From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun May 1 00:44:31 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun May 1 00:45:50 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <4273F8B0.5000401@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504221642.j3MGgjLp005071@cfa.harvard.edu> <4273F8B0.5000401@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Apr 30, 2005, at 5:29 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > In a L40B infraction, the question is "What would the OS have done if > they were not playing an illegal method?" There would seem to be a very large number of potentially correct answers to this question - and which one is *the* correct answer would seem unknowable. How can we possibly determine which of BIGNUM methods the pair would have been playing if they had not been playing their illegal method? From twm at cix.co.uk Sun May 1 02:09:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun May 1 02:11:03 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <4273F8B0.5000401@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > This is certainly MI, but is it a L40B infraction? If they have "disclosed the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation" there can be no MI. If they have failed (in some way) to disclose they have infracted L40b* (unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning). Technically there is no mention of concealment in L40b (the headings not being part of the laws). There is mention of concealment in Law73E but L73f requires damage before adjusting. *At least in the EBU where the Orange Book contains: 3.1.1 All agreements, including implicit understandings and practices of your partnership, must be fully disclosed to your opponents. (Law 75A, 40B) Actually 3.1.1 includes some L75c stuff while the brackets don't reference it, but I don't think that is important to the main thrust. The rest of section 3/4/5 makes it pretty clear. I have always presumed that disclosure regulations elsewhere following similar lines. > 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?" I'm ruling MI, no damage. NB, not particularly likely in EBU land because many players feel discouraged from asking about an alerted call *unless* the explanation will affect their bid. > (Of course either way you may impose a PP if appropriate.) And if I think MI was given deliberately I will (careful DwS followers). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun May 1 02:09:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun May 1 02:11:04 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims In-Reply-To: <000001c54dab$fa876210$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > 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). I agree we don't have enough information to give a ruling. But there is enough info for me to form an opinion. IE, declarer is going to have his work cut out getting me to believe he knew there was a trump out. Had he claimed after the *1st* trump (or even immediately after the show- out) he would have had a very easy time convincing me he was aware of the outstanding trumps. Tim From jakec at mailAccount.com Sun May 1 03:06:23 2005 From: jakec at mailAccount.com (Marshall Mccauley) Date: Sun May 1 02:13:35 2005 Subject: [blml] You've been selected for a low rate Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h0us1ng.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Deann Alexander to be remov(ed: http://www.h0us1ng.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun May 1 04:43:34 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun May 1 04:44:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Second catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: <01f301c54c13$b333c050$779868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Bunny or not, you are tempted to remove 3NT because of the >likelihood of a misunderstanding [snip] The complete deal: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: North-South Rueful Rabbit JT5 Q985 QJT5 94 Secretary Bird Walter the Walrus 643 K9872 JT63 AK72 7 A82 K6532 Q Baffled Bunny AQ 4 K9643 AJT87 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1S 2NT(1) Pass(2) 3NT(3) Dble 4C Dble 4D(4) Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) Not alerted. (2) The Secretary Bird was always going to pass 2NT. However, as the local club expert, he could not resist enquiring as to the meaning of the unalerted 2NT. (3) Rueful Rabbit had temporarily forgotten the unusual 2NT convention, so confidently assured the Secretary Bird that 2NT was natural and strong, and equally confidently raised to 3NT. (4) Even Rueful Rabbit's memory had been jogged by this auction. So, the result was +710 in 4Dx for the Rueful Rabbit. The Secretary Bird naturally summoned the director. In this MI and UI scrambled situation, the TD ruled that: (a) 4C was the only logical alternative for South after East's double had created an irresistible temptation to remove 3NT because of the overwhelming likelihood of a misunderstanding, but (b) with correct information, East would know North-South were having a bidding misunderstanding, so East would then try to catch their rabbit quietly with a soft Pass (not a loud Double), so (c) the score was adjusted to 3NT undoubled by South, for a score of NS -200 and EW +200. The TD was not totally happy with their unscrambling of the situation, so the TD requested me to post their ruling to blml to find out if the TD could have ruled more effectively and equitably. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From svenpran at online.no Sun May 1 07:06:43 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun May 1 07:07:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <4273F988.1080801@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c54e0b$91895330$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: 30. april 2005 23:33 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final > > > 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? Law 40B: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless ..." (in so many words opponents will be aware of and understand it). Regards Sven From ardelm at bigpond.net.au Sun May 1 09:13:49 2005 From: ardelm at bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun May 1 09:15:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> The other day I got accused of unethical conduct under the following circumstances: I was dealer and partner passed out of turn, not accepted. I opened 3C with a few clubs, but 3 aces and some other stuff. LHO bid 4H and went down for a bottom. They said it was unethical of me to take advantage of having partner out of the bidding. I am absolutely certain that it is authorised information to me that my partner does not have an opening hand, and that he must pass at the first opportunity, and that I am free to make any call whatsoever, even a psyche with this knowledge...but can I find chapter and verse in TFLB to prove it to the opponents. NO Beseiged TD Tony (Sydney) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 29/04/2005 From baillet at yebox.com Sun May 1 11:28:58 2005 From: baillet at yebox.com (Jan Beal) Date: Sun May 1 10:39:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Become a homeowner with low rates Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h0us1ng.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Silas Baird 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 hermandw at hdw.be Sun May 1 12:10:30 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun May 1 12:10:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> <427210FB.6070006@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4274AB16.3080903@hdw.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > 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. > Allow me to correct you on a piece of "general" bridge knowledge in Belgium. Psychic cues are not as common in Belgium as they are in London. I'm not ruling GBK here, sorry. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Sun May 1 12:16:29 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun May 1 12:16:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Second catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4274AC7D.3030802@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > (b) with correct information, East would know North-South were > having a bidding misunderstanding, so East would then try to catch > their rabbit quietly with a soft Pass (not a loud Double), so > This is WRONG. East/West are entitled to knowing NS's system. EW are NOT entitled to know what North believes the system to be. So East should act as if North explains 2NT as minors and then confidently raises to 3NT. Now maybe passing this under that apprehension is a possibility (East has 3 quick tricks but not 5) so that the ruling below can still be a possibility, but maybe a L12C3 adjustment to some % of result stands and the remainder of -200 is also possible. > (c) the score was adjusted to 3NT undoubled by South, for a score > of NS -200 and EW +200. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Sun May 1 12:43:48 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Sun May 1 12:44:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> This was discussed at length when an English junior well known to John Probst psyched a weak 2 in a suit he didn't have opposite a silenced partner. As I recall we were all very ammused, couldn't decide about the ethics but told him not to do it again, as it had been so widely discussed that ANY partner he would ever have in the future ould be privy to it. Nice one Tony - you too are now on the list :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 8:13 AM Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct > The other day I got accused of unethical conduct under the > following circumstances: > > I was dealer and partner passed out of turn, not accepted. > I opened 3C with a few clubs, but 3 aces and some other > stuff. LHO bid 4H and went down for a bottom. They said > it was unethical of me to take advantage of having partner > out of the bidding. I am absolutely certain that it is authorised > information to me that my partner does not have an opening > hand, and that he must pass at the first opportunity, > and that I am free to make any call whatsoever, even > a psyche with this knowledge...but can I find chapter and > verse in TFLB to prove it to the opponents. NO > > Beseiged TD > > Tony (Sydney) > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 29/04/2005 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Sun May 1 13:23:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun May 1 13:24:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <000001c54e0b$91895330$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > > 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 Well, I have my doubts about 75c. To be "protected" would require that the partnership caters, in some way, to the possibility of psychic cues. Personally, if partnering Zia, I would always bid as if his cues were genuine since doing otherwise is just too risky (I'd expect any other partner of sometime psychic cuer to do the same). OK I'd investigate the possibility of catering - but with no great expectation of finding anything. > > partnership experience is correct). But why 40B? Is there a > > regulation requiring some special form of disclosure? > > Law 40B: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special > partnership understanding unless ..." (in so many words opponents will > be aware of and understand it). Sven, I'm with you on the violation of L40b. It's the word "serious" I feel uncomfortable with. The omission *could* have been down to carelessness/forgetfulness/lack of understanding of disclosure obligations (quite likely on the evidence Herman gave). None of those are "serious" offences (IMO) - just routine MI. "Serious" is when we judge a deliberate attempt at concealment has been made. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 1 13:11:37 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun May 1 13:42:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <000f01c54e42$272659c0$f99587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 8:13 AM Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct > The other day I got accused of unethical conduct under the > following circumstances: > > I was dealer and partner passed out of turn, not accepted. > I opened 3C with a few clubs, but 3 aces and some other > stuff. LHO bid 4H and went down for a bottom. They said > it was unethical of me to take advantage of having partner > out of the bidding. I am absolutely certain that it is authorised > information to me that my partner does not have an opening > hand, and that he must pass at the first opportunity, > and that I am free to make any call whatsoever, even > a psyche with this knowledge...but can I find chapter and > verse in TFLB to prove it to the opponents. NO > +=+ I begin by assuring you that I do not accuse your partnership of malfeasance. However, the situation is typically one in which Law 72B1 may be applied. When this law was written the drafting committee had reports precisely of players who were passing out of rotation before partner had called on the deal, and who when it occurred were found to have hands without the values to respond to an opening bid of one in an uncontested auction. It was recognized that scope for abusive communication existed and the possibility was one of the considerations leading to the inscription of this law. Additionally, if the pass out of rotation is cancelled it becomes a withdrawn action and the use of information arising from it is subject to Law 16C. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 1 13:36:01 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun May 1 13:42:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> <427210FB.6070006@hdw.be> <4274AB16.3080903@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001001c54e42$280d8570$f99587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight, But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right. ~ Hilaire Belloc ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > 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. > > > > Allow me to correct you on a piece of "general" bridge knowledge in > Belgium. Psychic cues are not as common in Belgium as they are in > London. I'm not ruling GBK here, sorry. > +=+ This is a curious melange of ideas. If something is psychic it will not be alerted because there is no partnership understanding about it. If it were alerted it would be a statement that there is an agreement about it - possibly implicit arising from partnership experience. Would the player in the case discussed be aware that his partner had a history of making cue bids that involve a gross distortion of the values etc. in his hand? If so, this calls for disclosure; 'general bridge knowledge' does not cover those circumstances, regardless of whether we are in Brasschaat or East Cheam. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . From cibor at poczta.fm Sun May 1 14:22:16 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sun May 1 14:23:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <000f01c54e42$272659c0$f99587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000e01c54e48$6cc72710$33071d53@kocurzak> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tony Musgrove" > To: > Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 8:13 AM > Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct > > > > The other day I got accused of unethical conduct under the > > following circumstances: > > > > I was dealer and partner passed out of turn, not accepted. > > I opened 3C with a few clubs, but 3 aces and some other > > stuff. LHO bid 4H and went down for a bottom. They said > > it was unethical of me to take advantage of having partner > > out of the bidding. I am absolutely certain that it is authorised > > information to me that my partner does not have an opening > > hand, and that he must pass at the first opportunity, > > and that I am free to make any call whatsoever, even > > a psyche with this knowledge...but can I find chapter and > > verse in TFLB to prove it to the opponents. NO > > > +=+ I begin by assuring you that I do not accuse your > partnership of malfeasance. However, the situation is > typically one in which Law 72B1 may be applied. How, on earth, could the passer have known that passing out of turn could work to his advantage? If was Tony who could but he wasn't the one who committed an infraction. To open 3C was illegal because of L16C2 - Tony used information from the withdrawn call (which was unauthorised to him) but what does L72B1 have to do with it? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ------------------------------------------------------------------- Twoja komorka wymaga wzmocnienia? Sciagnij tapete z najwiekszym silaczem. Tutaj >> http://link.interia.pl/f1876 << From hermandw at hdw.be Sun May 1 14:29:04 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun May 1 14:28:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <001001c54e42$280d8570$f99587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> <427210FB.6070006@hdw.be> <4274AB16.3080903@hdw.be> <001001c54e42$280d8570$f99587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4274CB90.2070501@hdw.be> Let me answer the last sentence first: Grattan Endicott wrote: > 'general bridge knowledge' does not cover those > circumstances, regardless of whether we are in Brasschaat or East > Cheam. John was saying that in his experience a player need not disclose that a cue bid can be psyched - this is GBK. I don't contest that this is true in London, but it is not true in Belgium, where such psyches are very rare. I do believe the term "GBK" covers knowledge general to the players in the tournament, not general to the whole world. So, if John considers that there would be no MI in London, due to GBK, then I can tell him that it would be MI in Belgium, where the same GBK is lacking. > from Grattan Endicott >> >>Allow me to correct you on a piece of "general" bridge knowledge in >>Belgium. Psychic cues are not as common in Belgium as they are in >>London. I'm not ruling GBK here, sorry. >> > > +=+ This is a curious melange of ideas. If something is psychic > it will not be alerted because there is no partnership understanding > about it. If it were alerted it would be a statement that there is an > agreement about it - possibly implicit arising from partnership > experience. Would the player in the case discussed be aware that > his partner had a history of making cue bids that involve a gross > distortion of the values etc. in his hand? If so, this calls for > disclosure; which is exactly what the opponents did not receive, so I rule MI. There seems to be a general misconception here. If a call is psychic, then of course it cannot be alerted and explained as "psychic". But OTOH, if a call is made in circumstances in which psyches are more frequent than others, this heightened frequency needs to be conveyed to opponents. But I was not ruling that the call was psychic - I was ruling MI plain and simple. I explained it to a good friend of that player yesterday, and asked him - what would 4Di say to you? "absolutely nothing" he said - I know him and I know it can be with or without a real control. THAT is the information he would have had as opponent, and THAT is the information the real opponents ought to have had. "My partner is showing a spade support and possibly a diamond control - he might be doing that in order to hear a heart or club control from me, or he might do that in order to deter you from the diamond lead" That is the real explanation, and the opponents did not get that. No Psyches involved, maybe even. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun May 1 14:32:11 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sun May 1 14:32:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be><427210FB.6070006@hdw.be><4274AB16.3080903@hdw.be> <001001c54e42$280d8570$f99587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <002301c54e49$ccede8d0$539468d5@James> [Grattan Endicott] > Would the player in the case discussed be aware that > his partner had a history of making cue bids that involve > a gross distortion of the values etc. in his hand? If > so, this calls for disclosure; 'general bridge knowledge' > does not cover those circumstances, regardless of whether > we are in Brasschaat or East Cheam. [Nigel] After a series of increasingly alarming comments defending nondisclosures, I am glad that another correspondent endorses Sven's common-sense view. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun May 1 14:33:43 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sun May 1 14:34:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Second catch your rabbit Message-ID: <002a01c54e4a$03695bb0$539468d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > Pairs East North-South > Rueful Rabbit > JT5 > Q985 > QJT5 > 94 > Secretary Bird Walter the Walrus > 643 K9872 > JT63 AK72 > 7 A82 > K6532 Q > Baffled Bunny > AQ > 4 > K9643 > AJT87 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1S 2NT(1) > Pass(2) 3NT(3) Dble 4C > Dble 4D(4) Dble Pass > Pass Pass > (1) Not alerted. > (2) The Secretary Bird was always going to pass 2NT. > However, as the local club expert, he could not resist > enquiring as to the meaning of the unalerted 2NT. > (3) Rueful Rabbit had temporarily forgotten the unusual > 2NT convention, so confidently assured the Secretary > Bird that 2NT was natural and strong, and equally > confidently raised to 3NT. > (4) Even Rueful Rabbit's memory had been jogged by > this auction. So, the result was +710 in 4Dx for the > Rueful Rabbit. > The Secretary Bird naturally summoned the director. > In this MI and UI scrambled situation, the TD ruled > that: > (a) 4C was the only logical alternative for South after > East's double had created an irresistible temptation to > remove 3NT because of the overwhelming likelihood of a > misunderstanding, but > (b) with correct information, East would know North-South > were having a bidding misunderstanding, so East would > then try to catch their rabbit quietly with a soft Pass > (not a loud Double), so > (c) the score was adjusted to 3NT undoubled by South, for > a score of NS -200 and EW +200. [Nigel] The TD may argue that this is an "equitable" ruling but East-West have reason to feel victimised. The information from the 2N explanation is unauthorised to South and it demonstrably suggested South's correction to 4C over the logical alternative of pass. The likely effect of fudge rulings on frustrated victims is a general atmosphere of "if you can't beat the law-breakers then you may as well join them". From svenpran at online.no Sun May 1 20:11:22 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun May 1 20:12:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <000e01c54e48$6cc72710$33071d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <000001c54e79$2e398ca0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski ............. > > > I was dealer and partner passed out of turn, not accepted. > > > I opened 3C with a few clubs, but 3 aces and some other > > > stuff. LHO bid 4H and went down for a bottom. They said > > > it was unethical of me to take advantage of having partner > > > out of the bidding. I am absolutely certain that it is authorised > > > information to me that my partner does not have an opening > > > hand, and that he must pass at the first opportunity, > > > and that I am free to make any call whatsoever, even > > > a psyche with this knowledge...but can I find chapter and > > > verse in TFLB to prove it to the opponents. NO > > > > > +=+ I begin by assuring you that I do not accuse your > > partnership of malfeasance. However, the situation is > > typically one in which Law 72B1 may be applied. > > How, on earth, could the passer have known that > passing out of turn could work to his advantage? > If was Tony who could but he wasn't the one > who committed an infraction. > > To open 3C was illegal because of L16C2 - > Tony used information from the withdrawn call > (which was unauthorised to him) > but what does L72B1 have to do with it? The fact that partner does not have a hand worth an opening bid is unauthorized information but the information that he must pass on his first occasion IS authorized. So if the Director finds that the opening bid of 3C "could have been suggested by partner by showing that he does not have an opening hand" he shall consider Law 16C2, but if he finds that opening 3C could rather be a consequence of the knowledge that partner must pass then this opening bid is probably perfectly legal. And finally: If the director afterwards finds that the player who passed out of turn could have foreseen that the penalty for this irregularity could work to his advantage then we have a Law 72B1 situation (see also Law 23). Lots of judgment here, and we cannot really make any ruling without full knowledge of the situation. Regards Sven. From svenpran at online.no Sun May 1 20:26:09 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun May 1 20:27:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c54e7b$3f1fa6b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads .............. > Sven, I'm with you on the violation of L40b. It's the word "serious" I > feel uncomfortable with. The omission *could* have been down to > carelessness/forgetfulness/lack of understanding of disclosure obligations > (quite likely on the evidence Herman gave). None of those are "serious" > offences (IMO) - just routine MI. "Serious" is when we judge a deliberate > attempt at concealment has been made. I agree with you in general, but the way Herman is describing the case he leaves no room for the player who explained 4D as control to have "forgotten" anything. Either he gave the correct explanation or that partnership has an understanding which he deliberately concealed. This where in my opinion "serious violation" enters the picture? Let me add that I have seen this kind of tactical bidding described in bridge literature from as far back as I believe even before 1940! I have also seen described disasters resulting from such bidding. Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Sun May 1 20:38:58 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun May 1 20:41:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <001001c54e42$280d8570$f99587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> <427210FB.6070006@hdw.be> <4274AB16.3080903@hdw.be> <001001c54e42$280d8570$f99587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article <001001c54e42$280d8570$f99587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes >from Grattan Endicott snip >> > >> > >> > 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. >> > >> >> Allow me to correct you on a piece of "general" bridge knowledge in >> Belgium. Psychic cues are not as common in Belgium as they are in >> London. I'm not ruling GBK here, sorry. >> >+=+ This is a curious melange of ideas. If something is psychic >it will not be alerted because there is no partnership understanding >about it. If it were alerted it would be a statement that there is an >agreement about it - possibly implicit arising from partnership >experience. Would the player in the case discussed be aware that >his partner had a history of making cue bids that involve a gross >distortion of the values etc. in his hand? If so, this calls for >disclosure; 'general bridge knowledge' does not cover those >circumstances, regardless of whether we are in Brasschaat or East >Cheam. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ suppose you were playing with me Grattan (heaven's forbid of course), would you alert my cues as "possibly psychic" ? The point about a psychic cue is that the opportunity comes up very seldom. We read about Zia's psychic cues, but how many has he actually perpetrated in competition? I just can't bring myself to rule MI, but any bridge player knows about them, they just don't happen often. So Herman is right, they don't occur in Antwerp, neither do they in Mile End or the bear pit in Chelsea. East Cheam, I ask you! It's like saying you live in Warrington :) cheers John > >. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Sun May 1 20:42:37 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun May 1 20:44:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In article <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop- server.bigpond.net.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >The other day I got accused of unethical conduct under the >following circumstances: > >I was dealer and partner passed out of turn, not accepted. >I opened 3C with a few clubs, but 3 aces and some other >stuff. LHO bid 4H and went down for a bottom. They said >it was unethical of me to take advantage of having partner >out of the bidding. I am absolutely certain that it is authorised >information to me that my partner does not have an opening >hand, and that he must pass at the first opportunity, >and that I am free to make any call whatsoever, even >a psyche with this knowledge...but can I find chapter and >verse in TFLB to prove it to the opponents. NO > >Beseiged TD So, knowing partner is barred you bid what you thought you could make. The opps know that too. If partner "could have known" I might adjust but it seems he couldn't possibly do so. good shot. John > >Tony (Sydney) > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Sun May 1 20:43:57 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun May 1 20:46:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: In article <002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer>, Anne Jones writes >This was discussed at length when an English junior well known to John >Probst psyched a weak 2 in a suit he didn't have opposite a silenced >partner. >As I recall we were all very ammused, couldn't decide about the ethics but >told him not to do it again, as it had been so widely discussed that ANY >partner he would ever have in the future ould be privy to it. >Nice one Tony - you too are now on the list :-) This one's very different. Tony with C and values bid what he thought he could make. The Rotweiller coup was a very different kettle of fish. John >Anne -- 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 B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sun May 1 15:10:55 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sun May 1 23:23:20 2005 Subject: [blml] 2 claims References: <4273AE68.8090906@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000601c54e93$b74c09e0$2b013dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 claims > 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. > > Correctly understood: Case 1: Maybe declarer has miscounted or has not seen that east showed-out. Case 2: Such a claim is accepted in the Netherlands without statement: declarer showed that he has seen that the trumps are 2-2 or 3-1. Ben From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 2 04:10:12 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 2 04:11:30 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <4273F8B0.5000401@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [big snip] >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. [big snip] Richard Hills (prior posting): >>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. Steve Willner: >I hope the above, especially the Albuquerque precedent, >convinces you otherwise. Richard Hills (current posting): "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse." The WBF committee at the Albuquerque World Championship therefore did not need to consider whether or not the Polish pair in question had carelessly and inadvertently provided misinformation. However, the WBF committee's disciplinary penalty of benching the Polish pair for the final quarter of the semi-final may have been partly based on the previous historical record of that Polish pair to "carelessly" and "inadvertently" provide misinformation. Anyway, attempts to draw fine distinctions between the non- Propriety Law 40 and the Propriety Law 75 are likely to soon be moot. The 2006 edition of the Laws is likely to finally fully integrate the Proprieties into the main body of the Laws, with a likely consequential rationalisation and merger of Laws 40 and 75. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 2 06:00:04 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 2 06:01:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <4274CB90.2070501@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >"My partner is showing a spade support and possibly a >diamond control - he might be doing that in order to >hear a heart or club control from me, or he might do >that in order to deter you from the diamond lead" That >is the real explanation, and the opponents did not get >that. No Psyches involved, maybe even. Richard Hills: Once again I fully agree with Herman. I admire Herman's cunning posing of the question in his original posting on this thread. Many blmlers fell headlong into his trap, ruling "no infraction", while I realised that the answer to his original posting was actually, "more information needed to determine whether or not an infraction has occurred". (The headlong blmlers perhaps were focussed on the obvious - no damage had occurred.) Again I note that the so-called "general bridge knowledge" calls misnamed "baby psyches" and "psychic cuebids" should be actually named "baby pseudo-psyches" and "pseudo-psychic cuebids". I also like Tim West-Meads' coining of "Zia cuebids" to clarify exactly what a pseudo-psychic cuebid entails. If a partnership has an implicit agreement to cuebid in the Zia style (instead of cuebidding in a uniformly boring straightforward style), then the opponents are entitled to advance disclosure of the partnership's implicit Zia agreement. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 2 07:12:37 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 2 07:13:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Accelerated Swiss In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Reviving an old thread. The Swiss movement was designed by chess administrators, then adopted by bridge administrators from the 1960s onwards. The more rounds a Swiss has, the more accurate the top few and bottom few placings will be. (Up to a point. When the number of rounds exceeds half the number of contestants, the phenomenon of "over-Swissing" occurs.) When there is a large number of contestants and a small number of rounds, it is possible that some leading contestants will fail to meet and/or some weak contestants will "Swiss through the field". An additional round's worth of accuracy can be provided if the field is seeded, so that top half contestants play bottom half contestants in the first round. A further additional round's worth of accuracy was discovered by chess administrators when they designed the Accelerated Swiss movement. I adapted this Accelerated Swiss move to bridge Swiss teams (or Swiss pairs) in which the WBF victory point scale is used. Although we differ in our interpretations of Law 73C, I was gratified when the CTD of New Zealand (Arie Geursen) gave my movement the attached encomium in the just-published edition of the Australian Directors' Bulletin. -> >Only two weeks prior to the NZ National Team Trials >we ended up with 26 entries for our North Island >Teams Championship. The preliminary notice >specified that we would start on Saturday at 10am >and finish around 7.30pm, allowing the players to go >to dinner and not return until the morning. We would >then finish around 4pm on Sunday after allowing for >a catered lunch. Constructing a sensible teams format >around these constraints, while still giving those >practicing for the National Trials a good work out, >proved more difficult. It seemed to me that anything >less that 12-board matches wasn't really sensible and >I was keen to qualify the top six teams for the final, >which would require another five matches to >complete. This left time for only five qualifying rounds, >which is one round less than I was really comfortable >with. Suddenly a spark struck me - an Accelerated >Swiss! After a quick dig through old Directors' >Bulletins, I found the article by Richard Hills I was >looking for (No 36, August 2002). > >The hardest part was in seeding what was an >extremely strong field, but the rest of the mechanics >proved to be very easy indeed. Using the Swiss >Teams software, I put an asterisk in front of the 13 >top-seeded captain's names to make them easy to >distinguish and, as suggested, temporally credited an >extra +10 VPs to each of these teams. After entering >the results for the first round, producing a ranked list >and then ruling some lines to separate the three groups, >the draw for the second round could virtually be read >off in a minute or two (you only need to look out for >any draws). > >During the second round, I removed all the asterisks >and temporary VP loadings and the remaining three >rounds were scored as normal. > >Whether or not this method was designed to allow >one to get away with a round or so less of Swiss is a >moot point, but I was quite impressed in that after >five rounds all the "top teams" had roughly ended up >with an equally weighted draw and there was no >obvious evidence of a team "Swissing through the >field". Two unseeded teams did make the final six, >but one did so by beating four seeded teams, the other >three. > >Give it a go. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 2 08:43:55 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon May 2 08:44:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <000001c54e79$2e398ca0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c54ee2$72f918b0$bbe3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 7:11 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Unethical conduct The fact that partner does not have a hand worth an opening bid is unauthorized information but the information that he must pass on his first occasion IS authorized. So if the Director finds that the opening bid of 3C "could have been suggested by partner by showing that he does not have an opening hand" he shall consider Law 16C2, but if he finds that opening 3C could rather be a consequence of the knowledge that partner must pass then this opening bid is probably perfectly legal. And finally: If the director afterwards finds that the player who passed out of turn could have foreseen that the penalty for this irregularity could work to his advantage then we have a Law 72B1 situation (see also Law 23). Lots of judgment here, and we cannot really make any ruling without full knowledge of the situation. Regards Sven. +=+ I think this is a fair answer to Conrad. One further consideration, in the cases of the offenders I cited in my previous posting there was a history of other recent passes OOT with partner still to speak. The drafting committee decided it should not be essential to prove a concealed arrangement for the Director to adjust the score. (One of the examples was a POOT after which partner, as dealer, passed a hand of 14 or 15 HCP, which worked to his advantage.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 2 08:47:52 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 2 08:49:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Second catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: <4274AC7D.3030802@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Part of South Canberra Bridge Club TD ruling: [snip] >>(b) with correct information, East would know North-South were >>having a bidding misunderstanding, so East would then try to catch >>their rabbit quietly with a soft Pass (not a loud Double), so [snip] Herman De Wael: >This is WRONG. > >East/West are entitled to knowing NS's system. EW are NOT entitled >to know what North believes the system to be. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, "This is WRONG" is an overstatement of what are the legalities of required information and also the legalities of additional incidental authorised information. The fact that North (mistakenly) described South's call as natural is additional incidental authorised information to East. If East had also read a hypothetical computer printout of the North-South partnership agreements (Edgar Kaplan's metaphor), East would know that the actual agreement of North-South was the Unusual 2NT. So, East would be authorised to deduce that North and South were about to have a bidding misunderstanding (unless South had simultaneously forgotten their system in an identical way). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From hermandw at hdw.be Mon May 2 09:26:36 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon May 2 09:26:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Second catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4275D62C.7090202@hdw.be> Hello Richard, I did not wish to burden another thread with this, but thanks for your statement there : "I fully agree with Herman". It's a first, I believe. About your rabbits: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Part of South Canberra Bridge Club TD ruling: > > [snip] > > >>>(b) with correct information, East would know North-South were >>>having a bidding misunderstanding, so East would then try to catch >>>their rabbit quietly with a soft Pass (not a loud Double), so > > > [snip] > > Herman De Wael: > > >>This is WRONG. >> >>East/West are entitled to knowing NS's system. EW are NOT entitled >>to know what North believes the system to be. > > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, "This is WRONG" is an overstatement of what are the > legalities of required information and also the legalities of > additional incidental authorised information. > Well, the statement above, even if you add your comment below, would still be wrong, but: > The fact that North (mistakenly) described South's call as natural > is additional incidental authorised information to East. If East > had also read a hypothetical computer printout of the North-South > partnership agreements (Edgar Kaplan's metaphor), East would know > that the actual agreement of North-South was the Unusual 2NT. So, > East would be authorised to deduce that North and South were about > to have a bidding misunderstanding (unless South had simultaneously > forgotten their system in an identical way). > North's statement is indeed authorized information, and East is allowed to use it. But when we decide what would have happened with correct information, we should do so with ONLY correct information. However East is going to receive the correct explanation, he is not also going to receive the wrong one. If the screen is the other way round, he does not get North's mistaken view as well. If North correctly explains (and still misinterprets), East doesn't get the misinterpretation as well. Or if East looks the bid up in the "Kaplan" system, he does not need to ask North for the explanation either. I firmly believe (and I have seen other rulings in the same way) that when deciding on the adjusted score, we must consider what East does with the correct information, but without the added info that North has misunderstood. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Mon May 2 09:26:40 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Mon May 2 09:27:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au><002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <000c01c54ee8$49ddf7b0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 7:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > In article <002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer>, Anne Jones > writes >>This was discussed at length when an English junior well known to John >>Probst psyched a weak 2 in a suit he didn't have opposite a silenced >>partner. >>As I recall we were all very ammused, couldn't decide about the ethics but >>told him not to do it again, as it had been so widely discussed that ANY >>partner he would ever have in the future ould be privy to it. >>Nice one Tony - you too are now on the list :-) > > This one's very different. Tony with C and values bid what he thought he > could make. The Rotweiller coup was a very different kettle of fish. > > John >>Anne > I don't appreciate that there is such a difference except that Rotweiller psyched a conventional bid. Tony psyched a natural bid You seem to think that Tony bid what he thought he could make. I don't believe this is so. Tony says that he had a few clubs, three aces and some other stuff.. He doesn't say how few. It looked to me that he had a hand with some defence and opened at the three level suspecting that he would muddy the waters for his opps. His opps knew his pard didn't have opening values - Tony is indicating that he doesn't either - thus encouraging his opps to bid too high. He opened a weak bid with a strong hand with the intention to deceive. Tony said "I am absolutely certain that it is authorised information to me that my partner does not have an opening hand, and that he must pass at the first opportunity," I think we are agreed that he was correct about the latter point but incorrect about the former. Anne From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 2 09:59:54 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon May 2 10:06:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> <427210FB.6070006@hdw.be> <4274AB16.3080903@hdw.be><001001c54e42$280d8570$f99587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <004801c54eed$2a067890$449087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight, But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right. ~ Hilaire Belloc ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 7:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final > In article <001001c54e42$280d8570$f99587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan > Endicott writes > >from Grattan Endicott > > >+=+ This is a curious melange of ideas. If something is psychic > >it will not be alerted because there is no partnership understanding > >about it. If it were alerted it would be a statement that there is an > >agreement about it - possibly implicit arising from partnership > >experience. Would the player in the case discussed be aware that > >his partner had a history of making cue bids that involve a gross > >distortion of the values etc. in his hand? If so, this calls for > >disclosure; 'general bridge knowledge' does not cover those > >circumstances, regardless of whether we are in Brasschaat or East > >Cheam. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > suppose you were playing with me Grattan (heaven's forbid of course), > would you alert my cues as "possibly psychic" ? The point about a > psychic cue is that the opportunity comes up very seldom. We read about > Zia's psychic cues, but how many has he actually perpetrated in > competition? I just can't bring myself to rule MI, but any bridge > player knows about them, they just don't happen often. So Herman is > right, they don't occur in Antwerp, neither do they in Mile End or the > bear pit in Chelsea. > > East Cheam, I ask you! It's like saying you live in Warrington :) > > cheers John > > +=+ In Warrington, as I hear, they would be as ignorant of Zia's or John's propensities as they would be in East Cheam. 'Any bridge player' is an overstatement. As for you and me, John, it would be difficult for a director to point to partnership experience. (One of my more hilarious experiences was a casual session with Brian Senior - we had not agreed four card raises so I raised his 1S openers to 2S on three cards and 'shape' (i.e. not 4333). He must have played 2S in a 3-3 fit on at least five hands in the evening, possibly because we assumed too much of each other's style. I did have a reputation for three card openers, which occurred in practice only a little more often than Zia's cues - the useful thing, 45-50 years ago, was to get the reputation.) ~ G ~ +=+ From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon May 2 10:32:41 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon May 2 10:33:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Accelerated Swiss In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050502083241.29978.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Reviving an old thread. > > The Swiss movement was designed by chess > administrators, then > adopted by bridge administrators from the 1960s > onwards. The > more rounds a Swiss has, the more accurate the top > few and > bottom few placings will be. (Up to a point. When > the > number of rounds exceeds half the number of > contestants, the > phenomenon of "over-Swissing" occurs.) I have done some simulations on Swiss movements and their efficiency. In those simulations on average every extra round played produced a "better" result in terms of teams placing at or close to their expected result. That is there was no detrimental effect of "over-Swissing" in terms of efficiency of the result. This makes perfect sense in that a complete round robin is the "ultimate swiss". I guess for other reasons we would prefer that Team 1 played Team 2 in the last round rather than both teams playing bunnies in the last round. The only detrimental effect of "over-Swissing" is that the last round which may decide the event or qualifying positions will be played between teams that are disparate in strength. This means that the final result may end up being based on who can beat up their bunnies the best in the last round. > > When there is a large number of contestants and a > small > number of rounds, it is possible that some leading > contestants will fail to meet and/or some weak > contestants > will "Swiss through the field". This is the principle of "over-Swissing" in reverse. I guess it is "under-Swissing" this effect is reduced for every extra round played. > > An additional round's worth of accuracy can be > provided if > the field is seeded, so that top half contestants > play bottom > half contestants in the first round. There is no basis for this. It is a complete fallacy. Having a seeded draw in round one in which the field is divided into two halves on ability and Team 1 plays the top team in the lower half and Team 2 plays the second team in the lower half effectively means that the draw for Round 2 is random. This is because each match will be between similarly disparate teams which means that the variations in results will be dominated by random events. In a 100 team field team 1 is as likely to beat team 51 by 25-5VPS as Team 50 is to beat team 100. If the Round one draw works properly then we will have a random draw among the top teams and a random draw among the bottom teams for round two. In simulations this worked less well than an initial random draw. >From memory the best strategy for Round One was to have team 1 playing the bottom team and team 2 playing the second to bottom team etc. This procedure would likely be unacceptable for other reasons. It is just a way of helping the seeded teams to a good start. > > A further additional round's worth of accuracy was > discovered > by chess administrators when they designed the > Accelerated > Swiss movement. I have not done simulations on the effect of this. However saying it is more accurate does not make it so. When I get some time I might have a look at what the efficiency is. I have some other Swiss related projects in the back of my mind so this might happen soon. > > I adapted this Accelerated Swiss move to bridge > Swiss teams > (or Swiss pairs) in which the WBF victory point > scale is used. > > Although we differ in our interpretations of Law > 73C, I was > gratified when the CTD of New Zealand (Arie Geursen) > gave my > movement the attached encomium in the just-published > edition > of the Australian Directors' Bulletin. -> > > >Only two weeks prior to the NZ National Team Trials > >we ended up with 26 entries for our North Island > >Teams Championship. The preliminary notice > >specified that we would start on Saturday at 10am > >and finish around 7.30pm, allowing the players to > go > >to dinner and not return until the morning. We > would > >then finish around 4pm on Sunday after allowing for > >a catered lunch. Constructing a sensible teams > format > >around these constraints, while still giving those > >practicing for the National Trials a good work out, > >proved more difficult. It seemed to me that > anything > >less that 12-board matches wasn't really sensible > and > >I was keen to qualify the top six teams for the > final, > >which would require another five matches to > >complete. This left time for only five qualifying > rounds, > >which is one round less than I was really > comfortable > >with. Suddenly a spark struck me - an Accelerated > >Swiss! After a quick dig through old Directors' > >Bulletins, I found the article by Richard Hills I > was > >looking for (No 36, August 2002). > > > >The hardest part was in seeding what was an > >extremely strong field, but the rest of the > mechanics > >proved to be very easy indeed. Using the Swiss > >Teams software, I put an asterisk in front of the > 13 > >top-seeded captain's names to make them easy to > >distinguish and, as suggested, temporally credited > an > >extra +10 VPs to each of these teams. After > entering > >the results for the first round, producing a ranked > list > >and then ruling some lines to separate the three > groups, > >the draw for the second round could virtually be > read > >off in a minute or two (you only need to look out > for > >any draws). > > > >During the second round, I removed all the > asterisks > >and temporary VP loadings and the remaining three > >rounds were scored as normal. > > > >Whether or not this method was designed to allow > >one to get away with a round or so less of Swiss is > a > >moot point, but I was quite impressed in that after > >five rounds all the "top teams" had roughly ended > up > >with an equally weighted draw and there was no > >obvious evidence of a team "Swissing through the > >field". Two unseeded teams did make the final six, > >but one did so by beating four seeded teams, the > other > >three. > > > >Give it a go. As a player in this event I cannot say that the enthusiasm of Arie Geursen for this format was shared by a number of the players. Arie does not mention that at least three of the four teams that were to contest the National Trials failed to qualify. I do not recall if the fourth team qualified. The only trialists to qualify under this format were the third pairs from two separate teams who had abandoned their teams for this short event and combined to form a separate team. This composite team went on to win the event. Arie was right in that this was a strong event by New Zealand standards however the result of this format on this occasion was that there was one of the strongest fields contesting the Plate for the non-qualifiers. One of the pairs of the winning team went on to win selection for the New Zealand team. The remainder of the two teams that subsequently won selection for New Zealand for international events later this year were relegated to the Plate. I will have a look at my code and see how much work it will take to simulate this format. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 2 11:41:21 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon May 2 11:46:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au><002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> <000c01c54ee8$49ddf7b0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <001801c54efb$30489c70$e89987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight, But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right. ~ Hilaire Belloc ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > Tony said "I am absolutely certain that it is > authorised information to me that my partner > does not have an opening hand, and that he > must pass at the first opportunity," I think we > are agreed that he was correct about the > latter point but incorrect about the former. > > > Anne > +=+ Yes. However, it is indisputable, I suggest, that the the player *could* have known when he passed out of turn that Tony might be advantaged by the certainty he would pass any bid he made. So the Director can invoke 72B1 if opponents are damaged - see Laws 30A and 30B2. We do not have to consider whether Tony was in fact so advantaged, that is immaterial - we skip directly to the question whether opponents were damaged through the irregularity, as for example through the fact that Tony could make any bid knowing his partner would pass. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Mon May 2 12:39:08 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon May 2 12:38:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <001801c54efb$30489c70$e89987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au><002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> <000c01c54ee8$49ddf7b0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> <001801c54efb$30489c70$e89987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4276034C.40903@hdw.be> Grattan, now you are going too far: Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ Yes. However, it is indisputable, I suggest, > that the the player *could* have known when he > passed out of turn that Tony might be advantaged > by the certainty he would pass any bid he made. > So the Director can invoke 72B1 if opponents are > damaged - see Laws 30A and 30B2. We do not > have to consider whether Tony was in fact so > advantaged, that is immaterial - we skip directly > to the question whether opponents were damaged > through the irregularity, as for example through the > fact that Tony could make any bid knowing his > partner would pass. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > If you rule that a player who passes out of turn "could know" that this could be to his advantage, then you might as well write a law in the 2007 lawbook that says that passing out of turn guarantees an absolute zero. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Mon May 2 13:03:01 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon May 2 13:04:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <4276034C.40903@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c54f06$825cb900$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Grattan, now you are going too far: You have no valid reason for writing that! > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > +=+ Yes. However, it is indisputable, I suggest, > > that the the player *could* have known when he > > passed out of turn that Tony might be advantaged > > by the certainty he would pass any bid he made. > > So the Director can invoke 72B1 if opponents are > > damaged - see Laws 30A and 30B2. We do not > > have to consider whether Tony was in fact so > > advantaged, that is immaterial - we skip directly > > to the question whether opponents were damaged > > through the irregularity, as for example through the > > fact that Tony could make any bid knowing his > > partner would pass. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > If you rule that a player who passes out of turn "could know" that > this could be to his advantage, then you might as well write a law in > the 2007 lawbook that says that passing out of turn guarantees an > absolute zero. This will always be a matter of judgment on the particular situation. IMO the probability of finding cause for a "Could have known" case in a pass out of turn situation is very small, but it is definitely not zero. And as it always will be a judgment case it will also be subject to a possible appeal. Your "suggestion" of writing a new law to the effect that a POOT will guarantee a zero score will inhibit appeals as the matter now becomes a (mechanical) law ruling which can not be tried by an AC. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 2 13:59:09 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 2 13:59:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Second catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: <4275D62C.7090202@hdw.be> References: <4275D62C.7090202@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050502075238.02f4c010@pop.starpower.net> At 03:26 AM 5/2/05, Herman wrote: >Hello Richard, > >I did not wish to burden another thread with this, but thanks for your >statement there : "I fully agree with Herman". It's a first, I believe. >North's statement is indeed authorized information, and East is >allowed to use it. But when we decide what would have happened with >correct information, we should do so with ONLY correct information. >However East is going to receive the correct explanation, he is not >also going to receive the wrong one. If the screen is the other way >round, he does not get North's mistaken view as well. If North >correctly explains (and still misinterprets), East doesn't get the >misinterpretation as well. Or if East looks the bid up in the "Kaplan" >system, he does not need to ask North for the explanation either. > >I firmly believe (and I have seen other rulings in the same way) that >when deciding on the adjusted score, we must consider what East does >with the correct information, but without the added info that North >has misunderstood. Here's the second: I fully agree with Herman. We adjust scores according to L12C2 by determining what might have happened "had the irregularity not occurred". "The irregularity" was East's being given MI. Had it not occurred, East would have received the correct information instead of the MI, not in addition to it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 2 14:26:37 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 2 14:26:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <000c01c54ee8$49ddf7b0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> <000c01c54ee8$49ddf7b0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050502080519.02b063b0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:26 AM 5/2/05, Anne wrote: >----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > >>In article <002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer>, Anne Jones >> writes >>>This was discussed at length when an English junior well known to John >>>Probst psyched a weak 2 in a suit he didn't have opposite a silenced >>>partner. >>>As I recall we were all very ammused, couldn't decide about the >>>ethics but >>>told him not to do it again, as it had been so widely discussed that ANY >>>partner he would ever have in the future ould be privy to it. >>>Nice one Tony - you too are now on the list :-) >> >>This one's very different. Tony with C and values bid what he thought he >>could make. The Rotweiller coup was a very different kettle of fish. >I don't appreciate that there is such a difference except that >Rotweiller psyched a conventional bid. Tony psyched a natural bid >You seem to think that Tony bid what he thought he could make. I don't >believe this is so. Tony says that he had a few clubs, three aces and >some other stuff.. He doesn't say how few. It looked to me that he had >a hand with some defence and opened at the three level suspecting that >he would muddy the waters for his opps. His opps knew his pard didn't >have opening values - Tony is indicating that he doesn't either - thus >encouraging his opps to bid too high. He opened a weak bid with a >strong hand with the intention to deceive. > >Tony said "I am absolutely certain that it is authorised information >to me that my partner does not have an opening hand, and that he must >pass at the first opportunity," I think we are agreed that he was >correct about the latter point but incorrect about the former. The flaw in Anne's argument is the premise that "he opened a weak bid". An auction is a dialog; bidding agreements define the meaning of calls made in the partnership's auctions. There is no dialog -- no partnership auction -- when only side participates. When you shoot out 3NT opposite a barred partner, do the opponents have the "right" to assume you have whatever a 3NT opening would show in a unconstrained auction? It is clearly an "inference[] drawn from [one's] general knowledge and experience" (not even "bridge knowledge"; it has nothing to do with bridge per se) that a dialog cannot take place, hence one's bidding agreements cannot apply, when one's partner in that dialog is barred from participating. There is neither reason nor expectation, much less legal obligation, to assign a particular meaning to any call made opposite a barred partner. Logic and common sense demand that Tony's opening 3C bid was not weak; it was undefined. Indeed, in the ACBL, by a literal reading of the relevant regulation, it would be illegal (as well as nonsensical) to define it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 2 14:18:07 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon May 2 14:29:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au><002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> <000c01c54ee8$49ddf7b0$f7310952@AnnesComputer><001801c54efb$30489c70$e89987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4276034C.40903@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c54f11$dd057d50$84b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight, But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right. ~ Hilaire Belloc ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > Grattan, now you are going too far: > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > +=+ Yes. However, it is indisputable, I suggest, > > that the the player *could* have known when he > > passed out of turn that Tony might be advantaged > > by the certainty he would pass any bid he made. > > So the Director can invoke 72B1 if opponents are > > damaged - see Laws 30A and 30B2. We do not > > have to consider whether Tony was in fact so > > advantaged, that is immaterial - we skip directly > > to the question whether opponents were damaged > > through the irregularity, as for example through the > > fact that Tony could make any bid knowing his > > partner would pass. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > If you rule that a player who passes out of turn > "could know" that this could be to his advantage, > then you might as well write a law in the 2007 > lawbook that says that passing out of turn > guarantees an absolute zero. > -- > Herman DE WAEL < +=+ Thank you for the suggestion. However, it is much wider in scope than the 1997 laws 30A and 30B2 to which I referred, And currently an absolute zero is unusual. In the case we have discussed the knowledge conveyed to partner is substantial and allows him great scope to judge unusual actions to his side's advantage. Be in no doubt that Tony was enabled to create difficulties for opponents with enhanced safety when his partner had passed out of turn before he had judged his own initial action. Law 72B1 is set up to counter that situation, inter alia, and knowing the certainty of partner's pass in response to an unusual action by him is such a great advantage that there can be no doubt that it will be likely to damage the non-offending side. I accept that it was ignorance of the law in the circumstances of a 30A irregularity that caused Tony to base his bid on the knowledge that partner would pass it, but he was wrong to do so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Mon May 2 14:42:22 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon May 2 14:42:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <000801c54f06$825cb900$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c54f06$825cb900$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4276202E.4030007@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>Grattan, now you are going too far: > > > You have no valid reason for writing that! > yes I do, and I described the valid reason below. > >>Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> >>>+=+ Yes. However, it is indisputable, I suggest, >>>that the the player *could* have known when he >>>passed out of turn that Tony might be advantaged >>>by the certainty he would pass any bid he made. >>>So the Director can invoke 72B1 if opponents are >>>damaged - see Laws 30A and 30B2. We do not >>>have to consider whether Tony was in fact so >>>advantaged, that is immaterial - we skip directly >>>to the question whether opponents were damaged >>>through the irregularity, as for example through the >>>fact that Tony could make any bid knowing his >>>partner would pass. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >>> >> >>If you rule that a player who passes out of turn "could know" that >>this could be to his advantage, then you might as well write a law in >>the 2007 lawbook that says that passing out of turn guarantees an >>absolute zero. > > > This will always be a matter of judgment on the particular situation. IMO > the probability of finding cause for a "Could have known" case in a pass out > of turn situation is very small, but it is definitely not zero. > No, of course it is not zero. But it is very very small. Add a few more very's to that. How can anyone ever find oneself in a situation where it is (or even might be) to his advantage to silence HIMSELF? "Look here partner - I have zero to twelve points, but you are not allowed to know that, I have any distribution - and I am placing you in the position of having to stab at a final contract without my help". How in heaven's name can you imagine that this person would be able to guess that he's better off passing out of turn? Really Sven, Grattan may well have written something without thinking it through, but for you to jump in in his defence smacks of "if Herman then wrong" to me. > And as it always will be a judgment case it will also be subject to a > possible appeal. Your "suggestion" of writing a new law to the effect that a > POOT will guarantee a zero score will inhibit appeals as the matter now > becomes a (mechanical) law ruling which can not be tried by an AC. > My suggestion was not to be taken seriously. But if Grattan insists on taking away all good scores after an infraction because infractor might realize that there are possible benefits then he might as well write draconian laws. This is simply too ridiculous for words. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Mon May 2 14:45:21 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon May 2 14:45:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Second catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050502075238.02f4c010@pop.starpower.net> References: <4275D62C.7090202@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050502075238.02f4c010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <427620E1.1050309@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:26 AM 5/2/05, Herman wrote: > >> Hello Richard, >> >> I did not wish to burden another thread with this, but thanks for your >> statement there : "I fully agree with Herman". It's a first, I believe. > > > Here's the second: I fully agree with Herman. We adjust scores Richard once, and Eric disgreed, and now Eric once, but Richard disagrees. I'm sure there are cases where Richard and Eric agree and I'm differing. Never say that blml'ers have consistent alliances. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 2 14:49:02 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon May 2 14:54:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <000801c54f06$825cb900$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002901c54f15$6a9dc840$84b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight, But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right. ~ Hilaire Belloc ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 12:03 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Unethical conduct > > This will always be a matter of judgment on the particular situation. IMO the probability of finding cause for a "Could have known" case in a pass out of turn situation is very small, but it is definitely not zero. < +=+ But it is the intention of the law that it should be high where 30A or 30B2 applies - the cross reference to 72B1 in each of these laws being inserted as a positive indication of this. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 2 14:53:16 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 2 14:55:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <001801c54efb$30489c70$e89987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> <000c01c54ee8$49ddf7b0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> <001801c54efb$30489c70$e89987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050502083443.02afd1b0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:41 AM 5/2/05, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Yes. However, it is indisputable, I suggest, >that the the player *could* have known when he >passed out of turn that Tony might be advantaged >by the certainty he would pass any bid he made. >So the Director can invoke 72B1 if opponents are >damaged - see Laws 30A and 30B2. We do not >have to consider whether Tony was in fact so >advantaged, that is immaterial - we skip directly >to the question whether opponents were damaged >through the irregularity, as for example through the >fact that Tony could make any bid knowing his >partner would pass. This is the clearest possible example of how those insidious "could have known"s have made nonsense out of our laws. It is equally indisputable, I suggest, that any time a player does anything whatsoever that works to his advantage he *could* [emphasis Grattan's] have known that it would have done so. Grattan's logic is impeccable: since "the player *could* have known when he passed out of turn that Tony might be advantaged by the certainty he would pass any bid he made", the law requires that "we skip directly to" the application of L72B1. As the Law makes no specific mention of "Tony", we must, of course, do the same had Tony been any Tom, Dick or Harriet. That means that any time a player passes out of turn (or takes any other action potentially subject to L72B1) we "skip directly to the question whether opponents were damaged", and, if so, redress that damage. We need give no consideration whatsoever to the words "whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known..."; Grattan's logic requires that that presumption be made automatically. If so, we might as well make that intention clear in the 2007 lawbook, changing L72B1 to read, "Whenever an offender's irregularity has damaged the non-offending side, the Director shall award an adjusted score." Is that really what the authors of our current laws intended L72B1 to mean? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Mon May 2 15:32:51 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon May 2 15:34:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <4276202E.4030007@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001301c54f1b$70a3a010$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > > This will always be a matter of judgment on the > > particular situation. IMO the probability of finding > > cause for a "Could have known" case in a pass out > > of turn situation is very small, but it is definitely > > not zero. > > No, of course it is not zero. But it is very very small. Add a few > more very's to that. > > How can anyone ever find oneself in a situation where it is (or even > might be) to his advantage to silence HIMSELF? "Look here partner - I > have zero to twelve points, but you are not allowed to know that, I > have any distribution - and I am placing you in the position of having > to stab at a final contract without my help". How in heaven's name can > you imagine that this person would be able to guess that he's better > off passing out of turn? > > Really Sven, Grattan may well have written something without thinking > it through, but for you to jump in in his defence smacks of "if Herman > then wrong" to me. Please forget that alternative, I try always to stick to the case and avoid personalities and I still believe I have achieved that in this thread. The important point as I see it is that we do need a legal foundation for an after the fact judgment on whether an obtained result can be allowed to stand when an irregularity has occurred. The fact that we apply L72B1 (and many other laws) doesn't at all imply that there will be an adjustment, only that the case as such will be investigated. It seems to me that this is what you have overlooked with your arguments? The very moment you accept that there is a certain possibility (however small) for a "could have known" situation with a pass out of turn ought to confirm also to you that we need L72B1 procedures even for such situations. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Mon May 2 15:43:49 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon May 2 15:43:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <000201c54f11$dd057d50$84b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au><002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> <000c01c54ee8$49ddf7b0$f7310952@AnnesComputer><001801c54efb$30489c70$e89987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4276034C.40903@hdw.be> <000201c54f11$dd057d50$84b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <42762E95.4000603@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>Grattan, now you are going too far: >> >>> >> >>If you rule that a player who passes out of turn >>"could know" that this could be to his advantage, >>then you might as well write a law in the 2007 >>lawbook that says that passing out of turn >>guarantees an absolute zero. >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL > > < > +=+ Thank you for the suggestion. However, it is > much wider in scope than the 1997 laws 30A and > 30B2 to which I referred, And currently an absolute > zero is unusual. > In the case we have discussed the knowledge > conveyed to partner is substantial and allows him > great scope to judge unusual actions to his side's > advantage. Be in no doubt that Tony was enabled > to create difficulties for opponents with enhanced > safety when his partner had passed out of turn > before he had judged his own initial action. Law 72B1 > is set up to counter that situation, inter alia, and > knowing the certainty of partner's pass in response > to an unusual action by him is such a great advantage > that there can be no doubt that it will be likely to > damage the non-offending side. I accept that it was > ignorance of the law in the circumstances of a 30A > irregularity that caused Tony to base his bid on > the knowledge that partner would pass it, but he > was wrong to do so. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > But Grattan, the only reason why Tony was able to perfrom the action he took was because of his use of UI from the withdrawn action. We have already ruled Tony's actions illegal. Now if you are suggesting that there may be legal psyches for Tony to perform while having a silenced partner, and partner to realize this and basing his irregularity on the same, then you are also suggesting that Tony always psyches in this position and then there is a case for MI or even CPU (in its highly pejorative cheating sense). If you are suggesting that any partner can now do something to hte mutual benefit means that you have created a situation where the normal penalty no longer suffices. The initial passer (OOT) can never be in a position which is substantially different from that of any initial POOTer. So if you are suggesting that this is a case for L72B1, then all such POOTs are subject to this kind of adjustment. Which cannot be a good thing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From cibor at poczta.fm Mon May 2 16:01:31 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon May 2 16:02:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <000001c54e79$2e398ca0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000001c54ee2$72f918b0$bbe3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <004801c54f1f$74b6ba80$5b101d53@kocurzak> ----- Original Message ----- > +=+ I think this is a fair answer to Conrad. I guess I must live with it. Both nations on both sides on the English Channel insist on spelling my decent German first name with "C" at the beginning. I have re-read Tony's post and realized that I failed to notice the subtle difference between "a few clubs" and "few clubs". So I got the impression that Tony opened 3C on a club doubleton or soemthing - a controlled psyche knowing that partner is silenced and doesn't have an opening bid. Now I when I realized he really had clubs things changed a little but I still have doubts. Suppose we have Tony's hand and we know partner is barred but know nothing about his hand. If we judge that a gamble at 3NT now (after all partner might hold a rock-crusher) is a LA then we must cancel the 3C bid because it might have been based on the UI that partner doesn't have an opening bid. > One > further consideration, in the cases of the offenders > I cited in my previous posting there was a history > of other recent passes OOT with partner still to > speak. The drafting committee decided it should > not be essential to prove a concealed arrangement > for the Director to adjust the score. (One of the > examples was a POOT after which partner, as > dealer, passed a hand of 14 or 15 HCP, which > worked to his advantage.) I completely disagree. I can accept the adjustment on the grounds that the passer's partner used UI that his partner is limited to 10/11 HCP when he passed with his 15 HCP. I don't accept the adjustment on the grounds that it was the player who POOT who could have known that it could work to his advantage. That is ridiculous. Let us go very far and suppose that the PasserOOT is a downright cheater Can you provide me with a single example of a specific hand where this villain might deliberately pass out of turn? It makes no sense - I cannot imagine a holding where this might be the winning action from the villain's perspective. Conrad Kiborowski Crac?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PHP, cgi i MySQL w standardzie >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1878 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon May 2 16:27:35 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon May 2 16:27:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <001301c54f1b$70a3a010$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001301c54f1b$70a3a010$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <427638D7.7060101@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > The very moment you accept that there is a certain possibility (however > small) for a "could have known" situation with a pass out of turn ought to > confirm also to you that we need L72B1 procedures even for such situations. > And the very moment you start looking for that possibility when someone opens with a pass out of turn, is when you are turning to paranoia. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From john at asimere.com Mon May 2 16:26:02 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon May 2 16:28:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <004801c54eed$2a067890$449087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <4270B137.2090803@hdw.be> <427210FB.6070006@hdw.be> <4274AB16.3080903@hdw.be> <001001c54e42$280d8570$f99587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004801c54eed$2a067890$449087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article <004801c54eed$2a067890$449087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes snip >> >> suppose you were playing with me Grattan (heaven's forbid of course), >> would you alert my cues as "possibly psychic" ? The point about a >> psychic cue is that the opportunity comes up very seldom. We read about >> Zia's psychic cues, but how many has he actually perpetrated in >> competition? I just can't bring myself to rule MI, but any bridge >> player knows about them, they just don't happen often. So Herman is >> right, they don't occur in Antwerp, neither do they in Mile End or the >> bear pit in Chelsea. >> >> East Cheam, I ask you! It's like saying you live in Warrington :) >> >> cheers John >> > >+=+ In Warrington, as I hear, they would be as ignorant of >Zia's or John's propensities as they would be in East Cheam. >'Any bridge player' is an overstatement. As for you and me, >John, it would be difficult for a director to point to partnership >experience. (One of my more hilarious experiences was a >casual session with Brian Senior - we had not agreed four >card raises so I raised his 1S openers to 2S on three >cards and 'shape' (i.e. not 4333). He must have played 2S >in a 3-3 fit on at least five hands in the evening, possibly >because we assumed too much of each other's style. I did >have a reputation for three card openers, which occurred >in practice only a little more often than Zia's cues - the >useful thing, 45-50 years ago, was to get the reputation.) 2 things Grattan: 1) "any bridge player" was meant to suggest those who play in a National league, and who live neither in Sydenham nor in Widnes. 2) You as much as, if not more than I, spent years developing "the" reputation. Our respective psych files at EBU HQ needed a filing cabinet each. We each know that of the other. We must be two of the prime examples of poacher turned gamekeeper. Posit our auction 1S (P) 3S (P) 4D with normal agreements. Are you going to do more than cue the H control if you have it, and will you explain "possible psychic cue" if asked or just explain "cue, slamtry"? I still can't bring myself to rule MI. Not at this level anyway. We each might well explain further in Wallasey or Mitcham. cheers John note for our readers: Grattan and I are making a tour of the small town dormitory suburbs close to our respective major conurbation domiciles, where they play weekly duplicate games in cold and draughty church halls. > ~ G ~ +=+ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Mon May 2 16:28:05 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon May 2 16:30:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Second catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: <4275D62C.7090202@hdw.be> References: <4275D62C.7090202@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <4275D62C.7090202@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip > >> The fact that North (mistakenly) described South's call as natural >> is additional incidental authorised information to East. If East >> had also read a hypothetical computer printout of the North-South >> partnership agreements (Edgar Kaplan's metaphor), East would know >> that the actual agreement of North-South was the Unusual 2NT. So, >> East would be authorised to deduce that North and South were about >> to have a bidding misunderstanding (unless South had simultaneously >> forgotten their system in an identical way). >> > >North's statement is indeed authorized information, and East is >allowed to use it. But when we decide what would have happened with >correct information, we should do so with ONLY correct information. >However East is going to receive the correct explanation, he is not >also going to receive the wrong one. If the screen is the other way >round, he does not get North's mistaken view as well. If North >correctly explains (and still misinterprets), East doesn't get the >misinterpretation as well. Or if East looks the bid up in the "Kaplan" >system, he does not need to ask North for the explanation either. > >I firmly believe (and I have seen other rulings in the same way) that >when deciding on the adjusted score, we must consider what East does >with the correct information, but without the added info that North >has misunderstood. > Ugh! Agrees with Herman. 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 Mon May 2 16:31:39 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon May 2 16:34:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <000c01c54ee8$49ddf7b0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> <000c01c54ee8$49ddf7b0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: In article <000c01c54ee8$49ddf7b0$f7310952@AnnesComputer>, Anne Jones writes snip >> >> This one's very different. Tony with C and values bid what he thought he >> could make. The Rotweiller coup was a very different kettle of fish. >> >> John >>>Anne >> >I don't appreciate that there is such a difference except that Rotweiller >psyched a conventional bid. Tony psyched a natural bid >You seem to think that Tony bid what he thought he could make. I don't >believe this is so. Tony says that he had a few clubs, three aces and some >other stuff.. He doesn't say how few. It looked to me that he had a hand >with some defence and opened at the three level suspecting that he would >muddy the waters for his opps. His opps knew his pard didn't have opening >values - Tony is indicating that he doesn't either - thus encouraging his >opps to bid too high. He opened a weak bid with a strong hand with the >intention to deceive. > >Tony said "I am absolutely certain that it is authorised information to me >that my partner does not have an opening hand, and that he must pass at the >first opportunity," I think we are agreed that he was correct about the >latter point but incorrect about the former. Of course. Do we penalise the player who opens 3NT in this situation holding a slightly stronger hand? I'd read "a few clubs" as about a 5 bagger. Not enough for a 3N opener. John > > >Anne > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Mon May 2 16:34:48 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon May 2 16:37:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <427638D7.7060101@hdw.be> References: <001301c54f1b$70a3a010$6900a8c0@WINXP> <427638D7.7060101@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <427638D7.7060101@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Sven Pran wrote: > >> >> The very moment you accept that there is a certain possibility (however >> small) for a "could have known" situation with a pass out of turn ought to >> confirm also to you that we need L72B1 procedures even for such situations. >> > >And the very moment you start looking for that possibility when >someone opens with a pass out of turn, is when you are turning to >paranoia. Nooo. Herman, be reasonable. We have to go 72B1, even though we can be almost certain that the outcome will be "no adjustment". I'm backing Sven, even if it classes me as paranoid. 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 dkent at sujja.com Mon May 2 16:55:39 2005 From: dkent at sujja.com (David Kent) Date: Mon May 2 16:55:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <004801c54f1f$74b6ba80$5b101d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:02 AM > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > I don't accept the adjustment on the grounds that > it was the player who POOT who could have > known that it could work to his advantage. > That is ridiculous. Let us go very far and suppose that the PasserOOT > is a downright cheater > Can you provide me with > a single example of a specific hand where > this villain might deliberately pass out of turn? > It makes no sense - I cannot imagine a holding > where this might be the winning action > from the villain's perspective. > Playing a weak NT with partner in 1st seat V vs NV, you hold xxx xxx xxx xxxx. A POOT might save you from a large penalty. ...Dave Kent From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon May 2 17:43:29 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon May 2 17:44:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <000101c54e7b$3f1fa6b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c54e7b$3f1fa6b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <223f870643bd8752f739c3255a23e2b6@rochester.rr.com> On May 1, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Let me add that I have seen this kind of tactical bidding described in > bridge literature from as far back as I believe even before 1940! Hm. Is "bridge literature" banned in Belgium, then? It seems to me this says clearly that the possibility of a psychic cue bid *is* general bridge knowledge, at least wherever "bridge literature has been available. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 2 17:45:47 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 2 17:45:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <002901c54f15$6a9dc840$84b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000801c54f06$825cb900$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002901c54f15$6a9dc840$84b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050502112053.02e3e5f0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:49 AM 5/2/05, Grattan wrote: >From: "Sven Pran" > > >This will always be a matter of judgment on the >particular situation. IMO the probability of finding cause >for a "Could have known" case in a pass out of turn >situation is very small, but it is definitely not zero. >< >+=+ But it is the intention of the law that it should be high >where 30A or 30B2 applies - the cross reference to 72B1 >in each of these laws being inserted as a positive indication >of this. The real question here is: Why is L72B1 in the book? IMO, it is there to allow us to award adjusted scores under objective circumstances which are indistinguishable from those which would obtain had the player in fact violated L72B2, without being obligated to "read his mind" in order to make a finding of deliberate intent. IOW, the "could have known" test of L72B1 is satisfied only when the action taken would have been a "logical bridge action" for a player "of the same class" absent the constraint imposed by L72B2. And that's saying nothing more than that a player could not know that his irregularity would be likely to damage the offending side unless his irregularity would be likely to damage the offending side. Not "did", nor "could have", but "would", a priori, "be likely to". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon May 2 17:46:21 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon May 2 17:47:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 2, 2005, at 12:00 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Again I note that the so-called "general bridge > knowledge" calls misnamed "baby psyches" and "psychic > cuebids" should be actually named "baby pseudo-psyches" > and "pseudo-psychic cuebids". IMO, all this yammering about "pseudo-psyches," "baby psyches," "tactical bids," etc. merely clouds the issue. Either a call is psychic, or it's not. :-( From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 2 18:02:29 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 2 18:02:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: References: <004801c54f1f$74b6ba80$5b101d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050502115249.02e3e1e0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:55 AM 5/2/05, David wrote: > > I don't accept the adjustment on the grounds that > > it was the player who POOT who could have > > known that it could work to his advantage. > > That is ridiculous. Let us go very far and suppose that the PasserOOT > > is a downright cheater > > Can you provide me with > > a single example of a specific hand where > > this villain might deliberately pass out of turn? > > It makes no sense - I cannot imagine a holding > > where this might be the winning action > > from the villain's perspective. > >Playing a weak NT with partner in 1st seat V vs NV, you hold xxx xxx xxx >xxxx. A POOT might save you from a large penalty. I can't imagine how, unless you are outright cheats with a secret agreement that a POOT shows a Yarborough. An honest partner would be expected to take a stab at a final contract that looks to be reasonable if you hold your average expected share of the missing strength (classicly, for example, bidding 3NT with a good strong 1NT opener). ISTM that a POOT with that hand is far more likely to get you a large penalty than to save you from one. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon May 2 18:03:36 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon May 2 18:04:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <000201c54f11$dd057d50$84b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> <000c01c54ee8$49ddf7b0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> <001801c54efb$30489c70$e89987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4276034C.40903@hdw.be> <000201c54f11$dd057d50$84b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On May 2, 2005, at 8:18 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > I accept that it was > ignorance of the law in the circumstances of a 30A > irregularity that caused Tony to base his bid on > the knowledge that partner would pass it, but he > was wrong to do so. Lemme see if I've got this straight. Tony had UI about his partner's hand (that he had a hand which could not make an opening bid) and he is not allowed to use that information in determining his call(s). Also, Tony had AI about his partner's future calls (that he would be passing throughout the auction), but is not allowed to use that, either. WTF? I thought the whole point to "authorized information" is that one *is* allowed to use it. From hermandw at hdw.be Mon May 2 18:10:55 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon May 2 18:10:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <223f870643bd8752f739c3255a23e2b6@rochester.rr.com> References: <000101c54e7b$3f1fa6b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <223f870643bd8752f739c3255a23e2b6@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4276510F.6080701@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On May 1, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Let me add that I have seen this kind of tactical bidding described in >> bridge literature from as far back as I believe even before 1940! > > > Hm. Is "bridge literature" banned in Belgium, then? It seems to me this > says clearly that the possibility of a psychic cue bid *is* general > bridge knowledge, at least wherever "bridge literature has been available. > do you think that every player has read every single book? don't you think that "GBK" means that it happens sometimes in real life? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon May 2 18:10:30 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon May 2 18:11:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: On May 1, 2005, at 3:13 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > The other day I got accused of unethical conduct under the > following circumstances: No one has answered the implicit question in Tony's post. He was accused of unethical conduct. Was his conduct unethical? I would say clearly not. I'm not so sure about the conduct of Tony's accuser. :-) From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon May 2 18:16:09 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon May 2 18:17:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at May 02, 2005 12:10:30 PM Message-ID: <200505021616.j42GG9jl004900@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Ed Reppert writes: > > > On May 1, 2005, at 3:13 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > The other day I got accused of unethical conduct under the > > following circumstances: > > No one has answered the implicit question in Tony's post. He was > accused of unethical conduct. Was his conduct unethical? > > I would say clearly not. I agree. his conduct was not unethical, immoral or fattening. > I'm not so sure about the conduct of Tony's accuser. :-) Again I agree. I'd have liked a formal warning to the accuser. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon May 2 18:18:13 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon May 2 18:19:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final References: Message-ID: <001001c54f32$8cacef70$1a9868d5@James> [Ed Reppert] > IMO, all this yammering about "pseudo-psyches," > "baby psyches," "tactical bids," etc. merely clouds the > issue. Either a call is psychic, or it's not. :-( [Nigel] The problem, Ed, is that "psyche" is defined to be a "gross departure from system"; whereas the information, that BLMLers (and most of the bridge community) are so reluctant to disclose, is implicit understandimgs about *minor* dpeartures from their declared systems. Richard refers to such a call as a "pseudo-psyches". IMO a better term is "mini-psyche" (if it really is not a CPU) Notice how "General Bridge Knowledge" (meaning specific and local) is again used as a pathetic excuse for non-disclosure. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon May 2 18:18:05 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon May 2 18:19:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <4276510F.6080701@hdw.be> References: <000101c54e7b$3f1fa6b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <223f870643bd8752f739c3255a23e2b6@rochester.rr.com> <4276510F.6080701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4e6e1190d42263054f7078dbc1d913b6@rochester.rr.com> On May 2, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > do you think that every player has read every single book? No. OTOH, I don't believe "found in bridge literature from as far back as 1940" means a single one paragraph article in an obscure, now defunct bridge publication is all there is. Surely something that has been widely discussed in the literature is GBK, even if not everyone has read every such discussion. > don't you think that "GBK" means that it happens sometimes in real > life? Not necessarily. From cropped at mailAccount.com Mon May 2 19:25:34 2005 From: cropped at mailAccount.com (Lee Fair) Date: Mon May 2 18:28:51 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.h0us1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Bernie Sierra to be remov(ed: http://www.h0us1ng.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From adam at irvine.com Mon May 2 18:40:01 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon May 2 18:41:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 01 May 2005 20:11:22 +0200." <000001c54e79$2e398ca0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200505021639.JAA27721@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > And finally: If the director afterwards finds that the player who passed out > of turn could have foreseen that the penalty for this irregularity could > work to his advantage then we have a Law 72B1 situation (see also Law 23). Wait a minute. Anything *could* work toward your advantage. If partner opens a strong 2C, and I pass with 12 HCP, this *could* work to my advantage---it's possible to construct a layout where the breaks are so bad that 2C is the last making contract. But it's extremely unlikely. For 72B1 to apply, there is a requirement that the offender could have known that the irregularity would be *likely* to damage the non-offending side. There is absolutely no way that passing out of turn and barring oneself, when one knows nothing about partner's hand, is likely to damage one's opponents. So I do not believe there is any possible scenario in which this Law would apply to Tony's partner. Did the word "likely" somehow get eliminated from this Law when I was looking the other way? -- Adam From cibor at poczta.fm Mon May 2 18:43:29 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon May 2 18:44:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: Message-ID: <008101c54f36$12673870$5b101d53@kocurzak> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kent" > Playing a weak NT with partner in 1st seat V vs NV, you hold xxx xxx xxx > xxxx. A POOT might save you from a large penalty. > > ...Dave Kent How? If I pass OOT and partner holds AKx AKxx Dxxx Kx then knowing that I am barred for one round he will gamble a 3NT opening (who wouldn't) and we will end up in 3NTx down a million. OTOH if I don't pass OOT we will end up in 1D (in natural systems) or in 1NT in Polish Club (after 1C - 1D - 1NT - pass). Where is the advantage? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 500 MB na poczte i strony WWW juz za 122 zl rocznie >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1879 From adam at irvine.com Mon May 2 18:47:59 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon May 2 18:49:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 01 May 2005 17:13:49 +1000." <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <200505021647.JAA27765@mailhub.irvine.com> Tony wrote: > The other day I got accused of unethical conduct under the > following circumstances: > > I was dealer and partner passed out of turn, not accepted. > I opened 3C with a few clubs, but 3 aces and some other > stuff. LHO bid 4H and went down for a bottom. They said > it was unethical of me to take advantage of having partner > out of the bidding. I am absolutely certain that it is authorised > information to me that my partner does not have an opening > hand I'm guessing that you've been playing bridge for a long time, right? You would have been right before 1987. Before that, the philosophy was it should be OK for the offender's partner to use whatever information he got, the theory being (I think) that the penalties for the offense would be sufficient to make things equitable. Apparently it didn't work, and in 1987 the law was changed so that information from an offender's withdrawn action is UI to the offender's partner. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 2 19:00:35 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 2 19:00:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <4276510F.6080701@hdw.be> References: <000101c54e7b$3f1fa6b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <223f870643bd8752f739c3255a23e2b6@rochester.rr.com> <4276510F.6080701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050502125547.02c19df0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:10 PM 5/2/05, Herman wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: > >>On May 1, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>>Let me add that I have seen this kind of tactical bidding described in >>>bridge literature from as far back as I believe even before 1940! >> >>Hm. Is "bridge literature" banned in Belgium, then? It seems to me >>this says clearly that the possibility of a psychic cue bid *is* >>general bridge knowledge, at least wherever "bridge literature has >>been available. > >do you think that every player has read every single book? We (if Ed will permit me to speak for him too) do not even think that every player is literate, or even fully compos mentis. So what? >don't you think that "GBK" means that it happens sometimes in real life? Of course we do, otherwise we would believe that no player has ever read any book. We don't need to believe that it happens *always* in real life. "General knowledge and experience" is not the same thing as "universal knowledge and experience". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam at irvine.com Mon May 2 19:01:12 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon May 2 19:02:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 01 May 2005 14:22:16 +0200." <000e01c54e48$6cc72710$33071d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <200505021701.KAA27856@mailhub.irvine.com> Konrad wrote: > To open 3C was illegal because of L16C2 - > Tony used information from the withdrawn call > (which was unauthorised to him) The information was indeed UI and Tony was wrong to use it. But this isn't enough to establish that 3C was illegal. There's also the requirement that 3C was suggested over other LA's by this information. I will grant that this is an area of bridge where I don't have a huge amount of experience, because my partner doesn't pass out of turn all that often. ;-) But I'm not convinced that this requirement is met. It sounds as though Tony had a pretty good hand ("3 aces and some other stuff"---I'm assuming "other stuff" does not mean fours and fives and deuces). Also, Tony is entitled to know that his partner is barred. So what are the LA's in this situation, and which ones are suggested over which other ones by the fact that partner is known not to have an opening hand? (Having Tony's actual hand would help here.) Don't we need to think about that before we rule 3C to be illegal? I really do not know, but I'm pretty sure that the fact that 3C *worked* is not, by itself, evidence that it must have been suggested over other LA's by the UI. -- Adam From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon May 2 20:11:56 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon May 2 20:13:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <001001c54f32$8cacef70$1a9868d5@James> from "GUTHRIE" at May 02, 2005 05:18:13 PM Message-ID: <200505021811.j42IBusu005560@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> GUTHRIE writes: > > [Ed Reppert] > > IMO, all this yammering about "pseudo-psyches," > > "baby psyches," "tactical bids," etc. merely clouds the > > issue. Either a call is psychic, or it's not. :-( > > [Nigel] > The problem, Ed, is that "psyche" is defined to be a "gross > departure from system"; whereas the information, that > BLMLers (and most of the bridge community) are so reluctant > to disclose, is implicit understandimgs about *minor* > dpeartures from their declared systems. I'm sure you have some examples in mind, but I can't think of anything that we've been discussing that meets this criteria. What specifically did you have in mind? > Richard refers to such a call as a "pseudo-psyches". IMO a > better term is "mini-psyche" (if it really is not a CPU) > > Notice how "General Bridge Knowledge" (meaning specific and > local) is again used as a pathetic excuse for > non-disclosure. Nope. Well I do know that some people do attempt to evade their disclosure requirements, but I can't say that this is true of anything discussed in this thread. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon May 2 20:45:33 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon May 2 20:46:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <001001c54f32$8cacef70$1a9868d5@James> References: <001001c54f32$8cacef70$1a9868d5@James> Message-ID: <1a01a49549d7185910e6edc0cc4d12ad@rochester.rr.com> On May 2, 2005, at 12:18 PM, GUTHRIE wrote: > [Ed Reppert] >> IMO, all this yammering about "pseudo-psyches," >> "baby psyches," "tactical bids," etc. merely clouds the >> issue. Either a call is psychic, or it's not. :-( > > [Nigel] > The problem, Ed, is that "psyche" is defined to be a "gross > departure from system"; whereas the information, that > BLMLers (and most of the bridge community) are so reluctant > to disclose, is implicit understandimgs about *minor* > dpeartures from their declared systems. > > Richard refers to such a call as a "pseudo-psyches". IMO a > better term is "mini-psyche" (if it really is not a CPU) > > Notice how "General Bridge Knowledge" (meaning specific and > local) is again used as a pathetic excuse for > non-disclosure. If a pair have an implicit understanding, and they willfully fail to disclose it, that's a CPU. Really. :-) Not sure I understand your last sentence. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon May 2 20:48:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon May 2 20:49:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <000101c54e7b$3f1fa6b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > I agree with you in general, but the way Herman is describing the case > he leaves no room for the player who explained 4D as control to have > "forgotten" anything. Ok. It's just a judgement thing. I read the Herman evidence as "He knew enough to have something to disclose, but not enough to be obvious he should realise that". I suspect we might have ruled the same had we been there. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon May 2 20:48:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon May 2 20:49:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: Anne wrote: > This was discussed at length when an English junior well known to John > Probst psyched a weak 2 in a suit he didn't have opposite a silenced > partner. IIRC correctly the player psyched after *silencing* partner. His hand was *so* weak that it was considered he "could have known" this would be likely to work to his advantage. A similar principle might apply in this situation but instinctively I feel that the number of hands where it is likely that silencing *oneself* for one round will be beneficial is pretty small. In this instance it is, of course, AI that pard is silenced for one round when choosing an opening bid so bidding 3C because one thinks that is the best shot at a decent score is not a psych. Once partner is out of the picture describing one's hand is not necessarily useful. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 2 21:45:43 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 2 21:45:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <001001c54f32$8cacef70$1a9868d5@James> References: <001001c54f32$8cacef70$1a9868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050502153554.02b00230@pop.starpower.net> At 12:18 PM 5/2/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >Notice how "General Bridge Knowledge" (meaning specific and >local) is again used as a pathetic excuse for >non-disclosure. I should like to make two points which I believe will clarify this particular discourse: 1. AFAICT the term "general bridge knowledge" does not appear anywhere in TFLB (I'm sure someone with a searchable electronic copy will tell me if I'm wrong). It definitely does not appear in L75. 2. L75C does *not* say that "general knowledge and experience" need not be disclosed. It says that "inferences drawn from... general knowledge and experience" need not be disclosed. Those are not at all the same thing. Before we debate what a particular law means, it behooves us to know what it says. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 3 00:41:03 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 3 00:41:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Second catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: <4275D62C.7090202@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Part of South Canberra Bridge Club TD ruling: [snip] >>(b) with correct information, East would know North-South were >>having a bidding misunderstanding, so East would then try to >>catch their rabbit quietly with a soft Pass (not a loud >>Double),so [snip] Herman De Wael: [snip] >However East is going to receive the correct explanation, he >is not also going to receive the wrong one. [snip] Richard Hills: It ain't necessarily so. What about Law 75D1? "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)." If North had summoned the TD pursuant to Law 75D1 as soon as they had realised their original explanation was incorrect (when South had run from 3NTx to 4C), East would have first received the wrong explanation from North, then East would have later received the correct explanation from North. In this hypothetical Law 75D1 situation, East could reasonably deduce that North's 3NT was predicated upon a bidding misunderstanding. Pursuant to Law 21, the TD would have given East the option to possibly withdraw their Double. Therefore, in my opinion, part (b) of the actual TD's ruling was fully consistent with Law. Whether the TD exercised correct judgement is another matter. In my opinion, given West's ability as an Aussie national champion, West's greedy double of 4C should be defined as "irrational, wild or gambling". West knew that he had nil defence to 4D, and West should have known that his double of 4C would obviously encourage East to make their subsequent marginal (and unsuccessful) double of 4D. So, if I had been TD, I would have split the score, letting East-West retain their table result of 4Dx -710. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 3 00:53:40 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 3 00:54:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <000c01c54ee8$49ddf7b0$f7310952@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Anne Jones: [snip] >Tony said "I am absolutely certain that it is authorised information >to me that my partner does not have an opening hand, and that he >must pass at the first opportunity," I think we are agreed that he >was correct about the latter point but incorrect about the former. Richard Hills: Sorry, Tony, I have to agree with Anne. Information from pard's withdrawn pass that pard does not have an opening values is unauthorised. Pre-1997 the Tony actions would have been beyond reproach, but post-1997 there has been an inadvertent infraction of Law 16C2. >>For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn >>action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is >>unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from >>among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have >>been suggested over another by the unauthorised information. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From adam at irvine.com Tue May 3 01:03:02 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue May 3 01:04:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 02 May 2005 09:47:59 PDT." <200505021647.JAA27765@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200505022302.QAA29885@mailhub.irvine.com> I wrote: > Tony wrote: > > > The other day I got accused of unethical conduct under the > > following circumstances: > > > > I was dealer and partner passed out of turn, not accepted. > > I opened 3C with a few clubs, but 3 aces and some other > > stuff. LHO bid 4H and went down for a bottom. They said > > it was unethical of me to take advantage of having partner > > out of the bidding. I am absolutely certain that it is authorised > > information to me that my partner does not have an opening > > hand > > I'm guessing that you've been playing bridge for a long time, right? > You would have been right before 1987. Oops, this change was made in 1997. I believe there was a change in 1987 in what was viewed as unauthorized information, but it did not pertain to withdrawn calls by the offending side. Richard got this one right. -- Adam From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Tue May 3 01:19:18 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue May 3 01:16:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >Tony said "I am absolutely certain that it is authorised information > >to me that my partner does not have an opening hand, and that he > >must pass at the first opportunity," I think we are agreed that he > >was correct about the latter point but incorrect about the former. With this much, I am also in agreement with Anne and Richard. I am not, however, sure that we are likely to have a L16C2 infraction on our hands. How does one define what LAs are, when one's entire bidding system has just been thrown out the window? It sounds suspiciously like you will let any failing result stand but toss any unusual but successful choice out under "could have known." For that matter, what speech do you give at the table when you make a L30A ruling? When I make a L30B2 or L31B ruling, my speech explicitly includes the statement that since one member of the OS is now barred, the OS's system is not in effect and the other member of the OS is allowed to take a shot at bidding whatever contract he would like to play. I also find it curious that there are explicit references to 72B1 all over L30, but none in L31. GRB From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 3 01:26:49 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 3 01:27:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Again I note that the so-called "general bridge >>knowledge" calls misnamed "baby psyches" and "psychic >>cuebids" should be actually named "baby pseudo-psyches" >>and "pseudo-psychic cuebids". Ed Reppert: >IMO, all this yammering about "pseudo-psyches," "baby >psyches," "tactical bids," etc. merely clouds the issue. > >Either a call is psychic, or it's not. :-( Richard Hills: I agree with Ed that either a call is psychic or it is not. I agree that a pseudo-psyche is not a psyche, rather it is a concealed partnership understanding. But discussion of "real" psyches is clouded on blml and in the WBF Code of Practice when the term "psyche" is used in its popular parlance broad sense (with CPUs included in the popular parlance broad definition), rather than in its narrow legal sense (with CPUs excluded from the narrow legal definition). If Ed is confused by my terminology "pseudo-psychic cuebids" and "baby pseudo-psyches", then I am happy to switch to an alternative terminology, "Zia cuebids" and "baby Zias". :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 3 01:39:04 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 3 01:39:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <4276510F.6080701@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >>Hm. Is "bridge literature" banned in Belgium, then? It seems to me >>this says clearly that the possibility of a psychic cue bid *is* >>general bridge knowledge, at least wherever "bridge literature" has >>been available. Herman De Wael: >do you think that every player has read every single book? > >don't you think that "GBK" means that it happens sometimes in real >life? Richard Hills: I fully agree with Herman's constraints on any meretricious use of "general bridge knowledge" designed to conceal a partnership understanding. If, as a Devil's Advocate, one assumed that it was general bridge knowledge that some partnerships use Zia cuebids, then a consistent Devil's Advocate would have to admit that it was *also* general bridge knowledge that some partnerships have a prior history of always using boring cuebids. Law 75A "full disclosure" has not been satisfied *unless* the opponents were told in advance which category - Zia cuebidders or boring cuebidders - their adversaries belonged to. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From cibor at poczta.fm Tue May 3 02:26:43 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue May 3 02:27:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: Message-ID: <00b601c54f76$c8bde2f0$5b101d53@kocurzak> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 1:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > > > >Tony said "I am absolutely certain that it is authorised information > > >to me that my partner does not have an opening hand, and that he > > >must pass at the first opportunity," I think we are agreed that he > > >was correct about the latter point but incorrect about the former. > > With this much, I am also in agreement with Anne and Richard. > > I am not, however, sure that we are likely to have a L16C2 infraction > on our hands. > > How does one define what LAs are, when one's entire bidding system has > just been thrown out the window? It sounds suspiciously like you will let > any failing result stand but toss any unusual but successful choice out > under "could have known." > You cannot invoke "could have known" on the passer's partner. L72B1 says "offender could have known at the time of his irregularity". The passer's partner is neither the offender nor did he commit any irregularity. Konrad Ciborowsi Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 500 MB na poczte i strony WWW juz za 122 zl rocznie >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1879 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue May 3 03:58:42 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue May 3 03:59:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final References: Message-ID: <003601c54f83$a29570e0$029868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > I fully agree with Herman's constraints on any > meretricious use of "general bridge knowledge" designed > to conceal a partnership understanding. > If, as a Devil's Advocate, one assumed that it was > general bridge knowledge that some partnerships use Zia > cuebids, then a consistent Devil's Advocate would have > to admit that it was *also* general bridge knowledge > that some partnerships have a prior history of always > using boring cuebids. Law 75A "full disclosure" has not > been satisfied *unless* the opponents were told in > advance which category - Zia cuebidders or boring > cuebidders - their adversaries belonged to. [Nigel] I was about to answer Ed Reppert, Eric Labdau and Ron Johnson but I could not put it better than Richard has. (: Purists can substitute "General Knowledge" for "General Bridge Knowledge" -- although the former is even less apt in the context of an implicit understanding to "mini-psyche" cue- bids, regularly :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 3 05:31:18 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 3 05:32:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Accelerated Swiss In-Reply-To: <20050502083241.29978.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills (prior posting): [snip] >>>A further additional round's worth of accuracy was >>>discovered by chess administrators when they >>>designed the Accelerated Swiss movement. [snip] New Zealand CTD Arie Geursen: [snip] >>The hardest part was in seeding what was an >>extremely strong field [snip] Richard Hills (current posting): A simulation of the comparative advantages of old- fashioned Swiss (random first round draw) and Accelerated Swiss (draw for rounds one and two modified by seeding) will be conducted by Wayne Burrows. I would also be interested in the results of comparative simulations by other blmlers. Simulation constraints -> (1) 26 teams (2) 5 x 12-board Swiss matches (3) Best six teams to qualify for a Final Accelerated Swiss assumption -> (4) Careful seeding by an experienced CTD has a reasonably high correlation with reality. In the long run, over a series of simulations, which format - Accelerated Swiss or Random First Round Swiss - provides greater accuracy in determining qualifiers for the Final? The procedure for an Accelerated Swiss is attached. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist * * * Accelerated Swiss Introduction Fifty years ago, most chess tournaments used the round-robin movement. As chess grew in popularity, time available for events made round-robin movements less feasible. Therefore, chess administrators progressively switched to a movement that approximates the round-robin movement, the Swiss movement. At the end of a Swiss, the results of the top few and bottom few contestants are relatively accurate. That is, had the same event been held as a giant round-robin, those top few and bottom few teams would have finished in closely similar places. However, the placings for the middle contestants at the end of a Swiss are highly random compared to what their placings would have been in a hypothetical giant round-robin. A dominant factor is the luck of the draw, and the timing of a contestant's victories. Each additional round of a Swiss expands the size of the top few and bottom few groups, and reduces the size of the random middle group. To gain an extra round of Swiss accuracy, chess administrators seeded their Swisses, ensuring that the best players in a chess tournament played against each other as soon as possible. However, as the numbers of contestants in chess tournaments increased, even seeded chess Swisses began to produce less meaningful results for the number of rounds available. Therefore, to add a further round of accuracy, chess administrators introduced the Accelerated Swiss movement. This article describes how the Accelerated Swiss movement has been adapted for a bridge teams event, using the WBF victory point scale. Executive Summary The Accelerated Swiss has two advantages: 1. Technical - A seeded Swiss has an accuracy advantage over an unseeded Swiss equivalent to an extra round. An Accelerated Swiss gains a further round of accuracy, reducing the chances of a mediocre team "swissing through the field". 2. Psychological - A seeded Swiss is unpopular among some weaker teams due to the first-round "bloodbath", where their teams get annihilated by Klinger, Marston etc. There is no bloodbath in the first round of an Accelerated Swiss, as the top seeds and bottom seeds are paired within their own group. Procedure Part A - Overview and Round One draw 1. Seeding - Seed the entire field. 2. Temporary carry-forward - Give the top 50% of the seeds a temporary carry-forward of 10 vps. This carry- forward is used in determining the draw for both Round One and Round Two. After finalising the draw for Round Two, remove all of the temporary carry-forwards. The draw for Round Three and subsequent rounds will be a normal Swiss draw based on earned vps. 3. Round One draw - The top quarter of the field is drawn against the second quarter of the field; the third quarter of the field is drawn against the fourth quarter of the field. Example 1: A draw where the field (100 teams) is divisible by 4: 1 vs 26 2 vs 27 ..... 24 vs 49 25 vs 50 51 vs 76 52 vs 77 ..... 74 vs 99 75 vs 100 Example 2: Modified draw where the field (98 teams) is not divisible by 4: 1 vs 25 2 vs 26 ..... 23 vs 47 24 vs 48 49 vs 50 51 vs 75 52 vs 76 ..... 73 vs 97 74 vs 98 Part B - Round Two draw 1. Divide the field into three groups: - Group 1 is initially defined as those teams with 35 vps to 26 vps (top seeded winners) - Group 2 is initially defined as those teams with 25 vps to 15 vps (top seeded losers + bottom seeded winners) - Group 3 is initially defined as those teams with 14 vps to 0 vps (mostly bottom seeded losers + a few top seeded annihilated teams) 2. Modify Group 1: - If there are an even number of teams in Group 1, no modification is necessary - If there are an odd number of teams in Group 1, add the bottom-seeded team with the biggest 25 vp result to Group 1 3. Modify Group 2: - Group 2 should have exactly 50% top seeds and exactly 50% bottom seeds - Transfer surplus teams from the lower end of Group 2 to Group 3 4. Round Two draw for modified Group 1: - Group 1 is paired within itself in normal Swiss fashion 5. Round Two draw for modified Group 2: - Group 2 is paired within itself in normal Swiss fashion, *but constraint*: each pairing must be a top seed versus a bottom seed 6. Round Two draw for modified Group 3: - Group 3 is paired within itself in normal Swiss fashion, *but constraint*: top seeded teams must not be paired against each other From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 3 07:40:48 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 3 07:41:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge In-Reply-To: <042320051620.11375.426A75D3000A93FB00002C6F22007481849D0A02070D0E9D090B07900E0B@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Grabiner: [snip] >>>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. Richard Hills: Good point. The WBF Code of Practice specifically states that an IWoG by the non-offending side *before* the offending side's infraction is irrelevant to score adjustment - only "subsequent" IWoGs need to be considered in score adjustment. But, it could be argued that West's fieldable CPU pseudo-psyche was the East-West infraction, with East's fielding merely the evidence of West's infraction. In that case, North's IWoG bid of 3H was *after* West's infraction, so David's point would be invalid in this *particular* case. WBF Code of Practice: >>the extent of redress to this side may be affected, see below, >>if it has contributed to its own damage by irrational, wild or >>gambling, action **subsequent** to the infraction [snip] >>If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own >>damage by irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not >>receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage >>as is self-inflicted. >> >>The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that >>it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its >>infraction. A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the >>infraction will affect its own score but again the infractor's >>score is to be adjusted as before without regard to the revoke. Richard Hills: It is interesting that this particular part of the WBF Code of Practice has *not* been adopted by the English Bridge Union. Clause 142.2.2 of the EBU White Book (TD Guide) states: >Redress for non-offenders > >The L&EC has confirmed its policy with regard to restrictions on >adjustments for non-offenders, as follows: > >* adjustments should only be refused for the non-offenders when > they had taken "wild or gambling action" subsequent to their > opponents' infraction > >* this is tantamount to restricting adjustments only in cases > where there was an element of seeking a "double-shot" > >This means that there are circumstances in which the adjustment >is restricted under the CoP where an adjustment would be given in >England, where the action taken is considered "irrational" but >not "wild" or "gambling", or where there is no element whatever >of seeking a "double-shot". > >The L&EC has also confirmed that its policy as to the score to be >given to the non-offenders in "wild or gambling action" cases >differs from the CoP. In England the original non-offenders keep >their table score. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue May 3 07:43:19 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue May 3 07:44:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au><002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> <000c01c54ee8$49ddf7b0$f7310952@AnnesComputer><001801c54efb$30489c70$e89987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><4276034C.40903@hdw.be> <000201c54f11$dd057d50$84b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 7:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight, > But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right. > ~ Hilaire Belloc > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:39 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > > > Grattan, now you are going too far: > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > > +=+ Yes. However, it is indisputable, I suggest, > > > that the the player *could* have known when he > > > passed out of turn that Tony might be advantaged > > > by the certainty he would pass any bid he made. > > > So the Director can invoke 72B1 if opponents are > > > damaged - see Laws 30A and 30B2. We do not > > > have to consider whether Tony was in fact so > > > advantaged, that is immaterial - we skip directly > > > to the question whether opponents were damaged > > > through the irregularity, as for example through the > > > fact that Tony could make any bid knowing his > > > partner would pass. > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > If you rule that a player who passes out of turn > > "could know" that this could be to his advantage, > > then you might as well write a law in the 2007 > > lawbook that says that passing out of turn > > guarantees an absolute zero. > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > < > +=+ Thank you for the suggestion. However, it is > much wider in scope than the 1997 laws 30A and > 30B2 to which I referred, And currently an absolute > zero is unusual. > In the case we have discussed the knowledge > conveyed to partner is substantial and allows him > great scope to judge unusual actions to his side's > advantage. Be in no doubt that Tony was enabled > to create difficulties for opponents with enhanced > safety when his partner had passed out of turn > before he had judged his own initial action. Law 72B1 > is set up to counter that situation, inter alia, and > knowing the certainty of partner's pass in response > to an unusual action by him is such a great advantage > that there can be no doubt that it will be likely to > damage the non-offending side. I accept that it was > ignorance of the law in the circumstances of a 30A > irregularity that caused Tony to base his bid on > the knowledge that partner would pass it, but he > was wrong to do so. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I think that it is a poor construction of law to fail to avoid the situation altogether. In this case merely enforcing a pass on dealer and requiring offender to repeat his call seems to be the most appropriate remedy. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 3 08:05:15 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 3 08:06:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Aussie Senior Trials In-Reply-To: <426D8655.50108@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >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. Richard Hills: Agreed. In one of his editorials, Edgar Kaplan gave the example of a system which had natural 1H opening bids, but a 1S response was an artificial negative. Opponents need advance warning of such methods, so that they can decide what a double of 1S means. (A simple agreement is that a double of 1S promises spades, but Edgar's agreement with his regular partner was that a double of 1S was a takeout double of the only known suit, hearts.) Steve Willner: >Another is that if almost everyone finds it easy to >disclose methods in advance, why not make it mandatory? Richard Hills: Yes, in the current era of active ethical full disclosure, I find it distressing that a sponsoring organisation has created a regulation that encourages unnecessarily limited disclosure. In this era of email and websites, why not require a partnership to provide an electronic copy of their complete system notes? {Off-topic note: Any newbies to blml who wish a copy of my complete Symmetric Relay system notes, please send me a private email.} Steve Willner: >Or alternatively loosen the declaration rules even >further if that's acceptable to other Aussie players. Richard Hills: The fact that many Aussie contestants for international honours are too lazy to do any homework on their opponents' methods is one reason for the appalling record of Aussie international teams in the past three decades. But, if a few players *want* to prepare in advance of a selection Trials, the regulations should not favour the lazy majority. Steve Willner: >Perhaps Richard or others will have additional thoughts. Richard Hills: >From 1987 to 1989, my partner (Steve Hurley) and I were mediocre Aussie Youth players; many of our Youthful contemporaries had much greater talent and ability. *But* Steve and I made the most of our limited ability by constantly doing bridge homework on our system, and on our defences to other systems. So, during that period, we won five national Youth championships while some more talented (but lazier) Youthful contemporaries were much less successful. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 3 08:15:43 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 3 08:16:38 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050426080608.02a8e780@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >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? [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, Eric Landau's objection, "How can I tell, in a face-to-face encounter in a tournament, whether or not my unknown opponent is a patzer?" is a furphy. One might as well object, "How can I tell, in a face- to-face encounter in a tournament, whether or not my unknown opponent is an Aussie?" Very little information reveals an Aussie in an American bridge tournament. Very little information reveals a patzer in an American bridge tournament. Further reading on how the human brain is wired to extrapolate minute amounts of information into accurate guesses can be found in Malcolm Gladwell's popular science book, "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From hermandw at hdw.be Tue May 3 09:41:29 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue May 3 09:41:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Second catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42772B29.8020503@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Part of South Canberra Bridge Club TD ruling: > > [snip] > > >>>(b) with correct information, East would know North-South were >>>having a bidding misunderstanding, so East would then try to >>>catch their rabbit quietly with a soft Pass (not a loud >>>Double),so > > > [snip] > > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > > >>However East is going to receive the correct explanation, he >>is not also going to receive the wrong one. > > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > It ain't necessarily so. What about Law 75D1? > > "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)." > > If North had summoned the TD pursuant to Law 75D1 as soon as > they had realised their original explanation was incorrect > (when South had run from 3NTx to 4C), East would have first > received the wrong explanation from North, then East would > have later received the correct explanation from North. In > this hypothetical Law 75D1 situation, East could reasonably > deduce that North's 3NT was predicated upon a bidding > misunderstanding. Pursuant to Law 21, the TD would have > given East the option to possibly withdraw their Double. > What you are saying Richard, is that it is better for a player who realizes his mistake to not correct it, since that gives his opponents information they are not entitled to (IMO). Perhaps therefor, it would be better for bridge to change this principle and make the information they do have also entitled information. Or maybe the WBF could change L75D1 into allowing a player who realizes his mistake to keep schtum about it. But the problem is not there, it is in the application of L12: L12C2: "...had the irregularity not occured..." The irregularity is the wrong explanation - so if it hadn't occured there had not been 2 explanations. If you insist on L75D1, then first of all you need to prove that the player had noticed, and secondly you would be giving a second ruling, about the second infraction of not calling the director. Maybe in that second ruling you could rule that opponents would have been entitled to both explanations, but then I'd need to see the bidding again - when exactly would you like North to realize he's made a mistake? And when do you want East to pass out 3NT? > Therefore, in my opinion, part (b) of the actual TD's ruling > was fully consistent with Law. Whether the TD exercised > correct judgement is another matter. In my opinion, given > West's ability as an Aussie national champion, West's greedy > double of 4C should be defined as "irrational, wild or > gambling". > > West knew that he had nil defence to 4D, and West should have > known that his double of 4C would obviously encourage East to > make their subsequent marginal (and unsuccessful) double of > 4D. So, if I had been TD, I would have split the score, > letting East-West retain their table result of 4Dx -710. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 3 10:07:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 3 10:08:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > If a partnership has an implicit agreement to cuebid in > the Zia style (instead of cuebidding in a uniformly > boring straightforward style), then the opponents are > entitled to advance disclosure of the partnership's > implicit Zia agreement. Whether they are entitled to advance (pre-alert/CC) or explanatory disclosure is a matter for the SO. I don't think there is such a thing as "standard" cue-bidding. John and I have a pretty good understanding of when cues can 1st/2nd round, when shortage in partner's suit and when not, when implicit 3rd/2nd round control is shown in another suit. This understanding is disclosable in response to questions but is neither expected (nor would fit) on an EBU cc. I don't think an understanding about occasional Zia cues would merit promoting cue-bid style to the "special information" section of EBU CC. Cue bids are (currently) alertable and opps can be expected to ask if they care. No regular partnership can pre-disclose all their understandings. I regard the "special" part of the EBU CC as place to put info that opps may want to discuss as to defences/firm up agreements. This includes such bizarre agreements as "We do NOT play transfers" - quite amazing how many opps aren't clear on their defence to this unusual system. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 3 10:07:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 3 10:08:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050502153554.02b00230@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > 2. L75C does *not* say that "general knowledge and experience" need not > be disclosed. It says that "inferences drawn from... general knowledge > and experience" need not be disclosed. Those are not at all the same > thing. > Before we debate what a particular law means, it behooves us to know > what it says. Then why leave out an important qualifying word? "His" should appear between GK&E. Generally we are talking "implicit" stuff here so the distinction between actuality and inference is pretty fine. It's part of *MY* GK&E that psychic cues exist. It isn't part of everyone's. It's even part of *my* GK&E that Zia makes "psychic" cues occasionally, again not part of everyone's. I'm damn sure that for any of Zia's regular partner's this habitual knowledge (or the inference that Zia may have a hand that wishes to avert a diamond lead, if you prefer) is part of their mutual understanding and 100% disclosable. I played a few Chicagos against Zia a while back and made a joke about one of his control bids. He may well have forgotten, but I haven't so were *I* ever lucky enough to partner him I'd consider myself obliged to describe the above inference in the same way as his regular partners. Equally, if I'm playing with a non-Zia whom I know to be prone to the occasional false cue I'm obliged to disclose whatever inferences *I* draw from that knowledge. If I'm playing with a partner of whose "false cue" habits I know nothing (most people, including several regular partners) there is nothing to disclose. If I'm playing with Emily (who hasn't heard of a false cue and wouldn't dream of making one) I'm obliged to disclose that too. Whether a failure to disclose in any of the above situations would be considered "damaging" is a different kettle of fish. There are plenty of opps around who know as much (or much more) about Zia as I do. Tim From karel at esatclear.ie Tue May 3 14:34:02 2005 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue May 3 14:42:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Online case In-Reply-To: <000801c54f06$825cb900$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: This hand came up in a recent on-line league match. I was asked my opinion. So before doing so I've decided to consult with the group. N/S Vul Dealer N .......North .......S 4 .......H 983 .......D KJ73 .......C AQT94 West............East..............N......E......S......W S J9875.........S AKQT............2S(1)..P......4C.....P H AK752.........H QJ64............P......DBL....P......4H D 542...........D AT..............All Pass C -.............C 872 .......South .......S 632 .......H T .......D Q986 .......C KJ653 result 4H+3 510 I asked a few what I thought relevant Q's, if I missed some I apoligize. - N/S prealtered there 2's at the beginning of the match - N/S had a convention card posted - N/S where playing 2/1 + bits - E/W played pretty standard sayc (1) Alerted. The hand was played on BBO. You alert a bid and you CAN then afterwards write an explanation. This is not mandatory. The opps can request an explanation if they want. There will be a delay depending on the length of the explanation. E passed the 2S bid in about 2 secs. South Bid 4C's. In around the same time (+/-1 sec or so) the explanation came up about the 2S bid (minors & (<10 or big) or something similar). There is a bid roll back option available on BBO. E/W claim that with a proper timely alert they would have got to a major slam. Your ruling ... K. From lads at emailaccount.com Tue May 3 15:54:00 2005 From: lads at emailaccount.com (Rick Yang) Date: Tue May 3 15:00:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Become one of the low rates Message-ID: <111741.5609.lads@emailaccount.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h0us1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Rich Goddard to be remov(ed: http://www.h0us1ng.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From craigstamps at comcast.net Tue May 3 15:27:41 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Tue May 3 15:28:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Online case References: Message-ID: <000b01c54fe3$e4f4b4e0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> First off, you say they prealerted their 2s. That should have raised a red flag. Then you say they had the alert details typed out in about 3 seconds. That seems rather reasonable, especially allowing for connection time if someone was on a dialup. Thirdly East had the opportunity to request an undo and fails to do so once he sees the alert. As I view it there is no infraction on BBO. East's actual holding might well have woken him up as well if he was paying attention instead of racing to catch a train. And what would he have bid that would have ensured finding the slam? He was not going to overcall his four card heart suit was he? Would he cue spades...possibly Michaels in SAYC. Double? OK, he has values in the majors. Now perhaps 5c or atr least 4c and bidding space is constrained. Even if there were an offense, which there was not, a more favourable outcome is far from assured. It's good we don't have to adjust :-) Advise east not to be in such a hurry he forgets to play bridge. Commend N-S on an effective job of preemption that accomplished its task with no infractions and no ethical lapses whatsoever. But perhaps they should not play against such easily offended bunnies again. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:34 AM Subject: [blml] Online case > > This hand came up in a recent on-line league match. I was asked my > opinion. > So before doing so I've decided to consult with the group. > > N/S Vul Dealer N > > .......North > .......S 4 > .......H 983 > .......D KJ73 > .......C AQT94 > > West............East..............N......E......S......W > S J9875.........S AKQT............2S(1)..P......4C.....P > H AK752.........H QJ64............P......DBL....P......4H > D 542...........D AT..............All Pass > C -.............C 872 > .......South > .......S 632 > .......H T > .......D Q986 > .......C KJ653 > > result 4H+3 510 > > I asked a few what I thought relevant Q's, if I missed some I apoligize. > > - N/S prealtered there 2's at the beginning of the match > - N/S had a convention card posted > - N/S where playing 2/1 + bits > - E/W played pretty standard sayc > > (1) Alerted. The hand was played on BBO. You alert a bid and you CAN > then > afterwards write an explanation. This is not mandatory. The opps can > request an explanation if they want. There will be a delay depending on > the > length of the explanation. > > E passed the 2S bid in about 2 secs. South Bid 4C's. In around the same > time (+/-1 sec or so) the explanation came up about the 2S bid (minors & > (<10 or big) or something similar). There is a bid roll back option > available on BBO. > > E/W claim that with a proper timely alert they would have got to a major > slam. > > Your ruling ... > > K. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue May 3 15:41:18 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue May 3 15:42:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Online case Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C66E@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Karel [mailto:karel@esatclear.ie] Sent: 03 May 2005 13:34 To: blml Subject: [blml] Online case [snip] I asked a few what I thought relevant Q's, if I missed some I apoligize. - N/S prealtered there 2's at the beginning of the match - N/S had a convention card posted - N/S where playing 2/1 + bits - E/W played pretty standard sayc (1) Alerted. The hand was played on BBO. You alert a bid and you CAN then afterwards write an explanation. This is not mandatory. The opps can request an explanation if they want. There will be a delay depending on the length of the explanation. E passed the 2S bid in about 2 secs. South Bid 4C's. In around the same time (+/-1 sec or so) the explanation came up about the 2S bid (minors & (<10 or big) or something similar). There is a bid roll back option available on BBO. E/W claim that with a proper timely alert they would have got to a major slam. Your ruling ... K. ----- I do not have experience of accepted/expected custom and practice on BBO. >From the facts presented there has been no infraction - score stands. 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 ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 3 15:59:51 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 3 15:59:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <003601c54f83$a29570e0$029868d5@James> References: <003601c54f83$a29570e0$029868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050503095349.02b49530@pop.starpower.net> At 09:58 PM 5/2/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >[Richard James Hills] > > I fully agree with Herman's constraints on any > > meretricious use of "general bridge knowledge" designed > > to conceal a partnership understanding. > > If, as a Devil's Advocate, one assumed that it was > > general bridge knowledge that some partnerships use Zia > > cuebids, then a consistent Devil's Advocate would have > > to admit that it was *also* general bridge knowledge > > that some partnerships have a prior history of always > > using boring cuebids. Law 75A "full disclosure" has not > > been satisfied *unless* the opponents were told in > > advance which category - Zia cuebidders or boring > > cuebidders - their adversaries belonged to. > >[Nigel] >I was about to answer Ed Reppert, Eric Labdau and Ron >Johnson but I could not put it better than Richard has. > >(: Purists can substitute "General Knowledge" for "General >Bridge Knowledge" -- although the former is even less apt in >the context of an implicit understanding to "mini-psyche" >cue- bids, regularly :) I detect my name being taken in vain; my (previously unexpressed) leanings on the subject of pseudo-psychic cuebids are in the same direction as Richard's and Nigel's. I suspect Nigel may have miscomprehended my recent remarks on the subject of GBK, which were in a different thread and a totally different context (in which I asserted that GBK includes the knowledge that one's usual bidding agreements do not apply when partner is barred). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Tue May 3 16:43:20 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Tue May 3 16:16:05 2005 Subject: [blml] mail Message-ID: <000001c54ff2$61c7ef60$798616ac@mycomputer> Dear Blml members I'd like to receive mail messages Thanks Israel From achagua at doneasy.com Tue May 3 17:12:50 2005 From: achagua at doneasy.com (Berta Webb) Date: Tue May 3 16:21:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Instant low rates Message-ID: <111241.5758.achagua@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.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Alana Abbott to be remov(ed: http://www.h0us1ng.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 henk at ripe.net Tue May 3 16:22:20 2005 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue May 3 16:23:33 2005 Subject: [blml] mail In-Reply-To: <000001c54ff2$61c7ef60$798616ac@mycomputer> References: <000001c54ff2$61c7ef60$798616ac@mycomputer> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050503162051.02c7e108@localhost> Israel, >I'd like to receive mail messages You have selected the "no mail" option. You can unset this on http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/options/blml yourself. 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 ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 3 16:50:38 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 3 17:12:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050502153554.02b00230@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050503103015.02b49710@pop.starpower.net> At 04:07 AM 5/3/05, twm wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > 2. L75C does *not* say that "general knowledge and experience" need > not > > be disclosed. It says that "inferences drawn from... general > knowledge > > and experience" need not be disclosed. Those are not at all the same > > thing. > > > Before we debate what a particular law means, it behooves us to know > > what it says. > >Then why leave out an important qualifying word? "His" should appear >between GK&E. Generally we are talking "implicit" stuff here so the >distinction between actuality and inference is pretty fine. > >It's part of *MY* GK&E that psychic cues exist. It isn't part of >everyone's. It's even part of *my* GK&E that Zia makes "psychic" cues >occasionally, again not part of everyone's. I'm damn sure that for >any of >Zia's regular partner's this habitual knowledge (or the inference that >Zia >may have a hand that wishes to avert a diamond lead, if you prefer) is >part of their mutual understanding and 100% disclosable. To be honest, I left out "his" just for readability, but in truth it is not an important word. Tim's "knowledge and experience" may differ substantially from mine, but "his general knowledge and experience" cannot be significantly different from mine; that is a consequence of the meaning of the word "general" ("Widespread; prevalent" [AHD]). I suspect from Tim's choice of typography -- he writes of "*MY* GK&E" -- that he knows quite well that he's actually talking about his K&E, which, if it can be meaningfully described as "*HIS*", is not G at all. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mustikka at charter.net Tue May 3 17:20:05 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija d) Date: Tue May 3 17:21:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Online case References: Message-ID: <000801c54ff3$95f92eb0$c410b618@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 5:34 AM Subject: [blml] Online case > > This hand came up in a recent on-line league match. I was asked my > opinion. > So before doing so I've decided to consult with the group. > > N/S Vul Dealer N > > .......North > .......S 4 > .......H 983 > .......D KJ73 > .......C AQT94 > > West............East..............N......E......S......W > S J9875.........S AKQT............2S(1)..P......4C.....P > H AK752.........H QJ64............P......DBL....P......4H > D 542...........D AT..............All Pass > C -.............C 872 > .......South > .......S 632 > .......H T > .......D Q986 > .......C KJ653 > > result 4H+3 510 > > I asked a few what I thought relevant Q's, if I missed some I apoligize. > > - N/S prealtered there 2's at the beginning of the match > - N/S had a convention card posted > - N/S where playing 2/1 + bits > - E/W played pretty standard sayc > > (1) Alerted. The hand was played on BBO. You alert a bid and you CAN > then > afterwards write an explanation. This is not mandatory. The opps can > request an explanation if they want. There will be a delay depending on > the > length of the explanation. > > E passed the 2S bid in about 2 secs. South Bid 4C's. In around the same > time (+/-1 sec or so) the explanation came up about the 2S bid (minors & > (<10 or big) or something similar). There is a bid roll back option > available on BBO. > > E/W claim that with a proper timely alert they would have got to a major > slam. > > Your ruling ... > > K. Does BBO have mandated "pause" over jump bids? I don't know. OKB does. This seems easy even for a non-TD. No score adjustments but perhaps an education to the EW pair to take a few seconds pause over opponent's two level opening or a jump bid. At the very least, read the explanation before making a call. NS pre-alerted, then alerted & explained during bidding. What more can they do? From UQTLBGSUBR at estrategy.nl Tue May 3 20:52:43 2005 From: UQTLBGSUBR at estrategy.nl (Antoinette Pickett) Date: Tue May 3 19:53:28 2005 Subject: [blml] It`s almost summer Message-ID: <230352277017.KAA14381@marino.mrec.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050503/d7acf11c/attachment.html From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 3 20:39:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 3 20:40:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050503103015.02b49710@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > To be honest, I left out "his" just for readability, but in truth it is > not an important word. And there we differ. GK&E, in any universal sense, does not exist. *Personal* GK&E is *all* the knowledge one has of bridge *outwith* understandings/agreements with one's current partner. It could be zero (for a player who has only ever played with one partner), it could be 99.8% of what one knows (if one has not agreed a system with pard). > I suspect from Tim's choice of typography -- he writes of "*MY* GK&E" > that he knows quite well that he's actually talking about his K&E, > which, if it can be meaningfully described as "*HIS*", is not G at all. Oh, it's "general". "General" as in opposition to "Special" K&E. My total knowledge of bridge remains (sadly) almost constant from hand to hand. The proportion of that knowledge which is special (and disclosable) varies from partner to partner. I can't use the excuse that Acol 2s are some nebulous "GK&E" to avoid disclosing what partner's 2S show if I have agreed to play Acol with partner. Tim From john at asimere.com Tue May 3 20:45:48 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue May 3 20:49:11 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050426080608.02a8e780@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Eric Landau: > >[snip] > >>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? > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >In my opinion, Eric Landau's objection, "How can I >tell, in a face-to-face encounter in a tournament, >whether or not my unknown opponent is a patzer?" is a >furphy. > As I mentioned, I had a game in Toronto at Kate B-somethings's with she- who-must-be-obeyed. Mise en scene: LHO male mid 30's, RHO dowager witch. I'm in 4S on a 5 bid auction. He rises SA when I lead from hand. He looked ok, so I said "How many master points have you got?". "About as many as you if you ask the question!" So the discussion went on very happily for a while, and eventually I played the hand out per the percentages which was correct. At the end SWMBO looked vacant and DW asked "Why did you take so long over a routine hand?". Happily LHO said "The Limey and I were having a joke" which seemed to shut her up. Was my question illegal? (since I was trying to elicit whether it was her pro getting paid, or her son being kind) His answer told me fwiw. cheers John >One might as well object, "How can I tell, in a face- >to-face encounter in a tournament, whether or not my >unknown opponent is an Aussie?" > >Very little information reveals an Aussie in an >American bridge tournament. Very little information >reveals a patzer in an American bridge tournament. > -- 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 May 3 21:32:46 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue May 3 21:36:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050503103015.02b49710@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In article , Tim West- Meads writes >Eric wrote: > >> To be honest, I left out "his" just for readability, but in truth it is >> not an important word. > >And there we differ. GK&E, in any universal sense, does not exist. >*Personal* GK&E is *all* the knowledge one has of bridge *outwith* >understandings/agreements with one's current partner. It could be zero >(for a player who has only ever played with one partner), it could be >99.8% of what one knows (if one has not agreed a system with pard). > >> I suspect from Tim's choice of typography -- he writes of "*MY* GK&E" >> that he knows quite well that he's actually talking about his K&E, >> which, if it can be meaningfully described as "*HIS*", is not G at all. > >Oh, it's "general". "General" as in opposition to "Special" K&E. >My total knowledge of bridge remains (sadly) almost constant from hand to >hand. The proportion of that knowledge which is special (and disclosable) >varies from partner to partner. I can't use the excuse that Acol 2s are >some nebulous "GK&E" to avoid disclosing what partner's 2S show if I have >agreed to play Acol with partner. > >Tim YE GODS!! This is a *m* *a* *j* *o* *r* national event. Forget darmstaadt darjeeling danjing daventry and dansk. These guys are meant to be playing bridge, not the game my mother used to play over cucumber sandwiches on a Tuesday afternoon for a tanner a ton where even she wouldn't have raised an eyebrow over such a "bluff" bid. "What do you think of 4D, mother?" "mm, yes, no problem before my 4th G&T, harder later". If my mother knew about psychic cues in the early 60's then there's *no* hope left for a Belgian/Dutch/Luxemburg/Walloon/whatever National team that in 2005 requires protection from my late mother. I *will not* grant MI in this national standard game. cheers John. (I will concede mother was a huge winner in her school. The one tournament she ever played in, I took her to when she was dying. We cleaned up in the Swiss. I even had to teach her to alert Stayman, and push her wheelchair. But it was one mind-expanding white-knuckle ride something like Mother: "4D" ; oppo: "wozzat?"; Me: "forcing!" oppo: "wojjamean?" Me: "cue. Do you play bridge?" etc!) ::wanders off into setting sun muttering about kids and candy:: > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Tue May 3 23:36:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 3 23:37:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John Probst wrote: > I *will not* grant MI in this national standard game. The standard of game has no bearing on whether there is MI. If a player failed to disclose something relevant then MI is proven. Whether one judges to assess *damage* from the MI is another matter. In a Gold Cup Final I'd happily ask (with incredulous tone) "You want me to adjust because you, a national calibre player, got taken in by a psychic cue? OK, this story should be worth a few beers, I'll consult about it." In the ladies' trials I'd be more likely to consider damage (although in the actual case I don't think I'd rule damage even there). I don't actually know how good the standard is in Belgium so assessing damage is harder than assessing MI. The fact that a ruling was sought, of itself, gives me doubts about the calibre of player. Tim From UFQEYD at colonialpinesinn.com Wed May 4 01:49:26 2005 From: UFQEYD at colonialpinesinn.com (Marty Greenberg) Date: Wed May 4 01:00:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Now you can shag more frequently. Message-ID: <102419292.6999.23.camel@pdx.osdl.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050504/d8f066c9/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 4 02:27:21 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 4 02:28:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Second catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: <42772B29.8020503@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >If you insist on L75D1, then first of all you need to >prove that the player had noticed, and secondly you >would be giving a second ruling, about the second >infraction of not calling the director. Maybe in that >second ruling you could rule that opponents would >have been entitled to both explanations, but then I'd >need to see the bidding again - when exactly would you >like North to realize he's made a mistake? And when do >you want East to pass out 3NT? Richard Hills: This is the consistent with Law 75D1 hypothetical auction that the actual TD proposed as the basis for the actual TD's ruling. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: North-South Rueful Rabbit JT5 Q985 QJT5 94 Secretary Bird Walter the Walrus 643 K9872 JT63 AK72 7 A82 K6532 Q Baffled Bunny AQ 4 K9643 AJT87 The bidding hypothetically and legally might have gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1S 2NT(1) Pass(2) 3NT(3) Dble 4C(4) (5) Pass(6) Pass(7) Pass (1) Not alerted. (2) The Secretary Bird was always going to pass 2NT. However, as the local club expert, he could not resist enquiring as to the meaning of the unalerted 2NT. (3) Rueful Rabbit had temporarily forgotten the unusual 2NT convention, so confidently assured the Secretary Bird that 2NT was natural and strong, and equally confidently raised to 3NT. (4) After East's double, the TD ruled that 4C was South's only logical alternative. (5) Even Rueful Rabbit's memory had been jogged by this auction. So, Rueful Rabbit hypothetically summoned the TD, and then hypothetically corrected their initial misexplanation. (6) East hypothetically exercised their Law 21 option to change their initial double to a pass. (7) It was not AI to South that East's initial call was a double. Now that East passed 3NT, the TD ruled that it was a logical alternative for South to also hypothetically pass. Ergo, a legally correct TD ruling of NS -200 and EW +200. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 4 02:54:16 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 4 02:55:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Second catch your rabbit In-Reply-To: <42772B29.8020503@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >L12C2: "...had the irregularity not occurred..." The irregularity >is the wrong explanation - so if it hadn't occurred there had not >been 2 explanations. [snip] Richard Hills: In this case, there was a moment before a Law 75C infraction. But there was also a later moment after the Law 75C infraction but before a consequential Law 75D1 infraction. And it would be to the advantage of the non-offending side if the TD adjusted the score on the basis that the Law 75C infraction had occurred, but that the consequential Law 75D1 infraction had *not* occurred. This issue of *the* irregularity has been discussed on blml before. The 1997 Laws are silent on the correct TD procedure when multiple and consequential irregularities have occurred *before* the non-offending side becomes aware that any of the irregularities have occurred. Another common example is the application of Law 64C to two revokes by an offending side. Must Law 64C be applied to *both* the revokes by the offending side? Or could Law 64C be applied to only the second revoke, while the non-offending side gains the benefit of a two-trick penalty from the first revoke? I hope that the 2006 Laws explicitly define whether or not the TD can advantage the non-offending side by correcting only the chronologically latest of two consequential infractions. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From nacred at didamail.com Wed May 4 04:03:30 2005 From: nacred at didamail.com (Rosie Key) Date: Wed May 4 03:09:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Notification: We offer low rates Message-ID: <111441.2231.nacred@didamail.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 $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h0us1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Brianna Goodwin to be remov(ed: http://www.h0us1ng.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 4 03:22:35 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 4 03:23:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling please References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5CB6@rama.micronas.com> <6.1.2.0.0.20050214204733.01d89a40@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <004301c55047$c192f160$029468d5@James> The pattern of "baby psyches", "psychic cues" and the like vary a lot from one regular "psyching" psrtnership to another -- in ways that are well beyond the scope of their opponents' general knowledge and experience. For example, I don't remember an occasion where a regular partner or I have psyched a cue-bid; although we make no undertakings for the future. At the other extreme, s lonh time ago, I played in a big pairs event with a pick-up psrtner. In our first session together, I soon realised that he was trying to emulate the likes of Grattan Endicott and John Probst. He "mini-psyched" on almost every board, especially in baby-psyche positions (third in hand, after LHO's take-out double, imaginitive no-trump overcalls and so on). Initially, I imagined that the swings and roundabouts would spin off random tops and bottoms, cancelling each other out. As I got the hang of it, I realised that, on the contrary, partner's antics conferred an enormous advantage on us. Whenever it appeared that somebody did not have what they advertised and puzzled opponents asked peculiar questions, I could guess the likely culprit. Whereas opponents would suspect each other as often as they suspected us. Even if they suspected one of us, they could not tell for sure which one of us was operating. Even then my view on GKE and so on differed from the BLML consensus. Masochistically, I killed the goose that laid the golden eggs by announcing all partner's bids as "probable psyche". Predictably, that ended the partnership :( From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed May 4 04:25:40 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed May 4 04:26:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Decelerated Swiss In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050504022540.22989.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Simulation constraints -> > > (1) 26 teams > (2) 5 x 12-board Swiss matches > (3) Best six teams to qualify for a Final > > Accelerated Swiss assumption -> > > (4) Careful seeding by an experienced CTD has a > reasonably high correlation with reality. > > In the long run, over a series of simulations, > which format - Accelerated Swiss or Random First > Round Swiss - provides greater accuracy in > determining qualifiers for the Final? > > The procedure for an Accelerated Swiss is attached. > I have done the numbers from this simulation. I have extended Richard's constraint (2) and provided the results after every round of a Swiss with a Random draw and an accelerated draw. I needed to make some additional assumptions and decisions: 1. I measured the efficiency of each method according to a mean-square-error measure. That is if Team 1 was in 3rd place I performed the following calculation (1-3)^2=4 I then summed this over every team, divided by the number of teams and took the square-root. I have given two such measures below. Columns 1 and 3 give the measures for the entire field for each method. Columns 2 and 4 give this measure for the top six (qualifying) places. 2. I used a ball-park figure of 6 IMPs per board as the standard deviation of the scores when simulating a result for each match. 3. I assumed a uniform linear range across the field of 5 IMPs per board from the best team to the worst team. This means that the best team in the field would expect on average to beat the worst team by 60 IMPs over 12 boards. 4. Any ties in this simulation were broken randomly. Round Random Accelerated 1 8.99 9.90 10.42 11.98 2 7.98 8.40 9.42 10.96 3 7.14 7.06 8.46 9.26 4 6.41 6.21 7.61 7.93 5 5.77 5.34 6.81 6.75 6 5.27 4.69 6.15 5.80 7 4.84 4.27 5.60 5.08 8 4.51 3.86 5.06 4.41 9 4.24 3.62 4.66 3.90 10 4.01 3.29 4.36 3.52 11 3.87 3.11 4.12 3.32 12 3.77 2.95 3.93 3.09 13 3.62 2.81 3.77 2.91 14 3.46 2.73 3.59 2.83 15 3.27 2.64 3.42 2.74 16 3.10 2.61 3.23 2.65 17 2.96 2.54 3.07 2.61 18 2.85 2.50 2.95 2.56 19 2.75 2.47 2.85 2.52 20 2.67 2.44 2.76 2.46 21 2.59 2.41 2.69 2.41 22 2.54 2.39 2.63 2.40 23 2.48 2.35 2.56 2.37 24 2.45 2.35 2.51 2.35 25 2.42 2.33 2.48 2.33 Points to notice from the numbers: 1. There is no over-swissing principle. The efficiency of the movement increased with every extra round. This makes sense the ultimate Swiss is a Round-Robin. The negative impact of playing a large number of rounds of Swiss is that the final round matches will not be played between contending teams. 