 2NT constituted UI for South. If this > were the case, then passing 3C might have been a > logical alternative. However, at the pre-hearing > screening, South stated that he always meant to bid 3D > to show the red suits if North were to bid 3C. Therefore, > the Committee found that passing 3C doubled was not a > logical alternative. The Committee also felt that it > was unlikely that North would have a club suit worth > bidding at this point since he did not pre-empt clubs > over West's opening club bid. > The Committee asked its chairperson to counsel the NS > pair about full disclosure of their agreements since > this appeal would not have been made if North had said > that the 2NT bid was for the minors but correctable to > being for the red suits. > Dissent (by Aaron Silverstein): I believe that without > evidence that the conventional agreement for NS is that > with red suits they show minors and convert (which the > offending side never even claimed), the 3C bid must be > treated as natural. For that reason, the contract should > be changed to 3 doubled, down eight. Without the > explanation it is possible that the final contract would > have been 3C doubled. On a trump lead down eight is > the natural result. South's testimony that he would > always convert 3C to 3D is self-serving and should be > discounted. No matter how much one believes and respects > South, his professed state of mind is irrelevant. > Committee: Jon Wittes, chairperson, Ed Lazarus, John > Solodar, Aaron Silverstein, Bill Passell [Nigel] IMO, The TD and AC are responsible for an atrocious ruling. A. Preliminaries ... (a) North should alert/explain 2N without prompting. (b) North-South's card should specify their conventions. (c) North-South should know their conventions. (d) Unless 2N is a controlled psyche, South's claim that he always intended to convert 3C to 3D is peculiar. 3D wouldn't normally modify the stated meaning of 2N. It would just show that diamonds were more robust than clubs (e) The dissenter, Aaron Silverstein is right. Suppose that North-South have agreed that, in this auction, 2N is a two-way: either minors or reds. This does not excuse the North-South shenanigans. Worse -- it implies that North-South have agreed and concealed a (possibly illegal) convention. (e) The TD/AC ruling will be welcome to the increasing number of pairs who employ undiscussed "Ghestem" as a disruptive "random" overcall. B. Back to the nitty gritty of Middle Earth ... (a) North may easily hold a long poor club suit but decide not to pre=empt over 1C. For example S:KJ975 H:- D:- C:T876432 (b) North's first explanation is unauthorised information to South. (c) To pass 3C is a logical alternative for South. (d) The UI demonstrably suggests South's actual 3D bid. (e) 3CX-8 is a better score for East-West than 4S= (f) East-West are clearly damaged. (g) Q.E.D. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Apr 11 19:48:11 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon Apr 11 19:49:04 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: Message-ID: <016c01c53ebe$a15b49f0$059868d5@James> [Wayne Burrows] >> Tell them as much as you like. I will not stop you. >> But do not penalize other players who do not tell >> since it is not *partnership* experience. [Richard Hills] > In my opinion, "partnership experience" is *not* a > mandatory criterion for the creation of an "implicit > partnership agreement". Therefore, if was Wayne's TD, > I might indeed rule a procedural penalty upon Wayne > for what I would deem to be his infraction of the > "fully and freely available" disclosure requirement > of Law 75A. If blml was AC to my TD, and Wayne > appealed, would the blml AC vote to ask me to change > my ruling, because the blml AC decided that my ruling > was an error in Law? [Nigel] IMO, a bid or bidding sequence that a partnership never discussed or encountered before can be an implicit agreement. For example, at the week-end, a scratch partnership encountered the sequence 2C-2D-; 3S for the first time. Without prior discussion, they deduced that 3S showed a solid suit and invited cue-bids. Is this alertable in spite of the notorious "General Bridge knowledge and experience" getout? I feel so, because such an understanding is likely to be more familiar to those brought up on Acol or Standard American. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Apr 11 20:38:15 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon Apr 11 20:39:07 2005 Subject: [blml] One - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: Message-ID: <020b01c53ec5$a03e3d00$059868d5@James> [Richard James Hills CASE N-01 > Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff LM Open Pair 2nd Qualification > Bd: 7 Albert Lochli > Dlr: South AK4 > Vul: Both QJ73 > KQ83 > 32 > Fred Hamilton Mark Itabashi > QT872 J5 > A65 4 > --- 9642 > QJT86 AK9754 > Stephen Brauss > 963 > KT982 > AJT75 > --- > West North East South > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1NT 3C 3H > 5C Dbl(1) Pass 5D > Pass 5H Pass Pass > Pass > (1) Agreed-upon break in tempo > Facts: The director, who was called after the > 5D bid, determinedthat the double was preceded > by an extended break in tempo of about 25 seconds. > The STOP card had been used prior to the 5C bid. > NS play 15-17 1NT. NS had not discussed whether > 3H was forcing, but both treated it as highly > constructive. EW play DONT over opponents' 1NT > opening bid. > Director's Ruling: The director ruled that the > break in tempo suggested doubt about the double of > 5C, which in turn suggested that 5D would be a > more attractive alternative for South, as pass > is a logical alternative to bidding 5D. Hence, > the result was adjusted to 5 doubled for +750 EW. > The Appeal: South disagreed with the director's > finding that pass was a logical alternative, > especially against top level players. > The Decision: The Committee considered many typical > North hands and estimated that pulling the double > would produce a better result than passing a little > more than half the time. However, this clearly did > not make passing an illogical alternative. > Since the slowness of tempo suggested that bidding > was more attractive than passing, the Committee > determined that South must pass. The play in 5 > would easily achieve eleven tricks and no more. > Therefore, the adjustment of the board's result to > +750 EW was made. The Committee determined that > NS were experienced players and should have been > familiar with Law 16, Unauthorized Information, > which governs situations such as this. The > Committee decided that the appeal was without > merit and an AWMW was issued. > The Panel: Richard Popper, chairperson, Gail > Greenberg, Ellen Melson, Bob Schwartz, Larry Cohen. [Nigel] The TD and AC ruled correctly for the right reasons. IMO an AMW is justifiable if ... A. The appelants didn't seek independant legal advice of igoreed such adverse advice B. The AC and TD rulings are the same and unanimous. C. The AC unanimously vote for an AMW. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Apr 11 21:13:44 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon Apr 11 21:14:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional References: <009e01c4f35b$56d83540$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <022401c53eca$95816bd0$059868d5@James> [Marvin French] > Friday, Dec 31, 3:30 pm session of Mixed Pairs > Board 2, N-S vulnerable, East Dealer > Alice held S-J103 H-J3 D-AJ642 D-T93 > North Marvin South Alice > - 1NT* P** P > 2S P 3S P > 4S all pass > * Announced as 16-18 HCP > ** After very long time, BIT acknowledged by North > I'm wondering how this case would have been handled > elsewhere in the world. [Nigel] The TD may judge that Alice isn't worth a double or that opponent's behaviour indicates to Alice that it is Marvin rather than an opponent who is exaggerating his assets. Otherwise, in the UK, the TD may adjust the score to 4SXX+3 and record Marvin's psyche -- IMO, correctly. From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 11 21:28:11 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 11 21:29:02 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c53ecc$99534970$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > ............ > > > > OK. Let me just sum up some of what we in Norway > > > > consider "partnership experience": > > > > > > > It includes your experience of your partner's habits, > > > > style etc. as you have learned from playing with him > > > > or playing in the same environment as > > > ..add "or from discussions with him" > > > > he has been playing and even from knowing literature > > > > he has read (and which you too have read) > > > ..insert "and which he knows you to have read/learned" > > > (mutuality is important). > > > > No, that is NOT important. > > > > Let me give a clarifying example: I once played an evening with an ad > > hoc partner from my club. I would rank him class A, and certainly above > > my own class. In one auction he bid 5NT with the (correct) assumption > > that I would understand it as the big free 5NT bid. We had never > > discussed or agreed upon > > that convention, he could not know for sure that I was familiar with it > > but from his general knowledge of me he assumed (and hoped) that I did. > > So there is "mutuality" from shared environmental experience wtp? No there was not. It was the very first time I ever met the 5NT convention in our club or with any player from the club outside the club environment. In fact I had never spoken with anybody from that environment about this convention. But he had a general impression on my background, capabilities and experience and from that impression trusted me to interpret his 5NT bid correctly (as I did). I have another interesting experience from our master champions' league where I was the CTD at that time involving this same player and his partner the late Helge Vinje. I was called to the table after his LHO had overcalled his jump bid of 4NT (Culbertson 4-5 NT convention) with 4D [sic!]. It is one of my happy memories seeing Helge's reaction when I explained to him his options. They were both fully capable of on the fly adapting their agreements to make full use of the extra five calls which suddenly became available while trusting each other to reason the same way. So Helge without any hesitation accepted the insufficient bid and continued his auction from there on. That is something I call "special partnership understanding"! Sven From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Apr 11 22:31:53 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon Apr 11 22:35:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: Message-ID: <023f01c53ed5$d0b66e20$059868d5@James> [Richard James Hills CASE N-03] > Subject: Claim DIC: Cukoff LM Pairs 1st Final > Bd: 17 Marvin Shatz > Dlr: North AJ854 > Vul: None KJT764 > K > 4 > Roger Lord Peggy Kaplan > 9 KQ63 > 9 Q52 > QJ643 T872 > KQJ863 A5 > Peter Wolf > T72 > A83 > A95 > T972 > West North East South > --- 1H Pass 2H > 3C 3H 4C Dbl > Pass Pass Pass > The Facts: West played 4C doubled after the HJ lead. > The result was disputed. The last four cards in > declarer's (West) hand were CKQ8 and D6. The D6 was > the only remaining diamond in play. South still held > three clubs and the S10 and North held the SA. > The play had gone: HJ led and won; heart to HA and > ruffed; DQ losing to DK; heart winning (declarer > pitching S9); another heart ruffed by the C5, C9, and > CJ; a diamond to South's DA; a diamond ruffed by > North; heart ruffed by the CA; a spade ruffed by > declarer. At this point, West put the CK and CQ on > the table and after a brief pause placed the D6 and > the C8 on the table sequentially. Declarer did not > immediately make a statement and a discussion arose. > The director was summoned. West told the director > that the diamond was good and that he would know > about the bad club break when North failed to follow, > in which case he would be unable to pick up the trump. > The director ruled that under Law 70D, which governs > contested claims, the play of the C8 before the D6 > would have been careless or inferior, but not > irrational for a declarer who had made no statement > about trumps. Therefore, the director awarded the > final two tricks to NS by forcing the lead of the C8 > at trick 12. Down four for -800 for EW. > The Appeal: EW said that when declarer put his cards > on the table, South kept stating that the losing club > had to be played first and did not give West a chance > to state the order of play. So, the EW appeal was > based on their perception that South had deprived West > of the opportunity to make a timely statement and on > their belief that the order in which West placed his > cards on the table manifested his intent to play them > in that order. > The Decision: The Committee determined that since > declarer had not made an oral statement of claim, his > actions may be decisive. The Committee believed that > declarer's play of the cards in the order he did > manifested his intent to make his claim based on that > order of play. Playing two high trumps, an off suit > winner, and then the final trump is sufficiently > unnatural for it to manifest declarer's intent to > base his claim on the play of the cards in that order. > Had he thought his whole hand was winners, he would > likely have placed all the cards down at once or placed > the clubs down first and then the diamonds. Therefore > the Committee awarded only one of the last two tricks > to NS. The result: EW -500, N-S +500. > Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Michael Rosenberg, > Danny Sprung, Jeff Roman, Chris Willenken [Nigel] The AC ruled (correctly IMO) that a claim does not require the spoken word -- dealing off your remaining cards in an deliberate order should be sufficient. Also, opponents must allow declarer enough time to elaborate his intentions. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Apr 11 23:51:47 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon Apr 11 23:52:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Two - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: Message-ID: <024e01c53ee0$aa964b60$059868d5@James> [Richard James Hills CASE N-02] > Subject: UI DIC: Ron Johnston Event LM Women's Pairs S4 > Bd: 26 Kathleen Sulgrove > Dlr: East J > Vul: Both QT8 > 87632 > J532 > Cindy Sealy Patty Adamle > KQ8532 A74 > 6 AK7 > 954 AKQJT > KQ4 A6 > JoAnn Sprung > T96 > J95432 > --- > T987 > West North East South > --- --- 2C Pass > 2S Pass 4NT Pass > 5D Pass 5H Pass > 5S(1) Pass 7NT Pass > Pass Pass > (1) BIT > Facts: The final contract was 7NT making for +2220 for > EW after the ead of the C10. The 5D bid showed one key > card. There was an xtended pause (about 30 seconds) > before the 5S bid, which happened to be observed by the > director. East, in consultation with the director away > from the table after the auction was completed, said > that she thought that her partner was confused and that > she thought the King sixth of spades would be enough for > her to justify her bidding 7NT. > Director's Ruling: The director ruled that unauthorized > information existed from the hesitation and that it > suggested that West was confused and might have the SQ, > which was systemically denied by the 5S bid. Applying > Law 16A, the director adjusted the score to 6S making > seven, E-W +1460, per Law 12C2. > The Appeal: The EW pair acknowledged that there was a > significant IT over the 5H queen ask. The pair also > said that the positive 2S esponse could be made on as > little as the king sixth of spades and an outside > queen. East acknowledged that she thought her partner > could be uncertain about the meaning of the 5H bid. > The NS pair contended that the BIT should constrain EW > from bidding at the seven level. NS also pointed out > that 6 spades could be held to 6 with a diamond lead. > The Decision: The Committee determined that the BIT > suggested that West's 5S response might not be accurate > and, therefore, made bidding a grand slam more > attractive. The Committee found that without the BIT > there were logical alternatives to bidding a grand slam. > Applying Law 12C2, the AC determined that the most > unfavorable result at all probable for EW was 6NT, not > 6S. The Committee considered that the same rationale > used by East to opt for 7NT instead of 7S would also > lead East to choose NT at the six level, if a grand > slam were not to be bid. Therefore, the best result > likely for NS was 6NT by EW. Also the worst result at > all probable for EW was 6NT. The contract easily makes > all the tricks for reciprocal 1460s. Since the > committee's decision gave EW a better score than the > director had done, the Committee did not seriously > consider whether the appeal was without merit. > Committee: Jon Wittes, chairperson, Riggs Thayer, John > Solodar, Ed Lazarus, Aaron Silverstein [Nigel] Ron Johston, the TD was nearer the mark than the AC. When West holds the S:Q, 7N is the best contract. But if West lacks the SQ, then 6S may well be safer. For example, if West holds S:Kxxxxx H:Qx D:xxx C:xx, on a club lead 7N is as good as 6N but 6S may survive a 3-1 break. Hence 6S+1 a likely result for NS. Therefore, 6N+1, the AC decision, seems unfair to NS. If the AC had unanimously upheld the TD's decision, then they might have felt justified in imposing an AMW -- an appropriate outcome. IMO, however, neither the TD nor the AC are spot on. In fact, NS suggested the correct ruling: 6S= on a diamond lead ruffed is the best likely result for NS. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Apr 12 00:37:45 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Apr 12 00:39:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional References: <009e01c4f35b$56d83540$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <022401c53eca$95816bd0$059868d5@James> Message-ID: <005a01c53ee7$16464a80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Marvin French] > > Friday, Dec 31, 3:30 pm session of Mixed Pairs > > Board 2, N-S vulnerable, East Dealer > > Alice held S-J103 H-J3 D-AJ642 D-T93 > > North Marvin South Alice > > - 1NT* P** P > > 2S P 3S P > > 4S all pass > > * Announced as 16-18 HCP > > ** After very long time, BIT acknowledged by North > > > I'm wondering how this case would have been handled > > elsewhere in the world. > > [Nigel] > The TD may judge that Alice isn't worth a double or that > opponent's behaviour indicates to Alice that it is Marvin > rather than an opponent who is exaggerating his assets. > You do not mention the most important factor, which is the opposing auction. Vulnerable opponents do not bid 2-3-4 unopposed up to game with 17 HCP total (our 1NT is 16-18) and only 8 trumps unless they are totally insane. When asked by the AC why she didn't double, Alice replied, "I thought something was funny about the bidding." Exactly right. >Otherwise, in the UK, the TD may adjust the score to 4SXX+3 and record Marvin's psyche -- IMO, correctly. IMO, a gross miscarriage of justice. I guess I'd better not psych at the YC next time I'm in London. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From WJMKHLZCPIWLOT at rexroad.com Tue Apr 12 01:54:24 2005 From: WJMKHLZCPIWLOT at rexroad.com (Ivan Healy) Date: Tue Apr 12 01:01:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Top Notch Loans made simple Message-ID: <2.3.2.7.2.2005129.00b0a50@designs.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.mrt-now-yes.net/45.asp Best Regards, Ivan Healy sharpe lk diddle mo pathogenesis lu acute enh morphophonemic ikg retrogressive jok [2-4 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 12 01:38:29 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 12 01:39:29 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: >>To a novice, I *would* Alert pard's fourth-seat preempt of 3C, Tim West-Meads incorrectly asserted: >This would be not be alertable in the EBU. A call's >alertability is independent of ones knowledge of opponents. Richard Hills advises: I suggest that Tim reads clause 5.2.1 of the EBU Orange Book. That specifically states that a natural call must be alerted, if it has a meaning that the opponents might not expect. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 12 01:57:02 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 12 01:57:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Flowcharts In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e05041109281a08f16c@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Willey: [snip] >Some players on BBO have suggested that a Tournament >Director's "Wizard" might help novice directors produce >better rulings... Ideally, the system would be based on >some kind of Flowchart that would provide a step-by-step >example regarding how to produce a ruling in a series of >different cases. [snip] Richard Hills: Quebec director and blmler, Laval Dubreuil, has created excellent flowcharts illustrating the 1997 Laws. Some of these flowcharts have been reproduced in the Australian Bridge Directors Bulletin. I believe that Laval gained a copyright waiver from the ACBL to publish an edition of the 1997 Lawbook which was annotated with his flowcharts. Laval's email address is: picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 12 03:45:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 12 03:46:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > When you prevent something by talking to someone about it, you have > communicated with them. We do not, as far as I am aware, care two hoots about communication which conveys no information about the speaker's hand. "I'm sorry partner pleaase speak up." "Thank you partner", "Please could you move that coffee cup so I can see the auction", "Black, no sugar please". They, like "It's not your lead" are common courtesies - and common courtesy is required by law (74a2 if one must get technical). > > Be serious - you know this perfectly well. And yes, I know exactly what "communication" means in law 73a1. Not all of it is verbal (pauses, frowns, tonality, eyebrow raises, finger taps, stretches and lean backs) - I've seen it all. The "communication" forbidden under L73a1 is that which imposes obligations under L73c (or misleads opps as per L73d). Simple really. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 12 03:45:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 12 03:46:20 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <000001c53ecc$99534970$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > So there is "mutuality" from shared environmental experience wtp? > > No there was not. It was the very first time I ever met the 5NT > convention in our club or with any player from the club outside the club > environment. In fact I had never spoken with anybody from that > environment about this convention. But he had a general impression on my > background, capabilities and experience and from that impression trusted > me to interpret his 5NT bid correctly (as I did). I'm sorry Sven, I don't understand your argument. He was sufficiently familiar with you, and expected you to be sufficiently familiar with him for him to try a convention of which I (and Google) have never even heard (although that may be a translation issue) and you are objecting to me ruling that there is a higher level of mutuality than in him being aware of you having read a specific book which the two of you have never discussed? Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 12 03:45:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 12 03:46:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: <022401c53eca$95816bd0$059868d5@James> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > [Marvin French] > > Friday, Dec 31, 3:30 pm session of Mixed Pairs > > Board 2, N-S vulnerable, East Dealer > > Alice held S-J103 H-J3 D-AJ642 D-T93 > > North Marvin South Alice > > - 1NT* P** P > > 2S P 3S P > > 4S all pass > > * Announced as 16-18 HCP > > ** After very long time, BIT acknowledged by North > > > I'm wondering how this case would have been handled > > elsewhere in the world. > > > [Nigel] > The TD may judge that Alice isn't worth a double or that > opponent's behaviour indicates to Alice that it is Marvin > rather than an opponent who is exaggerating his assets. > > Otherwise, in the UK, the TD may adjust the score to 4SXX+3 No he may not. If the TD decides it is a fielded psych he awards 60/30 (or table score if better/worse ). If he decides it isn't a fielded psych he doesn't adjust. The EBU ignores the MI laws when dealing with psychs. Personally I can't see a compelling reason to double with Alice's hand. Partner can easily have a 2353 15 count and opps will make 4S. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 12 04:13:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 12 04:14:44 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > >>To a novice, I *would* Alert pard's fourth-seat preempt of 3C, > > Tim West-Meads incorrectly asserted: > > >This would be not be alertable in the EBU. A call's > >alertability is independent of ones knowledge of opponents. > > Richard Hills advises: > > I suggest that Tim reads clause 5.2.1 of the EBU Orange Book. > > That specifically states that a natural call must be alerted, if > it has a meaning that the opponents might not expect. Oh, I am well aware of what OB5.2.1 *says* (not exactly the above). I am also aware of what it is taken (by the EBU) to mean. The opponents referred to are "opponents in general" rather "opponents of the moment" in the specific. 5.2.1 You must alert a call if (a) it is not 'natural' (see 5.3). (b) it is natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. (c) it is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect. There are not, as far as I can see, any "other agreements" which affect the meaning of the call and I suggest Richard might have done better to refer to 5.2.2 5.2.2 General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable, but you must alert any inferences drawn from partnership experience or practice which may not be expected by your opponents. Again however the regulation is taken to refer to generic, not specific, opponents. OK, I admit it's been nearly 2 years since my TD training course and the EBU may have changed its policy since then, but if so they have kept the change pretty secret. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 12 04:41:47 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 12 04:42:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Six - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the sixth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-06 Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 2nd Qualifying Brd: 21 Judi Radin Dlr: North AJ95 Vul: NS 97 A952 A96 Xiaodong Zhang Peter Sun KQT7 862 KJ8 Q6 Q4 KJT7 KQ54 JT72 Valerie Westheimer 43 AT5432 863 83 West North East South --- 1D Pass 2H(1) Pass Pass 2NT Pass 3C Pass Pass Pass (1) Weak jump shift The Facts: The contract was 3C by West down one for +50 for NS after the H9 lead. The director was called when the dummy came down and again at the end of play. When called when dummy came down NS said, according to the director, that they "sensed a hesitation after the 2H bid above and beyond the required skip bid pause". They claimed that the BIT was 10-20 seconds beyond the required pause. West denied the hesitation and East acknowledged a "slight break in tempo". The director ruled that UI existed and therefore applied Law 16 -- the UI clearly suggested action and pass was clearly a logical alternative. Therefore, the contract was adjusted to 2H. On the lead of the SK, 2H can be made. That was a likely lead, so the score was adjusted to plus 110 for NS and minus 110 for EW. The Appeal: East did not appear at the hearing and West claimed that his hesitation was no more than two seconds. The Decision: The Committee found as fact that the BIT was unmistakable at the table and that it suggested bidding to East. Pass, however, was clearly a logical alternative. 2H making and 2H down one were judged to be likely results and no other results were even probable. The adjustment of the score to +110 was therefore made. Since it seemed extremely obvious to everyone except EW that the disputed BIT occurred and that they were experienced enough to know better, an AWMP was issued. The Committee also found that East's bid of 2NT was blatant misuse of UI. Therefore, a one-quarter board PP was issued to EW. NS were reminded to use the stop card in the future. Committee: Jeff Goldsmith, chairperson, Bob Schwartz, Riggs Thayer, Marlene Passell, JoAnn Sprung From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Apr 12 05:15:29 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue Apr 12 05:16:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Six - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050411225438.035a6ea0@mail.comcast.net> At 10:41 PM 4/11/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >CASE N-06 >Subject: UI >DIC: Cukoff >Blue Ribbon Pairs 2nd Qualifying > >Brd: 21 Judi Radin >Dlr: North AJ95 >Vul: NS 97 > A952 > A96 >Xiaodong Zhang Peter Sun >KQT7 862 >KJ8 Q6 >Q4 KJT7 >KQ54 JT72 > Valerie Westheimer > 43 > AT5432 > 863 > 83 > >West North East South >--- 1D Pass 2H(1) >Pass Pass 2NT Pass >3C Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Weak jump shift > >The Facts: The contract was 3C by West down one for +50 for NS after >the H9 lead. The director was called when the dummy came down and >again at the end of play. When called when dummy came down NS said, >according to the director, that they "sensed a hesitation after the >2H bid above and beyond the required skip bid pause". They claimed >that the BIT was 10-20 seconds beyond the required pause. West >denied the hesitation and East acknowledged a "slight break in >tempo". > >The director ruled that UI existed and therefore applied Law 16 -- >the UI clearly suggested action and pass was clearly a logical >alternative. Therefore, the contract was adjusted to 2H. On the lead >of the SK, 2H can be made. That was a likely lead, so the score was >adjusted to plus 110 for NS and minus 110 for EW. > >The Appeal: East did not appear at the hearing and West claimed that >his hesitation was no more than two seconds. > >The Decision: The Committee found as fact that the BIT was >unmistakable at the table and that it suggested bidding to East. >Pass, however, was clearly a logical alternative. 2H making and 2H >down one were judged to be likely results and no other results were >even probable. The adjustment of the score to +110 was therefore >made. > >Since it seemed extremely obvious to everyone except EW that the >disputed BIT occurred and that they were experienced enough to know >better, an AWMP was issued. > >The Committee also found that East's bid of 2NT was blatant misuse >of UI. Therefore, a one-quarter board PP was issued to EW. NS were >reminded to use the stop card in the future. > >Committee: Jeff Goldsmith, chairperson, Bob Schwartz, Riggs Thayer, >Marlene Passell, JoAnn Sprung The last note implies that South neglected to use the stop card; if so, it should have been noted easrlier in the case. Not using the stop card could jeopardize her right to claim a BIT, but it does not forfeit the right automatically. In the Blue Ribbon Pairs, West is expected to hesitate 10 seconds on a standard auction with or without the stop card, and if the TD rules that the BIT was clear enough, it is still UI. Given the TD's ruling on the facts, there is nothing to the case. In theory, the TD should have imposed the PP himself, but it's hard for a TD to do that on a disputed break in tempo, and even harder if the NOS are partly responsible for the disputed break. I agree with the AWMW because the AC concluded that the BIT should not be in dispute. They heard the testimony and saw the East hand; that hand is unlikely to balance without UI. From odvblml at rtflb.org Tue Apr 12 07:23:25 2005 From: odvblml at rtflb.org (Marissa Snow) Date: Tue Apr 12 06:24:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Presenting Mortgages at low rates Message-ID: Hi Homeowner You have been pre-approved for a $400,000 Home Loan at a 3.25% Fixed Rate. This offer is being extended to you unconditionally and your credit is in no way a factor. To take Advantage of this Limited Time opportunity All we ask is that you visit our Website and complete The 1 minute post Approval Form http://loans-offered.net/2/index/ryn/knIcFaiX Much Success, Marissa Snow From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 12 06:31:58 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 12 06:32:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <000d01c53e98$a1caf0f0$d7a787d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >My personal view is that there is an inconsistency >between L40A and L40B in that 40B does not seek, >nor intend to seek, the measure of advance notice >that 40A calls for. > >My opinion, currently, is that when a subsequent >alert draws attention to something not previously >disclosed and which has already caused damage to >opponent, rectification* or redress is required >by law notwithstanding any regulation. >(* In some situations the auction can be rolled >back.) > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Law 40A is not written in English. Therefore, my interpretation of Law 40A naturally differs from Grattan's interpretation. I read Law 40A as: (a) permitting a call which *is not* based on a partnership understanding, and (b) permitting a call which *is* based on a partnership understanding, for which there has been *prior* disclosure, but (c) being non-committal on concealed partnership understandings, which are specifically discussed in the subsequent Law 40B. My current opinion is that Law 40B permits a sponsoring organisation to create a regulation which legalises specific types of concealed partnership understandings. So, my current opinion is that if an Aussie player is damaged by their lack of knowledge about an unusual call, because an ABF Law 40B regulation has deemed that call to be a self-alerting call, then that player is not entitled to rectification or redress. Of course, in most cases damage is not caused, because of: (d) the ABF rule that questions can be asked about self-alerting calls as if they had been alerted, and (e) the parallel ABF regulation requiring that frequent unusual agreements be pre-alerted. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 12 06:51:21 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 12 06:52:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050411102225.33586.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >The director's lawful right to determine facts given >in L85 is not absolute it is conditional : > >"If the Director is satisfied that he has ascertained >the facts, he rules as in Law 84." L85A > >The director must be satisfied that he has ascertained >the facts. This is completely different than using an >arbitrary rule to make a ruling. [snip] Richard Hills: (1) It is begging the question to apply the pejorative term "arbitrary rule" to guidelines for directors from their sponsoring organisation. (2) If a director is *satisfied* that a so-called arbitrary rule - such as the commonly used criterion for factual assessment "balance of probabilities" - is *satisfactory*, then the director has fulfilled the *satisfied* requirement of Law 85A. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >>satisfy, v.t. Meet the wishes of, content, be >>accepted as adequate by, (person, taste, &c.) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 12 07:01:33 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Apr 12 07:02:27 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c53f1c$b28aeb50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ........... > I'm sorry Sven, I don't understand your argument. He was sufficiently > familiar with you, and expected you to be sufficiently familiar with him > for him to try a convention of which I (and Google) have never even heard > (although that may be a translation issue) "A bid of 5NT (without first having bid 4NT) that requests partner to bid grand slam if he holds two of the three highest trumps and otherwise stop in small slam". Would I have succeeded with you in a similar position? Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 12 08:15:32 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 12 08:16:45 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick: >They are all wrong with respect to what the clause >of 75C says. I think I just got a lot of people's >attention :). > >Here is the relevant passage of 75C > >", but he need not disclose inferences drawn from >his general knowledge and experience." > >The things that need not be disclosed are inferences. >What kind of inferences? Those drawn from general >knowledge and experience. > >What the lawmakers have done is to mix apples and >oranges - in such a way that those who read 75C >presume that there are only apples. The passage 75C >sets out what must be explained [special information >- the apple] and an [the?] exception [inference - >the orange]. This rendering of law is dubious >because it is not very useful to be talking about >apples when the real issue should be pears. Richard Hills: Well done, Roger! If the slightly obscure Law 75C word "inferences" is replaced with its more popular synonym "deductions", then my interpretation of Law 75C is now: (a) opponents are entitled to know about special knowledge, and (b) opponents are already aware of general knowledge, but (c) opponents are not entitled to know what deductions a specific player will draw from their general knowledge. If I was El Supremo of the WBF, I would reword the relevant phrase of Law 75C to read: ", but the player need not disclose the player's specific deductions which the player has drawn from available-to-all general knowledge and experience." Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Tue Apr 12 08:17:01 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Apr 12 08:17:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050412061702.82398.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > >The director's lawful right to determine facts > given > >in L85 is not absolute it is conditional : > > > >"If the Director is satisfied that he has > ascertained > >the facts, he rules as in Law 84." L85A > > > >The director must be satisfied that he has > ascertained > >the facts. This is completely different than using > an > >arbitrary rule to make a ruling. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > (1) It is begging the question to apply the > pejorative > term "arbitrary rule" to guidelines for directors > from > their sponsoring organisation. > > (2) If a director is *satisfied* that a so-called > arbitrary rule - such as the commonly used criterion > for factual assessment "balance of probabilities" - > is > *satisfactory*, then the director has fulfilled the > *satisfied* requirement of Law 85A. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > >>satisfy, v.t. Meet the wishes of, content, be > >>accepted as adequate by, (person, taste, &c.) > The director may well be *satisfied* but I do not believe that is because he has *ascertained* the facts. Concise Oxford Dictionary: ascertain, v.t. Find out (for certain), get to know. A sponsoring organization that issues a directive requiring merely a "balance of probabilities" is circumventing the law that requires that the facts be "ascertained". "balance of probabilities" rulings are IMO one of the worst aspects of our game. It is a device to ensure that innocent parties are punished. In some cases there is no evidence that an accused party can give that will convince the director or the committee that in fact they are innocent. I have been to the committee only to be told that there is no way to establish the facts therefore we are going to presume you are guilty on "balance of probabilities". There is no basis in law for this approach. In some instances it is hole through which unscrupulous opponents can claim an infraction where none occurred and get an adjustment from the TD on "balance of probabilities". In these situations players are not encouraged to tell the truth since even when they do they are ruled against on "balance of probabilities". While no evidence aside from an accusation or a coincidence is used to justify a "balance of probabilities" determindation. The laws require that the facts be "ascertained". If they are not then the only power a director has is to make a ruling to allow play to continue. This is not the power to condemn a pair or player that have not infracted any law. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 12 09:00:02 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 12 09:01:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: <005a01c53ee7$16464a80$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>Otherwise, in the UK, the TD may adjust the score to 4SXX+3 >>and record Marvin's psyche -- IMO, correctly. Marvin French: >IMO, a gross miscarriage of justice. I guess I'd better not >psych at the YC next time I'm in London. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Nigel has misclassified Alice's responses to Marv's psyche. In my opinion, under the EBU traffic light regulation for psyches, Alice's choices of borderline actions in the auction (not inviting game, and not doubling) would classify Marv's psyche as an initially legal Amber Psyche, not as an immediately illegal Red Psyche. Of course, since second and subsequent Amber Psyches are, by EBU fiat, automatically reclassified as Red Psyches, then Marv indeed should be cautious about psyching at the Young Chelsea next time he is in London - unless John (MadDog) Probst is directing. :-) Pedantic schoolboy caveat: I disapprove of the arbitrary EBU one-swallow-makes-a-summer (a.k.a. Rule of Coincidence) definitions of Amber Psyche and Red Psyche. But... Chacun a son gout. I disapprove of what the EBU regulates, but I will defend to the death the right of the EBU to regulate. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 11 16:16:06 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Apr 12 10:15:35 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: <20050411032849.94795.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000401c53f37$3b952b30$72a387d9@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: Monday, April 11, 2005 4:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) > > > IMO the only sensible meaning to ascribe to "his > general knowledge" in the context of L75C is knowledge > that has been obtained by that particular player by > means other than a "special partnership understanding" > or from this particular "partnership's experience". > > Wayne > +=+ I think that is right. Whilst I acknowledge the breach of security, I will dare to quote from a current draft of future possible law: "..... is not obliged to speak from his knowledge and experience of matters that are known generally to bridge players". I have a note to review as an alternative: "'are commonly known to'". ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Apr 12 10:24:36 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Apr 12 10:24:16 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <425B85C4.9060303@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Please recognise Herman that even the simple statement "We have not > discussed it." is, of itself, evidence. The weight we choose, in > particular circumstances, to place on such a statement as the sole piece > of evidence is purely a judgement matter and in no way guided by the > footnote. > Am I really the only one with experience from more than one bridge club? Is Flanders such a small country that it enables me, within the space of one week, to play at four different clubs, in 3 different cities, with three different partners, and only a handful of people that I have met twice and just one (my life partner and bridge partner on one of the four) that I have met all four times? During those tournaments I have had many an "undiscussed" auction. Yet all those times, while "undiscussed" was in fact true, there was more of an understanding between me and my partner than with regards to others. Don't get me wrong, I will accept "undiscussed" when it is true. But I have rarely come accross cases where partner knew no more than opponents. Even the "table feel" after playing 3 rounds with a complete stranger is more than the opponents know. So while I accept everything that you say, in theory, I have few examples of it in practice. And I've come up against far more experienced partnerships who say "undiscussed" yet know far more than they imagine - I'm not even saying that they are cheating. But their guesses are usually far oftener correct that you'd guess would be a 50% when using true guesses. Which is why I tell my players that they should reveal their guess if it's a little more than a guess but rather an informed 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: 266.9.6 - Release Date: 11/04/2005 From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Tue Apr 12 10:42:16 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Apr 12 10:43:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050412084217.7070.qmail@web14721.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Nigel Guthrie: > > >>Otherwise, in the UK, the TD may adjust the score > to 4SXX+3 > >>and record Marvin's psyche -- IMO, correctly. > > Marvin French: > > >IMO, a gross miscarriage of justice. I guess I'd > better not > >psych at the YC next time I'm in London. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, Nigel has misclassified Alice's > responses to > Marv's psyche. In my opinion, under the EBU traffic > light > regulation for psyches, Alice's choices of > borderline actions > in the auction (not inviting game, and not doubling) > would > classify Marv's psyche as an initially legal Amber > Psyche, > not as an immediately illegal Red Psyche. > > Of course, since second and subsequent Amber Psyches > are, by > EBU fiat, automatically reclassified as Red Psyches, > then > Marv indeed should be cautious about psyching at the > Young > Chelsea next time he is in London - unless John > (MadDog) > Probst is directing. > > :-) > > Pedantic schoolboy caveat: I disapprove of the > arbitrary EBU > one-swallow-makes-a-summer (a.k.a. Rule of > Coincidence) > definitions of Amber Psyche and Red Psyche. > > But... > > Chacun a son gout. > > I disapprove of what the EBU regulates, but I will > defend > to the death the right of the EBU to regulate. > > :-) > I am not convinced that the laws give SO the right to regulate psyches. L40D gives the right to regulate conventions and conditionally agreements to make light openings. Since a psyche is not necessarily conventional and it is not an agreement then a general regulation cannot be made under this law. L80F allows the SO to regulate provided the regulations are not contrary to the laws. A regulation restricting psychic calls is contrary to the right to psyche given in L40A. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 12 12:57:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 12 12:57:56 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <000001c53f1c$b28aeb50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ........... > > I'm sorry Sven, I don't understand your argument. He was sufficiently > > familiar with you, and expected you to be sufficiently familiar with > > him for him to try a convention of which I (and Google) have never > > even heard (although that may be a translation issue) > > "A bid of 5NT (without first having bid 4NT) that requests partner to > bid grand slam if he holds two of the three highest trumps and otherwise > stop in small slam". > Would I have succeeded with you in a similar position? Ah, a variant on the slightly misnomered, "Grand Slam Force". The Standard Acol variant requires pard to bid 6C with 0, 6 of the agreed suit with 1, 7 with 2 (unless agreed suit is clubs in which case 7C shows an honour). Had we not discussed it that's how I would have described it to opps and I guess we would have messed up (unless you had 2 honours). Of course if I'd played in Norway a bit more often than never I might be more aware of the options. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 12 13:46:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 12 13:47:17 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <425B85C4.9060303@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman asked: > Am I really the only one with experience from more than one bridge > club? Is Flanders such a small country that it enables me, within the > space of one week, to play at four different clubs, in 3 different > cities, with three different partners, and only a handful of people > that I have met twice and just one (my life partner and bridge partner > on one of the four) that I have met all four times? I don't know. I play most of my bridge in two environments. SJWBC where all the regulars are equally well known to eachother, only simple systems are in use and, on the rare occasions a question is asked by a regular, the response "you know him as well as I do" is usually deemed sufficient. On-line, where my knowledge of pick-up partners is extremely limited and opps have often played exactly the same number of hands against them as I have with them (often one won't even know what country partner is from). In this latter situation "undiscussed, but we are playing SAYC/Acol" is a very normal first pass at disclosure. (The club has 2 rooms where the default systems are SAYC/Acol and, while opps may ask what a bid means in the default system it is considered acceptable to merely name the system on first explanation.) When I play in other clubs/competitions it is almost always with a regular partner so "undiscussed" is pretty rare. > Which is why I tell my players that they should reveal their guess if > it's a little more than a guess but rather an informed opinion. I too would expect players to reveal informed opinion, but obviously they must present it as informed opinion rather an agreement or they will be providing MI. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 12 13:46:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 12 13:47:20 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <000401c53f37$3b952b30$72a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: > +=+ I think that is right. Whilst I acknowledge the breach > of security, I will dare to quote from a current draft of > future possible law: "..... is not obliged to speak from his > knowledge and experience of matters that are known > generally to bridge players". I have a note to review as > an alternative: "'are commonly known to'". Whichever you choose I think someone will need to provide a lot of clarification. The vast majority of bridge players know very little indeed (beyond being able to identify their longest suit and count their HCPs). Or do you mean "known to a moderate percentage of bridge players" such that I would no longer be obliged to explain what my SAYC bids mean to non SAYC players. When I am playing against Meckwell can I require a defender to tell me "What is the best line for a declarer holding this hand opposite that dummy?" (something they will know but only a tiny number of bridge players will have a clue about). What's wrong with "You have an obligation to disclose everything which is germane to your mutual understandings with your current partner. You are not obliged to disclose anything else." Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 12 14:31:43 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Apr 12 14:32:38 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) > > > > > Roger Pewick: > > >They are all wrong with respect to what the clause > >of 75C says. I think I just got a lot of people's > >attention :). > > > >Here is the relevant passage of 75C > > > >", but he need not disclose inferences drawn from > >his general knowledge and experience." > > > >The things that need not be disclosed are inferences. > >What kind of inferences? Those drawn from general > >knowledge and experience. > > > >What the lawmakers have done is to mix apples and > >oranges - in such a way that those who read 75C > >presume that there are only apples. The passage 75C > >sets out what must be explained [special information > >- the apple] and an [the?] exception [inference - > >the orange]. This rendering of law is dubious > >because it is not very useful to be talking about > >apples when the real issue should be pears. > > Richard Hills: > > Well done, Roger! > > If the slightly obscure Law 75C word "inferences" is > replaced with its more popular synonym "deductions", > then my interpretation of Law 75C is now: > > (a) opponents are entitled to know about special > knowledge, > > and > > (b) opponents are already aware of general knowledge, > > but > > (c) opponents are not entitled to know what > deductions a specific player will draw from their > general knowledge. > > If I was El Supremo of the WBF, I would reword the > relevant phrase of Law 75C to read: > > ", but the player need not disclose the player's > specific deductions which the player has drawn from > available-to-all general knowledge and experience." Where is this tome of 20000 pages that enumerates 'available-to-all general knowledge and experience' so that I might know what it is and what it isn't? is it free? regards roger pewick > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 12 15:12:04 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Apr 12 15:12:55 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: Message-ID: <002201c53f61$39644f60$169868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > If the slightly obscure Law 75C word "inferences" is > replaced with its more popular synonym "deductions", > then my interpretation of Law 75C is now: > (a) opponents are entitled to know about special > knowledge, ... and ... > (b) opponents are already aware of general > knowledge, ... but ... > (c) opponents are not entitled to know what > deductions a specific player will draw from their > general knowledge. > If I was El Supremo of the WBF, I would reword the > relevant phrase of Law 75C to read: > ", but the player need not disclose the player's > specific deductions which the player has drawn from > available-to-all general knowledge and experience." [Nigel] Were I on the WBFLC, I would remove all reference to "General Bridge Knowledge and Experience" Several times last weekend, and on many previous occasions, we were damaged when we questioned opponents and they concealed key facts from disclosure. As usual, afterwards, they cited "general knowledge" although, manifestly, their understandings were unexpected to us. A frequent problem for most players. We sometimes call the TD but, in practice, a TD always allows as "general knowledge" what is, in fact, "specific" and "local". For example, a non-forcing new suit at the three-level, when Lebensohl is in local favour. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 12 15:23:57 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Apr 12 15:24:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional References: Message-ID: <003b01c53f62$e22d6d60$169868d5@James> [Tim West-Meads] Personally I can't see a compelling reason to double with Alice's hand. Partner can easily have a 2353 15 count and opps will make 4S. [Nigel] Tim is consistent about allowing departure from declared notrump ranges. Marvin's declared range is 16-18. From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Apr 12 15:28:12 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Apr 12 15:28:12 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <425BCCEC.9070906@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman asked: > > >>Am I really the only one with experience from more than one bridge >>club? Is Flanders such a small country that it enables me, within the >>space of one week, to play at four different clubs, in 3 different >>cities, with three different partners, and only a handful of people >>that I have met twice and just one (my life partner and bridge partner >>on one of the four) that I have met all four times? > > > I don't know. I play most of my bridge in two environments. SJWBC where > all the regulars are equally well known to eachother, only simple systems > are in use and, on the rare occasions a question is asked by a regular, > the response "you know him as well as I do" is usually deemed sufficient. > On-line, where my knowledge of pick-up partners is extremely limited and > opps have often played exactly the same number of hands against them as I > have with them (often one won't even know what country partner is from). > In this latter situation "undiscussed, but we are playing SAYC/Acol" is a > very normal first pass at disclosure. (The club has 2 rooms where the > default systems are SAYC/Acol and, while opps may ask what a bid means in > the default system it is considered acceptable to merely name the system > on first explanation.) > > When I play in other clubs/competitions it is almost always with a regular > partner so "undiscussed" is pretty rare. > I think this is indeed where my aversity to the word "undiscussed" comes from. Where I play, it is usually insufficient. Others may have better experiences, and they can believe players when they say this. > >>Which is why I tell my players that they should reveal their guess if >>it's a little more than a guess but rather an informed opinion. > > > I too would expect players to reveal informed opinion, but obviously they > must present it as informed opinion rather an agreement or they will be > providing MI. > Now basically this may well be true, but what is the practical importance of this fact. My opponents want to know something about my partner's hand. I don't have to tell them this, but I do have to tell them our agreements. Now if I tell them something which I am not certain about, but which happens to turn out to be correct, in what way have I misinformed my opponents by not expressing the doubt that I did have? Or to put it in other words, my opponents are entitled to know our system, but they are not entitled to know the level of our certainty about it, or even to know that we are just guessing. And if I have guessed wrongly, what difference does it make - in your ruling on my having given MI or not, whether or not I added "I think". I was wrong, and you will rule whether my partner's hand conformed to an agreement we had or not, and whether or not I gave MI. But my saying "I guess" has no bearing on that ruling. -- 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: 266.9.6 - Release Date: 11/04/2005 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 12 16:16:14 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Apr 12 16:17:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Six - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: Message-ID: <004401c53f6a$3026f570$169868d5@James> [Richard James Hills CASE N-06] > Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 2nd Q > Brd: 21 Judi Radin > Dlr: North AJ95 > Vul: NS 97 > A952 > A96 > Xiaodong Zhang Peter Sun > KQT7 862 > KJ8 Q6 > Q4 KJT7 > KQ54 JT72 > Valerie Westheimer > 43 > AT5432 > 863 > 83 > West North East South > --- 1D Pass 2H(1) > Pass Pass 2NT Pass > 3C Pass Pass Pass > (1) Weak jump shift > The Facts: The contract was 3C by West down one for > +50 for NS after the H9 lead. The director was called > when the dummy came down and again at the end of play. > When called when dummy came down NS said, according to > the director, that they "sensed a hesitation after the > 2H bid above and beyond the required skip bid pause". > They claimed that the BIT was 10-20 seconds beyond the > required pause. West denied the hesitation and East > acknowledged a "slight break in tempo". The director > ruled that UI existed and therefore applied Law 16 -- > the UI clearly suggested action and pass was clearly a > logical alternative. Therefore, the contract was > adjusted to 2H. On the lead of the SK, 2H can be made. > That was a likely lead, so the score was adjusted to > plus 110 for NS and minus 110 for EW. > The Appeal: East did not appear at the hearing and > West claimed that his hesitation was no more than two > seconds. The Decision: The Committee found as fact > that the BIT was unmistakable at the table and that it > suggested bidding to East. Pass, however, was clearly > a logical alternative. 2H making and 2H down one were > judged to be likely results and no other results were > even probable. The adjustment of the score to +110 was > therefore made. Since it seemed extremely obvious to > everyone except EW that the disputed BIT occurred and > that they were experienced enough to know better, an > AWMP was issued. The Committee also found that East's > bid of 2NT was blatant misuse of UI. Therefore, a one- > quarter board PP was issued to EW. NS were reminded to > use the stop card in the future. > Committee: Jeff Goldsmith, chairperson, Bob Schwartz, > Riggs Thayer, Marlene Passell, JoAnn Sprung [Nigel] The TD and AC are right to rule 2H= if they judge ... A. After South's pre-empt, it is West's sole responsibility to realise that a pause is necessary and to ensure that it lasts ten seconds. B. West paused significantly (shorter or) longer than ten seconds. C. West's tempo break suggests East's bid. D. Pass by East is a logical alternative, and E. North-South would make 2H. If this happened in the UK, IMO, the AC would allow the appeal. Anyway, because of (A), the ruling must be close so the AWMW is ridiculous. South failed to use the "STOP" card. In such circumstances, I feel that West must rely on judgement to time the mandatory pause and therefore must be allowed considerable latitude. Another unfortunate case where one side could not attend the AC hearing. From blml at blakjak.com Tue Apr 12 16:41:30 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 12 16:43:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >DWS wrote: > >> When you prevent something by talking to someone about it, you have >> communicated with them. > >We do not, as far as I am aware, care two hoots about communication which >conveys no information about the speaker's hand. "I'm sorry partner >pleaase speak up." "Thank you partner", "Please could you move that >coffee cup so I can see the auction", "Black, no sugar please". >They, like "It's not your lead" are common courtesies - and common >courtesy is required by law (74a2 if one must get technical). So, being the humble person you are, you think that West-Meads should be the one who decides which communication matters. Me, i go for making it the law-makers who decide. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Mikeamosbridge at aol.com Tue Apr 12 16:45:00 2005 From: Mikeamosbridge at aol.com (Mikeamosbridge@aol.com) Date: Tue Apr 12 16:45:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional Message-ID: <1058AAAC.0B6E9D26.5B1DE553@aol.com> [Marvin French] > Friday, Dec 31, 3:30 pm session of Mixed Pairs > Board 2, N-S vulnerable, East Dealer > Alice held S-J103 H-J3 D-AJ642 D-T93 > North Marvin South Alice > - 1NT* P** P > 2S P 3S P > 4S all pass > * Announced as 16-18 HCP > ** After very long time, BIT acknowledged by North > I'm wondering how this case would have been handled > elsewhere in the world. [Nigel] The TD may judge that Alice isn't worth a double or that opponent's behaviour indicates to Alice that it is Marvin rather than an opponent who is exaggerating his assets. Otherwise, in the UK, the TD may adjust the score to 4SXX+3 and record Marvin's psyche -- IMO, correctly. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Mike I'm not sure if the remark about 4S**+3 is meant as a joke or not. If so I suggest Nigel write (JOKE!!) next to it. IMHO it is not very helpful. In no way does it reflect how psyches are dealt with in EBUland. Our Red/Amber/Green classificationis set out in the Orange Book and has been aired here many times. I'd ask Alice why she passed 1NT 16-18 with 7 points and a five card suit - many players might think that worth an invite especially opposite a card player of Marvin's standard :)) Mike From blml at blakjak.com Tue Apr 12 16:44:24 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 12 16:46:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: References: <005a01c53ee7$16464a80$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: wrote > > > > >Nigel Guthrie: > >>>Otherwise, in the UK, the TD may adjust the score to 4SXX+3 >>>and record Marvin's psyche -- IMO, correctly. > >Marvin French: > >>IMO, a gross miscarriage of justice. I guess I'd better not >>psych at the YC next time I'm in London. > >Richard Hills: > >In my opinion, Nigel has misclassified Alice's responses to >Marv's psyche. In my opinion, under the EBU traffic light >regulation for psyches, Alice's choices of borderline actions >in the auction (not inviting game, and not doubling) would >classify Marv's psyche as an initially legal Amber Psyche, >not as an immediately illegal Red Psyche. > >Of course, since second and subsequent Amber Psyches are, by >EBU fiat, automatically reclassified as Red Psyches, then >Marv indeed should be cautious about psyching at the Young >Chelsea next time he is in London - unless John (MadDog) >Probst is directing. Hullo - another EBU dictum that I know nothing about. Fortunately there are plenty of people in other countries to correct me. >:-) > >Pedantic schoolboy caveat: I disapprove of the arbitrary EBU >one-swallow-makes-a-summer (a.k.a. Rule of Coincidence) >definitions of Amber Psyche and Red Psyche. ... and another!!!!!! Goodness, these new rules are coming out of the trees! When are we going to get an Australian Orange book of new EBU rules? >But... > >Chacun a son gout. > >I disapprove of what the EBU regulates, but I will defend >to the death the right of the EBU to regulate. > >:-) Perhaps you might start by reading what they are. :)) -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Apr 12 16:46:33 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 12 16:48:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: References: <022401c53eca$95816bd0$059868d5@James> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >Nigel wrote: > >> [Marvin French] >> > Friday, Dec 31, 3:30 pm session of Mixed Pairs >> > Board 2, N-S vulnerable, East Dealer >> > Alice held S-J103 H-J3 D-AJ642 D-T93 >> > North Marvin South Alice >> > - 1NT* P** P >> > 2S P 3S P >> > 4S all pass >> > * Announced as 16-18 HCP >> > ** After very long time, BIT acknowledged by North >> >> > I'm wondering how this case would have been handled >> > elsewhere in the world. >> >> >> [Nigel] >> The TD may judge that Alice isn't worth a double or that >> opponent's behaviour indicates to Alice that it is Marvin >> rather than an opponent who is exaggerating his assets. >> >> Otherwise, in the UK, the TD may adjust the score to 4SXX+3 > >No he may not. If the TD decides it is a fielded psych he awards 60/30 >(or table score if better/worse ). If he decides it isn't a fielded psych >he doesn't adjust. The EBU ignores the MI laws when dealing with psychs. ... and now a new rule from an Englishman: a rule I have never heard of!!!!!!! If a player would get an adjustment under the MI laws that gives him an 80% board, when he would get 60% under the fielded psyche regulation, why on earth would we not give him 80%? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Tue Apr 12 17:28:38 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Apr 12 17:29:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional References: Message-ID: <014301c53f74$4d7fbb20$169868d5@James> [Richard james Hills] I disapprove of the arbitrary EBU one-swallow-makes-a-summer (a.k.a. Rule of Coincidence) definitions of Amber Psyche and Red Psyche. I disapprove of what the EBU regulates, but I will defend to the death the right of the EBU to regulate. [Nigel] Similar cases have been discussed on RGB. My view remains that the EBU is right on this issue ... In such cases, the director weighs up probabilities. Usually, all he has is circumstantial evidence. Take a simplified version of Marvin's case (without hesitations from opponents). M departs from agreed system. Arguably, his partner, A, seems to compensate by also departing from agreed system. Of course, this may be a coincidence or whatever but a likely explanation is that A profited from unauthorised information or a concealed understanding. The director cannot be certain. Nevertheless, the law should try to try to redress damage to "non-offenders"; also to deter and to reduce the profit of "alleged offenders". Of course, as here, putative offenders may be entirely innocent; and the director should make this possibility clear to all. This is similar to a real-life Civil-Law case; where, almost always, there must be winners and losers. In the interests of justice, the judge must rule; he hopes to get it right, most of the time; but, sadly, he cannot always. (: And before you start to crow, Richard :) I always accepted that you can't remove all subjective judgement from the rules. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 12 18:00:50 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Apr 12 18:01:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Six - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <200504121448.j3CEmm2J014669@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <015c01c53f78$cca1d330$169868d5@James> [Steve Willner] > Hi, Nigel. Stop card use is not mandatory in the > ACBL, and even if it is used, the procedure is quite > different from everywhere else. In particular, the > stop card is never left out for 10 seconds. [Nigel] Thank you, Steve (: I guessed it might be :). Local rule variations delight Grattan Endicott but puzzle ordinary players. IMO the EBU STOP rules are better than the ACBL or ABF rules: After pre-empting, the pre-empter faces the STOP-card and estimates ten seconds, before picking it up. Surely, even in America, in cases like that under dispute, a player is allowed lee-way in estimating a ten-second pause, especially when the pre-emptor deprives him of any STOP-card clue about when to start or to finish. It is hard to tell from the names of the players but I guess from the ruling that North and South are ACBL members, who are familiar with local rules; but that East or West is a foreigner for whom chauvinist system-licensing regulations and quaint local rules are additional handicaps that must be overcome. From blml at blakjak.com Tue Apr 12 18:24:40 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 12 18:27:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: References: <005a01c53ee7$16464a80$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote > wrote >> >> >> >> >>Nigel Guthrie: >> >>>>Otherwise, in the UK, the TD may adjust the score to 4SXX+3 >>>>and record Marvin's psyche -- IMO, correctly. >> >>Marvin French: >> >>>IMO, a gross miscarriage of justice. I guess I'd better not >>>psych at the YC next time I'm in London. >> >>Richard Hills: >> >>In my opinion, Nigel has misclassified Alice's responses to >>Marv's psyche. In my opinion, under the EBU traffic light >>regulation for psyches, Alice's choices of borderline actions >>in the auction (not inviting game, and not doubling) would >>classify Marv's psyche as an initially legal Amber Psyche, >>not as an immediately illegal Red Psyche. >> >>Of course, since second and subsequent Amber Psyches are, by >>EBU fiat, automatically reclassified as Red Psyches, then >>Marv indeed should be cautious about psyching at the Young >>Chelsea next time he is in London - unless John (MadDog) >>Probst is directing. > > Hullo - another EBU dictum that I know nothing about. Fortunately >there are plenty of people in other countries to correct me. Perhaps this is slightly unfair: I now realise what is meant. Certainly I do not think the rule is quite the way he thinks, but it is fairly close. Mind you, it is not immediately obvious to me what is wrong with law-breakers being punished for it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Tue Apr 12 19:02:42 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue Apr 12 19:41:58 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: <425BCCEC.9070906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000e01c53f86$b69df560$7d493dd4@c6l8v1> > > > Or to put it in other words, my opponents are entitled to know our > system, but they are not entitled to know the level of our certainty > about it, or even to know that we are just guessing. > > And if I have guessed wrongly, what difference does it make - in your > ruling on my having given MI or not, whether or not I added "I think". > I was wrong, and you will rule whether my partner's hand conformed to > an agreement we had or not, and whether or not I gave MI. But my > saying "I guess" has no bearing on that ruling. > > In the Netherlands it is not allowed to use "I think" or "I guess", because that is seen as giving UI. Ben From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 12 22:51:23 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Apr 12 22:52:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c53fa1$63723200$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson > >> When you prevent something by talking to someone about it, you have > >> communicated with them. > > > >We do not, as far as I am aware, care two hoots about communication which > >conveys no information about the speaker's hand. "I'm sorry partner > >pleaase speak up." "Thank you partner", "Please could you move that > >coffee cup so I can see the auction", "Black, no sugar please". > >They, like "It's not your lead" are common courtesies - and common > >courtesy is required by law (74a2 if one must get technical). > > So, being the humble person you are, you think that West-Meads should > be the one who decides which communication matters. > > Me, i go for making it the law-makers who decide. Which apparently means that when Dummy goes to the bar to get another cup of coffee he is not allowed to "communicate with" (ask) declarer if he should bring anything to him at the same time? Seriously: We have Law 42B2 ("Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer). Is this law only a special exempt from Law 43A1(c) ("Dummy must not ... communicate anything about the play to declarer") or does it establish an exclusive right for Dummy; a right that is denied the defenders? Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 12 22:54:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 12 22:55:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > So, being the humble person you are, you think that West-Meads > should be the one who decides which communication matters. Being the practical person I am I recognise that courteous communication during the hand is part of the game/social environment. There are no penalties for such courtesies, no UI adjustments for such courtesies, no discouragement of such courtesies in any game I have seen. I accept that writing the laws is difficult and that the lawmakers had no intention of preventing common courtesy during play. If you want to start penalising people for saying "thank you" when dummy goes down so be it. I will apply my own judgements as to what communication is illegal/inappropriate. Hint: you will find a clue or two in Law73b-f. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 12 22:54:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 12 22:55:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > If a player would get an adjustment under the MI laws that gives him > an 80% board, when he would get 60% under the fielded psyche > regulation, why on earth would we not give him 80%? I can't be certain, I wasn't responsible for writing the regulation. The psych adjustments are defined in the Orange Book and are applied regardless of whether opps have been damaged. There are no provisions for giving abnormal adjustments in a normal psych ruling. Perhaps this is because *fielding* a psych is in no way an infraction. Fielding is merely considered evidence of an infracting psych so if you try and adjust merely for the "field" you are not adjusting for damage caused by the infraction. Why should one adjust differently after 1H-(X) -1S if in case a) one finds that 1S was a forgotten alert of a two-way conventional bid and case b) where it is found to be a fielded psych? Again don't ask me. I suspect it's because the regs are a complete pig's breakfast. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 12 22:54:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 12 22:55:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: <003b01c53f62$e22d6d60$169868d5@James> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > Personally I can't see a compelling reason to double with > Alice's hand. Partner can easily have a 2353 15 count and > opps will make 4S. > > [Nigel] > Tim is consistent about allowing departure from declared > notrump ranges. Marvin's declared range is 16-18. To be honest Nigel I'm not very familiar with how announcements work in the US. Pronouncing (15)16-18 is quite clumsy. :) I'm pretty sure Marv upgrades a decent 15 count with a good 5 card suit to 16 now and then and I'd expect the info to be on the CC, but I'd forgive an announcement of 16-18. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 12 22:54:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 12 22:55:56 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <425BCCEC.9070906@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > And if I have guessed wrongly, what difference does it make - in your > ruling on my having given MI or not, whether or not I added "I think". > I was wrong, and you will rule whether my partner's hand conformed to > an agreement we had or not, and whether or not I gave MI. But my > saying "I guess" has no bearing on that ruling. If I discover you have lied to your opponents deliberately I will impose a large pp on top of any score adjustments for MI/UI. If I discover you have truthfully informed opponents that it is undiscussed, but likely to be X because... and it turns out to be Y then I may well have sufficient evidence from your statement not to adjust at all. Your opps have as right to know about ambiguity in your partnership understandings as do you and your partner. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 12 23:46:55 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 12 23:47:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Six - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <004401c53f6a$3026f570$169868d5@James> References: <004401c53f6a$3026f570$169868d5@James> Message-ID: <301a7981730740ce374e0fe9f790f7ed@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 12, 2005, at 10:16 AM, GUTHRIE wrote: > South failed to use the "STOP" card. > In such circumstances, I feel that West must rely on > judgement to time the mandatory pause and therefore must be > allowed considerable latitude. Another unfortunate case I suspect you base this feeling on EBU regulations, which leave it up to the skip bidder to determine when the appropriate time has passed and then pick up the stop card. That is not the case in the ACBL. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 12 23:50:28 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 12 23:51:19 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <000001c53e64$2b811a20$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c53e64$2b811a20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <35ccfea01f8847c99a00c625c5dfa012@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 11, 2005, at 3:00 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > We do (of course) accept words to the effect: "I don't > know", but then that player had better not be too lucky in continuing > the > auction with calls that statistically indicate he did in fact > understand. Statistically? Pfui. Not enough data points in one hand to determine "statistically". From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 12 23:55:28 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 12 23:56:19 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <42580A5D.3070501@hdw.be> References: <42547C58.9040408@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050408074318.02a807e0@pop.starpower.net> <425686DD.7090508@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050408095645.02e70c20@pop.starpower.net> <42580A5D.3070501@hdw.be> Message-ID: <055f9444491c106c1a24322053686d6f@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 9, 2005, at 1:01 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Suppose there is a system, but Wayne forgets. Do you allow him to say > "I forgot", or do you rule that he must tell opponents a guess? What > is the (practical) difference with this case? "I forgot" is misinformation. We know how to deal with that. Requiring a player to make a guess when the laws do not require or (IMO) empower the TD to do so is TD error. A French Crusader is reputed to have made the following "practical ruling": "Kill them all", he said, "the Lord will know his own." Well, maybe so, but it was still, IMO, "TD error". :-) From LHAWJZRM at distributionservices.com Wed Apr 13 01:19:29 2005 From: LHAWJZRM at distributionservices.com (Chuck) Date: Wed Apr 13 00:26:44 2005 Subject: [blml] online warehouse Sherry Message-ID: <794z7fzlsc.fsf@calle75.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050413/cd586f61/attachment.html From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 13 02:46:43 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Apr 13 02:51:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Three - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <200504101841.j3AIfbcD026351@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504101841.j3AIfbcD026351@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <425C6BF3.7060601@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au [excerpt from CASE N-03 appeals writeup] > EW said that when declarer put his cards on the table, > South kept stating that the losing club had to be played first and > did not give West a chance to state the order of play. ... > The Decision: The Committee determined that since declarer had not > made an oral statement of claim, his actions may be decisive. The > Committee believed that declarer's play of the cards in the order he > did manifested his intent... So why didn't the table TD determine these facts? On the basis of the facts the AC found, the ruling is obvious. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 13 02:54:20 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Apr 13 02:55:00 2005 Subject: [blml] One - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <200504071522.j37FMAmG023614@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504071522.j37FMAmG023614@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <425C6DBC.5040807@cfa.harvard.edu> Case N-01 > Bd: 7 North > Dlr: South AK4 > Vul: Both QJ73 > KQ83 > 32 > West North East South > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1NT 3C 3H > 5C Dbl(1) Pass 5D > Pass 5H Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Agreed-upon break in tempo > > Facts: The director, who was called after the 5D bid, determined > that the double was preceded by an extended break in tempo of about > 25 seconds. I agree with the TD and AC that pass is a LA, but I can understand South's reasons for bidding. The AWMW thus seems severe, though hardly ridiculous. What bothers me is North's action. I'd like to know what North thought his problem was. It seems to me North could have made a decision within the 10-s required pause after the skip bid. And if he couldn't, doesn't a forcing pass describe his hand better than a double? I don't see that any of this will change the score adjustment, so the AC was no doubt right to ignore it -- unless this was the real reason underlying the AWMW. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 13 02:58:01 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Apr 13 02:58:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Logical fallacies (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <200504111452.j3BEqCli012105@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504111452.j3BEqCli012105@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <425C6E99.2060700@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Okay, so the WBF LC wrote "only if", understandable > in normal speech, when a pedantic schoolboy would > have written "if and only if". Why do you think they didn't write exactly what they meant? What they actually wrote makes sense and is consistent with other Laws. While it isn't beyond belief that the text doesn't reflect the intention, what is the evidence for that view? From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 13 03:20:40 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Apr 13 03:21:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <200504111508.j3BF8IlS013623@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504111508.j3BF8IlS013623@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <425C73E8.1000409@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "David Barton" >>>North South are playing weak jump overcalls >>>over artificial 1C, but strong over natural 1C. >>>North South agreements are to pass initially >>>and come back in later with a strong hand, so >>>North changes his bid to pass. >>> >>>The auction then becomes >>>1C P 1D 2H >>> >>>2H would be weak jump overcall in the auction >>>as given but is understood by both North and South >>>as a splinter agreeing diamonds. >>> >>>What explanation should North give of his partner's >>>2H bid, Why not "shows four or more diamonds and at most one heart?" Add something about overall strength, whatever the 2H bid shows. >>>and what is UI and AI to East - West? North's having diamonds is still UI, I should think, but South's bid and meaning are AI. [from Sven} >>The retracted 2D bid is UI to East/West but North can hardly explain the >>2H overcall as Splinter without informing opponents that he in fact had a 2D >>bid Indeed. That's a good reason why North should not use the name of a convention and should instead describe what the bid shows. >>moment North tells opponents about it in order to explain the subsequent >>Splinter bid then this 2D bid becomes AI also for East and West. If North is so foolish as to reveal his own hand in the course of answering questions, I agree that is AI to the opponents. But this has nothing to do with retracted calls; it is always the case. However, if North is a beginner and reveals his own hand, I might consider a score adjustment under L12A1. After all, it is East's infraction that caused the whole mess. Normally we don't let players use infractions to gain information about the opponents' hands. DB> Well the concept that the answers to questions can convert UI into AI seems DB> strange to me. Me too! However, the answers are AI. Getting back to the original case, > East holds Qxxxxx x xxx xxx and the auction goes > W N E S > 1N(1) X(2) 2S(3) > > (1) 12-14 > (2)Alerted by South AFTER the 2S call and described > as a strong single suited hand > (3) E-W are playing redouble as 2 places to play > hence 2S is single suited > > East now wishes to change his call to a "psyche" of 2H > in an effort to pick off N-S's suit. It seems to me the relevant Law is 72A4. East's proposed maneuver looks to be the same as taking advantage of a defender's penalty card and thereby winning a finesse that would normally lose. My only question is whether the original 2S call was "a result of misinformation" (L21B1). If 2S would have been the inevitable call with correct information, then no change is allowed. This is, of course, a judgment decision to be made by the TD after the deal is over and with consultation. East must be advised of the rule before making his decision. Bringing up L75B looks bizarre. I suppose it can serve as a fig leaf if you are determined to rule against EW, but I can't imagine why anyone would wish to do that. Anyway, a careful reading of L75B does not support the use suggested. (Look carefully at necessary/sufficient, as in another current thread.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 13 03:30:59 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 13 03:30:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Seven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the seventh of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * APPEAL CASE N-07 Subject: Played Card DIC: Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 2nd Qualifying Session Brd: 6 Marjorie Michelin Dlr: East AJ76 Vul: EW A72 62 8763 Pirkko Savolainen Svetlana Gromenkova T982 5 J54 K93 85 KQT973 QJ54 AT2 Gerald Mindell KQ43 QT86 AJ4 K9 West North East South --- --- 1D 1NT Pass 2C Pass 2S Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass The Facts: In a two-card ending with South holding the DJ D4 and East the DK DT, West led the D5. NS stated that East played the DT and South won the DJ. EW said that East played the DK and South played the DJ under it. The Ruling: The director ruled that with no agreement on the facts, Law 85 applied and awarded the trick to neither side, resulting in the scores of N-S -50 and E-W minus 420. The Appeal: NS appealed the ruling. The Decision: The only dispute was the order of the cards played at tricks twelve and thirteen. Since East had shuffled her cards by the time the director arrived at the table, the Committee awarded the disputed trick to N-S under of Law 65C and D. Committee: Jeff Roman, Chairperson, Bill Passell, Ralph Cohen, Danny Sprung, and Ed Lazarus From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 13 03:31:00 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Apr 13 03:31:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <200504111519.j3BFJDUr014426@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504111519.j3BFJDUr014426@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <425C7654.3000409@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ The player who, by agreement, 'never psyches' > is not barred from psyching. As for disclosure of an > agreement never to psyche, this is to be disclosed > "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring > organisation" - Indeed. In the ACBL, the required disclosure appears to be "in response to questions but not otherwise," although nobody knows for sure what ACBL regulations really are. No doubt things are different in other jurisdictions. > but a fine point is that to make a call > or play based upon a partnership understanding the > disclosure should be by "prior announcement" (sic). Where do you find that? The only thing I see is L40A, which says prior announcement is, in some circumstances, _not_ required. There is no general requirement that I can find making any _prior_ announcement required. It appears to be within the power of SO's to require prior announcement of psyching tendencies or indeed any other partnership understandings. > My personal view is that there is an inconsistency > between L40A and L40B in that 40B does not seek, > nor intend to seek, the measure of advance notice > that 40A calls for. Again a matter of necessary and sufficient. Grattan appears to read L40A as meaning the equivalent of "if and only if," but that's not what it says. There is no inconsistency if one reads the words as written. Of course the words as written may not reflect the WBFLC intent or the desires of regulating authorities, but they do provide a consistent framework within which to play the game. As Grattan notes, his personal view does not achieve that. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 13 04:01:02 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 13 03:59:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050412061702.82398.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >A sponsoring organization that issues a directive >requiring merely a "balance of probabilities" is >circumventing the law that requires that the facts be >"ascertained". Richard Hills: Balderdash. Wayne Burrows: >"balance of probabilities" rulings are IMO one of the >worst aspects of our game. Richard Hills: Poppycock. Wayne Burrows: >It is a device to ensure that innocent parties are >punished. Richard Hills: Claptrap. Wayne Burrows: >In some cases there is no evidence that an accused >party can give that will convince the director or the >committee that in fact they are innocent. Richard Hills: Hogwash. Wayne Burrows: >I have been to the committee only to be told that >there is no way to establish the facts therefore we >are going to presume you are guilty on "balance of >probabilities". There is no basis in law for this >approach. [snip] Richard Hills: Now we get down to the nitty-gritty. No basis in law??? "Balance of probabilities" has been the method for determining facts in English civil law disputes for centuries. But because Wayne has not has his version of facts accepted by an appeals committee, he wants to change to a different method. And what, pray tell, would Wayne's replacement method be? Trial by combat? Trial by ordeal? :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 13 04:17:09 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 13 04:15:59 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <000401c53f37$3b952b30$72a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I think that is right. Whilst I acknowledge the breach >of security, I will dare to quote from a current draft of >future possible law: "..... is not obliged to speak from his >knowledge and experience of matters that are known >generally to bridge players". I have a note to review as >an alternative: "'are commonly known to'". > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: In my opinion, this "not obliged" caveat is open to abuse. For example, a former and current Aussie international player once had the habit of answering, "It's just a bid," when his opponents enquired about the implications of his HUM system. During the Second World War, there were posters asking, "Is your trip really necessary?" Is including this "not obliged" caveat in the full disclosure Laws really necessary? Presumably, one of the purposes of this caveat is to prevent gamesmanship by a hassling questioner, but a TD can prevent hassling via a ruling under the courtesy Laws. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 13 04:24:11 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 13 04:23:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: <20050412084217.7070.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >A regulation restricting psychic calls is contrary >to the right to psyche given in L40A. Richard Hills: But a regulation defining the boundary between a legal true psyche, and an illegal CPU pseudo-psyche, is prima facie a legal regulation, pursuant to powers specifically granted to sponsoring organisations under Law 40B. As I have noted earlier, the EBU "Red Psyche" is actually a popular misnomer; a pedantic schoolboy would rename a "Red Psyche" as a "concealed partnership understanding pseudo-psyche". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 13 04:22:44 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 13 04:23:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050413022244.6731.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > [snip] > > >A sponsoring organization that issues a directive > >requiring merely a "balance of probabilities" is > >circumventing the law that requires that the facts > be > >"ascertained". > > Richard Hills: > > Balderdash. > > Wayne Burrows: > > >"balance of probabilities" rulings are IMO one of > the > >worst aspects of our game. > > Richard Hills: > > Poppycock. > > Wayne Burrows: > > >It is a device to ensure that innocent parties are > >punished. > > Richard Hills: > > Claptrap. > > Wayne Burrows: > > >In some cases there is no evidence that an accused > >party can give that will convince the director or > the > >committee that in fact they are innocent. > > Richard Hills: > > Hogwash. > > Wayne Burrows: > > >I have been to the committee only to be told that > >there is no way to establish the facts therefore we > >are going to presume you are guilty on "balance of > >probabilities". There is no basis in law for this > >approach. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Now we get down to the nitty-gritty. > > No basis in law??? "Balance of probabilities" has > been the method for determining facts in English > civil law disputes for centuries. But because Wayne > has not has his version of facts accepted by an > appeals committee, he wants to change to a different > method. There is no statement in Bridge Law that they are based on English Civil Law. And repeating a mantra of "Balderdash, Hogwash, Claytrap" etc does not make it so. The laws require facts to be "ascertained" which conjures up in my mind a notion much stronger than "balance or probabilities". If we cannot "ascertain" the facts then the TD is allowed to make a ruling to "allow play to continue". There is nothing in that allowance that says that we should arbitrarily treat one side or the other as the offenders. My problem with the current practice is not when I cannot convince the committee of my innocence it is that in some instances it is impossible to convince the committee of that innocence. In certain circumstances the TD and committee are just going to assume on a "balance of probabilities" that an infraction has occurred. That is shirking their responsibilities to "ascertain the facts". > > And what, pray tell, would Wayne's replacement > method be? Trial by combat? Trial by ordeal? How about "ascertain" the facts and assume innocence in the absense of sufficient facts to support the claim of an infraction. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From blml at blakjak.com Wed Apr 13 04:25:54 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Apr 13 04:28:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8fJQbJRyMIXCFwMK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Tim West-Meads wrote >DWS wrote: > >> So, being the humble person you are, you think that West-Meads >> should be the one who decides which communication matters. > >Being the practical person I am I recognise that courteous communication >during the hand is part of the game/social environment. There are no >penalties for such courtesies, no UI adjustments for such courtesies, no >discouragement of such courtesies in any game I have seen. I accept that >writing the laws is difficult and that the lawmakers had no intention of >preventing common courtesy during play. If you want to start penalising >people for saying "thank you" when dummy goes down so be it. I will apply >my own judgements as to what communication is illegal/inappropriate. >Hint: you will find a clue or two in Law73b-f. Nice one. Now, put the brain back in, go back to the question asked, and try a rational reply to it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Apr 13 04:28:54 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Apr 13 04:30:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3f8SLoRmPIXCFwsb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Tim West-Meads wrote >DWS wrote: > >> If a player would get an adjustment under the MI laws that gives him >> an 80% board, when he would get 60% under the fielded psyche >> regulation, why on earth would we not give him 80%? > >I can't be certain, I wasn't responsible for writing the regulation. >The psych adjustments are defined in the Orange Book and are applied >regardless of whether opps have been damaged. There are no provisions for >giving abnormal adjustments in a normal psych ruling. Of course there are: we do not give an adjustment that damages the non-offenders. This is [a] obvious and [b] in the regulations. >Perhaps this is because *fielding* a psych is in no way an infraction. It is, as I am sure you are aware, a breach of Law 40. >Fielding is merely considered evidence of an infracting psych so if you >try and adjust merely for the "field" you are not adjusting for damage >caused by the infraction. Why should one adjust differently after 1H-(X) >-1S if in case a) one finds that 1S was a forgotten alert of a two-way >conventional bid and case b) where it is found to be a fielded psych? Because we adjust when it is illegal, and not when it is not. >Again don't ask me. I suspect it's because the regs are a complete pig's >breakfast. I would not dream of asking you since you are not prepared to give a reasonable answer. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 13 04:31:11 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Apr 13 04:31:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Seven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: Message-ID: <00da01c53fd0$dbcc6480$179868d5@James> [Richard James Hills APPEAL CASE N-07] > Subject: Played Card DIC: Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 2nd Q > Brd: 6 Dlr: East Vul: EW > Marjorie Michelin > Pirkko Savolainen Svetlana Gromenkova > Gerald Mindell > The Facts: In a two-card ending with South holding the > DJ D4 and East the DK DT, West led the D5. NS stated > that East played the DT and South won the DJ. EW said > that East played the DK and South played the DJ under > it. > The Ruling: The director ruled that with no agreement > on the facts, Law 85 applied and awarded the trick to > neither side, resulting in the scores of N-S -50 and > E-W minus 420. > The Appeal: NS appealed the ruling. > The Decision: The only dispute was the order of the > cards played at tricks twelve and thirteen. Since > East had shuffled her cards by the time the director > arrived at the table, the Committee awarded the > disputed trick to N-S under of Law 65C and D. > Committee: Jeff Roman, Chairperson, Bill Passell, > Ralph Cohen, Danny Sprung, and Ed Lazarus [Nigel] Is this a case of mistaken observation or is somebody telling porkies? Probably the latter! The director seems to have applied the wisdom of Solomon :) Anticlimactically, the AC's ruling is technically right in law :( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 13 04:35:22 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 13 04:34:13 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>"A bid of 5NT (without first having bid 4NT) that requests partner >>to bid grand slam if he holds two of the three highest trumps and >>otherwise stop in small slam". >> >>Would I have succeeded with you in a similar position? Tim West-Meads >Ah, a variant on the slightly misnomered, "Grand Slam Force". The >Standard Acol variant requires pard to bid 6C with 0, 6 of the >agreed suit with 1, 7 with 2 (unless agreed suit is clubs in which >case 7C shows an honour). Had we not discussed it that's how I >would have described it to opps and I guess we would have messed >up (unless you had 2 honours). Of course if I'd played in Norway a >bit more often than never I might be more aware of the options. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Tim's milieu lacks the historical memories which linger in the Norwegian milieu. Sven's description of the 5NT Grand Slam Force is not a "variant", but the *original* convention designed by Josephine Culbertson in the 1930s (so the convention is sometimes nicknamed "Josephine" in her honour). Sven's partner had an expectation that Sven had a historical memory when Sven's partner called 5NT; therefore I agree that Sven and his partner had an implicit partnership agreement about their implicit partnership adoption of the Josephine convention. Perhaps the 2007 Laws should use the term "implicit partnership expectations" to replace the current term "implicit partnership agreements". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Apr 13 04:37:04 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed Apr 13 04:40:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Seven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050412223135.0351c9c0@mail.comcast.net> At 09:30 PM 4/12/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >This is the seventh of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be >collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official >ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in >one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > >* * * > >APPEAL CASE N-07 >Subject: Played Card >DIC: Cukoff >Blue Ribbon Pairs 2nd Qualifying Session > >Brd: 6 Marjorie Michelin >Dlr: East AJ76 >Vul: EW A72 > 62 > 8763 >Pirkko Savolainen Svetlana Gromenkova >T982 5 >J54 K93 >85 KQT973 >QJ54 AT2 > Gerald Mindell > KQ43 > QT86 > AJ4 > K9 > >West North East South >--- --- 1D 1NT >Pass 2C Pass 2S >Pass 4S Pass Pass >Pass > >The Facts: In a two-card ending with South holding the DJ D4 and East >the DK DT, West led the D5. NS stated that East played the DT and >South won the DJ. EW said that East played the DK and South played >the DJ under it. > >The Ruling: The director ruled that with no agreement on the facts, >Law 85 applied and awarded the trick to neither side, resulting in >the scores of N-S -50 and E-W minus 420. > >The Appeal: NS appealed the ruling. > >The Decision: The only dispute was the order of the cards played at >tricks twelve and thirteen. Since East had shuffled her cards by the >time the director arrived at the table, the Committee awarded the >disputed trick to N-S under of Law 65C and D. > >Committee: Jeff Roman, Chairperson, Bill Passell, Ralph Cohen, Danny >Sprung, and Ed Lazarus Law 85 doesn't require the TD to throw up his hands; he should have ruled as the AC did. The burden of proof is on East because she is alleging that South made an irrational play (DJ under the DK), and East shuffled her cards to prevent her claim from being proved. From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 13 04:39:45 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 13 04:40:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050413023945.11615.qmail@web14721.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > [snip] > > >A regulation restricting psychic calls is contrary > >to the right to psyche given in L40A. > > Richard Hills: > > But a regulation defining the boundary between a > legal true psyche, and an illegal CPU pseudo-psyche, > is prima facie a legal regulation, pursuant to > powers specifically granted to sponsoring > organisations under Law 40B. You are reading a different L40B to me. In my lawbook there is nothing granting any SO a power to regulate any such boundary. The sponsoring organization is assumed to have the power to regulate disclosure of agreements. The laws define a psychic call there is no requirement or legality to redefine something that is a psychic call as a concealed partnership understanding. Nor is there any need or legality in a sponsoring organization redefining partnership understanding. Grattan has said earlier in this thread (or one of the related ones) that where a term is not defined then we assume the dictionary definition. Therefore a regulation that defines something as a "partnership understanding or agreement" that is not a "partnership understanding or agreement" is contrary to the laws. > > As I have noted earlier, the EBU "Red Psyche" is > actually a popular misnomer; a pedantic schoolboy > would rename a "Red Psyche" as a "concealed > partnership understanding pseudo-psyche". This is exactly why we do not need a regulation to deal with Psychic Calls. Psychic Calls are legal and Concealed Partnership Agreements are illegal and there are already adequate laws to deal with players that have Concealed Partnership Agreements. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 13 05:57:13 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 13 05:58:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050413022244.6731.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >There is no statement in Bridge Law that they are >based on English Civil Law. > >And repeating a mantra of "Balderdash, Hogwash, >Claptrap" etc does not make it so. [snip] Richard Hills: Sophistry. The concept of natural justice is a universal principle, applicable both in English civil law and in bridge law. If two sides present plausible versions of facts, it is a violation of natural justice to arbitrarily rule that one side has not committed an infraction, when on the balance of probabilities the other side needs damage caused by an infraction to be rectified. If "beyond reasonable doubt" (an independent witness) was the criterion for determining whether or not it was factual that a hesitation had occurred, violations of natural justice would be frequent. How would Wayne rule on the current parallel thread "Six - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook"? Would Wayne allow liars to win appeals when there is no independent witness? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 13 06:35:17 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Apr 13 06:36:37 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: Message-ID: <011401c53fe2$45e8a340$179868d5@James> [Richard jams Hills] > Sven's partner had an expectation that Sven had a > historical memory when Sven's partner called 5NT; > therefore I agree that Sven and his partner had an > implicit partnership agreement about their implicit > partnership adoption of the Josephine convention. > Perhaps the 2007 Laws should use the term "implicit > partnership expectations" to replace the current term > "implicit partnership agreements". [Nigel] IMO, Herman De Wael has the right end of the stick -- perhaps not about current disclosure rules -- but definitely about future improvements ... A. Currently, misinformation or guesswork is an infraction; but "no agreement" or "not sure" is acceptable. B. Most partnerships are *never* certain of agreements. Depending on the partner and the convention, my confidence varies from about 50% up to 99%; but even when almost certain about an explanation, I sometimes find out later that I'm mistaken. C. Hence, strictly applied, the current law rarely permits a player to explain any call. I confess that I almost always hazard a guess. Of course, technically, I'm breaking the law because I'm *never* sure of the correctness of my explanation. D. Completely beyond the pale is any player who employs local knowledge or analogue reasoning to make a stab at explaining the meaning of an unfamiliar sequence. Even if a player can eliminate otherwise plausible meanings as being impossible in this partnership, he is discouraged from volunteering this information. E. Sensibly and reasonably, the majority of law-abiding tournament players adopt the "safety play" of "no understanding" or "general knowledge" -- unless, in a zealous moment, they specified their agreement on their convention card. For example in a Swiss Teams, last weekend, we hardly ever received an adequate explanation. F. Herman suggests that the law be changed to insist that a player guess when he is unsure - and accept the penalty for consequent misinformation. Manifestly, this would improve disclosure. G. IMO, there should still be exceptions. For example, the director would deal leniently with misinformation infractions by players who are trying to learn the "Standard System". From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 13 07:08:08 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 13 07:09:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050413050808.37012.qmail@web14721.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > >There is no statement in Bridge Law that they are > >based on English Civil Law. > > > >And repeating a mantra of "Balderdash, Hogwash, > >Claptrap" etc does not make it so. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Sophistry. > > The concept of natural justice is a universal > principle, applicable both in English civil law > and in bridge law. There are other systems of justice and there is no mention of this principle in the law. The language of L85A, "ascertain", certainly seems stronger than the principle of "balance of probabilities" to me. > > If two sides present plausible versions of facts, > it is a violation of natural justice to arbitrarily > rule that one side has not committed an infraction, > when on the balance of probabilities the other side > needs damage caused by an infraction to be > rectified. The damage is caused only by a "possible infraction". If both sides are plausible then how do you calculate this "balance of probabilities". My experience is that one side claims "hesitation" and presents no other plausible evidence and the other side can present as much evidence as it likes and the "hesitation" will be upheld on "balance of probabilities". This is a grossly unfair state. It is not a level playing field. > > If "beyond reasonable doubt" (an independent > witness) was the criterion for determining whether > or not it was factual that a hesitation had > occurred, violations of natural justice would be > frequent. "balance of probabilities" results in frequent violations of the natural justice. Assuming that you consider innocent players paying an undeserved penalty a violation of natural justice. It penalizing innocent players is natural justice then I want no part in it. > > How would Wayne rule on the current parallel thread > "Six - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook"? Would > Wayne allow liars to win appeals when there is no > independent witness? This is exactly the problem with "balance of probabilities" - liars can and do claim an infraction when none existed. And so liars manipulate "balance of probabilities" to get good results from the TD or Appeal committee that they can not get at the table. Under "balance of probabilities" all I need to do to get a good result is to claim hesitation when my opponent takes a marginal but successful action and the TD will rule "balance of probabilities" there was a hesitation and I will get my adjustment. I have seen this happen. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 13 07:47:31 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 13 07:48:23 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <35ccfea01f8847c99a00c625c5dfa012@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c53fec$491fcde0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Apr 11, 2005, at 3:00 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > We do (of course) accept words to the effect: "I don't > > know", but then that player had better not be too lucky in continuing > > the > > auction with calls that statistically indicate he did in fact > > understand. > > Statistically? Pfui. Not enough data points in one hand to determine > "statistically". Data points in one hand? I am thinking of a player who "doesn't know" several times but still somehow happens to make a lucky decision each time. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 13 07:56:49 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 13 07:57:46 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick: >Where is this tome of 20000 pages that enumerates >'available-to-all general knowledge and experience' so >that I might know what it is and what it isn't? > >Is it free? Richard Hills: To paraphrase the Reverend H.C. Beeching (1859-1919), "First come I; my name is Ricky. There's no knowledge to me too tricky. I am Master of this college: What I don't know isn't knowledge." :-) In practice, I prefer to give a possibly over-fulsome explanation to an inexperienced or unknown opponent, rather than fail to give Law 75A full disclosure by incorrectly guessing that they also are aware of my tricky "general" knowledge. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 13 08:24:44 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 13 08:25:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Logical fallacies (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <425C6E99.2060700@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Okay, so the WBF LC wrote "only if", understandable >>in normal speech, when a pedantic schoolboy would >>have written "if and only if". Steve Willner: >Why do you think they didn't write exactly what they >meant? What they actually wrote makes sense and is >consistent with other Laws. While it isn't beyond >belief that the text doesn't reflect the intention, >what is the evidence for that view? Richard Hills: "If and only if" is an operator in formal logic. "If...Then..." is an operator in formal logic. "Only if" is *not* an operator in formal logic. But Steve Willner makes a good point. I agree that it is entirely possible that "If and only if" was *not* intended as the logical operator by the WBF LC in its Code of Practice; they may have instead intended for their operator "only if" to be interpreted as the logical operator "If...Then...". However, if the logical operator "If...Then..." was intended by the WBF LC, then, for purposes of easy comprehension by a casual reader, the WBF LC put the "Then..." conclusion *before* the four "If..." premises. So that other blmlers have a chance to express their opinions on how to convert (relatively) plain English to formal logic, the disputed paragraphs are attached. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * WBF Code of Practice (relevant section): To deem that such an implicit understanding exists it must be determined that the partner of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that in the given situation the call may be psychic. This will be the case **only if** in the opinion of the committee one of the following circumstances is established: (a) similar psychic action has occurred in the partnership on several occasions in the past, and not so long ago that the memory of the actions has faded in the partner's mind - habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated; or (b) in the recent past a similar psychic call has occurred in the partnership and it is considered the memory of it is so fresh that it cannot have faded from mind; or (c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such psychic calls to occur; or (d) the members of the partnership are mutually aware of some significant external matter that may help recognition of the psychic call. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 13 09:10:37 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 13 09:11:39 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <011401c53fe2$45e8a340$179868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >E. Sensibly and reasonably, the majority of law-abiding >tournament players adopt the "safety play" of "no >understanding" or "general knowledge" -- unless, in a >zealous moment, they specified their agreement on their >convention card. For example in a Swiss Teams, last >weekend, we hardly ever received an adequate explanation. [snip] Richard Hills: "Sensibly and reasonably"? Where is the smiley? Surely Nigel is being ironical about these blatant infractions of the full disclosure requirements of Law 75. Without adopting the De Wael School concept of forcing a guess, it is still possible for sponsoring organisations to educate their players about the importance of fully disclosing implicit partnership agreements. The ABF Alert regulation provides concise advice on the topic: >>Clause 9.2 >> >>If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning >>of a call, you must say so (by saying "undiscussed", for >>example), and not attempt to offer a possible >>explanation. When, however, as a result of partnership >>experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view >>of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that >>information shall be given to opponents. Where a call >>is undiscussed, you should not offer statements such as >>"I take it to mean...." or "I'm treating it as....". >>Such a response is improper as it gives unauthorised >>information to partner. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From clubridgegolf at netscape.net Tue Apr 12 19:48:10 2005 From: clubridgegolf at netscape.net (Club de bridge) Date: Wed Apr 13 09:24:21 2005 Subject: [blml] III ANDALUSIAN FESTIVAL OF BRIDGE - GOLF ALMERIMAR IN SPAIN 2005 Message-ID: <425C09DA.5030102@netscape.net> III ANDALUSIAN FESTIVAL OF BRIDGE - GOLF ALMERIMAR IN SPAIN 2005 in Almeria, Spain, so that you can inform your players about this event. It is an interesting option for those who would like to enjoy our sun and beaches while practising their favourite hobbies: bridge or golf It would be an honour to be included in your calendar of events and web page. Please, do not hesitate to ask any question you may have about this event. BRIDGE PROGRAM O P E N TOURNAMENT Friday 10 june 19.30 h Welcome cocktail offered by Hotel Melia Golf Almerimar. 20.30 h. First session. Saturday 11 june 17.30 h. Second session. 21.00 h. Andalusian party. Sunday 12 june 16.30 h. Third session 21?30 h Gala dinner and ,hand over of the awards MIXED COUPLE TOURNAMENT It was played with a minimum number of 14 Couples Monday 6 june 18.00 h . First session Tuesday 7 june 18.00 h . Second session TEAM TOURNAMENT It was played with a minimum number of 10 teams Wednesday 8 june First session 18.00 h. Thursday 9 june Second session 18.00 h. INSCRIPCION Open Player 85 Euros Mixed player 30 Euros Team 120 Euros ORGANIZER: Club de Bridge Almerimar Tel: 00 34 968 218 613 ; 00 34 666 071 079 E-mail: bridgegolf@bridgegolf.com http://bridgegolf.com/ OPEN 1 ? 1200 Euros Trophy 2 ? 800 Euros Trophy 3 ? 500 Euros Trophy 4 ? 450 Euros 5 ? 380 Euros 6 ? 300 Euros 7 ? 250 Euros 8 ? 200 Euros SPECIAL PRIZES 1? Pair with + of 700PF 300 Euros 1? Between 699 y 300PF 270 Euros 1? Between 299 y 100PF 250 Euros 1? Between 99 y 50 PF 230 Euros 1? Between 49 y 21 PF 220 Euros 1? Pair with less of 20PF 200 Euros SPECIAL TROPHYS 1. ? LADIES 1. ? MISTERS 1. ? MIXED 1. ? DELEGATION WITH 10 PAIRS ANDALUSIAN PARTY The organization invites you on Saturday 11, to the "FLAMENCO FESTIVAL" where all the players will be able to enjoy a supper with the Andalusian typical products and "free bar " GOLF ALMERIMAR * * * * Tel: 950 49 70 50 - Fax: 950 49 70 19 FULL WEEKEND PACK This includes accomodation at the Hotel Melia Almerimar from Friday lunch time till Monday breakfast time with full board. 192,75 Euros VAT.included Prize for person in double room. Suplement of 57 Euros in single room FULL WEEK PACK This includes accomodation at the Hotel Melia Almerimar from Monday lunch time till Monday breakfast time with full board 442,54 Euros IVA Included Prize for person in double room Suplement of 130,76 Euros in single room GOLF TOURNAMENT PRIZES Saturday 11 and Sunday 12 SINGLE FORM STABLEFORD 36 HOLES INSCRIPTION: 60 Euros 1? CATEGORY GENTELMEN (Handicap de 0-17) 1? Classified 2? Classified 3? Classified 2? CATEGORY GENTELMEN (Handicap de 18 - 36) 1? Classified 2? Classified 3? Classified LADIES CATEGORY (Handicap de 0-36) 1? Classified 2? Classified 3? Classified SPECIAL PRIZES For many players -- Sus tiendas favoritas, ?tiles herramientas de compra y grandes ideas para regalos. ?Compre en l?nea c?modamente con Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ -------------- next part -------------- Skipped content of type multipart/related From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 13 09:27:21 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 13 09:28:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Eight - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the eighth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-08 Subject: UI DIC: Henry Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 2nd Qualifying Session Brd: #6 Michal Kwiecien Dlr: East AJ76 Vul: EW A72 62 8763 Ole Jonny Tosse Martin Andresen T982 5 J54 K93 85 KQT973 QJ54 AT2 Piotr Bizon KQ43 QT86 AJ4 K9 West North East South --- --- 1D 1NT Pass 2C 2D 2NT Pass 3NT Pass 4D Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass The Facts: The 4S contract made four for +420 after the DK opening lead. 2C was Stayman. It was determined later by the AC that Stayman, for this pair, promised at least one four-card major. The NS pair play that the bid of 2NT shows both majors in non- competitive sequences. Here, 2NT was not alerted and NS disagreed as to the meaning in this sequence (in competition) and discussed it in a foreign language after the hand. The Ruling: The director ruled that since South already had authorized information that North held at least one 4-card major, he should be permitted to bid relative to that knowledge. The failure to alert 2NT was not substantially different from the knowledge that South already had. The Appeal: EW contended that 3NT should be treated as an offer to play and that pass is a logical alternative to going on to four of a major. If North had wanted to insist on playing in a suit, he would not have bid 3NT. South argued that with his lack of side Aces, even a double diamond stop would not give him enough time to establish all his tricks in notrump. Therefore, it was clear to remove to the safety of a trump contract. The Decision: The Committee determined that the failure to alert 2NT gave South UI, that North's hand might not be as good for NT as the bid should indicate. Thus, the UI demonstrably suggested moving from 3NT to a major. The Committee considered several North hands with which North would find notrump more attractive with the knowledge of two four-card majors in South. Hands with one weak major and strong secondary club values would offer notrump opposite South's likely 4=4=3=2 (in that order) shape, e.g. AJxx, Jxx, xx, QJTx or Jxxx, Jx, xx, AQJTx would make 3NT and fail in 4S. Therefore, pass was a logical alternative for South. In 3NT, nine tricks was the likely result on any plausible sequence of play and defense. Therefore, the result was changed to 3NT making three, plus 400 to NS and minus 400 for EW. The Committee: Bart Bramley, Chairperson, Peggy Sutherlin, Aaron Silverstein, Michael Rosenberg, and Jon Wittes From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 13 10:23:25 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 13 10:24:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Logical fallacies (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050413082325.63919.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Richard Hills: > > >>Okay, so the WBF LC wrote "only if", > understandable > >>in normal speech, when a pedantic schoolboy would > >>have written "if and only if". > > Steve Willner: > > >Why do you think they didn't write exactly what > they > >meant? What they actually wrote makes sense and is > >consistent with other Laws. While it isn't beyond > >belief that the text doesn't reflect the intention, > >what is the evidence for that view? > > Richard Hills: > > "If and only if" is an operator in formal logic. > "If...Then..." is an operator in formal logic. > "Only if" is *not* an operator in formal logic. "Only if" is equivalent to "If ... Then ..." in formal logic. The statements : If A then B and A only if B are logically equivalent. They are clearly different than If B then A In the CoP we have 'A' as concealed partnership agreement and we have 'B' as a list of four criteria. The statement is We have a concealed partnership agreement *only if* one of the following criteria is met. The definitely is not logically equivalent to *if* one of the criteria is correct *then* we have a concealed agreement. Therefore we must consider the possibility that the criteria can be met and there is still no concealed agreement. As I have stated earlier this logical conclusion sits well with my reading of the laws that allow for departures of agreements without the necessity of creating a partnership agreement. For example this is evidenced by the use of *may* in L75. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Apr 13 10:01:56 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Apr 13 11:12:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? References: Message-ID: <00b901c54008$68037420$94cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? > > Notwithstanding the above aside it is obviously impossible > to apply Grattan's interpretation if the SO explicitly forbids > prior disclosure. One cannot "unknow" partner's habits/style > and even if one is prohibited from making use of that > knowledge in some situations there *must* be a legitimate > pathway to its disclosure. > +=+ Historically the EBU L&E held the view that if a psyche could be anticipated it was no longer a psyche and should be disclosed, on the CC, as a matter of partnership agreement. An SO is in no position in bridge law to deny prior disclosure of an agreement. To be psychic an action has to be one that the partner is in no better position to anticipate than his opponents, a condition much rarer among so-say psychics than the players concerned tend to recognize and cater for in their prior disclosures. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Apr 13 11:22:50 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Apr 13 11:50:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Logical fallacies (was Are you now?) References: <20050413082325.63919.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <010101c5400d$a811f9b0$94cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Logical fallacies (was Are you now?) > > The statement is > > We have a concealed partnership agreement *only if* > one of the following criteria is met. > > The definitely is not logically equivalent to *if* one > of the criteria is correct *then* we have a concealed > agreement. > > Therefore we must consider the possibility that the > criteria can be met and there is still no concealed > agreement. > > As I have stated earlier this logical conclusion sits > well with my reading of the laws that allow for > departures of agreements without the necessity of > creating a partnership agreement. For example this is > evidenced by the use of *may* in L75. > > Wayne > +=+ The CoP does not seek to remove from the Director and the AC the power to judge whether a concealed understanding exists. It seeks to restrict that power to occasions when one of the listed criteria is present. Of course it implies a significantly increased likelihood that a CPU will be found to exist in such circumstances, possibly to the extent that there would need to be evidence to the contrary if it is not the case. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Apr 13 11:40:58 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Apr 13 11:50:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional References: <1058AAAC.0B6E9D26.5B1DE553@aol.com> Message-ID: <010201c5400d$a8f49180$94cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. " ['Ecclesiasticus'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 3:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional > > I'd ask Alice why she passed 1NT 16-18 with > 7 points and a five card suit - many players might > think that worth an invite especially opposite a > card player of Marvin's standard :)) > +=+ I do not understand what all the excitement is about. We have not yet removed from the game the exercise of judgement. A single instance of this kind is hardly evidence that anything but judgement is involved; only if a pattern were perceived in borderline situations would I think of asking what the partnership understandings were. Since I doubt that two such borderline examples would be quite enough to identify a CPU I would not even be inclined to label it 'Amber' on the first occasion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Apr 13 11:44:23 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Apr 13 11:50:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional References: Message-ID: <010301c5400d$a9c17e70$94cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* > I suspect it's because the regs are a complete > pig's breakfast. > > Tim > +=+ Any particular complete pigs? +=+ From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 13 12:13:49 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 13 12:14:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050413101349.34771.qmail@web14723.mail.yahoo.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: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 4:39 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Are you now or have you ever > been? > > > > > > Notwithstanding the above aside it is obviously > impossible > > to apply Grattan's interpretation if the SO > explicitly forbids > > prior disclosure. One cannot "unknow" partner's > habits/style > > and even if one is prohibited from making use of > that > > knowledge in some situations there *must* be a > legitimate > > pathway to its disclosure. > > > +=+ Historically the EBU L&E held the view that if a > psyche > could be anticipated it was no longer a psyche and > should be > disclosed, on the CC, as a matter of partnership > agreement. > An SO is in no position in bridge law to deny prior > disclosure > of an agreement. To be psychic an action has to be > one that > the partner is in no better position to anticipate > than his > opponents, a condition much rarer among so-say > psychics > than the players concerned tend to recognize and > cater for in > their prior disclosures. To quote Richard James Hills "Balderdash". There is no such requirement for a psychic call. A psychic is simply a "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length". There is nothing in the definition that requires partner to be in no better position to anticipate it. By law, habitual violations only *may* create an agreement then of course the misdescription transforms into a concealed partnership agreement that must be disclosed. I might expect my partner's psyche more than the opponents even after less repetition than what is required for a "habitual violation". The law retains the possibility of a "habitual violation" not creating a partnership agreement. Indeed this is sensible since "agreement" in no way equates with "expectation". For example I have stated before that my wife will *never* agree to one of my psychic bids nevertheless that does not change my right to make a psychic call. In fact it preserves my right to make a psychic call since it is not based on a partnership agreement. Nevertheless my wife may expect a psychic more than my opponents. Bare in mind that I count myself as one who seldom psyches. I am only vociferous in claiming the right to psyche. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 13 12:14:21 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 13 12:17:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Eight - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <425CF0FD.8090005@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > CASE N-08 > Subject: UI > DIC: Henry Cukoff > Blue Ribbon Pairs 2nd Qualifying Session > > Brd: #6 Michal Kwiecien > Dlr: East AJ76 > Vul: EW A72 > 62 > 8763 > Ole Jonny Tosse Martin Andresen > T982 5 > J54 K93 > 85 KQT973 > QJ54 AT2 > Piotr Bizon > KQ43 > QT86 > AJ4 > K9 > > West North East South > --- --- 1D 1NT > Pass 2C 2D 2NT > Pass 3NT Pass 4D > Pass 4S Pass Pass > Pass > > The Facts: The 4S contract made four for +420 after the DK opening > lead. 2C was Stayman. It was determined later by the AC that > Stayman, for this pair, promised at least one four-card major. The > NS pair play that the bid of 2NT shows both majors in non- > competitive sequences. Here, 2NT was not alerted and NS disagreed > as to the meaning in this sequence (in competition) and discussed > it in a foreign language after the hand. > > The Ruling: The director ruled that since South already had > authorized information that North held at least one 4-card major, > he should be permitted to bid relative to that knowledge. The > failure to alert 2NT was not substantially different from the > knowledge that South already had. > > The Appeal: EW contended that 3NT should be treated as an offer to > play and that pass is a logical alternative to going on to four of > a major. If North had wanted to insist on playing in a suit, he > would not have bid 3NT. > > South argued that with his lack of side Aces, even a double diamond > stop would not give him enough time to establish all his tricks in > notrump. Therefore, it was clear to remove to the safety of a trump > contract. > > The Decision: The Committee determined that the failure to alert > 2NT gave South UI, that North's hand might not be as good for NT as > the bid should indicate. Thus, the UI demonstrably suggested moving > from 3NT to a major. The Committee considered several North hands > with which North would find notrump more attractive with the > knowledge of two four-card majors in South. Hands with one weak > major and strong secondary club values would offer notrump opposite > South's likely 4=4=3=2 (in that order) shape, e.g. AJxx, Jxx, xx, > QJTx or Jxxx, Jx, xx, AQJTx would make 3NT and fail in 4S. > Therefore, pass was a logical alternative for South. > > In 3NT, nine tricks was the likely result on any plausible sequence > of play and defense. Therefore, the result was changed to 3NT > making three, plus 400 to NS and minus 400 for EW. > > The Committee: Bart Bramley, Chairperson, Peggy Sutherlin, Aaron > Silverstein, Michael Rosenberg, and Jon Wittes > I disagree with this ruling. If North intends to play in 3NT opposite 2 major 4-cards, then why did he ask Stayman in the first place? To South, the knowledge that the sequence was not discussed with that many interferences, is AI. He knows North cannot be certain of the meaning of 2NT and he is allowed to use this information. All considered, I believe there is no LA to converting to the major contract. But then again, who am I with regards to this eminent committee? -- 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: 266.9.7 - Release Date: 12/04/2005 From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 13 12:20:32 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 13 12:21:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Logical fallacies (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050413102032.83834.qmail@web14721.mail.yahoo.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, April 13, 2005 9:23 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Logical fallacies (was Are you > now?) > > > > > > The statement is > > > > We have a concealed partnership agreement *only > if* > > one of the following criteria is met. > > > > The definitely is not logically equivalent to *if* > one > > of the criteria is correct *then* we have a > concealed > > agreement. > > > > Therefore we must consider the possibility that > the > > criteria can be met and there is still no > concealed > > agreement. > > > > As I have stated earlier this logical conclusion > sits > > well with my reading of the laws that allow for > > departures of agreements without the necessity of > > creating a partnership agreement. For example > this is > > evidenced by the use of *may* in L75. > > > > Wayne > > > +=+ The CoP does not seek to remove from the > Director > and the AC the power to judge whether a concealed > understanding exists. It seeks to restrict that > power to > occasions when one of the listed criteria is > present. This is exactly what I would argue based on the "only if" statement in the CoP. > Of > course it implies a significantly increased > likelihood that > a CPU will be found to exist in such circumstances, This is necessarily true since if the criteria are not met then there is 0% chance of a concealed agreement based on the criteria as set out whereas when the criteria are met it is possible that there is a concealed agreement. > possibly to the extent that there would need to be > evidence > to the contrary if it is not the case. There is nothing in the CoP that suggests this. I would have thought that there still would be a burden of proof on both sides one to show that there was a conceal agreement and one to refute that claim. Either side could bring evidence that could sway the TD or committee. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 13 12:22:55 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 13 12:23:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050413102255.18582.qmail@web14726.mail.yahoo.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: > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 3:45 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional > > > > > I'd ask Alice why she passed 1NT 16-18 with > > 7 points and a five card suit - many players might > > > think that worth an invite especially opposite a > > card player of Marvin's standard :)) > > > +=+ I do not understand what all the excitement is > about. We have not yet removed from the game > the exercise of judgement. A single instance of this > kind is hardly evidence that anything but judgement > is involved; only if a pattern were perceived in > borderline situations would I think of asking what > the partnership understandings were. > Since I doubt that two such borderline > examples > would be quite enough to identify a CPU I would > not even be inclined to label it 'Amber' on the > first > occasion. The practice is that on some occasions one instance is enough on which to base a ruling. That practice is without reasonable basis IMO. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed Apr 13 12:37:28 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 13 12:38:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Six - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050413103728.8897.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > This is the sixth of 18 parallel threads, which will > eventually be > collated into an unofficial blml casebook to > supplement the > official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to > comment on all 18 > cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word > doc. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > > * * * > > CASE N-06 > Subject: UI > DIC: Cukoff > Blue Ribbon Pairs 2nd Qualifying > > Brd: 21 Judi Radin > Dlr: North AJ95 > Vul: NS 97 > A952 > A96 > Xiaodong Zhang > Peter Sun > KQT7 > 862 > KJ8 > Q6 > Q4 > KJT7 > KQ54 > JT72 > Valerie Westheimer > 43 > AT5432 > 863 > 83 > > West North East South > --- 1D Pass 2H(1) > Pass Pass 2NT Pass > 3C Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Weak jump shift > > The Facts: The contract was 3C by West down one for > +50 for NS after > the H9 lead. The director was called when the dummy > came down and > again at the end of play. When called when dummy > came down NS said, > according to the director, that they "sensed a > hesitation after the > 2H bid above and beyond the required skip bid > pause". They claimed > that the BIT was 10-20 seconds beyond the required > pause. West > denied the hesitation and East acknowledged a > "slight break in > tempo". > > The director ruled that UI existed and therefore > applied Law 16 -- > the UI clearly suggested action and pass was clearly > a logical > alternative. Therefore, the contract was adjusted to > 2H. On the lead > of the SK, 2H can be made. That was a likely lead, > so the score was > adjusted to plus 110 for NS and minus 110 for EW. > > The Appeal: East did not appear at the hearing and > West claimed that > his hesitation was no more than two seconds. > > The Decision: The Committee found as fact that the > BIT was > unmistakable at the table and that it suggested > bidding to East. > Pass, however, was clearly a logical alternative. 2H > making and 2H > down one were judged to be likely results and no > other results were > even probable. The adjustment of the score to +110 > was therefore > made. > > Since it seemed extremely obvious to everyone except > EW that the > disputed BIT occurred and that they were experienced > enough to know > better, an AWMP was issued. > > The Committee also found that East's bid of 2NT was > blatant misuse > of UI. Therefore, a one-quarter board PP was issued > to EW. NS were > reminded to use the stop card in the future. > > Committee: Jeff Goldsmith, chairperson, Bob > Schwartz, Riggs Thayer, > Marlene Passell, JoAnn Sprung This is a case where either side could be not telling the truth. NS could be exaggerating the hesitation or making it up. And EW could easily deny the hesitation when it occurred. Fortunately both East and West acknowledged a slight break in tempo. The last comment puzzles me. Did South not properly issue a Stop card? If it was not then had it been properly issued then the break in tempo would have been much easier to measure as we would start counting after the card had been removed (assuming the proper procedure is for it to be removed after the mandatory 10sec pause). If the stop card had not been properly issued then I would be inclined to penalize NS for their part in creating the problem. Had East and West not acknowledged the break in tempo then this is exactly the sort of situation in which an unscrupulous NS could retrospectively claim a break in tempo when none existed. The dummy appears with minimal or sub-minimal values. East has stuck his neck out. It might or might not succeed but North South can get a double shot by calling the TD. Either the contract fails miserably and they get a good score or the contract is wound back on a "balance of probability" arguement so that NS will improve their score. Using "balance of probability" NS do not need further evidence of the BIT. EW will simply not be believed if they steadfastly claim no BIT and will automatically be ruled against. IMO this is plain wrong. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 13 14:07:43 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Apr 13 14:08:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Eight - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: Message-ID: <00e301c54021$66b3e050$2c9868d5@James> [Richard James Hills CASE N-08] Subject: UI DIC: Henry Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 2nd Q Brd: #6 Michal Kwiecien Dlr: East AJ76 Vul: EW A72 62 8763 Ole Jonny Tosse Martin Andresen T982 5 J54 K93 85 KQT973 QJ54 AT2 Piotr Bizon KQ43 QT86 AJ4 K9 West North East South --- --- 1D 1NT Pass 2C 2D 2NT Pass 3NT Pass 4D Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass > The Facts: The 4S contract made four for +420 after > the DK opening lead. 2C was Stayman. It was > determined later by the AC that Stayman, for this > pair, promised at least one four-card major. The > NS pair play that the bid of 2NT shows both majors > in non-competitive sequences. Here, 2NT was not > alerted and NS disagreed as to the meaning in this > sequence (in competition) and discussed it in a > foreign language after the hand. > The Ruling: The director ruled that since South > already had authorized information that North held > at least one 4-card major, he should be permitted to > bid relative to that knowledge. The failure to alert > 2NT was not substantially different from the knowledge > that South already had. > The Appeal: EW contended that 3NT should be treated as > an offer to play and that pass is a logical alternative > to going on to four of a major. If North had wanted to > insist on playing in a suit, he would not have bid 3NT. > South argued that with his lack of side Aces, even a > double diamond stop would not give him enough time to > establish all his tricks in notrump. Therefore, it was > clear to remove to the safety of a trump contract. > The Decision: The Committee determined that the failure > to alert 2NT gave South UI, that North's hand might not > be as good for NT as the bid should indicate. Thus, the > UI demonstrably suggested moving from 3NT to a major. > The Committee considered several North hands with which > North would find notrump more attractive with the > knowledge of two four-card majors in South. Hands with > one weak major and strong secondary club values would > offer notrump opposite South's likely 4=4=3=2 (in that > order) shape, e.g. AJxx, Jxx, xx, QJTx or Jxxx, Jx, xx, > AQJTx would make 3NT and fail in 4S. Therefore, pass > was a logical alternative for South. In 3NT, nine > tricks was the likely result on any plausible sequence > of play and defense. Therefore, the result was changed > to 3NT making three, plus 400 to NS and minus 400 for > EW. > The Committee: Bart Bramley, Chairperson, Peggy > Sutherlin, Aaron Silverstein, Michael Rosenberg, > and Jon Wittes [Nigel] IMO, North-South were unlucky because I agree with the director that 4S was the most likely contract, with or without alerts. In law, however, the director is wrong and the committee is right. Failure to alert is unauthorised information that *could* demonstrably suggest a removal to a major contract. For this committee, Pass is a logical alternative. It's a pity that the losing side are so often foreigners. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 13 14:17:39 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Apr 13 14:18:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Logical fallacies (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: References: <425C6E99.2060700@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050413080212.02eda6b0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:24 AM 4/13/05, richard.hills wrote: >"If and only if" is an operator in formal logic. >"If...Then..." is an operator in formal logic. >"Only if" is *not* an operator in formal logic. The English definition of the words "only" and "if" make "A only if B" merely an alternative way of expressing "if A then B". As is "B if A". English aside, "only if" must be a valid operator, as we can define it by applying formal logic to formal logic, which tells us that "A if and only if B" must be equivalent to "A if B and A only if B". "A if and only if B" means A->B;B->A; "A if B" means B->A; so "A only if B" must mean A->B. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 13 14:37:04 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Apr 13 14:37:52 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: Message-ID: <00ec01c54025$805726d0$2c9868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > "Sensibly and reasonably"? Where is the smiley? Surely > Nigel is being ironical about these blatant infractions > of the full disclosure requirements of Law 75. > Without adopting the De Wael School concept of forcing a > guess, it is still possible for sponsoring organisations > to educate their players about the importance of fully > disclosing implicit partnership agreements. The ABF > Alert regulation provides concise advice on the topic: ]Nigel] The phrasing was ironic but I'm afraid that it would be dishonest to postfix a smiley. Sadly, what I wrote is true. Again and again, BLML gurus tell us that *we must not guess* when unsure of an explanation. In my experience, players are rarely sure of an explanation. I am *never* sure. Outside the WBFLC, certainty is rare in this life. The law could attempt to get round this, for example by specifying a 70% confidence level. Unfortunately, however, such a kludge would be impossibly complex and subjective. Far better to insist that players guess if they don't know, as Herman advocates. I reckon they will guess right, most of the time. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 13 14:43:08 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Apr 13 14:44:55 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: References: <011401c53fe2$45e8a340$179868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050413082209.02edb5b0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:10 AM 4/13/05, richard.hills wrote: >Nigel Guthrie: > > >E. Sensibly and reasonably, the majority of law-abiding > >tournament players adopt the "safety play" of "no > >understanding" or "general knowledge" -- unless, in a > >zealous moment, they specified their agreement on their > >convention card. For example in a Swiss Teams, last > >weekend, we hardly ever received an adequate explanation. > >"Sensibly and reasonably"? Where is the smiley? Surely >Nigel is being ironical about these blatant infractions >of the full disclosure requirements of Law 75. > >Without adopting the De Wael School concept of forcing a >guess, it is still possible for sponsoring organisations >to educate their players about the importance of fully >disclosing implicit partnership agreements. The ABF >Alert regulation provides concise advice on the topic: > > >>Clause 9.2 > >> > >>If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning > >>of a call, you must say so (by saying "undiscussed", for > >>example), and not attempt to offer a possible > >>explanation. When, however, as a result of partnership > >>experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view > >>of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that > >>information shall be given to opponents. Where a call > >>is undiscussed, you should not offer statements such as > >>"I take it to mean...." or "I'm treating it as....". > >>Such a response is improper as it gives unauthorised > >>information to partner. It's a sad day for the law when Richard feels compelled to enter a debate to justify a regulation that says, as I read it, "Tell them the truth and don't lie." IMO, the ABL have gotten it exactly right. If you have an agreement, you tell them your agreement. If you do not have an agreement, but can guess what your partner's call means based on information other than an agreement with your partner, you are oblighed to share that information, but not to divulge the deductions you will draw from it. "We have no agreement, but on page 46 of 'A History of Tasmanian Bridge' it says..." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 13 15:15:03 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Apr 13 15:15:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Six - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <20050413103728.8897.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050413103728.8897.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050413090150.02eda870@pop.starpower.net> At 06:37 AM 4/13/05, wayne.burrows wrote: >The last comment puzzles me. Did South not properly >issue a Stop card? If it was not then had it been >properly issued then the break in tempo would have >been much easier to measure as we would start counting >after the card had been removed (assuming the proper >procedure is for it to be removed after the mandatory >10sec pause). If the stop card had not been properly >issued then I would be inclined to penalize NS for >their part in creating the problem. The ACBL explicitly rejects the notion, common elsewhere, of using the stop card as a timing device. It is, by regulation, the exact equivalent of its predecessor, which was a verbal skip-bid warning; LHO is obliged to wait approximately 10 seconds after a skip bid regardless of how (or even whether) the stop card was displayed. Where I play, the usual action is to put the stop card on the table, then put the bid card(s) on the table, then remove the stop card, in a more-or-less continuous sequence of motions. Indeed, unless they have been changed recently, ACBL regulations do not require that the stop card be used at all, only that it be used by a particular player either every time a skip bid is made or never. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Wed Apr 13 15:20:28 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Wed Apr 13 15:21:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Eight - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <00e301c54021$66b3e050$2c9868d5@James> Message-ID: >From: "GUTHRIE" >To: "BLML" >Subject: Re: [blml] Eight - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook >Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:07:43 +0100 > >[Richard James Hills CASE N-08] >Subject: UI DIC: Henry Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 2nd Q >Brd: #6 Michal Kwiecien >Dlr: East AJ76 >Vul: EW A72 > 62 > 8763 >Ole Jonny Tosse Martin Andresen >T982 5 >J54 K93 >85 KQT973 >QJ54 AT2 > Piotr Bizon > KQ43 > QT86 > AJ4 > K9 >West North East South >--- --- 1D 1NT >Pass 2C 2D 2NT >Pass 3NT Pass 4D >Pass 4S Pass Pass >Pass > > The Facts: The 4S contract made four for +420 after > > the DK opening lead. 2C was Stayman. It was > > determined later by the AC that Stayman, for this > > pair, promised at least one four-card major. The > > NS pair play that the bid of 2NT shows both majors > > in non-competitive sequences. Here, 2NT was not > > alerted and NS disagreed as to the meaning in this > > sequence (in competition) and discussed it in a > > foreign language after the hand. > > The Ruling: The director ruled that since South > > already had authorized information that North held > > at least one 4-card major, he should be permitted to > > bid relative to that knowledge. The failure to alert > > 2NT was not substantially different from the knowledge > > that South already had. > > The Appeal: EW contended that 3NT should be treated as > > an offer to play and that pass is a logical alternative > > to going on to four of a major. If North had wanted to > > insist on playing in a suit, he would not have bid 3NT. > > South argued that with his lack of side Aces, even a > > double diamond stop would not give him enough time to > > establish all his tricks in notrump. Therefore, it was > > clear to remove to the safety of a trump contract. > > The Decision: The Committee determined that the failure > > to alert 2NT gave South UI, that North's hand might not > > be as good for NT as the bid should indicate. Thus, the > > UI demonstrably suggested moving from 3NT to a major. > > The Committee considered several North hands with which > > North would find notrump more attractive with the > > knowledge of two four-card majors in South. Hands with > > one weak major and strong secondary club values would > > offer notrump opposite South's likely 4=4=3=2 (in that > > order) shape, e.g. AJxx, Jxx, xx, QJTx or Jxxx, Jx, xx, > > AQJTx would make 3NT and fail in 4S. Therefore, pass > > was a logical alternative for South. In 3NT, nine > > tricks was the likely result on any plausible sequence > > of play and defense. Therefore, the result was changed > > to 3NT making three, plus 400 to NS and minus 400 for > > EW. > > The Committee: Bart Bramley, Chairperson, Peggy > > Sutherlin, Aaron Silverstein, Michael Rosenberg, > > and Jon Wittes >[Nigel] >IMO, North-South were unlucky because I agree with the >director that 4S was the most likely contract, with or >without alerts. In law, however, the director is wrong and >the committee is right. Failure to alert is unauthorised >information that *could* demonstrably suggest a removal to a >major contract. For this committee, Pass is a logical >alternative. It's a pity that the losing side are so often >foreigners. Both pairs were non-American. EW norwegians, NS polish. Regards, Harald Skj?ran > > >_______________________________________________ >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 ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 13 15:22:53 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Apr 13 15:23:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Eight - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <00e301c54021$66b3e050$2c9868d5@James> References: <00e301c54021$66b3e050$2c9868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050413091749.02edda50@pop.starpower.net> At 08:07 AM 4/13/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >[Nigel] >IMO, North-South were unlucky because I agree with the >director that 4S was the most likely contract, with or >without alerts. In law, however, the director is wrong and >the committee is right. Failure to alert is unauthorised >information that *could* demonstrably suggest a removal to a >major contract. For this committee, Pass is a logical >alternative. It's a pity that the losing side are so often >foreigners. I take offense at Nigel's last sentence, and note that, moreover, in the case he comments on, the losing side would have been foreigners whichever way the decision went. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 13 15:28:12 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Apr 13 15:28:58 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: Message-ID: <018e01c5402c$a4a36ec0$2c9868d5@James> [Richard James Hills: ABF Alert regulation Clause 9.2 > If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning > of a call, you must say so (by saying "undiscussed", for > example), and not attempt to offer a possible > explanation. When, however, as a result of partnership > experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view > of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that > information shall be given to opponents. Where a call > is undiscussed, you should not offer statements such as > "I take it to mean...." or "I'm treating it as....". > Such a response is improper as it gives unauthorised > information to partner. [Nigel] Excellent stuff! I'm delighted that Richard's ABF rule insists that you disclose speculation on the likely meaning of a call based on partnership experience and style when you are unsure and even when a call is undiscussed. Sadly, from what others have written on the subject it seems that this rule is not universal. On the contrary, many times, gurus have told us that we must never guess! From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 13 15:42:54 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Apr 13 15:43:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Eight - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <00e301c54021$66b3e050$2c9868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050413091749.02edda50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001001c5402e$b2e1e870$229468d5@James> [Eric Landau] > I take offense at Nigel's last sentence, and note > that, moreover, in the case he comments on, the > losing side would have been foreigners whichever way > the decision went. [Nigel] Harald Skj?ran made the same point. I apologise to Eric for causing him offence. I was wrong about the protagonists in this case. Anyway, no offence was intended. Whether my view is offensive or not, I'm still sure that local rule variations severely disadvantage foreigners in other cases. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 13 15:54:54 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Apr 13 15:55:22 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <00ec01c54025$805726d0$2c9868d5@James> References: <00ec01c54025$805726d0$2c9868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050413094010.02ede3a0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:37 AM 4/13/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >[Richard James Hills] > > "Sensibly and reasonably"? Where is the smiley? Surely > > Nigel is being ironical about these blatant infractions > > of the full disclosure requirements of Law 75. > > Without adopting the De Wael School concept of forcing a > > guess, it is still possible for sponsoring organisations > > to educate their players about the importance of fully > > disclosing implicit partnership agreements. The ABF > > Alert regulation provides concise advice on the topic: > >]Nigel] >The phrasing was ironic but I'm afraid that it would be >dishonest to postfix a smiley. Sadly, what I wrote is true. >Again and again, BLML gurus tell us that *we must not guess* >when unsure of an explanation. In my experience, players are >rarely sure of an explanation. I am *never* sure. Outside >the WBFLC, certainty is rare in this life. The law could >attempt to get round this, for example by specifying a 70% >confidence level. Unfortunately, however, such a kludge >would be impossibly complex and subjective. Far better to >insist that players guess if they don't know, as Herman >advocates. I play in a lot of casual partnerships following brief discussions of methods. Such discussions do not specify agreements about many specific auctions, but instead concentrate on agreeing to the general principles we will use in interpreting partner's calls. Usually, when a specific auction comes up, one of these general principles will lead us to an understanding of the call. Occasionally, however, these principles may come into unanticipated conflict, in which two explicit agreements lead to two different meanings. Sometimes when that happens, if I'm lucky, I can find a call that, while perhaps not the ideal call given either possible meaning of the auction so far, caters to both possibilities. If we were to "insist that players guess if they don't know", I would not be allowed to make what is obviously my best available call, as to do so would perforce mean that I would be found to have given a misleading explanation. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 13 16:04:14 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Apr 13 16:09:39 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <018e01c5402c$a4a36ec0$2c9868d5@James> References: <018e01c5402c$a4a36ec0$2c9868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050413095948.02edbcc0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:28 AM 4/13/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >[Richard James Hills: ABF Alert regulation Clause 9.2 > > If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning > > of a call, you must say so (by saying "undiscussed", for > > example), and not attempt to offer a possible > > explanation. When, however, as a result of partnership > > experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view > > of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that > > information shall be given to opponents. Where a call > > is undiscussed, you should not offer statements such as > > "I take it to mean...." or "I'm treating it as....". > > Such a response is improper as it gives unauthorised > > information to partner. > >[Nigel] >Excellent stuff! I'm delighted that Richard's ABF rule >insists that you disclose speculation on the likely meaning >of a call based on partnership experience and style when you >are unsure and even when a call is undiscussed. Sadly, from >what others have written on the subject it seems that this >rule is not universal. On the contrary, many times, gurus >have told us that we must never guess! I hate to spoil Nigel's delight, but I believe he has overlooked the word "not" in the third sentence above ("you should *not* offer statements such as..."), which makes it quite clear that "that information" in the second sentence refers to "partnership experience and style" rather than to "the likely meaning of [the] undiscussed call". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From acelis at emailaccount.com Wed Apr 13 17:23:24 2005 From: acelis at emailaccount.com (Beth Sweeney) Date: Wed Apr 13 16:28:58 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.mrg-now-yes.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Jay Bruce to be remov(ed: http://www.mrg-now-yes.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 Wed Apr 13 16:31:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 13 16:32:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: <3f8SLoRmPIXCFwsb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: DWS wrote: > > > >> If a player would get an adjustment under the MI laws that gives > > him > >> an 80% board, when he would get 60% under the fielded psyche > >> regulation, why on earth would we not give him 80%? > > > >I can't be certain, I wasn't responsible for writing the regulation. > >The psych adjustments are defined in the Orange Book and are applied > >regardless of whether opps have been damaged. There are no provisions > for giving abnormal adjustments in a normal psych ruling. > > Of course there are: we do not give an adjustment that damages the > non-offenders. This is [a] obvious and [b] in the regulations. If 60% is better for non-offenders than the table result then they get 60%, otherwise they get the table result. So I agree that opps are protected from a damaging adjustment. The regulation does *not* make a provision for applying the MI laws *instead of* the psych laws thus NOS get the better of table result or 60%. Not 80% not 4Sxx+3. (NB, if there is a separte MI offence on the same hand then we would, of course, apply MI adjustment for that first). > >Perhaps this is because *fielding* a psych is in no way an infraction. > > It is, as I am sure you are aware, a breach of Law 40. I am sure that, if you bothered to actually read the laws/EBU regs, you would discover for yourself that it is the psych itself that is deemed the infraction under this regulation. IE had the psych been alerted and explained the "field" would not be an infraction (the "psych" *might* have been deemed an illegal convention however). > >Fielding is merely considered evidence of an infracting psych so if you > >try and adjust merely for the "field" you are not adjusting for damage > >caused by the infraction. Why should one adjust differently after > 1H-(X)-1S if in case a) one finds that 1S was a forgotten alert of a > two-way conventional bid and case b) where it is found to be a fielded > psych? > > Because we adjust when it is illegal, and not when it is not. Since when is forgetting to alert legal? The level of disclosure in the two cases is the same, the damage (if any) to opponents is the same. A bid of a suit shown by opponents may be used conventionally in any EBU game. > >Again don't ask me. I suspect it's because the regs are a complete > >pig's breakfast. > I would not dream of asking you since you are not prepared to give a > reasonable answer. Well, I'm not prepared to give the answer you'd like to hear - but that is another matter entirely. The regulations, and the way they were implemented, were explicitly designed to discourage psyching because a large number of EBU members don't like psychs but the EBU couldn't get away with simply outlawing them. Given this as the sole design criterion I suppose I must concede that the EBU did a moderately good job of circumventing the laws. (Against reasonable criteria the term "pig's breakfast" stands.) Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 13 16:31:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 13 16:32:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: <010301c5400d$a9c17e70$94cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > ******************************* > > I suspect it's because the regs are a complete > > pig's breakfast. > > > > Tim > > > +=+ Any particular complete pigs? +=+ I didn't have any specifically in mind. It is entirely possible that a prized herd of Gloucester Old Spots is fed on classier muck than is a run -of-the-mill mobile sausage factory. The regs are closer to sausage factory than Gloucester Old Spot if that helps. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 13 16:31:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 13 16:33:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <00b901c54008$68037420$94cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Historically the EBU L&E held the view that if a psyche > could be anticipated it was no longer a psyche and should be > disclosed, on the CC, as a matter of partnership agreement. No problem with that. Indeed when I learn of congruency between partner's psyching tendencies and my own we alter our CC's/Alerts/Explanations accordingly. > An SO is in no position in bridge law to deny prior disclosure > of an agreement. But we are also required to disclose understandings. I know (from my own experience) that psychs are less risky (and thus more likely) when non-vul vs vul and partner has limited his values. A lot of other people (but by no means all) know this too. However, if playing with John Probst I know that he knows this and he knows I know. As far as I am concerned this remove the knowledge from the general inference category into the "things opps have a right know" category. It's not an agreement, it's not specifically applicable to any given bidding sequence. It's just a piece of shared understanding. John occasionally throws in a NT overcall on a weakish single-suited hand. It's not something I do myself (or particularly like), it's not something we have methods (such as transfers) to facilitate exposing, and its not something I bother to take into account when bidding my own hand (life's to short). (OK if opps show surprising strength I'll look at vul/auction and decide whom I suspect - but then that's what I'd do with any partner, not just John). Again there is no agreement, but there is a (IMO) disclosable level of understanding. Last night John bid 1S as a psychic nv vs v 3rd seat overcall of 1D on QT8,Kx,Axx,Txxxx (alright, may not be seen as psych by some since our one level overcalls can be 4 cards to 2 honours as he has sufficient HCPs - but IMO pass is the clear-cut system bid on his hand). It's not a psych I've seen him perpetrate before, it's not something I'd want him to risk again. I'm looking at Kx,9xxx,Jxxx,Kxx so I've got nothing to add to the auction, nothing to make me suspicious, nothing to say when LHO's 1N comes back round to me so not even an opportunity to make an abnormal bid. Again no agreement to explain, indeed barely a smidgeon of partnership understanding. Swop my SK for one of John's small clubs and he has a clear-cut 1S overcall so whatever methods opps are using they'd have the same problem whether he psyched or not. John's style is reasonably well known in the club (but less well known than it is to me). Of course had I been sitting in RHO's seat looking at J9xxx,ATxx,xx,xx my psych detectors would be wagging like crazy - but such is life. Had RHO known to ask he might have decided to bid on. The EBU disclosure regs, with which I believe John and I were 100% compliant, gave opps a problem. Question: If we accept there was no infraction but that opps quite possibly got stitched by the regulations is the TD entitled to award a split score (table result for T+J, 4S=Opps)? > To be psychic an action has to be one that > the partner is in no better position to anticipate than his > opponents, That is not what the laws say. To be a psych it must be "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length." Partner might have a higher (or lower) anticipation than opps without the choice of call being affected by the expected level of anticipation. Basing a decision to psych on an *expectation* of partner catering to it is a different matter (L40a). Successful psychs are, on the whole, based on the vulnerability, hand, and auction (state of match perhaps) and don't rely on partner's co-operation. Unsuccessful psych don't need adjustments anyway. As always the TD must make a judgement on the basis for a specific psych. It is also complete can of worms. I would estimate that against many pairs I am not only more attuned to anticipating/detecting their psychs than they are attuned to detecting eachothers but that I am also often better positioned to adjust my own bidding in such a way as to prevent the psych becoming exposed. How can an opposing bid be defined as a psych if made against me and as not a psych if made against someone else? What if I am partnering Emily (not particularly attuned to psychs) or John (also reasonably well attuned). So let's leave comparing partner and opps out of it shall we? Although come to think of it perhaps we could improve opps chances of knowing these things by putting a short paragraph or so about psychic tendencies on the CC. > a condition much rarer among so-say psychics than the players concerned > tend to recognize and cater for in their prior disclosures. One might also question why *prior* disclosure is so important. Realistically I don't expect opps to want to change their agreements to cater to the possibility of an occasional psych. That is not to say that if pair later explains to me how and why they would have adapted their agreements I would dismiss it out-of-hand but in most situations *timely* (such as by an alert) exposure of a likely psych is what opps actually need. Almost all of this can be handled through normal MI channels, no need for special regs. The only real exception is where, had what is found to be an undisclosed agreement been explained, it would be an illegal convention by SO regs. Again not really a problem - if it is possible for conventions to be illegal the SO should already have a standard adjustment process to use. From chapoton at mailAccount.com Wed Apr 13 17:27:14 2005 From: chapoton at mailAccount.com (Priscilla Womack) Date: Wed Apr 13 16:34:07 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 $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.mrg-now-yes.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Bradley Gray to be remov(ed: http://www.mrg-now-yes.