2. Accelerated Swiss was worse than Random Swiss both over the entire field and in determining the best qualifiers. 3. Accelerated Swiss was almost two full rounds worse than Random Swiss. Essentially this means that there is very little useful information obtained by the movement from the special first two rounds of the draw. This reduced to about one round after about 8-10 rounds. 4. When a large number of rounds is played there is little difference in the two methods. Additional Comment ================== I also did similar simulations for two other Swiss initial draws i/ Seeded where 1 plays the team just below halfway and 2 plays the second team below halfway etc and ii/ "Super-Seeded" where 1 plays the bottom and 2 plays the second to bottom etc. Seeded Super-Seeded 1 8.83 9.87 6.24 6.04 2 7.84 8.29 6.18 5.79 3 7.02 7.06 5.78 5.28 4 6.38 6.26 5.33 4.72 5 5.82 5.50 4.96 4.30 6 5.36 4.91 4.62 3.92 7 4.96 4.47 4.34 3.68 8 4.59 3.99 4.13 3.46 9 4.33 3.71 3.96 3.22 10 4.11 3.45 3.83 3.03 11 3.94 3.25 3.70 2.83 12 3.84 3.06 3.60 2.72 13 3.71 2.88 3.49 2.58 14 3.56 2.77 3.30 2.51 15 3.39 2.68 3.09 2.46 16 3.21 2.63 2.90 2.43 17 3.05 2.53 2.76 2.36 18 2.93 2.50 2.65 2.35 19 2.82 2.48 2.57 2.33 20 2.74 2.42 2.51 2.30 21 2.67 2.37 2.46 2.30 22 2.59 2.35 2.40 2.30 23 2.53 2.31 2.36 2.28 24 2.49 2.27 2.34 2.28 25 2.45 2.25 2.32 2.27 Seeded draws produced almost identical results to a Random draw. "Super-Seeded" draws produced about two extra rounds of efficiency compared to a random draw. This occurs because you give the best teams and worst teams the biggest 'help' into their 'rightful' positions in the ranking. It is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. For this reason I would not recommend seriously considering this possibility. For similar reasons I believe a seeded Swiss is not sensible. It gains little or no benefit over a random draw and comes at the cost of the "blood-bath" first round. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 3 17:48:03 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed May 4 08:57:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <00b601c54f76$c8bde2f0$5b101d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <000b01c55075$e1379880$3b914c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight, But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right. ~ Hilaire Belloc ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 1:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > You cannot invoke "could have known" on the passer's partner. L72B1 says "offender could have known at the time of his irregularity". The passer's partner is neither the offender nor did he commit any irregularity. +=+ The offender is the player who passed out of turn and so gave his partner significant information that would allow him either (a) to avoid initial action that could lead to a bad score for his side, or (b) to take strange initial action to the disadvantage of opponents knowing that partner must pass. 72B1 is invoked against the player who commits the infraction and who surely must recognize the likelihood of damaging opponents when partner is put in possession of substantial information before he has called on the board. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Wed May 4 09:51:35 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed May 4 09:52:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct Message-ID: <20050504075135.DF05D466974@poczta.interia.pl> Grattan Endicott napisa?(a): > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight, > But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right. > ~ Hilaire Belloc > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" >cibor@poczta.fm> > To: >blml@rtflb.org> > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 1:26 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > > > > > You cannot invoke "could have known" on > the passer's partner. L72B1 says "offender could > have known at the time of his irregularity". > The passer's partner is neither the offender nor > did he commit any irregularity. > > = The offender is the player who passed out of turn > and so gave his partner significant information that would > allow him either (a) to avoid initial action that could lead > to a bad score for his side, or (b) to take strange initial > action to the disadvantage of opponents knowing that > partner must pass. >72B1 is invoked against the player > who commits the infraction and who surely must recognize > the likelihood of damaging opponents when partner is > put in possession of substantial information before he has > called on the board. The likelihood (unless you want to accuse him of prior knowledge of the deal he is now playing) is zero - I cannot construct a single hand where it would pay off to pass out of turn. Could you provide me with an example? As for the actions of passer's partner we have L16 to make sure that he doesn't use UI he has from the fact that his partner doesn't have an opening bid. Invoking "could have known" on the passer means that having passed out of turn I might as well stop playing, open the scoresheet and enter "cold bottom". By your logic if a) I pass out of turn b) my partner takes a successful gamble c) it is agreed that he didn't use UI that I don't have an opening bid d) he bent over backwards not to use this UI (say he opened 3NT with a balanced hand with 15 PC knowing that it will probably cost him dear) you will still adjust on the grounds that by POOT I could have known that this pass might lead to my advantage by the logic you presented in the first paragraph. That is fundametally wrong - if the TD determines that the passer's partner broke no law (especially L16) then the result must stand because the passer *couldn't* have known (because regardless of his holding POOT *never* makes sense, even for a villain). Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 500 MB na poczte i strony WWW juz za 122 zl rocznie >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1879 From ken.johnston at btinternet.com Wed May 4 11:39:04 2005 From: ken.johnston at btinternet.com (Ken Johnston) Date: Wed May 4 11:54:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation Message-ID: <006301c5508d$1cf29d40$5a319b51@e8m4u6> Club event - Vulnerability not known. K832 75 Q65 J762 7 Q104 QJ10432 AK8 J4 K109832 AJ43 K AJ986 96 A7 Q1098 W N E S 2H* P P** 2S 3C 3S 4H P P P *Weak **Agreed long hesitation. Assuming we disallow the 3C bid can we still allow East to wake up and the partnership to get to 4H? Ken -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050504/9767bfb0/attachment.html From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Wed May 4 12:16:13 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Wed May 4 12:16:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <006301c5508d$1cf29d40$5a319b51@e8m4u6> Message-ID: >Ken Johnston wrote: > >Club event - Vulnerability not known. > > K832 > 75 > Q65 > J762 > >7 Q104 >QJ10432 AK8 >J4 K109832 >AJ43 K > > AJ986 > 96 > A7 > Q1098 > >W N E S > >2H* P P** 2S >3C 3S 4H P >P P > >*Weak **Agreed long hesitation. > >Assuming we disallow the 3C bid can we still allow East to wake up and the >partnership to get to 4H? If we disallow 3C we must evaluate the possilbe outcome of the deal. I wouldn't suggest that the bidding would proceed 2S - passet out. We would have to consider several auctions, for example: 2H - P - P - 2S P - P - 3H - P P - P 2H - P - P - 2S P - P - 3H - P P - 3S - P - P P 2H - P - P - 2S P - P - 3H - P P - 3S-4H - P P - P and so on, and use L12C to adjust to a weighted result of 3H making 4 or 5, 4H making 4 or 5, 3S-1 and 3S-2. I don't think passing 2S is a possibility for east after thinking of bidding over 2H. I think the percentages attributed to 3S down 1/2 should be very low, since most easts would bid 4H when told that partner almost certainly holds a singelton spade. Regards, Harald > >Ken >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From twm at cix.co.uk Wed May 4 12:46:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed May 4 12:47:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <000b01c55075$e1379880$3b914c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ The offender is the player who passed out of turn > and so gave his partner significant information that would > allow him either (a) to avoid initial action that could lead > to a bad score for his side, or (b) to take strange initial > action to the disadvantage of opponents knowing that > partner must pass. 72B1 is invoked against the player > who commits the infraction and who surely must recognize > the likelihood of damaging opponents when partner is > put in possession of substantial information before he has > called on the board. While I accept the technical possibility of a hand where "Hey, a POOT here and having partner punt the contract is likely to work to our advantage" springs into a player's mind I find it difficult to construct such a hand (although a psychic POOT with near minimum opening values might do it). Obviously very weak hands don't qualify as partner will overpunt. Hands with any shape are more likely to suffer than benefit. A flattish 7-10? Well maybe - but isn't likely better to just bid it sensibly? Thus while 72b1 is a possibility I seriously doubt anyone will ever get to apply it in this scenario. Tim From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed May 4 12:59:24 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed May 4 13:00:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C676@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Ken Johnston [mailto:ken.johnston@btinternet.com] Sent: 04 May 2005 10:39 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Hesitation Club event - Vulnerability not known. K832 75 Q65 J762 7 Q104 QJ10432 AK8 J4 K109832 AJ43 K AJ986 96 A7 Q1098 W N E S 2H* P P** 2S 3C 3S 4H P P P *Weak **Agreed long hesitation. Assuming we disallow the 3C bid can we still allow East to wake up and the partnership to get to 4H? _____ I would like to ask East what he was thinking about and why he passed. I am not sure that a slow pass by East demonstrably suggests bidding by West. 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, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From schoderb at msn.com Wed May 4 13:45:33 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed May 4 13:46:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: Message-ID: An excellent analysis Harald. Good use of the tools a TD should have available, fine judgment, succinctly presented. Bravo. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Skj?ran" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 6:16 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation > >Ken Johnston wrote: > > > >Club event - Vulnerability not known. > > > > K832 > > 75 > > Q65 > > J762 > > > >7 Q104 > >QJ10432 AK8 > >J4 K109832 > >AJ43 K > > > > AJ986 > > 96 > > A7 > > Q1098 > > > >W N E S > > > >2H* P P** 2S > >3C 3S 4H P > >P P > > > >*Weak **Agreed long hesitation. > > > >Assuming we disallow the 3C bid can we still allow East to wake up and > >the > >partnership to get to 4H? > > If we disallow 3C we must evaluate the possilbe outcome of the deal. > I wouldn't suggest that the bidding would proceed 2S - passet out. > > We would have to consider several auctions, for example: > 2H - P - P - 2S > P - P - 3H - P > P - P > > 2H - P - P - 2S > P - P - 3H - P > P - 3S - P - P > P > > 2H - P - P - 2S > P - P - 3H - P > P - 3S-4H - P > P - P > > and so on, and use L12C to adjust to a weighted result of 3H making 4 or > 5, > 4H making 4 or 5, 3S-1 and 3S-2. > > I don't think passing 2S is a possibility for east after thinking of > bidding > over 2H. > I think the percentages attributed to 3S down 1/2 should be very low, > since > most easts would bid 4H when told that partner almost certainly holds a > singelton spade. > > Regards, > Harald > > > > >Ken > >_______________________________________________ > >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 cibor at poczta.fm Wed May 4 14:25:09 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed May 4 14:26:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation Message-ID: <20050504122509.C965B466961@poczta.interia.pl> Harald Skj?ran napisa?(a): > most easts would bid 4H when told that partner almost certainly holds a > singelton spade. Most Easts would indeed bid 4H but most East would never ever pass over 2H. I think that for someone who not only considers passing over partner's 2H but actually does so at the table a pass over 3S is certainly a LA. Not that I have much idea what someone of East's caliber might do over 3S. Difficult problem for a TD to judge. Very difficult for him to make a poll because first he would have to find someone who wouldn't bid over 2H. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PHP, cgi i MySQL w standardzie >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1878 From john at asimere.com Wed May 4 19:19:06 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed May 4 19:22:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: References: <000b01c55075$e1379880$3b914c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article , Tim West- Meads writes >Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ The offender is the player who passed out of turn >> and so gave his partner significant information that would >> allow him either (a) to avoid initial action that could lead >> to a bad score for his side, or (b) to take strange initial >> action to the disadvantage of opponents knowing that >> partner must pass. 72B1 is invoked against the player >> who commits the infraction and who surely must recognize >> the likelihood of damaging opponents when partner is >> put in possession of substantial information before he has >> called on the board. > >While I accept the technical possibility of a hand where "Hey, a POOT here >and having partner punt the contract is likely to work to our advantage" >springs into a player's mind I find it difficult to construct such a hand >(although a psychic POOT with near minimum opening values might do it). >Obviously very weak hands don't qualify as partner will overpunt. Hands >with any shape are more likely to suffer than benefit. A flattish 7-10? >Well maybe - but isn't likely better to just bid it sensibly? Thus while >72b1 is a possibility I seriously doubt anyone will ever get to apply it >in this scenario. If I were playing zero ethics bridge: The only hand that I thought would come close would be something like xx xx xxxx AKJxx, we need pard to punt 3N on a flattish 16 count with short-ish majors (ie not 5-baggers) well stopped, and we provide the safety of diamond length and a source of tricks. Of course one might try a 3C bid out of turn as well with this, hoping to hit a weak NT. 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 john at asimere.com Wed May 4 19:22:49 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed May 4 19:25:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >An excellent analysis Harald. Good use of the tools a TD should have >available, fine judgment, succinctly presented. Bravo. > >Kojak I was about to write the same analysis as Harald. 4H seems routine (>70% for the EBU team) xheers John > snip Harald's excellent analysis >> >> Regards, >> Harald >> >> > >> >Ken -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 4 23:10:59 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 4 23:12:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: Message-ID: <004201c550ed$c5d3f200$489868d5@James> [Ken Johnston] >> Club event - Vulnerability not known. >> K832 >> 75 >> Q65 >> J762 >> 7 Q104 >> QJ10432 AK8 >> J4 K109832 >> AJ43 K >> AJ986 >> 96 >> A7 >> Q1098 >> W N E S >> 2H* P P** 2S >> 3C 3S 4H P >> P P >> *Weak **Agreed long hesitation. >> Assuming we disallow the 3C bid can we still allow East >> to wake up and the partnership to get to 4H? > If we disallow 3C we must evaluate the possilbe outcome > of the deal. I wouldn't suggest that the bidding would > proceed 2S - passet out. > We would have to consider several auctions, for example: > 2H - P - P - 2S > P - P - 3H - P > P - P > 2H - P - P - 2S > P - P - 3H - P > P - 3S - P - P > P > 2H - P - P - 2S > P - P - 3H - P > P - 3S-4H - P > P - P > and so on, and use L12C to adjust to a weighted result > of 3H making 4 or 5, 4H making 4 or 5, 3S-1 and 3S-2. > I don't think passing 2S is a possibility for east > after thinking of bidding over 2H. > I think the percentages attributed to 3S down 1/2 > should be very low, since most easts would bid 4H > when told that partner almost certainly holds a > singelton spade. [Nigel] Wow! a unanimous verdict among Harald Skjaeran, William Schoder, and John Probst Shome mistake surely? Yes. Apparently, they all want to reward West for the apparent illegal use of unauthorised information. I suppose that this ruling does demonstrate that, even after this shaky start, the skilful director could still reach 4H and take all the right views to make the maximum number of tricks! Another magnificent triumph for "Equity"? Manifestly East had a card hidden (or showed bad judgment)when passing 2H. Most players would expect the director to adjust to the worst result likely for the offenders -- probably 2S= or 2S-1. Victims of such rulings find it puzzling that the director should instead credit East with resorting his hand (or a belated brain transplant). Players are only gradually taking on board the new liberal attitude to deliberate legal infractions. Many older players are still shocked when the director rules against the victims and never even considers the imposition of procedural penalty on the offenders. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 4 23:17:26 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 4 23:18:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Ruling in Belgian Cup Final Message-ID: <005701c550ee$ac4af800$489868d5@James> [Eric Landau] > I detect my name being taken in vain; my (previously > unexpressed) leanings on the subject of pseudo-psychic > cuebids are in the same direction as Richard's and > Nigel's. I suspect Nigel may have miscomprehended my > recent remarks on the subject of GBK, which were in > a different thread and a totally different context (in > which I asserted that GBK includes the knowledge that > one's usual bidding agreements do not apply when partner > is barred). [Nigel] Sorry Eric. My mistake. From mathies at yebox.com Thu May 5 00:33:59 2005 From: mathies at yebox.com (Lesa Katz) Date: Wed May 4 23:32:47 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.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Silas Ledbetter to be remov(ed: http://www.h0us1ng.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 ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed May 4 23:50:11 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed May 4 23:51:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 4, 2005, at 6:16 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > use L12C to adjust to a weighted result of 3H making 4 or 5, 4H making > 4 or 5, 3S-1 and 3S-2. Not in the ACBL, of course. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu May 5 00:06:02 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu May 5 00:07:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C676@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C676@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: On May 4, 2005, at 6:59 AM, Robin Barker wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ken Johnston [mailto:ken.johnston@btinternet.com] [snip] >> Assuming we disallow the 3C bid can we still allow East to wake up >> and the partnership to get to 4H? > I would like to ask East what he was thinking about and why he passed. Why? Passing is not an infraction, even after a BIT. It seems to me his reason for passing is irrelevant. > I am not sure that a slow pass by East demonstrably suggests bidding > by West. Ah! Well, that's different. :-) But I don't think you can use East's reason for passing, or about what he was thinking, in determining that. For Ken: when there has been a BIT, you can't "allow" or "disallow" any particular call. What you have to do is (if you find it appropriate according to the laws) adjust the score. If you judge 4H making or down 1 or 2 as "the most favorable result that was likely to have occurred" absent the hesitation, then you can adjust the score for the NOS to that. For the OS, you'd have to judge that contract as "the most unfavorable result that was at all possible" - which seems doubtful to me. :-) Law 12C3 allows an Appeals Committee to award the weighted scores Robin wrote of (except where the ZA says otherwise, as the ACBL has done), and in some places, (including the EBU, I think) this power has been extended to the TD, so if you feel that equity is not served by a 12C2 ruling, you have that option. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu May 5 00:09:14 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu May 5 00:10:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C676@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <6a55206173de1509aa1f5f86d84618fb@rochester.rr.com> On May 4, 2005, at 6:06 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > Law 12C3 allows an Appeals Committee to award the weighted scores > Robin wrote of Oops, that was Harald. My bad. :-) From schoderb at msn.com Thu May 5 01:05:51 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu May 5 01:07:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: <004201c550ed$c5d3f200$489868d5@James> Message-ID: Why do the words "clap trap" constantly come to mind? Is it something someone said? Rewarding West for anything is the farthest thought from my mind. I'm interested in arriving at a ruling that takes a number of factors into account. Of course, knee-jerk rulings are a lot easier, take little time, and require no reasoning. Besides, the AC can always work it out, can't they? Anathema to me. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation > [Ken Johnston] > >> Club event - Vulnerability not known. > >> K832 > >> 75 > >> Q65 > >> J762 > >> 7 Q104 > >> QJ10432 AK8 > >> J4 K109832 > >> AJ43 K > >> AJ986 > >> 96 > >> A7 > >> Q1098 > >> W N E S > >> 2H* P P** 2S > >> 3C 3S 4H P > >> P P > >> *Weak **Agreed long hesitation. > >> Assuming we disallow the 3C bid can we still allow East > >> to wake up and the partnership to get to 4H? > > If we disallow 3C we must evaluate the possilbe outcome > > of the deal. I wouldn't suggest that the bidding would > > proceed 2S - passet out. > > We would have to consider several auctions, for example: > > 2H - P - P - 2S > > P - P - 3H - P > > P - P > > 2H - P - P - 2S > > P - P - 3H - P > > P - 3S - P - P > > P > > 2H - P - P - 2S > > P - P - 3H - P > > P - 3S-4H - P > > P - P > > and so on, and use L12C to adjust to a weighted result > > of 3H making 4 or 5, 4H making 4 or 5, 3S-1 and 3S-2. > > I don't think passing 2S is a possibility for east > > after thinking of bidding over 2H. > > I think the percentages attributed to 3S down 1/2 > > should be very low, since most easts would bid 4H > > when told that partner almost certainly holds a > > singelton spade. > > [Nigel] > Wow! a unanimous verdict among Harald Skjaeran, William > Schoder, and John Probst > > Shome mistake surely? > > Yes. Apparently, they all want to reward West for the > apparent illegal use of unauthorised information. > > I suppose that this ruling does demonstrate that, even after > this shaky start, the skilful director could still reach 4H > and take all the right views to make the maximum number of > tricks! Another magnificent triumph for "Equity"? > > Manifestly East had a card hidden (or showed bad > judgment)when passing 2H. Most players would expect the > director to adjust to the worst result likely for the > offenders -- probably 2S= or 2S-1. Victims of such rulings > find it puzzling that the director should instead credit > East with resorting his hand (or a belated brain > transplant). > > Players are only gradually taking on board the new liberal > attitude to deliberate legal infractions. Many older players > are still shocked when the director rules against the > victims and never even considers the imposition of > procedural penalty on the offenders. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu May 5 05:34:41 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu May 5 05:34:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: <004201c550ed$c5d3f200$489868d5@James> Message-ID: <000c01c55123$603e0670$059468d5@James> [Kojak] Why do the words "clap trap" constantly come to mind? Is it something someone said? [Nigel] Perhaps so, Kojak. In the past you have dismissed arguments in a similar way when they seemed difficult to refute. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 5 06:57:21 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 5 06:58:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel (initial post): >>>Wow! a unanimous verdict among Harald Skjaeran, William >>>Schoder, and John Probst >>> >>>Shome mistake surely? >>> >>>Yes. Apparently, they all want to reward West for the >>>apparent illegal use of unauthorised information. [Richard unfairly snipping Nigel's reasoning] :-) Kojak (refuting post): >>Why do the words "clap trap" constantly come to mind? Is >>it something someone said? Nigel (later post unfairly snipping Kojak's refutation): >Perhaps so, Kojak. In the past you have dismissed >arguments in a similar way when they seemed difficult to >refute. Kojak (snipped by Nigel refutation of Nigel's reasoning): >>Rewarding West for anything is the farthest thought from >>my mind. I'm interested in arriving at a ruling that >>takes a number of factors into account. Of course, knee- >>jerk rulings are a lot easier, take little time, and >>require no reasoning. Besides, the AC can always work it >>out, can't they? Anathema to me. >> >>Kojak Richard Hills (words of one syllable refutation): (1) *Without* an infraction of Law 73C by West, North-South would have pushed East-West into a cold heart game. (2) *With* the actual infraction of Law 73C by West, the cold heart game was voluntarily bid by East-West. (3) If I had been TD, I would have adjusted the score from the result in an illegally obtained 4H contract to what the result would have been if the infraction had not occurred. In this particular case, my assigned adjusted score would be identical to the illegally obtained score. (4) In addition, I would have fined East-West a standard procedural penalty for West's infraction of Law 73C. No way is West being rewarded for illegally using unauthorised information. A recent biography of Muhammad Ali was entitled GOAT. This was an acronym for "Greatest Of All Time". As a director, Kojak is the goat. As a director, Nigel is a sheep. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Thu May 5 07:55:08 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu May 5 07:56:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050505055508.23158.qmail@web14726.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > (4) In addition, I would have fined East-West a > standard > procedural penalty for West's infraction of Law 73C. > No > way is West being rewarded for illegally using > unauthorised > information. If West had revoked but the revoke was without penalty would you invoke a procedural penalty? I suspect not why should it be different for choosing an illegal alternative in an UI situation? Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 5 09:10:16 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 5 09:11:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <20050505055508.23158.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >If West had revoked but the revoke was without >penalty would you invoke a procedural penalty? > >I suspect not why should it be different for >choosing an illegal alternative in an UI >situation? Richard Hills: Nice try, but Wayne's suspicions are incorrect. When a player "could have known" that it might be to their advantage to infract a Law, I always consider applying a procedural penalty. In this particular "could have known" case, I deem either: (a) West was grossly careless, so thus infracted their Law 73C responsibilities, or (b) West deliberately infracted Law 73C, hoping to gain a competitive advantage thereby. As TD, I assess that I do not need to determine which of option (a) or option (b) is correct, since my procedural penalty on East-West is the identical standard procedural penalty for both "could have known" options. Likewise, if - in a hypothetical revoke case - I deem that a player "could have known" that revoking was a pretty neat idea, ergo: (c) West was grossly careless, so thus infracted their Law 44C responsibilities, or (d) West deliberately infracted Law 44C, hoping to gain a competitive advantage thereby, then as TD I apply a standard procedural penalty to East-West *without* making a definitive ruling on which of option (c) or option (d) is true. What gets rewarded is what gets done. If a player *could have known* that their so-called "careless" infraction of Law might gain them a competitive advantage, as TD I do not reward them for such "carelessness" with a result of either: (e) Heads they win (if their opponents are too nervous to summon the TD), or (f) Tails they break even (mere cancellation of their "could have known" / "careless" infraction). I do, however, agree with Wayne's main point. I would award a fewer number of PPs after a Law 44C infraction. I would award a greater number of PPs after a Law 73C infraction. But this is simply due to the nature of the beast; the deliberate infracting of differing Laws is beneficial with differing frequencies. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 5 09:12:14 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu May 5 09:18:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: Message-ID: <001a01c55141$ef069fc0$b49887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight, But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right. ~ Hilaire Belloc ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > While I accept the technical possibility of a > hand where "Hey, a POOT here and having > partner punt the contract is likely to work to > our advantage" springs into a player's mind > I find it difficult to construct such a hand > (although a psychic POOT with near minimum > opening values might do it). Obviously very > weak hands don't qualify as partner will overpunt. > Hands with any shape are more likely to suffer > than benefit. A flattish 7-10? Well maybe - but > isn't likely better to just bid it sensibly? Thus while > 72b1 is a possibility I seriously doubt anyone will > ever get to apply it in this scenario. > > Tim > +=+ Among the examples (by two geographically proximate partnerships) that were reported of a pass out of turn when partner was dealer where - in these and other cases - the offender had fewer than 4 HCP, balanced or semi balanced, was one where partner then opened 1NT on 20 HCP, the CC showing 2NT = 19-21, and another where partner failed to open a hand of 14 or 15HCP. Over a period there were also various pre-empts which could have gone wrong if partner was not obliged to pass. The senior director who had this problem in his locality considered he should not be required to accuse the pairs of cheating and asked for a law enabling him to deal with the problem without doing so. That, plus some other cases of which EK was cognisant, led to 72B1 and 'could have known'. ~ G ~ +=+ From adam at irvine.com Wed May 4 20:11:42 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu May 5 09:53:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: Your message of "04 May 2005 09:51:35 +0200." <20050504075135.DF05D466974@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <200505041811.LAA10822@mailhub.irvine.com> Konrad wrote: > > = The offender is the player who passed out of turn > > and so gave his partner significant information that would > > allow him either (a) to avoid initial action that could lead > > to a bad score for his side, or (b) to take strange initial > > action to the disadvantage of opponents knowing that > > partner must pass. > >72B1 is invoked against the player > > who commits the infraction and who surely must recognize > > the likelihood of damaging opponents when partner is > > put in possession of substantial information before he has > > called on the board. > > The likelihood (unless you want to accuse him of prior knowledge > of the deal he is now playing) is zero - I cannot > construct a single hand where it would pay off to pass out > of turn. Could you provide me with an example? > > As for the actions of passer's partner we have L16 > to make sure that he doesn't use UI he has from the > fact that his partner doesn't have an opening > bid. Invoking "could have known" on the passer > means that having passed out of turn I might > as well stop playing, open the scoresheet and > enter "cold bottom". By your logic if > > a) I pass out of turn > b) my partner takes a successful gamble > c) it is agreed that he didn't use UI > that I don't have an opening bid > d) he bent over backwards not to use this UI > (say he opened 3NT with a balanced hand with 15 PC > knowing that it will probably cost him dear) > > you will still adjust on the grounds that by POOT > I could have known that this pass might > lead to my advantage by the logic > you presented in the first paragraph. I think there is a parallel in U.S. jurisprudence here. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress certain powers, one of which is "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". Congress is supposed to have only those powers that are enumerated in the Constituion. The basic idea here was that states would be responsible for making most regulations, but the U.S. Congress would be able to regulate commerce that took place between states. (If I recall correctly, before the Constitution was adopted, states would sometimes legislate high taxes to prevent goods from other states from coming in; the framers of the Constitution wanted to be able to prevent that, as part of their goal to make the U.S. one nation instead of thirteen independent states.) Since about the 1930's, Congress has passed many laws that don't come close to falling within the original intention of the interstate commerce clause. I'm not going to consider here whether it's a good thing for Congress to have that power or not. I think the courts started holding that Congress has the power to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce. But the Supreme Court has decided, recently, that there *are* some limits to this line of reasoning, even if only a few. In 1990, Congress passed a law prohibiting the possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of a school. This case went to the Supreme Court (United States v. Lopez). The government argued that it had the right to pass this law, under the Interstate Commerce clause, because "Guns and crime disrupt education and this, in turn, disrupts the employment opportunities of students, which affects interstate commerce" [quoting Wendy McElroy]. The court rejected this argument; Rehnquist wrote that "if we were to accept the Government's arguments, we are hard-pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate." The court later struck down the Violence Against Women Act, which allowed rape victims and victims of other gender-related violence to sue in federal court; the argument was that "violence against women and fear of violence reduced women's productivity and mobility as employees", that "women commonly lose their jobs after being so injured", and that the cost of such violence to the national economy was estimated at $5-10 billion [again quoting McElroy]. This argument was rejected; the Fourth Circuit Court ruled that the effect of reasoning in this way would be "effectively to remove all limits on federal authority, and to render unto Congress a police power impermissible under our Constitution". Anyway, even though Congress' power under the Interstate Commerce Clause has been expanding, the courts have ruled that to accept the governments' arguments in these two cases would have essentially rendered part of the Constitution (the part enumerating Congress' powers) null and void. I think this is similar to some of the arguments being made on this thread. If we accept Grattan's reasoning, we are effectively declaring the first clause of 72B1, "Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side", null and void. To borrow Rehnquist's language: if we accept this line of reasoning, I would be hard-pressed to posit *any* infraction that we would not have the power to adjust for, under L72B1. That Law will effectively be changed to, "Whenever an irregularity occurs, the Director shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity." So maybe it would be better to have this Law than the one we currently have. Fine. (I'm not taking a position on this.) But let's go through the normal process of changing a Law, rather than changing it by creative interpretation. After all, it should be easier to get one of the Laws of Bridge changed than to change the U.S. Constitution. -- Adam From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu May 5 10:13:28 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu May 5 10:14:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C67A@hotel.npl.co.uk> From: Ed Reppert > On May 4, 2005, at 6:59 AM, Robin Barker wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ken Johnston [mailto:ken.johnston@btinternet.com] > >[snip] > >>> Assuming we disallow the 3C bid can we still allow East to wake up >>> and the partnership to get to 4H? >> I would like to ask East what he was thinking about and why he passed. > Why? Passing is not an infraction, even after a BIT. > It seems to me his reason for passing is irrelevant. I wanted to know why he passed to see what this player was likely to bid when 2S or 3S came back to him. >> I am not sure that a slow pass by East demonstrably suggests bidding >> by West. > Ah! Well, that's different. :-) But I don't think you can use East's > reason for passing, or about what he was thinking, in determining that. To me, a hesitation by East suggests a non-fitting hand. It is possible that I might see things differently if I knew why East had to think. 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, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From digitellum at picanteperosabroso.com Thu May 5 10:31:32 2005 From: digitellum at picanteperosabroso.com (Miriam PAUL) Date: Thu May 5 10:31:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Career offer Message-ID: Dear Sirs, Do you want to earn some extra $$$ working from home? We have a great offer for you! Our corporation Ship & Pay Intl. is constantly looking for trustworthy people to be our representatives in your country! You'll need NO money and NO special skills to start working. Anyone can work with us, why not you?! If you're interested, please visit our corporate web-site: http://www.shipandpay.com/jobs.html Our requirements: 1. We don't work with persons under 21 2. Computer with access to internet, e-mail 3. 3-5 hours free during the week 4. Bank account to receive payments 5. Be able to lift 2-5 kg boxes. 6. Reply to e-mails immediately 7. Check your e-mail several times a day (each hour is welcome) 8. Be responsible, hard working and communicable 9. Be able to answer phone calls If you like to join our community don't hesitate to visit http://www.shipandpay.com/jobs.html and fill in the online application form. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Ship & Pay International From twm at cix.co.uk Thu May 5 10:58:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu May 5 10:59:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <001a01c55141$ef069fc0$b49887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Among the examples (by two geographically > proximate partnerships) that were reported of > a pass out of turn when partner was dealer where > - in these and other cases - the offender had fewer > than 4 HCP, balanced or semi balanced, was one > where partner then opened 1NT on 20 HCP, the There are clearly LAs less suggested by the UI that partner is a passed hand. I'll adjust to 3Nx-however without recourse to L72b1. > CC showing 2NT = 19-21, and another where > partner failed to open a hand of 14 or 15HCP. There are clearly LAs less suggested by the UI that partner is a passed hand. I'll adjust to something (need to see the hand to know what) without recourse to L72b1. > Over a period there were also various pre-empts > which could have gone wrong if partner was not > obliged to pass. The senior director who had this > problem in his locality considered he should not be > required to accuse the pairs of cheating and asked > for a law enabling him to deal with the problem > without doing so. Sounds like the senior director wasn't doing his job. If his judgement is that they are cheating he should be bringing the case before the relevant L&E committee. > That, plus some other cases of > which EK was cognisant, led to 72B1 and 'could > have known'. I don't have a problem using "could have known" if it is based on the hand itself. I have a problem using it when the pair has a concealed, and wholly illegal, understanding that a POOT shows a very weak hand. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu May 5 11:29:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu May 5 11:30:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RJH wrote: > (4) In addition, I would have fined East-West a standard > procedural penalty for West's infraction of Law 73C. No > way is West being rewarded for illegally using unauthorised > information. This seems wrong for a couple of reasons. Firstly 3C would be the stand out system bid at favourable for many pairs. Even at equal it's not clear that those playing wide-ranging weak 2s have an LA. Secondly knowing partner has values provides no particular incentive to bid - he might wish to show those values by doubling, if not he's going to get a chance to bid anyway. I'm happy giving PPs for deliberate taking advantage of UI, but I think you have insufficient evidence to make that judgement in this case. Personally I blame the bad result on South's table absence 2S bid after the hesitation although, like Robin, I'd wanted to know what East was thinking over 2H before ruling that defending 3S undoubled was not "at all probable". Looks like -3 on any normal defence (although the 2nd CJ might affect my judgement). From john at asimere.com Thu May 5 13:17:47 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu May 5 13:21:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: References: <20050505055508.23158.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes snip > >Likewise, if - in a hypothetical revoke case - I >deem that a player "could have known" that >revoking was a pretty neat idea, ergo: > >(c) West was grossly careless, so thus infracted >their Law 44C responsibilities, > >or > >(d) West deliberately infracted Law 44C, hoping >to gain a competitive advantage thereby, > >then as TD I apply a standard procedural penalty >to East-West *without* making a definitive ruling >on which of option (c) or option (d) is true. Ah, a man after my own heart. EBU TD's don't get to use 72B1 here, much to my disgust. 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 schoderb at msn.com Thu May 5 13:55:00 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu May 5 13:57:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: Message-ID: Thank you for the acronym - I'm happy to be compared to Ali, but not happy to be a goat; GOAT yes - but goat no. (too old for that). After the first three calls, had they all been made in tempo, it is not completely clear to me that West would have taken legal actions to arrive at game, and only East knows what he would have done. By the way, the "could have known" (not involved in this ruling) was to give the TD making a ruling a tool to adjust actions that could be construed as cheating without having to face the possibility of litigation. Calling someone a cheat transcends the game of bridge, and can get highly costly in defending it. We have seen that in ACBL in the past where law suits by later admitted cheats cost a hell-of-lot of money. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" is a fine attitude when you are right, but sometimes there are factors that mitigate against it. By removing the judgment of an action from the direct responsibility of the offending player - passing it to an innocuous and unknown "anybody", it gets the bridge job done without risk of libel. When I take a player to a C&E committee for cheating you can be sure that I've dotted all the I's, and crossed all the t's, and can prove my case. Using UI can be construed as cheating, if you'd like, but usually it is a naughty act which the perpetrator may not even be consciously aware of; continued and repeated naughty acts do result in C&E committees. Have a nice day, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 12:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation > > > > > Nigel (initial post): > > >>>Wow! a unanimous verdict among Harald Skjaeran, William > >>>Schoder, and John Probst > >>> > >>>Shome mistake surely? > >>> > >>>Yes. Apparently, they all want to reward West for the > >>>apparent illegal use of unauthorised information. > > [Richard unfairly snipping Nigel's reasoning] :-) > > Kojak (refuting post): > > >>Why do the words "clap trap" constantly come to mind? Is > >>it something someone said? > > Nigel (later post unfairly snipping Kojak's refutation): > > >Perhaps so, Kojak. In the past you have dismissed > >arguments in a similar way when they seemed difficult to > >refute. > > Kojak (snipped by Nigel refutation of Nigel's reasoning): > > >>Rewarding West for anything is the farthest thought from > >>my mind. I'm interested in arriving at a ruling that > >>takes a number of factors into account. Of course, knee- > >>jerk rulings are a lot easier, take little time, and > >>require no reasoning. Besides, the AC can always work it > >>out, can't they? Anathema to me. > >> > >>Kojak > > Richard Hills (words of one syllable refutation): > > (1) *Without* an infraction of Law 73C by West, North-South > would have pushed East-West into a cold heart game. > > (2) *With* the actual infraction of Law 73C by West, the > cold heart game was voluntarily bid by East-West. > > (3) If I had been TD, I would have adjusted the score from > the result in an illegally obtained 4H contract to what the > result would have been if the infraction had not occurred. > In this particular case, my assigned adjusted score would > be identical to the illegally obtained score. > > (4) In addition, I would have fined East-West a standard > procedural penalty for West's infraction of Law 73C. No > way is West being rewarded for illegally using unauthorised > information. > > A recent biography of Muhammad Ali was entitled GOAT. This > was an acronym for "Greatest Of All Time". As a director, > Kojak is the goat. As a director, Nigel is a sheep. > > :-) > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 5 14:26:17 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu May 5 14:26:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <001a01c55141$ef069fc0$b49887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <001a01c55141$ef069fc0$b49887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050505080921.02a324b0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:12 AM 5/5/05, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Among the examples (by two geographically >proximate partnerships) that were reported of >a pass out of turn when partner was dealer where >- in these and other cases - the offender had fewer >than 4 HCP, balanced or semi balanced, was one >where partner then opened 1NT on 20 HCP, the >CC showing 2NT = 19-21, and another where >partner failed to open a hand of 14 or 15HCP. >Over a period there were also various pre-empts >which could have gone wrong if partner was not >obliged to pass. The senior director who had this >problem in his locality considered he should not be >required to accuse the pairs of cheating and asked >for a law enabling him to deal with the problem >without doing so. That, plus some other cases of >which EK was cognisant, led to 72B1 and 'could >have known'. I was extremely gratified to read this, since, despite ignorance of this bit of history, I have been arguing for years on BLML that this is exactly the kind of situation that L72B1 was written to cover, and exactly the kind of situation in which it is appropriate to apply it. I've been arguing that "could have known" was deliberate weasly lawyer language intended precisely to allow us to rule against suspected cheats without calling them cheats, because (as the ACBL has learned to its dismay) one can cause trouble by doing the latter without proof that would stand up to a lawsuit. L72B1 was never intended to apply to situations in which one could imagine some possibility that a prescient player might be able to predict that some infraction might conceivably work to his advantage. It is there to allow us to find that a player "could have known" when we have some reason to think that he actually might have. This thread has only reinforced my position, by demonstrating that if we read "could have known" in the former sense, we quickly discover -- as Adam suggested earlier -- that the first clause of L72B1 has no force whatsoever, and we might just as well rewrite L72B1 as, "When the Director deems that a player has committed an irregularity, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score..." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu May 5 15:27:24 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu May 5 15:28:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: Message-ID: <00cc01c55176$2d37f580$129468d5@James> [Richard] As a director, Kojak is the goat. As a director, Nigel is a sheep. [Nigel] Unprovoked insolence from Mad dog, Kojak and now you, Richard. I may be a Rabbit, a Walrus, or even a Sheep; but I draw the line at being labelled a director! :) From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu May 5 15:56:39 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu May 5 16:01:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C67A@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C67A@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: On 5 May 2005, at 09:13, Robin Barker wrote: > >>> I am not sure that a slow pass by East demonstrably suggests bidding >>> by West. > >> Ah! Well, that's different. :-) But I don't think you can use East's >> reason for passing, or about what he was thinking, in determining >> that. > > To me, a hesitation by East suggests a non-fitting hand. I agree with this last statement, but I think it especially suggests one with a fair amount of strength. Doesn't that suggest it might work well for opener to bid a second suit on those occasions when opener's hand also has extra strength and an unexpected second suit? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From oysh at mailAccount.com Thu May 5 18:17:10 2005 From: oysh at mailAccount.com (Roman Knapp) Date: Thu May 5 17:26:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Notification: We offer low rates Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h0us1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Katherine Fuentes to be remov(ed: http://www.h0us1ng.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 YOURNIFRFVT at izmir.engr.sgi.com Thu May 5 18:47:46 2005 From: YOURNIFRFVT at izmir.engr.sgi.com (Stuart Yoder) Date: Thu May 5 17:55:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Experience puberty again (the sex part) Message-ID: <7.13634.3132363037393934.2@ientrynetwork.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050505/d2f0d42b/attachment.html From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Fri May 6 00:41:22 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Fri May 6 00:43:20 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050426080608.02a8e780@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: RJH wrote >In my opinion, Eric Landau's objection, "How can I >tell, in a face-to-face encounter in a tournament, >whether or not my unknown opponent is a patzer?" is a >furphy. > >One might as well object, "How can I tell, in a face- >to-face encounter in a tournament, whether or not my >unknown opponent is an Aussie?" > >Very little information reveals an Aussie in an >American bridge tournament. Very little information >reveals a patzer in an American bridge tournament. One of the main problems with discussions on BLML is that they have little to do with the real world. In the real world the TDs/AC members/opponents know whether a player is any good in over 90% of cases, but many people argue on BLML as though they ***never*** know. I suggest that in future you ask your opponents to explain RKCB to you. If they they do not know what RKCB is they are novices explain it gleefully and wrong they are medium if they look down their noses but do not answer they are experts if they kindly explain it incomprehensibly they are super-experts if they explain it carefully, kindly and correctly they are Eric Crowhurst -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Fri May 6 00:41:50 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Fri May 6 00:43:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: References: <20050505055508.23158.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Hi John (MadDog) Probst >Ah, a man after my own heart. EBU TD's don't get to use 72B1 here, much >to my disgust. We don't? First I've heard of it. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Fri May 6 00:41:38 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Fri May 6 00:43:24 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <4273F8B0.5000401@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200504221642.j3MGgjLp005071@cfa.harvard.edu> <4273F8B0.5000401@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote >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. While the word 'conceal' does contain some such connotations, you cannot do [as everyone does] the old circle of trying to find a label for something which is as near as possible to a description of it - and then say something follows *because* of the labelling. A CPU is merely a handy term. But it does include things concealed by accident. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Fri May 6 00:41:09 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Fri May 6 00:43:27 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <00bb01c54dc1$7728da00$5077893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00bb01c54dc1$7728da00$5077893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Hi Grattan Endicott > >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. That applies to a designation that has been made, but is not done in accordance with Law 46A. Or, to put it another way, if he changes his mind, you cannot apply L46B because "declarer's different intention is not incontrovertible" - now. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From adam at irvine.com Fri May 6 00:46:09 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri May 6 00:47:20 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 May 2005 23:41:22 BST." Message-ID: <200505052246.PAA19593@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > I suggest that in future you ask your opponents to explain RKCB to > you. If they > > they do not know what RKCB is they are novices > explain it gleefully and wrong they are medium > if they look down their noses but do not answer they are experts > if they kindly explain it incomprehensibly they are super-experts > if they explain it carefully, kindly and correctly they are Eric > Crowhurst And if they tell you it's too complicated to explain but they'd happily sell you a book on the subject then they are Eddie Kantar... -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 6 02:04:15 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 6 02:05:20 2005 Subject: [blml] How does blml vote? (was Are you now?) In-Reply-To: <200505052246.PAA19593@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Stevenson: >>I suggest that in future you ask your opponents to explain RKCB to >>you. If they >> >>do not know what RKCB is they are novices >>explain it gleefully and wrong they are medium >>look down their noses but do not answer they are experts >>kindly explain it incomprehensibly they are super-experts >>explain it carefully, kindly and correctly they are Eric Crowhurst Adam Beneschan: >And if they tell you it's too complicated to explain but they'd >happily sell you a book on the subject then they are Eddie Kantar... Richard Hills: And if they explain that Keycard Blackwood is "meretricious", then their over-succinct and recondite advice means that they are Edgar Kaplan. :-) The good news is that the 2006 Laws may avoid the over-succinct and recondite phrases which plague the 1997 Laws. In the "Beware of the leopard" thread, Grattan Endicott revealed, ".....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 am a bleeding-heart liberal regarding some aspects of the English language. So, for example, I prefer the modern generic pronoun of "they" to the old-fashioned generic pronoun "he". But otherwise I fully support conservative clarity replacing over-succinct reconditeness. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From ferrety at emailaccount.com Fri May 6 03:55:15 2005 From: ferrety at emailaccount.com (Leopoldo Hackett) Date: Fri May 6 03:07:24 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.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Dexter Major to be remov(ed: http://www.h0us1ng.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From schoderb at msn.com Fri May 6 03:08:42 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri May 6 03:09:56 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <00bb01c54dc1$7728da00$5077893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Well, let's face it, we've got to make some kind of noise. At least it comes from animals and not humans. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Minke" To: Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > Hi Grattan Endicott > > > > >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. > > That applies to a designation that has been made, but is not done in > accordance with Law 46A. Or, to put it another way, if he changes his > mind, you cannot apply L46B because "declarer's different intention is > not incontrovertible" - now. > > -- > Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ > Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ > Minke ( | | ) =( + )= > Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 6 04:11:52 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri May 6 04:15:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <200505051529.j45FTLTT025919@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505051529.j45FTLTT025919@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <427AD268.1010005@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Among the examples (by two geographically > proximate partnerships) that were reported of > a pass out of turn when partner was dealer where > - in these and other cases - the offender had fewer > than 4 HCP, balanced or semi balanced... Were these prior to or after 1997? With the new L16C2, it seems automatic to adjust the scores regardless of L72B1. Don't get me wrong -- I think L72B1 is and was a great addition -- but I don't see that it's needed to solve this particular problem as long as 16C2 says what it now does. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 6 04:18:19 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri May 6 04:19:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <200505051529.j45FT3xi025877@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505051529.j45FT3xi025877@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <427AD3EB.6080603@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > If you judge 4H making or down > 1 or 2 as "the most favorable result that was likely to have occurred" > absent the hesitation, then you can adjust the score for the NOS to > that. I think Ed was a little careless or hasty here. The relevant condition isn't "absent the hesitation" (unless you think the hesitation was a L73B1 violation). In normal UI cases, the condition is "absent a L16A/73C violation" or in other words what would have happened if the partner of the player who hesitated had chosen a legal action instead of an illegal one. > For the OS, you'd have to judge that contract as "the most > unfavorable result that was at all possible" The actual words of L12C2 are "at all probable," which is almost but not quite the same thing. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 6 04:41:50 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri May 6 04:43:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <200505021513.j42FDaLB026092@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505021513.j42FDaLB026092@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <427AD96E.4000203@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > This is the clearest possible example of how those insidious "could > have known"s have made nonsense out of our laws. Not nonsense at all, Eric. You overlook the key word "likely." Sure, anything you do could work well on a lucky day, but L72B1 is only applied when a reasonable villain would have considered a gain to be _likely_. I am pretty sure this is what Grattan has been saying, although the application to an opening POOT seems unlikely to me. No villain says "I have a weak hand; don't bid." in any game where L16 will be enforced. That is practically guaranteed to lead to disaster. Partner will have to overbid to comply with L16A/73C, which is exactly what the villain does not want. From julieRosales69 at becon.uk.com Fri May 6 06:24:02 2005 From: julieRosales69 at becon.uk.com (Julie Thurman) Date: Fri May 6 05:27:01 2005 Subject: [blml] can I be your friend? Message-ID: <121.84e558d5.2a9UBJ44@sol.com> I'm new, it's Julie :) Any times of the day I feel not in a mood alot of times... old time friend suggested to have my life on the internet . My girlfriends like the idea of the site and I will post their pictures too ;D Verify your age and connect to my webcam today -) I want to have a cyber friend if you don't mind -) http://www.locustreign.info/ju18/ you carleton me ashore me you apology me slice me you programmed me cafe me you orthopedic me emperor me you ciceronian me cationic me you clammy me carpet me you luncheon me easy me From ZKZYDF at cr-picardie.fr Fri May 6 08:42:36 2005 From: ZKZYDF at cr-picardie.fr (Faye) Date: Fri May 6 07:51:00 2005 Subject: [blml] What software you need? We got it! Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050506/a0547cc9/attachment.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 6 11:11:32 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri May 6 11:17:14 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <00bb01c54dc1$7728da00$5077893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <010d01c5521b$ae494840$ceac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* In re: Rafael Benitez (el carrizo - lo scricciolo) "Fool that I was, upon my eagle's wings I bore this wren till I was tired of soaring And now he mounts above me" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Minke" To: Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 11:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "David Stevenson" > >To: "BLML" > >Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:05 PM > >Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > > >> 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. > > That applies to a designation that has been made, but > is not done in accordance with Law 46A. Or, to put it > another way, if he changes his mind, you cannot apply > L46B because "declarer's different intention is not > incontrovertible" - now. > +=+ I think Minke has not read the laws with sufficient care. 'The six of..' is a designation - see 46B3 where it says "If declarer designates... ".Compare Law 45C4 (b) where it says 'change an inadvertent designation' and does not say 'change an inadvertent designation of a card'. We did not write the law that Minke expounds. There is no ambiguity, you just can't trust these cats to read English. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From support at postbank.de Fri May 6 15:38:30 2005 From: support at postbank.de (PostBank) Date: Fri May 6 12:37:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Warnung der Banksicherheitsdienst hinsichtlich der Internet - Misstaeter Message-ID: <781011115386710@ip-wv-68-119-146-029.charterwv.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050506/b843703d/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 6 14:24:16 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 6 14:24:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <427AD96E.4000203@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505021513.j42FDaLB026092@cfa.harvard.edu> <427AD96E.4000203@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050506080512.02b7a1a0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:41 PM 5/5/05, Steve wrote: >>From: Eric Landau >>This is the clearest possible example of how those insidious "could >>have known"s have made nonsense out of our laws. > >Not nonsense at all, Eric. You overlook the key word "likely." Sure, >anything you do could work well on a lucky day, but L72B1 is only >applied when a reasonable villain would have considered a gain to be >_likely_. I agree with Steve that "likely" is the key word in resolving the current thread. But we go wrong, however, if we read "likely" in L72B1 as "having some not insignificant chance of occurring" (as we do in L12B2) rather than as "probable". What I should have written earlier was "the clearest possible example of how those insidious over-literal readings of 'could have known' have made nonsense out of our laws". I like the legalistic protection of "could have known" as much as any TD, but I continue to believe that we were intended to read it as "there is reason to believe he could have known given the circumstances of the case at hand" rather than as "one could conceive of circumstances in which he could have known". They were put there specifically to provide that valuable legalistic protection, so we could deal with suspected cheaters without meeting a courtroom standard of proof. They were never intended to create new classes of presumptive infractions that didn't previously exist. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 6 14:00:47 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri May 6 14:26:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <200505021513.j42FDaLB026092@cfa.harvard.edu> <427AD96E.4000203@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002801c55236$12b48820$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* In re: Rafael Benitez (el carrizo - lo scricciolo) "Fool that I was, upon my eagle's wings I bore this wren till I was tired of soaring And now he mounts above me" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 3:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > From: Eric Landau > > This is the clearest possible example of how those > > insidious "could have known"s have made nonsense > > out of our laws. > > Not nonsense at all, Eric. You overlook the key > word "likely." Sure, anything you do could work > well on a lucky day, but L72B1 is only applied > when a reasonable villain would have considered > a gain to be _likely_. > > I am pretty sure this is what Grattan has been saying, > +=+ yes +=+ < > although the application to an opening POOT seems > unlikely to me. No villain says "I have a weak hand; > don't bid." in any game where L16 will be enforced. > That is practically guaranteed to lead to disaster. > Partner will have to overbid to comply with L16A/73C, > which is exactly what the villain does not want. > +=+ We decided that there were certain situations with passes out of turn specifically in which the Director should be invited positively to apply 72B1 and wrote the cross references into Law 30 as an indication of this. We scented the perfume of developing collusion and we wanted to arm the Director as strongly as we could against the beast. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 6 14:16:33 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri May 6 14:26:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: <00cc01c55176$2d37f580$129468d5@James> Message-ID: <002901c55236$13b88aa0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* In re: Rafael Benitez (el carrizo - lo scricciolo) "Fool that I was, upon my eagle's wings I bore this wren till I was tired of soaring And now he mounts above me" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation > [Richard] > As a director, Kojak is the goat. > As a director, Nigel is a sheep. > > [Nigel] > Unprovoked insolence from Mad dog, Kojak > and now you, Richard. I may be a Rabbit, a > Walrus, or even a Sheep; but I draw the line > at being labelled a director! > :) +=+ Indeed, Nigel? Well, you must admit one could make a mistake about that, given how you sometimes adopt the familiarity of abuse which only a director can adopt towards another director without being adjudged graceless. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 6 14:48:08 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 6 14:47:57 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <010d01c5521b$ae494840$ceac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00bb01c54dc1$7728da00$5077893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <010d01c5521b$ae494840$ceac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050506082925.02b7da30@pop.starpower.net> At 05:11 AM 5/6/05, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Minke" > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "David Stevenson" > > > > > >> 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. > > > > That applies to a designation that has been made, but > > is not done in accordance with Law 46A. Or, to put it > > another way, if he changes his mind, you cannot apply > > L46B because "declarer's different intention is not > > incontrovertible" - now. > > >+=+ I think Minke has not read the laws with sufficient >care. 'The six of..' is a designation - see 46B3 where it >says "If declarer designates... ".Compare Law 45C4 (b) >where it says 'change an inadvertent designation' and does >not say 'change an inadvertent designation of a card'. We >did not write the law that Minke expounds. There is no >ambiguity, you just can't trust these cats to read English. I think Grattan is assuming his conclusion. ISTM that the issue in this thread is precisely whether or not, "The six of..." (as in, "The six of... uh... the king of clubs") is a designation. "The six." is a designation per L46B3, but Minke argues that, "The six of..." is nothing more than the first three words of a proper designation per L46A that has not yet been spoken in its entirety, and we cannot know whether or not L46B applies until it has been. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ZPIZSDXEQTIK at 3001.prv.pl Fri May 6 16:06:30 2005 From: ZPIZSDXEQTIK at 3001.prv.pl (Barney Paige) Date: Fri May 6 15:11:55 2005 Subject: [blml] You can have bigger cock that Ron Jeremy Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050506/e4face8e/attachment.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 6 15:23:06 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri May 6 15:36:59 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <00bb01c54dc1$7728da00$5077893e@yourtkrv58tbs0><010d01c5521b$ae494840$ceac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050506082925.02b7da30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00ac01c5523f$fa9f5350$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* In re: Rafael Benitez (el carrizo - lo scricciolo) "Fool that I was, upon my eagle's wings I bore this wren till I was tired of soaring And now he mounts above me" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > I think Grattan is assuming his conclusion. ISTM > that the issue in this thread is precisely whether > or not, "The six of..." (as in, "The six of... uh... > the king of clubs") is a designation. "The six." is > a designation per L46B3, but Minke argues that, > "The six of..." is nothing more than the first three > words of a proper designation < +=+ At which point it is an incomplete designation of a card, being a designation of a rank lacking the designation of a suit and the designation made, of the six, is not inadvertent. I am not making any assumption, I am just reading the law as it is. The (false) assumption Minke makes is that 'designation' in 45C4(b) refers only to the designation of a card. It does not say that. Further, 46B is quite plain in referring to "an incomplete ..... call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy." 'The six of' fits that description exactly. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 6 15:29:53 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri May 6 15:37:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <200505021513.j42FDaLB026092@cfa.harvard.edu><427AD96E.4000203@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20050506080512.02b7a1a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00ad01c5523f$fb928cf0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* In re: Rafael Benitez (el carrizo - lo scricciolo) "Fool that I was, upon my eagle's wings I bore this wren till I was tired of soaring And now he mounts above me" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > What I should have written earlier was "the > clearest possible example of how those insidious > over-literal readings of 'could have known' have > made nonsense out of our laws". I like the legalistic > protection of "could have known" as much as any > TD, but I continue to believe that we were intended > to read it as "there is reason to believe he could have > known given the circumstances of the case at hand" > rather than as "one could conceive of circumstances > in which he could have known". They were put there > specifically to provide that valuable legalistic protection, > so we could deal with suspected cheaters without > meeting a courtroom standard of proof. They were > never intended to create new classes of presumptive > infractions that didn't previously exist. > +=+ I do not recall that Eric was present when the subject was considered by the drafting committee, nor that he witnessed my private exchanges with Edgar on the subject. I think it rather bold of him to make any assertion as to our intentions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From XJSMWVNWMXL at 10hither-green.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 6 18:08:23 2005 From: XJSMWVNWMXL at 10hither-green.fsnet.co.uk (Royce Feldman) Date: Fri May 6 17:15:48 2005 Subject: [blml] second notification Carson Message-ID: <0106011001000.01145@jfuertes.maz.es> If you are paying more than 3.5% on your mortgage, you may be paying too much! Our US Lenders will provide you with the absolute best rates possible. Click the link below for an insta-quote and monthly savings calculation: http://www.LOWERED-RATES.COM/2/index/bvk No other way to so quickly and easily lower your monthly bill payments while putting cash now in your pocket! ashmen fr homebuilder hy [2 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 6 17:21:01 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 6 17:20:50 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <00ac01c5523f$fa9f5350$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00bb01c54dc1$7728da00$5077893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <010d01c5521b$ae494840$ceac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050506082925.02b7da30@pop.starpower.net> <00ac01c5523f$fa9f5350$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050506105445.02b7ed10@pop.starpower.net> At 09:23 AM 5/6/05, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > I think Grattan is assuming his conclusion. ISTM > > that the issue in this thread is precisely whether > > or not, "The six of..." (as in, "The six of... uh... > > the king of clubs") is a designation. "The six." is > > a designation per L46B3, but Minke argues that, > > "The six of..." is nothing more than the first three > > words of a proper designation > >+=+ At which point it is an incomplete designation >of a card, being a designation of a rank lacking >the designation of a suit and the designation made, >of the six, is not inadvertent. I am not making any >assumption, I am just reading the law as it is. The >(false) assumption Minke makes is that 'designation' >in 45C4(b) refers only to the designation of a card. >It does not say that. Further, 46B is quite plain in >referring to "an incomplete ..... call by declarer of >the card to be played from dummy." 'The six of' fits >that description exactly. That fails to address the point, which is that the player must make a call before we can determine whether or not it is "incomplete", and the question on the table is, when has a player made a call? If an unfinished call can, as Grattan argues, be "incomplete" in the sense that L46 uses the term, then it becomes impossible to make a "proper" call per L46A, as a player who says, "The six of clubs", has, before he makes a proper call of the C6, has already made an incomplete call of "The six..." L46B3 applies (had he called, "The club six," it would be L46B2), but, because declarer, subsequent to his incomplete designation of "the six..." has continued "of clubs" without pause, we rule that his "different intention is incontrovertable" and allow him to play the C6 rather than some other six per L46B? Or rule that "of clubs" constitutes a permitted "change" to the "inadvertant designation" of "the six..." per L45C4(b)? Really? Minke merely states the obvious, that we cannot have "an incomplete or erroneous call" until we have "a call". To repeat myself, the question on the table is, and remains, at what point is a player deemed to have made "a call"? We are still at square one. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 6 17:30:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 6 17:31:32 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <00ac01c5523f$fa9f5350$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ At which point it is an incomplete designation > of a card, being a designation of a rank lacking > the designation of a suit and the designation made, > of the six, is not inadvertent. I am not making any > assumption, I am just reading the law as it is. The > (false) assumption Minke makes is that 'designation' > in 45C4(b) refers only to the designation of a card. > It does not say that. Further, 46B is quite plain in > referring to "an incomplete ..... call by declarer of > the card to be played from dummy." 'The six of' fits > that description exactly. Indeed, if we are discussing the law as written, it is so clear that one is left wondering why advertency matters. There is no legal provision for applying L45c4b in Law46 cases (which have their own, much tougher, test of incontrovertibly otherwise). Thus if we treat "The six of.." under L46 then we must also treat "The six of..I mean the.. " under L46 rather than L45. Nor is there any provision in Law46 for treating "The umm..." any differently from "The s.." or "The q..". So perhaps we should only use the law "as written" except when it means other than what it says. Who knows? Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 6 17:41:39 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 6 17:41:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <00ad01c5523f$fb928cf0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200505021513.j42FDaLB026092@cfa.harvard.edu> <427AD96E.4000203@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20050506080512.02b7a1a0@pop.starpower.net> <00ad01c5523f$fb928cf0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050506112227.02a34d70@pop.starpower.net> At 09:29 AM 5/6/05, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > What I should have written earlier was "the > > clearest possible example of how those insidious > > over-literal readings of 'could have known' have > > made nonsense out of our laws". I like the legalistic > > protection of "could have known" as much as any > > TD, but I continue to believe that we were intended > > to read it as "there is reason to believe he could have > > known given the circumstances of the case at hand" > > rather than as "one could conceive of circumstances > > in which he could have known". They were put there > > specifically to provide that valuable legalistic protection, > > so we could deal with suspected cheaters without > > meeting a courtroom standard of proof. They were > > never intended to create new classes of presumptive > > infractions that didn't previously exist. > >+=+ I do not recall that Eric was present when the >subject was considered by the drafting committee, nor >that he witnessed my private exchanges with Edgar on >the subject. I think it rather bold of him to make any >assertion as to our intentions. I was indeed not present when the subject was considered by the drafting committee, which is why I wrote "I continue to believe that we were intended to read it as..." (my apologies to Grattan and anyone else who may have misconstrued my omission of the repetition of that same phrase at the beginning of each subsequent sentence). Perhaps if the deliberations of the drafting committee were available to mere mortals like myself, rather than shrouded in secrecy (except on those occasions where Grattan chooses to allow us a tiny peek around a corner of the curtain) I would know better, but as is I must make do with reading the Law as it is published. I take consolation from the fact that Kojak, who may or may not have been present when the subject was considered by the drafting committee, but -- one hopes! -- was allowed the privilege of knowing what went on behind the closed doors, apparently construes the intent of L72B1 in much the same manner as I do, leaving open the possibility that Grattan's interpretation of the committee's intent, notwithstanding his presence when the subject was considered, may not be the only reasonable one. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john at asimere.com Fri May 6 19:10:33 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri May 6 19:13:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <002901c55236$13b88aa0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00cc01c55176$2d37f580$129468d5@James> <002901c55236$13b88aa0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article <002901c55236$13b88aa0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >******************************* >In re: Rafael Benitez (el carrizo > - lo scricciolo) > >"Fool that I was, upon my eagle's wings >I bore this wren till I was tired of soaring >And now he mounts above me" >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "GUTHRIE" >To: "BLML" >Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 2:27 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation > > >> [Richard] >> As a director, Kojak is the goat. >> As a director, Nigel is a sheep. >> >> [Nigel] >> Unprovoked insolence from Mad dog, Kojak >> and now you, Richard. I may be a Rabbit, a >> Walrus, or even a Sheep; but I draw the line >> at being labelled a director! >> :) >+=+ Indeed, Nigel? Well, you must admit one could >make a mistake about that, given how you sometimes >adopt the familiarity of abuse which only a director >can adopt towards another director without being >adjudged graceless. > ~ G ~ +=+ One of the nicest examples of use of the English language I have seen for a *very* long time. Thanks Grattan. Much enjoyed. One thing I'm not is insolent. Abusive? Yes, when someone's being a total prat; forthright? Often; insolent? - No. > > >_______________________________________________ >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 May 6 19:11:44 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri May 6 19:14:31 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <010d01c5521b$ae494840$ceac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00bb01c54dc1$7728da00$5077893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <010d01c5521b$ae494840$ceac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article <010d01c5521b$ae494840$ceac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >******************************* >In re: Rafael Benitez (el carrizo > - lo scricciolo) > >"Fool that I was, upon my eagle's wings >I bore this wren till I was tired of soaring >And now he mounts above me" >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Minke" >To: >Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 11:41 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > >> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "David Stevenson" >> >To: "BLML" >> >Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:05 PM >> >Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? >> > >> >> 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. >> >> That applies to a designation that has been made, but >> is not done in accordance with Law 46A. Or, to put it >> another way, if he changes his mind, you cannot apply >> L46B because "declarer's different intention is not >> incontrovertible" - now. >> >+=+ I think Minke has not read the laws with sufficient >care. 'The six of..' is a designation - see 46B3 where it >says "If declarer designates... ".Compare Law 45C4 (b) >where it says 'change an inadvertent designation' and does >not say 'change an inadvertent designation of a card'. We >did not write the law that Minke expounds. There is no >ambiguity, you just can't trust these cats to read English. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ it figures. I think Minke is Burmese. John > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Fri May 6 19:22:40 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Fri May 6 19:23:59 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <010d01c5521b$ae494840$ceac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00bb01c54dc1$7728da00$5077893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <010d01c5521b$ae494840$ceac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >******************************* >In re: Rafael Benitez (el carrizo > - lo scricciolo) > >"Fool that I was, upon my eagle's wings >I bore this wren till I was tired of soaring >And now he mounts above me" >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Minke" >To: >Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 11:41 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > >> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "David Stevenson" >> >To: "BLML" >> >Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:05 PM >> >Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? >> > >> >> 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. >> >> That applies to a designation that has been made, but >> is not done in accordance with Law 46A. Or, to put it >> another way, if he changes his mind, you cannot apply >> L46B because "declarer's different intention is not >> incontrovertible" - now. >> >+=+ I think Minke has not read the laws with sufficient >care. 'The six of..' is a designation - see 46B3 where it >says "If declarer designates... ".Compare Law 45C4 (b) >where it says 'change an inadvertent designation' and does >not say 'change an inadvertent designation of a card'. We >did not write the law that Minke expounds. There is no >ambiguity, you just can't trust these cats to read English. Sorry, Grattan, no way. "The six of ..." is not a designation, any more than "One ..." is a call. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From schoderb at msn.com Fri May 6 19:53:54 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri May 6 19:55:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: <00cc01c55176$2d37f580$129468d5@James><002901c55236$13b88aa0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Insolence is often in the eye of the beholder. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation > In article <002901c55236$13b88aa0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan > Endicott writes > > > >from Grattan Endicott > >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > >******************************* > >In re: Rafael Benitez (el carrizo > > - lo scricciolo) > > > >"Fool that I was, upon my eagle's wings > >I bore this wren till I was tired of soaring > >And now he mounts above me" > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "GUTHRIE" > >To: "BLML" > >Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 2:27 PM > >Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation > > > > > >> [Richard] > >> As a director, Kojak is the goat. > >> As a director, Nigel is a sheep. > >> > >> [Nigel] > >> Unprovoked insolence from Mad dog, Kojak > >> and now you, Richard. I may be a Rabbit, a > >> Walrus, or even a Sheep; but I draw the line > >> at being labelled a director! > >> :) > >+=+ Indeed, Nigel? Well, you must admit one could > >make a mistake about that, given how you sometimes > >adopt the familiarity of abuse which only a director > >can adopt towards another director without being > >adjudged graceless. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > One of the nicest examples of use of the English language I have seen > for a *very* long time. Thanks Grattan. Much enjoyed. > > One thing I'm not is insolent. Abusive? Yes, when someone's being a > total prat; forthright? Often; insolent? - No. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 lwoblml at rtflb.org Fri May 6 21:09:49 2005 From: lwoblml at rtflb.org (Rudolph Vertie) Date: Fri May 6 20:11:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Amazing Home Loans hassle f!ree Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050506/43530a77/attachment.html From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 6 20:41:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 6 20:43:08 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nanki poo tapped: > Sorry, Grattan, no way. "The six of ..." is not a designation, any > more than "One ..." is a call. I think it is clear that it is not "a designation", just as "The six" is not "a designation". What is less clear is why one/neither should be considered "an incomplete call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy". Both lack completeness in the sense of not specifying a suit (as required by L46A). Both contain an element of designation (a rank). Indeed it is clear from L46b5 that an incomplete call need contain neither suit nor rank. Thus the law "as written" strongly suggests that *anything* (from a single syllable onwards) is "incomplete". The laws on bidding do not trouble us with specific regulations on an incomplete call (although granted there may be UI issues). Thus we have no problems dealing with half-bids/bidding cards not quite taken past the "made" threshold. Tim From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Sat May 7 00:23:41 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sat May 7 00:20:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? Message-ID: I should know better than to ask this, with the debates about "could have known" that have been raging recently. But I'm going to do it anyway... You are South. Matchpoints, West dealer, EW vulnerable. You hold: Q J 2 Q T 7 2 A Q 8 2 K 7 and you hear one of these auctions: A) 1H - 1NT - 2H B) 1H - 1NT - Double (penalty-oriented) C) 1H - 1NT - 2C D) 1H - 1NT - A long hesitation, then Pass E) 1H - 1NT - Pass in tempo Assuming neither your partner nor your opponents has any particular reputation for crazy bidding stunts, in which of these auctions would you make allowance for a psych, rather than just doubling everything in sight or jumping to 3NT? Do you expect to keep your score if you guess right and E-W call the cops? I will wait to share my opinion until there have been a few replies. Very curious how much variety there is in where to draw this line. GRB From david.j.barton at lineone.net Sat May 7 01:26:47 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Sat May 7 01:27:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? References: Message-ID: <000701c55293$1280d3b0$0307a8c0@david> (A)Double (B)Redouble (C)3N (D)3N (E)3N I would expect to loose any good score by taking "other" action probably plus a penalty. Might just get away with case (D) ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 11:23 PM Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? > > I should know better than to ask this, with the debates about "could have > known" that have been raging recently. But I'm going to do it anyway... > > You are South. Matchpoints, West dealer, EW vulnerable. You hold: > > Q J 2 > Q T 7 2 > A Q 8 2 > K 7 > > and you hear one of these auctions: > > A) 1H - 1NT - 2H > B) 1H - 1NT - Double (penalty-oriented) > C) 1H - 1NT - 2C > D) 1H - 1NT - A long hesitation, then Pass > E) 1H - 1NT - Pass in tempo > > Assuming neither your partner nor your opponents has any particular > reputation for crazy bidding stunts, in which of these auctions would you > make allowance for a psych, rather than just doubling everything in sight > or jumping to 3NT? Do you expect to keep your score if you guess right and > E-W call the cops? > > I will wait to share my opinion until there have been a few replies. Very > curious how much variety there is in where to draw this line. > > GRB > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 04/05/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 04/05/2005 From schoderb at msn.com Sat May 7 01:34:04 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat May 7 01:35:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? References: Message-ID: What has this to do with Law 73F2? What remark, manner, tempo, or the like is involved? Where's the illegal deception? Or we back at trying to extend the laws to what we want them to mean rather than what they clearly state? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 6:23 PM Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? > > I should know better than to ask this, with the debates about "could have > known" that have been raging recently. But I'm going to do it anyway... > > You are South. Matchpoints, West dealer, EW vulnerable. You hold: > > Q J 2 > Q T 7 2 > A Q 8 2 > K 7 > > and you hear one of these auctions: > > A) 1H - 1NT - 2H > B) 1H - 1NT - Double (penalty-oriented) > C) 1H - 1NT - 2C > D) 1H - 1NT - A long hesitation, then Pass > E) 1H - 1NT - Pass in tempo > > Assuming neither your partner nor your opponents has any particular > reputation for crazy bidding stunts, in which of these auctions would you > make allowance for a psych, rather than just doubling everything in sight > or jumping to 3NT? Do you expect to keep your score if you guess right and > E-W call the cops? > > I will wait to share my opinion until there have been a few replies. Very > curious how much variety there is in where to draw this line. > > GRB > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Sat May 7 02:55:09 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sat May 7 02:52:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 6 May 2005, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > What has this to do with Law 73F2? What remark, manner, tempo, or the like > is involved? Where's the illegal deception? Or we back at trying to extend > the laws to what we want them to mean rather than what they clearly state? I didn't mention any law numbers at all. It's simply a question to get a feel for where people think general bridge knowledge ends and partnership experience of psyching tendencies begins. The "could have known" comment was just a passing reference to the tendency for members of this list to have widely varying interpretations of any of the laws and regulations that take the alleged offender's state of mind into account. Kindly ignore the entire introductory sentence, if it obscures the bidding-judgment question that follows. GRB From toddz at att.net Sat May 7 03:13:37 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat May 7 03:14:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <427C1641.1070807@att.net> Auctions D and E I jump to 3NT. I'd suspect nothing. Auction C I want to know who East is and if 2C starts a scramble, bidding 3NT if so. Auction B could be a misbid by East, one of the phony negative doubles I see so frequently and used to be quite guilty of myself. I start with a redouble and hope the psych or misbid exposes itself. I feel certain someone has psyched on auction A. If double is penalty oriented, I start with that. If partner psyched 1NT, he'll probably pull. If 1NT was legitimate, I like my chances of setting by 4. -Todd From XHGITISRBKELBK at netscape.net Sat May 7 10:53:20 2005 From: XHGITISRBKELBK at netscape.net (Winnie Whaley) Date: Sat May 7 09:54:35 2005 Subject: [blml] WOW soft tab works tyrosine Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 9037 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050507/2ade8827/attachment.jpe From mowrer at mailAccount.com Sat May 7 12:47:24 2005 From: mowrer at mailAccount.com (Norman Tipton) Date: Sat May 7 12:01:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Rates fixed wont last long 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.trust1ng.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Otis Peacock to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.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 hermandw at hdw.be Sat May 7 12:03:19 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat May 7 12:03:04 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <427C9267.2090109@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Nanki poo tapped: > > >> Sorry, Grattan, no way. "The six of ..." is not a designation, any >>more than "One ..." is a call. > > > I think it is clear that it is not "a designation", just as "The six" is > not "a designation". What is less clear is why one/neither should be > considered "an incomplete call by declarer of the card to be played from > dummy". Both lack completeness in the sense of not specifying a suit (as > required by L46A). Both contain an element of designation (a rank). > Indeed it is clear from L46b5 that an incomplete call need contain neither > suit nor rank. Thus the law "as written" strongly suggests that > *anything* (from a single syllable onwards) is "incomplete". > > The laws on bidding do not trouble us with specific regulations on an > incomplete call (although granted there may be UI issues). Thus we have no > problems dealing with half-bids/bidding cards not quite taken past the > "made" threshold. > But what is the threshold? Declarer has just played a heart to the table, and he now calls for "the six". The H6 and C6 are both on the table. After some pause, he adds "of clubs". Forgetting for a minute that his intention to play clubs may prove incontrovertible, it seems clear to me that he has played the H6. Or declarer says "the six.. , no the five of diamonds" (no D6 is on the table). I feel the H6 has been played. What David tries to tell us perhaps, is that the pause makes the designation complete. But then we must make a difference between "the six no the five of diamonds", and "the six, ..., no the five of diamonds". And then in that second case there are things to consider like whether or not there is more than one six, etc. And we must consider that this is different in other languages. A dutch speaking declarer can say "ruiten..." with all sorts of different outcomes. Far better, I believe, to stick declarer to any or all words he has already uttered. > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Sat May 7 12:12:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat May 7 12:13:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote: > and you hear one of these auctions: > > A) 1H - 1NT - 2H > B) 1H - 1NT - Double (penalty-oriented) > C) 1H - 1NT - 2C > D) 1H - 1NT - A long hesitation, then Pass > E) 1H - 1NT - Pass in tempo a) double, pard has probably psyched but not my problem b) redouble, pard has probably psyched but not my problem c) 3C, pard has probably psyched but not my problem (although his not having a C stop would be) d) pass, pard has probably pscyhed and it *is* my problem. Luckily if pard has his values then opp probably doesn't have his hesitation. e) 3N - unless opps play sound opening bids (in which case pard must be psyching and I pass). Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat May 7 21:04:45 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat May 7 21:10:50 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <427C9267.2090109@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00e501c55337$c634e870$ada587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* In re: Rafael Benitez (el carrizo - lo scricciolo) "Fool that I was, upon my eagle's wings I bore this wren till I was tired of soaring And now he mounts above me" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Nanki poo tapped: > > > > > >> Sorry, Grattan, no way. "The six of ..." is > >> not a designation, any more than "One ..." > >> is a call. > > +=+ Nanki Pooh that would be +=+ > > Herman (?) added: > > Far better, I believe, to stick declarer to any > or all words he has already uttered. > +=+ Best to stick to the written law which tells us that declarer 'designates' a rank. If 'the six' is a rank that is a designation of rank when uttered by declarer in calling for a card from dummy. A designation is a designation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun May 8 00:11:40 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun May 8 00:13:54 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <200505010059.j410xoqF011914@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505010059.j410xoqF011914@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <427D3D1C.7010304@cfa.harvard.edu> [Back to this topic again. Thanks for all the thoughtful messages, but I don't think we have a good understanding yet.] > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > If they have "disclosed the use of such call or play in accordance with > the regulations of the sponsoring organisation" there can be no MI. If > they have failed (in some way) to disclose they have infracted L40b* > (unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its > meaning). > *At least in the EBU where the Orange Book contains: > 3.1.1 All agreements, including implicit understandings and practices of > your partnership, must be fully disclosed to your opponents. (Law 75A, > 40B) While I agree that this is what L40B says, I don't believe anyone rules that way in practice. Let's go back to our relay pair, who reach a great contract but forget a few alerts along the way. The missed alerts are MI, but let's further suppose the opponents were always passing regardless. Also let's suppose the violations were inadvertent. Now if you rule a L40B violation -- and I agree that this ruling is consistent with the literal text of L40B -- you have to rule the contract back to the one that would "likely" have been reached using ordinary methods. Does anyone really rule this way? At the start of this thread, there seemed to be a consensus not to do so. I keep going back to the original question: why aren't normal MI cases L40B infractions too? Is it a matter of intent to conceal or something else? Let me throw out one possible answer here for discussion. I think I may have read this in one of Kaplan's writings, but I can't say for sure. Would it make sense to say L40B refers to a failure of _advance_ disclosure, i.e. before the auction starts? In this view, failure to disclose once the auction has begun is normal MI. This interpretation is consistent with the Albuquerque precedent, and it rightly treats failure of advance disclosure more seriously than normal MI because the opponents are denied a chance to agree on methods. One obvious drawback of this suggestion is that it isn't justified in the literal text of the law, but if we stick to the literal text, every MI case is also a L40B infraction. That does not seem to be accepted in practice. If not, we need some way to draw the line between what is a L40B infraction and what is not, and the distinction above seems logical to me. Comments? A minor issue: which contract if you do rule L40B has been violated? From: Ed Reppert > There would seem to be a very large number of potentially correct > answers to this question - and which one is *the* correct answer would > seem unknowable. How can we possibly determine which of BIGNUM methods > the pair would have been playing if they had not been playing their > illegal method? I don't think you need to impute a specific bidding system. If there are two balanced hands with 26 HCP between them, most systems will reach 3NT. If there's an 8-card major fit, they will probably play in the major. And so forth. No doubt there will be difficult cases, but I don't see that it's much worse than any other L12C2 ruling. (In the ACBL, directors will just give avg+/avg-, which I don't like at all but may be legal. In the EBU, there is a specific regulation to give 60/30, which is certainly a practical approach. While we can argue about exactly what adjustment to give, anything is better than letting L40B offenders keep a great score.) From twm at cix.co.uk Sun May 8 01:32:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun May 8 01:34:02 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <427D3D1C.7010304@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > Also let's suppose the violations were inadvertent. Now if > you rule a L40B violation -- and I agree that this ruling is consistent > with the literal text of L40B -- you have to rule the contract back to > the one that would "likely" have been reached using ordinary methods. Why? There's a failure to fully explain so I refer to L40c. C. Director's Option 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. If opps are damaged by the lack of explanation (including lack of alert/pre-alert) I adjust. If there is no damage result stands. I can find nothing in Law40b saying I have to rule based on "ordinary methods". Failure to disclose does not make a bid illegal per se - all I care about is "Would the result have been more favourable to NOS had proper disclosure occurred?". The legality (or otherwise) of a bid is matter of SO system regulation. In 98% (estimate) of L40b violations this is not an issue. Any SO that regulates systems/agreements should (fairly obviously) have rules in place to deal with violations of those regulations. L40D gives SOs the right to regulate the use of conventions. L40E gives SOs the right to specificy prior disclosure requirements L40B is the one that gives force to SO alerting regulations. The laws do not directly address the issue of deliberate concealment (a form of che*ting) although, via L91a, a TD may penalise such behaviour (possibly in addition to an adjustment for damage, possibly when no damage occurred). Tim From wcvjrbkcqc at jwchandler.com Sun May 8 02:58:16 2005 From: wcvjrbkcqc at jwchandler.com (Ted Payne) Date: Sun May 8 02:04:08 2005 Subject: [blml] It doesn`t hurt to check Maryellen Message-ID: <3DF4FB83.94004@ubp.edu.ar> ----- Original Message ----- From: Maryellen To: coralline1@msn.com ; enthusiastdiluent@yahoo.com ; Dear Homeowner, Mortgage. You have been pre-approved. You can get $243,000 for as little as $232 a month, thanks to your pre-approval. Visit us, Fill out the form, no obligation Pull cash out, or refinance.. No long forms or quastionnaires. Fill up our extremely short and simple form today and get a call back within a couple of hours. Start saving now, click that link: http://www.USA-MORTGAGE-LOANS.NET/2/index/bvk cilia vnd banal peg lubricious kyq jacobi pfl pulp vj barn ydm eider gp goucher slz fiddlestick cs employee je http://USA-MORTGAGE-LOANS.NET/rem.php From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun May 8 05:00:32 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sun May 8 05:01:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: <00cc01c55176$2d37f580$129468d5@James> <002901c55236$13b88aa0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <006601c5537a$1a205810$099868d5@James> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Indeed, Nigel? Well, you must admit one could > make a mistake about that, given how you sometimes > adopt the familiarity of abuse which only a director > can adopt towards another director without being > adjudged graceless. [Nigel] I am unsure what Grattan means by "amorality of abuse". IMO, as a player, I have as much right to a view on Bridge Law as any director. The WBFLC should encourage informal comments from players. My specific criticisms may not be welcome but they are always constructive :) I defend myself from attacks (like Grattan's) but I'm assiduously polite whatever the provocation. Some contributors descend to insults like "prat" and so on but I avoid personal abuse in favour of rational debate. When others disagree with a view, they sometimes dismiss it as "claptrap" or "bullshit" but I confine myself to counter-argument. Finally, I've apologised whenever I felt that I hurt someone's feelings. :( From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 8 10:37:05 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun May 8 10:45:41 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? References: <200505010059.j410xoqF011914@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <427D3D1C.7010304@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00c501c553a9$9aa5c220$10c087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* In re: Rafael Benitez (el carrizo - lo scricciolo) "Fool that I was, upon my eagle's wings I bore this wren till I was tired of soaring And now he mounts above me" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 11:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] MI or CPU? > > I don't think you need to impute a specific > bidding system. If there are two balanced > hands with 26 HCP between them, most > systems will reach 3NT. If there's an 8-card > major fit, they will probably play in the major. > And so forth. No doubt there will be difficult > cases, but I don't see that it's much worse > than any other L12C2 ruling. (In the ACBL, > directors will just give avg+/avg-, which I don't > like at all but may be legal. In the EBU, there > is a specific regulation to give 60/30, which is > certainly a practical approach. While we can > argue about exactly what adjustment to give, > anything is better than letting L40B offenders > keep a great score.) > +=+ I have not been following this thread and have deleted it all. I noticed this. It seems to me that what is crucial is that opponents must have timely notice of anything that may affect their action. If they need to prepare a defence, or if their action in the auction calls for a decision that can be affected by the knowledge, or if there is a decision to make in the play that may be affected, the pair that has failed to disclose are on the back foot, and the Director should lean to protect their opponents. Primarily the laws are intended to provide redress for damage. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From shortridge at didamail.com Sun May 8 11:33:17 2005 From: shortridge at didamail.com (Robert Parsons) Date: Sun May 8 10:46:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Dont miss out on 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.trust1ng.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Cynthia Stahl to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.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 Sun May 8 11:29:21 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun May 8 11:31:38 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <00c501c553a9$9aa5c220$10c087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200505010059.j410xoqF011914@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <427D3D1C.7010304@cfa.harvard.edu> <00c501c553a9$9aa5c220$10c087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article <00c501c553a9$9aa5c220$10c087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >******************************* >In re: Rafael Benitez (el carrizo > - lo scricciolo) > >"Fool that I was, upon my eagle's wings >I bore this wren till I was tired of soaring >And now he mounts above me" >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Willner" >To: >Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 11:11 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] MI or CPU? snip > It seems to me >that what is crucial is that opponents must have >timely notice of anything that may affect their >action. This *is* the whole crux. As a TD I will often explain (having been called about a slow alert for example) that the only protection I will provide for the NOs is any different action they might have taken from the time the MI occurred until the time the MI was corrected. Grattan's list which follows is not necessarily exhaustive. > If they need to prepare a defence, or if >their action in the auction calls for a decision >that can be affected by the knowledge, or if >there is a decision to make in the play that may >be affected, the pair that has failed to disclose >are on the back foot, and the Director should >lean to protect their opponents. Primarily the >laws are intended to provide redress for damage. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 8 11:01:30 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun May 8 12:29:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation References: <00cc01c55176$2d37f580$129468d5@James><002901c55236$13b88aa0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <006601c5537a$1a205810$099868d5@James> Message-ID: <000601c553b8$25841c30$25cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* In re: Rafael Benitez (el carrizo - lo scricciolo) "Fool that I was, upon my eagle's wings I bore this wren till I was tired of soaring And now he mounts above me" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 4:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation > I defend myself from attacks (like Grattan's) but I'm > assiduously polite whatever the provocation. Some > contributors descend to insults like "prat" and so on but I > avoid personal abuse in favour of rational debate. When > others disagree with a view, they sometimes dismiss it as > "claptrap" or "bullshit" but I confine myself to > counter-argument. Finally, I've apologised whenever I felt > that I hurt someone's feelings. > :( > +=+ Nigel, I do not accuse you of insulting language. Not at all, you are invariably polite in my experience. I use 'abuse' in reference to the fact that Directors have both experience and training (variable) in bridge law and its application. The paths are well beaten* and those of us who made the law have made efforts (also variable) to obtain a good understanding of it, first by Directors and then by others. (* mostly - there is some obscure wording in the law book and this leaves scope for argument. But when the language is plain, if only when carefully researched, its effects should not be denied.) ~ G ~ +=+ From RJEUGHPUPNRS at mbros.co.uk Sun May 8 14:35:15 2005 From: RJEUGHPUPNRS at mbros.co.uk (Andrew Stallings) Date: Sun May 8 13:43:04 2005 Subject: [blml] 20 minutes is all it takes for a larger, fuller erection! Message-ID: <103313653277.camel@naldoco> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050508/5b5f8af9/attachment.html From cibor at poczta.fm Sun May 8 19:12:11 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sun May 8 19:13:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple Message-ID: <20050508171211.CF06FDAC9A@poczta.interia.pl> Hi ev'ryone, Suppose the bidding goes W N E S 1H x x 1S Now someone comes to his senses and realizes that East doubled North's double. You are called to the table, apply L35A, both the 1S bid and the East's double are cancelled. Do you treat North-South as OS or NOS for the puproses of L16C? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Najtanszy KREDYT MIESZKANIOWY w Polsce! Oprocentowanie od 1,24% w CHF! Kliknij! http://clk.tradedoubler.com/click?p=20565&a=1029167&g=1130041 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 8 20:14:57 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun May 8 20:23:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <200505021513.j42FDaLB026092@cfa.harvard.edu><427AD96E.4000203@cfa.harvard.edu><6.1.1.1.0.20050506080512.02b7a1a0@pop.starpower.net><00ad01c5523f$fb928cf0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050506112227.02a34d70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c553fa$5e7e1da0$43cf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "You have common sense, that's better than intelligence" 8 May 2005: Betty's friend, Cathy, pays her a compliment. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > I take consolation from the fact that Kojak, who > may or may not have been present when the > subject was considered by the drafting committee, > but -- one hopes! -- was allowed the privilege of > knowing what went on behind the closed doors, > apparently construes the intent of L72B1 in much > the same manner as I do, leaving open the possibility > that Grattan's interpretation of the committee's intent, > notwithstanding his presence when the subject was > considered, may not be the only reasonable one. > +=+ I have been looking through some of my files relating to earlier years. When, on 15th June 1994, the drafting committee sent its draft of 72B1 to the European Bridge League and other authorities it was accompanied by an explanation from Edgar Kaplan that read: " This provision appears currently in a few specific laws; this now makes it applicable to all laws." The EBL Laws Committee, over my signature as Chairman, responded that it and certain other draft laws were "all agreeable". The key reference in the 1987 Laws was to Law 73F2. In reference to this the drafting committee noted of the infraction that the Director should determine that "it happened, the claim that it misled is reasonable (the player claiming to have been misled has not generated the deception in his own mind), and the player who did it could have known it might deceive". In October 1985 the European Bridge League Laws, Ethics, Rules and Regulations Committee* had referred to J. Ortiz-Patino, President W.B.F., with copies to E. Kaplan, E. d'Orsi, C.M. McCracken, H. Franklin, its view that "We are especially perturbed to realise the potential abuse of the provision in the Proprieties that an offending side having paid a prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction may properly take any action advantageous to itself. There should be scope to exclude from this grossly abnormal action which is potentially collusive. There has been experience of players producing a grotesque psyche in the dealer's position AFTER the dealer's partner has passed out of turn. In one case there was considered to be a strong smell attaching to the occasion." This led to further exchanges out of which came the 'could have known' provision; the intention was to give the director a widely drawn resource if, in dealing with an irregularity, he thought collusion or malice may have been present even if he had no clear evidence that the irregularity was not inadvertent. In 1987 the device was restricted to certain infractions only but in 1997 its scope was widened so that it could be applied in respect of any irregularity when the Director thought it contained the potential for collusion or malice.. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* a multi-faceted committee chaired at the time by W.J. Pencharz, its responsibilities subsequently reallocated among a number of committees.] From twm at cix.co.uk Sun May 8 20:54:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun May 8 20:55:43 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <00c501c553a9$9aa5c220$10c087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ I have not been following this thread and > have deleted it all. I noticed this. It seems to me > that what is crucial is that opponents must have > timely notice of anything that may affect their > action. With the proviso that "timely" can only be applied in the context of SO regulations. Where calls are deemed "post-alertable" (or self- alerting) there can be no penalties/adjustments even though the post-alert may come too late to do any good. SOs may decide what must be on the CC, what must be alerted/announced (and by whom), what must be pre-/post- alerted, what must be explained in answer to questions and how. Players are responsible for disclosing as their SO mandates, if an SO policy is somehow flawed it is not an infraction by the player not to disclose. Tim From svenpran at online.no Sun May 8 21:22:45 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun May 8 21:24:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple In-Reply-To: <20050508171211.CF06FDAC9A@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <000101c55403$5083fef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > Hi ev'ryone, > > Suppose the bidding goes > > W N E S > 1H x x 1S > > > Now someone comes to his senses and realizes > that East doubled North's double. You are called to the table, > apply L35A, both the 1S bid and the East's > double are cancelled. > Do you treat North-South as OS or NOS > for the puproses of L16C? "as though there had been no irregularity" (L35A) must mean exactly what it literally says so law 16C does not apply for either side in this case. Regards Sven From schuster at eduhi.at Sun May 8 21:50:24 2005 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun May 8 21:51:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple In-Reply-To: <20050508171211.CF06FDAC9A@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050508171211.CF06FDAC9A@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: On Sun, 08 May 2005 19:12:11 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Hi ev'ryone, > Suppose the bidding goes > W N E S > 1H x x 1S > Now someone comes to his senses and realizes > that East doubled North's double. You are called to the table, > apply L35A, both the 1S bid and the East's > double are cancelled. > Do you treat North-South as OS or NOS > for the puproses of L16C? NOS - nothing in the Laws makes 1S illegal. Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 8 22:22:47 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun May 8 22:38:06 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? References: Message-ID: <000001c5540d$d459f360$91cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] MI or CPU? > Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ I have not been following this thread and >> have deleted it all. I noticed this. It seems to me >> that what is crucial is that opponents must have >> timely notice of anything that may affect their >> action. > > With the proviso that "timely" can only be applied > in the context of SO regulations. Where calls are > deemed "post-alertable" (or self- alerting) there > can be no penalties/adjustments even though the > post-alert may come too late to do any good. > SOs may decide what must be on the CC, what > must be alerted/announced (and by whom), what > must be pre-/post- alerted, what must be explained > in answer to questions and how. Players are > responsible for disclosing as their SO mandates, if > an SO policy is somehow flawed it is not an > infraction by the player not to disclose. > > Tim > +=+ I agree it is not an infraction if disclosure is made as the SO requires. However, I think that if the disclosure is too late to help their opponents and they are damaged, there is nothing in the laws to say that 40C does not apply. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 8 22:28:42 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun May 8 22:38:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple References: <000101c55403$5083fef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000101c5540d$d5603fd0$91cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 8:22 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Quick and simple >> On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski >> Hi ev'ryone, >> >> Suppose the bidding goes >> >> W N E S >> 1H x x 1S >> >> >> Now someone comes to his senses and realizes >> that East doubled North's double. You are >> called to the table, >> apply L35A, both the 1S bid and the East's >> double are cancelled. >> Do you treat North-South as OS or NOS >> for the puproses of L16C? > > "as though there had been no irregularity" (L35A) > must mean exactly what it literally says so law 16C > does not apply for either side in this case. > > Regards Sven > +=+ Yes, it does not. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun May 8 22:46:04 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun May 8 22:47:59 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <000001c5540d$d459f360$91cb403e@Mildred> References: <000001c5540d$d459f360$91cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <03b7f40d72a71adabaf6dbfa2984897b@rochester.rr.com> On May 8, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ I agree it is not an infraction if disclosure is made as the SO > requires. However, I think that if the disclosure is too late to help > their opponents > and they are damaged, there is nothing in the laws to say that 40C > does not apply. If you apply Law 40C in the postulated situation, you punish players for a failure by the SO to make proper regulations. This is not a good plan. :( Perhaps Law 40C needs amendment. Something like "through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play IAW SO regulations" (last three words mine). Or perhaps the TD *should* adjust the score, giving as reason "your SO screwed up. Sorry about that." From cibor at poczta.fm Mon May 9 00:38:46 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon May 9 00:40:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple References: <000101c55403$5083fef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003201c5541e$b4e5fa90$ac1a1d53@kocurzak> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 9:22 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Quick and simple > > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > > Hi ev'ryone, > > > > Suppose the bidding goes > > > > W N E S > > 1H x x 1S > > > > > > Now someone comes to his senses and realizes > > that East doubled North's double. You are called to the table, > > apply L35A, both the 1S bid and the East's > > double are cancelled. > > Do you treat North-South as OS or NOS > > for the puproses of L16C? > > "as though there had been no irregularity" (L35A) must mean exactly what it > literally says so law 16C does not apply for either side in this case. Does it mean that if North asks you "Director: what about that 1S bid. Is it UI or AI to me?" you will respond "No, sir, your partner never bid 1S"? Do you? I guess not - you cannot erase the existence of withdrawn calls from anyone's memory. So L16C applies because North saw his partner's bid 1S and his LHO's double - it is your job, as a TD, to work out if it is L16C1 or L16C2. That is what my question is about. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Znajdz swoja milosc na wiosne... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f187a From schoderb at msn.com Mon May 9 01:06:57 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon May 9 01:08:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <200505021513.j42FDaLB026092@cfa.harvard.edu><427AD96E.4000203@cfa.harvard.edu><6.1.1.1.0.20050506080512.02b7a1a0@pop.starpower.net><00ad01c5523f$fb928cf0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><6.1.1.1.0.20050506112227.02a34d70@pop.starpower.net> <000201c553fa$5e7e1da0$43cf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: All very interesting but no one has yet answer my question of where the 1997 idea that we can spread this around came for, and where it was officially decided. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "You have common sense, > that's better than intelligence" > 8 May 2005: Betty's friend, Cathy, > pays her a compliment. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 4:41 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > > > > > I take consolation from the fact that Kojak, who > > may or may not have been present when the > > subject was considered by the drafting committee, > > but -- one hopes! -- was allowed the privilege of > > knowing what went on behind the closed doors, > > apparently construes the intent of L72B1 in much > > the same manner as I do, leaving open the possibility > > that Grattan's interpretation of the committee's intent, > > notwithstanding his presence when the subject was > > considered, may not be the only reasonable one. > > > +=+ I have been looking through some of my files > relating to earlier years. When, on 15th June 1994, > the drafting committee sent its draft of 72B1 to the > European Bridge League and other authorities it was > accompanied by an explanation from Edgar Kaplan > that read: > " This provision appears currently in a few > specific laws; this now makes it applicable to all laws." > The EBL Laws Committee, over my signature as > Chairman, responded that it and certain other draft > laws were "all agreeable". > The key reference in the 1987 Laws was to > Law 73F2. In reference to this the drafting committee > noted of the infraction that the Director should determine > that "it happened, the claim that it misled is reasonable (the > player claiming to have been misled has not generated > the deception in his own mind), and the player who did it > could have known it might deceive". > In October 1985 the European Bridge League > Laws, Ethics, Rules and Regulations Committee* had > referred to J. Ortiz-Patino, President W.B.F., with > copies to E. Kaplan, E. d'Orsi, C.M. McCracken, > H. Franklin, its view that "We are especially perturbed > to realise the potential abuse of the provision in the > Proprieties that an offending side having paid a prescribed > penalty for an inadvertent infraction may properly take > any action advantageous to itself. There should be scope > to exclude from this grossly abnormal action which is > potentially collusive. There has been experience of players > producing a grotesque psyche in the dealer's position > AFTER the dealer's partner has passed out of turn. In one > case there was considered to be a strong smell attaching > to the occasion." This led to further exchanges out of > which came the 'could have known' provision; the > intention was to give the director a widely drawn resource > if, in dealing with an irregularity, he thought collusion or > malice may have been present even if he had no clear > evidence that the irregularity was not inadvertent. In > 1987 the device was restricted to certain infractions only > but in 1997 its scope was widened so that it could be > applied in respect of any irregularity when the Director > thought it contained the potential for collusion or malice.. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > [* a multi-faceted committee chaired at the time > by W.J. Pencharz, its responsibilities subsequently > reallocated among a number of committees.] > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Mon May 9 01:08:45 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon May 9 01:10:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <200505021513.j42FDaLB026092@cfa.harvard.edu><427AD96E.4000203@cfa.harvard.edu><6.1.1.1.0.20050506080512.02b7a1a0@pop.starpower.net><00ad01c5523f$fb928cf0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><6.1.1.1.0.20050506112227.02a34d70@pop.starpower.net> <000201c553fa$5e7e1da0$43cf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan's historical narrative is interesting, and I'm certain correct recall as far as it goes. What it lacks is "who" widened the scope in 1997. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "You have common sense, > that's better than intelligence" > 8 May 2005: Betty's friend, Cathy, > pays her a compliment. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 4:41 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > > > > > I take consolation from the fact that Kojak, who > > may or may not have been present when the > > subject was considered by the drafting committee, > > but -- one hopes! -- was allowed the privilege of > > knowing what went on behind the closed doors, > > apparently construes the intent of L72B1 in much > > the same manner as I do, leaving open the possibility > > that Grattan's interpretation of the committee's intent, > > notwithstanding his presence when the subject was > > considered, may not be the only reasonable one. > > > +=+ I have been looking through some of my files > relating to earlier years. When, on 15th June 1994, > the drafting committee sent its draft of 72B1 to the > European Bridge League and other authorities it was > accompanied by an explanation from Edgar Kaplan > that read: > " This provision appears currently in a few > specific laws; this now makes it applicable to all laws." > The EBL Laws Committee, over my signature as > Chairman, responded that it and certain other draft > laws were "all agreeable". > The key reference in the 1987 Laws was to > Law 73F2. In reference to this the drafting committee > noted of the infraction that the Director should determine > that "it happened, the claim that it misled is reasonable (the > player claiming to have been misled has not generated > the deception in his own mind), and the player who did it > could have known it might deceive". > In October 1985 the European Bridge League > Laws, Ethics, Rules and Regulations Committee* had > referred to J. Ortiz-Patino, President W.B.F., with > copies to E. Kaplan, E. d'Orsi, C.M. McCracken, > H. Franklin, its view that "We are especially perturbed > to realise the potential abuse of the provision in the > Proprieties that an offending side having paid a prescribed > penalty for an inadvertent infraction may properly take > any action advantageous to itself. There should be scope > to exclude from this grossly abnormal action which is > potentially collusive. There has been experience of players > producing a grotesque psyche in the dealer's position > AFTER the dealer's partner has passed out of turn. In one > case there was considered to be a strong smell attaching > to the occasion." This led to further exchanges out of > which came the 'could have known' provision; the > intention was to give the director a widely drawn resource > if, in dealing with an irregularity, he thought collusion or > malice may have been present even if he had no clear > evidence that the irregularity was not inadvertent. In > 1987 the device was restricted to certain infractions only > but in 1997 its scope was widened so that it could be > applied in respect of any irregularity when the Director > thought it contained the potential for collusion or malice.. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > [* a multi-faceted committee chaired at the time > by W.J. Pencharz, its responsibilities subsequently > reallocated among a number of committees.] > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 9 01:04:27 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon May 9 01:10:10 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? References: <000001c5540d$d459f360$91cb403e@Mildred> <03b7f40d72a71adabaf6dbfa2984897b@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <005901c55422$5e26ceb0$f2a187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "You have common sense, that's better than intelligence" 8 May 2005: Betty's friend, Cathy, pays her a compliment. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 9:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] MI or CPU? > > If you apply Law 40C in the postulated situation, you punish > players for a failure by the SO to make proper regulations. > This is not a good plan. :( > +=+ Are you assuming that the players who have conformed to the SO's requirements will not get their table score - while their opponents receive redress for damage? +=+ From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon May 9 01:30:59 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon May 9 01:32:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050508185757.030a0328@mail.comcast.net> At 06:23 PM 5/6/2005, Gordon Bower wrote: >I should know better than to ask this, with the debates about "could have >known" that have been raging recently. But I'm going to do it anyway... > >You are South. Matchpoints, West dealer, EW vulnerable. You hold: > >Q J 2 >Q T 7 2 >A Q 8 2 >K 7 > >and you hear one of these auctions: > >A) 1H - 1NT - 2H >B) 1H - 1NT - Double (penalty-oriented) >C) 1H - 1NT - 2C >D) 1H - 1NT - A long hesitation, then Pass >E) 1H - 1NT - Pass in tempo > >Assuming neither your partner nor your opponents has any particular >reputation for crazy bidding stunts, in which of these auctions would you >make allowance for a psych, rather than just doubling everything in sight >or jumping to 3NT? Do you expect to keep your score if you guess right and >E-W call the cops? I am assuming that you are in a jurisdiction in which psychic agreements are not allowed; if the opponents have a "Never psyche" box marked on their convention card, that is AI to you. Otherwise, I don't believe that it is authorized to field a psyche solely on the information that the opponents are vulnerable and you are not. If someone is psyching, you must assume that it is the opponents unless the bidding and your hand make that impossible. (I believe the ACBL published such a ruling.) On A, you are entitled to conclude partner has psyched. General bridge knowledge says that if East or West is psyching vulnerable, he must have a real suit, and if the opponents have eight hearts, partner has only one and would have doubled or overcalled a minor rather than bidding 1NT. You can pass. On B, you can also conclude partner has psyched; East cannot make a psychic penalty double, and I don't think West can have even a psychic opening if East has a real double (give East 8 HCP and West the KJ of hearts, and partner is left with only 13.) Your normal call if partner's bid is legitimate is to redouble, but if opener pulls that to 2H before partner has a chance to pull to 2C, I believe you can conclude that partner is the psycher. (Once partner pulls your redouble, you know that partner is psyching.) On C, you don't know who is psyching, so you must bid 3NT yourself. If you pass and the opponents do not have "Never psyche" on their card, I would rule against you. On D, you still don't know who is psyching. East's slow pass is AI to you that he has some values, but not that he has a near-double; he might have a hand just too weak for a 2C bid, and West could have KJxxx of hearts and out, a typical 1H psyche. I think you must bid 3NT, and let partner run to 4C when 3NT gets doubled On E, everyone can have his bid. Opener can have 10 HCP and partner can have 15 HCP; even if your range is 16-18, someone could be borrowing a point because of AQJTx of clubs or KJTxx of diamonds. You must bid 3NT, and this is true even if your jurisdication says that you may assume partner is psyching. From svenpran at online.no Mon May 9 01:54:13 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon May 9 01:55:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple In-Reply-To: <003201c5541e$b4e5fa90$ac1a1d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <000201c55429$3c68f170$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 9:22 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Quick and simple > > > > > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > > > Hi ev'ryone, > > > > > > Suppose the bidding goes > > > > > > W N E S > > > 1H x x 1S > > > > > > > > > Now someone comes to his senses and realizes > > > that East doubled North's double. You are called to the table, > > > apply L35A, both the 1S bid and the East's > > > double are cancelled. > > > Do you treat North-South as OS or NOS > > > for the puproses of L16C? > > > > "as though there had been no irregularity" (L35A) must mean exactly what > it > > literally says so law 16C does not apply for either side in this case. > > Does it mean that if North asks you "Director: what about > that 1S bid. Is it UI or AI to me?" you will respond > "No, sir, your partner never bid 1S"? No I would say to him: "You may draw any inference you like from hearing (or seeing) your partner's "bid" of 1S but at your own risk". If East or West posed the same question to me I would give exactly the same answer. And finally if any player asked me the same question on the inadmissible double by East I would still give exactly the same answer. The 1S by South turns the inadmissible double by East into a case for L35A instead of L36 which means that all penalties and all restrictions have been forfeited. > Do you? I guess not - you cannot erase the existence of withdrawn calls > from anyone's memory. So L16C applies because North > saw his partner's bid 1S and his LHO's double - > it is your job, as a TD, to work out if it is L16C1 or L16C2. > That is what my question is about. None of them! Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 9 02:10:16 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 9 02:11:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower: >I should know better than to ask this, with the debates >about "could have known" that have been raging recently. >But I'm going to do it anyway... > >You are South. Matchpoints, West dealer, EW vulnerable. >You hold: > >Q J 2 >Q T 7 2 >A Q 8 2 >K 7 > >and you hear one of these auctions: > >A) 1H - 1NT - 2H >B) 1H - 1NT - Double (penalty-oriented) >C) 1H - 1NT - 2C >D) 1H - 1NT - A long hesitation, then Pass >E) 1H - 1NT - Pass in tempo > >Assuming neither your partner nor your opponents has >any particular reputation for crazy bidding stunts, in >which of these auctions would you make allowance for a >psych, rather than just doubling everything in sight or >jumping to 3NT? Do you expect to keep your score if you >guess right and E-W call the cops? > >I will wait to share my opinion until there have been a >few replies. Very curious how much variety there is in >where to draw this line. Richard Hills: As South, my calls would be -> A) Double B) Redouble C) 3NT D) 3NT E) 3NT In C), D) and E) it is conceivable that everyone has values consistent with the bidding. If an expert pair are sitting East-West on C), the bid of 2C is consistent with a 7-card club suit and a yarborough. And on D), it is possible that East is verging upon a deceptive infraction of Law 73F2, since possibly East could have known that their hesitation would cause a Blue Psyche (you field pard's psychic 1NT by passing, but pard has not psyched). Double is the only logical alternative on A), unless I have been dragooned by my super-scientific partner to play negative doubles in this auction. Redouble is the only logical alternative on B), unless my partner has been dragooned by super-scientific me into playing Bob Sebesfi's SW1NE convention. In A) and B) it is likely that someone has psyched or misbid. Some psychers tend to psyche only at favourable vulnerability; but Marty Bergen has argued that "colours are for children". And, at matchpoint pairs, Marty Bergen has a point. Meanwhile, misbids can happen at any vulnerability. Therefore, in none of the above auctions is there any definitive evidence that partner's 1NT is a psyche. Therefore, in none of the above auctions is fielding partner's psyche a logical alternative *unless* one has an implicit concealed partnership agreement that partner's 1NT overcall is often comical. But in that case partner's 1NT "psyche" is actually not a psyche, but instead it is really a CPU pseudo-psyche. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Mon May 9 02:50:45 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon May 9 02:51:57 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <200505082218.j48MIe6r002371@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505082218.j48MIe6r002371@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <427EB3E5.9000608@cfa.harvard.edu> >>Also let's suppose the violations were inadvertent. Now if >>you rule a L40B violation ... you have to rule the contract back to >>the one that would "likely" have been reached using ordinary methods. > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > Why? There's a failure to fully explain so I refer to L40c. > C. Director's Option > 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. There's that, but in the example the failure to explain caused no damage. Failure to explain is just ordinary MI; I don't think there is any disagreement what to do when it does cause damage. The problem I'm trying to understand is that L40B starts "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless...." If you take this part literally, it is the call or play itself, not the lack of explanation, that is illegal. In my example, it would be the unalerted bids in the relays. In Albuquerque the failure was lack of advance disclosure (not strictly an "explanation," but I suppose the term will stretch), but the adjustment was not one typical of MI. Instead the pair's whole bidding system was declared illegal, just as L40B requires. > L40B is the one that gives force to SO alerting regulations. Well, that too, but I think mainly advance disclosure of various sorts. If all L40B does is allow alerting, it isn't necessary at all; L80F would suffice. Literally L40B allows the SO to require any form of disclosure the SO thinks fit. Anyway, the questions are what constitutes a violation and what to do when one happens. > The laws do not directly address the issue of deliberate concealment (a > form of che*ting) Indeed. Nor do I wish to address it in this thread. Please consider that all my posts and examples in this thread deal only with inadvertent infractions. From: "Grattan" > I agree it is not an infraction if disclosure is > made as the SO requires. However, I think that > if the disclosure is too late to help their opponents > and they are damaged, there is nothing in the laws > to say that 40C does not apply. This is an interesting view and one I have not seen before. Are you saying that it is possible to adjust a score even when there has been no infraction? That doesn't seem consistent with "only when" in L12A. Or are you saying that players have an affirmative obligation to disclose, even when no such obligation is specified by Law or regulation? I suppose L75A could be interpreted as creating such a requirement, but it's hard to see where such an obligation would stop short of handing each opposing side 750 pages of system notes (in an extreme case) plus perhaps another 1000 pages chronicling partnership experience. Let's go back to our relay pair. Suppose they alert properly, but the SO requires no alerts above 3NT, and none is given. Are the opponents entitled to redress for the lead-directing double they could have made, had they understood the relay system? If there's an unlimited, affirmative responsibility to disclose, I don't see how redress can be denied. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon May 9 03:33:58 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon May 9 03:35:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9cf2038f8b9ee2ec3bdde9fd90f65c44@rochester.rr.com> On May 8, 2005, at 8:10 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Therefore, in none of the above auctions is fielding > partner's psyche a logical alternative If by "fielding" you mean "making allowances for", then maybe. If you mean, as some have insisted, that "fielding" means "making *illegal* allowances for", then fielding is *never* a logical alternative. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 9 03:42:40 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon May 9 03:48:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <200505021513.j42FDaLB026092@cfa.harvard.edu><427AD96E.4000203@cfa.harvard.edu><6.1.1.1.0.20050506080512.02b7a1a0@pop.starpower.net><00ad01c5523f$fb928cf0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><6.1.1.1.0.20050506112227.02a34d70@pop.starpower.net><000201c553fa$5e7e1da0$43cf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <004501c55438$78eee0f0$06bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "You have common sense, that's better than intelligence" 8 May 2005: Betty's friend, Cathy, pays her a compliment. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Endicott Grattan" Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > Grattan's historical narrative is interesting, and > I'm certain correct recall as far as it goes. What > it lacks is "who" widened the scope in 1997. > > Kojak > +=+ It was incorporated in the laws by the Drafting Committee, and explained in Kaplan's words accompanying the early draft in 1994. It remained in the successive drafts of the laws from 1994 through to final acceptance and promulgation. The later drafts were circulated by Ralph Cohen, after each meeting. The laws were promulgated by the World Bridge Federation without any change to the final draft and approved by the European Bridge League, the American Contract Bridge League, and the Portland Club. The 'correct recall' is from documents in my possession. (I have some eleven or twelve box files covering 1984 onwards, with some uncollated earlier items.) So, as to 'who', the scope was widened by the drafting committee and promulgated and approved as cited above. The record shows that in October 1996 the Chairman reported to the WBF Executive Council on the four on-site meetings of the Laws Committee at which the final draft was presented, and informed the EC of the changes in the laws that were proposed. The Executive Council gave its approval to the new laws at that time. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 9 03:47:51 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 9 03:48:44 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <427EB3E5.9000608@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >Let's go back to our relay pair. Suppose they alert >properly, but the SO requires no alerts above 3NT, and >none is given. Are the opponents entitled to redress >for the lead-directing double they could have made, had >they understood the relay system? If there's an >unlimited, affirmative responsibility to disclose, I >don't see how redress can be denied. Richard Hills: This is not a hypothetical problem; an Open and Women's Aussie international suffered in real life against me in a major Canberra Bridge Club event. In a game-force relay sequence, with every call alerted, my pard gave an artificial (and alerted) relay response of 3D. RHO with KJT9 of diamonds, plus an outside entry, stuck in a lead-directing double in case her partner was on lead against an eventual 3NT contract. Alas, I knew that pard and I held a nine-card diamond fit, so I redoubled and scored mega-imps for +1240. In my opinion, if an SO legalises a relay system (pursuant to its powers under Law 40B), but does *not* require the complete relay system notes to be freely available to the opponents before and during the auction (such limitation of disclosure also pursuant to its powers under Law 40B), then no infraction has occurred, so redress can be denied. Of course (unlike a former NZ/Aussie international pair who gave relay systems a bad name, due to their minimal disclosure of explicit and implicit agreements) I freely provide my complete relay system notes to anyone who wishes to read them (send me a private email for a copy). I also have a habit of taking my complete relay system notes to Aussie national championships. As well as the primary purpose of giving full disclosure to interested opponents, the notes serve of useful secondary purpose as evidence of partnership agreements when a TD is assessing whether my partnership has (illegally) misexplained or (legally) misbid. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon May 9 04:09:14 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon May 9 04:08:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? References: Message-ID: <002101c5543c$199c45d0$099468d5@James> [Gordon Bower] > MPs, LHO/Green: QJ2 QT72 AQ82 K7 >A) (1H)1NT(2H) >B) (1H)1NT(X =penalty-oriented) >C) (1H)1NT(2C) >D) (1H)1NT(A long hesitation, then Pass) >E) (1H)1NT(Pass in tempo) > Assuming neither your partner nor your opponents > has any particular reputation for crazy bidding > stunts, in which of these auctions would you make > allowance for a psych, rather than just doubling > everything in sight or jumping to 3NT? Do you expect > to keep your score if you guess right and E-W call > the cops? I will wait to share my opinion until > there have been a few replies. Very curious how much > variety there is in where to draw this line. [Richard Hills] > A) Double > B) Redouble > C) 3NT > D) 3NT > E) 3NT > ... Therefore, in none of the above auctions is there > any definitive evidence that partner's 1NT is a psyche. > Therefore, in none of the above auctions is fielding > rather's psyche a logical alternative *unless* one > has an implicit concealed partnership agreement that > partner's 1NT overcall is often comical. But in that > case partner's 1NT "psyche" is actually not a psyche, > but instead it is really a CPU pseudo-psyche. [Nigel] I agree with Richard; with some small quibbles: Using Richard's terminology, IMO it is almost impossible to be sure that anyone is guilty of a "pseudo-psyche" unless he admits it. IMO a "psyche" should be redefined as a departure from *disclosed* methods (not even a gross departure). That is, it may or may not be a concealed partnership agreement. The law should penalize a player when he psyches in a way that seems to cater for a previous psyche by his partner on the same hand - unless the position is clear from authorised information. It still may be just an unfortunate coincidence. I see no need to accuse anybody of cheating. IMO The rules of a game should try to avoid concerning themselves with a particular player's "intentions" or "motives". In Gordon's examples, Richard says it isn't certain that anybody has misbid or psyched. Suppose, however, you putthat beyond doubt by adding an Ace or two to Gordon's example hand. I reckon that Richard would change his mind about the correct ruling. I wouldn't, even although the vulnerability could give a clue to the culprit. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon May 9 04:32:26 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon May 9 04:33:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050508185757.030a0328@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <004201c5543f$57856540$099468d5@James> [David J Grabiner] I am assuming that you are in a jurisdiction in which psychic agreements are not allowed; if the opponents have a "Never psyche" box marked on their convention card, that is AI to you. [Nigel] I don't see any harm in a psyche *history* box. But can it be an undertaking for the *future*? Suppose we tick the "never psyche" box but I psyche on the next three hands. Assuming that we have no agreement about psyches, implicit or otherwise, are opponents entitled to redress? From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon May 9 10:20:04 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon May 9 10:20:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple References: <000201c55429$3c68f170$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001b01c5546f$e70673f0$0307a8c0@david> > > > > > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > > > Hi ev'ryone, > > > > > > Suppose the bidding goes > > > > > > W N E S > > > 1H x x 1S > > > > > > > > > Now someone comes to his senses and realizes > > > that East doubled North's double. You are called to the table, > > > apply L35A, both the 1S bid and the East's > > > double are cancelled. > > > Do you treat North-South as OS or NOS > > > for the puproses of L16C? > > > > "as though there had been no irregularity" (L35A) must mean exactly what > it > > literally says so law 16C does not apply for either side in this case. > > Does it mean that if North asks you "Director: what about > that 1S bid. Is it UI or AI to me?" you will respond > "No, sir, your partner never bid 1S"? No I would say to him: "You may draw any inference you like from hearing (or seeing) your partner's "bid" of 1S but at your own risk". If East or West posed the same question to me I would give exactly the same answer. And finally if any player asked me the same question on the inadmissible double by East I would still give exactly the same answer. The 1S by South turns the inadmissible double by East into a case for L35A instead of L36 which means that all penalties and all restrictions have been forfeited. > Do you? I guess not - you cannot erase the existence of withdrawn calls > from anyone's memory. So L16C applies because North > saw his partner's bid 1S and his LHO's double - > it is your job, as a TD, to work out if it is L16C1 or L16C2. > That is what my question is about. None of them! Regards Sven It is not clear to me that this is the case. L35A cancels East's X and South's 1S and the auction continues from East as though they had not been made. L16 states "Players are authorised to base their calls ... on information from LEGAL calls....". The fact that the calls have been withdrawn without penalty does not make the calls legal and hence they are not authorised to be used - by either side. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005 From twm at cix.co.uk Mon May 9 11:43:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon May 9 11:45:02 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <000001c5540d$d459f360$91cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > +=+ I agree it is not an infraction if disclosure is > made as the SO requires. However, I think that > if the disclosure is too late to help their opponents > and they are damaged, there is nothing in the laws > to say that 40C does not apply. Well, L40c requires a "failure to explain" so assuming a proper CC, alert if required, and the (EBU regulation that explanations should not be volunteered, only given in response to questions) it would be hard to argue there was a "failure". Even if we slide round that we are stymied by law 12. In order to adjust (even for one side) we need a violation/irregularity - which we lack. BTW it makes no sense to talk of "NOS" in this scenario since both sides are "NOS". I know that if there was a "one-way" adjust that, eg, affected the result of a KO event I'd be appealing and asking for the legal grounds on which the adjustment was made. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 9 11:25:12 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon May 9 13:29:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple References: <000201c55429$3c68f170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001b01c5546f$e70673f0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <001101c55489$a336d6a0$cf8587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "You have common sense, that's better than intelligence" 8 May 2005: Betty's friend, Cathy, pays her a compliment. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Quick and simple > > > > It is not clear to me that this is the case. > L35A cancels East's X and South's 1S > and the auction continues from > East as though they had not been made. > L16 states "Players are authorised to > base their calls ... on information > from LEGAL calls....". > The fact that the calls have been > withdrawn without penalty does not > make the calls legal and hence they > are not authorised to be used > - by either side. > [Grattan] +=+ But we are to treat the occurrence as though no irregularity had occurred. So the preamble to Law 16C is not satisfied. These are not withdrawn actions within the terms of Law 16C. +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Mon May 9 13:36:47 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon May 9 13:38:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <200505021513.j42FDaLB026092@cfa.harvard.edu><427AD96E.4000203@cfa.harvard.edu><6.1.1.1.0.20050506080512.02b7a1a0@pop.starpower.net><00ad01c5523f$fb928cf0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><6.1.1.1.0.20050506112227.02a34d70@pop.starpower.net><000201c553fa$5e7e1da0$43cf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004501c55438$78eee0f0$06bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Thank you for the addition. It completes the history. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" ; "blml" Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "You have common sense, > that's better than intelligence" > 8 May 2005: Betty's friend, Cathy, > pays her a compliment. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" ; > "Endicott Grattan" > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 12:08 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > > > Grattan's historical narrative is interesting, and > > I'm certain correct recall as far as it goes. What > > it lacks is "who" widened the scope in 1997. > > > > Kojak > > > +=+ It was incorporated in the laws by > the Drafting Committee, and explained in > Kaplan's words accompanying the early > draft in 1994. It remained in the successive > drafts of the laws from 1994 through to > final acceptance and promulgation. The > later drafts were circulated by Ralph Cohen, > after each meeting. The laws were promulgated > by the World Bridge Federation without any > change to the final draft and approved by the > European Bridge League, the American > Contract Bridge League, and the Portland Club. > The 'correct recall' is from documents in > my possession. (I have some eleven or twelve > box files covering 1984 onwards, with some > uncollated earlier items.) > So, as to 'who', the scope was widened > by the drafting committee and promulgated > and approved as cited above. The record > shows that in October 1996 the Chairman > reported to the WBF Executive Council on > the four on-site meetings of the Laws Committee > at which the final draft was presented, and > informed the EC of the changes in the laws that > were proposed. The Executive Council gave its > approval to the new laws at that time. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 9 13:49:46 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon May 9 13:55:36 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? References: Message-ID: <001e01c5548d$4c00f420$cf8587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "You have common sense, that's better than intelligence" 8 May 2005: Betty's friend, Cathy, pays her a compliment. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] MI or CPU? > Even if we slide round that we are stymied by > law 12. In order to adjust (even for one side) > we need a violation/irregularity - which we lack. > BTW it makes no sense to talk of "NOS" in this > scenario since both sides are "NOS". I know > that if there was a "one-way" adjust that, eg, > affected the result of a KO event I'd be appealing > and asking for the legal grounds on which the > adjustment was made. > > Tim > +=+ Whilst there is no infraction I think an irregularity has occurred inasmuch as the procedure has not fulfilled the requirements of Law 40. It is the SO that is at fault, of course, but this does not deny protection to the damaged side. It seems to me that there is 'a reasonable possibility' (Law 84E) that one of the non-offending sides has been damaged and I think the Director should adjust - for one side only - and let the AC pick the bones of it if it goes to appeal. As between two non-offending sides I do not think the equity can lie wholly to the advantage of the one over the other. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon May 9 13:59:18 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon May 9 13:59:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple References: <000201c55429$3c68f170$6900a8c0@WINXP><001b01c5546f$e70673f0$0307a8c0@david> <001101c55489$a336d6a0$cf8587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000301c5548e$87bd3360$0307a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Quick and simple > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "You have common sense, > that's better than intelligence" > 8 May 2005: Betty's friend, Cathy, > pays her a compliment. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Barton" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 9:20 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Quick and simple > > >> >> >> >> It is not clear to me that this is the case. >> L35A cancels East's X and South's 1S >> and the auction continues from >> East as though they had not been made. >> L16 states "Players are authorised to >> base their calls ... on information >> from LEGAL calls....". >> The fact that the calls have been >> withdrawn without penalty does not >> make the calls legal and hence they >> are not authorised to be used >> - by either side. >> > [Grattan] > +=+ But we are to treat the occurrence > as though no irregularity had occurred. [David Barton] I agree with this statement. [Grattan] > So the preamble to Law 16C is not > satisfied. [David Barton] Do not agree with this conclusion. There does not need to be an irregularity for Law16 to be relevant. eg You may not base an action on Partner's answer to a question. [Grattan] >These are not withdrawn > actions within the terms of Law 16C. +=+ [David Barton] I was not claiming that L16C was appropriate. I was simply observing that they were not legal calls and hence were not authorised for use. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005 From cibor at poczta.fm Mon May 9 14:10:13 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon May 9 14:11:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple Message-ID: <20050509121013.B2929466961@poczta.interia.pl> Grattan Endicott napisa?(a): > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "You have common sense, > that's better than intelligence" > 8 May 2005: Betty's friend, Cathy, > pays her a compliment. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Barton" >david.j.barton@lineone.net> > To: >blml@rtflb.org> > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 9:20 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Quick and simple > > > > > > > > > > It is not clear to me that this is the case. > > L35A cancels East's X and South's 1S > > and the auction continues from > > East as though they had not been made. > > L16 states "Players are authorised to > > base their calls ... on information > > from LEGAL calls....". > > The fact that the calls have been > > withdrawn without penalty does not > > make the calls legal and hence they > > are not authorised to be used > > - by either side. > > > [Grattan] > = But we are to treat the occurrence > as though no irregularity had occurred. > So the preamble to Law 16C is not > satisfied. These are not withdrawn > actions within the terms of Law 16C. = Does it mean that East's double over North's double is AI to West? I must say I am quite surprised. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Znajdz swoja milosc na wiosne... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f187a From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 9 14:01:47 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 9 14:18:20 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <00e501c55337$c634e870$ada587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <427C9267.2090109@hdw.be> <00e501c55337$c634e870$ada587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050509075130.02b05560@pop.starpower.net> At 03:04 PM 5/7/05, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Best to stick to the written law which tells >us that declarer 'designates' a rank. If 'the six' is >a rank that is a designation of rank when uttered >by declarer in calling for a card from dummy. A >designation is a designation. I think we all understand how to treat, "The six." And we all understand how to treat, "The six of clubs." The only question is how to treat, "The six... of clubs." Do we start a timer on "six" and have a guideline for how many seconds must elapse before "of clubs" is allowed to stand as part of the player's "designation"? From my limited and parochial perspective, I think we do much better leaving this as strictly a judgment call -- exactly the same one the players at the table are likely to make. I'm an American English speaker, and have absolutely no trouble with the cues from emphasis and inflection that clearly distinguish "The six." from "The six...". Is that a problem for speakers of other languages, or of other variants of English? L46A says, "...declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card." If I understand Grattan's position, he seems to be saying that there is an implicit appended "without pause for thought". But if that were the intent of the law, why would it not say so explicitly, as it does elsewhere? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From minke2 at blakjak.com Mon May 9 14:25:17 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Mon May 9 14:27:42 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: References: <00bb01c54dc1$7728da00$5077893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <010d01c5521b$ae494840$ceac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Hi John (MadDog) Probst >it figures. I think Minke is Burmese. John *** B U R M E S E *** ??? SNNNAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Mrow *MK* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From svenpran at online.no Mon May 9 14:31:51 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon May 9 14:33:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple In-Reply-To: <001101c55489$a336d6a0$cf8587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000c01c55493$13bcc070$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: "David Barton" > > It is not clear to me that this is the case. > > L35A cancels East's X and South's 1S > > and the auction continues from > > East as though they had not been made. > > L16 states "Players are authorised to > > base their calls ... on information > > from LEGAL calls....". > > The fact that the calls have been > > withdrawn without penalty does not > > make the calls legal and hence they > > are not authorised to be used > > - by either side. > > > [Grattan] > +=+ But we are to treat the occurrence > as though no irregularity had occurred. > So the preamble to Law 16C is not > satisfied. These are not withdrawn > actions within the terms of Law 16C. +=+ However, there can be an interesting question which needs answering whether the cancelled double and 1S calls are to be considered "extraneous" information as in the preamble to Law 16. Personally I consider the wording in L35A to completely excluding any use of L16. ("There has been an error on both sides, let us forget them and just continue playing bridge") Regards Sven From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Mon May 9 14:34:17 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Mon May 9 14:36:59 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <00e501c55337$c634e870$ada587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <427C9267.2090109@hdw.be> <00e501c55337$c634e870$ada587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >******************************* >In re: Rafael Benitez (el carrizo > - lo scricciolo) > >"Fool that I was, upon my eagle's wings >I bore this wren till I was tired of soaring >And now he mounts above me" >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Herman De Wael" >To: "blml" >Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 11:03 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > >> >> Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >> > Nanki poo tapped: >> > >> > >> >> Sorry, Grattan, no way. "The six of ..." is >> >> not a designation, any more than "One ..." >> >> is a call. >> > >+=+ Nanki Pooh that would be +=+ SNNNAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL !!!!!!!! I am not a bear! Mrow *NP* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 9 14:38:15 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 9 14:37:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <000601c553b8$25841c30$25cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00cc01c55176$2d37f580$129468d5@James> <002901c55236$13b88aa0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <006601c5537a$1a205810$099868d5@James> <000601c553b8$25841c30$25cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050509083429.02a3cae0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:01 AM 5/8/05, Grattan wrote: >But when the language is plain, if only when carefully >researched, its effects should not be denied. That is indisputably sage advice. One wishes, however, that the WBFLC, acting in its official capacity, would take it. It becomes something of a mockery when the powers that be can issue official proclamations decreeing, for example, that the footnote to L69-71 actually means exactly the opposite of what it plainly says. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 9 14:55:03 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 9 14:54:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple In-Reply-To: <20050508171211.CF06FDAC9A@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050508171211.CF06FDAC9A@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050509084156.02a36b40@pop.starpower.net> At 01:12 PM 5/8/05, Konrad wrote: >Suppose the bidding goes > >W N E S >1H x x 1S > > >Now someone comes to his senses and realizes >that East doubled North's double. You are called to the table, >apply L35A, both the 1S bid and the East's >double are cancelled. >Do you treat North-South as OS or NOS >for the puproses of L16C? L35 is quite clear: "...there is no penalty for the inadmissable call... and... The auction reverts... and proceeds as though there had been no irregularity." For the purposes of L16C, we treat both sides as non-offenders. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From beccue at fadmail.com Mon May 9 15:50:24 2005 From: beccue at fadmail.com (Amos Beasley) Date: Mon May 9 15:03:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Need a low mortage rate? Message-ID: <118541.4967.beccue@fadmail.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.trust1ng.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Dianna Irvin to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.