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From david.j.barton at lineone.net Wed Apr 13 20:24:13 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Wed Apr 13 20:19:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question References: <200504111508.j3BF8IlS013623@cfa.harvard.edu> <425C73E8.1000409@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001f01c54055$febe2840$0307a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another L21 Question >> From: "David Barton" >>>>North South are playing weak jump overcalls >>>>over artificial 1C, but strong over natural 1C. >>>>North South agreements are to pass initially >>>>and come back in later with a strong hand, so >>>>North changes his bid to pass. >>>> >>>>The auction then becomes >>>>1C P 1D 2H >>>> >>>>2H would be weak jump overcall in the auction >>>>as given but is understood by both North and South >>>>as a splinter agreeing diamonds. >>>> >>>>What explanation should North give of his partner's >>>>2H bid, Steve Willner > Why not "shows four or more diamonds and at most one heart?" Add > something about overall strength, whatever the 2H bid shows. > > >>>and what is UI and AI to East - West? > > North's having diamonds is still UI, I should think, but South's bid and > meaning are AI. > > [from Sven} >>>The retracted 2D bid is UI to East/West but North can hardly explain the >>>2H overcall as Splinter without informing opponents that he in fact had a >>>2D >>>bid Steve Willner > > Indeed. That's a good reason why North should not use the name of a > convention and should instead describe what the bid shows. Sven >>>moment North tells opponents about it in order to explain the subsequent >>>Splinter bid then this 2D bid becomes AI also for East and West. > Steve Willner > If North is so foolish as to reveal his own hand in the course of > answering questions, I agree that is AI to the opponents. But this has > nothing to do with retracted calls; it is always the case. However, if > North is a beginner and reveals his own hand, I might consider a score > adjustment under L12A1. After all, it is East's infraction that caused > the whole mess. Normally we don't let players use infractions to gain > information about the opponents' hands. > > DB> Well the concept that the answers to questions can convert UI into AI > seems > DB> strange to me. > Steve Willner > Me too! However, the answers are AI. David Barton By the time they follow up with questions such as "Well what would 2D and 3D mean?" then all the UI would inevitably become AI. I am strongly of the opinion that the meaning of the 2H bid is itself information arising from the withdrawn 2D bid and hence cannot be used by the offending side. I am also of the opinion that asking the meaning of the bids (either made or not made) is an action suggested by the UI of the withdrawn 2D bid and hence should not be allowed. Instead refer to the convention card. > Getting back to the original case, > > East holds Qxxxxx x xxx xxx and the auction goes > > W N E S > > 1N(1) X(2) 2S(3) > > > > (1) 12-14 > > (2)Alerted by South AFTER the 2S call and described > > as a strong single suited hand > > (3) E-W are playing redouble as 2 places to play > > hence 2S is single suited > > > > East now wishes to change his call to a "psyche" of 2H > > in an effort to pick off N-S's suit. Steve Willner > It seems to me the relevant Law is 72A4. East's proposed maneuver looks > to be the same as taking advantage of a defender's penalty card and > thereby winning a finesse that would normally lose. My only question is > whether the original 2S call was "a result of misinformation" (L21B1). > If 2S would have been the inevitable call with correct information, then > no change is allowed. This is, of course, a judgment decision to be made > by the TD after the deal is over and with consultation. East must be > advised of the rule before making his decision. David Barton Well I am 100% with you on this one. The original reason I brought up this case was to explore was how "a result of misinformation" should be applied, particularly as it was emphasised that the director should NOT look at the hand in question while giving the ruling. How the player requesting the change to 2H is supposed to work out whether the change is legal is any one's guess. Steve Willner > Bringing up L75B looks bizarre. I suppose it can serve as a fig leaf if > you are determined to rule against EW, but I can't imagine why anyone > would wish to do that. Anyway, a careful reading of L75B does not support > the use suggested. (Look carefully at necessary/sufficient, as in another > current thread.) David Barton Well I think that it is the wording of L75B that is bizarre, but I think we have agreement that it is not applicable here. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.7 - Release Date: 12/04/2005 From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 13 19:10:38 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Apr 13 22:12:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Historically the EBU L&E held the view that if a psyche > > could be anticipated it was no longer a psyche and should be > > disclosed, on the CC, as a matter of partnership agreement. > > a condition much rarer among so-say psychics than the players concerned > > tend to recognize and cater for in their prior disclosures. > > One might also question why *prior* disclosure is so important. > Realistically I don't expect opps to want to change their agreements to > cater to the possibility of an occasional psych. That is not to say that > if pair later explains to me how and why they would have adapted their > agreements I would dismiss it out-of-hand but in most situations *timely* > (such as by an alert) exposure of a likely psych is what opps actually > need. Almost all of this can be handled through normal MI channels, no > need for special regs. There is a technique used by lawyers during discovery. They will unload cartons of paperwork on the other side leaving it up to them to find that useful bit if information. As such even if the bit is noticed it is likely to not be noticed for what it is. Inappropriate information if anything is likely to be a disservice. About once or twice a year an auction will go something like P-1H-PPP where 5S is a brick [for the other direction]. The postmortem will go 'why didn't you balance?' 'I would have given him a chance to blast into 4H- remember he can have a monster since he has no strong forcing opening.' Of course, what these opponents were seeing were ghosts that weren't there- this time. And that, my friend, is the power of the psych, or more correctly the power of the reputation to psych. Where do people get the idea you psych? You tell them so as to make it fresh in their mind. People see ghosts if they put any credibility into the suggestion that a player bluffs [frequently]. The reason people see ghosts is that they don't know when to look. And that is why it is worthless to presume that bluffs are systemic merely because they have happened many times before- there are very few situations where a system won't fall apart in trying to handle bluffs. That is not to say that it is not possible to know when to look. But that has nothing [at least practically all the time] to do with concealed agreements. It has to do with being alerted by UI that a deviation may be a good idea or may be in the works. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 13 23:23:08 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 13 23:24:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <001f01c54055$febe2840$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000001c5406e$fd9a8670$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton ..................... > I am strongly of the opinion that the meaning of the 2H bid is > itself information arising from the withdrawn 2D bid and > hence cannot be used by the offending side. And this would be a really big misunderstanding of Law 16C2: After the following auction: W N E 1N X 2S - retracted and changed to 2H after a delayed alert by South. The very existence and all inferences from the retracted bid 2S is UI to North/South, all they "know" shall be the auction 1N - X - 2H for which they are fully entitled to a complete disclosure. So West must disclose all agreements relevant to the 2H bid by his partner and he must not "understand" that this bid is a gross deviation from such agreements unless the reason for his understanding (the retracted 2S bid) is also made available and authorized for North/South. (Laws 40A & 40B). > I am also of the opinion that asking the meaning of the bids > (either made or not made) is an action suggested by the UI > of the withdrawn 2D bid and hence should not be allowed. > Instead refer to the convention card. There are absolutely no restrictions on the rights for North/South to have a complete disclosure of the calls that are authorized for them. > > > > > Getting back to the original case, > > > East holds Qxxxxx x xxx xxx and the auction goes > > > W N E S > > > 1N(1) X(2) 2S(3) > > > > > > (1) 12-14 > > > (2)Alerted by South AFTER the 2S call and described > > > as a strong single suited hand > > > (3) E-W are playing redouble as 2 places to play > > > hence 2S is single suited > > > > > > East now wishes to change his call to a "psyche" of 2H > > > in an effort to pick off N-S's suit. > > > Steve Willner > > It seems to me the relevant Law is 72A4. East's proposed maneuver looks > > to be the same as taking advantage of a defender's penalty card and > > thereby winning a finesse that would normally lose. My only question is > > whether the original 2S call was "a result of misinformation" (L21B1). > > If 2S would have been the inevitable call with correct information, then > > no change is allowed. This is, of course, a judgment decision to be > made > > by the TD after the deal is over and with consultation. East must be > > advised of the rule before making his decision. And no TD has any power to overrule a player claiming that if he had been given the correct information he would on this occasion selected to psyche. > > David Barton > Well I am 100% with you on this one. > The original reason I brought up this case was to explore was how > "a result of misinformation" should be applied, particularly as it was > emphasised that the director should NOT look at the hand in question > while giving the ruling. How the player requesting the change to 2H is > supposed to work out whether the change is legal is any one's guess. > > Steve Willner > > Bringing up L75B looks bizarre. I suppose it can serve as a fig leaf if > > you are determined to rule against EW, but I can't imagine why anyone > > would wish to do that. Anyway, a careful reading of L75B does not > > support the use suggested. (Look carefully at necessary/sufficient, > > as in another current thread.) > > David Barton > Well I think that it is the wording of L75B that is bizarre, but I think > we have agreement that it is not applicable here. What the first part of L75B essentially states is that no player may violate an announced partnership agreement if he has reason to believe that his partner will be aware of the violation. Correcting the 2S bid to 2H as in the case we are discussing establishes exactly that situation, which is why L75B is highly relevant to this case. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 14 00:44:32 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 14 00:43:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Nine - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the ninth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-09 Subject: MI/Misbid DIC: Henry Cukoff Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs Session 1st Semifinal Bd: #21 Pirkko Savolainen Vul: NS AK97 Dlr: North T42 4 JT862 Connie Goldberg Wafik Abdou Q6 J43 J9865 AKQ73 KJT53 Q98 5 Q4 Svetlana Gromenkova T852 --- A762 AK973 West North East South --- Pass 1NT(1) 2C(2) 2H(3) 3C 3S Pass Pass 4C Pass Pass Pass (1) 14+ to 17, announced (2) Alerted as Clubs and a higher suit (3) Announced as a transfer The Facts: The final contract was 4C making 6 for +170 after the SQ lead. The director was called at the end of the round. It was determined that East gave an incorrect explanation of "transfer" at the 2H bid. The EW system notes do not support transfers over 2 suited overcalls of a one notrump opener. The Ruling: The director changed the contract to 4S making five for +650 per Law 12.C.2. This was the most favorable result for the non- offenders without the irregularity and the most unfavorable result at all probable for the offenders. The Appeal: EW appealed and were the only ones to appear at the Committee meeting. They produced two identical (one photocopy, one original) convention cards. Both showed "system on over 2C and artificial doubles". Abdou described his partnership methods and indicated that West had simply forgotten them. Other findings: EW are an irregular partnership playing their second national event. They have a system file distilled from West's manifold sets of notes. East had completed the convention card and had given it to West. EW practiced some on the internet. The Decision: While rulings of this sort might normally go against the offenders, the AC had no doubt that the convention cards had been properly completed to reflect the actual EW agreements and that West had simply misbid. EW had dramatically "fixed" their opponents with the 1NT opener, the misbid, the raise (to stop East bidding 3D over 3C in the balancing seat). That was not illegal, simply lucky. There is, as yet, no law against that. The AC was surprised in the context of the identical and properly completed convention cards that the TD had determined MI and not a misbid. They restored the table result of +170 to NS. Committee: Doug Doub, Chairperson, Ed Lazarus, Bill Passell, Eddie Wold, and Barry Rigal, scribe. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 14 02:15:45 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 14 02:14:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050413050808.37012.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>Sophistry. >>> >>>The concept of natural justice is a universal >>>principle, applicable both in English civil law >>>and in bridge law. [snip] Wayne Burrows: >>There are other systems of justice and there is >>no mention of this principle in the law. [snip] Lord Bowen (1835-1894): >The rain it raineth on the just > And also on the unjust fella: >But chiefly on the just, because > The unjust steals the just's umbrella. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 14 02:25:18 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Apr 14 02:26:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Nine - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: Message-ID: <003501c54088$70756980$0c9468d5@James> [Richard James Hills CASE N-09] > Subject: MI/Misbid DIC: Henry Cukoff > Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs 1st SF > Bd: #21 Pirkko Savolainen > Vul: NS AK97 > Dlr: North T42 > 4 > JT862 > Connie Goldberg Wafik Abdou > Q6 J43 > J9865 AKQ73 > KJT53 Q98 > 5 Q4 > Svetlana Gromenkova > T852 > --- > A762 > AK973 > West North East South > --- Pass 1NT(1) 2C(2) > 2H(3) 3C 3S Pass > Pass 4C Pass Pass > Pass > (1) 14+ to 17, announced > (2) Alerted as Clubs and a higher suit > (3) Announced as a transfer > The Facts: The final contract was 4C making 6 for +170 > after the SQ lead. The director was called at the end > of the round. It was determined that East gave an > incorrect explanation of "transfer" at the 2H bid. The > EW system notes do not support transfers over 2 suited > overcalls of a one notrump opener. The Ruling: The > director changed the contract to 4S making five for > +650 per Law 12.C.2. This was the most favorable > result for the non-offenders without the irregularity > and the most unfavorable result at all probable for > the offenders. > The Appeal: EW appealed and were the only ones to > appear at the Committee meeting. They produced two > identical (one photocopy, one original) convention > cards. Both showed "system on over 2C and artificial > doubles". Abdou described his partnership methods and > indicated that West had simply forgotten them. Other > findings: EW are an irregular partnership playing > their second national event. They have a system file > distilled from West's manifold sets of notes. East > had completed the convention card and had given it > to West. EW practiced some on the internet. > The Decision: While rulings of this sort might > normally go against the offenders, the AC had no doubt > that the convention cards had been properly completed > to reflect the actual EW agreements and that West had > simply misbid. EW had dramatically "fixed" their > opponents with the 1NT opener, the misbid, the raise > (to stop East bidding 3D over 3C in the balancing > seat). That was not illegal, simply lucky. There is, > as yet, no law against that. The AC was surprised in > the context of the identical and properly completed > convention cards that the TD had determined MI and not > a misbid. They restored the table result of +170 to NS. > Committee: Doug Doub, Chairperson, Ed Lazarus, Bill > Passell, Eddie Wold, and Barry Rigal, scribe. [Nigel] Strange that the director perused EW system notes but not the EW convention cards. Stranger that NS also failed to look at the EW cards. Strangest of all that EW failed to draw immediate attention to the agreement on their cards. Again it is a pity that NS, the "innocent side", couldn't attend the hearing to test the fresh evidence adduced by EW. Provided that the committee carefully established that these same convention cards were available at the table to NS and to the director, their ruling seems correct. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Apr 14 02:47:14 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu Apr 14 02:48:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Eight - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050413203439.035a6b28@mail.comcast.net> At 03:27 AM 4/13/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >This is the eighth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be >collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official >ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in >one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > >* * * > >CASE N-08 >Subject: UI >DIC: Henry Cukoff >Blue Ribbon Pairs 2nd Qualifying Session > >Brd: #6 Michal Kwiecien >Dlr: East AJ76 >Vul: EW A72 > 62 > 8763 >Ole Jonny Tosse Martin Andresen >T982 5 >J54 K93 >85 KQT973 >QJ54 AT2 > Piotr Bizon > KQ43 > QT86 > AJ4 > K9 > >West North East South >--- --- 1D 1NT >Pass 2C 2D 2NT >Pass 3NT Pass 4D >Pass 4S Pass Pass >Pass > >The Facts: The 4S contract made four for +420 after the DK opening >lead. 2C was Stayman. It was determined later by the AC that >Stayman, for this pair, promised at least one four-card major. The >NS pair play that the bid of 2NT shows both majors in non- >competitive sequences. Here, 2NT was not alerted and NS disagreed >as to the meaning in this sequence (in competition) and discussed >it in a foreign language after the hand. > >The Ruling: The director ruled that since South already had >authorized information that North held at least one 4-card major, >he should be permitted to bid relative to that knowledge. The >failure to alert 2NT was not substantially different from the >knowledge that South already had. > >The Appeal: EW contended that 3NT should be treated as an offer to >play and that pass is a logical alternative to going on to four of >a major. If North had wanted to insist on playing in a suit, he >would not have bid 3NT. > >South argued that with his lack of side Aces, even a double diamond >stop would not give him enough time to establish all his tricks in >notrump. Therefore, it was clear to remove to the safety of a trump >contract. > >The Decision: The Committee determined that the failure to alert >2NT gave South UI, that North's hand might not be as good for NT as >the bid should indicate. Thus, the UI demonstrably suggested moving >from 3NT to a major. The Committee considered several North hands >with which North would find notrump more attractive with the >knowledge of two four-card majors in South. Hands with one weak >major and strong secondary club values would offer notrump opposite >South's likely 4=4=3=2 (in that order) shape, e.g. AJxx, Jxx, xx, >QJTx or Jxxx, Jx, xx, AQJTx would make 3NT and fail in 4S. >Therefore, pass was a logical alternative for South. > >In 3NT, nine tricks was the likely result on any plausible sequence >of play and defense. Therefore, the result was changed to 3NT >making three, plus 400 to NS and minus 400 for EW. > >The Committee: Bart Bramley, Chairperson, Peggy Sutherlin, Aaron >Silverstein, Michael Rosenberg, and Jon Wittes The adjustment to 3NT is correct as a matter of law. South may have used good bridge judgment in pulling 3NT, but passing 3NT is a LA, since South has what he showed and North chose to bid 3NT (possibly expecting to take the same number of tricks as 4S; this is matchpoints). Is nine tricks the only plausible result? With two diamond stoppers, South needs to set up heart tricks while letting East in only once. East can be assumed to have the HK, but does he have Kxx, Kxxx, or KJxx? If East has KJxx, then South must finesse the HT; on the actual layout, that will hold South to eight tricks, as West wins the HJ, shifts to a club, and East clears the diamonds. But I will say that it is not at all probable that South will take this (inferior) play, and approve the AC ruling. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 14 03:31:56 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Apr 14 03:33:14 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <000001c53fec$491fcde0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c53fec$491fcde0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <68611a8d18dfcd8b50657156940d8b50@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 13, 2005, at 1:47 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > I am thinking of a player who "doesn't know" several times but still > somehow > happens to make a lucky decision each time. Ah. That was unclear. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 14 03:37:05 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Apr 14 03:38:19 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <018e01c5402c$a4a36ec0$2c9868d5@James> References: <018e01c5402c$a4a36ec0$2c9868d5@James> Message-ID: <117d42c689da690d6863e80086cdbe36@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 13, 2005, at 9:28 AM, GUTHRIE wrote: > Excellent stuff! I'm delighted that Richard's ABF rule > insists that you disclose speculation on the likely meaning > of a call based on partnership experience and style when you > are unsure and even when a call is undiscussed. Sadly, from > what others have written on the subject it seems that this > rule is not universal. On the contrary, many times, gurus > have told us that we must never guess! There is a difference between "you must guess what it means, and you must tell opponents your guess" and "you must tell opponents information you have available which is not general bridge knowledge and which *leads* to a guess". In the latter case, you are not (nor should you be) required to state your guess as to the meaning. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 14 03:41:30 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Apr 14 03:42:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <001f01c54055$febe2840$0307a8c0@david> References: <200504111508.j3BF8IlS013623@cfa.harvard.edu> <425C73E8.1000409@cfa.harvard.edu> <001f01c54055$febe2840$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: On Apr 13, 2005, at 2:24 PM, David Barton wrote: > By the time they follow up with questions such as > "Well what would 2D and 3D mean?" > then all the UI would inevitably become AI. How, exactly, does it happen that UI becomes AI? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 14 04:04:35 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 14 04:05:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <00b901c54008$68037420$94cc87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott asserted: [snip] >An SO is in no position in bridge law to deny prior disclosure >of an agreement. [snip] Richard Hills asks: Is Australia's "self-alerting call" regulation therefore illegal? And is not Grattan's statement inconsistent with his previous position that the official WBF interpretation of Law 80F means that a sponsoring organisation can create a regulation pursuant to one law which overrides another law? For example, Ton Kooijman and I thought that the regulation of a Tasmanian bridge club prohibiting its players from claiming was an illegal regulation, but Grattan then argued that that regulation was legal. What, in Grattan's opinion, are the exact limitations on a sponsoring organisation's "position in bridge law"? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 14 04:13:16 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 14 04:14:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050413101349.34771.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >To quote Richard James Hills "Balderdash". > >There is no such requirement for a psychic call. > >A psychic is simply a "A deliberate and gross >misstatement of honour strength or suit length". > >There is nothing in the definition that requires >partner to be in no better position to >anticipate it. [snip] To quote Wayne quoting me, "Balderdash." If partner anticipates Wayne's so-called psychic call, then Wayne's so-called psychic call is not a true psyche, because it is not a "gross misstatement" to Wayne's partner; rather Wayne's so-called psyche is an anticipated statement to Wayne's partner. Res ipsa loquitur. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Thu Apr 14 05:30:57 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Apr 14 05:31:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050414033058.85347.qmail@web14721.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > >To quote Richard James Hills "Balderdash". > > > >There is no such requirement for a psychic call. > > > >A psychic is simply a "A deliberate and gross > >misstatement of honour strength or suit length". > > > >There is nothing in the definition that requires > >partner to be in no better position to > >anticipate it. > > [snip] > > To quote Wayne quoting me, "Balderdash." > > If partner anticipates Wayne's so-called psychic > call, then Wayne's so-called psychic call is > not a true psyche, because it is not a "gross > misstatement" to Wayne's partner; rather Wayne's > so-called psyche is an anticipated statement to > Wayne's partner. Anticipation is not synonymous with agreement. Concealed agreements are not allowed. Anticipation is allowed. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 14 05:40:08 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 14 05:41:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >One might also question why *prior* disclosure is so important. >Realistically I don't expect opps to want to change their >agreements to cater to the possibility of an occasional psych. Richard Hills: A pair in the best bridge team in the world during the 1960s, the Italian Blue Team, originally had this agreement: LHO Pard RHO You 1H Dble 1S Dble = responsive double Their agreement was a consequence of the Blue Team style of offshape takeout doubles. However, Peter Leventritt embarrassed this Blue Team pair in a Bermuda Bowl by perpetrating a 1S "baby psyche" without prior disclosure, and, due to the Blue Team responsive double agreement, they had no systemic way to recover and reach their cold game in spades. At that time, "baby psyches" were general knowledge in the United States, so were an implicit agreement of the Schenken- Leventritt partnership. But "baby psyches" were not general knowledge in Italy. Subsequent to Leventritt's dubious gain of a game swing, the Blue Team pair plugged the hole in their system by changing the meaning of their second double from responsive to penalty. If the current interpretation of the Laws had applied in the 1960s, prior disclosure would have given that Blue Team pair the opportunity to fix their system *before* losing the game swing, not after. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 14 06:13:17 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 14 06:14:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Six - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <20050413103728.8897.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >Had East and West not acknowledged the break in tempo >then this is exactly the sort of situation in which an >unscrupulous NS could retrospectively claim a break in >tempo when none existed. The dummy appears with >minimal or sub-minimal values. East has stuck his >neck out. It might or might not succeed but North >South can get a double shot by calling the TD. Either >the contract fails miserably and they get a good score >or the contract is wound back on a "balance of >probability" argument so that NS will improve their >score. > >Using "balance of probability" NS do not need further >evidence of the BIT. EW will simply not be believed >if they steadfastly claim no BIT and will >automatically be ruled against. > >IMO this is plain wrong. Richard Hills: Wayne is examining only one side of the coin. If Wayne's World existed, then an unscrupulous East-West could retrospectively deny a break in tempo when one did exist, and a Wayneish TD would be compelled to accept their denial. In my experience as player, sometime TD and sometime member of an AC, this scenario is rare: (a) a cheat pretends to be a non-offending player, and deliberately accuses an opponent of hesitating, when that opponent has actually called in tempo. In my experience as player, sometime TD and sometime member of an AC, these scenarios are common: (b) an offending player reflexively lies, "I never done it," when asked if they broke tempo, or (c) an offending player honestly but mistakenly answers, "I never done it," when asked if they broke tempo. Indeed, in my experience, scenario (c) is particularly common. It is a psychological fact that the human brain is not good at parallel processing of data. If a player is going with the flow in analytical cogitation, that player tends to lose track of time. In order for Wayne's World to be practical, a player would have to be given an incentive to correctly estimate time. A possible methodology for such an incentive is discussed in an attached post from a previous thread, "Classic Comments". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychweb/JPBS1967-2.html The Effect of Anxiety on Time Estimation, William H. Clark, Fairleigh Dickinson University: >the present study examined the effect of anxiety on the >estimation of eight different time intervals. Twenty five >male undergraduate students were required to estimate time >intervals under an anxiety condition in which shock was >administered for inaccurate time estimations, and a non >anxiety condition in which no shock was given. The results >indicated that there was no significant difference between >the mean time estimates under anxiety and non-anxiety >conditions. Previous findings of anxiety producing >overestimation of time intervals were not supported. It was >suggested that overestimation of time intervals is related >to the subjects' control over the object of anxiety (i.e. >shock). When subjects were able to avoid shock through >accurate time estimations, overstimulation did not occur. Doug Couchman: Oh wonderful, thank you. The abstract doesn't have the answer to the secondary question regarding how much people overestimate by, but it does have something better: a partial solution to directors' problem about translating players' time estimates. Apparently, if we subject them to electric shock when they estimate wrong, we can eliminate the systematic bias toward overestimation in cases where the player is anxious. Putting this into practice may take work. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 14 06:28:48 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 14 06:30:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050414033058.85347.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >>Anticipation is not synonymous with agreement. >>Concealed agreements are not allowed. Anticipation >>is allowed. WBF Code of Practice: [snip] >To deem that such an implicit understanding exists [snip] >(a) similar psychic action has occurred in the >partnership on several occasions in the past, and >not so long ago that the memory of the actions has >faded in the partner's mind - habit is to be >identified when an occurrence is so frequent that >it may be **anticipated** [snip] Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Thu Apr 14 06:44:49 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Apr 14 06:45:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050414044449.27076.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > A pair in the best bridge team in the world during > the 1960s, > the Italian Blue Team, originally had this > agreement: > > LHO Pard RHO You > 1H Dble 1S Dble = responsive double > > Their agreement was a consequence of the Blue Team > style of > offshape takeout doubles. > > However, Peter Leventritt embarrassed this Blue Team > pair in a > Bermuda Bowl by perpetrating a 1S "baby psyche" > without prior > disclosure, and, due to the Blue Team responsive > double > agreement, they had no systemic way to recover and > reach their > cold game in spades. > > At that time, "baby psyches" were general knowledge > in the > United States, so were an implicit agreement of the > Schenken- > Leventritt partnership. But "baby psyches" were not > general > knowledge in Italy. > General Knowledge does not imply Implicit Agreement. There is a missing step in this argument. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Thu Apr 14 06:51:51 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Apr 14 06:52:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Six - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050414045151.80019.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Richard Hills: > > Wayne is examining only one side of the coin. Indeed I was. That was deliberate. > If > Wayne's World existed, then an unscrupulous > East-West > could retrospectively deny a break in tempo when one > did exist, and a Wayneish TD would be compelled to > accept their denial. > > In my experience as player, sometime TD and sometime > member of an AC, this scenario is rare: > > (a) a cheat pretends to be a non-offending player, > and deliberately accuses an opponent of hesitating, > when that opponent has actually called in tempo. > > In my experience as player, sometime TD and sometime > member of an AC, these scenarios are common: > > (b) an offending player reflexively lies, "I never > done it," when asked if they broke tempo, > > or > > (c) an offending player honestly but mistakenly > answers, "I never done it," when asked if they broke > tempo. The issue is not that one is common and the other rare but that to the former (rare) there is no defense. If I am accused then I am presumed guilty and there is no defense that I can offer to overturn that presumption. > > Indeed, in my experience, scenario (c) is > particularly > common. It is a psychological fact that the human > brain is not good at parallel processing of data. > If > a player is going with the flow in analytical > cogitation, that player tends to lose track of time. > > In order for Wayne's World to be practical, a player > would have to be given an incentive to correctly > estimate time. A possible methodology for such an > incentive is discussed in an attached post from a > previous thread, "Classic Comments". Rather than incentive we could use a readily available means to resolve timing issues - a clock. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Thu Apr 14 06:57:08 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Apr 14 06:58:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050414045709.47094.qmail@web14723.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > >>Anticipation is not synonymous with agreement. > >>Concealed agreements are not allowed. > Anticipation > >>is allowed. > > WBF Code of Practice: > > [snip] > > >To deem that such an implicit understanding exists > > [snip] > > >(a) similar psychic action has occurred in the > >partnership on several occasions in the past, and > >not so long ago that the memory of the actions has > >faded in the partner's mind - habit is to be > >identified when an occurrence is so frequent that > >it may be **anticipated** > ... and we have shown and Grattan has confirmed that the CoP is determining necessary but not sufficient conditions that the infraction of concealed partnership agreement has occurred. The concealed agreement is illegal. The anticipation is not illegal. As a player I would anticipate some psychic actions even when there is no recent (or even ever has been) similar psychic. This would not be part of my partnership agreements - explicit or implicit. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 14 07:32:35 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 14 07:33:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Ten - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the tenth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-10 Subject: MI DIC: Henry Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 1st Final Session Bd: #3 Peter Bizon Dlr: South JT4 Vul: EW J85 JT42 AJ9 Ai-Tai Lo Alan Schwartz A6 KQ753 T42 9 AK93 Q75 K654 QT32 Michael Kwiecien 982 AKQ763 86 87 West North East South --- --- --- 1H Pass 2H(1) Pass 3H(2) Pass Pass Pass (1) 2H was a constructive raise, no alert (2) See Facts below The Facts: The final contract was 3H down 2 for -100 for NS after the A lead. The director was called at the end of the hand. East inquired before his final pass about the 3H bid and was told that it was constructive with six trumps. South felt that their agreement was that the bid was preemptive. South said that he informed the opponents of the MI before the opening lead. EW insisted that he had not. East said he would have balanced with 3S if he had known that 3H was preemptive. The Ruling: The director ruled that North's explanation of the 3H bid was MI and adjusted the contract to 4S EW +650 per Law 21. The Appeal: NS appealed and all four persons appeared at the Committee meeting. NS stated that South corrected his partner's explanation of 3H. North had told East that it was a game try (which it would have been if spades were bid instead of hearts, ie 1 2 3). South believed his 3H bid was preemptive. South accepted some responsibility for not speaking louder (he has a very soft voice and a significant accent), but he thought that awarding EW +650 was too generous. Statements by the other side: Over 3H, East was considering some action, either 3S or double, when he asked North about the 3H bid. North's incorrect explanation made it less attractive to balance, and thus helped NS get a better score. EW did not hear South's correction of his partner's misexplanation of 3H. Other findings: NS had not actually discussed the meaning of 1 - 2 - 3. Thus they had no agreement and North's explanation was misinformation. NS have been playing together for only a couple of months. The Decision: The Committee ruled 3S making five and -200 for NS. A player is responsible for making sure that his opponents are aware of all alerts and explanations. Although South told the opponents that his partner's explanation was incorrect, he was not forceful enough to make sure that they heard. Thus, NS were guilty of misinformation. East has three plausible choices at his second turn to call: Pass, double or 3S. The MI clearly makes pass more attractive than the other alternatives. 3S figures to work far more often than double. East does not have a good defensive hand, nor does he wish to hear his partner bid 4C or 4D. As a matter of percentages, there is a strong possibility that West will have three spades, making a contract of 3S EW's best spot to compete in. The Committee considered a 3S bid by East attractive enough to allow that bid. Would West raise a 3S balance to 4S? East is bidding much of West's high cards when he bids 3S, though probably not all of them. However, East is probably also hoping to catch some spade length in West's hand and West does not have it. West will keep in mind that his partner already passed over 2H, limiting his hand. If East has a nice, fitting hand such as Q10xxxx x xxx Axx, it may require a successful spade guess just to make 3S. The Committee thought that few players would "hang" their partner with a raise to 4S, and thus assigned a contract of 3S to EW. How would the play go? The defense would start with two rounds of hearts. Declarer would ruff and play a club to the CK and CA. After ruffing a third round of hearts, declarer would play a spade to the SA. With spades 3-3, he could cash out for nine tricks. However, it is fairly attractive to take the club finesse while dummy still has a trump to prevent the force. This would result in 11 tricks for declarer. The Committee considered that play likely enough to assign that result to both sides. Dissenting (Ed Lazarus): The Committee unanimously felt there was MI given by NS in the explanation of the 3H bid. The Committee then analyzed the possible bidding by EW had NS correctly related that 3H was competitive and felt unanimously that more than one of six persons in the East seat would bid 3S. The majority of the Committee felt that less than one of six persons in the West seat would then bid 4S. I disagree for the following reasons: 1. West has three hearts. East most probably has a singleton heart 2. The K is well-placed with the opening bid by South 3. East is probably not bidding 3S vulnerable versus not without both length and high cards in the spade suit I feel that more than one out of six Wests would bid 4S. Hence, the result of the Committee should have been that the contract is 4S by EW making five for -650 NS. However, the Committee never discussed a split decision for NS and EW. Had the Committee agreed that more than one of six would bid 4S, further discussion might have resulted in a split decision. Committee: Doug Doub, Chairperson, Ed Lazarus, Howard Weinstein, Tom Peters, and Bob Schwartz. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 14 08:19:50 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 14 08:20:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Six - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <20050414045151.80019.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>In my experience as player, sometime TD and sometime >>>member of an AC, this scenario is rare: >>> >>>(a) a cheat pretends to be a non-offending player, >>>and deliberately accuses an opponent of hesitating, >>>when that opponent has actually called in tempo. Wayne Burrows: >>The issue is not that one is common and the other rare >>but that to the former (rare) there is no defense. If >>I am accused then I am presumed guilty and there is no >>defence that I can offer to overturn that presumption. Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861): >Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat, >When it's so lucrative to cheat. Richard Hills: I disagree that it is lucrative to cheat. Cheating is a habit. A person inclined to deliberately cheat does it again and again, causing other players and directors to become justifiably suspicious. So, it is not true that a competent director will automatically assume that a cheat is truthful and an honest player is lying. In the long run a cheat is expelled. J.M. Keynes (1883-1946): >In the long run we are all dead. Economists set >themselves too easy, too useless a task if in >tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when >the storm is long past the ocean will be flat again. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Thu Apr 14 08:48:30 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Apr 14 08:49:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Ten - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050414064830.14458.qmail@web14721.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > This is the tenth of 18 parallel threads, which will > eventually be > collated into an unofficial blml casebook to > supplement the official > ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on > all 18 cases in > one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > > * * * > > CASE N-10 > Subject: MI > DIC: Henry Cukoff > Blue Ribbon Pairs 1st Final Session > > Bd: #3 Peter Bizon > Dlr: South JT4 > Vul: EW J85 > JT42 > AJ9 > Ai-Tai Lo > Alan Schwartz > A6 > KQ753 > T42 > 9 > AK93 > Q75 > K654 > QT32 > Michael Kwiecien > 982 > AKQ763 > 86 > 87 > > West North East South > --- --- --- 1H > Pass 2H(1) Pass 3H(2) > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) 2H was a constructive raise, no alert > (2) See Facts below > > The Facts: The final contract was 3H down 2 for -100 > for NS after > the A lead. The director was called at the end of > the hand. > > East inquired before his final pass about the 3H bid > and was told > that it was constructive with six trumps. South felt > that their > agreement was that the bid was preemptive. South > said that he > informed the opponents of the MI before the opening > lead. EW > insisted that he had not. East said he would have > balanced with 3S > if he had known that 3H was preemptive. South did not follow correct procedure here. "After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he is to be a defender), the player must inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous" L75D2 The proper procedure requires that the director be called. In my experience few players call the director in this situation. Some do not even inform the opponents of the possible error. Not calling the director especially against less experienced opponents is a way of gaining an advantage from your sides infraction. The director should allow one opponent to retract his final pass. Opponents who are unaware of this redress are disadvantage by an informal statement from the offending side. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Apr 14 10:21:58 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Thu Apr 14 10:16:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question Message-ID: <003101c540cb$06729b00$0307a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 2:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another L21 Question > > On Apr 13, 2005, at 2:24 PM, David Barton wrote: > >> By the time they follow up with questions such as >> "Well what would 2D and 3D mean?" >> then all the UI would inevitably become AI. Ed Reppert asks > How, exactly, does it happen that UI becomes AI? > David Barton replies The auction has gone 1C P 1D ZZZ The 1C opener asks a series of questions about the bid ZZZ and possible alternatives to bidding ZZZ. He receives the following information:- 1H 1S and 2C would be 1 round force showing 5 or more cards in that suit. 2D is competitive showing 2+ Diamonds and 5+ points 3D is invitational showing 7+ points and 3+ Diamonds 2H 2S 3C show singleton in that suit 10+ points and game forcing. The 1C bidder can then obviously deduce from this authorised information, exactly the information that was previously unauthorised. ie that the passer has a strong hand with long Diamonds. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.9 - Release Date: 13/04/2005 From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Thu Apr 14 10:37:11 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Apr 14 10:38:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050414083711.30453.qmail@web14721.mail.yahoo.com> --- David Stevenson wrote: > Tim West-Meads wrote > >DWS wrote: > > > >> If a player would get an adjustment under the > MI laws that gives him > >> an 80% board, when he would get 60% under the > fielded psyche > >> regulation, why on earth would we not give him > 80%? > > > >I can't be certain, I wasn't responsible for > writing the regulation. > >The psych adjustments are defined in the Orange > Book and are applied > >regardless of whether opps have been damaged. > There are no provisions for > >giving abnormal adjustments in a normal psych > ruling. > > Of course there are: we do not give an adjustment > that damages the > non-offenders. This is [a] obvious and [b] in the > regulations. > > >Perhaps this is because *fielding* a psych is in no > way an infraction. > > It is, as I am sure you are aware, a breach of > Law 40. Fielding as defined in the EBU Orange Book is not mentioned in L40. If fielding was included in L40 then there would be no need for a regulation. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Apr 14 11:05:40 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Apr 14 11:05:16 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <425E3264.1070705@hdw.be> I did not react to this immediately, and then I lost it - luckily some remarks have drawn it back to my attention: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Without adopting the De Wael School concept of forcing a > guess, it is still possible for sponsoring organisations > to educate their players about the importance of fully > disclosing implicit partnership agreements. The ABF > Alert regulation provides concise advice on the topic: > > >>>Clause 9.2 >>> >>>If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning >>>of a call, you must say so (by saying "undiscussed", for >>>example), and not attempt to offer a possible >>>explanation. When, however, as a result of partnership >>>experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view >>>of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that >>>information shall be given to opponents. Where a call >>>is undiscussed, you should not offer statements such as >>>"I take it to mean...." or "I'm treating it as....". >>>Such a response is improper as it gives unauthorised >>>information to partner. > There is actually very little difference between this ABF advice and the DWS. Both are saying that if you have a reasonable guess, you should explain the meaning without having to add "I guess". Both are saying that if you have no guess whatsoever, an answer of "no agreement", without further guess, is acceptable. If there is any difference between the ABF view and mine, it is in the expectancy of the frequency of the two occurences. IMO, the real case of "no agreement" is very infrequent, which is why I stress the "guess" bit. Other than that, the ABF regulation seems very sensible to me! -- 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: 266.9.7 - Release Date: 12/04/2005 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 14 11:57:56 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Apr 14 12:15:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional References: <20050413102255.18582.qmail@web14726.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006101c540da$59c86280$fd9a87d9@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, April 13, 2005 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional > >> The practice is that on some occasions one instance is > enough on which to base a ruling. > > That practice is without reasonable basis IMO. > +=+ I am not prepared to say "never". In rare instances there may be a special indication. +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 14 12:10:56 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Apr 14 12:15:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? References: <20050413101349.34771.qmail@web14723.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006201c540da$5aa15d60$fd9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* > > > > > > Notwithstanding the above aside it is obviously > > impossible > > > to apply Grattan's interpretation if the SO > > explicitly forbids < +=+ I question the validity in law of any prohibition by an SO of the disclosure of a lawful agreement. +=+ < > > > . To be psychic an action has to be > > one that > > the partner is in no better position to anticipate > > than his > > opponents, a condition much rarer among so-say > > psychics > > than the players concerned tend to recognize and > > cater for in > > their prior disclosures. > > To quote Richard James Hills "Balderdash". > > There is no such requirement for a psychic call. > > A psychic is simply a "A deliberate and gross > misstatement of honour strength or suit length". > > There is nothing in the definition that requires > partner to be in no better position to anticipate it. > +=+ Incomplete statement here. A 'psychic' is not a psychic if there is a partnership understanding. So the partner cannot be in a better position via such an understanding. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 14 13:58:07 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Apr 14 13:58:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000001c5406e$fd9a8670$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001f01c54055$febe2840$0307a8c0@david> <000001c5406e$fd9a8670$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050414074157.02ba0c20@pop.starpower.net> At 05:23 PM 4/13/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of David Barton >..................... > > I am strongly of the opinion that the meaning of the 2H bid is > > itself information arising from the withdrawn 2D bid and > > hence cannot be used by the offending side. > >And this would be a really big misunderstanding of Law 16C2: > >After the following auction: >W N E >1N X 2S - retracted and changed to 2H after a delayed alert by South. > >The very existence and all inferences from the retracted bid 2S is UI to >North/South, all they "know" shall be the auction 1N - X - 2H for >which they >are fully entitled to a complete disclosure. > >So West must disclose all agreements relevant to the 2H bid by his partner >and he must not "understand" that this bid is a gross deviation from such >agreements unless the reason for his understanding (the retracted 2S >bid) is >also made available and authorized for North/South. (Laws 40A & 40B). > > > I am also of the opinion that asking the meaning of the bids > > (either made or not made) is an action suggested by the UI > > of the withdrawn 2D bid and hence should not be allowed. > > Instead refer to the convention card. > >There are absolutely no restrictions on the rights for North/South to >have a >complete disclosure of the calls that are authorized for them. Sven has tied this neatly into the "How does blml vote?" thread. Under sensible disclosure rules (such as the ABF regulation, or the Norwegian interpretation of L75C) West must disclose not only his explicit agreement, but whatever other special information he might use in determining what his partner's call means. Here the AI from the withdrawn 2S bid is clearly relevant to how he interprets 2H, and would have to be disclosed. Technically, at the point at which the 2S bid is withdrawn, it would be UI for N-S by L21, but when the 2H bid is substituted, it would become AI by L75. However, the law as Sven describes it is as Sven and I agree it should be. Whether that is actually the current state of official interpretation... well, we'll just have to wait for a conclusion to be reached in the "How does blml vote?" thread. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Thu Apr 14 14:33:11 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu Apr 14 14:52:47 2005 Subject: [blml] correct explanation? ( Following how does BLML vote?) Message-ID: <004c01c540ee$8ee20b60$96063dd4@c6l8v1> Jacques Beljaars sent me the following: Playing with Mr X for the second time in my life, he opened 2 NT (strong). RHO bid 3 H and I paused to think about my bid with 108xxx Bx AVxxx x. After a few seconds LHO showed the Alert card, so I asked for an explanation. LHO explained that 3 H was DONT showing H + Sp length. Now I had a problem and did not solve it very well: I bid 3 NT for down 1. After play ended it was clear that RHO had only V10xxxxx in H and "nothing" in spades. My opponents explained that RHO had written down a defence against 2 NT openings. This defence included DONT. He had sent his notes to his partner, but there had been no communication about this topic whatsoever. LHO had indeed read the notes and therefore explained 3 H in accordance with the notes. RHO had bid 3 H according to previous aggreements, because he did not know his partner had read about the DONT convention. I called the TD and he ruled "correct explanation", so the table result was uphold. You agree? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050414/004a12a9/attachment.html From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Thu Apr 14 15:08:54 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Thu Apr 14 15:09:50 2005 Subject: [blml] correct explanation? ( Following how does BLML vote?) Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64D6@rama.micronas.com> >Jacques Beljaars sent me the following: > >Playing with Mr X for the second time in my life, he opened 2 NT (strong). >RHO bid 3 H and I paused to think about my bid with 108xxx Bx AVxxx x. >After a few seconds LHO showed the Alert card, so I asked for an explanation. >LHO explained that 3 H was DONT showing H + Sp length. >Now I had a problem and did not solve it very well: I bid 3 NT for down 1. > >After play ended it was clear that RHO had only V10xxxxx in H and "nothing" in spades. >My opponents explained that RHO had written down a defence against 2 NT openings. >This defence included DONT. >He had sent his notes to his partner, but there had been no communication about this topic whatsoever. >LHO had indeed read the notes and therefore explained 3 H in accordance with the notes. >RHO had bid 3 H according to previous aggreements, because he did not know his partner had read about the DONT >convention. > >I called the TD and he ruled "correct explanation", so the table result was uphold. > >You agree? I don't. If players exchange agreements by mail and don't verify whether partner agrees to the agreement, then they cannot claim that they have in fact that agreement. An agreement is bidirectional; you cannot send partner an agreement and then expect him to use it without verifying that he indeed will do so. Therefore I rule misexplanation - they did not have the explained agreement. -- Martin Sinot From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 14 16:24:19 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Apr 14 16:24:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? References: <20050414044449.27076.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001a01c540fd$a63f5880$229468d5@James> [Wayne Burrows] > General Knowledge does not imply Implicit Agreement. > There is a missing step in this argument. [Nigel] >From year to year and place to place, the frequency and nature of psyches varies considerably. Unfortunately, as here, most players, like Wayne, regard current specific local practice in psyching (and in other matters) as "general bridge knowledge". This problem will persist while that notorious and spurious phrase remains in the law-books. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 14 16:32:16 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Apr 14 16:33:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <002b01c540ca$9bcc8310$0307a8c0@david> References: <200504111508.j3BF8IlS013623@cfa.harvard.edu> <425C73E8.1000409@cfa.harvard.edu> <001f01c54055$febe2840$0307a8c0@david> <002b01c540ca$9bcc8310$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: On Apr 14, 2005, at 4:18 AM, David Barton wrote: > The 1C bidder can then obviously deduce from this authorised > information, exactly the information that was previously unauthorised. > ie that the passer has a strong hand with long Diamonds. So? How does that make the information authorized? From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 14 16:41:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 14 16:42:09 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > >Ah, a variant on the slightly misnomered, "Grand Slam Force" > In my opinion, Tim's milieu lacks the historical memories which > linger in the Norwegian milieu. The milieu lacks no such thing - there are players there who were active in the 1930/40s. My own appreciation of my milieu lacks somewhat more. Although I have heard of the Josephine convention I've never seen it played, didn't know what it showed, and it wouldn't occur to me that anybody would prefer it today. > Sven's description of the 5NT Grand Slam Force is not a "variant", > but the *original* convention designed by Josephine Culbertson in > the 1930s (so the convention is sometimes nicknamed "Josephine" in > her honour). Which would certainly render it incorrect to use "variant of" I'm less sure of the linguistic incorrectness of "variant on" (a theme being implicit). Nor am I sufficiently sure of the historical development of Acol to know whether the GSF is based on Josephine. I do know that the Acol 5NT has been pick-up partner safe (as far as anything is) for at least 20 years at The Wood. Best wishes, Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 14 16:41:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 14 16:42:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Eight - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050413203439.035a6b28@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: > The adjustment to 3NT is correct as a matter of law. South may have > used good bridge judgment in pulling 3NT, but passing 3NT is a LA, > since South has what he showed and North chose to bid 3NT (possibly > expecting to take the same number of tricks as 4S; this is > matchpoints). Assuming that 2C promises a 4 card major and 2N shows both 3NT is not a "decision" to play in NT. It is a suggestion to play in NT if South's hand is suitable and 4M if not. While it remains a matter of bridge judgement as to whether South's hand is NT or suit oriented my personal belief is that the minor suit holdings are far better suited to a trump contract (compare with KQxx,Jxxx,QJx,AQ for example). The possession of the DJ in South's hand is almost, but not quite, enough to persuade me that pass is an LA. Tim From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 14 16:47:09 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Apr 14 16:47:48 2005 Subject: [blml] dealing References: <422435AD.7000005@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003701c54100$d68f7b20$229468d5@James> [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? [Nigel] I read about this method in a reputable magazine and have used it ever since. "Producing truly random hands" is an exaggeration, but it seems to help the shuffling process. It seems legal according to my amateur knowledge of TFLB. If it's not, it should be. This sort of improvement ilustrates why we need ad hoc interim (web) editions of the laws -- rather than a new edition at intervals of ten years or so. No! No! No! No! When will the WBFLC begin to understand that obscure minutes and interpretations are of no practical use to ordinary players. (: Anticipating the reflex response :) From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Apr 14 17:36:26 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu Apr 14 17:37:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Apr 14, 2005 01:40:08 PM Message-ID: <200504141536.j3EFaRar002373@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > Tim West-Meads: > > >One might also question why *prior* disclosure is so important. > >Realistically I don't expect opps to want to change their > >agreements to cater to the possibility of an occasional psych. > > Richard Hills: > > A pair in the best bridge team in the world during the 1960s, > the Italian Blue Team, originally had this agreement: > > LHO Pard RHO You > 1H Dble 1S Dble = responsive double > > Their agreement was a consequence of the Blue Team style of > offshape takeout doubles. > > However, Peter Leventritt embarrassed this Blue Team pair in a > Bermuda Bowl by perpetrating a 1S "baby psyche" without prior > disclosure, and, due to the Blue Team responsive double > agreement, they had no systemic way to recover and reach their > cold game in spades. It was Bob Hamman wasn't it? (If Leventritt pulled it off too -- possible -- it merely shows that the Italians were stubborn in the face of systemic problems. The Italians encouraged the Americans in playing tactical games, believing they came out ahead in the long run. And charge sheets show that only Lazard showed a net profit psyching against the Italians.) On two different occasions. The only two psyches I'm aware of in Hamman's international career. Worth noting that in the final session at Manilla, Forquet tried the baby psyche -- the only psyche I'm aware of in his international career. > At that time, "baby psyches" were general knowledge in the > United States, so were an implicit agreement of the Schenken- > Leventritt partnership. But "baby psyches" were not general > knowledge in Italy. Of course they were. They'd made a decision to focus on the constructive side of bidding and wanted to play strength limited overcalls (hence potentially off-shape informative doubles) What's more, Edgar Kaplan's book on the Roman system had a note as to how the baby psyche rated to work well against the Italians. Published before Hamman's experiment. And I'm only about 99% confident that the Italians had reviewed Kaplan's book prior to its publication. So they were on notice as to the system hole. Hell, Kaplan used to play Roman when he played with Belladonna, and it would have been unlike Kaplan not to bring up this little systemic problem. > Subsequent to Leventritt's dubious gain of a game swing, the > Blue Team pair plugged the hole in their system by changing > the meaning of their second double from responsive to penalty. > > If the current interpretation of the Laws had applied in the > 1960s, prior disclosure would have given that Blue Team pair > the opportunity to fix their system *before* losing the game > swing, not after. They were aware of many problems with their competitive methods, and did not opt to change them for quite some time. Which is an interesting comment on the relative importance as to what agreements are -- as opposed to being confident of your agreements. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 14 17:47:42 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Apr 14 17:48:22 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: <018e01c5402c$a4a36ec0$2c9868d5@James> <117d42c689da690d6863e80086cdbe36@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <006c01c54109$4c0da180$229468d5@James> [Eric Landau] >> I hate to spoil Nigel's delight, but I believe he has >> overlooked the word "not" in the third sentence above >> ("you should *not* offer statements such as..."), which >> makes it quite clear that "that information" in the >> second sentence refers to "partnership experience >> and style" rather than to "the likely meaning of [the] >> undiscussed call". [Ed Reppert] > There is a difference between "you must guess what it > means, and you must tell opponents your guess" and "you > must tell opponents information you have available which > is not general bridge knowledge and which *leads* to a > guess". In the latter case, you are not (nor should you > be) required to state your guess as to the meaning. [Nigel] Eric and Ed are probably right about the law elsewhere, but ABF 9.2 (repeated below >>>) clearly says that you must tell the opponents the likely meaning of an undiscussed call if you can form a cogent view based on partnership experience or style. I expand BF9.2 to mean .... A. If you have no clue whatsoever (for example first board in an indivual with a stranger) then you mustn't guess. And, of course, any explanation that you offer must be independant of the contents of your own hand. In particular, if you have no other evidence as to the meaning of a bid, you must not volunteer a possibly self-serving explanation ("I take it to mean" or "I'm treating it as"). B. Almost always, however, (even after a short discussion or a few boards of play) you will have more relevant knowledge than typical opponents on which to base appropriate inferences for a call about which they asked. Hence, normally, even if you are unsure, you must still divulge the likely explanation (often meanings that you deduce are likely -- but sometimes just meanings that you infer are unlikely) together with your reasoning. Please correct me, Richard, if I have the wrong end of the stick about ABF 9.2. I hope not because IMO, the clever Australians have devised a significant improvement on normal practice. I feel, notwithstanding, that "you must always guess" would be simplest amd best. [Richard James Hills: ABF Alert regulation Clause 9.2 >>> If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning >>> of a call, you must say so (by saying "undiscussed", for >>> example), and not attempt to offer a possible >>> explanation. When, however, as a result of partnership >>> experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view >>> of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that >>> information shall be given to opponents. Where a call >>> is undiscussed, you should not offer statements such as >>> "I take it to mean...." or "I'm treating it as....". >>> Such a response is improper as it gives unauthorised >>> information to partner. From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 14 19:27:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 14 19:28:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > >One might also question why *prior* disclosure is so important. > >Realistically I don't expect opps to want to change their > >agreements to cater to the possibility of an occasional psych. > Subsequent to Leventritt's dubious gain of a game swing, the Nothing "dubious" about it. Leventritt would almost certainly have made the same psych even with any partner (IYSWIM). His partner's awareness of the psychic potential made no difference to the hole in the opponent's system. I will defer to your historical expertise but my understanding is that, by the standards of the time, there was no suggestion that the US disclosure was in any way inadequate. > Blue Team pair plugged the hole in their system by changing > the meaning of their second double from responsive to penalty. As I said in the part you snipped this is possible. I would however estimate that "We would have changed our system had we know your psyching habits" is way less common than "we might have bid differently had we been aware of your psyching habits". To rule "damage" from lack of prior disclosure requires the TD to accept the former. To rule "damage" from the latter requires only a lack of timely disclosure. > If the current interpretation of the Laws had applied in the > 1960s, prior disclosure would have given that Blue Team pair > the opportunity to fix their system *before* losing the game > swing, not after. They would, but one doesn't know if actual loss made more impact than would have prior disclosure. Nowadays, as a TD, I would talk to the players and come to a judgement as to whether the Blues would have been likely to make a prior system change. Of course nowadays I think I'd have to go a lot further than Italy to find a top-class player unaware of this particular baby-psych sequence. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 14 19:27:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 14 19:28:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <001a01c540fd$a63f5880$229468d5@James> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > From year to year and place to place, the frequency and > nature of psyches varies considerably. Unfortunately, as > here, most players, like Wayne, regard current specific > local practice in psyching (and in other matters) as > "general bridge knowledge". This problem will persist while > that notorious and spurious phrase remains in the law-books. Does it matter what phrase is used? When it comes to bridge my knowledge falls into 4 basic categories: a) Stuff I know that I know partner knows b) Stuff I know that I can reasonably expect partner to know & vice versa c) Stuff I know that I have no reason to expect partner to know d) Stuff I know that I know partner doesn't know. a) and b) are (IMO) disclosable under current law while c) and d) are not. This strikes me as about right. Surely it must be wrong to require disclosure of d) and I can't see any real reason for requiring disclosure of c). Tim From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Thu Apr 14 20:31:18 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Apr 14 20:32:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050414183118.72541.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> --- Grattan Endicott wrote: > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > > > > > > > > Notwithstanding the above aside it is > obviously > > > impossible > > > > to apply Grattan's interpretation if the SO > > > explicitly forbids > < > +=+ I question the validity in law of any > prohibition by > an SO of the disclosure of a lawful agreement. +=+ > < > > > > . To be psychic an action has to be > > > one that > > > the partner is in no better position to > anticipate > > > than his > > > opponents, a condition much rarer among so-say > > > psychics > > > than the players concerned tend to recognize and > > > cater for in > > > their prior disclosures. > > > > To quote Richard James Hills "Balderdash". > > > > There is no such requirement for a psychic call. > > > > A psychic is simply a "A deliberate and gross > > misstatement of honour strength or suit length". > > > > There is nothing in the definition that requires > > partner to be in no better position to anticipate > it. > > > +=+ Incomplete statement here. A 'psychic' is not > a psychic if there is a partnership understanding. > So the partner cannot be in a better position via > such an understanding. ~ G ~ +=+ Law 40A says that you may not make a psychic bid if it is based on a partnership understanding. However I do not accept that *anticipation* is synonymous with *understanding*. And there is nothing in the laws to support the view that they are in anyway linked concepts. I may *anticipate* something that I have an *understanding* about but I also may *anticipate* something that I have no *understanding* about. When I learnt to drive my father taught me to "hope for the best but to *anticipate* the worst". When anticipating the worst I had no understanding with the other drivers on the road that they would fail to give way or do other random acts yet good safe driving requires you to be prepared in case they occur. At the bridge table I have no understanding that my partner will deviate from my system in certain ways however it seems to me to be perfectly sensible to allow for some deviation even when you have no partnership experience of similar deviations occurring. This is not "based on a partnership understanding". Wayne Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Thu Apr 14 20:39:02 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Apr 14 20:39:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050414183902.95780.qmail@web14723.mail.yahoo.com> --- GUTHRIE wrote: > [Wayne Burrows] > > General Knowledge does not imply Implicit > Agreement. > > There is a missing step in this argument. > > [Nigel] > >From year to year and place to place, the frequency > and > nature of psyches varies considerably. > Unfortunately, as > here, most players, like Wayne, regard current > specific > local practice in psyching (and in other matters) as > > "general bridge knowledge". This is untrue and a misquote. It is "general bridge knowledge" that a player may psyche - it is specifically allowed for in the rules therefore I am allowed to base any action on the "general knowledge" that a player (including my partner) may legally psyche. For any player the local practice is part of "his general knowledge". Wayne > This problem will > persist while > that notorious and spurious phrase remains in the > law-books. > Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 14 20:58:49 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Apr 14 20:59:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: References: <001a01c540fd$a63f5880$229468d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050414144617.02b9aeb0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:27 PM 4/14/05, twm wrote: >Does it matter what phrase is used? When it comes to bridge my knowledge >falls into 4 basic categories: >a) Stuff I know that I know partner knows >b) Stuff I know that I can reasonably expect partner to know & vice versa >c) Stuff I know that I have no reason to expect partner to know >d) Stuff I know that I know partner doesn't know. > >a) and b) are (IMO) disclosable under current law while c) and d) are not. > >This strikes me as about right. Surely it must be wrong to require >disclosure of d) and I can't see any real reason for requiring disclosure >of c). I don't think there's any disagreement about c and d. But a and b need to be subdivided into stuff I (a1) know, or (b1) reasonably expect, partner to know because I (a1) know, or (b1) reasonably expect, everyone to know it, and (a2/b2) stuff I know etc. for other reasons. a2 and b2 are (or at least should be, and are in sensible jurisdictions, but that's another thread) disclosable under current law. a1 is not, else the "general knowledge and experience" clause of L75C is meaningless. ISTM we are debating only about b1. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Apr 14 21:06:06 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu Apr 14 21:06:59 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <35ccfea01f8847c99a00c625c5dfa012@rochester.rr.com> from "Ed Reppert" at Apr 12, 2005 05:50:28 PM Message-ID: <200504141906.j3EJ66MR003864@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Ed Reppert writes: > > > On Apr 11, 2005, at 3:00 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > We do (of course) accept words to the effect: "I don't > > know", but then that player had better not be too lucky in continuing > > the > > auction with calls that statistically indicate he did in fact > > understand. > > Statistically? Pfui. Not enough data points in one hand to determine > "statistically". > I think you know the optimum number of data points when a stright line is desired. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 14 21:17:09 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Apr 14 21:17:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? References: Message-ID: <00f901c54126$8ea72ad0$019468d5@James> [Tim West-Meades] > Does it matter what phrase is used? When it comes to > bridge my knowledge falls into 4 basic categories: > a) Stuff I know that I know partner knows > b) Stuff I know that I can reasonably expect partner to > know & vice versa > c) Stuff I know that I have no reason to expect partner > to know > d) Stuff I know that I know partner doesn't know. > a) and b) are (IMO) disclosable under current law while > c) and d) are not. This strikes me as about right. > Surely it must be wrong to require disclosure of d) and I > can't see any real reason for requiring disclosure > of c). [Nigel] In a law book the exact phrase is important. It is also important to Roger Pewick who assures us that the phrase is "General knowledge" not "General bridge knowledge". IMO, this consideration should be relevant to disclosure only in the negative connotation: for example you should not use obscure jargon which opponents may not understand. To me it matters little what partner knows or does not know. The explanation of the systemic meaning of a bid is the same even if, in practice, partner has never learnt it or has forgotten it. Under current law, you may not guess what he knows; but I feel that, if you suspect that he does not know, it might be better if the law let you warn your opponents. Too often, what an opponent "reasonably" expects to be part of my "General Knowledge" comes as a surprise to me. For example, opponents, at the weekend, announced prepared minors and five card minors. They bid uninterrupted: 1D-1H-; 1S-2C*-; 3N. Before the opening lead, opponents were asked for an explanation of the auction and opener's likely shape. We were told only that responder's 2C was fourth suit. Partner led a diamond but, apparently, this sequence promises a real (5+card) diamond suit. Just "General knowledge and experience" ... and more water under the bridge :) From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 14 21:53:19 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 14 21:54:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <20050414183118.72541.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000801c5412b$9ba8d760$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ................ > Law 40A says that you may not make a psychic bid if it > is based on a partnership understanding. However I do > not accept that *anticipation* is synonymous with > *understanding*. And there is nothing in the laws to > support the view that they are in anyway linked > concepts. I may *anticipate* something that I have an > *understanding* about but I also may *anticipate* > something that I have no *understanding* about. Law 40A is closely linked to its "sister" law 75 where the first part of L75B says: "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation" I think this is where we can safely introduce the term "anticipation" as a criterion. (No player may violate an agreement if he ought to anticipate that partner will be aware of the violation). Sven From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 14 22:09:47 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Apr 14 22:10:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Ten - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: Message-ID: <012a01c5412d$e90611b0$019468d5@James> [Richard James Hills CASE N-10] > Subject: MI DIC: Henry Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 1F > Bd: #3 Peter Bizon > Dlr: South JT4 > Vul: EW J85 > JT42 > AJ9 > Ai-Tai Lo Alan Schwartz > A6 KQ753 > T42 9 > AK93 Q75 > K654 QT32 > Michael Kwiecien > 982 > AKQ763 > 86 > 87 > West North East South > --- --- --- 1H > Pass 2H(1) Pass 3H(2) > Pass Pass Pass > (1) 2H was a constructive raise, no alert > (2) See Facts below > The Facts: The final contract was 3H down 2 for -100 > for NS after the A lead. The director was called at > the end of the hand. East inquired before his final > pass about the 3H bid and was told that it was > constructive with six trumps. South felt that their > agreement was that the bid was preemptive. South said > that they informed the opponents of the MI before the > opening lead. EW insisted that he had not. East said > he would have balanced with 3S if he had known that > 3H was preemptive. > The Ruling: The director ruled that North's explanation > of the 3H bid was MI and adjusted the contract to 4S EW > +650 per Law 21. > The Appeal: NS appealed and all four persons appeared > at the Committee meeting. NS stated that South corrected > his partner's explanation of 3H. North had told East > that it was a game try (which it would have been if > spades were bid instead of hearts, ie 1 2 3). > South believed his 3H bid was preemptive. South > accepted some responsibility for not speaking louder > (he has a very soft voice and a significant accent), > but he thought that awarding EW +650 was too generous. > Statements by the other side: Over 3H, East was > considering some action, either 3S or double, when he > asked North about the 3H bid. North's incorrect > explanation made it less attractive to balance, > and thus helped NS get a better score. EW did not hear > South's correction of his partner's misexplanation of > 3H. > Other findings: NS had not actually discussed the > meaning of 1 - 2 - 3. Thus they had no agreement and > North's explanation was misinformation. NS have been > playing together for only a couple of months. > The Decision: The Committee ruled 3S making five and > -200 for NS. A player is responsible for making sure > that his opponents are aware of all alerts and > explanations. Although South told the opponents > that his partner's explanation was incorrect, he was > not forceful enough to make sure that they heard. > Thus, NS were guilty of misinformation. East has three > plausible choices at his second turn to call: Pass, > double or 3S. The MI clearly makes pass more attractive > than the other alternatives. 3S figures to work far more > often than double. East does not have a good defensive > hand, nor does he wish to hear his partner bid 4C or 4D. > As a matter of percentages, there is a strong possibility > that West will have three spades, making a contract of > 3S EW's best spot to compete in. The Committee > considered a 3S bid by East attractive enough to allow > that bid. Would West raise a 3S balance to 4S? East is > bidding much of West's high cards when he bids 3S, > though probably not all of them. However, East is > probably also hoping to catch some spade length in > West's hand and West does not have it. West will keep in > mind that his partner already passed over 2H, limiting > his hand. If East has a nice, fitting hand such as > Q10xxxx x xxx Axx, it may require a successful spade > guess just to make 3S. The Committee thought that few > players would "hang" their partner with a raise to 4S, > and thus assigned a contract of 3S to EW. How would the > play go? The defense would start with two rounds of > hearts. Declarer would ruff and play a club to the CK > and CA. After ruffing a third round of hearts, declarer > would play a spade to the SA. With spades 3-3, he could > cash out for nine tricks. However, it is fairly > attractive to take the club finesse while dummy still > has a trump to prevent the force. This would result in > 11 tricks for declarer. The Committee considered that > play likely enough to assign that result to both sides. > Dissenting (Ed Lazarus): The Committee unanimously felt > there was MI given by NS in the explanation of the 3H > bid. The Committee then analyzed the possible bidding > by EW had NS correctly related that 3H was competitive > and felt unanimously that more than one of six persons > in the East seat would bid 3S. The majority of the > Committee felt that less than one of six persons in the > West seat would then bid 4S. I disagree for the > following reasons: > 1. West has three hearts. East most probably has a > singleton heart > 2. The K is well-placed with the opening bid by South > 3. East is probably not bidding 3S vulnerable versus not > without both length and high cards in the spade suit > I feel that more than one out of six Wests would bid 4S. > Hence, the result of the Committee should have been that > the contract is 4S by EW making five for -650 NS. > However, the Committee never discussed a split decision > for NS and EW. Had the Committee agreed that more than > one of six would bid 4S, further discussion might have > resulted in a split decision. > Committee: Doug Doub, Chairperson, Ed Lazarus, Howard > Weinstein, Tom Peters, and Bob Schwartz. [Nigel] The director and Ed Lazarus, the dissenting committee member, are probably right in Law. The committee decision seems more keeping with natural justice, however: Michael Kwiecien leant over backwards to help opponents. In the absence of any written agreement, he could have kept quiet and later claimed that his raise was psychic. Instead, he went out of his way to inform opponents of his partner's misexplanation. Also, arguably, even if opponents had difficulty hearing Michael's explanation, they could have protected themselves, by asking Michael to repeat it. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 14 22:20:35 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Apr 14 22:21:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? References: <20050414183902.95780.qmail@web14723.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <014701c5412f$6ace23d0$019468d5@James> [Wayne Burrows] For any player the local practice is part of "his general knowledge". [Nigel] A doubtful claim in any case -- but especially doubtful for a foreigner in America. From dkent at sujja.com Thu Apr 14 22:30:02 2005 From: dkent at sujja.com (David Kent) Date: Thu Apr 14 22:28:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Ten - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <012a01c5412d$e90611b0$019468d5@James> Message-ID: > [Richard James Hills CASE N-10] > > Subject: MI DIC: Henry Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 1F > > Bd: #3 Peter Bizon > > Dlr: South JT4 > > Vul: EW J85 > > JT42 > > AJ9 > > Ai-Tai Lo Alan Schwartz > > A6 KQ753 > > T42 9 > > AK93 Q75 > > K654 QT32 > > Michael Kwiecien > > 982 > > AKQ763 > > 86 > > 87 > > West North East South > > --- --- --- 1H > > Pass 2H(1) Pass 3H(2) > > Pass Pass Pass I think it would be nice to spell Michal's name correctly in the published version. ...Dave Kent From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Thu Apr 14 23:14:46 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Apr 14 23:15:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050414211446.53778.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> --- GUTHRIE wrote: > [Wayne Burrows] > For any player the local practice is part of "his > general knowledge". > > [Nigel] > A doubtful claim in any case -- but especially > doubtful for > a foreigner in America. > You are right. I did not say what I meant here. I guess that means that it is a good phrase to add to the law book. I think I intended : For any player *his* local practice is part of "his general knowledge". That is the local practice where he plays. Of course a statement like "lets play local-standard" now makes that general knowledge part of his partnership's special understandings. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 15 00:19:01 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Apr 15 00:20:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? References: Message-ID: <01aa01c54140$0ca74b90$019468d5@James> [Gordon Bower] > So, yes, general knowledge says [1D-1H-; 1S-2C*-; 3N] > absolutely promises 4 diamonds and is going to be 5 > the vast majority of the time. If the jump to 3NT > promised the same point range as a 1NT opening in their > system, it becomes a near certainty. "Promising" 5 is > an exaggeration. By about 0.15 diamonds. [Nigel] Great! Then this is a typical illustration of the "general knowledge" problem because these inferences certainly aren't part of "general knowledge and experience" to me or to my partner! Puzzled by the lack of information available about declarer's shape, I did start to reason, tentatively, on the same lines as Gordon :) After partner had led, I asked dummy if he was sure that opener could really hold three hearts on this sequence. At first dummy refused to answer. I called the director. The director admonished me for asking before it was my turn to play :( Patiently, I waited until declarer played from dummy; then I asked again. Dummy said his partner could still hold three hearts. I pleaded for more information. Dummy reassured us that declarer could still hold three hearts. I reckoned that the director might judge that my interrogation had already crossed the border-line to harassment, so I reluctantly gave up. What neither opponent vouchsafed is that declarer showed five diamonds. My partner tells me that the auction was in fact [1D-1H-; 1S-2C*-; 2N-3N] but that makes little difference to the point under discussion. From ueoxvqgkkkmfbfu at compactind.com Fri Apr 15 00:35:45 2005 From: ueoxvqgkkkmfbfu at compactind.com (Brigitte Bauer ) Date: Fri Apr 15 00:33:26 2005 Subject: [blml] A New life Can be started today. Message-ID: <252.85.1827.936@commy.de> You have been pre-approved for a $400,000 Home Loan at a 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.psrefi.net/?id=p11 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 15 01:24:03 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 15 01:24:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the eleventh of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-11 Subject: MI DIC: Henry Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 1st Final Session Bd: 19 Russell Samuel Vul: EW AQ76532 Dlr: South J86 QT 3 Alan Schwartz Ai-Tai Lo 94 JT KQ975 A 3 A9842 KQJT7 A9852 Harry Tudor K8 T432 KJ765 64 West North East South --- --- --- 2D(1) 2H 2S Dbl(2) Pass 3C Pass 3D Pass 4C Pass 5C Pass Pass Pass (1) Weak 2 bid (2) When asked was told "I don't know" The Facts: The final contract was 5C making seven for +640 to EW after the DQ lead. The director was called at the end of play. The Ruling: The director determined that EW did not have an agreement on the meaning of the double. No adjustment was made as NS were not misinformed as to the meaning of the double. This is not one of the common situations which partnership are expected to discuss. Laws 40A, 40B, and 40C. The Appeal: NS appealed and all persons attended except South. North indicated that had he known the double was not penalty, he would have led the SA and would have bid 3S or 4S over the 3C call. NS are not a regular partnership. They treated 2S as not forcing (and their convention card was so marked). Statements by the other side: EW had not discussed the meaning of this double. They have played as a partnership about six years. They play snap dragon doubles (confirmed on their card) but both agreed this applied only after opening one bids. The Decision: No member of the AC had discussed the meaning of this double with his partner. The Committee determined that there was MI because of West's inability to explain East's bid. The Committee determined that even if North bid 3S or 4S over 3C, 5C would still be the final contract. The result was not adjusted because (1) North did not call the director immediately. Some directors might have sent West away from the table so that East could explain his own bid, (2) South did not double 3D, a clue that suggested a diamond lead might not be best, and (3) EW did not bid 3NT suggesting neither had much in spades. The Committee felt that lack of information about the meaning of the double did not cause NS's result. The contract of 5C making seven for a score of EW +640 was left in place. North was faced with an unusual situation and the Committee felt North's appeal had merit. North is known for bringing marginal appeals to ACs. Committee: Richard Popper, Chairperson, Chris Willenkin, Chris Moll, Darwin Afdahl, and Mark Feldman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 15 01:51:59 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 15 01:52:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Six - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <20050414045151.80019.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >Rather than incentive we could use a readily available >means to resolve timing issues - a clock. Richard Hills: A clock is useful for gross timing issues such as discerning whether there has been an unduly slow play infraction of Law 90B2. But, when it comes to fine distinctions as to whether a player took their normal tempo of 5 seconds, or broke tempo by taking 15 seconds, Wayne's suggestion of a clock is an impractical irrelevance. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 15 02:29:00 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 15 02:29:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <003701c54100$d68f7b20$229468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In the thread "dealing", Nigel Guthrie wrote: [snip] >This sort of improvement illustrates why we >need ad hoc interim (web) editions of the >laws -- rather than a new edition at >intervals of ten years or so. > >No! No! No! No! When will the WBFLC begin to >understand that obscure minutes and >interpretations are of no practical use to >ordinary players. (: Anticipating the reflex >response :) Richard Hills replies: In my opinion, Nigel is both right and wrong. As is Nigel's wont, he compresses several issues into one giant ball of wax. So, I decompress the issues thusly -> (1) Frequent substantial changes in Law would merely confuse players and directors. As was noted in an earlier thread, many players and directors still remember what the Laws were pre-1997 and incorrectly believe that those pre-1997 Laws still apply. Herman's example on dealing is a case in point; what used to be an illegal method of dealing was legalised in the 1997 edition of the Laws, but another TD was still remembering the prior illegality. Annual changes to the Laws would exacerbate a minor confusion to major chaos. (The partnership of Eddie Kantar and Marshall Miles confused themselves by frequent changes to their system. So, when they remembered different iterations of their system, they reached a stylish 7C contract in a 3-0 fit.) (2) Obscure minutes and interpretations are indeed not helpful if national bridge organisations do not publicise them. For example, none of the WBF LC minutes have ever been published in the national ABF Newsletter. The solution to this ball of wax is for the 2007 Laws to be written in unambiguous plain English and to be arranged in a logical and user-friendly format. If so, then subsequent obscure minutes interpreting the 2007 Laws would not be required. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 15 02:56:02 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 15 02:56:12 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <006c01c54109$4c0da180$229468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Please correct me, Richard, if I have the wrong >end of the stick about ABF 9.2. I hope not because >IMO, the clever Australians have devised a >significant improvement on normal practice. Richard Hills: In my opinion, there is not much substantive difference between Nigel Guthrie and Herman De Wael (on one side), and Eric Landau and myself (on the other side). The main difference, it seems to me, is semantic; the word "guess" is not (in my opinion) le mot juste. I believe, rather, that ABF clause 9.2 states that implicit partnership agreements may be created by analogy. If a partnership uses a particular method and style in a discussed situation, then that partnership may have an implicit agreement to use the same method and style in an analogous undiscussed situation. Nigel Guthrie: >I feel, notwithstanding, that "you must always >guess" would be simplest and best. Richard Hills: But, if there are zero analogies available for a partnership (or conflicting analogies of equal force available for the partnership), then ABF 9.2 prohibits guesses such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm treating it as...", since such information about a random guess provides UI to partner. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Fri Apr 15 02:58:39 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Apr 15 02:59:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050415005839.867.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > This is the eleventh of 18 parallel threads, which > will eventually > be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to > supplement the > official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to > comment on all > 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a > Word doc. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > > * * * > > CASE N-11 > Subject: MI > DIC: Henry Cukoff > Blue Ribbon Pairs 1st Final Session > > Bd: 19 Russell Samuel > Vul: EW AQ76532 > Dlr: South J86 > QT > 3 > Alan Schwartz > Ai-Tai Lo > 94 > JT > KQ975 > A > 3 > A9842 > KQJT7 > A9852 > Harry Tudor > K8 > T432 > KJ765 > 64 > > West North East South > --- --- --- 2D(1) > 2H 2S Dbl(2) Pass > 3C Pass 3D Pass > 4C Pass 5C Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) Weak 2 bid > (2) When asked was told "I don't know" > > The Facts: The final contract was 5C making seven > for +640 to EW > after the DQ lead. The director was called at the > end of play. > > The Ruling: The director determined that EW did not > have an > agreement on the meaning of the double. No > adjustment was made as > NS were not misinformed as to the meaning of the > double. This is > not one of the common situations which partnership > are expected to > discuss. Laws 40A, 40B, and 40C. > > The Appeal: NS appealed and all persons attended > except South. > North indicated that had he known the double was not > penalty, he > would have led the SA and would have bid 3S or 4S > over the 3C > call. NS are not a regular partnership. They treated > 2S as not > forcing (and their convention card was so marked). > > Statements by the other side: EW had not discussed > the meaning of > this double. They have played as a partnership about > six years. > They play snap dragon doubles (confirmed on their > card) but both > agreed this applied only after opening one bids. So East knowingly made a double that he thought his partner might misinterpret as penalties. I think this is unlikely. I would like to question East as to what he thought was his partnership understanding. If the extent of the questions was "Have you discussed this?" then IMO the AC and the TD failed in their duty to determine the facts. If in fact there was an implicit understanding then East-West were required to disclose. In this case it is possible that there was no agreement. We have all seen situations where someone doubles a low level contract in an unfamiliar auction and it gets passed when it should have been taken out or gets taken out when it should be passed. It is also possible that there was an implicit (or even concealed) agreement that should have been disclosed. > > The Decision: No member of the AC had discussed the > meaning of > this double with his partner. The Committee > determined that there > was MI because of West's inability to explain East's > bid. In spite of this statement by the AC I do not accept that this is an uncommon situation. It is a variation on the "baby psyche" auction where an opponent might easily psyche 2S so it is important to know what your double means. > > The Committee determined that even if North bid 3S > or 4S over 3C, > 5C would still be the final contract. The result was > not adjusted > because > (1) North did not call the director immediately. > Some directors > might have sent West away from the table so that > East could > explain his own bid, I agree NS should have called earlier. > (2) South did not double 3D, a clue that suggested a > diamond lead > might not be best, and Lead directing doubles are often poor actions. I would not agree that this was good reason to not adjust. > (3) EW did not bid 3NT suggesting neither had much > in spades. Maybe they did not bid 3D because they did not have much in diamonds. Perhaps the 3D cue-bid shows diamonds that is not annotated. > > The Committee felt that lack of information about > the meaning of > the double did not cause NS's result. The contract > of 5C making > seven for a score of EW +640 was left in place. > > North was faced with an unusual situation and the > Committee felt > North's appeal had merit. North is known for > bringing marginal > appeals to ACs. I do not understand the purpose or motive of this last comment. Marginal decisions are the ones that will go to appeal. It is the player's right to appeal in such situations. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Apr 15 03:35:30 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri Apr 15 03:36:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050414212950.034bde68@mail.comcast.net> At 07:24 PM 4/14/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >This is the eleventh of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually >be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the >official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all >18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > >* * * > >CASE N-11 >Subject: MI >DIC: Henry Cukoff >Blue Ribbon Pairs 1st Final Session > >Bd: 19 Russell Samuel >Vul: EW AQ76532 >Dlr: South J86 > QT > 3 >Alan Schwartz Ai-Tai Lo >94 JT >KQ975 A >3 A9842 >KQJT7 A9852 > Harry Tudor > K8 > T432 > KJ765 > 64 > >West North East South >--- --- --- 2D(1) >2H 2S Dbl(2) Pass >3C Pass 3D Pass >4C Pass 5C Pass >Pass Pass > >(1) Weak 2 bid >(2) When asked was told "I don't know" > >The Facts: The final contract was 5C making seven for +640 to EW >after the DQ lead. The director was called at the end of play. > >The Ruling: The director determined that EW did not have an >agreement on the meaning of the double. No adjustment was made as >NS were not misinformed as to the meaning of the double. This is >not one of the common situations which partnership are expected to >discuss. Laws 40A, 40B, and 40C. > >The Appeal: NS appealed and all persons attended except South. >North indicated that had he known the double was not penalty, he >would have led the SA and would have bid 3S or 4S over the 3C >call. NS are not a regular partnership. They treated 2S as not >forcing (and their convention card was so marked). > >Statements by the other side: EW had not discussed the meaning of >this double. They have played as a partnership about six years. >They play snap dragon doubles (confirmed on their card) but both >agreed this applied only after opening one bids. > >The Decision: No member of the AC had discussed the meaning of >this double with his partner. The Committee determined that there >was MI because of West's inability to explain East's bid. Huh? "No agreement" is a perfectly good explanation when you don't have one, and the AC seems to have the same problem. West was guessing just as much as North was. >The Committee determined that even if North bid 3S or 4S over 3C, >5C would still be the final contract. The result was not adjusted >because >(1) North did not call the director immediately. Some directors >might have sent West away from the table so that East could >explain his own bid, >(2) South did not double 3D, a clue that suggested a diamond lead >might not be best, and >(3) EW did not bid 3NT suggesting neither had much in spades. > >The Committee felt that lack of information about the meaning of >the double did not cause NS's result. The contract of 5C making >seven for a score of EW +640 was left in place. > >North was faced with an unusual situation and the Committee felt >North's appeal had merit. North is known for bringing marginal >appeals to ACs. I believe that the appeal has merit also; North could have been damaged if E-W are determined to have an agreement (or a basis in general bridge knowledge for an agreement, such as a general agreement that a double of a natural forcing bid is never penalty). However, "North is known for bringing marginal appeals to AC's" should not be part of an AC report. That is why the ACBL has AWMW, where the W stands for Warning; a player who brings appeals without a proper case will first receive a warning, and will later be disciplined. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 15 03:46:36 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 15 03:46:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <01aa01c54140$0ca74b90$019468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Gordon Bower: >>>So, yes, general knowledge says [1D-1H-; 1S-2C*-; 3N] >>>absolutely promises 4 diamonds and is going to be 5 >>>the vast majority of the time. If the jump to 3NT >>>promised the same point range as a 1NT opening in their >>>system, it becomes a near certainty. "Promising" 5 is >>>an exaggeration. By about 0.15 diamonds. Julius Caesar (Shaw's 1898 play "Caesar and Cleopatra"): >>Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks >>that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws >>of nature. Nigel Guthrie: >Great! Then this is a typical illustration of the >"general knowledge" problem because these inferences >certainly aren't part of "general knowledge and >experience" to me or to my partner! [snip] Richard Hills: Nigel is absolutely correct. The custom of a super- scientific style (such as I play and apparently Gordon plays) is not a general bridge knowledge law of nature. In old-fashioned Goren it is heresy to bypass a 4-card spade suit to rebid 1NT, so 1D (Pass) 1H (Pass) 1S does not imply five diamonds. And in old-fashioned Goren it is heresy to open 1NT with a worthless doubleton, so a jump to 3NT promising the same point range as a 1NT opening does not imply five diamonds. Only if super-scientists know that their opponents are also super-scientists would super-scientific inferences be general bridge knowledge. What I do when declarer after Gordon's so-called general knowledge auction is to post-alert unknown and/or bunny opponents that (in my super-scientific style) my 1D opening and 1S rebid implies an unbalanced hand which usually holds 5+ diamonds, with the one rare exception that I could hold a 4-1-4-4 shape. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 15 03:50:12 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Apr 15 03:50:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: Message-ID: <026d01c5415d$775b18f0$019468d5@James> [Richard Hills CASE N-11] > Subject: MI DIC: Henry Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 1st F > Bd: 19 Russell Samuel > Vul: EW AQ76532 > Dlr: South J86 > QT > 3 > Alan Schwartz Ai-Tai Lo > 94 JT > KQ975 A > 3 A9842 > KQJT7 A9852 > Harry Tudor > K8 > T432 > KJ765 > 64 > West North East South > --- --- --- 2D(1) > 2H 2S Dbl(2) Pass > 3C Pass 3D Pass > 4C Pass 5C Pass > Pass Pass > (1) Weak 2 bid > (2) When asked was told "I don't know" > The Facts: The final contract was 5C making seven for > +640 to EW fter the DQ lead. The director was called > the end of play. The Ruling: The director determined > that EW did not have an agreement on the meaning of > the double. No adjustment was made as NS were not > misinformed as to the meaning of the double. This is > not one of the common situations which partnership are > expected to discuss. Laws 40A, 40B, and 40C. > The Appeal: NS appealed and all persons attended except > South. North indicated that had he known the double was > not penalty, he would have led the SA and would have bid > 3S or 4S over the 3C call. NS are not a regular > partnership. They treated 2S as not forcing (and their > convention card was so marked). > Statements by the other side: EW had not discussed the > meaning of this double. They have played as a > partnership about six years. They play snap dragon > doubles (confirmed on their card) but both agreed this > applied only after opening one bids. The Decision: No > member of the AC had discussed the meaning of this > double with his partner. The Committee determined that > there was MI because of West's inability to explain > East's bid. The Committee determined that even if North > bid 3S or 4S over 3C, 5C would still be the final > contract. The result was not adjusted because > (1) North did not call the director immediately. Some > directors might have sent West away from the table so > that East could explain his own bid, > (2) South did not double 3D, a clue that suggested a > diamond lead might not be best, and > (3) EW did not bid 3NT suggesting neither had much in > spades. > The Committee felt that lack of information about the > meaning of the double did not cause NS's result. The > contract of 5C making seven for a score of EW +640 was > left in place. North was faced with an unusual situation > and the Committee felt North's appeal had merit. North > is known for bringing marginal appeals to ACs. > Committee: Richard Popper, Chairperson, Chris Willenkin, > Chris Moll, Darwin Afdahl, and Mark Feldman. [Nigel] The TD/AC decision is questionable. Perhaps both sides should have called the director sooner but their falure to do so should not prevent North-South obtaining at least partial redress. In a complex auction, the normal default meaning of a double is penalty. None of the AC may have an agreement about undiscussed doubles but surely you would expect Blue Ribbon finalists in a six-year old partnership to have agreed a general rule. (Even at a more humble level, most relatively short-lived partnerships agree on whether to treat undiscussed doubles as penalty or take-out). West made the unlikely claim that he had no inkling of the meaning of East's double but luckily guessed not to treat it as penalty. East, however, must have known the meaning of his double when he made it -- unless random calls are allowed in the Blue Ribbon pairs. Obviously, East did not intend his double as penalty. Hence, IMO, East is obliged to divulge what he thought his double meant, at the end of the auction, before the opening lead. West's non-alert and claim of ignorance are unauthorised information to East. Of course, East could claim that during the course of the auction, he realised that his double was meaningless. He could even claim that this sudden enlightenment was independent of the unauthorised information from West; but he made no such claim. East's failure to disclose inflicted damage on North-South. With proper disc, a spade might have been led. Hence IMO the ruling should have been 5C= +600. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 15 04:05:13 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Apr 15 04:05:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook Message-ID: <028001c5415f$900c9750$019468d5@James> [Richard Hills CASE N-11] > Subject: MI DIC: Henry Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 1st F > Bd: 19 Russell Samuel > Vul: EW AQ76532 > Dlr: South J86 > QT > 3 > Alan Schwartz Ai-Tai Lo > 94 JT > KQ975 A > 3 A9842 > KQJT7 A9852 > Harry Tudor > K8 > T432 > KJ765 > 64 > West North East South > --- --- --- 2D(1) > 2H 2S Dbl(2) Pass > 3C Pass 3D Pass > 4C Pass 5C Pass > Pass Pass > (1) Weak 2 bid > (2) When asked was told "I don't know" > The Facts: The final contract was 5C making seven for > +640 to EW fter the DQ lead. The director was called > the end of play. The Ruling: The director determined > that EW did not have an agreement on the meaning of > the double. No adjustment was made as NS were not > misinformed as to the meaning of the double. This is > not one of the common situations which partnership are > expected to discuss. Laws 40A, 40B, and 40C. > The Appeal: NS appealed and all persons attended except > South. North indicated that had he known the double was > not penalty, he would have led the SA and would have bid > 3S or 4S over the 3C call. NS are not a regular > partnership. They treated 2S as not forcing (and their > convention card was so marked). > Statements by the other side: EW had not discussed the > meaning of this double. They have played as a > partnership about six years. They play snap dragon > doubles (confirmed on their card) but both agreed this > applied only after opening one bids. The Decision: No > member of the AC had discussed the meaning of this > double with his partner. The Committee determined that > there was MI because of West's inability to explain > East's bid. The Committee determined that even if North > bid 3S or 4S over 3C, 5C would still be the final > contract. The result was not adjusted because > (1) North did not call the director immediately. Some > directors might have sent West away from the table so > that East could explain his own bid, > (2) South did not double 3D, a clue that suggested a > diamond lead might not be best, and > (3) EW did not bid 3NT suggesting neither had much in > spades. > The Committee felt that lack of information about the > meaning of the double did not cause NS's result. The > contract of 5C making seven for a score of EW +640 was > left in place. North was faced with an unusual situation > and the Committee felt North's appeal had merit. North > is known for bringing marginal appeals to ACs. > Committee: Richard Popper, Chairperson, Chris Willenkin, > Chris Moll, Darwin Afdahl, and Mark Feldman. [Nigel] The TD/AC decision is questionable. Perhaps both sides should have called the director sooner but their falure to do so should not prevent North-South obtaining at least partial redress. In a complex auction, the normal default meaning of a double is penalty. None of the AC may have an agreement about undiscussed doubles but surely you would expect Blue Ribbon finalists in a six-year old partnership to have agreed a general rule. (Even at a more humble level, most relatively short-lived partnerships agree on whether to treat undiscussed doubles as penalty or take-out). West made the unlikely claim that he had no inkling of the meaning of East's double but luckily guessed not to treat it as penalty. East, however, must have known the meaning of his double when he made it -- unless random calls are allowed in the Blue Ribbon pairs. Obviously, East did not intend his double as penalty. Hence, IMO, East is obliged to divulge what he thought his double meant, at the end of the auction, before the opening lead. West's non-alert and claim of ignorance are unauthorised information to East. Of course, East could claim that during the course of the auction, he realised that his double was meaningless. He could even claim that this sudden enlightenment was independent of the unauthorised information from West; but he made no such claim. With proper disclosure, a spade might have been led; so, East's failure to disclose may have inflicted damage on North-South. Hence IMO the ruling should have been 5C= +600. North's propensity to appeal should have no bearing on his right to justice. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 15 07:12:24 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 15 07:13:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d7a22d79278ec99a6fc292fa00fb826@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:24 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > The Decision: No member of the AC had discussed the meaning of > this double with his partner. The Committee determined that there > was MI because of West's inability to explain East's bid. IOW, you are required to know the meaning, in your partnership's agreements, of *every* call partner makes. Horseshit. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 15 07:13:37 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 15 07:14:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Six - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:51 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > But, when it comes to fine distinctions as to whether > a player took their normal tempo of 5 seconds, or... First, of course, you have to determine that this particular player's "normal tempo" is in fact 5 seconds. :-) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 15 08:13:15 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 15 08:14:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Twelve - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the twelfth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-12 Subject: UI DIC: Henry Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 1st Final Session Bd: 1 Piotr Bizon Vul: None 2 Dlr: North AT97 K76543 93 Nikolay Demirev David Yang K65 AT843 KQ643 J82 QT2 AJ8 K6 T2 Michal Kwiecien QJ97 5 9 AQJ8754 West North East South --- Pass Pass 1C 1H 2D 2H 3C Pass(1) Pass 3H 4C Dbl Pass Pass Pass (1) BIT agreed The Facts: The final contract was 4C doubled down one for +100 to EW after the HK lead. The director was called at the end of play. The Ruling: No adjustment was made. Pass of 3C was not thought to be an LA for East. Law 73F1. Other Findings: The screener determined that West asked about the 2D bid and South's 3C bid and then thought for a significant amount of time before passing over 3C. The Appeal: NS appealed and are the only ones who attended the hearing. They thought that West's questioning and break in tempo could have helped East make the winning decision to bid 3H. The Decision: The Committee determined that West's break in tempo suggested extra values, but did not point toward 3H versus double. East held a 3-card limit raise. The AC judged that at matchpoints and no one vulnerable, very few players would seriously consider passing 3H with the East hand. Since the break in tempo did not suggest bidding rather than doubling, the AC allowed East's 3H bid to stand and thus the table result was upheld. The appeal was judged to have merit ???? Committee: Doug Doub, Chairperson, Ed Lazarus, Howard Weinstein, Tom Peters, and Bob Schwartz. From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Fri Apr 15 10:32:13 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Apr 15 10:33:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Twelve - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050415083213.69779.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> Richard I have corrected an error in the text. --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > This is the twelfth of 18 parallel threads, which > will eventually > be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to > supplement the > official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to > comment on all > 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a > Word doc. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > > * * * > > CASE N-12 > Subject: UI > DIC: Henry Cukoff > Blue Ribbon Pairs 1st Final Session > > Bd: 1 Piotr Bizon > Vul: None 2 > Dlr: North AT97 > K76543 > 93 > Nikolay Demirev > David Yang > K65 > AT843 > KQ643 > J82 > QT2 > AJ8 > K6 > T2 > Michal Kwiecien > QJ97 > 5 > 9 > AQJ8754 > > West North East South > --- Pass Pass 1C > 1H 2D 2H 3C > Pass(1) Pass 3H 4C > Dbl Pass Pass Pass > > (1) BIT agreed > > The Facts: The final contract was 4C doubled down > one for +100 to > EW after the HK lead. The director was called at the > end of play. > > The Ruling: No adjustment was made. Pass of 3C was > not thought to > be an LA for East. Law 73F1. > > Other Findings: The screener determined that West > asked about the > 2D bid and South's 3C bid and then thought for a > significant > amount of time before passing over 3C. > > The Appeal: NS appealed and are the only ones who > attended the > hearing. They thought that West's questioning and > break in tempo > could have helped East make the winning decision to > bid 3H. > > The Decision: The Committee determined that West's > break in tempo > suggested extra values, but did not point toward 3H > versus > double. East held a 3-card limit raise. The AC > judged that at > matchpoints and no one vulnerable, very few players > would > seriously consider passing 3H with the East hand. This should read 3C Richard. > > Since the break in tempo did not suggest bidding > rather than > doubling, the AC allowed East's 3H bid to stand and > thus the > table result was upheld. > > The appeal was judged to have merit ???? > > Committee: Doug Doub, Chairperson, Ed Lazarus, > Howard Weinstein, > Tom Peters, and Bob Schwartz. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From retterath at didamail.com Fri Apr 15 11:48:22 2005 From: retterath at didamail.com (Josephine Kirk) Date: Fri Apr 15 10:53:40 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.n0wwewillsave.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Marcos Russo to be remov(ed: http://www.n0wwewillsave.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 Fri Apr 15 12:18:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 15 12:19:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <000801c5412b$9ba8d760$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Law 40A is closely linked to its "sister" law 75 where the first part of > L75B says: "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so > long as his partner is unaware of the violation" > > I think this is where we can safely introduce the term "anticipation" > as a criterion. (No player may violate an agreement if he ought to > anticipate that partner will be aware of the violation). Well if my partner is giving "tells" (such as breaking tempo) when he psychs I will tell him in no uncertain terms to stop psyching unless he can do it in tempo. Perhaps partner shouldn't psych when he can anticipate that my own hand will alert me to know the psych but that's a bit esoteric for my tastes. Of course whenever my partner makes a call I am aware that he *may* have psyched but that awareness is independent of whether he actually has. Being "aware" that someone at the table (be it partner or opponent) *may* have psyched (or indeed misbid#) is a matter of bridge survival. It is different from being aware that a pscyh has actually occurred. # I add this in only because, for practical purposes, deciding who has got what when things don't add up round the table is a similar problem whether the misleading nature of the call was intentional or accidental. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 15 12:18:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 15 12:19:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <014701c5412f$6ace23d0$019468d5@James> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > [Wayne Burrows] > For any player the local practice is part of "his > general knowledge". > > [Nigel] > A doubtful claim in any case -- but especially doubtful for > a foreigner in America. Get real Nigel. The local practice wherever the foreigner comes from is part of his general knowledge. The local practice wherever is is visiting may not be part of his knowledge at all. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 15 12:18:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 15 12:19:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050414144617.02b9aeb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: > At 01:27 PM 4/14/05, twm wrote: > > >Does it matter what phrase is used? When it comes to bridge my > knowledge > >falls into 4 basic categories: > >a) Stuff I know that I know partner knows > >b) Stuff I know that I can reasonably expect partner to know & vice > versa > >c) Stuff I know that I have no reason to expect partner to know > >d) Stuff I know that I know partner doesn't know. > > > >a) and b) are (IMO) disclosable under current law while c) and d) are > not. > > > >This strikes me as about right. Surely it must be wrong to require > >disclosure of d) and I can't see any real reason for requiring > disclosure > >of c). > > I don't think there's any disagreement about c and d. But a and b need > to be subdivided into stuff I (a1) know, or (b1) reasonably expect, > partner to know because I (a1) know, or (b1) reasonably expect, > everyone to know it, and (a2/b2) stuff I know etc. for other reasons. > > a2 and b2 are (or at least should be, and are in sensible > jurisdictions, but that's another thread) disclosable under current > law. a1 is not, else the "general knowledge and experience" clause of > L75C is meaningless. ISTM we are debating only about b1. The phrase is "HIS general knowledge...". The phrase is necessary to clarify that c) and d) need not be disclosed. There is nothing that one can "reasonably expect *everyone* to know". There are players out there (albeit not many) who don't know what Stayman is. If you agree to play SAYC with a pick-up then you are 100% obliged to disclose what a 2C response to a 1N opening bid means in SAYC. Saying "Stayman" will often prove sufficient, but when opps ask "what is Stayman?" then you must tell them - not quibble about it. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 15 12:18:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 15 12:19:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <00f901c54126$8ea72ad0$019468d5@James> Message-ID: > To me it matters little what partner knows or does not know. > The explanation of the systemic meaning of a bid is the same > even if, in practice, partner has never learnt it or has > forgotten it. If partner agrees to play a system then either he knows what the bids mean or you can (absent evidence to the contrary) reasonably expect him to know what the bids mean, so to me it doesn't matter what he actually knows either. However a lot of systems do not cover all possible auctions. For example you (nv vs v) are playing SAYC against opps playing Benji Acol and the auction goes (2c)-p-(2d)-3N. Do think this in in the book? With a known partner you may well be able to provide an explanation like "Not discussed, it is likely to be some sort of 2-suiter but might just be intended to play with a running suit and a couple of stoppers." > Under current law, you may not guess what he > knows; but I feel that, if you suspect that he does not > know, it might be better if the law let you warn your > opponents. If you fear he has forgotten because he has a history of forgetting then the law demands (rather than lets) you inform opponents. If you don't know partner but suspect he doesn't know what the bid means merely because your general experience tells you ignorance of the bid is widespread then you do not (and should not) guess - just explain the systemic meaning. WTP? Tim From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 15 13:33:18 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Apr 15 13:33:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? References: Message-ID: <00b801c541ae$ec6e8c70$529868d5@James> [Tim West-Meades] > Get real Nigel. The local practice wherever the > foreigner comes from is part of his general knowledge. > The local practice wherever is is visiting may not be > part of his knowledge at all. [Nigel] The question under discussion was whether the American practices would be "general knowledge" to the newly formed Italian Blue Team. I agree with Tim that it probably would not be. I don't dispute that practice in the area local to Tim may be "general knowledge" to Tim. I and many other players are less observant than Tim. I have played Bridge in Reading for fifteen years but am still am unaware of local practice. For example, recently a member of the largest group at the club let me look at their system-notes. The notes revealed surprises even in everyday bread-and-butter sequences. As far as such "general knowledge" is concerned, I fear that ignorance is the rule rather than the exception. What is worse is that so many players are quite aware of their opponents' ignorance (often because of the question); But they still use "general knowledge" (or "uncertainty") as an excuse for concealment. The *intention* of the disclosure rules is benign. In practice, however, many players stretch currently lawful loop-holes for non-disclosure to become wide enough to allow through a camel-train of rationalization and prevarication. It is you not I, Tim, who glory in the surreal world of TFLB. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 15 13:55:17 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 15 13:55:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050415074715.02a34eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:24 PM 4/14/05, richard.hills wrote: >This is the eleventh of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually >be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the >official ACBL casebook. I can't believe I've actually agreed with the committee decision on 11 out of 11 so far. That's never happened before. I'm so dumbstruck I can barely type. But there something wrong in this one... >CASE N-11 >Subject: MI >DIC: Henry Cukoff >Blue Ribbon Pairs 1st Final Session > >Bd: 19 Russell Samuel >Vul: EW AQ76532 >Dlr: South J86 > QT > 3 >Alan Schwartz Ai-Tai Lo >94 JT >KQ975 A >3 A9842 >KQJT7 A9852 > Harry Tudor > K8 > T432 > KJ765 > 64 > >West North East South >--- --- --- 2D(1) >2H 2S Dbl(2) Pass >3C Pass 3D Pass >4C Pass 5C Pass >Pass Pass > >(1) Weak 2 bid >(2) When asked was told "I don't know" > >The Facts: The final contract was 5C making seven for +640 to EW >after the DQ lead. The director was called at the end of play. > >The Ruling: The director determined that EW did not have an >agreement on the meaning of the double. No adjustment was made as >NS were not misinformed as to the meaning of the double. This is >not one of the common situations which partnership are expected to >discuss. Laws 40A, 40B, and 40C. > >The Appeal: NS appealed and all persons attended except South. >North indicated that had he known the double was not penalty, he >would have led the SA and would have bid 3S or 4S over the 3C >call. NS are not a regular partnership. They treated 2S as not >forcing (and their convention card was so marked). > >Statements by the other side: EW had not discussed the meaning of >this double. They have played as a partnership about six years. >They play snap dragon doubles (confirmed on their card) but both >agreed this applied only after opening one bids. > >The Decision: No member of the AC had discussed the meaning of >this double with his partner. The Committee determined that there >was MI because of West's inability to explain East's bid. Is there a typo in that paragraph; it seems inherently contradictory? Nobody on the AC had discussed this auction, and they (implied therefore?) refused to accept West's explanation that he hadn't discussed it either, and determined that there was MI? That makes no sense at all. Why write the first sentence? I'd have expected, "The Committee deterrmined that there was no MI from West's inability to explain East's bid. Table result stands." So something got off track here, even if the proper outcome was eventually reached. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 15 14:51:18 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 15 14:52:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <026d01c5415d$775b18f0$019468d5@James> References: <026d01c5415d$775b18f0$019468d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050415082023.02dbeae0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:50 PM 4/14/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >[Richard Hills CASE N-11] > > Subject: MI DIC: Henry Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 1st F > > Bd: 19 Russell Samuel > > Vul: EW AQ76532 > > Dlr: South J86 > > QT > > 3 > > Alan Schwartz Ai-Tai Lo > > 94 JT > > KQ975 A > > 3 A9842 > > KQJT7 A9852 > > Harry Tudor > > K8 > > T432 > > KJ765 > > 64 > > West North East South > > --- --- --- 2D(1) > > 2H 2S Dbl(2) Pass > > 3C Pass 3D Pass > > 4C Pass 5C Pass > > Pass Pass > > (1) Weak 2 bid > > (2) When asked was told "I don't know" > > The Facts: The final contract was 5C making seven for > > +640 to EW fter the DQ lead. The director was called > > the end of play. The Ruling: The director determined > > that EW did not have an agreement on the meaning of > > the double. No adjustment was made as NS were not > > misinformed as to the meaning of the double. This is > > not one of the common situations which partnership are > > expected to discuss. Laws 40A, 40B, and 40C. > > The Appeal: NS appealed and all persons attended except > > South. North indicated that had he known the double was > > not penalty, he would have led the SA and would have bid > > 3S or 4S over the 3C call. NS are not a regular > > partnership. They treated 2S as not forcing (and their > > convention card was so marked). > > Statements by the other side: EW had not discussed the > > meaning of this double. They have played as a > > partnership about six years. They play snap dragon > > doubles (confirmed on their card) but both agreed this > > applied only after opening one bids. The Decision: No > > member of the AC had discussed the meaning of this > > double with his partner. The Committee determined that > > there was MI because of West's inability to explain > > East's bid. The Committee determined that even if North > > bid 3S or 4S over 3C, 5C would still be the final > > contract. The result was not adjusted because > > (1) North did not call the director immediately. Some > > directors might have sent West away from the table so > > that East could explain his own bid, > > (2) South did not double 3D, a clue that suggested a > > diamond lead might not be best, and > > (3) EW did not bid 3NT suggesting neither had much in > > spades. > > The Committee felt that lack of information about the > > meaning of the double did not cause NS's result. The > > contract of 5C making seven for a score of EW +640 was > > left in place. North was faced with an unusual situation > > and the Committee felt North's appeal had merit. North > > is known for bringing marginal appeals to ACs. > > Committee: Richard Popper, Chairperson, Chris Willenkin, > > Chris Moll, Darwin Afdahl, and Mark Feldman. > >[Nigel] >The TD/AC decision is questionable. Perhaps both sides >should have called the director sooner but their falure to >do so should not prevent North-South obtaining at least >partial redress. In a complex auction, the normal default >meaning of a double is penalty. In the Blue Ribbon final, that's not at all clear, and quite possibly not true (for a two-level double). >None of the AC may have an >agreement about undiscussed doubles but surely you would >expect Blue Ribbon finalists in a six-year old partnership >to have agreed a general rule. (Even at a more humble level, >most relatively short-lived partnerships agree on whether to >treat undiscussed doubles as penalty or take-out). I can assure Nigel that there were members of that committee with established partnerships of well over six years' duration. >West made >the unlikely claim that he had no inkling of the meaning of >East's double but luckily guessed not to treat it as >penalty. West never claimed that he "luckily guessed" anything, and there's no reason to think he did. It is perfectly obvious from his hand that leaving in a takeout double would be far more likely to produce a total disaster than would taking out a penalty double. If he genuinely hadn't any idea what his partner's double meant, I'd say he had no logical alternative to bidding 3C. Nothing whatsoever in the writeup suggests that anyone was "guessing" anything. >East, however, must have known the meaning of his >double when he made it -- unless random calls are allowed in >the Blue Ribbon pairs. That's silly. If he genuinely had no agreements for this position, he wouldn't have "known the menaing of his [call]" for sure whatever call he chose. >Obviously, East did not intend his >double as penalty. Hence, IMO, East is obliged to divulge >what he thought his double meant, at the end of the auction, >before the opening lead. The opponents had already been told that the partners didn't know what the double meant. There's no reason to believe that East thought anything else. He had to make a call; he had no agreement that indicated a particular call for his hand. He isn't obligated to make up thoughts he didn't have and misrepresent them to the opponents as what he really believes. >West's non-alert and claim of >ignorance are unauthorised information to East. There's no reason to think that West wasn't fully aware of East's ignorance, or that it was the lack of an alert that tipped him off. That makes the rest irrelevant. >Of course, >East could claim that during the course of the auction, he >realised that his double was meaningless. He could even >claim that this sudden enlightenment was independent of the >unauthorised information from West; but he made no such >claim. East's failure to disclose inflicted damage on >North-South. With proper disc, a spade might have been led. >Hence IMO the ruling should have been 5C= +600. If the world accepted Nigel's views, Wayne's argument that there exists a "presumption of guilt" would be self-evident. It looks to me like E-W got caught in an auction for which they were totally unprepared, and bid their way out of it quite nicely. Well done, even if it is the sort of thing we expect Blue Ribbon finalists to be quite capable of. Nigel seems to believe that this just can't happen, so they must have somehow been doing something irregular. But I know it can happen; I've been there myself numerous times. Given Nigel's reasoning above, I don't see anything whatsoever that E-W could have testified to before the AC that would have convinced him to find no infraction. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 15 14:52:20 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Apr 15 14:52:56 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: Message-ID: <00f701c541b9$f6a46010$529868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > In my opinion, there is not much substantive > difference between Nigel Guthrie and Herman De > Wael (on one side), and Eric Landau and myself (on > the other side). The main difference, it seems to > me, is semantic; the word "guess" is not (in my > opinion) le mot juste. I believe, rather, that > ABF clause 9.2 states that implicit partnership > agreements may be created by analogy. If a > partnership uses a particular method and style > in a discussed situation, then that partnership > may have an implicit agreement to use the same > method and style in an analogous undiscussed > situation. But, if there are zero analogies > available for a partnership (or conflicting > analogies of equal force available for the > partnership), then ABF 9.2 prohibits guesses > such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm treating > it as...", since such information about a random > guess provides UI to partner. [Nigel] Thank you Richard! Richard has restated the gist of my expanded paraphrase of ABF 9.2. I accept that, in the context of 9.2, "infer" is much more appropriate than "guess". My interpretation emphasised two controversial points with which Richard may or may not agree ... A. Some of Richard's "analogies" may be undiscussed; they may be established by partnership experience alone; there may even be other relevant clues. B. It's insufficient merely to reveal partnership style. You must also divulge likely meanings -- that is -- you must disclose your inferential conclusion not just the analogue reasoning that led up to it. These are trivial quibbles. IMO. ABF9.2 is a concise clear statement of disclosure principles that the WBFLC could apply globally. I still maintain that simplest and best of all would be "you must always make your best guess". From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Apr 15 16:20:39 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Apr 15 16:21:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <5d7a22d79278ec99a6fc292fa00fb826@rochester.rr.com> from "Ed Reppert" at Apr 15, 2005 01:12:24 AM Message-ID: <200504151420.j3FEKdAm007784@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Ed Reppert writes: > > > On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:24 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > The Decision: No member of the AC had discussed the meaning of > > this double with his partner. The Committee determined that there > > was MI because of West's inability to explain East's bid. > > IOW, you are required to know the meaning, in your partnership's > agreements, of *every* call partner makes. Horseshit. > > Or more likely a single missing word. "No MI" makes a heck of a lot more sense in context. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 15 16:29:55 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Apr 15 16:30:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <026d01c5415d$775b18f0$019468d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050415082023.02dbeae0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <010801c541c7$98c14ef0$529868d5@James> [Eric Landau] > I can assure Nigel that there were members of that > committee with established partnerships of well over > six years' duration. West never claimed that he > "luckily guessed" anything, and there's no reason to > think he did. It is perfectly obvious from his hand > that leaving in a takeout double would be far more > likely to produce a total disaster than would taking > out a penalty double. If he genuinely hadn't any > idea what his partner's double meant, I'd say he had > no logical alternative to bidding 3C. Nothing > whatsoever in the writeup suggests that anyone was > "guessing" anything. [Nigel[ I agree that it is a matter of judgement as to whether you believe that West was likely to have no idea as to the meaning of East's double. I also agree, as a matter of fact, that if you don't know what partner intends by a call then you base your action on the least damaging guess. IMO, here, if East had a swingeing penalty double, West's guess would be unlucky. [Eric] > [Nigel's claim that East must have known the meaning of > his double when he made it -- unless random calls are > allowed in the Blue Ribbon pairs] is silly. If he > genuinely had no agreements for this position, he > wouldn't have "known the menaing of his [call]" for sure > whatever call he chose. [Nigel] West didn't advance the even more contentious claim that all calls in this context were systemically meaningless. He claimed simply that East's double was meaningless. If there existed an appropriate agreed alternative but East made a call that he knew to be meaningless, then he made a random call. Again, I accept that this is OK if random calls are allowed in this event. [Eric] > The opponents had already been told that the partners > didn't know what the double meant. There's no reason to > believe that East thought anything else. He had to make > a call; he had no agreement that indicated a particular > call for his hand. He isn't obligated to make up > thoughts he didn't have and misrepresent them to the > opponents as what he really believes. [Nigel] My main argument is based on fact: It was West who claimed, before the play, that the double had no meaning. At that stage, East made no disclsure. Obviously, East did not intend his double as penalty. Hence, IMO, East is obliged to divulge what he thought his double meant, at the end of the auction, before the opening lead. West's non-alert and claim of ignorance are unauthorised information to East. Of course, East could claim that during the course of the auction, he realised that his double was meaningless. He could even claim that this sudden enlightenment was independent of the unauthorised information from West; but he made no such claim. East's failure to disclose inflicted damage on North-South. With proper disclosure, a spade might have been led. North's legislative propensities should not affect hs right to justice. Hence IMO the ruling should have been 5C= +600. [Eric] > There's no reason to think that West wasn't fully aware > of East's ignorance, or that it was the lack of an alert > that tipped him off. That makes the rest irrelevant. > If the world accepted Nigel's views, Wayne's argument > that there exists a "presumption of guilt" would be self- > evident. It looks to me like E-W got caught in an > auction for which they were totally unprepared, and bid > their way out of it quite nicely. Well done, even if it > is the sort of thing we expect Blue Ribbon finalists to > be quite capable of. Nigel seems to believe that this > just can't happen, so they must have somehow been doing > something irregular. But I know it can happen; I've been > there myself numerous times. Given Nigel's reasoning > above, I don't see anything whatsoever that E-W could > have testified to before the AC that would have convinced > him to find no infraction. [Nigel] At the end of the auction, before the play, East could say that his double was deliberately meaningless. That would be OK, assuming that the conditions of contest permit "random" calls. Alternatively, he could divulge what he thought was the systemic meaning of the call, when he made it, before all the unauthorised information. As a mere player, I'm unsure of the correctness of my interpretation of the rules. I am grateful to Eric for attempting to enlighten me but Eric's argument hasn't convinced me yet. From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 15 16:34:05 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 15 16:33:40 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <00f701c541b9$f6a46010$529868d5@James> References: <00f701c541b9$f6a46010$529868d5@James> Message-ID: <425FD0DD.7080503@hdw.be> GUTHRIE wrote: > > These are trivial quibbles. IMO. ABF9.2 is a concise clear > statement of disclosure principles that the WBFLC could > apply globally. > > I still maintain that simplest and best of all would be "you > must always make your best guess". > Herman, Nigel, Richard, and the entire ABF agree with each other. Only 97% of the bridge world to convince! Anyway, this is not the "DeWaelSchool" proper - that's going still a bit further - so there's no need to start worrying! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.11 - Release Date: 14/04/2005 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 15 16:55:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 15 16:56:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050415074715.02a34eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Threaded to Eric's message, but that's just where I happened to notice the comment below. > >The Decision: No member of the AC had discussed the meaning of > >this double with his partner. It's a funny old world. I have discussed doubles (in general) in all my regular and semi-regular partnerships. Playing pick-up I know that this double is agreed as take-out in SAYC (it says so in the booklet) and is penalty in standard Acol. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 15 16:55:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 15 16:56:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: <00b801c541ae$ec6e8c70$529868d5@James> Message-ID: > [Tim West-Meades] > > Get real Nigel. The local practice wherever the > > foreigner comes from is part of his general knowledge. > > The local practice wherever is is visiting may not be > > part of his knowledge at all. > > The question under discussion was whether the American > practices would be "general knowledge" to the newly formed > Italian Blue Team. I agree with Tim that it probably would > not be. Actually I accepted for the purpose of debate that it might not be. I don't know enough history to form an opinion one way or the other. Playing on a well-funded modern team this is the sort of info I'd have expected the NPC/coach to have provided - but back then...dunno. > I don't dispute that practice in the area local to Tim may > be "general knowledge" to Tim. I and many other players are > less observant than Tim. I have played Bridge in Reading for > fifteen years but am still am unaware of local practice. Ok more precisely. That which a player knows of local practice is part of *his* general knowledge. That which both players in a partnership know of local practice is part of their partnership agreement/understanding. > For example, recently a member of the largest group at the > club let me look at their system-notes. The notes revealed > surprises even in everyday bread-and-butter sequences. And those system notes would be part of the partnership understandings were he playing with a member of that group would they not? And were he playing outside that group they'd just be part of his general knowledge. > As far as such "general knowledge" is concerned, I fear that > ignorance is the rule rather than the exception. Of course, there is no "general knowledge" in a universal sense. But almost every bridge player (and certainly those who have knocked around a bit) has a body of knowledge outwith the understandings of his current partnership. I have played SAYC, Acol, Benji, Multi, Precision, EHAA and various bells and whistles - I have *MY* general knowledge of these systems. My wife plays only Basic Acol and an Acol/EHAA hybrid (although she hasn't heard of EHAA). *HER* general knowledge is much smaller than mine. > What is worse is that so many players are quite aware of > their opponents' ignorance (often because of the question); > But they still use "general knowledge" (or "uncertainty") as > an excuse for concealment. I don't like the term "players" here - I prefer the term "cheats". > The *intention* of the disclosure rules is benign. In > practice, however, many players stretch currently lawful > loop-holes for non-disclosure to become wide enough to allow > through a camel-train of rationalization and prevarication. If the TD lets them do it get a new TD. The "loop-holes" in TFLB are only as wide as the TD allows. > It is you not I, Tim, who glory in the surreal world of TFLB. I consider the law-book surreal. But, when TDing, my job is to make it practical. The basic principle of bridge is full disclosure, one can interpret the words in the current law-book to support that principle (but that is not to say that better words wouldn't make life easier). Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 15 17:32:14 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 15 17:41:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <010801c541c7$98c14ef0$529868d5@James> References: <026d01c5415d$775b18f0$019468d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050415082023.02dbeae0@pop.starpower.net> <010801c541c7$98c14ef0$529868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050415104957.02b6c900@pop.starpower.net> At 10:29 AM 4/15/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >[Eric Landau] > > I can assure Nigel that there were members of that > > committee with established partnerships of well over > > six years' duration. West never claimed that he > > "luckily guessed" anything, and there's no reason to > > think he did. It is perfectly obvious from his hand > > that leaving in a takeout double would be far more > > likely to produce a total disaster than would taking > > out a penalty double. If he genuinely hadn't any > > idea what his partner's double meant, I'd say he had > > no logical alternative to bidding 3C. Nothing > > whatsoever in the writeup suggests that anyone was > > "guessing" anything. > >[Nigel[ >I agree that it is a matter of judgement as to whether you >believe that West was likely to have no idea as to the >meaning of East's double. I also agree, as a matter of >fact, that if you don't know what partner intends by a call >then you base your action on the least damaging guess. IMO, >here, if East had a swingeing penalty double, West's guess >would be unlucky. And if East had had what he had, and West had guessed to pass, it would have been even more unlucky. There's nothing here to suggest that either East or West didn't realize that. >[Eric] > > [Nigel's claim that East must have known the meaning of > > his double when he made it -- unless random calls are > > allowed in the Blue Ribbon pairs] is silly. If he > > genuinely had no agreements for this position, he > > wouldn't have "known the menaing of his [call]" for sure > > whatever call he chose. > >[Nigel] >West didn't advance the even more contentious claim that all >calls in this context were systemically meaningless. He >claimed simply that East's double was meaningless. It doesn't really matter whether all calls in this context were undefined. It only matters that any that were defined did not fit East's hand. >If there >existed an appropriate agreed alternative but East made a >call that he knew to be meaningless, then he made a random >call. Again, I accept that this is OK if random calls are >allowed in this event. That doesn't follow at all. There's nothing to suggest that East chose his call at random. I would imagine he chose his call after a good deal of thought, and carefully selected the one he thought would work best. >[Eric] > > The opponents had already been told that the partners > > didn't know what the double meant. There's no reason to > > believe that East thought anything else. He had to make > > a call; he had no agreement that indicated a particular > > call for his hand. He isn't obligated to make up > > thoughts he didn't have and misrepresent them to the > > opponents as what he really believes. > >[Nigel] >My main argument is based on fact: It was West who claimed, >before the play, that the double had no meaning. At that >stage, East made no disclsure. Of what? The opponents had already been told, presumably correctly, that the double had no meaning. If that was true -- and I still see no reason to believe it wasn't -- WTP? >Obviously, East did not >intend his double as penalty. ...or as takeout, or as anything other than "I hope you can work this out, or will make a call that will give me a chance to clarify it, or will at least have a hand that might avoid a disaster if you don't". I've certainly made plenty of such calls. Nigel seems to be contending that such calls cannot exist. >Hence, IMO, East is obliged to >divulge what he thought his double meant, at the end of the >auction, before the opening lead. Only if it differs from what his partner told his opponents. There's nothing here to suggest that it did. >West's non-alert and claim >of ignorance are unauthorised information to East. There's nothing here to suggest that West's non-alert and claim of ignorance were anything other than what East expected and believed, presumably correctly, to be true, or that there was any extraneous or unauthorized information involved. >Of >course, East could claim that during the course of the >auction, he realised that his double was meaningless. He >could even claim that this sudden enlightenment was >independent of the unauthorised information from West; but >he made no such claim. Of course he made no such claim; it would have been a lie. There's nothing here to suggest that East didn't realize his double was systemically meaningless at the time he made it. >East's failure to disclose inflicted >damage on North-South. With proper disclosure, a spade might >have been led. North's legislative propensities should not >affect hs right to justice. I see no failure to properly disclose anything. As Wayne keeps reminding us, it is possible that when someone gets a bad result it may not necessarily have been the result of an opponent's infraction. >Hence IMO the ruling should have >been 5C= +600. > >[Eric] > > There's no reason to think that West wasn't fully aware > > of East's ignorance, or that it was the lack of an alert > > that tipped him off. That makes the rest irrelevant. > > If the world accepted Nigel's views, Wayne's argument > > that there exists a "presumption of guilt" would be self- > > evident. It looks to me like E-W got caught in an > > auction for which they were totally unprepared, and bid > > their way out of it quite nicely. Well done, even if it > > is the sort of thing we expect Blue Ribbon finalists to > > be quite capable of. Nigel seems to believe that this > > just can't happen, so they must have somehow been doing > > something irregular. But I know it can happen; I've been > > there myself numerous times. Given Nigel's reasoning > > above, I don't see anything whatsoever that E-W could > > have testified to before the AC that would have convinced > > him to find no infraction. > >[Nigel] >At the end of the auction, before the play, East could say >that his double was deliberately meaningless. The opponents had already been told it had no systemic meaning. "Deliberately meaningless" is nonsense; East had no choice when he doubled as to whether the double was "meaningful" or not. >That would be >OK, assuming that the conditions of contest permit "random" >calls. "Meaningless" and "random" have nothing to do with one another. There have been a very large number of meaningless statements made in this forum; not a single one of them was typed at random. >Alternatively, he could divulge what he thought was >the systemic meaning of the call, when he made it, before >all the unauthorised information. Not if he thought -- indeed, knew -- that the call had no systemic meaning. And thinks that -- correctly -- to this day, because he received no information, unauthorized or otherwise, to make him change his initial assessment that the call was not systemically defined. I was not at the table, so my version of what went on *may not* be correct. But if it is, I have a great deal of sympathy with E-W. I have many times found myself in a position where, like East, I came to the conclusion that my best available call was one which I knew, and was confident my partner knew, was systemically meaningless. I have many times found myself in a position where, like West, I was forced to find a call over a bid by partner that I knew, and was confident he knew, was systemically meaningless. Thus I utterly reject Nigel's logic, according to which my version of what went on *cannot* be correct. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 15 20:41:53 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Apr 15 20:42:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook Message-ID: <002001c541ea$cbbd2310$929468d5@James> correcting some typos -- sorry [Eric Landau] > And if East had had what he had, and West had guessed to > pass, it would have been even more unlucky. There's > nothing here to suggest that either East or West > didn't realize that. [Nigel] Earlier, Eric took exception to my claim that West's guess was lucky. Tim West-Meades reminds us that, for some systems and partnerships, undiscussed doubles are penalty. I agree with Eric that, for most partnerships, undiscussed calls are forcing; I agree with Eric that East-West appear to have realized this. Such an understanding is an implicit agreement that both East and West must divulge; arguably, East may have intended a more refined meaning but if so, it's still disclosable. [Eric] > It doesn't really matter whether all calls in this > context were undefined. It only matters that any that > were defined did not fit East's hand. [Nigel] It was Eric not I who suggested that no call by East would have an oppropriate meaning. In this context, it seems so obvious that natural club bids and diamond/spade cuebids would fit East's hand that I am sure that none of the committee would even think to ask to ask such question. And I doubt whether any East-West would have the effrontery to advance such a bizarre claim. [Eric] > There's nothing to suggest that East chose his call at > random. I would imagine he chose his call after a good > deal of thought, and carefully selected the one he > thought would work best. [Eric asked what Nigel said East should disclose] > The opponents had already been told, presumably > correctly, that the double had no meaning. If that was > true -- and I still see no reason to believe it wasn't > -- WTP? [Eric continuing my statement that East obviously did not mean the double as penalty] > ...or as takeout, or as anything other than "I hope you > can work this out, or will make a call that will give me > a chance to clarify it, or will at least have a hand > that might avoid a disaster if you don't". I've > certainly made plenty of such calls. Nigel seems to be > contending that such calls cannot exist. [Eric continuing my statement that East is obliged to divulge what he thought his double meant, at the end of the auction, before the opening lead] > only if it differs from what his partner told his > opponents. There's nothing here to suggest that it did. > There's nothing here to suggest that West's non-alert and > claim of ignorance were anything other than what East > expected and believed, presumably correctly, to be true, > or that there was any extraneous or unauthorized > information involved .... There's nothing here to suggest > that East didn't realize his double was systemically > meaningless at the time he made it. I see no failure to < properly disclose anything. As Wayne keeps reminding us, > it is possible that when someone gets a bad result it may > not necessarily have been the result of an opponent's > infraction. The opponents had already been told it had no > > systemic meaning. "Deliberately meaningless" is > nonsense; East had no choice when he doubled as to > whether the double was "meaningful" or not. > "Meaningless" and "random" have nothing to do with one > another. There have been a very large number of > meaningless statements made in this forum; not a > single one of them was typed at random. [Eric Querying my statement that East should have corrected West's disclosure] > if he thought -- indeed, knew -- that the call had no > systemic meaning. And thinks that -- correctly -- to > this day, because he received no information, > unauthorized or otherwise, to make him change his initial > assessment that the call was not systemically defined. > I was not at the table, so my version of what went on > *may not* be correct. But if it is, I have a great deal > of sympathy with E-W. I have many times found myself in > a position where, like East, I came to the conclusion > that my best available call was one which I knew, and > was confident my partner knew, was systemically > meaningless. I have many times found myself in a > position where, like West, I was forced to find a call > over a bid by partner that I knew, and was confident he < knew, was systemically meaningless. Thus I utterly > reject Nigel's logic, according to which my version of > what went on *cannot* be correct. [Nigel} Eric and I suffer from a difference in vocabulary. By "random call" I mean a call that deliberately conveys no information but might confuse opponents or disrupt their auction (arguably like East's double here). Another example is a meaningless one spade overcall over a precision club. If such "random" calls are allowed in this event my argument becomes weaker :( :( Most of us have encountered predicaments similar to those envisaged by Eric. For example, a pick-up-partner opens one notrump and you don't know whether or not transfers are on the menu: you could risk a transfer and hope. Much more prudent is a fudge like a pass or a wild leap to game. The question is whether, for East-West, this was an extreme version of such a predicament where no bid was more appropriate than a dangerous meaningless one. Since East seems to have cue-bids in diamonds and spades available -- as well as various other natural sounding bids that seem quite descriptive, it is hard to believe that East's only option is to make a dangerous call that he knows has no meaning. The committee make no reference to such a remote possibility. To his credit, East did not attempt to stretch our credulity with such an improbable claim :) If there is an implicit understanding that West cannot pass East's double without a spade-stack then the double did have an obvious take-out meaning which should be disclosed. From mikedodson at yahoo.com Fri Apr 15 21:10:43 2005 From: mikedodson at yahoo.com (mike dodson) Date: Fri Apr 15 21:11:44 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) Message-ID: <20050415191043.84313.qmail@web90210.mail.scd.yahoo.com> | > | >>>Clause 9.2 | >>> | >>>If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning | >>>of a call, you must say so (by saying "undiscussed", for | >>>example), and not attempt to offer a possible | >>>explanation. When, however, as a result of partnership | >>>experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view | >>>of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that | >>>information shall be given to opponents. Where a call | >>>is undiscussed, you should not offer statements such as | >>>"I take it to mean...." or "I'm treating it as....". | >>>Such a response is improper as it gives unauthorised | >>>information to partner. | > | Herman: | There is actually very little difference between this ABF advice and | the DWS. | Herman, Nigel and Richard interpret this to as if "that information" refers to one's "cogent view" so one's guess/inference/veiw must be disclosed. An alternative interpretation is that "that information" is the "partnership expereince and style" which by anyone's reading of L40/L75 must be disclosed. Thus the ABF tells us not to offer our guess/inference with or without qualiftication, but to offer that information on which we base our conclusions. This accords with the general princples of disclosure, the opponents are entitled to all there is to be known about partnership agreements and history, not what or how one thinks/infers/guesses. This leaves me disagreeing with Herman/Nigel/Richard on the way the law is. The opponents are entitled to know when our agreements are not complete and should have as much of a chance to guess partners intention as I have. It also means they must take their own risks of misinterpretting the facts if they have been accurately provided. On the other hand, the dWS as advice to players has the advantage of being easier to use (just tell'em how you're going to interpret it), easier on the opponents (they have information they can use) and easier on the director (MI/UI if its wrong, no call if its right). Further, if I've forgotten an agreement but manage to correctly interpret the bid anyway, I avoid an adverse MI ruling. Hard to see this isn't how the law should be and perhaps sound advice for all but the pedants as the law is. In as much as bridge is a timed game, it is unlikely enough can be said about partnership experience and style to give the opponents as much information as needed to make a truely equal evaluation of partner's intention so there is almost aways MI despite efforts at full disclosure. You might as well choose the simpler, happier but rebellious course. There would seem to be a problem if everybody is better off ignoring the law as written. Rebelliously yours, Mike Dodson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Fri Apr 15 21:51:24 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri Apr 15 21:48:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: I previously said: > >>>So, yes, general knowledge says [1D-1H-; 1S-2C*-; 3N] > >>>absolutely promises 4 diamonds and is going to be 5 > >>>the vast majority of the time. > > Richard Hills: > > Nigel is absolutely correct. The custom of a super- > scientific style (such as I play and apparently Gordon > plays) is not a general bridge knowledge law of nature. I would argue that the need to make inferences from "what partner could have bid but didn't" was even more important in Goren's day than it is now where many people have memorized long lists of bidding recipes to mechanically show shape and strength. > In old-fashioned Goren it is heresy to bypass a 4-card > spade suit to rebid 1NT, so 1D (Pass) 1H (Pass) 1S does > not imply five diamonds. I agree. For a modern player, we've only absolutely guaranteed 4 at this point. Opening 4-3-3-3 with 1D instead of 1C if the diamonds were stronger wasn't heresy in Goren's time, so for a Goren player we're only at about 98% chance of 4+ and ~60% chance of 5+, at this point in the auction. > And in old-fashioned Goren it is heresy to open 1NT with > a worthless doubleton, so a jump to 3NT promising the > same point range as a 1NT opening does not imply five > diamonds. The negative inferences - opener's hand is unsuitable for a 1NT opening, and also unsuitable for showing delayed support for hearts, remain. (As well as not raising rebidding diamonds or raising clubs with a very unbalanced hand.) There is no mathematical proof that 4342, 4162, and 4054 are impossible holdings for opener; but there is strong evidence that these patterns are extremely unlikely to be bid this way by a sensible bidder of either our time or Goren's. > Only if super-scientists know that their opponents are > also super-scientists would super-scientific inferences > be general bridge knowledge. I've played against plenty of people who act surprised when a side suit splits 6-1 even after I've opened a weak two in front of them. The inference is available to anyone who knows (or asks!) what a weak two means. But my super-unscientific opponents aren't obligated to think. If my opponents have the auction 1D-1H-1S-2C-2NT-3NT, without knowing who my opponents are I will still say to myself "Declarer's most likely distributions are 4-2-5-2 and 4-1-5-3 minimums" and I will count out my partner's distribution and strength on that basis as soon as dummy appears. Against good scientific opponents, I will defend optimally. Most of the people who bid this way with other distributions have either already lost the board by getting to the wrong contract, or can be counted on to declare as badly as they bid, so I don't worry about them. No, opener hasn't promised 5 diamonds. He isn't expected to say "this sequence promises 5 diamonds" even if you ask him, because it doesn't. >From here we could go two ways with the disclosure rules. If we simply say partnership agreements must be disclosed, period, I will happily tell an opponent who asks me what opener holds for this auction something like "4 spades, usually 1 or 2 hearts, usually 5 diamonds, a club stopper." I would give that answer under the current rules, in fact, to anyone who asked for it; if a bunny asked a bunch of questions about 2C FSF I'd make sure he understood why my partner would probably have bid hearts with three. If we leave general knowledge and experience in there - I remain firmly of the opinion that a player of experience who knows Standard American can deduce for himself that opener will have exactly 5 diamonds about 90% of the time (ok, 80% of the time if they play Goren), just as I would do if unknown opponents had this auction against me. Under the current laws, I believe I AM entitled to refuse to answer anything about this auction beyond "2C was artifical and asks opener to describe his hand further" (and respond to any follow-ups about what opener's other rebids are.) Not saying I WOULD refuse to - just that I feel the laws plainly say I have the right to. I don't have a suggestion for how to reword the disclosure laws. But I would like to see it move more towards "describe your agreements in full" and away from "describe only what is nonstandard about your system." GRB From UCDCNIG at kartulagenda.com Sat Apr 16 00:00:32 2005 From: UCDCNIG at kartulagenda.com (Sydney Law) Date: Fri Apr 15 23:11:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Top Notch Funding simplified Message-ID: <20210406825750.A31630@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.gr8sav3.com/45.asp Best Regards, Sydney Law darry gs shrike erl [2 From MLQGMFXMQQ at netscape.net Sat Apr 16 00:47:12 2005 From: MLQGMFXMQQ at netscape.net (Francisco Rowland) Date: Fri Apr 15 23:45:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Software 3000 certified Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 6972 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050415/e9104647/attachment.jpe From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Apr 16 03:09:40 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sat Apr 16 03:10:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Twelve - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050415205829.034fbd90@mail.comcast.net> At 02:13 AM 4/15/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >This is the twelfth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually >be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the >official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all >18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > >* * * > >CASE N-12 >Subject: UI >DIC: Henry Cukoff >Blue Ribbon Pairs 1st Final Session > >Bd: 1 Piotr Bizon >Vul: None 2 >Dlr: North AT97 > K76543 > 93 >Nikolay Demirev David Yang >K65 AT843 >KQ643 J82 >QT2 AJ8 >K6 T2 > Michal Kwiecien > QJ97 > 5 > 9 > AQJ8754 > >West North East South >--- Pass Pass 1C >1H 2D 2H 3C >Pass(1) Pass 3H 4C >Dbl Pass Pass Pass > >(1) BIT agreed > >The Facts: The final contract was 4C doubled down one for +100 to >EW after the HK lead. The director was called at the end of play. > >The Ruling: No adjustment was made. Pass of 3C was not thought to >be an LA for East. Law 73F1. > >Other Findings: The screener determined that West asked about the >2D bid and South's 3C bid and then thought for a significant >amount of time before passing over 3C. > >The Appeal: NS appealed and are the only ones who attended the >hearing. They thought that West's questioning and break in tempo >could have helped East make the winning decision to bid 3H. > >The Decision: The Committee determined that West's break in tempo >suggested extra values, but did not point toward 3H versus >double. East held a 3-card limit raise. The AC judged that at >matchpoints and no one vulnerable, very few players would >seriously consider passing 3H with the East hand. > >Since the break in tempo did not suggest bidding rather than >doubling, the AC allowed East's 3H bid to stand and thus the >table result was upheld. > >The appeal was judged to have merit ???? > >Committee: Doug Doub, Chairperson, Ed Lazarus, Howard Weinstein, >Tom Peters, and Bob Schwartz. This is a case for a poll. I agree with the AC's reasoning, provided that pass is not a LA for East. The slow pass suggests some kind of values, but it doesn't suggest 3H over double or vice versa. Why the question marks in "The appeal was judged to have merit????" This appeal clearly has merit, as it shouldn't necessarily be obvious to N-S either that pass is not a LA or that 3H is not demonstrably suggested over double at this vulnerability (double would have to collect +300 for a good score). From apepsia at doramail.com Sat Apr 16 04:53:51 2005 From: apepsia at doramail.com (Lucio Christie) Date: Sat Apr 16 03:59:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Rates fixed Message-ID: <111641.7744.apepsia@doramail.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.n0wwewillsave.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Eileen Cleveland to be remov(ed: http://www.n0wwewillsave.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 Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Apr 16 04:44:48 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Apr 16 04:45:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Twelve - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050415205829.034fbd90@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <011101c5422e$447e8bc0$069468d5@James> [Richard James Hills CASE N-12] > Subject: UI DIC: Henry Cukoff Blue Ribbon Pairs 1F > Bd: 1 Piotr Bizon > Vul: None 2 > Dlr: North AT97 > K76543 > 93 > Nikolay Demirev David Yang > K65 AT843 > KQ643 J82 > QT2 AJ8 > K6 T2 > Michal Kwiecien > QJ97 > 5 > 9 > AQJ8754 > West North East South > --- Pass Pass 1C > 1H 2D 2H 3C > Pass(1) Pass 3H 4C > Dbl Pass Pass Pass > (1) BIT agreed > The Facts: The final contract was 4C doubled down one > for +100 to EW after the HK lead. The director was called > at the end of play. The Ruling: No adjustment was made. > Pass of 3C was not thought to be an LA for East. Law > 73F1. Other Findings: The screener determined that West > asked about the 2D bid and South's 3C bid and then > thought for a significant amount of time before passing > over 3C. > The Appeal: NS appealed and are the only ones who > attended the hearing. They thought that West's > questioning and break in tempo could have helped East > make the winning decision to bid 3H. > The Decision: The Committee determined that West's break > in tempo suggested extra values, but did not point toward > 3H versus double. East held a 3-card limit raise. The AC > judged that at matchpoints and no one vulnerable, very > few players would seriously consider passing 3H with the > East hand. Since the break in tempo did not suggest > bidding rather than doubling, the AC allowed East's 3H > bid to stand and thus the table result was upheld. > The appeal was judged to have merit ???? > Committee: Doug Doub, Chairperson, Ed Lazarus, Howard > Weinstein, Tom Peters, and Bob Schwartz. [Nigel] The appellants, North-South, convinced me. I reckon that this decision was close but there were four good things about this appeal ... A. The appeals committee upheld a close decision by the director. B. The decision was in favour of the side that was unable to attend the hearing. C. The appellants didn't take the opportunity to introduce new evidence that the other side were unavailable to dispute. D. The committee was right to reject an AWMW. From locoes at mailAccount.com Sat Apr 16 06:33:31 2005 From: locoes at mailAccount.com (Clint Ragland) Date: Sat Apr 16 05:41:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Your account #8M7646 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 $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.n0wwewillsave.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Lance Mcknight to be remov(ed: http://www.n0wwewillsave.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 16 10:15:55 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat Apr 16 10:25:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Travelling Message-ID: <000001c5425d$ec5f7dc0$eea1403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Newest penis enlargement system: -Increases the penis length and girth -Medically Proven (source: wikipedia) -No Surgery -Permanent Results -Proven Traction Method -100% Satisfaction Guaranteed Find more info here: http://www.ftke.com/e/viks you arequipa me boredom me you concomitant me ohm me you skeleton me analyses me you matrix me murmur me you ambuscade me consequential me you elaine me horsehair me you stickleback me methuselah me http://mkfo.com/p.php From david.j.barton at lineone.net Sat Apr 16 14:42:59 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Sat Apr 16 14:43:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question References: <001f01c54055$febe2840$0307a8c0@david><000001c5406e$fd9a8670$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050414074157.02ba0c20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000401c54281$d24c7e50$0307a8c0@david> Let us make this completely general The bidding goes Bid1 Bid2a/Bid2b Bid3 Bid4 round the table. Where Bid2b replaces Bid2a after a late alert. Now is it a general proposition that the player making Bid4 has to explain all the inferences available to him in selecting Bid4, including the inferences available from Bid2a or even providing the info that his partner had made Bid 2a, and that that info is now authorised? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.13 - Release Date: 16/04/2005 From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 16 15:44:26 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Apr 16 15:45:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000401c54281$d24c7e50$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000001c5428a$67ddb3f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton > Let us make this completely general > The bidding goes > Bid1 Bid2a/Bid2b Bid3 Bid4 > round the table. > > Where Bid2b replaces Bid2a after a late alert. > Now is it a general proposition that the player > making Bid4 has to explain all the inferences > available to him in selecting Bid4, including the > inferences available from Bid2a or even > providing the info that his partner had made Bid 2a, > and that that info is now authorised? The general answer to this question is NO. To the offending side the "known" auction consists of the calls: Bid1 - Bid2b - Bid3 and Bid4, and this is the auction for which they are entitled to a full description. The problem arises when "player 4" from his knowledge of Bid2a can tell that Bid2b must be a violation of agreements and "player 2" at the time he replaced his Bid2a with Bid2b should be aware of this fact. As Bid2a is not authorized to their opponents Bid2b is now essentially made using a concealed partnership understanding and more specifically it violates Law 75B in that "player 2" when he made this bid knows his partner will be aware of this violation while opponents legally do not have any possibility to be aware of it. There is no problem if both Bid2a and Bid2b are according to agreements, possibly different agreements for the different situations caused by changing the disclosure on Bid1. (It has no significance whether the changing disclosure is caused by a late alert or by more directly changing a verbal explanation). In this case there is no "hidden understanding" required to obtain a correct understanding of Bid2b. Regards Sven From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Sat Apr 16 17:38:49 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Sat Apr 16 17:39:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? Message-ID: <42613189.8080705@hotmail.com> An easy question for the specialists: South is declarer in 3NT, but East Leads a small Club. South chooses that the club becomes a penalty card and that West can not lead a club. West leads Diamond King taken by declarer in dummy with the Ace. Declarer plays a small Heart from dummy and finesses with AQ, taken by West with the King. Question: Q1: Is the lead out of turn still UI now? - Without the LOOT the normal play after getting the lead back with Heart K would be: continue D and 3NT is made. - With the LOOT and above decission: West retuns a club after re-getting the lead with Heart K: Result is 3NT -1 Q2: result of 3NT -1 stands? From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sat Apr 16 18:55:20 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sat Apr 16 18:58:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? References: <42613189.8080705@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <002a01c542a5$4842c6a0$68493dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "koen" To: Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 5:38 PM Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? > An easy question for the specialists: > South is declarer in 3NT, but East Leads a small Club. > South chooses that the club becomes a penalty card and that West can not > lead a club. > West leads Diamond King taken by declarer in dummy with the Ace. > Declarer plays a small Heart from dummy and finesses with AQ, taken by > West with the King. > Question: > Q1: Is the lead out of turn still UI now? The small club back in the hand of east is UI. The meaning of the small club in relation to a lead agreement is UI as well. The director has the duty to inform the players about the consequencies of a (withdrawn) penalty card. In case he did not, he has to apply Law82C within the period mentioned in Law79C. Ben > > - Without the LOOT the normal play after getting the lead back with > Heart K would be: continue D and 3NT is made. > - With the LOOT and above decission: West retuns a club after re-getting > the lead with Heart K: Result is 3NT -1 > Q2: result of 3NT -1 stands? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Apr 16 23:22:53 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat Apr 16 23:23:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <002001c541ea$cbbd2310$929468d5@James> References: <002001c541ea$cbbd2310$929468d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050416154209.02d9dc60@pop.starpower.net> At 02:41 PM 4/15/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >Eric and I suffer from a difference in vocabulary. By >"random call" I mean a call that deliberately conveys no >information but might confuse opponents or disrupt their >auction (arguably like East's double here). Another example >is a meaningless one spade overcall over a precision club. >If such "random" calls are allowed in this event my argument >becomes weaker :( :( East's double was "meaningless" only in the sense of "lacking a particular agreed meaning". That's really not analogous to a call which is explicitly defined by partnership agreement as meaningless. Indeed, the latter would not be allowed in an ACBL event. But the former is endemic to the game of bridge; no partnership can explicitly define every possible sequence. Even the top world-class partnerships with hundreds of pages of system notes leave most specific sequences undefined; they rely on agreements intended to cover all sequences of a particular type. But even Meckstroth and Rodwell occasionally have undiscussed sequences, where their principles leave an obscure gap, or, more often in well-thought out methods, different principles lead to different possibilities. >Most of us have encountered predicaments similar to those >envisaged by Eric. For example, a pick-up-partner opens one >notrump and you don't know whether or not transfers are on >the menu: you could risk a transfer and hope. Much more >prudent is a fudge like a pass or a wild leap to game. The >question is whether, for East-West, this was an extreme >version of such a predicament where no bid was more >appropriate than a dangerous meaningless one. Even a pick-up partnership in the ACBL is required to know whether or not transfers, and a variety of other common agreements, are on the menu, as they must make a decision whether or not to check a specific box on the convention card. A better example would be agreeing to play transfers in a variety of common situations, then having an obscure middle-level competitive sequence in which it's no longer clear whether they're still on, or whether some other agreement might apply. >Since East seems to have cue-bids in diamonds and spades >available -- as well as various other natural sounding bids >that seem quite descriptive, it is hard to believe that >East's only option is to make a dangerous call that >he knows has no meaning. The committee make no reference to >such a remote possibility. To his credit, East did not >attempt to stretch our credulity with such an improbable >claim :) This would have been a relatively experienced partnership, with lots of agreements. But this is exactly the sort of position where those agreements were likely to come into conflict. How many partnerships, even at that level, will have explicitly discussed two-level actions by an unpassed hand in competitive auctions that started at the two-level with the opponents bidding two suits? Would either cue-bid be a demand for partner to bid 3NT with the oppoonents' other suit stopped (the usual case when the opponents have bid two-suits and you have three-level cue-bids available in either)? Would either one promise heart support (if the auction had started at the one-level, or reached the three-level, one of them would and you would know which)? Experts at this level (it was the Blue Ribbon finals) don't play "just do something" cue-bids; they have agreements. Most do play "just do something" doubles, but those are notorious for producing situations in which it's not clear whether they apply (as the Bridge World's MSC reminds us every month or so). >If there is an implicit understanding that West cannot pass >East's double without a spade-stack then the double did have >an obvious take-out meaning which should be disclosed. Despite our differences about various assumptions, analogies, and whatnot, Nigel has, in a very nice piece of logical argument, reconciled our views into a bottom-line statement that we can agree to. He has reduced our actual disagreement about Orlando case #11 to the question of whether E-W had an implicit but disclosable understanding that West needed a spade stack to pass. To the extent that I see any mutual understanding, it is no more than that what West needs to pass is a hand less likely to incur a disaster opposite a non-penalty double than a hand on which bidding would incur a disaster opposite a penalty double. A spade stack would undoubtedly qualify, but is hardly required. If this case were a close call I might feel differently about my presumptions. But look at West's hand -- maybe he got lucky, but this one wasn't close at all; it could easily have been right for him to pull even if it was a penalty double! His 3C bid hardly qualifies as even a vague suggestion that he might have chosen some other call even if he thought that his partner's double was more likely than not for penalties. So I still see nothing here to suggest MI. Of course, East did know when he doubled that West was more likely to pull than not to, but that had nothing to do with agreements, implicit or otherwise. Rather, the logic of the situation made it relatively safe to double, provided that the call really was systemically undefined. Regardless of what anyone held, East and West both knew that if 2SX were making overtricks passing would surely produce a cold bottom, whereas if 2SX ware going down for a top bidding wouldn't necessarily score no matchpoints. Call it an "inference[] drawn from... general knowledge and experience"; presumably the opponents understood it full well. East's only real worry when he made his "meaningless" double was that West might incorrectly ascribe some systemic meaning to it (of which the opponents would no doubt have been mis-informed) and consequently do something stupid, rather than recognizing (and thus describing) it as having no agreed meaning. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Apr 16 23:51:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Apr 16 23:52:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000001c5428a$67ddb3f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > As Bid2a is not authorized to their opponents Bid2b is now essentially > made using a concealed partnership understanding and more specifically > it violates Law 75B in that "player 2" when he made this bid knows his > partner will be aware of this violation while opponents legally do not > have any possibility to be aware of it. Why is this case different? A player in possession of UI is, of necessity, legally aware of the UI (or he can't carefully avoid taking advantage). He is forbidden from drawing inferences from the information but that in no way makes it "concealed". Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Apr 17 00:08:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Apr 17 00:09:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? In-Reply-To: <42613189.8080705@hotmail.com> Message-ID: Koen wrote: > Question: > Q1: Is the lead out of turn still UI now? Nasty. The inferences from his pard's lead of C3 are UI but, as far as I can tell, the fact that declarer forbade a C lead is AI. What this means in terms of LAs I'm not equipped to say without seeing the hand. Tim From nbllsvgsejbo at composit.it Sun Apr 17 09:33:15 2005 From: nbllsvgsejbo at composit.it (Genevieve Schneider) Date: Sun Apr 17 08:37:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Penis failure causes problems. Amplifico solves them. Message-ID: <5.99953.3132363037393934.7@ientrynetwork.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050417/00bb469e/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 17 09:54:16 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Apr 17 09:55:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c54322$a83594c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > As Bid2a is not authorized to their opponents Bid2b is now essentially > > made using a concealed partnership understanding and more specifically > > it violates Law 75B in that "player 2" when he made this bid knows his > > partner will be aware of this violation while opponents legally do not > > have any possibility to be aware of it. > > Why is this case different? A player in possession of UI is, of > necessity, legally aware of the UI (or he can't carefully avoid > taking advantage). He is forbidden from drawing inferences from > the information but that in no way makes it "concealed". Just to make the situation clear: East/West might have had the agreement that they use transfer bids over 1NT except when opponents have made a double that requires alert. Had there been such an agreement there would have been no problem at all. >From everything that has been written until now we can safely assume that the sequence 1NT - ? - 2M shows a weak hand with a long suit of the named denomination and nothing else. Please consider the following scenario: W: 1NT N: X E: 2S S: (late) alert E: (with TD present) "I change my bid to 2H" The auction now continues with all players "knowing" that either 2S or most probably 2H is psychic because one of these bids necessarily is a violation of agreements. North and South are legally prohibited from selecting any action based on information from the retracted 2S bid, particularly the fact that 2H (most probably) is psychic, but anyway they succeed either in finding themselves a good contract or in finding a good defense against a final contract reached by East/West. So East and West ends up with a poor score. In other words: The psyche didn't work this time. And East/West yell for TD requesting redress for "damage". Is it the duty of TD (and in case AC) to protect the psyche made by East when East must have known at the time he made his psychic call that his partner (from the circumstances) would be aware of the call being a psyche? I just do not buy such an argument, to me that is bridge "lawyerism" at its worst. Regards Sven From david.j.barton at lineone.net Sun Apr 17 11:02:19 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Sun Apr 17 11:03:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question References: <000001c54322$a83594c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001401c5432c$293f3f40$0307a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 8:54 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Another L21 Question > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > As Bid2a is not authorized to their opponents Bid2b is now essentially > > made using a concealed partnership understanding and more specifically > > it violates Law 75B in that "player 2" when he made this bid knows his > > partner will be aware of this violation while opponents legally do not > > have any possibility to be aware of it. > > Why is this case different? A player in possession of UI is, of > necessity, legally aware of the UI (or he can't carefully avoid > taking advantage). He is forbidden from drawing inferences from > the information but that in no way makes it "concealed". Sven Wrote:- Just to make the situation clear: East/West might have had the agreement that they use transfer bids over 1NT except when opponents have made a double that requires alert. Had there been such an agreement there would have been no problem at all. >From everything that has been written until now we can safely assume that the sequence 1NT - ? - 2M shows a weak hand with a long suit of the named denomination and nothing else. Please consider the following scenario: W: 1NT N: X E: 2S S: (late) alert E: (with TD present) "I change my bid to 2H" The auction now continues with all players "knowing" that either 2S or most probably 2H is psychic because one of these bids necessarily is a violation of agreements. North and South are legally prohibited from selecting any action based on information from the retracted 2S bid, particularly the fact that 2H (most probably) is psychic, but anyway they succeed either in finding themselves a good contract or in finding a good defense against a final contract reached by East/West. So East and West ends up with a poor score. In other words: The psyche didn't work this time. And East/West yell for TD requesting redress for "damage". Is it the duty of TD (and in case AC) to protect the psyche made by East when East must have known at the time he made his psychic call that his partner (from the circumstances) would be aware of the call being a psyche? I just do not buy such an argument, to me that is bridge "lawyerism" at its worst. Regards Sven Neither I nor any one else has suggested East/West are AUTOMATICALLY entitled to a good score. If say N/S reach 3N for a top match point score then good luck to them. However if the auction goes say 1N X 2H P//2S 3H P 4H then the TD should examine whether there has been any use of UI. If E/W are able to tell from authorised information that 2 bids are inconsistent they are legally able to make use of this information. The fact that N/S have the same information but are NOT able to make use of it because of a penalty imposed upon them for their own earlier infraction is just tough. (See L72A4) So Yes I do believe the TD has the duty to protect E/W from their "psyche" being exposed through the use of UI. You may call it "lawyerism", I describe it as an imaginitive use of the rights provided to them under the Law ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.15 - Release Date: 16/04/2005 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Apr 17 17:33:22 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sun Apr 17 17:34:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <002001c541ea$cbbd2310$929468d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050416154209.02d9dc60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001501c54362$e1bbbb80$199868d5@James> Eric Landau] > East's double was "meaningless" only in the sense of > "lacking a particular agreed meaning". That's really > not analogous to a call which is explicitly defined by > partnership agreement as meaningless. Indeed, the > latter would not be allowed in an ACBL event. But the > former is endemic to the game of bridge; no partnership > can explicitly define every possible sequence. Even the > top world-class partnerships with hundreds of pages of > system notes leave ost specific sequences undefined; > they rely on agreements intended to cover all sequences > of a particular type. But even Meckstroth and Rodwell > occasionally have undiscussed sequences, where their > principles leave an obscure gap, or, more often in > well-thought out methods, different principles lead to > different possibilities. [Eric: commenting on my suggestion as to how, for example, you could circumvent an undiscussed transfer sequence] > Even a pick-up partnership in the ACBL is required to > know whether or not transfers, and a variety of other > common agreements, are on the menu, as they must make a > decision whether or not to check a specific box on the > convention card. A better example would be agreeing to > play transfers in a variety of common situations, then > having an obscure middle-level competitive sequence in > which it's no longer clear whether they're still on, or > whether some other agreement might apply. Since East > seems to have cue-bids in diamonds and spades available > -- as well as various other natural sounding bids > >that seem quite descriptive. [Eric went on to counter Nigel's argument that it is hard to believe that East's only option is to make a dangerous call that he knows has no meaning..."] [Eric] > This would have been a relatively experienced > partnership, with lots of agreements. But this is > exactly the sort of position where those agreements were > likely to come into conflict. How many partnerships, > even at that level, will have explicitly discussed two- > level actions by an unpassed hand in competitive auctions > that started at the two-level with the opponents bidding > two suits? Would either cue-bid be a demand for partner > to bid 3NT with the oppoonents' other suit stopped (the > usual case when the opponents have bid two-suits and you > have three-level cue-bids available in either)? Would > either one promise heart support (if the auction had > started at the one-level, or reached the three-level, > one of them would and you would know which)? Experts > at this level (it was the Blue Ribbon finals) don't play > "just do something" cue-bids; they have agreements. > Most do play "just do something" doubles, but those > are notorious for producing situations in which it's > not clear whether they apply (as the Bridge World's MSC > reminds us every month or so). [Eric] > Despite our differences about various assumptions, > analogies, and whatnot, Nigel has, in a very nice piece > of logical argument, reconciled our views into a bottom- > line statement that we can agree to. He has reduced our > actual disagreement about Orlando case #11 to > the question of whether E-W had an implicit but > disclosable understanding that West needed a spade stack > to pass. To the extent that I see any mutual > understanding, it is no more than that what West needs > to pass is a hand less likely to incur a disaster > opposite a non-penalty double than a hand on which > bidding would incur a disaster opposite a penalty > double. A spade stack would undoubtedly qualify, but > is hardly required. If this case were a close call I > might feel differently about my presumptions. But look > at West's hand -- maybe he got lucky, but this one > wasn't close at all; it could easily have been right > for him to pull even if it was a penalty double! His > 3C bid hardly qualifies as even a vague suggestion that > he might have chosen some other call even if he thought > that his partner's double was more likely than not for > penalties. So I still see nothing here to suggest MI. > Of course, East did know when he doubled that West was > more likely to pull than not to, but that had nothing to < do with agreements, implicit or otherwise. Rather, the > logic of the situation made it relatively safe to > double, provided that the call really was systemically > undefined. Regardless of what anyone held, East and > West both knew that if 2SX were making overtricks passing > would surely produce a cold bottom, whereas if 2SX ware > going down for a top bidding wouldn't necessarily score > no matchpoints. Call it an "inference[] drawn from... > general knowledge and experience"; presumably the > opponents understood it full well. East's only real > worry when he made his "meaningless" double was that West > might incorrectly ascribe some systemic meaning to it > (of which the opponents would no doubt have been < mis-informed) and consequently do something stupid, > rather than recognizing (and thus describing) it as > having no agreed meaning. [Nigel] IMO this case highlights problems that inevitably arise with several legislative bodies. Possible grey areas in this case ... A. If your partner correctly explains the systemic meaning of a call, is this authorised information to you? If you thought your call had a different meaning at the time you made it. must you admit this when your side declares a contract? B. If you make a call that you know is meaningless, is it a "random call"? What if all available alternative calls are inappropriate to your hand? C. What is "general knowledge" about meaningless calls? [Eric may well be right that A does not apply to this case. But even if the question is irrelevant to this case, I would still like to know the answer. I suffer from lingering doubts about the correctness of my earlier answer and conclusions :) ] I don't think our dispute hinges merely on whether West needs a spade stack to pass the double; but I have nothing to add to my earlier arguments. Thank you, Eric, for so patiently and politely explaining the likely logic behind the TD/AC decision. I understand and appreciate your point of view. I still find the decision puzzling but less so now. I really enjoyed our chat. From ooga at shaw.ca Sun Apr 17 18:25:34 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Sun Apr 17 18:26:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <001401c5432c$293f3f40$0307a8c0@david> References: <000001c54322$a83594c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001401c5432c$293f3f40$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <42628DFE.90902@shaw.ca> We're actually back to the original question here: East North West South 1NT (12-14) DBL 2S Alert (majors) After the late alert, West, away from the table, wishes to change 2S to a psyche of 2H, making 2S UI to N-S but AI to E-W. I repeat that my first action as TD, before calling West away from the table, is to ascertain that the late alert is more than, say, 2 seconds after the double. Doubling 1NT is often conventional and if West slams 2S onto the table instantaneously, he's not getting an advantage when he has broken tempo to get the alert out before the 2S call. > Neither I nor any one else has suggested East/West are AUTOMATICALLY > entitled to a good score. If say N/S reach 3N for a top match point > score then > good luck to them. However if the auction goes say > 1N X 2H P//2S 3H P 4H > then the TD should examine whether there has been any use of UI. My opinion remains that L75B ("A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation...") is applicable here. E-W almost certainly have a partnership agreement about bidding suits that the opponents claim they hold, so psyching 2H is a violation of an agreement. What would 2H (or 2S) mean if the alert were timely? Either natural with a long suit, or some kind of cuebid, I would imagine. While the TD cannot prohibit West from changing to 2H, and in fact shouldn't even look at his hand, he should advise West, away from the table, that changing his call to a psyche that is AI to partner and UI to the opponents is a violation of Law. > If E/W are able to tell from authorised information that 2 bids are > inconsistent > they are legally able to make use of this information. > The fact that N/S have the same information but are NOT able to make use > of it > because of a penalty imposed upon them for their own earlier infraction is > just tough. (See L72A4) If N-S make clear use of the UI I will adjust the N-S score. I will not adjust the E-W score after having given West the warning. I don't believe a late alert gives a player the right to make a risk-free psyche. (If you don't like that wording, substitute "ignore Law 75B" for "make a risk-free psyche.") > So Yes I do believe the TD has the duty to protect E/W from their "psyche" > being exposed through the use of UI. > You may call it "lawyerism", I describe it as an imaginitive use of the > rights provided to them under the Law Well, it's 21B versus 75B here, and a matter of opinion. Just because 21B says you can change a call 'without penalty' doesn't mean other Laws don't apply. We would certainly not use the 'without penalty' clause to allow West to change to 1H, 8NT or double. I certainly agree with the term 'imaginative.' :) -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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 Sun Apr 17 20:06:55 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Apr 17 20:08:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <42628DFE.90902@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <000301c54378$3d590d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Bruce McIntyre > We're actually back to the original question here: > West North East South > 1NT (12-14) DBL 2S Alert (majors) I have taken the liberty to exchange East and West here and in the text below as I prefer to adhere to Law 17C (calls to be made in rotation) > > After the late alert, East, away from the table, wishes to > change 2S to a psyche of 2H, making 2S UI to N-S but AI to E-W. > > I repeat that my first action as TD, before calling East away > from the table, is to ascertain that the late alert is more than, > say, 2 seconds after the double. > Doubling 1NT is often conventional and if East slams 2S onto the table > instantaneously, he's not getting an advantage when he has broken tempo to > get the alert out before the 2S call. I seldom bother with technicalities of this kind. If East calls before South can manage an alert I have no problem letting East change his call if he feels he has reason for doing so. Whether the alert comes immediately or after some delay is not important. > > Neither I nor any one else has suggested East/West are AUTOMATICALLY > > entitled to a good score. If say N/S reach 3N for a top match point > > score then > > good luck to them. However if the auction goes say > > 1N X 2H P//2S 3H P 4H > > then the TD should examine whether there has been any use of UI. > > My opinion remains that L75B ("A player may violate an announced > partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the > violation...") is applicable here. E-W almost certainly have a > partnership agreement about bidding suits that the opponents claim > they hold, so psyching 2H is a violation of an agreement. > What would 2H (or 2S) mean if the alert were timely? Either natural > with a long suit, or some kind of cuebid, I would imagine. > > While the TD cannot prohibit East from changing to 2H, and in fact > shouldn't even look at his hand, he should advise East, away from > the table, that changing his call to a psyche that is AI to partner > and UI to the opponents is a violation of Law. > > > If E/W are able to tell from authorised information that 2 bids are > > inconsistent they are legally able to make use of this information. Sure, and the same applies to any player in any situation. > > > > The fact that N/S have the same information but are NOT able to make > > use of it because of a penalty imposed upon them for their own > > earlier infraction is just tough. (See L72A4) Sure, but Law 21B1 does not provide East with an option to change a call into a psyche if that psyche violates the conditions specified in Law 75B. > > If N-S make clear use of the UI I will adjust the N-S score. I will > not adjust the E-W score after having given East the warning. Not even if you afterwards find that East violated Law 75B in changing his first bid into a protected psyche? > I don't believe a late alert gives a player the right to make a risk- > free psyche. (If you don't like that wording, substitute "ignore Law > 75B" for "make a risk-free psyche.") > > > So Yes I do believe the TD has the duty to protect E/W from their > > "psyche" being exposed through the use of UI. North/South cannot reveal the 2H bid as a psyche without using the information that East initially bid 2S. Neither can West, but as the 2S bid is AI to West (and also to East of course) that is no problem for him. > > You may call it "lawyerism", I describe it as an imaginitive use > > of the rights provided to them under the Law > > Well, it's 21B versus 75B here, and a matter of opinion. Just because > 21B says you can change a call 'without penalty' doesn't mean other > Laws don't apply. We would certainly not use the 'without penalty' > clause to allow West to change to 1H, 8NT or double. Quite. > > I certainly agree with the term 'imaginative.' :) I feel really confused here because I have the impression that we do agree on my main point: East is not permitted to make a protected psyche which North/South is legally prevented from revealing. If the TD afterwards finds that he has done so and thereby caused damage to North/South then he should award redress to North/South by adjusting the result effective for both sides. However it is not clear to me (from what I believe you write) that this is really your opinion? (Or have I simply mixed together your comments with a previous comment to which you disagree and taken that too as coming from you?) Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Apr 17 21:19:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Apr 17 21:20:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000001c54322$a83594c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Please consider the following scenario: > W: 1NT > N: X > E: 2S > S: (late) alert > E: (with TD present) "I change my bid to 2H" > > The auction now continues with all players "knowing" that either 2S or > most probably 2H is psychic because one of these bids necessarily is a > violation of agreements. > > North and South are legally prohibited from selecting any action based > on information from the retracted 2S bid, particularly the fact that 2H > (most probably) is psychic, but anyway they succeed either in finding > themselves a good contract or in finding a good defense against a final > contract reached by East/West. > > So East and West ends up with a poor score. In other words: The psyche > didn't work this time. And East/West yell for TD requesting redress for > "damage". > > Is it the duty of TD (and in case AC) to protect the psyche made by East > when East must have known at the time he made his psychic call that his > partner (from the circumstances) would be aware of the call being a > psyche? Why on earth should the TD have a duty to "protect" the psych? If NS got a good score despite carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI about the psych then the result stands. If the TD determines that NS took advantage of the UI about the psych in getting a good result then he adjusts. I don't see why the substitute bid being a psych (or otherwise) changes anything - all the TD has to do is examine the LAs and work out which were untainted by UI. NB I'm not sure from the sequence you give how West is supposed to work out that 2H is a psych. I'd assume partner was showing me a weak hand with 4H and 6C (a hand type he can't normally show). Perhaps the law allows too much leeway in allowing East to substitute any call, instead restricting the substitution to calls he might have made after an in tempo alert but such is life. NS wouldn't face this problem if they learnt to alert on time so the need no sympathy from me if their actions give opps an advantage. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 18 01:46:03 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 18 01:47:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <200504151420.j3FEKdAm007784@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Appeals Committee Decision: >>The Decision: No member of the AC had discussed the meaning of >>this double with his partner. The Committee determined that there >>was MI because of West's inability to explain East's bid. Ed Reppert: >>IOW, you are required to know the meaning, in your partnership's >>agreements, of *every* call partner makes. Horseshit. Ron Johnson: >Or more likely a single missing word. "No MI" makes a heck of a >lot more sense in context. Richard Hills: It makes sense in previous context, but not in subsequent context. The committee later gave three reasons for not adjusting the table score, but none of those three reasons was that there was not any MI infraction. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 18 02:05:55 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 18 02:06:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Thirteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the thirteenth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-13 Subject: UI DIC: Steve Bates Reisinger Teams 1st Qualification Bd: 9 Peter Weichsel Vul: EW KQ2 Dlr: North K8543 742 73 Magnus Lindkvist Peter Fredin 74 8 QT9 J762 KQJ8 AT963 Q984 JT6 Alan Sontag AJT9653 A 5 AK52 West North East South --- Pass Pass 1C(1) Pass 1D(2) Dbl(3) 2S(4) Pass 3S Pass 4S(5) Pass 5H Pass 6S Pass Pass Pass (1) artificial 16+ (2) artificial 0-8 (3) Diamonds (4) Game Force (5) BIT The Facts: The final contract was 6S making six for +980 for NS after the DK lead. The director was called at the end of play although EW noted the break in tempo before the opening lead. NS said South took 8-10 seconds before bidding 4S. EW said longer. The Ruling: The contract was changed to 4S making six for +480. Law 16, UI. The hesitation suggests bidding over 4S and pass is a logical alternative. The Appeal: NS appealed and stated they thought that 5H was automatic. North, East and West were present at the hearing. Statements by the other side: EW thought bidding 5H was an error. They are experienced big club players and stated they would have passed 4S. Other Facts Discovered: If North had bid 3D, it would have been a double negative. 3NT by South over 3 might or might not be artificial. The Decision: This was purely a matter of bridge judgement. If passing 4S is a logical alternative, the 5H bid is not allowed and the director's ruling must stand. All the members of the Committee felt that this case was near the borderline; most felt that bidding was about an 85% action. One member stated that such an action disallowed other LAs and his position of Chair of the National Laws Commission gives his claim substantial weight. The Chairperson disagreed. The Committee based its feelings on (1) North was supermax for 1D, so no silly slams would be reached, (2) South heard the double of 1D, so he doesn't have soft diamond values and a marginal hand, and (3) most players seem to overbid the North cards at their tables. After two hours deliberation and a vote of 4-1, the Committee voted to allow the 5H bid and thus the 6S bid and therefore the table result of 6S making +980 was ruled to stand. The appeal was judged to have merit and no AWMW was issued. Dissent (Jeff Goldsmith): An informal poll of three experienced big club players was made after the hearing. All passed, one without much thought, and the other two reluctantly. This confirms that passing is indeed an LA and the AC got it wrong. In any case, if wrong, it is not far wrong, however. The answer may depend on the definition of LA. If the "seriously consider" criterion were used, passing would obviously be an LA. If Edgar Kaplan's 75% rule were in effect, it surely would not be. Our current rule is somewhere in between. Where exactly? There appears to be room for judgement. Committee: Jeff Goldsmith, Chairperson, Gary Cohler, JoAnn Sprung, Ralph Cohen, and Chris Moll. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 18 04:18:40 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 18 04:20:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <001501c54362$e1bbbb80$199868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: [snip] >A. If your partner correctly explains the systemic >meaning of a call, is this authorised information >to you? Richard Hills replies: Definitely not; you might have forgotten the agreed partnership meaning of a call, and the footnote to Law 40 states: "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory....." Nigel Guthrie asked: >If you thought your call had a different meaning at >the time you made it. must you admit this when your >side declares a contract? Richard Hills replies: Law 75D2 requires you to correct any misinformation given by partner about your explicit and implicit agreements. If, however, partner's explanation is correct, and you have merely misbid, then Example Two in the footnote to Law 75 gives this advice to a misbidder: "South must not correct North's explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently." Nigel Guthrie asked: >B. If you make a call that you know is meaningless, >is it a "random call"? What if all available >alternative calls are inappropriate to your hand? Richard Hills replies: To avoid confusion, some definition is needed to disaggregate the ball-of-wax term "meaningless". -> (a) Non-systemic call - a call which the partnership has specifically agreed will never be made. For example, in my esoteric Symmetric Relay system, if an uncontested auction proceeds: Dealer Responder 1D 1H ? then it would be non-systemic for dealer to rebid 2NT or higher. (b) Undiscussed call - a call for which there is neither explicit nor implicit partnership agreement. (c) Random call - a call which, by partnership agreement, promises non-specific 13 cards. For example, a once-popular defence to a Precision 1C opening was a random overcall of 1S. Such random overcalls are classified as Yellow (HUM) in Australia, because many partnerships who used them in the past created concealed implicit partnership agreements about when a 1S "random" overcall would not be used. Nigel Guthrie asked: >C. What is "general knowledge" about meaningless >calls? Richard Hills replies: It is general knowledge that calls of category (b), undiscussed calls, are frequently perpetrated. In most cases when a player perpetrates an undiscussed call, that player does so in the mistaken belief that it is already explicitly or implicitly agreed by their partnership. Occasionally (especially when I am the perpetrator) an undiscussed call is made with malice aforethought, in order to confuse all three opponents. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From mustikka at charter.net Sun Apr 17 17:55:06 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija d) Date: Mon Apr 18 05:43:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question References: <000001c54322$a83594c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000701c54365$d3df45b0$d4bcbe44@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 12:54 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Another L21 Question > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > As Bid2a is not authorized to their opponents Bid2b is now essentially > > made using a concealed partnership understanding and more specifically > > it violates Law 75B in that "player 2" when he made this bid knows his > > partner will be aware of this violation while opponents legally do not > > have any possibility to be aware of it. > > Why is this case different? A player in possession of UI is, of > necessity, legally aware of the UI (or he can't carefully avoid > taking advantage). He is forbidden from drawing inferences from > the information but that in no way makes it "concealed". Just to make the situation clear: East/West might have had the agreement that they use transfer bids over 1NT except when opponents have made a double that requires alert. Had there been such an agreement there would have been no problem at all. >From everything that has been written until now we can safely assume that the sequence 1NT - ? - 2M shows a weak hand with a long suit of the named denomination and nothing else. Please consider the following scenario: W: 1NT N: X E: 2S S: (late) alert E: (with TD present) "I change my bid to 2H" The auction now continues with all players "knowing" that either 2S or most probably 2H is psychic because one of these bids necessarily is a violation of agreements. North and South are legally prohibited from selecting any action based on information from the retracted 2S bid, particularly the fact that 2H (most probably) is psychic, but anyway they succeed either in finding themselves a good contract or in finding a good defense against a final contract reached by East/West. So East and West ends up with a poor score. In other words: The psyche didn't work this time. And East/West yell for TD requesting redress for "damage". Is it the duty of TD (and in case AC) to protect the psyche made by East when East must have known at the time he made his psychic call that his partner (from the circumstances) would be aware of the call being a psyche? I just do not buy such an argument, to me that is bridge "lawyerism" at its worst. Regards Sven Sven, How about this - our side makes an opening out of turn and one partner must pass at what would have been his turn. Is it also "lawyerism" for other partner to open 3NT although he does not have a 3NT opening? Will the score be adjusted if it makes and nobody else is in it? How about this, is this "lawyerism" also: opponent has a penalty card and I am going to take finesse in a suit, knowing that my RHO opponent has a penalty card in that suit on the table. Will score be adjusted because everyone else lost the finesse and I won because opponent had to play his penalty card? There are many other type of occurrences, where an infraction by the opponent or our side has opened up a legal opportunity to improve our score (or get a bottom) and I think the players' rights to make any legal call or legal play they wish to make must be protected. Taking advantage of an opponent's infraction is not lawyering by any means, it is a competition afterall. It would be silly not to do one's best, legally, to improve one's score. I find it objectionable as a player if I am not allowed to bid 2H as in the original posting, if I want to. I haven't done it, nor even thought about it, but I admire that player who showed great imagination. Someone please spell out the law that says he cannot bid 2H after he hears, late, that the intervening call was alertable. Regards Raija From ooga at shaw.ca Mon Apr 18 07:20:43 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Mon Apr 18 07:22:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000301c54378$3d590d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c54378$3d590d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <426343AB.9030906@shaw.ca> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Bruce McIntyre >>We're actually back to the original question here: >>West North East South >>1NT (12-14) DBL 2S Alert (majors) > > > I have taken the liberty to exchange East and West here and in the text > below as I prefer to adhere to Law 17C (calls to be made in rotation) East and West are not my strong point; this is not the first time I've confused them here. Perhaps there is a thesis here: are East and West confused by native English speakers more often than those speaking other languages where the two words are not so similar-looking? :) >>After the late alert, East, away from the table, wishes to >>change 2S to a psyche of 2H, making 2S UI to N-S but AI to E-W. >> >>I repeat that my first action as TD, before calling East away >>from the table, is to ascertain that the late alert is more than, >>say, 2 seconds after the double. >>Doubling 1NT is often conventional and if East slams 2S onto the table >>instantaneously, he's not getting an advantage when he has broken tempo to >>get the alert out before the 2S call. > > I seldom bother with technicalities of this kind. If East calls before South > can manage an alert I have no problem letting East change his call if he > feels he has reason for doing so. Whether the alert comes immediately or > after some delay is not important. > Fair enough. But I have seen people pass UI by reaching for bid cards before their RHO has touched one: 1D DBL 1S, the 1S out of the box before the double card is. If 2S is bid in the auction under discussion in a similar fashion, this is passing UI--"I don't care which meaning out of the dozens out there they have for double, partner, I'm always bidding 2S." I feel we should look harshly on players who break tempo in order to gain an advantage: failing to alert and paying the penalties for doing so should not be a result of poor reflexes. Moot point here, since this probably isn't what happened. > >>If N-S make clear use of the UI I will adjust the N-S score. I will >>not adjust the E-W score after having given East the warning. > > > Not even if you afterwards find that East violated Law 75B in changing his > first bid into a protected psyche? Let me clarify. If South now bids 4H on a 0=3=4=6 10 count and makes ten tricks, I give N-S AVG-, or perhaps some partscore if (unlikely) I can determine the likely result without making use of UI, and E-W is stuck with their -420 or -620. East was warned that his 2H call was illegal if it was a psyche, so no redress. We have some simultaneous OSs and NOSs here. The first infraction is the late alert, and N-S are the OS and E-W are the NOS. Once East, despite being warned away from the table, decides to change his call to 2H, E-W are the OS for this separate infraction. We may need to penalize E-W for the violation of 75B AND penalize N-S for knowingly taking advantage of UI. > > I feel really confused here because I have the impression that we do agree > on my main point: East is not permitted to make a protected psyche which > North/South is legally prevented from revealing. If the TD afterwards finds > that he has done so and thereby caused damage to North/South then he should > award redress to North/South by adjusting the result effective for both > sides. I agree with this, except that N-S may forfeit their redress if they take advantage of the UI. -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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 ooga at shaw.ca Mon Apr 18 07:25:10 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Mon Apr 18 07:26:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <426344B6.3030904@shaw.ca> Tim West-Meads wrote: >>Please consider the following scenario: >>W: 1NT >>N: X >>E: 2S >>S: (late) alert >>E: (with TD present) "I change my bid to 2H" >> >>The auction now continues with all players "knowing" that either 2S or >>most probably 2H is psychic because one of these bids necessarily is a >>violation of agreements. > > NB I'm not sure from the sequence you give how West is supposed to work > out that 2H is a psych. I'd assume partner was showing me a weak hand > with 4H and 6C (a hand type he can't normally show). 1N DBL 2S shows clubs? > Perhaps the law allows too much leeway in allowing East to substitute any > call, instead restricting the substitution to calls he might have made > after an in tempo alert but such is life. NS wouldn't face this problem > if they learnt to alert on time so the need no sympathy from me if their > actions give opps an advantage. > The question is, how much of an advantage should they get? You cannot replace the call with an insufficient call, for example. Sven and I argue that 2H violates L75B. -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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 ooga at shaw.ca Mon Apr 18 07:34:17 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Mon Apr 18 07:36:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000701c54365$d3df45b0$d4bcbe44@DFYXB361> References: <000001c54322$a83594c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000701c54365$d3df45b0$d4bcbe44@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <426346D9.4000402@shaw.ca> > > Please consider the following scenario: > W: 1NT > N: X > E: 2S > S: (late) alert > E: (with TD present) "I change my bid to 2H" > > The auction now continues with all players "knowing" that either 2S or most > probably 2H is psychic because one of these bids necessarily is a violation > of agreements. > > North and South are legally prohibited from selecting any action based on > information from the retracted 2S bid, particularly the fact that 2H (most > probably) is psychic, but anyway they succeed either in finding > themselves a > good contract or in finding a good defense against a final contract reached > by East/West. > > So East and West ends up with a poor score. In other words: The psyche > didn't work this time. And East/West yell for TD requesting redress for > "damage". > > Is it the duty of TD (and in case AC) to protect the psyche made by East > when East must have known at the time he made his psychic call that his > partner (from the circumstances) would be aware of the call being a psyche? > > I just do not buy such an argument, to me that is bridge "lawyerism" at its > worst. > > Regards Sven > raija d wrote: > Sven, > > How about this - our side makes an opening out of turn and one partner > must pass at what would have been his turn. Is it also "lawyerism" for > other partner to open 3NT although he does not have a 3NT opening? Will > the score be adjusted if it makes and nobody else is in it? No Law prohibits this. > How about this, is this "lawyerism" also: opponent has a penalty card > and I am going to take finesse in a suit, knowing that my RHO opponent > has a penalty card in that suit on the table. Will score be adjusted > because everyone else lost the finesse and I won because opponent had to > play his penalty card? No Law prohibits this either. > There are many other type of occurrences, where an infraction by the > opponent or our side has opened up a legal opportunity to improve our > score (or get a bottom) and I think the players' rights to make any > legal call or legal play they wish to make must be protected. Taking > advantage of an opponent's infraction is not lawyering by any means, it > is a competition afterall. It would be silly not to do one's best, > legally, to improve one's score. Absolutely. > I find it objectionable as a player if I am not allowed to bid 2H as in > the original posting, if I want to. I haven't done it, nor even thought > about it, but I admire that player who showed great imagination. Someone > please spell out the law that says he cannot bid 2H after he hears, > late, that the intervening call was alertable. This has been done in this thread. Law 75B ("A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation...") is applicable here. E-W almost certainly have a partnership agreement about bidding suits that the opponents claim they hold, so psyching 2H is a violation of an agreement. What would 2H (or 2S) mean if the alert were timely? Either natural with a long suit, or some kind of cuebid, I would imagine. Bidding 2H is a violation of an agreement, and we all applaud East's imagination because we agree that the UI/AI nature of the original call makes it an easily recognizable psyche to partner only. But if partner is aware that 2H is a psyche, he is obviously 'aware of the violation.' -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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 Mon Apr 18 08:09:24 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon Apr 18 08:06:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <426346D9.4000402@shaw.ca> Message-ID: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Bruce McIntyre wrote: > > > > Please consider the following scenario: > > W: 1NT > > N: X > > E: 2S > > S: (late) alert > > E: (with TD present) "I change my bid to 2H" > > > > The auction now continues with all players "knowing" that either 2S or most > > probably 2H is psychic because one of these bids necessarily is a violation > > of agreements. I am surprised everyone is happily off discussing the implications of psyching here. isn't it at least an order of magnitude more likely that E-W bid natural spades in some auctions and transfer to spades in other auctions? Even if the meaning of the double isn't relevant to that - the worst East has done is take advantage of his opponent's infraction to correct his own misbid without penalty. If E did something like change 2S to 2C or 2D, that's be stranger - kind of a clever way to show his 2-suiter cheaply, though, and I'm not sure there's any rule against. it. GRB From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 18 08:05:50 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 18 08:06:59 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <00f701c541b9$f6a46010$529868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie interpreted: >My interpretation emphasised two controversial >points with which Richard may or may not agree ... > >A. Some of Richard's "analogies" may be undiscussed; >they may be established by partnership experience >alone; there may even be other relevant clues. Richard Hills clarifies: In my opinion, implicit partnership agreements can be created by: (a) At-the-table prior partnership experience. Example: With one partner I have an implicit agreement that her 12-14 1NT openings always have at least 12 hcp; she has a different implicit agreement that I might open with 11 hcp if I like my tens. (b) By analogy. Example: With one partner I have an explicit (and old-fashioned) agreement that many doubles defined as negative by most experts are defined as penalty in the system I created for our partnership. So, if I perpetrate a notionally undiscussed double, if the penalty option is a plausible interpretation, then the penalty option is our implicit partnership agreement created by analogy. (c) By mutual assumption due to local mores. Example: Playing in a new partnership with a strange (but expertly strange) partner, this auction occurred. Me Pard 1C 1H 1NT 2C(1) (1) Notionally undiscussed. In another environment I might have passed 2C; but in the Canberra expert environment I knew that most local experts played 2C as an artificial checkback. And so it was correctly mutually assumed to be, thus an implicit agreement of our new partnership. Of course, a category (b) (by analogy) or category (c) (by mutual assumption due to local mores) implicit partnership agreement only happens on the first occasion. Subsequent occasions are metamorphosed to category (a) (at-the-table prior partnership experience), or alternatively upgraded to explicit partnership agreements by a consequential post-mortem. Nigel Guthrie interpreted: >B. It's insufficient merely to reveal partnership >style. You must also divulge likely meanings -- that >is -- you must disclose your inferential conclusion >not just the analogue reasoning that led up to it. Richard Hills clarifies: Yes and no. In my opinion, simply saying "undiscussed" - when in actuality you have an implicit partnership agreement created by inference - is misinformation. For example, I fully disclose negative inferences from the timing of partner's termination of a relay auction. But non-systemic deductions and conclusions need not be revealed. And, of course, deductions and conclusions which are based upon looking at your own cards need not be revealed. For example, an Aussie expert devised an ingenious two-way system to confuse the opponents. The super- scientific (and fully disclosed) auction went: Dealer Responder 1C(1) 1D(2) 1H(3) 1S(4) 1NT Pass (1) 0-4 hcp or 16+ hcp (2) 0-4 hcp or 16+ hcp (3) 0-4 hcp or 19+ hcp (4) 0-4 hcp or 19+ hcp Both partners held 19 hcp. An unlucky inferential conclusion by both partners. But their decision to play a grand slam in a partscore was *not* an implicit agreement requiring disclosure. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 18 08:45:45 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 18 08:46:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000701c54365$d3df45b0$d4bcbe44@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <000001c543e2$3fc656c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of raija d ............. > North and South are legally prohibited from selecting any action based on > information from the retracted 2S bid, particularly the fact that 2H (most > probably) is psychic, but anyway they succeed either in finding themselves > a > good contract or in finding a good defense against a final contract > reached > by East/West. > > So East and West ends up with a poor score. In other words: The psyche > didn't work this time. And East/West yell for TD requesting redress for > "damage". > > Is it the duty of TD (and in case AC) to protect the psyche made by East > when East must have known at the time he made his psychic call that his > partner (from the circumstances) would be aware of the call being a > psyche? > > I just do not buy such an argument, to me that is bridge "lawyerism" at > its > worst. > > Regards Sven > > Sven, > > How about this - our side makes an opening out of turn > and one partner must pass at what would have been his turn. > Is it also "lawyerism" for other partner to open 3NT although > he does not have a 3NT opening? Will the score be adjusted > if it makes and nobody else is in it? NO. The difference is that in this case all four players have the authorized information that partner to the offender must pass so that all agreements between the offender and his partner are suspended. > > How about this, is this "lawyerism" also: opponent has a > penalty card and I am going to take finesse in a suit, > knowing that my RHO opponent has a penalty card in that suit > on the table. Will score be adjusted because everyone else > lost the finesse and I won because opponent had to play his > penalty card? Of course not. This is an explicit consequence of the offence. And again all four players have the authorized information that the penalty card must be played at the offender's first opportunity. > > There are many other type of occurrences, where an infraction > by the opponent or our side has opened up a legal opportunity > to improve our score (or get a bottom) and I think the players' > rights to make any legal call or legal play they wish to make > must be protected. Exactly. But making a call which can legally only be understood by partner and not by opponents is a violation of Laws 40A, 40B and 75B and thus is no legal call. > Taking advantage of an opponent's infraction is not lawyering > by any means, it is a competition after all. It would be > silly not to do one's best, legally, to improve one's score. Absolutely. But you still must obey the laws. > I find it objectionable as a player if I am not allowed to bid > 2H as in the original posting, if I want to. That would be perfectly OK if opponents were allowed to draw the same inference as partner from the fact that a 2S bid was retracted and replaced by the 2H bid. It would also be perfectly OK if the 2H bid were according to agreements. > I haven't done it, nor even thought about > it, but I admire that player who showed great imagination. > Someone please spell out the law that says he cannot bid 2H > after he hears, late, that the intervening call was alertable. IMO he is absolutely free to make whatever call he wants as long as his opponents are on equal terms with his partner in understanding the (final) call. The applicable laws are L40 and L75. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 18 08:43:54 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Apr 18 08:52:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you now or have you ever been? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower: [snip] >Under the current laws, I believe I AM entitled to refuse to >answer anything about this auction beyond "2C was artificial >and asks opener to describe his hand further" (and respond >to any follow-ups about what opener's other rebids are.) Not >saying I WOULD refuse to - just that I feel the laws plainly >say I have the right to. > >I don't have a suggestion for how to reword the disclosure >laws. But I would like to see it move more towards "describe >your agreements in full" and away from "describe only what >is nonstandard about your system." Richard Hills: I agree with Gordon's conclusion - that agreements should be described in full - but disagree with Gordon's premise - that the current "fully and freely available" disclosure premise of Law 75 requires follow-up questions. Fortunately, the WBF LC has issued an official interpretation clarifying the application of Law 75. WBF LC minute 20th January 2000, as paraphrased in the EBU White Book (TD Guide): >>"Convention disruption" is not recognised as an infraction >>of itself, either by the World Bridge Federation or by the >>American Contact Bridge League. Thus it is not suitable for >>a pair to be routinely penalised for getting its system >>wrong, though it may be different if, for example, a pair >>repeatedly gets something wrong. >> >>Players should describe their agreements as fully as >>possible, including any comparable situations. >> >>When deciding a pair's agreements the later auction may be >>considered. It is often important to decide what their >>agreements are so it can be determined whether there has been >>an error in describing them. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 18 09:07:14 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 18 09:08:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c543e5$3fc0aa10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Gordon Bower ............... > I am surprised everyone is happily off discussing > the implications of psyching here. > > isn't it at least an order of magnitude more likely > that E-W bid natural spades in some auctions and > transfer to spades in other auctions? > > Even if the meaning of the double isn't relevant to > that - the worst East has done is take advantage of > his opponent's infraction to correct his own misbid > without penalty. I have already covered such situations in previous comments. It is perfectly OK for East to correct his own call to whatever he wants (within the prescription in Law 21B1) except that he may not change his call to any call that violates partnership agreements and/or understanding unless opponents will be on equal terms (legally) with partner in understanding that such violation has occurred. > If E did something like change 2S to 2C or 2D, that's be stranger - kind > of a clever way to show his 2-suiter cheaply, though, and I'm not sure > there's any rule against. it. There is no rule against it provided he has a hand compatible with both his calls. He may even do so if the first call (but not the second!) was a deliberate or accidental misbid. The situation could perfectly well be that the agreements for instance call for a natural bid in one case and a transfer in the other. But when a player first makes a call promising a single-suited hand and then replaces this with another call promising a different single-suited hand everybody with legal access to both calls can tell that something fishy is going on. The problem is that only partner and not opponents have such access. Sven From mustikka at charter.net Mon Apr 18 09:13:43 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija d) Date: Mon Apr 18 09:14:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question References: <000001c543e2$3fc656c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002401c543e6$27a48680$d4bcbe44@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 11:45 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Another L21 Question > On Behalf Of raija d ............. > North and South are legally prohibited from selecting any action based on > information from the retracted 2S bid, particularly the fact that 2H (most > probably) is psychic, but anyway they succeed either in finding themselves > a > good contract or in finding a good defense against a final contract > reached > by East/West. > > So East and West ends up with a poor score. In other words: The psyche > didn't work this time. And East/West yell for TD requesting redress for > "damage". > > Is it the duty of TD (and in case AC) to protect the psyche made by East > when East must have known at the time he made his psychic call that his > partner (from the circumstances) would be aware of the call being a > psyche? > > I just do not buy such an argument, to me that is bridge "lawyerism" at > its > worst. > > Regards Sven > > Sven, > > How about this - our side makes an opening out of turn > and one partner must pass at what would have been his turn. > Is it also "lawyerism" for other partner to open 3NT although > he does not have a 3NT opening? Will the score be adjusted > if it makes and nobody else is in it? NO. The difference is that in this case all four players have the authorized information that partner to the offender must pass so that all agreements between the offender and his partner are suspended. > > How about this, is this "lawyerism" also: opponent has a > penalty card and I am going to take finesse in a suit, > knowing that my RHO opponent has a penalty card in that suit > on the table. Will score be adjusted because everyone else > lost the finesse and I won because opponent had to play his > penalty card? Of course not. This is an explicit consequence of the offence. And again all four players have the authorized information that the penalty card must be played at the offender's first opportunity. > > There are many other type of occurrences, where an infraction > by the opponent or our side has opened up a legal opportunity > to improve our score (or get a bottom) and I think the players' > rights to make any legal call or legal play they wish to make > must be protected. Exactly. But making a call which can legally only be understood by partner and not by opponents is a violation of Laws 40A, 40B and 75B and thus is no legal call. > Taking advantage of an opponent's infraction is not lawyering > by any means, it is a competition after all. It would be > silly not to do one's best, legally, to improve one's score. Absolutely. But you still must obey the laws. > I find it objectionable as a player if I am not allowed to bid > 2H as in the original posting, if I want to. That would be perfectly OK if opponents were allowed to draw the same inference as partner from the fact that a 2S bid was retracted and replaced by the 2H bid. It would also be perfectly OK if the 2H bid were according to agreements. > I haven't done it, nor even thought about > it, but I admire that player who showed great imagination. > Someone please spell out the law that says he cannot bid 2H > after he hears, late, that the intervening call was alertable. IMO he is absolutely free to make whatever call he wants as long as his opponents are on equal terms with his partner in understanding the (final) call. The applicable laws are L40 and L75. Sven However, the Laws allow a player to deliberately violate system if he so chooses. Partner is no wiser than the opponents when a player makes a creative call when the opponents grant him the chance to do so. There is no agreement, concealed or otherwise. From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Mon Apr 18 09:25:24 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Mon Apr 18 09:26:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000101c543e5$3fc0aa10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Subject: RE: [blml] Another L21 Question >Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:07:14 +0200 > > > On Behalf Of Gordon Bower >............... > > I am surprised everyone is happily off discussing > > the implications of psyching here. > > > > isn't it at least an order of magnitude more likely > > that E-W bid natural spades in some auctions and > > transfer to spades in other auctions? > > > > Even if the meaning of the double isn't relevant to > > that - the worst East has done is take advantage of > > his opponent's infraction to correct his own misbid > > without penalty. > >I have already covered such situations in previous comments. It is >perfectly >OK for East to correct his own call to whatever he wants (within the >prescription in Law 21B1) except that he may not change his call to any >call >that violates partnership agreements and/or understanding unless opponents >will be on equal terms (legally) with partner in understanding that such >violation has occurred. > > > If E did something like change 2S to 2C or 2D, that's be stranger - kind > > of a clever way to show his 2-suiter cheaply, though, and I'm not sure > > there's any rule against. it. > >There is no rule against it provided he has a hand compatible with both his >calls. He may even do so if the first call (but not the second!) was a >deliberate or accidental misbid. The situation could perfectly well be that >the agreements for instance call for a natural bid in one case and a >transfer in the other. > >But when a player first makes a call promising a single-suited hand and >then >replaces this with another call promising a different single-suited hand >everybody with legal access to both calls can tell that something fishy is >going on. The problem is that only partner and not opponents have such >access. The principles you discuss here are interesting. The actual case is a bad exaple though. If NS has got a heart fit, south doubles 2H or bids hearts at an appropriate level and the "psyche" is uncovered. Remember that north has promised bot majors. The UI from east's changed call is of no consequence to south, there's AI from north's double available. Regards Harald Skj?ran > >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >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 svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 18 09:47:06 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 18 09:48:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <002401c543e6$27a48680$d4bcbe44@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <000201c543ea$d1afba10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of raija d ................. > IMO he is absolutely free to make whatever call he wants as long as his > opponents are on equal terms with his partner in understanding the (final) > call. The applicable laws are L40 and L75. > > Sven > > However, the Laws allow a player to deliberately violate system if he so > chooses. NO! The laws allow a player to deliberately violate system if he so chooses provided that opponents have the same (legal) possibility as partner to discover the true nature of the call. > Partner is no wiser than the opponents when a player makes a > creative call when the opponents grant him the chance to do so. But can you not see how the fact that the retracted call is AI to partner and UI to opponents just makes partner so much wiser and thus makes the replacing call a violation of Law 75B? > There is no agreement, concealed or otherwise. There is a (legally) concealed table experience if you want a name to it. Sven From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Mon Apr 18 10:01:02 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Mon Apr 18 10:02:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64D7@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of koen > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 17:39 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? > > > An easy question for the specialists: > South is declarer in 3NT, but East Leads a small Club. > South chooses that the club becomes a penalty card and that > West can not > lead a club. > West leads Diamond King taken by declarer in dummy with the Ace. > Declarer plays a small Heart from dummy and finesses with AQ, > taken by > West with the King. > Question: > Q1: Is the lead out of turn still UI now? The LOOT is always UI for West. But as long as the small club is on the table, West may use the fact that that small club must be played at the first legal opportunity. In this case, that is never: declarer exercises his right, so the small club is no longer a penalty card. But yes, the LOOT is still UI. > - Without the LOOT the normal play after getting the lead back with > Heart K would be: continue D and 3NT is made. > - With the LOOT and above decission: West retuns a club after > re-getting > the lead with Heart K: Result is 3NT -1 > Q2: result of 3NT -1 stands? Can't decide that without a deal. But if the club lead is suggested by the LOOT, and there is a logical alternative, then the TD may write 3NT=. -- Martin SInot From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Mon Apr 18 10:25:14 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Mon Apr 18 10:31:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42636EEA.3060609@hotmail.com> Tim West-Meads wrote: >Koen wrote: > > > >>Question: >>Q1: Is the lead out of turn still UI now? >> >> > >Nasty. The inferences from his pard's lead of C3 are UI but, as far as I >can tell, the fact that declarer forbade a C lead is AI. What this means >in terms of LAs I'm not equipped to say without seeing the hand. > >Tim > Interesting: LOOT is UI; decission of declarer is AI. => opponent can always return a Club at earliest moment he is allowed and say: "I didn't lead a C because of my partner's Club LOOT, but I did lead it because you didn't want a Club lead" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050418/0e219efb/attachment-0001.html From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Apr 18 11:48:20 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon Apr 18 11:48:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question References: <000201c543ea$d1afba10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002d01c543fb$c0f485f0$0307a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 8:47 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Another L21 Question > On Behalf Of raija d ................. > IMO he is absolutely free to make whatever call he wants as long as his > opponents are on equal terms with his partner in understanding the (final) > call. The applicable laws are L40 and L75. > > Sven > > However, the Laws allow a player to deliberately violate system if he so > chooses. Sven replied:- NO! The laws allow a player to deliberately violate system if he so chooses provided that opponents have the same (legal) possibility as partner to discover the true nature of the call. David Barton: I disagree with Sven's assertion. L75B states "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, as long as his partner is unaware of the violation....." There is NO mention within this law about opponents knowledge. We arrive at Sven's position only when partner's awareness is a consequence of a partnership agreement (explicit or implicit) and then that agreement has to be disclosed. It is my opinion that L75B only makes sense if it's application is restricted solely to the case that a PRIOR AGREEMENT exists that a bid may be a violation of an agreement. Any situation where the partner can determine that there has been a violation from a partnership agreement from (a) the cards he holds in his hand or (b) the fact that the bid itself violates a partnership agreement or (c) the bid selected is contradictory to something bid earlier in the auction does NOT make the violation a breach of L75B Raija: > Partner is no wiser than the opponents when a player makes a > creative call when the opponents grant him the chance to do so. Sven: But can you not see how the fact that the retracted call is AI to partner and UI to opponents just makes partner so much wiser and thus makes the replacing call a violation of Law 75B? David Barton: No I cannot see or believe this!!! Raija: > There is no agreement, concealed or otherwise. Sven: There is a (legally) concealed table experience if you want a name to it. David Barton I don't accept that anything is being concealed. The same information is available to both sides. One side may not use that information as a consequence of their own infraction. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.15 - Release Date: 16/04/2005 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 18 14:06:47 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 18 14:07:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000401c54281$d24c7e50$0307a8c0@david> References: <001f01c54055$febe2840$0307a8c0@david> <000001c5406e$fd9a8670$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050414074157.02ba0c20@pop.starpower.net> <000401c54281$d24c7e50$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050418075154.03157c70@pop.starpower.net> At 08:42 AM 4/16/05, David wrote: >Let us make this completely general >The bidding goes >Bid1 Bid2a/Bid2b Bid3 Bid4 >round the table. > >Where Bid2b replaces Bid2a after a late alert. >Now is it a general proposition that the player >making Bid4 has to explain all the inferences >available to him in selecting Bid4, including the >inferences available from Bid2a or even >providing the info that his partner had made Bid 2a, >and that that info is now authorised? I'd say that "the inferences available to him in selecting Bid4" is much too broad. He must reveal only that information relevant to his decision as to what Bid2b meant, not the information relevant to his choice of response given that meaning. So Bid2a must be "disclosed" only if the partnership agreements are such that, with the correct meaning of Bid1 known, the "auction" Bid1-Bid2a/Bid2b might carry a different systemic meaning from the auction Bid1-Bid2b. I would expect that to be a rather unusual situation. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 18 14:45:50 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 18 14:48:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Thirteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050418082624.03160960@pop.starpower.net> At 08:05 PM 4/17/05, richard.hills wrote: >CASE N-13 >Subject: UI >DIC: Steve Bates >Reisinger Teams 1st Qualification > >Bd: 9 Peter Weichsel >Vul: EW KQ2 >Dlr: North K8543 > 742 > 73 >Magnus Lindkvist Peter Fredin >74 8 >QT9 J762 >KQJ8 AT963 >Q984 JT6 > Alan Sontag > AJT9653 > A > 5 > AK52 > >West North East South >--- Pass Pass 1C(1) >Pass 1D(2) Dbl(3) 2S(4) >Pass 3S Pass 4S(5) >Pass 5H Pass 6S >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) artificial 16+ >(2) artificial 0-8 >(3) Diamonds >(4) Game Force >(5) BIT > >The Facts: The final contract was 6S making six for +980 for >NS after the DK lead. The director was called at the end of >play although EW noted the break in tempo before the opening >lead. > >NS said South took 8-10 seconds before bidding 4S. EW said >longer. > >The Ruling: The contract was changed to 4S making six for >+480. Law 16, UI. The hesitation suggests bidding over 4S and >pass is a logical alternative. > >The Appeal: NS appealed and stated they thought that 5H was >automatic. North, East and West were present at the hearing. > >Statements by the other side: EW thought bidding 5H was an >error. They are experienced big club players and stated they >would have passed 4S. > >Other Facts Discovered: If North had bid 3D, it would have >been a double negative. 3NT by South over 3 might or might not >be artificial. > >The Decision: This was purely a matter of bridge judgement. If >passing 4S is a logical alternative, the 5H bid is not allowed >and the director's ruling must stand. All the members of the >Committee felt that this case was near the borderline; most >felt that bidding was about an 85% action. One member stated >that such an action disallowed other LAs and his position of >Chair of the National Laws Commission gives his claim >substantial weight. The Chairperson disagreed. > >The Committee based its feelings on >(1) North was supermax for 1D, so no silly slams would be >reached, >(2) South heard the double of 1D, so he doesn't have soft >diamond values and a marginal hand, and >(3) most players seem to overbid the North cards at their >tables. > >After two hours deliberation and a vote of 4-1, the Committee >voted to allow the 5H bid and thus the 6S bid and therefore >the table result of 6S making +980 was ruled to stand. > >The appeal was judged to have merit and no AWMW was issued. > >Dissent (Jeff Goldsmith): An informal poll of three >experienced big club players was made after the hearing. All >passed, one without much thought, and the other two >reluctantly. This confirms that passing is indeed an LA and the >AC got it wrong. In any case, if wrong, it is not far wrong, >however. > >The answer may depend on the definition of LA. If the >"seriously consider" criterion were used, passing would >obviously be an LA. If Edgar Kaplan's 75% rule were in effect, >it surely would not be. Our current rule is somewhere in >between. Where exactly? There appears to be room for judgement. > >Committee: Jeff Goldsmith, Chairperson, Gary Cohler, JoAnn >Sprung, Ralph Cohen, and Chris Moll. I expect that had I been there I'd have agreed with the majority. But I'd have wanted to know more about, and was surprised to see no mention in the writeup of, North's 3S bid. If it merely showed spade support, so that he could have no more than implied by his failure to bid 3D, then I would agree that pass is not an LA over 4S. But in many partnerships, 3S would have shown slam-suitable values in context along with spade support, else North would bid 4S; if that were the N-S agreement it would be a very different story. One hopes the committee inquired about this. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Apr 18 17:05:30 2005 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon Apr 18 17:04:39 2005 Subject: TR: [blml] Penalty card - UI? Message-ID: -----Message d'origine----- De : Laval Dubreuil [mailto:picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca] Envoy? : 18 avril, 2005 10:55 ? : Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Objet : RE: [blml] Penalty card - UI? > > An easy question for the specialists: > South is declarer in 3NT, but East Leads a small Club. > South chooses that the club becomes a penalty card and that > West can not > lead a club. > West leads Diamond King taken by declarer in dummy with the Ace. > Declarer plays a small Heart from dummy and finesses with AQ, > taken by > West with the King. > Question: > Q1: Is the lead out of turn still UI now? The LOOT is always UI for West. But as long as the small club is on the table, West may use the fact that that small club must be played at the first legal opportunity. In this case, that is never: declarer exercises his right, so the small club is no longer a penalty card. But yes, the LOOT is still UI. ___________________________________________________________________ Yes, though the Club card is back in hand, information arising from is still UI to partner (Law 50D1). I use to inform players of that, but have rarely be called back and do not remember having adjust score. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 18 17:23:34 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 18 17:23:50 2005 Subject: [blml] List admin problems Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050418111446.02b3bc40@pop.starpower.net> I friend of mine would like to enroll in BLML. Both he and I sent help requests to blml-request@rtflb.org which went unanswered, and an e-mail to mailman-owner@toybox.amsterdamned.org bounced with an "unknown address" message. Can someone help? Thanks. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Apr 18 17:31:12 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Apr 18 17:32:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050416154209.02d9dc60@pop.starpower.net> from "Eric Landau" at Apr 16, 2005 05:22:53 PM Message-ID: <200504181531.j3IFVCWu021411@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Eric Landau writes: > > At 02:41 PM 4/15/05, GUTHRIE wrote: > > >Eric and I suffer from a difference in vocabulary. By > >"random call" I mean a call that deliberately conveys no > >information but might confuse opponents or disrupt their > >auction (arguably like East's double here). Another example > >is a meaningless one spade overcall over a precision club. > >If such "random" calls are allowed in this event my argument > >becomes weaker :( :( > > East's double was "meaningless" only in the sense of "lacking a > particular agreed meaning". That's really not analogous to a call > which is explicitly defined by partnership agreement as > meaningless. Indeed, the latter would not be allowed in an ACBL > event. But the former is endemic to the game of bridge; no partnership > can explicitly define every possible sequence. Even the top > world-class partnerships with hundreds of pages of system notes leave > most specific sequences undefined; they rely on agreements intended to > cover all sequences of a particular type. But even Meckstroth and > Rodwell occasionally have undiscussed sequences, where their principles > leave an obscure gap, or, more often in well-thought out methods, > different principles lead to different possibilities. Indeed Meckstroth's book documents two Meckwell misunderstanding. Meckstroth has said that he and Rodwell expect to be on the same page somewhere around 90% of the time in undiscussed situations (meaning of course that 10% they're not -- and nobody's likely to do better than Meckwell -- considering their talent as both players and theorists, the length of time they've been together and the amount of work they've put in) and to my knowledge they've never had a disagreement in a situation they've discussed. This would be in stark contrast to Eddie Kantar. I recall an old article by Eddie Kantar playing with Peter Weischel. Weischel describes the systemic meaning of Kantar's auction and then pauses and says something like, but I don't believe it for a second. He's forgotten the system. Again. ( and he was right ) I agree with the way Weischel handled this. If you're playing with somebody who frequently forgets the system you really ought to let the opponents know. > > >Most of us have encountered predicaments similar to those > >envisaged by Eric. For example, a pick-up-partner opens one > >notrump and you don't know whether or not transfers are on > >the menu: you could risk a transfer and hope. Much more > >prudent is a fudge like a pass or a wild leap to game. The > >question is whether, for East-West, this was an extreme > >version of such a predicament where no bid was more > >appropriate than a dangerous meaningless one. > > Even a pick-up partnership in the ACBL is required to know whether or > not transfers, and a variety of other common agreements, are on the > menu, as they must make a decision whether or not to check a specific > box on the convention card. A better example would be agreeing to play > transfers in a variety of common situations, then having an obscure > middle-level competitive sequence in which it's no longer clear whether > they're still on, or whether some other agreement might apply. In case anybody thinks this is a hypothetical case, it's happened in the finals of the Venice Cup -- leading to an obviously silly contract as one player passed what was intended as a transfer. From HVBLSRXBAKK at hotmail.com Mon Apr 18 18:57:07 2005 From: HVBLSRXBAKK at hotmail.com (Lorraine Rudolph) Date: Mon Apr 18 18:00:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Biggest Pharmacy OIQ2Sd In-Reply-To: <28931128143048.B6080@.doit.wisc.edu> References: <24630224173406.A16376@.doit.wisc.edu> Message-ID: <21431129233551.K36442@.noc.ntua.gr> Biggest stores of on'line pharmacies. Over than 150 major meds Highest qualities assured on our online generic meds at the most competitive prices. Vi'sit us today's! http://www.ltxmeds.com wanna get out of maiiling? http://www.ltxmeds.com/aldfhsdlfh.asp From ooga at shaw.ca Mon Apr 18 19:55:22 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Mon Apr 18 20:00:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <002d01c543fb$c0f485f0$0307a8c0@david> References: <000201c543ea$d1afba10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002d01c543fb$c0f485f0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <4263F48A.50004@shaw.ca> Raija (I think) wrote: >> However, the Laws allow a player to deliberately violate system if he so >> chooses. > > > Sven replied:- > NO! The laws allow a player to deliberately violate system if he so chooses > provided that opponents have the same (legal) possibility as partner to > discover the true nature of the call. > > David Barton: > I disagree with Sven's assertion. > L75B states "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, > as long as his partner is unaware of the violation....." > There is NO mention within this law about opponents knowledge. That much is true, Sven has extrapolated a bit from what 75B actually says. > We arrive at Sven's position only when partner's awareness is a consequence > of a partnership agreement (explicit or implicit) and then that agreement > has to be disclosed. It is my opinion that L75B only makes sense if it's > application is restricted solely to the case that a PRIOR AGREEMENT > exists that a bid may be a violation of an agreement. > Any situation where the partner can determine that there has been > a violation from a partnership agreement from > (a) the cards he holds in his hand or > (b) the fact that the bid itself violates a partnership agreement or > (c) the bid selected is contradictory to something bid earlier > in the auction > does NOT make the violation a breach of L75B Back to 1N X 2S late Alert of the double by South, change to pysche of 2H by East after hearing that the double promises the majors. L75B is completely unconcerned with what method the 1NT bidder uses to determine that his partner has psyched. "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, as long as his partner is unaware of the violation," carries with it the assumption that the opposite is true: A player may NOT violate an announced partnership agreement, if his partner is aware of the violation. So in order to psyche a _natural_ 2H legally you must be confident that partner will not immediately know it is a psyche. In this specific case, that just is not true. The East player has bid a natural 2S. West is going to, at the very very least, strongly suspect that the correction to 2H is a psyche, and East knows this perfectly well. It has nothing to do with how West works out that East is psyching. As you point out, it even has nothing to do with the fact that the opponents are kept in the dark by their infraction. But, it has everything to do with East knowing that his partner will take his bid as a psyche. (If the agreement is that after the double 2H is a transfer, of course there is no problem since 2H is no longer a psyche.) > Raija: > >> Partner is no wiser than the opponents when a player makes a >> creative call when the opponents grant him the chance to do so. > > > Sven: > But can you not see how the fact that the retracted call is AI to partner > and UI to opponents just makes partner so much wiser and thus makes the > replacing call a violation of Law 75B? > > David Barton: > No I cannot see or believe this!!! I've credited your East player with imagination for this amusing strategy, but imagination goes only so far. If you cannot see that the 2H replacement call both violates an agreement (whatever 2H would have been in a clean auction, and I doubt it shows a 6=1=3=3 2-count) AND wakes up partner, this is beyond imagination. > Raija: >> There is no agreement, concealed or otherwise. > > Sven: > There is a (legally) concealed table experience if you want a name to it. > > David Barton > I don't accept that anything is being concealed. > The same information is available to both sides. > One side may not use that information as a consequence > of their own infraction. > Irrelevant. Nobody is claiming there is a CPU here. If the auction proceeds with the 2H psyche, the N-S side is still the offending side with respect to taking advantage of UI, but the E-W side is also an offending side for making the 2H bid, which is an illegal call by L75B. We play it out, get a result, and then figure out what penalty to apply to each side separately. -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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 qtrblml at rtflb.org Mon Apr 18 21:15:07 2005 From: qtrblml at rtflb.org (Goins Svetlana) Date: Mon Apr 18 20:16:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Presenting Loans with options. Message-ID: guess what! Homeowner You have been pre-approved for a $400,000 Home Loan at a 3.25% 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://perfect-mortgages.net/2/index/ryn/XlxlSw42UpsTT With Love, Goins Svetlana From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 18 20:41:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 18 20:42:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <426344B6.3030904@shaw.ca> Message-ID: Bruce wrote: > > NB I'm not sure from the sequence you give how West is supposed to > > work out that 2H is a psych. I'd assume partner was showing me a > > weak hand with 4H and 6C (a hand type he can't normally show). > > 1N DBL 2S shows clubs? It does if one is playing transfers after the double. (OK there are variants of transfers but clubs is what I expect in standard transfers). > > Perhaps the law allows too much leeway in allowing East to substitute > > any call, instead restricting the substitution to calls he might have > > made after an in tempo alert but such is life. NS wouldn't face this > > problem if they learnt to alert on time so the need no sympathy from > > me if their actions give opps an advantage. > > > The question is, how much of an advantage should they get? You cannot > replace the call with an insufficient call, for example. Sven and I > argue that 2H violates L75B. To violate 75B there pair would need an announced agreement - and I'm willing to bet very few pairs have announced agreements about calls after legally withdrawn calls. Sorry I didn't make this clear earlier, when Sven spoke of opps "awareness "(nor relevant to L75B) I was drawn to Law75a. The inferences of substituting the 2H are disclosable if they are deemed the subject of an implicit agreement but they remain UI for the offending side. If the OS suffer as a result who cares? They might learn to alert properly next time. NB for these purpose I have taken as a given that the alert was late rather than the 2S being ultra-fast. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 18 20:41:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 18 20:42:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000001c543e2$3fc656c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Exactly. But making a call which can legally only be understood by > partner and not by opponents is a violation of Laws 40A, 40B and 75B and > thus is no legal call. Please Sven, all 3 of the other players will gain exactly the same *legal* level of understanding of the call. As in any other UI/AI case this information is AI to one side (and may be used) but UI to the other side (and may not be used). > > Taking advantage of an opponent's infraction is not lawyering > > by any means, it is a competition after all. It would be > > silly not to do one's best, legally, to improve one's score. > > Absolutely. But you still must obey the laws. > > > I find it objectionable as a player if I am not allowed to bid > > 2H as in the original posting, if I want to. > > That would be perfectly OK if opponents were allowed to draw the same > inference as partner from the fact that a 2S bid was retracted and > replaced by the 2H bid. They are not just allowed to such an inference, they are required to draw such an inference and then carefully avoid taking advantage of the inference. We do not accept "I would have bid the same without the UI" as a defence when we consider that an LA exists. It would also be perfectly OK if the 2H bid were > according to > agreements. > > > I haven't done it, nor even thought about > > it, but I admire that player who showed great imagination. > > Someone please spell out the law that says he cannot bid 2H > > after he hears, late, that the intervening call was alertable. > > IMO he is absolutely free to make whatever call he wants as long as his > opponents are on equal terms with his partner in understanding the > (final) call. The applicable laws are L40 and L75. Equal in terms of understanding - no problem. Equal in terms of being allowed to draw inferences from UI - absolutely NOT. They made the late alert, they have a UI penalty imposed, the withdrawn call is UI to the NOS. The right to draw the same inferences is not *expected* to be equal in this scenario. Tim From nitaigouranga at aol.com Mon Apr 18 20:42:52 2005 From: nitaigouranga at aol.com (Neateye) Date: Mon Apr 18 20:44:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Gouranga Message-ID: <34038032.20050418194252@aol.com> Call out Gouranga be happy!!! Gouranga Gouranga Gouranga .... That which brings the highest happiness!! From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 18 23:07:27 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 18 23:08:24 2005 Subject: [blml] List admin problems In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050418111446.02b3bc40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c5445a$a09f5870$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > I friend of mine would like to enroll in BLML. Both he and I sent help > requests to blml-request@rtflb.org which went unanswered, and an e-mail > to mailman-owner@toybox.amsterdamned.org bounced with an "unknown > address" message. Can someone help? Thanks. Just go to the web address you find at the bottom of every contribution on blml (including your own): http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 18 23:19:10 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 18 23:20:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c5445c$43661250$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............... > Equal in terms of understanding - no problem. Equal in terms of being > allowed to draw inferences from UI - absolutely NOT. They made the late > alert, they have a UI penalty imposed, the withdrawn call is UI to the > NOS. The right to draw the same inferences is not *expected* to be equal > in this scenario. ("NOS" here should of course read "OS"!) Are you saying in so many words that North and South (like West) is legally allowed to understand that the 2H bid is a psyche but that unlike West they are not allowed to choose any logical alternative that could be suggested over another from their understanding that it is a psyche as long as this understanding has arisen from the retracted 2S bid?? Sven From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Apr 18 23:45:51 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon Apr 18 23:46:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question References: <000101c5445c$43661250$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000501c5445f$fdd62960$0307a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 10:19 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Another L21 Question >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ............... >> Equal in terms of understanding - no problem. Equal in terms of being >> allowed to draw inferences from UI - absolutely NOT. They made the late >> alert, they have a UI penalty imposed, the withdrawn call is UI to the >> NOS. The right to draw the same inferences is not *expected* to be equal >> in this scenario. > > ("NOS" here should of course read "OS"!) > > Are you saying in so many words that North and South (like West) is > legally > allowed to understand that the 2H bid is a psyche but that unlike West > they > are not allowed to choose any logical alternative that could be suggested > over another from their understanding that it is a psyche as long as this > understanding has arisen from the retracted 2S bid?? > > Sven > I obviously cannot speak for TWM, but if you were to substitute "may well be a psyche" for "is a psyche" (there are no agreements relating to the 2H bid, only an inference, so no certainty), then I would agree that the above is a fair summary of my position. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.15 - Release Date: 16/04/2005 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 19 00:09:15 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 19 00:10:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Fourteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the fourteenth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-14 Subject: UI DIC: Gary Zeiger NABC Swiss 1st Qualifying Brd: 22 Dlr: East Vul: EW Judy Nassar JT93 J94 QT53 J9 George Retek Phil Silverstein K84 AQ765 AQT6 32 K7 A9 AK85 T642 Tony Ames 2 K875 J8642 Q73 West North East South --- --- Pass Pass 2NT Pass 3H Pass 3S Pass 3NT Pass 4S Pass 4NT(1) Pass Pass Pass (1) 12 second BIT agreed The Facts: The final contract was 4NT by West making five for a score of EW +660 after the lead of the CJ. The director was called after the dummy was faced. The 3H bid was a transfer to spades. EW have played together about five to 10 times a year for a few years and this is the first time they have played transfers, usually preferring Gladiator. West was unfamiliar with any "super-accept" bids after the transfer. EW's range for a 2NT opener is 20-22. There was an unmistakable hesitation before the 4NT bid - about 12 seconds. The opening lead against 4NT was the CJ and the result was EW making 5, plus 460 EW. The Ruling: The director who presented the case to the Committee said that the staff ruled that there was no logical alternative to passing 4NT. Therefore, in spite of the UI, there was no infraction of Law 16. The Appeal: South did not attend the hearing. North said that she thought that the West hand valued at 20.5 hcp in support of spades and that if East had bid in tempo, West might well have answered RKC, thereby committing the side to slam, since all controls were present. East stated that he intended 4NT as RKC. West felt that 4NT was quantitative in nature since his partner was limited by being a passed hand and by having offered 3NT as a playing spot. Statements by the Other Side: East said he intended 4NT as Blackwood. West felt that the 4NT bid was "quantitative in nature". West was also not used to playing transfers as he ordinarily plays 2 way Stayman over 1NT and Gladiator over 2NT. The Decision: The Committee first decided that answering RKC was a logical alternative. In most normal circumstances, when one's partner asks a question, answering it is a logical alternative. The limitations on East's strength, noted by West, are altogether rational and might convince many to agree with him in his judgment, especially considering his sub-20 hcp opening bid, but passing remains a logical alternative. However, the Committee then visited the question of whether the hesitation "demonstrably suggests" passing to West. Since West was already aware of authorized information that his partner did not have an opening bid and that his partner would have been content to play 3NT if West had only 2 spades, the Committee found that any unauthorized information from the hesitation was effectively duplicated by authorized information. Furthermore, East's deliberation over his bid could easily have suggested that he did not know whether 4NT was the best way to advance his hand towards slam (he may have been thinking about bidding 5D). On this basis, the Committee decided that the hesitation did not demonstrably suggest passing any more than the already present authorized information did. Accordingly, the table result of 4NT making 5 for plus 460 E-W was allowed to stand. The appeal was judged to have merit and no AWMW was issued. Dissent (Danny Sprung): I feel that the slow 4NT did demonstrably suggest pass would be more successful. While partner is a passed hand some shapely maximum non-openers could become worth a move towards slam once the 8-card fit comes to light. West's unfamiliarity with transfers suggests he probably wouldn't have cue bid along the way with a maximum and three spades. Since the Committee clearly felt that responding to Blackwood was a logical alternative, West's sub-minimum (in hcp) notwithstanding, I would assign reciprocal 100's for 6S down one. The Committee: Michael Huston, Chairperson, Gail Greenberg, Ed Lazarus, Ellen Melson, and Danny Sprung. From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 19 00:09:36 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Apr 19 00:10:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000501c5445f$fdd62960$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000201c54463$4f359590$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton ................. > I obviously cannot speak for TWM, but if you were to substitute > "may well be a psyche" for "is a psyche" (there are no agreements > relating to the 2H bid, only an inference, so no certainty), then I > would agree that the above is a fair summary of my position. This reveals a major misunderstanding: There IS indeed an agreement related to the 2H bid and this is the agreement for which opponents are entitled disclosure. Don't forget that to opponents the 2S bid is UI after it has been retracted, all opponents "may" know is that the auction now was: 1NT - X - 2H. The retracted 2S bid legally does not exist for opponents; they are not allowed to use whatever inference or deduction they can make from this call. And much of the arguments with which I cannot agree seem to go along a line that IF North or South manage to make an auction in which the 2H bid is revealed to be a psyche then East/West are entitled to redress for damage, apparently because this psyche was not successful? (The "only" way North or South can reveal 2H to be a psyche is by using the information they have from the fact that East first bid 2S). Sven From thndrstm at yahoo.com Tue Apr 19 01:02:54 2005 From: thndrstm at yahoo.com (Alan) Date: Tue Apr 19 01:03:50 2005 Subject: [blml] List admin problems In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050418230254.5957.qmail@web42207.mail.yahoo.com> I have followed those instructions(twice now). I never get a confirmation email --- Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > I friend of mine would like to enroll in BLML. > Both he and I sent help > > requests to blml-request@rtflb.org which went > unanswered, and an e-mail > > to mailman-owner@toybox.amsterdamned.org bounced > with an "unknown > > address" message. Can someone help? Thanks. > > Just go to the web address you find at the bottom of > every contribution on > blml (including your own): > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > regards Sven > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 19 01:03:04 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 19 01:04:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Fourteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I disagree with the Director's ruling. I disagree with the Appeals Committee majority's ruling. I disagree with the Appeals Committee dissenter's ruling. But, fortuitously, I agree with the TD's and AC's decision to not adjust the table score. In my opinion, East's hesitation then non-forcing 4NT demonstrably promised super-maximum values for their initial pass (rather than the merely ordinary maximum values shown by the authorised information). Therefore, if West had moved towards slam on their sub-minimum values, and the slam had been consequently bid and made, North-South could have legitimately asked for the slam to be adjusted back to a result in 4NT. It is not the case that, "Abandon all hope, ye who hesitate". Rather, if: (a) West chooses a call (Pass) *contrary* to what East's hesitation demonstrably suggests, and (b) West subsequently gets lucky, then (c) "demonstrably suggested" does not have its definition suddenly inverted to mean the exact opposite of its original meaning, due to (d) a time-travel application of the Rule of Coincidence. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 19 02:04:37 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 19 02:05:41 2005 Subject: [blml] ABF exception reporting Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie has oft suggested that there should be a universal standard system, with only exception reporting of unusual methods. This idea was adopted for the recent Trials to select the Australian Seniors Team. If a pair's agreements for opening bids of 1C through 2NT were contained in the attached laundry list, they were not required to provide any advance disclosure of their methods (although, of course, their system cards were still available for their opponents to peruse at the table). 1C = Strong Club OR 3+ Suit AND 11 HCPs 1D = Natural 3+ AND 11 HCPs 1H = Natural 4+ AND 11 HCPs 1S = Natural 4+ AND 11 HCPs 1NT = Any Balanced Hand fully contained within an 11 to 18 HCP range. 2C = Acol OR Strong AND/OR Natural 11-15 with or without Major 2D = Acol AND/OR Strong AND/OR Natural 11-15 with or without Major AND/OR A Weak Two Bid in diamonds or in a major AND/OR 5+/5+ Colour/Rank/Odd. 2H = Acol AND/OR Strong AND/OR Natural 11-15 with or without Major AND/OR A Weak Two Bid in hearts AND/OR 5+/5+ Colour/Rank/Odd. 2S = Acol AND/OR Strong AND/OR Natural 11-15 with or without Major AND/OR A Weak Two Bid in spades AND/OR 5+/5+ Colour/Rank/Odd. 2NT = Strong AND/OR Minors AND/OR 5+/5+ Colour/Rank/Odd Two interesting facts. (1) A number of conventions that the ABF designated as too standard to require advance notification are deemed to be too unusual to ever be legal by other national bridge organisations. (2) Even with the wide net the ABF cast, only 1 of the 18 partnerships participating in the Aussie Seniors Trials was able to announce "nothing to declare". :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 19 02:41:12 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 19 02:42:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <20050415005839.867.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Orlando AC: [big snip] >>North was faced with an unusual situation and the >>Committee felt North's appeal had merit. North is >>known for bringing marginal appeals to ACs. Wayne Burrows: >I do not understand the purpose or motive of this >last comment. Marginal decisions are the ones that >will go to appeal. It is the player's right to >appeal in such situations. Richard Hills: A matter of semantics. It is proper to appeal a marginal decision. Indeed, under Law 83, a TD who believes that they have made a marginal decision may voluntarily seek a review of their decision by referring their decision to an AC or to another appropriate committee. On the other hand, if an appeal is certain to be rejected, and it is marginal whether the appeal itself is or is not without merit, then the footnote to Law 92A suggests that a player's theoretical "right to appeal" has a practical limitation. David J. Grabiner: [snip] >However, "North is known for bringing marginal >appeals to AC's" should not be part of an AC >report. That is why the ACBL has AWMW, where the >W stands for Warning; a player who brings appeals >without a proper case will first receive a >warning, and will later be disciplined. Richard Hills: I agree that the AC's obiter dictum is most improper. The AC specifically determined that North's appeal, in this case, had merit. If North has previously launched meritless appeals, that is irrelevant to this case and an unnecessary reflection on North's current (possibly reformed) approach to appealing. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Tue Apr 19 03:29:34 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Apr 19 03:30:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050419012934.11308.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > David J. Grabiner: > > [snip] > > >However, "North is known for bringing marginal > >appeals to AC's" should not be part of an AC > >report. That is why the ACBL has AWMW, where the > >W stands for Warning; a player who brings appeals > >without a proper case will first receive a > >warning, and will later be disciplined. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree that the AC's obiter dictum is most > improper. The AC specifically determined that > North's appeal, in this case, had merit. If North > has previously launched meritless appeals, that is > irrelevant to this case and an unnecessary > reflection on North's current (possibly reformed) > approach to appealing. The note did not state that North brought meritless appeals only marginal ones. Nevertheless the comment seems to be intended as a defamatory remark. I can see no other purpose for it. And that purpose seems entirely inappropriate. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 19 03:59:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 19 04:00:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000101c5445c$43661250$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Are you saying in so many words that North and South (like West) is > legally allowed to understand that the 2H bid is a psyche but that > unlike West they are not allowed to choose any logical alternative that > could be suggested over another from their understanding that it is a > psyche as long as this understanding has arisen from the retracted 2S > bid?? Of course. The withdrawn spade call is UI, as are any inferences that might be drawn from the call, and they must carefully avoid taking advantage. It doesn't matter whether 2H is a psych or merely a bid of opportunity. EW have been granted "bonus information" by the late alert. NS have been given "restricted information" - they are required to know it but must avoid using it. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 19 03:59:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 19 04:00:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000201c54463$4f359590$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > And much of the arguments with which I cannot agree seem to go along a > line that IF North or South manage to make an auction in which the 2H > bid is revealed to be a psyche then East/West are entitled to redress > for damage, apparently because this psyche was not successful? Definitely not. If the OS auction is free from tainted LAs and they get a good score then the result stands and there is obviously no redress for EW. But we must give NOS redress if OS use inferences from the withdrawn 2S call in selecting their bids (including the inference that 2H has an increased probability of being psychic). Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 19 04:31:48 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 19 04:32:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Fourteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21b4b1658e921c5a1ae7f78b8f492704@rochester.rr.com> You know, when I read these cases, usually the first thing that occurs to me is that they generate as many questions as they answer. :-) On Apr 18, 2005, at 6:09 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: [snip] > West North East South > --- --- Pass Pass > 2NT Pass 3H Pass > 3S Pass 3NT Pass > 4S Pass 4NT(1) Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) 12 second BIT agreed Either there was a break in tempo, or there wasn't. Why does the length matter? > The Appeal: South did not attend the hearing. North said that > she thought that the West hand valued at 20.5 hcp in support > of spades and that if East had bid in tempo, West might well > have answered RKC, thereby committing the side to slam, since > all controls were present. This argument seems invalid to me, given West's statement that he felt 4NT was quantitative. > East stated that he intended 4NT as RKC. West felt that 4NT > was quantitative in nature since his partner was limited by > being a passed hand and by having offered 3NT as a playing > spot. This would seem to indicate that they had no clear agreement as to the meaning of 4NT, and that this was a bidding misunderstanding. > The Decision: The Committee first decided that answering RKC > was a logical alternative. Why? > In most normal circumstances, when > one's partner asks a question, answering it is a logical > alternative. Well, if this is why, the logic is faulty. West didn't think his partner had asked a question, so why should he be expected to answer it? > The limitations on East's strength, noted by > West, are altogether rational and might convince many to agree > with him in his judgment, especially considering his sub-20 > hcp opening bid, but passing remains a logical alternative. A logical alternative to what? > However, the Committee then visited the question of whether > the hesitation "demonstrably suggests" passing to West. Since > West was already aware of authorized information that his > partner did not have an opening bid and that his partner would > have been content to play 3NT if West had only 2 spades, the > Committee found that any unauthorized information from the > hesitation was effectively duplicated by authorized > information. I'm not sure that matters, in law. Does it? Why so? > Furthermore, East's deliberation over his bid could easily > have suggested that he did not know whether 4NT was the best > way to advance his hand towards slam (he may have been > thinking about bidding 5D). On this basis, the Committee > decided that the hesitation did not demonstrably suggest > passing any more than the already present authorized > information did. Accordingly, the table result of 4NT making 5 > for plus 460 E-W was allowed to stand. I don't disagree with the ruling (or the committee's decision) but I question the route by which it was achieved. [snip] > Dissent (Danny Sprung): I feel that the slow 4NT did > demonstrably suggest pass would be more successful. So demonstrate it, Danny. > While partner is a passed hand some shapely maximum non-openers > could become worth a move towards slam once the 8-card fit > comes to light. West's unfamiliarity with transfers suggests > he probably wouldn't have cue bid along the way with a maximum > and three spades. What has that got to do with whether the BIT suggested passing? > Since the Committee clearly felt that responding to Blackwood > was a logical alternative, West's sub-minimum (in hcp) > notwithstanding, I would assign reciprocal 100's for 6S down > one. As I understand the law, "feeling" isn't good enough. Where's the reasoning? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 19 04:33:51 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 19 04:34:58 2005 Subject: [blml] List admin problems In-Reply-To: <20050418230254.5957.qmail@web42207.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050418230254.5957.qmail@web42207.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <64076534d81369b452f26df0cac00566@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 18, 2005, at 7:02 PM, Alan wrote: > I have followed those instructions(twice now). I never > get a confirmation email Do you get two copies of this response? If so, one came through the list, and you're subscribed. :-) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 19 05:56:26 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 19 05:57:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Fourteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <21b4b1658e921c5a1ae7f78b8f492704@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >>The Appeal: South did not attend the hearing. North said >>that she thought that the West hand valued at 20.5 hcp in >>support of spades and that if East had bid in tempo, West >>might well have answered RKC, thereby committing the side >>to slam, since all controls were present. Ed Reppert: >This argument seems invalid to me, given West's statement >that he felt 4NT was quantitative. Richard Hills: There is a popular agreement that (in some auctions) 4NT is non-forcing Blackwood - *both* quantitative *and* Keycard Blackwood. If the partner of the 4NT bidder does not like their cards, they pass the 4NT call. If the partner of the 4NT bidder does like their cards, then the partner gives the keycard response en route to slam, thus permitting an emergency exit by the 4NT bidder if two keycards are missing. It seems likely to me that the appellant, North, uses this popular agreement, given the basis of North's appeal. But, as Ed Reppert has noted, partnership agreements of North and/or partnership agreements of the appeals committee are irrelevant; what is necessary is to determine the partnership agreement of East-West. And, on the evidence presented, it seems to likely to me that (in this particular auction) East and West have neither: (a) an agreement to play non-forcing Blackwood, nor (b) an agreement to play forcing Blackwood, nor (c) an agreement to play old-fashioned quantitative 4NT, but rather (d) have no agreement as to the meaning of 4NT. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 19 06:24:21 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 19 06:25:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Fifteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the fifteenth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-15 Subject: MI DIC: Steve Bates Reisinger Teams 2nd Semi-Final Brd: 9 Steve Weinstein Dlr: North J9 Vul: EW KJ632 4 A7643 Barry Piafsky Jessica Piafsky T8653 K2 874 A95 86 AKJT732 KQ5 2 Robert Levin AQ74 QT Q95 JT98 West North East South --- Pass 1D Pass 1S 2D 3D 4C Pass Pass Dbl Pass Pass Pass The Facts: The contract of 4C doubled was down one and +100 for NS after the D8 lead. The 2D bid was for takeout. South asked West after dummy came down about the double and was told, "penalty, primarily". The Director was called away from the table after the play was completed. The Ruling: The director ruled that there was no misinformation and, therefore, no adjustment. The Appeal: NS argued that "penalty, primarily" was misrepresentative when West knew his partner had little or nothing in trumps. They said that a better answer would have been "undiscussed". South was worried about losing to the KQ doubleton of clubs and/or suffering a spade ruff if West held the HA. EW said that they had discussed these situations and that most 4-level doubles were penalty, to be pulled only with unexpected offense or negative defense or both. They said the double should have been readily understood as an "extra high- card double". They did not have system notes. The Decision: The Committee thought that this was a good example of the "trick question", unlikely to shed any more light that the questioner already had, but possibly yielding an answer that might be perceived as defective in some way. The Committee noted that the hands cited by South were virtually impossible on the auction. East was almost certain to hold the HA, which meant that West almost certainly held at least one club honor for his one-level response. The Committee thought that all of the above should have been sufficiently clear to NS that they should have known not to bring the appeal. The Committee declined to adjust the table result of 4C down one NS minus 100. Further, the Committee assigned an AWMW on both North and South. The Committee: Bart Bramley, Chairperson, Lowell Andrews, Aaron Silverstein, JoAnn Sprung, and Tom Peters. From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 19 08:19:11 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Apr 19 08:20:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c544a7$b3f85230$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > Are you saying in so many words that North and South (like West) is > > legally allowed to understand that the 2H bid is a psyche but that > > unlike West they are not allowed to choose any logical alternative that > > could be suggested over another from their understanding that it is a > > psyche as long as this understanding has arisen from the retracted 2S > > bid?? > > Of course. The withdrawn spade call is UI, as are any inferences that > might be drawn from the call, and they must carefully avoid taking > advantage. It doesn't matter whether 2H is a psych or merely a bid of > opportunity. EW have been granted "bonus information" by the late alert. > NS have been given "restricted information" - they are required to know it > but must avoid using it. And I assume you find the prohibition in Law 75B against East making a call that violates East/West agreements when East should expect West to be aware of this violation completely irrelevant? Is it in any way important to you that East wants to change his call under Law 21B to a call that he normally never would considered when given correct information by South? (Be aware of the exact wording in Law 21B!) Sven From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Apr 19 09:53:29 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Apr 19 09:54:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Fourteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4b186d97d1e54280899f2d8739b2239a@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 19 Apr 2005, at 00:03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > In my opinion, East's hesitation then non-forcing 4NT > demonstrably promised super-maximum values for their > initial pass (rather than the merely ordinary maximum > values shown by the authorised information). I'd find it easier to make a decision to move on a hand with "super-maximum values" than on one with "merely ordinary maximum values". -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue Apr 19 16:01:16 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Tue Apr 19 16:02:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question References: <000001c544a7$b3f85230$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000d01c544e8$41136a20$0307a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 7:19 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Another L21 Question > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > Are you saying in so many words that North and South (like West) is > > legally allowed to understand that the 2H bid is a psyche but that > > unlike West they are not allowed to choose any logical alternative that > > could be suggested over another from their understanding that it is a > > psyche as long as this understanding has arisen from the retracted 2S > > bid?? > > Of course. The withdrawn spade call is UI, as are any inferences that > might be drawn from the call, and they must carefully avoid taking > advantage. It doesn't matter whether 2H is a psych or merely a bid of > opportunity. EW have been granted "bonus information" by the late alert. > NS have been given "restricted information" - they are required to know it > but must avoid using it. And I assume you find the prohibition in Law 75B against East making a call that violates East/West agreements when East should expect West to be aware of this violation completely irrelevant? Is it in any way important to you that East wants to change his call under Law 21B to a call that he normally never would considered when given correct information by South? (Be aware of the exact wording in Law 21B!) Sven David Barton responds:- Well yes I consider L75B completely irrelevant to this situation. Let us consider the auction 1N 2S 2N P//3N where 2N was a puppet to 3C (Lebensohl) The fact that the 2N bidder knows his partner has violated an announced partnership agreement, and that opener knows that his partner will know, is NOT sufficient to demonstrate a breach of L75B. IMO a breach of L75B can only occur if the "awareness" arises other than from the authorised information relating to the deal in question. Your second point I DO consider important. The original question I asked (many emails ago) was:- "East now wishes to change his call to a "psyche" of 2H in an effort to pick off N-S's suit. Does this meet the criterion of "it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation"? What action should the Director take?" ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.16 - Release Date: 18/04/2005 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 19 17:35:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 19 17:36:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000001c544a7$b3f85230$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > And I assume you find the prohibition in Law 75B against East making a > call that violates East/West agreements when East should expect West to > be aware of this violation completely irrelevant? It is relevant if East/West have agreements as to what 2H means in the sequence with a withdrawn 2S overcall (remember it is AI to NOS so as far as they are concerned it is part of the legal bidding). Personally I doubt many pairs have an explicit agreement on this sequence. They *may* have an implicit agreement as to what 2H means given the AI - but then I doubt they have violated that. Once someone at the table is acting under a penalty there are many situations where "normal" agreements do not apply. Personally I'm not very happy trying to interpret L75b in isolation anyway. I am damn sure the uncontested sequence P-1N-2C!-P is legal even though the pass is obviously a violation of agreements. Another example is a player (with no UI) who realises he has made an incorrect Blackwood response and then violates system by raising the sign-off. >From this I conclude that there are situations where agreements may be violated even though partner will *immediately* be aware of the violation. This makes sense only if one accepts that L75b is not intended to restrict the options given in L40. > > Is it in any way important to you that East wants to change his call > under Law 21B to a call that he normally never would considered when > given correct information by South? (Be aware of the exact wording in > Law 21B!) No. It is only important that the TD has deemed this a situation where "it is probable that he made the [original] call as a result of misinformation given to him by an opponent". Once that criterion is fulfilled he is completely unrestricted as to which (sufficient) call he substitutes. Perhaps the law should be changed to restrict his choices to calls he might have made given the correct information but it doesn't say that at the moment. The current laws give him an opportunity to do something clever, and legal, which stands a very good chance of discombobulating opps who have broken procedure. Good on him! Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 19 17:35:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 19 17:36:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <20050419012934.11308.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > The note did not state that North brought meritless > appeals only marginal ones. Nevertheless the comment > seems to be intended as a defamatory remark. I can > see no other purpose for it. And that purpose seems > entirely inappropriate. I read the note as meaning marginal with regard to AWMW rather than marginal with regard to overturning the TD. Such a statement would be defamatory only if untrue. Tim From john at asimere.com Tue Apr 19 20:38:13 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Apr 19 20:40:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <4252400F.4040701@hdw.be> References: <424E760A.3060308@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050403135354.02b92c20@pop.starpower.net> <4250F2D0.3050803@hdw.be> <0d3e75fd39f69a26b4c4f674122cbdb9@rochester.rr.com> <4252400F.4040701@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <4252400F.4040701@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Now he has been damaged, firstly by believing you would bid (and being >>> deprived of a call", and secondly by believing you have beenn psyching >>> when you are merely at the extreme bottom end of your systemic worths. >> >> >> Whatever happened to "A player has no recourse if he has made a call on >> the basis of his own misunderstanding"? >> >> I agree with the principle that agreements must be fully disclosed - but >> I don't agree that a player making an explanation has to provide a >> precise definition of every pertinent word he uses to do so. To me (and >> I'm no expert) "forcing" clearly implies I will get another chance to >> call - but it also clearly implies that there's some chance that I >> won't, IOW that the "forced" player may pass. Too bad. Call it "breaks >> of the game", "rub of the green" or whatever you like, that's just the >> way the game is (and should be, imo) played. >> > >To you, forcing means forcing, to the opponents, forcing means >forcing, but apparently, to the partner, forcing means "90% forcing". >If this player explains the bid as forcing, then he has committed MI, no? > >Sorry Ed, but you seem to be eager to believe a fact that was not in >evidence - that the person explaining the bid as "forcing" meant it as >"forcing". He did not, and he never brought that up in the discussion. >He is not saying "it's forcing, but I pass anyway"; he is saying "we >call it forcing, but I am allowed to pass it anyway". > >The first is indeed rub-of-the-green, the second is MI, even blatant >ones according to some. > So you hold xxx Kxxxx x xxxx an respond 1H to 1D. Partner bids 2S. This is forcing. I pass in sleep, don't you? cheers 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 wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Tue Apr 19 21:15:50 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Apr 19 21:16:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050419191550.96803.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> --- Tim West-Meads wrote: > Wayne wrote: > > > The note did not state that North brought > meritless > > appeals only marginal ones. Nevertheless the > comment > > seems to be intended as a defamatory remark. I > can > > see no other purpose for it. And that purpose > seems > > entirely inappropriate. > > I read the note as meaning marginal with regard to > AWMW rather than > marginal with regard to overturning the TD. Such a > statement would be > defamatory only if untrue. > That maybe a legal definition of defamatory but I am not sure it is a dictionary definition. My dictionary says "speak ill of". To me the comment seems intended to be a slur on the character and practice of this player. Maybe there is some good reason for it but I cannot think what it might be. Maybe you are correct with the intention of the reference to "marginal appeals". However at best the comment in the appeal is ambiguous. Whatever the meaning of the comment it is completely irrelevant to this appeal and therefore has no place in the record of this appeal. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From john at asimere.com Tue Apr 19 21:19:27 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Apr 19 21:21:53 2005 Subject: [blml] L12A1 (was: revoke) In-Reply-To: <53faf479ea5abdb5ab6cff698110c288@rochester.rr.com> References: <20050325092159.C91BCE5B71@poczta.interia.pl> <21d05563efcc326f9bc3a801a01279b2@rochester.rr.com> <53faf479ea5abdb5ab6cff698110c288@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <53faf479ea5abdb5ab6cff698110c288@rochester.rr.com>, Ed Reppert writes > >On Apr 5, 2005, at 8:42 AM, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Not so. It is good wording, that practical people can use when >> making bridge judgements. > >It is? Okay, prove it. :-) > the Rotweiller Coup > >_______________________________________________ >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 Apr 19 21:47:20 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Apr 19 21:49:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 21 In-Reply-To: <000101c53d2c$73121f30$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <4257E89F.60500@shaw.ca> <000101c53d2c$73121f30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000101c53d2c$73121f30$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of Bruce McIntyre >> Sent: 9. april 2005 16:37 >> To: blml >> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 21 >> >> Sven Pran wrote: >> > >> (West's weak 1NT opener is doubled and East bids 2S with a weak hand. >> After >> making the 2S call East is told by South that the double shows hearts and >> spades, so East decides to change his call, based on the late alert, to a >> psyche >> of 2H.) >> > >> >>I am having difficulty here understanding how N-S can be entitled to >> know >> >>that West has made 2 bids which cannot be in accordance with partnership >> >>agreements when N-S are NOT entitled to know that West has changed >> >>his bid at all. >> > >> > And shall this dismiss West from his duty to disclose his "special >> > partnership experience" learned just 5 seconds ago that partner >> obviously >> > right now made a psychic call? >> > >> > The duties under Law 75C are not affected by Law 16C. >> >> Isn't the key here the first sentence of L75B? > >Indeed a very good point and thanks for calling my attention to that one! (I >am a bit ashamed I wasn't aware of it myself). > >> >> "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his >> partner >> is unaware of the violation..." >> >> East knows that west will be perfectly aware (because the discarded 2S >> call is >> AI to E-W) that his 2H correction is a psyche. If the TD has taken East >> away >> from the table to hear what he would have done, he should remind East that >> 2H is >> a clear violation of L75C. I agree that he need not see East's hand to >> give >> this reminder. > >If the Director is extremely cautious he might remind East that he must not >in this position replace his call with any call that his partner "should >understand" is a psyche. Sounds like responder is 6-1 in the majors; one way or another. "Your go chaps". > >> >> > I believe the best we can say is that we may have stumbled over another >> > inconsistency in the laws and try to understand and apply the spirit of >> the >> > laws while we await some resolution by WBFLC. >> >> The main question seems to be whether East's breach of L75B is a greater >> offense >> than the late explanation/alert by South. I think the L75B breach is a >> greater >> offense. > >I do not believe there can be much discussion on that point. > >> >> > Or we must find a way to rule the case if North/South even after the >> psyche >> > finds their game (or even slam) in Hearts. Who shall tell them that >> although >> > West passed the 2H bid there is no way you can reach your contract in >> Hearts >> > after that psyche? To me this is an equivalent of CPU between East and >> West. >> >> Surely we must allow the result to stand if South doubles with a fair hand >> and >> four or more hearts, or bids 3H to expose the psyche with a hand which >> clearly >> calls for this action. On borderline hands leading to a good result for >> N-S, >> one might make E-W eat their score and give N-S a procedural penalty (or >> perhaps >> simply a warning, if it is found that 2S was bid so quickly that South >> really >> never had a chance to alert on time.) > >AFAIK there has never been any question of a rapid first call by East. > >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 john at asimere.com Tue Apr 19 21:55:04 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Apr 19 21:57:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional In-Reply-To: <005a01c53ee7$16464a80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <009e01c4f35b$56d83540$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <022401c53eca$95816bd0$059868d5@James> <005a01c53ee7$16464a80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <8rD+mQCYIWZCFwfu@asimere.com> In article <005a01c53ee7$16464a80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com>, Marvin French writes > >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> [Marvin French] >> > Friday, Dec 31, 3:30 pm session of Mixed Pairs >> > Board 2, N-S vulnerable, East Dealer >> > Alice held S-J103 H-J3 D-AJ642 D-T93 >> > North Marvin South Alice >> > - 1NT* P** P >> > 2S P 3S P >> > 4S all pass >> > * Announced as 16-18 HCP >> > ** After very long time, BIT acknowledged by North >> >> > I'm wondering how this case would have been handled >> > elsewhere in the world. >> >> [Nigel] >> The TD may judge that Alice isn't worth a double or that >> opponent's behaviour indicates to Alice that it is Marvin >> rather than an opponent who is exaggerating his assets. >> >You do not mention the most important factor, which is the opposing auction. >Vulnerable opponents do not bid 2-3-4 unopposed up to game with 17 HCP total >(our 1NT is 16-18) and only 8 trumps unless they are totally insane. > >When asked by the AC why she didn't double, Alice replied, "I thought >something was funny about the bidding." > >Exactly right. > >>Otherwise, in the UK, the TD may adjust the score to 4SXX+3 >and record Marvin's psyche -- IMO, correctly. > >IMO, a gross miscarriage of justice. I guess I'd better not psych at the YC >next time I'm in London. "Why have I been called? Stop wasting my time" :) > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Tue Apr 19 22:04:11 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Apr 19 22:06:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Travelling In-Reply-To: <000001c5425d$ec5f7dc0$eea1403e@Mildred> References: <000001c5425d$ec5f7dc0$eea1403e@Mildred> Message-ID: In article <000001c5425d$ec5f7dc0$eea1403e@Mildred>, Grattan writes > >Grattan Endicott[also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >********************************* >============================= > >+=+ Absence p.m. Apl 16 to Apl 21 inclusive. > Visit to English Bridge Union, Aylesbury.+=+ getting tied up in mounds of red tape to take so long? > > >_______________________________________________ >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 svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 19 23:00:54 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Apr 19 23:01:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000d01c544e8$41136a20$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000201c54522$e0a59600$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton .................. > And I assume you find the prohibition in Law 75B against East making a > call > that violates East/West agreements when East should expect West to be > aware > of this violation completely irrelevant? > > Is it in any way important to you that East wants to change his call under > Law 21B to a call that he normally never would considered when given > correct > information by South? (Be aware of the exact wording in Law 21B!) > > Sven > > > David Barton responds:- > > Well yes I consider L75B completely irrelevant to this situation. > Let us consider the auction 1N 2S 2N P//3N > where 2N was a puppet to 3C (Lebensohl) > The fact that the 2N bidder knows his partner has violated an announced > partnership agreement, and that opener knows that his partner will know, > is NOT sufficient to demonstrate a breach of L75B. I don't understand this: What call was changed and by whom? > IMO a breach of L75B can only occur if the "awareness" arises other > than from the authorised information relating to the deal in question. There is no such condition in or associated with L75B > Your second point I DO consider important. > The original question I asked (many emails ago) was:- > > "East now wishes to change his call to a "psyche" of 2H > in an effort to pick off N-S's suit. > > Does this meet the criterion of "it is probable that he made > the call as a result of misinformation"? East can always claim that given correct information he would have psyched in this position. Then his psyche would meet the criterion in L21B, and as TD I am usually pretty accdeptable to such claims by a player. However my tolerance does not extend to a level where a psyche becomes "protected" so I believe we are on common ground here. > What action should the Director take?" I think he should warn the player if he gets any indication that the player considers replacement to a "doubtful" call. He should also afterwards investigate the case if he feels that there are reasons to suspect any such irregularity. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 20 00:39:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 20 00:40:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000201c54522$e0a59600$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > East can always claim that given correct information he would have > psyched in this position. Then his psyche would meet the criterion in > L21B, and as TD I am usually pretty accdeptable to such claims by a > player. What are you talking about Sven? The sole criterion for withdrawing a call under 21b is that it is probable that the caller would have made a different call had he not been misinformed. Once that fact is accepted (as think it would in the transfers on/off situation you suggested) the caller *then* makes a decision on what call he wishes to substitute, in full knowledge that his previous call is AI to partner and UI to opps. Indeed the caller may withdraw the call of 2S and substitute it with a call of 2S (knowing this will convey more info to partner than to opps). If you suggested to the WBFLC that there *should* be a restriction to the call(s) that might of been chosen absent the MI I'd not argue against the change - but there is no such restriction in the current law. Tim From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Apr 20 00:44:56 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed Apr 20 00:45:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Fifteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050419183820.03edf6f0@mail.comcast.net> At 12:24 AM 4/19/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >This is the fifteenth of 18 parallel threads, which will >eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to >supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer >to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email >for a Word doc. > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > >* * * > >CASE N-15 >Subject: MI >DIC: Steve Bates >Reisinger Teams 2nd Semi-Final > >Brd: 9 Steve Weinstein >Dlr: North J9 >Vul: EW KJ632 > 4 > A7643 >Barry Piafsky Jessica Piafsky >T8653 K2 >874 A95 >86 AKJT732 >KQ5 2 > Robert Levin > AQ74 > QT > Q95 > JT98 > >West North East South >--- Pass 1D Pass >1S 2D 3D 4C >Pass Pass Dbl Pass >Pass Pass > >The Facts: The contract of 4C doubled was down one and +100 >for NS after the D8 lead. The 2D bid was for takeout. South >asked West after dummy came down about the double and was >told, "penalty, primarily". The Director was called away from >the table after the play was completed. > >The Ruling: The director ruled that there was no >misinformation and, therefore, no adjustment. > >The Appeal: NS argued that "penalty, primarily" was >misrepresentative when West knew his partner had little or >nothing in trumps. They said that a better answer would have >been "undiscussed". South was worried about losing to the KQ >doubleton of clubs and/or suffering a spade ruff if West held >the HA. > >EW said that they had discussed these situations and that most >4-level doubles were penalty, to be pulled only with >unexpected offense or negative defense or both. They said the >double should have been readily understood as an "extra high- >card double". They did not have system notes. > >The Decision: The Committee thought that this was a good >example of the "trick question", unlikely to shed any more >light that the questioner already had, but possibly yielding >an answer that might be perceived as defective in some way. > >The Committee noted that the hands cited by South were >virtually impossible on the auction. East was almost certain >to hold the HA, which meant that West almost certainly held at >least one club honor for his one-level response. The Committee >thought that all of the above should have been sufficiently >clear to NS that they should have known not to bring the >appeal. > >The Committee declined to adjust the table result of 4C down >one NS minus 100. Further, the Committee assigned an AWMW on >both North and South. > >The Committee: Bart Bramley, Chairperson, Lowell Andrews, >Aaron Silverstein, JoAnn Sprung, and Tom Peters. It is appropriate for the AC to make the "trick question" accusation in this case, and the AWMW is justified for the same reason. There isn't much difference between a card-showing double and a penalty double at the 4-level, and South should know that. The write-up should have explained how South claimed he was damaged; it is only possible to tell by inference that South played the clubs by leading out the CA and thus lost two club tricks. From ooga at shaw.ca Wed Apr 20 00:57:29 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Wed Apr 20 00:58:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42658CD9.4030805@shaw.ca> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Sven wrote: > > >>East can always claim that given correct information he would have >>psyched in this position. Then his psyche would meet the criterion in >>L21B, and as TD I am usually pretty accdeptable to such claims by a >>player. > > > What are you talking about Sven? The sole criterion for withdrawing a > call under 21b is that it is probable that the caller would have made a > different call had he not been misinformed. Once that fact is accepted > (as think it would in the transfers on/off situation you suggested) the > caller *then* makes a decision on what call he wishes to substitute, in > full knowledge that his previous call is AI to partner and UI to opps. > Indeed the caller may withdraw the call of 2S and substitute it with a > call of 2S (knowing this will convey more info to partner than to opps). > If you suggested to the WBFLC that there *should* be a restriction to the > call(s) that might of been chosen absent the MI I'd not argue against the > change - but there is no such restriction in the current law. Do you really believe that the intent of L21B is that a non-offender can make use of agreements distinguishing between "I'm OK with the original 2S" and "I withdraw my 2S...and substitute 2S instead?" Even leaving aside the UI/AI aspect, I think this is more advantage than a non-offending side deserves. > Tim > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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 Wed Apr 20 03:04:38 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Apr 20 03:05:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <200504132142.j3DLg5eL024016@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504132142.j3DLg5eL024016@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4265AAA6.3060002@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > What the first part of L75B essentially states is that no player may violate > an announced partnership agreement if he has reason to believe that his > partner will be aware of the violation. No, what L75B actually _says_ is the converse of that. If you or others want to argue about what it _means_, you are welcome to do so, but don't mis-state what it actually says. Personally, I see no reason to believe it means anything other than what the text actually states. David Barton writes: > The auction has gone 1C P 1D ZZZ > The 1C opener asks a series of questions about the bid ZZZ > and possible alternatives to bidding ZZZ. He receives the > following information:- ... > The 1C bidder can then obviously deduce from this authorised > information, exactly the information that was previously unauthorised. > ie that the passer has a strong hand with long Diamonds. At best, this relies on the assumption that the opponents are playing a well-designed bidding system. Even if so, there can be ambiguities. For example, you may discover that responder is playing transfers and therefore deduce that opener has a balanced hand. But you might be wrong -- some play transfers in other situations -- and even if you are right, you won't know opener's strength. More generally, no competent TD is going to let you ask questions whose only purpose is to find out things you "shouldn't know." Suppose you need to guess a queen, so you look intently at RHO and say "Do you have the queen of spades?" Judging the opponent's reaction, you may guess right, but do you expect to keep your score? More specifically, L20F1 refers to "_relevant_ calls available but not made." I think it's easy to interpret "relevant" as not including a clever effort to make UI into AI. > The bidding goes > Bid1 Bid2a/Bid2b Bid3 Bid4 > round the table. > Where Bid2b replaces Bid2a after a late alert. > Now is it a general proposition that the player > making Bid4 has to explain all the inferences > available to him in selecting Bid4, including the > inferences available from Bid2a or even > providing the info that his partner had made Bid 2a, > and that that info is now authorised? As Tim has pointed out, even if all the inferences are explained, opponents in possession of UI must "carefully avoid" taking advantage. From: Bruce McIntyre > I repeat that my first action as TD, before calling West away from the table, is > to ascertain that the late alert is more than, say, 2 seconds after the double. If the double is out of tempo, you retain the right to adjust the score later and should so advise all players before they make further decisions. You may not, however, deprive players of rights they otherwise have. The spedific law is 73D1, which usually is invoked for deceptive tempo but is not limited to that. The specific route is through 12A1 to 12C2. At least this will suffice; perhaps someone will find another route to the same result. By the way, "calling West away from the table" is considered bad practice outside North America. > While the TD cannot prohibit West from changing to 2H, and in fact shouldn't > even look at his hand, ... While the TD cannot prohibit the change and indeed should not look at West's hand, he does retain the right to adjust the score later. L21B says "when it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation," which implies a judgment by the TD. In my view, the correct question to ask (after the deal is played) is "if there had not been MI, would the player have made the original call?" In the original example, if EW are playing the same methods over all doubles, West is probably out of luck, but if they are playing different methods over penalty doubles and one-suited doubles such that 2S means different things, West will quite likely be allowed to change his bid. As Tim wrote, once a change is legal, there is no restriction on what call West can change to. Even aside from a psych, West may for example change his 2S bid to pass. East can then rescue into spades if there is a fit, but there is no risk of 2S being hammered if East lacks support, and the partnership can still scramble into lower-ranking suits at the two level. If the change of call is judged illegal, the path to an adjustment goes through L12A1. > ... he should advise West, away from the table, that changing > his call to a psyche that is AI to partner and UI to the opponents is a > violation of Law. Only if one interprets L75B contrary to its plain words. Or did you have another Law in mind? If you are giving this advice, I fail to see why you need to do it away from the table. > Sven has extrapolated a bit from what 75B actually says. "Turned it around backwards" would be more accurate. Or "assumed the converse," which is a well known fallacy. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 20 03:12:10 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Apr 20 03:12:54 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <200504071447.j37ElOZ9020587@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504071447.j37ElOZ9020587@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4265AC6A.80200@cfa.harvard.edu> SW> What is the difference between "misinformation" (L75A/C, L21B) SW> and "concealed partnership understanding" (L40B)? > From: "Sven Pran" > IMO this situation has some similarities with (fielding) psyches: > > If the actions of BOTH (!) players appear consistent with an agreement that > differs from what has been disclosed to opponents then the Director should > seriously consider CPU and so rule unless he also finds evidence to the > contrary. I very much appreciate the answer, especially since no one else bothered. I still think it is an important question. It seems pretty obvious that for there to be a CPU, there has to be a partnership understanding, so "action of both players" is a necessary condition as Sven says. Is it sufficient as well? Suppose, for example, a relay pair have a complex auction where they obviously agree, but they omit some alerts. (Maybe they are unfamiliar with local alerting rules.) Is there a CPU? There surely is MI, and the opponents must be protected if they are damaged by it, but are you going to declare some of the relays themselves illegal as you would for a CPU? If not, what additional conditions are required to rule CPU? From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 20 03:25:07 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Apr 20 03:25:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <200504142333.j3ENXHbm029446@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504142333.j3ENXHbm029446@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4265AF73.7080208@cfa.harvard.edu> > CASE N-11 [about a double] > (2) When asked was told "I don't know" > The Ruling: The director determined that EW did not have an > agreement on the meaning of the double. ... > Statements by the other side: EW had not discussed the meaning of > this double. They have played as a partnership about six years. While EW may well have had no agreements on this particular sequence, it is unbelievable that after six years they have no experience that low level doubles are "often takeout" or "often penalty" or some general principles that may apply (over/under the bidder, number of unbid suits, vulnerability, etc.) Opponents should have been told of such principles. "I don't know" is adequate for a pickup partnership but not for an experienced one. It isn't obvious whether the MI caused damage or not, but the AC (not to mention the TDs) should have considered what would have happened with correct information. The itemized reasons given by the AC are irrelevant. The AC made the common mistake of asking whether the non-offending side should have made the right choices even with the MI instead of asking what would have happened without the MI. (Richard: you are welcome to use the above in your casebook if you think it makes sense.) From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 20 03:30:53 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Apr 20 03:31:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Fourteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <200504191444.j3JEiT7r015062@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504191444.j3JEiT7r015062@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4265B0CD.4040906@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > Either there was a break in tempo, or there wasn't. Why does the length > matter? Come on, Ed, you know the answer to that one. A key question is what does the BiT suggest. That will be different for long and short hesitations. At the extremes, a "too fast" action will usually suggest the opposite of a "too slow" action. In this case, a 1-2 s hesitation is probably normal tempo. "Too fast" suggests to me that 4NT is quantitative; "too slow" -- and certainly anything as long as 10-12 s, which is an eternity in bridge terms -- suggests Blackwood to me. Bidder wanted to make sure he was prepared for all responses. This is, of course a matter of bridge judgment, but the starting point for the judgment is the length of the pause, and I wish all AC reports would contain the information. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 20 03:47:57 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Apr 20 03:48:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Fifteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050419183820.03edf6f0@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <018c01c5454a$faefc080$099868d5@James> [Richard James Hills CASE N-15] >Subject: MI DIC: Steve Bates Reisinger Teams SF2 > Brd: 9 Steve Weinstein > Dlr: North J9 > Vul: EW KJ632 > 4 > A7643 > Barry Piafsky Jessica Piafsky > T8653 K2 > 874 A95 > 86 AKJT732 > KQ5 2 > Robert Levin > AQ74 > QT > Q95 > JT98 > > West North East South > --- Pass 1D Pass > 1S 2D 3D 4C > Pass Pass Dbl Pass > Pass Pass > The Facts: The contract of 4C doubled was down one and > +100 for NS after the D8 lead. The 2D bid was for > takeout. South asked West after dummy came down about > the double and was told, "penalty, primarily". The > Director was called away from the table after the play > was completed. The Ruling: The director ruled that there > was no misinformation and, therefore, no adjustment. > The Appeal: NS argued that "penalty, primarily" was > misrepresentative when West knew his partner had little > or nothing in trumps. They said that a better answer > would have been "undiscussed". South was worried about > losing to the KQ doubleton of clubs and/or suffering a > spade ruff if West held he HA. EW said that they had > discussed these situations and that most 4-level > doubles were penalty, to be pulled only with unexpected > offense or negative defense or both. They said the > double should have been readily understood as an "extra > high-card double". They did not have system notes. > The Decision: The Committee thought that this was a > good example of the "trick question", unlikely to shed > any more light that the questioner already had, but > possibly yielding an answer that might be perceived as > defective in some way. The Committee noted that the > hands cited by South were virtually impossible on the > auction. East was almost certain to hold the HA, which > meant that West almost certainly held at least one club > honor for his one-level response. The Committee thought > that all of the above should have been sufficiently > clear to NS that they should have known not to bring > the appeal. The Committee declined to adjust the table > result of 4C down one NS minus 100. Further, the > Committee assigned an AWMW on both North and South. > The Committee: Bart Bramley, Chairperson, Lowell > Andrews, Aaron Silverstein, JoAnn Sprung, and Tom Peters. [Nigel] IMO the decision is close and the AWMW is wrong. Any sensible player would ask about East's double so I can't accept that it's a "trick question". It may be naive of South to believe the answer but if he does mistakenly believe it, why should the committee expect him to finesse clubs? In America as in Britain, the rules define five gradations of double from takeout to penalty. The appeal decision hinges on whether "penalty, primarily" was misinformation. If the double is systemically penalty, then of course, West must describe only the partnership agreement (even if he knows that somebody has psyched); The director and committee seem to have judged that West accurately described the partnership agreement and that East psyched. That is their judgement; but it still seems reasonable for North-South to have appealed. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 20 04:01:58 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 20 04:03:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Fourteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <4265B0CD.4040906@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504191444.j3JEiT7r015062@cfa.harvard.edu> <4265B0CD.4040906@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <98d726f544e436c0ffa1625f14107920@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 19, 2005, at 9:30 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Ed Reppert >> Either there was a break in tempo, or there wasn't. Why does the >> length matter? > > Come on, Ed, you know the answer to that one. A key question is what > does the BiT suggest. If it suggests anything, yes. > That will be different for long and short hesitations. It will? So if someone tanks for 20 seconds, it suggests something different than if he had tanked for 30? I don't believe it. > At the extremes, a "too fast" action will usually suggest the > opposite of a "too slow" action. Here you seem to be talking about the difference between a faster than normal tempo and a slower than normal tempo, rather than the difference between a slower than normal tempo and an even slower than normal tempo. > In this case, a 1-2 s hesitation is probably normal tempo. "Too fast" > suggests to me that 4NT is quantitative; "too slow" -- and certainly > anything as long as 10-12 s, which is an eternity in bridge terms -- > suggests Blackwood to me. Hm. Here you seem to be back to, say, 5 seconds vs 10. So which is it? And btw, if 1-2 seconds is "normal tempo" then it isn't a hesitation at all. Aside from that, I don't see why you make the distinction. I wouldn't. > Bidder wanted to make sure he was prepared for all responses. This > is, of course a matter of bridge judgment, but the starting point for > the judgment is the length of the pause, and I wish all AC reports > would contain the information. You know, the laws don't speak to "hesitation", but to "undue hesitation". Yet every time I see a case where "hesitation" is involved, it seems that "undue" is assumed. I'd rather see reports speak to the alleged offender's normal tempo, and his tempo on the call in question, rather than some number of seconds the call took. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 20 06:41:23 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 20 06:43:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Sixteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the sixteenth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-16 Subject: MI DIC: Steve Bates Reisinger Teams 1st Semi-Final 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: If South had been told by West that the 2H call was a suit rather than a pass or correct bid, he could have passed the HJ through East at trick two and easily make four. Since he did not have that information, he feels he should be entitled to an adjustment. (Note from AW: In fact is was EW who appealed.) Statements by the other side: EW presented their system notes that did not cover this situation. East said he told North that it was for hearts because that is what he held. Other information: The line of play was: S6 to the S9 CA unblocking the seven the club two to the CJ, CQ and CK club nine, six, a heart pitch, CT spade four to the SQ SA cashed exit a spade (North pitching a diamond). Now because of the club blockage, 10 tricks are no longer available. The Decision: The Committee changed the contract back to 3NT making 3 for +600 for NW and -600 for EW. Under the conditions of contest, a pair is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. "A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed." The committee found that the double of 2D was a probable auction covered by the conditions of contest. South was entitled to a clearer explanation of the 2H call. However, there were two considerations that, together, caused the committee not to award the redress to NS. 1. South should have made ten tricks even without complete information, and 2. South had, by ACBL regulations, had an affirmative obligation to seek clarification of 2H when West told him he was unsure of the meaning. South's ignoring his obligation to protect himself should not accrue to his benefit. South could have called the Director when dummy came down, explained his need for clarification, and gotten it from East. These two considerations caused the Committee to let the table result stand. Since EW were in violation of their obligation to know the application of their conventions in reasonable expected situations, however, the Committee decided to apply a one- fourth board procedural penalty to EW. The appeal was judged to have had merit and no AWMW was issued. The Committee: Michael Huston, non-voting Chairperson, Mike Passell, Danny Sprung, Eddie Wold, Jeff Roman, and Chris Moll From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 20 07:05:31 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 20 07:07:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Sixteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Statements by the other side: EW presented their system notes >that did not cover this situation. East said he told North >that it was for hearts because that is what he held. I am surprised that a player as experienced as David Berkowitz willfully gave misinformation in a misguided attempt to help the opponents. Berkowitz should have described the actual Cohen-Berkowitz lack of partnership agreement (as Larry Cohen did), rather than him describing his actual cards. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 20 08:31:00 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 20 08:31:57 2005 Subject: FW: [blml] Another L21 Question Message-ID: <000101c54572$853ca6a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Sorry, hit send before I changed the address to blml -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] Sent: 20. april 2005 08:30 To: 'twm@cix.co.uk' Subject: RE: [blml] Another L21 Question > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > East can always claim that given correct information he would have > > psyched in this position. Then his psyche would meet the criterion in > > L21B, and as TD I am usually pretty accdeptable to such claims by a > > player. > > What are you talking about Sven? The sole criterion for withdrawing a > call under 21b is that it is probable that the caller would have made a > different call had he not been misinformed. Once that fact is accepted > (as think it would in the transfers on/off situation you suggested) the > caller *then* makes a decision on what call he wishes to substitute, in > full knowledge that his previous call is AI to partner and UI to opps. > Indeed the caller may withdraw the call of 2S and substitute it with a > call of 2S (knowing this will convey more info to partner than to opps). L21B permits a player to "change" his call on certain conditions. A call can never be "changed" to itself. > If you suggested to the WBFLC that there *should* be a restriction to the > call(s) that might of been chosen absent the MI I'd not argue against the > change - but there is no such restriction in the current law. > > Tim To me it is implicit in L21B that L21B permits the player changing his call to what he would have called had he been correctly informed. Although the law includes no such formal restrictions on how he may change his call I would still have that in mind if he were to take advantage of the situation in possible conflict with for instance L75B. (And I do not agree that L75B is irrelevant). Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 20 08:43:40 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 20 08:44:39 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <4265AC6A.80200@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000201c54574$49adb190$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > SW> What is the difference between "misinformation" (L75A/C, L21B) > SW> and "concealed partnership understanding" (L40B)? > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > IMO this situation has some similarities with (fielding) psyches: > > > > If the actions of BOTH (!) players appear consistent with > > an agreement that differs from what has been disclosed to > > opponents then the Director should seriously consider CPU > > and so rule unless he also finds evidence to the contrary. > > > > I very much appreciate the answer, especially since no one else > bothered. I still think it is an important question. > > It seems pretty obvious that for there to be a CPU, there has to be a > partnership understanding, so "action of both players" is a necessary > condition as Sven says. Is it sufficient as well? No it is not sufficient. I intentionally wrote "should seriously consider", not words to the effect: "should (automatically) rule". But once such strong indication of CPU is revealed the onus shifts (IMO) to the suspected pair to show that they have no CPU. Regards Sven From ooga at shaw.ca Wed Apr 20 09:11:02 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Wed Apr 20 09:14:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <4265AAA6.3060002@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504132142.j3DLg5eL024016@cfa.harvard.edu> <4265AAA6.3060002@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42660086.5020004@shaw.ca> Steve Willner wrote: > > By the way, "calling West away from the table" is considered bad > practice outside North America. Seems odd to me. I would think that the ACBL is simply trying to prevent UI being passed during the discussion of what the player thinks he might have done. "Well, I might have bid 3D instead" is a lot different than "I'd have bid 3D." >> ... he should advise West, away from the table, that changing his call >> to a psyche that is AI to partner and UI to the opponents is a >> violation of Law. > > > Only if one interprets L75B contrary to its plain words. Or did you > have another Law in mind? You claim that from "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation" it does not follow that a player may not violate an announced partnership agreement, if his partner is aware of the violation? This is going to have far-reaching consequences: L17B: "The player designated by the board as dealer makes the first call." But we cannot assume that if dealer's partner makes the first call that this is unlawful. That would be turning it around backwards. L41D: "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up..." Dummy put the cards on the table face down before the opening lead, but we cannot assume that there has been an irregularity because that would be "assuming the converse." Shall I go on? :) >> Sven has extrapolated a bit from what 75B actually says. > > > "Turned it around backwards" would be more accurate. Or "assumed the > converse," which is a well known fallacy. No. What Sven wrote is that L75B applies because the partner of the player who substituted a psych is on different terms than his opponents. That was an extrapolation. My argument is simpler: --The substituted psyche (bidding a suit that the conventional double shows) almost certainly has an agreed meaning: either natural or some kind of cuebid. --This makes the psyche a violation of an announced partnership agreement. (Obviously, if the substituted 2H call is a transfer it is no psyche and none of this applies.) --The psycher cannot fail to appreciate that his partner will know immediately that the substituted call is a psyche. He began by naturally bidding one of the suits that the double showed, then substituted a call in the other suit. Because the original 2S call is AI to partner, the psyche will be apparent. --This means that his partner is NOT unaware of the violation, and because I don't balk at assuming the converse, I rule it an illegal bid. -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 20 09:50:24 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 20 09:52:25 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <000201c54574$49adb190$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >>It seems pretty obvious that for there to be a CPU, there >>has to be a partnership understanding, so "action of both >>players" is a necessary condition as Sven says. Is it >>sufficient as well? Sven Pran: >No it is not sufficient. I intentionally wrote "should >seriously consider", not words to the effect: "should >(automatically) rule". > >But once such strong indication of CPU is revealed the >onus shifts (IMO) to the suspected pair to show that they >have no CPU. Richard Hills: In my opinion, if Sven is using the word "onus" in the sense of "onus of proof", then that is a misconceived approach. A TD should not rule by blindly stating, "guilty until proved innocent". (Neither should a TD rule by blindly stating, "innocent until proved guilty".) Law 85 does not require a putative offending side to "prove" their innocence. (Neither does Law 85 require a TD to "prove" a putative offending side's guilt.) Rather, Law 85 requires a TD to weigh the evidence and then be "satisfied that" the TD "has ascertained the facts". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 20 10:35:42 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 20 10:36:41 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c54583$f0347850$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au .............. > In my opinion, if Sven is using the word "onus" in the sense > of "onus of proof", then that is a misconceived approach. > > A TD should not rule by blindly stating, "guilty until > proved innocent". (Neither should a TD rule by blindly > stating, "innocent until proved guilty".) > > Law 85 does not require a putative offending side to "prove" > their innocence. (Neither does Law 85 require a TD to > "prove" a putative offending side's guilt.) > > Rather, Law 85 requires a TD to weigh the evidence and then > be "satisfied that" the TD "has ascertained the facts". Let me put it this way: If corresponding actions by the two partners indicate some (concealed) understanding I need very convincing evidence for the contrary to not rule CPU. But I do not automatically discard the possibility of a lucky coincidence. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 20 10:59:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 20 11:00:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <42658CD9.4030805@shaw.ca> Message-ID: Bruce wrote: > > If you suggested to the WBFLC that there *should* be a restriction to > > the call(s) that might of been chosen absent the MI I'd not argue > > against the change - but there is no such restriction in the current > > law. > > Do you really believe that the intent of L21B is that a non-offender > can make use of agreements distinguishing between "I'm OK with the > original 2S" and "I withdraw my 2S...and substitute 2S instead?" No I don't think that was the intent, but I think the concept wasn't considered such that it became the outcome. > Even leaving aside the UI/AI aspect, I think this is more advantage than > a non-offending side deserves. I think you may be right (although it is not dissimilar to the extra sequences after accepting an insufficient bid). As I said I'd not object to a change in L21b, but I can't find any reasonable interpretation of current law that allows me to use it that way. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 20 10:59:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 20 11:00:58 2005 Subject: FW: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000101c54572$853ca6a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Sorry, hit send before I changed the address to blml No probs :) > > > East can always claim that given correct information he would have > > > psyched in this position. Then his psyche would meet the criterion > > > in L21B, and as TD I am usually pretty accdeptable to such claims by > > > a player. > > > > What are you talking about Sven? The sole criterion for withdrawing a > > call under 21b is that it is probable that the caller would have made > > a different call had he not been misinformed. Once that fact is > > accepted (as think it would in the transfers on/off situation you > > suggested) the caller *then* makes a decision on what call he wishes > > to substitute, in > > full knowledge that his previous call is AI to partner and UI to opps. > > Indeed the caller may withdraw the call of 2S and substitute it with a > > call of 2S (knowing this will convey more info to partner than to > > opps). > > L21B permits a player to "change" his call on certain conditions. A > call can never be "changed" to itself. This would appear to conflict with the footnote to L26b (not directly applicable but based on a related topic). Footnote: A call repeated with a much different meaning shall be deemed a different call. NB: The "different meaning" is, of course, UI to opps. > > > If you suggested to the WBFLC that there *should* be a restriction to > > the call(s) that might of been chosen absent the MI I'd not argue > > against the > > change - but there is no such restriction in the current law. > > To me it is implicit in L21B that L21B permits the player changing his > call to what he would have called had he been correctly informed. I'm sorry Sven - it just isn't there (implicit or otherwise). your wishing it so does not make it true, and does not empower you to withhold UI protection from a pair that knows it isn't true. > Although the law includes no such formal restrictions on how he may Or informal, or any indication of such, not even the merest hint. > change his call I would still have that in mind if he were to take > advantage of the situation in possible conflict with for instance L75B. > (And I do not agree that L75B is irrelevant). L75b is relevant (as far as it ever is) if the pair have agreements in place to on sequences including withdrawn calls. If the pair have no agreement on what 2H means in the sequence 1N-(x)-2Swithdrawn, 2H then it is flat out impossible for them to violate an agreement. If we deem there to be an implicit agreement that 2H includes the hand type held then there has been no violation. I would say that L72a4 had much more relevance: 4. Non-offenders' Exercise of Legal Options When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous. If the most advantageous action is to show a hand type that would not otherwise be possible, or to create a difficult problem for opponents by psyching then so be it. Tim From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 20 12:01:14 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Apr 20 12:02:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Fourteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook Message-ID: <004601c5458f$e3b44810$0a9468d5@James> [Richard James Hills CASE N-14] > Subject: UI DIC: Gary Zeiger NABC Swiss 1st Qualifying > Brd: 22 > Dlr: East > Vul: EW > Judy Nassar > JT93 > J94 > QT53 > J9 > George Retek Phil Silverstein > K84 AQ765 > AQT6 32 > K7 A9 > AK85 T642 > Tony Ames > 2 > K875 > J8642 > Q73 > West North East South > --- --- Pass Pass > 2NT Pass 3H Pass > 3S Pass 3NT Pass > 4S Pass 4NT(1) Pass > Pass Pass > (1) 12 second BIT agreed > The Facts: The final contract was 4NT by West making > five for score of EW +660 after the lead of the CJ. > The director was called after the dummy was faced. > The 3H bid was a transfer to spades. EW have played > together about five to 10 times a year for a few years > and this is the first time they have played transfers, > usually preferring Gladiator. West was unfamiliar with > any "super-accept" bids after the transfer. EW's range > for a 2NT opener is 20-22. There was an unmistakable > hesitation before the 4NT bid - about 12 seconds. The > opening lead against 4NT was the CJ and the result was > EW making 5, plus 460 EW. The Ruling: The director who > presented the case to the Committee said that the staff > ruled that there was no logical alternative to passing > 4NT. Therefore, in spite of the UI, there was no > infraction of Law 16. > The Appeal: South did not attend the hearing. North said > that she thought that the West hand valued at 20.5 hcp > in support of spades and that if East had bid in tempo, > West might well have answered RKC, thereby committing > the side to slam, since all controls were present. > East stated that he intended 4NT as RKC. West felt that > 4NT was quantitative in nature since his partner was > limited by being a passed hand and by having offered > 3NT as a playing spot. > Statements by the Other Side: East said he intended 4NT > as Blackwood. West felt that the 4NT bid was quantitative > in nature". West was also not used to playing transfers > as he ordinarily plays 2 way Stayman over 1NT and > Gladiator over 2NT. > The Decision: The Committee first decided that answering > RKC was a logical alternative. In most normal > circumstances, when one's partner asks a question, > answering it is a logical alternative. The limitations on > East's strength, noted by West, are altogether rational > and might convince many to agree with him in his > judgment, especially considering his sub-20 hcp opening > bid, but passing remains a logical alternative. > However, the Committee then visited the question of > whether the hesitation "demonstrably suggests" passing > to West. Since West was already aware of authorized > information that his partner did not have an opening bid > and that his partner would have been content to play 3NT > if West had only 2 spades, the Committee found that any > unauthorized information from the hesitation was > effectively duplicated by authorized information. > Furthermore, East's deliberation over his bid could > easily have suggested that he did not know whether 4NT > was the best way to advance his hand towards slam (he may > have been thinking about bidding 5D). On this basis, the > Committee decided that the hesitation did not > demonstrably suggest passing any more than the already > present authorized information did. Accordingly, the > table result of 4NT making 5 for plus 460 E-W was allowed > to stand. > The appeal was judged to have merit and no AWMW was > issued. > Dissent (Danny Sprung): I feel that the slow 4NT did > demonstrably suggest pass would be more successful. > While partner is a passed hand some shapely maximum non- > openers could become worth a move towards slam once the > 8-card fit comes to light. West's unfamiliarity with > transfers suggests he probably wouldn't have cue bid > along the way with a maximum and three spades. > Since the Committee clearly felt that responding to > Blackwood was a logical alternative, West's sub-minimum > (in hcp) notwithstanding, I would assign reciprocal 100's > for 6S down one. > The Committee: Michael Huston, Chairperson, Gail > Greenberg, Ed Lazarus, Ellen Melson, and Danny Sprung. [Nigel] Its close but I prefer the argument of the dissenter, Danny Sprung. In the old days hesitations used to suggest action. Nowadays, if you start to hesitate, you usually lean over backwards to take decisive action yourself, rather than compromise partner. Anybody with practical experience of tempo rulings knows that, after partner's hestiation, you must be prepared to justify positive action to a director. For example, imagine here what the ruling would have been if East-West had bid a successful slam after West's trance! With this in mind, 4NT is likely to be a pretty mild slam try and, arguably, West may have heeded the gypsy's warning. Anyway, a flaw in the current law is that an experienced partnership are likely to read each other's unauthorised information much more successfully than the most skilled director or committee. There is a strong case for penalizing UI itself, rather than its use. From david.j.barton at lineone.net Wed Apr 20 13:44:49 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Wed Apr 20 13:45:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 75B (was Another L21 Question) References: <200504132142.j3DLg5eL024016@cfa.harvard.edu> <4265AAA6.3060002@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002a01c5459e$5bbb0660$0307a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 2:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another L21 Question >> From: "Sven Pran" >> What the first part of L75B essentially states is that no player may >> violate >> an announced partnership agreement if he has reason to believe that his >> partner will be aware of the violation. > > No, what L75B actually _says_ is the converse of that. If you or others > want to argue about what it _means_, you are welcome to do so, but don't > mis-state what it actually says. > > Personally, I see no reason to believe it means anything other than what > the text actually states. > Thank you Steve - the penny has finally dropped for me (I think)! You are saying that "so long as his partner is unaware..." is a sufficient condition to ensure that a violation of an agreement is legal. The condition however is not a neccessary one, so that there can also exist violations of agreements that partner is aware of that are also legal. The legality (or otherwise) of partner aware violations will be determined by reference to other laws. The consequence of this is of course that the converse (a violation is not legal if partner is aware...) is NOT neccessarily true (though it may be true). That at last makes sense, though one could wish that the laws were not littered with such "bombs". Where a law spells out what happens when a condition is satisfied, it should also be explicit about what happens when that condition is not satisfied. Thanks again. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.18 - Release Date: 19/04/2005 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 20 13:52:42 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Apr 20 13:54:04 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <4265AC6A.80200@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504071447.j37ElOZ9020587@cfa.harvard.edu> <4265AC6A.80200@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050420074925.02bac570@pop.starpower.net> At 09:12 PM 4/19/05, Steve wrote: >SW> What is the difference between "misinformation" (L75A/C, L21B) >SW> and "concealed partnership understanding" (L40B)? > >>From: "Sven Pran" >>IMO this situation has some similarities with (fielding) psyches: >>If the actions of BOTH (!) players appear consistent with an >>agreement that >>differs from what has been disclosed to opponents then the Director >>should >>seriously consider CPU and so rule unless he also finds evidence to the >>contrary. > >I very much appreciate the answer, especially since no one else >bothered. I still think it is an important question. > >It seems pretty obvious that for there to be a CPU, there has to be a >partnership understanding, so "action of both players" is a necessary >condition as Sven says. Is it sufficient as well? Surely not. If it were, that would be equivalent to the discredited "rule of coincidence", which has been judged by the powers that be to have no basis in law. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 20 14:20:31 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Apr 20 14:20:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Sixteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050420080959.02bab2d0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:41 AM 4/20/05, richard.hills wrote: >CASE N-16 >Subject: MI >DIC: Steve Bates >Reisinger Teams 1st Semi-Final > >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: If South had been told by West that the 2H call >was a suit rather than a pass or correct bid, he could have >passed the HJ through East at trick two and easily make four. >Since he did not have that information, he feels he should be >entitled to an adjustment. > >(Note from AW: In fact is was EW who appealed.) > >Statements by the other side: EW presented their system notes >that did not cover this situation. East said he told North >that it was for hearts because that is what he held. > >Other information: The line of play was: > >S6 to the S9 >CA unblocking the seven >the club two to the CJ, CQ and CK >club nine, six, a heart pitch, CT >spade four to the SQ >SA cashed >exit a spade (North pitching a diamond). > >Now because of the club blockage, 10 tricks are no longer >available. > >The Decision: The Committee changed the contract back to 3NT >making 3 for +600 for NW and -600 for EW. > >Under the conditions of contest, a pair is responsible for >knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) >auctions. "A pair may be entitled to redress if their >opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of >when and how to use a convention that was employed." The >committee found that the double of 2D was a probable auction >covered by the conditions of contest. South was entitled to >a clearer explanation of the 2H call. > >However, there were two considerations that, together, caused >the committee not to award the redress to NS. >1. South should have made ten tricks even without complete >information, and >2. South had, by ACBL regulations, had an affirmative >obligation to seek clarification of 2H when West told him he >was unsure of the meaning. >South's ignoring his obligation to protect himself should not >accrue to his benefit. South could have called the Director >when dummy came down, explained his need for clarification, >and gotten it from East. These two considerations caused the >Committee to let the table result stand. > >Since EW were in violation of their obligation to know the >application of their conventions in reasonable expected >situations, however, the Committee decided to apply a one- >fourth board procedural penalty to EW. > >The appeal was judged to have had merit and no AWMW was >issued. > >The Committee: Michael Huston, non-voting Chairperson, Mike >Passell, Danny Sprung, Eddie Wold, Jeff Roman, and Chris Moll I guess I can't quarrel with the committee's logic in applying the relevant ACBL regulation, assuming that such an absurd regulation actually exists. What, exactly, were E-W "obligated" to know? Does the regulation include a list of "reasonable expected situations"? I doubt it. Or does it require a partnership to have discussed whatever a director or AC determines post facto that, in its opinion, it ought to have discussed? Has the ACBL really decided that when faced with a partnership that hasn't agreed the meaning of a particular auction, the TD or AC is free to make up its own mind whether or not it is one of the auctions for which discussion is obligatory? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 20 14:34:05 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Apr 20 14:34:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Sixteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050420082451.02baf110@pop.starpower.net> At 01:05 AM 4/20/05, richard.hills wrote: > >Statements by the other side: EW presented their system notes > >that did not cover this situation. East said he told North > >that it was for hearts because that is what he held. > >I am surprised that a player as experienced as David Berkowitz >willfully gave misinformation in a misguided attempt to help >the opponents. > >Berkowitz should have described the actual Cohen-Berkowitz lack >of partnership agreement (as Larry Cohen did), rather than him >describing his actual cards. True, but irrelevant to the case, since it was Cohen's description of Berkowitz's call that was at issue (the appeal was about the play, for which the misinformed North was the dummy). Neither the TD nor the AC found that Cohen had given incorrect information (he hadn't); the issue was only whether the correct information he had available to give was adequate under ACBL regulations. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 20 14:45:18 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 20 14:46:16 2005 Subject: FW: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c545a6$ceed40f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............ > > L21B permits a player to "change" his call on certain conditions. A > > call can never be "changed" to itself. > > This would appear to conflict with the footnote to L26b (not directly > applicable but based on a related topic). > > Footnote: A call repeated with a much different meaning shall be deemed a > different call. I see no relation at all? (I suppose you mean the footnote to the first part of L26 which is the one you quoted, not the footnote to L26B). L26 specifically addresses the cases where an offender's call has been withdrawn (for whatever reason) and then replaced with a different call including (nominally) the same call with a different meaning in the new situation. There can be no parallel to a situation where a non-offender says that he wants to "change" his so and so call to (nominally) the exact same call with exactly the same meaning?. Sven From john at asimere.com Wed Apr 20 14:55:20 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Apr 20 14:57:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <42658CD9.4030805@shaw.ca> References: <42658CD9.4030805@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <2JBquVA4ElZCFwsU@asimere.com> In article <42658CD9.4030805@shaw.ca>, Bruce McIntyre writes >Tim West-Meads wrote: >> Sven wrote: >> >> >>>East can always claim that given correct information he would have >>>psyched in this position. Then his psyche would meet the criterion in >>>L21B, and as TD I am usually pretty accdeptable to such claims by a >>>player. >> >> >> What are you talking about Sven? The sole criterion for withdrawing a >> call under 21b is that it is probable that the caller would have made a >> different call had he not been misinformed. Once that fact is accepted >> (as think it would in the transfers on/off situation you suggested) the >> caller *then* makes a decision on what call he wishes to substitute, in >> full knowledge that his previous call is AI to partner and UI to opps. >> Indeed the caller may withdraw the call of 2S and substitute it with a >> call of 2S (knowing this will convey more info to partner than to opps). >> If you suggested to the WBFLC that there *should* be a restriction to the >> call(s) that might of been chosen absent the MI I'd not argue against the >> change - but there is no such restriction in the current law. > >Do you really believe that the intent of L21B is that a non-offender can make >use of agreements distinguishing between "I'm OK with the original 2S" and "I >withdraw my 2S...and substitute 2S instead?" Even leaving aside the UI/AI >aspect, I think this is more advantage than a non-offending side deserves. If my opponents fail to follow regulations empowered by law I am entitled to use any and all artifices which the law provides to take advantage and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. That the law may be an ass is not the point. cheers john > >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 bngtrns at nytsyn.dk Wed Apr 20 16:42:23 2005 From: bngtrns at nytsyn.dk (Darren Cervantes) Date: Wed Apr 20 15:50:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Solid Opportunity with ease Message-ID: <20280401095750.A31950@xearthlink.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.g00dl1fe.com/45.asp Best Regards, Darren Cervantes Regional CEO ken nv price wqm leachate yis apprentice yz alabamian es convene ad contiguous qkg doesn't zs pal iun checksumming dt chantey zvs marry sxw opposite ih logarithmic yhw http://g00dl1fe.com/gone.asp From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 20 17:40:28 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Apr 20 17:41:32 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 1:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) > Nigel Guthrie interpreted: > > >My interpretation emphasised two controversial > >points with which Richard may or may not agree ... > > > >A. Some of Richard's "analogies" may be undiscussed; > >they may be established by partnership experience > >alone; there may even be other relevant clues. > > Richard Hills clarifies: > > In my opinion, implicit partnership agreements can > be created by: > > (a) At-the-table prior partnership experience. > Example: With one partner I have an implicit > agreement that her 12-14 1NT openings always have at > least 12 hcp; she has a different implicit agreement > that I might open with 11 hcp if I like my tens. > > (b) By analogy. > Example: With one partner I have an explicit (and > old-fashioned) agreement that many doubles defined as > negative by most experts are defined as penalty in > the system I created for our partnership. So, if I > perpetrate a notionally undiscussed double, if the > penalty option is a plausible interpretation, then > the penalty option is our implicit partnership > agreement created by analogy. > > (c) By mutual assumption due to local mores. > Example: Playing in a new partnership with a strange > (but expertly strange) partner, this auction > occurred. Knowing what their agreements are is the one subject that bridge players understand the least and have the highest need. What I am getting at is that it is not enough to say " implicit partnership agreements can be created by.." too often the "can be" is translated into "implicit partnership agreements are created by.." Which is not the same thing at all, and imo is not often enough true. And what players [and adjudicators] need is not what "can be" but how to know when, or, at what point. Just where is the dividing line? -not merely where it might be. Until enough wisdom is used to get at basics players will be plagued with uncertainty and many adjustments that are felt to less than justice. regards roger pewick > Me Pard > 1C 1H > 1NT 2C(1) > > (1) Notionally undiscussed. > > In another environment I might have passed 2C; but in > the Canberra expert environment I knew that most local > experts played 2C as an artificial checkback. And so > it was correctly mutually assumed to be, thus an > implicit agreement of our new partnership. > > Of course, a category (b) (by analogy) or category (c) > (by mutual assumption due to local mores) implicit > partnership agreement only happens on the first > occasion. Subsequent occasions are metamorphosed to > category (a) (at-the-table prior partnership > experience), or alternatively upgraded to explicit > partnership agreements by a consequential post-mortem. > > Nigel Guthrie interpreted: > > >B. It's insufficient merely to reveal partnership > >style. You must also divulge likely meanings -- that > >is -- you must disclose your inferential conclusion > >not just the analogue reasoning that led up to it. > > Richard Hills clarifies: > > Yes and no. > > In my opinion, simply saying "undiscussed" - when in > actuality you have an implicit partnership agreement > created by inference - is misinformation. > > For example, I fully disclose negative inferences > from the timing of partner's termination of a relay > auction. > > But non-systemic deductions and conclusions need not > be revealed. And, of course, deductions and > conclusions which are based upon looking at your own > cards need not be revealed. > > For example, an Aussie expert devised an ingenious > two-way system to confuse the opponents. The super- > scientific (and fully disclosed) auction went: > > Dealer Responder > 1C(1) 1D(2) > 1H(3) 1S(4) > 1NT Pass > > (1) 0-4 hcp or 16+ hcp > (2) 0-4 hcp or 16+ hcp > (3) 0-4 hcp or 19+ hcp > (4) 0-4 hcp or 19+ hcp > > Both partners held 19 hcp. An unlucky inferential > conclusion by both partners. But their decision to > play a grand slam in a partscore was *not* an > implicit agreement requiring disclosure. > > :-) > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills From adam at irvine.com Wed Apr 20 17:48:57 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Apr 20 17:49:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Fifteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 20 Apr 2005 02:47:57 BST." <018c01c5454a$faefc080$099868d5@James> Message-ID: <200504201548.IAA32016@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel wrote: > [Richard James Hills CASE N-15] > >Subject: MI DIC: Steve Bates Reisinger Teams SF2 > > Brd: 9 Steve Weinstein > > Dlr: North J9 > > Vul: EW KJ632 > > 4 > > A7643 > > Barry Piafsky Jessica Piafsky > > T8653 K2 > > 874 A95 > > 86 AKJT732 > > KQ5 2 > > Robert Levin > > AQ74 > > QT > > Q95 > > JT98 > > > > West North East South > > --- Pass 1D Pass > > 1S 2D 3D 4C > > Pass Pass Dbl Pass > > Pass Pass > [Nigel] > IMO the decision is close and the AWMW is wrong. Any > sensible player would ask about East's double so I can't > accept that it's a "trick question". It may be naive of > South to believe the answer but if he does mistakenly > believe it, why should the committee expect him to finesse > clubs? > > In America as in Britain, the rules define five gradations > of double from takeout to penalty. The appeal decision > hinges on whether "penalty, primarily" was misinformation. > If the double is systemically penalty, then of course, West > must describe only the partnership agreement (even if he > knows that somebody has psyched); The director and committee > seem to have judged that West accurately described the > partnership agreement and that East psyched. What psych??? East was well within her rights to judge that 4C was probably going down. She has two aces and a king in partner's suit, and partner has to have a little something to respond. At worst the double may have been a little speculative or gambling, perhaps thinking that down 2 undoubled would lose the board anyway. But what possible basis do you have for calling this a psych? Come on. -- Adam From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 20 17:51:26 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 20 17:52:54 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <000201c54574$49adb190$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c54574$49adb190$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6280152d83265c6fe3fcbc28b50ebc6c@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 20, 2005, at 2:43 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > But once such strong indication of CPU is revealed the onus shifts > (IMO) to > the suspected pair to show that they have no CPU. The onus is on the TD to determine, to his satisfaction, the facts. He shall solicit evidence from all parties concerned, but that doesn't shift the onus to them. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 20 18:09:55 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 20 18:11:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Sixteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6c352479c038ac1f420f9d9569261d17@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 20, 2005, at 12:41 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > 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. This ruling has no basis in law (see below), but is nonetheless correct, IMO. :-( > The Appeal: If South had been told by West that the 2H call > was a suit rather than a pass or correct bid, he could have > passed the HJ through East at trick two and easily make four. > Since he did not have that information, he feels he should be > entitled to an adjustment. > > (Note from AW: In fact is was EW who appealed.) > > Statements by the other side: EW presented their system notes > that did not cover this situation. East said he told North > that it was for hearts because that is what he held. This is, I think, an error, though if I understand the DWS, Herman will disagree. :-) Players are required by the laws to describe their agreements, not their holdings. > The Decision: The Committee changed the contract back to 3NT > making 3 for +600 for NW and -600 for EW. > > Under the conditions of contest, a pair is responsible for > knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) > auctions. "A pair may be entitled to redress if their > opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of > when and how to use a convention that was employed." The > committee found that the double of 2D was a probable auction > covered by the conditions of contest. South was entitled to > a clearer explanation of the 2H call. This regulation is what makes the TD's original ruling correct in law (though not according to the laws alone). I'm not sure the regulation is ... appropriate, though. It may be legal, since the WBF has essentially said that the right of an SO to regulate conventions is untrammeled, but it doesn't feel right to me. > However, there were two considerations that, together, caused > the committee not to award the redress to NS. > 1. South should have made ten tricks even without complete > information, and Is the committee saying that South screwed the pooch on his own? That his failure to make 10 tricks was independent of the misinformation? > 2. South had, by ACBL regulations, had an affirmative > obligation to seek clarification of 2H when West told him he > was unsure of the meaning. Hm. Which regulation is this? > South's ignoring his obligation to protect himself should not > accrue to his benefit. South could have called the Director > when dummy came down, explained his need for clarification, > and gotten it from East. These two considerations caused the > Committee to let the table result stand. Well, given their reasoning, if I understand it, this is not an unreasonable position. But.. are the committee here overriding the TD's *judgment*, or are they overriding him on a point of law? It seems to me the latter, and the committee does not have the power to do that. > Since EW were in violation of their obligation to know the > application of their conventions in reasonable expected > situations, however, the Committee decided to apply a one- > fourth board procedural penalty to EW. > > The appeal was judged to have had merit and no AWMW was > issued. I don't have any problem with this last bit, save that I'm not so sure about the propriety of the regulation. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 20 18:16:07 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 20 18:17:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Sixteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050420080959.02bab2d0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050420080959.02bab2d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Apr 20, 2005, at 8:20 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > I guess I can't quarrel with the committee's logic in applying the > relevant ACBL regulation, assuming that such an absurd regulation > actually exists. It does. "2. A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed." General Conditions of Contest, item 2 under "Conventions and Convention Cards" > What, exactly, were E-W "obligated" to know? As you can see, it isn't specific on that. > Does the regulation include a list of "reasonable expected > situations"? I doubt it. You are correct. > Or does it require a partnership to have discussed whatever a > director or AC determines post facto that, in its opinion, it ought to > have discussed? Has the ACBL really decided that when faced with a > partnership that hasn't agreed the meaning of a particular auction, > the TD or AC is free to make up its own mind whether or not it is one > of the auctions for which discussion is obligatory? It would seem so. I don't like it either. :-( From adam at irvine.com Wed Apr 20 18:46:14 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Apr 20 18:47:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Sixteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:20:31 EDT." <6.1.1.1.0.20050420080959.02bab2d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200504201646.JAA32366@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > At 12:41 AM 4/20/05, richard.hills wrote: > > >CASE N-16 > >Subject: MI > >DIC: Steve Bates > >Reisinger Teams 1st Semi-Final > > > >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. > I guess I can't quarrel with the committee's logic in applying the > relevant ACBL regulation, assuming that such an absurd regulation > actually exists. What, exactly, were E-W "obligated" to know? Does > the regulation include a list of "reasonable expected situations"? I > doubt it. Or does it require a partnership to have discussed whatever > a director or AC determines post facto that, in its opinion, it ought > to have discussed? Has the ACBL really decided that when faced with a > partnership that hasn't agreed the meaning of a particular auction, the > TD or AC is free to make up its own mind whether or not it is one of > the auctions for which discussion is obligatory? Why not? The WBF has decided that a TD or AC is free to make up its own mind about what consistutes a "normal" line of play after a claim; so is an ACBL regulation like this really so absurd? I'm relating this to claims because this is an area in which I've been involved in some really long discussions on BLML and thus have given a lot of thought. It would be nice if there were a list of what kinds of plays are considered "normal" and what kinds of plays are considered "irrational", so that this sort of thing isn't left up to TD/AC judgment. After spending a little time trying to come up with a list like that, though, I've found that coming up with a precise definition that would fit our vague ideas of what is "normal" or not is much harder than it looks, and that we really have no choice but to rely to some extent on TD/AC judgment. (I don't consider a degenerate definition, such as "all legal plays are normal", to be an acceptable solution.) The Laws do imply that some plays are considered normal (such as refusing a finesse when neither opponent has shown out of the suit), and that helps. But an exhaustive list of all cases is probably unattainable. I think the same thinking applies here. It's debatable whether it's a good idea to charge pairs with MI when they don't know the basics of their own system. But assuming that it's a good idea, a definition of what constitutes the "basics" is not easy to come by; but that problem does not, by itself, mean that the principle should be abandoned (just as the fact that we can't come up with a precise definition of "normal" play doesn't mean that we should just scrap the whole idea and treat all legal plays as normal). So there's going to have to be room for judgment. It might help if *some* principles were spelled out, though. Perhaps the ACBL regulation should list some situations that partnerships are expected to have discussed, with language indicating that the list isn't exhaustive. For example: -- If the first non-pass call by a partnership promises neither a known suit nor a desire to play in notrump, then the partnership must discuss responses to that call, when the caller's LHO makes a non-conventional pass, double, redouble, or nonjump bid. So after a 2D that shows either major, Berkowitz-Cohen would be expected to know what they're doing after an intervening pass, double, or bid through 3D. It seems reasonable to expect this. (It strikes me as extremely odd that a hugely successful pair as these two would play a 2D convention such as this without discussing what to do over a card-showing double. Of course, Cohen could have simply had a mental lapse and forgotten.) -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 20 18:50:09 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 20 18:51:07 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <6280152d83265c6fe3fcbc28b50ebc6c@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c545c9$03c3bdf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > But once such strong indication of CPU is revealed the onus shifts > > (IMO) to > > the suspected pair to show that they have no CPU. > > The onus is on the TD to determine, to his satisfaction, the facts. He > shall solicit evidence from all parties concerned, but that doesn't > shift the onus to them. Once I have a strong indication of CPU I leave it (and strongly suggest) to the suspected party to come forward with their side of the case. I do not spend (read "waste") my time trying to find evidence for them if they cannot show anything by their own power. (Novices exempted of course). Sven From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Apr 20 19:03:58 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed Apr 20 19:05:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Sixteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C64B@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan [mailto:adam@irvine.com] Sent: 20 April 2005 17:46 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Cc: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [blml] Sixteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook [snip] I think the same thinking applies here. It's debatable whether it's a good idea to charge pairs with MI when they don't know the basics of their own system. But assuming that it's a good idea, a definition of what constitutes the "basics" is not easy to come by; but that problem does not, by itself, mean that the principle should be abandoned (just as the fact that we can't come up with a precise definition of "normal" play doesn't mean that we should just scrap the whole idea and treat all legal plays as normal). So there's going to have to be room for judgment. It might help if *some* principles were spelled out, though. Perhaps the ACBL regulation should list some situations that partnerships are expected to have discussed, with language indicating that the list isn't exhaustive. For example: -- If the first non-pass call by a partnership promises neither a known suit nor a desire to play in notrump, then the partnership must discuss responses to that call, when the caller's LHO makes a non-conventional pass, double, redouble, or nonjump bid. So after a 2D that shows either major, Berkowitz-Cohen would be expected to know what they're doing after an intervening pass, double, or bid through 3D. It seems reasonable to expect this. (It strikes me as extremely odd that a hugely successful pair as these two would play a 2D convention such as this without discussing what to do over a card-showing double. Of course, Cohen could have simply had a mental lapse and forgotten.) -- Adam _______________________________________________ This is more or less what the WBF requires for Brown Sticker overcalls, see http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/systems/Appendix2.pdf You have to agree when you will pass, what pass, (re)double, bids mean without/with intervention, and how opener rebids when opponents double. I think a sensible interpretation of the ACBL is a weakened form of these WBF requirements: along the lines that Adam suggests. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire RG27 9UY United Kingdom ------------------------------------------------------------------- From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 20 19:15:25 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 20 19:16:56 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <000001c545c9$03c3bdf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c545c9$03c3bdf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <0f13e642bbae297ef8d007467a1a2111@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 20, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Once I have a strong indication of CPU I leave it (and strongly > suggest) to > the suspected party to come forward with their side of the case. I do > not > spend (read "waste") my time trying to find evidence for them if they > cannot > show anything by their own power. (Novices exempted of course). I did say "solicit evidence". If you are doing your job, you aren't wasting your time. The question is whether digging to make sure you really have all the evidence is just "doing your job" or "above and beyond the call of duty". I will stipulate that it is often the latter. :-) From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 20 19:49:00 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 20 19:49:57 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <0f13e642bbae297ef8d007467a1a2111@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000601c545d1$3bd47d30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Apr 20, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Once I have a strong indication of CPU I leave it (and strongly > > suggest) to > > the suspected party to come forward with their side of the case. I do > > not > > spend (read "waste") my time trying to find evidence for them if they > > cannot > > show anything by their own power. (Novices exempted of course). > > I did say "solicit evidence". > > If you are doing your job, you aren't wasting your time. The question > is whether digging to make sure you really have all the evidence is > just "doing your job" or "above and beyond the call of duty". I will > stipulate that it is often the latter. :-) So it would seem we do indeed agree! (I shall tell the suspected party my impressions and call for their possible comments if I ever run into cases like this. But it would appear that we just do not play bridge this way in Norway. I am not aware of any such incident here since I received my TD license 25 years ago). Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 20 20:04:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 20 20:05:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <42660086.5020004@shaw.ca> Message-ID: > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > By the way, "calling West away from the table" is considered bad > > practice outside North America. > > Seems odd to me. I would think that the ACBL is simply trying to > prevent UI being passed during the discussion of what the player thinks > he might have done. "Well, I might have bid 3D instead" is a lot > different than "I'd have bid 3D." > > >> ... he should advise West, away from the table, that changing his > > call >to a psyche that is AI to partner and UI to the opponents is a > >> violation of Law. > > > > > > Only if one interprets L75B contrary to its plain words. Or did you > > have another Law in mind? > > You claim that from "A player may violate an announced partnership > agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation" it does > not follow that a player may not violate an announced partnership > agreement, if his partner is aware of the violation? This is going to > have far-reaching consequences: So do you claim that in the sequence: P-(P)-1N-(P)-2C, Stayman-(P)-P the opener's pass is an illegal bid? It is a violation of system, partner will be 100% aware that it is a violation of system. How about 1N-(p)-2Swto-(p)-3N having just realised one has miscounted 18 points as 14. Again a violation of system of which partner will be 100% aware. Illegal? This will indeed have far-reaching consequences! > L17B: "The player designated by the board as dealer makes the first > call." But we cannot assume that if dealer's partner makes the first > call that this is unlawful. That would be turning it around backwards. Well if the BOOT is condoned it becomes legal - so no, such an assumption would not be justified. We also have Laws 29-31 to help us in determining legality/process. In the case of Law75b we also have Law40A which authorises a departure from the agreed system provided it is not based on a partnership understanding (in this case the fact that 2H does not mean the same as it would absent the AI from the 2S call is almost certainly a matter of bridge logic as opposed to PU). There is also Law40b (for fans of the converse) which may be read to authorise making calls when "an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning". The opposing pair here can certainly be expected to understand (and if not it can be explained) - of course this will be UI to them but that won't affect their understanding. NB, it would be nice, as DALB, once pointed out, to have a law which explicitly permitted making a call based on a disclosed understanding. > No. What Sven wrote is that L75B applies because the partner of the > player who substituted a psych is on different terms than his > opponents. The partner is on different terms *whatever* action the player chooses. His side possesses AI which is UI to opps. Imbalance guaranteed. > That was an extrapolation. My argument is simpler: > --The substituted psyche (bidding a suit that the conventional double > shows) almost certainly has an agreed meaning: either natural or some > kind of cuebid. > --This makes the psyche a violation of an announced partnership > agreement. (Obviously, if the substituted 2H call is a transfer it is > no psyche and none of this applies.) This is the bit I find truly amazing. The 2S call is AI to the NOS. 99% of pairs will have absolutely no agreement on this sequence given that AI. > --The psycher cannot fail to appreciate that his partner will know > immediately that the substituted call is a psyche. He began by > naturally bidding one of the suits that the double showed, then > substituted a call in the other suit. Because the original 2S call is > AI to partner, the psyche will be apparent. Now you almost have it! But try "Because the original 2S call is AI the 2H call may convey different inferences to a 2H call in a normal sequence" > --This means that his partner is NOT unaware of the violation, and > because I don't balk at assuming the converse, I rule it an illegal bid. This means there is no violation - unless a) There is a systemic agreement about the 2H call *given* 2S withdrawn b) *This* systemic agreement was violated c) Partner was (somehow) aware that *this* agreement had been violated. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 20 20:04:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 20 20:05:15 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <4265AC6A.80200@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > Suppose, for example, a relay pair have a complex auction where they > obviously agree, but they omit some alerts. (Maybe they are unfamiliar > with local alerting rules.) Is there a CPU? There surely is MI, and > the opponents must be protected if they are damaged by it, but are you > going to declare some of the relays themselves illegal as you would for > a CPU? If not, what additional conditions are required to rule CPU? One piece of evidence I would weigh heavily would be the CCs. For example if they made clear mention of frequent relay sequences I would rule MI for the missing alerts but not consider the possibility of a CPU (a good CC being a damn silly way to try and conceal something!). Prior verbal disclosure of frequent relays - again MI rather than CPU. Opps asked a question and got an obviously incomplete answer (incline to CPU rather than MI). NB, I don't think there is any difference in the score adjustment whether I rule MI or CPU but I am much less likely to assign an additional PP for MI than for a CPU. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 20 20:04:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 20 20:05:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Sixteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <6c352479c038ac1f420f9d9569261d17@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > This regulation is what makes the TD's original ruling correct in law > (though not according to the laws alone). I'm not sure the regulation > is ... appropriate, though. You choose kinder words than would I. > It may be legal, since the WBF has > essentially said that the right of an SO to regulate conventions is > untrammeled, but it doesn't feel right to me. Ah but.. If 2H does indeed show hearts it's a natural bid not a convention and outwith the WBF's power to regulate. Hee-hee. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 20 20:20:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 20 20:21:57 2005 Subject: FW: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000001c545a6$ceed40f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ............ > > > L21B permits a player to "change" his call on certain conditions. A > > > call can never be "changed" to itself. > > > > This would appear to conflict with the footnote to L26b (not directly > > applicable but based on a related topic). > > > > Footnote: A call repeated with a much different meaning shall be > > deemed a > > different call. > > I see no relation at all? (I suppose you mean the footnote to the first > part > of L26 which is the one you quoted, not the footnote to L26B). > > L26 specifically addresses the cases where an offender's call has been > withdrawn (for whatever reason) and then replaced with a different call > including (nominally) the same call with a different meaning in the new > situation. > > There can be no parallel to a situation where a non-offender says that > he wants to "change" his so and so call to (nominally) the exact same > call with exactly the same meaning?. Of course not. But we were discussing the case where NOS play transfers on over a non-alertable double transfers off over alertable double (if NOS are playing the same meaning for 2S over both doubles there won't be a L21 change anyway). Thus the substitute 2S call would have a very different meaning in the 2 sequences even without inferences from the withdrawn 2S. If a substantial change of meaning constitutes a change of call when done by OS then why not by NOS? Tim From john at asimere.com Wed Apr 20 20:36:30 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Apr 20 20:39:12 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: References: <4265AC6A.80200@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In article , Tim West- Meads writes >Steve wrote: > >> Suppose, for example, a relay pair have a complex auction where they >> obviously agree, but they omit some alerts. (Maybe they are unfamiliar >> with local alerting rules.) Is there a CPU? There surely is MI, and >> the opponents must be protected if they are damaged by it, but are you >> going to declare some of the relays themselves illegal as you would for >> a CPU? If not, what additional conditions are required to rule CPU? > >One piece of evidence I would weigh heavily would be the CCs. For example >if they made clear mention of frequent relay sequences I would rule MI for >the missing alerts but not consider the possibility of a CPU (a good CC >being a damn silly way to try and conceal something!). Prior verbal >disclosure of frequent relays - again MI rather than CPU. Opps asked a >question and got an obviously incomplete answer (incline to CPU rather >than MI). > >NB, I don't think there is any difference in the score adjustment whether >I rule MI or CPU but I am much less likely to assign an additional PP for >MI than for a CPU. I know Tim gets a lot of bad press here, but I am always of the view that he is trying to allow bridge (of the I know it when I see it variety) to be played. Like him, I dislike MI and will adjust for it frequently. I hate CPU but unless I have some history am unlikely to adjust for that alone in a single instance, I suppose I would if it's blatant - and am now likely to throw in a PP too. As for use of UI, I think one needs to call it as one sees it, and it's very important to take into account the quality of the player. Novices almost *never* use it. John > >Tim > > >_______________________________________________ >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 ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 20 20:44:53 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Apr 20 20:46:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Sixteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <200504201646.JAA32366@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200504201646.JAA32366@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050420142131.02a3b350@pop.starpower.net> At 12:46 PM 4/20/05, Adam wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > I guess I can't quarrel with the committee's logic in applying the > > relevant ACBL regulation, assuming that such an absurd regulation > > actually exists. What, exactly, were E-W "obligated" to know? Does > > the regulation include a list of "reasonable expected situations"? I > > doubt it. Or does it require a partnership to have discussed whatever > > a director or AC determines post facto that, in its opinion, it ought > > to have discussed? Has the ACBL really decided that when faced with a > > partnership that hasn't agreed the meaning of a particular auction, > the > > TD or AC is free to make up its own mind whether or not it is one of > > the auctions for which discussion is obligatory? > >Why not? The WBF has decided that a TD or AC is free to make up its >own mind about what consistutes a "normal" line of play after a claim; >so is an ACBL regulation like this really so absurd? > >I'm relating this to claims because this is an area in which I've been >involved in some really long discussions on BLML and thus have given a >lot of thought. It would be nice if there were a list of what kinds >of plays are considered "normal" and what kinds of plays are >considered "irrational", so that this sort of thing isn't left up to >TD/AC judgment. After spending a little time trying to come up with a >list like that, though, I've found that coming up with a precise >definition that would fit our vague ideas of what is "normal" or not >is much harder than it looks, and that we really have no choice but to >rely to some extent on TD/AC judgment. (I don't consider a degenerate >definition, such as "all legal plays are normal", to be an acceptable >solution.) The Laws do imply that some plays are considered normal >(such as refusing a finesse when neither opponent has shown out of the >suit), and that helps. But an exhaustive list of all cases is >probably unattainable. I don't think it's a good analogy. With claims, as in much of the law, the TD/AC has a great deal of latitude in using their judgment as to what constitutes "equity" so as to apply "appropriate redress" for an infraction. That's quite different from a great deal of latitude in defining what constitutes an infraction. Like any court, they judge the facts, and, if the facts show that the accused did something illegal, pass sentence, but have very little scope (theoretically none; they are totally bound by the letter of the law) in deciding whether the facts, once known, support the finding that the law was broken. >I think the same thinking applies here. It's debatable whether it's a >good idea to charge pairs with MI when they don't know the basics of >their own system. But assuming that it's a good idea, a definition of >what constitutes the "basics" is not easy to come by; but that problem >does not, by itself, mean that the principle should be abandoned (just >as the fact that we can't come up with a precise definition of >"normal" play doesn't mean that we should just scrap the whole idea >and treat all legal plays as normal). So there's going to have to be >room for judgment. > >It might help if *some* principles were spelled out, though. Perhaps >the ACBL regulation should list some situations that partnerships are >expected to have discussed, with language indicating that the list >isn't exhaustive. For example: > >-- If the first non-pass call by a partnership promises neither a > known suit nor a desire to play in notrump, then the partnership > must discuss responses to that call, when the caller's LHO makes a > non-conventional pass, double, redouble, or nonjump bid. > >So after a 2D that shows either major, Berkowitz-Cohen would be >expected to know what they're doing after an intervening pass, double, >or bid through 3D. It seems reasonable to expect this. (It strikes >me as extremely odd that a hugely successful pair as these two would >play a 2D convention such as this without discussing what to do over a >card-showing double. Of course, Cohen could have simply had a mental >lapse and forgotten.) In real life, 99.9% of ACBL members, if asked, would tell you that there *is* an official list of agreements you must discuss with your partner -- it's called the convention card, and the ACBL has a sensible and well-publicized regulation, which has no relation to the nonsense above, requiring that it be filled out "completely and correctly". Anything beyond that is nothing less than blanket permission for TDs/ACs to invent new infractions of law that didn't previously exist -- as they seem to have done in this case. There can be no possible justification for a rule that says that you are required to meet certain obligations, we will punish you if you don't, but we're not going to tell you what they are. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 20 22:35:02 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 20 22:36:00 2005 Subject: FW: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c545e8$6dc2cf60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > ............ > > > > L21B permits a player to "change" his call on certain conditions. A > > > > call can never be "changed" to itself. > > > > > > This would appear to conflict with the footnote to L26b (not directly > > > applicable but based on a related topic). > > > > > > Footnote: A call repeated with a much different meaning shall be > > > deemed a > > > different call. > > > > I see no relation at all? (I suppose you mean the footnote to the first > > part > > of L26 which is the one you quoted, not the footnote to L26B). > > > > L26 specifically addresses the cases where an offender's call has been > > withdrawn (for whatever reason) and then replaced with a different call > > including (nominally) the same call with a different meaning in the new > > situation. > > > > There can be no parallel to a situation where a non-offender says that > > he wants to "change" his so and so call to (nominally) the exact same > > call with exactly the same meaning?. > > Of course not. But we were discussing the case where NOS play transfers > on over a non-alertable double transfers off over alertable double (if NOS > are playing the same meaning for 2S over both doubles there won't be a L21 > change anyway). Thus the substitute 2S call would have a very different > meaning in the 2 sequences even without inferences from the withdrawn 2S. > If a substantial change of meaning constitutes a change of call when done > by OS then why not by NOS? So it appears to me that your case is: Having received incorrect disclosure (missing alert) the player bid 2S which had one particular meaning. When the disclosure was corrected the player could claim that had he been given this information in time he would have bid 2S which then would have conveyed a completely different meaning (not compatible with the meaning of his first bid). So if I understand you correct you claim that the player is entitled under Law 21B to "change" his 2S bid to 2S with a different meaning? I am sorry; this is far too hypothetical for me but maybe you have constructed this scenario to present a case where the player psyched his first call and now takes the opportunity to tell his partner (only?) that the first call was a psyche; his second call is the one that counts? If that is the case the psyche would be UI to opponents and the "correct" bid will be the one that counts also for them. But if so you have departed a long distance from the original theme in this thread which was a player who wanted to change his genuine call from a genuine call to a psyche knowing that his partner would understand the position while opponents were barred from the same. Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 20 22:41:41 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 20 22:43:07 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <000601c545d1$3bd47d30$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c545d1$3bd47d30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7cc254c25a2a0a8b23427d9e32c42a60@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 20, 2005, at 1:49 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > So it would seem we do indeed agree! It would seem we do. Mostly, anyway. :-) > (I shall tell the suspected party my impressions and call for their > possible > comments if I ever run into cases like this. But it would appear that > we > just do not play bridge this way in Norway. I am not aware of any such > incident here since I received my TD license 25 years ago). Well, since I don't *have* my TD license yet, I can't say I've seen one either. :-) OTOH, if I *did* see one in one of the local clubs, I wouldn't bet on the TD getting it right. Tournament level is (I hope) a different story. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 20 23:15:51 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Apr 20 23:16:08 2005 Subject: FW: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000701c545e8$6dc2cf60$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c545e8$6dc2cf60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050420170915.02bd5400@pop.starpower.net> At 04:35 PM 4/20/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > > > Of course not. But we were discussing the case where NOS play > transfers > > on over a non-alertable double transfers off over alertable double > (if NOS > > are playing the same meaning for 2S over both doubles there won't > be a L21 > > change anyway). Thus the substitute 2S call would have a very > different > > meaning in the 2 sequences even without inferences from the > withdrawn 2S. > > If a substantial change of meaning constitutes a change of call > when done > > by OS then why not by NOS? > >So it appears to me that your case is: > >Having received incorrect disclosure (missing alert) the player bid 2S >which >had one particular meaning. When the disclosure was corrected the player >could claim that had he been given this information in time he would have >bid 2S which then would have conveyed a completely different meaning (not >compatible with the meaning of his first bid). So if I understand you >correct you claim that the player is entitled under Law 21B to >"change" his >2S bid to 2S with a different meaning? > >I am sorry; this is far too hypothetical for me but maybe you have >constructed this scenario to present a case where the player psyched his >first call and now takes the opportunity to tell his partner (only?) that >the first call was a psyche; his second call is the one that counts? >If that >is the case the psyche would be UI to opponents and the "correct" bid will >be the one that counts also for them. > >But if so you have departed a long distance from the original theme in >this >thread which was a player who wanted to change his genuine call from a >genuine call to a psyche knowing that his partner would understand the >position while opponents were barred from the same. I'm not going to get involved in parsing the words in detail, but the intention seems obvious. If the misinformed player changes his call from 2S to 2H, the meaning of the original 2S bid is AI for his side and UI for his opponents, and the meaning of the substituted 2H bid is AI for everyone. So if he "changes" his call from 2S to 2S it must also be the case that the meaning of the original 2S bid is AI for his side and UI for his opponents, and the meaning of the "substituted" 2S bid is AI for everyone, however one chooses to extract this conclusion from the language. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From lciglgzudv at webdazzle.net Thu Apr 21 00:27:04 2005 From: lciglgzudv at webdazzle.net (Russell Montoya) Date: Wed Apr 20 23:34:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Extending Opportunity with ease Message-ID: <4.8.63.2081924.0083fc70@ies.edu> 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.n0wwewillsave.net/45.asp No other way to so quickly and easily lower your monthly bill payments while putting cash now in your pocket! http://n0wwewillsave.net/gone.asp diverse kea dadaist cq [2 From tmenigoz at yahoo.com Thu Apr 21 01:13:31 2005 From: tmenigoz at yahoo.com (Work From Home) Date: Thu Apr 21 01:14:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Work From Home Message-ID: Message: YOU CAN HAVE ALL THE MONEY YOU WANT TO MOD WHATEVER YOU WANT! PLEASE READ BELOW AND ANY ONE WHO IS SERIOUS ABOUT EARNING BIG MONEY SHOULD TAKE NOTE. I SEE THIS ADD ON EBAY AND THOUGHT IT WAS A LOAD OF RUBBISH BUT SO FAR WEEKS ON I HAVE MADE $1300 AND ITS MULTIPLYING BY THE DAY! PLEASE READ ON AND ANY QUESTIONS CONTACT MY EMAIL! HOW TO TURN $4.00 INTO CRAZY AMOUNTS OF LOOT, IN 30 DAYS USING 'PAYPAL'. PLEASE DO NOT BID ANY MONEY FOR THIS SUPERB INFO: This is staggering. It actually works. The info below is not me but it was given to me and I did it for a laugh, but it works ...so do it. Earn money in your sleep, like honestly this is the real deal, I keep adding on to this saying how its seriously real, cause of the money coming in. I can almost guarantee this month I'll have double what I had last month. So just read this and I can promise if you follow these steps you will make money, it friggin ridiculous. Before we go any further I would like you to know straight away that this will cost you $4 and about 20 - 30 minutes of your time. If you are still interested please read on. I keep coming across emails and adverts promising to make me lots of $$$$. Yep, I am as skeptical as the next person especially when they are asking for lots of cash up front. I have come across this business plan before but kept thinking it was a load of rubbish - someone somewhere is making all the money and everyone else isn't. This is now the third time that I have done this as I have made over $7000 and to date the money is still coming into my Paypal account. Now I am not promising that you are going to make $$$$ in 30 days but I must admit the odds look excellent, and the 2nd excellent thing about this business plan is that it can be done by anyone, anywhere in the world and your total investment stays at just $4, less than the price of a pint of beer in some bars or night clubs. This is some of the emails and proof that I came across which finally made me decide that I wanted to try this. What an amazing plan. I followed the instructions just 3 weeks ago, and although I haven't made 10 grand yet, I am already up to $6,135. I am absolutely gob smacked. Alan Mikan - Hawaii Well what can I say? I sent out 40 emails like the plan said then I just forgot about the whole thing. To be honest, I didn't really think anything would come of it, but I checked my Paypal account a week later and there was over $3000.00 in it! After 30 days I now have over $11,000 to spend - Lisa McDonald, Florida I was shocked when I saw how much money came flooding into my Paypal account. Within 3 weeks my account balance has ballooned to $7,449. At first I thought there had been some kind of error! - Richard Barrie, Cirencester Well that's it. I hope that you decide to go ahead with. If you decide that this isn't for you I wish you all the best in the future and please remember you can always pass it on even if you don't wish to do it yourself. INSTRUCTIONS You will need the following:- An email address A free Paypal Personal Account (then Upgrade to Free Premier Account) 20 - 30 minutes of time for setup Step 1 Ok, if you are not already a Paypal user, then the very first thing you need to do is double click on the Paypal link below and SIGN UP (If this doesnt work you can copy and paste). It takes about 2 minutes. Please be sure to sign up for a free PERSONAL ACCOUNT (then upgrade to a free Premier Account) so that you can receive credit card payments from other people. https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_registration-run JUST MAKE SURE YOU CLICK PREMIER ACCOUNT Step 2 Once you have your Paypal account, the first thing you need to do is send a $4.00 payment from your Paypal account to the FIRST email address in the list below, along with a note saying PLEASE ADD ME TO YOUR MAILING LIST. Be certain to add this note, as this is what keeps this program LEGAL. The instructions on how to send a payment are under "SEND MONEY" at the Paypal site. It is very easy. The current list is: 1. prayerchangesus@yahoo.com 2. prestigetravel8290@yahoo.com 3. murdoc43@comcast.net 4. dennisanthes@hotmail.com 5. tmenigoz@yahoo.com Once you have transferred $4.00 to the email address at the top of the list (along with the VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE) you should feel an indescribable, overwhelming sense of certainty, belief and conviction in this system. You have just proven to yourself that because you have done it, there must be a great number of people doing exactly the same and thus you have now seen for yourself, first hand, that this business actually works. Step 3 The last thing you need to do is copy and paste this page (and make any necessary changes), as you will be sending it out (emailing, forums, message boards, E-bay etc, just be creative how to get it out to the public, more people more $$$$) atleast 40 people. At the moment I am sending this out to over 500 people (I am contacting everyone that I have had dealings with through Paypal). Keep in mind that 40 is a good number to reach. Dont be put off if you dont have 40 contacts, 5 people will probably participate because they didn't read this all or do not believe, with all that other crap being sent to emails its hard to cipher what's real and whats B.S. Remember that when you send this out you delete the person on the No 1 spot (obviously after you have sent them Ł3.00 along with the VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE) move everyone up 1 position and add your email address into the No 5 spot. ALL I WOULD LIKE TO DO NOW IS WISH YOU GOOD LUCK IF YOU ARE STILL UNSURE OR EVEN IF YOU WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW HOW THIS WORKS PLEASE READ ON HERES HOW IT WORKS When you send out your email, your email address will be at No 5 on the list. That is the best position that you can be in if you want to earn serious money. The response rate for this program is much higher than any typical email marketing campaign for a number of reasons, which are explained later on. As long as you send out your emails to people whom are likely to be interested in this program, then on average you can expect a response of around 25ŕBut lets be extremely conservative and assume that the average response rate is 12.5ĺbr> If you send out your 40 emails, you can expect at least 5 of those people to do exactly what you did (12.5 f 40 = 5 people). By the time your email address will have moved up to No 4 in the list, and this list will now have reached around 200 people (5 people x 40 emails = 200 people). Out of those 200 people, you can expect at least 25 of them to participate (12.5 f 200 = 25 people) so you are now reaching around 1000 people (25 people x 40 emails = 1000) and you are now at No 3 on the list. Out of those 1000 people, you can expect at least 125 of them to participate (12.5 f 1000 = 125 people) so you are now reaching around 5000 people (125 people x 40 emails = 5000) and you are now at No 2 on the list. Out of those 5000 people, you can expect at least 625 of them to participate (12.5 f 5000 = 625 people) so you are now reaching around 25000 people (625 people x 40 emails = 25000) and you are now at No 1 on the list. Out of 25000 people, you can expect at least 3125 of them to participate (12.5 f 25000 = 3125 people) so since you are at the No 1 spot you can expect to receive around about $9,375 (3125 people x $4.00 = $9,375) So when your name hits the No 1 spot, it will be YOUR turn to collect the money. Over the course of 30 days, this money will be sent to you by a few thousand people just like yourself, who are willing to invest $4.00 and 20 minutes of their time to receive around $10,000 or more in cash. The first payments will arrive within a few days and then they will continue at the rate of about 100 payments per day for about 30 days (obviously this will depend on how quickly you act and how quickly people take you up on this offer and then pass it on). After that time, the volume of payments begin to taper off as your email is removed from the No 1 position. That's all you need to do! There will be around $10,000 in $4.00 payments waiting for you in your Paypal account within the next few weeks. $10,000 for just 30 minutes work! This is real money that you can spend on anything you wish! Just deposit it to your own bank account or spend it directly from your Paypal account!!! It's just that easy!!! I think it's WORTH IT, don't you? Remember, the 12.5 xample above is assuming that 35 out of the 40 people you send your email to will do absolutely nothing except delete your email. However, if you follow the plan correctly and send your emails only to people who are likely to want to participate, you can expect a typical response-rate of around 25ŕHence, the 12.5 xample is only given as a worst-case-scenario. Additionally, the above example assumes that each participant will only send out 40 emails. Imagine what would happen if each participant sent out 1,000 emails instead of just 40! Believe me, many people will do this and much more! And as I have already said I am actually sending out over 500 (everyone that I have been fortunate enough to deal with through Paypal). Unlike many other MLM programs, this 5-LEVEL PROGRAM costs you only $4.00 which is much more realistic and provides much, much faster results. Only the first person on the list gets your $4.00 gift, but everyone in the list will rise to that Number 1 position as thousands of emails are being sent out. No cheating can occur (don't be fooled by claims that this system can be cheated) as Paypal only allows one account per person. Because it is so easy, the response rate is VERY HIGH and VERY FAST - Internet email FAST, and you will start seeing dramatic results in less than one week! JUST IN TIME FOR NEXT MONTHS BILLS, OR TOYZ, OR WIFEY, OR FAMILY, OR WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT. From craigstamps at comcast.net Thu Apr 21 02:41:22 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Thu Apr 21 02:42:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Fifteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <200504201548.IAA32016@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <002901c5460a$d7544a90$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> I agree completely Adam. There is nothing here that even approaches a psych...unless Guthrie applies that term to every agressive action by an opponent that happens to work. This looks very obviously like a penalty double...there is no MI. Why then primarily? Presumably with qxxxx of diamonds and a stiff club honour it might be pullable...west is allowed to think but expected to respect partner's double for penalties. I was all set to respond to this myself when I saw Adam's post and had already typed in "What psych...are you crazy or joking". By the way...what genius changed the response so you have to type in blml to reach the list? It a real pain in the (neck). Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: "BLML" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fifteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook > > Nigel wrote: > >> [Richard James Hills CASE N-15] >> >Subject: MI DIC: Steve Bates Reisinger Teams SF2 >> > Brd: 9 Steve Weinstein >> > Dlr: North J9 >> > Vul: EW KJ632 >> > 4 >> > A7643 >> > Barry Piafsky Jessica Piafsky >> > T8653 K2 >> > 874 A95 >> > 86 AKJT732 >> > KQ5 2 >> > Robert Levin >> > AQ74 >> > QT >> > Q95 >> > JT98 >> > >> > West North East South >> > --- Pass 1D Pass >> > 1S 2D 3D 4C >> > Pass Pass Dbl Pass >> > Pass Pass > >> [Nigel] >> IMO the decision is close and the AWMW is wrong. Any >> sensible player would ask about East's double so I can't >> accept that it's a "trick question". It may be naive of >> South to believe the answer but if he does mistakenly >> believe it, why should the committee expect him to finesse >> clubs? >> >> In America as in Britain, the rules define five gradations >> of double from takeout to penalty. The appeal decision >> hinges on whether "penalty, primarily" was misinformation. >> If the double is systemically penalty, then of course, West >> must describe only the partnership agreement (even if he >> knows that somebody has psyched); The director and committee >> seem to have judged that West accurately described the >> partnership agreement and that East psyched. > > What psych??? East was well within her rights to judge that 4C was > probably going down. She has two aces and a king in partner's suit, > and partner has to have a little something to respond. At worst the > double may have been a little speculative or gambling, perhaps > thinking that down 2 undoubled would lose the board anyway. But what > possible basis do you have for calling this a psych? Come on. > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From craigstamps at comcast.net Thu Apr 21 02:47:07 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Thu Apr 21 02:48:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <200504142333.j3ENXHbm029446@cfa.harvard.edu> <4265AF73.7080208@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003301c5460b$a52b9a90$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> >> Statements by the other side: EW had not discussed the meaning of >> this double. They have played as a partnership about six years. > > While EW may well have had no agreements on this particular sequence, it > is unbelievable that after six years they have no experience that low > level doubles are "often takeout" or "often penalty" or some general > principles that may apply (over/under the bidder, number of unbid suits, > vulnerability, etc.) Opponents should have been told of such principles. > "I don't know" is adequate for a pickup partnership but not for an > experienced one. > I have a partner I have played with for 23 years....about twice a year. I seldom know what she means from one session to the next. Was this a regular partnership, or an occasional one? That would seem more pertinent than the length of time. Besides, the fact that low level doubles can often be takeout is general bridge knowledge and would not need disclosure. In the absence of any agreement this should be assumed. Craig From mustikka at charter.net Thu Apr 21 03:27:53 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija d) Date: Thu Apr 21 03:28:52 2005 Subject: FW: [blml] Another L21 Question Message-ID: <000901c54611$5772d920$dbd2cd18@DFYXB361> Sorry, meant this for the discussion group. ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija d" To: "Sven Pran" <> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 6:26 PM Subject: Re: FW: [blml] Another L21 Question > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 1:35 PM > Subject: RE: FW: [blml] Another L21 Question > > >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >> > ............ >> > > > L21B permits a player to "change" his call on certain conditions. A >> > > > call can never be "changed" to itself. >> > > >> > > This would appear to conflict with the footnote to L26b (not directly >> > > applicable but based on a related topic). >> > > >> > > Footnote: A call repeated with a much different meaning shall be >> > > deemed a >> > > different call. >> > >> > I see no relation at all? (I suppose you mean the footnote to the first >> > part >> > of L26 which is the one you quoted, not the footnote to L26B). >> > >> > L26 specifically addresses the cases where an offender's call has been >> > withdrawn (for whatever reason) and then replaced with a different call >> > including (nominally) the same call with a different meaning in the new >> > situation. >> > >> > There can be no parallel to a situation where a non-offender says that >> > he wants to "change" his so and so call to (nominally) the exact same >> > call with exactly the same meaning?. >> >> Of course not. But we were discussing the case where NOS play transfers >> on over a non-alertable double transfers off over alertable double (if >> NOS >> are playing the same meaning for 2S over both doubles there won't be a >> L21 >> change anyway). Thus the substitute 2S call would have a very different >> meaning in the 2 sequences even without inferences from the withdrawn 2S. >> If a substantial change of meaning constitutes a change of call when done >> by OS then why not by NOS? > > So it appears to me that your case is: > > Having received incorrect disclosure (missing alert) the player bid 2S > which > had one particular meaning. When the disclosure was corrected the player > could claim that had he been given this information in time he would have > bid 2S which then would have conveyed a completely different meaning (not > compatible with the meaning of his first bid). So if I understand you > correct you claim that the player is entitled under Law 21B to "change" > his > 2S bid to 2S with a different meaning? > > I am sorry; this is far too hypothetical for me but maybe you have > constructed this scenario to present a case where the player psyched his > first call and now takes the opportunity to tell his partner (only?) that > the first call was a psyche; his second call is the one that counts? If > that > is the case the psyche would be UI to opponents and the "correct" bid will > be the one that counts also for them. > > But if so you have departed a long distance from the original theme in > this > thread which was a player who wanted to change his genuine call from a > genuine call to a psyche knowing that his partner would understand the > position while opponents were barred from the same. > > Sven > > It was unfortunate that the caller's hand was exposed in the posting. > This whole issue would be easy to handle objectively and accurately by the > Laws (for you guys, TD's, I assume it would be easy and simple) if the > hand had not been shown. In reality, the director will not look into the > bidder's hand during auction, or at least I would HOPE NOT. Would it be > possible to start over, imagine that you never saw the bidder's hand as > you shouldn't have, what will happen then? > > > > > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 21 03:42:46 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 21 03:43:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Seventeen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the seventeenth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-17 Subject: MI DIC: Gary Zeiger NA Swiss 1st Final Brd: 18 \ Claire Tornay Dlr: East \ AQT5 Vul: NS \ KQ5 \ Q865 \J2 Ken Stuckey \ Marshall Miles KJ63 \ 42 A832 \ JT7 K7 \ AJ32 965 \ AQT8 Paul Morris\ 987 \ 964 \ T94 \ K743 \ West North East South --- --- 1D Pass 1H Pass 2H Pass 3C(1) Pass 3H Pass Pass Pass (1) Disputed meaning, see text below. The Facts: 3H made three for EW +140 after the lead of the SA. The director was called after the play of the hand. Playing behind screens, after the 3C bid North asked about the agreement of 3C and was told natural. She then asked if 3D would be forcing and was told no. She then asked again about 3C and East quoted their system notes as proof - 3C is natural, not a help suit try. The Ruling: The director originally ruled the table result of 3H making stood. After the round, EW produced system notes clearly stating a new suit by responder would be a help suit game try. Thus the result was changed to 3 down one -50 for EW. The director felt he should protect the non-offenders unless EW could offer clear and convincing defense for their action. Other Information: The director explained that the initial ruling relied on the ACBL's definition of length as being at least three cards when the suit is a minor. The revised ruling was based on the EW system notes in combination with the directing staff's belief that a holding of three small was consistent with a help suit game try but not with a standard game try. The Appeal: EW appealed and explained that although they had voluminous system notes, they were in fact a new partnership and that this was the first event they had played together. Since each had sent the other a set, they actually had two sets of system notes and it was not clear to either of them which set, if either, they had agreed to play. East showed the Committee a hand-written list of sequences he had discussed with his partner where he disagreed with the treatment in the notes he had been sent. He explained that he would never have agreed to play a treatment such as "help suit game tries" when the partnership did not yet know whether it held an eight card fit. West explained that part of his reason for bidding 3C was that he hoped to attract a spade lead. Statements by the other side: North explained that had she been informed that EW were using help suit game tries, she would have made a different lead. The Decision: Based on two differing sets of system notes and the EW testimony, the Committee determined that EW did not have any agreement about the 3C call. They found that East, while perhaps trying to be helpful, did provide MI to North by representing that EW had a firm agreement. The Committee discounted West's testimony that he had simply chosen to make a deceptive call since he had apparently not mentioned such intent either at the table or in screening. The Committee determined that an infraction had been committed and examined Law 40C: "If the director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents? failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score." They then considered what information was passed by the actual explanation of "length" as opposed to the proper explanation of "no special agreement". The Committee felt that without any special agreement, both North and East would expect West's 3C bid to deliver at least three clubs. Given the ACBL's definition of "length" they concluded that the information conveyed from the incorrect explanation was substantially the same as the information that would have been conveyed by a correct explanation. Therefore, NS were damaged by an unlucky opening lead rather than through their opponent's infraction. The table result of EW making 3H for +140 was allowed to stand. Since the director's assigned result was adjusted, the appeal clearly had merit. The Committee: Adam Wildavsky, Chairperson, Mark Feldman, Doug Doub, Chris Willenken, and Chris Moll. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 21 05:27:30 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Apr 21 05:28:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Fifteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <200504201548.IAA32016@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <016d01c54622$0daa63b0$0e9868d5@James> [Adam Beneschan] > What psych??? East was well within her rights to > judge that 4C was probably going down. She has two > aces and a king in partner's suit, and partner has to > have a little something to respond. At worst the > double may have been a little speculative or gambling, > perhaps thinking that down 2 undoubled would lose the > board anyway. But what possible basis do you have for > calling this a psych? Come on. [Nigel] IMO a double on East's hand is better described as "Action" "Transferrable values" or "Cards" or "Competititive" or some such. My reading of the way that the Regulations grade doubles is that "Penalty" means that partner is expected to pass almost all the time. He must be really unsuitable to remove. For example partner should pass happily with ... S:QJTxxx H:xx D:Qxx C:xxx. With such a hand he may even hope that opponents have alighted in Burnsian fit :) From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Apr 21 07:02:48 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu Apr 21 07:03:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Seventeen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050421004828.035dbd38@mail.comcast.net> At 09:42 PM 4/20/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >CASE N-17 >Subject: MI >DIC: Gary Zeiger >NA Swiss 1st Final > >Brd: 18 \ Claire Tornay >Dlr: East \ AQT5 >Vul: NS \ KQ5 > \ Q865 > \J2 >Ken Stuckey \ Marshall Miles >KJ63 \ 42 >A832 \ JT7 >K7 \ AJ32 >965 \ AQT8 > Paul Morris\ > 987 \ > 964 \ > T94 \ > K743 \ > >West North East South >--- --- 1D Pass >1H Pass 2H Pass >3C(1) Pass 3H Pass >Pass Pass > >(1) Disputed meaning, see text below. > >The Facts: 3H made three for EW +140 after the lead of the SA. >The director was called after the play of the hand. > >Playing behind screens, after the 3C bid North asked about the >agreement of 3C and was told natural. She then asked if 3D >would be forcing and was told no. She then asked again about >3C and East quoted their system notes as proof - 3C is >natural, not a help suit try. > >The Ruling: The director originally ruled the table result of >3H making stood. After the round, EW produced system notes >clearly stating a new suit by responder would be a help suit >game try. Thus the result was changed to 3 down one -50 for >EW. The director felt he should protect the non-offenders >unless EW could offer clear and convincing defense for their >action. > >Other Information: The director explained that the initial >ruling relied on the ACBL's definition of length as being at >least three cards when the suit is a minor. The revised ruling >was based on the EW system notes in combination with the >directing staff's belief that a holding of three small was >consistent with a help suit game try but not with a standard >game try. > >The Appeal: EW appealed and explained that although they had >voluminous system notes, they were in fact a new partnership >and that this was the first event they had played together. >Since each had sent the other a set, they actually had two >sets of system notes and it was not clear to either of them >which set, if either, they had agreed to play. > >East showed the Committee a hand-written list of sequences he >had discussed with his partner where he disagreed with the >treatment in the notes he had been sent. He explained that he >would never have agreed to play a treatment such as "help >suit game tries" when the partnership did not yet know >whether it held an eight card fit. > >West explained that part of his reason for bidding 3C was >that he hoped to attract a spade lead. > >Statements by the other side: North explained that had she >been informed that EW were using help suit game tries, she >would have made a different lead. > >The Decision: Based on two differing sets of system notes >and the EW testimony, the Committee determined that EW did >not have any agreement about the 3C call. They found that >East, while perhaps trying to be helpful, did provide MI to >North by representing that EW had a firm agreement. > >The Committee discounted West's testimony that he had simply >chosen to make a deceptive call since he had apparently not >mentioned such intent either at the table or in screening. > >The Committee determined that an infraction had been >committed and examined Law 40C: "If the director decides that >a side has been damaged through its opponents??? failure to >explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an >adjusted score." > >They then considered what information was passed by the actual >explanation of "length" as opposed to the proper explanation >of "no special agreement". The Committee felt that without any >special agreement, both North and East would expect West's 3C >bid to deliver at least three clubs. Given the ACBL's >definition of "length" they concluded that the information >conveyed from the incorrect explanation was substantially the >same as the information that would have been conveyed by a >correct explanation. Therefore, NS were damaged by an unlucky >opening lead rather than through their opponent's infraction. >The table result of EW making 3H for +140 was allowed to >stand. > >Since the director's assigned result was adjusted, the appeal >clearly had merit. > >The Committee: Adam Wildavsky, Chairperson, Mark Feldman, >Doug Doub, Chris Willenken, and Chris Moll. The committee may have missed the point. While "natural" or "length" bids can show a three-card suit, they are also expected to show the longest or strongest suit (in the absence of special agreements such as canape or five-card major openings). The actual West hand, playing "natural" game tries, would bid 2S. In fact, I would expect West to hold a club honor for his 3C bid if he is playing natural game tries. Since E-W are not guaranteed an eight-card fit, they might reach a game of 3NT if East has a maximum with short clubs and a spade stopper. The correct information certainly makes the CJ lead more attractive and the SA lead less attractive Is it enough of a difference to justify an adjustment? The SA looks like a very risky lead from North, given that South must have few high cards and nothing prevents West from having the SK anyway (Kxx AJxx xx Kxxx would bid this way). If L12C3 is allowed, I would probably award a mixed score. Otherwise, it would be a hard decision what to do; I could see -140/+140, -140/-50, or +50/-50. From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 21 07:32:16 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 21 07:33:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000901c54611$5772d920$dbd2cd18@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <000d01c54633$7ac1e110$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of raija d > Sorry, meant this for the discussion group. No problem! (I don't know how many times I forgot to change the address before hitting "send" myself) ................. > > So it appears to me that your case is: > > > > Having received incorrect disclosure (missing alert) the player > > bid 2S which had one particular meaning. When the disclosure was > > corrected the player could claim that had he been given this > > information in time he would have bid 2S which then would have > > conveyed a completely different meaning (not compatible with > > the meaning of his first bid). So if I understand you correct > > you claim that the player is entitled under Law 21B to "change" > > his 2S bid to 2S with a different meaning? > > > > I am sorry; this is far too hypothetical for me but maybe you > > have constructed this scenario to present a case where the > > player psyched his first call and now takes the opportunity to > > tell his partner (only?) that the first call was a psyche; his > > second call is the one that counts? If that is the case the > > psyche would be UI to opponents and the "correct" bid will be > > the one that counts also for them. > > > > But if so you have departed a long distance from the original > > theme in this thread which was a player who wanted to change > > his genuine call from a genuine call to a psyche knowing that > > his partner would understand the position while opponents were > > barred from the same. > > > > Sven > > > It was unfortunate that the caller's hand was exposed in the posting. > This whole issue would be easy to handle objectively and accurately > by the Laws (for you guys, TD's, I assume it would be easy and > simple) if the hand had not been shown. In reality, the director > will not look into the bidder's hand during auction, or at least I > I would HOPE NOT. Would it be possible to start over, imagine that > you never saw the bidder's hand as you shouldn't have, what will > happen then? In the real life we should absolutely not have looked at any hand until play is completed so we would have two phases: 1: TD is called to the table and given the information that South alerted after East made his call. TD should then inform the table that East may change his call (Law 21B) if East feels that he would have made a different call with a timely alert. East should then either maintain his original call or change it and that is all that happens at this time. If East at this time says that "yes, he wants to change his call and then presents the identical call I expect some excitement, and East (or West) may have some explanation to do. I have never had such a situation but I think at this time TD should take East away from the table and ask him what the heck is going on and also warn him on the conditions in Laws 21B, 40A, 40B and 75B if he suspects anything. TD shall not make any ruling under any of these laws until the play is ended. However he should make sure that North/South are given all the information to which they are entitled in this situation. 2: After East's hand is revealed we have the possibility for North/South to summon the Director with a claim that East has violated the laws with his replacement call. If this happens the TD will have to rule on that allegation. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 21 09:10:09 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 21 09:11:15 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <000601c545d1$3bd47d30$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In a series of emails on this thread, Sven Pran wrote: >Let me put it this way: If corresponding actions by the >two partners indicate some (concealed) understanding I >need very convincing evidence for the contrary to not >rule CPU. But I do not automatically discard the >possibility of a lucky coincidence. >Once I have a strong indication of CPU I leave it (and >strongly suggest) to the suspected party to come >forward with their side of the case. I do not spend >(read "waste") my time trying to find evidence for them >if they cannot show anything by their own power. >(Novices exempted of course). >(I shall tell the suspected party my impressions and >call for their possible comments if I ever run into >cases like this. Richard Hills: But how is it possible for a pair to provide evidence that they have just had a lucky coincidence? Absence of evidence of a lucky coincidence is not evidence of absence of a lucky coincidence. It seems to me that Sven has charged headlong into The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: >>The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy >>where a cluster of statistically non-significant data >>is taken from its context, and therefore thought to >>have a common cause. >> >>The name comes from a story about a Texan who fires >>his gun randomly at the side of a barn, then paints a >>target centred on the largest cluster of hits. >> >>The fallacy is closely related to the clustering >>illusion, which refers to the tendency in human >>cognition to interpret patterns in randomness where >>none actually exist. Sven Pran: >But it would appear that we just do not play bridge >this way in Norway. I am not aware of any such incident >here since I received my TD license 25 years ago). Richard Hills: Possibly because Norwegian players are too sensible to summon the director when their opponents have had a lucky coincidence. There is, of course, a different cultural tradition in the country which invented The Rule of Coincidence. Although innocent lucky coincidences are vastly more frequent than nefarious CPU conspiracies, some players in the homeland of The Rule tend to summon the TD whenever they have had a bad board, whining for their so-called "truth, justice and the.....". In my opinion, the only valid use of The Rule of Coincidence (a use which avoids The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy) is not to compare a single lucky coincidence by a pair against a field of multiple pairs, but rather to compare multiple lucky coincidences by a single pair. Or, in other words, "once is an accident, twice is a lucky coincidence, but three times is getting to be a habit". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 21 09:21:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 21 09:22:27 2005 Subject: FW: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000701c545e8$6dc2cf60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Having received incorrect disclosure (missing alert) the player bid 2S > which had one particular meaning. When the disclosure was corrected the > player could claim that had he been given this information in time he > would have bid 2S which then would have conveyed a completely different > meaning (not compatible with the meaning of his first bid) No. After the late alert he states that he would have bid differently with the correct info. Nothing more is said at that time. On receiving permission to change his call he then decides what call to substitute. He will base his next call on the fact that the previous 2S is AI to his side and UI to opps. He may make any sufficient call (including 2S if that has a sufficiently different meaning in the sequence to be deemed a change of call). The withdrawn 2S call, and any information arising therefrom remains UI to opps throughout the auction and play. Tim From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 21 10:16:37 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 21 10:17:35 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c5464a$706fda70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > In a series of emails on this thread, Sven Pran wrote: > > >Let me put it this way: If corresponding actions by the > >two partners indicate some (concealed) understanding I > >need very convincing evidence for the contrary to not > >rule CPU. But I do not automatically discard the > >possibility of a lucky coincidence. > > >Once I have a strong indication of CPU I leave it (and > >strongly suggest) to the suspected party to come > >forward with their side of the case. I do not spend > >(read "waste") my time trying to find evidence for them > >if they cannot show anything by their own power. > >(Novices exempted of course). > > >(I shall tell the suspected party my impressions and > >call for their possible comments if I ever run into > >cases like this. > > Richard Hills: > > But how is it possible for a pair to provide evidence > that they have just had a lucky coincidence? Absence > of evidence of a lucky coincidence is not evidence of > absence of a lucky coincidence. So when a player psyches and his partner makes a call that would be completely irrational opposite that call (as it has been disclosed) but as it happens is the only call that doesn't result in catastrophe you just shrug and say "lucky coincidence"? Wouldn't you ask the players for some convincing story to reduce (or preferably eliminate) your suspicion of a CPU? ............... > Sven Pran: > > >But it would appear that we just do not play bridge > >this way in Norway. I am not aware of any such incident > >here since I received my TD license 25 years ago). > > Richard Hills: > > Possibly because Norwegian players are too sensible to > summon the director when their opponents have had a > lucky coincidence. Is this your "experience" or just something you imagine? I can tell you that if Norwegian players smell a rat they do something about it. > > There is, of course, a different cultural tradition in > the country which invented The Rule of Coincidence. > Although innocent lucky coincidences are vastly more > frequent than nefarious CPU conspiracies, some players > in the homeland of The Rule tend to summon the TD > whenever they have had a bad board, whining for their > so-called "truth, justice and the.....". I really don't see the point and I don't know which country "invented" the rule of coincidence. But I can assure you I know sufficient statistics to be aware of and avoid the fallacies you imagine and I trust that so do my fellow Directors. > > In my opinion, the only valid use of The Rule of > Coincidence (a use which avoids The Texas Sharpshooter > Fallacy) is not to compare a single lucky coincidence > by a pair against a field of multiple pairs, but rather > to compare multiple lucky coincidences by a single > pair. > > Or, in other words, "once is an accident, twice is a > lucky coincidence, but three times is getting to be a > habit". "Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance, Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action.' Miami, Sandwich and now Geneva. I propose to wring the truth out of you." (Goldfinger). Regards Sven From ooga at shaw.ca Thu Apr 21 10:19:34 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Thu Apr 21 10:21:09 2005 Subject: [blml] It's Your (Director) Call.... Message-ID: <42676216.6040001@shaw.ca> (Work trip ahead; chew on this one while I'm away for a few days...) Board 17 NORTH IMP Pairs None vul S J964 (X-IMPS) N Dealer H 86 ACBL Club Game D AKQJ94 WEST C 9 EAST S KQ2 S T7 H Q942 H T7 D 8 D T762 C K7654 SOUTH C AQJT8 S A853 H AKJ53 D 53 C 32 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 2D Dble 2N 3C 3H Pass 3S Pass 4S Dble End There are no alerts in the auction. The TD is called after the North player bids 3S. North has 'woken up' and tells E-W that 2D was Flannery (11-15, 4 spades and 5 hearts). The TD writes down the auction up to that point and instructs the players to continue but that an adjusted score seemes probable. N-S are novices and it is unlikely they have a firm agreement about competitive sequences after a 2D opener. E-W are Flight A players. Ten tricks are made by declarer. How should the TD rule? -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 21 10:12:46 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Apr 21 10:21:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Travelling References: <000001c5425d$ec5f7dc0$eea1403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <010a01c5464a$78e45000$ebb487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Travelling > Grattan writes > > > >+=+ Absence p.m. Apl 16 to Apl 21 inclusive. > > Visit to English Bridge Union, Aylesbury.+=+ > > getting tied up in mounds of red tape to take so long? > > +=+ Perhaps a fair description. Meeting subcommittee chairman for a complete review of a whole new draft code of laws - typos, language, comparison with three sets of notes from Istanbul and seeking to ensure that they implement positions adopted there. Don't ask. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. you will realise we finished a day earlier than planned - we worked Sunday in the hotel. From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 21 10:40:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 21 10:41:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000d01c54633$7ac1e110$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of raija d > > Sorry, meant this for the discussion group. > > No problem! (I don't know how many times I forgot to change the address > before hitting "send" myself) > ................. > > > So it appears to me that your case is: > > > > > > Having received incorrect disclosure (missing alert) the player > > > bid 2S which had one particular meaning. When the disclosure was > > > corrected the player could claim that had he been given this > > > information in time he would have bid 2S which then would have > > > conveyed a completely different meaning (not compatible with > > > the meaning of his first bid). So if I understand you correct > > > you claim that the player is entitled under Law 21B to "change" > > > his 2S bid to 2S with a different meaning? > > > > > > I am sorry; this is far too hypothetical for me but maybe you > > > have constructed this scenario to present a case where the > > > player psyched his first call and now takes the opportunity to > > > tell his partner (only?) that the first call was a psyche; his > > > second call is the one that counts? If that is the case the > > > psyche would be UI to opponents and the "correct" bid will be > > > the one that counts also for them. > > > > > > But if so you have departed a long distance from the original > > > theme in this thread which was a player who wanted to change > > > his genuine call from a genuine call to a psyche knowing that > > > his partner would understand the position while opponents were > > > barred from the same. > > > > > > Sven > > > > > It was unfortunate that the caller's hand was exposed in the posting. > > This whole issue would be easy to handle objectively and accurately > > by the Laws (for you guys, TD's, I assume it would be easy and > > simple) if the hand had not been shown. In reality, the director > > will not look into the bidder's hand during auction, or at least I > > I would HOPE NOT. Would it be possible to start over, imagine that > > you never saw the bidder's hand as you shouldn't have, what will > > happen then? > > In the real life we should absolutely not have looked at any hand until > play > is completed so we would have two phases: > > 1: TD is called to the table and given the information that South > alerted after East made his call. TD should then inform the table that > East may change his call (Law 21B) if East feels that he would have made > a different call with a timely alert. Actually the TD gives permission for a change of call "when it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation". If the TD gives such permission when it is improbable that original call was based on the MI he's going to end up ruling the hand under TD error. > East should then either maintain his original call or change it and that > is all that happens at this time. If East at this time says that "yes, > he wants to change his call and then presents the identical call I > expect some excitement, and East (or West) may have some explanation to > do. They would. However, if they make the same call with a much different meaning it should not be considered an identical call. Let me give you a few hands under the proposed scenario (NOS are playing SNT, Stayman+transfers, system on over natural doubles, system off over artificial ones). 1N-(X)-2H tfr, late alert of a "single-suiter" double. West holds Kxxxx,xxxxx,x,xx he wants to show his spades first because then he can compete to the 3 level in H (a bit reluctantly) and show both his suits. Had the double been alerted he would have bid 2S natural on the same logic. After being given permission to change his call, and knowing he has already shown partner (but not opps) his 5 spades (L16c) he now realises he can show his second suit at a safer level and bids 2H. Systemically he would always use Stayman with 54 in the majors so his partner has inferential knowledge of his shape given the unusual (and wholly undiscussed) sequence. He considers this the "most advantageous option after an irregularity committed by an opponent" (L72a4). 1N-(X)-2S tfr, late alert of a "single-suiter" double. West holds xx,Kxxx,x,JTxxxx. Again there is almost zero probability that he would have bid a "natural" 2S so he is allowed to change his call. The original transfer explicitly denied a 5cM and strongly implied 6+c. The player would have liked to show a 46 hand but regrettably for this particular hand he plays the sequence 1N-2C-2d/s-3C as always having constructive or better values. Again he realises that having told partner (but not opps) about his 6C and not 5H he now has an opportunity to bid 2H which he believes his partner will read as a weak ?4?6 hand. Same sequence, but this time the pair does not play Stayman followed by 3C as constructive and thus 2S has denied a 4cM. West holds xxx,x,xxx,KT9xxx and considers a 2H bid will "pick off" opps suit since they are duty bound to treat it as natural (the inferences from the withdrawn call being UI to them) and pard won't get excited about H knowing he has denied 4. There is a slight risk that pard will interpret 2H as lead directing on eg x,Axx,xxx,JT98xx (after all the sequence is undiscussed) and if that happens and NOS get a bad result then there will be no adjustment. In all of the above cases there will be an adjustment in favour of NOS if they get a bad result because opps took advantage of the UI but result will stand if OS get a good result while carefully avoiding taking advantage of UI. These situations are analogous to the famous (albeit I have forgotten names) case of a top US pair who took advantage of the space created by an opp's insufficient bid to show additional controls and get to a slam they would probably not have found otherwise. The pair was lauded for their ingenuity and degree of partnership understanding in an undiscussed sequence! Tim From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Thu Apr 21 10:58:30 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Thu Apr 21 10:59:29 2005 Subject: [blml] It's Your (Director) Call.... In-Reply-To: <42676216.6040001@shaw.ca> Message-ID: >From: Bruce McIntyre >To: blml >Subject: [blml] It's Your (Director) Call.... >Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:19:34 -0700 > >(Work trip ahead; chew on this one while I'm away for a few days...) > >Board 17 NORTH IMP Pairs >None vul S J964 (X-IMPS) >N Dealer H 86 ACBL Club Game > D AKQJ94 > WEST C 9 EAST >S KQ2 S T7 >H Q942 H T7 >D 8 D T762 >C K7654 SOUTH C AQJT8 > S A853 > H AKJ53 > D 53 > C 32 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 2D >Dble 2N 3C 3H >Pass 3S Pass 4S >Dble End > >There are no alerts in the auction. > >The TD is called after the North player bids 3S. North has 'woken up' and >tells E-W that 2D was Flannery (11-15, 4 spades and 5 hearts). I've got a big problem here. As the write-up doesn't tell me what kind of infractioan took place. Either north forgot to alert 2D, and we have a potential MI problem. Or north forgot the meaning of 2D (what on earth did he believe it was when bidding 2N?), south used UI from the missing alert to wake up north, and we have an UI case. Please clear up. Regards, Harald Skj?ran >The TD writes down the auction up to that point and instructs the players >to continue but that an adjusted score seemes probable. > >N-S are novices and it is unlikely they have a firm agreement about >competitive sequences after a 2D opener. E-W are Flight A players. > >Ten tricks are made by declarer. > >How should the TD rule? > > >-- >.-----------------------.----------------------------------. >| 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) | >`----------------------------------------------------------? > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Thu Apr 21 11:24:37 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Apr 21 11:24:19 2005 Subject: [blml] It's Your (Director) Call.... In-Reply-To: <42676216.6040001@shaw.ca> References: <42676216.6040001@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <42677155.6060905@hdw.be> Bruce McIntyre wrote: > (Work trip ahead; chew on this one while I'm away for a few days...) > > Board 17 NORTH IMP Pairs > None vul S J964 (X-IMPS) > N Dealer H 86 ACBL Club Game > D AKQJ94 > WEST C 9 EAST > S KQ2 S T7 > H Q942 H T7 > D 8 D T762 > C K7654 SOUTH C AQJT8 > S A853 > H AKJ53 > D 53 > C 32 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 2D > Dble 2N 3C 3H > Pass 3S Pass 4S > Dble End > > There are no alerts in the auction. > > The TD is called after the North player bids 3S. North has 'woken up' > and tells E-W that 2D was Flannery (11-15, 4 spades and 5 hearts). The > TD writes down the auction up to that point and instructs the players to > continue but that an adjusted score seemes probable. > > N-S are novices and it is unlikely they have a firm agreement about > competitive sequences after a 2D opener. E-W are Flight A players. > > Ten tricks are made by declarer. > > How should the TD rule? > > I see only one problem. After 3C, South has a hand that has exactly what he promised, at the lower end of the point scale. Whatever 2N means, pass over 3C must indicate a minimum. South is not allowed to use the information that North has not understood to make a call which might wake up north. Therefor I rule that South should have passed. It is not clear to me what would have happened consequently. We would rather need to know what North originally thought 2D meant, and then stick him to that system. It is unthinkable however that he would pass out 3C. Maybe he bids 3D, after which it becomes unthinkable that South does not revert to either of his majors, and that North is now again woken-up. After hearing what North originally believed his system was, and establishing which systemic calls are available to him in that presumed system, I might well rule that result stands. -- 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: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 20/04/2005 From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 21 12:34:49 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 21 12:35:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c5465d$bec2afa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ......... > > In the real life we should absolutely not have looked at any > > hand until play is completed so we would have two phases: > > > > 1: TD is called to the table and given the information that > > South alerted after East made his call. TD should then inform > > the table that East may change his call (Law 21B) if East feels > > that he would have made a different call with a timely alert. > > Actually the TD gives permission for a change of call "when it is probable > that he made the call as a result of misinformation". If the TD gives > such permission when it is improbable that original call was based on the > MI he's going to end up ruling the hand under TD error. TD has only one source for his ruling: A claim from East that he would have called differently given correct information. TD cannot overrule this claim because if he does he reveals that he knows something about the cards which indeed it would be a TD error to reveal to the table at this time. So it is up to the player (East) to decide changing his call with the risk that he shall subsequently be found having violated the condition in L21B1. > ................. > Let me give you a few hands under the proposed scenario (NOS are playing > SNT, Stayman+transfers, system on over natural doubles, system off over > artificial ones). > > 1N-(X)-2H tfr, late alert of a "single-suiter" double. > > West holds Kxxxx,xxxxx,x,xx he wants to show his spades first because > then he can compete to the 3 level in H (a bit reluctantly) and show both > his suits. Had the double been alerted he would have bid 2S natural on > the same logic. After being given permission to change his call, and > knowing he has already shown partner (but not opps) his 5 spades (L16c) > he now realises he can show his second suit at a safer level and bids 2H. > Systemically he would always use Stayman with 54 in the majors so his > partner has inferential knowledge of his shape given the unusual (and > wholly undiscussed) sequence. He considers this the "most advantageous > option after an irregularity committed by an opponent" (L72a4). > > 1N-(X)-2S tfr, late alert of a "single-suiter" double. > > West holds xx,Kxxx,x,JTxxxx. Again there is almost zero probability that > he would have bid a "natural" 2S so he is allowed to change his call. The > original transfer explicitly denied a 5cM and strongly implied 6+c. The > player would have liked to show a 46 hand but regrettably for this > particular hand he plays the sequence 1N-2C-2d/s-3C as always having > constructive or better values. Again he realises that having told partner > (but not opps) about his 6C and not 5H he now has an opportunity to bid 2H > which he believes his partner will read as a weak ?4?6 hand. > > Same sequence, but this time the pair does not play Stayman followed by 3C > as constructive and thus 2S has denied a 4cM. West holds xxx,x,xxx,KT9xxx > and considers a 2H bid will "pick off" opps suit since they are duty bound > to treat it as natural (the inferences from the withdrawn call being UI to > them) and pard won't get excited about H knowing he has denied 4. > There is a slight risk that pard will interpret 2H as lead directing on eg > x,Axx,xxx,JT98xx (after all the sequence is undiscussed) and if that > happens and NOS get a bad result then there will be no adjustment. > > In all of the above cases there will be an adjustment in favour of NOS if > they get a bad result because opps took advantage of the UI but result > will stand if OS get a good result while carefully avoiding taking > advantage of UI. > > These situations are analogous to the famous (albeit I have forgotten > names) case of a top US pair who took advantage of the space created by an > opp's insufficient bid to show additional controls and get to a slam they > would probably not have found otherwise. The pair was lauded for their > ingenuity and degree of partnership understanding in an undiscussed > sequence! There is a major difference between a situation where OS has the same opportunity as NOS to deduct what is going on and a situation where OS is in fact legally prohibited from such deductions. I have myself directed the top division in our Norwegian masters' league and seen Helge Vinje taking advantage of opponent's insufficient bid in exactly this manner and I too applaud it. In all your cases I would also applaud an ingenious player with his bids on the strict condition that he and his partner obeyed their duties to disclose everything they "knew" relevant also for their opponents to understanding those bids. But I cannot and never will accept any concealment of partnership understandings based on such technicalities as were introduced by the change in Law 16C in 1987. I strongly believe that the full impact of that change was never foreseen nor intended by WBFLC. It is worth noting that the comprehensive commentaries issued on the 1987 laws in 1992 include absolutely no indications that such effects are intended. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 21 13:07:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 21 13:08:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <003301c5460b$a52b9a90$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Craig wrote: > I have a partner I have played with for 23 years....about twice a year. > I seldom know what she means from one session to the next. Was this a > regular partnership, or an occasional one? That would seem more > pertinent than the length of time. Besides, the fact that low level > doubles can often be takeout is general bridge knowledge and would not > need disclosure. In the absence of any agreement this should be assumed. While it may be part of *your* general bridge knowledge that low level doubles are often played for take-out that is hardly relevant. What matters is if the members of *this* partnership often play low level doubles for take-out. That knowledge would special to the partnership, and disclosable. e.g "After 1 level openers we play Xs in competition as take-out oriented through 3D but have not discussed the meanings after 2- level openings". Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 21 13:07:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 21 13:08:48 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <000e01c5464a$706fda70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > So when a player psyches and his partner makes a call that would be > completely irrational opposite that call (as it has been disclosed) but > as it happens is the only call that doesn't result in catastrophe you > just shrug and say "lucky coincidence"? So when a player psyches and his partner makes a call that would be completely irrational opposite that call (as it has been disclosed) but as it happens is the only call that doesn't result in catastrophe you just shrug and say "CPU" - even though the partner's hand and the bidding so far makes it overwhelmingly likely that his partner has psyched? Even though the players have never played together before and are complete strangers? Let's hope *nobody* makes "shrug" rulings. We investigate, we ask questions, we establish facts, we consult and then we apply our judgement and the laws. Occasionally something you were predisposed to call a CPU turns out to be MI (or no offence at all). Occasionally something I was predisposed to call no offence turns out to be a CPU (or MI). We can do nothing (OK very little) to change our inherent inclinations but we can do a hell of a lot to ensure that our inclinations do not lead to anti-law rulings. Tim From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 21 14:32:05 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Apr 21 14:32:54 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? References: Message-ID: <011301c5466e$2106d550$149868d5@James> [Richard Hills From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia] > The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy > where a cluster of statistically non-significant data > is taken from its context, and therefore thought to > have a common cause. The name comes from a story about > a Texan who fires his gun randomly at the side of a > barn, then paints a target centred on the largest > cluster of hits. The fallacy is closely related to > the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency > in human cognition to interpret patterns in randomness > where none actually exist. [Nigel] Great quote Richard -- I like all your quotes. IMO, however, a director may rule on the basis of one "lucky coincidence." I'm no lawyer but I feel that a crude analogy is a a case that involves a single murder: the jury may convict on circumstantial evidnce about means motive and opportunity. The Jury (and tournament director)(unconsciously) apply Bayes's theorem about the probability of causes. I believe that in a criminal trial, the judge requires the jury to be sure "beyond reasonable doubt". Perhaps, a better Bridge analogy is a civil case where a judge may have to decide a dispute betwee two parties on the basis of probability. Of course, neither analogy is completely appropriate but both demonstrate that you can make probabilistic assessments even in a single case. Paradoxically, I feel more confident about the justice of such rulings than I do about many other bridge rulings. From craigstamps at comcast.net Thu Apr 21 15:27:56 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Thu Apr 21 15:28:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: Message-ID: <001c01c54675$ee27a260$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> I beg to differ Tim. Unless there is some specific partnership agreement on the subject, the concept that low level doubles are "often for takeout" is as obvious and general as the concept that an opening bid of 1 in a major implies opening strength with four or more cards in that major. Certainly forcing pass or canape systems that differ would be alerted, but in the absence thereof one may generally assume WITHOUT discussion that this is the implied meaning of such a bid in the majority of cases. Thus is has been with low level doubles for the past 50 years...they frequently are NOT penalty and seek takeout (unless like Sputnik they provide specific alertable information as well in addition to the general inference) and a low level penalty double would seem to be alertable in many situations. There would be no MI in responding to question about a low level double that there is no partnership agreement other that that of general bridge knowledge...it is nop more necessary to say "may be takeout OR tends to be takeout" than to say "he probably has openers and a spade suit after a one spade opener. Perhaps when arcane systems are being employed there may be more need for explanations, but in the absence of partnership agreement where there is no partnership experience that counterindicates the normal general bridge knowledge interpretation no further information is proper. It is not required to give basis bridge lessons to your opponents (or worse yet to your partner) by such extraneous comments. Disclosure is important,,,but only when there really is something to disclose. Craig Senior ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook > Craig wrote: > >> I have a partner I have played with for 23 years....about twice a year. >> I seldom know what she means from one session to the next. Was this a >> regular partnership, or an occasional one? That would seem more >> pertinent than the length of time. Besides, the fact that low level >> doubles can often be takeout is general bridge knowledge and would not >> need disclosure. In the absence of any agreement this should be assumed. > > While it may be part of *your* general bridge knowledge that low level > doubles are often played for take-out that is hardly relevant. > What matters is if the members of *this* partnership often play low level > doubles for take-out. That knowledge would special to the partnership, > and disclosable. e.g "After 1 level openers we play Xs in competition as > take-out oriented through 3D but have not discussed the meanings after 2- > level openings". > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 21 15:28:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 21 15:29:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000f01c5465d$bec2afa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > Actually the TD gives permission for a change of call "when it is > > probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation". If the > > TD gives such permission when it is improbable that original call was > > based on the MI he's going to end up ruling the hand under TD error. > > TD has only one source for his ruling: A claim from East that he would > have called differently given correct information. TD cannot overrule > this claim because if he does he reveals that he knows something about > the cards which indeed it would be a TD error to reveal to the table at > this time. The TD also has available the degree of MI contained in the non-alert and the extent to which the opps system differs in the face of that change. (For example in EBU land 1N [may have a singleton] requires an alert but there are very few pairs who treat such 1NT openers by opps differently to standard 1Ns). > So it is up to the player (East) to decide changing his call with the > risk that he shall subsequently be found having violated the condition > in L21B1. The player can't be found in violation. It is the TD's job to assess the probabilities not the player's. If the TD gets it wrong (for any reason) and allows a change when he shouldn't then it's TD error. NB, I estimate that in 98%+ of cases it will be sufficiently obvious that the TD will judge correctly even without seeing the hand. > > There is a major difference between a situation where OS has the same > opportunity as NOS to deduct what is going on and a situation where OS > is in fact legally prohibited from such deductions. There's a difference. The cause of the difference is in the laws we must apply, not the principle of taking advantage of opp's infraction. > > In all your cases I would also applaud an ingenious player with his > bids on the strict condition that he and his partner obeyed their duties > to disclose everything they "knew" relevant also for their opponents to > understanding those bids. But I cannot and never will accept any > concealment of partnership understandings based on such technicalities > as were introduced by the change in Law 16C in 1987. Of course the partner must disclose all such inferences if asked. However, opps would be incredibly ill advised to actually ask. Anything that arises from the understanding of the *withdrawn* call will be UI to them and the more UI they have they tougher it will be for them. This is 100% crystal clear when reading L16C. > I strongly believe that the full impact of that change was never > foreseen nor intended by WBFLC. It is worth noting that the > comprehensive commentaries issued on the 1987 laws in 1992 include > absolutely no indications that such effects are intended. I think you are probably right in that the WBFLC didn't consider these particular scenarios at all. I also know this matters not one whit. We only go to "intent" or "probable" intent when there is enough ambiguity in the law that it might affect our judgement. That is not the case here where we have an unambiguous law with intended consequences. We apply it for now and request the WBFLC to change it if we don't like it. I believe you have read enough of my writing here on BLML to know that I am happy to use "intent" where sufficient ambiguity exists in the written law for me to justify it:) Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 21 17:02:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 21 17:04:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <001c01c54675$ee27a260$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Craig wrote: > I beg to differ Tim. Unless there is some specific partnership > agreement on the subject, the concept that low level doubles are "often > for takeout" is as obvious and general as the concept that an opening > bid of 1 in a major implies opening strength with four or more cards in > that major. It most certainly isn't. My students are taught Acol (where most Xs after partner has bid, even at low levels, are for penalty). > Certainly forcing pass or canape systems that differ would > be alerted, but in the absence thereof one may generally assume WITHOUT > discussion that this is the implied meaning of such a bid in the > majority of cases. Thus is has been with low level doubles for the past > 50 years...they frequently are NOT penalty and seek takeout (unless > like Sputnik they provide specific alertable information as well in > addition to the general inference) and a low level penalty double would > seem to be alertable in many situations. Not in the EBU. Negative, competitive, sputnik and responsive X are all alertable. Things that many people may know in your locale (or mine) are not part of anything one might classify as "general knowledge" in a wider sense. > There would be no MI in > responding to question about a low level double that there is no > partnership agreement other that that of general bridge knowledge...it There would be no MI if that were true. There would be MI if there was *some* agreement about low-level doubles but ambiguity about whether it applied in this sequence. > is nop more necessary to say "may be takeout OR tends to be takeout" This is required disclosure if that is an agreement/understanding (explicit or implicit) within the partnership. > than to say "he probably has openers and a spade suit after a one spade > opener. Don't think "probably" has any place in the sentence, but otherwise this (+the minimum length/points) is required disclosure if that is an agreement/understanding (explicit or implicit) within the partnership. > Perhaps when arcane systems are being employed there may be > more need for explanations, but in the absence of partnership agreement > where there is no partnership experience that counterindicates the > normal general bridge knowledge interpretation no further information > is proper. All systems are arcane to those that do not know them. If you agree to play SAYC with a partner then you are obliged to disclose that 1D may be a 3 card suit if 4432, that low level doubles (up to 2S) are take-out, that 1M promises 5 but can (very occasionally) be a good 4, that etc... > It is not required to give basis bridge lessons to your > opponents (or worse yet to your partner) by such extraneous comments. Basic bridge lessons are not necessary. Explaining the system you have agreed to opps who don't know what your bids mean is required. > Disclosure is important,,,but only when there really is something to > disclose. Of course. But in regular partnerships there is often a much higher level of disclosable information than many people realise. In an environment where (almost) everybody plays the same system it will often be unnecessary to disclose with the same level of detail as an environment where familiarity with a particular system is less widespread. Tim From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 21 17:17:03 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Apr 21 17:17:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <001c01c54675$ee27a260$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <001801c54685$2d07ae80$499468d5@James> [craig] The concept that low level doubles are "often for takeout" is as obvious and general as the concept that an opening bid of 1 in a major implies opening strength with four or more cards in that major. [Nigel] Another illustration that so-called "general knowledge" is so often local and specific. In the UK, after partner has bid, the ^default* meaning of a double is penalty. So much so, that if you have agreed some other meaning then you must alert. Are the rules so different in America? Some of Britain's best players, like the late John Collings, employ penalty doubles wherever feasible, so they rarely alert doubles. Other experts ascribe a variety of different meanings to non-penalty doubles. Hence, when a player doubles with a non-penalty meaning and an oppoent asks for an explanation, a reply of "general knowldge" is prevarication -- or worse if the opponent is a foreigner or Rubber-Bridge player. If anything, such a reply would imply penalty. From craigstamps at comcast.net Thu Apr 21 17:25:46 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Thu Apr 21 17:26:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: Message-ID: <00f101c54686$64236390$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Please remember that this took place in an ACBL event in the USA. It is reasonable to expect that unless the pair was playing something OTHER THAN standard american (not SAYC as almost no one plays the unplayable yellow card) the tendency would be for low level doubles to be takeout. Were the venue London, then general bridge knowledge might indeed favour a different interpretation. ACOL is far more rare than precision, K/s, Schenken, or Roman over here...I have encountered it three times in my lifetime. It would behoove a player entering ACBL events to have some knowledge of the predominant system in this part of the world and what default, undiscussed interpretations might be likely to be, rather than to expect every pair against who they pay to be bridge educators. By the by the weasel word "probably" was to satisfy the bridge lawyers who otherwise could not believe in the possibility of either a misbid or a psych. If you KNOW what your partner means, you are clairvoyant or perhaps he is holding his cards to show the number of hearts :-) (Actually I think Boris and Terrence were innocent but that is another topic) If you know what he should mean systemically then you are paying attention. I can think of 2600 reasons why the two differ. Consider partner 2NT, you 3d (NO alert!!) partner pass leaving you in a 2-1 fit with 7nt cold...What did his bid mean? It meant the scotch was good that night! Craig Senior ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook > Craig wrote: > >> I beg to differ Tim. Unless there is some specific partnership >> agreement on the subject, the concept that low level doubles are "often >> for takeout" is as obvious and general as the concept that an opening >> bid of 1 in a major implies opening strength with four or more cards in >> that major. > > It most certainly isn't. My students are taught Acol (where most Xs after > partner has bid, even at low levels, are for penalty). > >> Certainly forcing pass or canape systems that differ would >> be alerted, but in the absence thereof one may generally assume WITHOUT >> discussion that this is the implied meaning of such a bid in the >> majority of cases. Thus is has been with low level doubles for the past >> 50 years...they frequently are NOT penalty and seek takeout (unless >> like Sputnik they provide specific alertable information as well in >> addition to the general inference) and a low level penalty double would >> seem to be alertable in many situations. > > Not in the EBU. Negative, competitive, sputnik and responsive X are all > alertable. Things that many people may know in your locale (or mine) are > not part of anything one might classify as "general knowledge" in a wider > sense. > >> There would be no MI in >> responding to question about a low level double that there is no >> partnership agreement other that that of general bridge knowledge...it > > There would be no MI if that were true. There would be MI if there was > *some* agreement about low-level doubles but ambiguity about whether it > applied in this sequence. > >> is nop more necessary to say "may be takeout OR tends to be takeout" > > This is required disclosure if that is an agreement/understanding > (explicit or implicit) within the partnership. > >> than to say "he probably has openers and a spade suit after a one spade >> opener. > > Don't think "probably" has any place in the sentence, but otherwise this > (+the minimum length/points) is required disclosure if that is an > agreement/understanding (explicit or implicit) within the partnership. > > >> Perhaps when arcane systems are being employed there may be >> more need for explanations, but in the absence of partnership agreement >> where there is no partnership experience that counterindicates the >> normal general bridge knowledge interpretation no further information >> is proper. > > All systems are arcane to those that do not know them. If you agree to > play SAYC with a partner then you are obliged to disclose that 1D may be a > 3 card suit if 4432, that low level doubles (up to 2S) are take-out, that > 1M promises 5 but can (very occasionally) be a good 4, that etc... > >> It is not required to give basis bridge lessons to your >> opponents (or worse yet to your partner) by such extraneous comments. > > Basic bridge lessons are not necessary. Explaining the system you have > agreed to opps who don't know what your bids mean is required. > >> Disclosure is important,,,but only when there really is something to >> disclose. > > Of course. But in regular partnerships there is often a much higher level > of disclosable information than many people realise. In an environment > where (almost) everybody plays the same system it will often be > unnecessary to disclose with the same level of detail as an environment > where familiarity with a particular system is less widespread. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 21 18:21:09 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 21 18:22:10 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c5468e$20ac72c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads .............. > Let's hope *nobody* makes "shrug" rulings. We investigate, we ask > questions, we establish facts, we consult and then we apply our judgement > and the laws. Occasionally something you were predisposed to call a CPU > turns out to be MI (or no offence at all). Occasionally something I was > predisposed to call no offence turns out to be a CPU (or MI). We can do > nothing (OK very little) to change our inherent inclinations but we can do > a hell of a lot to ensure that our inclinations do not lead to anti-law > rulings. I am surprised (to say the least) how you consistently suppress my information that I do give "suspects" the opportunity to present their case before making any ruling. Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 21 18:30:48 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 21 18:31:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c5468f$7a27e630$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............... > > > Actually the TD gives permission for a change of call "when it is > > > probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation". If the > > > TD gives such permission when it is improbable that original call was > > > based on the MI he's going to end up ruling the hand under TD error. > > > > TD has only one source for his ruling: A claim from East that he would > > have called differently given correct information. TD cannot overrule > > this claim because if he does he reveals that he knows something about > > the cards which indeed it would be a TD error to reveal to the table at > > this time. > > The TD also has available the degree of MI contained in the non-alert and > the extent to which the opps system differs in the face of that change. > (For example in EBU land 1N [may have a singleton] requires an alert but > there are very few pairs who treat such 1NT openers by opps differently to > standard 1Ns). It is no business for TD to judge a player's reason when he wants to change his first call based upon a Law 21B situation until after the play is ended. MI has been established, the degree of MI is completely irrelevant when the applicable player wants to use L21B. > > So it is up to the player (East) to decide changing his call with the > > risk that he shall subsequently be found having violated the condition > > in L21B1. > > The player can't be found in violation. It is the TD's job to assess the > probabilities not the player's. If the TD gets it wrong (for any reason) > and allows a change when he shouldn't then it's TD error. NB, I estimate > that in 98%+ of cases it will be sufficiently obvious that the TD will > judge correctly even without seeing the hand. Oh sure, the player can be found in violation, but this will hardly ever happen unless he decides to psyche with his replacing call. > > > > > There is a major difference between a situation where OS has the same > > opportunity as NOS to deduct what is going on and a situation where OS > > is in fact legally prohibited from such deductions. > > There's a difference. The cause of the difference is in the laws we > must apply, not the principle of taking advantage of opp's infraction. To quote from Erle Stanley Gardner I have a feeling that this is a matter of legal astigmatism. > > > > In all your cases I would also applaud an ingenious player with his > > bids on the strict condition that he and his partner obeyed their duties > > to disclose everything they "knew" relevant also for their opponents to > > understanding those bids. But I cannot and never will accept any > > concealment of partnership understandings based on such technicalities > > as were introduced by the change in Law 16C in 1987. > > Of course the partner must disclose all such inferences if asked. > However, opps would be incredibly ill advised to actually ask. Anything > that arises from the understanding of the *withdrawn* call will be UI to > them and the more UI they have they tougher it will be for them. > This is 100% crystal clear when reading L16C. And any information they receive through opponents' disclosure of the replacing call is AI. > > > I strongly believe that the full impact of that change was never > > foreseen nor intended by WBFLC. It is worth noting that the > > comprehensive commentaries issued on the 1987 laws in 1992 include > > absolutely no indications that such effects are intended. > > I think you are probably right in that the WBFLC didn't consider these > particular scenarios at all. I also know this matters not one whit. We > only go to "intent" or "probable" intent when there is enough ambiguity in > the law that it might affect our judgement. That is not the case here > where we have an unambiguous law with intended consequences. We apply it > for now and request the WBFLC to change it if we don't like it. > > I believe you have read enough of my writing here on BLML to know that I > am happy to use "intent" where sufficient ambiguity exists in the written > law for me to justify it:) Sven From adam at irvine.com Thu Apr 21 18:41:30 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Apr 21 18:42:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Fifteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:27:30 BST." <016d01c54622$0daa63b0$0e9868d5@James> Message-ID: <200504211641.JAA08429@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel wrote: > [Adam Beneschan] > > What psych??? East was well within her rights to > > judge that 4C was probably going down. She has two > > aces and a king in partner's suit, and partner has to > > have a little something to respond. At worst the > > double may have been a little speculative or gambling, > > perhaps thinking that down 2 undoubled would lose the > > board anyway. But what possible basis do you have for > > calling this a psych? Come on. > > [Nigel] > IMO a double on East's hand is better described as "Action" > "Transferrable values" or "Cards" or "Competititive" or some > such. So in your eyes, a double should not be described as "Penalty" unless it promises something in trumps? That might have been accurate---sixty years ago. I don't think there's such as thing as a "pure penalty" double any more that partner isn't allowed to pull---except perhaps for a double of 7NT. In any case, the double was described as "penalty, primarily", which should put to rest any notion that this was supposed to be a "pure" penalty double. In competitive auctions like this, you do what you have to do. Look at it from East's point of view. She has a good hand with long diamonds. She's already described a hand with good diamonds, although she probably didn't fully describe her strength or diamond length. Now the auction is up to the 4 level, she's in the passout seat, and she has to decide what to do. Rebidding her own suit or supporting partner's suit could turn a plus into a minus. Passing is wimpy when it looks like there's a good chance their contract is going down. So what does she do? She doubles, expecting that increasing the penalty gives her the best chance to win the board. In other words, SHE'S TRYING TO WIN THE BOARD BY GETTING A BIGGER PENALTY. Now if you're going to argue that this should not be called a "penalty" double....... To my mind, David Grabiner is exactly right that "There isn't much difference between a card-showing double and a penalty double at the 4-level, and South should know that." > My reading of the way that the Regulations grade > doubles is that "Penalty" means that partner is expected to > pass almost all the time. As far as I know, THERE ARE NO SUCH REGULATIONS in the ACBL. There is an Alert chart that describes what conventions are alertable and which aren't. The five grades of doubles are in the "Definitions" section of the Alert chart. These definitions are there to help understand what the rest of the chart means when it tells which doubles are alertable and which aren't. These are NOT regulations that make rules about what players must mean when they use these terms to describe a double. (And even if they were, "penalty, primarily" is not on this chart, so you can't use it against them.) The more I think about it, the less sympathy I have for Levin/Weinstein for their appeal. I think they were trying to win a board by lawyering. -- Adam From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Apr 21 21:06:48 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Thu Apr 21 21:07:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question References: <000201c5468f$7a27e630$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001201c546a5$446e3ab0$0307a8c0@david> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............... > > > Actually the TD gives permission for a change of call "when it is > > > probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation". If the > > > TD gives such permission when it is improbable that original call was > > > based on the MI he's going to end up ruling the hand under TD error. Sven: > > TD has only one source for his ruling: A claim from East that he would > > have called differently given correct information. TD cannot overrule > > this claim because if he does he reveals that he knows something about > > the cards which indeed it would be a TD error to reveal to the table at > > this time. TWM > The TD also has available the degree of MI contained in the non-alert and > the extent to which the opps system differs in the face of that change. > (For example in EBU land 1N [may have a singleton] requires an alert but > there are very few pairs who treat such 1NT openers by opps differently to > standard 1Ns). Sven >It is no business for TD to judge a player's reason when he wants to change >his first call based upon a Law 21B situation until after the play is >ended. >MI has been established, the degree of MI is completely irrelevant when the >applicable player wants to use L21B. > > So it is up to the player (East) to decide changing his call with the > > risk that he shall subsequently be found having violated the condition > > in L21B1. TWM > The player can't be found in violation. It is the TD's job to assess the > probabilities not the player's. If the TD gets it wrong (for any reason) > and allows a change when he shouldn't then it's TD error. NB, I estimate > that in 98%+ of cases it will be sufficiently obvious that the TD will > judge correctly even without seeing the hand. Sven >Oh sure, the player can be found in violation, but this will hardly ever >happen unless he decides to psyche with his replacing call. David Barton It has been established, at least to my satisfaction, that once a player has the right to change his bid, there is no restriction on what he may change it to. You cannot rule the change illegal on the basis of what it is changed to. Sven > > There is a major difference between a situation where OS has the same > > opportunity as NOS to deduct what is going on and a situation where OS > > is in fact legally prohibited from such deductions. TWM > There's a difference. The cause of the difference is in the laws we > must apply, not the principle of taking advantage of opp's infraction. Sven >To quote from Erle Stanley Gardner I have a feeling that this is a matter >of >legal astigmatism. > > > > In all your cases I would also applaud an ingenious player with his > > bids on the strict condition that he and his partner obeyed their duties > > to disclose everything they "knew" relevant also for their opponents to > > understanding those bids. But I cannot and never will accept any > > concealment of partnership understandings based on such technicalities > > as were introduced by the change in Law 16C in 1987. TWM > Of course the partner must disclose all such inferences if asked. > However, opps would be incredibly ill advised to actually ask. Anything > that arises from the understanding of the *withdrawn* call will be UI to > them and the more UI they have they tougher it will be for them. > This is 100% crystal clear when reading L16C. Sven >And any information they receive through opponents' disclosure of the >replacing call is AI. David Barton Are you saying that the partner of the "psycher" is obliged to say something like "there is an inference available from the withdrawn 2S bid that 2H is a psyche", and that this would authorise knowledge of the 2S bid and/or the psyche? > > > I strongly believe that the full impact of that change was never > > foreseen nor intended by WBFLC. It is worth noting that the > > comprehensive commentaries issued on the 1987 laws in 1992 include > > absolutely no indications that such effects are intended. > > I think you are probably right in that the WBFLC didn't consider these > particular scenarios at all. I also know this matters not one whit. We > only go to "intent" or "probable" intent when there is enough ambiguity in > the law that it might affect our judgement. That is not the case here > where we have an unambiguous law with intended consequences. We apply it > for now and request the WBFLC to change it if we don't like it. > > I believe you have read enough of my writing here on BLML to know that I > am happy to use "intent" where sufficient ambiguity exists in the written > law for me to justify it:) Sven _______________________________________________ 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: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 20/04/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 20/04/2005 From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Thu Apr 21 21:45:18 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu Apr 21 21:42:23 2005 Subject: [blml] It's Your (Director) Call.... In-Reply-To: <42677155.6060905@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Herman De Wael wrote: > I see only one problem. After 3C, South has a hand that has exactly > what he promised, at the lower end of the point scale. Whatever 2N > means, pass over 3C must indicate a minimum. This is not obvious. The usual (in my area anyway) rebids after 2D-Pass-2NT-Pass are: 3C = 4-5-3-1 3D = 4-5-1-3 3H = 4-5-2-2 minimum 3S = 4-5-2-2 maximum and it seems quite possible to me that many pairs are going to retain this structure after 3-level interference with the help of Double and Pass to replace the insufficient bids. In this auction I would expect Pass=4531 and Double=penalty. It seems to me that the only infraction here is the failure to make a timely alert -- in which case E-W are likely to fall silent and allow an uncontested auction to 4S. Looking just at North's hand, I think North will quickly reach the conclusion his partner doesn't have a natural diamond opening. If North were weaker or didn't have 4 spades, it would be a more interesting case - since now we'd have to consider 2D passed out as a possibility. GRB From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 21 22:08:24 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Apr 21 22:08:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Seventeen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050421155333.02a417e0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:42 PM 4/20/05, richard.hills wrote: >CASE N-17 >Subject: MI >DIC: Gary Zeiger >NA Swiss 1st Final > >Brd: 18 \ Claire Tornay >Dlr: East \ AQT5 >Vul: NS \ KQ5 > \ Q865 > \J2 >Ken Stuckey \ Marshall Miles >KJ63 \ 42 >A832 \ JT7 >K7 \ AJ32 >965 \ AQT8 > Paul Morris\ > 987 \ > 964 \ > T94 \ > K743 \ > >West North East South >--- --- 1D Pass >1H Pass 2H Pass >3C(1) Pass 3H Pass >Pass Pass > >(1) Disputed meaning, see text below. > >The Facts: 3H made three for EW +140 after the lead of the SA. >The director was called after the play of the hand. > >Playing behind screens, after the 3C bid North asked about the >agreement of 3C and was told natural. She then asked if 3D >would be forcing and was told no. She then asked again about >3C and East quoted their system notes as proof - 3C is >natural, not a help suit try. > >The Ruling: The director originally ruled the table result of >3H making stood. After the round, EW produced system notes >clearly stating a new suit by responder would be a help suit >game try. Thus the result was changed to 3 down one -50 for >EW. The director felt he should protect the non-offenders >unless EW could offer clear and convincing defense for their >action. > >Other Information: The director explained that the initial >ruling relied on the ACBL's definition of length as being at >least three cards when the suit is a minor. The revised ruling >was based on the EW system notes in combination with the >directing staff's belief that a holding of three small was >consistent with a help suit game try but not with a standard >game try. > >The Appeal: EW appealed and explained that although they had >voluminous system notes, they were in fact a new partnership >and that this was the first event they had played together. >Since each had sent the other a set, they actually had two >sets of system notes and it was not clear to either of them >which set, if either, they had agreed to play. > >East showed the Committee a hand-written list of sequences he >had discussed with his partner where he disagreed with the >treatment in the notes he had been sent. He explained that he >would never have agreed to play a treatment such as "help >suit game tries" when the partnership did not yet know >whether it held an eight card fit. > >West explained that part of his reason for bidding 3C was >that he hoped to attract a spade lead. > >Statements by the other side: North explained that had she >been informed that EW were using help suit game tries, she >would have made a different lead. > >The Decision: Based on two differing sets of system notes >and the EW testimony, the Committee determined that EW did >not have any agreement about the 3C call. They found that >East, while perhaps trying to be helpful, did provide MI to >North by representing that EW had a firm agreement. > >The Committee discounted West's testimony that he had simply >chosen to make a deceptive call since he had apparently not >mentioned such intent either at the table or in screening. > >The Committee determined that an infraction had been >committed and examined Law 40C: "If the director decides that >a side has been damaged through its opponents??? failure to >explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an >adjusted score." > >They then considered what information was passed by the actual >explanation of "length" as opposed to the proper explanation >of "no special agreement". The Committee felt that without any >special agreement, both North and East would expect West's 3C >bid to deliver at least three clubs. Given the ACBL's >definition of "length" they concluded that the information >conveyed from the incorrect explanation was substantially the >same as the information that would have been conveyed by a >correct explanation. Therefore, NS were damaged by an unlucky >opening lead rather than through their opponent's infraction. >The table result of EW making 3H for +140 was allowed to >stand. > >Since the director's assigned result was adjusted, the appeal >clearly had merit. I think the committee got this wrong. For one thing, the director reported that the 3C bid was explained as "natural", so where did the committee get "length"? I'm not sure this matters. I am sure that the committee's reliance on the definition of "convention" (the bit about three cards or more) is a red herring in any case, and should not have been considered. xxx may make a help-suit game try not a convention, but it doesn't make it not a help-suit game try. But playing natural game tries, West had a clear 2S call. Playing help-suit game tries, he had an equally clear 3C call. North had every right to assume that West held something like 965/A832/K7/KJ63 rather than his actual holding, and I'm quite prepared to believe that she would have led a club with correct information. I know I'd have led a spade against a 3C natural try and a club against a 3C help suit try myself, and I would have no trouble finding for this North. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 21 22:28:44 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Apr 21 22:28:55 2005 Subject: [blml] It's Your (Director) Call.... In-Reply-To: <42676216.6040001@shaw.ca> References: <42676216.6040001@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050421161830.02bbbeb0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:19 AM 4/21/05, Bruce wrote: >Board 17 NORTH IMP Pairs >None vul S J964 (X-IMPS) >N Dealer H 86 ACBL Club Game > D AKQJ94 > WEST C 9 EAST >S KQ2 S T7 >H Q942 H T7 >D 8 D T762 >C K7654 SOUTH C AQJT8 > S A853 > H AKJ53 > D 53 > C 32 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 2D >Dble 2N 3C 3H >Pass 3S Pass 4S >Dble End > >There are no alerts in the auction. > >The TD is called after the North player bids 3S. North has 'woken up' >and tells E-W that 2D was Flannery (11-15, 4 spades and 5 >hearts). The TD writes down the auction up to that point and >instructs the players to continue but that an adjusted score seemes >probable. > >N-S are novices and it is unlikely they have a firm agreement about >competitive sequences after a 2D opener. E-W are Flight A players. > >Ten tricks are made by declarer. > >How should the TD rule? I don't see a UI problem; N-S were always getting to 4S. So the question is whether West's double of 4S was the result of MI. It would seem not, as he had corrected information when he doubled, but I would still need to ask him why he did so. He might convince me that his double of 2D was based on the MI (obviously it was), and that his double of 2D and partner's free 3C bid set up a position in which a pass of 4S would have been forcing, in which case he has an easy double. If he does convince me of that, I adjust to +420/-420, otherwise let the table result stand. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 21 22:50:54 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Apr 21 22:53:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: <001c01c54675$ee27a260$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050421164237.02bbdb00@pop.starpower.net> At 11:02 AM 4/21/05, twm wrote: >Craig wrote: > > > I beg to differ Tim. Unless there is some specific partnership > > agreement on the subject, the concept that low level doubles are > "often > > for takeout" is as obvious and general as the concept that an opening > > bid of 1 in a major implies opening strength with four or more > cards in > > that major. > >It most certainly isn't. My students are taught Acol (where most Xs >after >partner has bid, even at low levels, are for penalty). The original case arose in the ACBL, where Craig's position would be expected to prevail. Even a foreigner new to ACBL competition would be expected to understand this, as they would be required to know that the usual run of low-level doubles by responder, e.g. 1C-1S-X or 1S-2C-X, require an alert if penalty but not if takeout. Legally speaking, I think we can assume the Conditions of Contest to be "general bridge knowledge" rather than "partnership agreement or experience". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 21 23:01:23 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 21 23:02:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <001201c546a5$446e3ab0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000d01c546b5$4675b030$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton ..................... > It has been established, at least to my satisfaction, > that once a player has the right to change his bid, > there is no restriction on what he may change it to. > You cannot rule the change illegal on the basis of > what it is changed to. If he withdraws (changes) a call that was according to his partnership agreements when he (only) had the misinformation from his opponents and replaces it with another call which (after he has received the correct information) is a violation of the same partnership agreements do you then consider it probable that his first call was made as a result of the misinformation? This is the required condition for any player who may want to change his call under Law 21B, but the Director must never attempt to make any ruling on whether this condition is/was satisfied before that player's cards have been revealed to the other three players at the table in an ordinary way. So yes, we can find a player who with consent of the Director has changed a call as permitted in Law 21B guilty of having violated that same law when afterwards investigating the incident. Sven From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Apr 21 23:43:41 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Thu Apr 21 23:44:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question References: <000d01c546b5$4675b030$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000501c546bb$2f61bb90$0307a8c0@david> >> On Behalf Of David Barton > ..................... >> It has been established, at least to my satisfaction, >> that once a player has the right to change his bid, >> there is no restriction on what he may change it to. >> You cannot rule the change illegal on the basis of >> what it is changed to. Sven > If he withdraws (changes) a call that was according to his partnership > agreements when he (only) had the misinformation from his opponents and > replaces it with another call which (after he has received the correct > information) is a violation of the same partnership agreements do you then > consider it probable that his first call was made as a result of the > misinformation? David Barton Let me give you an example which may (better) illustrate my point. Player1 opens 1N Player2 asks and is informed 10-12 then bids 2S (single suited hand with spades). Player3 then corrects the information to 16-18. IF you would allow a correction from 2S to pass, then you MUST also allow a correction from 2S to a "psyche" of 2H. The judgement of whether it meets the condition "when it is probable.." is independant of the bid it is changed to. Of course if you were going to disallow a change from 2S to any other call then we are in a totally different situation. > This is the required condition for any player who may want to change his > call under Law 21B, but the Director must never attempt to make any ruling > on whether this condition is/was satisfied before that player's cards have > been revealed to the other three players at the table in an ordinary way. > > So yes, we can find a player who with consent of the Director has changed > a > call as permitted in Law 21B guilty of having violated that same law when > afterwards investigating the incident. > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 20/04/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 20/04/2005 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 22 00:10:02 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 22 00:11:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Eighteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the eighteenth of 18 parallel threads, which will eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email for a Word doc. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * CASE N-18 Subject: MI DIC: Gary Zeiger NA Swiss Final Brd: 8 \ Jeff Schuett Dlr: West \ 32 Vul: None \ AT85 \ T96 \QJT9 Jim Griffin \ Pat Griffin J965 \ AK4 Q9 \ K764 7532 \ AKQJ8 K87 \ 3 Kerry Smith\ QT87 \ J32 \ 4 \ A6542 \ West North East South Pass Pass 1C(1) 1D(2) Pass(3) 2H(4) Dbl(5) 2S(6) 2NT Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass Pass (1) Artificial 16+ (2) 2 suits color on East side of screen, Major/Minor on West side (3) 5-7 HCP (4) pass or correct (5) Shows strong hand (or takeout of s) (6) 2S confirms blacks to East and Major to West The Facts: The final contract was 3NT down one for a score of NS +50 after the CQ lead. The director was called after the hand. Three other players were consulted and all bid 3D with the correct explanation. The Ruling: EW were damaged by an incorrect explanation of CRASH. With the consultation with and input of expert testimony, the non-offenders were assigned the most favorable result likely 5D +5 and the score was changed to EW +400 (Law 40C and Law 12C2). The Appeal: NS felt that Law 12C2 should not lead to an EW recoupment of the full benefit of playing 5D. Statements by the other side: East assumed South had both majors with 6-4 shape for example for the 2S call. The Decision: The AC felt that there was clearly MI. It had damaged EW. East might have been more tempted to bid 3D instead of 3NT had she been properly informed. The discussion among the Committee members focused on West's 2NT bid and East's decision to bid 3NT instead of 3D. While EW might have ended up defending 2S doubled instead of bidding 2NT, his decision was hardly unreasonable. The AC thought less of the 3NT bid. However, while it seemed better to bid 3D instead of 3NT, there was no feeling by the majority that the call was bad enough to sever the connection between the MI and the damage. One member of the AC did feel that the combination of the 2NT and the 3NT bid was enough to sever the link. However, the majority felt that given the level of East and the superiority of West, both calls were reasonable actions. Therefore, the adjusted result assigned by the director of 5D making five stands. Given the position of one member and the relatively uncommitted position of a second, no AWMW was issued. The Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Doug Doub, Mark Feldman, Chris Moss, and Chris Willkenen. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 22 00:17:11 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 22 00:18:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Pass 2H 2S 3H 3S ? You, South, hold: 9853 T942 KJ5 J7 What call do you make? What other call do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Apr 22 01:05:36 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri Apr 22 01:06:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question Message-ID: <000701c546c6$a0b43240$0307a8c0@david> Sorry if I am boring you folks but I would like to get to grips with this Law. Scenario:- Game all Pairs Player1 Bids 1N Player2 asks the range, is told 12-14, and bids 2S This information is corrected to 15-17 and Player2 substitutes a Pass. The bidding goes all pass and the contract makes with an overtrick for 120. Examination of the score sheet reveal all the other scores range from 200 to 800 in failing 2 Spade contracts (some doubled). Player1/Player3 want an adjustment on the grounds that the decision to bid 2S was not as a result of the misinformation, and should not be allowed to be changed. All the other players in Player2's position had bid 2S with the correct information. Do Player1/Player3 have any case? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 20/04/2005 From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 01:12:05 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Apr 22 01:13:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Psych Ruling at Reno Regional Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote > >--- David Stevenson wrote: >> Tim West-Meads wrote >> >DWS wrote: >> > >> >> If a player would get an adjustment under the >> MI laws that gives him >> >> an 80% board, when he would get 60% under the >> fielded psyche >> >> regulation, why on earth would we not give him >> 80%? >> > >> >I can't be certain, I wasn't responsible for >> writing the regulation. >> >The psych adjustments are defined in the Orange >> Book and are applied >> >regardless of whether opps have been damaged. >> There are no provisions for >> >giving abnormal adjustments in a normal psych >> ruling. >> >> Of course there are: we do not give an adjustment >> that damages the >> non-offenders. This is [a] obvious and [b] in the >> regulations. >> >> >Perhaps this is because *fielding* a psych is in no >> way an infraction. >> >> It is, as I am sure you are aware, a breach of >> Law 40. > >Fielding as defined in the EBU Orange Book is not >mentioned in L40. If fielding was included in L40 >then there would be no need for a regulation. That fielding is an infraction is a clear interpretation of L40, and in fact there is a WBFLC minute saying so. It is correct that the word fielding does not appear - so what? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email so these messages are resent and very late. Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 01:13:37 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Apr 22 01:14:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? Message-ID: koen wrote >An easy question for the specialists: >South is declarer in 3NT, but East Leads a small Club. >South chooses that the club becomes a penalty card and that West can >not lead a club. >West leads Diamond King taken by declarer in dummy with the Ace. >Declarer plays a small Heart from dummy and finesses with AQ, taken by >West with the King. >Question: >Q1: Is the lead out of turn still UI now? Yes, the fact that East led a club also the fact that he held that particular club is UI to partner and remains so. L50D1 says that it is UI. >- Without the LOOT the normal play after getting the lead back with >Heart K would be: continue D and 3NT is made. >- With the LOOT and above decission: West retuns a club after re- >getting the lead with Heart K: Result is 3NT -1 >Q2: result of 3NT -1 stands? No, this should be adjusted. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email so these messages are resent and very late. Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 01:15:09 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Apr 22 01:16:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? Message-ID: koen wrote >Tim West-Meads wrote: > Koen wrote: > >> Question: >> Q1: Is the lead out of turn still UI now? >> > Nasty. The inferences from his pard's lead of C3 are UI but, as far > as I > can tell, the fact that declarer forbade a C lead is AI. What this > means > in terms of LAs I'm not equipped to say without seeing the hand. > Tim >Interesting: >LOOT is UI; decission of declarer is AI. >=> opponent can always return a Club at earliest moment he is allowed >and say: "I didn't lead a C because of my partner's Club LOOT, but I >did lead it because you didn't want a Club lead" One of the most common misconceptions in discussion of UI and AI on BLML and RGB [even IBLF occasionally!] concerns the situation where a player has UI from partner and AI that suggests something similar. Most people talk as though you are not allowed to use UI but you are allowed to use AI so if the AI suggests it then it does not matter about the UI. However, nothing in the laws of the game comes up with this conclusion. What the Laws say is that you may not choose amongst LAs one suggested by the UI over another. That is not affected by AI, because the Law states this rule without mentioning AI: the Law does not say it applies unless there is AI. However, what AI does do is affect what constitutes an LA. So, in the stated case, you say >LOOT is UI; decission of declarer is AI. > opponent can always return a Club at earliest moment he is allowed >and say: "I didn't lead a C because of my partner's Club LOOT, but I >did lead it because you didn't want a Club lead" Sure, he can say it, but if not returning a club is also an LA then he will get adjusted against, because he has chosen amongst LAs etc etc. It is interesting how often this UI+AI 'Law' gets quoted but it has no basis in Law. In fact there is always AI, so it is normal for a player who is receipt of UI from partner to have AI affecting his decision, and therefore affecting what constitutes an LA. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email so these messages are resent and very late. Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 01:16:24 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Apr 22 01:17:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Orange book 2006 Message-ID: Some people have shown an interest in the new Orange book which will provide the rules in the English and Welsh games from next year. Perhaps you would like to look at the second draft. Feel free to make suggestions. Please remember that as the editor I do not agree with everything in it. I am especially interested in suggestions for improvements in layout or design. You will find it at http://blakjak.com/download.htm -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email so these messages are resent and very late. Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 01:17:43 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Apr 22 01:18:43 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >Richard Hills wrote: > >> >>To a novice, I *would* Alert pard's fourth-seat preempt of 3C, >> >> Tim West-Meads incorrectly asserted: >> >> >This would be not be alertable in the EBU. A call's >> >alertability is independent of ones knowledge of opponents. >> >> Richard Hills advises: >> >> I suggest that Tim reads clause 5.2.1 of the EBU Orange Book. >> >> That specifically states that a natural call must be alerted, if >> it has a meaning that the opponents might not expect. > >Oh, I am well aware of what OB5.2.1 *says* (not exactly the above). I am >also aware of what it is taken (by the EBU) to mean. The opponents >referred to are "opponents in general" rather "opponents of the moment" in >the specific. Fascinating stuff. You learn a new thing every day, especially about books you have written. I wonder where the authority for this is? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email so these messages are resent and very late. Web: blakjak.com From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Apr 22 01:22:05 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri Apr 22 01:22:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge References: Message-ID: <000b01c546c8$ee0bc740$0307a8c0@david> > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1H Pass 2H > 2S 3H 3S ? > > You, South, hold: > > 9853 > T942 > KJ5 > J7 > > What call do you make? > What other call do you consider making? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist I pass. I do not consider any other calls. Partner's 3H is purely competitive, and my 4 spades may mean we have chances to beat a spade contract. I would not have passed if partner had bid 3D instead of 3H. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 20/04/2005 From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 01:22:09 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Apr 22 01:24:07 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >Richard Hills wrote: > >> >>To a novice, I *would* Alert pard's fourth-seat preempt of 3C, >> >> Tim West-Meads incorrectly asserted: >> >> >This would be not be alertable in the EBU. A call's >> >alertability is independent of ones knowledge of opponents. >> >> Richard Hills advises: >> >> I suggest that Tim reads clause 5.2.1 of the EBU Orange Book. >> >> That specifically states that a natural call must be alerted, if >> it has a meaning that the opponents might not expect. > >Oh, I am well aware of what OB5.2.1 *says* (not exactly the above). I am >also aware of what it is taken (by the EBU) to mean. The opponents >referred to are "opponents in general" rather "opponents of the moment" in >the specific. Fascinating stuff. You learn a new thing every day, especially about books you have written. I wonder where the authority for this is? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email so these messages are resent and very late. Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 01:23:34 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Apr 22 01:24:35 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >GUTHRIE wrote: > >> These are trivial quibbles. IMO. ABF9.2 is a concise clear statement >>of disclosure principles that the WBFLC could apply globally. >> I still maintain that simplest and best of all would be "you must >>always make your best guess". >> > >Herman, Nigel, Richard, and the entire ABF agree with each other. >Only 97% of the bridge world to convince! > >Anyway, this is not the "DeWaelSchool" proper - that's going still a >bit further - so there's no need to start worrying! I am not worried about the De Wael School of whatever-it-is. But the recent change from referring to it as DwS to DWS might make me reach for my lawyer. I was and am DWS from before this DwS thing was mooted. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email so these messages are resent and very late. Web: blakjak.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 22 01:25:17 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 22 01:26:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >So you hold xxx Kxxxx x xxxx and respond 1H to 1D. Partner >bids 2S. This is forcing. I pass in sleep, don't you? >cheers John Richard Hills: This was one of the situations discussed by Michael Rosenberg in his lengthy article on ethics. (The article was reprinted as a chapter in Rosenberg's book, "Bridge, Zia and Me".) Rosenberg argued that if pard bid a forcing 2S in tempo, you would pass in sleep. But Rosenberg argued that if pard bid a forcing 2S out of tempo, that might suggest that pard was forcing with a three-card spade suit preparatory to revealing a slam try with 4-card heart support. So, after a hesitation, a "grey ethics" player might not pass pard's out-of-tempo forcing 2S in sleep, thus avoiding a ridiculous partscore in a 3-3 spade fit, instead reaching the normal cold game in hearts. And Rosenberg argued that an out-of-tempo forcing 2S could not result in a TD adjusted score of a contract of 2S, since a TD would be compelled to rule that passing a forcing bid was not a logical alternative. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 01:25:44 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Apr 22 01:26:45 2005 Subject: [blml] It's Your (Director) Call.... Message-ID: Harald Skj?ran wrote >>From: Bruce McIntyre >>To: blml >>Subject: [blml] It's Your (Director) Call.... >>Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:19:34 -0700 >> >>(Work trip ahead; chew on this one while I'm away for a few days...) >> >>Board 17 NORTH IMP Pairs >>None vul S J964 (X-IMPS) >>N Dealer H 86 ACBL Club Game >> D AKQJ94 >> WEST C 9 EAST >>S KQ2 S T7 >>H Q942 H T7 >>D 8 D T762 >>C K7654 SOUTH C AQJT8 >> S A853 >> H AKJ53 >> D 53 >> C 32 >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Pass Pass 2D >>Dble 2N 3C 3H >>Pass 3S Pass 4S >>Dble End >> >>There are no alerts in the auction. >> >>The TD is called after the North player bids 3S. North has 'woken up' >>and tells E-W that 2D was Flannery (11-15, 4 spades and 5 hearts). > >I've got a big problem here. As the write-up doesn't tell me what kind >of infractioan took place. >Either north forgot to alert 2D, and we have a potential MI problem. >Or north forgot the meaning of 2D (what on earth did he believe it was >when bidding 2N?), south used UI from the missing alert to wake up >north, and we have an UI case. Bruce said North "woke up" and realised it was Flannery. I think it is clear that 2D was Flannery by partnership agreement. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email so these messages are resent and very late. Web: blakjak.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 22 01:47:24 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 22 01:48:27 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick: [snip] >Just where is the dividing line? -not merely where it >might be. Until enough wisdom is used to get at basics >players will be plagued with uncertainty and many >adjustments that are felt to less than justice. Richard Hills: (1) Some bridge facts, such as whether or not a revoke has occurred, need a mechanical determination by the TD. (2) Some other bridge facts, such as whether or not a partnership has an implicit agreement, need a fuzzy logic judgement determination by the TD. (3) The word "may" (in the Law 75B phrase "but habitual violations within a partnership **may** create implicit agreements") has been amplified in the WBF Code of Practice. It seems to me that, in a nutshell, the WBF CoP divides the line on whether the partner of the habitual violator is likely to have remembered previous habitual violations at the time of the current habitual violation. That is, if a memory is likely to exist, then the partnership has an implicit agreement. If a memory is not likely to exist, then the partnership does not have a Law 75B implicit agreement. The WBF CoP does not discuss whether or not an implicit partnership agreement might be created via a route not involving Law 75B. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Apr 22 01:56:02 2005 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri Apr 22 01:54:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge In-Reply-To: <000b01c546c8$ee0bc740$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: I also would do nothing but P. My partner bid is competitive. He would X with some additional values. I have four Hs but are high enough. I use to X with tricks.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City. --------------------------------------- > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1H Pass 2H > 2S 3H 3S ? > > You, South, hold: > > 9853 > T942 > KJ5 > J7 > > What call do you make? > What other call do you consider making? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist I pass. I do not consider any other calls. Partner's 3H is purely competitive, and my 4 spades may mean we have chances to beat a spade contract. I would not have passed if partner had bid 3D instead of 3H. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 20/04/2005 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Fri Apr 22 02:20:48 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri Apr 22 02:17:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1H Pass 2H > 2S 3H 3S ? > > You, South, hold: > > 9853 > T942 > KJ5 > J7 I pass. It's hard for me to see a double working out with partner's heart values counterfeited. If the vulnerability were reversed I'd be thinking about a sacrifice. Difficult choice whether to bid 4H now, or pass intending let 3S sit but bid 5H over 4S. Under the actual conditions, I don't think there is LA to Pass. Under even slightly different ones, 4H might become one. GRB From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 22 02:19:11 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 22 02:20:16 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <011301c5466e$2106d550$149868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Great quote Richard -- I like all your quotes. IMO, >however, a director may rule on the basis of one "lucky >coincidence." [snip] >The Jury (and tournament director)(unconsciously) apply >Bayes's theorem about the probability of causes. [snip] Richard Hills: A single data point cannot have probabilistic analysis applied to it. (1) A Nigelish TD flips a coin once. It comes up heads. The Nigelish TD rules that the coin is loaded and will always come up heads. (2) A Svenish TD flips the coin three times. It comes up heads three times. Without examining the coin, the Svenish TD asks the coin to volunteer evidence to disprove that it is loaded and will always come up heads. (3) A Richardian TD flips the coin three thousand times. It comes up heads three thousand times. The Richardian TD applies Bayes's theorem about the probability of causes and finally rules that the coin is loaded and will always come up heads. (4) A sensible TD immediately examines the coin and notices that it is a double-headed coin. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Fri Apr 22 02:33:54 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri Apr 22 02:30:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst: > > >So you hold xxx Kxxxx x xxxx and respond 1H to 1D. Partner > >bids 2S. This is forcing. I pass in sleep, don't you? > >cheers John Sorry, no. If you aren't willing to respect partner's force, you pass 1D. (And I would have some harsh words for any partner of mine who DIDN'T pass 1D with that.) You do have a right to depart from system, of course, but going along with that is accepting 200% of the blame if it doesn't work out. > And Rosenberg argued that an out-of-tempo forcing 2S > could not result in a TD adjusted score of a contract of > 2S, since a TD would be compelled to rule that passing a > forcing bid was not a logical alternative. This is true. On the other hand, if they admit that they think that this is a routine 1H bid and they would pass partner's in-tempo forcing rebid, they are in for a lecture about what "forcing" means (see earlier thread) and if I've had a bad day they'll be in front of an ethic committee to justify lying through their teeth about their methods. GRB From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Fri Apr 22 02:41:31 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri Apr 22 02:38:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000701c546c6$a0b43240$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, David Barton wrote: > Scenario:- Game all Pairs > Player1 Bids 1N > Player2 asks the range, is told 12-14, and bids 2S > This information is corrected to 15-17 > and Player2 substitutes a Pass. > > The bidding goes all pass and the contract makes > with an overtrick for 120. > Examination of the score sheet reveal all the > other scores range from 200 to 800 in failing > 2 Spade contracts (some doubled). > Player1/Player3 want an adjustment on the > grounds that the decision to bid 2S was not > as a result of the misinformation, and should > not be allowed to be changed. All the > other players in Player2's position had bid 2S > with the correct information. > > Do Player1/Player3 have any case? If I am on the committee, Player1/Player3 have an AWMW. Misinformation aside, Player2 is not obligated to bid as badly as the rest of the field does. Was Player2 trying to be sneaky? No; he asked a question and made a call. (Indeed, some would say that the fact he asked, rather than just bidding without asking, indicates it was his intention from the beginning to pass if he'd gotten an answer he didn't like.) Did Player2 gain from 1/3's infraction? Maybe so. Don't like that? Then don't give misexplanations. I don't have any sympathy at all for an OS that says "the NOS took advantage of our mistake and improved their score." 72A4 is in the book for a reason. GRB From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Apr 22 02:52:57 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Apr 22 02:53:56 2005 Subject: FW: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <200504211404.j3LE4QHQ010370@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504211404.j3LE4QHQ010370@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42684AE9.7000104@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > To me it is implicit in L21B that L21B permits the player changing his call > to what he would have called had he been correctly informed. This seems to sum up the debate. Sven and Bruce rule based on what is "implicit" in the Laws; Tim and I believe it is correct to rule based on what the Laws actually say. SW> By the way, "calling West away from the table" is considered bad SW> practice outside North America. > From: Bruce McIntyre > Seems odd to me. I would think that the ACBL is simply trying to prevent UI > being passed during the discussion of what the player thinks he might have done. > "Well, I might have bid 3D instead" is a lot different than "I'd have bid 3D." Sorry. I assumed we had discussed this so much that everyone was familiar with it. The point is that outside the ACBL, the TD does not ask the player what he would have done, at least not until play is over. > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) [Referring to a L21B1 change of call] > The player can't be found in violation. It is the TD's job to assess the > probabilities not the player's. If the TD gets it wrong (for any reason) > and allows a change when he shouldn't then it's TD error. Sorry, I don't agree with this. The position is analogous to that of a player having UI. The TD tells the player what the rules are, and the player chooses his call. The player's decision can be reviewed later, and if the player chose an illegal call, the score is adjusted. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Apr 22 02:57:28 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri Apr 22 02:58:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050421204740.01ca9108@mail.comcast.net> At 06:17 PM 4/21/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1H Pass 2H >2S 3H 3S ? > >You, South, hold: > >9853 >T942 >KJ5 >J7 > >What call do you make? >What other call do you consider making? Both pass and 4H are LA's; my choice is 4H. Yes, partner bid 3H as competitive, not invitational, but this looks like a magic fit hand; we appear to have ten hearts and nothing wasted in spades. It's possible that 3S and 4H will both make, and not that likely that 4H will be down two doubled when the opponents aren't about to bid and make 4S, or down when 3S is making. That is, I am expecting 19 total tricks; if partner has six hearts and one spade, or five hearts and no spades, there are 18 total trumps but the pure spade situation argues for a 19th. (And if partner did bid 3H with only five, he should have good hearts and an offensive hand.) From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Apr 22 03:06:31 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri Apr 22 03:07:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050421205824.038415e8@mail.comcast.net> At 07:15 PM 4/21/2005, David Stevenson wrote: >koen wrote >>Tim West-Meads wrote: >> Koen wrote: >> >>>Question: >>> Q1: Is the lead out of turn still UI now? >> Nasty. The inferences from his pard's lead of C3 are UI but, as far >> as I >> can tell, the fact that declarer forbade a C lead is AI. What this >> means >> in terms of LAs I'm not equipped to say without seeing the hand. >> Tim >>Interesting: >>LOOT is UI; decission of declarer is AI. >>=> opponent can always return a Club at earliest moment he is allowed >>and say: "I didn't lead a C because of my partner's Club LOOT, but I >>did lead it because you didn't want a Club lead" > > One of the most common misconceptions in discussion of UI and AI on BLML > and RGB [even IBLF occasionally!] concerns the situation where a player > has UI from partner and AI that suggests something similar. > > Most people talk as though you are not allowed to use UI but you are > allowed to use AI so if the AI suggests it then it does not matter about > the UI. However, nothing in the laws of the game comes up with this > conclusion. > > What the Laws say is that you may not choose amongst LAs one suggested > by the UI over another. That is not affected by AI, because the Law > states this rule without mentioning AI: the Law does not say it applies > unless there is AI. > > However, what AI does do is affect what constitutes an LA. In addition, the AI may affect whether the UI suggests one action over another. If the UI completely duplicates the AI, then it provides no additional information and thus suggests nothing. One of Kaplan's examples: West leads a doubleton club, North has KQJ and plays the king, and East, with A932, hesitates before ducking the trick. This is UI to West. However, when East ducks the trick, he plays the C9 (standard signals), which provides AI that he wants West to lead another club. When West gets in, he may lead another club, because the UI tells him nothing more than the AI. > So, in the stated case, you say > >>LOOT is UI; decission of declarer is AI. >>opponent can always return a Club at earliest moment he is allowed >>and say: "I didn't lead a C because of my partner's Club LOOT, but I >>did lead it because you didn't want a Club lead" > > Sure, he can say it, but if not returning a club is also an LA then he > will get adjusted against, because he has chosen amongst LAs etc etc. I agree with you in this case. The AI is that declarer didn't want a club lead (based on his own hand); the UI is that partner did want a club lead (based on his own hand). The combination of those facts makes a club lead more attractive than either fact in isolation. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Apr 22 03:07:06 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Apr 22 03:08:04 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <200504211404.j3LE4tEe010424@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504211404.j3LE4tEe010424@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42684E3A.9000408@cfa.harvard.edu> SW>It seems pretty obvious that for there to be a CPU, there has to be a SW>partnership understanding, so "action of both players" is a necessary SW>condition as Sven says. Is it sufficient as well? > > From: "Sven Pran" > No it is not sufficient. I intentionally wrote "should seriously consider", > not words to the effect: "should (automatically) rule". OK, this is progress, but I'm still trying to understand what conditions are sufficient. > But once such strong indication of CPU is revealed the onus shifts (IMO) to > the suspected pair to show that they have no CPU. In the example I gave (relay pair who fail to alert), they most certainly have a partnership agreement. They will answer correctly any questions, their explanations agree with their hands, and they have reached a superb contract the rest of the field missed. But they have failed to alert. MI or CPU? What facts make you decide one or the other? > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > One piece of evidence I would weigh heavily would be the CCs. For example > if they made clear mention of frequent relay sequences I would rule MI for > the missing alerts but not consider the possibility of a CPU (a good CC > being a damn silly way to try and conceal something!). Prior verbal > disclosure of frequent relays - again MI rather than CPU. Opps asked a > question and got an obviously incomplete answer (incline to CPU rather > than MI). OK, this is further progress, but it still isn't clear where we are. Most SO's that permit relays don't require pre-alerts, so that seems irrelevant. Would the absence of a CC be enough to rule CPU? Suppose systems are supposed to be declared in advance, and this pair has failed to declare or declared a non-relay system. Would that be enough? Suppose the pair are playing strong club, and the 1C opener is noted as "strong, artificial" on the convention card, but there is a) no mention of relay followups, or b) a single word "relays" in the responses section. Where do we draw the line? Please note that in the example case, there is no doubt what the true agreement is. Let's further assume a non-competitive auction. There is definitely an infraction, but how do we decide which one? > NB, I don't think there is any difference in the score adjustment whether > I rule MI or CPU but I am much less likely to assign an additional PP for > MI than for a CPU. Sorry, but this is not correct. If you rule MI, you ask "Could the opponents have done better if they had known the correct information?" Typically this will only happen if they could have inserted a lead-directing double or found a good save or some such thing. On the other hand, if you rule CPU, the whole auction is illegal. In the EBU, you would assign a 60/30 score (and consider a PP separately). Elsewhere, you would ask "What contract would the pair reach (in the L12C2 sense) if they were playing a legal system?" From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Apr 22 03:16:29 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Apr 22 03:17:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Fourteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <200504211346.j3LDkvPd008819@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504211346.j3LDkvPd008819@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4268506D.1060807@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > So if someone tanks for 20 seconds, it suggests something > different than if he had tanked for 30? I don't believe it. In real life there is seldom a difference between 20 and 30 s. There is often a huge difference between 3 and 30 s. > Here you seem to be talking about the difference between a faster than > normal tempo and a slower than normal tempo, rather than the difference > between a slower than normal tempo and an even slower than normal > tempo. Sorry, the example probably confused the issue. I did write "at the extremes," but please just ignore it. > You know, the laws don't speak to "hesitation", but to "undue > hesitation". L16A says "unmistakeable hesitation" among many other examples. The key point is that when partner has suggested something by means other than legal calls and plays, there are restrictions. Exactly what those restrictions are depends on what partner has suggested. > Yet every time I see a case where "hesitation" is > involved, it seems that "undue" is assumed. I'd rather see reports > speak to the alleged offender's normal tempo, and his tempo on the call > in question, rather than some number of seconds the call took. Yes, the additional information would be quite helpful if it is available. In real life, it usually isn't. We have to judge "normal tempo" according to the situation. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 22 03:42:36 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Apr 22 03:43:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Fifteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <200504211641.JAA08429@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001001c546dc$91799160$0a9468d5@James> ]Adam Beneschan] > As far as I know, THERE ARE NO SUCH REGULATIONS in the > ACBL. There is an Alert chart that describes what > conventions are alertable and which aren't. The five > grades of doubles are in the "Definitions" section > of the Alert chart. These definitions are there to help > understand what the rest of the chart means when it > tells which doubles are alertable and which aren't. > These are NOT regulations that make rules about what > players must mean when they use these terms to describe > a double. (And even if they were, "penalty, primarily" > is not on this chart, so you can't use it against them.) > The more I think about it, the less sympathy I have > for Levin/Weinstein for their appeal. I think they > were trying to win a board by lawyering. [Nigel] The ACBL and EBU regulations define five grades of double (from "take-out" to "penalty") but the definitions aren't "regulations", nor did I claim them to be. They are probably intended to provide players with a common vocabulary for describing partnership doubling agreements on convention cards and when asked in cases like that under discussion. After the shock of seeing the hand on which East doubled Lewin/Weinstein may have felt that the opposition agreement might be nearer *action". Like you, the committee and director decided, on the contrary, that West's description of "penalty primarily" accurately described their partnership-agreement. Furthermore, American BLMLers seem to agree that East has a hand fitting that description -- probably a trans-Atlantic difference in nomenclature. If so, the ACBL may need to update their glossary of doubles. Our Orange Book definitions will remain useful to us. Over here, most of us speak a similar language to Lewin and Weinstein. The committee imputed that when Lewin/Weinstein asked what a call meant it was a "trick question". That seems as libellous as your accusation of "lawyering". Nevertheless, I suppose this could explain the weird AWMW. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 22 04:24:06 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Apr 22 04:24:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Seventeen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050421004828.035dbd38@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <004701c546e2$5c79b340$0a9468d5@James> > [Richard James Hills CASE N-17] > Subject: MI > DIC: Gary Zeiger > NA Swiss 1st Final > Brd: 18 \ Claire Tornay > Dlr: East \ AQT5 > Vul: NS \ KQ5 > \ Q865 > \J2 > Ken Stuckey \ Marshall Miles > KJ63 \ 42 > A832 \ JT7 > K7 \ AJ32 > 965 \ AQT8 > Paul Morris\ > 987 \ > 964 \ > T94 \ > K743 \ > > West North East South > --- --- 1D Pass > 1H Pass 2H Pass > 3C(1) Pass 3H Pass > Pass Pass >(1) Disputed meaning, see text below. > The Facts: 3H made three for EW +140 after the lead of > the SA. The director was called after the play of the > hand. Playing behind screens, after the 3C bid North > asked about the agreement of 3C and was told natural. > She then asked if 3D would be forcing and was told no. > She then asked again about 3C and East quoted their > system notes as proof - 3C is natural, not a help suit > try. > The Ruling: The director originally ruled the table > result of 3H making stood. After the round, EW produced > system notes clearly stating a new suit by responder > would be a help suit game try. Thus the result was > changed to 3 down one -50 for EW. The director felt he > should protect the non-offenders unless EW could offer > clear and convincing defense for their action. > Other Information: The director explained that the > initial ruling relied on the ACBL's definition of > length as being at least three cards when the suit > is a minor. The revised ruling was based on the EW > system notes in combination with the directing staff's > belief that a holding of three small was consistent > with a help suit game try but not with a standard > game try. > The Appeal: EW appealed and explained that although > they had voluminous system notes, they were in fact a > new partnership and that this was the first event they > had played together. Since each had sent the other a > set, they actually had two sets of system notes and it > was not clear to either of them which set, if either, > they had agreed to play. East showed the Committee a > hand-written list of sequences he had discussed with > his partner where he disagreed with the treatment in > the notes he had been sent. He explained that he would > never have agreed to play a treatment such as "help > suit game tries" when the partnership did not yet know > whether it held an eight card fit. West explained that > part of his reason for bidding 3C was that he hoped to > attract a spade lead. > Statements by the other side: North explained that had > she been informed that EW were using help suit game > tries, she would have made a different lead. > The decision: Based on two differing sets of system > notes and the EW testimony, the Committee determined > that EW did not have any agreement about the 3C call. > They found that East, while perhaps trying to be > helpful, did provide MI to North by representing that > EW had a firm agreement. The Committee discounted > West's testimony that he had simply chosen to make a > deceptive call since he had apparently not mentioned > such intent either at the table or in screening. > The Committee determined that an infraction had been > committed and examined Law 40C: "If the director > decides that a side has been damaged through its > opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a > call or play, he may award an adjusted score." > They then considered what information was passed by > the actual explanation of "length" as opposed to the > proper explanation of "no special agreement". The > Committee felt that without any special agreement, > both North and East would expect West's 3C bid to > deliver at least three clubs. Given the ACBL's > definition of "length" they concluded that the > information conveyed from the incorrect explanation > was substantially the same as the information that > would have been conveyed by a correct explanation. > Therefore, NS were damaged by an unlucky opening > lead rather than through their opponent's infraction. > The table result of EW making 3H for +140 was allowed > to stand. Since the director's assigned result was > adjusted, the appeal clearly had merit. > The Committee: Adam Wildavsky, Chairperson, > Mark Feldman, Doug Doub, Chris Willenken, and > Chris Moll. [Nigel] IMO, the director was right, the committee wrong. East's explanation was MI. Under current rules, he should have explained 3C as "I'm not sure. My partner wanted to play such bids as a help-suit game-tries but I prefer to play them as natural. I'm not sure whether or how this point was resolved." Given a correct explanation, North might well have led a club to defeat 3H. From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 05:39:59 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Apr 22 05:40:58 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 18:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) > Roger Pewick: > > [snip] > > >Just where is the dividing line? -not merely where it > >might be. Until enough wisdom is used to get at basics > >players will be plagued with uncertainty and many > >adjustments that are felt to less than justice. > > Richard Hills: > > (1) Some bridge facts, such as whether or not a revoke > has occurred, need a mechanical determination by the TD. > > (2) Some other bridge facts, such as whether or not a > partnership has an implicit agreement, need a fuzzy > logic judgement determination by the TD. Currently it is the TD that tells partners what there agreements were. Given the ramifications Partners would probably prefer to [be able to] know what their agreements are before the round rather than be caught unawares after the fact. At least then there would be the possibility of not having to call the TD in the first place. > (3) The word "may" (in the Law 75B phrase "but habitual > violations within a partnership **may** create implicit > agreements") has been amplified in the WBF Code of > Practice. It seems to me that, If to you it merely 'seems' what about the rest of us that have not studied so hard to acheive as much understanding as you have. I am thinking about 'knowing unequivocally'- and not just you knowing, but anyone who cares to read the law. regards roger pewick > in a nutshell, the WBF > CoP divides the line on whether the partner of the > habitual violator is likely to have remembered previous > habitual violations at the time of the current habitual > violation. > That is, if a memory is likely to exist, then the > partnership has an implicit agreement. If a memory is > not likely to exist, then the partnership does not > have a Law 75B implicit agreement. > > The WBF CoP does not discuss whether or not an implicit > partnership agreement might be created via a route not > involving Law 75B. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Fri Apr 22 05:42:33 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Apr 22 05:43:40 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050422034233.78400.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Roger Pewick: > > [snip] > > >Just where is the dividing line? -not merely where > it > >might be. Until enough wisdom is used to get at > basics > >players will be plagued with uncertainty and many > >adjustments that are felt to less than justice. > > Richard Hills: > > (1) Some bridge facts, such as whether or not a > revoke > has occurred, need a mechanical determination by the > TD. > > (2) Some other bridge facts, such as whether or not > a > partnership has an implicit agreement, need a fuzzy > logic judgement determination by the TD. I am far from convinced that this is the best approach. > > (3) The word "may" (in the Law 75B phrase "but > habitual > violations within a partnership **may** create > implicit > agreements") has been amplified in the WBF Code of > Practice. It seems to me that, in a nutshell, the > WBF > CoP divides the line on whether the partner of the > habitual violator is likely to have remembered > previous > habitual violations at the time of the current > habitual > violation. The CoP uses this criterion for psychic bids not for all habitual violations. Grattan has stated on this forum that the intention of the criteria in the CoP was that these were necessary but not sufficient to create a partnership understanding. This concurs with a plain reading of the CoP. This means the line is clearly drawn away from the point that you believe. > > That is, if a memory is likely to exist, then the > partnership has an implicit agreement. If a memory > is > not likely to exist, then the partnership does not > have a Law 75B implicit agreement. No! The language of the CoP and L75B is that "if a memory exists, then the partnership *may have* an implicit agreement > The WBF CoP does not discuss whether or not an > implicit > partnership agreement might be created via a route > not > involving Law 75B. In the case of psychic bids it states that it can only exist if one of the criteria stated are met. "This will be the case only if ..." This means in no other cases can an "implicit partnership agreement" exist concerning a psychic bid. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 22 07:27:46 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 22 07:28:55 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>has been amplified in the WBF Code of >>Practice. It seems to me that, [snip] Roger Pewick: >If to you it merely 'seems' what about the >rest of us that have not studied so hard to >achieve as much understanding as you have. I >am thinking about 'knowing unequivocally' - >and not just you knowing, but anyone who >cares to read the law. Richard Hills: We definitely agree on this point. It is ridiculous that the 1997 edition of the Laws is so impenetrable that a clarifying Code of Practice was deemed necessary. In my humble opinion, part of the cause of the impenetrability of the Laws was Edgar Kaplan's habit of using a single nuanced word (when a less obsessively concise drafter of Laws might have used a clearcut explanatory paragraph). As I recall, a controversial appeal in the 1990 World Championship hinged upon a single nuanced word "manifestly" in the championship's Conditions of Contest. :-( Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From ASWCMMMELVT at clfontario.org Fri Apr 22 08:35:53 2005 From: ASWCMMMELVT at clfontario.org (Nannie) Date: Fri Apr 22 07:40:31 2005 Subject: [blml] you can save few hundreds bucks a month Vonda Message-ID: <0.0637.8B8C@mac.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050422/820a749d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 22 08:07:15 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 22 08:08:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050421204740.01ca9108@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David J. Grabiner: >Both pass and 4H are LA's; my choice is 4H. Yes, >partner bid 3H as competitive, not invitational, but >this looks like a magic fit hand; we appear to have >ten hearts and nothing wasted in spades. It's >possible that 3S and 4H will both make, and not that >likely that 4H will be down two doubled when the >opponents aren't about to bid and make 4S, or down >when 3S is making. That is, I am expecting 19 total >tricks; if partner has six hearts and one spade, or >five hearts and no spades, there are 18 total trumps >but the pure spade situation argues for a 19th. >(And if partner did bid 3H with only five, he should >have good hearts and an offensive hand.) Richard Hills: At the table the actual South reasoned just as David did, and raised to 4H. This was the complete deal -> Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South JT2 K8753 A3 A83 KQ7 A64 Q AJ6 Q862 T974 KT964 Q52 9853 T942 KJ5 J7 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Pass 2H 2S 3H 3S 4H Dble Pass Pass Pass The defence had no difficulty winning three spades, one club and two trumps for +800. Given David's logic, South's 4H call was neither irrational, nor wild, nor gambling. But, given Sven Pran's logic on determining concealed partnership understandings, would Sven rule that East illegally fielded West's psyche (via their underbid of 3S) if East did not volunteer a "beyond reasonable doubt" statement which satisfied Sven's onus of proof? Given East's underbid of 3S, would an EBU TD classify West's psyche as Green, Amber or Moulin Rouge? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 09:03:03 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Fri Apr 22 09:04:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Eighteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: [blml] Eighteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook >Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:10:02 +1000 > > > > > >This is the eighteenth of 18 parallel threads, which will >eventually be collated into an unofficial blml casebook to >supplement the official ACBL casebook. If any blmlers prefer >to comment on all 18 cases in one hit, send me a private email >for a Word doc. > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > >* * * > >CASE N-18 >Subject: MI >DIC: Gary Zeiger >NA Swiss Final > >Brd: 8 \ Jeff Schuett >Dlr: West \ 32 >Vul: None \ AT85 > \ T96 > \QJT9 >Jim Griffin \ Pat Griffin >J965 \ AK4 >Q9 \ K764 >7532 \ AKQJ8 >K87 \ 3 > Kerry Smith\ > QT87 \ > J32 \ > 4 \ > A6542 \ > >West North East South >Pass Pass 1C(1) 1D(2) >Pass(3) 2H(4) Dbl(5) 2S(6) >2NT Pass 3NT Pass >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Artificial 16+ >(2) 2 suits color on East side of screen, > Major/Minor on West side I strongly suspect that the write-up is incorrect above. From what appears below, it seems that east got the explanation that 1D showed both majors or both minors and west both black suits or both red suits. That's the most logical also, since that means south's explanation to west is in accordance with his actual holding. If that is correct and, supposing NS play CRASH as it normally is, east got the systemically correct information, since south misbid. The correct CRASH bid from south is a double, showing two suits of the same color. Anyone knowing the true story here? Regards, Harald Skj?ran >(3) 5-7 HCP >(4) pass or correct >(5) Shows strong hand (or takeout of s) >(6) 2S confirms blacks to East and Major to West > >The Facts: The final contract was 3NT down one for a score of >NS +50 after the CQ lead. The director was called after the >hand. > >Three other players were consulted and all bid 3D with the >correct explanation. > >The Ruling: EW were damaged by an incorrect explanation of >CRASH. With the consultation with and input of expert >testimony, the non-offenders were assigned the most favorable >result likely 5D +5 and the score was changed to EW +400 (Law >40C and Law 12C2). > >The Appeal: NS felt that Law 12C2 should not lead to an EW >recoupment of the full benefit of playing 5D. > >Statements by the other side: East assumed South had both >majors with 6-4 shape for example for the 2S call. > >The Decision: The AC felt that there was clearly MI. It had >damaged EW. East might have been more tempted to bid 3D >instead of 3NT had she been properly informed. > >The discussion among the Committee members focused on West's >2NT bid and East's decision to bid 3NT instead of 3D. While EW >might have ended up defending 2S doubled instead of bidding >2NT, his decision was hardly unreasonable. The AC thought less >of the 3NT bid. However, while it seemed better to bid 3D >instead of 3NT, there was no feeling by the majority that the >call was bad enough to sever the connection between the MI and >the damage. > >One member of the AC did feel that the combination of the 2NT >and the 3NT bid was enough to sever the link. However, the >majority felt that given the level of East and the superiority >of West, both calls were reasonable actions. Therefore, the >adjusted result assigned by the director of 5D making five >stands. > >Given the position of one member and the relatively >uncommitted position of a second, no AWMW was issued. > >The Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Doug Doub, Mark >Feldman, Chris Moss, and Chris Willkenen. > > >_______________________________________________ >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 svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 22 09:17:25 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 22 09:18:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c5470b$5582e060$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au ................ > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > JT2 > K8753 > A3 > A83 > KQ7 A64 > Q AJ6 > Q862 T974 > KT964 Q52 > 9853 > T942 > KJ5 > J7 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1H Pass 2H > 2S 3H 3S 4H > Dble Pass Pass Pass > > The defence had no difficulty winning three spades, > one club and two trumps for +800. > > Given David's logic, South's 4H call was neither > irrational, nor wild, nor gambling. > > But, given Sven Pran's logic on determining concealed > partnership understandings, would Sven rule that East > illegally fielded West's psyche (via their underbid of > 3S) if East did not volunteer a "beyond reasonable > doubt" statement which satisfied Sven's onus of proof? > > Given East's underbid of 3S, would an EBU TD classify > West's psyche as Green, Amber or Moulin Rouge? Since my name is dragged into this: First of all: IMO South had no alternative to pass, he has told his story with his raise to 2H and has no additional values. West has made a simple (competitive) bid white vs. red indicating a hand that can be expected to make five tricks. Does East have reason to jump to game? How many tricks can East provide? If East is known as normally a very aggressive bidder then I could begin suspecting something, but we have not been given any such indication. So my answer is no, I do not consider CPU in this case as it is described. (And I suppose it may be understood from this that I consider South's raise to 4H rather wild and being the main reason for the disaster. In fact even the raise to 3H in North is IMO doubtful, where are his additional values against a simple raise from partner?) Sven From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 09:24:59 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Fri Apr 22 09:26:01 2005 Subject: [blml] It's Your (Director) Call.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: > >Harald Skj?ran wrote >>>From: Bruce McIntyre >>>To: blml >>>Subject: [blml] It's Your (Director) Call.... >>>Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:19:34 -0700 >>> >>>(Work trip ahead; chew on this one while I'm away for a few days...) >>> >>>Board 17 NORTH IMP Pairs >>>None vul S J964 (X-IMPS) >>>N Dealer H 86 ACBL Club Game >>> D AKQJ94 >>> WEST C 9 EAST >>>S KQ2 S T7 >>>H Q942 H T7 >>>D 8 D T762 >>>C K7654 SOUTH C AQJT8 >>> S A853 >>> H AKJ53 >>> D 53 >>> C 32 >>> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> Pass Pass 2D >>>Dble 2N 3C 3H >>>Pass 3S Pass 4S >>>Dble End >>> >>>There are no alerts in the auction. >>> >>>The TD is called after the North player bids 3S. North has 'woken up' >>>and tells E-W that 2D was Flannery (11-15, 4 spades and 5 hearts). >> >>I've got a big problem here. As the write-up doesn't tell me what kind >>of infractioan took place. >>Either north forgot to alert 2D, and we have a potential MI problem. >>Or north forgot the meaning of 2D (what on earth did he believe it was >>when bidding 2N?), south used UI from the missing alert to wake up >>north, and we have an UI case. > > Bruce said North "woke up" and realised it was Flannery. I think it >is clear that 2D was Flannery by partnership agreement. Has anyone questioned that? South's opening and north's late explanation make it almost a certainty that they use Flannery. Nothing in the write-up indicate they don't. Are you trying to be funny??? Regards, Harald > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > >Currently having problems from home email so these >messages are resent and very late. Web: blakjak.com > >_______________________________________________ >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 Fri Apr 22 09:39:30 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 22 09:39:08 2005 Subject: [blml] DeWael School on the rampage Message-ID: <4268AA32.3060803@hdw.be> Let me set the scene: I was playing with a semi-regular partner. About two years ago, we started playing together in a small group and I thought the group some new conventions. Since then, the group has split and yesterday I played with this lady for the first time in months - level: slightly below mine (yes that does exist). The convention in question is Roudinesco. A sort of check-back stayman: 1m - 1M 1NT - 2Cl asks for number of M and point range - the answers 2D and 2NT show a 2-card holding in responders suit (resp minimum and maximum in values) while 2 in the other major shows 3 cards and a maximum hand (13-14). We are playing against two young gentlemen and in the first two boards their bidding starts like above, and they alert and explain 2Cl as "check-back". So twice we reply that we play Roudinesco instead. That is why the convention is so fresh in partner's mind that she starts seeing ghosts. On the third board, the bidding goes: Me Part 1Sp 1NT 2Cl alert, question, reply : Roudinesco. Let me make a list of the things I did not do: (1) I did not fall off my chair when she alerted (2) I did not say "you stupid cow" when she answered Roudinesco OK so far? So now she bid 2He. Two more things I did not do: (3) I did not fail to alert Of course they ask what 2He means (4) I did not reply anything else than "3 spades, maximum hand" Next comes an interesting question. Given that it is UI to me that she holds 3Spades, what should be my next bid holding Axxxx KQx x AKxx ? I chose 4He, but considering that this should show a control and not be passed, maybe 3He is even less "suggested". Anyway, my point is this. If I cannot do (1) and (2) by L75D2, then why should I be allowed to do (3) or (4)? They turn out to be exactly the same, and L75D2 says "indicate in any manner"! Let me say one more thing. I am obliged by the UI to bid something like 4H. My partner has no UI, and she is free to bid. She chooses 5D. Now I don't know at all what I am to do and I bid 5Sp. Again, without UI, she selects to pass. If OTOH, I do what most of you want me to do, that is explain 2He in some other manner than how she clearly intended it, then I give UI. Now her actions are restrained and if we do end up in 5Sp the TD might still rule that she used the UI and change the contract to 6Sp or 4He or 7Cl or something. Sadly, hearts were 4-2 or I would have scored an average +450. Now it was a lone -50 among +420s. -- 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: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 20/04/2005 From georgiev_d at yahoo.com Fri Apr 22 09:58:57 2005 From: georgiev_d at yahoo.com (Dimitr Georgiev) Date: Fri Apr 22 10:00:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia Message-ID: <20050422075857.65816.qmail@web54506.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all, An interesting claim case was happened last weekend in Bulgarian teams. Board 12 W/N-S AJ92 10964 QJ103 2 K43 Q1086 A73 KJ8 A972 - Q103 AKJ854 75 Q52 K8654 976 E played 6cl. Lead: d5. Declarer ruffed, played spade to the K and A, another diamond ruffed, 3 rounds trumps ending in dummy, then she finessed the sJ, another spade to the Q and then she played the last trump and went do the dummy playing heart to the A. Cashed the A of diamond discarding spade and the situation is as follow: J 10 - - - - 7 KJ 9 - - - - Q K - Declarer played heart from dummy, N followed and she showed her cards without any statement and wrote the result one down. After few minutes she called the td and explained that she want an extra trick because she actually made double squeeze. She also confessed that she didn’t consider playing for squeeze. The level of declarer is high. I ruled 6cl made. Any suggestions, please. Best regards, Dimitar Georgiev __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From georgiev_d at yahoo.com Fri Apr 22 09:58:58 2005 From: georgiev_d at yahoo.com (Dimitr Georgiev) Date: Fri Apr 22 10:00:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia Message-ID: <20050422075858.3313.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all, An interesting claim case was happened last weekend in Bulgarian teams. Board 12 W/N-S AJ92 10964 QJ103 2 K43 Q1086 A73 KJ8 A972 - Q103 AKJ854 75 Q52 K8654 976 E played 6cl. Lead: d5. Declarer ruffed, played spade to the K and A, another diamond ruffed, 3 rounds trumps ending in dummy, then she finessed the sJ, another spade to the Q and then she played the last trump and went do the dummy playing heart to the A. Cashed the A of diamond discarding spade and the situation is as follow: J 10 - - - - 7 KJ 9 - - - - Q K - Declarer played heart from dummy, N followed and she showed her cards without any statement and wrote the result one down. After few minutes she called the td and explained that she want an extra trick because she actually made double squeeze. She also confessed that she didn’t consider playing for squeeze. The level of declarer is high. I ruled 6cl made. Any suggestions, please. Best regards, Dimitar Georgiev __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 22 10:03:48 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 22 10:03:26 2005 Subject: [blml] DeWael School on the rampage In-Reply-To: <4268AA32.3060803@hdw.be> References: <4268AA32.3060803@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4268AFE4.7010202@hdw.be> Herman De Wael wrote: > Let me set the scene: > I was playing with a semi-regular partner. About two years ago, we > started playing together in a small group and I thought the group some make that ^^^^^^^ taught > new conventions. Since then, the group has split and yesterday I played > with this lady for the first time in months - level: slightly below mine > (yes that does exist). > > The convention in question is Roudinesco. A sort of check-back stayman: > 1m - 1M > 1NT - 2Cl asks for number of M and point range - the answers 2D and 2NT > show a 2-card holding in responders suit (resp minimum and maximum in > values) while 2 in the other major shows 3 cards and a maximum hand > (13-14). > > We are playing against two young gentlemen and in the first two boards > their bidding starts like above, and they alert and explain 2Cl as > "check-back". So twice we reply that we play Roudinesco instead. That is > why the convention is so fresh in partner's mind that she starts seeing > ghosts. > > On the third board, the bidding goes: > > Me Part > 1Sp 1NT > 2Cl alert, question, reply : Roudinesco. > > Let me make a list of the things I did not do: > > (1) I did not fall off my chair when she alerted > (2) I did not say "you stupid cow" when she answered Roudinesco > > OK so far? > > So now she bid 2He. > Two more things I did not do: > > (3) I did not fail to alert > > Of course they ask what 2He means > > (4) I did not reply anything else than "3 spades, maximum hand" > > Next comes an interesting question. Given that it is UI to me that she > holds 3Spades, what should be my next bid holding Axxxx KQx x AKxx ? > I chose 4He, but considering that this should show a control and not be > passed, maybe 3He is even less "suggested". > > Anyway, my point is this. If I cannot do (1) and (2) by L75D2, then why > should I be allowed to do (3) or (4)? They turn out to be exactly the > same, and L75D2 says "indicate in any manner"! > > Let me say one more thing. I am obliged by the UI to bid something like > 4H. My partner has no UI, and she is free to bid. She chooses 5D. Now I > don't know at all what I am to do and I bid 5Sp. Again, without UI, she > selects to pass. If OTOH, I do what most of you want me to do, that is > explain 2He in some other manner than how she clearly intended it, then > I give UI. Now her actions are restrained and if we do end up in 5Sp the > TD might still rule that she used the UI and change the contract to 6Sp > or 4He or 7Cl or something. > Sadly, hearts were 4-2 or I would have scored an average +450. Now it > was a lone -50 among +420s. > -- 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: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 22 10:46:32 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 22 10:46:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <20050422075857.65816.qmail@web54506.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050422075857.65816.qmail@web54506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4268B9E8.5080106@hdw.be> Dimitr Georgiev wrote: > Hi all, > > An interesting claim case was happened last weekend in > Bulgarian teams. > > Board 12 > W/N-S > AJ92 > 10964 > QJ103 > 2 > K43 Q1086 > A73 KJ8 > A972 - > Q103 AKJ854 > 75 > Q52 > K8654 > 976 > > E played 6cl. > Lead: d5. > > Declarer ruffed, played spade to the K and A, another > diamond ruffed, 3 rounds trumps ending in dummy, then > she finessed the sJ, another spade to the Q and then > she played the last trump and went do the dummy > playing heart to the A. Cashed the A of diamond > discarding spade and the situation is as follow: > > J > 10 > - > - > - - > 7 KJ > 9 - > - - > - > Q > K > - > > Declarer played heart from dummy, N followed and she > showed her cards without any statement and wrote the > result one down. After few minutes she called the td > and explained that she want an extra trick because she > actually made double squeeze. She also confessed that > she didn?t consider playing for squeeze. The level of > declarer is high. > I ruled 6cl made. > > Any suggestions, please. > Hello Dimitr, long time no see/hear/read. I don't consider the squeeze to be important. There is also no claim, actually, since play to the penultimate trick had already started. If opponents accepted one down, they must have agreed that declarer played the king to the penultimate trick, or else it would be two off. So declarer actually made 12 tricks, without any claim (or with a concession in the 13th one - concession that is cancelled by L71A). > > -- 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: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Apr 22 10:53:06 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri Apr 22 10:54:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia Message-ID: <20050422085306.D542C303218@poczta.interia.pl> >Dimitr Georgiev napisa?(a): > Hi all, > > An interesting claim case was happened last weekend in > Bulgarian teams. > > Board 12 > W/N-S > AJ92 > 10964 > QJ103 > 2 > K43 Q1086 > A73 KJ8 > A972 - > Q103 AKJ854 > 75 > Q52 > K8654 > 976 > > E played 6cl. > Lead: d5. > > Declarer ruffed, played spade to the K and A, another > diamond ruffed, 3 rounds trumps ending in dummy, then > she finessed the sJ, another spade to the Q and then > she played the last trump and went do the dummy > playing heart to the A. Cashed the A of diamond > discarding spade and the situation is as follow: > > J > 10 > - > - > - - > 7 KJ > 9 - > - - > - > Q > K > - > > Declarer played heart from dummy, N followed and she > showed her cards without any statement and wrote the > result one down. After few minutes she called the td > and explained that she want an extra trick because she > actually made double squeeze. Aaaa - yes, if a player sets up a squeeze he must be given the rest of the trick no matter what. I remember the first squeeze I made in my life. I was playing with a player from Second Division (which was miles above me at that time). Near the end of the hand I cashed AK dropping the doubleton queen offside. - Congratulations! - said my partner. - He bared his queen, you know - I responded. - He had to! - He did? Getting back to your problem - the postion is obvious, North has the sJ and a heart in the remaing two-card ending. When it turns out the his last heart is not the queen it is obvious to play the king. But, equally obviously, all this is miles away from declarer who claims in this position and writes one-down. Whatever class of player East claimed to belong she lost contact with the deal - she was convinced that the heart queen was doubleton offside (the only reason for that "one down" comment). And if you believe (as declarer did) that the layout is x x KJ Qx than playing the jack is certainly not irrational - it is as good as the king. > I ruled 6cl made. As I once wrote on this list - the most crazy rulings (sorry, Dimitr!! When I happen to be in Sofia I'll buy you a beer if you are still talking to me) I faced as a player were the "equity" rulings. If the laws were mechanical (as David Burn once suggested) every TD would simply rule -1 here. Letting declarer make her contract on this deal is beyond my ken. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f186c From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Apr 22 10:54:45 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Apr 22 10:55:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Eighteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21 Apr 2005, at 23:10, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Statements by the other side: East assumed South had both > majors with 6-4 shape for example for the 2S call. I'm puzzled by why East might assume this: we're told in (6) that "2S confirms blacks to East...", which is precisely what South holds. I accept that EW have been given misinformation, but at no point were either of them given information that was inconsistent with the actual holding. Presumably Major/Minor means a major and a minor - not the majors or the minors? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 22 10:55:33 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 22 10:56:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <20050422075857.65816.qmail@web54506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000501c54719$0b5d8540$6900a8c0@WINXP> One down. Law 71A (and 71C): She has conceded a trick that is indeed lost if she plays her JH in the ending position. Such a play is not irrational. Her concession shall not be cancelled. Law 70E would have been relevant if you had been called to the table directly on the claim. In that case she should not have been allowed to drop the Queen when she made no claim statement to the effect that she knew it would drop. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Dimitr Georgiev > Sent: 22. april 2005 09:59 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > Hi all, > > An interesting claim case was happened last weekend in > Bulgarian teams. > > Board 12 > W/N-S > AJ92 > 10964 > QJ103 > 2 > K43 Q1086 > A73 KJ8 > A972 - > Q103 AKJ854 > 75 > Q52 > K8654 > 976 > > E played 6cl. > Lead: d5. > > Declarer ruffed, played spade to the K and A, another > diamond ruffed, 3 rounds trumps ending in dummy, then > she finessed the sJ, another spade to the Q and then > she played the last trump and went do the dummy > playing heart to the A. Cashed the A of diamond > discarding spade and the situation is as follow: > > J > 10 > - > - > - - > 7 KJ > 9 - > - - > - > Q > K > - > > Declarer played heart from dummy, N followed and she > showed her cards without any statement and wrote the > result one down. After few minutes she called the td > and explained that she want an extra trick because she > actually made double squeeze. She also confessed that > she didn't consider playing for squeeze. The level of > declarer is high. > I ruled 6cl made. > > Any suggestions, please. > > > Best regards, > > Dimitar Georgiev > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Apr 22 11:07:05 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri Apr 22 11:07:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia References: <000501c54719$0b5d8540$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003301c5471a$a7d98760$0307a8c0@david> No - It can never be 1 down. Either 2 down if the J is played, or making if the K is played. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 9:55 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Claim in Sofia One down. Law 71A (and 71C): She has conceded a trick that is indeed lost if she plays her JH in the ending position. Such a play is not irrational. Her concession shall not be cancelled. Law 70E would have been relevant if you had been called to the table directly on the claim. In that case she should not have been allowed to drop the Queen when she made no claim statement to the effect that she knew it would drop. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Dimitr Georgiev > Sent: 22. april 2005 09:59 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > Hi all, > > An interesting claim case was happened last weekend in > Bulgarian teams. > > Board 12 > W/N-S > AJ92 > 10964 > QJ103 > 2 > K43 Q1086 > A73 KJ8 > A972 - > Q103 AKJ854 > 75 > Q52 > K8654 > 976 > > E played 6cl. > Lead: d5. > > Declarer ruffed, played spade to the K and A, another > diamond ruffed, 3 rounds trumps ending in dummy, then > she finessed the sJ, another spade to the Q and then > she played the last trump and went do the dummy > playing heart to the A. Cashed the A of diamond > discarding spade and the situation is as follow: > > J > 10 > - > - > - - > 7 KJ > 9 - > - - > - > Q > K > - > > Declarer played heart from dummy, N followed and she > showed her cards without any statement and wrote the > result one down. After few minutes she called the td > and explained that she want an extra trick because she > actually made double squeeze. She also confessed that > she didn't consider playing for squeeze. The level of > declarer is high. > I ruled 6cl made. > > Any suggestions, please. > > > Best regards, > > Dimitar Georgiev > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ 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: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Fri Apr 22 11:14:39 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri Apr 22 11:11:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Fifteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <001001c546dc$91799160$0a9468d5@James> Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, GUTHRIE wrote: > The ACBL and EBU regulations define five grades of double > (from "take-out" to "penalty") but the definitions > aren't "regulations", nor did I claim them to be. They > are probably intended to provide players with a common > vocabulary for describing partnership doubling agreements > on convention cards and when asked in cases like that under > discussion. They are singularly unhelpful for that purpose. "Optional," in particular, means something wildly different depending who your partner is and what book he has read. >After the shock of seeing the hand on which > East doubled Lewin/Weinstein may have felt that the > opposition agreement might be nearer *action". Not one of the terms in the ACBL description, you will notice. Like you, > the committee and director decided, on the contrary, that > West's description of "penalty primarily" accurately > described their partnership-agreement. Furthermore, American > BLMLers seem to agree that East has a hand fitting that > description -- probably a trans-Atlantic difference in > nomenclature. Put another way: we think it is general bridge knowledge that if the auction is at a high level, a fit has already been found, and there aren't many unbid suits left, double means "I think we are beating this more often than we are making if we bid on," without any promises of exactly where our defensive tricks are coming from. It's a sequence where no common conventional doubles apply. "Trick question" is a little unkind, yes; but it's a question you could ask 10 established partnerships, and 9 1/2 of them would shrug and say "it's just bridge" or something similar. A question with essentially zero chance of eliciting useful information about your opponents' system. A polite person would say the question was just asked to stall for time while the victim of the double tried to dream up a way off the hook; a suspicious one would point out the possibility of using the non-answer you're guaranteed to receive against the non-answerer. To this American observer, the AWMW is not weird; the fact a director and committee got involved at all is weird, and the AWMW flamingly obvious. Yes, obviously some perceptual differences between EBU and ACBL here. GRB From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Apr 22 11:15:02 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri Apr 22 11:16:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia Message-ID: <20050422091502.D782E3031DB@poczta.interia.pl> Herman De Wael napisa?(a): > There is also no claim, actually, since play to the penultimate trick > had already started. L68A says nothing about the penultimate trick. > If opponents accepted one down, they must have agreed that declarer > played the king to the penultimate trick, or else it would be two off. So? North - South were not counting, that's it. You are punishing them for not counting and at the same time you are rewarding declarer for not counting. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ------------------------------------------------------------------ Twoja komorka ledwo zipie? Sciagnij sobie na tapete najwiekszego silacza... Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1875 << From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Apr 22 11:25:52 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Apr 22 11:26:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <20050422085306.D542C303218@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050422085306.D542C303218@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <922303732140428faa4b779b093974bb@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 22 Apr 2005, at 09:53, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > If the laws were mechanical > (as David Burn once suggested) every TD > would simply rule -1 here. No, they wouldn't, because -1 is not a possible result. > > Letting declarer make her contract > on this deal is beyond my ken. Either you rule that declarer made her contract, or that it was -2. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Apr 22 11:05:19 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Apr 22 11:28:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: Message-ID: <00d101c5471c$f8daea80$97964c51@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: Friday, April 15, 2005 1:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the leopard > > Annual changes to the Laws would exacerbate a > minor confusion to major chaos. > > (2) Obscure minutes and interpretations are > indeed not helpful if national bridge > organisations do not publicise them. For > example, none of the WBF LC minutes have ever > been published in the national ABF Newsletter. > > The solution to this ball of wax is for the > 2007 Laws to be written in unambiguous plain > English and to be arranged in a logical and > user-friendly format. If so, then subsequent > obscure minutes interpreting the 2007 Laws > would not be required. > +=+ The history of the laws shows that the WBFLC (and its predecessors) have been throughout reluctant in the extreme to make changes outside of the periodic reviews of the totality of the laws. Interpretations are made available to NBOs where some isolated problem has been revealed. The problem has to be serious and fundamental to occasion a rare shift in the laws. Such changes do occur, but very rarely. We are in no position to force an NBO to implement an interpretation if it gets lost in the bureaucracy of the NBO's head office, or as it may be occasionally, if it "gets lost" there. The practice of over 55 years is unlikely to change although in latter times we have the strength of the internet about us when we communicate. We are trying to meet Richard's 'desired solution' and I have just spent several days in scrutiny, face to face with my chairman who has a degree in English language from an English University, of the current drafts of the proposals for the future. Quite a number of the expressions have been tweaked - he has a conservative approach to language which, for laws to be translated into Pidgin Portuguese etc., is arguably a good thing. I found it heartening when the WBF CTD was consulted about an anxiety that TDs might have difficulties finding their way about in a code of law looking very different from the last - he uttered a single word that I will transcribe as "bo***cks". It seems he regards TDs as intelligent beings with the talent to learn swiftly. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. my belief, regularly put to the drafting subcommittee, is that the law book should be a stand-alone document containing what a TD needs when he lacks close support from his NBO, as some do - we have to recognize that the more sophisticated bridge nations are not the test bed for the adequacy of the law book. From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 22 11:28:14 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 22 11:29:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <4268B9E8.5080106@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000601c5471d$9c0564b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................... > I don't consider the squeeze to be important. > There is also no claim, actually, since play to the penultimate trick > had already started. Until declarer has played from both hands to the twelfth trick she can still "claim" one or both the remaining two tricks? But there was indeed no claim here; there was a concession of one trick which was accepted by the defenders. > If opponents accepted one down, they must have agreed that declarer > played the king to the penultimate trick, or else it would be two off. > So declarer actually made 12 tricks, without any claim (or with a > concession in the 13th one - concession that is cancelled by L71A). The concession was made and accepted. If anything is to be done afterwards (on request from either player at the table) it must be to rule two down, not contract made. Law 71A (and 71C): It is not irrational for declarer to play her Jack to the penultimate trick so her concession is not to be cancelled. If anybody shall have a case for adjustment of the concession it is the defenders who in that case should win both tricks. Regards Sven From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Apr 22 11:28:19 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Apr 22 11:29:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <000501c54719$0b5d8540$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c54719$0b5d8540$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 22 Apr 2005, at 09:55, Sven Pran wrote: > One down. > Law 71A (and 71C): She has conceded a trick that is indeed lost if she > plays > her JH in the ending position. No, she has conceded the final two tricks if she played JH. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Apr 22 11:31:32 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Apr 22 11:36:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia References: <20050422075858.3313.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00e901c5471e$27e865e0$97964c51@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: "Dimitr Georgiev" To: Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 8:58 AM Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia > Hi all, > > > Declarer played heart from dummy, > N followed and she showed her cards > without any statement and wrote the > result one down. After few minutes she > called the td and explained that she want > an extra trick because she actually made > double squeeze. She also confessed that > she didn't consider playing for squeeze. > The level of declarer is high. > I ruled 6cl made. > > Any suggestions, please. > +=+ I think it would be helpful if you were to specify precisely which law you applied and how you interpreted the position under that law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Apr 22 11:38:38 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Apr 22 11:39:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <20050422075857.65816.qmail@web54506.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050422075857.65816.qmail@web54506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 22 Apr 2005, at 08:58, Dimitr Georgiev wrote: > Hi all, > > An interesting claim case was happened last weekend in > Bulgarian teams. > > Board 12 > W/N-S > AJ92 > 10964 > QJ103 > 2 > K43 Q1086 > A73 KJ8 > A972 - > Q103 AKJ854 > 75 > Q52 > K8654 > 976 > > E played 6cl. > Lead: d5. > > Declarer ruffed, played spade to the K and A, another > diamond ruffed, 3 rounds trumps ending in dummy, then > she finessed the sJ, another spade to the Q and then > she played the last trump and went do the dummy > playing heart to the A. Cashed the A of diamond > discarding spade and the situation is as follow: > > J > 10 > - > - > - - > 7 KJ > 9 - > - - > - > Q > K > - > > Declarer played heart from dummy, N followed and she > showed her cards without any statement and wrote the > result one down. After few minutes she called the td > and explained that she want an extra trick because she > actually made double squeeze. She also confessed that > she didn?t consider playing for squeeze. The level of > declarer is high. > I ruled 6cl made. > > Any suggestions, please. Declarer's claim is clearly based on the misapprehension that H Qx lie over her H KJ. If that were true, it would make no difference whether she played the K or the J first. It's slightly careless to play the J rather than the K (since it doesn't allow for declarer to have been mistaken about the Q being guarded), but it certainly doesn't seem irrational. I'd rule 2 off. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Apr 22 11:43:50 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Apr 22 11:44:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard In-Reply-To: <00d101c5471c$f8daea80$97964c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00d101c5471c$f8daea80$97964c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <9e4610bb3335b2ff32d7f276362aa366@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 22 Apr 2005, at 10:05, Grattan Endicott wrote: > p.s. my belief, regularly put to the drafting > subcommittee, is that the law book should > be a stand-alone document containing what > a TD needs when he lacks close support > from his NBO, as some do - we have to > recognize that the more sophisticated bridge > nations are not the test bed for the adequacy > of the law book. This is reassuring to read. I look forward to the next version of the Laws with interest. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From georgiev_d at yahoo.com Fri Apr 22 12:22:07 2005 From: georgiev_d at yahoo.com (Dimitr Georgiev) Date: Fri Apr 22 12:23:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Re:Claim in Sofia Message-ID: <20050422102207.76810.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com> >Message: 8 >Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:55:33 +0200 >From: "Sven Pran" >Subject: RE: [blml] Claim in Sofia >To: "blml" >Message-ID: <000501c54719$0b5d8540$6900a8c0@WINXP> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >One down. >Law 71A (and 71C): She has conceded a trick that is >indeed lost if she plays her JH in the ending >position. Such a play is not irrational. Her >concession shall not be cancelled. She didn't lost a trick because shi actually didn't play her hJ. Yes, she didn't made any statement but her intention is clear - she intended to cash her hK and to give her loser. So, if the hK is played the game is over. I agree whit you that the relevant law is L71A but in the firs line we read :"if a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won,...". She won with her hK so in this case she made her slam. No normal play I think we have to consider. Yes it sounds no faer to give the slam to somebody who made it without knowledge but life is life :) >Law 70E would have been relevant if you had been >called to the table directly on the claim. In that >case she should not have been allowed to >drop the Queen when she made no claim statement to >the effect that she knew it would drop. >Regards Sven Best regards Dimitar __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Fri Apr 22 12:23:12 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri Apr 22 12:24:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C653@hotel.npl.co.uk> Gordon Rainsford writes: -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Rainsford Cc: blml Sent: 22/04/05 10:28 Subject: Re: [blml] Claim in Sofia On 22 Apr 2005, at 09:55, Sven Pran wrote: > One down. > Law 71A (and 71C): She has conceded a trick that is indeed lost if she > plays > her JH in the ending position. No, she has conceded the final two tricks if she played JH. ----- I think this is unique in my experience: a claim ruling where the result should be a number of tricks that was not possible at the point the claim was made I don't understand what Herman says about claims after trick twelve has started, it seems not to appear in the laws. East showed her cards and wrote down -1, this seems to be a claim of one of the last two tricks and a concession of the other. North-South do not object, so they accept the claim of one trick by East. East now wants to withdraw her concession but there is a normal line (i.e. HJ at trick 12) that leads to the loss of (at least) one trick; so Law 71 does not apply. But if North-South want to withdraw their acquiesence in the claim of one trick, there is a normal line (i.e. HK at trick 12) that leads to (at least) one trick to East; so Law 69 does not apply. So I believe that one the claim of one trick had been accepted the correct ruling is 11 tricks, although all normal lines (indeed, all legal lines) result in 10 or 12 tricks. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire RG27 9UY United Kingdom ------------------------------------------------------------------- From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 12:30:06 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Fri Apr 22 12:31:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote: >On 22 Apr 2005, at 08:58, Dimitr Georgiev wrote: > >>Hi all, >> >>An interesting claim case was happened last weekend in >>Bulgarian teams. >> >>Board 12 >>W/N-S >> AJ92 >> 10964 >> QJ103 >> 2 >> K43 Q1086 >> A73 KJ8 >> A972 - >> Q103 AKJ854 >> 75 >> Q52 >> K8654 >> 976 >> >>E played 6cl. >>Lead: d5. >> >>Declarer ruffed, played spade to the K and A, another >>diamond ruffed, 3 rounds trumps ending in dummy, then >>she finessed the sJ, another spade to the Q and then >>she played the last trump and went do the dummy >>playing heart to the A. Cashed the A of diamond >>discarding spade and the situation is as follow: >> >> J >> 10 >> - >> - >> - - >> 7 KJ >> 9 - >> - - >> - >> Q >> K >> - >> >>Declarer played heart from dummy, N followed and she >>showed her cards without any statement and wrote the >>result one down. After few minutes she called the td >>and explained that she want an extra trick because she >>actually made double squeeze. She also confessed that >>she didn?t consider playing for squeeze. The level of >>declarer is high. >>I ruled 6cl made. >> >>Any suggestions, please. > >Declarer's claim is clearly based on the misapprehension that H Qx lie over >her H KJ. If that were true, it would make no difference whether she played >the K or the J first. Exactly the point. >It's slightly careless to play the J rather than the K (since it doesn't >allow for declarer to have been mistaken about the Q being guarded), but it >certainly doesn't seem irrational. > >I'd rule 2 off. So would I. Regards, Harald > >-- >Gordon Rainsford >London UK > >_______________________________________________ >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 svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 22 12:39:32 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 22 12:40:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c54727$922d5bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > Sent: 22. april 2005 11:28 > Cc: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > > On 22 Apr 2005, at 09:55, Sven Pran wrote: > > > One down. > > Law 71A (and 71C): She has conceded a trick that is indeed lost if she > > plays > > her JH in the ending position. > > No, she has conceded the final two tricks if she played JH. She didn't _concede_ more than one of the two tricks! And her concession was accepted, but of course if the concession had been contested she would have lost both tricks. Regards Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Apr 22 12:40:45 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri Apr 22 12:41:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia Message-ID: <20050422104045.B73373031DB@poczta.interia.pl> Gordon Rainsford napisa?(a): > > On 22 Apr 2005, at 09:53, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > If the laws were mechanical > > (as David Burn once suggested) every TD > > would simply rule -1 here. > > No, they wouldn't, because -1 is not a possible result. -2, of course, you are correct. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wszystko o MOTORYZACJI >>> http://link.interia.pl/f186a From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 22 12:43:46 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 22 12:44:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <922303732140428faa4b779b093974bb@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000801c54728$295afd20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford ........... > Either you rule that declarer made her contract, or that it was -2. On what ground (law reference please) do you cancel an accepted concession? Regards Sven From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Apr 22 12:47:39 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Apr 22 12:48:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <000701c54727$922d5bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c54727$922d5bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <80a7232b544a58e994ffffbc610e496d@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 22 Apr 2005, at 11:39, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford >> Sent: 22. april 2005 11:28 >> Cc: blml >> Subject: Re: [blml] Claim in Sofia >> >> >> On 22 Apr 2005, at 09:55, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> One down. >>> Law 71A (and 71C): She has conceded a trick that is indeed lost if >>> she >>> plays >>> her JH in the ending position. >> >> No, she has conceded the final two tricks if she played JH. > > She didn't _concede_ more than one of the two tricks! > > And her concession was accepted, but of course if the concession had > been > contested she would have lost both tricks. This is an interesting point, and I think essentially the same point that Robin made. So, although we would have allowed NS to contest the concession, once they accepted it they don't have legal grounds for withdrawing that concession. Is that correct? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 22 13:01:08 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Apr 22 13:01:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia References: <20050422075857.65816.qmail@web54506.mail.yahoo.com> <4268B9E8.5080106@hdw.be> Message-ID: <018e01c5472a$97134c30$169868d5@James> [Dimitr Georgiev] > An interesting claim case was happened last weekend in > Bulgarian teams ... the situation is as follow: > West H:7 D:9 > North S:J D:T > East D:KJ > South H:K D:Q > Declarer played heart from dummy, N followed and she > showed her cards without any statement and wrote the > result one down. After few minutes she called the td > and explained that she want an extra trick because she > actually made double squeeze. She also confessed that > she didn?t consider playing for squeeze. The level of > declarer is high. I ruled 6cl made. [Nigel] IMO declarer's actions amount to a claim for one down. Konrad Ciborowski thinks declarer has counted South for D:Qx so that playing D:J is just as rational as playing D:K. I tend to agree because, however good declarer may normally be, on this occasion, she is obviously away with the fairies. IMO the contract should then be *two* down as Herman De Wael points out. Herman, however thinks that the TD should rule contract made because The opponents asked the director to rule one down. Herman thinks that this is relevant (because one down is impossible). IMO, it is up to the director -- not declarer -- and not opponents -- to determine the likely outcome after a faulty claim. From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 13:11:43 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Fri Apr 22 13:12:43 2005 Subject: [blml] DeWael School on the rampage In-Reply-To: <4268AA32.3060803@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote: > >Let me set the scene: >I was playing with a semi-regular partner. About two years ago, we started >playing together in a small group and I thought the group some new >conventions. Since then, the group has split and yesterday I played with >this lady for the first time in months - level: slightly below mine (yes >that does exist). > >The convention in question is Roudinesco. A sort of check-back stayman: >1m - 1M >1NT - 2Cl asks for number of M and point range - the answers 2D and 2NT >show a 2-card holding in responders suit (resp minimum and maximum in >values) while 2 in the other major shows 3 cards and a maximum hand >(13-14). > >We are playing against two young gentlemen and in the first two boards >their bidding starts like above, and they alert and explain 2Cl as >"check-back". So twice we reply that we play Roudinesco instead. That is >why the convention is so fresh in partner's mind that she starts seeing >ghosts. > >On the third board, the bidding goes: > >Me Part >1Sp 1NT >2Cl alert, question, reply : Roudinesco. > >Let me make a list of the things I did not do: > >(1) I did not fall off my chair when she alerted >(2) I did not say "you stupid cow" when she answered Roudinesco > >OK so far? > >So now she bid 2He. >Two more things I did not do: > >(3) I did not fail to alert > >Of course they ask what 2He means > >(4) I did not reply anything else than "3 spades, maximum hand" > >Next comes an interesting question. Given that it is UI to me that she >holds 3Spades, what should be my next bid holding Axxxx KQx x AKxx ? >I chose 4He, but considering that this should show a control and not be >passed, maybe 3He is even less "suggested". > >Anyway, my point is this. If I cannot do (1) and (2) by L75D2, then why >should I be allowed to do (3) or (4)? They turn out to be exactly the same, >and L75D2 says "indicate in any manner"! If you had explained 2H as natural NF, which is the systemic meaning of the bid, you'd have given your partner UI. Misexplaining the bid with regards to the systemic meaning of it, is a breach of L75C. However, in doing so, you bent backward not to convey UI to partner. You didn't indicate in any manner that something was wrong, although your opponents probably knew what was going on. I think you did very good, Herman, even though the result on the board was not to your satisfaction. Regards Harald > >Let me say one more thing. I am obliged by the UI to bid something like 4H. >My partner has no UI, and she is free to bid. She chooses 5D. Now I don't >know at all what I am to do and I bid 5Sp. Again, without UI, she selects >to pass. If OTOH, I do what most of you want me to do, that is explain 2He >in some other manner than how she clearly intended it, then I give UI. Now >her actions are restrained and if we do end up in 5Sp the TD might still >rule that she used the UI and change the contract to 6Sp or 4He or 7Cl or >something. >Sadly, hearts were 4-2 or I would have scored an average +450. Now it was a >lone -50 among +420s. > >-- >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: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 20/04/2005 > > >_______________________________________________ >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 luening at doramail.com Fri Apr 22 14:07:11 2005 From: luening at doramail.com (Maurice Hardin) Date: Fri Apr 22 13:15:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Super 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.cra3y.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Colby Holley to be remov(ed: http://www.cra3y.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 david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Apr 22 13:19:13 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri Apr 22 13:20:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question References: Message-ID: <005101c5472d$1cba29b0$0307a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" Cc: Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 1:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Yet another L21 Question > > > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, David Barton wrote: > >> Scenario:- Game all Pairs >> Player1 Bids 1N >> Player2 asks the range, is told 12-14, and bids 2S >> This information is corrected to 15-17 >> and Player2 substitutes a Pass. >> >> The bidding goes all pass and the contract makes >> with an overtrick for 120. >> Examination of the score sheet reveal all the >> other scores range from 200 to 800 in failing >> 2 Spade contracts (some doubled). >> Player1/Player3 want an adjustment on the >> grounds that the decision to bid 2S was not >> as a result of the misinformation, and should >> not be allowed to be changed. All the >> other players in Player2's position had bid 2S >> with the correct information. >> >> Do Player1/Player3 have any case? GRB replied > If I am on the committee, Player1/Player3 have an AWMW. > > Misinformation aside, Player2 is not obligated to bid as badly as the rest > of the field does. > > Was Player2 trying to be sneaky? No; he asked a question and made a call. > (Indeed, some would say that the fact he asked, rather than just bidding > without asking, indicates it was his intention from the beginning to pass > if he'd gotten an answer he didn't like.) > > Did Player2 gain from 1/3's infraction? Maybe so. Don't like that? Then > don't give misexplanations. I don't have any sympathy at all for an OS > that says "the NOS took advantage of our mistake and improved their > score." 72A4 is in the book for a reason. > > GRB > Well GRB apparently believes that irrespective of the hand that Player2 holds, and irrespective of the actions of his peers, the condition that, "it is probable that Player2 made the 2S bid as a result of the misinformation", has been obviously satisfied. So obviously in fact that he is prepared to issue an AWMW to Players1/3 for challenging it. Well unfortunately for me I find this less than obvious. Can anyone advise me what the words "it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation" actually mean. In particular I would like to know under what cicumstances would the condition NOT be met. Thanks for any help. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Apr 22 13:28:12 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri Apr 22 13:29:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Re:Claim in Sofia Message-ID: <20050422112812.A5DF53031E1@poczta.interia.pl> Dimitr Georgiev napisa?(a): > >Message: 8 > >Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:55:33 0200 > >From: "Sven Pran" >svenpran@online.no> > >Subject: RE: [blml] Claim in Sofia > >To: "blml" >blml@rtflb.org> > >Message-ID: >000501c54719$0b5d8540$6900a8c0@WINXP> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > >One down. > >Law 71A (and 71C): She has conceded a trick that is > >indeed lost if she plays her JH in the ending > >position. Such a play is not irrational. Her > >concession shall not be cancelled. > > She didn't lost a trick because shi actually didn't > play her hJ. Yes, she didn't made any statement but > her intention is clear - She made a claim with no claim statement. The laws on claims say how we should proceed in this case - assume declarer would take the worst normal (defined as "not irrational") line. They say nothing about anybody's intentions. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PS. Zdjecia samochodow, bardzo duzo, bardzo fajne galerie... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1877 From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 13:34:05 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Fri Apr 22 13:35:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <000801c54728$295afd20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Subject: RE: [blml] Claim in Sofia >Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:43:46 +0200 > > > On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford >........... > > Either you rule that declarer made her contract, or that it was -2. > >On what ground (law reference please) do you cancel an accepted concession? The problem here is that you have two concessions. Declarer has conceded a tridk to the defenders' HQ. The defenders have conceded a trick to declarer's HK. L71A: A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a concession: if a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, or a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. If you deal with the two consessions separately, you will come to the conclusion that both sides have conceded a trick they could have lost by a legal play of the remaining cards. The problem obviously beeing that it was impossiple to lose one of the two tricks and not the other by any legal play of the remaining cards. But in my opinion, we can't allow both sides to score one trick each of the remaining two tricks, since that is impossible by any legal play of the remaining cards. So I would cansel the defenders' concession under L71A. Regards, Harald > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 22 13:42:07 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Apr 22 13:43:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Eighteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: Message-ID: <01af01c54730$66065320$169868d5@James> [Richard Hills CASE N-18] > Subject: MI DIC: Gary Zeiger NA Swiss Final > Brd: 8 \ Jeff Schuett > Dlr: West \ 32 > Vul: None \ AT85 > \ T96 > \QJT9 > Jim Griffin \ Pat Griffin > J965 \ AK4 > Q9 \ K764 > 7532 \ AKQJ8 > K87 \ 3 > Kerry Smith\ > QT87 \ > J32 \ > 4 \ > A6542 \ > West North East South > Pass Pass 1C(1) 1D(2) > Pass(3) 2H(4) Dbl(5) 2S(6) > 2NT Pass 3NT Pass > Pass Pass Pass > (1) Artificial 16+ > (2) 2 suits color on East side of screen, > Major/Minor on West side > (3) 5-7 HCP > (4) pass or correct > (5) Shows strong hand (or takeout of s) > (6) 2S confirms blacks to East and Major to West > The Facts: The final contract was 3NT down one for a > score of NS +50 after the CQ lead. The director was > called after the hand. > Three other players were consulted and all bid 3D with > the correct explanation. > The Ruling: EW were damaged by an incorrect explanation > of CRASH. With the consultation with and input of expert > testimony, the non-offenders were assigned the most > favorable result likely 5D +5 and the score was changed > to EW +400 (Law 40C and Law 12C2). > The Appeal: NS felt that Law 12C2 should not lead to an > EW recoupment of the full benefit of playing 5D. > Statements by the other side: East assumed South had > both majors with 6-4 shape for example for the 2S call. > The Decision: The AC felt that there was clearly MI. It > had damaged EW. East might have been more tempted to bid > 3D instead of 3NT had she been properly informed. > The discussion among the Committee members focused on > West's 2NT bid and East's decision to bid 3NT instead of > 3D. While EW might have ended up defending 2S doubled > instead of bidding 2NT, his decision was hardly > unreasonable. The AC thought less of the 3NT bid. > However, while it seemed better to bid 3D instead of 3NT, > there was no feeling by the majority that the call was > bad enough to sever the connection between the MI and > the damage. One member of the AC did feel that the > combination of the 2NT and the 3NT bid was enough to > sever the link. However, the majority felt that given the > level of East and the superiority of West, both calls > were reasonable actions. Therefore, the adjusted result > assigned by the director of 5D making five stands. > Given the position of one member and the relatively > uncommitted position of a second, no AWMW was issued. > The Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Doug Doub, > Mark Feldman, Chris Moss, and Chris Willkenen. [Nigel] IMO, the Director and committee ruled correctly. The MI manifestly damaged EW and 5D= would have been a likely result without the MI. In Europe, CRASH, Ghestem. Truscott and the like create real problems. Many partnerships effectively use them as "random overcalls" by forgetting or refusing to learn their meaning. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 22 13:42:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 22 13:43:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050421164237.02bbdb00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > The original case arose in the ACBL, where Craig's position would be > expected to prevail. Even a foreigner new to ACBL competition would be > expected to understand this, as they would be required to know that the > usual run of low-level doubles by responder, e.g. 1C-1S-X or 1S-2C-X, > require an alert if penalty but not if takeout. My memory is obviously playing tricks on me. I thought the ACBL was now using alert "Doubles and redoubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings". Neither a penalty double nor a negative double would be alertable in this sequence. > Legally speaking, I > think we can assume the Conditions of Contest to be "general bridge > knowledge" rather than "partnership agreement or experience". I do not believe for a moment that all players in these events need to know the alert chart. Were I visiting the US with Emily I would run through *our* system and tell her which of *our* bids were alertable/announceable. If she asked about a double I would expect her to be informed of the partnership agreement (and where no explicit agreements existed of any related understandings). The answer "standard" is never acceptable disclosure to a player who does not know the standard. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 22 13:42:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 22 13:43:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000201c5468f$7a27e630$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > It is no business for TD to judge a player's reason when he wants to > change his first call based upon a Law 21B situation until after the > play is ended. The TD is not judging the player's reasons. He is judging the probability that the initial call was based on MI. That is his responsibility, and his alone. The player is neither allowed, nor required, to decide whether a particular situation permits a change of call. > MI has been established, the degree of MI is completely irrelevant when > the applicable player wants to use L21B. The degree of MI may not affect the player's desire, but it might affect the TD's judgement of whether a change is allowed. > > > So it is up to the player (East) to decide changing his call with > > > the > > > risk that he shall subsequently be found having violated the > > > condition > > > in L21B1. > > > > The player can't be found in violation. > Oh sure, the player can be found in violation, but this will hardly ever > happen unless he decides to psyche with his replacing call. There is no way the player's subsequent choice of call can affect whether the original call was probably based on MI. If player bid 2S (thinking it was a transfer to C) and then discovered that the alert made it natural it is surely obvious that a change must be permitted. In even the bizarre world where the player (and not the TD) is responsible for making this judgement I can't see a TD > > There's a difference. The cause of the difference is in the laws we > > must apply, not the principle of taking advantage of opp's infraction. > > To quote from Erle Stanley Gardner I have a feeling that this is a > matter of legal astigmatism. Not in this matter. The divergence arises from the way the laws are written, not the way they are read. > > > In all your cases I would also applaud an ingenious player with his > > > bids on the strict condition that he and his partner obeyed their > > > duties > > > to disclose everything they "knew" relevant also for their > > > opponents to > > > understanding those bids. But I cannot and never will accept any > > > concealment of partnership understandings based on such > > > technicalities > > > as were introduced by the change in Law 16C in 1987. > > > > Of course the partner must disclose all such inferences if asked. > > However, opps would be incredibly ill advised to actually ask. > > Anything that arises from the understanding of the *withdrawn* call > > will be UI to them and the more UI they have they tougher it will be > > for them. > > This is 100% crystal clear when reading L16C. > > And any information they receive through opponents' disclosure of the > replacing call is AI. Inferences from the withdrawn 2S call (even if disclosed) are covered by L16c2: "For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised." We cannot permit OS to manipulate the disclosure laws to turn UI into AI - otherwise they can just ask the right questions after any withdrawn call and avoid UI penalties. While they are required to know that the withdrawn 2S call exists they must carefully avoid taking advantage of any information arising therefrom. This includes a prohibition on *using* inferences only available to those for the withdrawn call is AI. Disclosure requires that they be fully informed if they so chose but it absolutely does not permit them to *use* information that is only available because of their own irregularity. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 22 13:42:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 22 13:43:52 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <000101c5468e$20ac72c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > Let's hope *nobody* makes "shrug" rulings. We investigate, we ask > > questions, we establish facts, we consult and then we apply our > > judgement and the laws. Occasionally something you were predisposed > > to call a CPU turns out to be MI (or no offence at all). Occasionally > > something I was predisposed to call no offence turns out to be a CPU > > (or MI). We can do nothing (OK very little) to change our inherent > > inclinations but we can do a hell of a lot to ensure that our > > inclinations do not lead to anti-law rulings. > > I am surprised (to say the least) how you consistently suppress my > information that I do give "suspects" the opportunity to present their > case before making any ruling. Sven, I in no way intended to exclude "you" from the "we" who investigate etc. I was just pointing out that starting from different expectations doesn't prevent one from getting to the same result. In my experience CPUs are very, very rare. Undisclosed understandings (through lack of alert, lack of pre-alert, inadequate CCs, poor answers to questions, etc) are *much* more common. In either case the adjustment for damage *should* (IMO) be the same - it's MI either way. However, I would seldom impose a penalty on a first time offence where I thought it just a matter of poor disclosure but I would almost always impose a large penalty if I thought there was an element of *active* concealment. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 22 13:42:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 22 13:43:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000d01c546b5$4675b030$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > If he withdraws (changes) a call that was according to his partnership > agreements when he (only) had the misinformation from his opponents and > replaces it with another call which (after he has received the correct > information) is a violation of the same partnership agreements do you > then consider it probable that his first call was made as a result of > the misinformation? I expect this to be the most likely scenario. The player knows that the meaning of his original call is changed by the late alert and calls the TD. The TD checks the system in use and instantly realises that the player would indeed have chosen some other call. The TD carefully explains that the withdrawn call is AI to the partnership and UI to their opps (most players don't know this). The player now decides what to do with his hand, *given* he has already told his partner whatever it was the original call showed. This will almost certainly put him in undiscussed territory and he may well decide simply to "repeat" the prior information by making the replacement system bid, (this is what I would most likely do playing with Emily, although I might change to a pass). He may decide that his partner is sufficiently on the same wavelength that he can take this opportunity to give his partner *extra* information or disrupt opps in a low risk manner (this is what I would most likely do if playing with John). In neither case is the probability that I would have made a call that (after the correction of MI) totally failed to describe my hand affected one iota. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 22 13:42:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 22 13:43:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Seventeen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050421155333.02a417e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > >West explained that part of his reason for bidding 3C was > >that he hoped to attract a spade lead. > But playing natural game tries, West had a clear 2S call. Playing > help-suit game tries, he had an equally clear 3C call. North had every > right to assume that West held something like 965/A832/K7/KJ63 rather > than his actual holding, and I'm quite prepared to believe that she > would have led a club with correct information. I know I'd have led a > spade against a 3C natural try and a club against a 3C help suit try > myself, and I would have no trouble finding for this North. I'm a little unhappy about the committee's dismissal of West's testimony in this context. Although self-serving it seems to fit well with the other evidence as reported (Was West *asked* to explain his choice of 3C by the TD/Screener - if not I'd be less ready to dismiss it) . Thus I'm not averse to the ruling of result stands, only the grounds of the committee for getting there. Otherwise I'm with Eric - perhaps because a don't equate a description of "natural" here as being the same as "any 3 card suit" (I would consider a pair who agreed to play help-suit game tries on 3 small or better and described it as "natural" guilty of MI even though this use makes the bid "not a convention"). Tim From georgiev_d at yahoo.com Fri Apr 22 13:58:31 2005 From: georgiev_d at yahoo.com (Dimitr Georgiev) Date: Fri Apr 22 13:59:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Re:Claim in Sofia Message-ID: <20050422115831.81096.qmail@web54505.mail.yahoo.com> Message: 7 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:31:32 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" Subject: Re: [blml] Claim in Sofia To: Message-ID: <00e901c5471e$27e865e0$97964c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" from Grattan Endicott > >+=+ I think it would be helpful if you >were to specify precisely which law >you applied and how you interpreted >the position under that law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Yes, Grattan, you are right: IMO the situation is: 1. Declarer cahses 1 trick (the 12) which is won with her hK - L44F. That's no claim! - "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress." - L68 heading. 2. Declarer concede 1 trick (the 13) - L68. 3. The concession is accepted - L69A. 4. The acquiescence is withdrawn after the end of the session but in the corection period - L69B. The declarer wants an extra trick. 5. I ruled acording to L71A, which says: "A. Trick Cannot Be Lost if a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, or a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards." 6. The problem is which part of that law we have to apply. IMO the firs, because: 6.1. The declarer perfectly knows (see her play) that N has sJ and when he plays h10, he nasn't hQ! 6.2. She doesn't count the distribution of S and she wants to cash her hK. That's corect because she writes one down, so her intention is clear. It's a normal human reaction in such a case to cash her winner first! Best regards Dimitar __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Apr 22 14:05:03 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Apr 22 14:06:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Re:Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <20050422115831.81096.qmail@web54505.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050422115831.81096.qmail@web54505.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4f274d43f122231ce857f8413c3bf343@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 22 Apr 2005, at 12:58, Dimitr Georgiev wrote: > IMO the situation is: > 1. Declarer cahses 1 trick (the 12) which is won with > her hK This is not as stated in the original post. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Apr 22 14:05:38 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Apr 22 14:06:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <000801c54728$295afd20$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c54728$295afd20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 22 Apr 2005, at 11:43, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > ........... >> Either you rule that declarer made her contract, or that it was -2. > > On what ground (law reference please) do you cancel an accepted > concession? How about L71A? A player has conceded a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. It's true we don't know which player nor which trick, but we know that one or other side has done so. If you'll excuse the multiple negatives, it's not the case that neither side has conceded a trick they could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 22 14:05:58 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 22 14:07:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c54733$a514dfc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............. > > It is no business for TD to judge a player's reason when he wants to > > change his first call based upon a Law 21B situation until after the > > play is ended. > > The TD is not judging the player's reasons. He is judging the probability > that the initial call was based on MI. This is just splitting hairs. The important question is: How shall TD judge and make a ruling without revealing some information on the cards held by the player in question? The situation is directly equivalent to a TD who looks at the hand of a player who has received UI from his partner and then announces that this player has not violated L16A. ......... > > > The player can't be found in violation. > > > Oh sure, the player can be found in violation, but this will hardly ever > > happen unless he decides to psyche with his replacing call. > > There is no way the player's subsequent choice of call can affect whether > the original call was probably based on MI. If player bid 2S (thinking it > was a transfer to C) and then discovered that the alert made it natural it > is surely obvious that a change must be permitted. But in such cases the second call would not be a psyche! Please do me at least one favour and read what you are commenting before commenting. ............. > > And any information they receive through opponents' disclosure of the > > replacing call is AI. > > Inferences from the withdrawn 2S call (even if disclosed) are covered by > L16c2: "For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn > action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is > unauthorised." We cannot permit OS to manipulate the disclosure laws to > turn UI into AI - otherwise they can just ask the right questions after > any withdrawn call and avoid UI penalties. While they are required to > know that the withdrawn 2S call exists they must carefully avoid taking > advantage of any information arising therefrom. This includes a > prohibition on *using* inferences only available to those for the > withdrawn call is AI. Disclosure requires that they be fully informed if > they so chose but it absolutely does not permit them to *use* information > that is only available because of their own irregularity. You seem to forget that AI may reduce the available LAs to the point where a player has no other LA than the one suggested by UI. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 22 14:22:16 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 22 14:21:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <018e01c5472a$97134c30$169868d5@James> References: <20050422075857.65816.qmail@web54506.mail.yahoo.com> <4268B9E8.5080106@hdw.be> <018e01c5472a$97134c30$169868d5@James> Message-ID: <4268EC78.2070509@hdw.be> GUTHRIE wrote: > [Dimitr Georgiev] > >>An interesting claim case was happened last weekend in >>Bulgarian teams ... the situation is as follow: >>West H:7 D:9 >>North S:J D:T >>East D:KJ >>South H:K D:Q >>Declarer played heart from dummy, N followed and she >>showed her cards without any statement and wrote the >>result one down. After few minutes she called the td >>and explained that she want an extra trick because she >>actually made double squeeze. She also confessed that >>she didn?t consider playing for squeeze. The level of >>declarer is high. I ruled 6cl made. > > > [Nigel] > IMO declarer's actions amount to a claim for one down. > Konrad Ciborowski thinks declarer has counted South for > D:Qx so that playing D:J is just as rational as playing D:K. > I tend to agree because, however good declarer may normally > be, on this occasion, she is obviously away with the > fairies. IMO the contract should then be *two* down as > Herman De Wael points out. Herman, however thinks that the > TD should rule contract made because The opponents asked the > director to rule one down. Herman thinks that this is > relevant (because one down is impossible). IMO, it is up to > the director -- not declarer -- and not opponents -- to > determine the likely outcome after a faulty claim. > Indeed it is up to the Director to rule on the faulty claim. However, it is East here who asks to retract his concession. The TD should rule on that one. East has conceded a trick and wants it back. He gets it back only if there is no legal way he could lose it. Well, there is a legal way he can lose the HJ : playing it in trick 12. The fact that this leads to two downtricks is not important. He has conceded one trick, and he cannot get it back. By now, NS have also realised they want two downtricks. So they too ask for a ruling. They have conceded a trick to the HK, and they want it back. But they only get it back if there is no legal way by which the HK makes a trick. There is such a legal way: if it is played in trick 12. So NS don't get their trick back. I believe the correct result therefor is the one arrived at at the table, -1, even though there is no legal way this result can be achieved in actual play! WOW! Really Dmitr, did this happen or did you have a sneak preview at one of Ton's infernal exam questions for an EBLTD 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: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 22 14:31:32 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 22 14:31:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Re:Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <20050422112812.A5DF53031E1@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050422112812.A5DF53031E1@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <4268EEA4.6040206@hdw.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >>She didn't lost a trick because shi actually didn't >>play her hJ. Yes, she didn't made any statement but >>her intention is clear - > > > She made a claim with no claim statement. > The laws on claims say how we should proceed > in this case - assume declarer would take the worst > normal (defined as "not irrational") line. > They say nothing about anybody's intentions. > Not necessarily. Sometimes the intention is so clear that it becomes the only normal line. Suppose East has a full count of the hand, and he can show that he has. Suppose there is a third card out, and East knows south has a link to North's two tricks. I'm thinking something like this: AK 7 42 3 3 KJ 2 Q2 declarer east plays the 3 from the table, and when the 7 appears, he knows that South has the queen, and putting in the jack results in 3 tricks to NS (obviously at NT). Now his intent, and his normal line, are clear. A concession of 2 tricks at this stage is equal to a claim statement of putting in the King. But in the original, which might be translated to: A 7 2 - 3 KJ - Q2 East, even with a full count of the hand, can concede one trick by two plays - both of which are therefor normal. From the lay-out now, the intent to play the king is no longer obvious. -- 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: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From georgiev_d at yahoo.com Fri Apr 22 14:40:38 2005 From: georgiev_d at yahoo.com (Dimitr Georgiev) Date: Fri Apr 22 14:41:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050422124038.67527.qmail@web54502.mail.yahoo.com> --- Herman De Wael wrote: > GUTHRIE wrote: > > > [Dimitr Georgiev] > > > >>An interesting claim case was happened last > weekend in > >>Bulgarian teams ... the situation is as follow: > >>West H:7 D:9 > >>North S:J D:T > >>East D:KJ > >>South H:K D:Q > >>Declarer played heart from dummy, N followed and > she > >>showed her cards without any statement and wrote > the > >>result one down. After few minutes she called the > td > >>and explained that she want an extra trick because > she > >>actually made double squeeze. She also confessed > that > >>she didn’t consider playing for squeeze. The level > of > >>declarer is high. I ruled 6cl made. > > > > > > [Nigel] > > IMO declarer's actions amount to a claim for one > down. > > Konrad Ciborowski thinks declarer has counted > South for > > D:Qx so that playing D:J is just as rational as > playing D:K. > > I tend to agree because, however good declarer may > normally > > be, on this occasion, she is obviously away with > the > > fairies. IMO the contract should then be *two* > down as > > Herman De Wael points out. Herman, however thinks > that the > > TD should rule contract made because The opponents > asked the > > director to rule one down. Herman thinks that this > is > > relevant (because one down is impossible). IMO, it > is up to > > the director -- not declarer -- and not opponents > -- to > > determine the likely outcome after a faulty claim. > > > > Indeed it is up to the Director to rule on the > faulty claim. However, > it is East here who asks to retract his concession. > The TD should rule > on that one. East has conceded a trick and wants it > back. He gets it > back only if there is no legal way he could lose it. > Well, there is a > legal way he can lose the HJ : playing it in trick > 12. The fact that > this leads to two downtricks is not important. He > has conceded one > trick, and he cannot get it back. By now, NS have > also realised they > want two downtricks. So they too ask for a ruling. > They have conceded > a trick to the HK, and they want it back. But they > only get it back if > there is no legal way by which the HK makes a trick. > There is such a > legal way: if it is played in trick 12. So NS don't > get their trick back. > > I believe the correct result therefor is the one > arrived at at the > table, -1, even though there is no legal way this > result can be > achieved in actual play! > > WOW! > > Really Dmitr, did this happen or did you have a > sneak preview at one > of Ton's infernal exam questions for an EBLTD > course? > No Herman, this is a real case! No sneak preview! Dimitar > -- > 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: 266.10.2 - > Release Date: 21/04/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 22 14:40:13 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 22 14:42:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422083754.02a45eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:17 PM 4/21/05, richard.hills wrote: >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1H Pass 2H >2S 3H 3S ? > >You, South, hold: > >9853 >T942 >KJ5 >J7 > >What call do you make? Pass. >What other call do you consider making? The baby-sitter, to check on the kids. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 22 14:49:33 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 22 14:50:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c54739$bc665c20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > >> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > > ........... > >> Either you rule that declarer made her contract, or that it was -2. > > > > On what ground (law reference please) do you cancel an accepted > > concession? > > How about L71A? A player has conceded a trick his side could not have > lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. It's true we don't know > which player nor which trick, but we know that one or other side has > done so. > > If you'll excuse the multiple negatives, it's not the case that neither > side has conceded a trick they could not have lost by any legal play of > the remaining cards. Correct law, wrong application. The trick "could be lost" by declarer playing the Jack rather than the King. And the Jack is not an irrational play by a player who has demonstrated that she has lost count of the cards. The defenders "could have lost" the trick they conceded if declarer plays the King rather than the Jack. My friend and fellow TD Harald has indicated that he would tend to cancel the concession made by defenders but not the concession made by declarer. I am not convinced that he is right, but I certainly agree with him if we shall have to cancel one of the concessions. As neither side has conceded any trick which "could not be lost" by any legal/normal play of the remaining cards I see no obligation for TD to apply Law 71A or Law 71C, especially not on request by the declarer. My solution is equivalent to awarding a weighted score (50% King and 50% Jack), not that I had this in mind when I posted my initial comment. Sven From georgiev_d at yahoo.com Fri Apr 22 14:58:24 2005 From: georgiev_d at yahoo.com (Dimitr Georgiev) Date: Fri Apr 22 14:59:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050422125824.90375.qmail@web54503.mail.yahoo.com> --- Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > > >> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > > > ........... > > >> Either you rule that declarer made her > contract, or that it was -2. > > > > > > On what ground (law reference please) do you > cancel an accepted > > > concession? > > > > How about L71A? A player has conceded a trick his > side could not have > > lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. > It's true we don't know > > which player nor which trick, but we know that one > or other side has > > done so. > > > > If you'll excuse the multiple negatives, it's not > the case that neither > > side has conceded a trick they could not have lost > by any legal play of > > the remaining cards. > > Correct law, wrong application. > > The trick "could be lost" by declarer playing the > Jack rather than the King. > And the Jack is not an irrational play by a player > who has demonstrated that > she has lost count of the cards. She has lost count of the cards only for S. She perfectly knows that N has sJ and h10. > > The defenders "could have lost" the trick they > conceded if declarer plays > the King rather than the Jack. > > My friend and fellow TD Harald has indicated that he > would tend to cancel > the concession made by defenders but not the > concession made by declarer. I > am not convinced that he is right, but I certainly > agree with him if we > shall have to cancel one of the concessions. > > As neither side has conceded any trick which "could > not be lost" by any > legal/normal play of the remaining cards I see no > obligation for TD to apply > Law 71A or Law 71C, especially not on request by the > declarer. > > My solution is equivalent to awarding a weighted > score (50% King and 50% > Jack), not that I had this in mind when I posted my > initial comment. Is it possible to weight the score in claim cases? > Sven > > Regards Dimitar __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Apr 22 15:30:44 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri Apr 22 15:31:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Re:Claim in Sofia Message-ID: <20050422133044.C1799B9F6B@poczta.interia.pl> Herman De Wael napisa?(a): > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > >> > >>She didn>#039;t lost a trick because shi actually didn>#039;t > >>play her hJ. Yes, she didn>#039;t made any statement but > >>her intention is clear - > > > > > > She made a claim with no claim statement. > > The laws on claims say how we should proceed > > in this case - assume declarer would take the worst > > normal (defined as "not irrational") line. > > They say nothing about anybody's intentions. > > > > Not necessarily. Sometimes the intention is so clear that it becomes > the only normal line. > > Suppose East has a full count of the hand, and he can show that he has. This is where I disagree. The only way for a player to show that he has a count on the hand is by including this in his claim statement. If he makes no statement whatsoever then normal lines are only the ones that are blindingly obvious. If to make a winning play one needs to have a count on the hand then failing to make that play is ex definitione simply a piece of carelessness. To count out the hand one needs to be *careful*. Faling to count is *careless*. Dropping the king under the ace having Axx - Kxx is irrational because avoiding this mistake requires no mental effort. Counting out the hand does - failing to do so cannot be irrational. May be lazy or may be made because of fatigue - but is not irrational. > Suppose there is a third card out, and East knows south has a link to > North's two tricks. > I'm thinking something like this: > > AK > 7 > 42 3 > 3 KJ > 2 > Q2 > > declarer east plays the 3 from the table, and when the 7 appears, he > knows that South has the queen, and putting in the jack results in 3 > tricks to NS (obviously at NT). Now his intent, and his normal line, > are clear. Not at all. How do I know that declarer is not convinced that the layout is: AK 7 42 3 3 KJ --- Q42 in which case putting in the jack is also a normal line? Yes - IF HE HAS A COUNT ON THE HAND, as you said, then of course the only normal line is to put up the king but I don't accept that premise for someone who fails to make a claim statement. In the original problem the mere fact that declarer claims in this position is a strong indication that she doesn't know what she is doing. She doesn't have a count. Why are you so sure that she remembers the spade jack? If declarer makes a claim (in a slam contract!) at this stage (that's unbelievable for a player whose class is "very high") and if he fails to see the possibility of a squeeze on this hand - which should be the first thing that should come to declarer's mind - this handed is *loaded* with sqeeze possibilities (single and double) then it means that declarer had a complete mental block during this hand so any asumption that she knew anything is giving the benefit of the doubt to the wrong side. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f186c From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 22 15:33:01 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 22 15:33:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000701c546c6$a0b43240$0307a8c0@david> References: <000701c546c6$a0b43240$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422084303.02a445b0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:05 PM 4/21/05, David wrote: >Scenario:- Game all Pairs >Player1 Bids 1N >Player2 asks the range, is told 12-14, and bids 2S > This information is corrected to 15-17 > and Player2 substitutes a Pass. > >The bidding goes all pass and the contract makes >with an overtrick for 120. >Examination of the score sheet reveal all the >other scores range from 200 to 800 in failing >2 Spade contracts (some doubled). >Player1/Player3 want an adjustment on the >grounds that the decision to bid 2S was not >as a result of the misinformation, and should >not be allowed to be changed. All the >other players in Player2's position had bid 2S >with the correct information. > >Do Player1/Player3 have any case? David has given us a very good test case. Although it's not specified in the example (and could be critical if we actually had to rule on this), we can stipulate that Player2 is prepared to admit that he would have bid 2S with correct information, but because of the misinformation he is now in a position where if he passes his partner will "know" (presumptive AI by L16C) that he has a 2S overcall of a 12-14 NT. Do we allow him a tactical choice between letting his partner know that his hand is good enough to have overcalled a 15-17 NT by repeating his 2S call and making his spade suit UI to the opponents by passing? Or do we rule that he cannot change his 2S bid because if he would have have overcalled with correct information it was not "probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation"? I don't know the answer, but it's the right question. I lean towards the former, though, because the latter raises practical difficulties without the stipulation that Player2 is prepared to admit that he would have bid 2S with correct information. It would mean that the director must make a finding as to whether it was "probable that [the non-offending player] made the call as a result of misinformation". How do we expect him to go about doing that, given the BLML consensus that it would be inappropriate to either look at the player's hand or take the player away from the table for interrogation? I object (as a TD) to being forced to "sandbag" a non-offender in this position; if he asks me whether it would be legal for him to pass now, he should be legally entitled to a better answer than, "I can't tell you; make your call and you'll find out later whether you committed an infraction." Perhaps we need a second look at that consensus. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Apr 22 15:32:43 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Apr 22 15:33:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <000e01c54739$bc665c20$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000e01c54739$bc665c20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <0515fbcc4cddb99eed9080c9aa485b82@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 22 Apr 2005, at 13:49, Sven Pran wrote: > My solution is equivalent to awarding a weighted score (50% King and > 50% > Jack), not that I had this in mind when I posted my initial comment. And now it's my turn to ask, under what Law do you give a weighted score for a claim? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 15:37:00 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Apr 22 15:38:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C653@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "'Gordon Rainsford '" Cc: "'blml '" Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 5:23 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > Gordon Rainsford writes: > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Rainsford > Cc: blml > Sent: 22/04/05 10:28 > Subject: Re: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > > On 22 Apr 2005, at 09:55, Sven Pran wrote: > > > One down. > > Law 71A (and 71C): She has conceded a trick that is indeed lost if she > > > plays > > her JH in the ending position. > > No, she has conceded the final two tricks if she played JH. > > ----- > > I think this is unique in my experience: > a claim ruling where the result should be a number of tricks > that was not possible at the point the claim was made > > I don't understand what Herman says about claims after trick > twelve has started, it seems not to appear in the laws. > > East showed her cards and wrote down -1, this seems to be a > claim of one of the last two tricks and a concession of the > other. North-South do not object, so they accept the claim > of one trick by East. > > East now wants to withdraw her concession but there is a > normal line (i.e. HJ at trick 12) that leads to the loss > of (at least) one trick; so Law 71 does not apply. > > But if North-South want to withdraw their acquiesence in > the claim of one trick, there is a normal line (i.e. HK > at trick 12) that leads to (at least) one trick to East; > so Law 69 does not apply. > > So I believe that one the claim of one trick had been > accepted the correct ruling is 11 tricks, although all > normal lines (indeed, all legal lines) result in 10 or > 12 tricks. > > Robin My initial impression was as yours. However, it did not 'feel right'. A reading of L69 contains the clause ' but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won,'. I should believe that it is sufficient by writing '-1' declarer has conceded one of the last two tricks while not settling his T12 card. In order to concede a trick it must be a heart trick. At that point of T12 it was legally possible to lose a heart trick. Further in order to lose a heart trick it would be legally possible only at T12 but not T13. This results in the obvious conclusion that S having won T12 [the trick conceded to the defense] cannot by any legal play of the remaining cards lose T13. Conversely, can declarer be entitled to a result based on the lesser standard of ' or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards.'? As by circumventing the provision of L70E- ' The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card'. L70E clearly defines as normal the taking a losing action in the finesse or drop situation. As such, declarer does not have valid grounds for withdrawing his concession since he conceded a loseable trick via normal play. And imo the defenders do have valid grounds for withdrawing their acquiescence. However, declarer seeking withdrawal of his concession is not sufficient to alter [award the last two tricks to the defenders] the agreed score, as the defenders would need to first withdraw their acquiescence [see L69A: The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play.]. regards roger pewick From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Fri Apr 22 15:49:49 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri Apr 22 15:53:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question References: <005101c5472d$1cba29b0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <012001c54742$77769180$1c063dd4@c6l8v1> > > > > Well GRB apparently believes that irrespective of the hand that Player2 > holds, and irrespective of the actions of his peers, the condition that, > "it is probable that Player2 made the 2S bid as a result of the > misinformation", > has been obviously satisfied. So obviously in fact that he is prepared > to issue an AWMW to Players1/3 for challenging it. > > Well unfortunately for me I find this less than obvious. > Can anyone advise me what the words "it is probable that he made the call as > a result of misinformation" actually mean. In particular I would like > to know under what cicumstances would the condition NOT be met. > > We have the following example: west north east south 1S 3Cl* pas 4H a.p. 3Cl is explained as clubs and hearts. Before the opening lead is faced the explanation is corrected in diamonds and hearts. The director is summoned and east is allowed to change his pass and east calls double. The contract results in minus two. The director studies the board after play and finds that east had: 7 4 A 9 7 K 10 7 2 K 9 8 2 Why has east not doubled in the first instance? Is K 10 7 2 much better than K 9 8 2? Did east regret his pass and took his oppertunity.? The director cancels the double. Ben From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 22 16:00:34 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 22 16:00:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422094706.02b2a100@pop.starpower.net> At 07:15 PM 4/21/05, David wrote: > One of the most common misconceptions in discussion of UI and AI on > BLML and RGB [even IBLF occasionally!] concerns the situation where a > player has UI from partner and AI that suggests something similar. > > Most people talk as though you are not allowed to use UI but you are > allowed to use AI so if the AI suggests it then it does not matter > about the UI. However, nothing in the laws of the game comes up with > this conclusion. > > What the Laws say is that you may not choose amongst LAs one > suggested by the UI over another. That is not affected by AI, > because the Law states this rule without mentioning AI: the Law does > not say it applies unless there is AI. This depends on how you choose to interpret "suggested". If it means "suggested in the abstract" [AHD: "Suggest... (3) To make evident indirectly..."], then David is correct. If it means "suggested to the player" [AHD: "Suggest... (4) To serve as or provide a motive for..."], then it requires that the "suggestion" come from information of which the "suggestee" was previously unaware. IMO, a literal reading of L16A does not resolve this ambiguity. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Apr 22 16:14:42 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri Apr 22 16:15:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia Message-ID: <20050422141442.D8171B9F67@poczta.interia.pl> Dimitr Georgiev napisa?(a): > She has lost count of the cards only for S. She > perfectly knows that N has sJ and h10. > Well - if you are convinced that she does then we simply have different opinions. > > Is it possible to weight the score in claim cases? No - it is contradiction in terms. If you rule that a contract is made in, say, 80% of cases and one off in 20% of cases then you acknowledge that it is not irrational to go down. Therefore, by definition, you must rule one down. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ------------------------------------------------------------------ Twoja komorka ledwo zipie? Sciagnij sobie na tapete najwiekszego silacza... Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1875 << From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 22 16:42:30 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 22 16:43:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <4268EC78.2070509@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c54749$83084870$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > Indeed it is up to the Director to rule on the faulty claim. However, > it is East here who asks to retract his concession. The TD should rule > on that one. East has conceded a trick and wants it back. He gets it > back only if there is no legal way he could lose it. Well, there is a > legal way he can lose the HJ : playing it in trick 12. The fact that > this leads to two downtricks is not important. He has conceded one > trick, and he cannot get it back. By now, NS have also realised they > want two downtricks. So they too ask for a ruling. They have conceded > a trick to the HK, and they want it back. But they only get it back if > there is no legal way by which the HK makes a trick. There is such a > legal way: if it is played in trick 12. So NS don't get their trick back. > > I believe the correct result therefor is the one arrived at at the > table, -1, even though there is no legal way this result can be > achieved in actual play! Sorry Herman, you had better check the facts. According to the original post TD ruled 6Cl made! Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 22 16:47:49 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 22 16:48:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <0515fbcc4cddb99eed9080c9aa485b82@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000101c5474a$415049e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > Sent: 22. april 2005 15:33 > Cc: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > > On 22 Apr 2005, at 13:49, Sven Pran wrote: > > My solution is equivalent to awarding a weighted score (50% King and > > 50% > > Jack), not that I had this in mind when I posted my initial comment. > > And now it's my turn to ask, under what Law do you give a weighted > score for a claim? I did specifically state that giving a weighted score was not in my mind at all. But I noticed the interesting phenomenon that maintaining both concessions would be equivalent to giving a weighted score where the two legal plays had equal weights. Sven From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 22 14:35:15 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Apr 22 16:50:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge References: Message-ID: <000301c5474a$7b77d4d0$429868d5@James> N/N-S. You, South, hold: 9853 T942 KJ5 J7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Pass 2H 2S 3H 3S ? [Nigel] IMO P=10 X("penalty, primarily")=2 4H=1 North's 3H is pre-emptive. He failed to make a trial bid or "maximal double" From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 22 15:20:16 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Apr 22 16:50:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge References: Message-ID: <000401c5474a$7d2c1480$429868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] Given East's underbid of 3S, would an EBU TD classify West's psyche as Green, Amber or Moulin Rouge? [Nigel] IMO, Green. BTW ... (1) It would be more interesting, had Richard presented the original problem as N/N-S. You, East, hold: Axx AJx T9xx Qxx WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Pass 2H 2S 3H ? IMO 3S=10 4H=4 4S=2. I would not criticise 4H or 4S but on a flat hand with defence, I think 3S stands out. (2) IMO East systemically misbid (for example, on a similar hand with five spades) then I would be most concerned about the coincidence of two such systemic aberrations. (3) This could be what Richard calls "a single data point" for this particular pair; but it isn't really isolated; presumably this East doesn't psyche, regularly, in reply all constructive bids by partner. Furthermore, similar events of this kind, involving other pairs, are common. How does Richard imagine that a prosecutor can build a case agaisnt a first-time offender on circumstantial evidence? From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 22 16:52:15 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 22 16:53:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050421204740.01ca9108@mail.comcast.net> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050421204740.01ca9108@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422103711.02b3aa00@pop.starpower.net> At 08:57 PM 4/21/05, David wrote: >>Imps >>Dlr: North >>Vul: North-South >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 1H Pass 2H >>2S 3H 3S ? >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>9853 >>T942 >>KJ5 >>J7 >> >>What call do you make? >>What other call do you consider making? > >Both pass and 4H are LA's; my choice is 4H. Yes, partner bid 3H as >competitive, not invitational, but this looks like a magic fit hand; >we appear to have ten hearts and nothing wasted in spades. It's >possible that 3S and 4H will both make, and not that likely that 4H >will be down two doubled when the opponents aren't about to bid and >make 4S, or down when 3S is making. That is, I am expecting 19 total >tricks; if partner has six hearts and one spade, or five hearts and no >spades, there are 18 total trumps but the pure spade situation argues >for a 19th. (And if partner did bid 3H with only five, he should have >good hearts and an offensive hand.) Am I the only one worried that bidding 4H is asking to turn -170 into -420? Won't bidding 4H telegraph the existence of the 19th total trick (almost surely, from their prospective, 10-9 one way or the other) to E-W, giving them an automatic might-make-but-otherwise-a-good-save 4S bid? Didn't my grandmother teach me not to push the opponents into a game I'm not prepared to double? 4H can only be right if I expect it to make, which looks like far too long a stretch. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 22 17:08:00 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 22 17:07:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <000001c54749$83084870$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c54749$83084870$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42691350.6000806@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > >>Indeed it is up to the Director to rule on the faulty claim. However, >>it is East here who asks to retract his concession. The TD should rule >>on that one. East has conceded a trick and wants it back. He gets it >>back only if there is no legal way he could lose it. Well, there is a >>legal way he can lose the HJ : playing it in trick 12. The fact that >>this leads to two downtricks is not important. He has conceded one >>trick, and he cannot get it back. By now, NS have also realised they >>want two downtricks. So they too ask for a ruling. They have conceded >>a trick to the HK, and they want it back. But they only get it back if >>there is no legal way by which the HK makes a trick. There is such a >>legal way: if it is played in trick 12. So NS don't get their trick back. >> >>I believe the correct result therefor is the one arrived at at the >>table, -1, even though there is no legal way this result can be >>achieved in actual play! > > > Sorry Herman, you had better check the facts. > According to the original post TD ruled 6Cl made! > what I meant with "at the table" was the table result that both pairs agreed upon, which was -1. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 22 17:31:01 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 22 17:32:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <42691350.6000806@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c54750$4a3c0390$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > >>I believe the correct result therefor is the one arrived at at the > >>table, -1, even though there is no legal way this result can be > >>achieved in actual play! > > > > > > Sorry Herman, you had better check the facts. > > According to the original post TD ruled 6Cl made! > > > > what I meant with "at the table" was the table result that both pairs > agreed upon, which was -1. Sorry again Herman, my mistake! (We fully agree then) Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 22 17:47:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 22 17:48:44 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: >> I suggest that Tim reads clause 5.2.1 of the EBU Orange Book. > >> > >> That specifically states that a natural call must be alerted, if > >> it has a meaning that the opponents might not expect. > > > >Oh, I am well aware of what OB5.2.1 *says* (not exactly the above). > >I am also aware of what it is taken (by the EBU) to mean. The > >opponents referred to are "opponents in general" rather "opponents of > >the moment" in the specific. > > Fascinating stuff. You learn a new thing every day, especially about > books you have written. I wonder where the authority for this is? Perhaps David, and I think the need is clear, you should try attending an EBU TD training course and asking for the official position on whether alert requirements are dependent on your *system* or on your *opponents*. Perhaps, in all the tests on such courses, you can find an example of where a candidate has been marked down for failing to point out that a particular bid is alertable if playing against novices. Perhaps, in your gracious wisdom, you could give an example from the OB of a bid which is alertable against novices but not against intermediate players. Or perhaps you could just stop wittering about whatever I say and learn to read and think before issuing mindless responses. Ah well, never mind. I'll just have to learn to be forgiving. Best wishes, Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 22 17:47:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 22 17:48:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050421205824.038415e8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: > >>LOOT is UI; decission of declarer is AI. > >>opponent can always return a Club at earliest moment he is allowed > >>and say: "I didn't lead a C because of my partner's Club LOOT, but I > >>did lead it because you didn't want a Club lead" > > > > Sure, he can say it, but if not returning a club is also an LA then > > he will get adjusted against, because he has chosen amongst LAs etc > > etc. > > I agree with you in this case. The AI is that declarer didn't want a > club lead (based on his own hand); the UI is that partner did want a > club lead (based on his own hand). The combination of those facts > makes a club lead more attractive than either fact in isolation. Certainly true. There are (possibly) a small number of hands where the play, dummy and AI from declarer's choice render any non-club switch as being not an LA. I can't construct such a hand easily but nor do I imagine I would have much of a problem judging a specific example. I'm not sure I like the ruling I'm going to have to give if the evidence is overwhelmingly that there are no LAs though. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 22 17:47:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 22 17:48:55 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <42684E3A.9000408@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > > One piece of evidence I would weigh heavily would be the CCs. For > > example if they made clear mention of frequent relay sequences I > > would rule MI for the missing alerts but not consider the possibility > > of a CPU (a good CC being a damn silly way to try and conceal > > something!). Prior verbal disclosure of frequent relays - again MI > > rather than CPU. Opps asked a question and got an obviously > > incomplete answer (incline to CPU rather than MI). > > OK, this is further progress, but it still isn't clear where we are. > Most SO's that permit relays don't require pre-alerts, so that seems > irrelevant. Would the absence of a CC be enough to rule CPU? Most SO's don't permit the absence of CCs. But if a pair turns up and says "sorry we've lost our CCs but we are playing a strong club based relay system" then I'm not ruling any deliberate concealment. I'd expect some sort of pre-alert like this (even if pre-alerts aren't generally required) from a pair with no CC. > Suppose > systems are supposed to be declared in advance, and this pair has > failed to declare or declared a non-relay system. Would that be > enough? I'll apply whatever the regs linked to pre-disclosure say. > Suppose the pair are playing strong club, and the 1C opener is > noted as "strong, artificial" on the convention card, but there is a) > no mention of relay followups, or I'd consider this evidence of deliberate concealment, just as I would if it said "see system notes p43". The CC is supposed to help opps and this wouldn't cut the mustard with me. > b) a single word "relays" in the > responses section. Where do we draw the line? No deliberate concealment, plenty of possible MI if they miss an alert. I'm pragmatic, I know they can't fit the entire relay structure in a little CC box but they have tried (IMO) to get the most important message across in a clear succinct manner. > > NB, I don't think there is any difference in the score adjustment > > whether I rule MI or CPU but I am much less likely to assign an > > additional PP for MI than for a CPU. > > Sorry, but this is not correct. If you rule MI, you ask "Could the > opponents have done better if they had known the correct information?" > Typically this will only happen if they could have inserted a > lead-directing double or found a good save or some such thing. On the > other hand, if you rule CPU, the whole auction is illegal. I'm not sure what basis this has in law. If I find a pair has broken L40b then I use Law40c to adjust - doesn't matter if it's genuine concealment or a failure in the "his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation" department. If I'm dealing with a breach of Law73E I travel by way of L73F2. Either way I end up at Law12C (and normally at L12c2 since a result has been obtained). Either way I reserve the right to penalise in addition if I believe there has been wilful concealment or am dealing with a pair from whom poor disclosure has become habitual. The OB (and obviously other regulations will differ) tells me: "The actions of you and your partner following a psyche may provide evidence of an unauthorised - and therefore illegal - understanding. If so, then your partnership is said to have "fielded" the psyche." For example if one finds that there is a partnership agreement to open 1H in 3rd seat with "normal 1H openers + 0-3hcp short H" there would be clear evidence of an "unauthorised" agreement (ie not permitted by OB convention regs). This is illegal and we do indeed give an ArtAS. What the OB does not say (explicitly) is that actions after a "psych" may also provide evidence of an authorised, but improperly disclosed, agreement. EG the auction goes 2H-2N, the 2N being described as "strong enquiry". The 2N bidder turns up with a weak hand and claims he "psyched" we know he is a lying toe-rag and rule that "weak with H support" is part of their agreement about 2N. Now under EBU regs it is perfectly legal to play 2N as "either strong or weak with support" so this agreement is neither unauthorised nor illegal per se. It is, however, improperly disclosed so we have a route to adjustment via L12c2 as above. We can also impose PPs as we see fit. Some of those who have read the EBU regs (or even written them) may not understand what they actually *say* but don't let that worry you:) Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 22 17:47:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 22 17:48:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <20050422085306.D542C303218@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Why did opponents, to whom all was clear, accept a concession for an impossible "down 1" when "entitled" to down 2? My suspicions. a) They knew damn well which card declarer intended to play at trick 12 b) They knew damn well how a director called immediately would rule c) They were delighted to get -1 they know they didn't deserve. Perhaps there was something in the lady's demeanour that clued them in, perhaps something else. If my suspicions are wrong I apologise unreservedly to the pair concerned (and indeed rule -2), but if, having been there instead of just reading about it I found my suspicions were right I'm damned if I'd let them get away with it - contract made. Tim From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 22 18:01:55 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 22 18:02:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c54754$9b6a5830$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Why did opponents, to whom all was clear, accept a concession for an > impossible "down 1" when "entitled" to down 2? > > My suspicions. > a) They knew damn well which card declarer intended to play at trick 12 > b) They knew damn well how a director called immediately would rule > c) They were delighted to get -1 they know they didn't deserve. a) Not very likely. Were they mind-readers? b) If they knew their stuff they would know that a director called immediately should rule the Jack being played and give them both tricks. c) How come they didn't deserve a trick which they should almost certainly be awarded by a director? I suspect much simpler reasons for what happened, and those reasons call for sustaining both concessions. Down one. Sven From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Fri Apr 22 18:20:42 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri Apr 22 18:21:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C655@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: twm@cix.co.uk To: blml@rtflb.org Sent: 22/04/05 16:47 Subject: Re: [blml] Claim in Sofia Why did opponents, to whom all was clear, accept a concession for an impossible "down 1" when "entitled" to down 2? My suspicions. a) They knew damn well which card declarer intended to play at trick 12 b) They knew damn well how a director called immediately would rule c) They were delighted to get -1 they know they didn't deserve. Perhaps there was something in the lady's demeanour that clued them in, perhaps something else. If my suspicions are wrong I apologise unreservedly to the pair concerned (and indeed rule -2), but if, having been there instead of just reading about it I found my suspicions were right I'm damned if I'd let them get away with it - contract made. Tim ----- Tim has a valid point. I guess you had to be there to work out who thought what. My ruling of -1 depends on HJ being a normal play, if we were at the table we could decide that the only normal play (consistent with a "claim" of -1) if HK. In which case we can/will rule contract made - concession cancelled, L71C. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire RG27 9UY United Kingdom ------------------------------------------------------------------- From Freelotto80 at netscape.net Fri Apr 22 18:31:56 2005 From: Freelotto80 at netscape.net (Mrs. Sophia Halendale) Date: Fri Apr 22 18:32:54 2005 Subject: [blml] YOUR EMAIL WON THE LOTTERY Message-ID: THE FREE LOTTO COMPANY HOLLAND HEAD OFFICE BURDENSTRAAT 21B, 2053 DS AMSTERDAM, HOLLAND. www.freelotto.com FROM: THE DESK OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE FREE LOTTO COMPANY: WINNING FINAL NOTIFICATION.CONGRATULATIONS!!! We are please to announce you as one of the 10 lucky winners in the Free Lotto draw held on the April 20th, 2005. All 10 winning addresses were randomly selected from a batch of 50,000,000 international emails. Your email address emerged alongside 9 others as a category 2 winner in this year's Annual Free Lotto Draw. Consequently, you have therefore been approved for a total pay out of 1,000,000 Us Dollars (one million Dollars) only. In order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications please remember to quote your reference number and batch numbers: 1, Email ticket number: ticket number175420658766483 2, BATCH: 427901527-Dg43 3, the file Ref number: 232/656/4509 4, lucky numbers 8-16-18-23-31-45 5, lotto code number: FL09622Holland Please contact the under-listed claims officer as soon as possible for the immediate release of your winnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate Dr John Peters Telephone number +31 -626 448 919 Fax: +31-847-371-493 Email: bejesbejesnl@netscape.net Bejesbejeslaw firm 21B EGGERRST RAAT NN 102 AMSTERDAM, N.L For processing and remittance of your cash to a designated account of your choice. Remember, all winnings must be claim not later than May 2nd 2005, after this date, unclaimed funds will be returned to the International Lotto, you should contact advocate Dr john peters about the claimant procedures, send your fax and telephone to Advocate Dr John Peters, this will enable his office to send the claims application form (A4) to you the Beneficiary. Please note, in order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications please remember to quote your reference number and batch numbers. Furthermore, should there be any change of address do inform the advocate Dr John Peters as soon as possible. Dr John Peter is responsible for the processing of your approved file to the bank for payment. Congratulations once again, from all members of staff and thank you for being part of our promotions program. Once again congratulations. Sincerely, Sophia Halendale Promotions Manager The Lotto Company Holland & Europe. From aqzucsnwynfjy at fanamcapital.com Fri Apr 22 19:24:04 2005 From: aqzucsnwynfjy at fanamcapital.com (Mercedes Meyers) Date: Fri Apr 22 18:34:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Offering Purchases hassle free Message-ID: <0.1275114968.1197980757-978966658@topica.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.p3rfect.com/45.asp Best Regards, Mercedes Meyers Regional CEO depressive krs walton xp clinch cu dioxide nu gallows ann annual bzu alabaster ve giantess nyf upheld bp southeast fx repairmen lx choreography lda daisy iey kola dym http://p3rfect.com/gone.asp From adam at irvine.com Fri Apr 22 18:46:47 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Apr 22 18:47:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Re:Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 22 Apr 2005 03:22:07 PDT." <20050422102207.76810.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200504221646.JAA16955@mailhub.irvine.com> Dimitr wrote: > >Message: 8 > >Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:55:33 +0200 > >From: "Sven Pran" > >Subject: RE: [blml] Claim in Sofia > >To: "blml" > >Message-ID: <000501c54719$0b5d8540$6900a8c0@WINXP> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > >One down. > >Law 71A (and 71C): She has conceded a trick that is > >indeed lost if she plays her JH in the ending > >position. Such a play is not irrational. Her > >concession shall not be cancelled. > > She didn't lost a trick because shi actually didn't > play her hJ. Yes, she didn't made any statement but > her intention is clear - she intended to cash her hK > and to give her loser. So, if the hK is played the > game is over. If she had said "I'm playing the HK and conceding one down", then it's definitely right to rule that she's making. There's nothing unfair about that. I think the correct ruling is "down 1", even though that result could not have been obtained in play. Here's how I see it: Declarer has made both a claim and a concession---by saying "down 1", she claimed one of the remaining tricks and conceded the other. The opponents acquiesced in the claim, so the section on "contested claims" (L70) doesn't apply. Thus, to change the score, we either need to apply L69B or L71A. Declarer asked the TD to give her back the trick she conceded. Law 71A says that the trick can be given back only if it could not have been lost by any *legal* play of the remaining cards. Since, at that point, the HK had not been played and declarer had not said she was going to play HK, I think the HJ is a legal play, and since the trick could have been lost by that legal play, Law 71A doesn't apply. The TD's judgment that declarer clearly intended to play the HK isn't relevant. The opponents didn't actually ask the TD to give them back the trick she claimed, so we probably shouldn't even go to Law 69B. But if we did, we could give the opponents two tricks (for down 2) only if the trick that the opponents acquiesced in could not have been lost by any normal play. Since playing the HK would have been a normal play for declarer, Law 69B therefore cannot apply even if the opponents asked us to. Therefore, since there is no legal basis for changing the score using Laws 69, 70, or 71, the score agreed upon by the contestants must stand. Down 1. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 22 18:52:16 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 22 18:52:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: References: <000801c54728$295afd20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422113059.02b329f0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:34 AM 4/22/05, Harald wrote: >>From: "Sven Pran" >> >>On what ground (law reference please) do you cancel an accepted >>concession? > >The problem here is that you have two concessions. >Declarer has conceded a tridk to the defenders' HQ. >The defenders have conceded a trick to declarer's HK. >L71A: A concession must stand, once made, except that within the >correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director >shall cancel a concession: if a player has conceded a trick his side >had, in fact, won, or a trick his side could not have lost by any >legal play of the remaining cards. > >If you deal with the two consessions separately, you will come to the >conclusion that both sides have conceded a trick they could have lost >by a legal play of the remaining cards. > >The problem obviously beeing that it was impossiple to lose one of the >two tricks and not the other by any legal play of the remaining cards. The conceded HQ could have been lost by some legal play. The conceded HK could have been lost by some legal play. L71A, to be applicable, requires that one or both could not have been lost by some legal play. I don't see where this is affected by whether or not some unconceded other card might or might not have been lost by some legal play. >But in my opinion, we can't allow both sides to score one trick each >of the remaining two tricks, since that is impossible by any legal >play of the remaining cards. L68B defines a concession as "of those tricks". It is the only the loss of the conceded tricks, not the resulting outcome of the deal, which must be impossible (by L71A) or "implausible" (by L71C) for us to cancel the concession. That the eventual score that this would result in is impossible by any actual legal play would matter if L69B called for rectification via a L12B adjusted score, but it does not; it specifically calls for rectification by rescoring the board "with such trick awarded to aquiescing side". That's not an equity issue; it's a strictly mechanical transfer. When we penalize a revoke, we don't care whether the score we award was possible by any legal play of the cards absent the revoke. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john at asimere.com Fri Apr 22 19:12:27 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Apr 22 19:15:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Gordon Bower writes > > >On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> John (MadDog) Probst: >> >> >So you hold xxx Kxxxx x xxxx and respond 1H to 1D. Partner >> >bids 2S. This is forcing. I pass in sleep, don't you? >> >cheers John > >Sorry, no. If you aren't willing to respect partner's force, you pass 1D. >(And I would have some harsh words for any partner of mine who DIDN'T pass >1D with that.) > >You do have a right to depart from system, of course, but going along with >that is accepting 200% of the blame if it doesn't work out. > >> And Rosenberg argued that an out-of-tempo forcing 2S >> could not result in a TD adjusted score of a contract of >> 2S, since a TD would be compelled to rule that passing a >> forcing bid was not a logical alternative. > >This is true. > >On the other hand, if they admit that they think that this is a routine 1H >bid and they would pass partner's in-tempo forcing rebid, they are in for >a lecture about what "forcing" means (see earlier thread) and if I've >had a bad day they'll be in front of an ethic committee to justify lying >through their teeth about their methods. I agree I don't have the values for a 1H call. Partner would agree with this. I just decided to bid 1H to stir up the waters. Anyone who bothers to read me knows I'm pretty ill-disciplined. As for not respecting a force, I'd have passed 1S so I'm darn well passing 2S :) We could describe any forcing bid as "Forcing unless partner decides to pass" but that's an exercise in onanism. cheers john > >GRB > > >_______________________________________________ >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 musashi at doramail.com Fri Apr 22 20:15:20 2005 From: musashi at doramail.com (Erwin Robbins) Date: Fri Apr 22 19:17:38 2005 Subject: [blml] You've been selected for a low rate Message-ID: <118341.3530.musashi@doramail.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.cra3y.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Wilma Hamm to be remov(ed: http://www.cra3y.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 john at asimere.com Fri Apr 22 19:21:09 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Apr 22 19:23:46 2005 Subject: FW: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <42684AE9.7000104@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504211404.j3LE4QHQ010370@cfa.harvard.edu> <42684AE9.7000104@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In article <42684AE9.7000104@cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Sven Pran" >> To me it is implicit in L21B that L21B permits the player changing his call >> to what he would have called had he been correctly informed. > >This seems to sum up the debate. Sven and Bruce rule based on what is >"implicit" in the Laws; Tim and I believe it is correct to rule based on >what the Laws actually say. > > >SW> By the way, "calling West away from the table" is considered bad >SW> practice outside North America. Noo. There are a couple of situations where we do it in the UK. sometimes we need to ask a player his intent and we would do that away from the table. I think, and I've experienced it, that ACBL TD's do it more often than we do, but I've never thought it was per se bad practice or to be disapproved of. John > >> From: Bruce McIntyre >> Seems odd to me. I would think that the ACBL is simply trying to prevent UI >> being passed during the discussion of what the player thinks he might have >done. >> "Well, I might have bid 3D instead" is a lot different than "I'd have bid >3D." > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 22 19:26:26 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 22 19:26:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050421164237.02bbdb00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422125743.02b306c0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:42 AM 4/22/05, twm wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > The original case arose in the ACBL, where Craig's position would be > > expected to prevail. Even a foreigner new to ACBL competition > would be > > expected to understand this, as they would be required to know that > the > > usual run of low-level doubles by responder, e.g. 1C-1S-X or 1S-2C-X, > > require an alert if penalty but not if takeout. > >My memory is obviously playing tricks on me. I thought the ACBL was now >using alert "Doubles and redoubles with highly unusual or unexpected >meanings". Neither a penalty double nor a negative double would be >alertable in this sequence. Well, it changes so often that I can't be sure myself. But I have what I believe to be the latest ACBL convention card, and it reads "Special Doubles / After overcall: *Penalty [] ______* Negative [] through ______", with the stuff I set off by *s in red, indicating a required alert. > > Legally speaking, I > > think we can assume the Conditions of Contest to be "general bridge > > knowledge" rather than "partnership agreement or experience". > >I do not believe for a moment that all players in these events need to >know the alert chart. Nor do I, not all of it. But I do think they are responsible for knowing that portion of it which appears quite explicitly on a document that they are specifically required to familiarize themselves with and understand. > Were I visiting the US with Emily I would run >through *our* system and tell her which of *our* bids were >alertable/announceable. If she asked about a double I would expect her to >be informed of the partnership agreement (and where no explicit >agreements >existed of any related understandings). The answer "standard" is never >acceptable disclosure to a player who does not know the standard. I fully agree. But how is this not a red herring? The reply in question was that it was "undiscussed". That means "we have no agreement". "Standard" would mean "we have an agreement, but I'm not telling you what it is" (perhaps because I'm a bridge lawyer contending that I'm not required to, perhaps because I don't really know what "standard" means in this context myself). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john at asimere.com Fri Apr 22 19:27:52 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Apr 22 19:30:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c546b5$4675b030$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article , Tim West- Meads writes >Sven wrote: > >> If he withdraws (changes) a call that was according to his partnership >> agreements when he (only) had the misinformation from his opponents and >> replaces it with another call which (after he has received the correct >> information) is a violation of the same partnership agreements do you >> then consider it probable that his first call was made as a result of >> the misinformation? > >I expect this to be the most likely scenario. The player knows that the >meaning of his original call is changed by the late alert and calls the >TD. The TD checks the system in use and instantly realises that the >player would indeed have chosen some other call. The TD carefully >explains that the withdrawn call is AI to the partnership and UI to their >opps (most players don't know this). The player now decides what to do >with his hand, *given* he has already told his partner whatever it was the >original call showed. This will almost certainly put him in undiscussed >territory and he may well decide simply to "repeat" the prior information >by making the replacement system bid, (this is what I would most likely do >playing with Emily, although I might change to a pass). He may decide >that his partner is sufficiently on the same wavelength that he can take >this opportunity to give his partner *extra* information or disrupt opps >in a low risk manner (this is what I would most likely do if playing with >John). I have played "poor ethics" bridge with Richard the Rotweiller once or twice. This is ok in the school we play in as long as it's disclosed. Obviously it requires opponents who want to join in the fun and most of our school would. This example would definitely fall into the category as one could scratch one's head (or stroke one's beard if it were vs DALB) and then make the call. I repeat: if the opponents can't be bothered to follow the regulations, I'm empowered to take any legal swipe at them, and where I play probably would. It makes for a good chat in the bar afterwards. john. > >In neither case is the probability that I would have made a call that >(after the correction of MI) totally failed to describe my hand affected >one iota. > >Tim > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Fri Apr 22 19:31:56 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Apr 22 19:34:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422084303.02a445b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000701c546c6$a0b43240$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050422084303.02a445b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In article <6.1.1.1.0.20050422084303.02a445b0@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 07:05 PM 4/21/05, David wrote: > >>Scenario:- Game all Pairs >>Player1 Bids 1N >>Player2 asks the range, is told 12-14, and bids 2S >> This information is corrected to 15-17 >> and Player2 substitutes a Pass. >> >>The bidding goes all pass and the contract makes >>with an overtrick for 120. >>Examination of the score sheet reveal all the >>other scores range from 200 to 800 in failing >>2 Spade contracts (some doubled). >>Player1/Player3 want an adjustment on the >>grounds that the decision to bid 2S was not >>as a result of the misinformation, and should >>not be allowed to be changed. All the >>other players in Player2's position had bid 2S >>with the correct information. >> >>Do Player1/Player3 have any case? > >David has given us a very good test case. Although it's not specified >in the example (and could be critical if we actually had to rule on >this), we can stipulate that Player2 is prepared to admit that he would >have bid 2S with correct information, but because of the misinformation >he is now in a position where if he passes his partner will "know" >(presumptive AI by L16C) that he has a 2S overcall of a 12-14 NT. Do >we allow him a tactical choice between letting his partner know that >his hand is good enough to have overcalled a 15-17 NT by repeating his >2S call and making his spade suit UI to the opponents by passing? Or >do we rule that he cannot change his 2S bid because if he would have >have overcalled with correct information it was not "probable that he >made the call as a result of misinformation"? > >I don't know the answer, but it's the right question. Excellent analysis Eric. I allow the pass as the Law permits it. I may disapprove, but playing "poor ethics" with the Rotweiller it would be obvious. I almost always have no sympathy for the OS in these situations. John > >I lean towards the former, though, because the latter raises practical >difficulties without the stipulation that Player2 is prepared to admit >that he would have bid 2S with correct information. It would mean that >the director must make a finding as to whether it was "probable that >[the non-offending player] made the call as a result of >misinformation". How do we expect him to go about doing that, given >the BLML consensus that it would be inappropriate to either look at the >player's hand or take the player away from the table for >interrogation? I object (as a TD) to being forced to "sandbag" a >non-offender in this position; if he asks me whether it would be legal >for him to pass now, he should be legally entitled to a better answer >than, "I can't tell you; make your call and you'll find out later >whether you committed an infraction." Perhaps we need a second look at >that consensus. > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > >_______________________________________________ >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 haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 19:37:57 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Fri Apr 22 19:38:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Re:Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <200504221646.JAA16955@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Dimitr wrote: > > > >Message: 8 > > >Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:55:33 +0200 > > >From: "Sven Pran" > > >Subject: RE: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > >To: "blml" > > >Message-ID: <000501c54719$0b5d8540$6900a8c0@WINXP> > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > >One down. > > >Law 71A (and 71C): She has conceded a trick that is > > >indeed lost if she plays her JH in the ending > > >position. Such a play is not irrational. Her > > >concession shall not be cancelled. > > > > She didn't lost a trick because shi actually didn't > > play her hJ. Yes, she didn't made any statement but > > her intention is clear - she intended to cash her hK > > and to give her loser. So, if the hK is played the > > game is over. > >If she had said "I'm playing the HK and conceding one down", then it's >definitely right to rule that she's making. There's nothing unfair >about that. > >I think the correct ruling is "down 1", even though that result could >not have been obtained in play. Here's how I see it: Declarer has >made both a claim and a concession---by saying "down 1", she claimed >one of the remaining tricks and conceded the other. The opponents >acquiesced in the claim, so the section on "contested claims" (L70) >doesn't apply. Thus, to change the score, we either need to apply >L69B or L71A. > >Declarer asked the TD to give her back the trick she conceded. Law >71A says that the trick can be given back only if it could not have >been lost by any *legal* play of the remaining cards. Since, at that >point, the HK had not been played and declarer had not said she was >going to play HK, I think the HJ is a legal play, and since the trick >could have been lost by that legal play, Law 71A doesn't apply. The >TD's judgment that declarer clearly intended to play the HK isn't >relevant. > >The opponents didn't actually ask the TD to give them back the trick >she claimed, so we probably shouldn't even go to Law 69B. But if we >did, we could give the opponents two tricks (for down 2) only if the >trick that the opponents acquiesced in could not have been lost by any >normal play. Since playing the HK would have been a normal play for >declarer, Law 69B therefore cannot apply even if the opponents asked >us to. If we let declarer concede a tridk to the HQ, she has to finesse the HJ at trick 12. Then there's no legal play of the remaining cards whereby south can loose a trick. So I don't think we can have it both ways. 2 down. Regards Harald > >Therefore, since there is no legal basis for changing the score using >Laws 69, 70, or 71, the score agreed upon by the contestants must >stand. Down 1. > > -- Adam > > >_______________________________________________ >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 ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 22 19:45:11 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 22 19:46:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Fourteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <4268506D.1060807@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504211346.j3LDkvPd008819@cfa.harvard.edu> <4268506D.1060807@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <305e3c5190aebe86628b0ef34e97a752@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 21, 2005, at 9:16 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > L16A says "unmistakeable hesitation" among many other examples. The > key point is that when partner has suggested something by means other > than legal calls and plays, there are restrictions. Exactly what > those restrictions are depends on what partner has suggested. Hm. Law 16A says that an unmistakable hesitation is extraneous information which may suggest one LA over another, and if it does, partner is prohibited from choosing the suggested LA. Law 73C says that a player who has such information (referring to "hesitation" with no qualifier) must "carefully avoid taking any advantage". Is this a redundancy? Is there *any* situation in which one law might be violated and the other not? From john at asimere.com Fri Apr 22 19:49:59 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Apr 22 19:52:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <000201c54750$4a3c0390$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <42691350.6000806@hdw.be> <000201c54750$4a3c0390$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7e3vr5AHlTaCFw1+@asimere.com> In article <000201c54750$4a3c0390$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> > ............... >> >>I believe the correct result therefor is the one arrived at at the >> >>table, -1, even though there is no legal way this result can be >> >>achieved in actual play! >> > >> > >> > Sorry Herman, you had better check the facts. >> > According to the original post TD ruled 6Cl made! >> > >> >> what I meant with "at the table" was the table result that both pairs >> agreed upon, which was -1. > >Sorry again Herman, my mistake! (We fully agree then) > >Regards Sven I'd rule table result stands. A curious result indeed. Neither side gets the extra trick as the concession was accepted and we're out of time. > > >_______________________________________________ >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 ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 22 19:52:23 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 22 19:53:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Seventeen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <004701c546e2$5c79b340$0a9468d5@James> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050421004828.035dbd38@mail.comcast.net> <004701c546e2$5c79b340$0a9468d5@James> Message-ID: <20ebf724389425d5df0cfda727739d7b@rochester.rr.com> >> [Richard James Hills CASE N-17] [98 lines snipped] > [Nigel] [7 lines snipped] It is an accepted part of general Internet etiquette that a reply should contain only so much of the original message as is necessary to maintain the continuity of the thread. It would be nice if more of us would avoid the apparent current trend to disregard that point. :-) From georgiev_d at yahoo.com Fri Apr 22 19:55:25 2005 From: georgiev_d at yahoo.com (Dimitr Georgiev) Date: Fri Apr 22 19:56:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Re;Claim in Sofia Message-ID: <20050422175525.79636.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all, Thank you all for your comments. I read them very carefully. All of you are right but if we accept that she made claim for 1 trick and concession for 1 trick in t12. But I read carefully L68 heading too, which says: "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress19. If it does refer to subsequent tricks:..." The 12th trick is in progress so I think that the L68, L69, L70 and L71 are inapplicable for that trick. We have consecution of actions, which has been made by declarer: 1. She plaed from dummy hx, 2. She saw the h10 played by N, 3. She showed her cards, 4. She wrote one down. So my conclusion is that she played hK for the trick 12, which is in progress and she conceded the last trick. Ok, let's applay L71 for the last trick. Now we have only one play, not normal or irrational, just one. And hJ is winning card because it is the last heart on the table. Am I right? Best regards Dimitar __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Fri Apr 22 20:00:00 2005 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri Apr 22 20:02:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <200504221646.JAA16955@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200504221646.JAA16955@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <1DP2Sw-25uEUq0@fwd24.sul.t-online.de> "Adam Beneschan" schrieb: > > Dimitr wrote: > > > >Message: 8 > > >Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:55:33 +0200 > > >From: "Sven Pran" > > >Subject: RE: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > >To: "blml" > > >Message-ID: <000501c54719$0b5d8540$6900a8c0@WINXP> > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > >One down. > > >Law 71A (and 71C): She has conceded a trick that is > > >indeed lost if she plays her JH in the ending > > >position. Such a play is not irrational. Her > > >concession shall not be cancelled. > > > > She didn't lost a trick because shi actually didn't > > play her hJ. Yes, she didn't made any statement but > > her intention is clear - she intended to cash her hK > > and to give her loser. So, if the hK is played the > > game is over. > > If she had said "I'm playing the HK and conceding one down", then it's > definitely right to rule that she's making. There's nothing unfair > about that. > > I think the correct ruling is "down 1", even though that result could > not have been obtained in play. Here's how I see it: Declarer has > made both a claim and a concession---by saying "down 1", she claimed > one of the remaining tricks and conceded the other. The opponents > acquiesced in the claim, so the section on "contested claims" (L70) > doesn't apply. Thus, to change the score, we either need to apply > L69B or L71A. > > Declarer asked the TD to give her back the trick she conceded. Law > 71A says that the trick can be given back only if it could not have > been lost by any *legal* play of the remaining cards. Since, at that > point, the HK had not been played and declarer had not said she was > going to play HK, I think the HJ is a legal play, and since the trick > could have been lost by that legal play, Law 71A doesn't apply. The > TD's judgment that declarer clearly intended to play the HK isn't > relevant. > > The opponents didn't actually ask the TD to give them back the trick > she claimed, so we probably shouldn't even go to Law 69B. But if we > did, we could give the opponents two tricks (for down 2) only if the > trick that the opponents acquiesced in could not have been lost by any > normal play. Since playing the HK would have been a normal play for > declarer, Law 69B therefore cannot apply even if the opponents asked > us to. > > Therefore, since there is no legal basis for changing the score using > Laws 69, 70, or 71, the score agreed upon by the contestants must > stand. Down 1. > > -- Adam exactly ! Amen ! cheers Peter From adam at irvine.com Fri Apr 22 20:14:53 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Apr 22 20:15:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Re;Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:55:25 PDT." <20050422175525.79636.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200504221814.LAA17524@mailhub.irvine.com> Dimitr wrote: > Hi all, > > Thank you all for your comments. I read them very > carefully. All of you are right but if we accept that > she made claim for 1 trick and concession for 1 trick > in t12. But I read carefully L68 heading too, which > says: "For a statement or action to constitute a claim > or concession of tricks under these > Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently > in progress19. If it does refer to > subsequent tricks:..." > The 12th trick is in progress so I think that the L68, > L69, L70 and L71 are inapplicable for that trick. No, I think that since her statement applies to both tricks 12 and 13, it does refer to tricks other than the one in progress; and thus whatever claim or concession laws apply do apply to trick 12. The "19" after the word "progress" refers to a footnote; it's there in my copy of the Laws also. Here's what the footnote says: 19 If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorised Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play. This implies that the claim laws don't apply to a statement or action if it "pertains *only* to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress" [emphasis mine]. If declarer says "I'm winning this trick" in the middle of trick 8, but says nothing about what's going to happen on subsequent tricks, it's not a claim. I think this footnote is meant to spell out just what's meant by the Law 68 heading. For some reason, this clause in Law 68 has caused a whole lot more confusion than it seems like it should have. Maybe it's time to think about rewording it to make it clearer. -- Adam From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 22 20:16:06 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 22 20:17:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050421205824.038415e8@mail.comcast.net> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050421205824.038415e8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: On Apr 21, 2005, at 9:06 PM, David J. Grabiner wrote: > If the UI completely duplicates the AI, then it provides no additional > information and thus suggests nothing. > > One of Kaplan's examples: West leads a doubleton club, North has KQJ > and plays the king, and East, with A932, hesitates before ducking the > trick. This is UI to West. However, when East ducks the trick, he > plays the C9 (standard signals), which provides AI that he wants West > to lead another club. When West gets in, he may lead another club, > because the UI tells him nothing more than the AI. The law (Laws 16 and 73) do not say anything about "additional" information - they address only the question whether the source of the information is authorized. In the example case, there are *two* sources of information, one authorized and one not. But the law does not say that the one obviates the other - it says only that *when he has unauthorized information* a player is not allowed to choose a LA which may have been suggested thereby. The fact he has the same information from an authorized source is irrelevant. Kaplan may not have intended (or wished) that to be the case, but that's the way it is, at least as I see it. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 22 20:40:42 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 22 20:42:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422125743.02b306c0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050421164237.02bbdb00@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20050422125743.02b306c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Apr 22, 2005, at 1:26 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > Well, it changes so often that I can't be sure myself. But I have > what I believe to be the latest ACBL convention card, and it reads > "Special Doubles / After overcall: *Penalty [] ______* Negative [] > through ______", with the stuff I set off by *s in red, indicating a > required alert. I have the same card. Unfortunately, I can't get to the acbl site at the moment, but the notes I have indicate that the alert regulation specifically gives the example 1D-1H-X, where double is penalty, as requiring an alert *because* it is considered "highly unusual or unexpected". See http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage/bridge/alertproposal.html > I fully agree. But how is this not a red herring? The reply in > question was that it was "undiscussed". That means "we have no > agreement". "Standard" would mean "we have an agreement, but I'm not > telling you what it is" (perhaps because I'm a bridge lawyer > contending that I'm not required to, perhaps because I don't really > know what "standard" means in this context myself). Or perhaps "I think 'standard' is equivalent to 'it's general bridge knowledge'". A few weeks ago, this auction occurred: W N E(me) S(dlr) 1C P 1D P 1H P 3H P 4NT P 5H P P P Partner made the face down opening lead and asked "are there any questions?" I said "yes," and to N/S "please explain your auction". (This is the ACBL's preferred question, btw). Both N and S started waffling, and both asked me to specify which call I was interested in. I said "I would like an explanation of the entire auction please". They called the director. They complained that they weren't required to do as I asked. South said specifically "I'm not required to explain what 3H means". The director then turned to me and asked "which call are you interested in?" (!) In the end, they told me that 4NT was "simple Blackwood" and that they were playing "Standard" - and nothing else. One or both of N/S had a convention card, but as is usual ACBL practice, they kept it close to them rather than making it available to us. I asked my question because I knew this pair to have played Kaplan-Sheinwold in the past, and I wanted to be sure there was nothing about the auction I might miss because of unfamiliarity with that system. We weren't, AFAICT, "damaged" by anything they did or did not do, but the incident left a bad taste in my mouth - both N/S are much more experienced players than E/W and I thought their attitude toward the principle of full disclosure was rather unfortunate (to say the least). And that the Director's approach to that principle was even more unfortunate. Was I wrong? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 22 20:48:06 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 22 20:49:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000d01c54733$a514dfc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000d01c54733$a514dfc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <720e5d5a1bb6b975fd94a888af7994c9@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 22, 2005, at 8:05 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > AI may reduce the available LAs to the point where a > player has no other LA than the one suggested by UI. This is true - though it does not, to my mind, mean, as someone else suggested, that "I have the same information from AI that I have from UI" obviates the requirement to avoid taking advantage of the UI. From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 22 20:50:21 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 22 20:51:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c5476c$22ba4540$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert .......... > The law (Laws 16 and 73) do not say anything about "additional" > information - they address only the question whether the source of the > information is authorized. In the example case, there are *two* sources > of information, one authorized and one not. But the law does not say > that the one obviates the other - it says only that *when he has > unauthorized information* a player is not allowed to choose a LA which > may have been suggested thereby. The fact he has the same information > from an authorized source is irrelevant. Kaplan may not have intended > (or wished) that to be the case, but that's the way it is, at least as > I see it. That could very well be but it isn't: Law 16 does not say that "a player may not choose an action that could have been suggested by the extraneous information". It says that "a player may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". So from the moment a player has only one logical alternative action available, for instance because he has AI that eliminates all other alternatives, he is no longer restrained in his choice due to the UI. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 22 21:43:15 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 22 21:44:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c54773$8705e9d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ................... > A few weeks ago, this auction occurred: > > W N E(me) S(dlr) > 1C > P 1D P 1H > P 3H P 4NT > P 5H P P > P > > Partner made the face down opening lead and asked "are there any > questions?" I said "yes," and to N/S "please explain your auction". > (This is the ACBL's preferred question, btw). Both N and S started > waffling, and both asked me to specify which call I was interested in. > I said "I would like an explanation of the entire auction please". They > called the director. They complained that they weren't required to do > as I asked. South said specifically "I'm not required to explain what > 3H means". The director then turned to me and asked "which call are you > interested in?" (!) > > In the end, they told me that 4NT was "simple Blackwood" and that they > were playing "Standard" - and nothing else. One or both of N/S had a > convention card, but as is usual ACBL practice, they kept it close to > them rather than making it available to us. I asked my question because > I knew this pair to have played Kaplan-Sheinwold in the past, and I > wanted to be sure there was nothing about the auction I might miss > because of unfamiliarity with that system. We weren't, AFAICT, > "damaged" by anything they did or did not do, but the incident left a > bad taste in my mouth - both N/S are much more experienced players than > E/W and I thought their attitude toward the principle of full > disclosure was rather unfortunate (to say the least). And that the > Director's approach to that principle was even more unfortunate. Was I > wrong? Absolutely not! If the Director had known his job he would have awarded your opponents a PP (of at least a warning) for failing to comply with Laws 20F1/41B. Your question was perfectly proper. (You could also have phrased your question something like: "What are we entitled to know about your hands from your auction?"). If you want to do anything about your experience I think a formal report to ACBL might be in order. Regards Sven From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 21:47:12 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Apr 22 21:48:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Dimitr Georgiev wrote: > >> Hi all, >> An interesting claim case was happened last weekend in >> Bulgarian teams. Board 12 >> W/N-S >> AJ92 >> 10964 >> QJ103 >> 2 >> K43 Q1086 >> A73 KJ8 >> A972 - >> Q103 AKJ854 >> 75 >> Q52 >> K8654 >> 976 >> E played 6cl. >> Lead: d5. >> Declarer ruffed, played spade to the K and A, another >> diamond ruffed, 3 rounds trumps ending in dummy, then >> she finessed the sJ, another spade to the Q and then >> she played the last trump and went do the dummy >> playing heart to the A. Cashed the A of diamond >> discarding spade and the situation is as follow: >> J >> 10 >> - >> - >> - - >> 7 KJ >> 9 - >> - - >> - >> Q >> K >> - >> Declarer played heart from dummy, N followed and she >> showed her cards without any statement and wrote the >> result one down. After few minutes she called the td >> and explained that she want an extra trick because she >> actually made double squeeze. She also confessed that >> she didn't consider playing for squeeze. The level of >> declarer is high. >> I ruled 6cl made. >> Any suggestions, please. >> > >Hello Dimitr, long time no see/hear/read. > >I don't consider the squeeze to be important. >There is also no claim, actually, since play to the penultimate trick >had already started. Hello? A new Law not in my Law book? In fact there was a claim. >If opponents accepted one down, they must have agreed that declarer >played the king to the penultimate trick, or else it would be two off. >So declarer actually made 12 tricks, without any claim (or with a >concession in the 13th one - concession that is cancelled by L71A). Whatever they agreed to is not relevant to the result of the claim. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email so these messages are resent and very late. Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 21:48:38 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Apr 22 21:49:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia Message-ID: Harald Skj?ran wrote > > >>From: "Sven Pran" >>To: "blml" >>Subject: RE: [blml] Claim in Sofia >>Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:43:46 +0200 >> >> > On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford >>........... >> > Either you rule that declarer made her contract, or that it was -2. >> >>On what ground (law reference please) do you cancel an accepted >>concession? > >The problem here is that you have two concessions. >Declarer has conceded a tridk to the defenders' HQ. >The defenders have conceded a trick to declarer's HK. This is legalese at its worst. There was a claim. Being a claim not for all the tricks it was also a concession. But to suggest the defence conceded is silly. One side claims/concedes/both, the other side agrees/disagrees. That's it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email so these messages are resent and very late. Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 22 21:50:03 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Apr 22 21:51:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote >This is an interesting point, and I think essentially the same point >that Robin made. So, although we would have allowed NS to contest the >concession, once they accepted it they don't have legal grounds for >withdrawing that concession. Is that correct? No, you are confusing concession and acquiescence. East claimed and conceded a trick and is trying to withdraw the concession under L71C. The standard in L71C is not met so East cannot get an extra trick. N/S assented to the claim, so they have acquiesced per L69A - I understand this later effort by declarer was outside the period set by L69A. However they can withdraw acquiescence under L69B within the Correction Period. However, the standard set by L69B is not met. So I agree with Robin: one down. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email so these messages are resent and very late. Web: blakjak.com From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 22 22:06:01 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 22 22:07:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Fourteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <305e3c5190aebe86628b0ef34e97a752@rochester.rr.com> References: <200504211346.j3LDkvPd008819@cfa.harvard.edu> <4268506D.1060807@cfa.harvard.edu> <305e3c5190aebe86628b0ef34e97a752@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422154820.02a40eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:45 PM 4/22/05, Ed wrote: >Hm. Law 16A says that an unmistakable hesitation is extraneous >information which may suggest one LA over another, and if it does, >partner is prohibited from choosing the suggested LA. Law 73C says >that a player who has such information (referring to "hesitation" with >no qualifier) must "carefully avoid taking any advantage". Is this a >redundancy? Is there *any* situation in which one law might be >violated and the other not? As I read those laws, such situations are quite common. To me, L73C is violated only if the player fails to make a genuine effort to conform to the restrictions of L16A, whereas L16A is nevertheless violated if his effort fails. If he convinces me that he saw no logical alternative to his call, or that he didn't believe his call to have been suggested by the UI, I will not find a violation of L73C, but I will still adjust under the provisions of L16 if I disagree. I may be unduly influenced in this reading by those arguably irrelevant chapter headings, but, knowing some of the history behind them, I read "Proprieties" as a set of instructions to players, whereas I read "General Laws Governing Irregularities" as a set of instructions to TDs. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Apr 22 22:10:12 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Apr 22 22:11:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <000601c54773$8705e9d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> from "Sven Pran" at Apr 22, 2005 09:43:15 PM Message-ID: <200504222010.j3MKAC1P014523@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Sven Pran writes: > > > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > ................... > > A few weeks ago, this auction occurred: > > > > W N E(me) S(dlr) > > 1C > > P 1D P 1H > > P 3H P 4NT > > P 5H P P > > P > > > > Partner made the face down opening lead and asked "are there any > > questions?" I said "yes," and to N/S "please explain your auction". > > (This is the ACBL's preferred question, btw). Both N and S started > > waffling, and both asked me to specify which call I was interested in. > > I said "I would like an explanation of the entire auction please". They > > called the director. They complained that they weren't required to do > > as I asked. South said specifically "I'm not required to explain what > > 3H means". The director then turned to me and asked "which call are you > > interested in?" (!) > > > > In the end, they told me that 4NT was "simple Blackwood" and that they > > were playing "Standard" - and nothing else. One or both of N/S had a > > convention card, but as is usual ACBL practice, they kept it close to > > them rather than making it available to us. I asked my question because > > I knew this pair to have played Kaplan-Sheinwold in the past, and I > > wanted to be sure there was nothing about the auction I might miss > > because of unfamiliarity with that system. We weren't, AFAICT, > > "damaged" by anything they did or did not do, but the incident left a > > bad taste in my mouth - both N/S are much more experienced players than > > E/W and I thought their attitude toward the principle of full > > disclosure was rather unfortunate (to say the least). And that the > > Director's approach to that principle was even more unfortunate. Was I > > wrong? > > Absolutely not! > > If the Director had known his job he would have awarded your opponents a PP > (of at least a warning) for failing to comply with Laws 20F1/41B. Your > question was perfectly proper. (You could also have phrased your question > something like: "What are we entitled to know about your hands from your > auction?"). The worst example of what Ed is discussing that I'm aware of at the international level came from Albuquerque (Balicki and Zmudzinski) First of all, it emerged that the card they were playing did not actually match what they were playing. Second, they were playing at least one unapproved convention. And in a case similar to what Ed is discussing, it took multiple question to get them to be as specific as (something close to) multiple meanings according to bridge logic. Fortunately the director at the time didn't consider this adequate and required a more meaningful disclosure. In case anybody's wondering the penalties for the combined offences amounted to over 30 imps and a suspension until their convention card reflected reality. Meaning that Poland was required to play their 3rd pair (which included a sponsor) in the final quarter of the semi-final. With a big lead to be sure, but not as big as it had been. I've heard that since then the Poles are models of disclosure. All in all, well I wish more directors would take a firm stand on disclosure issues and I think the people involved handled a nasty incident as well as was possible. (You can ask how the Poles had reached the semi-finals of a world championship event with an inaccurate convention card. Tough thing to police) From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Fri Apr 22 22:22:37 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri Apr 22 22:19:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <005101c5472d$1cba29b0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, David Barton wrote: > Can anyone advise me what the words "it is probable that he made the call as > a result of misinformation" actually mean. In particular I would like > to know under what cicumstances would the condition NOT be met. Wellll.... if Player2 is given misinformation, makes a call, is given correct information, and says "I want to make a different call," that makes it highly probable that he feels the misinformation is what led him to make his first call. You have to almost accuse Player2 of cheating to deny this to him. The times when I wouldn't allow a change are times when I don't believe there was really any misinformation (failing to alert Stayman promptly, for instance, in countries where "alert all conventions" is the rule.) Similarly if Player2 is Player1's regular partner and Player1-Player3 are using the same convention card, or otherwise Player2 has extensive experience with this pair. Remember too WHEN the L21B ruling is made. The usual director spiel is something like "ah, we have misinformation. Do either of Player2 and Player4 feel they would have done something differently? Yes, you say, Player2? OK, you may take back your most recent call and change it if you wish." I've never heard a director ask WHAT call I proposed to substitute before making his decision whether to roll the auction back. GRB From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 22 22:22:19 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 22 22:22:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Seventeen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <20ebf724389425d5df0cfda727739d7b@rochester.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050421004828.035dbd38@mail.comcast.net> <004701c546e2$5c79b340$0a9468d5@James> <20ebf724389425d5df0cfda727739d7b@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422161124.02ea9eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:52 PM 4/22/05, Ed wrote: >>>[Richard James Hills CASE N-17] > >[98 lines snipped] > >>[Nigel] > >[7 lines snipped] > >It is an accepted part of general Internet etiquette that a reply >should contain only so much of the original message as is necessary to >maintain the continuity of the thread. It would be nice if more of us >would avoid the apparent current trend to disregard that point. :-) Like Ed, I get annoyed when someone reproduces some lengthy prior post, citations from previous messages intact, then replies only to one or two particular assertions or arguments, and I concur that there do seem to be some lazy folks in this forum who never seem to bother to snip anything, no matter how lengthy. But it behooves the poster to retain as much of the message he is replying to as is needed to establish a context for his reply. I consider it bad netiqutte to send a message that would be incomprehensible to someone who has not followed its thread in its entirety. Communication by Internet isn't really instanteous, and even those of us who read every message in every thread do not necessarily receive or read them in the same order. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Apr 22 22:30:50 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Apr 22 22:31:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Apr 22, 2005 02:16:06 PM Message-ID: <200504222030.j3MKUoo9014627@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Ed Reppert writes: > > > On Apr 21, 2005, at 9:06 PM, David J. Grabiner wrote: > > > If the UI completely duplicates the AI, then it provides no additional > > information and thus suggests nothing. > > > > One of Kaplan's examples: West leads a doubleton club, North has KQJ > > and plays the king, and East, with A932, hesitates before ducking the > > trick. This is UI to West. However, when East ducks the trick, he > > plays the C9 (standard signals), which provides AI that he wants West > > to lead another club. When West gets in, he may lead another club, > > because the UI tells him nothing more than the AI. > > The law (Laws 16 and 73) do not say anything about "additional" > information - they address only the question whether the source of the > information is authorized. In the example case, there are *two* sources > of information, one authorized and one not. But the law does not say > that the one obviates the other - it says only that *when he has > unauthorized information* a player is not allowed to choose a LA which > may have been suggested thereby. The fact he has the same information > from an authorized source is irrelevant. Kaplan may not have intended > (or wished) that to be the case, but that's the way it is, at least as > I see it. > Right. the AI (the strong signal) may well make it such that there is no LA but that's something very different. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 22 22:47:24 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 22 22:50:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Re;Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <20050422175525.79636.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050422175525.79636.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422162446.02eaaaf0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:55 PM 4/22/05, Dimitr wrote: >Thank you all for your comments. I read them very >carefully. All of you are right but if we accept that >she made claim for 1 trick and concession for 1 trick >in t12. But I read carefully L68 heading too, which >says: "For a statement or action to constitute a claim >or concession of tricks under these >Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently >in progress19. If it does refer to >subsequent tricks:..." >The 12th trick is in progress so I think that the L68, >L69, L70 and L71 are inapplicable for that trick. >We have consecution of actions, which has been made by >declarer: 1. She plaed from dummy hx, 2. She saw the >h10 played by N, 3. She showed her cards, 4. She wrote >one down. >So my conclusion is that she played hK for the trick >12, which is in progress and she conceded the last >trick. >Ok, let's applay L71 for the last trick. Now we have >only one play, not normal or irrational, just one. And >hJ is winning card because it is the last heart on the >table. I'd say that any claim or concession statement specifying the final outcome of the hand "refer[s] to tricks other than the one in progress" unless it is made at trick 13. This is reinforced by the footnote, which suggests that for it not to be held to do so the statement must "pertain[] *only* to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress" [emphasis mine]. L68 specifies that L68A-D apply "if [the statement] does refer to subsequent tricks". That means that if that condition is met, L68A-D apply to the entire claim/concession, and if it isn't, they don't. It doesn't say that L68A-D apply only to the subsequent tricks covered by the statement but not to the current one; I believe that to be reading something into L68 that just isn't there. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Apr 22 22:53:53 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Apr 22 22:54:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Eighteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: from "Gordon Rainsford" at Apr 22, 2005 09:54:45 AM Message-ID: <200504222053.j3MKrroN014730@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Gordon Rainsford writes: > > > On 21 Apr 2005, at 23:10, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Statements by the other side: East assumed South had both > > majors with 6-4 shape for example for the 2S call. > > I'm puzzled by why East might assume this: we're told in (6) that "2S > confirms blacks to East...", which is precisely what South holds. I > accept that EW have been given misinformation, but at no point were > either of them given information that was inconsistent with the actual > holding. > > Presumably Major/Minor means a major and a minor - not the majors or > the minors? > Nope. Well the systemic meaning is majors or minors. Given that this pair didn't seem to know what they were doing, all bets are off. CRASH is the mnemonic for Color - RAnk - SHape Best layout I've seen explaining the meanings (since you can play CRASH against any strong opening -- some play it against a strong NT for instance) Double: 2-suiter of same COLOR - either reds or blacks i.e. overcaller has EITHER diamonds and hearts OR clubs and spades First step (IE 1D over a big club or 2C over a strong NT): 2-suiter of same RANK - either majors or minors i.e. overcaller has EITHER hearts and spades OR clubs and diamonds Second step: 2-suiter of same SHAPE - either rounded or pointed i.e. overcaller has EITHER clubs and hearts OR diamonds and spades (And it can be expanded, EG you can play 1S as any 1 suited hand over a big club) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 22 23:12:16 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 22 23:13:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <200504221848.j3MImwxu015713@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504221848.j3MImwxu015713@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <7e1fea379deaee63ed11258b492c9a8c@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 22, 2005, at 2:48 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > No, you are entirely correct. Thanks, Steve. > Don't suppose you want to move to Boston? :-) Now there's a thought. Though I tend to think I'd prefer someplace warmer than the Northeast. :-) > Your experience is exactly what one can expect > in _tournaments_ around here, but there is one club that is much > better. Tuesday at 6:30 PM. I'll keep that in mind if I get a chance to visit Beantown. > All it takes is education, but that starts with competent directing. Hm. I suppose I should get off my ass and take the damn test. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 22 23:14:18 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 22 23:15:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <000601c54773$8705e9d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c54773$8705e9d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <60720abf5a55fe754a104f3cc74f6c4f@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 22, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > If you want to do anything about your experience I think a formal > report to > ACBL might be in order. I think I'll try a more active approach - I'm gonna start directing. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 22 23:16:41 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 22 23:18:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Penalty card - UI? In-Reply-To: <000501c5476c$22ba4540$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c5476c$22ba4540$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Apr 22, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > So from the moment a player has only one logical alternative action > available, for instance because he has AI that eliminates all other > alternatives, he is no longer restrained in his choice due to the UI. If the AI does so, yes. But the mere fact that "the AI and the UI say the same thing" is not enough. That's all I'm saying. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 22 23:18:17 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 22 23:19:39 2005 Subject: Fwd: [blml] Penalty card - UI? Message-ID: <593f04a2395970ad41eee9bc2af4cd3e@rochester.rr.com> Oops, meant this to go to the list. Sorry, Ron. :-) Begin forwarded message: > From: Ed Reppert > Date: April 22, 2005 5:17:18 PM EDT > To: Ron Johnson > Subject: Re: [blml] Penalty card - UI? > > > On Apr 22, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: > >> Right. the AI (the strong signal) may well make it such that there is >> no LA but that's something very different. > > Exactly! :-) > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 22 23:21:25 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 22 23:22:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Fourteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422154820.02a40eb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <200504211346.j3LDkvPd008819@cfa.harvard.edu> <4268506D.1060807@cfa.harvard.edu> <305e3c5190aebe86628b0ef34e97a752@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050422154820.02a40eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Apr 22, 2005, at 4:06 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > To me, L73C is violated only if the player fails to make a genuine > effort to conform to the restrictions of L16A, whereas L16A is > nevertheless violated if his effort fails. If he convinces me that he > saw no logical alternative to his call, or that he didn't believe his > call to have been suggested by the UI, I will not find a violation of > L73C, but I will still adjust under the provisions of L16 if I > disagree. Hm. Might you then adjust under L16 and give a PP under Law 73, given you find both were violated? > I may be unduly influenced in this reading by those arguably > irrelevant chapter headings, but, knowing some of the history behind > them, I read "Proprieties" as a set of instructions to players, > whereas I read "General Laws Governing Irregularities" as a set of > instructions to TDs. Makes sense to me. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 22 23:22:12 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 22 23:23:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Seventeen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422161124.02ea9eb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050421004828.035dbd38@mail.comcast.net> <004701c546e2$5c79b340$0a9468d5@James> <20ebf724389425d5df0cfda727739d7b@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050422161124.02ea9eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <0ca496f4798ec28c42d16d6e4c987e1b@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 22, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > But it behooves the poster to retain as much of the message he is > replying to as is needed to establish a context for his reply. I > consider it bad netiqutte to send a message that would be > incomprehensible to someone who has not followed its thread in its > entirety. Communication by Internet isn't really instanteous, and > even those of us who read every message in every thread do not > necessarily receive or read them in the same order. Good points. :-) From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 22 23:34:35 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 22 23:34:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050421164237.02bbdb00@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20050422125743.02b306c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422173148.02ead500@pop.starpower.net> At 02:40 PM 4/22/05, Ed wrote: >On Apr 22, 2005, at 1:26 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >>I fully agree. But how is this not a red herring? The reply in >>question was that it was "undiscussed". That means "we have no >>agreement". "Standard" would mean "we have an agreement, but I'm not >>telling you what it is" (perhaps because I'm a bridge lawyer >>contending that I'm not required to, perhaps because I don't really >>know what "standard" means in this context myself). > >Or perhaps "I think 'standard' is equivalent to 'it's general bridge >knowledge'". I think that "I think 'standard' is equivalent to 'it's general bridge knowledge'" is equivalent to "I'm a bridge lawyer contending that I'm not required to...". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Fri Apr 22 23:43:49 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri Apr 22 23:40:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 Message-ID: We have heard that the new law book is going to be completely re-done, rather than just having amendments to a handful of laws as in the past. So, a couple of simple questions for the list: 1) Should NBOs announce that current director's certifications will expire in 2007 (or whenever the transition to the new laws is complete) and everyone shall take a new examination under the new law book? [Personal opinion is that the answer is yes, and was yes in 1987 and 1997 too - but that it won't actually be done at least in the ACBL. I know at my club noone is going to be directing who hasn't studied the new laws, test or not!] 2) A friend of mine is interested in becoming a director. Should I advise her to wait until next year to become certified? Or to go ahead and study immediately knowing she'll have to do some re-studying next year anyway? GRB From toddz at att.net Sat Apr 23 00:29:49 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat Apr 23 00:30:56 2005 Subject: [blml] DeWael School on the rampage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42697ADD.2070802@att.net> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > I think you did very good, Herman, even though the result on the board > was not to your satisfaction. Would you feel as good if 5S makes 11 tricks? Heck, down one in 5S is far superior to the bashing he takes in 4H or 6S, one of which should be the contract reached when he follows the law. By giving his partner UI that she has misbid (either by being asked and explaining as natural or by failure to alert) as required by the way the laws function (call that stupid if you will, Herman seems to agree) he guarantees a worse result on this board than the one he got. I don't think it's something to be proud of to benefit from breaking the law. -Todd From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Apr 23 02:17:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Apr 23 02:18:38 2005 Subject: FW: [blml] Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <42684AE9.7000104@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > [Referring to a L21B1 change of call] > > The player can't be found in violation. It is the TD's job to assess > > the probabilities not the player's. If the TD gets it wrong (for any > > reason) and allows a change when he shouldn't then it's TD error. > > Sorry, I don't agree with this. The position is analogous to that of a > player having UI. The TD tells the player what the rules are, and the > player chooses his call. The player's decision can be reviewed later, > and if the player chose an illegal call, the score is adjusted. Not an appropriate analogy IMO. This is a ruling on disputed facts (is/is it not probable that the call was based on the MI?). Much like a disputed hesitation the TD is required to give a ruling which allows play to continue (he can't tell a player "I'm not going to decide whether there was a hesitation or not - try and guess whether there are UI constraints on your next bid"). I'm really not worried about TDs getting these L21 rulings wrong. In only a tiny fraction of all cases will there be any real doubt about the significance of the MI to the bidding decision and an eventual L82c adjustment on the odd occasion is hardly the end of the world. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Apr 23 02:17:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Apr 23 02:18:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <012001c54742$77769180$1c063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: > We have the following example: > west north east south > 1S 3Cl* pas 4H a.p. > > 3Cl is explained as clubs and hearts. Before the opening lead is faced > the > explanation is corrected in diamonds and hearts. The director is > summoned > and east is allowed to change his pass and east calls double. The > contract > results in minus two. > > The director studies the board after play and finds that east had: > 7 4 > A 9 7 > K 10 7 2 > K 9 8 2 > > Why has east not doubled in the first instance? East didn't double in the first instance because he had already passed 3C (which had he know at the time wasn't really clubs he might have doubled for a lead). > Did east regret his pass and took his oppertunity.? East was concerned that, having had an opportunity to double 4H with the correct info and not taken it the TD would not consider 4Hx as a possible score when considering the result had East been correctly informed about the 3C bid a round earlier. Murky ground. > Is K 10 7 2 much better than K 9 8 2? Not much better, but as a defensive holding it is certainly a bit less susceptible to a ruffing finesse. What about K972 or K962 or K872? It's his *opponents* who have committed an infraction and I really don't like putting this player in the position where he has to second guess what a committee will consider significant about his hand. Give him permission to change (or not) based on the auction and degree of perceived MI - don't put the NOS on the rack of ambiguity. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Apr 23 04:00:13 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Apr 23 04:01:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower: [snip] >2) A friend of mine is interested in becoming a >director. Should I advise her to wait until next >year to become certified? Or to go ahead and study >immediately knowing she'll have to do some re- >studying next year anyway? Richard Hills: I would advise immediate director training. The forthcoming *reformatting* of the Laws is going to have a very minor effect on the education of potential TDs in competent directing. And, of course, I expect that national bridge organisations will publicise any significant changes in the *content* of the 2007 Laws (such as, for example, the mooted simplification of the revoke rules). Very few pedants (such as myself) have bothered memorising Law numbers. Efficient TDs always carry a copy of the Laws with them when answering director calls, using them as a reference for ruling on infrequent and/or complex infractions. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Apr 23 04:23:38 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Apr 23 04:24:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Five - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <000801c53e81$9e8e0ce0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >>Other Facts: The case was not screened and EW could not be located >>to be notified of the existence of the appeal. The screening >>director was even unable to identify the parties sitting EW. Sven Pran: >This is incredible. > >How was the appeal entered? Why was the appealing side unable to >inform their opponents that they were going to appeal? Why was the >Director unable to inform the responders that an appeal was >forthcoming? And did the score sheet not show the names of all four >players at that table? There seems to me to have been a lot of >procedural errors here. > >I am not going to comment on the final verdict, but I am extremely >surprised that the AC even agreed to handle the appeal hearing only >one side. Richard Hills: The vast number of players attending ACBL Nationals would create logistical problems for the directing staff. However, there are techniques available in other bridge jurisdictions which might help minimise those logistical problems. For example, the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge has semi-vast numbers of players attending (it is the fourth-largest annual bridge event in the world, behind the three ACBL Nationals). Foreign visitors to the SFOB have consistently praised its smooth logistics. And one rigid SFOB policy is that *before* a table TD makes a judgement ruling, that TD is required to consult with all the other directors on the floor. The SFOB does not use the less effective policy of a screening director changing a table director's ruling *after* receiving a subsequent complaint or appeal. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From Dennyvolkswagen at colours-of-eden.org Sat Apr 23 05:50:14 2005 From: Dennyvolkswagen at colours-of-eden.org (Sophie) Date: Sat Apr 23 04:59:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Improving memory Message-ID: <969z7fzlsc.fsf@calle50.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050423/3f368aa4/attachment.html From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 23 05:17:56 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Apr 23 05:19:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422173148.02ead500@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050421164237.02bbdb00@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20050422125743.02b306c0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20050422173148.02ead500@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4c35832bc3c2765a985cf94f80fe1a89@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 22, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > I think that "I think 'standard' is equivalent to 'it's general bridge > knowledge'" is equivalent to "I'm a bridge lawyer contending that I'm > not required to...". "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." :-) From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 23 09:33:24 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Apr 23 09:34:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Five - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c547d6$bc937140$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au ... > >>Other Facts: The case was not screened and EW could not be located > >>to be notified of the existence of the appeal. The screening > >>director was even unable to identify the parties sitting EW. > > Sven Pran: > > >This is incredible. > > > >How was the appeal entered? Why was the appealing side unable to > >inform their opponents that they were going to appeal? Why was the > >Director unable to inform the responders that an appeal was > >forthcoming? And did the score sheet not show the names of all four > >players at that table? There seems to me to have been a lot of > >procedural errors here. > > > >I am not going to comment on the final verdict, but I am extremely > >surprised that the AC even agreed to handle the appeal hearing only > >one side. > > Richard Hills: > > The vast number of players attending ACBL Nationals would create > logistical problems for the directing staff. However, there are > techniques available in other bridge jurisdictions which might help > minimise those logistical problems. > > For example, the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge has semi-vast > numbers of players attending (it is the fourth-largest annual bridge > event in the world, behind the three ACBL Nationals). Foreign > visitors to the SFOB have consistently praised its smooth logistics. > > And one rigid SFOB policy is that *before* a table TD makes a > judgement ruling, that TD is required to consult with all the other > directors on the floor. The SFOB does not use the less effective > policy of a screening director changing a table director's ruling > *after* receiving a subsequent complaint or appeal. Seems pretty much the same policy we have in Norway. But I see no reason in the size of an event to be an excuse for faulty procedures? Whether you have a total of ten pairs or thousands of pairs in an event the procedures of noting all relevant information, informing both parties of any ruling, informing opponents of an appeal and making sure both sides are heard by the AC should be the same? Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Apr 23 12:52:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Apr 23 12:53:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <000401c54754$9b6a5830$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > Why did opponents, to whom all was clear, accept a concession for an > > impossible "down 1" when "entitled" to down 2? > > > > My suspicions. > > a) They knew damn well which card declarer intended to play at trick > > 12 > > b) They knew damn well how a director called immediately would rule > > c) They were delighted to get -1 they know they didn't deserve. > > a) Not very likely. Were they mind-readers? Probably not. But they were at the table and we weren't which puts them in a much better position to see the nuances of declarers actions. > b) If they knew their stuff they would know that a director called > immediately should rule the Jack being played and give them both > tricks. Rubbish. If it was clear to them that declarer was claiming the king and subsequently conceding the Jack then they would know there was little chance of a competent director establishing the facts otherwise. > c) How come they didn't deserve a trick which they should almost > certainly be awarded by a director? It's not even close to "almost certain". If the situation is as I suspect and the TD investigates properly they won't get a trick. > I suspect much simpler reasons for what happened, and those reasons My reasons for suspicion are as simple as it gets. Your reasons may be different but they are no simpler. > call for sustaining both concessions. Down one. Can't be down one. Either declarer has claimed a trick she could not possibly have won or conceded a trick she could not possibly have lost. It's down 2 or making and no other result is either possible or legitimate. If your suspicions are justified then down 2 is a fair ruling. If mine are justified then contract made is a fair ruling. Only the TD on the spot had any real chance of working out what happened and let us not pretend otherwise. Tim From ZPHMVGXX at kingsolar.com Sat Apr 23 13:57:31 2005 From: ZPHMVGXX at kingsolar.com (Mitchel Ohara) Date: Sat Apr 23 12:58:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Amazing Opportunity with options. Message-ID: <1.5.2.7.2.2005919.00b0a70@designs.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.cr3at3.com/45.asp No other way to so quickly and easily lower your monthly bill payments while putting cash now in your pocket! http://cr3at3.com/gone.asp dayton dcz divisive puf [2 From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Sat Apr 23 14:13:12 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Sat Apr 23 14:14:14 2005 Subject: [blml] DeWael School on the rampage In-Reply-To: <42697ADD.2070802@att.net> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > >Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>I think you did very good, Herman, even though the result on the board was >>not to your satisfaction. > > Would you feel as good if 5S makes 11 tricks? Heck, down one in 5S is >far superior to the bashing he takes in 4H or 6S, one of which should be >the contract reached when he follows the law. And how do you suggest that they could end up in 4H if Herman's partner avoid using UI? Or 6S? And what do you mean by far superior - they got a complete bottom scoring -50 when all other NS pairs scored 420? Regards Harald > > By giving his partner UI that she has misbid (either by being asked and >explaining as natural or by failure to alert) as required by the way the >laws function (call that stupid if you will, Herman seems to agree) he >guarantees a worse result on this board than the one he got. I don't think >it's something to be proud of to benefit from breaking the law. > >-Todd > >_______________________________________________ >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 B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sat Apr 23 16:39:55 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sat Apr 23 16:47:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 References: Message-ID: <00ba01c54813$14626b60$e7493dd4@c6l8v1> > > And, of course, I expect that national bridge > organisations will publicise any significant > changes in the *content* of the 2007 Laws (such as, > for example, the mooted simplification of the > revoke rules). > > Very few pedants (such as myself) have bothered > memorising Law numbers. Efficient TDs always > carry a copy of the Laws with them when answering > director calls, using them as a reference for > ruling on infrequent and/or complex infractions. > > In the Netherlands TDs are not only obliged to carry the Law Book, but moreover to use it when answering director calls. Ben From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 23 16:58:30 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Apr 23 16:59:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 In-Reply-To: <00ba01c54813$14626b60$e7493dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <000301c54814$e9e60980$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ben Schelen > Sent: 23. april 2005 16:40 > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Directing after 2006 > > > > > And, of course, I expect that national bridge > > organisations will publicise any significant > > changes in the *content* of the 2007 Laws (such as, > > for example, the mooted simplification of the > > revoke rules). > > > > Very few pedants (such as myself) have bothered > > memorising Law numbers. Efficient TDs always > > carry a copy of the Laws with them when answering > > director calls, using them as a reference for > > ruling on infrequent and/or complex infractions. > > > > > In the Netherlands TDs are not only obliged to carry the Law Book, but > moreover to use it when answering director calls. I have never bothered memorizing law numbers but it is quite funny to notice how they stick after some years. And also in Norway one of the first things we teach candidates is to always look up in the law book before making a ruling. At tests we do not pass candidates who make a ruling without checking the laws book even when the ruling as such is correct! Regards Sven From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Apr 23 17:14:35 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Apr 23 17:15:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <200504231445.j3NEj6Nj006175@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504231445.j3NEj6Nj006175@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <426A665B.6030009@cfa.harvard.edu> [Referring to a L21B1 change of call] SW>The position is analogous to that of a SW>player having UI. The TD tells the player what the rules are, and the SW>player chooses his call. The player's decision can be reviewed later, SW>and if the player chose an illegal call, the score is adjusted. > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > Not an appropriate analogy IMO. This is a ruling on disputed facts (is/is > it not probable that the call was based on the MI?). Much like a disputed > hesitation the TD is required to give a ruling which allows play to > continue (he can't tell a player "I'm not going to decide whether there > was a hesitation or not - try and guess whether there are UI constraints > on your next bid"). I wish Tim's parenthetical phrase were observed in the ACBL, but that's another thread. It still seems to me that there is an analogy. The TD must rule on the facts: whether there was MI and what the old and new explanations are. No question about that. Given those facts, the player makes his own bridge judgment on whether the original call would have been chosen had he been given correct information in the first place. This bridge judgment is reviewable, just as is a bridge judgment as to whether a particular call was a LA. As I see it, the only two alternatives to this approach are untenable. One is to give the player free rein to change his call. This is not consistent with the words of L21B1, although it is certainly an option for future Laws. The other, which is what Tim seems to favor, is for the TD to rule on whether a change is allowed without seeing the player's hand. Yet the hand is the most important single piece of evidence as to what call would have been chosen with correct information, and it is impossible to make a final ruling without seeing it. Tim even suggests L82C as an "emergency backup" if, on seeing the hand, the TD's original judgment turns out to be wrong, but this is exactly equivalent to what I am suggesting. Normally we expect not to overturn the player's judgment, but we can do so if necessary. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Apr 23 17:19:08 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Apr 23 17:20:05 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <200504221642.j3MGgjLp005071@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504221642.j3MGgjLp005071@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <426A676C.5090900@cfa.harvard.edu> Responses have been most helpful, but I'm worried we may be at cross- purposes on one matter. I'm using "CPU" as a synonym for "L40B infraction," and I'm assuming that like most infractions it is not intentional. Is this view shared, or do people believe that by its very nature a CPU must be intentional and therefore at least bordering on a conduct infraction? From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Apr 23 17:32:42 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Apr 23 17:33:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <200504221514.j3MFE8gE026748@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504221514.j3MFE8gE026748@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <426A6A9A.9010900@cfa.harvard.edu> David Barton wrote: >>Player1 Bids 1N >>Player2 asks the range, is told 12-14, and bids 2S >> This information is corrected to 15-17 >> and Player2 substitutes a Pass. >>Examination of the score sheet reveal all the >>other scores range from 200 to 800 in failing >>2 Spade contracts (some doubled). >>Player1/Player3 want an adjustment on the >>grounds that the decision to bid 2S was not >>as a result of the misinformation > From: Eric Landau > David has given us a very good test case. Although it's not specified > in the example (and could be critical if we actually had to rule on > this), we can stipulate that Player2 is prepared to admit that he would > have bid 2S with correct information, but because of the misinformation > he is now in a position where if he passes his partner will "know" > (presumptive AI by L16C) that he has a 2S overcall of a 12-14 NT. Do > we allow him a tactical choice between letting his partner know that > his hand is good enough to have overcalled a 15-17 NT by repeating his > 2S call and making his spade suit UI to the opponents by passing? Or > do we rule that he cannot change his 2S bid because if he would have > have overcalled with correct information it was not "probable that he > made the call as a result of misinformation"? As noted in other messages, I believe the latter is correct. Of course this is a bridge judgment, and Player2 is entitled to make his case (after the deal is played), but on the facts presented (All other players bid 2S with correct information.), it seems likely that the opening side will get their adjustment. > I lean towards the former, though, because the latter raises practical > difficulties without the stipulation that Player2 is prepared to admit > that he would have bid 2S with correct information. I don't think we require Player2 to admit anything. We make a bridge judgment. In a UI case, we don't require the player to stipulate that some call other than the one he chose is a LA. > It would mean that > the director must make a finding as to whether it was "probable that > [the non-offending player] made the call as a result of > misinformation". How do we expect him to go about doing that, given > the BLML consensus that it would be inappropriate to either look at the > player's hand or take the player away from the table for > interrogation? Player2 is told at the table what the rules are, and he makes his own bridge judgment about what he probably would have done if given correct information in the first place. That bridge judgment is reviewable after the deal is played. > I object (as a TD) to being forced to "sandbag" a > non-offender in this position; if he asks me whether it would be legal > for him to pass now, he should be legally entitled to a better answer > than, "I can't tell you; make your call and you'll find out later > whether you committed an infraction." How about a player whose partner has hesitated? You say, "I rule there was an unmistakeable hesition." Do you also say, "I rule that pass is a LA?" Of course not! You don't even say, "I rule the hesitation suggests double over pass." You rule on the _fact_ of a hesitation, but the _bridge judgment_ of LA's and "suggested over another" is left to the player with subsequent review by the TD (and perhaps AC). It seems to me that L21B1 change of call is exactly the same. From davidgrabiner at comcast.net Sat Apr 23 18:20:35 2005 From: davidgrabiner at comcast.net (grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu) Date: Sat Apr 23 18:21:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge Message-ID: <042320051620.11375.426A75D3000A93FB00002C6F22007481849D0A02070D0E9D090B07900E0B@comcast.net> > Richard Hills: > > At the table the actual South reasoned just as David > did, and raised to 4H. This was the complete deal -> > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > JT2 > K8753 > A3 > A83 > KQ7 A64 > Q AJ6 > Q862 T974 > KT964 Q52 > 9853 > T942 > KJ5 > J7 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1H Pass 2H > 2S 3H 3S 4H > Dble Pass Pass Pass > > The defence had no difficulty winning three spades, > one club and two trumps for +800. I still don't think 4H was irrational, wild, or gambling (although the consensus of BLML is that it was a bad bid); the cause of the bad N-S score was North's 3H bid, on a balanced minimum. This call led South to mis-evaluate his side's offensive potential. I don't consider 3S to be a fielding of the psyche; game is not certain, and the 4-3-3-3 distribution and AJx of spades argue against competing. If we do rule that 3S was a fielding of the psyche, it is irrelevant that North's 3H is irrational, wild, or gambling, since that was before the infraction. From toddz at att.net Sat Apr 23 22:32:38 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat Apr 23 22:33:45 2005 Subject: [blml] DeWael School on the rampage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <426AB0E6.3050301@att.net> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > And how do you suggest that they could end up in 4H if Herman's partner > avoid using UI? > Or 6S? Herman admits this possibility himself. It's difficult to say without seeing his partner's hand. > And what do you mean by far superior - they got a complete bottom > scoring -50 when all other NS pairs scored 420? Again I ask, how do you feel when 5S makes 11 tricks? Or the scoring is IMPs, or rubber for money? While I appreciate the DeWael School as an intellectual exercise, I can't believe he's actually doing this at the table. The only thing nice about this example is that experienced opponents will know not to trust the 2C explanation or anything beyond. -Todd From LPYXHKQCDXFB at prodigy.net Sat Apr 23 23:57:58 2005 From: LPYXHKQCDXFB at prodigy.net (Art Isaac) Date: Sat Apr 23 23:03:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Stimulate your sex life! consist Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 8370 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050423/739f6213/attachment.jpe From cibor at poczta.fm Sat Apr 23 23:47:01 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sat Apr 23 23:48:07 2005 Subject: [blml] DeWael School on the rampage References: <426AB0E6.3050301@att.net> Message-ID: <000f01c5484d$fdd60330$9f121d53@kocurzak> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" To: Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 10:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School on the rampage > Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > And how do you suggest that they could end up in 4H if Herman's partner > > avoid using UI? > > Or 6S? > > Herman admits this possibility himself. It's difficult to > say without seeing his partner's hand. > > > And what do you mean by far superior - they got a complete bottom > > scoring -50 when all other NS pairs scored 420? > > Again I ask, how do you feel when 5S makes 11 tricks? Or > the scoring is IMPs, or rubber for money? > > While I appreciate the DeWael School as an intellectual > exercise, I can't believe he's actually doing this at the > table. The only thing nice about this example is that > experienced opponents will know not to trust the 2C > explanation or anything beyond. Todd - without screens you are *forced* to break one of the laws. Either 75B2 or 75C. Why do you want to punish a player who is put in in this position for choosing which law he must break? I believe 75B2 is more important - MAY NOT combined with IN ANY MANNER is a very, very strong phrase. If you think Herman is breaking the law you are right. But so are you - by giving the "2H is natural with long hearts" explanation you are breaking L75B2 just as Herman is breaking L75C. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ------------------------------------------------------------------ Twoja komorka ledwo zipie? Sciagnij sobie na tapete najwiekszego silacza... Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1875 << From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Apr 24 00:41:00 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Apr 24 00:42:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <200504231452.j3NEqQsU006607@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504231452.j3NEqQsU006607@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2005, at 10:52 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > You'd fit right in here in New England. You would probably enjoy our > nice, warm, snow-free winters. :-) Uh, huh. I've already been suckered once this month, thank you. :-) From david.j.barton at lineone.net Sun Apr 24 00:48:24 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Sun Apr 24 00:49:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question References: <200504221514.j3MFE8gE026748@cfa.harvard.edu> <426A6A9A.9010900@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001c01c54856$8eaf5610$0307a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Yet another L21 Question > David Barton wrote: >>>Player1 Bids 1N >>>Player2 asks the range, is told 12-14, and bids 2S >>> This information is corrected to 15-17 >>> and Player2 substitutes a Pass. >>>Examination of the score sheet reveal all the >>>other scores range from 200 to 800 in failing >>>2 Spade contracts (some doubled). >>>Player1/Player3 want an adjustment on the >>>grounds that the decision to bid 2S was not >>>as a result of the misinformation > >> From: Eric Landau >> David has given us a very good test case. Although it's not specified >> in the example (and could be critical if we actually had to rule on >> this), we can stipulate that Player2 is prepared to admit that he would >> have bid 2S with correct information, but because of the misinformation >> he is now in a position where if he passes his partner will "know" >> (presumptive AI by L16C) that he has a 2S overcall of a 12-14 NT. Do >> we allow him a tactical choice between letting his partner know that >> his hand is good enough to have overcalled a 15-17 NT by repeating his >> 2S call and making his spade suit UI to the opponents by passing? Or >> do we rule that he cannot change his 2S bid because if he would have >> have overcalled with correct information it was not "probable that he >> made the call as a result of misinformation"? > Steve Willner > As noted in other messages, I believe the latter is correct. Of course > this is a bridge judgment, and Player2 is entitled to make his case > (after the deal is played), but on the facts presented (All other > players bid 2S with correct information.), it seems likely that the > opening side will get their adjustment. > >> I lean towards the former, though, because the latter raises practical >> difficulties without the stipulation that Player2 is prepared to admit >> that he would have bid 2S with correct information. > > I don't think we require Player2 to admit anything. We make a bridge > judgment. In a UI case, we don't require the player to stipulate that > some call other than the one he chose is a LA. > Eric Landau >> It would mean that >> the director must make a finding as to whether it was "probable that >> [the non-offending player] made the call as a result of >> misinformation". How do we expect him to go about doing that, given >> the BLML consensus that it would be inappropriate to either look at the >> player's hand or take the player away from the table for >> interrogation? Steve Willner > Player2 is told at the table what the rules are, and he makes his own > bridge judgment about what he probably would have done if given correct > information in the first place. That bridge judgment is reviewable > after the deal is played. David Barton What the player has actually got to do, is guess what some unknown group of people, using non defined criteria, will decide he would probably have bid. > >> I object (as a TD) to being forced to "sandbag" a >> non-offender in this position; if he asks me whether it would be legal >> for him to pass now, he should be legally entitled to a better answer >> than, "I can't tell you; make your call and you'll find out later >> whether you committed an infraction." > > How about a player whose partner has hesitated? You say, "I rule there > was an unmistakeable hesition." Do you also say, "I rule that pass is a > LA?" Of course not! You don't even say, "I rule the hesitation > suggests double over pass." You rule on the _fact_ of a hesitation, but > the _bridge judgment_ of LA's and "suggested over another" is left to > the player with subsequent review by the TD (and perhaps AC). It seems > to me that L21B1 change of call is exactly the same. > David Barton Completely different in my view. (a) They are already an offending side - Breach of L73A1 I don't worry if the Law makes life difficult for an offender (b) The criteria for deciding what constitutes a LA is well established. This is to be contrasted with our L21B case where the player has been offended against and the criteria for deciding whether the change of call is not legal appear to be non-existant. You just cannot, at least in my view, turn a player exercising a right given to him as a result of an opponent's infraction into an offender simply because he misjudges (guesses wrongly) whether his decision to change his bid will be decided to be in accordance with L21B. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005 From adam at tameware.com Sun Apr 24 01:52:22 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun Apr 24 01:53:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Eighteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 9:03 AM +0200 4/22/05, Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>(2) 2 suits color on East side of screen, Major/Minor on West side > >I strongly suspect that the write-up is incorrect above. ... >Anyone knowing the true story here? I do. I ought to have sent a correction earlier. Roger Pewick wrote to me about the case after I posted the New Orleans cases on my site. I passed his query on to Dave Smith at the ACBL. Dave investigated and learned that the actual explanations at the table were: (2) 2 suits same color on West side of screen, Majors or Minors on East side. I've incorporated the change in the file on my site, along with some minor changes in wording. I've also included an updated version of case N-16. See: http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/orlando2004 -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From PFRHSGGRUK at dandminternational.com Sun Apr 24 09:51:11 2005 From: PFRHSGGRUK at dandminternational.com (Stacie Rojas) Date: Sun Apr 24 09:00:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Become a sexual ghuru in just 20 minutes! Message-ID: <102463292.9518.23.camel@pdx.osdl.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050424/2942edfc/attachment.html From Eddiereprise at bot.org Sun Apr 24 16:30:04 2005 From: Eddiereprise at bot.org (Ted) Date: Sun Apr 24 15:39:12 2005 Subject: [blml] You`ll never forgot again Message-ID: <220902288617.KAA14381@corpulent.mrec.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050424/e434ca4e/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Sun Apr 24 19:22:11 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun Apr 24 19:24:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Eighteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 7:52 PM -0400 4/23/05, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >I've incorporated the change in the file on my site, along with some >minor changes in wording. I've also included an updated version of >case N-16. See: > > http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/orlando2004 I neglected to push the "Upload" button so the changes were sitting on my hard drive and no use to anyone. They're posted now. I've also updated my comments on case N-11. Once I read the discussion here I realized that I had misread a sentence, making part of my commentary nonsensical. Having read the cases Richard has posted here you I hope you will read my comments on those cases and let me know where I may have gone astray. There is still time (just) to make corrections for the "official" casebook. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From toddz at att.net Sun Apr 24 22:29:01 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sun Apr 24 22:30:13 2005 Subject: [blml] DeWael School on the rampage In-Reply-To: <000f01c5484d$fdd60330$9f121d53@kocurzak> References: <426AB0E6.3050301@att.net> <000f01c5484d$fdd60330$9f121d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <426C018D.6040703@att.net> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Todd - without screens you are *forced* to break one of the laws. > Either 75B2 or 75C. Why do you want to punish a player > who is put in in this position for choosing which > law he must break? I believe 75B2 is more > important - MAY NOT combined with IN ANY MANNER > is a very, very strong phrase. I don't believe it's as simple as a choice between breaking one law or another -- it's 2-4 by my scoring. By my choice of action I would break 75D2 and 72B2 (but I can't help it). By Herman's choice of action he breaks 75C, 72B1 (he chooses this course of action instead of the other because it is less damaging), 72B2 (also cannot help it), and 72B4 (concealing partner's breach of 75C). It may also happen one day that he simultaneously violates 75D2 by being forced by L16 to produce an anti-systemic bid. The ethics of this choice seem very simple to me. By my choice of action I'd prevent my partner from recovering and resign myself to the poor score that it most likely to follow. By Herman's he gives partner as many chances as possible to recover and attempts to find a decent contract that might not be possible following the overwhelmingly suggested practice. Given the situation Herman describes, what do you do when his partner reviews the auction herself after being awakened by the 4H bid, corrects her explanation of 2C and then bids 4S? -Todd From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 24 22:54:54 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Apr 24 23:03:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 References: <00ba01c54813$14626b60$e7493dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <000001c54911$04e4eab0$82d9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Directing after 2006 > > >> And, of course, I expect that national bridge >> organisations will publicise any significant >> changes in the *content* of the 2007 Laws (such as, >> for example, the mooted simplification of the >> revoke rules). >> >> Very few pedants (such as myself) have bothered >> memorising Law numbers. Efficient TDs always >> carry a copy of the Laws with them when answering >> director calls, using them as a reference for >> ruling on infrequent and/or complex infractions. >> >> > In the Netherlands TDs are not only obliged to carry > the Law Book, but moreover to use it when answering > director calls. > > Ben > +=+ I was discussing related matters with Max Bavin, the WBF CTD, a few days ago. He said that some 'clever' TDs were able to quote, sometimes verbatim, the law numbers and their contents. He added that he believed the important thing was to know what could be found in the laws and how to find it. As for the initial question, I do not think changes in the effects of the laws will call for a different approach by TDs to their tasks. Training is largely about the way to tackle the job, which will not cease to be valid. A new law book does not affect the method of making a ruling, although in the outcome the ruling may differ. Experience in 1997 was that the more sophisticated authorities produced guidance on changes and authorities not so geared to the task were content to lean on it. I do not think the TD who needs help will lack resources, especially now that there are web-sites to visit. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Apr 24 23:05:53 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun Apr 24 23:06:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question Message-ID: <426C0A31.4070902@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "David Barton" > You just cannot, at least in my view, turn a player exercising a right > given to him as a result of an opponent's infraction into an offender > simply because he misjudges (guesses wrongly) whether his decision > to change his bid will be decided to be in accordance with L21B. The problem is that the permission in L21B1 is conditional, at least according to the text. Either you treat it as unconditional (ignoring the text) or you rule on incomplete information (not looking at the player's hand) or you do look at the player's hand or you review the player's decision at the end of play. I don't see any other options, and only the last one looks at all satisfactory to me. There is no reason SO's cannot give criteria for when a change is allowed, just as they do for defining LA's. The fact that few if any have done so is no excuse for ignoring the law. With or without specific criteria, I am all for giving sympathetic treatment to the NOS, but that isn't the same thing as unconditional permission. From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Apr 24 23:06:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Apr 24 23:07:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <426A665B.6030009@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > As I see it, the only two alternatives to this approach are untenable. > One is to give the player free rein to change his call. This is not > consistent with the words of L21B1, although it is certainly an option > for future Laws. Not exactly. I am saying that *either* one gives free rein *or* one denies permission to change (whichever way the TD decides is subject to appeal and later L82C rectification). These being the legitimate L21b options. I am not prepared to say: "I know your opps are OS and you have done nothing wrong but *you* have to try and work out whether a committee will later agree with your judgement in deciding if a change of call is allowed. If you guess wrong we will treat your change of call as an infraction and adjust against *you* as the offending side." > The other, which is what Tim seems to favor, is for > the TD to rule on whether a change is allowed without seeing the > player's hand. Yet the hand is the most important single piece of > evidence as to what call would have been chosen with correct > information, and it is impossible to make a final ruling without seeing > it. Well, to me the most important piece of information is the extent to which the MI (compared to accurate I) changes the meaning of possible bids by the player concerned. The second most important piece of information is whether NOS were aware, even at the moment of MI, of what the call actually meant. I may also be interested in *why* a player believes the change of info was significant to his choice of call. These are all things I can establish without looking at the player's hand (albeit I might have to question away from the table if I see fit). If I rule that no change is permitted that too is subject to appeal and L82c rectification. > Tim even suggests L82C as an "emergency backup" if, on seeing the > hand, the TD's original judgment turns out to be wrong, but this is > exactly equivalent to what I am suggesting. Normally we expect not to > overturn the player's judgment, but we can do so if necessary. L82C is the emergency back-up for any ruling that a TD has to make to allow play to continue. TBH I think the actual hand will very seldom, of itself, change my view of whether I got it "right" earlier. It might trigger me to re-investigate my decision on whether NOS were really ignorant of the true meaning of the bid though. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Apr 24 23:06:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Apr 24 23:07:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Eleven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050422125743.02b306c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > >My memory is obviously playing tricks on me. I thought the ACBL was > >now using alert "Doubles and redoubles with highly unusual or > >unexpected meanings". Neither a penalty double nor a negative double > >would be alertable in this sequence. > > Well, it changes so often that I can't be sure myself. But I have what > I believe to be the latest ACBL convention card, and it reads "Special > Doubles / After overcall: *Penalty [] ______* Negative [] through > ______", with the stuff I set off by *s in red, indicating a required > alert. OK. All I can say to this is "Special - Splutter, Froth". Pard bids, opp overcalls and a double for penalties, 75 years' of history dispatched in an instant and this is somehow "special". :) > The reply in question was that it was "undiscussed". That means "we > have no agreement". I guess my problem is I don't believe that "undiscussed" was a full answer. Sure the pair may not have discussed this particular sequence but I'm pretty sure the player wouldn't have risked a double if they didn't have an agreement to play competitive doubles in other sequences. It is this aspect that I would consider germane to disclosure rather part of either player's "general bridge knowledge". Tim From NPJDLATZUHBNTB at jbfun.com Mon Apr 25 02:43:33 2005 From: NPJDLATZUHBNTB at jbfun.com (Concetta Rodgers) Date: Mon Apr 25 01:54:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Amazing Credit Loans simplified In-Reply-To: <0102929.00b0a2650@designs.com> Message-ID: <316.8@melbpc.org.au> Dear Homeowner, You have been pre-approved for a $402,000 Home Loan at 3.45% Fixed Rate. This offer is being extended to you unconditionally and your credit is in no way a factor. To take Advantage of this Limited Time opportunity all we ask is that you visit our Website and complete the 1 minute post Approval Form. http://www.free-instant-quotes.com/2/index/bvk Best Regards, Concetta Rodgers Regional CEO brickbat rrw peachtree fb compatriot kj canteen fnj octahedron nsg maurice lr alkaline ozx wavelength xu leatherneck mao proportion ff cowbird gd arisen hy http://free-instant-quotes.com/rem.php From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 25 09:27:24 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 25 09:27:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <426C9BDC.80902@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> The problem here is that you have two concessions. >> Declarer has conceded a tridk to the defenders' HQ. >> The defenders have conceded a trick to declarer's HK. > > > This is legalese at its worst. There was a claim. Being a claim not > for all the tricks it was also a concession. > > But to suggest the defence conceded is silly. One side > claims/concedes/both, the other side agrees/disagrees. That's it. > Yes David, in pure legalese that is "Acquiescence Withdrawn". Read L69B and tell me in what this differs from "concession withdrawn". The period is the same (79C), and while 71A tals of legal plays and 69B of normal plays, in both cases there is such a play that makes that the conditions for withdrawal are not met. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 25 09:44:47 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 25 09:44:25 2005 Subject: [blml] DeWael School on the rampage In-Reply-To: <426C018D.6040703@att.net> References: <426AB0E6.3050301@att.net> <000f01c5484d$fdd60330$9f121d53@kocurzak> <426C018D.6040703@att.net> Message-ID: <426C9FEF.3050703@hdw.be> I am very pleased to see two more converts who at least see there is a dilemma and agree this is the way out. Which leaves people like Todd. Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> Todd - without screens you are *forced* to break one of the laws. >> Either 75B2 or 75C. Why do you want to punish a player >> who is put in in this position for choosing which >> law he must break? I believe 75B2 is more >> important - MAY NOT combined with IN ANY MANNER >> is a very, very strong phrase. > > > I don't believe it's as simple as a choice between breaking one law or > another -- it's 2-4 by my scoring. > Todd, it really does not matter into how many different numbers the LC has decided to put these principles in. If you want to start comparing which laws are the most important, then MAY NOT IN ANY MANNER must be a very important argument. There are others, but I don't want to go down that path at the moment. > By my choice of action I would break 75D2 and 72B2 (but I can't help it). > > By Herman's choice of action he breaks 75C, 72B1 (he chooses this course > of action instead of the other because it is less damaging), 72B2 (also > cannot help it), and 72B4 (concealing partner's breach of 75C). It may > also happen one day that he simultaneously violates 75D2 by being forced > by L16 to produce an anti-systemic bid. > > The ethics of this choice seem very simple to me. By my choice of > action I'd prevent my partner from recovering and resign myself to the > poor score that it most likely to follow. By Herman's he gives partner > as many chances as possible to recover and attempts to find a decent > contract that might not be possible following the overwhelmingly > suggested practice. > Indeed I give partner chances - legal ones. You prevent partner from doing anything right - and for what - for telling opponents something about your system in which they are absolutely no longer interested since it is already clear that tells them nothing about your partner's hand. > Given the situation Herman describes, what do you do when his partner > reviews the auction herself after being awakened by the 4H bid, corrects > her explanation of 2C and then bids 4S? > Nothing, of course! Partner does not have UI, so why should you not allow her to recover? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From henk at ripe.net Mon Apr 25 07:46:16 2005 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon Apr 25 10:32:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050425073226.02c68e40@localhost> At 23:43 22/04/2005, Gordon Bower wrote: >1) Should NBOs announce that current director's certifications will expire >in 2007 (or whenever the transition to the new laws is complete) and >everyone shall take a new examination under the new law book? This is, or was at some point, the plan of the Dutch federation. They plan to organize training sessions for TDs (and junior TD's) all TD's have 1 year to attend one. People who don't will see their name removed from the list of TDs. This has the added benefit that the list will be cleaned up, at the moment there are lots and lots of TDs on the list who haven't been directing for years. This is info directly from the person who is responsible for the exams. >2) A friend of mine is interested in becoming a director. Should I advise >her to wait until next year to become certified? Or to go ahead and study >immediately knowing she'll have to do some re-studying next year anyway? From the same source: the NBB will adjust the schedule for the law part of the TD courses such that new directors will only be taught the new laws and will only have to take exams using the new laws. OTOH, if your friend wants to start today, start today. Movements, scoring and the people skills needed to run a game won't change. 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 B.Schelen at IAE.NL Mon Apr 25 11:33:22 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon Apr 25 11:39:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 References: <00ba01c54813$14626b60$e7493dd4@c6l8v1> <000001c54911$04e4eab0$82d9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <005a01c5497a$7daaa3e0$86493dd4@c6l8v1> > > > > > +=+ I was discussing related matters with Max Bavin, the > WBF CTD, a few days ago. He said that some 'clever' > TDs were able to quote, sometimes verbatim, the law > numbers and their contents. He added that he believed the > important thing was to know what could be found in the > laws and how to find it. > The capacity to quote law numbers and their contents is achieved through continuously using the FLB during any ruling. Players will trust the director when he can find quickly the applicable law in the law book. Ruling by head is risky. Ben From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 25 12:58:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 25 12:59:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <426C0A31.4070902@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > The problem is that the permission in L21B1 is conditional, at least > according to the text. Either you treat it as unconditional (ignoring > the text) or you rule on incomplete information (not looking at the > player's hand) or you do look at the player's hand or you review the > player's decision at the end of play. I don't see any other options, > and only the last one looks at all satisfactory to me. There is nothing in the laws which forbids the TD from looking at a player's hand. Indeed laws 13 and 63 pretty much require it. With other laws (L25A springs to mind) looking can increase the chances of getting a L85b interim ruling (which most of these are) right. As a TD I consider looking as a matter of last resort but I feel the context of laws 9/10/82/85 is such that if one must look to get a ruling right then look one must. NB, if I know that my ruling is going to be "Play on and call me back if you feel damaged" there is no reason to look (this is the situation where the advice - "Don't look" is most widely cited). Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 25 13:52:53 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 25 13:53:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Fourteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: References: <200504211346.j3LDkvPd008819@cfa.harvard.edu> <4268506D.1060807@cfa.harvard.edu> <305e3c5190aebe86628b0ef34e97a752@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050422154820.02a40eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050425074711.02b49510@pop.starpower.net> At 05:21 PM 4/22/05, Ed wrote: >On Apr 22, 2005, at 4:06 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >>To me, L73C is violated only if the player fails to make a genuine >>effort to conform to the restrictions of L16A, whereas L16A is >>nevertheless violated if his effort fails. If he convinces me that >>he saw no logical alternative to his call, or that he didn't believe >>his call to have been suggested by the UI, I will not find a >>violation of L73C, but I will still adjust under the provisions of >>L16 if I disagree. > >Hm. Might you then adjust under L16 and give a PP under Law 73, given >you find both were violated? In theory I might, if the violation was flagrant and I was convinced that the offending player should have known better, although I can't recall ever having done so in real life (my floor directing experience having been entirely at the club or Unit level). But I see no reason why it wouldn't be legal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 25 14:40:03 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 25 14:44:11 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <426A676C.5090900@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504221642.j3MGgjLp005071@cfa.harvard.edu> <426A676C.5090900@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050425081036.02a4e380@pop.starpower.net> At 11:19 AM 4/23/05, Steve wrote: >Responses have been most helpful, but I'm worried we may be at cross- >purposes on one matter. I'm using "CPU" as a synonym for "L40B >infraction," and I'm assuming that like most infractions it is not >intentional. Is this view shared, or do people believe that by its >very nature a CPU must be intentional and therefore at least bordering >on a conduct infraction? To an English speaker, the answer should be the latter. "Conceal (tr. v.): To hide or keep from observation, discovery or understanding; keep secret" [AHD]. Thus a "concealed partnership understanding", as opposed to, say, an "unrevealed partnership understanding", requires someone to have actively done something to "conceal" it. It's not clear, however, that this matters. TFLB isn't all that careful with its terminology. The word "concealed" in L40B appears only in the heading, which, we are told, has no force of law. The body of the law uses the word "special", which does not have the intentional aspect of "concealed". I suspect that "CPU" has become a jargon term denoting something which need not actually be "concealed". One hopes that the folks writing the 2007 FLB will abandon prior authors' habit of introducing problematic near-synonyms into the wording (or headings!) of the laws for no reason other than an stylistic aversion to repetition. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 25 14:50:16 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 25 14:51:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c54995$54e166e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Steve wrote: > > > The problem is that the permission in L21B1 is conditional, at least > > according to the text. Either you treat it as unconditional (ignoring > > the text) or you rule on incomplete information (not looking at the > > player's hand) or you do look at the player's hand or you review the > > player's decision at the end of play. I don't see any other options, > > and only the last one looks at all satisfactory to me. > > There is nothing in the laws which forbids the TD from looking at a > player's hand. Indeed laws 13 and 63 pretty much require it. Irrelevant. The director when under either of those laws makes a ruling after seeing a hand in question will not be giving away information that should not be available to the other players around the table at this time. Now then consider the Director who in a Law 16A situation after looking at a player's hand announces: "In my opinion this player has made an acceptable call"! (Normal play of the board is no longer possible) > With other laws (L25A springs to mind) looking can increase the chances of > getting a L85b interim ruling (which most of these are) right. > > As a TD I consider looking as a matter of last resort but I feel the > context of laws 9/10/82/85 is such that if one must look to get a ruling > right then look one must. NB, if I know that my ruling is going to be > "Play on and call me back if you feel damaged" there is no reason to look > (this is the situation where the advice - "Don't look" is most widely > cited). Looking at cards to ascertain that the board has not been fouled is OK, looking at a hand in order to make a ruling involving that hand is not. The Director should always keep in mind the importance of not making himself the source of UI to any player. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 25 14:56:52 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 25 14:59:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <426A6A9A.9010900@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504221514.j3MFE8gE026748@cfa.harvard.edu> <426A6A9A.9010900@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050425084617.02b51660@pop.starpower.net> At 11:32 AM 4/23/05, Steve wrote: >>From: Eric Landau > >>It would mean that the director must make a finding as to whether it >>was "probable that [the non-offending player] made the call as a >>result of misinformation". How do we expect him to go about doing >>that, given the BLML consensus that it would be inappropriate to >>either look at the player's hand or take the player away from the >>table for interrogation? > >Player2 is told at the table what the rules are, and he makes his own >bridge judgment about what he probably would have done if given >correct information in the first place. That bridge judgment is >reviewable after the deal is played. > >>I object (as a TD) to being forced to "sandbag" a non-offender in >>this position; if he asks me whether it would be legal for him to >>pass now, he should be legally entitled to a better answer than, "I >>can't tell you; make your call and you'll find out later whether you >>committed an infraction." > >How about a player whose partner has hesitated? You say, "I rule >there was an unmistakeable hesition." Do you also say, "I rule that >pass is a LA?" Of course not! You don't even say, "I rule the >hesitation suggests double over pass." You rule on the _fact_ of a >hesitation, but the _bridge judgment_ of LA's and "suggested over >another" is left to the player with subsequent review by the TD (and >perhaps AC). It seems to me that L21B1 change of call is exactly the same. Steve's last sentence pinpoints the essense of our disagreement on this, which comes down to a legal "fine point". To allow the NO to change his call, the TD must find that "it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation". Does The Law consider this to be a "finding of fact" (comparable to "it is probable that there has been a hesitation") or a "bridge judgment" (comparable to "could have been suggested by such information")? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Apr 25 16:00:01 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Apr 25 16:01:18 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Apr 22, 2005 03:27:46 PM Message-ID: <200504251400.j3PE01et026751@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > In my humble opinion, part of the cause of the > impenetrability of the Laws was Edgar Kaplan's > habit of using a single nuanced word (when a > less obsessively concise drafter of Laws might > have used a clearcut explanatory paragraph). According to Jeff Rubens, sometimes the wording was intentionally ambiguous because the drafters were unable to come to a consensus as to what the Laws should be in a given area. (This isn't intended as a criticism of Kaplan. This amounts to a compromise and compromises are sometimes neccessary) Kaplan was also known to favor a "figure out what ruling you want to give and then work backwards" approach. And nuanced phrasing helps a lot with this approach. > As I recall, a controversial appeal in the > 1990 World Championship hinged upon a single > nuanced word "manifestly" in the championship's > Conditions of Contest. That would be the mis-scored board in the Germany/Canada match right? From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Apr 25 16:18:29 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Apr 25 16:19:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: from "Gordon Bower" at Apr 21, 2005 04:33:54 PM Message-ID: <200504251418.j3PEITXV026859@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Gordon Bower writes: > > > > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > John (MadDog) Probst: > > > > >So you hold xxx Kxxxx x xxxx and respond 1H to 1D. Partner > > >bids 2S. This is forcing. I pass in sleep, don't you? > > >cheers John > > Sorry, no. If you aren't willing to respect partner's force, you pass 1D. > (And I would have some harsh words for any partner of mine who DIDN'T pass > 1D with that.) > > You do have a right to depart from system, of course, but going along with > that is accepting 200% of the blame if it doesn't work out. > > > And Rosenberg argued that an out-of-tempo forcing 2S > > could not result in a TD adjusted score of a contract of > > 2S, since a TD would be compelled to rule that passing a > > forcing bid was not a logical alternative. > > This is true. > > On the other hand, if they admit that they think that this is a routine 1H > bid and they would pass partner's in-tempo forcing rebid, they are in for > a lecture about what "forcing" means (see earlier thread) and if I've > had a bad day they'll be in front of an ethic committee to justify lying > through their teeth about their methods. > I'll have to dig up the hand, but Jeff Rubens was able to construct a hand on which: a) there's no obvious insanity in the previous calls b) "everybody" agrees that partner's last call is forcing c) A plurality of panelists pass anyhow. Hamilton's comment summed it all up. "I'm passing a forcing bid" (And those that didn't pass clearly considered passing) Rubens was not happy. Spent the rest of the column ranting about it. Still, there is at least one hand where the pass of a forcing bid is a LA in my mind. From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Mon Apr 25 17:20:19 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Apr 25 17:21:26 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >DWS wrote: > >>> I suggest that Tim reads clause 5.2.1 of the EBU Orange Book. >> >> >> >> That specifically states that a natural call must be alerted, if >> >> it has a meaning that the opponents might not expect. >> > >> >Oh, I am well aware of what OB5.2.1 *says* (not exactly the above). >> >I am also aware of what it is taken (by the EBU) to mean. The >> >opponents referred to are "opponents in general" rather "opponents of >> >the moment" in the specific. >> >> Fascinating stuff. You learn a new thing every day, especially about >> books you have written. I wonder where the authority for this is? >Perhaps David, and I think the need is clear, you should try attending an >EBU TD training course and asking for the official position on whether >alert requirements are dependent on your *system* or on your *opponents*. Perhaps I have. In fact - I have. Well, there's a surprise. >Perhaps, in all the tests on such courses, you can find an example of >where a candidate has been marked down for failing to point out that a >particular bid is alertable if playing against novices. I do not have the tests, and maybe there are no such examples. >Perhaps, in your gracious wisdom, you could give an example from the OB of >a bid which is alertable against novices but not against intermediate >players. 1S 2D 2N forcing >Or perhaps you could just stop wittering about whatever I say and learn to >read and think before issuing mindless responses. I do not like the attitude or approach of your posts. You try to upset people with your attitude, and you push people deliberately. As a result my posts in answer to you will never be as polite or my attitude to you be as easy as when answering [for example] Ron Johnson, for whom I have considerable respect. >Ah well, never mind. I'll just have to learn to be forgiving. Alternatively you could try stop winding people up so you do not need to be forgiving. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Mon Apr 25 17:21:33 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Apr 25 17:22:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>> The problem here is that you have two concessions. >>> Declarer has conceded a tridk to the defenders' HQ. >>> The defenders have conceded a trick to declarer's HK. >> This is legalese at its worst. There was a claim. Being a claim >>not >> for all the tricks it was also a concession. >> But to suggest the defence conceded is silly. One side >> claims/concedes/both, the other side agrees/disagrees. That's it. >Yes David, in pure legalese that is "Acquiescence Withdrawn". Read L69B >and tell me in what this differs from "concession withdrawn". The >period is the same (79C), and while 71A tals of legal plays and 69B of >normal plays, in both cases there is such a play that makes that the >conditions for withdrawal are not met. I really find it difficult to treat this seriously. You have two completely different Laws for different situations with different effects and different time periods. What do you mean, how do they differ? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Mon Apr 25 17:22:25 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Apr 25 17:23:30 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote >Responses have been most helpful, but I'm worried we may be at cross- >purposes on one matter. I'm using "CPU" as a synonym for "L40B >infraction," and I'm assuming that like most infractions it is not >intentional. Is this view shared, or do people believe that by its >very nature a CPU must be intentional and therefore at least bordering >on a conduct infraction? No reason for a CPU to be intentional. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Mon Apr 25 17:23:25 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Apr 25 17:24:29 2005 Subject: FW: [blml] Another L21 Question Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article <42684AE9.7000104@cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes >>> From: "Sven Pran" >>> To me it is implicit in L21B that L21B permits the player changing his >>> call >>> to what he would have called had he been correctly informed. >> >>This seems to sum up the debate. Sven and Bruce rule based on what is >>"implicit" in the Laws; Tim and I believe it is correct to rule based on >>what the Laws actually say. >> >> >>SW> By the way, "calling West away from the table" is considered bad >>SW> practice outside North America. > >Noo. There are a couple of situations where we do it in the UK. >sometimes we need to ask a player his intent and we would do that away >from the table. I think, and I've experienced it, that ACBL TD's do it >more often than we do, but I've never thought it was per se bad practice >or to be disapproved of. John The principal time they do it in North America is when there is an infraction. Rather than decide afterwards what would have happened TDs take the player away from the table to ask him what he would have done. This is considered bad practice outside North America. Of course there are other situations where a TD will take a player away from the table, North America or elsewhere. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From adam at irvine.com Mon Apr 25 17:31:58 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Apr 25 17:33:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:52:00 BST." Message-ID: <200504251531.IAA06880@mailhub.irvine.com> Tim wrote: > > call for sustaining both concessions. Down one. > > Can't be down one. Either declarer has claimed a trick she could not > possibly have won or conceded a trick she could not possibly have > lost. It's down 2 or making and no other result is either possible or > legitimate. I don't understand the theory that a score of "down 1" is not legitimate because it could not have been obtained in actual play. If, say, both sides agree on the number of tricks declarer took, then that's the score for a board, even if the number of tricks was wrong and it was impossible that declarer could have actually obtained that exact number of tricks. If the Laws do not empower the Director to change the score later, then the "impossible" score still stands. Why is this hard? -- Adam From jfchevalier at ffbridge.net Mon Apr 25 17:33:45 2005 From: jfchevalier at ffbridge.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Chevalier?=) Date: Mon Apr 25 17:34:53 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims Message-ID: <426D0DD9.5050902@ffbridge.net> South is playing 4H He had lost 2 tricks KJT4 K - - 2 Q - - 93 QJ2 75 9 7 T8 T J The hand is in dummy and South claims all the remaining tricks without any statement(he have forget that the spade queen have nor been played) Your decision? why? Another case South is playing 6 hearts A985 K982 T63 KQ 6 T743 JT6 3 QJ874 K952 AT64 9875 KQJ2 AQ754 A J32 Lead:s6 South take the lead with the ace, play K and Ace of heart and concede the Ace of club without any other statement. West ask for one trump... Your decision? Thanks Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Apr 25 18:05:15 2005 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon Apr 25 18:04:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 In-Reply-To: <000301c54814$e9e60980$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven writes: I have never bothered memorizing law numbers but it is quite funny to notice how they stick after some years. And also in Norway one of the first things we teach candidates is to always look up in the law book before making a ruling. At tests we do not pass candidates who make a ruling without checking the laws book even when the ruling as such is correct! ____________________________________________________________________________ _ Hi all, Funny ! I heard many of you saying that the TD should always have TFLB in hand and never make any ruling without opening it. In sports (hockey, baseball, tennis, etc.) referees, most of the time, work without their Law book in hand. In courts of justice, lawyers should look incompetent if they always had Law books in hand. They often make citations of laws, with their numbers, and sometimes read a sentence or two, but most of the time the Law book remains closed. I think I know very well bridge Laws related to most current infractions (chapters IV, V and VI) and have got their numbers when working on my "improved" Law book with flow charts. So I never get the Law book with me at the club level but use to say something like: "According to Law XX, my ruling is so and so...". When having a less frequent case, I go back and get my book. IMHO, it is as best as saying: "OK, I look in the book. Law XX says that....". As a player, I would think: "This TD does not know basic laws and always have to look in the book. In a hurry, it is so easy to make bad readings." When working at the tournament level. I have TFLB in my pocket, but use the same approach. I open it only on less frequent things, to make sure players see I use the right law in these rare cases. Law 45D and 53C are good examples. But ruling on a call or a lead out of turn, or on a revoke, should be done without opening the book (routine). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Mon Apr 25 19:27:52 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Mon Apr 25 19:28:56 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims In-Reply-To: <426D0DD9.5050902@ffbridge.net> Message-ID: >Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier wrote: > >South is playing 4H > >He had lost 2 tricks > > KJT4 > K > - > - >2 Q >- - >93 QJ2 >75 9 > 7 > T8 > T > J > >The hand is in dummy and South claims all the remaining tricks without any >statement(he have forget that the spade queen have nor been played) >Your decision? why? One down, loosing tricks to SQ and DQ. Having forgotten that the SQ has not been played, the SK, J and T are of equal rank to declarer. Drawing one trump and then the SJ or ST would give east 2 tricks. I consider this a normal line of play. > >Another case >South is playing 6 hearts > A985 > K982 > T63 > KQ >6 T743 >JT6 3 >QJ874 K952 >AT64 9875 > KQJ2 > AQ754 > A > J32 >Lead:s6 >South take the lead with the ace, play K and Ace of heart and concede the >Ace of club without any other statement. West ask for one trump... >Your decision? The play certainly suggest that declarer could be unaware of the outstanding trump. Winning west's return and leading a spade is a normal play. All clauses of L70C is fullfilled.Thus the TD should award a trick to the oppontents. One down. Regards, Harald Skj?ran > >Thanks >Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier > >_______________________________________________ >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 johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Apr 25 19:39:09 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Apr 25 19:40:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 In-Reply-To: from "Laval Dubreuil" at Apr 25, 2005 12:05:15 PM Message-ID: <200504251739.j3PHd9kX028221@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Laval Dubreuil writes: > > Sven writes: > > I have never bothered memorizing law numbers but it is quite funny to notice > how they stick after some years. > > And also in Norway one of the first things we teach candidates is to always > look up in the law book before making a ruling. > > At tests we do not pass candidates who make a ruling without checking the > laws book even when the ruling as such is correct! > ____________________________________________________________________________ > _ > > Hi all, > > Funny ! I heard many of you saying that the TD should always have TFLB in > hand and never make any ruling without opening it. > > In sports (hockey, baseball, tennis, etc.) referees, most of the time, work > without their Law book in hand. RIght. Because it's impractical in a continuous action game to stop and read. But having worked as a sports official at a fairly high level I can tell you why bridge officials are encouraged to read their rulings. Sports officials get an uncomfortable number of rulings wrong (and I'm not talking about judgement calls. Was he pushed or did he dive? Those things are simply impossible to get right every time) I've seen a game in a national championship tournament decided by a referee's error on the laws of the game. A very senior official didn't know the correct ruling on a rare play. (Not that anybody is likely to care, touch football, two point convert, pass interference. If the interference is in the end zone, award two points. If it's before the end zone, retry from half the distance. The interference was in the end zone and the referee ruled a retry from the five yard line -- which failed. Game ended tied and the team which would have won lost in overtime.) > In courts of justice, lawyers should look > incompetent if they always had Law books in hand. They often make citations > of laws, with their numbers, and sometimes read a sentence or two, but most > of the time the Law book remains closed. > > I think I know very well bridge Laws related to most current infractions > (chapters IV, V and VI) and have got their numbers when working on my > "improved" Law book with flow charts. So I never get the Law book with me > at the club level but use to say something like: "According to Law XX, > my ruling is so and so...". When having a less frequent case, I go back > and get my book. IMHO, it is as best as saying: "OK, I look in the book. > Law XX says that....". As a player, I would think: "This TD does not know > basic laws and always have to look in the book. In a hurry, it is so easy > to make bad readings." > > When working at the tournament level. I have TFLB in my pocket, but use > the same approach. I open it only on less frequent things, to make sure > players see I use the right law in these rare cases. Law 45D and 53C > are good examples. But ruling on a call or a lead out of turn, or on a > revoke, should be done without opening the book (routine). What's the harm in reading the ruling? Seems to me like an indulgence of one's ego in not reading it. From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Apr 25 19:39:29 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Apr 25 19:40:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia References: <200504251531.IAA06880@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > Tim wrote: > > > > call for sustaining both concessions. Down one. > > > > Can't be down one. Either declarer has claimed a trick she could not > > possibly have won or conceded a trick she could not possibly have > > lost. It's down 2 or making and no other result is either possible or > > legitimate. > > I don't understand the theory that a score of "down 1" is not > legitimate because it could not have been obtained in actual play. > If, say, both sides agree on the number of tricks declarer took, then > that's the score for a board, even if the number of tricks was wrong > and it was impossible that declarer could have actually obtained that > exact number of tricks. If the Laws do not empower the Director to > change the score later, then the "impossible" score still stands. Why > is this hard? > > -- Adam I concur in not understanding the theory down 1 isn't a legitimate score for the reasons you express. However, I still believe that down 2 is also a possible legitimate score for this board even though after consideration I am not as frim in my original view for justifying it. What has since occured to me is that when declarer originally conceded down 1 and defenders acquiesced down 1- it was a scoring error. the reason that it was a scoring error was that the only way to go down was to lose a heart trick and the only way to lose a heart trick was to lose T12. After that point the only legal play was for the defender to win T13 also- for down 2. The line of play that was acquiesced was not 'in dispute' merely that the calculation of tricks was wrong. And scoring errors can be corrected in accordance with L79. regards roger pewick From adam at irvine.com Mon Apr 25 19:44:26 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Apr 25 19:45:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:39:09 EDT." <200504251739.j3PHd9kX028221@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <200504251744.KAA07767@mailhub.irvine.com> Ron Johnson wrote: > Laval Dubreuil writes: > > > > In sports (hockey, baseball, tennis, etc.) referees, most of the time, work > > without their Law book in hand. > > RIght. Because it's impractical in a continuous action game to stop and > read. So what does that have to do with baseball???? ;-) -- Adam From jrhind at therock.bm Mon Apr 25 20:17:56 2005 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Mon Apr 25 20:19:29 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims In-Reply-To: <426D0DD9.5050902@ffbridge.net> Message-ID: On 4/25/05 12:33 PM, "Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier" wrote: > South is playing 4H > > He had lost 2 tricks > > KJT4 > K > - > - > 2 Q > - - > 93 QJ2 > 75 9 > 7 > T8 > T > J > > The hand is in dummy and South claims all the remaining tricks without > any statement(he have forget that the spade queen have nor been played) > Your decision? why? I give declarer his concession on the hand above. It is not rational to expect that he will play away from the SK. > Another case > South is playing 6 hearts > A985 > K982 > T63 > KQ > 6 T743 > JT6 3 > QJ874 K952 > AT64 9875 > KQJ2 > AQ754 > A > J32 > Lead:s6 > South take the lead with the ace, play K and Ace of heart and concede > the Ace of club without any other statement. West ask for one trump... > Your decision? On the hand above I award W the trump trick because it is likely that declarer failed to realize the East did not follow to the second trump. It is therefore not irrational to play spades conceding a ruff. > > Thanks > Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 25 20:35:45 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 25 20:36:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c549c5$97dd87f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ............. > > I don't understand the theory that a score of "down 1" is not > > legitimate because it could not have been obtained in actual play. > > If, say, both sides agree on the number of tricks declarer took, then > > that's the score for a board, even if the number of tricks was wrong > > and it was impossible that declarer could have actually obtained that > > exact number of tricks. If the Laws do not empower the Director to > > change the score later, then the "impossible" score still stands. Why > > is this hard? > > > > -- Adam > > > I concur in not understanding the theory down 1 isn't a legitimate score > for > the reasons you express. > > However, I still believe that down 2 is also a possible legitimate score > for > this board even though after consideration I am not as frim in my original > view for justifying it. What has since occured to me is that when > declarer > originally conceded down 1 and defenders acquiesced down 1- it was a > scoring > error. the reason that it was a scoring error was that the only way to go > down was to lose a heart trick and the only way to lose a heart trick was > to > lose T12. After that point the only legal play was for the defender to > win > T13 also- for down 2. The line of play that was acquiesced was not 'in > dispute' merely that the calculation of tricks was wrong. And scoring > errors can be corrected in accordance with L79. I have on several occasions had "impossible" board results reported to me where from the cards I can tell for instance that either he made his contract or he went down 2; the reported result down 1 should be impossible. So what have I done? I have recorded the result reported to me. On one or two such incidents I have investigated and been told: "Indeed that was the result". Morale? You register the result that is reported in the proper way and do not consider changing it unless you are approached by one or both the affected pairs claiming a scoring error. And particularly when a reported result of down 1 "should be" either made or down 2 depending upon what card had been played in a claim/concession situation the Director will have an impossible job trying to judge which way he should correct the result. But in the case we are discussing none of the required conditions for correction was satisfied so there is really no reason for any correction at all. Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Apr 25 20:45:49 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Apr 25 20:46:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia References: <000001c549c5$97dd87f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 13:35 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Claim in Sofia > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ............ > > I don't understand the theory that a score of "down 1" is not > > legitimate because it could not have been obtained in actual play. > > If, say, both sides agree on the number of tricks declarer took, then > > that's the score for a board, even if the number of tricks was wrong > > and it was impossible that declarer could have actually obtained that > > exact number of tricks. If the Laws do not empower the Director to > > change the score later, then the "impossible" score still stands. Why > > is this hard? > > > > -- Adam > > > I concur in not understanding the theory down 1 isn't a legitimate score > for > the reasons you express. > > However, I still believe that down 2 is also a possible legitimate score > for > this board even though after consideration I am not as frim in my original > view for justifying it. What has since occured to me is that when > declarer > originally conceded down 1 and defenders acquiesced down 1- it was a > scoring > error. the reason that it was a scoring error was that the only way to go > down was to lose a heart trick and the only way to lose a heart trick was > to > lose T12. After that point the only legal play was for the defender to > win > T13 also- for down 2. The line of play that was acquiesced was not 'in > dispute' merely that the calculation of tricks was wrong. And scoring > errors can be corrected in accordance with L79. I have on several occasions had "impossible" board results reported to me where from the cards I can tell for instance that either he made his contract or he went down 2; the reported result down 1 should be impossible. So what have I done? I have recorded the result reported to me. On one or two such incidents I have investigated and been told: "Indeed that was the result". Morale? You register the result that is reported in the proper way and do not consider changing it unless you are approached by one or both the affected pairs claiming a scoring error. And particularly when a reported result of down 1 "should be" either made or down 2 depending upon what card had been played in a claim/concession situation the Director will have an impossible job trying to judge which way he should correct the result. But in the case we are discussing none of the required conditions for correction was satisfied so there is really no reason for any correction at all. Sven Which is precisely what I said. Except that I further said that if the sought a scoring correction it should be granted. regards roger pewick From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Apr 25 21:03:05 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Apr 25 21:04:09 2005 Subject: [OT] baseball umps (was Re: [blml] Directing after 2006) In-Reply-To: <200504251744.KAA07767@mailhub.irvine.com> from "Adam Beneschan" at Apr 25, 2005 10:44:26 AM Message-ID: <200504251903.j3PJ35xV028631@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Adam Beneschan writes: > > > Ron Johnson wrote: > > > Laval Dubreuil writes: > > > > > > In sports (hockey, baseball, tennis, etc.) referees, most of the time, work > > > without their Law book in hand. > > > > RIght. Because it's impractical in a continuous action game to stop and > > read. > > So what does that have to do with baseball???? ;-) > Nothing. The objection in baseball is that you have to be able to read before a law book will do any good. Baseball's umpires have ignored the rule book for decades. (As for instance blocking home plat, the phantom tag and the battle major league baseball has fought to get the umpires to call the strike zone as defined) OK, things are a little better in the wake of the resignation fiasco. (Very briefly -- Umpires threatened to resign during a contract dispute. Sandy Alderson -- the man dealing with the issue said, "This is either a threat to be ignored, or an offer to be accepted." There were a bunch of resignations and then a stampede to pull them back when Alderson accepted them. Some of the worst umpires lost their jobs, and as a group they were much chastened. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 25 21:37:33 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Apr 25 21:38:56 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <200504251400.j3PE01et026751@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200504251400.j3PE01et026751@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <2a3c99e5abe31675f5a25fc288891e5d@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 25, 2005, at 10:00 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: > Kaplan was also known to favor a "figure out what > ruling you want to give and then work backwards" > approach. And nuanced phrasing helps a lot with > this approach. That's probably workable, with Kaplan directing. IMO, however, giving such power to a club level TD is akin to giving a nuke to a ten year old. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 25 21:48:46 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 25 21:48:52 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims In-Reply-To: <426D0DD9.5050902@ffbridge.net> References: <426D0DD9.5050902@ffbridge.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050425145630.02b42ce0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:33 AM 4/25/05, jfchevalier wrote: >South is playing 4H > >He had lost 2 tricks > > KJT4 > K > - > - >2 Q >- - >93 QJ2 >75 9 > 7 > T8 > T > J > >The hand is in dummy and South claims all the remaining tricks without >any statement(he have forget that the spade queen have nor been played) Why should we assume that the SQ has any bearing on the claim? Declarer has the remaining five tricks with SK, CJ and three ruffs. No trump issue, no placement of any of the outstanding cards, just five off the top. If that's what he had in mind, it would be Secretary-Birding to deny the claim on the technicality that he might conceivably have (mistakenly) thought he needed more than one spade trick *and* (mistakenly) believed the SQ to be gone. >Your decision? why? I can't tell from here. If actually called to the table, I would take the (arguably illegal) action of asking declarer to "clarify" what tricks he was referring to when he claimed "all the remaining" before making a decision. >Another case >South is playing 6 hearts > A985 > K982 > T63 > KQ >6 T743 >JT6 3 >QJ874 K952 >AT64 9875 > KQJ2 > AQ754 > A > J32 >Lead:s6 >South take the lead with the ace, play K and Ace of heart and concede >the Ace of club without any other statement. West ask for one trump... >Your decision? Much easier. West gets his trump. Oddly, this would be much harder (and I might well allow the claim) had South claimed *before* cashing the HA. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 25 21:54:15 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Apr 25 21:55:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 25, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > In sports (hockey, baseball, tennis, etc.) referees, most of the time, > work > without their Law book in hand. As others have pointed out, this is a different kettle of fish. > In courts of justice, lawyers should look incompetent if they always > had Law > books in hand. They often make citations of laws, with their numbers, > and > sometimes read a sentence or two, but most of the time the Law book > remains closed. I am neither lawyer nor TD, but from what I know of both, it seems to me that the lawyer will have spent (or will have had a clerk spend) considerable time researching the pertinent laws and precedents *before* the trial, taking notes so that he can refer to specific statute or case law in presenting his argument. If he opponent offers a surprise in law, what is our boy gonna do? "Your Honor, I must request a continuance so that I may research this new information." A TD can't do that. A TD can certainly memorize some laws, and ruling from memory may be reassuring to some that this TD knows his (or her) business. But in fact, in my experience, many TDs - at least at the club level - often get such rulings wrong. And when I've called a TD on that, asking for a reading from the law book, I've received many responses - "Sorry, the book's in the car", "I'll get back to you" "Let me think about it" - and *none* of them have been "Okay, here's the law book. It says...." :-( > I think I know very well bridge Laws related to most current > infractions > (chapters IV, V and VI) and have got their numbers when working on my > "improved" Law book with flow charts. So I never get the Law book with > me > at the club level but use to say something like: "According to Law XX, > my ruling is so and so...". And when a player says "I'm sorry, I don't think that's right. Could you read it from the book, please?" > When having a less frequent case, I go back > and get my book. IMHO, it is as best as saying: "OK, I look in the > book. > Law XX says that....". As a player, I would think: "This TD does not > know > basic laws and always have to look in the book. In a hurry, it is so > easy > to make bad readings." Who says you have to make, or appear to make, rulings in a hurry? > When working at the tournament level. I have TFLB in my pocket, but use > the same approach. I open it only on less frequent things, to make sure > players see I use the right law in these rare cases. Law 45D and 53C > are good examples. But ruling on a call or a lead out of turn, or on a > revoke, should be done without opening the book (routine). I disagree. From john at asimere.com Mon Apr 25 21:55:42 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon Apr 25 21:57:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 In-Reply-To: References: <000301c54814$e9e60980$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5JYfeWA+sUbCFwt2@asimere.com> In article , Laval Dubreuil writes >Sven writes: > >I have never bothered memorizing law numbers but it is quite funny to notice >how they stick after some years. > >And also in Norway one of the first things we teach candidates is to always >look up in the law book before making a ruling. > >At tests we do not pass candidates who make a ruling without checking the >laws book even when the ruling as such is correct! >____________________________________________________________________________ >_ > >Hi all, > >Funny ! I heard many of you saying that the TD should always have TFLB in >hand and never make any ruling without opening it. > >In sports (hockey, baseball, tennis, etc.) referees, most of the time, work >without their Law book in hand. In courts of justice, lawyers should look >incompetent if they always had Law books in hand. They often make citations >of laws, with their numbers, and sometimes read a sentence or two, but most >of the time the Law book remains closed. > >I think I know very well bridge Laws related to most current infractions >(chapters IV, V and VI) and have got their numbers when working on my >"improved" Law book with flow charts. So I never get the Law book with me >at the club level but use to say something like: "According to Law XX, >my ruling is so and so...". When having a less frequent case, I go back >and get my book. IMHO, it is as best as saying: "OK, I look in the book. >Law XX says that....". As a player, I would think: "This TD does not know >basic laws and always have to look in the book. In a hurry, it is so easy >to make bad readings." The London players are always really pleased when I have to say "Well done, I'll need to look in the laws to check this one" :) > >When working at the tournament level. I have TFLB in my pocket, but use >the same approach. I open it only on less frequent things, to make sure >players see I use the right law in these rare cases. Law 45D and 53C >are good examples. But ruling on a call or a lead out of turn, or on a >revoke, should be done without opening the book (routine). > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City > > >_______________________________________________ >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 twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 25 23:00:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 25 23:02:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000501c54995$54e166e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Now then consider the Director who in a Law 16A situation after looking > at a player's hand announces: "In my opinion this player has made an > acceptable call"! (Normal play of the board is no longer possible) And did you not bother to read the bit where I said "NB, if I know that my ruling is going to be "Play on and call me back if you feel damaged" there is no reason to look (this is the situation where the advice - "Don't look" is most widely cited)? *IT'S A 16A SITUATION* - no need to look!! > Looking at cards to ascertain that the board has not been fouled is OK, > looking at a hand in order to make a ruling involving that hand is not. If you need to know the content of the hand in order to make a ruling then you have to look. If you don't need to know then don't look. > The Director should always keep in mind the importance of not making > himself the source of UI to any player. Of course. But sometimes the director suspects that a player trying to change a call under L25a didn't *actually* make the call "inadvertently". He knows the evidence he needs to decide between applying L25a and Law25b will be in the hand. Disputed hesitation? Sometimes even the best TD will be reduced to making a judgement on "Is the hand the sort that is likely to need some thought?". If you don't examine the evidence you decide you need you will often get the judgement wrong. Again we are required to make a ruling before play continues. I don't *like* looking at hands during play, and I very seldom find it necessary. But if the hand is the evidence I need to decide whether to allow a L21b change, or Law 25a, or to decide on disputed facts then I will, *and must* look. OTOH if you don't look at the evidence you consider necessary to getting these rulings right at the table you should at least accept that it is TD error when sorting out the mess afterwards. Players should not accept shoddy TDing of the "I'm not going to decide what is allowed" variety. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 25 23:00:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 25 23:02:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <200504251531.IAA06880@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: > > > call for sustaining both concessions. Down one. > > > > Can't be down one. Either declarer has claimed a trick she could not > > possibly have won or conceded a trick she could not possibly have > > lost. It's down 2 or making and no other result is either possible > > or legitimate. > > I don't understand the theory that a score of "down 1" is not > legitimate because it could not have been obtained in actual play. > If, say, both sides agree on the number of tricks declarer took, then > that's the score for a board, even if the number of tricks was wrong > and it was impossible that declarer could have actually obtained that > exact number of tricks. If the Laws do not empower the Director to > change the score later, then the "impossible" score still stands. Why > is this hard? If a dispute comes to the TD before the end of the relevant correction period then he will decide how many tricks were, in fact, taken. Of course he can do nothing if the correction period has expired - but if that was the case here then I'm afraid I missed it (as did many other responders). But sure "Too late guys - result stands" is not only *a* completely legitimate ruling, it is *the* only legitimate ruling in such cases. Sorry. But assuming the TD call was within the correction period we have declarer stating that she played the King (or indicated the king, or intended to play the king) and then conceded the last trick. We either rule that the king was played (contract makes) or we rule the jack was played (opening the cat-box either way). If we rule that the jack was played then we discover that her opps conceded a trick (no 13) that they could not have lost by any legal play. This has come to our attention within the correction period so again we adjust. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 25 23:00:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 25 23:02:09 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > >Perhaps David, and I think the need is clear, you should try attending > an > >EBU TD training course and asking for the official position on whether > >alert requirements are dependent on your *system* or on your > *opponents*. > > Perhaps I have. In fact - I have. Well, there's a surprise. Indeed a surprise - since it appears you were given an answer directly contrary to the one I was given. > >Perhaps, in all the tests on such courses, you can find an example of > >where a candidate has been marked down for failing to point out that a > >particular bid is alertable if playing against novices. > > I do not have the tests, and maybe there are no such examples. Negligence or incompetence, assuming there is a difference? > >Perhaps, in your gracious wisdom, you could give an example from the > >OB of a bid which is alertable against novices but not against > >intermediate players. > > 1S 2D > 2N forcing The OB says (when describing what *not* to alert): (b) a bid of no trumps which you are prepared to play at that level, which is not forcing and which conveys no information about your suit holdings. The sequence is not referred to directly, and certainly there is no reference to novices/intermediates or any other level of player. Alertable whatever the level of opponents. That said I will certainly give a novice claim for damage more credence (but then that will be the case in a great many alertable sequences). In the above sequence 2N *artificial* and forcing is certainly alertable even against experts. So if one alerts a natural and forcing 2N against players of a standard for whom that is not alertable you are, presumably, guilty of MI. This is a complete minefield. If the EBU really *has* changed its official position in the last couple of years might I suggest that they reconsider. > >Or perhaps you could just stop wittering about whatever I say and > learn to read and think before issuing mindless responses. > > I do not like the attitude or approach of your posts. Poor lamb, try to be a little less touchy. > You try to upset people with your attitude, and you push people > deliberately. I don't try to upset people, albeit I don't make any particular effort not to. I push people when they misinform others. > As a result my posts in answer to you will never be as polite Actually David, I don't care about whether your replies to me are polite. I care that they are generally made without you reading properly, without you checking what the laws/regulations actually say, and that you base your responses on what you want the laws to say instead. Sometimes you put the effort in and get it right - at other times you are lazy and talk nonsense. Best wishes, Tim From adam at irvine.com Mon Apr 25 23:42:03 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Apr 25 23:43:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:00:00 BST." Message-ID: <200504252141.OAA09429@mailhub.irvine.com> Tim wrote: > Adam wrote: > > > > > call for sustaining both concessions. Down one. > > > > > > Can't be down one. Either declarer has claimed a trick she could not > > > possibly have won or conceded a trick she could not possibly have > > > lost. It's down 2 or making and no other result is either possible > > > or legitimate. > > > > I don't understand the theory that a score of "down 1" is not > > legitimate because it could not have been obtained in actual play. > > If, say, both sides agree on the number of tricks declarer took, then > > that's the score for a board, even if the number of tricks was wrong > > and it was impossible that declarer could have actually obtained that > > exact number of tricks. If the Laws do not empower the Director to > > change the score later, then the "impossible" score still stands. Why > > is this hard? > > If a dispute comes to the TD before the end of the relevant correction > period then he will decide how many tricks were, in fact, taken. Of > course he can do nothing if the correction period has expired - but if > that was the case here then I'm afraid I missed it (as did many other > responders). But sure "Too late guys - result stands" is not only *a* > completely legitimate ruling, it is *the* only legitimate ruling in such > cases. > > Sorry. The correction period didn't have anything to do with the original case. Perhaps I ought to be more careful when I bring up an analogy. But the point I was trying to make was that once a score has been agreed on, then even if the score was an impossible one, it can only be changed if the Laws empower us to do so. And no Laws empower us to change the score in the originally posted case, after the claim has been acquiesced to. Many of us have cited the relevant Laws to show why the TD is not empowered to change the score. But those who think "down 1" is not a legitimate result have not, as far as I can see, cited any Laws that do empower the TD to change it; therefore, unless the TD is God, Kaplan, or a baseball umpire, he can't change it. (Roger at least tried to cite something, but I think it's a stretch---he'd have to consider a faulty claim/concession/acquiescence to be a scoring error.) > But assuming the TD call was within the correction period we have declarer > stating that she played the King (or indicated the king, or intended to > play the king) and then conceded the last trick. > We either rule that the king was played (contract makes) or we rule the > jack was played (opening the cat-box either way). No, we don't; we rule that play ceased when a claim was made, and that therefore neither card was played. While your logic would be fine in the case of a contested claim, we're not dealing with a contested claim. We're dealing with the case of a change in the score following an acquiescence/concession. The Laws are specific about how to deal with these cases, and they allow a score change only in a clear-cut case. The Laws do not require or permit the TD to determine what line of play might have been followed; rather, they only allow a score change if *all* legal lines of play would have given a trick to the conceder, or if all normal lines of play would have given a trick to the acquiescer. In your argument, you haven't cited a Law that tells you to rule on whether the king or jack was played. You can't, because there isn't one. -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 26 00:20:34 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Apr 26 00:21:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c549e5$000a9880$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > Now then consider the Director who in a Law 16A situation after looking > > at a player's hand announces: "In my opinion this player has made an > > acceptable call"! (Normal play of the board is no longer possible) > > And did you not bother to read the bit where I said "NB, if I know that my > ruling is going to be "Play on and call me back if you feel damaged" there > is no reason to look (this is the situation where the advice - "Don't > look" is most widely cited)? *IT'S A 16A SITUATION* - no need to look!! > > > Looking at cards to ascertain that the board has not been fouled is OK, > > looking at a hand in order to make a ruling involving that hand is not. > > If you need to know the content of the hand in order to make a ruling then > you have to look. If you don't need to know then don't look. If you really need to know the hand in order to make a ruling and your ruling then will expose information on that hand to opponents you either: A: Look at the hand, make your ruling and then realize that the board can no longer be played and scored normally. Or B: Delay your final ruling until after the play of that board is completed. > > > The Director should always keep in mind the importance of not making > > himself the source of UI to any player. > > Of course. But sometimes the director suspects that a player trying to > change a call under L25a didn't *actually* make the call "inadvertently". > He knows the evidence he needs to decide between applying L25a and Law25b > will be in the hand. The choice between a L25A and a L25B ruling must be made by examining the players and forming your own opinion on which law seems applicable. If you look at the hand and then make a ruling you are no better off than the Director who says after looking at a hand (ruling on L16A): "In my opinion this player has made an acceptable call"! (Normal play of the board is no longer possible) > > Disputed hesitation? Sometimes even the best TD will be reduced to making > a judgement on "Is the hand the sort that is likely to need some > thought?". If you don't examine the evidence you decide you need you will > often get the judgement wrong. Again we are required to make a ruling > before play continues. Again you "destroy" the board by first looking at a hand and then rule on whether the player had a legitimate hesitation or not. > > I don't *like* looking at hands during play, and I very seldom find it > necessary. But if the hand is the evidence I need to decide whether to > allow a L21b change, or Law 25a, or to decide on disputed facts then I > will, *and must* look. > > OTOH if you don't look at the evidence you consider necessary to getting > these rulings right at the table you should at least accept that it is TD > error when sorting out the mess afterwards. Players should not accept > shoddy TDing of the "I'm not going to decide what is allowed" variety. The only thing I can wish on your behalf is that you will understand why you describe a perfect way of destroying boards. I remember having read somewhere (must have been from back around 1960 or so) that Directors regularly looked at hands before making their rulings. They even in some cases ordered a board to be played in a contract completely different from what was actually reached in the auction! It didn't take Norwegian authorities long time to understand that this practice regularly gave away too much information on the hand that had been inspected and thus was absolutely unacceptable. So they soon ordered an end to such practices. Sven From jrhind at therock.bm Tue Apr 26 00:23:02 2005 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Tue Apr 26 00:24:08 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050425145630.02b42ce0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On 4/25/05 4:48 PM, "Eric Landau" wrote: > At 11:33 AM 4/25/05, jfchevalier wrote: > >> South is playing 4H >> >> He had lost 2 tricks >> >> KJT4 >> K >> - >> - >> 2 Q >> - - >> 93 QJ2 >> 75 9 >> 7 >> T8 >> T >> J >> >> The hand is in dummy and South claims all the remaining tricks without >> any statement(he have forget that the spade queen have nor been played) > > Why should we assume that the SQ has any bearing on the > claim? Declarer has the remaining five tricks with SK, CJ and three > ruffs. No trump issue, no placement of any of the outstanding cards, > just five off the top. If that's what he had in mind, it would be > Secretary-Birding to deny the claim on the technicality that he might > conceivably have (mistakenly) thought he needed more than one spade > trick *and* (mistakenly) believed the SQ to be gone. I consider the SQ because there is not other realistic way that declarer can lose a trick on this hand. >> Your decision? why? > > I can't tell from here. If actually called to the table, I would take > the (arguably illegal) action of asking declarer to "clarify" what > tricks he was referring to when he claimed "all the remaining" before > making a decision. I certainly don't want to ask declarer what he was thinking here. I will make my decision based on what I hear at the table. > >> Another case >> South is playing 6 hearts >> A985 >> K982 >> T63 >> KQ >> 6 T743 >> JT6 3 >> QJ874 K952 >> AT64 9875 >> KQJ2 >> AQ754 >> A >> J32 >> Lead:s6 >> South take the lead with the ace, play K and Ace of heart and concede >> the Ace of club without any other statement. West ask for one trump... >> Your decision? > > Much easier. West gets his trump. Oddly, this would be much harder > (and I might well allow the claim) had South claimed *before* cashing > the HA. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 26 01:15:37 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 26 01:16:47 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <426A676C.5090900@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >Responses have been most helpful, but I'm worried >we may be at cross-purposes on one matter. I'm >using "CPU" as a synonym for "L40B infraction," and >I'm assuming that like most infractions it is not >intentional. Is this view shared, or do people >believe that by its very nature a CPU must be >intentional and therefore at least bordering on a >conduct infraction? Richard Hills: In my opinion, an inadvertent concealed partnership understanding infraction of Law 40B is identical to an inadvertent infraction of Law 75. In my opinion, both are merely the infractions of misinformation. A difference which makes no difference is no difference. On the other hand, a deliberate concealment of a partnership understanding is not only an infraction of Law 40B, but also (and more importantly) an infraction of 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." Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 26 01:49:32 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 26 01:50:42 2005 Subject: [blml] DeWael School on the rampage In-Reply-To: <426C9FEF.3050703@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch: [snip] >>By my choice of action I would break 75D2 and 72B2 (but >>I can't help it). >> >>By Herman's choice of action he breaks 75C, 72B1 (he >>chooses this course of action instead of the other >>because it is less damaging), 72B2 (also cannot help >>it), and 72B4 (concealing partner's breach of 75C). It >>may also happen one day that he simultaneously violates >>75D2 by being forced by L16 to produce an anti-systemic >>bid. >> >>The ethics of this choice seem very simple to me. By >>my choice of action I'd prevent my partner from >>recovering and resign myself to the poor score that it >>most likely to follow. By Herman's he gives partner as >>many chances as possible to recover and attempts to >>find a decent contract that might not be possible >>following the overwhelmingly suggested practice. [snip] Herman De Wael: >Indeed I give partner chances - legal ones. You prevent >partner from doing anything right - and for what - for >telling opponents something about your system in which >they are absolutely no longer interested since it is >already clear that tells them nothing about your >partner's hand. [snip] Richard Hills: I agree with Herman (and Konrad) that Laws 75C and 75D2 are paradoxical, as they are currently written in the 1997 edition of the Lawbook. This is, however, a very temporary paradox. I confidently expect that the next edition of the Lawbook will have words to the effect of: "In the event of any inconsistency between Law 75C and Law 75D2, the Law 75D2 instruction to avoid indicating to partner their error is overridden by the Law 75C obligation to answer a question by disclosing all special information about explicit or implicit partnership agreements." And, in my opinion, it is an overstatement to say, "I give partner chances - legal ones", when what is legal is currently unknown, due to an unresolved paradox. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Apr 26 02:07:49 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Apr 26 02:08:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Aussie Senior Trials Message-ID: <426D8655.50108@cfa.harvard.edu> Richard told us that even with non-restrictive rules about what systems had to be declared in advance, 17 of 18 trialist pairs gave an advance declaration. I was curious about that so took a look at the web site where the declarations reside: http://www.seniors.dbbc.net/ Of the 17 pairs who offered advance notice of methods, as far as I can tell, 5 of them were not required to do so. It was good of them to give advance notice anyway. Of the 12 required to declare, most of the "weird methods" were weak 2M that includes a 4+ or 5+m and opening 1-bids that could be as weak as 10 HCP. There were also two pairs playing 1C=2+ on balanced hands (so 1D=4+) and 2 pairs playing 1D=2+ in strong club systems. All of these are GCC-legal in the ACBL, but I guess Aussies have trouble coping with them. :-) Two pairs played 2D= weak with 4-4 in majors (Ekrens?), and two pairs played multi-2C. Given that two-bids with unknown suits and multi-2D were not declarable, I'm surprised these were. Aside from these, Neill and Klinger were playing something like Polish club with transfer openings, and Walsh and McDonald played 2M=4 cards with 5+ clubs. The latter pair also play 2N=majors (declarable despite 2N without known suit not being so) and "2/1 artificial," which wasn't declarable but probably should have been. It was not explained further. If I were an opponent, I would have liked to know more. Net result: two pairs playing methods that seem worth declaring even for Aussies, ten playing methods where the need for advance disclosure (for other Aussie pairs) may be doubtful, and six with nothing to disclose under the given rules. I'm not sure what conclusions, if any, one can draw. One is that perhaps advance disclosure should apply to initial responses as well as opening bids. Another is that if almost everyone finds it easy to disclose methods in advance, why not make it mandatory? Or alternatively loosen the declaration rules even further if that's acceptable to other Aussie players. Perhaps Richard or others will have additional thoughts. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 26 02:46:18 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 26 02:48:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >A TD can certainly memorize some laws, and ruling from >memory may be reassuring to some that this TD knows his (or >her) business. But in fact, in my experience, many TDs - at >least at the club level - often get such rulings wrong. And >when I've called a TD on that, asking for a reading from >the law book, I've received many responses - "Sorry, the >book's in the car", "I'll get back to you" "Let me think >about it" - and *none* of them have been "Okay, here's the >law book. It says...." > >:-( Richard Hills: As a pedantic Secretary Bird and sometime Cub Scout, I use the "Be Prepared!" principle. If a club TD incorrectly rules from memory at my table, I take a copy of the Laws out of my bag for the TD to read. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 26 02:51:30 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 26 02:52:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5e06ac0af05154cafc8c7a1bc81e4ab3@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 25, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > If a dispute comes to the TD before the end of the relevant correction > period then he will decide how many tricks were, in fact, taken. Will he now? Is that what the law tells him to do? > But assuming the TD call was within the correction period we have > declarer > stating that she played the King (or indicated the king, or intended to > play the king) and then conceded the last trick. No, we have declarer figuring out after the fact that her LHO may have been squeezed, and therefore believing she should get a trick she had conceded. > We either rule that the king was played (contract makes) or we rule the > jack was played (opening the cat-box either way). If we rule that the > jack was played then we discover that her opps conceded a trick (no 13) > that they could not have lost by any legal play. This has come to our > attention within the correction period so again we adjust. We rule as the laws say to rule. So what do the laws actually say? First, let's look at the facts as presented: 1. The venue is a National Teams event. 2. Declarer East is in a contract of six clubs, at favorable vulnerability. 3. Declarer has taken 10 tricks, the opponents one. 4. The end position was: J 10 - - - - 7 KJ 9 - - - - Q K - 5. Declarer led H7 from dummy, N followed with H10, declarer faced her hand, making no statement, and wrote a result of "down 1" somewhere. 6. No one else said anything at this time. IOW, no one objected to the score of down 1. 7. "The level of declarer is high". 8. TD was called by declarer "after [a] few minutes". 9. Table TD ruled six clubs made. Now let's look at the laws. 10. Law 68A says this is a claim. Law 68B says it's also a concession. As there are two tricks remaining, this would be a claim of one trick and a concession of the other, which accords with the "down one" score. 11. Law 68C requires a statement of the claimant's line of play. 12 Law 68D says that if the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies. 13. Law 68D further says that if the claim or concession is disputed by *any* player, TD must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or 71, as applicable. 14. Law 69A says that acquiescence to *an opponent's claim or concession* [emphasis mine] occurs when a contestant raises no objection prior to (a) playing to the next board or (b) the end of the round, whichever comes first. 15. Law 69B allows a contestant to withdraw acquiescence to *an opponents* claim [emphasis mine], until the end of the Law 79C correction period, which is 30 minutes after the scores are posted. 16. Law 70 speaks to the proper procedure for dealing with contested claims. 17. Law 71 speaks to the proper procedure for canceling concessions. In particular, it requires the director to cancel a concession, with the Law 79C correction period, if any of (a) a player has conceded a trick his side had actually won, or could not have lost by any legal play of the cards, or (b) declarer has conceded defeat of a contract he had already fulfilled, or (c) a player has conceded a trick he could not have lost by any "normal" play of the cards *and* he has not called on a subsequent board, nor has the round ended. 18. Law 81C6 requires the TD to correct any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware within the Law 79C correction period. 19. The laws define "normal" in this context as including "play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational". 20. The time period specified in Laws 69A and 71C, during which an objection may be raised, ends when the objecting side calls on the next board, or when the round ends. [This is a restatement of facts 14 and 17(c)]. Opinions: a. Law 70 is predicated on the assumption that the Director is called at the time of the claim, IAW Law 69. b. As the Director was not called at that time, and as it is *claimer*, not an opponent who now wishes to dispute her own claim, Law 70 does not, it seems to me, apply. c. One could argue that claimer *may* dispute his own claim, because Law 68D specifies "any player", but as the disputing player did not call the TD immediately, he has not complied with Law 68D. I.E., the call is "too late" to go via this route, and still Law 70 does not apply. d. It would be irrational (and thus not "normal" for this declarer to play HJ at trick 12. e. The time period during which a Law 71C cancellation is permitted had expired before the director was called. [facts 8 and 20]. Conclusions: 1. Declarer violated Law 68c. [Facts 5 and 11]. 2. Law 69 applies. [Facts 6 and 12] 3. Law 70 does not apply [Fact 16, opinions a, b, and c]. 4. Law 71 implicitly allows a player (including the original claimer) to request cancellation of a concession until the Law 79C period has expired. [Fact 17.] 6. The Law 79C period had not expired at the time of the request. [Fact 6, Law 79C]. 7. TD is required to correct the erroneous claim/concession. [Facts 5, 6 and 18, Law 79C]. 8. Declarer had not conceded the loss of a trick she had already won, nor of one she could not have lost by any legal play (playing HJ at trick 12 is certainly legal). [Facts 17(a) and 4, Law 44]. 9. Declarer had not conceded defeat of a contract already fulfilled. [Facts 17(b) and 3]. 10. While declarer had in fact conceded a trick which could not have been lost by normal play [Facts 7, 17C, 19], the TD was not made aware of this until the time period during which a correction would be required had expired [opinion e]. 11. Therefore, no adjustment is permitted. [Facts 17 and 20, opinion e]. But wait! Are we done? I don't think so. Fact 21. Law 72A2 says that "a player must not accept ... the concession of a trick his opponents could not lose". Fact 22. Law 90 permits the TD to award a procedural penalty [PP] in certain circumstances. Opinion f. Given the level of this tournament, I suspect that South is also "of high level". Conclusion 12. South's acceptance of this concession is a circumstance in which a PP may be awarded. [Facts 21 and 22, opinion f]. Conclusion 13. East's failure to state a line of play at the time of claim is also a circumstance in which a PP may be awarded. [Facts 5, 7, 22]. Final ruling: Score stands [Law 71C]. PP (Warning) to East for violation of Law 68C. PP (1 IMP*) to South for violation of Law 72A2. As TD judgment is involved, notify both contestants of their right to appeal as required by Law 83. *I'm not real familiar with awarding PPs at IMP scoring, so the amount of this PP may be too low (or, I suppose, too high :). Last Note: at the table, I would want to know if the expiry condition in Law 71C had in fact been met - here I have assumed it. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 26 02:57:53 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 26 02:59:13 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33160e322ab09eb0bf2441bff277222a@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 25, 2005, at 7:15 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > On the other hand, a deliberate concealment of a > partnership understanding is not only an infraction > of Law 40B, but also (and more importantly) an > infraction of 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." Please explain to me how concealing a PU (as by failure fully disclose your agreement to your opponents) is equivalent to "exchanging information through prearranged methods" with partner. Please pay particular note to the word "prearranged". :-) From schoderb at msn.com Tue Apr 26 02:59:50 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Apr 26 03:00:52 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: <200504251400.j3PE01et026751@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: I couldn't let this one go bye. We aren't all aware of the timing, and the problems, and some conversations I've had since then make me wonder if I was actually there! Apparently (as stated to me by the Canadian Captain and players at 8:10 AM for at 9:00 AM starting time) one of their players became aware of the "fact" at somewhere around 4:00 AM the following day they had miss-scored a board in the final segment . They maintained that the number shown in the tricks taken box was the number of tricks down, and not the number taken. I asked why all other of the 15 boards showed that box to correctly be the number of tricks taken. I consulted with the other senior TDs to see if I was missing something, and was assured that I was not. The Laws provision for scoring corrections had long since expired. A further attempt to get a scoring change was made by reference to the words "manifestly incorrect" which had nothing to with scoring. These words in no way superceded the provisions of the Laws on scoring, time for corrections, etc. For instance, a match might well be posted on the TV or recaps with the wrong team being given the win. My ruling was that the laws covered the probable scoring mistake, and that no AC would, or could, overrule me on the Laws. It was at this point the the Captain brought into account the words "manifestly incorrect." I suggested to the Canadian Captain, who wished to appeal my decision, that since an AC could not overrule since the facts and laws were clear, he would be better off and save time by appealing the Conditions of Contest to a Tournament Committee, which heard the case and ruled that the attempt for correction was a case of Law, and that the words "manifestly incorrect" did not apply to this situation. Since then there has been a warping of the events and facts, even to the extent that some highly visible players and ex-highly placed officials have made public comments that had they been on the Committee they would have made sure things went the other way. (They were on the tournament site, but somehow not available to sit on the committee when asked). I consider those statements to be self-serving, political, ludicrous, and posturing. If World level bridge is not to be played according to the Laws we might as well close up shop. The basic problem is one of finality, which the Laws, in my opinion adequately cover. I feel for the players and their supporters, but have short shrift for the lack of attention to the Laws which then are supposed to be "negotiated" to "be fair." Why, I'm told that a certain country called back to the tournament site some thousands of miles away the next day to claim that they won a Zonal Championships! Had the players and Captains reviewed the boards, scores, and done what the job the laws provide for them, they would have had ample time to contest the scores and probably get a change. They did no such thing, in either case. Mr.Johnson's dependence upon the musings of Mr. Rubens notwithstanding, his suggestion that I might have decided upon a ruling, and then looked for support for that position is in the least unprofessional, and at most libelous. I expect more from him. And, oh yes, Mr.Kaplan had precious little to do with the Conditions of Contest for that event. Depending upon Mr. Rubens for "facts" has led some of us astray in the past. kojak Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) > richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > In my humble opinion, part of the cause of the > > impenetrability of the Laws was Edgar Kaplan's > > habit of using a single nuanced word (when a > > less obsessively concise drafter of Laws might > > have used a clearcut explanatory paragraph). > > According to Jeff Rubens, sometimes the wording > was intentionally ambiguous because the drafters > were unable to come to a consensus as to what the > Laws should be in a given area. (This isn't intended > as a criticism of Kaplan. This amounts to a > compromise and compromises are sometimes neccessary) > > Kaplan was also known to favor a "figure out what > ruling you want to give and then work backwards" > approach. And nuanced phrasing helps a lot with > this approach. > > > As I recall, a controversial appeal in the > > 1990 World Championship hinged upon a single > > nuanced word "manifestly" in the championship's > > Conditions of Contest. > > That would be the mis-scored board in the > Germany/Canada match right? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 26 03:00:51 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 26 03:02:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 25, 2005, at 8:46 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > As a pedantic Secretary Bird and sometime Cub Scout, I use > the "Be Prepared!" principle. If a club TD incorrectly > rules from memory at my table, I take a copy of the Laws out > of my bag for the TD to read. I've been meaning to try that, but on the days when I remember to bring TFLB with me, the situation doesn't seem to come up. :-( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 26 03:06:59 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 26 03:08:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <200504252141.OAA09429@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [big snip] >In your argument, you haven't cited a Law that tells you >to rule on whether the king or jack was played. You >can't, because there isn't one. Richard Hills: Law 71C (Implausible Concession) applies. Note that, in accordance with an official WBF LC interpretation of this Law, the correction period is the standard Law 79C correction period. Therefore, I would have ruled as the table director ruled, adjusting the concession of the slam down one to the normal result of the slam making. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From adam at irvine.com Tue Apr 26 03:24:17 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Apr 26 03:25:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:06:59 +1000." Message-ID: <200504260124.SAA10858@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Adam Beneschan: > > [big snip] > > >In your argument, you haven't cited a Law that tells you > >to rule on whether the king or jack was played. You > >can't, because there isn't one. > > Richard Hills: > > Law 71C (Implausible Concession) applies. Note that, in > accordance with an official WBF LC interpretation of this > Law, the correction period is the standard Law 79C > correction period. Does this mean that the last clause of 71A is non-operative? (I'm sure this was all discussed in an earlier thread---I've forgotten.) > Therefore, I would have ruled as the table director ruled, > adjusting the concession of the slam down one to the > normal result of the slam making. You're ruling that, in the ending shown in the original post, playing the jack is irrational (as opposed to careless or inferior)? J 10 - - - - 7 KJ 9 - - - - Q K - Declarer (East) led the heart from dummy, North followed, West claimed a trick and conceded a trick. I don't see how, at that point, playing the jack could be considered irrational. It could be a careless play if East has forgotten to count, but irrational??? Note that the fact that East claimed a trick doesn't enter into it. Law 71C asks us whether to judge whether the play of the jack is irrational in this position---not whether it's irrational to assume that East intended to play the jack given the fact that she claimed a trick. -- Adam From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 26 03:59:41 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 26 04:00:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 Message-ID: Ben Schelen wrote >The capacity to quote law numbers and their contents is achieved through >continuously >using the FLB during any ruling. >Players will trust the director when he can find quickly the applicable law >in the law book. >Ruling by head is risky. We used to have a wonderful Chief TD called Roy Higson, who did have a few personal tricks. One of his was that occasionally he would quote a Law by heart, but half way through he would say "Look, you won't trust me to get this right without the book. So I'll get it." He would come back with a Law book, and read it out, and it was always the same. So the players were very impressed. What was the trick? Well, he only knew two or three Laws by heart, so he only did this with the two or three Laws he knew. So when he told them other laws, which he did *not* know by heart, they believed him absolutely!!!! :)) -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 26 04:00:43 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 26 04:01:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >Steve wrote: > >> The problem is that the permission in L21B1 is conditional, at least >> according to the text. Either you treat it as unconditional (ignoring >> the text) or you rule on incomplete information (not looking at the >> player's hand) or you do look at the player's hand or you review the >> player's decision at the end of play. I don't see any other options, >> and only the last one looks at all satisfactory to me. > >There is nothing in the laws which forbids the TD from looking at a >player's hand. Indeed laws 13 and 63 pretty much require it. >With other laws (L25A springs to mind) looking can increase the chances of >getting a L85b interim ruling (which most of these are) right. L13 no doubt, but I do not understand L63. However, L25A is an example of the type of ruling where TDs are trained not to look, because they give UI. If a player opens 1C, immediately tries to change it to 1S, and claims it was mechanical, what help is looking at his hand? Are you going to allow a change if he has 5 spades and 3 clubs, but not if he has five spades and five clubs? >As a TD I consider looking as a matter of last resort but I feel the >context of laws 9/10/82/85 is such that if one must look to get a ruling >right then look one must. NB, if I know that my ruling is going to be >"Play on and call me back if you feel damaged" there is no reason to look >(this is the situation where the advice - "Don't look" is most widely >cited). Even where it is not a play on situation I think that any ruling based on looking at the player's hand gives unfortunate information, and that is why TDs don't do it. Of course a missing card is rather different. From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 26 04:01:42 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 26 04:02:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 Message-ID: Laval Dubreuil wrote >In sports (hockey, baseball, tennis, etc.) referees, most of the time, work >without their Law book in hand. In courts of justice, lawyers should look >incompetent if they always had Law books in hand. They often make citations >of laws, with their numbers, and sometimes read a sentence or two, but most >of the time the Law book remains closed. This is considered correct practice. I really do not understand why there are so many comparisons in arguments about Bridge Laws with dissimilar sports and mindsports. It is considered good practice to read Laws in bridge, but not in baseball. Therefore, competent TDs read Laws form the book in bridge but Umpires do not in baseball. >I think I know very well bridge Laws related to most current infractions >(chapters IV, V and VI) and have got their numbers when working on my >"improved" Law book with flow charts. So I never get the Law book with me >at the club level but use to say something like: "According to Law XX, >my ruling is so and so...". When having a less frequent case, I go back >and get my book. IMHO, it is as best as saying: "OK, I look in the book. >Law XX says that....". As a player, I would think: "This TD does not know >basic laws and always have to look in the book. In a hurry, it is so easy >to make bad readings." A lot of players know what is considered good practice. My view of a TD who does not read from the book is that he is either in a hurry or casual or arrogant or incompetent. >When working at the tournament level. I have TFLB in my pocket, but use >the same approach. I open it only on less frequent things, to make sure >players see I use the right law in these rare cases. Law 45D and 53C >are good examples. But ruling on a call or a lead out of turn, or on a >revoke, should be done without opening the book (routine). A lead out of turn is considered an exception to the rule to read from the book. My experience of TDs who do calls out of turn without reading them is that their accuracy is somewhat below 40%: over half forget some detail or other. So a TD who does not read from the book when he gives me no confidence in his ability even when he gets it right. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 26 04:02:30 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 26 04:03:34 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >DWS wrote: > >> >Perhaps David, and I think the need is clear, you should try attending >> an >> >EBU TD training course and asking for the official position on whether >> >alert requirements are dependent on your *system* or on your >> *opponents*. >> >> Perhaps I have. In fact - I have. Well, there's a surprise. > >Indeed a surprise - since it appears you were given an answer directly >contrary to the one I was given. > >> >Perhaps, in all the tests on such courses, you can find an example of >> >where a candidate has been marked down for failing to point out that a >> >particular bid is alertable if playing against novices. >> >> I do not have the tests, and maybe there are no such examples. > >Negligence or incompetence, assuming there is a difference? In what way are you suggesting I should criticise other people's work that I am not involved with and do not know? >> >Or perhaps you could just stop wittering about whatever I say and >> learn to read and think before issuing mindless responses. >> >> I do not like the attitude or approach of your posts. > >Poor lamb, try to be a little less touchy. > >> You try to upset people with your attitude, and you push people >> deliberately. > >I don't try to upset people, albeit I don't make any particular effort not >to. I push people when they misinform others. Of course you try and upset people. You are one of these people who like to use other methods to put forward your beliefs than straight arguments. You care little for other people's views, and find that belittling them is often more effective than disagreeing with them. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 26 04:03:48 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 26 04:04:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >The London players are always really pleased when I have to say "Well >done, I'll need to look in the laws to check this one" :) Sure, but the reason that they're pleased is because they realise you are going to get one right for a change! :)))))))))) -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 26 04:30:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 26 04:31:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <000001c549e5$000a9880$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > B: Delay your final ruling until after the play of that board is > completed. Final ruling? I am required to make a ruling that allows play to continue. That ruling is subject to appeal but it is not open for me to change without invoking L82c - something I try to avoid doing. As I said before the evidence from the hand itself is seldom needed, but when it is, it is. > > > The Director should always keep in mind the importance of not making > > > himself the source of UI to any player. > > > > Of course. But sometimes the director suspects that a player trying > > to > > change a call under L25a didn't *actually* make the call > > "inadvertently". > > He knows the evidence he needs to decide between applying L25a and > > Law25b > > will be in the hand. > > The choice between a L25A and a L25B ruling must be made by examining > the players and forming your own opinion on which law seems applicable. > If you look at the hand and then make a ruling you are no better off > than the Director who says after looking at a hand (ruling on L16A): "In > my opinion this player has made an acceptable call"! (Normal play of the > board is no longer possible) Why is the board unplayable? Before I take a player away from the table to find out whether the call is inadvertent I tell the other players that I need to ask some questions. Sometimes asking questions at the table creates too much UI - you do *not* want public answers like "well I thought pard had bid 2H then I realised.." complicating the situation When I return I tell the remaining players whether I am using L25a or 25b. Yes they can, perhaps, draw inferences if I roll out 25b, but those inferences are AI to NOS and are inherent in the ruling. I do not tell them (until after the hand) *why* I made my ruling. > > Disputed hesitation? Sometimes even the best TD will be reduced to > > making a judgement on "Is the hand the sort that is likely to need > > some thought?". If you don't examine the evidence you decide you need > > you will often get the judgement wrong. Again we are required to make > > a ruling before play continues. > > Again you "destroy" the board by first looking at a hand and then rule > on whether the player had a legitimate hesitation or not. If I rule that the player hesitated the UI/AI is exactly the same as if the hesitation had not been disputed. If I rule there was no hesitation I have created a small amount of UI which is unlikely to suggest one LA over another. I agree this *might* have an effect on the board, but the chances of it requiring an adjustment are far lower than the chances of having to adjust if I get the ruling wrong because I didn't use the available evidence. > > > > > I don't *like* looking at hands during play, and I very seldom find it > > necessary. But if the hand is the evidence I need to decide whether > > to allow a L21b change, or Law 25a, or to decide on disputed facts > > then I will, *and must* look. > > > > OTOH if you don't look at the evidence you consider necessary to > > getting > > these rulings right at the table you should at least accept that it > > is TD > > error when sorting out the mess afterwards. Players should not accept > > shoddy TDing of the "I'm not going to decide what is allowed" variety. > > The only thing I can wish on your behalf is that you will understand > why you describe a perfect way of destroying boards. Getting a wrong ruling mid-board destroys boards just as much (if not more) than giving UI through bad process. If you believe the hand evidence is important to your ruling then you must have it *when you make your ruling*. You take whatever precautions you can to minimise the chances of having to adjust later. > I remember having read somewhere (must have been from back around 1960 > or so) that Directors regularly looked at hands before making their > rulings. > They even in some cases ordered a board to be played in a contract > completely different from what was actually reached in the auction! Yep. 16a rulings. Never any need to look at the hand because *no* ruling (other than "play on") is required. Bunch of idiots, what can I say (except that this was recommended practice in money bridge at the time). Please bear in mind that *you* were the one that said *you* couldn't decide whether to permit a Law21 change without looking at the hand. I accept that sometimes you will need that evidence. You are the one who wishes to destroy boards buy refusing to look at the evidence you say you need and risking getting the ruling wrong. The NOS player asks a simple question "am I allowed to change my call?" he is entitled to a yes or no answer. Try to give him the right one. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 26 04:34:55 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Apr 26 04:36:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 25, 2005, at 9:06 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 71C (Implausible Concession) applies. Note that, in > accordance with an official WBF LC interpretation of this > Law, the correction period is the standard Law 79C > correction period. How can that be, when the law itself clearly specifies a different, and shorter, period? From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Tue Apr 26 05:04:41 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Apr 26 05:05:51 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050426030441.13409.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> > > > >I don't try to upset people, albeit I don't make > any particular effort not > >to. I push people when they misinform others. > > Of course you try and upset people. You are one > of these people who > like to use other methods to put forward your > beliefs than straight > arguments. You care little for other people's > views, and find that > belittling them is often more effective than > disagreeing with them. Are you writing about Tim West-Meads or David Stevenson? What you write David is my experience a better description of your own posts than Tim's. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 26 05:34:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 26 05:35:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <200504252141.OAA09429@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: > The correction period didn't have anything to do with the original > case. Perhaps I ought to be more careful when I bring up an analogy. > But the point I was trying to make was that once a score has been > agreed on, then even if the score was an impossible one, it can only > be changed if the Laws empower us to do so. And no Laws empower us to > change the score in the originally posted case, after the claim has > been acquiesced to. OK here is what I think Dimtr was saying. Within the correction period the lady came to me and said "I claimed at trick twelve with the king and conceded the jack at trick 13". (OK she didn't use those exact words - but that is surely the basis, in legal terms, for her wanting an adjustment). This is a Law71 case and I am required to rule. On investigation I *might* find that she did indeed claim the King at trick 12 - 71A adjustment, contract made. I *might* find that the play of the Jack is abnormal for the player concerned - 71C adjustment, contract made. I *might* find that she did not claim with the king and that the play of the Jack is normal. I know that in this case her opponent would be obliged to win this trick with the Queen so I know that her opponent has conceded a trick (trick 13) he could not have lost (L71A adjustment to -2). It doesn't matter that defenders didn't bring this to my attention. Once I have ruled that the Jack is "normal" they have no legal play to lose a trick. Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 26 05:43:05 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Apr 26 05:44:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia References: <200504252141.OAA09429@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 16:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > Tim wrote: > > > Adam wrote: > > > > > > > call for sustaining both concessions. Down one. > > > > > > > > Can't be down one. Either declarer has claimed a trick she could not > > > > possibly have won or conceded a trick she could not possibly have > > > > lost. It's down 2 or making and no other result is either possible > > > > or legitimate. > > > > > > I don't understand the theory that a score of "down 1" is not > > > legitimate because it could not have been obtained in actual play. > > > If, say, both sides agree on the number of tricks declarer took, then > > > that's the score for a board, even if the number of tricks was wrong > > > and it was impossible that declarer could have actually obtained that > > > exact number of tricks. If the Laws do not empower the Director to > > > change the score later, then the "impossible" score still stands. Why > > > is this hard? > > > > If a dispute comes to the TD before the end of the relevant correction > > period then he will decide how many tricks were, in fact, taken. Of > > course he can do nothing if the correction period has expired - but if > > that was the case here then I'm afraid I missed it (as did many other > > responders). But sure "Too late guys - result stands" is not only *a* > > completely legitimate ruling, it is *the* only legitimate ruling in such > > cases. > > > > Sorry. > > The correction period didn't have anything to do with the original > case. Perhaps I ought to be more careful when I bring up an analogy. > But the point I was trying to make was that once a score has been > agreed on, then even if the score was an impossible one, it can only > be changed if the Laws empower us to do so. And no Laws empower us to > change the score in the originally posted case, after the claim has > been acquiesced to. > > Many of us have cited the relevant Laws to show why the TD is not > empowered to change the score. But those who think "down 1" is not a > legitimate result have not, as far as I can see, cited any Laws that > do empower the TD to change it; therefore, unless the TD is God, > Kaplan, or a baseball umpire, he can't change it. (Roger at least > tried to cite something, but I think it's a stretch---he'd have to > consider a faulty claim/concession/acquiescence to be a scoring > error.) Being challenged has caused some ruminations and some of the mist has cleared as a result. Let me try to convey why I said what I said. It has been pointed out- I'll call it a four sided coin- that there is a dichotomy in this situation. [a] declarer has claimed a trick [that imo he is not entitled to win because of the way he claimed] and [b] declarer conceded a trick [c] defender acquiesced to the claim of a trick and [d] acquiesced to the concession of a trick. The four sided coin arising from the all or nothing lie of the cards- the so-called illegitimate outcome of -1. Now the thing that is important to the defenders was the concession- it is their point of view- and they are not interested in withdrawing their acquiescence to the conceded trick. From their point of view the line of play to get their trick is fixed by the concession. And that fixed line of play in fact yields two tricks, not the miscalculated one. I was calling the miscalculation of tricks a scoring error. Now it gets involved. So, declarer makes a concession that can happen one way only- finesse the J. Should the defenders be entitled to rely of that line of play? I should hope so. As such, there would be exactly four known cards on T12 and exactly four known cards on T13. But Law o[69B] only speaks of witdrawing acquiescence to a claim to wit: 'or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards.' What is murky is the status of the remaining cards- all the cards or the cards unclarified during the claim. Almost everyone is saying all the cards- as in it is normal to play the K. I believe that the claim as made forces the play of the J and I believe that the defenders are entitled to rely on it from the point of acquiesence- to the point that it can't be taken away from them [whether or not they receeive the second trick]. However, imo the defenders are not entitled to the score for the second trick unless they seek it- before the correction period ends. And after all that, I am less than certain that the case involves scoring error. Certainly, withdrawal of concession or acquiescene involves an attempt to correct a miscalculation in the order of the cards. And what I saw in this case looks like turning the last [a diamond] trick the wrong direction so it was miscounted. regards roger pewick > > But assuming the TD call was within the correction period we have declarer > > stating that she played the King (or indicated the king, or intended to > > play the king) and then conceded the last trick. > > We either rule that the king was played (contract makes) or we rule the > > jack was played (opening the cat-box either way). > > No, we don't; we rule that play ceased when a claim was made, and that > therefore neither card was played. > > While your logic would be fine in the case of a contested claim, we're > not dealing with a contested claim. We're dealing with the case of a > change in the score following an acquiescence/concession. The Laws > are specific about how to deal with these cases, and they allow a > score change only in a clear-cut case. The Laws do not require or > permit the TD to determine what line of play might have been followed; > rather, they only allow a score change if *all* legal lines of play > would have given a trick to the conceder, or if all normal lines of > play would have given a trick to the acquiescer. In your argument, > you haven't cited a Law that tells you to rule on whether the king or > jack was played. You can't, because there isn't one. > > -- Adam From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 26 06:21:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 26 06:23:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > L13 no doubt, but I do not understand L63. The revoking side having played to a subsequent trick declarer calls you over and tells you that his LHO revoked on the previous spade trick but still has a spade left - vehemently denied by LHO. Of course the old codger has it in with his clubs (or on the floor), but if you don't look you won't know that. > If a player opens 1C, immediately tries to change it to 1S, and claims > it was mechanical, what help is looking at his hand? Are you going to > allow a change if he has 5 spades and 3 clubs, but not if he has five > spades and five clubs? As a general rule of thumb the further two bids are apart the more suspicious I am of "mechanical" claims. In a case like this questioning may reveal that he had a spade in with his clubs and realised too late (lots of players don't realise they aren't allowed a L25a change here). I don't question at the table for obvious UI reasons. Very occasionally, while asking questions the answers are um, let us say, unconvincing. In such cases I may (still away from the table) look at the hand (well probably ask what the hand was since it'll often have been left at the table) and decide if the player is trying to flannel me. > Even where it is not a play on situation I think that any ruling based > on looking at the player's hand gives unfortunate information, > and that is why TDs don't do it. Risks giving, rather than gives. But if the risk of giving a wrong ruling significantly outweighs the risk of giving unfortunate information then it must be done. It's rare, but remember the case we were addressing - the TD judges he can't decide whether a call was probably based on MI *without* seeing the player's hand. Of course he can guess to allow a change at risk of being wrong - or he can look. Neither option is ideal. From ooga at shaw.ca Tue Apr 26 07:50:23 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Tue Apr 26 07:51:55 2005 Subject: [blml] It's Your (Director) Call.... In-Reply-To: <42676216.6040001@shaw.ca> References: <42676216.6040001@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <426DD69F.4030306@shaw.ca> Bruce McIntyre wrote: > (Work trip ahead; chew on this one while I'm away for a few days...) > > Board 17 NORTH IMP Pairs > None vul S J964 (X-IMPS) > N Dealer H 86 ACBL Club Game > D AKQJ94 > WEST C 9 EAST > S KQ2 S T7 > H Q942 H T7 > D 8 D T762 > C K7654 SOUTH C AQJT8 > S A853 > H AKJ53 > D 53 > C 32 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 2D > Dble 2N 3C 3H > Pass 3S Pass 4S > Dble End > > There are no alerts in the auction. > > The TD is called after the North player bids 3S. North has 'woken up' > and tells E-W that 2D was Flannery (11-15, 4 spades and 5 hearts). The > TD writes down the auction up to that point and instructs the players to > continue but that an adjusted score seemes probable. > > N-S are novices and it is unlikely they have a firm agreement about > competitive sequences after a 2D opener. E-W are Flight A players. > > Ten tricks are made by declarer. > > How should the TD rule? > Well, here's what I did. For E-W, the non-offending side, I decided that "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" was the par score of 5C*-2, 300 to NS. Likely might be a stretch since the West player is less likely to overcall an 11-15 South hand than he is to double a 5-11 South hand, but I decided to include -300 in with -420 as likely results without the failure to alert. (3H is likely a second offense by the N-S side, with pass clearly a logical alternative. But at this point E-W have found their club fit and although N-S may still find their spade fit, the club save looks like the probable spot.) For N-S, the offending side, I decided that "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" was outbidding the profitable 5C save and going down in 5S. I gave N-S -50. Note that the score given to the offending side is going to score better than the score given to the non-offenders. Should this be possible? Criticize my judgment if you must, but is the decision lawful even though the OS fares better than the NOS? I decided all this without looking at the results obtained so far on the deal. (Oddly enough, I had played the deal when a player arrived late, claiming ten tricks at trick three after a simple auction to 4S.) The other N-S results were: +420 4S +150 I forget how -100 5S doubled -500 5S doubled So the offenders were going to be losing 0.75 IMPs, while the non-offenders lost 5.75 IMPs! Is this just? -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 26 07:57:05 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 26 07:58:27 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <20050426030441.13409.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Stevenson: [snip] >>You care little for other people's views, and >>find that belittling them is often more >>effective than disagreeing with them. Wayne Burrows: >Are you writing about Tim West-Meads or David >Stevenson? > >What you write David is my experience a better >description of your own posts than Tim's. Richard Hills: They who throw mud lose ground. In my opinion, it is not relevant who started an "ad hominem" argument; what is important is that Tim, David and Wayne cease such "ad hominem" arguing. Now, before name-calling started, this thread was examining an interesting (at least to me) question of interpreting the EBU "Orange Book" clause 5.2.1. That clause mandates alerting calls whose meanings the opponents are unlikely to expect. The Aussie alert regs have a similar provision, and the Aussie interpretation is that it refers to the actual current opponents. Tim West-Meads, however, argues that the EBU clause is based on a platonic idealised notion of opponents, not the actual current opponents. Tim asserts that this platonic interpretation of the "Orange Book" clause was confirmed to him at a training event for EBU TDs. David Stevenson, however, is of the contrary belief that the current specific (not merely generalised platonic) opponents are being protected from implicit misinformation by the ambit of clause 5.2.1. And David Stevenson has previously conducted other training events for EBU TDs. It seems to me that the Aussie and Stevensonian interpretation of the word "opponents" - to be applicable to the actual current opponents - is more consistent with the full disclosure principle of Law 75. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From ooga at shaw.ca Tue Apr 26 08:21:44 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Tue Apr 26 08:22:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <426DDDF8.30409@shaw.ca> Laval Dubreuil wrote: > > Hi all, > > Funny ! I heard many of you saying that the TD should always have TFLB in > hand and never make any ruling without opening it. I try to have the book in hand for every call. I leave my copy in a spot on my path from the scoring computer or the coffee area to the tables and pick it up as I go. But if I am elsewhere when the call comes, I sometimes take a chance and go to the table without it. I have noticed that this seems to increase the chance that I will need it! I do agree with David that bids out of turn is often THOUGHT to be a situation where memory will suffice, but often does not. -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 26 08:54:42 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Apr 26 08:56:08 2005 Subject: [blml] It's Your (Director) Call.... In-Reply-To: <426DD69F.4030306@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Bruce McIntyre: [big snip] >So the offenders were going to be losing 0.75 IMPs, while >the non-offenders lost 5.75 IMPs! Is this just? Richard Hills: The offenders are scoring fewer imps than they would have done if their irregularity had not been adjusted. The non-offenders are scoring more imps (okay, scoring fewer negative imps) than they would have done if their opponent's irregularity had not been adjusted. An analogous situation at matchpoint pairs (instead of cross-imp pairs) would be an offending side being due to score a second-top before they committed an irregularity. As a consequence of the irregularity, the offending side scores an outright top. After the TD adjusts the score, the non-offending side still gets a second-bottom. Is this just? The answer to this question about justice depends upon whether one supports the Burn Death Penalty for offending sides. Examples: Under the Burn Death Penalty for revokes, the revoking side would lose the revoke trick and *all* subsequent tricks. Under the Burn Death Penalty for faulty claims, the claiming side would lose *all* (legally possible) subsequent tricks. However, the 1997 Laws lack Burnian justice, preferring a wishy-washy concept of "equity" instead. Over the years I have come to like wishy-washy "equity", and have mellowed from my initial hankering to pass Death Penalties in judgement on offending sides. Judge not, lest you be judged. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Tue Apr 26 09:43:17 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Tue Apr 26 09:44:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening Message-ID: <426DF115.300@hotmail.com> Following Three questions all occured on the club evening Yesterday. => I did also indicate below how I did rule, but I did only follow the basic TD course. So I'm not sure it is right and you are more then welcome to disagree :) 1. During the play Dummy says that declarer has oriented one of the played tricks wrong (card lying before him like the trick was for him, but it was actually for the opps). One of the opps told that Dummy could not say that. Is dummy allowed to say that? Law 42A2 says that dummy can keep track of tricks. But is this in his own hand alone or also in declarer's hand? => This was told to me at the bar after the scores were calculated, so I didn't really rule for it. If I had to rule then I would think that Dummy is not allowed to do that. 2. Near the end of a hand one of the opponents plays a Spade. The card nearly touches the table and then he quickly withdraws it - before his LHO plays a card - and plays a diamond (the 13th Diamond) telling he mis-pulled the Spade. Is he allowed to withdraw his card if he mispulled it? If he is allowed to withdraw it, how do you know that it was not a change of mind but a mispul? => I was called the round was finished. Player was actually 'forced' to play the Spade. I didn't change anything to the result. If called immediatly I would rule that the Spade is played and the diamond is a big penalty card. 3. Bidding beginning with North. TD called at the table after the board was played: (1NT)-DBL-(2D)-2H (P)- 2NT-All Pass Distribution of Hearts: xxx xxxxx xxx xx 1NT: alerted as weak 12-14 (ok) Before bidding 2NT East did ask North what 2D was. North told that it was transfer to Hearts (South did mean it as Diamonds). 2NT did go -2 while 3H makes for East-West. East told me that he did not pass or bid 3H because he was afraid of the 5-card Heart after him. South says that East can know that 2D was not transfer, because: he had a 3-card Heart himself, North has at least a 2-card for his 1NT opening and his partner has at least 4 card for bidding 2H. North-South do not have a system card with them, so it is difficult to determine if this was MI or Mis-bid. Level of the players is intermediate, so you can not be sure that East did know that 2D could not be transfer. => I did change the result to 3H made for EW. Thanks, Koen From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Apr 26 10:12:41 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue Apr 26 10:13:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64E0@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of koen > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 09:43 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening > > > Following Three questions all occured on the club evening Yesterday. > => I did also indicate below how I did rule, but I did only > follow the > basic TD course. So I'm not sure it is right and you are more then > welcome to disagree :) > > 1. During the play Dummy says that declarer has oriented one of the > played tricks wrong (card lying before him like the trick was > for him, > but it was actually for the opps). One of the opps told that > Dummy could > not say that. Is dummy allowed to say that? > Law 42A2 says that dummy can keep track of tricks. But is this in his > own hand alone or also in declarer's hand? > => This was told to me at the bar after the scores were > calculated, so I > didn't really rule for it. If I had to rule then I would think that > Dummy is not allowed to do that. By L42B2, dummy may try to prevent an irregularity by declarer. He may not draw attention to an irregularity during play (L42A1b). Concerning the orientation of a trick, dummy may warn declarer for a wrong orientation if he does so immediately (warning is allowed), but may not do that later in the play (drawing attention is not allowed). Violation of L42A1b risks a PP (L42B1, L90); also, TD can possibly change the score because declarer's play could be influenced by the warning. > 2. Near the end of a hand one of the opponents plays a Spade. > The card > nearly touches the table and then he quickly withdraws it - > before his > LHO plays a card - and plays a diamond (the 13th Diamond) telling he > mis-pulled the Spade. > Is he allowed to withdraw his card if he mispulled it? If he > is allowed > to withdraw it, how do you know that it was not a change of > mind but a > mispul? > => I was called the round was finished. Player was actually > 'forced' to > play the Spade. I didn't change anything to the result. > If called immediatly I would rule that the Spade is played and the > diamond is a big penalty card. L45C1: A defender's card must be played if it is possible for his partner to see it. If he mispulled, too bad. TD must verify that partner could have seen the card and decide accordingly. Note that it is NOT important whether declarer or dummy could see the card, only partner. If partner could have seen the card, it must be played and the diamond becomes a major penalty card. If partner could not have seen the card, then the diamond may be played and the spade returns to the hand. > 3. Bidding beginning with North. TD called at the table after > the board > was played: > (1NT)-DBL-(2D)-2H > (P)- 2NT-All Pass > Distribution of Hearts: > xxx > xxxxx xxx > xx > 1NT: alerted as weak 12-14 (ok) > Before bidding 2NT East did ask North what 2D was. North told that it > was transfer to Hearts (South did mean it as Diamonds). > 2NT did go -2 while 3H makes for East-West. > East told me that he did not pass or bid 3H because he was > afraid of the > 5-card Heart after him. South says that East can know that 2D was not > transfer, because: he had a 3-card Heart himself, North has > at least a > 2-card for his 1NT opening and his partner has at least 4 card for > bidding 2H. > North-South do not have a system card with them, so it is > difficult to > determine if this was MI or Mis-bid. > Level of the players is intermediate, so you can not be sure > that East > did know that 2D could not be transfer. > => I did change the result to 3H made for EW. It is not important whether it was misbid of misinformation. If partner bids hearts, you have three yourself and 1NT-opener has some for his opening, then 2D does NOT show five hearts, regardless what they say. Based on that assumption, you will have to let the score stand. If, however, you judge that this player is not capable of following this reasoning, you should rule misinformation in absence of evidence to the contrary. -- Martin Sinot From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Tue Apr 26 10:38:40 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Tue Apr 26 10:39:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: > > A lead out of turn is considered an exception to the rule to read from >the book. My experience of TDs who do calls out of turn without reading >them is that their accuracy is somewhat below 40%: over half forget some >detail or other. I certainly agree with David on this one. I routinly rule on LOOT's, penalty cards and revokes without reading from TFLB. But with calls out of turn I always check the law text. I guess I would get it right without the book about 90% of the time. But why risk getting it wrong. I always have the book at hand when called to a table. Regards, Harald > > So a TD who does not read from the book when he gives me no confidence >in his ability even when he gets it right. > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > >Currently having problems from home email for BLML only >Web: blakjak.com > >_______________________________________________ >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 Apr 26 12:08:09 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Apr 26 12:09:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5c8a32ef24edff0af8431c85a614fd13@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 26 Apr 2005, at 05:21, Tim West-Meads wrote: > The revoking side having played to a subsequent trick declarer calls > you > over and tells you that his LHO revoked on the previous spade trick but > still has a spade left - vehemently denied by LHO. Of course the old > codger has it in with his clubs (or on the floor), but if you don't > look > you won't know that. Don't you just stand there and watch the play until the card appears - or doesn't? What if it turns out there was no revoke - are you going to help declarer out of his misapprehension by saying so? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From OHRHQZOV at foundmed.com Tue Apr 26 13:25:03 2005 From: OHRHQZOV at foundmed.com (Antoine Pickens) Date: Tue Apr 26 12:27:15 2005 Subject: [blml] You can eat whatever you want Message-ID: <135.f0bdd58.2a2b6204@dilo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050426/60d5b5aa/attachment.html From dkhynpjkt at sgssoft.it Tue Apr 26 02:13:49 2005 From: dkhynpjkt at sgssoft.it (haydee Kandra) Date: Tue Apr 26 13:25:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Triple ABZT PlaySt0ck interact Message-ID: <7314888864257704.30.4693790@wavelet-keh2.sgssoft.it> feces “WallStreet Insider Investor Report" This Weeks biggest gainer will be ABZT with over 300% ROI (Return On Investment) expected. Here is the feature profile below. And thank you for your continued membership to our great service. We have 720% gains in March and for April we are looking at over 800% so follow the Winners with WallStreet Insider Report. Ticker: ABZT . PK Latest-Price: .08 Expected-Price in next 3 days: 45 cents NEws-Release: Ablaze Technologies Announces Agreement with Intelligent Sports, Inc. Don’t Miss Out! Micro Cap Stocks Are Providing HUGE Investor Profits!Strong Gains Expected on aBlaze Technologies, Inc all week.. Did you turn a 100% gain on your investment last month? If not you should get ABZT immediately because over 100% gains are expected. ABZT is a microcap company emerging as a leading provider of internet services from VOIP to Pay Per Click Search engines and online payment systems. Many low-priced stocks provided HUGE GAIN opportunities for investors who capitalized and jumped on them early enough. Our latest hot pick OTC BB: ABZT is another golden opportunity! Buy now, before the word gets out. ABZT is an emerging growth Internet company. The Company: aBlaze Technologies (ABZT) is a results oriented e-business holding company focused on utilizing the power of the Internet to create and increase brand identity and sales of products and services. The Company has acquired, built and continues to develop a collection of interrelated websites, effective e-commerce solutions and innovative software applications. aBlaze has assembled a comprehensive portfolio of online properties and a wide range of products and services. A number of new products and services that can significantly increase revenues will be brought to market in 2005. Company-Diversification: ABZT offers four high demand services: 1.) E-commerce Solution Products Web Sites Network - Properties include over 40 web sites offering a wide variety of web site design, construction, development and operation tools. Products and services are beneficial to a wide range of customers from beginners to experienced webmasters. 2.) VOIP Products and Services - Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) allows users to make telephone calls around the world calls a broadband Internet connection. Through the www.IPCaller.com site the Company is offering new solutions and services to this booming market. Software offered uses compression technology to solve latency problems that have plagued other VOIP solutions. 3.) Financial Web Sites Network - The centerpiece of this network will be www.SearchFN.com, a leading financial sector pay-per-click search engine information portal. Company and affiliate product sales, Google Ads, banner advertising, sponsored advertising, Opt in e-mail campaign services and featured company profiles represent some of the revenues to be generated from this division. 4.) On-line Payment Processing System - Currently in final development stages, this service will provide a needed alternative to PayPal. Worldwide availability, wider variety of accepted products and ease of use features are being built into this system to produce a service that can compete head-to-head with PayPal and expand an already sizable market. Investment Considerations - Take advantage of current trading levels. This is a ground floor opportunity you can’t afford to miss!! At current price levels, a little bit of movement will go a long way. Look for heavy volume and significant price increases in the short term. The price of ABZT is currently trading at $0.1 . This is an inexpensive stock price by anyone’s standards. Ticker: ABZT . PK Latest-Price: .08 Expected-Price in next 3 days: 45 cents ********************************* Don't Miss The Boat On ABZT Get In And Profit All Week Long, This Thursday A 10 Million Fax Campaign Will Be Launched For ABZT As Well Our Inside Sources Tell Us, So Get In Immediately. ********************************* NEws Release out: Ablaze Technologies Announces Agreement with Intelligent Sports, Inc. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Read This before you do anything else: Information within this email contains "forward looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, goals, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward looking statements." Forward looking statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through the use of words such as: "projects", "foresee", "expects", "estimates," "believes," "understands" "will," "part of: "anticipates," or that by statements indicating certain actions "may," "could," or "might" occur. All information provided within this email pertaining to investing, stocks, securities must be understood as information provided and not investment advice. Emerging Equity Alert advises all readers and subscribers to seek advice from a registered professional securities representative before deciding to trade in stocks featured within this email. None of the material within this report shall be construed as any kind of investment advice. Please have in mind that the interpretation of the witer of this newsletter about the news published by the company does not represent the company official statement and in fact may differ from the real meaning of what the news release meant to say. Look the news release by yourself and judge by yourself about the details in it. In compliance with Section 17(b), we disclose the holding of ABZT 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. "Expected Speculative price" should not be accepted as price projection its only for informational purposes. Please be advised that nothing within this email shall constitute a solicitation or an invitation to get position in or sell any security mentioned herein. This newsletter is neither a registered investment advisor nor affiliated with any broker or dealer. This newsletter was paid $21400 from third party (PromoConsult Report) to send this report. All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such. We may own, take position and sell any securities mentioned at any time. This report includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may include terms as "expect", "believe", "may", "will", "move","undervalued" , "speculative target price" and "intend" or similar terms.holily crunch From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 26 14:20:00 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Apr 26 14:20:08 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: References: <20050426030441.13409.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050426080608.02a8e780@pop.starpower.net> At 01:57 AM 4/26/05, richard.hills wrote: >The Aussie alert regs have a similar provision, >and the Aussie interpretation is that it refers >to the actual current opponents. > >Tim West-Meads, however, argues that the EBU >clause is based on a platonic idealised notion >of opponents, not the actual current opponents. >Tim asserts that this platonic interpretation of >the "Orange Book" clause was confirmed to him at >a training event for EBU TDs. > >David Stevenson, however, is of the contrary >belief that the current specific (not merely >generalised platonic) opponents are being >protected from implicit misinformation by the >ambit of clause 5.2.1. And David Stevenson has >previously conducted other training events for >EBU TDs. > >It seems to me that the Aussie and Stevensonian >interpretation of the word "opponents" - to be >applicable to the actual current opponents - is >more consistent with the full disclosure >principle of Law 75. I take it that in Australia and in the EBU all of the duplicate players know one another. In my milieu, however, I do more than occasionally play in tournaments against complete strangers. If disclosure requirements are dependent on who "the actual current opponents" are, what am I to do? When did I start leaving myself open to the possibility of an adverse score adjustment for doing nothing more than misestimating the experience level of my opponents? An alert procedure must specify only whether a particular meaning of a particular auction is or is not alertable. For the answer to depend on who one's opponents are, when one is under no obligation whatsoever to have the foggiest notion of who one's opponents are, is patently absurd. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Tue Apr 26 13:58:25 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue Apr 26 14:46:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening References: <426DF115.300@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <007701c54a5d$b55cd0e0$c6493dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "koen" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:43 AM Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening > Following Three questions all occured on the club evening Yesterday. > => I did also indicate below how I did rule, but I did only follow the > basic TD course. So I'm not sure it is right and you are more then > welcome to disagree :) > > 1. During the play Dummy says that declarer has oriented one of the > played tricks wrong (card lying before him like the trick was for him, > but it was actually for the opps). One of the opps told that Dummy could > not say that. Is dummy allowed to say that? > Law 42A2 says that dummy can keep track of tricks. But is this in his > own hand alone or also in declarer's hand? > => This was told to me at the bar after the scores were calculated, so I > didn't really rule for it. If I had to rule then I would think that > Dummy is not allowed to do that. > > What not is written in the Laws, is not permitted. End of Law66 until 1987: "Any player may request that a card incorrectly pointed be turned in the proper direction". From 1987 onwards this sentence has been dropped; it seems therefore that it is not permitted any more. Ben From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Apr 26 15:21:13 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue Apr 26 15:22:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5CF7@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Ben Schelen > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 13:58 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "koen" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:43 AM > Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening > > > > Following Three questions all occured on the club evening Yesterday. > > => I did also indicate below how I did rule, but I did only > follow the > > basic TD course. So I'm not sure it is right and you are more then > > welcome to disagree :) > > > > 1. During the play Dummy says that declarer has oriented one of the > > played tricks wrong (card lying before him like the trick > was for him, > > but it was actually for the opps). One of the opps told > that Dummy could > > not say that. Is dummy allowed to say that? > > Law 42A2 says that dummy can keep track of tricks. But is > this in his > > own hand alone or also in declarer's hand? > > => This was told to me at the bar after the scores were > calculated, so I > > didn't really rule for it. If I had to rule then I would think that > > Dummy is not allowed to do that. > > > > > What not is written in the Laws, is not permitted. > End of Law66 until 1987: "Any player may request that a card > incorrectly > pointed be turned in the proper direction". From 1987 onwards > this sentence > has been dropped; it seems therefore that it is not permitted > any more. Correct; but dummy may try to warn declarer if he is about to place a card in the wrong direction. That is his right to try to prevent infractions from declarer. -- Martin Sinot From jrhind at therock.bm Tue Apr 26 15:27:30 2005 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Tue Apr 26 15:28:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening In-Reply-To: <007701c54a5d$b55cd0e0$c6493dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: On 4/26/05 8:58 AM, "Ben Schelen" wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "koen" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:43 AM > Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening > > >> Following Three questions all occured on the club evening Yesterday. >> => I did also indicate below how I did rule, but I did only follow the >> basic TD course. So I'm not sure it is right and you are more then >> welcome to disagree :) >> >> 1. During the play Dummy says that declarer has oriented one of the >> played tricks wrong (card lying before him like the trick was for him, >> but it was actually for the opps). One of the opps told that Dummy could >> not say that. Is dummy allowed to say that? >> Law 42A2 says that dummy can keep track of tricks. But is this in his >> own hand alone or also in declarer's hand? >> => This was told to me at the bar after the scores were calculated, so I >> didn't really rule for it. If I had to rule then I would think that >> Dummy is not allowed to do that. >> >> > What not is written in the Laws, is not permitted. > End of Law66 until 1987: "Any player may request that a card incorrectly > pointed be turned in the proper direction". From 1987 onwards this sentence > has been dropped; it seems therefore that it is not permitted any more. > > Ben > IMHO dummy may prevent an irregularity from happening, i.e. to point out as declarer is placing the card that it is being put the wrong way. Once the card has been turned the wrong way it is too late. This may sound like splitting hairs but I believe it works. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 26 15:56:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 26 15:57:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <5c8a32ef24edff0af8431c85a614fd13@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon wrote: > Don't you just stand there and watch the play until the card appears - > or doesn't? What if it turns out there was no revoke - are you going to > help declarer out of his misapprehension by saying so? The revoke is established when declarer calls me. Despite any antipathy I may hold to the stubborn, half-blind old codger he has a right to know this and adjust his subsequent defence accordingly. Declarer isn't under any misapprehension, and I know it. These people are not strangers. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 26 15:56:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 26 15:58:04 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Tim West-Meads, however, argues that the EBU > clause is based on a platonic idealised notion > of opponents, not the actual current opponents. I wouldn't actually say "idealised", rather (and these are not the EBU's words) "Opponents are assumed to be of the typical fairly clueless variety". You don't need to know your specific opponents, you don't need to guess their ability. If rabbits wouldn't be likely to understand then the bid *is* alertable. If you don't alert and the TD decides the lack of alert didn't damage opps because they weren't, in fact, rabbits then fine. Think of it as one's system having lowest common denominator alerting if that helps. Tim From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Apr 26 16:16:11 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue Apr 26 16:17:21 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: from "WILLIAM SCHODER" at Apr 25, 2005 08:59:50 PM Message-ID: <200504261416.j3QEGBcW002860@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> WILLIAM SCHODER writes: > > I couldn't let this one go bye. We aren't all aware of the timing, and the > problems, and some conversations I've had since then make me wonder if I was > actually there! Apparently (as stated to me by the Canadian Captain and > players at 8:10 AM for at 9:00 AM starting time) one of their players became > aware of the "fact" at somewhere around 4:00 AM the following day they had > miss-scored a board in the final segment . They maintained that the number > shown in the tricks taken box was the number of tricks down, and not the > number taken. I asked why all other of the 15 boards showed that box to > correctly be the number of tricks taken. According to Eric Kokish's (and yes, I'm aware that he's as biased a source as you can find) article on the subject one of the players got the number of tricks wrong and the other was thinking old scoring. Resulted in the same score -- for different reasons. Not that this matters to the results of the appeal, but it does explain why the sudden realization of the incorrect scoring. > I consulted with the other senior > TDs to see if I was missing something, and was assured that I was not. The > Laws provision for scoring corrections had long since expired. > > A further attempt to get a scoring change was made by reference to the words > "manifestly incorrect" which had nothing to with scoring. These words in no > way superceded the provisions of the Laws on scoring, time for corrections, > etc. For instance, a match might well be posted on the TV or recaps with the > wrong team being given the win. My ruling was that the laws covered the > probable scoring mistake, and that no AC would, or could, overrule me on the > Laws. It was at this point the the Captain brought into account the words > "manifestly incorrect." I suggested to the Canadian Captain, who wished to > appeal my decision, that since an AC could not overrule since the facts and > laws were clear, he would be better off and save time by appealing the > Conditions of Contest to a Tournament Committee, which heard the case and > ruled that the attempt for correction was a case of Law, and that the words > "manifestly incorrect" did not apply to this situation. > > Since then there has been a warping of the events and facts, even to the > extent that some highly visible players and ex-highly placed officials have > made public comments that had they been on the Committee they would have > made sure things went the other way. (They were on the tournament site, but > somehow not available to sit on the committee when asked). I consider those > statements to be self-serving, political, ludicrous, and posturing. If > World level bridge is not to be played according to the Laws we might as > well close up shop. > > The basic problem is one of finality, which the Laws, in my opinion > adequately cover. I feel for the players and their supporters, but have > short shrift for the lack of attention to the Laws which then are supposed > to be "negotiated" to "be fair." Why, I'm told that a certain country called > back to the tournament site some thousands of miles away the next day to > claim that they won a Zonal Championships! Had the players and Captains > reviewed the boards, scores, and done what the job the laws provide for > them, they would have had ample time to contest the scores and probably get > a change. They did no such thing, in either case. > > Mr.Johnson's dependence upon the musings of Mr. Rubens notwithstanding, his > suggestion that I might have decided upon a ruling, and then looked for > support for that position is in the least unprofessional, and at most > libelous. Please re-read my post. I neither said nor suggested any such thing. I simply clarified which ruling Richard brought up. Further, Jeff Rubens has written a later article that pretty much sums up your position. Supporters of equity (and Rubens is among the strongest and most public) were hoping that the committee would find some way to rule in Canada's favor. There was no such way under the laws. > I expect more from him. > > And, oh yes, Mr.Kaplan had precious little to do with the Conditions of > Contest for that event. Depending upon Mr. Rubens for "facts" has led some > of us astray in the past. I can see how you got the impression that we a) thought convoluted conditions of contest caused the problem b) that Kaplan had a hand in drafting them (though I'm surprised to learn he didn't. I know he was among the chief drafters of the Conditions of Contest for the first Rosenblum Cup. He called himself an idiot for not anticipating a particular problem) c) Our (or at least my) source for the above was a Rubens article. But that wasn't my intent. I was responding to Richard's comment about Kaplan's influence on the Laws. And then made a clarification on his comment about the Canada/Germany ruling. > > kojak > > Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Johnson" > To: > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:00 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) > > > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > In my humble opinion, part of the cause of the > > > impenetrability of the Laws was Edgar Kaplan's > > > habit of using a single nuanced word (when a > > > less obsessively concise drafter of Laws might > > > have used a clearcut explanatory paragraph). > > > > According to Jeff Rubens, sometimes the wording > > was intentionally ambiguous because the drafters > > were unable to come to a consensus as to what the > > Laws should be in a given area. (This isn't intended > > as a criticism of Kaplan. This amounts to a > > compromise and compromises are sometimes neccessary) > > > > Kaplan was also known to favor a "figure out what > > ruling you want to give and then work backwards" > > approach. And nuanced phrasing helps a lot with > > this approach. > > > > > As I recall, a controversial appeal in the > > > 1990 World Championship hinged upon a single > > > nuanced word "manifestly" in the championship's > > > Conditions of Contest. > > > > That would be the mis-scored board in the > > Germany/Canada match right? From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 26 16:55:59 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Apr 26 16:57:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: <200504251418.j3PEITXV026859@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <022a01c54a70$0fbf8750$639868d5@James> [Ron Johnson] > Still, there is at least one hand where the pass > of a forcing bid is a LA in my mind. [Nigel] IMO "Partner's call is forcing" means that, systemically, you must keep the bidding open. If you have *already* departed from system, however, there is no obligation to revert to system just because partner makes a "forcing" bid. For example if, systemically, you need six points to respond but you reply 1H to 1D with xxx Kxxxx x xxxx, then you may well elect to pass partner's "forcing" 2S rebid. IMO this is OK, if, when you hold such hands, you almost always pass 1D. If you depart from system regularly enough to create an implicit understanding, then to say that "2S is forcing" is a lie. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 26 17:10:05 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Apr 26 17:11:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 References: Message-ID: <023b01c54a72$0800e250$639868d5@James> [Laval Dubreull] ... when working on my "improved" Law book with flow charts... {Nigel] IMO your flow charts must be the best way of simplifying, organising and presenting law. Presumably, the WBFLC are in regular contact with you, for help? From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Tue Apr 26 15:07:40 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue Apr 26 17:23:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question References: <5c8a32ef24edff0af8431c85a614fd13@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <01c001c54a73$a532ee00$c6493dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Yet another L21 Question > > On 26 Apr 2005, at 05:21, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > The revoking side having played to a subsequent trick declarer calls > > you > > over and tells you that his LHO revoked on the previous spade trick but > > still has a spade left - vehemently denied by LHO. Of course the old > > codger has it in with his clubs (or on the floor), but if you don't > > look > > you won't know that. > > Don't you just stand there and watch the play until the card appears - > or doesn't? What if it turns out there was no revoke - are you going to > help declarer out of his misapprehension by saying so? > -- > It is the Law but I am happy that I never had to apply Law66C. If really necessary I would go around the table and inspect the quitted cards in such away that the players are not able to get any information about the quitted cards. Ben From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Tue Apr 26 16:29:13 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue Apr 26 17:23:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 References: Message-ID: <01c101c54a73$a60d2160$c6493dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 3:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Directing after 2006 > Ben Schelen wrote > >The capacity to quote law numbers and their contents is achieved through > >continuously > >using the FLB during any ruling. > >Players will trust the director when he can find quickly the applicable law > >in the law book. > >Ruling by head is risky. > > We used to have a wonderful Chief TD called Roy Higson, who did have a > few personal tricks. One of his was that occasionally he would quote a > Law by heart, but half way through he would say "Look, you won't trust > me to get this right without the book. So I'll get it." > > He would come back with a Law book, and read it out, and it was always > the same. So the players were very impressed. > > What was the trick? Well, he only knew two or three Laws by heart, so > he only did this with the two or three Laws he knew. So when he told > them other laws, which he did *not* know by heart, they believed him > absolutely!!!! :)) > > Years and years ago there was a doctor in the Netherlands who could predict for 100% sure the sex of an unborn baby. When asked by a pregnant woman he gave her an answer but noted the other sex in his agenda. When he was reminded later on of the wrongly prediction he showed his agenda and blamed on bad listening. Ben From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Apr 26 17:27:31 2005 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue Apr 26 17:26:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: > > A lead out of turn is considered an exception to the rule to read from >the book. My experience of TDs who do calls out of turn without reading >them is that their accuracy is somewhat below 40%: over half forget some >detail or other. __________________________________________________________________________ Unfortunately, TFLB is not written so that you can read it to players. After an opening lead out of turn, you should read Law 54, then Law 56 and finally Law 50D ? I am sure you will read five times and declarer will ask for an other reading... Just offering the five options, in your own words, is much better (even then, you have to repeat). The revoke is an other example. Reading Laws 62 to 64 would be stupid. Just reading Law 64A is useless. Law 64A2 is unreadable. When called for a revoke, I am sure most of you forget TFLB and just rule like that: - make sure there was a revoke; - determine if the revoke is established (did offending side play to the next trick?) Correction when answer is no (penalty cards if any); - let the play be completed (when established); - come back and determine how many tricks won by offending side, including revoke and subsequent tricks: - 0 = 0; - 1 = 1; - 2 = 2 when offender won the revoke trick or subsequent ........ = 1 in other cases - make sure equity is restored (Law 64C). Far from the texts..... I could point out many other cases where the texts do not follow the logic you normally use for your rulings. I always have TFLB near by and use it occasionally (sometimes to explain a Law to a player and make sure he trust my ruling), but my first approach is not (and will not be) reading Laws for most common rulings. I have to know the rules. I am convinced this approach is as efficient and trustable than first opening the book. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From schoderb at msn.com Tue Apr 26 17:25:51 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Apr 26 17:26:55 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: <200504261416.j3QEGBcW002860@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: I did re-read the posting, and can see your point. I also can see where the order of your points can easily be construed as I did. Bridge, without laws, rules, finality, and structure is a game that is played at some levels, but not the world championships. In the many years that I have been involved at National, zonal, and WBF tournaments I can't help but be amazed at the lack of proper use of the correction period by players, captains, sponsors, etc. It has been constructed to give them a time to correct errors, either theirs or the organization's, and achieve that holy "equity" we all give obeisance to. Regulations have been written in some zones under Law 79C changing the 30 minutes to a more reasonable time. I personally think that the end of the day's play plus two hours reasonable and equitable (There I go using THAT WORD!). It is usually easily forgotten that the idea of 1 hour before the next phase is a good time, and works with many pairs games, but try this on for size: We've won, we know who our opponents are for tomorrow, they have complicated systems that we review, study and discuss until the wee hours. We organize our lineups, pairings, etc., and are prepared to take them on. However, an hour and ten minutes before game time a team, knowing all night long that they are the real winners, get to the TD and correct an error. They knew who to prepare for and are ready!!! Where's the EQUITY for us? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) You don't think anyone would do something like that? > WILLIAM SCHODER writes: > > > > I couldn't let this one go bye. We aren't all aware of the timing, and > > the > > problems, and some conversations I've had since then make me wonder if I > > was > > actually there! Apparently (as stated to me by the Canadian Captain and > > players at 8:10 AM for at 9:00 AM starting time) one of their players > > became > > aware of the "fact" at somewhere around 4:00 AM the following day they > > had > > miss-scored a board in the final segment . They maintained that the > > number > > shown in the tricks taken box was the number of tricks down, and not the > > number taken. I asked why all other of the 15 boards showed that box to > > correctly be the number of tricks taken. > > According to Eric Kokish's (and yes, I'm aware that he's as biased a > source > as you can find) article on the subject one of the players got the > number of tricks wrong and the other was thinking old scoring. Resulted in > the same score -- for different reasons. Not that this matters to the > results > of the appeal, but it does explain why the sudden realization of the > incorrect > scoring. > > > I consulted with the other senior > > TDs to see if I was missing something, and was assured that I was not. > > The > > Laws provision for scoring corrections had long since expired. > > > > A further attempt to get a scoring change was made by reference to the > > words > > "manifestly incorrect" which had nothing to with scoring. These words > > in no > > way superceded the provisions of the Laws on scoring, time for > > corrections, > > etc. For instance, a match might well be posted on the TV or recaps with > > the > > wrong team being given the win. My ruling was that the laws covered the > > probable scoring mistake, and that no AC would, or could, overrule me on > > the > > Laws. It was at this point the the Captain brought into account the > > words > > "manifestly incorrect." I suggested to the Canadian Captain, who wished > > to > > appeal my decision, that since an AC could not overrule since the facts > > and > > laws were clear, he would be better off and save time by appealing the > > Conditions of Contest to a Tournament Committee, which heard the case > > and > > ruled that the attempt for correction was a case of Law, and that the > > words > > "manifestly incorrect" did not apply to this situation. > > > > Since then there has been a warping of the events and facts, even to the > > extent that some highly visible players and ex-highly placed officials > > have > > made public comments that had they been on the Committee they would have > > made sure things went the other way. (They were on the tournament site, > > but > > somehow not available to sit on the committee when asked). I consider > > those > > statements to be self-serving, political, ludicrous, and posturing. If > > World level bridge is not to be played according to the Laws we might as > > well close up shop. > > > > The basic problem is one of finality, which the Laws, in my opinion > > adequately cover. I feel for the players and their supporters, but have > > short shrift for the lack of attention to the Laws which then are > > supposed > > to be "negotiated" to "be fair." Why, I'm told that a certain country > > called > > back to the tournament site some thousands of miles away the next day to > > claim that they won a Zonal Championships! Had the players and Captains > > reviewed the boards, scores, and done what the job the laws provide for > > them, they would have had ample time to contest the scores and probably > > get > > a change. They did no such thing, in either case. > > > > Mr.Johnson's dependence upon the musings of Mr. Rubens notwithstanding, > > his > > suggestion that I might have decided upon a ruling, and then looked for > > support for that position is in the least unprofessional, and at most > > libelous. > > Please re-read my post. I neither said nor suggested any such thing. I > simply clarified which ruling Richard brought up. > > Further, Jeff Rubens has written a later article that pretty much sums > up your position. Supporters of equity (and Rubens is among the strongest > and most public) were hoping that the committee would find some way to > rule in Canada's favor. There was no such way under the laws. > > > I expect more from him. > > > > And, oh yes, Mr.Kaplan had precious little to do with the Conditions of > > Contest for that event. Depending upon Mr. Rubens for "facts" has led > > some > > of us astray in the past. > > I can see how you got the impression that we > > a) thought convoluted conditions of contest caused the problem > b) that Kaplan had a hand in drafting them (though I'm surprised to > learn he didn't. I know he was among the chief drafters of the > Conditions > of Contest for the first Rosenblum Cup. He called himself an idiot for > not anticipating a particular problem) > c) Our (or at least my) source for the above was a Rubens article. > > But that wasn't my intent. I was responding to Richard's comment about > Kaplan's influence on the Laws. And then made a clarification on > his comment about the Canada/Germany ruling. > > > > kojak > > > > Original Message ----- > > From: "Ron Johnson" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:00 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) > > > > > > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > > > In my humble opinion, part of the cause of the > > > > impenetrability of the Laws was Edgar Kaplan's > > > > habit of using a single nuanced word (when a > > > > less obsessively concise drafter of Laws might > > > > have used a clearcut explanatory paragraph). > > > > > > According to Jeff Rubens, sometimes the wording > > > was intentionally ambiguous because the drafters > > > were unable to come to a consensus as to what the > > > Laws should be in a given area. (This isn't intended > > > as a criticism of Kaplan. This amounts to a > > > compromise and compromises are sometimes neccessary) > > > > > > Kaplan was also known to favor a "figure out what > > > ruling you want to give and then work backwards" > > > approach. And nuanced phrasing helps a lot with > > > this approach. > > > > > > > As I recall, a controversial appeal in the > > > > 1990 World Championship hinged upon a single > > > > nuanced word "manifestly" in the championship's > > > > Conditions of Contest. > > > > > > That would be the mis-scored board in the > > > Germany/Canada match right? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 26 18:01:41 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Apr 26 18:02:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia References: <200504252141.OAA09429@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <02a901c54a79$3d3e04a0$639868d5@James> [Adam Beneschan] > While your logic would be fine in the case of a > contested claim, we're not dealing with a contested > claim. We're dealing with the case of a change in the > score following an acquiescence/concession. The Laws > are specific about how to deal with these cases, and > they allow a score change only in a clear-cut case. [Nigel] Adam is probably right in law but were I declarer, I would be unhappy. I call the TD because I want to retract an impossible concession. The contact can make or go two down so either rulings must be acceptable. "One down", however, is impossible so it seems ridiculous for the director to uphold that result. When asked for a ruling as to how the play should go, can the director force the players to commit an infraction by insisting that after an opponent wins a trick, declarer must lead to the next trick (: or vice versa :)? From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Apr 26 18:12:17 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue Apr 26 18:13:23 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: from "WILLIAM SCHODER" at Apr 26, 2005 11:25:51 AM Message-ID: <200504261612.j3QGCH1Z003511@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> WILLIAM SCHODER writes: > > I did re-read the posting, and can see your point. I also can see where the > order of your points can easily be construed as I did. Sure. I've always known I need an editor. > Bridge, without laws, rules, finality, and structure is a game that is > played at some levels, but not the world championships. In the many years > that I have been involved at National, zonal, and WBF tournaments I can't > help but be amazed at the lack of proper use of the correction period by > players, captains, sponsors, etc. What amazes me is that the coach or captain or somebody associated with the team isn't keeping score as well as the players. Yes, it won't be an official score, but it will allow the teams to catch scoring errors a lot more readily. Particularly in the case we were discussing. Relatively new scoring table, and down umpty isn't all that common. I've kibitzed (and recorded) enough high level games to know that a lot of top players are very sloppy in their record keeping. > It has been constructed to give them a > time to correct errors, either theirs or the organization's, and achieve > that holy "equity" we all give obeisance to. Regulations have been written > in some zones under Law 79C changing the 30 minutes to a more reasonable > time. > > I personally think that the end of the day's play plus two hours reasonable > and equitable (There I go using THAT WORD!). It is usually easily forgotten > that the idea of 1 hour before the next phase is a good time, and works with > many pairs games, but try this on for size: We've won, we know who our > opponents are for tomorrow, they have complicated systems that we review, > study and discuss until the wee hours. We organize our lineups, pairings, > etc., and are prepared to take them on. However, an hour and ten minutes > before game time a team, knowing all night long that they are the real > winners, get to the TD and correct an error. They knew who to prepare for > and are ready!!! > Where's the EQUITY for us? That's the essence of what Kaplan wrote in the aftermath of this decision, and it's true. (For what it's worth, Rubens also considers the point valid and as I said, he's the prime spokesman for equity) I understand that the match played after the one we're talking about was halted after a few boards to give the team playing Germany additional time to prepare. Something to do with inadequate disclosure. > > Kojak > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Johnson" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:16 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) > > You don't think anyone would do something like that? > > WILLIAM SCHODER writes: > > > > > > I couldn't let this one go bye. We aren't all aware of the timing, and > > > the > > > problems, and some conversations I've had since then make me wonder if I > > > was > > > actually there! Apparently (as stated to me by the Canadian Captain and > > > players at 8:10 AM for at 9:00 AM starting time) one of their players > > > became > > > aware of the "fact" at somewhere around 4:00 AM the following day they > > > had > > > miss-scored a board in the final segment . They maintained that the > > > number > > > shown in the tricks taken box was the number of tricks down, and not the > > > number taken. I asked why all other of the 15 boards showed that box to > > > correctly be the number of tricks taken. > > > > According to Eric Kokish's (and yes, I'm aware that he's as biased a > > source > > as you can find) article on the subject one of the players got the > > number of tricks wrong and the other was thinking old scoring. Resulted in > > the same score -- for different reasons. Not that this matters to the > > results > > of the appeal, but it does explain why the sudden realization of the > > incorrect > > scoring. > > > > > I consulted with the other senior > > > TDs to see if I was missing something, and was assured that I was not. > > > The > > > Laws provision for scoring corrections had long since expired. > > > > > > A further attempt to get a scoring change was made by reference to the > > > words > > > "manifestly incorrect" which had nothing to with scoring. These words > > > in no > > > way superceded the provisions of the Laws on scoring, time for > > > corrections, > > > etc. For instance, a match might well be posted on the TV or recaps with > > > the > > > wrong team being given the win. My ruling was that the laws covered the > > > probable scoring mistake, and that no AC would, or could, overrule me on > > > the > > > Laws. It was at this point the the Captain brought into account the > > > words > > > "manifestly incorrect." I suggested to the Canadian Captain, who wished > > > to > > > appeal my decision, that since an AC could not overrule since the facts > > > and > > > laws were clear, he would be better off and save time by appealing the > > > Conditions of Contest to a Tournament Committee, which heard the case > > > and > > > ruled that the attempt for correction was a case of Law, and that the > > > words > > > "manifestly incorrect" did not apply to this situation. > > > > > > Since then there has been a warping of the events and facts, even to the > > > extent that some highly visible players and ex-highly placed officials > > > have > > > made public comments that had they been on the Committee they would have > > > made sure things went the other way. (They were on the tournament site, > > > but > > > somehow not available to sit on the committee when asked). I consider > > > those > > > statements to be self-serving, political, ludicrous, and posturing. If > > > World level bridge is not to be played according to the Laws we might as > > > well close up shop. > > > > > > The basic problem is one of finality, which the Laws, in my opinion > > > adequately cover. I feel for the players and their supporters, but have > > > short shrift for the lack of attention to the Laws which then are > > > supposed > > > to be "negotiated" to "be fair." Why, I'm told that a certain country > > > called > > > back to the tournament site some thousands of miles away the next day to > > > claim that they won a Zonal Championships! Had the players and Captains > > > reviewed the boards, scores, and done what the job the laws provide for > > > them, they would have had ample time to contest the scores and probably > > > get > > > a change. They did no such thing, in either case. > > > > > > Mr.Johnson's dependence upon the musings of Mr. Rubens notwithstanding, > > > his > > > suggestion that I might have decided upon a ruling, and then looked for > > > support for that position is in the least unprofessional, and at most > > > libelous. > > > > Please re-read my post. I neither said nor suggested any such thing. I > > simply clarified which ruling Richard brought up. > > > > Further, Jeff Rubens has written a later article that pretty much sums > > up your position. Supporters of equity (and Rubens is among the strongest > > and most public) were hoping that the committee would find some way to > > rule in Canada's favor. There was no such way under the laws. > > > > > I expect more from him. > > > > > > And, oh yes, Mr.Kaplan had precious little to do with the Conditions of > > > Contest for that event. Depending upon Mr. Rubens for "facts" has led > > > some > > > of us astray in the past. > > > > I can see how you got the impression that we > > > > a) thought convoluted conditions of contest caused the problem > > b) that Kaplan had a hand in drafting them (though I'm surprised to > > learn he didn't. I know he was among the chief drafters of the > > Conditions > > of Contest for the first Rosenblum Cup. He called himself an idiot for > > not anticipating a particular problem) > > c) Our (or at least my) source for the above was a Rubens article. > > > > But that wasn't my intent. I was responding to Richard's comment about > > Kaplan's influence on the Laws. And then made a clarification on > > his comment about the Canada/Germany ruling. > > > > > > kojak > > > > > > Original Message ----- > > > From: "Ron Johnson" > > > To: > > > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:00 AM > > > Subject: Re: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) > > > > > > > > > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > > > > > In my humble opinion, part of the cause of the > > > > > impenetrability of the Laws was Edgar Kaplan's > > > > > habit of using a single nuanced word (when a > > > > > less obsessively concise drafter of Laws might > > > > > have used a clearcut explanatory paragraph). > > > > > > > > According to Jeff Rubens, sometimes the wording > > > > was intentionally ambiguous because the drafters > > > > were unable to come to a consensus as to what the > > > > Laws should be in a given area. (This isn't intended > > > > as a criticism of Kaplan. This amounts to a > > > > compromise and compromises are sometimes neccessary) > > > > > > > > Kaplan was also known to favor a "figure out what > > > > ruling you want to give and then work backwards" > > > > approach. And nuanced phrasing helps a lot with > > > > this approach. > > > > > > > > > As I recall, a controversial appeal in the > > > > > 1990 World Championship hinged upon a single > > > > > nuanced word "manifestly" in the championship's > > > > > Conditions of Contest. > > > > > > > > That would be the mis-scored board in the > > > > Germany/Canada match right? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Ron Johnson (Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca), 613-947-5285 facsimile / tilicopieur 613-947-1408 Canada Center for Remote Sensing/ Centre Canadien de teledetection Natural Resources Canada, 588 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y7 Ressources naturelles Canada, 588 rue Booth, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0Y7 Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada From adam at irvine.com Tue Apr 26 18:13:46 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Apr 26 18:14:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:01:41 BST." <02a901c54a79$3d3e04a0$639868d5@James> Message-ID: <200504261613.JAA16164@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel wrote: > When asked for a ruling as to how the > play should go, can the director force the players to commit > an infraction by insisting that after an opponent wins a > trick, declarer must lead to the next trick (: or vice versa > :)? No, but the director *can* say that he has no power to rule on how the play should go, because the Laws don't tell him to rule on that. That's the heart of the matter. Once a claim has been acquiesced to, or a concession made, the director can no longer rule on "how the play should go"---he can only rule on whether certain lines of play are irrational. So the question above is really not applicable in this situation. Going backward: > Adam is probably right in law but were I declarer, I would > be unhappy. Were I declarer, I wouldn't claim or concede unless I knew what was going to happen with 100% certainty. If there's any chance at all (even including the possibility that the opponents lied during the auction) of something unusual happening, like an honor dropping or a 5-0 break, I'll keep playing until that possibility is ruled out. I don't really have any sympathy for the declarer in this case. She claimed before she should have. She screwed up. She got lucky that the opponents screwed up too and didn't contest her claim, which should have resulted in a "down 2" ruling. -- Adam From morrisl at doramail.com Tue Apr 26 19:49:45 2005 From: morrisl at doramail.com (Domingo Torres) Date: Tue Apr 26 18:51:54 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 $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.cr3at3.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Patti Shaffer to be remov(ed: http://www.cr3at3.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Tue Apr 26 18:38:58 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue Apr 26 19:05:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening References: Message-ID: <021a01c54a81$d996c320$c6493dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack A. Rhind" To: "Ben Schelen" ; Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 3:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening > > > > On 4/26/05 8:58 AM, "Ben Schelen" wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "koen" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:43 AM > > Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening > > > > > >> Following Three questions all occured on the club evening Yesterday. > >> => I did also indicate below how I did rule, but I did only follow the > >> basic TD course. So I'm not sure it is right and you are more then > >> welcome to disagree :) > >> > >> 1. During the play Dummy says that declarer has oriented one of the > >> played tricks wrong (card lying before him like the trick was for him, > >> but it was actually for the opps). One of the opps told that Dummy could > >> not say that. Is dummy allowed to say that? > >> Law 42A2 says that dummy can keep track of tricks. But is this in his > >> own hand alone or also in declarer's hand? > >> => This was told to me at the bar after the scores were calculated, so I > >> didn't really rule for it. If I had to rule then I would think that > >> Dummy is not allowed to do that. > >> > >> > > What not is written in the Laws, is not permitted. > > End of Law66 until 1987: "Any player may request that a card incorrectly > > pointed be turned in the proper direction". From 1987 onwards this sentence > > has been dropped; it seems therefore that it is not permitted any more. > > > > Ben > > > IMHO dummy may prevent an irregularity from happening, i.e. to point out as > declarer is placing the card that it is being put the wrong way. Once the > card has been turned the wrong way it is too late. This may sound like > splitting hairs but I believe it works. > > As Martin Sinot explained earlier, it may influence the play of the declarer. In relation to the best score, he may decide f.i. for a finesse or a safety play. Ben From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 26 19:11:03 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Apr 26 19:12:06 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: Message-ID: <02da01c54a82$edf816b0$639868d5@James> [Tim West-Meads] [snip] [David Stevenson] [snip] [Nigel] Stop it you two! Such exchanges are great fun (unless you are an unwilling participant) but they're inappropriate to a serious discussion and hence out of place in BLML ... hmmm ... on second thoughts ... :) From WBLODZ at nanotek.com Tue Apr 26 20:19:00 2005 From: WBLODZ at nanotek.com (Earline) Date: Tue Apr 26 19:26:11 2005 Subject: [blml] swiss medstore Antone Message-ID: <0.0456.8B8C@mac.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050426/7aaaabe1/attachment.html From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 26 19:31:54 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Apr 26 19:32:57 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: <20050426030441.13409.qmail@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050426080608.02a8e780@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <02e701c54a85$d7ab7110$639868d5@James> [Eric Landau] > If disclosure requirements are dependent on who "the > actual current opponents" are, what am I to do? When > did I start leaving myself open to the possibility of > an adverse score adjustment for doing nothing > more than misestimating the experience level of my > opponents? An alert procedure must specify only > whether a particular meaning of a particular auction > is or is not alertable. For the answer to depend on > who one's opponents are, when one is under no obligation > whatsoever to have the foggiest notion of who one's > opponents are, is patently absurd. [Nigel] Q.E.D. IMO Eric is right. Rules that depend on whether a player is beginner or expert, friend or enemy, acquaintance or stranger, local or foreigner are inappropriate to a game. Relevant areas with an abysmal rate of success are judging a player's A. Intentions or B. "General Knowledge". Explaining in simple terms that even players like me can understand is just ordinary politeness. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 26 19:44:33 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Apr 26 19:45:36 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: <200504261612.j3QGCH1Z003511@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <030801c54a87$9c1ffe70$639868d5@James> [Ron Johnson] > What amazes me is that the coach or captain or somebody > associated with the team isn't keeping score as well as > the players. Yes, it won't be an official score, but it > will allow the teams to catch scoring errors a lot more > readily. Particularly in the case we were discussing. > Relatively new scoring table, and down umpty isn't all > that common. [Nigel] That seems logical and sensible -- so surely it must be against the rules :) Are kibitzers, especially partisan kibitzers, really allowed to volunteer corrections? From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Apr 26 19:47:52 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Apr 26 19:54:25 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: <200504251400.j3PE01et026751@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <000801c54a88$54905540$c49d87d9@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: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: ; "Ron Johnson" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) > > > Mr.Johnson's dependence upon the musings of Mr. Rubens > notwithstanding, his suggestion that I might have decided > upon a ruling, and then looked for support for that position > is in the least unprofessional, and at most libelous. I expect > more from him. > +=+ No-one would seriously suggest as much of such a dedicated and competent director +=+ < > And, oh yes, Mr.Kaplan had precious little to do with the > Conditions of Contest for that event. Depending upon > Mr. Rubens for "facts" has led some of us astray in the past. > > kojak > +=+ I have been trying to recall the composition of the committee. Ernesto d'Orsi and Edgar Kaplan were two of my colleagues. The other two were of high standing also, but who? Jimmy O-P, the Chairman of the TAC, was not on site that morning. Maybe if I dig out the box file for 1990 I will find the information! However, I am surprised to see the words "manifestly incorrect" quoted. They may have been words used by the Canadian Captain when making his case to Kojak, but they were not an issue in the hearing, and I am as certain as I can be that they were not introduced into WBF Regulations until *after* those Geneva championships. We (the appeals committee) agreed unanimously that there was absolutely no power vested in us to allow a score correction after the expiry of the correction period. Neither law nor regulation allowed of it. One can remark that the score was an 'agreed-upon score' [Law 79C] until the early hours of the following day. Additionally, where today 79B says "No increase in score need be granted..." in the 1987 laws it said "No increase in score may be granted....". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 26 20:00:53 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 26 20:02:01 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) Message-ID: WILLIAM SCHODER wrote >I did re-read the posting, and can see your point. I also can see where >the >order of your points can easily be construed as I did. > >Bridge, without laws, rules, finality, and structure is a game that is >played at some levels, but not the world championships. In the many years >that I have been involved at National, zonal, and WBF tournaments I can't >help but be amazed at the lack of proper use of the correction period by >players, captains, sponsors, etc. It has been constructed to give them a >time to correct errors, either theirs or the organization's, and achieve >that holy "equity" we all give obeisance to. Regulations have been written >in some zones under Law 79C changing the 30 minutes to a more reasonable >time. > >I personally think that the end of the day's play plus two hours reasonable >and equitable (There I go using THAT WORD!). It is usually easily forgotten >that the idea of 1 hour before the next phase is a good time, and works >with >many pairs games, but try this on for size: We've won, we know who our >opponents are for tomorrow, they have complicated systems that we review, >study and discuss until the wee hours. We organize our lineups, pairings, >etc., and are prepared to take them on. However, an hour and ten minutes >before game time a team, knowing all night long that they are the real >winners, get to the TD and correct an error. They knew who to prepare for >and are ready!!! >Where's the EQUITY for us? I think one of the big steps forward in the Laws of bridge was when they introduced Correction Periods. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 26 20:13:35 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 26 20:14:40 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >If disclosure requirements are dependent on who "the actual current >opponents" are, what am I to do? When did I start leaving myself open >to the possibility of an adverse score adjustment for doing nothing >more than misestimating the experience level of my opponents? > >An alert procedure must specify only whether a particular meaning of a >particular auction is or is not alertable. For the answer to depend on >who one's opponents are, when one is under no obligation whatsoever to >have the foggiest notion of who one's opponents are, is patently >absurd. Are you suggesting you do not know people who play in your local club? While it would not be frequent to alert differently against different opponents it hardly seems absurd to help along players who are known to you as inexperienced. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 26 20:14:29 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 26 20:15:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 Message-ID: >Richard Hills: > >As a pedantic Secretary Bird and sometime Cub Scout, I use >the "Be Prepared!" principle. If a club TD incorrectly >rules from memory at my table, I take a copy of the Laws out >of my bag for the TD to read. > >:-) My favourite example of that sort of thing was at an ACBL Laws Commission where I had been invited. Someone asked something about the Laws, and there did not seem to be a copy handy. Fortunately my Palmtop contains a copy ..... -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 26 20:15:01 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Apr 26 20:16:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening References: <426DF115.300@hotmail.com> <007701c54a5d$b55cd0e0$c6493dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <032501c54a8b$dd390ba0$639868d5@James> [Ben Schelen] > What not is written in the Laws, is not permitted. > End of Law 66 until 1987: "Any player may request that a > card incorrectly pointed be turned in the proper > direction". From 1987 onwards this sentence has been > dropped; it seems therefore that it is not permitted > any more. [Nigel] I am a victim of the same fallacy Ben. Apparently, I misquoted Grattan Endicott: I claimed that a Bridge action, which the Law does not explicitly permit, is illegal. Specifically, I claimed that it is illegal for a player to lead to the next trick while there is still a card faced from the current trick. Although no penalty is prescribed, I argued that you should not be allowed to profit from such an action -- even if all that you gain is a Bermuda Bowl. No BLML member agreed with my contention that Soloway broke the law (albeit unintentionally). Will the new laws leave this question open in deference to American sensibilities? From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 26 20:15:15 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 26 20:16:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >DWS wrote: > >> L13 no doubt, but I do not understand L63. > >The revoking side having played to a subsequent trick declarer calls you >over and tells you that his LHO revoked on the previous spade trick but >still has a spade left - vehemently denied by LHO. Of course the old >codger has it in with his clubs (or on the floor), but if you don't look >you won't know that. So leave it to the end of the hand! Why do you need to give UI to the table *now*? of course you stay at the table to reassure them. >> Even where it is not a play on situation I think that any ruling based >> on looking at the player's hand gives unfortunate information, >> and that is why TDs don't do it. > >Risks giving, rather than gives. But if the risk of giving a wrong ruling >significantly outweighs the risk of giving unfortunate information then it >must be done. It's rare, but remember the case we were addressing - the >TD judges he can't decide whether a call was probably based on MI >*without* seeing the player's hand. Of course he can guess to allow a >change at risk of being wrong - or he can look. Neither option is ideal. It may not be ideal not to look at the hand, but it is ***terrible*** to look at a hand and then make a judgement ruling - without consultation. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 26 20:16:05 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Apr 26 20:17:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote >Were I declarer, I wouldn't claim or concede unless I knew what was >going to happen with 100% certainty. In nearly every contested claim declarer followed this rule, but made a mistake. If you never make mistakes you are very lucky. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Apr 26 19:58:27 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Apr 26 20:24:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 References: <01c101c54a73$a60d2160$c6493dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <006601c54a8c$8f923dd0$c49d87d9@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: "Ben Schelen" To: "David Stevenson" ; "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Directing after 2006 > When he was reminded later on of the > wrong prediction he showed his agenda > and blamed on bad listening. > > Ben > +=+ Well, there's a lot of that about .... +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Apr 26 20:18:28 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Apr 26 20:24:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Lays of Ancient Rome (was Re: How does blml vote?) References: Message-ID: <006701c54a8c$906b38b0$c49d87d9@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'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > Tim West-Meads, however, argues that the EBU > > clause is based on a platonic idealised notion > > of opponents, not the actual current opponents. > +=+ Plato has so much to answer for. I wonder what bridge opponents he had in mind. Was it perhaps prophesy of the time when there "Was none who would be foremost To lead such dire attack; But those behind cried 'Forward!' And those before cried 'Back!' " ? ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 26 22:53:10 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Apr 26 22:53:20 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050426164218.02b53af0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:13 PM 4/26/05, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >>If disclosure requirements are dependent on who "the actual current >>opponents" are, what am I to do? When did I start leaving myself >>open to the possibility of an adverse score adjustment for doing >>nothing more than misestimating the experience level of my opponents? >> >>An alert procedure must specify only whether a particular meaning of >>a particular auction is or is not alertable. For the answer to >>depend on who one's opponents are, when one is under no obligation >>whatsoever to have the foggiest notion of who one's opponents are, is >>patently absurd. > > Are you suggesting you do not know people who play in your local club? Of course not. The excised portion of my original message even specified "play in tournaments". But the law surely does not *require* me to know the people who play in "my" local club! > While it would not be frequent to alert differently against > different opponents it hardly seems absurd to help along players who > are known to you as inexperienced. It isn't the least bit absurd; indeed, it is my normal practice to bend over backwards to disclose more than necessary. (When I play EHAA, for example, opponents unfamiliar with the system always get a 20-second or so pre-alert of the potential surprises in our methods, which is totally voluntary, not required by the ACBL disclosure rules.) I go out of my way to help opponents who I know to be inexperienced. But this cannot have anything to do with what my legal obligations are, unless they differ, not only between experienced and inexperienced opponents, but between inexperienced opponents who I know to be inexperienced and inexperienced opponents whom I do not know. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 26 23:08:36 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Apr 26 23:09:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c54aa4$1ce99810$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Gordon wrote: > > > Don't you just stand there and watch the play until the card appears - > > or doesn't? What if it turns out there was no revoke - are you going to > > help declarer out of his misapprehension by saying so? > > The revoke is established when declarer calls me. Despite any antipathy I > may hold to the stubborn, half-blind old codger he has a right to know > this and adjust his subsequent defence accordingly. Declarer isn't under > any misapprehension, and I know it. These people are not strangers. Rubbish! You make your ruling when the play has been completed. In the meantime you just tell them what the revoke penalty will be depending on how the play progresses after the revoke trick. That is all the players need to adjust their play. Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 26 23:20:08 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Apr 26 23:21:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <02a901c54a79$3d3e04a0$639868d5@James> Message-ID: <000401c54aa5$b9567f00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of GUTHRIE > Sent: 26. april 2005 18:02 > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > [Adam Beneschan] > > While your logic would be fine in the case of a > > contested claim, we're not dealing with a contested > > claim. We're dealing with the case of a change in the > > score following an acquiescence/concession. The Laws > > are specific about how to deal with these cases, and > > they allow a score change only in a clear-cut case. > > [Nigel] > Adam is probably right in law but were I declarer, I would > be unhappy. I call the TD because I want to retract an > impossible concession. The contact can make or go two down > so either rulings must be acceptable. "One down", however, > is impossible so it seems ridiculous for the director to > uphold that result. When asked for a ruling as to how the > play should go, can the director force the players to commit > an infraction by insisting that after an opponent wins a > trick, declarer must lead to the next trick (: or vice versa > :)? If declarer or defender requests an adjustment on the ground that the agreed upon result (one down) is impossible (the contract King makes or goes two down) I shall be most happy to adjust the result to two down if the request comes from declarer or to contract made if request comes from a defender. There is legal base for either adjustment; I simply rule whether declarer played the Jack or the King. Sven. From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 27 00:03:15 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Apr 27 00:04:23 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >I think we can all agree that if declarer says "the six ... no the five >of spades", we cannot allow this. There seems no Law in support of this position. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 27 00:03:50 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Apr 27 00:04:55 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? Message-ID: David Barton wrote >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. Whether it is heresy it seems to be a simple matter of Law, and the change is permitted. I find this thread, which I have come to late, strange. Perhaps it is because I was taught the answer by the EBU when I first started directing, and no-one has ever disagreed with them until now. The basic rule of spoken bidding, designated cards, written bidding, and bidding boxes is that nothing has happened until it has happened. So if you say "One ..." as a call, "The six of ..." as a play, you write '2 ..' using written bidding, and take a Stop card out of the box, no-one can force you to complete these. You may change your mind. I know it is complicated by partial designations. The basic Law says that if a player makes a designation that is incomplete then there is a law to say what card was intended. So if I say 'spade' then I have asked for the small spade. But I have finished my designation. There is a big difference between an unfinished spoken call/designated card/written call/bid-box call and a completed one which has not been made in the correct way. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 27 00:04:15 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Apr 27 00:05:20 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? Message-ID: 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 >(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? Same answer as before: (c). You cannot force a player to complete something just because he started it and he has not designated a card. Yet again the 'partial designation' thing is a red herring. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 27 00:04:39 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Apr 27 00:05:45 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >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. He has not played a card, because he has not designated it, so it can be changed. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 27 00:05:05 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Apr 27 00:06:10 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article <42393D80.6030206@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael >writes >>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 Me2. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 27 00:05:32 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Apr 27 00:06:37 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? Message-ID: David Barton 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. When declarer makes a designation of a card he may then change it if it was inadvertent, ie he may not change his mind. If declarer has not made a designation - even if he was part way through something - then he may certainly change his mind. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 27 00:24:07 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 27 00:25:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: <022a01c54a70$0fbf8750$639868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >For example if, systemically, you need six points to >respond but you reply 1H to 1D with xxx Kxxxx x xxxx, >then you may well elect to pass partner's "forcing" 2S >rebid. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, the real problem is responder choosing to *inconsistently* drop pard's forcing 2S. Suppose that: (a) responder drops pard's in-tempo force, reaching the best spot of a 2S partscore, but (b) responder honours pard's out-of-tempo 2S force, when pard has manufactured a 2S force when holding a strong 6-5 in the reds, thus reaching the best spot of a cold 4H. In my opinion, such grey ethics are avoided if one follows the Rubens style of never violating system (both avoiding an initial sub-minimum response, and also avoiding taking a view to pass a forcing call). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 27 00:31:49 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 27 00:33:10 2005 Subject: [blml] It's Your (Director) Call.... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <315871e191a3649f6d60065b6028f38f@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 26, 2005, at 2:54 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Judge not, lest you be judged. "Judge, and prepare to be judged." :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 27 00:55:10 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 27 00:56:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <000401c54aa5$b9567f00$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c54aa5$b9567f00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <9577d4aa50d1cfc83431ffa6fb461474@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 26, 2005, at 5:20 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > There is legal base for either adjustment; I simply rule whether > declarer > played the Jack or the King. Pfui. When he faced his hand, he didn't play *either* card, he made a claim. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 27 00:56:37 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 27 00:57:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Rashomon (was How does blml vote?) In-Reply-To: <000801c54a88$54905540$c49d87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>>+=+ I have been trying to recall the composition of the committee. >>>Ernesto d'Orsi and Edgar Kaplan were two of my colleagues. The >>>other two were of high standing also, but who? Jimmy O-P, the >>>Chairman of the TAC, was not on site that morning. Maybe if >>>I dig out the box file for 1990 I will find the information! >>> However, I am surprised to see the words "manifestly >>>incorrect" quoted. They may have been words used by the >>>Canadian Captain when making his case to Kojak, but they were >>>not an issue in the hearing, and I am as certain as I can be that >>>they were not introduced into WBF Regulations until *after* >>>those Geneva championships. [snip] Tertullian (c.160 - c.225): >>Certum est quia impossibile est. Edgar Kaplan (November 1990): [snip] >The committee met the next morning. Was it too late to correct the >error? It would be too late in the ACBL (and in most of the >world), where the third-quarter score becomes official, etched in >stone, when a call is made in the fourth quarter, or half an hour >after the results are posted. The WBF Conditions of Contest, >though, contained a softening clause: a Committee was authorized to >correct a "manifestly incorrect score" until the next *match* had >begun. Was the minus 1100 *manifestly* incorrect? > >The facts were beyond dispute. The contract had indeed been down >six. The hasty agreement at the table had indeed been down five [snip] >the softening clause in the Conditions of Contest was intended to >apply only to a clear mistake in scoring, not to a mistaken >agreement. [snip] >Perhaps, though, the wording of the regulations could be made >clearer. [snip] Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 27 00:59:35 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 27 01:00:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ac965b25d2be3a30246d72ca142b557@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 26, 2005, at 6:24 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Suppose that: > > (a) responder drops pard's in-tempo force, reaching the > best spot of a 2S partscore, but > > (b) responder honours pard's out-of-tempo 2S force, when > pard has manufactured a 2S force when holding a strong 6-5 > in the reds, thus reaching the best spot of a cold 4H. > > In my opinion, such grey ethics are avoided if one follows > the Rubens style of never violating system (both avoiding > an initial sub-minimum response, and also avoiding taking > a view to pass a forcing call). "Grey ethics"? Wakarimasen. From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 27 01:51:48 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Apr 27 01:52:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia References: <000401c54aa5$b9567f00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 16:20 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Claim in Sofia > On Behalf Of GUTHRIE > Sent: 26. april 2005 18:02 > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > [Adam Beneschan] > > While your logic would be fine in the case of a > > contested claim, we're not dealing with a contested > > claim. We're dealing with the case of a change in the > > score following an acquiescence/concession. The Laws > > are specific about how to deal with these cases, and > > they allow a score change only in a clear-cut case. > > [Nigel] > Adam is probably right in law but were I declarer, I would > be unhappy. I call the TD because I want to retract an > impossible concession. The contact can make or go two down > so either rulings must be acceptable. "One down", however, > is impossible so it seems ridiculous for the director to > uphold that result. When asked for a ruling as to how the > play should go, can the director force the players to commit > an infraction by insisting that after an opponent wins a > trick, declarer must lead to the next trick (: or vice versa > :)? If declarer or defender requests an adjustment on the ground that the agreed upon result (one down) is impossible (the contract King makes or goes two down) I shall be most happy to adjust the result to two down if the request comes from declarer or to contract made if request comes from a defender. There is legal base for either adjustment; ** I think that is very tenous. If declarer seeks to withdraw his concession I believe that it is clear that the case does not satisfy any of the three specifications of 71ABC so the number of tricks does not change by that route. Because of acquiescence it is 'too late' for declarer or defender to dispute the claim. As to the acquiescence of 1 trick- L69B allows withdrawal only by opponent of claimer so declarer cannot affect the number of tricks by that route. What about defender? Defender has acquiesced to receiving exactly one of the last two tricks. Had they disputed the claim on the basis of 70E they would have received two tricks so there is no basis of finding zero tricks for the defenders because the trick they have agreed to was T12. And what the defenders have done is acquiescence to the claim of T13 by declarer and L69B merely allows withdrawal by the defenders and imo it should be granted if submitted. imo, the only avenue by which declarer can affect the score is to realize via 72a2 calls for declarer asking defenders to withdraw acquiescence; or petition for a scoring correction due to miscounting the number of tricks conceded [once defender wins T12* defender must win T13]- however, posters have disputed the legality that what happened was a micounting of tricks. *via accepting the concession I am not sure at all where Sven is coming from when he creates a subcase of if the basis of the request is that the outcome score was impossible. The basis of withdrawal of A or C is spelled out in 69B and 71ABC so it sounds like a red herring. I would not think badly of a TD that didn't investigate too thoroughly and executed declarer's request to concede both tricks or derfender's request to concede both tricks. But if the facts are known I think it would be wrong for the TD to execute any request to increase declarer's** tricks, or decrease defender's tricks, because the facts do not support it. There are enough passages of law that suggest that if the defenders do not withdraw acquiescence then no increase should come their way; but if it can be seen that upon acquiescence a miscounting of tricks occured then there is a case to correct the error if the TD verifies the facts from both sides. **What I'm suggesting is that declarer had to play the HK or claim both tricks in order to have grounds for possibly taking both tricks. More definitively if he said T12 was the HK he gets both tricks. If declarer claimed both tricks [say without adequate clarification] , and, there was acquiescence then he gets both tricks. All other scenarios do not increase his tricks. regards roger pewick I simply rule whether declarer played the Jack or the King. Sven. From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Apr 27 01:56:28 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Apr 27 01:57:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470f1828b28296d567d1916ecabce0e4@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 26 Apr 2005, at 14:56, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Gordon wrote: > >> Don't you just stand there and watch the play until the card appears - >> or doesn't? What if it turns out there was no revoke - are you going >> to >> help declarer out of his misapprehension by saying so? > > The revoke is established when declarer calls me. Despite any > antipathy I > may hold to the stubborn, half-blind old codger he has a right to know > this and adjust his subsequent defence accordingly. And has been given that opportunity by having had attention drawn to the (supposed) revoke. If he doesn't want to accept that... > Declarer isn't under > any misapprehension, and I know it. With such certainty at your disposal, I'm surprised you need to check anything. > These people are not strangers. I thought we were discussing hypothetical situations, not your personal history. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From feucht at mailAccount.com Wed Apr 27 04:09:15 2005 From: feucht at mailAccount.com (Roderick Sewell) Date: Wed Apr 27 03:11:22 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 $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.cr3at3.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Everette Ham to be remov(ed: http://www.cr3at3.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 27 03:37:47 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Apr 27 03:38:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Forcing References: Message-ID: <005801c54ac9$b7fa8e20$039868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] In my opinion, such grey ethics are avoided if one follows the Rubens style of never violating system (both avoiding an initial sub-minimum response, and also avoiding taking a view to pass a forcing call). [Nigel] Rosenberg, Rubens and Richard are right! Especially if you play at the level that I do, where experienced partnerships will almost always be able to judge whether partner's call is "forcing" or really forcing. In fact, there is usually enough unauthorised information for the other side to make a pretty fair guess! From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 27 03:40:19 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 27 03:41:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick: [snip] >Because of acquiescence it is 'too late' for declarer >or defender to dispute the claim. [snip] Richard Hills: Given that the Law 79C correction period has not expired, my reading of Law is that it is *not* too late for either side to dispute the claim. Therefore, while I agree that the "non-bridge" result of one off must stand if the correction period has expired, I do not agree that one off is a legal result if there is a dispute *before* the correction period has expired. In my opinion, either two off or contract making are the only legal decisions that the TD can arrive at in the actual case. Roger Pewick: [snip] >**What I'm suggesting is that declarer had to play >the HK or claim both tricks in order to have grounds >for possibly taking both tricks. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, *because* the claimer stated "one off", it was her incontrovertible intention to play the king of hearts at trick twelve, then concede the last trick. So, as TD, my ruling is that whether the claimer would possibly finesse the jack of hearts is *not* a doubtful point, but rather a not-in-doubt point which is inconsistent with the claim statement. Since following the line intended by the claim statement sees declarer make the contract, I join the table TD in ruling that (pursuant to Law 71C) the slam would have "normally" made. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From ooga at shaw.ca Wed Apr 27 03:58:31 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Wed Apr 27 04:00:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5CF7@rama.micronas.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5CF7@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <426EF1C7.1090507@shaw.ca> Sinot Martin wrote: > >> >>What not is written in the Laws, is not permitted. >>End of Law66 until 1987: "Any player may request that a card >>incorrectly >>pointed be turned in the proper direction". From 1987 onwards >>this sentence >>has been dropped; it seems therefore that it is not permitted >>any more. > > > Correct; but dummy may try to warn declarer if he is about to > place a card in the wrong direction. That is his right to try > to prevent infractions from declarer. > It would be nice to have this silliness clearly resolved in the next Laws. My personal preference would be for a little more time for dummy to correct. It's absurd for the time limit on a correction to run out the instant declarer releases the played card. Now please, let's not have the usual deluge of Dummy's Wrongs advocates chiming in that such a change will allow dummy to actively participate in the play. We all know that infraction when we see it, and saying "partner, you have the last trick turned wrong" three, or thirty milliseconds after declarer releases the card from his hand doesn't qualify. -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | 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 Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 27 04:02:53 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Apr 27 04:03:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Sixteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook Message-ID: <007f01c54acd$39d21eb0$039868d5@James> [Richard James Hills CASE N-16] > Subject: MI > DIC: Steve Bates > Reisinger Teams 1st Semi-Final > 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: If South had been told by West that > the 2H call was a suit rather than a pass or correct > bid, he could have passed the HJ through East at > trick two and easily make four. > Since he did not have that information, he feels he > should be entitled to an adjustment. (Note from AW: > In fact is was EW who appealed.) > Statements by the other side: EW presented their system > notes that did not cover this situation. East said he < told North that it was for hearts because that is what he > held. Other information: The line of play was: > S6 to the S9 > CA unblocking the seven > the club two to the CJ, CQ and CK > club nine, six, a heart pitch, CT > spade four to the SQ > SA cashed > exit a spade (North pitching a diamond). > Now because of the club blockage, 10 tricks are no > longer available. > The Decision: The Committee changed the contract back > to 3NT making 3 for +600 for NW and -600 for EW. > Under the conditions of contest, a pair is responsible > for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be > expected) auctions. "A pair may be entitled to redress > if their opponents did not originally have a clear > understanding of when and how to use a convention that > was employed." The committee found that the double of > 2D was a probable auction covered by the conditions of > contest. South was entitled to a clearer explanation of > the 2H call. However, there were two considerations that, > together, caused the committee not to award the redress > to NS. > 1. South should have made ten tricks even without > complete information, and > 2. South had, by ACBL regulations, had an affirmative > obligation to seek clarification of 2H when West told > him he was unsure of the meaning. > South's ignoring his obligation to protect himself should > not accrue to his benefit. South could have called the > Director when dummy came down, explained his need for > clarification, and gotten it from East. These two > considerations caused the Committee to let the table > result stand. > Since EW were in violation of their obligation to know > the application of their conventions in reasonable > expected situations, however, the Committee decided to > apply a one-fourth board procedural penalty to EW. > The appeal was judged to have had merit and no AWMW was > issued. [Nigel] Before studying the reasoning, I preferred the director decision to the committee's. 1. I still regard as stupid and unjust the American practice of penalizing the innocent side (North-South here) for so-called "poor play" after an alleged infraction, when, arguably, without the infraction, they would effortlessly earn a better score. Such rulings add insult to injury! 2. I now appreciate, however, the committee's criticism of South for failing to "protect himself" by asking East the systemic meaning of his 2H bid when West was unsure what it meant; even if the correct reply would not have helped him. This is a common kind of auction for Multi players. A playable schema after (!N)2D(X)? ... P = long diamonds. XX = long clubs. 2H = neutral or would raise spades. 2S = would raise hearts. 3H... = pre-emptive with both majors 2N = sound raise with dome defence. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 27 04:03:28 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 27 04:04:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Seven - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050412223135.0351c9c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >>DIC: Cukoff [snip] >>The Ruling: The director ruled that with no agreement on the facts, >>Law 85 applied and awarded the trick to neither side, resulting in >>the scores of N-S -50 and E-W minus 420. [snip] >>The Decision: The only dispute was the order of the cards played at >>tricks twelve and thirteen. Since East had shuffled her cards by the >>time the director arrived at the table, the Committee awarded the >>disputed trick to N-S under of Law 65C and D. David Grabiner: >Law 85 doesn't require the TD to throw up his hands; he should have >ruled as the AC did. The burden of proof is on East because she is >alleging that South made an irrational play (DJ under the DK), and >East shuffled her cards to prevent her claim from being proved. Richard Hills: In my opinion, DIC Cukoff must shoulder some responsibility for his delegated incompetent TD. Not only did DIC Cukoff fail to ensure that his delegated TD knew Law 65 (or at least knew enough to read the fabulous Lawbook), DIC Cukoff also failed to ensure that his partially trained TD would consult with a fully trained TD if confronted with an unusual ruling. In my opinion, DIC Cukoff (and/or the screener) also failed in their subsequent duty. Why did the appellants have to waste precious time attending an appeal to correct an obvious TD error? As Chief Director, Cukoff had a responsibility to correct the TD error under Law 82C *before* it reached an appeals committee. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From Santiagointerpret at dietmar-buecher.de Wed Apr 27 05:35:35 2005 From: Santiagointerpret at dietmar-buecher.de (Ron) Date: Wed Apr 27 04:48:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Improving memory Message-ID: <0.0020.8B8C@mac.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050427/f7a39dd3/attachment.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 27 05:15:35 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Apr 27 05:16:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 20:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > > > > Roger Pewick: > > [snip] > > >Because of acquiescence it is 'too late' for declarer > >or defender to dispute the claim. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Given that the Law 79C correction period has not > expired, my reading of Law is that it is *not* too > late for either side to dispute the claim. Therefore, > while I agree that the "non-bridge" result of one off > must stand if the correction period has expired, I do > not agree that one off is a legal result if there is a > dispute *before* the correction period has expired. In > my opinion, either two off or contract making are the > only legal decisions that the TD can arrive at in the > actual case. > > Roger Pewick: > > [snip] > > >**What I'm suggesting is that declarer had to play > >the HK or claim both tricks in order to have grounds > >for possibly taking both tricks. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, *because* the claimer stated "one off", > it was her incontrovertible intention to play the > king of hearts at trick twelve, then concede the last > trick. So, as TD, my ruling is that whether the > claimer would possibly finesse the jack of hearts is > *not* a doubtful point, but rather a not-in-doubt > point which is inconsistent with the claim statement. Nobody knows why declarer claimed 1 down. We don't know how many tricks she? thought had been lost. We don't know what she thought was left outstanding. Who she believed was void or not. What count she believed each defender had. Claims are so often made 'because' claimer has forgotten something in the play. And we don't know the intended line of play. Just maybe there wasn't one because it would be so easy to say taking the HK- and nothing was said. > Since following the line intended by the claim > statement sees declarer make the contract, I join the > table TD in ruling that (pursuant to Law 71C) the slam > would have "normally" made. The claim statement consisted of writing -1, iirc. > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist Could you please point to the passage of law that says that claimer's [unstated] intention has something to do with adjudicating a disputed claim/ concession/withdrawal. regards roger pewick From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 27 05:48:03 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Apr 27 05:49:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Sixteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook References: <007f01c54acd$39d21eb0$039868d5@James> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 21:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Sixteen - Orlando NABC unofficial casebook > [Richard James Hills CASE N-16] > > Subject: MI > > DIC: Steve Bates > > Reisinger Teams 1st Semi-Final > > 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. > [Nigel] > Before studying the reasoning, I preferred the director > decision to the committee's. > 1. I still regard as stupid and unjust the American > practice of penalizing the innocent side (North-South > here) for so-called "poor play" after an alleged > infraction, when, arguably, without the infraction, > they would effortlessly earn a better score. Such > rulings add insult to injury! > 2. I now appreciate, however, the committee's > criticism of South for failing to "protect himself" > by asking East the systemic meaning of his 2H bid > when West was unsure what it meant; even if the > correct reply would not have helped him. This is a > common kind of auction for Multi players. A > playable schema after (!N)2D(X)? ... > P = long diamonds. > XX = long clubs. > 2H = neutral or would raise spades. > 2S = would raise hearts. > 3H... = pre-emptive with both majors > 2N = sound raise with dome defence. I am puzzled by the TD ruling. W told S that the sequence effectively had not been discussed [and offered a similar sequence that had been discussed]. The TD ruled that there was no agreement to 2H. The issue was the play of the hand as in MI had caused damage to S line of play. Well, if there was MI it was to N [not S]. And I do not think that N was declaring the contract. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 27 06:15:19 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 27 06:16:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick: [snip] >Could you please point to the passage of law that says >that claimer's [unstated] intention has something to do >with adjudicating a disputed claim/concession/withdrawal. Richard Hills: The general objective for a TD in adjudicating contested claims, Law 70A, states that "any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer". In my judgement as TD, I have no doubt that the claimer's [implicitly stated] intention meant that the slam would always make. Other TDs may legitimately judge differently, thus legally ruling the slam two off. I do, however, believe that any "non-bridge" ruling of one off (assuming that the correction period had not expired) would be an illegitimate and illegal ruling. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 27 09:02:51 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 27 09:03:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <9577d4aa50d1cfc83431ffa6fb461474@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c54af7$20a37d10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: 27. april 2005 00:55 > To: 'Bridge Laws Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > > On Apr 26, 2005, at 5:20 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > There is legal base for either adjustment; I simply rule whether > > declarer > > played the Jack or the King. > > Pfui. When he faced his hand, he didn't play *either* card, he made a > claim. Indeed (and I believed it was clear that I was aware of that fact). But if I should be forced to make a ruling requiring me to decide which of the two cards I would select as played by declarer (which line of play I would consider) I would be happy to rule to the disadvantage of the side that requested a cancellation of their acquiescence. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 27 09:26:37 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 27 09:28:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge In-Reply-To: <000401c5474a$7d2c1480$429868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: [snip] >Furthermore, similar events of this kind, involving >other pairs, are common. How does Richard imagine >that a prosecutor can build a case against a >first-time offender on circumstantial evidence? Richard Hills: As it happened, an Aussie CTD was sitting North (filling in for a late-arriving player). This Aussie CTD had additional circumstantial evidence available. (1) I was the West who psyched. (Consistent with my disclosed historical recent frequency of psyching - once every three months - this was my second psyche for 2005.) (2) East, who possibly fielded my psyche, was an Aussie international representative. He had recently returned to Canberra from three-and-a-half years living in New Zealand, so this was our first session as partners for five years. Given those additional facts, the CTD had absolutely no hesitation in *not* referring my "fielded" psyche to the local Conduct and Ethics Committee, while adjusting the score under Law 40B was not even dreamed of by the CTD. So, in answer to Nigel's question, I believe that an adjusted score under Law 40B due to a one-off lucky coincidence (with no other evidence) is very likely to be a miscarriage of justice. In my opinion, a TD who is doing their job should not: (a) arbitrarily rule that a Law 40B infraction exists merely on the evidence of a one-off coincidence, nor (b) arbitrarily place an impossible onus of proof on the putative offending side, ordering them to prove a negative, but instead (c) investigate further for additional exculpatory or condemnatory evidence. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From TDNEYI at debbiechamberlain.com Wed Apr 27 10:45:26 2005 From: TDNEYI at debbiechamberlain.com (Adriana) Date: Wed Apr 27 09:52:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Your meds Message-ID: <52685277.103133TDNEYI@debbiechamberlain.com> Do you want inexpensive Prozac? http://www.ju7.net/p/viks/13 or 160 other drugs: http://www.ju7.net/p/viks you intelligible me levin me you eastern me declarative me you cumberland me thyroid me you psychoanalyst me chalkboard me you secrecy me isomorphic me you podia me only me you asleep me bini me http://b5t.net/1.php From craigstamps at comcast.net Wed Apr 27 15:23:38 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Wed Apr 27 15:24:46 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims References: Message-ID: <005101c54b2c$534719e0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Skj?ran" To: Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 1:27 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 claims > >Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier wrote: >> >>South is playing 4H >> >>He had lost 2 tricks >> >> KJT4 >> K >> - >> - >>2 Q >>- - >>93 QJ2 >>75 9 >> 7 >> T8 >> T >> J >> >>The hand is in dummy and South claims all the remaining tricks without any >>statement(he have forget that the spade queen have nor been played) >>Your decision? why? > > One down, loosing tricks to SQ and DQ. Having forgotten that the SQ has > not been played, the SK, J and T are of equal rank to declarer. Drawing > one trump and then the SJ or ST would give east 2 tricks. I consider this > a normal line of play. It is in no way normal, not even careless or inferior. It is irrational to play the spades this way. The ckaim is good. No adjustment. >> >>Another case >>South is playing 6 hearts >> A985 >> K982 >> T63 >> KQ >>6 T743 >>JT6 3 >>QJ874 K952 >>AT64 9875 >> KQJ2 >> AQ754 >> A >> J32 >>Lead:s6 >>South take the lead with the ace, play K and Ace of heart and concede the >>Ace of club without any other statement. West ask for one trump... >>Your decision? > > The play certainly suggest that declarer could be unaware of the > outstanding trump. Winning west's return and leading a spade is a normal > play. All clauses of L70C is fullfilled.Thus the TD should award a trick > to the oppontents. One down. Agreed > Regards, > Harald Skj?ran > >> >>Thanks >>Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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! > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Wed Apr 27 15:11:28 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed Apr 27 15:29:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question References: Message-ID: <00a601c54b2c$a5d57080$43493dd4@c6l8v1> > > It may not be ideal not to look at the hand, but it is ***terrible*** > to look at a hand and then make a judgement ruling - without > consultation. > > O.K. but what will be the result if the player is not an expert player? After the repeated explanation of the difference between Law 25A and B, the player tells the director that he has understand him. The player then makes his decision. At the end of the hand the director discovered that the player has taken the wrong decision: the player was not allowed to act according to Law25A. Ben From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Wed Apr 27 14:56:47 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed Apr 27 15:30:03 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) References: <200504251400.j3PE01et026751@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <000801c54a88$54905540$c49d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <00a501c54b2c$a536bf80$43493dd4@c6l8v1> > > > > > > > +=+ I have been trying to recall the composition of the committee. > Ernesto d'Orsi and Edgar Kaplan were two of my colleagues. The > other two were of high standing also, but who? Jimmy O-P, the > Chairman of the TAC, was not on site that morning. Maybe if > I dig out the box file for 1990 I will find the information! > However, I am surprised to see the words "manifestly > incorrect" quoted. They may have been words used by the > Canadian Captain when making his case to Kojak, but they were > not an issue in the hearing, and I am as certain as I can be that > they were not introduced into WBF Regulations until *after* > those Geneva championships. We (the appeals committee) agreed > unanimously that there was absolutely no power vested in us to > allow a score correction after the expiry of the correction period. > Neither law nor regulation allowed of it. One can remark that the > score was an 'agreed-upon score' [Law 79C] until the early hours > of the following day. Additionally, where today 79B says "No > increase in score need be granted..." in the 1987 laws it said "No > increase in score may be granted....". > > During the World Bridge Championships Geneva 90 it was me who was a.o. responsible for the archives. I still have the archives at home. Other owners of a copy are Kojak, Ortiz-Patino, Ton and the NBB. Reading the Conditions of Contest I find on page 22 under the heading 50. Verification of scores: "d) Correction of a manifestly incorrect score at the direction of the Tournament Director or the Tournament Appeals Committee." It is possible that the Canadian Captain has cited the CoC, because I remember to have heard these words in the lobby: manifestly was the deciding word as an argument for the decision taken. Ben From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 27 15:42:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 27 15:42:55 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims In-Reply-To: <005101c54b2c$534719e0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <005101c54b2c$534719e0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <426F96D1.6080507@hdw.be> Did you read the case correctly, Craig? craig wrote: >>> South is playing 4H >>> >>> He had lost 2 tricks >>> >>> KJT4 >>> K >>> - >>> - >>> 2 Q >>> - - >>> 93 QJ2 >>> 75 9 >>> 7 >>> T8 >>> T >>> J >>> >>> The hand is in dummy and South claims all the remaining tricks >>> without any statement(he have forget that the spade queen have nor >>> been played) >>> Your decision? why? >> >> >> One down, loosing tricks to SQ and DQ. Having forgotten that the SQ >> has not been played, the SK, J and T are of equal rank to declarer. >> Drawing one trump and then the SJ or ST would give east 2 tricks. I >> consider this a normal line of play. > > > It is in no way normal, not even careless or inferior. It is irrational > to play the spades this way. The ckaim is good. No adjustment. > If declarer thinks the spades are high, do you really consider it irrational for him to play low to the jack or ten? I'm afraid that you're placing yourself on the far left of even Herman there! Please tell us you misread something, Craig! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 27 16:00:36 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 27 16:00:40 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <426F9B04.7020001@hdw.be> David Kent wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org >>[mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 9:43 AM >>To: blml >>Subject: Re: [blml] 2 claims >> >> >>Did you read the case correctly, Craig? >> >>craig wrote: >> >>>>>South is playing 4H >>>>> >>>>>He had lost 2 tricks >>>>> >>>>> KJT4 >>>>> K >>>>> - >>>>> - >>>>>2 Q >>>>>- - >>>>>93 QJ2 >>>>>75 9 >>>>> 7 >>>>> T8 >>>>> T >>>>> J >>>>> >>>>>The hand is in dummy and South claims all the remaining tricks >>>>>without any statement(he have forget that the spade queen have nor >>>>>been played) >>>>>Your decision? why? >>>> >>>> >>>>One down, loosing tricks to SQ and DQ. Having forgotten that the SQ >>>>has not been played, the SK, J and T are of equal rank to declarer. >>>>Drawing one trump and then the SJ or ST would give east 2 tricks. I >>>>consider this a normal line of play. >>> >>> >>>It is in no way normal, not even careless or inferior. It is irrational >>>to play the spades this way. The ckaim is good. No adjustment. >>> >> >>If declarer thinks the spades are high, do you really consider it >>irrational for him to play low to the jack or ten? >> >>I'm afraid that you're placing yourself on the far left of even Herman >>there! >> >>Please tell us you misread something, Craig! >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.hdw.be >> > > > How do you want declarer to get to his hand in order to lead a spade to the > J? > > ...Dave Kent > Oops - it appears I have misread rather than craig. From the beginning I have been reading this case as if play was in south. I admit that it is more normal to play the ten when playing towards the table, than it is to play the ten when thinking all are high, but I still maintain that it is normal for this claimer to play either the K J or T of spades to the first trick. But Craig's point is less in "left" fiels as I made it out to be. Sorry Craig. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From jrhind at therock.bm Wed Apr 27 16:07:03 2005 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Wed Apr 27 16:08:09 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims In-Reply-To: <426F96D1.6080507@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 4/27/05 10:42 AM, "Herman De Wael" wrote: > Did you read the case correctly, Craig? > > craig wrote: >>>> South is playing 4H >>>> >>>> He had lost 2 tricks >>>> >>>> KJT4 >>>> K >>>> - >>>> - >>>> 2 Q >>>> - - >>>> 93 QJ2 >>>> 75 9 >>>> 7 >>>> T8 >>>> T >>>> J >>>> >>>> The hand is in dummy and South claims all the remaining tricks >>>> without any statement(he have forget that the spade queen have nor >>>> been played) >>>> Your decision? why? >>> >>> >>> One down, loosing tricks to SQ and DQ. Having forgotten that the SQ >>> has not been played, the SK, J and T are of equal rank to declarer. >>> Drawing one trump and then the SJ or ST would give east 2 tricks. I >>> consider this a normal line of play. >> >> >> It is in no way normal, not even careless or inferior. It is irrational >> to play the spades this way. The ckaim is good. No adjustment. >> > > If declarer thinks the spades are high, do you really consider it > irrational for him to play low to the jack or ten? It is impossible to lead up to the SJ or ST when the lead is in dummy! > I'm afraid that you're placing yourself on the far left of even Herman > there! > > Please tell us you misread something, Craig! From john at asimere.com Wed Apr 27 16:24:56 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Apr 27 16:27:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: References: <000001c549c5$97dd87f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article , Roger Pewick writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 13:35 PM >Subject: RE: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > >> On Behalf Of Roger Pewick >............ >> > I don't understand the theory that a score of "down 1" is not >> > legitimate because it could not have been obtained in actual play. >> > If, say, both sides agree on the number of tricks declarer took, then >> > that's the score for a board, even if the number of tricks was wrong >> > and it was impossible that declarer could have actually obtained that >> > exact number of tricks. If the Laws do not empower the Director to >> > change the score later, then the "impossible" score still stands. Why >> > is this hard? >> > >> > -- Adam English premier league, screens, the whole show: TD leaning on screen (I usually lean on a wall, but was enjoyably engaged in scratching my back on the top corner of the screen). Overheard at the table, all players knew I was there. "Was it down one or two?" "No idea, how about -75?" "TD won't like it. Toss you for it" "Down two, ok" "Yes" Should I interfere? Of course not, this was the agreed result at the table. 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 hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 27 16:30:40 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 27 16:31:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: References: <000001c549c5$97dd87f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <426FA210.9040100@hdw.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > English premier league, screens, the whole show: TD leaning on screen (I > usually lean on a wall, but was enjoyably engaged in scratching my back > on the top corner of the screen). Overheard at the table, all players > knew I was there. > > "Was it down one or two?" > "No idea, how about -75?" > "TD won't like it. Toss you for it" > > "Down two, ok" > "Yes" > > Should I interfere? Of course not, this was the agreed result at the > table. John > And what's more - as soon as they have both bid on the next board, that will stay the definite results, as presumably both -1 and -2 could be arrived at by legal means. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 27 17:01:02 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 27 17:02:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c54b39$ee390320$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > >............ > English premier league, screens, the whole show: TD leaning on screen (I > usually lean on a wall, but was enjoyably engaged in scratching my back > on the top corner of the screen). Overheard at the table, all players > knew I was there. > > "Was it down one or two?" > "No idea, how about -75?" > "TD won't like it. Toss you for it" > > "Down two, ok" > "Yes" And the "KNEW" you were there !!!!! Indeed. 8-) Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 27 17:39:23 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 27 17:40:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <000001c54af7$20a37d10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c54af7$20a37d10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <75ca1b98e5707c7b6988bb49c8259079@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 27, 2005, at 3:02 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > But if I should be forced to make a ruling requiring me to decide > which of > the two cards I would select as played by declarer (which line of play > I > would consider) I would be happy to rule to the disadvantage of the > side > that requested a cancellation of their acquiescence. Acquiescence is law 69; the claiming contestant *cannot* withdraw acquiescence to their own claim or concession under this law. What's happening here, as you know, Sven , is that claimer, who also conceded a trick when he claimed, is asking for cancellation of his concession under Law 71C. I think what you're trying to say is "I would be happy to rule to the disadvantage of the side that requested a cancellation of their *concession*. Not trying to be the Secretary Bird, just want to make sure terminology doesn't confuse the issue. :-) From adam at irvine.com Wed Apr 27 17:46:43 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Apr 27 17:47:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:15:19 +1000." Message-ID: <200504271546.IAA24263@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Roger Pewick: > > [snip] > > >Could you please point to the passage of law that says > >that claimer's [unstated] intention has something to do > >with adjudicating a disputed claim/concession/withdrawal. > > Richard Hills: > > The general objective for a TD in adjudicating contested > claims, Law 70A, states that "any doubtful points shall be > resolved against the claimer". This is not a contested claim. Law 70 does not apply. The standards for adjudicating withdrawal of acquiescence or a concession are different from the standards for adjudicating a contested claim. -- Adam From john at asimere.com Wed Apr 27 18:38:11 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Apr 27 18:40:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: <000001c54b39$ee390320$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c54b39$ee390320$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c54b39$ee390320$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst >> >............ >> English premier league, screens, the whole show: TD leaning on screen (I >> usually lean on a wall, but was enjoyably engaged in scratching my back >> on the top corner of the screen). Overheard at the table, all players >> knew I was there. >> >> "Was it down one or two?" >> "No idea, how about -75?" >> "TD won't like it. Toss you for it" >> >> "Down two, ok" >> "Yes" > >And the "KNEW" you were there !!!!! Indeed. 8-) ok, we all know each other very well, and the teams are great personal friends anyway. They know that I would have intervened if I had thought it appropriate, but as far as I can see a bridge result was obtained and I was not called to the table. As I recall after the result was written down one of them winked at me, I said "I didn't hear a TD call" and there was a nod from round the table. As Herman says, once they had called on the next hand the matter was over, why should I interfere in their game when I'm not asked to? > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 27 19:03:06 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 27 19:04:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c54b4a$fbb71530$6900a8c0@WINXP> Very good, and please don't get me wrong. I think my smiley should tell my view? Neither would I have intervened in a similar position but I might probably have teased them a little (afterwards and with a smile). Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: 27. april 2005 18:38 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Claim in Sofia > > In article <000001c54b39$ee390320$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran > writes > >> On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > >> >............ > >> English premier league, screens, the whole show: TD leaning on screen > (I > >> usually lean on a wall, but was enjoyably engaged in scratching my back > >> on the top corner of the screen). Overheard at the table, all players > >> knew I was there. > >> > >> "Was it down one or two?" > >> "No idea, how about -75?" > >> "TD won't like it. Toss you for it" > >> > >> "Down two, ok" > >> "Yes" > > > >And the "KNEW" you were there !!!!! Indeed. 8-) > > ok, we all know each other very well, and the teams are great personal > friends anyway. They know that I would have intervened if I had thought > it appropriate, but as far as I can see a bridge result was obtained and > I was not called to the table. As I recall after the result was written > down one of them winked at me, I said "I didn't hear a TD call" and > there was a nod from round the table. > > As Herman says, once they had called on the next hand the matter was > over, why should I interfere in their game when I'm not asked to? > > > >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 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at irvine.com Wed Apr 27 19:08:28 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Apr 27 19:09:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Claim in Sofia In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:24:56 BST." Message-ID: <200504271708.KAA24767@mailhub.irvine.com> John wrote: > English premier league, screens, the whole show: TD leaning on screen (I > usually lean on a wall, but was enjoyably engaged in scratching my back > on the top corner of the screen). Overheard at the table, all players > knew I was there. > > "Was it down one or two?" > "No idea, how about -75?" > "TD won't like it. Toss you for it" > > "Down two, ok" > "Yes" Sounds like a place where those T-shirts I used to see, "Bridge Is Not a Matter of Life and Death---It's Much More Serious Than That", would be totally out of place. -- Adam From storia at yebox.com Wed Apr 27 21:56:01 2005 From: storia at yebox.com (Jamel Hendricks) Date: Wed Apr 27 21:04:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Become one of the low rates Message-ID: <112241.5790.storia@yebox.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.crazy-biz.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Danial Meyer to be remov(ed: http://www.crazy-biz.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 craigstamps at comcast.net Thu Apr 28 00:06:30 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Thu Apr 28 00:07:51 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims References: <426F9B04.7020001@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000601c54b75$5e23aba0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Accepted of course Herman. While we disagree, I know you to be a good man and sincere...I just cannot conceive of anyone EVER underleading the king in this situation. I believe a similar case was in duplicate decisions in ACBL bulletin perhaps 15 years ago and ruled good claim...perhaps the style of play in Europe might make it less irrational. Even a novice would unthinkingly play the spades from the top down here. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 claims > David Kent wrote: > >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org >>>[mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>>Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 9:43 AM >>>To: blml >>>Subject: Re: [blml] 2 claims >>> >>> >>>Did you read the case correctly, Craig? >>> >>>craig wrote: >>> >>>>>>South is playing 4H >>>>>> >>>>>>He had lost 2 tricks >>>>>> >>>>>> KJT4 >>>>>> K >>>>>> - >>>>>> - >>>>>>2 Q >>>>>>- - >>>>>>93 QJ2 >>>>>>75 9 >>>>>> 7 >>>>>> T8 >>>>>> T >>>>>> J >>>>>> >>>>>>The hand is in dummy and South claims all the remaining tricks >>>>>>without any statement(he have forget that the spade queen have nor >>>>>>been played) >>>>>>Your decision? why? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>One down, loosing tricks to SQ and DQ. Having forgotten that the SQ >>>>>has not been played, the SK, J and T are of equal rank to declarer. >>>>>Drawing one trump and then the SJ or ST would give east 2 tricks. I >>>>>consider this a normal line of play. >>>> >>>> >>>>It is in no way normal, not even careless or inferior. It is irrational >>>>to play the spades this way. The ckaim is good. No adjustment. >>>> >>> >>>If declarer thinks the spades are high, do you really consider it >>>irrational for him to play low to the jack or ten? >>> >>>I'm afraid that you're placing yourself on the far left of even Herman >>>there! >>> >>>Please tell us you misread something, Craig! >>>-- >>>Herman DE WAEL >>>Antwerpen Belgium >>>http://www.hdw.be >>> >> >> >> How do you want declarer to get to his hand in order to lead a spade to >> the >> J? >> >> ...Dave Kent >> > > Oops - it appears I have misread rather than craig. > From the beginning I have been reading this case as if play was in south. > > I admit that it is more normal to play the ten when playing towards the > table, than it is to play the ten when thinking all are high, but I still > maintain that it is normal for this claimer to play either the K J or T of > spades to the first trick. > > But Craig's point is less in "left" fiels as I made it out to be. Sorry > Craig. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Apr 28 02:26:08 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu Apr 28 02:27:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm Message-ID: <007001c54b88$e0a6f240$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> A 2D overcall of a strong notrump, showing both majors, was Alerted, but the Alert card was neither tapped nor waved, as is required by the ACBL. Next hand, hard of hearing, didn't hear the Alert and bid 2S. Her partner, a very experienced player, immediately leaned across the table and asked her if she heard the Alert, and if not did she want to change her call. So the TD was called and ruled that she could change her call, so she passed, and her LHO angrily passed 2D with 1=2=5=5 for a bad result (He was headed for a bad result anyway, as the opening bidder had AK10xx hearts).. He called opener an unethical jerk, which got him an immediate Zero Tolerance penalty of 1/4 board. Since the TD can "rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner" (L81C6) the ruling was perhaps okay. Comments please, including one concerning the action of the lady's partner. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam at irvine.com Thu Apr 28 03:03:11 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Apr 28 03:04:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:26:08 PDT." <007001c54b88$e0a6f240$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200504280103.SAA27533@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > A 2D overcall of a strong notrump, showing both majors, was Alerted, but the > Alert card was neither tapped nor waved, as is required by the ACBL. Next > hand, hard of hearing, didn't hear the Alert and bid 2S. Her partner, a very > experienced player, immediately leaned across the table and asked her if she > heard the Alert, and if not did she want to change her call. > > So the TD was called and ruled that she could change her call, so > she passed, and her LHO angrily passed 2D with 1=2=5=5 for a bad > result (He was headed for a bad result anyway, as the opening bidder > had AK10xx hearts).. He called opener an unethical jerk, which got > him an immediate Zero Tolerance penalty of 1/4 board. > > Since the TD can "rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware > in any manner" (L81C6) the ruling was perhaps okay. > > Comments please, including one concerning the action of the lady's partner. I'm not sure that what the opener did was legal. However, it definitely would have been legal to call the TD right away and tell them that she believed the opponents made an alertable call that was not alerted. (Since fourth hand did not Alert in accordance with regulations, IMHO the call was not Alerted even though fourth hand said "Alert". I would not rule this way if there were no hard-of-hearing people at the table; but since there was, I'd be quite willing to rule that an Alert that does not follow the correct procedure is equivalent to the lack of an Alert.) Then the TD would have ruled that MI rules apply, and that second hand could change her call, and (if so) the 2S call would be UI to the opponents. That's how the TD actually ruled, right? Opener's action was probably not correct procedure, but it didn't cause any problem---nothing happened that wouldn't have happened if she had followed correct procedure anyway. I certainly don't see opener as being "unethical", in a loose sense of the word that means that a player ignores or flouts the rules in order to gain an advantage. (Those of you who want to jump in and tell me I'm using the word "unethical" incorrectly, save it. I'm not interested.) As for the 1/4 board penalty, this seems piddling given his "unethical jerk" comment. I'd prefer a full board, although I'm torn as to whether I'd assess a full board penalty, or take the full board and whack opener's RHO upside the head with it. Probably both. -- Adam From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 28 04:19:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 28 04:20:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <470f1828b28296d567d1916ecabce0e4@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon wrote: > > Declarer isn't under any misapprehension, and I know it. > > With such certainty at your disposal, I'm surprised you need to check > anything. Sometimes Gordon, one is certain. > > These people are not strangers. > > I thought we were discussing hypothetical situations, not your personal > history. In this hypothetical situation one knows the players concerned - it does happen. Or, if you wish consider it a hypothetical situation for others based on an example from my own history. Whatever, it is a situation where OS would not understand the the implications unless convinced of the fact of the revoke. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 28 04:19:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 28 04:20:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm In-Reply-To: <200504280103.SAA27533@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: > As for the 1/4 board penalty, this seems piddling given his "unethical > jerk" comment. I'd prefer a full board, although I'm torn as to > whether I'd assess a full board penalty, or take the full board and > whack opener's RHO upside the head with it. Probably both. The merits of sphincteral insertion should be considered. As TDs we are not actually allowed to hit people with boards, but as TDs we *can* issue an instruction which demands compliance. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 28 05:23:23 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Apr 28 05:24:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm In-Reply-To: <007001c54b88$e0a6f240$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <007001c54b88$e0a6f240$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <23720b852d33165072b75d0bc7379047@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 27, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Marvin French wrote: > A 2D overcall of a strong notrump, showing both majors, was Alerted, > but the > Alert card was neither tapped nor waved, as is required by the ACBL. > Next > hand, hard of hearing, didn't hear the Alert and bid 2S. Her partner, > a very > experienced player, immediately leaned across the table and asked her > if she > heard the Alert, and if not did she want to change her call. > > So the TD was called and ruled that she could change her call, so she > passed, > and her LHO angrily passed 2D with 1=2=5=5 for a bad result (He was > headed for > a bad result anyway, as the opening bidder had AK10xx hearts).. He > called > opener an unethical jerk, which got him an immediate Zero Tolerance > penalty of > 1/4 board. > > Since the TD can "rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes > aware > in any manner" (L81C6) the ruling was perhaps okay. > > Comments please, including one concerning the action of the lady's > partner. Opener's first question is, IMO, legitimate. The second, though ("did she want to change her call") amounts to leading the witness. Not a good idea. :-) I would consider the first question in effect drawing attention to an irregularity, which means that of course the TD must be called - as he was. So far so good. I assume opener's partner did in fact tell the TD she hadn't heard the alert, so I believe the ruling is correct. Others have suggested that the penalty for the "unethical jerk" comment was too light. I would tend to agree, except that the ZT policy specifies that penalty (for a first offense, anyway). IMO, "angrily" passing is also a ZT violation, so the TD could easily have socked this player with an additional quarter board penalty. I'm a little surprised he didn't, although OTOH, I'm not, because in my (admittedly limited) experience, TDs don't *like* giving such penalties. Fourth seat also rates, IMO, a warning regarding his own unethical behavior - he seems to have been perfectly willing to accept a 2S bid from his RHO, even knowing that she hadn't heard his partner's alert. Does he not know that it's *his side's* responsibility to ensure that both opponents are aware of the alert? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 28 06:12:38 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 28 06:13:50 2005 Subject: [blml] First catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) Pass 2H (3) Pass Pass ? (1) 12-14 (2) transfer to hearts (3) denies 4-card heart support You, South, hold: KT87 87 AJ87 QJ8 What call do you make if you were a sure-footed rabbit? What other calls do you consider making if you were a sure-footed rabbit? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 28 07:24:09 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 28 07:31:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Second catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1S 2NT Pass 3NT Dble ? You, South, hold: AQ 4 K9643 AJT87 What call do you make if you are a baffled bunny? What other calls do you consider making if you are a baffled bunny? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 28 08:09:32 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 28 08:10:48 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <33160e322ab09eb0bf2441bff277222a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >>"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." Ed Reppert: >Please explain to me how concealing a PU (as by >failure fully disclose your agreement to your >opponents) is equivalent to "exchanging information >through prearranged methods" with partner. Please >pay particular note to the word "prearranged". :-) Richard Hills: Good point. The *first* time a partner of mine deliberately conceals a partnership understanding, pard's action is not a prearranged method. And no such hypothetical partner gets a *second* chance with me, since such a hypothetical partner would instantly become an ex-partner. However, any so-called "ethical" player willing to *continue* playing with an unethical partner has an implicit prearrangement to be a voluntary accessory to their partner's unethics. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 27 17:53:21 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Apr 28 09:06:46 2005 Subject: [blml] WBFLC Hammamet Minutes, Item 6 [Law 71C] Message-ID: This is the item that someone described as an "interpretation" of the law. Not sure I wouldn't call it a change, myself. :-) > 6. The Chairman turned the committee's attention to Law 71C. He > pointed to the confusion created by the wording as it had been > published. Mr. Kooijman added that if the intention expressed by Mr. > Kaplan were given effect there would be a notable difference of > treatment as between Law 71 and Law 69. Mr. Endicott read out the > proposal circulated by Mr. Kaplan and the aim he had indicated. > > The committee adopted the opinion put forward by Mr Bavin that the > sentence in 71C beginning "Until the conceding side..." does in fact > make a provision that is incorporated within the wider provision > existing in the immediately preceding words of the law. The Director > is to cancel an implausible concession as defined in Law 71C at any > time within the correction period established under Law 79C. (As > proposed by Mr Kaplan this "changes the time period ??. from the start > of the next board to the usual protest period.") I presume the intention to which Mr. Kooljman referred is expressed in the proposal Mr. Endicott read out. I wonder what it said. :( I do not understand the first sentence of the second paragraph. What, exactly, is this "incorporated provision"? How does it affect the law? Law 71C as written says: > A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction > period established in accordance with Law?79C, the Director shall > cancel a concession... if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be > lost by any normal -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: foot1.gif Type: image/gif Size: 61 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050427/c08f6ef3/foot1.gif -------------- next part -------------- > play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call > on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall > cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any > normal -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: foot1.gif Type: image/gif Size: 61 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050427/c08f6ef3/foot1-0001.gif -------------- next part -------------- > play of the remaining cards. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: realfoot1.gif Type: image/gif Size: 60 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050427/c08f6ef3/realfoot1.gif -------------- next part -------------- > For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play > that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, > but not irrational. It seems to me that the law is inconsistent, and that the effect or intent of the minute is to *delete* the second sentence ("Until the conceding side..."), because I'm damned if I can see how you can "incorporate [it] within the wider provision". Can anyone tell me exactly what it is that Mr. Bavin proposed and that the committee adopted? From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Apr 28 09:10:05 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu Apr 28 09:11:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39ba6c176ff7472eeab8e826d71b5e00@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 28 Apr 2005, at 03:19, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Whatever, it is a situation > where OS would not understand the the implications unless convinced of > the > fact of the revoke. I didn't question that bit of it. The player has been given full opportunity to be aware of the revoke, having been asked by his opponents and the director. I don't think anyone has a responsibility to do more - by looking in his hand as you suggest. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Apr 28 09:11:45 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu Apr 28 09:12:52 2005 Subject: [blml] First catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07bb01c0869e5d210f86913195ca446f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 28 Apr 2005, at 05:12, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: South > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) Pass > 2H (3) Pass Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > (2) transfer to hearts > (3) denies 4-card heart support > > You, South, hold: > > KT87 > 87 > AJ87 > QJ8 > > What call do you make if you were a sure-footed rabbit? > What other calls do you consider making if you were a > sure-footed rabbit? I've no idea what you mean by "a sure-footed rabbit", but double seems the only call to make here. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Apr 28 09:14:37 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu Apr 28 09:15:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Second catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28 Apr 2005, at 06:24, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1S 2NT > Pass 3NT Dble ? > > You, South, hold: > > AQ > 4 > K9643 > AJT87 > > What call do you make if you are a baffled bunny? > What other calls do you consider making if you > are a baffled bunny? More terminology I don't understand, but I'd pass here. However, since I'd expect 3NT to be made, because my hand is much more suited to 3NT than my partner has any right to expect, I might consider redoubling before deciding that it's best to keep quiet in our happy situation. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Thu Apr 28 09:20:48 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Thu Apr 28 09:21:54 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims In-Reply-To: <000601c54b75$5e23aba0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Craig wrote: >Accepted of course Herman. While we disagree, I know you to be a good man >and sincere...I just cannot conceive of anyone EVER underleading the king >in this situation. I believe a similar case was in duplicate decisions in >ACBL bulletin perhaps 15 years ago and ruled good claim...perhaps the style >of play in Europe might make it less irrational. Even a novice would >unthinkingly play the spades from the top down here. How a novice unthinkingly would play the suit of course have no bearing at all regarding the rationality of playing the cards in a different order. Surely when cashing a suit headed by KQJ playing the honors in any order is absolutely ratinoal. And cashing a suit headed by KJT, knowing/beleiving that the queen have been played earlier, playing these honors in any order is just as rational. You seem to equal the words "normal" and "rational", which in fact have quite different meaning. We all agree that most people would play the suit from the top, but that's not the point. But, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, declarer has got all the tricks without needing the spade suit (1 spade, 1 club, 3 ruffs). So my initial ruling of 1 down might be wrong. I should rule just made, losing 1 spad trick and not more. Regards, Harald >Craig >----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" >To: "blml" >Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:00 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] 2 claims > > >>David Kent wrote: >> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org >>>>[mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>>>Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 9:43 AM >>>>To: blml >>>>Subject: Re: [blml] 2 claims >>>> >>>> >>>>Did you read the case correctly, Craig? >>>> >>>>craig wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>South is playing 4H >>>>>>> >>>>>>>He had lost 2 tricks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> KJT4 >>>>>>> K >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> - >>>>>>>2 Q >>>>>>>- - >>>>>>>93 QJ2 >>>>>>>75 9 >>>>>>> 7 >>>>>>> T8 >>>>>>> T >>>>>>> J >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The hand is in dummy and South claims all the remaining tricks >>>>>>>without any statement(he have forget that the spade queen have nor >>>>>>>been played) >>>>>>>Your decision? why? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>One down, loosing tricks to SQ and DQ. Having forgotten that the SQ >>>>>>has not been played, the SK, J and T are of equal rank to declarer. >>>>>>Drawing one trump and then the SJ or ST would give east 2 tricks. I >>>>>>consider this a normal line of play. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It is in no way normal, not even careless or inferior. It is irrational >>>>>to play the spades this way. The ckaim is good. No adjustment. >>>>> >>>> >>>>If declarer thinks the spades are high, do you really consider it >>>>irrational for him to play low to the jack or ten? >>>> >>>>I'm afraid that you're placing yourself on the far left of even Herman >>>>there! >>>> >>>>Please tell us you misread something, Craig! >>>>-- >>>>Herman DE WAEL >>>>Antwerpen Belgium >>>>http://www.hdw.be >>>> >>> >>> >>>How do you want declarer to get to his hand in order to lead a spade to >>>the >>>J? >>> >>>...Dave Kent >>> >> >>Oops - it appears I have misread rather than craig. >>From the beginning I have been reading this case as if play was in south. >> >>I admit that it is more normal to play the ten when playing towards the >>table, than it is to play the ten when thinking all are high, but I still >>maintain that it is normal for this claimer to play either the K J or T of >>spades to the first trick. >> >>But Craig's point is less in "left" fiels as I made it out to be. Sorry >>Craig. >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.hdw.be >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Thu Apr 28 09:34:17 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Thu Apr 28 09:35:24 2005 Subject: [blml] First catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: South >Vul: East-West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- Pass >1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) Pass >2H (3) Pass Pass ? > >(1) 12-14 >(2) transfer to hearts >(3) denies 4-card heart support > >You, South, hold: > >KT87 >87 >AJ87 >QJ8 > >What call do you make if you were a sure-footed rabbit? As the opponent's expected number of hearts is somtehing like 7.6, there's quite a risk that balancing would put us in a 7-card fit, possibly at the 3-level. So I would pass, hoping to beat them in 2H or avoid going down more than they score in 2H if it is making. >What other calls do you consider making if you were a >sure-footed rabbit? Of cource I consider balancing with a double or 2S. Regards, Harald > > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > > >_______________________________________________ >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 svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 28 09:51:42 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 28 09:52:48 2005 Subject: [blml] WBFLC Hammamet Minutes, Item 6 [Law 71C] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c54bc7$1e7b0140$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > This is the item that someone described as an "interpretation" of the > law. Not sure I wouldn't call it a change, myself. :-) Technically it was a real change in Law 71. Whether it was a clarification of an originally miswritten law or an intended change is still left for us to wonder. The original law 71 stated that a concession must be cancelled if either: Within the correction period it was clarified that a conceded trick had already been won or could not be lost by any legal play. (L71A) Or: Within the shorter period until the conceding side made a call on a subsequent board or until the round ended (whichever occurred first) it was judged that a conceded trick could not be lost by any normal play. (L71C) So L71A had a stronger condition (no legal play) and a later time limit than L79C (no normal play). The change was technically to extend the time limit for L79C to be the same as for L71A (actually making L71A redundant as all "normal" plays must also be legal). Regards Sven From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 28 11:09:48 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 28 11:10:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Problem Message-ID: For the last two weeks or so my email has gone out normally, except to BLML. That email just stays in my Outbox and does not move. Anyone got any suggestions? It is a right pain copying the messages to Hotmail and sending them from there. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 28 11:11:22 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 28 11:12:29 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <006801c54b51$a87c9be0$8a063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" To: "David Stevenson" Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > >> Yes. When declarer makes a designation of a card he may then change >> it if it was inadvertent, ie he may not change his mind. >> >> If declarer has not made a designation - even if he was part way >> through something - then he may certainly change his mind. >> >> > Bridge is not chess: chess is not bridge. > But playing chess it is not allowed to fumble around the board touching > pieces. > Be real: how many times is it permitted to change one's mind? Until you have made a call or play: as many times as you like. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 28 11:14:37 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 28 11:15:43 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 02:13 PM 4/26/05, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >>>If disclosure requirements are dependent on who "the actual current >>>opponents" are, what am I to do? When did I start leaving myself >>>open to the possibility of an adverse score adjustment for doing >>>nothing more than misestimating the experience level of my opponents? >>> >>>An alert procedure must specify only whether a particular meaning of >>>a particular auction is or is not alertable. For the answer to >>>depend on who one's opponents are, when one is under no obligation >>>whatsoever to have the foggiest notion of who one's opponents are, is >>>patently absurd. >> >> Are you suggesting you do not know people who play in your local club? > >Of course not. The excised portion of my original message even >specified "play in tournaments". But the law surely does not *require* >me to know the people who play in "my" local club! > >> While it would not be frequent to alert differently against >>different opponents it hardly seems absurd to help along players who >>are known to you as inexperienced. > >It isn't the least bit absurd; indeed, it is my normal practice to bend >over backwards to disclose more than necessary. (When I play EHAA, for >example, opponents unfamiliar with the system always get a 20-second or >so pre-alert of the potential surprises in our methods, which is >totally voluntary, not required by the ACBL disclosure rules.) I go >out of my way to help opponents who I know to be inexperienced. But >this cannot have anything to do with what my legal obligations are, >unless they differ, not only between experienced and inexperienced >opponents, but between inexperienced opponents who I know to be >inexperienced and inexperienced opponents whom I do not know. I don't suppose there are that many inexperienced players at your club whom you neither know to be inexperienced nor can tell immediately after meeting them. And surely it is in your club that you will run into the majority of the inexperienced players that you play. I really do not see the problem here. You have a reg that allows for some latitude [not very much] dependent on the type of opponent. To label it absurd because occasionally you will get the opponent's standard wrong, when the alternative is to be unhelpful to a far greater number of players, seems wrong. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 28 11:15:26 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 28 11:16:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening Message-ID: Bruce McIntyre wrote >Sinot Martin wrote: >> >>> >>>What not is written in the Laws, is not permitted. >>>End of Law66 until 1987: "Any player may request that a card >>>incorrectly >>>pointed be turned in the proper direction". From 1987 onwards this >>>sentence >>>has been dropped; it seems therefore that it is not permitted any >>>more. >> Correct; but dummy may try to warn declarer if he is about to >> place a card in the wrong direction. That is his right to try >> to prevent infractions from declarer. >> > >It would be nice to have this silliness clearly resolved in the next >Laws. My personal preference would be for a little more time for dummy >to correct. It's absurd for the time limit on a correction to run out >the instant declarer releases the played card. > >Now please, let's not have the usual deluge of Dummy's Wrongs advocates >chiming in that such a change will allow dummy to actively participate >in the play. We all know that infraction when we see it, and saying >"partner, you have the last trick turned wrong" three, or thirty >milliseconds after declarer releases the card from his hand doesn't >qualify. The obvious Law is that anyone may correct a card turned the wrong way until the next trick is started. It is a misapprehension to think that this unnecessary rule is just for dummy. Previously anyone could point a card out. The WBFLC apparently decided there was an abuse with people waiting until it mattered before pointing it out to partner, and then over-reacted. The rule I propose would not affect this sort of abuse, which would still be illegal. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 28 11:16:33 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 28 11:17:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question Message-ID: Ben Schelen wrote >> >> It may not be ideal not to look at the hand, but it is ***terrible*** >> to look at a hand and then make a judgement ruling - without >> consultation. >O.K. but what will be the result if the player is not an expert player? >After the repeated explanation of the difference between Law 25A and B, the >player tells the director that he has understand him. The player then makes >his decision. >At the end of the hand the director discovered that the player has taken >the >wrong decision: the player was not allowed to act according to Law25A. So you adjust under L12A - or even L82C, since it is a poor TD that cannot tell the difference without seeing the hand. But how do you tell from the hand anyway? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 28 11:17:59 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 28 11:19:05 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims Message-ID: craig wrote >Accepted of course Herman. While we disagree, I know you to be a good >man and sincere...I just cannot conceive of anyone EVER underleading >the king in this situation. I believe a similar case was in duplicate >decisions in ACBL bulletin perhaps 15 years ago and ruled good >claim...perhaps the style of play in Europe might make it less >irrational. Even a novice would unthinkingly play the spades from the >top down here. This has been discussed here many times with no effective result. In my view sponsoring organisations should give their opinion, and their TDs and ACs should follow it and not worry about it. But remember this, Craig, most players play top down automatically: not all players play top down automatically. That's a fact, attested to by seeing my opponents play cards over the last forty years. So I do think there is little point reiterating the arguments. What generally happens is that people on each side use words like always and never, which are not true. Of course you could even talk about "even a novice" but that is merely a red herring. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 28 11:19:06 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 28 11:20:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >A 2D overcall of a strong notrump, showing both majors, was Alerted, but >the >Alert card was neither tapped nor waved, as is required by the ACBL. Next >hand, hard of hearing, didn't hear the Alert and bid 2S. Her partner, a >very >experienced player, immediately leaned across the table and asked her if >she >heard the Alert, and if not did she want to change her call. > >So the TD was called and ruled that she could change her call, so she >passed, >and her LHO angrily passed 2D with 1=2=5=5 for a bad result (He was headed >for >a bad result anyway, as the opening bidder had AK10xx hearts).. He called >opener an unethical jerk, which got him an immediate Zero Tolerance penalty >of >1/4 board. > >Since the TD can "rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes >aware >in any manner" (L81C6) the ruling was perhaps okay. > >Comments please, including one concerning the action of the lady's partner. It is a pity that some players think it more important to win every board than to be ethical. Of course players are not allowed to ask each other whether they would like to change their calls. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 28 11:20:31 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 28 11:21:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote > >Marv wrote: > >> A 2D overcall of a strong notrump, showing both majors, was Alerted, but >> the >> Alert card was neither tapped nor waved, as is required by the ACBL. Next >> hand, hard of hearing, didn't hear the Alert and bid 2S. Her partner, a >> very >> experienced player, immediately leaned across the table and asked her if >> she >> heard the Alert, and if not did she want to change her call. >> >> So the TD was called and ruled that she could change her call, so >> she passed, and her LHO angrily passed 2D with 1=2=5=5 for a bad >> result (He was headed for a bad result anyway, as the opening bidder >> had AK10xx hearts).. He called opener an unethical jerk, which got >> him an immediate Zero Tolerance penalty of 1/4 board. >> >> Since the TD can "rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes >> aware >> in any manner" (L81C6) the ruling was perhaps okay. >> >> Comments please, including one concerning the action of the lady's >> partner. > >I'm not sure that what the opener did was legal. However, it >definitely would have been legal to call the TD right away and tell >them that she believed the opponents made an alertable call that was >not alerted. (Since fourth hand did not Alert in accordance with >regulations, IMHO the call was not Alerted even though fourth hand >said "Alert". I would not rule this way if there were no >hard-of-hearing people at the table; but since there was, I'd be quite >willing to rule that an Alert that does not follow the correct >procedure is equivalent to the lack of an Alert.) Then the TD would >have ruled that MI rules apply, and that second hand could change her >call, and (if so) the 2S call would be UI to the opponents. That's >how the TD actually ruled, right? > >Opener's action was probably not correct procedure, but it didn't >cause any problem---nothing happened that wouldn't have happened if >she had followed correct procedure anyway. How can you possibly know that? The lady's partner asked her whether she wanted to change her call. She might certainly not have done so if he had not suggested it. To say that things would have been the same if there had been no illegal communication between partners is an unwarranted assertion. > I certainly don't see >opener as being "unethical", in a loose sense of the word that means >that a player ignores or flouts the rules in order to gain an >advantage. (Those of you who want to jump in and tell me I'm using >the word "unethical" incorrectly, save it. I'm not interested.) I agree with you: that is a fair description of unethical, and that is what her partner clearly is. If he had said "You did hear the alert, didn't you?" that's not unethical, but asking her whether she wanted to change her call goes over the barrier. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Apr 28 11:47:35 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Apr 28 11:47:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final Message-ID: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> board 23 (all/S) \ Q64 \ AKJ854 \ Q76 \A A98 \ 2 QT72 \ 96 T8 \ A9542 T862 \ KQJ97 KJT753 3 \ KJ3 \ 543 \ W N E S 2S(1) p 4D(2) p 4S p 4N p 5?(3) p 5S ap (1) weak (2) explained on both sides of the screen as "spade fit and control D" (mixed controls are common in Belgium) (3) 1 KC (I don't remember the actual bid 5C or 5D) West called me when dummy came down to complain about the explanation that there should be a diamond control in dummy. I had them confirm that the explanations had been the same on both sides of the screen. 4D showed a control in diamonds. After the hand, North explained that he had wanted to deter opponents from leading diamonds. All he had been interested in was knowing if partner had AK of spades, in which case he had wanted to be in 6S. West explained immediately when asked that he would lead the D10, that partner would not take the first diamond but the second (after the SA) and give a ruff for one down. Your ruling? My ruling? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Thu Apr 28 11:54:09 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Apr 28 11:55:21 2005 Subject: [blml] First catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050428095409.62529.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: South > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) Pass > 2H (3) Pass Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > (2) transfer to hearts > (3) denies 4-card heart support > > You, South, hold: > > KT87 > 87 > AJ87 > QJ8 > > What call do you make if you were a sure-footed > rabbit? I double. > What other calls do you consider making if you were > a > sure-footed rabbit? Nothing else comes to mind. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 28 12:05:50 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 28 12:07:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c54bd9$db8db1d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> I don't know if it has any bearing on your problem, but your posts make Mailwasher alert me that they are flagged as SPAM according to SpamCop. (On second thoughts I do consider the possibility that your "hotmail.com" could be what triggers SpamCop). Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: 28. april 2005 11:10 > To: BLML > Subject: [blml] Problem > > For the last two weeks or so my email has gone out normally, except to > BLML. That email just stays in my Outbox and does not move. > > Anyone got any suggestions? It is a right pain copying the messages to > Hotmail and sending them from there. > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > Currently having problems from home email for BLML only > Web: blakjak.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Apr 28 12:13:56 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu Apr 28 12:15:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C660@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] Sent: 28 April 2005 10:48 To: blml Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final [snip] (1) weak (2) explained on both sides of the screen as "spade fit and control D" (mixed controls are common in Belgium) (3) 1 KC (I don't remember the actual bid 5C or 5D) West called me when dummy came down to complain about the explanation that there should be a diamond control in dummy. I had them confirm that the explanations had been the same on both sides of the screen. 4D showed a control in diamonds. After the hand, North explained that he had wanted to deter opponents from leading diamonds. All he had been interested in was knowing if partner had AK of spades, in which case he had wanted to be in 6S. [snip] ------ Herman What are mixed controls? (= Roman = first and second freely?) I would like a little more disclosure, to some 4D will sound like a splinter, to others a fit bid on a fragment, so fit + 1st/2nd control singleton or void fit + 1st/2nd control usually shortage fit + 1st/2nd control could be shortage or high-card fit + 1st/2nd control usually high-card fit + 1st/2nd high-card control (A or K) This does not affect my ruling. > Your ruling? Score stands - North is allowed to make "tactical"/psychic bids, and must explain them according to partnership agreement. > My ruling? I think I know better than to try to guess! ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire RG27 9UY United Kingdom ------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 28 12:14:25 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 28 12:15:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001301c54bdb$0e2a6e70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > board 23 (all/S) > \ Q64 > \ AKJ854 > \ Q76 > \A > A98 \ 2 > QT72 \ 96 > T8 \ A9542 > T862 \ KQJ97 > KJT753 > 3 \ > KJ3 \ > 543 \ > > W N E S > 2S(1) > p 4D(2) p 4S > p 4N p 5?(3) > p 5S ap > > (1) weak > (2) explained on both sides of the screen as "spade fit and control D" > (mixed controls are common in Belgium) > (3) 1 KC (I don't remember the actual bid 5C or 5D) > > West called me when dummy came down to complain about the explanation > that there should be a diamond control in dummy. I had them confirm > that the explanations had been the same on both sides of the screen. > 4D showed a control in diamonds. > > After the hand, North explained that he had wanted to deter opponents > from leading diamonds. All he had been interested in was knowing if > partner had AK of spades, in which case he had wanted to be in 6S. > > West explained immediately when asked that he would lead the D10, that > partner would not take the first diamond but the second (after the SA) > and give a ruff for one down. > > Your ruling? >From the description I see absolutely no irregularity. Result stands. What is the problem? > My ruling? Yeah, I do indeed wonder? Regards Sven From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Thu Apr 28 12:57:37 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Thu Apr 28 12:58:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64E2@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:48 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final > > > board 23 (all/S) > \ Q64 > \ AKJ854 > \ Q76 > \A > A98 \ 2 > QT72 \ 96 > T8 \ A9542 > T862 \ KQJ97 > KJT753 > 3 \ > KJ3 \ > 543 \ > > W N E S > 2S(1) > p 4D(2) p 4S > p 4N p 5?(3) > p 5S ap > > (1) weak > (2) explained on both sides of the screen as "spade fit and control D" > (mixed controls are common in Belgium) > (3) 1 KC (I don't remember the actual bid 5C or 5D) Guess it was 5C, if they play the same as everyone in the Netherlands now does. Not really important. > West called me when dummy came down to complain about the explanation > that there should be a diamond control in dummy. I had them confirm > that the explanations had been the same on both sides of the screen. > 4D showed a control in diamonds. > > After the hand, North explained that he had wanted to deter opponents > from leading diamonds. All he had been interested in was knowing if > partner had AK of spades, in which case he had wanted to be in 6S. > > West explained immediately when asked that he would lead the > D10, that > partner would not take the first diamond but the second > (after the SA) > and give a ruff for one down. > > Your ruling? I saw this kind of pseudo-cue a number of times, usually resulting in a slam with two tricks offside, which weren't collected. This is the first time I see it reach a TD. Tactical deviations from ths systems are not forbidden, as long as partner doesn't know. Of that I see no evidence, so score stands. > My ruling? umm, coffee for everyone by West? > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Thu Apr 28 13:16:33 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Thu Apr 28 13:17:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevensonwrote: night club evening >Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:15:26 +0100 > >Bruce McIntyre wrote >>Sinot Martin wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>What not is written in the Laws, is not permitted. >>>>End of Law66 until 1987: "Any player may request that a card incorrectly >>>>pointed be turned in the proper direction". From 1987 onwards this >>>>sentence >>>>has been dropped; it seems therefore that it is not permitted any more. >>> Correct; but dummy may try to warn declarer if he is about to >>>place a card in the wrong direction. That is his right to try >>>to prevent infractions from declarer. >>> >> >>It would be nice to have this silliness clearly resolved in the next Laws. >> My personal preference would be for a little more time for dummy to >>correct. It's absurd for the time limit on a correction to run out the >>instant declarer releases the played card. >> >>Now please, let's not have the usual deluge of Dummy's Wrongs advocates >>chiming in that such a change will allow dummy to actively participate in >>the play. We all know that infraction when we see it, and saying >>"partner, you have the last trick turned wrong" three, or thirty >>milliseconds after declarer releases the card from his hand doesn't >>qualify. > > The obvious Law is that anyone may correct a card turned the wrong way >until the next trick is started. It is a misapprehension to think that >this unnecessary rule is just for dummy. [snip] Good suggestion, David. I believe that is what is intended in the current law. But it's better to have it spelled out. Regards, Harald >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > >Currently having problems from home email for BLML only >Web: blakjak.com > >_______________________________________________ >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 axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 28 13:35:11 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Apr 28 13:36:14 2005 Subject: [blml] First catch your rabbit References: <07bb01c0869e5d210f86913195ca446f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] First catch your rabbit > > On 28 Apr 2005, at 05:12, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Matchpoint pairs > > Dlr: South > > Vul: East-West > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- --- --- Pass > > 1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) Pass > > 2H (3) Pass Pass ? > > > > (1) 12-14 > > (2) transfer to hearts > > (3) denies 4-card heart support > > > > You, South, hold: > > > > KT87 > > 87 > > AJ87 > > QJ8 > > > > What call do you make if you were a sure-footed rabbit? > > What other calls do you consider making if you were a > > sure-footed rabbit? North had two opportunities to bid his suit at the two level and hasn't. if S balances now 70% of the time N will be bidding at the 3 level- a hand that was not inclined to be at the two level. I love to push the opponents around, but when I have the right stuff and this is not the right stuff. Which reminds me of a sad story. LHO, N, opens 1N-P-..'oh,' S says, 'that's a weeeeak notrump, You can change your call.' 'ok' 1N-2C-DUUUUUUBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!-2H-DUUUUUUUUBB BBBBBBBUUUUUUUUULLLLLLYOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUU!!!!-PPP One of the aspects of the weak NT is the preemptive effect with the ability to penalize opponents that get out of line [even with pretty good hands] more often. Now, in my experience, when opponents balance in this situation with this hand, most of the time it was successful. I point out that about 90% of those times the player had extraneous information [unauthorized] which coincidentally tended to be matched disproportionately with most of the successes. regards roger pewick > I've no idea what you mean by "a sure-footed rabbit", but double seems > the only call to make here. > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 28 14:04:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 28 14:05:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> Message-ID: If one really wanted to one might investigate whether a history of psychic cues existed sufficient to rule the explanation MI. It would seem an academic exercise in terms of adjustment as I can't see a high standard declarer doing anything other than throw a diamond on the second heart and cross ruff the rounded suits with small trumps. Push me hard in consultation and I'll award 15% of 5S-1/85% of 5S= on the, to me improbable, chance that declarer will ruff the 3rd club high in dummy. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 28 14:04:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 28 14:05:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > It is a pity that some players think it more important to win every > board than to be ethical. Of course players are not allowed to ask each > other whether they would like to change their calls. Of course what the player *should* have done is simply call the TD after the infracting alert. Of course it is the TD's job to ask the partner whether she heard the alert and wishes to change her call. It is (almost certainly) perfectly reasonable to judge that this would have had the same effect on the auction. It is, however, *not* reasonable to imply that a player asking his partner instead of just calling the TD is acting unethically. I seriously doubt the player knew he was doing wrong - after all he could just sit back, say nothing and take the best result possible the TD/AC would award for an improper alert against a deaf player. I am taking as read that the TD investigated properly and did indeed find that the alert was improperly made. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 28 14:13:16 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Apr 28 14:14:24 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050428075817.02bcde30@pop.starpower.net> At 05:14 AM 4/28/05, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >>At 02:13 PM 4/26/05, David wrote: >> >>>Eric Landau wrote >>>>If disclosure requirements are dependent on who "the actual current >>>>opponents" are, what am I to do? When did I start leaving myself >>>>open to the possibility of an adverse score adjustment for doing >>>>nothing more than misestimating the experience level of my opponents? >>>> >>>>An alert procedure must specify only whether a particular meaning >>>>of a particular auction is or is not alertable. For the answer to >>>>depend on who one's opponents are, when one is under no obligation >>>>whatsoever to have the foggiest notion of who one's opponents are, >>>>is patently absurd. >>> >>> Are you suggesting you do not know people who play in your local club? >> >>Of course not. The excised portion of my original message even >>specified "play in tournaments". But the law surely does not >>*require* me to know the people who play in "my" local club! >> >>> While it would not be frequent to alert differently against >>> different opponents it hardly seems absurd to help along players >>> who are known to you as inexperienced. >> >>It isn't the least bit absurd; indeed, it is my normal practice to >>bend over backwards to disclose more than necessary. (When I play >>EHAA, for example, opponents unfamiliar with the system always get a >>20-second or so pre-alert of the potential surprises in our methods, >>which is totally voluntary, not required by the ACBL disclosure >>rules.) I go out of my way to help opponents who I know to be >>inexperienced. But this cannot have anything to do with what my >>legal obligations are, unless they differ, not only between >>experienced and inexperienced opponents, but between inexperienced >>opponents who I know to be inexperienced and inexperienced opponents >>whom I do not know. > > I don't suppose there are that many inexperienced players at your > club whom you neither know to be inexperienced nor can tell > immediately after meeting them. And surely it is in your club that > you will run into the majority of the inexperienced players that you play. > > I really do not see the problem here. You have a reg that allows > for some latitude [not very much] dependent on the type of > opponent. To label it absurd because occasionally you will get the > opponent's standard wrong, when the alternative is to be unhelpful to > a far greater number of players, seems wrong. As I said above, it isn't the least bit absurd. One does it routinely. What is absurd, however, is to mandate the practice, as doing so creates an implicit requirement to know the experience level of your opponents, which has absolutely no basis in law. Only bridge lawyers and Secretary Birds need the letter of the law to tell them to be especially careful to make sure inexperienced opponents know what's going on. Since when does one need "a reg that allows for some latitude" in order to be helpful? I hope David isn't suggesting that, absent specific regulation, it is not legal to go out of one's way to make sure the opponents understand one's bidding. It does seem rather perverse to assume that "the" alternative is "to be unhelpful to a far greater number of players". The alternative alternative is to be more helpful than necessary to a far greater number of players. In my experience, experienced strangers who don't want me reciting the sort of complete and detailed explanation one might give to a novice will not hesitate to cut me off. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 28 14:22:30 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Apr 28 14:22:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050428081758.02a3f070@pop.starpower.net> At 05:15 AM 4/28/05, David wrote: > The obvious Law is that anyone may correct a card turned the wrong > way until the next trick is started. Perhaps it should be until his side has played to the next trick, to avoid creating yet another "race to establish" situation. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From georgiev_d at yahoo.com Thu Apr 28 14:32:03 2005 From: georgiev_d at yahoo.com (Dimitr Georgiev) Date: Thu Apr 28 14:33:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050428123203.8188.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com> --- Tim West-Meads wrote: > If one really wanted to one might investigate > whether a history of psychic > cues existed sufficient to rule the explanation MI. > It would seem an > academic exercise in terms of adjustment as I can't > see a high standard > declarer doing anything other than throw a diamond > on the second heart and > cross ruff the rounded suits with small trumps. No need to cross ruff. Just ruff heart twice. Contract is makeable. Dimitr > Push me hard in > consultation and I'll award 15% of 5S-1/85% of 5S= > on the, to me > improbable, chance that declarer will ruff the 3rd > club high in dummy. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Thu Apr 28 14:15:50 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu Apr 28 14:40:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question References: <00a601c54b2c$a5d57080$43493dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <006901c54bef$34bb8a60$d8063dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: "Ben Schelen" Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Yet another L21 Question > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ben Schelen" > To: "David Stevenson" ; "BLML" > Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 2:11 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Yet another L21 Question > > > > > > >> It may not be ideal not to look at the hand, but it is ***terrible*** > >> to look at a hand and then make a judgement ruling - without > >> consultation. > >> > >> > > O.K. but what will be the result if the player is not an expert player? > > After the repeated explanation of the difference between Law 25A and B, > > the > > player tells the director that he has understand him. The player then > > makes > > his decision. > > At the end of the hand the director discovered that the player has taken > > the > > wrong decision: the player was not allowed to act according to Law25A. > > So what? As a justification for bad TD practice and a TD giving > information to the table this relates somewhere below zero on a scale of one > to ten. > > Anyway, why is the TD 'explaining the difference? It is not the bunny who > decides it is the TD. He finds out what happens without looking at the hand > and rules. > > Yes, I agree that the TD must not give information, but the player says that the call was inadvertent: so he decides what is the case and the TD believes him. The player has a dissentient interpretation of inadvertent: it was not his intention to make a misbid. At the end of the hand it appeared that the substituted call was a result of the player's change of mind. Ben From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 28 14:49:16 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Apr 28 14:49:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050428082944.02a3dd90@pop.starpower.net> At 05:47 AM 4/28/05, Herman wrote: >board 23 (all/S) >\ Q64 > \ AKJ854 > \ Q76 > \A >A98 \ 2 >QT72 \ 96 >T8 \ A9542 >T862 \ KQJ97 > KJT753 > 3 \ > KJ3 \ > 543 \ > >W N E S > 2S(1) >p 4D(2) p 4S >p 4N p 5?(3) >p 5S ap > >(1) weak >(2) explained on both sides of the screen as "spade fit and control D" >(mixed controls are common in Belgium) >(3) 1 KC (I don't remember the actual bid 5C or 5D) > >West called me when dummy came down to complain about the explanation >that there should be a diamond control in dummy. I had them confirm >that the explanations had been the same on both sides of the screen. >4D showed a control in diamonds. > >After the hand, North explained that he had wanted to deter opponents >from leading diamonds. All he had been interested in was knowing if >partner had AK of spades, in which case he had wanted to be in 6S. > >West explained immediately when asked that he would lead the D10, that >partner would not take the first diamond but the second (after the SA) >and give a ruff for one down. > >Your ruling? As with any psych, my ruling depends on the partnership's past history of perpetrating such phony control bids. Since I normally won't know, I ask. If the conditions for an implicit agreement are not revealed to exist, I rule no infraction. But then I ask around, particularly of the other TDs present, and if I find evidence I've been lied to N-S will face a C&E committee. >My ruling? Hang 'em high? Adjust for MI? Read the beloved bit from the footnote to L75 that says "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation... in the absence of evidence to the contrary"? Even though it has nothing to do with outright psychs? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 28 15:12:11 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 28 15:13:19 2005 Subject: [blml] First catch your rabbit Message-ID: wrote >What call do you make if you were a sure-footed rabbit? Two carrots? >What other calls do you consider making if you were a >sure-footed rabbit? Three carrots? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 28 15:13:20 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 28 15:14:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Problem Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >I don't know if it has any bearing on your problem, but your posts make >Mailwasher alert me that they are flagged as SPAM according to SpamCop. > >(On second thoughts I do consider the possibility that your "hotmail.com" >could be what triggers SpamCop). Since ordinary emails are going out I shall write to you direct and you can let me know if Mailwasher has nay difficulty with that. >> From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org >> [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] Hello! What is "blml-bounces"? >> On Behalf Of David Stevenson >> Sent: 28. april 2005 11:10 >> To: BLML >> Subject: [blml] Problem >> >> For the last two weeks or so my email has gone out normally, except to >> BLML. That email just stays in my Outbox and does not move. >> >> Anyone got any suggestions? It is a right pain copying the messages to >> Hotmail and sending them from there. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 28 15:14:22 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Apr 28 15:15:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >board 23 (all/S) >\ Q64 > \ AKJ854 > \ Q76 > \A >A98 \ 2 >QT72 \ 96 >T8 \ A9542 >T862 \ KQJ97 > KJT753 > 3 \ > KJ3 \ > 543 \ > >W N E S > 2S(1) >p 4D(2) p 4S >p 4N p 5?(3) >p 5S ap > >(1) weak >(2) explained on both sides of the screen as "spade fit and control D" >(mixed controls are common in Belgium) >(3) 1 KC (I don't remember the actual bid 5C or 5D) > >West called me when dummy came down to complain about the explanation >that there should be a diamond control in dummy. I had them confirm >that the explanations had been the same on both sides of the screen. 4D >showed a control in diamonds. > >After the hand, North explained that he had wanted to deter opponents >from leading diamonds. All he had been interested in was knowing if >partner had AK of spades, in which case he had wanted to be in 6S. > >West explained immediately when asked that he would lead the D10, that >partner would not take the first diamond but the second (after the SA) >and give a ruff for one down. > >Your ruling? No MI, no problem. >My ruling? Please don't tempt me ... :) -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 28 15:35:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 28 15:37:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: <8fJQbJRyMIXCFwMK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: DWS wrote: > I will apply my own judgements as to what communication is > illegal/inappropriate. Hint: you will find a clue or two in Law73b-f. > > Nice one. Now, put the brain back in, go back to the question > asked, and try a rational reply to it. If you insist. I know what sort of communication the writers of L73a were addressing because one of the current lawbooks contains both of the following paragraphs: Proprieties 1. "It is proper to warn partner against infringing a law of the game: for example against revoking, or against calling, leading or playing out of turn." Proprieties 2. "Communication between partners during the auction and play should be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves, not through the manner in which they are made, nor through extraneous remarks and gestures, nor through questions asked of the opponents and explanations given to them. Calls should be made in a uniform tone without special emphasis or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. Plays should be made without emphasis, gesture or mannerism and so far as possible at a uniform rate." As you can see there is no conflict between the two laws once we understand the purpose/intent and type of communication that P2 outlaws. P2 is sufficiently similar to L73a/b for the meaning to be the same. I admit I probably use the '93 laws more often than most on this list, but in doing so I do know what they say is "proper" in relation to this issue. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that this was left out of the duplicate lawbook, but to me it is far more unfortunate that people don't understand what is proper without seeing it in black and white. I will not go so far as to call the person who summoned the TD originally a bounder, but I'll retain my reservations sufficiently to avoid committing to the word gentleman. Where interpretation permits the spirit of the game is important. IMO this spirit is more easily seen in the 93 laws than the 97 ones. The technicalities may differ in that unruly child we call duplicate, but let us hope the moral sense of the father is maintained. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 28 15:35:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 28 15:37:10 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims In-Reply-To: <426F9B04.7020001@hdw.be> Message-ID: What concerns me is the statement about "(he have forget that the spade queen have nor been played)". With CJ, SK and three ruffs the location/existence of the SQ *seems* immaterial. What was it that caused the question to be asked? For example I know that if a defender objecting to the claim said "I have the SQ" my immediate reaction would probably be a slightly confused look. Not because I was unaware of the SQ, but because I wouldn't understand why he thought it mattered. My inclination is to uphold declarer's claim for the rest of the tricks but a little clarification here might change my mind. Tim From john at asimere.com Thu Apr 28 16:08:24 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Apr 28 16:11:11 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: References: <33160e322ab09eb0bf2441bff277222a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >>>"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." > >Ed Reppert: > >>Please explain to me how concealing a PU (as by >>failure fully disclose your agreement to your >>opponents) is equivalent to "exchanging information >>through prearranged methods" with partner. Please >>pay particular note to the word "prearranged". :-) > >Richard Hills: > >Good point. The *first* time a partner of mine >deliberately conceals a partnership understanding, >pard's action is not a prearranged method. And no >such hypothetical partner gets a *second* chance >with me, since such a hypothetical partner would >instantly become an ex-partner. > >However, any so-called "ethical" player willing to >*continue* playing with an unethical partner has an >implicit prearrangement to be a voluntary accessory >to their partner's unethics. Richard, you are totally OTT here. Tim and I (and on the occasions we play DWS and I) break agreements all the time. We still love playing together. What's the b****d done to me now? All you do is add the unexpected departure to your list of implicit agreements. We do alert a lot "Has psyched in this position before". Isn't that what bridge is, or are your methods so scientific that I need a full explanation of each auction you have, so that I know enough not to need to signal to partner? cheers John > > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Apr 28 16:11:35 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Apr 28 16:13:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Three questions from last night club evening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes >Bruce McIntyre wrote >>Sinot Martin wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>What not is written in the Laws, is not permitted. >>>>End of Law66 until 1987: "Any player may request that a card >>>>incorrectly >>>>pointed be turned in the proper direction". From 1987 onwards this >>>>sentence >>>>has been dropped; it seems therefore that it is not permitted any >>>>more. >>> Correct; but dummy may try to warn declarer if he is about to >>> place a card in the wrong direction. That is his right to try >>> to prevent infractions from declarer. >>> >> >>It would be nice to have this silliness clearly resolved in the next >>Laws. My personal preference would be for a little more time for dummy >>to correct. It's absurd for the time limit on a correction to run out >>the instant declarer releases the played card. >> >>Now please, let's not have the usual deluge of Dummy's Wrongs advocates >>chiming in that such a change will allow dummy to actively participate >>in the play. We all know that infraction when we see it, and saying >>"partner, you have the last trick turned wrong" three, or thirty >>milliseconds after declarer releases the card from his hand doesn't >>qualify. > > The obvious Law is that anyone may correct a card turned the wrong way >until the next trick is started. It is a misapprehension to think that >this unnecessary rule is just for dummy. > > Previously anyone could point a card out. The WBFLC apparently >decided there was an abuse with people waiting until it mattered before >pointing it out to partner, and then over-reacted. The rule I propose >would not affect this sort of abuse, which would still be illegal. I would prefer "until one player of their side has played to the next trick", otherwise we can get smart declarers snapping a card onto the table. Still no abuse IMO. 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 Thu Apr 28 16:13:13 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Apr 28 16:15:54 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: <006801c54b51$a87c9be0$8a063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ben Schelen" >To: "David Stevenson" >Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 6:49 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > >> > >>> Yes. When declarer makes a designation of a card he may then change >>> it if it was inadvertent, ie he may not change his mind. >>> >>> If declarer has not made a designation - even if he was part way >>> through something - then he may certainly change his mind. >>> >>> >> Bridge is not chess: chess is not bridge. >> But playing chess it is not allowed to fumble around the board touching >> pieces. >> Be real: how many times is it permitted to change one's mind? > > Until you have made a call or play: as many times as you like. "err, the .. No, a small .. Wait on .. A dia .. Spade king please". > -- 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 Apr 28 16:16:53 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Apr 28 16:19:16 2005 Subject: [blml] First catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Harald Skj?ran writes >Richard Hills wrote: > >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: South >>Vul: East-West >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- --- Pass >>1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) Pass >>2H (3) Pass Pass ? >> >>(1) 12-14 >>(2) transfer to hearts >>(3) denies 4-card heart support >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>KT87 >>87 >>AJ87 >>QJ8 >> >>What call do you make if you were a sure-footed rabbit? > >As the opponent's expected number of hearts is somtehing like 7.6, there's >quite a risk that balancing would put us in a 7-card fit, possibly at the >3-level. > >So I would pass, hoping to beat them in 2H or avoid going down more than >they score in 2H if it is making. > >>What other calls do you consider making if you were a >>sure-footed rabbit? > >Of cource I consider balancing with a double or 2S. I've found that 2 spades passes off peacefully most of the time. opponents hate doubling 2 major into game. it's much easier to penalise opponents at the 3-level. I'm a 2 spade bidder here, rather than a doubler, but my first choice is pass. John > >Regards, >Harald > >> >> >>Best wishes >> >>Richard Hills >>Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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! > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Apr 28 16:22:08 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Apr 28 16:24:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >board 23 (all/S) >\ Q64 > \ AKJ854 > \ Q76 > \A >A98 \ 2 >QT72 \ 96 >T8 \ A9542 >T862 \ KQJ97 > KJT753 > 3 \ > KJ3 \ > 543 \ > >W N E S > 2S(1) >p 4D(2) p 4S >p 4N p 5?(3) >p 5S ap > >(1) weak >(2) explained on both sides of the screen as "spade fit and control D" >(mixed controls are common in Belgium) >(3) 1 KC (I don't remember the actual bid 5C or 5D) > >West called me when dummy came down to complain about the explanation >that there should be a diamond control in dummy. I had them confirm >that the explanations had been the same on both sides of the screen. >4D showed a control in diamonds. > >After the hand, North explained that he had wanted to deter opponents >from leading diamonds. All he had been interested in was knowing if >partner had AK of spades, in which case he had wanted to be in 6S. > >West explained immediately when asked that he would lead the D10, that >partner would not take the first diamond but the second (after the SA) >and give a ruff for one down. > >Your ruling? result stands >My ruling? something illegal? :) > -- 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 Apr 28 17:23:30 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Apr 28 17:24:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:20:31 BST." Message-ID: <200504281523.IAA31921@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > >Opener's action was probably not correct procedure, but it didn't > >cause any problem---nothing happened that wouldn't have happened if > >she had followed correct procedure anyway. > > How can you possibly know that? The lady's partner asked her whether > she wanted to change her call. She might certainly not have done so if > he had not suggested it. I think opener should have called the TD, and then the TD should have asked whether she wanted to change her call. That's why I felt that essentially the same thing would have happened. I think I see your point. Since opener asked her partner "do you want to change your call?", there's a possibility that opener is making this suggestion because of his own (opener's) hand, and that this is UI on which his partner will base her decision to change her call. But I don't really think that's relevant in this particular case, since third hand bid a natural 2S over the 2D overcall without realizing that the 2D overcall showed the majors---it's not surprising that she would have changed 2S to pass. > To say that things would have been the same if there had been no > illegal communication between partners is an unwarranted assertion. > > > I certainly don't see > >opener as being "unethical", in a loose sense of the word that means > >that a player ignores or flouts the rules in order to gain an > >advantage. (Those of you who want to jump in and tell me I'm using > >the word "unethical" incorrectly, save it. I'm not interested.) > > I agree with you: that is a fair description of unethical, and that is > what her partner clearly is. If he had said "You did hear the alert, > didn't you?" that's not unethical, but asking her whether she wanted to > change her call goes over the barrier. It sounds to me more like opener knew there was a legitimate MI problem and didn't know the correct way to handle it---the fact that opener was described as "very experienced" doesn't necessarily imply knowing correct procedures, in my own experience. However, this is a judgment I'm making without being at the table or knowing the people involved, so I could easily be wrong. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Thu Apr 28 17:26:11 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Apr 28 17:27:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:23:23 EDT." <23720b852d33165072b75d0bc7379047@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200504281526.IAA31954@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > IMO, "angrily" passing is > also a ZT violation, so the TD could easily have socked this player I was all set to agree with you, but then you had to go and finish the sentence. Darn. :) :) I kind of like the earlier sphincteral insertion suggestion. This is why they don't let me direct. -- Adam From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Thu Apr 28 17:47:19 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Thu Apr 28 17:48:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <006901c54bef$34bb8a60$d8063dd4@c6l8v1> References: <00a601c54b2c$a5d57080$43493dd4@c6l8v1> <006901c54bef$34bb8a60$d8063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: Ben Schelen wrote >Yes, I agree that the TD must not give information, but the player says that >the call was inadvertent: so he decides what is the case and the TD believes >him. >The player has a dissentient interpretation of inadvertent: it was not his >intention to make a misbid. >At the end of the hand it appeared that the substituted call was a result of >the player's change of mind. You don't say to him "Was it inadvertent?" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You ask him what call he intended to make at the moment he took the call out of the box. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Thu Apr 28 17:48:19 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Thu Apr 28 17:49:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Tim West-Meads >DWS wrote: > >> It is a pity that some players think it more important to win every >> board than to be ethical. Of course players are not allowed to ask each >> other whether they would like to change their calls. > >Of course what the player *should* have done is simply call the TD after >the infracting alert. Of course it is the TD's job to ask the >partner whether she heard the alert and wishes to change her call. It is >(almost certainly) perfectly reasonable to judge that this would have had >the same effect on the auction. Not at all. I am sure that players, especially the weaker characters, are far more likely to change a call when their partner suggests it than when the TD explains it as a possibility. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Thu Apr 28 17:49:16 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Thu Apr 28 17:50:28 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050428075817.02bcde30@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050428075817.02bcde30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Hi Eric Landau ****************************************************** So why can my cats post to BLML but not me? ****************************************************** >As I said above, it isn't the least bit absurd. One does it routinely. >What is absurd, however, is to mandate the practice, as doing so >creates an implicit requirement to know the experience level of your >opponents, which has absolutely no basis in law. Only bridge lawyers >and Secretary Birds need the letter of the law to tell them to be >especially careful to make sure inexperienced opponents know what's >going on. > >Since when does one need "a reg that allows for some latitude" in order >to be helpful? I hope David isn't suggesting that, absent specific >regulation, it is not legal to go out of one's way to make sure the >opponents understand one's bidding. I am merely suggesting that a reg that allows for one's opponents' abilities is not, per se, absurd. >It does seem rather perverse to assume that "the" alternative is "to be >unhelpful to a far greater number of players". The alternative >alternative is to be more helpful than necessary to a far greater >number of players. In my experience, experienced strangers who don't >want me reciting the sort of complete and detailed explanation one >might give to a novice will not hesitate to cut me off. Yes. We are talking about whether to alert or not, which is hardly a recitation of a complete and detailed explanation. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 28 18:16:15 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Apr 28 18:17:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> Message-ID: <019a01c54c0d$9b0355a0$779868d5@James> [Herman De Wael] > board 23 (all/S) > \ Q64 > \ AKJ854 > \ Q76 > \A > A98 \ 2 > QT72 \ 96 > T8 \ A9542 > T862 \ KQJ97 > KJT753 > 3 \ > KJ3 \ > 543 \ > > W N E S > 2S(1) > p 4D(2) p 4S > p 4N p 5?(3) > p 5S ap > (1) weak > (2) explained on both sides of the screen as "spade > fit and control D" (mixed controls are common in Belgium) > (3) 1 KC (I don't remember the actual bid 5C or 5D) > West called me when dummy came down to complain about > the explanation that there should be a diamond control > in dummy. I had them confirm that the explanations had > been the same on both sides of the screen. 4D showed a > control in diamonds. After the hand, North explained > that he had wanted to deter opponents from leading > diamonds. All he had been interested in was knowing > if partner had AK of spades, in which case he had wanted > to be in 6S. West explained immediately when asked that > he would lead the D10, that partner would not take the > first diamond but the second (after the SA) and give a > ruff for one down. Your ruling? My ruling? [Nigel] Herman, the world and his wife, will rule "result stands". We Martians have reservations: A. Do North-South habitually psyche such cue-bids? B. Is 4D a "controlled" or "free" psyche, that is: if psyched, is it likely to cause no problem for North-South while confusing East-West. On Mars, both A & B are disclosable. Not to worry: Mars is only a decade or so ahead of Earth in Bridge-Law. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 28 18:37:10 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Apr 28 18:38:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm References: <007001c54b88$e0a6f240$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <01b101c54c10$86986850$779868d5@James> [Marvin French] > A 2D overcall of a strong notrump, showing both majors, > was Alerted, but the Alert card was neither tapped nor > waved, as is required by the ACBL. Next hand, hard of > hearing, didn't hear the Alert and bid 2S. Her partner, > a very experienced player, immediately leaned across > the table and asked her if she heard the Alert, and if > not did she want to change her call. So the TD was > called and ruled that she could change her call, so she > passed, and her LHO angrily passed 2D with 1=2=5=5 for > a bad result (He was headed for a bad result anyway, as > the opening bidder had AK10xx hearts).. He called > opener an unethical jerk, which got him an immediate > ero Tolerance penalty of 1/4 board. Since the TD can > "rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes > aware in any manner" (L81C6) the ruling was perhaps > okay. Comments please, including one concerning the > action of the lady's partner. [Nigel] Proceeding backwards in time, IMO the director ... A. Was right to impose a procedural penalty on "LHO" for bad temper and rudeness, even if the earlier ruling was wrong. B. May be right to allow the lady to change her call provided that the unauthorised information from her partner's outburst did not demonstrably suggest that call over logical alternatives. C. Should impose a procedural penalty on the lady's partner -- an experienced player should know better -- and if not it is time that he learnt. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 28 18:59:53 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Apr 28 19:00:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Second catch your rabbit References: Message-ID: <01f301c54c13$b333c050$779868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > MP E N/S You hold AQ 4 K9643 AJT87 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1S 2NT > Pass 3NT Dble ? > What call do you make if you are a baffled bunny? > What other calls do you consider making if you > are a baffled bunny? [Nigel] XX=10 P=9 Bunny or not, you are tempted to remove 3N because of the likelihood of a misunderstanding but, partner's failure to alert effectively removes that option here. It would be better if the same rules always applied, regardless of a player's skill-level, except in competitions especially designed to cater for a particular skill-level. Even small children, playing a game with adults, hate to be patronised. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 28 19:46:21 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Apr 28 19:48:22 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: <006801c54b51$a87c9be0$8a063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050428133230.02bd21a0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:13 AM 4/28/05, John wrote: >In article , David >Stevenson writes > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Ben Schelen" > > > >> Be real: how many times is it permitted to change one's mind? > > > > Until you have made a call or play: as many times as you like. > >"err, the .. No, a small .. Wait on .. A dia .. Spade king please". OK, WTP? I'm totally in agreement with David on this one. I see "designations" like that made, and passed unremarked upon, all the time. How does it differ significantly from "err, the... no... um... wait a minute... uh... the spade king, please"? If declarer wants to give the opponents a clue as to the nature of his problem, why not let him? After all, if declarer does keep his mouth shut until he decides on a call, what's the answer to Ben's question? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 28 20:07:07 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Apr 28 20:07:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050428135048.02bd6eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:48 AM 4/28/05, Minke wrote: >Hi Tim West-Meads > >>DWS wrote: >> >>>It is a pity that some players think it more important to win every >>>board than to be ethical. Of course players are not allowed to ask each >>>other whether they would like to change their calls. >> >>Of course what the player *should* have done is simply call the TD after >>the infracting alert. Of course it is the TD's job to ask the >>partner whether she heard the alert and wishes to change her call. It is >>(almost certainly) perfectly reasonable to judge that this would have had >>the same effect on the auction. > > Not at all. I am sure that players, especially the weaker > characters, are far more likely to change a call when their partner > suggests it than when the TD explains it as a possibility. Once again, I'm in complete agreement with David. I have absolutely no problem with, "Did you hear the alert, partner?" Not knowing that an opponent is hard of hearing isn't an infraction, but one does have an obligation to insure that the alert was noted. It would be silly to call the TD if partner says yes; the questioner is merely establishing that there has been an irregularity before calling the TD. But citing to partner a specific legal option available after the irregularity is tantamount to suggesting that he elect to exercise it. If I say, "You know, you're allowed to duck that trick, pard," am I simply making an irrelevant remark about the law, or am I, just maybe, suggesting that it would be better if he didn't win the trick? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Apr 28 20:26:36 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu Apr 28 20:28:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm References: <200504281405.j3SE5clF023364@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003701c54c1f$d1d017a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" < Marv wrote: > > > Since the TD can "rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware > > in any manner" (L81C6) the ruling was perhaps okay. > > Not sure what this means. The original irregularity was the failure to > alert properly. Calling the TD is essentially automatic after that, Only if attention is called to it. > and it is normal for the TD to stay at the table and monitor > proceedings until it is clear that there are no further problems, > especially "use of UI" by the OS. > I don't like the fact that opener helped partner out during the auction, when the only legal communication is with the bidding cards He should have let 2S stand, looking for redress later if there was a damaging irregularity (which he only suspected, after all). Yes, not hitting or waving the Alert card was an irregularity and when attention is called to it the TD must be called, but nobody to my knowledge does that in this particular club. Rather, most of us, like me, just make sure in other ways that the Alert has been recognized. That wasn't done, so technically there was an irregularity. Note that opener "took action" prematurely before the TD arrived (called by his opponent, incidentally) by suggesting a change of call to partner, a violation of L9B2. The ACBL Alert Procedure says that a player who ought to know what is going on will not get redress for an Alert mistake. The lady in question has been playing duplicate for some 40 years or more and, while not a very good player, knows very well that 2x overcalls of 1NT are almost always conventional in this club. Considering her hearing problem, she has an extra obligation to check the opposing CC, or ask, when such a bid is made. For that reason, and considering the helpful suggestion the lady received illegally from her partner, I would rule 2S stands and give the experienced offender a PP for not following correct procedure. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 28 20:29:30 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Apr 28 20:30:31 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050428075817.02bcde30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050428141429.02bd6050@pop.starpower.net> At 11:49 AM 4/28/05, Minke wrote: >Hi Eric Landau > >>As I said above, it isn't the least bit absurd. One does it >>routinely. What is absurd, however, is to mandate the practice, as >>doing so creates an implicit requirement to know the experience level >>of your opponents, which has absolutely no basis in law. Only bridge >>lawyers and Secretary Birds need the letter of the law to tell them >>to be especially careful to make sure inexperienced opponents know >>what's going on. >> >>Since when does one need "a reg that allows for some latitude" in >>order to be helpful? I hope David isn't suggesting that, absent >>specific regulation, it is not legal to go out of one's way to make >>sure the opponents understand one's bidding. > > I am merely suggesting that a reg that allows for one's opponents' > abilities is not, per se, absurd. A *reg* that allows for one's opponents' abilities isn't absurd. But a reg that requires *a player* to allow for that player's opponents' abilities is absurd. It makes a potential infraction out of starting a hand without first ascertaining one's opponents' abilities. >>It does seem rather perverse to assume that "the" alternative is "to >>be unhelpful to a far greater number of players". The alternative >>alternative is to be more helpful than necessary to a far greater >>number of players. In my experience, experienced strangers who don't >>want me reciting the sort of complete and detailed explanation one >>might give to a novice will not hesitate to cut me off. > > Yes. We are talking about whether to alert or not, which is hardly > a recitation of a complete and detailed explanation. I've certainly been known to alert my opponents to calls which I know are officially non-alertable (raps on table, says, "Not an alert, but we have an unusual agreement.") I don't do it if I know my opponents and know that they know what the call means (OK, confession time: or if I decide to play Secretary Bird against an opponent I dislike). That doesn't alter the fact that the formal alert procedure *must* make a given meaning of a given call either alertable or not alertable. The formal procedure doesn't "know its opponents". Unlike my personal practice, it can't change from one table to the next. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Apr 28 20:52:27 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu Apr 28 20:54:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> <019a01c54c0d$9b0355a0$779868d5@James> Message-ID: <009901c54c23$6d956200$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> ----- From: Nigel Guthrie > Herman, the world and his wife, will rule "result stands". > We Martians have reservations: > A. Do North-South habitually psyche such cue-bids? > B. Is 4D a "controlled" or "free" psyche, that is: if > psyched, is it likely to cause no problem for North-South > while confusing East-West. > On Mars, both A & B are disclosable. > Not to worry: Mars is only a decade or so ahead of Earth in > Bridge-Law. A psychic control is a convention with which one can query partner as to whether s/he has psyched. There is no law against "safe psychs," provided they are not fielded to advantage, and if some regulartion forbids them, that is illegal. Bluff Blackwood, for example, is very safe. Would anyone penalize it because of that? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Apr 28 21:03:30 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Apr 28 21:04:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004c01c54c24$fb92e950$92121d53@kocurzak> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:47 AM Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final > board 23 (all/S) > \ Q64 > \ AKJ854 > \ Q76 > \A > A98 \ 2 > QT72 \ 96 > T8 \ A9542 > T862 \ KQJ97 > KJT753 > 3 \ > KJ3 \ > 543 \ > > W N E S > 2S(1) > p 4D(2) p 4S > p 4N p 5?(3) > p 5S ap > > (1) weak > (2) explained on both sides of the screen as "spade fit and control D" > (mixed controls are common in Belgium) > (3) 1 KC (I don't remember the actual bid 5C or 5D) > > West called me when dummy came down to complain about the explanation > that there should be a diamond control in dummy. I had them confirm > that the explanations had been the same on both sides of the screen. > 4D showed a control in diamonds. > > After the hand, North explained that he had wanted to deter opponents > from leading diamonds. All he had been interested in was knowing if > partner had AK of spades, in which case he had wanted to be in 6S. > > West explained immediately when asked that he would lead the D10, that > partner would not take the first diamond but the second (after the SA) > and give a ruff for one down. > > Your ruling? Result stands. > My ruling? > Result stands. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PHP, cgi i MySQL w standardzie >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1878 From takemoto at mailAccount.com Thu Apr 28 22:01:52 2005 From: takemoto at mailAccount.com (Holly Hammer) Date: Thu Apr 28 21:09:09 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.h0us1ng.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Denis Whitten to be remov(ed: http://www.h0us1ng.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 Thu Apr 28 21:12:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 28 21:13:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Hi Tim West-Meads > > >DWS wrote: > > > >> It is a pity that some players think it more important to win every > >> board than to be ethical. Of course players are not allowed to ask > > each > >> other whether they would like to change their calls. > > > >Of course what the player *should* have done is simply call the TD > after > >the infracting alert. Of course it is the TD's job to ask the > >partner whether she heard the alert and wishes to change her call. It > is (almost certainly) perfectly reasonable to judge that this would have > > had the same effect on the auction. > > Not at all. I am sure that players, especially the weaker > characters, are far more likely to change a call when their partner > suggests it than when the TD explains it as a possibility. Nevertheless the TD was aware, at the time he permitted the call change, of what had happened. His judgement (in consolation obviously), that her 2S call was probably based on MI, sounds reasonable. There is UI suggesting that sticking with 2S might not be a good idea but there is no reason to assume that sticking with 2S would be an LA. The TD had every right to rule (based on his consultation and judgement) that it wasn't. Tim From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Apr 28 21:15:35 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu Apr 28 21:17:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00a401c54c26$acbd9120$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Herman De Wael" > board 23 (all/S) > \ Q64 > \ AKJ854 > \ Q76 > \A > A98 \ 2 > QT72 \ 96 > T8 \ A9542 > T862 \ KQJ97 > KJT753 > 3 \ > KJ3 \ > 543 \ > > W N E S > 2S(1) > p 4D(2) p 4S > p 4N p 5?(3) > p 5S ap > > (1) weak > (2) explained on both sides of the screen as "spade fit and control D" > (mixed controls are common in Belgium) > (3) 1 KC (I don't remember the actual bid 5C or 5D) > > West called me when dummy came down to complain about the explanation > that there should be a diamond control in dummy. I had them confirm > that the explanations had been the same on both sides of the screen. > 4D showed a control in diamonds. > > After the hand, North explained that he had wanted to deter opponents > from leading diamonds. All he had been interested in was knowing if > partner had AK of spades, in which case he had wanted to be in 6S. > > West explained immediately when asked that he would lead the D10, that > partner would not take the first diamond but the second (after the SA) > and give a ruff for one down. > > Your ruling? Result stands. Players are allowed to deviate from an agreement for tactical reasons. Over here we would write up a Player Report so that repeated occurrences of the same tactical bid would be documented, and possible action taken if it happens too often (becoming an implicit partnership agreement). > My ruling? The same, I hope, unless the player is known to do this often. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Thu Apr 28 22:36:13 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu Apr 28 22:33:13 2005 Subject: [blml] First catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: <20050428095409.62529.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > > --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Matchpoint pairs > > Dlr: South > > Vul: East-West > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- --- --- Pass > > 1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) Pass > > 2H (3) Pass Pass ? > > > > (1) 12-14 > > (2) transfer to hearts > > (3) denies 4-card heart support > > > > You, South, hold: > > > > KT87 > > 87 > > AJ87 > > QJ8 > > > > What call do you make if you were a sure-footed > > rabbit? Exactly what a sure-footed rabbit is, I don't know. With some partners I consider opening 1D instead of passing on first round. I guess I'm glad I didn't now that west has a hand. I also consider doubling 2D instead of passing on the second round. On the third round, I pass. Not a close decision. If we play a notrump defence allowing partner to show 2-suiters, or if partner has a tendency to agressive overcalling, this is REALLY obvious. If my partner is very disciplined and would have passed a 5-4 hand with opening strength, double will flit through my mind briefly before I pass. I've honestly met only one or two bridge players in my whole life who are sharp enough to have excellent hand evaluation skills AND old-fashioned and conservative enough to play only natural overcalls and never bid over 1NT without a 6-card suit. Except for the 1-in-10,000 or so chance of having that "class of player" "involved" in this hand as North, no LA to pass. GRB From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 28 23:13:40 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 28 23:14:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c54c37$278447e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Mailwasher doesn't have any difficulty; it simply alerts me when relevant. And I received no alert on the mail sent directly to me (as I already told in a direct answer). But this message was alerted (as I also reported). Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: 28. april 2005 15:13 > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Problem > > Sven Pran wrote > >I don't know if it has any bearing on your problem, but your posts make > >Mailwasher alert me that they are flagged as SPAM according to SpamCop. > > > >(On second thoughts I do consider the possibility that your "hotmail.com" > >could be what triggers SpamCop). > > Since ordinary emails are going out I shall write to you direct and > you can let me know if Mailwasher has nay difficulty with that. > > >> From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > >> [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > > Hello! What is "blml-bounces"? > > >> On Behalf Of David Stevenson > >> Sent: 28. april 2005 11:10 > >> To: BLML > >> Subject: [blml] Problem > >> > >> For the last two weeks or so my email has gone out normally, except > to > >> BLML. That email just stays in my Outbox and does not move. > >> > >> Anyone got any suggestions? It is a right pain copying the messages > to > >> Hotmail and sending them from there. > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > Currently having problems from home email for BLML only > Web: blakjak.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 28 23:20:02 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 28 23:21:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c54c38$0a6c81d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............ > If you insist. I know what sort of communication the writers of L73a were > addressing because one of the current lawbooks contains both of the > following paragraphs: > > Proprieties 1. "It is proper to warn partner against infringing a law of > the game: for example against revoking, or against calling, leading or > playing out of turn." Huh! Which edition of the laws are you referring to? Couldn't we try to confine ourselves to the current laws when discussing today's rules? Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 28 23:27:48 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 28 23:28:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <004c01c54c24$fb92e950$92121d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <000301c54c39$206eb420$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski ...................... > > Your ruling? > > Result stands. > > > > > My ruling? > > > > > Result stands. I wouldn't bet on that! 8-) Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 29 00:34:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 29 00:35:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: <000201c54c38$0a6c81d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ............ > > If you insist. I know what sort of communication the writers of L73a > > were > > addressing because one of the current lawbooks contains both of the > > following paragraphs: > > > > Proprieties 1. "It is proper to warn partner against infringing a > > law of > > the game: for example against revoking, or against calling, leading or > > playing out of turn." > > Huh! Which edition of the laws are you referring to? THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS OF CONTRACT BRIDGE 1993 as agreed upon and promulgated by The Portland Club, The European Bridge League, American Contract Bridge League, and approved by The World Bridge Federation > Couldn't we try to confine ourselves to the current laws when discussing > today's rules? They *are* current laws - at least as far as I am aware. But when it comes to *interpreting* the 1997 laws (eg what is meant by communication) and the spirit of the game one must look beyond the current law-book. History, and the more widely played rubber bridge, give an insight into how the current laws arose - and thus how they should be interpreted. The laws for both codes are written/promulgated by the same bodies and it is nonsense to suggest that the (almost) same words meant different things when they were written. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 29 02:17:33 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 29 02:19:02 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >Richard, you are totally OTT here. Tim and I (and on the >occasions we play DWS and I) break agreements all the time. [snip] Richard Hills: We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. I, also, *break* agreements all the time. What I am talking about is a hypothetical ex-partner who deliberately *concealed* our partnership agreements from the opponents. That is, deliberate infractions of Law 75C (Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements) and consequently Law 72B2 (Intentional Infraction of Law). What I am arguing is that *continuing* such a hypothetical partnership means that you have a *prearrangement* to deliberately conceal your partnership agreements from the opponents, thus causing Law 73B2 (Prearranged Communication) to become applicable. The much-maligned ACBL regulation which requires all partnerships to have agreements in "to be expected auctions" does have one redeeming feature. Anecdotally, some ACBL members used to deliberately conceal their partnership agreements, by deliberately lying "Undiscussed" in response to a question. Thanks to the ACBL reg, an ACBL TD now can rule against such cheats without fear of being sued for defamation. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Apr 29 03:33:46 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Apr 29 03:34:52 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims In-Reply-To: <200504251553.j3PFraVv025042@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504251553.j3PFraVv025042@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42718EFA.5040605@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier > South is playing 4H > KJT4 > K > - > - > 2 Q > - - > 93 QJ2 > 75 9 > 7 > T8 > T > J > > The hand is in dummy and South claims all the remaining tricks without > any statement(he have forget that the spade queen have nor been played) As we have seen in past replies, this depends on where you are. In the ACBL, suits are normally cashed from the top down (though it would be "normal" to finesse if the lead were in South), so the claim is good. Elsewhere it is considered "normal" to play the S-4. As David S. wrote, > sponsoring organisations should give their opinion, and their > TDs and ACs should follow it and not worry about it. If your SO hasn't given an official opinion, find out what experienced TDs in your area do, and do the same. Just don't expect the same result in a different jurisdiction. The second case, leading a side suit and then claiming with a trump out, should be (and appears to have been on BLML) unanimous. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 29 04:01:59 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 29 04:03:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Non playing captains (was How does blml vote?) In-Reply-To: <030801c54a87$9c1ffe70$639868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ron Johnson: >>What amazes me is that the coach or captain or somebody >>associated with the team isn't keeping score as well as >>the players. Yes, it won't be an official score, but it >>will allow the teams to catch scoring errors a lot more >>readily. Particularly in the case we were discussing. >>Relatively new scoring table, and down umpty isn't all >>that common. Nigel Guthrie: >That seems logical and sensible -- so surely it must be >against the rules :) > >Are kibitzers, especially partisan kibitzers, really >allowed to volunteer corrections? Richard Hills: The Chapter 1 Definitions of the Laws define _contestant_ as, ".....in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates." Given the phrase "playing as", it is doubtful whether a non-playing captain technically qualifies as being a contestant. However, after a session is over, but before the correction period expires, any kibitzer - npc or not - could talk to a contestant. And, as a result of that conversation, any contestant could opt to approach the Director to request a correction of an error. 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." Of course, there have been indications that the scope of Law 81C6 could be more narrowly defined in the 2007 Laws, given that its current caveat "normally" is a tad vague. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Fri Apr 29 04:27:39 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Fri Apr 29 04:28:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >> Hi Tim West-Meads >> >> >DWS wrote: >> > >> >> It is a pity that some players think it more important to win every >> >> board than to be ethical. Of course players are not allowed to ask >> > each >> >> other whether they would like to change their calls. >> > >> >Of course what the player *should* have done is simply call the TD >> after >> >the infracting alert. Of course it is the TD's job to ask the >> >partner whether she heard the alert and wishes to change her call. It >> is (almost certainly) perfectly reasonable to judge that this would have >> > had the same effect on the auction. >> >> Not at all. I am sure that players, especially the weaker >> characters, are far more likely to change a call when their partner >> suggests it than when the TD explains it as a possibility. > >Nevertheless the TD was aware, at the time he permitted the call change, >of what had happened. His judgement (in consolation obviously), that her >2S call was probably based on MI, sounds reasonable. There is UI >suggesting that sticking with 2S might not be a good idea but there is no >reason to assume that sticking with 2S would be an LA. The TD had every >right to rule (based on his consultation and judgement) that it wasn't. The point about the posts in this thread are that most of them are not suggesting that the TD has done anything wrong nor that the final outcome was unreasonable. But the partner of this player acted in an unethical fashion by communicating an idea to partner. Whether partner would have done what he suggested unaided does not affect the fact that this was completely unethical. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Fri Apr 29 04:27:26 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Fri Apr 29 04:28:57 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050428141429.02bd6050@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050428075817.02bcde30@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20050428141429.02bd6050@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Hi Eric Landau >At 11:49 AM 4/28/05, Minke wrote: > >>Hi Eric Landau >> >>>As I said above, it isn't the least bit absurd. One does it >>>routinely. What is absurd, however, is to mandate the practice, as >>>doing so creates an implicit requirement to know the experience level >>>of your opponents, which has absolutely no basis in law. Only bridge >>>lawyers and Secretary Birds need the letter of the law to tell them >>>to be especially careful to make sure inexperienced opponents know what's going on. >>> >>>Since when does one need "a reg that allows for some latitude" in >>>order to be helpful? I hope David isn't suggesting that, absent >>>specific regulation, it is not legal to go out of one's way to make >>>sure the opponents understand one's bidding. >> >> I am merely suggesting that a reg that allows for one's opponents' >>abilities is not, per se, absurd. > >A *reg* that allows for one's opponents' abilities isn't absurd. But a >reg that requires *a player* to allow for that player's opponents' >abilities is absurd. It makes a potential infraction out of starting a >hand without first ascertaining one's opponents' abilities. Why not? It is difficult to see the problem. >>>It does seem rather perverse to assume that "the" alternative is "to >>>be unhelpful to a far greater number of players". The alternative >>>alternative is to be more helpful than necessary to a far greater >>>number of players. In my experience, experienced strangers who don't >>>want me reciting the sort of complete and detailed explanation one >>>might give to a novice will not hesitate to cut me off. >> >> Yes. We are talking about whether to alert or not, which is hardly >>a recitation of a complete and detailed explanation. > >I've certainly been known to alert my opponents to calls which I know >are officially non-alertable (raps on table, says, "Not an alert, but >we have an unusual agreement.") I don't do it if I know my opponents >and know that they know what the call means (OK, confession time: or if >I decide to play Secretary Bird against an opponent I dislike). That >doesn't alter the fact that the formal alert procedure *must* make a >given meaning of a given call either alertable or not alertable. The >formal procedure doesn't "know its opponents". Unlike my personal >practice, it can't change from one table to the next. You say this as though it is obvious, with no justification. There is no need to make bridge an unfair game based on some idea of difficulty in the regs. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 29 06:09:25 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 29 06:10:44 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 28, 2005, at 8:17 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Thanks to the ACBL reg, an ACBL TD now can > rule against such cheats without fear of being sued for > defamation. He can also rule against somebody who didn't cheat at all. From ysocki at doneasy.com Fri Apr 29 07:34:37 2005 From: ysocki at doneasy.com (Dave Hanson) Date: Fri Apr 29 06:36:00 2005 Subject: [blml] You've been selected for a low rate Message-ID: <113341.7235.ysocki@doneasy.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.h0us1ng.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Selma Cody to be remov(ed: http://www.h0us1ng.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 Fri Apr 29 07:57:32 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 29 07:58:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Lays of Ancient Rome (was Re: How does blml vote?) In-Reply-To: <006701c54a8c$906b38b0$c49d87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: +=+ Plato has so much to answer for. I wonder what bridge opponents he had in mind. Was it perhaps prophesy of the time when there "Was none who would be foremost To lead such dire attack; But those behind cried 'Forward!' And those before cried 'Back!' " ? ~ G ~ +=+ Scribe Endicott of Clusium By the Nine Gods he swore That the great Laws of Contract Be written wrong no more. By the Nine Gods he swore it. And named a trysting day And bade his committee ride forth East and West and South and North To learn bridge world's parley. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Fri Apr 29 08:39:59 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Fri Apr 29 08:41:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <000301c54c39$206eb420$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski >...................... > > > Your ruling? > > > > Result stands. > > > > > > > > > My ruling? > > > > > > > > > Result stands. > > >I wouldn't bet on that! 8-) Why not? Even IF Herman ruled MI, he should be aware that declarer in a Belgian Cup Final would make the contract even after a diamond lead ducked by east. Regards, Harald > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/messenger Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 29 08:40:32 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 29 08:41:47 2005 Subject: [blml] First catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: <000301c54c5f$eebd88d0$0100000a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: South >>Vul: East-West >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- --- Pass >>1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) Pass >>2H (3) Pass Pass ? >> >>(1) 12-14 >>(2) transfer to hearts >>(3) denies 4-card heart support >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>KT87 >>87 >>AJ87 >>QJ8 >> >>What call do you make if you were a sure-footed rabbit? >>What other calls do you consider making if you were a >>sure-footed rabbit? Roger Pewick: >North had two opportunities to bid his suit at the two >level and hasn't. If South balances now 70% of the time >North will be bidding at the 3 level - a hand that was not >inclined to be at the two level. I love to push the >opponents around, but when I have the right stuff and this >is not the right stuff. Richard Hills: A sure-footed rabbit does not balance with Double, forcing pard to the 3-level 90% of the time. A sure-footed rabbit balances on their sure foot with a bid of 2S, thus causing their pard to avoid the 3-level 90% of the time. Roger Pewick: >Which reminds me of a sad story. LHO, North, opens 1N-P-.. >'oh,' South says, 'that's a weeeeak notrump, You can >change your call.' 'ok' 1N-2C-DUUUUUUBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBUUUUUU >UUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!-2H-DUUUUUUUUBBBBBBBBBUUUUUUUUUL >LLLLLYOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUU!!!!-PPP Richard Hills: One wonders if the Diogenes sitting South would have been so "actively ethical" in reminding East of their rights if, instead, South had held a yarborough. Roger Pewick: >One of the aspects of the weak NT is the preemptive effect >with the ability to penalize opponents that get out of >line [even with pretty good hands] more often. > >Now, in my experience, when opponents balance in this >situation with this hand, most of the time it was successful. Richard Hills: The question is one of logical alternatives. What calls would the peers of a sure-footed rabbit choose or seriously consider? I note that when some blmlers tried to simulate the thought processes of a sure-footed rabbit, those blmlers automatically balanced. The sure-footed rabbit in question had an illogical belief that initially passing always made their hand stronger; they thought that it was compulsory to bid like crazy after their initial pass (a common misinterpretation of the bidding theories of Al Roth). Their illogical belief therefore made an illogical balance of 2S their only logical alternative. Roger Pewick: >I point out that about 90% of those times the player had >extraneous information [unauthorized] which coincidentally >tended to be matched disproportionately with most of the >successes. Richard Hills: "Coincidentally" true in this case. At the table, North hesitated over 1NT, then North hhhesssitttattteddd over 2H. South had no hesitation in balancing with 2S. East-West were cold for eight tricks in hearts, but North-South were cold for nine tricks in spades. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 29 09:21:21 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 29 09:21:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <009901c54c23$6d956200$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> <019a01c54c0d$9b0355a0$779868d5@James> <009901c54c23$6d956200$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <4271E071.5060903@hdw.be> I'm waiting with my comments until I can collate them, but I'd like to jump in here anyway! Marvin French wrote: > ----- > From: Nigel Guthrie > >>B. Is 4D a "controlled" or "free" psyche, that is: if >>psyched, is it likely to cause no problem for North-South >>while confusing East-West. > > A psychic control is a convention with which one can query partner as to > whether s/he has psyched. There is no law against "safe psychs," provided they > are not fielded to advantage, and if some regulartion forbids them, that is > illegal. > > Bluff Blackwood, for example, is very safe. Would anyone penalize it because > of that? > But there is a huge difference between bluff blackwood and this example. Bluff Blackwood is always explained as "he's asking for the number of my aces". It is up to you to interpret that he's probably interested in that. If the 4Di bid in my case were explained "he's asking for my club control" and then you interpret it as "so he's probably not interested in the diamond control because he has it himself" then that's your problem - there has been no misinformation. But it was not explained that way, it was explained as "he has diamond control". That is untrue, and we must judge it by that light and ask ourselves if the meaning wasn't rather "I'm asking for something" than "I'm telling you something". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 29 09:53:33 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 29 09:54:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c54c90$8b48c1d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > ............ > > > If you insist. I know what sort of communication the writers of L73a > > > were > > > addressing because one of the current lawbooks contains both of the > > > following paragraphs: > > > > > > Proprieties 1. "It is proper to warn partner against infringing a > > > law of > > > the game: for example against revoking, or against calling, leading or > > > playing out of turn." > > > > Huh! Which edition of the laws are you referring to? > > THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS OF CONTRACT BRIDGE 1993 > as agreed upon and promulgated by The Portland Club, The European Bridge > League, American Contract Bridge League, and approved by > The World Bridge Federation > > > Couldn't we try to confine ourselves to the current laws when discussing > > today's rules? > > They *are* current laws - at least as far as I am aware. But when it > comes to *interpreting* the 1997 laws (eg what is meant by communication) > and the spirit of the game one must look beyond the current law-book. > History, and the more widely played rubber bridge, give an insight into > how the current laws arose - and thus how they should be interpreted. > The laws for both codes are written/promulgated by the same bodies and it > is nonsense to suggest that the (almost) same words meant different things > when they were written. Contract Bridge and Duplicate Contract Bridge are two different games with different laws. AFAIK their laws are not in any way synchronized and the laws for Contract Bridge are not intended to have any bearing on the game of Duplicate Contract Bridge which is the game we discuss here (unless otherwise explicitly stated). Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Apr 29 10:06:50 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri Apr 29 10:07:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final Message-ID: <20050429080650.A48B93B21F6@poczta.interia.pl> Harald Skj?ran napisa?(a): > he should be aware that declarer in a > Belgian Cup Final would make the contract even after a diamond lead ducked > > by east. > You cannot be serious. In Belgium? Everyone knows that they can barely follow suit in Belgium. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PHP, cgi i MySQL w standardzie >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1878 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 29 10:31:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 29 10:32:49 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RJH wrote: > The much-maligned ACBL regulation which requires all > partnerships to have agreements in "to be expected auctions" > does have one redeeming feature. Anecdotally, some ACBL > members used to deliberately conceal their partnership > agreements, by deliberately lying "Undiscussed" in response > to a question. Thanks to the ACBL reg, an ACBL TD now can > rule against such cheats without fear of being sued for > defamation. Of course absent such a reg we just rule that while "undiscussed" is "true" there are implicit understandings from past experience (or whatever)- not defamatory. PS I agree you and Maddog were talking at cross-purposes. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 29 10:31:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 29 10:32:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Alert Probelm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > The point about the posts in this thread are that most of them are > not suggesting that the TD has done anything wrong nor that the final > outcome was unreasonable. > > But the partner of this player acted in an unethical fashion by > communicating an idea to partner. Whether partner would have done what > he suggested unaided does not affect the fact that this was completely > unethical. And my point is that the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly otherwise. There was no need for the player to say *anything*. He had a guaranteed win by waiting til the end of the hand to call the TD and get a favourable adjustment. The lack of motive for acting unethically suggests that he asked his question, out of a degree of ignorance, to ascertain whether the TD was needed rather than in a deliberate attempt to break the law. It is not unethical to break the law through ignorance. The fact that the TD allowed a change of call and did not adjust the final result or impose a penalty suggests that the TD judged similarly. Tim From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Apr 29 11:38:38 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Apr 29 11:39:47 2005 Subject: [blml] First catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29 Apr 2005, at 07:40, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > A sure-footed rabbit does not balance with Double, forcing > pard to the 3-level 90% of the time. A sure-footed rabbit > balances on their sure foot with a bid of 2S, thus causing > their pard to avoid the 3-level 90% of the time. Ignoring for a moment these nonsense made-up percentages, I used to have a partner who played that double in this situation *denied* four spades. The advantage of it was that partner wasn't tempted to bid a three-card spade suit, or to compete too far with a 4-3 fit. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Fri Apr 29 12:36:14 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Fri Apr 29 12:37:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <4271E071.5060903@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote: > >I'm waiting with my comments until I can collate them, but I'd like to jump >in here anyway! > >Marvin French wrote: > >>----- From: Nigel Guthrie >> >>>B. Is 4D a "controlled" or "free" psyche, that is: if >>>psyched, is it likely to cause no problem for North-South >>>while confusing East-West. >> >>A psychic control is a convention with which one can query partner as to >>whether s/he has psyched. There is no law against "safe psychs," provided >>they >>are not fielded to advantage, and if some regulartion forbids them, that >>is >>illegal. >> >>Bluff Blackwood, for example, is very safe. Would anyone penalize it >>because >>of that? >> > >But there is a huge difference between bluff blackwood and this example. >Bluff Blackwood is always explained as "he's asking for the number of my >aces". It is up to you to interpret that he's probably interested in that. >If the 4Di bid in my case were explained "he's asking for my club control" >and then you interpret it as "so he's probably not interested in the >diamond control because he has it himself" then that's your problem - there >has been no misinformation. But it was not explained that way, it was >explained as "he has diamond control". That is untrue, We can all see that he's got no diamond control. So obviously "he has diamond control" is untrue. But that doesn't imply that the bid 4D shows a diamond control. The opponents are entitled to the explanation of what the bid shows, not the actual holding. And I don't think there can be much doubt that it was, in fact, a cue-bid. And that the pair can prove what kind of cue-bids they're using. So to rule MI, you should have quite good evidence that the player in question regularly psyches his cue-bids. OTOH, whether you rule MI or not, should not affect the outcome on the board, since any competent declarer would make the contract even with a diamond lead for west, ducked by east. >and we must judge it by that light and ask ourselves if the meaning wasn't >rather "I'm asking for something" than "I'm telling you something". Asking for what?? Regards, Harald > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Fri Apr 29 12:48:27 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 29 12:48:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> Message-ID: <427210FB.6070006@hdw.be> Allow me to give my comments on the various replies I go to this problem: Herman De Wael wrote: > board 23 (all/S) > \ Q64 > \ AKJ854 > \ Q76 > \A > A98 \ 2 > QT72 \ 96 > T8 \ A9542 > T862 \ KQJ97 > KJT753 > 3 \ > KJ3 \ > 543 \ > > W N E S > 2S(1) > p 4D(2) p 4S > p 4N p 5?(3) > p 5S ap > > (1) weak > (2) explained on both sides of the screen as "spade fit and control D" > (mixed controls are common in Belgium) > (3) 1 KC (I don't remember the actual bid 5C or 5D) > Robin Barker wrote: > What are mixed controls? (= Roman = first and second freely?) Yes Robin - 4D should show either the Ace, King, singleton or void > West called me when dummy came down to complain about the explanation > that there should be a diamond control in dummy. I had them confirm that > the explanations had been the same on both sides of the screen. 4D > showed a control in diamonds. > > After the hand, North explained that he had wanted to deter opponents > from leading diamonds. All he had been interested in was knowing if > partner had AK of spades, in which case he had wanted to be in 6S. > > West explained immediately when asked that he would lead the D10, that > partner would not take the first diamond but the second (after the SA) > and give a ruff for one down. > > Your ruling? Robin Barker wrote: > Score stands - North is allowed to make "tactical"/psychic bids, > and must explain them according to partnership agreement. Sven Pran wrote: > From the description I see absolutely no irregularity. Result > stands. What is the problem? David Stevenson wrote: > No MI, no problem. John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > result stands Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Result stands. This seems to be a majority view. Are you all so gullible? Sinot Martin wrote: > I saw this kind of pseudo-cue a number of times, usually resulting > in a slam with two tricks offside, which weren't collected. This is > the first time I see it reach a TD. Tactical deviations from ths > systems are not forbidden, as long as partner doesn't know. Of that > I see no evidence, so score stands. Eric Landau wrote: > As with any psych, my ruling depends on the partnership's past > history of perpetrating such phony control bids. Since I normally > won't know, I ask. If the conditions for an implicit agreement are > not revealed to exist, I rule no infraction. But then I ask around, > particularly of the other TDs present, and if I find evidence I've > been lied to N-S will face a C&E committee. Marvin French wrote: > Result stands. Players are allowed to deviate from an agreement for > tactical reasons. Over here we would write up a Player Report so > that repeated occurrences of the same tactical bid would be > documented, and possible action taken if it happens too often > (becoming an implicit partnership agreement). Some of you do see a problem, but then you wish to try and find evidence of it having happened before. I know this player, and I know he does this kind of thing often. Yet I do not wish to rule against him on the basis of knowing him. I also know his partner, and I know that they have not played often together. How shall I fathom whether or not they have previous experience about this type of psyche. In any case, the opponents were from another part of the country altogether, and knew nothing about this player's tendencies. From that point of view, partner knew far more than opponents. Why should all this matter, when we can deduce the "system" from the cards. Because ask yourself - what is North trying to do? He is not trying to tell South anything, because South is not interested - he has finished talking by his opening. He might be asking south something. By bidding a diamond control, he asks south to look at the club control. If south's minor holding were reversed, he would reply 4H, confirming control in both suits. Now the bidding makes sense. North is not "giving" a diamond control, but "asking" for a club control. Adding all this to the fact that in all likelihood South knew far more about North's psyching tendencies than what was known to East-West, I think I am not far out of whack to be calling it MI. Nigel GUTHRIE wrote: > Herman, the world and his wife, will rule "result stands". > We Martians have reservations: > A. Do North-South habitually psyche such cue-bids? > B. Is 4D a "controlled" or "free" psyche, that is: if > psyched, is it likely to cause no problem for North-South > while confusing East-West. > On Mars, both A & B are disclosable. > Not to worry: Mars is only a decade or so ahead of Earth in > Bridge-Law. Nigel and I will henceforward be called "little green men", hoping to convince you earthlings of the errors of your ways. You are being optimistic in thinking it will take only ten years, Nigel. ANYWAY: Tim West-Meads wrote: > If one really wanted to one might investigate whether a history of > psychic cues existed sufficient to rule the explanation MI. It > would seem an academic exercise in terms of adjustment as I can't > see a high standard declarer doing anything other than throw a > diamond on the second heart and cross ruff the rounded suits with > small trumps. Push me hard in consultation and I'll award 15% of > 5S-1/85% of 5S= on the, to me improbable, chance that declarer will > ruff the 3rd club high in dummy. Dimitr Georgiev wrote: > No need to cross ruff. Just ruff heart twice. Contract > is makeable. There is a far way to go from ruling MI to ruling damage. I had not seen the way out myself, but I had seen one other aspect of the case: If West wants to try the defence of playing for a ruff, why doesn't he do so anyway? If North holds the control then partner can have as little as Kxx behind the Ace for the ruff to work. In fact, the control to the left is good news for West! > My ruling? > David Stevenson wrote: > Please don't tempt me ... :) John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > something illegal? :) Robin Barker wrote: > I think I know better than to try to guess! Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Result stands. Konrad has more confidence in me than the English. Eric Landau wrote: > Hang 'em high? Adjust for MI? Read the beloved bit from the > footnote to L75 that says "the Director is to presume Mistaken > Explanation... in the absence of evidence to the contrary"? Even > though it has nothing to do with outright psychs? Yes Eric, that is what I did in fact rule - MI. Not because of anything to do with psychs, but from simple observation that South knew more than East/West. Well, of course I rules MI, no damage, result stands. If I were tempted to rule under L12C3, East/West would get no more than 5% of the contract going down, because: - knowing that a bid can be psyched is not the same as knowing that it is psyched - West could have chosen the defensive line regardless of the explanation - West has no reason to lead diamonds with a better explanation ("may be psyched") and has no reason not to lead diamonds with the explanation given ("control") - East might not duck the diamond lead (they say it would be easy, but ...) and one I did not see at the time - South can still make his contract (I must admit that since I did not see this last one at the time, I was rather thinking of 10% then). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 29 12:58:03 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Apr 29 12:58:58 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims References: <200504251553.j3PFraVv025042@cfa.harvard.edu> <42718EFA.5040605@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <007a01c54caa$51ec0220$429468d5@James> [Steve Willner] > As we have seen in past replies, this depends on where > you are. In the ACBL, suits are normally cashed from > the top down (though it would be "normal" to finesse > if the lead were in South), so the claim is good. > Elsewhere it is considered "normal" to play the S-4. > As David S. wrote, sponsoring organisations should > give their opinion, and their TDs and ACs should > follow it and not worry about it. If your SO hasn't > given an official opinion, find out what experienced > TDs in your area do, and do the same. Just don't > expect the same result in a different jurisdiction. [Nigel] Grattan Endicott has argues that forcing each different jurisdiction to supply local rules to plug the gaps in TFLB produces a more interesting and varied game. I agree with the many BLMLers who would rather that TFLB was comprehensive: or at least provided "default" laws for most situations. Arguably, the bizarre current policy does make it more interesting for the director; but the poor player often has to put up with this sort of daft and unnecessary inconsistency. From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 29 13:41:23 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 29 13:42:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <427210FB.6070006@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000a01c54cb0$5eca2bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > > My ruling? ................. > Eric Landau wrote: > > Hang 'em high? Adjust for MI? Read the beloved bit from the > > footnote to L75 that says "the Director is to presume Mistaken > > Explanation... in the absence of evidence to the contrary"? Even > > though it has nothing to do with outright psychs? > > Yes Eric, that is what I did in fact rule - MI. Not because of > anything to do with psychs, but from simple observation that South > knew more than East/West. > > Well, of course I rules MI, no damage, result stands. I have just one single comment: The moment you decide to rule MI I do not understand why you do not also rule a deliberately concealed partnership understanding and impose a heavy PP on North/South? (Damage or no damage to opponents and whether North "gives" information with his call or just "asks" for more information from South is completely irrelevant for this question!) You use so many words explaining why you from your knowledge of those players could tell that they actually have a special partnership experience; the fact that South knows his partner quite likely has psyched with his 4D bid. Now please explain why this is not in your opinion a serious violation of Laws 40B and 75C? And as a side note I should only point out that no such information about North (and South) was presented with your post. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 29 14:45:13 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 29 14:45:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <000a01c54cb0$5eca2bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c54cb0$5eca2bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42722C59.4000809@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Well, of course I rules MI, no damage, result stands. > > > I have just one single comment: The moment you decide to rule MI I do not > understand why you do not also rule a deliberately concealed partnership > understanding and impose a heavy PP on North/South? (Damage or no damage to > opponents and whether North "gives" information with his call or just "asks" > for more information from South is completely irrelevant for this question!) > Ehm, a pair explain their convention in one word, and then it turns out that one word does not cover the full meaning. So you rule MI, but do you always give a severe PP for CPU? Surely not. > You use so many words explaining why you from your knowledge of those > players could tell that they actually have a special partnership experience; > the fact that South knows his partner quite likely has psyched with his 4D > bid. Now please explain why this is not in your opinion a serious violation > of Laws 40B and 75C? > My point is that I don't want to use prior knowledge about this particular player into making a ruling. He said he psyched, isn't that enough information to rule that he is a "psycher", no matter how high the frequency? > And as a side note I should only point out that no such information about > North (and South) was presented with your post. > No, I deliberately left my personal knowledge of this player where it belongs - at home. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Apr 29 16:16:48 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri Apr 29 16:18:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final Message-ID: <20050429141648.CB06D2078E4@poczta.interia.pl> Herman De Wael napisa?(a): > He said he psyched, isn't that > enough information to rule that he is a "psycher", no matter how high > the frequency? ?? "One psyche per lifetime" school? But, doctor, everybody is a psycher. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 500 MB na poczte i strony WWW juz za 122 zl rocznie >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1879 From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Apr 29 16:22:04 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Apr 29 16:23:15 2005 Subject: [blml] First catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: from "Gordon Bower" at Apr 28, 2005 12:36:13 PM Message-ID: <200504291422.j3TEM4Cf020309@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Gordon Bower writes: > > Exactly what a sure-footed rabbit is, I don't know. I'd assumed before reading the problem it's a bad player who makes use of Old Black Magic. Having read further, it seems I was right. From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 29 16:23:11 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 29 16:24:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <42722C59.4000809@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000701c54cc6$f9e66a30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >>Well, of course I rules MI, no damage, result stands. > > > > > > I have just one single comment: The moment you decide to rule MI I do > not > > understand why you do not also rule a deliberately concealed partnership > > understanding and impose a heavy PP on North/South? (Damage or no damage > to > > opponents and whether North "gives" information with his call or just > "asks" > > for more information from South is completely irrelevant for this > question!) > > > > Ehm, a pair explain their convention in one word, and then it turns > out that one word does not cover the full meaning. So you rule MI, but > do you always give a severe PP for CPU? Surely not. No, of course not. But if I discovered that a pair consistently avoided disclosing what would be essential deviations or variations with their declarations I would certainly give them just one chance to change that habit and then they would face really severe PP from me. (In the order of 100% on one or more boards in MP or more than one VP with IMPs). I don't know if our culture in Norway is any more "noble" than elsewhere, but this kind of problems are to my knowledge non-existent here. Accidental MI - yes, but deliberate CPU??? > > You use so many words explaining why you from your knowledge of those > > players could tell that they actually have a special partnership > experience; > > the fact that South knows his partner quite likely has psyched with his > 4D > > bid. Now please explain why this is not in your opinion a serious > violation > > of Laws 40B and 75C? > > > > My point is that I don't want to use prior knowledge about this > particular player into making a ruling. He said he psyched, isn't that > enough information to rule that he is a "psycher", no matter how high > the frequency? Not if his habits have become part of special partnership experience. > > > And as a side note I should only point out that no such information > about > > North (and South) was presented with your post. > > > > No, I deliberately left my personal knowledge of this player where it > belongs - at home. I am not so sure that is where it belongs when it comes to deciding whether there is CPU in use. And even after reading everything written here I still cannot understand how you could rule MI without also ruling CPU in this case. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 29 17:37:42 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 29 17:37:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <000701c54cc6$f9e66a30$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c54cc6$f9e66a30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <427254C6.1080501@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Ehm, a pair explain their convention in one word, and then it turns >>out that one word does not cover the full meaning. So you rule MI, but >>do you always give a severe PP for CPU? Surely not. > > > No, of course not. But if I discovered that a pair consistently avoided > disclosing what would be essential deviations or variations with their > declarations I would certainly give them just one chance to change that > habit and then they would face really severe PP from me. (In the order of > 100% on one or more boards in MP or more than one VP with IMPs). > > I don't know if our culture in Norway is any more "noble" than elsewhere, > but this kind of problems are to my knowledge non-existent here. Accidental > MI - yes, but deliberate CPU??? > But the problem here is that the player truely believes he is doing nothing wrong - so surely if I want to rule MI I cannot do so other than by saying - you believe you have told everything, but I rule that you haven't - not that this is a bad thing like a CPU ir something. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From john at asimere.com Fri Apr 29 17:50:17 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Apr 29 17:52:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <427210FB.6070006@hdw.be> References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> <427210FB.6070006@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <427210FB.6070006@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes > >Yes Eric, that is what I did in fact rule - MI. Not because of >anything to do with psychs, but from simple observation that South >knew more than East/West. You must be kidding me Herman. It's the sort of ruling one gets from the simian cage at Antwerp Zoo. This is premier division stuff. Psychic cues are general bridge knowledge. These guys are just playing bridge. Yhere's no way I'm going to alert my partner's cues when the actual opportunity for a psychic cue occurs on a low frequency set of all cue hands. like I said, "probably illegal" :) cheers john. > >Well, of course I rules MI, no damage, result stands. >If I were tempted to rule under L12C3, East/West would get no more >than 5% of the contract going down, because: >- knowing that a bid can be psyched is not the same as knowing that it >is psyched >- West could have chosen the defensive line regardless of the explanation >- West has no reason to lead diamonds with a better explanation ("may >be psyched") and has no reason not to lead diamonds with the >explanation given ("control") >- East might not duck the diamond lead (they say it would be easy, but >...) >and one I did not see at the time >- South can still make his contract >(I must admit that since I did not see this last one at the time, I >was rather thinking of 10% then). > -- 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 Fri Apr 29 17:53:27 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Apr 29 17:55:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Lays of Ancient Rome (was Re: How does blml vote?) In-Reply-To: References: <006701c54a8c$906b38b0$c49d87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <0oNMGXA3hlcCFwmh@asimere.com> In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >+=+ Plato has so much to answer for. I wonder >what bridge opponents he had in mind. Was it >perhaps prophesy of the time when there > "Was none who would be foremost > To lead such dire attack; > But those behind cried 'Forward!' > And those before cried 'Back!' " ? > ~ G ~ +=+ > >Scribe Endicott of Clusium > By the Nine Gods he swore >That the great Laws of Contract > Be written wrong no more. >By the Nine Gods he swore it. > And named a trysting day >And bade his committee ride forth >East and West and South and North > To learn bridge world's parley. "Sink me the ship Master Grattan Sink her split her in twain I'd rather fall to the Hand of god than to have all bridge law the same." > > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > > >_______________________________________________ >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 svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 29 19:06:13 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 29 19:07:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <427254C6.1080501@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000a01c54cdd$bfd3a850$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >>Ehm, a pair explain their convention in one word, and then it turns > >>out that one word does not cover the full meaning. So you rule MI, but > >>do you always give a severe PP for CPU? Surely not. > > > > > > No, of course not. But if I discovered that a pair consistently avoided > > disclosing what would be essential deviations or variations with their > > declarations I would certainly give them just one chance to change that > > habit and then they would face really severe PP from me. (In the order > of > > 100% on one or more boards in MP or more than one VP with IMPs). > > > > I don't know if our culture in Norway is any more "noble" than > elsewhere, > > but this kind of problems are to my knowledge non-existent here. > Accidental > > MI - yes, but deliberate CPU??? > > > > But the problem here is that the player truely believes he is doing > nothing wrong - so surely if I want to rule MI I cannot do so other > than by saying - you believe you have told everything, but I rule that > you haven't - not that this is a bad thing like a CPU ir something. If you are serious then those players need to be told something about disclosures and it is TD who should tell them. (That is why I wrote that I would give such players just one chance). Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 29 20:31:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 29 20:32:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: <000001c54c90$8b48c1d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > > ............ > > > > If you insist. I know what sort of communication the writers of > > > > L73a > > > > were > > > > addressing because one of the current lawbooks contains both of > > > > the > > > > following paragraphs: > > > > > > > > Proprieties 1. "It is proper to warn partner against infringing a > > > > law of > > > > the game: for example against revoking, or against calling, > > > > leading or > > > > playing out of turn." > > > > > > Huh! Which edition of the laws are you referring to? > > > > THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS OF CONTRACT BRIDGE 1993 > > as agreed upon and promulgated by The Portland Club, The European > > Bridge > > League, American Contract Bridge League, and approved by > > The World Bridge Federation > > > > > Couldn't we try to confine ourselves to the current laws when > > > discussing > > > today's rules? > > > > They *are* current laws - at least as far as I am aware. But when it > > comes to *interpreting* the 1997 laws (eg what is meant by > > communication) > > and the spirit of the game one must look beyond the current law-book. > > History, and the more widely played rubber bridge, give an insight > > into > > how the current laws arose - and thus how they should be interpreted. > > The laws for both codes are written/promulgated by the same bodies > > and it > > is nonsense to suggest that the (almost) same words meant different > > things > > when they were written. > > Contract Bridge and Duplicate Contract Bridge are two different games > with different laws. No, they are one game with two different sets of laws. > AFAIK their laws are not in any way synchronized They are supposed to be synchronised to a degree, in that the developing bodies are expected to be cognizant of the other set. The Contract laws are supposed to be revised mid-cycle of the duplicate laws. It seems self-evident that letting the codes grow apart needlessly would be bad for bridge as a whole. > and the laws for > Contract Bridge are not intended to have any bearing on the game of > Duplicate Contract Bridge which is the game we discuss here (unless > otherwise explicitly stated). Not by intent. But when it comes to interpreting a (non-defined) word in a legal document it is normal to seek related documents (or historic ones) to discover if "intent" or "spirit" of the law-makers can be clarified. The high similarity in the words between different codes is sufficient to judge that the writers did *not* intend to forbid preventing infractions by partner (at least in 1993). Thus there is no justification for imputing such intent to the words in 1997. Maybe the 1997 laws were, in fact, a work creation scheme for bored TDs but since they don't say so we should not assume so. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 29 20:31:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 29 20:32:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <000a01c54cb0$5eca2bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > I have just one single comment: The moment you decide to rule MI I do > not understand why you do not also rule a deliberately concealed > partnership understanding and impose a heavy PP on North/South? (Damage > or no damage to opponents and whether North "gives" information with his > call or just "asks" for more information from South is completely > irrelevant for this question!) It will depend on what investigation reveals. Basically I expect an answer like "Um yes, he has done it before but I forgot". Forgetting an agreement (implicit or otherwise) during disclosure is MI, but it is a far cry from deliberate concealment. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 29 20:31:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 29 20:32:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > > You must be kidding me Herman. It's the sort of ruling one gets from > the simian cage at Antwerp Zoo. This is premier division stuff. Psychic > cues are general bridge knowledge. They may well be (were there any such thing) but if I know that the *frequency* of partner making such bids merits the description "Zia control bid" then I will answer "Zia control bid" if asked a question. Nothing in *our* play together would justify such an answer (although, of course, I remain aware that you might do it one day). If Herman (in consultation) was satisfied that such an answer *was* justified then he was right to rule MI. Besides, a ruling of "MI, no damage" serves as a caution for how we expect the pair to disclose next time around. Tim From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 29 21:14:20 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 29 21:15:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001c01c54cef$a6147360$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > I have just one single comment: The moment you decide to rule MI I do > > not understand why you do not also rule a deliberately concealed > > partnership understanding and impose a heavy PP on North/South? (Damage > > or no damage to opponents and whether North "gives" information with his > > call or just "asks" for more information from South is completely > > irrelevant for this question!) > > It will depend on what investigation reveals. Basically I expect an > answer like "Um yes, he has done it before but I forgot". Forgetting an > agreement (implicit or otherwise) during disclosure is MI, but it is a far > cry from deliberate concealment. I wouldn't mind if "he has done it before but I forgot". Herman's late description indicates that "Um yes, he has done it many times before and it was no surprise that he did it again". There is a difference, and in Norway (and yes, I believe in the other Scandinavian countries as well) we take this difference rather seriously. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 29 21:32:26 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 29 21:33:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001d01c54cf2$2cfe5830$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............... > > Contract Bridge and Duplicate Contract Bridge are two different games > > with different laws. > > No, they are one game with two different sets of laws. Any game is defined by the laws together with possible by-laws and regulations applicable to that game. Games with different laws are different games. Although Contract Bridge, Duplicate Contract Bridge, Auction Bridge, Duplicate Auction Bridge, Whist and Duplicate Whist share some similarities they are still six different games each with their own sets of laws. Nowhere have I ever seen any indication that a legal question in one of the games could be resolved by inspecting the laws for one of the other games. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Apr 30 02:15:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Apr 30 02:17:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <001c01c54cef$a6147360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Herman's late description indicates that "Um yes, he has done it many > times before and it was no surprise that he did it again". You could right. I read Herman's late comments as "The players have not often played before but the psycher is locally known for this sort of thing". To me this enough for MI but not for a PP. That said I was commenting in the general rather than the specific. There is a level of knowledge at which I will rule MI rather than deliberate concealment. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Apr 30 02:15:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Apr 30 02:17:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? In-Reply-To: <001d01c54cf2$2cfe5830$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Any game is defined by the laws together with possible by-laws and > regulations applicable to that game. > > Games with different laws are different games. Don't be so bloody obtuse Sven. Chess and speed chess are the same game despite having different rules. Roulette is the same game regardless of how many zeroes are on the wheel. > Although Contract Bridge, Duplicate Contract Bridge, Auction Bridge, > Duplicate Auction Bridge, Whist and Duplicate Whist share some > similarities they are still six different games each with their own sets > of laws. Auction Bridge, Whist and Duplicate Whist have a completely different structure from Contract Bridge (duplicate or otherwise). > Nowhere have I ever seen any indication that a legal question in one of > the games could be resolved by inspecting the laws for one of the other > games. All I can say is that you should get out more. The concept of looking for precedent/intent is well established in the legal world at large. Bridge is a gentlemen's game and your grasp of *that* concept is woeful. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Apr 30 11:06:26 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat Apr 30 11:21:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? References: Message-ID: <00ef01c54d65$527da9d0$0b874c51@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: Saturday, April 30, 2005 1:15 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Is west obliged to lead? > > Don't be so bloody obtuse Sven. > > Bridge is a gentlemen's game > > Tim > +=+ Tim's observations, not mine. I sometimes feel grumpy myself at 01.15 a.m. Oh, and one more peek under the curtain: the WBF Drafting Subcommittee has before it currently a proposal that the '2006' code of laws should refer and apply to 'the Game of Duplicate Bridge'. The latest I can tell you on timing is that the WBF President is still hopeful that it will be possible to approve final texts of the new code at the World Championships in Estoril. The Drafting Subcommittee is working hard in its efforts to make this possible. Success would probably mean that each regulating authority would be empowered to give effect to the code for its own tournaments on and after any convenient day in calendar year 2006. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Apr 30 12:00:08 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat Apr 30 12:56:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 References: Message-ID: <000701c54d72$8f27ae00$658087d9@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: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:43 PM Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 > > 1) Should NBOs announce that current director's > certifications will expire in 2007 (or whenever the > transition to the new laws is complete) and > everyone shall take a new examination under the > new law book? > > [Personal opinion is that the answer is yes, and > was yes in 1987 and 1997 too - but that it won't > actually be done at least in the ACBL. I know at > my club noone is going to be directing who hasn't > studied the new laws, test or not!] > +=+ I would think the priority for the NBO would be to ensure that a new law book is in the hands of each of its TDs as quickly as possible - in some cases this involves translation. There should be pointers to the significant changes - on which matters I expect there to be help from the web sites where the WBF publishes the laws - and guidance as to the desirable approach to implementation. I think that 'certification' is a follow-up question for each NBO to deal with in its own way. More important to get information and advice around first - and perhaps (for some) to translate accurately. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 30 15:38:09 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Apr 30 15:39:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 In-Reply-To: <000701c54d72$8f27ae00$658087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000201c54d89$d9a0cea0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott ..................... > +=+ I would think the priority for the NBO would be to > ensure that a new law book is in the hands of each of its > TDs as quickly as possible - in some cases this involves > translation. There should be pointers to the significant > changes - on which matters I expect there to be help from > the web sites where the WBF publishes the laws - and > guidance as to the desirable approach to implementation. > I think that 'certification' is a follow-up question for > each NBO to deal with in its own way. More important > to get information and advice around first - and perhaps > (for some) to translate accurately. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ And I hope (and trust) that WBFLC when spelling out the next version of the laws will be aware of the translation issues and refrain from using an "advanced" language. Plain straight forward English (or even next to pidgin) will be of significant help for the poor devils who shall translate to their own languages. Regards Sven From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sat Apr 30 15:35:12 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sat Apr 30 16:17:15 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims References: <200504251553.j3PFraVv025042@cfa.harvard.edu> <42718EFA.5040605@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <016501c54d8f$0c79d420$6a493dd4@c6l8v1> > > The second case, leading a side suit and then claiming with a trump out, > should be (and appears to have been on BLML) unanimous. > > The second claim is good after playing king of hearts with two trumps out. Ben From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 30 16:24:37 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Apr 30 16:25:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Directing after 2006 In-Reply-To: <000201c54d89$d9a0cea0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c54d89$d9a0cea0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Apr 30, 2005, at 9:38 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > And I hope (and trust) that WBFLC when spelling out the next version > of the > laws will be aware of the translation issues and refrain from using an > "advanced" language. > > Plain straight forward English (or even next to pidgin) will be of > significant help for the poor devils who shall translate to their own > languages. Or Loglan :-) From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Apr 30 18:12:24 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Apr 30 18:13:29 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims Message-ID: <4273AE68.8090906@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "Ben Schelen" > The second claim is good after playing king of hearts with two trumps > out. I am not sure what Ben is getting at here, but let's see if we can distinguish a few cases. In all cases, declarer has nine trumps to the AKQ and loads of side suit winners. 1. The original case: declarer plays two trumps, leaving one out, then leads a side suit winner, then claims. This is the one I think is unanimous: declarer loses a trick if it is possible for one of the side winners to be ruffed. (If all the side suit winners will cash, the case will not be unanimous. Some will rule declarer must play low trumps, while others will rule it irrational to play other than top-down.) 2. The one I think Ben means: declarer leads one trump, sees that they are not 4-0, and immediately claims. I agree with Ben that this claim is good because it is not "at all likely" claimer was unaware of two trumps being out. Nevertheless, I am not sure this claim would always be allowed in the ACBL, where mentioning the trumps is usually considered mandatory. 3. A new one: declarer leads one trump, then cashes a side winner or two, then claims. I think we have to see the exact deal for this sort of situation. From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 30 19:42:28 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Apr 30 19:43:34 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims In-Reply-To: <4273AE68.8090906@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c54dab$fa876210$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner ............ > I am not sure what Ben is getting at here, but let's see if we can > distinguish a few cases. In all cases, declarer has nine trumps to the > AKQ and loads of side suit winners. > > 1. The original case: declarer plays two trumps, leaving one out, then > leads a side suit winner, then claims. This is the one I think is > unanimous: declarer loses a trick if it is possible for one of the side > winners to be ruffed. (If all the side suit winners will cash, the case > will not be unanimous. Some will rule declarer must play low trumps, > while others will rule it irrational to play other than top-down.) I had to go back to the original post because I could not remember this to be an accurate summary of what was told. And I found (Heart is trump): "South take the lead with the ace, play K and Ace of heart and concede the Ace of club without any other statement. West ask for one trump..." So declarer did not PLAY any side suit after drawing two rounds of trump, he claimed (conceding one trick in a side suit) immediately after the two trump rounds. And I am surprised it to be an unanimous blml ruling that West shall have a trick for his last trump. (Before anyone starts yelling at me let me just state that I don't feel I have sufficient information for a ruling). The Director must in this case make up his mind whether Declarer after the two rounds of trump has maintained sufficient count to know that he will drop the last trump and just give away the Ace of Clubs or if it is at all likely that he may have lost count of the remaining trump. Whatever my ruling would have been I would have told South that he is supposed to make absolutely clear he is aware of the last trump or he is likely to have a ruling against him to the effect that he had forgotten it. The "correct" claim should of course have been: "I pull the last trump and all you get is the Ace of Clubs". Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Apr 30 22:14:36 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat Apr 30 22:21:03 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: Message-ID: <00bb01c54dc1$7728da00$5077893e@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: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > >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. When declarer makes a designation of a card > he may then change it if it was inadvertent, ie he may > not change his mind. > > If declarer has not made a designation - even if he > was part way through something - then he may > certainly change his mind. > +=+ In the case of an incomplete designation Law 46 applies. Law 46B3 applies when a rank but not a suit has been designated. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Apr 30 23:29:20 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Apr 30 23:30:28 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <200504221642.j3MGgjLp005071@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504221642.j3MGgjLp005071@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4273F8B0.5000401@cfa.harvard.edu> From David S. > No reason for a CPU to be intentional. So we do have a potential score adjustment infraction aside from MI. That's what I'm interested in exploring. As Eric pointed out, though, in English 'conceal' does carry some connotation of intent. I'm going to use "L40B infraction" from now on, and my intent is to deal only with unintentional infractions. > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > Most SO's don't permit the absence of CCs. But if a pair turns up and > says "sorry we've lost our CCs but we are playing a strong club based > relay system" then I'm not ruling any deliberate concealment. I'd expect > some sort of pre-alert like this (even if pre-alerts aren't generally > required) from a pair with no CC. Certainly not deliberate if they have told you about it! If the TD has the authority and decides to let them play their methods, even without a CC, I don't think the methods are automatically an infraction. Of course if the pair fail to pre-alert as required, then we have an infraction of some sort. Is it a L40B infraction? (I think so.) >>Suppose >>systems are supposed to be declared in advance, and this pair has >>failed to declare or declared a non-relay system. Would that be >>enough? > > I'll apply whatever the regs linked to pre-disclosure say. And if the SO has neglected to specify? Someone -- sorry, I forget who -- mentioned the precedent of the Polish pair at Albuquerque. I think we can say that failing to declare when required is a L40B infraction unless regulations provide otherwise. Let's go back to the relay pair who have failed to alert and reached a good contract. If no mention of relays on the CC... > The CC is supposed to help opps and this wouldn't cut the mustard with me. So it's a L40B or perhaps 40E1 nfraction. On the other hand, if they have at least mentioned relays: > I'm pragmatic, I know they can't fit the entire relay structure in a > little CC box but they have tried (IMO) to get the most important message > across in a clear succinct manner. Then there may be MI but probably no 40B or 40E1 infraction. OK, sounds good to me. SW> If you rule [L40B infraction], the whole auction is illegal. > I'm not sure what basis this has in law. As you know, Tim, I'm a literalist when reading TFLB. This one is right in L40B: "...may not make a call or play..." unless certain conditions exist. I don't see how anyone can read it otherwise, and we have the Albuquerque precedent for confirmation. If you decide the relay pair have broken L40B, you have to assign an adjusted score and take away their good contract. It is the relay auction itself that is illegal. I am not sure what to do about L40E1 violations. Thoughts, anyone? > If I find a pair has broken L40b > then I use Law40c to adjust ... Either way I end up at Law12C Yes, but you have to identify the infraction to know what "would have happened" (in the L12C2 sense) without it. In a normal MI case, the question is "What would the NOS have done if they had been given correct information?" In a L40B infraction, the question is "What would the OS have done if they were not playing an illegal method?" > For example if one finds that there is a partnership agreement to open 1H > in 3rd seat with "normal 1H openers + 0-3hcp short H" there would be clear > evidence of an "unauthorised" agreement (ie not permitted by OB convention > regs). This is illegal and we do indeed give an ArtAS. That's a good analogy. The 1H opening is illegal because it violates the SO's convention regulations. In the case I'm talking about, the relay auction is or may be illegal because it wasn't properly disclosed. > EG the auction goes 2H-2N, the 2N being described as "strong > enquiry". The 2N bidder turns up with a weak hand and claims he "psyched" > we know he is a lying toe-rag and rule that "weak with H support" is part > of their agreement about 2N. Now under EBU regs it is perfectly legal to > play 2N as "either strong or weak with support" so this agreement is > neither unauthorised nor illegal per se. It is, however, improperly > disclosed so we have a route to adjustment via L12c2 as above. This is certainly MI, but is it a L40B infraction? Suppose the opponents both have awkward hands and were never taking action, no matter what explanation they got. Are you ruling that the 2NT bid was illegal or only "MI, no damage this time?" (Of course either way you may impose a PP if appropriate.) > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > In my opinion, an inadvertent concealed partnership > understanding infraction of Law 40B is identical to > an inadvertent infraction of Law 75. In my opinion, > both are merely the infractions of misinformation. I hope the above, especially the Albuquerque precedent, convinces you otherwise. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Apr 30 23:32:56 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Apr 30 23:34:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <200504291436.j3TEaHHb008603@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504291436.j3TEaHHb008603@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4273F988.1080801@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > You use so many words explaining why you from your knowledge of those > players could tell that they actually have a special partnership experience; > the fact that South knows his partner quite likely has psyched with his 4D > bid. Now please explain why this is not in your opinion a serious violation > of Laws 40B and 75C? Of 75C there is no doubt (if Sven's assumption about the existence of partnership experience is correct). But why 40B? Is there a regulation requiring some special form of disclosure? From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Sat Apr 30 23:48:11 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sat Apr 30 23:45:12 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <4273F8B0.5000401@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, someone other than Steve Willner wrote: > > For example if one finds that there is a partnership agreement to open 1H > > in 3rd seat with "normal 1H openers + 0-3hcp short H" there would be clear > > evidence of an "unauthorised" agreement (ie not permitted by OB convention > > regs). This is illegal and we do indeed give an ArtAS. Just to clarify... you are going tod o this to ALL of this pair's 3rd seat 1H openers, normal or not, aren't you? It'd be uneven enforcement of the rules if we only pounced on people who actually opened 1H with short hearts and 0-3 points:)) GRB From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Apr 30 23:55:26 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Apr 30 23:56:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Yet another L21 Question In-Reply-To: <200504251504.j3PF4cdf020678@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504251504.j3PF4cdf020678@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4273FECE.2010109@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > To allow the NO to > change his call, the TD must find that "it is probable that he made the > call as a result of misinformation". Does The Law consider this to be > a "finding of fact" (comparable to "it is probable that there has been > a hesitation") or a "bridge judgment" (comparable to "could have been > suggested by such information")? Eric has, as usual, asked exactly the right question. What, in general, is the difference between "fact" and "bridge judgment?" Isn't it that "fact" can in principle be decided by someone who knows very little about bridge, whereas "bridge judgment" intrinsically requires bridge knowledge? If you agree with this distinction, "Would he have made the same call if given correct information?" is bridge judgment. In fact, it's nothing more than a standard bidding problem (though perhaps in some cases one with an answer too obvious to be interesting).