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 nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Mon May 9 15:11:56 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Mon May 9 15:14:52 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <00ac01c5523f$fa9f5350$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00bb01c54dc1$7728da00$5077893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <010d01c5521b$ae494840$ceac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050506082925.02b7da30@pop.starpower.net> <00ac01c5523f$fa9f5350$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6ttmQUOcG2fCFwud@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Grattan Endicott wrote > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >******************************* >In re: Rafael Benitez (el carrizo > - lo scricciolo) > >"Fool that I was, upon my eagle's wings >I bore this wren till I was tired of soaring >And now he mounts above me" >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 1:48 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > >> I think Grattan is assuming his conclusion. ISTM >> that the issue in this thread is precisely whether >> or not, "The six of..." (as in, "The six of... uh... >> the king of clubs") is a designation. "The six." is >> a designation per L46B3, but Minke argues that, >> "The six of..." is nothing more than the first three >> words of a proper designation >< >+=+ At which point it is an incomplete designation >of a card, being a designation of a rank lacking >the designation of a suit and the designation made, >of the six, is not inadvertent. I am not making any >assumption, I am just reading the law as it is. The >(false) assumption Minke makes is that 'designation' >in 45C4(b) refers only to the designation of a card. >It does not say that. Further, 46B is quite plain in >referring to "an incomplete ..... call by declarer of >the card to be played from dummy." 'The six of' fits >that description exactly. Exactly is putting it a bit high: it is an interpretation that does not follow the normal interpretation of that Law. L46B is used in the common case where a designation is made, but it does not follow the rule set down in L46A. When a player says "Spade" to play the S6 from dummy, the Law could be childish and say that the TD must be called, and the TD must ask the player to complete his designation. Fortunately the law-makers did not go for such a childish approach, but told us what "Spade" means. We have a different situation, where no designation has been made. It is not an Incomplete or Erroneous call: in fact no call has been made until the declarer has finished his designation, so "Play the six of ... errr ... no wait a minute ... I mean play the heart ace" is not a designation and no card is played until the end of the sentence. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Mon May 9 15:12:13 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Mon May 9 15:14:56 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <427C9267.2090109@hdw.be> References: <427C9267.2090109@hdw.be> Message-ID: <19RlUrOtG2fCFwvA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Hi Herman De Wael >Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> Nanki poo tapped: >> >>> Sorry, Grattan, no way. "The six of ..." is not a designation, >>>any more than "One ..." is a call. >> I think it is clear that it is not "a designation", just as "The >>six" is not "a designation". What is less clear is why one/neither >>should be considered "an incomplete call by declarer of the card to >>be played from dummy". Both lack completeness in the sense of not >>specifying a suit (as required by L46A). Both contain an element of >>designation (a rank). >> Indeed it is clear from L46b5 that an incomplete call need contain >>neither suit nor rank. Thus the law "as written" strongly suggests >>that *anything* (from a single syllable onwards) is "incomplete". >> The laws on bidding do not trouble us with specific regulations on >>an incomplete call (although granted there may be UI issues). Thus we >>have no problems dealing with half-bids/bidding cards not quite taken >>past the "made" threshold. >> > >But what is the threshold? > >Declarer has just played a heart to the table, and he now calls for >"the six". The H6 and C6 are both on the table. After some pause, he >adds "of clubs". > >Forgetting for a minute that his intention to play clubs may prove >incontrovertible, it seems clear to me that he has played the H6. > >Or declarer says "the six.. , no the five of diamonds" (no D6 is on the >table). I feel the H6 has been played. > >What David tries to tell us perhaps, is that the pause makes the >designation complete. But then we must make a difference between "the >six no the five of diamonds", and "the six, ..., no the five of >diamonds". And then in that second case there are things to consider >like whether or not there is more than one six, etc. >And we must consider that this is different in other languages. A dutch >speaking declarer can say "ruiten..." with all sorts of different >outcomes. > >Far better, I believe, to stick declarer to any or all words he has >already uttered. Not if you want a game of bridge. As I may have mentioned before, there are people who play bridge, and people who write on BLML. Ok, we all know that's going too far, but I think you know what I mean. When a player says "Play the five, no I mean the ace, of clubs" well over 99% of players assume the ace of clubs is played: only BLs and certain members of BLML think the C5 is played. The game is much better served by the ace being played: it is not our job to upset loads of people unnecessarily. The interpretation of L46B that is currently used is that it defines finished designations that do not follow L46A, and we should be happy with that, and not try to introduce inflammatory and unhelpful new interpretations that do the game no favours. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Mon May 9 15:12:28 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Mon May 9 15:14:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi WILLIAM SCHODER >What has this to do with Law 73F2? What remark, manner, tempo, or the like >is involved? Where's the illegal deception? Or we back at trying to extend >the laws to what we want them to mean rather than what they clearly state? I do not read anything about L73F2 in the original post or subject line: did I miss it? Fielding is a matter of breach of L40, not l73. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 9 15:22:03 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 9 15:21:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <000201c553fa$5e7e1da0$43cf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200505021513.j42FDaLB026092@cfa.harvard.edu> <427AD96E.4000203@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20050506080512.02b7a1a0@pop.starpower.net> <00ad01c5523f$fb928cf0$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050506112227.02a34d70@pop.starpower.net> <000201c553fa$5e7e1da0$43cf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050509085920.02a39eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:14 PM 5/8/05, Grattan wrote: >+=+ I have been looking through some of my files >relating to earlier years. When, on 15th June 1994, >the drafting committee sent its draft of 72B1 to the >European Bridge League and other authorities it was >accompanied by an explanation from Edgar Kaplan >that read: > " This provision appears currently in a few >specific laws; this now makes it applicable to all laws." >The EBL Laws Committee, over my signature as >Chairman, responded that it and certain other draft >laws were "all agreeable". > The key reference in the 1987 Laws was to >Law 73F2. In reference to this the drafting committee >noted of the infraction that the Director should determine >that "it happened, the claim that it misled is reasonable (the >player claiming to have been misled has not generated >the deception in his own mind), and the player who did it >could have known it might deceive". > In October 1985 the European Bridge League >Laws, Ethics, Rules and Regulations Committee* had >referred to J. Ortiz-Patino, President W.B.F., with >copies to E. Kaplan, E. d'Orsi, C.M. McCracken, >H. Franklin, its view that "We are especially perturbed >to realise the potential abuse of the provision in the >Proprieties that an offending side having paid a prescribed >penalty for an inadvertent infraction may properly take >any action advantageous to itself. There should be scope >to exclude from this grossly abnormal action which is >potentially collusive. There has been experience of players >producing a grotesque psyche in the dealer's position >AFTER the dealer's partner has passed out of turn. In one >case there was considered to be a strong smell attaching >to the occasion." This led to further exchanges out of >which came the 'could have known' provision; the >intention was to give the director a widely drawn resource >if, in dealing with an irregularity, he thought collusion or >malice may have been present even if he had no clear >evidence that the irregularity was not inadvertent. In >1987 the device was restricted to certain infractions only >but in 1997 its scope was widened so that it could be >applied in respect of any irregularity when the Director >thought it contained the potential for collusion or malice.. Thank you, Grattan, for the peek behind the curtain. I read the EBLLERRC's quoted position as consistent with the interpretation I have been arguing in favor of, as, apparently, does Grattan. I note the inclusion of such key phrases as "grossly abnormal action", "potentially collusive", "grotesque psyche" and "strong smell"! To me, it is characteristics such as these which create a L72B1 offense. I interpret the intent of the authors exactly as Grattan states it: "to give the director a... widely drawn resource if... *he thought collusion or malice may have been present* [emphasis mine]" but "had no clear evidence that the irregularity was not inadvertant". Those who take the opposite view reject the notion that the words of Grattan's which I have chosen to emphasize belong there at all. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 9 16:05:02 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 9 16:04:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple In-Reply-To: <001b01c5546f$e70673f0$0307a8c0@david> References: <000201c55429$3c68f170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001b01c5546f$e70673f0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050509094628.02a39920@pop.starpower.net> At 04:20 AM 5/9/05, David wrote: >It is not clear to me that this is the case. >L35A cancels East's X and South's 1S and the auction continues from >East as though they had not been made. >L16 states "Players are authorised to base their calls ... on information >from LEGAL calls....". >The fact that the calls have been withdrawn without penalty does not >make the calls legal and hence they are not authorised to be used >- by either side. IMO, L35A doesn't make the illegal bid "unhappen"; it mandates that it be cancelled without penalty. It is still a withdrawn call, by definition, and L16C still applies. That is is without penalty means that L16C1 rather than L16C2 applies to the side that would otherwise have been considered "offending". Nothing in L16C restricts it only to calls that might incur a penalty. Those who hold the opposite view presumably see some subtle Kaplanesque distinction between a call which is "cancelled" and one which is "withdrawn", but the distinction eludes me. East's double was "withdrawn... by an offending side to rectify an infraction" (albeit without penalty per L35A), and South's 1S call was "withdrawn... by a non-offending side after an opponent's infraction". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 9 16:26:14 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 9 16:25:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple In-Reply-To: <001101c55489$a336d6a0$cf8587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000201c55429$3c68f170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001b01c5546f$e70673f0$0307a8c0@david> <001101c55489$a336d6a0$cf8587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050509100602.031d1eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:25 AM 5/9/05, Grattan wrote: >+=+ But we are to treat the occurrence >as though no irregularity had occurred. >So the preamble to Law 16C is not >satisfied. These are not withdrawn >actions within the terms of Law 16C. +=+ But L35A does not say we are to treat the *occurence* as though no irregularity had occurred. It tells us how to deal with the irregularity, and then tells at that, *after* we have dealt with it, "the auction reverts reverts to the player whose turn it is to call, and proceeds as though there had been no irregularity". "As though there had been no irregularity" is a condition under which the auction "proceeds"; there is nothing to suggest that it applies to what has occurred prior to that point. There can be no dispute that an inadmissable call is an "irregularity". If the effect of applying L35A is that "it never happened", then it is not only the conditions for applying L16C that are not met, but also the conditions for applying L35 itself. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Mon May 9 17:08:12 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon May 9 17:09:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050509100602.031d1eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c554a8$eb768860$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau .............. > There can be no dispute that an inadmissable call is an > "irregularity". If the effect of applying L35A is that "it never > happened", then it is not only the conditions for applying L16C that > are not met, but also the conditions for applying L35 itself. "proceeds as though there had been no irregularity" ! (L35A) There is a difference, and when "there had been no irregularity" there is no cause for any part of L16. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon May 9 17:30:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon May 9 17:31:49 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <001e01c5548d$4c00f420$cf8587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "You have common sense, > that's better than intelligence" > 8 May 2005: Betty's friend, Cathy, > pays her a compliment. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 10:43 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] MI or CPU? > > > > Even if we slide round that we are stymied by > > law 12. In order to adjust (even for one side) > > we need a violation/irregularity - which we lack. > > BTW it makes no sense to talk of "NOS" in this > > scenario since both sides are "NOS". I know > > that if there was a "one-way" adjust that, eg, > > affected the result of a KO event I'd be appealing > > and asking for the legal grounds on which the > > adjustment was made. > > > > Tim > > > +=+ Whilst there is no infraction I think an > irregularity has occurred inasmuch as the > procedure has not fulfilled the requirements > of Law 40. No. The requirements of Law 40 (disclosure as per SO regulations) were met - that's the point. > It is the SO that is at fault, In the sense of regulations being flawed, yes. > of > course, but this does not deny protection > to the damaged side. It seems to me that > there is 'a reasonable possibility' (Law 84E) > that one of the non-offending sides has been > damaged and I think the Director should > adjust - for one side only - and let the AC > pick the bones of it if it goes to appeal. Again L84E requires an irregularity (and implicitly an OS). I am far from convinced that an SO regulation can be termed an irregularity (even though I am also aware that SO regulations can contravene the laws). That said I would not argue if a TD ruled "no adjustment" and sent the issue to appeal himself. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 9 17:23:03 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon May 9 17:34:24 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? References: <427C9267.2090109@hdw.be> <19RlUrOtG2fCFwvA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <002701c554ab$dc95c1f0$519a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "You have common sense, that's better than intelligence" 8 May 2005: Betty's friend, Cathy, pays her a compliment. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Minke" To: Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a card nominated? > > > > The interpretation of L46B that is currently used is > that it defines finished designations that do not follow > L46A, and we should be happy with that, and not > try to introduce inflammatory and unhelpful new > interpretations that do the game no favours. > > -- +=+ My object would be to reaffirm original meanings. +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 9 17:35:26 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 9 17:35:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple In-Reply-To: <000001c554a8$eb768860$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050509100602.031d1eb0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c554a8$eb768860$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050509112611.031d0120@pop.starpower.net> At 11:08 AM 5/9/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau >.............. > > There can be no dispute that an inadmissable call is an > > "irregularity". If the effect of applying L35A is that "it never > > happened", then it is not only the conditions for applying L16C that > > are not met, but also the conditions for applying L35 itself. > >"proceeds as though there had been no irregularity" ! (L35A) > >There is a difference, and when "there had been no irregularity" there >is no >cause for any part of L16. Perhaps it is a subtlety of language, but to "proceed as though X had not happened" implies that X has indeed happened. If the effect of L35A were that no irregularity has occurred, it would say that no irregularity has occurred. It would not tell us to ignore something that didn't happen in order to determine how to "proceed". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon May 9 18:32:39 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon May 9 18:34:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: from "Tim West-Meads" at May 07, 2005 11:12:00 AM Message-ID: <200505091632.j49GWdKd009091@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Tim West-Meads writes: > > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > and you hear one of these auctions: > > > > A) 1H - 1NT - 2H > > B) 1H - 1NT - Double (penalty-oriented) > > C) 1H - 1NT - 2C > > D) 1H - 1NT - A long hesitation, then Pass > > E) 1H - 1NT - Pass in tempo > > a) double, pard has probably psyched but not my problem > b) redouble, pard has probably psyched but not my problem > c) 3C, pard has probably psyched but not my problem (although his not > having a C stop would be) Well on A) I can construct a deal where everybody more or less has their bids (Involves a lightish opening and a Lawful raise, but neither is uncommon) Still. Somebody's very likely to have psyched and it's probably not my RHO. I agree with your calls, but still can't find anything in the laws that constrains you from assuming that partner has psyched. Unless of course you have partnership tendancies like Woolsey/Robinson. Then (in my opinion) you alert the 1NT overcall. (As I've mentioned, it is in practical terms illegal to psyche a 1NT overcall with any frequency in the ACBL. If you alert you'll be ruled to be playing a comic NT -- illegal. And if you don't *then* you have a concealed partnership understanding) > d) pass, pard has probably pscyhed and it *is* my problem. Luckily if pard > has his values then opp probably doesn't have his hesitation. > e) 3N - unless opps play sound opening bids (in which case pard must be > psyching and I pass). > You wouldn't investigate a heart fit? Do you have the tools to do so? I know I couldn't in any partnership I've played in, and it wouldn't shock me to find that opener's 1H was on something like Kxx. Would it make a difference if opener was somebody like Joey Silver or -- select local clever player. From toddz at att.net Mon May 9 20:05:18 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon May 9 20:06:46 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <19RlUrOtG2fCFwvA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <427C9267.2090109@hdw.be> <19RlUrOtG2fCFwvA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <427FA65E.4010106@att.net> Minke wrote: > Ok, we all know that's going too far, but I think you know what I > mean. When a player says "Play the five, no I mean the ace, of clubs" > well over 99% of players assume the ace of clubs is played: only BLs and > certain members of BLML think the C5 is played. The game is much better > served by the ace being played: it is not our job to upset loads of > people unnecessarily. While I agree, this doesn't seem relevant to the current discussion. This is an example of how to deal with inadvertant designations, not incomplete designations. If someone calls for the 5, says 'wait', and then stops to think, the designation is not inadvertant though it is incomplete. I'd personally prefer a rule that works the same way whether there are 0, 1, or more 5's in dummy (interrupted designation is cancelled), but we've got what we have. Declarer has great leeway in not-quite-playing a card from hand. I don't see why the same benefit can't be extended to dummy. -Todd From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon May 9 21:57:32 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon May 9 21:59:26 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b436f8c2a8a456f90bd511066e05838@rochester.rr.com> On May 9, 2005, at 11:30 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Again L84E requires an irregularity (and implicitly an OS). I am far > from > convinced that an SO regulation can be termed an irregularity (even > though > I am also aware that SO regulations can contravene the laws). That > said I > would not argue if a TD ruled "no adjustment" and sent the issue to > appeal > himself. Seems to me this is a matter of law, rather than judgement, in the sense of Law 93. What would you expect an appeals committee to do that the director could not? From twm at cix.co.uk Mon May 9 22:15:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon May 9 22:17:07 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <19RlUrOtG2fCFwvA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Nanki Poo (definitely not a bear, but possibly on behalf of DWS) scritched. > The interpretation of L46B that is currently used is that it defines > finished designations that do not follow L46A, and we should be happy > with that, and not try to introduce inflammatory and unhelpful new > interpretations that do the game no favours. I'm not unhappy with that interpretation providing it is not subject to "change of mind" restrictions. If L46B applies only to "finished designations" then fine (a valid interpretation of what is written). If it applies to all "partial" designations that too is a valid interpretation (albeit potentially inflammatory). What I'm not happy with is any interpretation of L46 that says changes of mind are treated differently to inadvertencies - *that* is not a valid interpretation of the written words. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon May 9 22:15:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon May 9 22:17:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <200505091632.j49GWdKd009091@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads writes: > > > > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > > > and you hear one of these auctions: > > > > > > A) 1H - 1NT - 2H > > > B) 1H - 1NT - Double (penalty-oriented) > > > C) 1H - 1NT - 2C > > > D) 1H - 1NT - A long hesitation, then Pass > > > E) 1H - 1NT - Pass in tempo > > > > a) double, pard has probably psyched but not my problem > > b) redouble, pard has probably psyched but not my problem > > c) 3C, pard has probably psyched but not my problem (although his not > > having a C stop would be) > > Well on A) I can construct a deal where everybody more or > less has their bids (Involves a lightish opening and a Lawful > raise, but neither is uncommon) > > Still. Somebody's very likely to have psyched and it's probably > not my RHO. > > I agree with your calls, but still can't find anything in the > laws that constrains you from assuming that partner has psyched. Because there isn't anything - providing partner has no known (to me) tendencies in this area. There may be constraints on me *bidding* on the assumption that pard has psyched if his tendencies are known - but never on the assumption itself. > Unless of course you have partnership tendancies like > Woolsey/Robinson. Then (in my opinion) you alert the > 1NT overcall. (As I've mentioned, it is in practical > terms illegal to psyche a 1NT overcall with any frequency > in the ACBL. If you alert you'll be ruled to be playing > a comic NT -- illegal. And if you don't *then* you have > a concealed partnership understanding) If I alert, and playing with MadDog I will, I explain that while 1NT cannot systemically be a weak hand he has been known to try it on occasionally at this vul. Any TD who wishes to try and prove "system" rather than "disclosable understanding" is welcome to try:) > > d) pass, pard has probably pscyhed and it *is* my problem. Luckily if > > pard has his values then opp probably doesn't have his hesitation. > > > e) 3N - unless opps play sound opening bids (in which case pard must > > be psyching and I pass). > > > You wouldn't investigate a heart fit? Nope. Even if we have one the H lead against NT and the X I'll get on this auction if opener *has* psyched will be sufficient. I'm redoubling. > Do you have the tools to do so? Probably not, but I'd try if my hand were stronger and opener was "suspect". Tim From svenpran at online.no Mon May 9 23:04:40 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon May 9 23:06:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050509112611.031d0120@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c554da$b78be6d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >.............. > > > There can be no dispute that an inadmissable call is an > > > "irregularity". If the effect of applying L35A is that "it never > > > happened", then it is not only the conditions for applying L16C that > > > are not met, but also the conditions for applying L35 itself. > > > >"proceeds as though there had been no irregularity" ! (L35A) > > > >There is a difference, and when "there had been no irregularity" there > >is no > >cause for any part of L16. > > Perhaps it is a subtlety of language, but to "proceed as though X had > not happened" implies that X has indeed happened. If the effect of > L35A were that no irregularity has occurred, it would say that no > irregularity has occurred. It would not tell us to ignore something > that didn't happen in order to determine how to "proceed". I assume that you are far more competent in the English language than I am but even allowing for that I have a great problem understanding what point you try to raise. Nobody (and particularly not L35A) contest that an irregularity has occurred; in fact there have been two irregularities which is the fact that leads us to L35A. And there is no reason for L35A to pretend that no irregularity had occurred. What L35A clearly states is that the situation shall be resolved by canceling the inadmissible double and all subsequent calls and then let the auction continue (from the last previous legal call) AS THOUGH NO IRREGULARITY HAD OCCURRED! (Sorry for the capitalization, it appears necessary to get emphasis on the important part of L35A). L35A tells us to ignore the irregularities, not to pretend they did not happen. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Sven From XRCUNXMS at succube.com Tue May 10 00:37:39 2005 From: XRCUNXMS at succube.com (Adam Hogan) Date: Mon May 9 23:48:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Skinny, what about that? Message-ID: <139.f4bdd53.3a2b9494@mol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050509/73cadff6/attachment.html From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 10 00:30:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 10 00:31:50 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <427EB3E5.9000608@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > The problem I'm trying to understand is that L40B starts "A player may > not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding > unless...." If you take this part literally, it is the call or play > itself, not the lack of explanation, that is illegal. The relevant sentence is. "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation". So yes an improperly disclosed call is an "infraction". However that is not the same as the call being "illegal". When adjusting we consider probabilities had no infraction occurred. The most probable "no infraction" scenario is "same call properly disclosed". > Well, that too, but I think mainly advance disclosure of various sorts. > If all L40B does is allow alerting, it isn't necessary at all; L80F > would suffice. I don't think that is "all" it does, but it is one of the things it does. I agree an SO could use L80F to the same effect but I see nothing wrong with enshrining "disclosure" within the laws themselves. > Literally L40B allows the SO to require any form of > disclosure the SO thinks fit. Indeed. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 10 00:30:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 10 00:31:53 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <7b436f8c2a8a456f90bd511066e05838@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > Seems to me this is a matter of law, rather than judgement, in the > sense of Law 93. What would you expect an appeals committee to do that > the director could not? Refer the appeal to the L&E committee. Things may vary by SO but, as I understand EBU protocols, the L&EC will not (or is not obliged to) hear cases where there was no appeal of the ruling. Thus the above procedure is the only way to ensure their attention to the matter. There is a refundable deposit in such cases which a referring TD might be obliged to pay - but since an important point of law is involved its return would be expected. On a related note, does anyone know where (if) the appeals from Brighton 2004 have been published? Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue May 10 01:06:31 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue May 10 01:07:52 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? References: <200505082218.j48MIe6r002371@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <427EB3E5.9000608@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 19:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] MI or CPU? > >>Also let's suppose the violations were inadvertent. Now if > >>you rule a L40B violation ... you have to rule the contract back to > >>the one that would "likely" have been reached using ordinary methods. > > > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > > Why? There's a failure to fully explain so I refer to L40c. > > C. Director's Option > > 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. > > There's that, but in the example the failure to explain caused no > damage. Failure to explain is just ordinary MI; I don't think there is > any disagreement what to do when it does cause damage. > > The problem I'm trying to understand is that L40B starts "A player may > not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding > unless...." If you take this part literally, it is the call or play > itself, not the lack of explanation, that is illegal. In my example, it > would be the unalerted bids in the relays. In Albuquerque the failure > was lack of advance disclosure (not strictly an "explanation," but I > suppose the term will stretch), but the adjustment was not one typical > of MI. Instead the pair's whole bidding system was declared illegal, > just as L40B requires. > > > L40B is the one that gives force to SO alerting regulations. > > Well, that too, but I think mainly advance disclosure of various sorts. > If all L40B does is allow alerting, it isn't necessary at all; I know sound roll off the tongue, but I really don't see where that statement came from wrt 40B. However- > L80F would suffice. A reading of 80F says that where regulations are made that they are not to conflict with L1-93. As such, where alerts are concerned they are allowed only where screens are in place; where screens are not in place, alerts are a method of communication [between partners] other than by call or play and that would conflict with L73B1. > Literally L40B allows the SO to require any form of > disclosure the SO thinks fit. Does it really say that? I think not because it does not. It says that players are to comply with [the disclosure] regulations of the SO as a condition for using an agreement for which the opponents are not expected to understand the meaning. The point being that the law says there are restrictions on regulations available to the SO.. regards roger pewick > Anyway, the questions are what > constitutes a violation and what to do when one happens. > > The laws do not directly address the issue of deliberate concealment (a > > form of che*ting) > Indeed. Nor do I wish to address it in this thread. Please consider > that all my posts and examples in this thread deal only with inadvertent > infractions. > From: "Grattan" > > I agree it is not an infraction if disclosure is > > made as the SO requires. However, I think that > > if the disclosure is too late to help their opponents > > and they are damaged, there is nothing in the laws > > to say that 40C does not apply. > > This is an interesting view and one I have not seen before. Are you > saying that it is possible to adjust a score even when there has been no > infraction? That doesn't seem consistent with "only when" in L12A. Or > are you saying that players have an affirmative obligation to disclose, > even when no such obligation is specified by Law or regulation? I > suppose L75A could be interpreted as creating such a requirement, but > it's hard to see where such an obligation would stop short of handing > each opposing side 750 pages of system notes (in an extreme case) plus > perhaps another 1000 pages chronicling partnership experience. > > Let's go back to our relay pair. Suppose they alert properly, but the > SO requires no alerts above 3NT, and none is given. Are the opponents > entitled to redress for the lead-directing double they could have made, > had they understood the relay system? If there's an unlimited, > affirmative responsibility to disclose, I don't see how redress can be > denied. From xbtimga at fsbiz.net Tue May 10 02:14:39 2005 From: xbtimga at fsbiz.net (Denise Terry) Date: Tue May 10 01:18:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Fix your situation Mel Message-ID: <4.4.2.7.2.2005939.00b0a30@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.QUALITY-MORTGAGES.NET/2/index/bvk No other way to so quickly and easily lower your monthly bill payments while putting cash now in your pocket! buxton pr immersion vm [2 From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue May 10 01:39:23 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue May 10 01:40:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <200505091632.j49GWdKd009091@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200505091632.j49GWdKd009091@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050509193630.03128648@mail.comcast.net> At 12:32 PM 5/9/2005, Ron Johnson wrote: >Tim West-Meads writes: > > > > Gordon Bower wrote: [hand deleted: 3-4-4-2 15 count] > > > > and you hear one of these auctions: > > > > > > A) 1H - 1NT - 2H > > > B) 1H - 1NT - Double (penalty-oriented) > > > C) 1H - 1NT - 2C > > > D) 1H - 1NT - A long hesitation, then Pass > > > E) 1H - 1NT - Pass in tempo > > > e) 3N - unless opps play sound opening bids (in which case pard must be > > psyching and I pass). > > >You wouldn't investigate a heart fit? Do you have the tools >to do so? I know I couldn't in any partnership I've played in, >and it wouldn't shock me to find that opener's 1H was on something >like Kxx. Now, suppose that you bid 2C (on auction d or e) to investigate the heart fit in case opener psyched, and it turns out that partner is psyching and he passes your 2C bid. Are you guilty of fielding the psyche when 2C turns out to be better for your side than 3NT (or the 4Cx that partner would have run to?) From schoderb at msn.com Tue May 10 02:19:21 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue May 10 02:20:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple References: <000001c554da$b78be6d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: May be easy for you and me to grasp, but then we are just reading the words and perhaps are not gifted with the professed superb ability to make mountains out of molehills. This is a prime example of where the bridge lawyers are making names for themselves and taking positions that are close to ridiculous. The laws are rife with references to go to for further applications but in this law they carefully not only don't do that, they specifically tell you to stay away from Law 26. It just seems too easy and straightforward to some of our gurus that what to do is specifically spelled out. And "A" of the law covers the exact problem that we are referring to. To those words I've used in the past, claptrap, bullshit, and the like -- please add ridiculous and egocentric blatherings. What makes all this so silly is that most of those postings are by people who, were they to look inward, would find that they know that they are playing word games and are "wrong" (oops there goes another word) as to substance. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 5:04 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Quick and simple > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > >.............. > > > > There can be no dispute that an inadmissable call is an > > > > "irregularity". If the effect of applying L35A is that "it never > > > > happened", then it is not only the conditions for applying L16C that > > > > are not met, but also the conditions for applying L35 itself. > > > > > >"proceeds as though there had been no irregularity" ! (L35A) > > > > > >There is a difference, and when "there had been no irregularity" there > > >is no > > >cause for any part of L16. > > > > Perhaps it is a subtlety of language, but to "proceed as though X had > > not happened" implies that X has indeed happened. If the effect of > > L35A were that no irregularity has occurred, it would say that no > > irregularity has occurred. It would not tell us to ignore something > > that didn't happen in order to determine how to "proceed". > > I assume that you are far more competent in the English language than I am > but even allowing for that I have a great problem understanding what point > you try to raise. > > Nobody (and particularly not L35A) contest that an irregularity has > occurred; in fact there have been two irregularities which is the fact > that > leads us to L35A. And there is no reason for L35A to pretend that no > irregularity had occurred. > > What L35A clearly states is that the situation shall be resolved by > canceling the inadmissible double and all subsequent calls and then let > the > auction continue (from the last previous legal call) AS THOUGH NO > IRREGULARITY HAD OCCURRED! (Sorry for the capitalization, it appears > necessary to get emphasis on the important part of L35A). > > L35A tells us to ignore the irregularities, not to pretend they did not > happen. Why is this so difficult to grasp? > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Tue May 10 02:30:34 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue May 10 02:27:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Now, to fill in the rest of the story. Friday, I posted a hand I held in a recent club game, with 5 hypothetical auctions: > You are South. Matchpoints, West dealer, EW vulnerable. You hold: > > Q J 2 > Q T 7 2 > A Q 8 2 > K 7 > > and you hear one of these auctions: > > A) 1H - 1NT - 2H > B) 1H - 1NT - Double (penalty-oriented) > C) 1H - 1NT - 2C > D) 1H - 1NT - A long hesitation, then Pass > E) 1H - 1NT - Pass in tempo Apparently partner and I have a bit more of a CPU than I thought we did, when it comes to psyching. We do both psych occasionally - records over the past couple years show my frequency around once in 500 hands, his about once in 1500 hands. This is significantly more often than most ACBL pairs, at least in our area. Partner has not, however, ever psyched a 1NT overcall before. We also have an explicit agreement to reply 'as if our partner has his bids so long as it is mathematically possible for the auction to this point to be honest.' At the table, as soon as he bid 1NT, I was more than 90% sure partner had psyched. Had auction "E" happened, I would have fulfilled my legal obligations and raised to 3NT for my zero, despite knowing partner had psyched, since there was some microscopic probability of 11-15-0 points around the table. East started thinking. This got me wondering about case "D." My immediate reaction, in those first five seconds, was that i) East's thinking was AI to me and really ought to be able to be cited as my reason for passing, ii) I would commit suicide with 3NT even after a thoughtful pass, just to avoid a scene at the table; and iii) despite my belief that point i) was vaild, I predicted that the average committee and the average BLMLer would have ruled against me anyway. What actually happened was that East bid 2C after thinking for several seconds. Delighted to be off the hook, I passed, and the full auction at our table was 1H 1NT 2C Pass 2H Pass Pass Pass I wasn't sure if 2H was going to go down or not - suspected it might not - but WAS quite sure that if I doubled my partner was going to pull to a failing contract, and my best chance to go plus was to beat 2H one or two tricks undoubled. Judging from the replies on BLML and privately, most of you think I acted unethically by passing. (Many but not most said it was OK to cater for a psych after A and B; there was difference of opinion on D; but the poll is strongly against allowing me to cater for a psych after C, and even more strongly against E.) So, I've learned two useful things. One, I seem to be more attuned to the possibility of psyching than even a listful of pre-warned directors are; two, I seem to place the cutoff for where it becomes illegal fielding a notch higher than the rest of you do. (I thought A-C were clearly Green, D questionable, E probabily illegal.) Oh, the result on the hand? 2H went off two, for +200 and... a cold zero. Every other E-W in the room had an uncontested auction to either 3NT or 4H, upon which most Souths lowered the axe. Even +500 would have been worth only one measly matchpoint. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue May 10 03:12:43 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue May 10 03:14:39 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0f856bae268ea99236ad1565612d8a4a@rochester.rr.com> On May 9, 2005, at 6:30 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Refer the appeal to the L&E committee. Things may vary by SO but, as I > understand EBU protocols, the L&EC will not (or is not obliged to) hear > cases where there was no appeal of the ruling. Thus the above > procedure > is the only way to ensure their attention to the matter. There is a > refundable deposit in such cases which a referring TD might be obliged > to > pay - but since an important point of law is involved its return would > be > expected. The relevant body in the ACBL is the Laws Commission. I don't know their procedures, nor do I know how they would rule in such a case. Hopefully they would change, or cause to be changed, the relevant regulation(s), but perhaps not. The latter would be most unfortunate. From mustikka at charter.net Tue May 10 03:47:05 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija d) Date: Tue May 10 03:48:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple References: <000001c554a8$eb768860$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000f01c55502$2bbf4ca0$40d5cd18@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 8:08 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Quick and simple > On Behalf Of Eric Landau .............. > There can be no dispute that an inadmissable call is an > "irregularity". If the effect of applying L35A is that "it never > happened", then it is not only the conditions for applying L16C that > are not met, but also the conditions for applying L35 itself. "proceeds as though there had been no irregularity" ! (L35A) There is a difference, and when "there had been no irregularity" there is no cause for any part of L16. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ Aren't all you smart ones overlooking the difference between an irregularity and an infraction? Or am I overlooking something? If there was no irrregularity, why was TD at the table in the first place??? It may not have been an infraction though. blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 10 04:00:17 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 10 04:01:44 2005 Subject: [blml] The Laws of Cricket In-Reply-To: <000c01c5546b$632e26d0$0100000a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In my opinion, some blmlers take the Laws of Bridge way too seriously. In my opinion, a humorous irreverence to the foibles of imperfect humanity interacting with imperfect Laws is a necessary tool for a Director. Cricket umpires and commentators show the same humorous irreverence to the foibles of their imperfect players interacting with their imperfect Laws. An anonymous Aussie source wrote: >Cricketing at its best. > >As the cricket season is just starting over in England, it reminds me of a >time, many years ago, when I used to turn on the old valve radio and >listen to the Ashes Test broadcast from England at some unearthly hour in >the morning. It must have been pretty quiet for the commentators one >particular match. Probably that boring Yorkshire 'blocker' Boycott was >batting I suspect. Anyway, the commentators started up a dialogue whereby >they asked a question about cricket law and then answered it. > >It finally ended up like this: > >First Commentator: "Can a batsman be given 'out, stumped', if his feet are >still behind the batting crease?" > >Second Commentator: "Can't think how that could happen." > >First Commentator: "Well apparently it has happened. At a recent match in >English county cricket, a batman was given out stumped, when both his feet >were still behind the batting crease." > >"Ah! yes", the second bloke says, "I remember that match now. It was a >match for disabled cricketers and as that particular batsman lent forward >to a short ball, the straps on his artificial legs snapped. He fell face >forward onto the pitch, but left his legs still behind the crease. The >ball went through to the keeper who whipped off the bails and appealed. >The umpire gave the batsman out". > >"Yes, and wasn't there something peculiar about the ending of that match >as well?" the first bloke asked. > >"That's right" the second commentator replied. > >"Apparently, the team batting last needed 3 runs to win off the last ball. >As the last ball was bowled, the batsman took an almighty swipe at it and >missed. The impetus of the stroke snapped the straps on his artificial arm >and his bat, with arm still attached, sailed through the air into the >outfield. The wicket keeper fainted at the sight and the ball went through >to the boundary for four, thus winning the match." Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From nepaszolho at inglessinbarreras.com Tue May 10 06:17:15 2005 From: nepaszolho at inglessinbarreras.com (Mohamed Stevens) Date: Tue May 10 05:26:41 2005 Subject: [blml] size does matter! Message-ID: <0.0311.8B8C@mac.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050510/d4631dc2/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 10 06:19:21 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 10 06:20:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower: [snip] >At the table, as soon as he bid 1NT, I was more than 90% sure >partner had psyched. [snip] >So, I've learned two useful things. One, I seem to be more >attuned to the possibility of psyching than even a listful of >pre-warned directors are; [snip] Richard Hills: Even highly infrequent psyches cause problems in regular partnerships; regular partners have the power to correctly interpret microscopic flinches and twitches. That is why the regular partnership of Edgar Kaplan and Alfred Sheinwold abandoned use of psyches; Edgar knew with subconscious certainty whenever Alfred had psyched, and Edgar hated his subsequent ethical problems. Reference: Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink: The power of thinking without thinking". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 10 06:38:37 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 10 06:40:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <9cf2038f8b9ee2ec3bdde9fd90f65c44@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>Therefore, in none of the above auctions is fielding >>partner's psyche a logical alternative [snip] Ed Reppert: >If by "fielding" you mean "making allowances for", then >maybe. If you mean, as some have insisted, that >"fielding" means "making *illegal* allowances for", >then fielding is *never* a logical alternative. Richard Hills: A concealed partnership understanding is always illegal, whether or not the CPU is subsequently fielded by the CPUer's partner. A true psyche is always legal. Subsequent fielding of a true psyche by the true psycher's partner is always legal. Ergo, there can never be illegal allowances made for a true psyche. (However, the sponsoring organisation may prohibit conventions whose main purpose is that of safely revealing whether or not partner's call was a true psyche.) Of course, selecting an illogical alternative which happens to coincidentally field is (by EBU regulation) conclusive evidence that the fielded call was in fact a concealed partnership understanding. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From bleddy at yebox.com Tue May 10 09:34:36 2005 From: bleddy at yebox.com (Cecelia Ruffin) Date: Tue May 10 08:45:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Instant low rates Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.trust1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Louis Dawson to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.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 OBIOSQ at aba-abogadas.com Tue May 10 09:57:50 2005 From: OBIOSQ at aba-abogadas.com (Eddie Miller) Date: Tue May 10 09:08:38 2005 Subject: [blml] 1 a day sexual health dynamo Message-ID: <0.48562.3132363037393934.7@ientrynetwork.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050510/ec7de457/attachment.html From kosakowski at doramail.com Tue May 10 10:31:12 2005 From: kosakowski at doramail.com (Antony Pacheco) Date: Tue May 10 09:40:21 2005 Subject: [blml] You've been selected for a low rate Message-ID: <118541.5824.kosakowski@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.trust1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Dean Richard to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.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 svenpran at online.no Tue May 10 09:47:00 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue May 10 09:48:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c55534$7355f280$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > May be easy for you and me to grasp, but then we > are just reading the words and perhaps are not > gifted with the professed superb ability to make > mountains out of molehills. This is a prime example > of where the bridge lawyers are making names for > themselves and taking positions that are close to > to ridiculous. The laws are rife with references > to go to for further applications but in this law > they carefully not only don't do that, they specifically > tell you to stay away from Law 26. It just seems too easy > and straightforward to some of our gurus that what to > do is specifically spelled out. And "A" of the law covers > the exact problem that we are referring to. ............. > Kojak I believe what is overlooked by too many in this thread is that when there is a case involving "foul" from both sides the laws simply advice us to get back to playing bridge as best we can. We have recently seen the same principle applied when a revoke by one player was followed by another revoke from an opponent in the same trick. If I remember correct this was the matter in a WBFLC minute which simply stated that play should continue "as though no irregularity had taken place". This principle is indeed consistent with Law 11A just to mention one. Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 10 11:59:49 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue May 10 12:39:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple References: <000001c55534$7355f280$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000d01c5554b$dc438d90$d5b787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* The current target in preparing the next code of laws for duplicate bridge is to have them approved by the WBF Executive Council in Estoril, November 5th 2005.- for imposition sometime convenient in 2006. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 8:47 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Quick and simple I believe what is overlooked by too many in this thread is that when there is a case involving "foul" from both sides the laws simply advice us to get back to playing bridge as best we can. +=+ There is good news. In their earliest meetings the WBF Drafting Subcommittee settled a principle that it would aim as far as possible to allow hands to be played out so that a bridge result could be obtained. There is bad news. In Monaco we arrived in a position where considerable steps had been taken in this direction. In Istanbul a few of these steps were retraced, certain colleagues having developed angst in treading the high ground. There is good news. We are in the final convulsions of our task, we believe, and the good guys are still working with that early intention. But not quick, not simple, and for sure not sure. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 10 12:32:57 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue May 10 12:39:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? References: Message-ID: <000e01c5554b$dd476900$d5b787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* The current target in preparing the next code of laws for duplicate bridge is to have them approved by the WBF Executive Council in Estoril, November 5th 2005.- for imposition sometime convenient in 2006. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fielding or not? > >. We also have an explicit agreement to reply 'as if > our partner has his bids so long as it is mathematically > possible for the auction to this point to be honest.' > +=+ Which, no doubt, you disclose to opponents. However, I do not regard the position as satisfactory. You also need evidence that it must be partner and not opponent who has psyched to allow you off the hook. I for one, having heard your disclosure, would be encouraged to find opportunity to psyche against you in a position where you could believe it was your partner who had psyched. In my long experience of psyching I have found that it often works best against regular psychers. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 10 14:03:31 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 10 14:03:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Quick and simple In-Reply-To: <000001c554da$b78be6d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050509112611.031d0120@pop.starpower.net> <000001c554da$b78be6d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050510074655.02af5b20@pop.starpower.net> At 05:04 PM 5/9/05, Sven wrote: >Nobody (and particularly not L35A) contest that an irregularity has >occurred; in fact there have been two irregularities which is the fact >that >leads us to L35A. And there is no reason for L35A to pretend that no >irregularity had occurred. > >What L35A clearly states is that the situation shall be resolved by >canceling the inadmissible double and all subsequent calls and then >let the >auction continue (from the last previous legal call) AS THOUGH NO >IRREGULARITY HAD OCCURRED! (Sorry for the capitalization, it appears >necessary to get emphasis on the important part of L35A). > >L35A tells us to ignore the irregularities, not to pretend they did not >happen. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Got me! But it appears to elude those who would argue (I am not among them) that L16C does not apply to the withdrawn cards on the grounds that per L35A "there was no infraction". North has violated L19A, and cards have been withdrawn to rectify that infraction; that's just the facts, and they are not affected by L35A's telling us that the subsequent auction continues as though there had been no irregularity. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue May 10 16:16:51 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue May 10 16:18:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <000e01c5554b$dd476900$d5b787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from "Grattan Endicott" at May 10, 2005 11:32:57 AM Message-ID: <200505101416.j4AEGpgm013326@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Grattan Endicott writes: > > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > The current target in preparing > the next code of laws for duplicate > bridge is to have them approved by > the WBF Executive Council in Estoril, > November 5th 2005.- for imposition > sometime convenient in 2006. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gordon Bower" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:30 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Fielding or not? > > > > > >. We also have an explicit agreement to reply 'as if > > our partner has his bids so long as it is mathematically > > possible for the auction to this point to be honest.' > > > +=+ Which, no doubt, you disclose to opponents. > However, I do not regard the position as satisfactory. > You also need evidence that it must be partner and not > opponent who has psyched to allow you off the hook. Why? What part of the laws do you cite for this position? > I for one, having heard your disclosure, would be > encouraged to find opportunity to psyche against you > in a position where you could believe it was your > partner who had psyched. In my long experience of > psyching I have found that it often works best against > regular psychers. I think it was Al Roth who gave that as the reason for cutting back (to roughly zero) the frequency of his psyches) From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Tue May 10 16:20:53 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Tue May 10 16:23:46 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: References: <7b436f8c2a8a456f90bd511066e05838@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >Ed wrote: > >> Seems to me this is a matter of law, rather than judgement, in the >> sense of Law 93. What would you expect an appeals committee to do that >> the director could not? > >Refer the appeal to the L&E committee. Things may vary by SO but, as I >understand EBU protocols, the L&EC will not (or is not obliged to) hear >cases where there was no appeal of the ruling. Thus the above procedure >is the only way to ensure their attention to the matter. There is a >refundable deposit in such cases which a referring TD might be obliged to >pay - but since an important point of law is involved its return would be >expected. > >On a related note, does anyone know where (if) the appeals from Brighton >2004 have been published? Not yet done. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Tue May 10 16:21:59 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Tue May 10 16:24:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: References: <9cf2038f8b9ee2ec3bdde9fd90f65c44@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Hi >Richard Hills: > >A concealed partnership understanding is always illegal, >whether or not the CPU is subsequently fielded by the >CPUer's partner. > >A true psyche is always legal. Subsequent fielding of a >true psyche by the true psycher's partner is always >legal. First, the word 'fielding' in the most common parlance means 'illegally allowing for ...' so the above paragraph is logically impossible. Second, a true psyche is not always legal: the Law book makes that clear. It permits a psyche per l40 subject to {...} and if if it is subject to then it is not always legal. >Ergo, there can never be illegal allowances made for a >true psyche. Maybe it follows, but the premises are wrong, and the logic is wrong, so the conclusions seem irrelevant. > (However, the sponsoring organisation may >prohibit conventions whose main purpose is that of >safely revealing whether or not partner's call was a >true psyche.) True, and nothing to do with anything. >Of course, selecting an illogical alternative which >happens to coincidentally field is (by EBU regulation) >conclusive evidence that the fielded call was in fact a >concealed partnership understanding. Why mis-quote EBU regs to come to a different conclusion from the reg? It is not conclusive of anything. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue May 10 16:27:04 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue May 10 16:28:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at May 10, 2005 02:19:21 PM Message-ID: <200505101427.j4AER4JC013398@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > Gordon Bower: > > [snip] > > >At the table, as soon as he bid 1NT, I was more than 90% sure > >partner had psyched. > > [snip] > > >So, I've learned two useful things. One, I seem to be more > >attuned to the possibility of psyching than even a listful of > >pre-warned directors are; > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Even highly infrequent psyches cause problems in regular > partnerships; regular partners have the power to correctly > interpret microscopic flinches and twitches. That is why the > regular partnership of Edgar Kaplan and Alfred Sheinwold > abandoned use of psyches; Edgar knew with subconscious certainty > whenever Alfred had psyched, and Edgar hated his subsequent > ethical problems. And *that's* an argument I'll buy. None of the nonsense about concealed partnership understandings that so many use in the campaign to drive psyches from the game. It's the use of UI (even if you could never articulate why you knew.) that's the problem. Of course any regular partnership faces this issue all the time. Practically everybody has tells, and over time you get a really good feel for partner. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 10 17:22:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 10 17:23:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050509193630.03128648@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: David Grabiner wrote: > Now, suppose that you bid 2C (on auction d or e) to investigate the > heart fit in case opener psyched, and it turns out that partner is > psyching and he passes your 2C bid. Were I playing "system on" after a 1N overcall then I'd bid 2C. It looks like a normal bid (and the original post stipulated I knew nothing special about pard's habits). However, one can't play "system on" if partner is known to favour the occasional psyched 1N overcall since Stayman/Transfers in this situation then act as (illegal in EBU and other SOs) psychic controls. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 10 17:22:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 10 17:23:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <200505101416.j4AEGpgm013326@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > >. We also have an explicit agreement to reply 'as if > > > our partner has his bids so long as it is mathematically > > > possible for the auction to this point to be honest.' > > > > > +=+ Which, no doubt, you disclose to opponents. Is it permissible to disclose this agreement on the CC in EBU land, or should it only be disclosed in answer to questions? > > However, I do not regard the position as satisfactory. > > You also need evidence that it must be partner and not > > opponent who has psyched to allow you off the hook. Why? Assuming one's understanding of partner's psyching habits is "nothing special" one may make the same judgements as one would were partner a stranger (balance of probabilities based on vulnerability/ auction). Presenting the hand to a peer group in the form "Playing with a pick-up partner who seems reasonably competent holding , what's your call?" should get one a selection of "normal" bids. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 10 17:52:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 10 17:53:34 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nanki Poo clawed: > >On a related note, does anyone know where (if) the appeals from > Brighton 2004 have been published? > > Not yet done. Thanks for the info, hopefully DWS will reward you with some cream. Tim From svenpran at online.no Tue May 10 18:11:33 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue May 10 18:12:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <200505101427.j4AER4JC013398@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <000001c5557a$ef81f610$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ron Johnson ............... > > Even highly infrequent psyches cause problems in regular > > partnerships; regular partners have the power to correctly > > interpret microscopic flinches and twitches. That is why the > > regular partnership of Edgar Kaplan and Alfred Sheinwold > > abandoned use of psyches; Edgar knew with subconscious certainty > > whenever Alfred had psyched, and Edgar hated his subsequent > > ethical problems. > > And *that's* an argument I'll buy. None of the nonsense about > concealed partnership understandings that so many use in the > campaign to drive psyches from the game. Me too. But I would like to quote from a Norwegian book on Bridge issued in 1946 where the player (and writer) Knut Palmstr?m tells: Begin quote: My LHO opened third hand with 1Cl and partner bid 1NT which was followed by a double from my RHO. With J T x x x x, Q J x x x x, void and x I hardly needed any consideration to bid 2H in the firm belief that partner had made a slight psyche (which did indeed happen every now and then). 2H it was, a Diamond was led and partner spread: A K x, A x x, A x x, Q x x x No way of avoiding all thirteen tricks! This time it was my LHO who was the "culprit" with a result exceeding all expectations. End quote. With a genuine psyche you should (almost) never be able to tell for sure! Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 10 18:30:03 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue May 10 18:36:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? References: <200505101416.j4AEGpgm013326@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <005201c5557d$a2d554d0$e7844c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* The current target in preparing the next code of laws for duplicate bridge is to have them approved by the WBF Executive Council in Estoril, November 5th 2005.- for imposition sometime convenient in 2006. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fielding or not? > Grattan Endicott writes: > > > > > > from Grattan Endicott > > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > > ******************************* > > The current target in preparing > > the next code of laws for duplicate > > bridge is to have them approved by > > the WBF Executive Council in Estoril, > > November 5th 2005.- for imposition > > sometime convenient in 2006. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Gordon Bower" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:30 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Fielding or not? > > > > > > > > > >. We also have an explicit agreement to reply 'as if > > > our partner has his bids so long as it is mathematically > > > possible for the auction to this point to be honest.' > > > > > +=+ Which, no doubt, you disclose to opponents. > > However, I do not regard the position as satisfactory. > > You also need evidence that it must be partner and not > > opponent who has psyched to allow you off the hook. > > > Why? What part of the laws do you cite for this position? > +=+ Well, tell me on what you are basing the recognition of (specifically) partner's psyche - the legal auction? opponents mannerism? or is it partner's habitual violations? If the last, have you disclosed the implicit understanding? and is your system then in conformity with regulation? The fact that we know a psyche has occurred is not of itself evidence that it is partner, not opponent, who has psyched. +=+ From JDQVWJ at myhomemove.com Tue May 10 23:26:08 2005 From: JDQVWJ at myhomemove.com (Luella Petty) Date: Tue May 10 22:27:57 2005 Subject: [blml] It doesn`t hurt to check Bert Message-ID: <20140401965750.A31560@xearthlink.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: Bert To: gibberish1@msn.com ; inventiveaqua@yahoo.com ; Dear Homeowner, Mortgage. You have been pre-approved. You can get $243,000 for as little as $232 a month, thanks to your pre-approval. Visit us, Fill out the form, no obligation Pull cash out, or refinance.. No long forms or quastionnaires. Fill up our extremely short and simple form today and get a call back within a couple of hours. Start saving now, click that link: http://www.123-refinancing.com/2/index/bvk thaw bng cancellate vl doe sqh hobbyhorse fsh ether srb forgave ir misanthropic xk ruminant bfy merriment brd renault dy kinshasha rlg numerology jr coolidge qb amputate srp http://123-refinancing.com/rem.php From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 11 00:52:30 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 11 00:53:42 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Thanks to the ACBL reg, an ACBL TD now can rule against >>such cheats without fear of being sued for defamation. Ed Reppert: >He can also rule against somebody who didn't cheat at all. Richard Hills: So what? The ACBL regulation requiring partnerships to have an agreement in a "to be expected" auction seems to me to be a valid exercise of regulatory power under the provisions of Law 74B1: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from paying insufficient attention to the game." Suppose that a non-cheating expert partnership has agreed to adopt a conventional defence to an opening bid 1NT, which is a 2D call promising *either* hearts *or* spades. Suppose that the partner of the opening bidder chooses a "to be expected" call of doubling 2D. If the non-cheating expert partnership have not come to an agreement as to whether responding 2H to 2D after a double is: (a) natural, or (b) pass-or-correct, then their "paying insufficient attention to the game" discourteous failure to come to an agreement could make it more difficult for the opponents to sensibly deduce their best subsequent actions. David Berkowitz and Larry Cohen were discourteous to their opponents (Doug Doub and Adam Wildavsky) in the semi-final of the Reisinger Teams. Although Berkowitz-Cohen are demonstrably non-cheats, the Appeals Committee correctly fined them a procedural penalty for their "undiscussed" inaction. Meanwhile, cheats get the same procedural penalty for a deliberate lie of "undiscussed" when the cheats actually have discussed a "to be expected" agreement. Cheats realise that crime does not pay, so stop giving lying MI of "undiscussed" in future. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 11 01:31:29 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 11 01:32:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Minke purred: >First, the word 'fielding' in the most common parlance >means 'illegally allowing for ...' so the above >paragraph is logically impossible. [snip] Richard purrs: Common parlance differs between communities. In feline common parlance, "fielding" and "illegal fielding" are synonyms. In Canberra common parlance "fielding" has two subsets, "legal fielding" and "illegal fielding". Because common parlance differs between communities, the 1997 Laws include a first chapter with definitions, so that directors in different communities can parlay in common. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 11 03:21:59 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 11 03:23:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050509085920.02a39eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >I read the EBLLERRC's quoted position as consistent >with the interpretation I have been arguing in favor of [snip] >key phrases as "grossly abnormal action", "potentially collusive", "grotesque psyche" and "strong smell"! To >me, it is characteristics such as these which create a >L72B1 offense. I interpret the intent of the authors [snip] >"to give the director a... widely drawn resource if... >*he thought collusion or malice may have been present* >[emphasis mine]" but "had no clear evidence that the >irregularity was not inadvertent". Those who take the >opposite view reject the notion that the words [snip] >which I have chosen to emphasize belong there at all. Richard Hills: The words that Eric has emphasised are not in the text of Law 72B1. As a TD, I take a black-letter lawyer approach to Law 72B1. As TD, I do not consider whether the offending side are collusive malicious cheats or whether the offending side are coincidentally lucky rueful rabbits. If: (a) an offending player has deliberately perpetrated an Alcatraz Coup as a malicious cheat, or (b) an offending player has coincidentally stumbled with a lucky revoke as a rueful rabbit, then both the malicious cheat and the rueful rabbit receive identical rulings from me. In my opinion, any interpretation of Law 72B1 which causes a TD to give differential rulings distinguishing between malicious cheats and rueful rabbits is a very dangerous approach. In my opinion, determining the intent of the offending player and/or the offending side is directly contrary to the actual black-letter words "could have known". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 11 03:27:13 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 11 03:28:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? References: Message-ID: <006501c555c8$90475020$099868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > Common parlance differs between communities. In feline > common parlance, "fielding" and "illegal fielding" are > synonyms. In Canberra common parlance "fielding" has > two subsets, "legal fielding" and "illegal fielding". > Because common parlance differs between communities, > the 1997 Laws include a first chapter with definitions, > so that directors in different communities can parlay > in common. INigel] I can't find a defintion of fielding in TFLB but I agree that fielding need not be an infraction. I prefer this version of Richard's definitions: PSYCHE: call, departing from declared/disclosed system. MAXI-psyche: call, grossly departing .... MINI-psyche: call, slightly ... FIELD: psyche that appears to allow for partner's previous psyche on the same hand. IMO a field does not necessarily imply a concealed partnership understanding; it may be just a lucky coincidence; but the law should still treat it as an infraction - unless authorised information makes it obvious that it is partner - not an opponent - who has psyched. PSEUDO-psyche: a psyche or mini-psyche that is the subject of an explicit or implicit partnership agreement. Unfortunately "pseudo-psyche" is really a useless term because, normally, the director can be sure of a "pseudo-psyche" only if the perpetrator admits it; and many directors are wary of accusing a pair of a concealed partnership understanding, simply on circumstantial evidence. From YPHKPIUUIRTZT at netscape.net Wed May 11 06:02:28 2005 From: YPHKPIUUIRTZT at netscape.net (Jodie Good) Date: Wed May 11 05:03:50 2005 Subject: [blml] C$ALIS SOFT moan Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 9037 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050511/c0a77893/attachment.jpe From ymons at didamail.com Wed May 11 06:00:46 2005 From: ymons at didamail.com (Colleen Jacob) Date: Wed May 11 05:06:48 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.trust1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Noelle Purvis to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.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 Wed May 11 06:01:04 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 11 06:02:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <006501c555c8$90475020$099868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >I can't find a definition of fielding in TFLB [snip] >I prefer this version of Richard's definitions: > >PSYCHE: call, departing from declared/disclosed system. > >MAXI-psyche: call, grossly departing .... > >MINI-psyche: call, slightly ... [snip] Richard Hills: Nigel may prefer those definitions, but TFLB *does* have a definition of Psychic Call: "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length." Nigel's proposed definitions are therefore inadequate. By ignoring the word "deliberate", he lumps misbids in with psyches. And by ignoring the word "gross" he classifies non-psyches as psyches. For a deliberate but non-gross or slight misstatement, the EBU White Book uses a much more apposite term of "deviation". EBU White Book (TD Guide) clause 40.1.2: >>A player who shows a seven-card suit with only six, >>has not psyched, nor has a player who opens a 12-14 >>HCP 1NT with only 11 HCP. This is called a >>deviation (see Orange book). Repeated instances of >>such circumstances become partnership understandings >>if partner knows they happen. Then they must be >>disclosed, and if not permitted must not be repeated. >> >>In August 2000, the WBFLC said >> >>"a partnership understanding exists when the >>frequency of occurrence is sufficient for the partner >>of a psycher to take his awareness of psychic >>possibilities into account, whether he does so or >>not." Richard Hills: Note the final phrase "whether he does so or not". A player's illegal fielding is not intrinsically an infraction; it was the earlier illegal call by their partner which was the infraction. So, avoiding an illegal field does not mitigate their partner's earlier infraction. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From menlo at didamail.com Wed May 11 10:22:50 2005 From: menlo at didamail.com (Robbie Ware) Date: Wed May 11 09:36:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Save hundreds every month on 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.trust1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Sasha Payne to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.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 erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Wed May 11 10:26:27 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Wed May 11 09:43:38 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? References: Message-ID: <000001c55604$d4a70260$f98b84d9@mycomputer> Hi How many players of the stature of Berkowitz and Cohen How many thousands that have the time ability and will to discuss all possible [for them] auctions what about the millions playing for fun who are not interested [or even able] in those discussions. Is anybody forbidding them to play in tournaments or will the TD brand them as cheats. All the best Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] MI or CPU? > > > > > Richard Hills: > > >>Thanks to the ACBL reg, an ACBL TD now can rule against > >>such cheats without fear of being sued for defamation. > > Ed Reppert: > > >He can also rule against somebody who didn't cheat at all. > > Richard Hills: > > So what? The ACBL regulation requiring partnerships to > have an agreement in a "to be expected" auction seems to > me to be a valid exercise of regulatory power under the > provisions of Law 74B1: > > "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from > paying insufficient attention to the game." > > Suppose that a non-cheating expert partnership has agreed > to adopt a conventional defence to an opening bid 1NT, > which is a 2D call promising *either* hearts *or* spades. > > Suppose that the partner of the opening bidder chooses a > "to be expected" call of doubling 2D. If the non-cheating > expert partnership have not come to an agreement as to > whether responding 2H to 2D after a double is: > > (a) natural, > > or > > (b) pass-or-correct, > > then their "paying insufficient attention to the game" > discourteous failure to come to an agreement could make it > more difficult for the opponents to sensibly deduce their > best subsequent actions. > > David Berkowitz and Larry Cohen were discourteous to their > opponents (Doug Doub and Adam Wildavsky) in the semi-final > of the Reisinger Teams. Although Berkowitz-Cohen are > demonstrably non-cheats, the Appeals Committee correctly > fined them a procedural penalty for their "undiscussed" > inaction. > > Meanwhile, cheats get the same procedural penalty for a > deliberate lie of "undiscussed" when the cheats actually > have discussed a "to be expected" agreement. Cheats > realise that crime does not pay, so stop giving lying MI > of "undiscussed" in future. > > What's the problem? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Wed May 11 10:26:27 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Wed May 11 09:43:40 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? References: Message-ID: <000001c55604$d4a70260$f98b84d9@mycomputer> Hi How many players of the stature of Berkowitz and Cohen How many thousands that have the time ability and will to discuss all possible [for them] auctions what about the millions playing for fun who are not interested [or even able] in those discussions. Is anybody forbidding them to play in tournaments or will the TD brand them as cheats. All the best Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] MI or CPU? > > > > > Richard Hills: > > >>Thanks to the ACBL reg, an ACBL TD now can rule against > >>such cheats without fear of being sued for defamation. > > Ed Reppert: > > >He can also rule against somebody who didn't cheat at all. > > Richard Hills: > > So what? The ACBL regulation requiring partnerships to > have an agreement in a "to be expected" auction seems to > me to be a valid exercise of regulatory power under the > provisions of Law 74B1: > > "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from > paying insufficient attention to the game." > > Suppose that a non-cheating expert partnership has agreed > to adopt a conventional defence to an opening bid 1NT, > which is a 2D call promising *either* hearts *or* spades. > > Suppose that the partner of the opening bidder chooses a > "to be expected" call of doubling 2D. If the non-cheating > expert partnership have not come to an agreement as to > whether responding 2H to 2D after a double is: > > (a) natural, > > or > > (b) pass-or-correct, > > then their "paying insufficient attention to the game" > discourteous failure to come to an agreement could make it > more difficult for the opponents to sensibly deduce their > best subsequent actions. > > David Berkowitz and Larry Cohen were discourteous to their > opponents (Doug Doub and Adam Wildavsky) in the semi-final > of the Reisinger Teams. Although Berkowitz-Cohen are > demonstrably non-cheats, the Appeals Committee correctly > fined them a procedural penalty for their "undiscussed" > inaction. > > Meanwhile, cheats get the same procedural penalty for a > deliberate lie of "undiscussed" when the cheats actually > have discussed a "to be expected" agreement. Cheats > realise that crime does not pay, so stop giving lying MI > of "undiscussed" in future. > > What's the problem? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 11 09:40:21 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 11 10:07:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <006501c555c8$90475020$099868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Unfortunately "pseudo-psyche" is really a useless term >because, normally, the director can be sure of a >"pseudo-psyche" only if the perpetrator admits it; and >many directors are wary of accusing a pair of a >concealed partnership understanding, simply on >circumstantial evidence. Richard Hills: In my experience as a player, sometime director, and sometime appeals panellist, this is not a problem In my experience, a fielder usually admits that they are well aware of their partner's history of calls which are contrary to the explicitly agreed partnership system. In my experience, it would be usually be futile for a fielder to deny knowledge of their partner's history of calls, since psyches or pseudo-psyches are usually spectacular successes or flabbergasting failures, thus the history of the fielder's partner is usually known to all and sundry (including usually being known to the TD and the AC). In my experience, a fielder usually argues that it was authorised information which made their fielding their only logical alternative. In my experience, the fielder is usually incorrect in so arguing that their fielding was their only logical alternative, because their argument is irrelevant. In my experience, it is the fielder's failure to give prior disclosure of an implicit partnership agreement which is usually the relevant infraction, with the subsequent fielding merely icing on the cake. And in my experience, the TD and the AC usually have no difficulty in consequently determining that a Law 40B infraction has occurred. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed May 11 10:47:31 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed May 11 10:49:26 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 10, 2005, at 6:52 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > What's the problem? There are two. First, I read Law 74B1 as referring to what's going on at the table, not what did or did not go on before the session. I think calling failure to have discussed a particular auction "paying insufficient attention to the game" is a rather large stretch. Second, where in the laws does it say a pair must needs discuss any particular auction prior to play? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed May 11 10:50:56 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed May 11 10:52:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3b4f4d707a64fb885ae5f9437e7e74d2@rochester.rr.com> On May 10, 2005, at 12:38 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Of course, selecting an illogical alternative which > happens to coincidentally field is (by EBU regulation) > conclusive evidence that the fielded call was in fact a > concealed partnership understanding. "Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one." -- Abraham Lincoln Besides, that regulation is only applicable in the EBU. From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Wed May 11 02:24:16 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed May 11 11:02:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Is this correct? Message-ID: <1115771056.25776.46975.sendUpdate@mx.plaxo.com> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: David Stevenson.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 422 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050511/e37487cb/DavidStevenson-0001.vcf From twm at cix.co.uk Wed May 11 11:55:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed May 11 11:56:41 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RJH wrote: > So what? The ACBL regulation requiring partnerships to > have an agreement in a "to be expected" auction seems to > me to be a valid exercise of regulatory power under the > provisions of Law 74B1: > > "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from > paying insufficient attention to the game." That is law 74b1. There are no "regulatory powers" attached to it. > Suppose that the partner of the opening bidder chooses a > "to be expected" call of doubling 2D. If the non-cheating > expert partnership have not come to an agreement as to > whether responding 2H to 2D after a double is: > > (a) natural, or (b) pass-or-correct So what? They can, if they so choose, agree that it is logically either natural or P/C and needs no further discussion. How this, perfectly regulatory compliant, agreement is any more helpful to opps I can't imagine. If one wishes to agree to an ambiguous system one may - the system isn't there to help opps after all. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 11 13:51:49 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 11 13:51:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <005201c5557d$a2d554d0$e7844c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200505101416.j4AEGpgm013326@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <005201c5557d$a2d554d0$e7844c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050511074426.02b1d4a0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:30 PM 5/10/05, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Well, tell me on what you are basing the recognition of >(specifically) partner's psyche - the legal auction? opponents >mannerism? or is it partner's habitual violations? If the last, >have you disclosed the implicit understanding? and is your >system then in conformity with regulation? > The fact that we know a psyche has occurred is not >of itself evidence that it is partner, not opponent, who has > psyched. +=+ If the auction makes it clear that there has been a psych, but does not make it apparent whether it is partner or an opponent who has perpetrated it, one's natural instinct as a bridge player will be to make the call that does the best job of catering to either possibility. Is this considered fielding? If so, would that not mean that one is required to bid as though no psych had occurred, even though the fact that there was a psych would have been obvious to Mrs. Guggenheim? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 11 14:13:13 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 11 14:13:54 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050511075620.02b22eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:52 PM 5/10/05, richard.hills wrote: >Richard Hills: > > >>Thanks to the ACBL reg, an ACBL TD now can rule against > >>such cheats without fear of being sued for defamation. > >Ed Reppert: > > >He can also rule against somebody who didn't cheat at all. > >Richard Hills: > >So what? The ACBL regulation requiring partnerships to >have an agreement in a "to be expected" auction seems to >me to be a valid exercise of regulatory power under the >provisions of Law 74B1: > >"As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from >paying insufficient attention to the game." > >Suppose that a non-cheating expert partnership has agreed >to adopt a conventional defence to an opening bid 1NT, >which is a 2D call promising *either* hearts *or* spades. > >Suppose that the partner of the opening bidder chooses a >"to be expected" call of doubling 2D. If the non-cheating >expert partnership have not come to an agreement as to >whether responding 2H to 2D after a double is: > >(a) natural, > >or > >(b) pass-or-correct, > >then their "paying insufficient attention to the game" >discourteous failure to come to an agreement could make it >more difficult for the opponents to sensibly deduce their >best subsequent actions. > >David Berkowitz and Larry Cohen were discourteous to their >opponents (Doug Doub and Adam Wildavsky) in the semi-final >of the Reisinger Teams. Although Berkowitz-Cohen are >demonstrably non-cheats, the Appeals Committee correctly >fined them a procedural penalty for their "undiscussed" >inaction. > >Meanwhile, cheats get the same procedural penalty for a >deliberate lie of "undiscussed" when the cheats actually >have discussed a "to be expected" agreement. Cheats >realise that crime does not pay, so stop giving lying MI >of "undiscussed" in future. > >What's the problem? The problem, as I imagine Berkowitz and Cohen discovered to their dismay, is that the ACBL has decreed that partnerships must have agreements about "to be expected" auctions, but have not told us what those auctions are. This becomes a very serious problem in practice when TDs and ACs feel free to draw the line wherever they're inclined to at the moment. My personal view of where to draw the line sensibly tells me that the ACBL regulation imposes no new requirements, but rather merely makes explicit an implicit requirement that already existed as a consequence of the regulation requiring partnerships to have convention cards which have been filled out correctly and completely. For the regulation to make sense in practice, there must be something somewhere that tells players what auctions it applies to, and, absent any alternative, the convention card serves that purpose quite well. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 11 11:42:37 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 11 14:34:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? References: Message-ID: <00a201c5560d$c4b4e440$129868d5@James> [Richard Hills] > In my experience as a player, sometime director, and > sometime appeals panellist, this is not a problem > In my experience, a fielder usually admits that they > are well aware of their partner's history of calls which > are contrary to the explicitly agreed partnership system. > In my experience, it would be usually be futile for a > fielder to deny knowledge of their partner's history of > calls, since psyches or pseudo-psyches are usually > spectacular successes or flabbergasting failures, thus > the history of the fielder's partner is usually known to > all and sundry (including usually being known to the TD > and the AC). > In my experience, a fielder usually argues that it was > authorised information which made their fielding their > only logical alternative. > In my experience, the fielder is usually incorrect in so > arguing that their fielding was their only logical > alternative, because their argument is irrelevant. In my > experience, it is the fielder's failure to give prior > disclosure of an implicit partnership agreement which is > usually the relevant infraction, with the subsequent > fielding merely icing on the cake. > And in my experience, the TD and the AC usually have no > difficulty in consequently determining that a Law 40B > infraction has occurred. [Nigel] As I said before, this is circumstantial evidence. Some BLML directors seem to balk at circumstantial evidence (because it *could* be a coincidence). I agree with Richard, however, that they should be happy to rule on the basis of circumstantial evidence. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 11 14:35:54 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 11 14:35:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050509085920.02a39eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050511082408.02b23b00@pop.starpower.net> At 09:21 PM 5/10/05, richard.hills wrote: >Eric Landau: > >[snip] > > >I read the EBLLERRC's quoted position as consistent > >with the interpretation I have been arguing in favor of > >[snip] > > >key phrases as "grossly abnormal action", "potentially >collusive", "grotesque psyche" and "strong smell"! To > >me, it is characteristics such as these which create a > >L72B1 offense. I interpret the intent of the authors > >[snip] > > >"to give the director a... widely drawn resource if... > >*he thought collusion or malice may have been present* > >[emphasis mine]" but "had no clear evidence that the > >irregularity was not inadvertent". Those who take the > >opposite view reject the notion that the words > >[snip] > > >which I have chosen to emphasize belong there at all. > >Richard Hills: > >The words that Eric has emphasised are not in the text >of Law 72B1. As a TD, I take a black-letter lawyer >approach to Law 72B1. > >As TD, I do not consider whether the offending side are >collusive malicious cheats or whether the offending >side are coincidentally lucky rueful rabbits. > >If: > >(a) an offending player has deliberately perpetrated an >Alcatraz Coup as a malicious cheat, > >or > >(b) an offending player has coincidentally stumbled >with a lucky revoke as a rueful rabbit, > >then both the malicious cheat and the rueful rabbit >receive identical rulings from me. In my opinion, any >interpretation of Law 72B1 which causes a TD to give >differential rulings distinguishing between malicious >cheats and rueful rabbits is a very dangerous approach. > >In my opinion, determining the intent of the offending >player and/or the offending side is directly contrary >to the actual black-letter words "could have known". But the word "could" has more than one definition. Could I have been playing bridge last night? A priori (as of yesterday afternoon), yes. A posteriori (as of right now), no. If my logic professor asks me, I will say yes. If the policeman investigating the nasty incident at last night's game asks me, I will say no. In both cases, I will have taken the word "could" in the sense in which it was intended. The actual black-letter words "could have known" do not suffice to tell us which definition of the word "could" was intended by the lawmakers. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From minke2 at blakjak.com Wed May 11 16:57:13 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Wed May 11 16:59:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <3b4f4d707a64fb885ae5f9437e7e74d2@rochester.rr.com> References: <3b4f4d707a64fb885ae5f9437e7e74d2@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On May 10, 2005, at 12:38 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Of course, selecting an illogical alternative which >> happens to coincidentally field is (by EBU regulation) >> conclusive evidence that the fielded call was in fact a >> concealed partnership understanding. > >"Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one." -- Abraham Lincoln > >Besides, that regulation is only applicable in the EBU. The regulation as quoted above certainly does not apply in the EBU. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Wed May 11 16:57:37 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Wed May 11 16:59:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Is this correct? In-Reply-To: <1115771056.25776.46975.sendUpdate@mx.plaxo.com> References: <1115771056.25776.46975.sendUpdate@mx.plaxo.com> Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote >Blml, > >I'm updating my address book. Please take a moment to update me >with your latest contact info. It is a piece of software called Plaxo. Goodness knows what it is up to. Something has happened in its little brain. Feel free to ignore the previous post completely!! -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 11 23:10:32 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 11 23:11:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? Message-ID: <002401c5566d$de7c9de0$6f9468d5@James> [Richard Hills] > In my experience as a player, sometime director, and > sometime appeals panellist, this is not a problem > In my experience, a fielder usually admits that they > are well aware of their partner's history of calls which > are contrary to the explicitly agreed partnership system. > In my experience, it would be usually be futile for a > fielder to deny knowledge of their partner's history of > calls, since psyches or pseudo-psyches are usually > spectacular successes or flabbergasting failures, thus > the history of the fielder's partner is usually known to > all and sundry (including usually being known to the TD > and the AC). > In my experience, a fielder usually argues that it was > authorised information which made their fielding their > only logical alternative. > In my experience, the fielder is usually incorrect in so > arguing that their fielding was their only logical > alternative, because their argument is irrelevant. In my > experience, it is the fielder's failure to give prior > disclosure of an implicit partnership agreement which is > usually the relevant infraction, with the subsequent > fielding merely icing on the cake. > And in my experience, the TD and the AC usually have no > difficulty in consequently determining that a Law 40B > infraction has occurred. [Nigel eating some his words] I belatedly accept your point that you sre routinely able to collect much more evidence than that to which I originally alluded. Your apporach assumes: (A) This partnership have a history of similar psyches (B) The partnership admit to this history or you have other evidence of it. If you are dealing with a single alleged pseudo-psyche, then this approach seems to penalize honest locals more severely than liars or strangers. Also how would you handle the Marvin French case? As I remember it, it was something like this: he has a psyching history but promised his partner that he wouldn't psyche again. Unfortunately, he forgot his undertaking to her in the next session that they played together and (arguably) his partner (inadvertantly) fielded it. Because it is so hard to be sure of peoples' thought processes, I prefer a more objective basis for rulings. The problem is aggravated because some BLML directors seem to balk at one-off circumstantial evidence (because it *could* be a coincidence). I agree with Richard, however, that they should be happy to rule on the basis of circumstantial evidence. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 12 00:56:31 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 12 00:57:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Decelerated Swiss In-Reply-To: <20050504022540.22989.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >1. There is no over-swissing principle. The >efficiency of the movement increased with every extra >round. This makes sense the ultimate Swiss is a >Round-Robin. The negative impact of playing a large >number of rounds of Swiss is that the final round >matches will not be played between contending teams. [snip] Richard Hills: I disagree that there is no over-Swissing problem. In a Swiss where a number of teams qualify for the next stage, the final round is of disproportionate weighted importance compared to the weighting of earlier rounds. It is desirable that in the final and highly-weighted round of a Swiss, the contending teams for the next stage are playing against each other. It is most undesirable that contending teams play non-contending teams in the final round. What if (in such a hypothetical last round pairing between contending and non-contending teams) the non-contending team are personal friends of the contending team, and the contending team sneaks into the last qualifying place with a maximum win? There is also a secondary issue on over-Swissing. It is true that a Swiss of 12 x 5-board matches more closely approaches a round-robin than a Swiss of 5 x 12-board matches approaches a round-robin. But a round-robin of short matches may be less accurate than a Swiss of long matches. A flaky and unsound type of bridge technique is required for multiple bunny-bashing in round-robin short matches. A logical and disciplined type of bridge technique is required to grind out wins against expert opponents in Swiss long matches. And it is the latter technique which should be rewarded by the format of the qualifying rounds, if the object is to encourage an all-expert final of six teams. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 12 01:14:19 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 12 01:15:20 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >There are two. First, I read Law 74B1 as referring to what's >going on at the table, not what did or did not go on before >the session. I think calling failure to have discussed a >particular auction "paying insufficient attention to the >game" is a rather large stretch. Richard Hills: In the 1975 edition of the Laws, the predecessor to Law 74B1 had a narrower scope. In either the 1987 or 1997 revision of the fabulous Lawbook, the constraints on Law 74B1 were removed. Perhaps Grattan Endicott could reveal information from his archive on why the then Laws Drafting Sub-Committee decided to broaden the scope of Law 74B1. Ed Reppert: >Second, where in the laws does it say a pair must needs >discuss any particular auction prior to play? Law 80F: >>A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these >>Laws has the following duties and powers: to publish or >>announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict >>with, these Laws. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 12 01:26:26 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 12 01:27:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050511082408.02b23b00@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau quibbled: >But the word "could" has more than one definition. Could >I have been playing bridge last night? A priori (as of >yesterday afternoon), yes. A posteriori (as of right >now), no. [snip] >The actual black-letter words "could have known" do not >suffice to tell us which definition of the word "could" >was intended by the lawmakers. Richard Hills refutes: Law 72B1 uses the a posteriori (as of right now) sense of "could", since immediately after the phrase "could have known" appears the clarifying phrase "at the time of his irregularity". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 12 01:36:19 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 12 01:37:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <002401c5566d$de7c9de0$6f9468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel eating some his words: >I belatedly accept your point that you are routinely able to >collect much more evidence than that to which I originally >alluded. Your approach assumes: > >(A) This partnership have a history of similar psyches [snip] Richard suggesting further munching: If a partnership does *not* have a history of similar psyches, then the Law 75B phrase "but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed" is obviously not applicable, due to an absence of any historical habit. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu May 12 02:48:58 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu May 12 02:51:09 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4b51f10699412ed14b7f2d13b4891622@rochester.rr.com> On May 11, 2005, at 7:14 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Ed Reppert: > >> Second, where in the laws does it say a pair must needs >> discuss any particular auction prior to play? > > Law 80F: > >>> A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these >>> Laws has the following duties and powers: to publish or >>> announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict >>> with, these Laws. Law 80F doesn't answer the question. It begs the question whether a regulation such as I mentioned is or is not "in conflict with these laws". From uofh2 at didamail.com Thu May 12 04:15:20 2005 From: uofh2 at didamail.com (Noreen Dunham) Date: Thu May 12 03:21:23 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.trust1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Darius Ott to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.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 May 12 04:39:51 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 12 04:40:50 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <4b51f10699412ed14b7f2d13b4891622@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Law 80F: >>A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these >>Laws has the following duties and powers: to publish or >>announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict >>with, these Laws. Ed Reppert: >Law 80F doesn't answer the question. It begs the question >whether a regulation such as I mentioned is or is not "in >conflict with these laws". Richard Hills: The WBF LC has officially interpreted the "in conflict with these Laws" caveat as only applying to the various parts of Law 80. So, the WBF LC permits a sponsoring organisation to, by regulation, over-ride any non-Law 80 provision in the fabulous Lawbook merely by having its regulation vaguely relating to some other provision in the Lawbook. Therefore, the ACBL regulation requiring a partnership to have had advance discussion of a particular call may be in conflict with Law 40A (Right to Choose Call or Play), but the WBF LC has stated that that conflict in and of itself does not make the ACBL regulation illegal. Tant pis to pedantic purists (like me and Ed) who think that supplementary regulations should not be permitted to over- ride fundamental laws. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From julieDobson69 at thomasmoody.com Thu May 12 06:06:44 2005 From: julieDobson69 at thomasmoody.com (Julie Chambers) Date: Thu May 12 05:10:24 2005 Subject: [blml] hi honey Message-ID: <600z7fzlsc.fsf@calle26.net> My name is Julie :) Most of the time I like to do something I've never done before.. so I decided to have my first website featuring me (pics and videos). My girlfriends want to join me to on my website. -) Verify your age and connect to my webcam today -) Come I want to share my life experience with you ;) http://www.mankeyman.info/ju18/ you transom me poe me you desuetude me miniature me you contiguous me psychophysic me you dowel me discriminant me you horseback me profane me you chant me travel me From eeee at didamail.com Thu May 12 07:50:08 2005 From: eeee at didamail.com (Erna Buckner) Date: Thu May 12 07:03:09 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.trust1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Darren Ramirez to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.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 svenpran at online.no Thu May 12 09:37:05 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu May 12 09:38:28 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c556c5$6572b710$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au ................. > The WBF LC has officially interpreted the "in conflict with > these Laws" caveat as only applying to the various parts of > Law 80. So, the WBF LC permits a sponsoring organisation > to, by regulation, over-ride any non-Law 80 provision in the > fabulous Lawbook merely by having its regulation vaguely > relating to some other provision in the Lawbook. I am not so sure this can be correct; I assume the following "regulation" would be illegal although not in conflict explicitly with Law 80: Shuffle and Deal: Following a proper shuffle of the 52 cards four cards shall be removed from the pack and stored away without exposing them to the players. (These four cards shall be restored to the pack before shuffling for the next board). The remaining 48 cards are dealt according to law 6B except that each hand receives only 12 cards. Law 38 shall apply to any bid of more than six. > > Therefore, the ACBL regulation requiring a partnership to > have had advance discussion of a particular call may be in > conflict with Law 40A (Right to Choose Call or Play), but > the WBF LC has stated that that conflict in and of itself > does not make the ACBL regulation illegal. > Tant pis to pedantic purists (like me and Ed) who think that > supplementary regulations should not be permitted to over- > ride fundamental laws. Include me in your group, will you? Regards Sven PS.: To those who may argue that my "regulation" above is illegal because it alters the game I shall just point out that ANY change in the laws including changes enforced by regulations "alters the game" in some way. From nacsjwb at doneasy.com Thu May 12 11:20:05 2005 From: nacsjwb at doneasy.com (Haley Bruner) Date: Thu May 12 10:33:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Rates fixed wont last long 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.ch00s3.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Sylvia Matos to be remov(ed: http://www.ch00s3.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 ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 12 14:00:22 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu May 12 14:00:06 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: References: <4b51f10699412ed14b7f2d13b4891622@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050512075628.02c15490@pop.starpower.net> At 10:39 PM 5/11/05, richard.hills wrote: >The WBF LC has officially interpreted the "in conflict with >these Laws" caveat as only applying to the various parts of >Law 80. It's a pity. If there's one thing everyone in this forum agrees to, it is that it would be nice if the new laws were written to actually say what they mean. But if those who write them feel free to print "these Laws" and then tell us that those words really mean "this Law", why bother? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 11 13:22:02 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu May 12 16:38:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? References: Message-ID: <00fa01c5561b$a84cfa50$129868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > Nigel may prefer those definitions, but TFLB *does* have > a definition of Psychic Call: "A deliberate and > gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length." > Nigel's proposed definitions are therefore inadequate. > By ignoring the word "deliberate", he lumps misbids in > with psyches. And by ignoring the word "gross" he > classifies non-psyches as psyches. For a deliberate but > non-gross or slight misstatement, the EBU White Book uses > a much more apposite term of "deviation" > [EBU White Book (TD Guide) clause 40.1.2] >> A player who shows a seven-card suit with only six, >> has not psyched, nor has a player who opens a 12-14 >> HCP 1NT with only 11 HCP. This is called a >> deviation (see Orange book). Repeated instances of >> such circumstances become partnership understandings >> if partner knows they happen. Then they must be >> disclosed, and if not permitted must not be repeated. >> >> [WBFLC August 2000] >> "a partnership understanding exists when the >> frequency of occurrence is sufficient for the partner >> of a psycher to take his awareness of psychic >> possibilities into account, whether he does so or >> not." [Richard] > Note the final phrase "whether he does so or not". > A player's illegal fielding is not intrinsically an > infraction; it was the earlier illegal call by their > partner which was the infraction. So, avoiding an > illegal field does not mitigate their partner's > earlier infraction. [Nigel] Thank you, Richard, for all the fascinating background information. I am intrigued by [WBFLC Aug 2000]. No opponent of mine has ever declared anything about his psyching propensities. Although sometimes, I've subsequently learnt that a pair are frequent psychers with distinctive psyching habits. I believe that some are BLML members. Are they all breaking the law? I still think it is useful to have a term for a deviation from announced methods that may be gross or slight, may or may not be deliberate, and may or may not be subject to a concealed agreement. Especially, as the former is a matter of opinion and the latter two may also require telepathy. Perhaps the word I'm looking for is "misbid". For example, suppose, playing SAYC, I open 1C on a two card suit with 4432 shape. Using standard terminology: I suppose the director starts by classifying this as a "misbid". Then decides whether a one card systemic departure is "mild" or "gross". Now, if he judges it to be "deliberate", he categorise it as "deviation" or "psyche", respectively. Finally, if his interim classification is "psyche" and I have abused the call several times in the past with this partner but I have not announced this habit to opponents, then he relabels it as a "concealed partnership understanding" I still prefer a simpler terminology: For instance undisclosed regular accidental misbids involving only small systemic deviations can still give rise to significant concealed partnership understandings and hence I would like to include them in my "pseudo-psyche" category. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 12 17:39:11 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu May 12 17:45:11 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? References: <000001c556c5$6572b710$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001701c55708$d874b810$72974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* Difficulties have arisen which are likely to prevent final approval of a new code of laws in Estoril. ~ Gr-rrrrr-attan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:37 AM Subject: RE: [blml] MI or CPU? [Richard Hills] > Tant pis to pedantic purists (like me and Ed) > who think that supplementary regulations should > not be permitted to over- ride fundamental laws. Include me in your group, will you? Regards Sven < +=+ Extract from one of my papers on new laws: "The laws should not be written in words that allow scope for more than one interpretation depending which NBO or Zone you are in; if there are to be differences in practice the laws themselves should plainly provide for powers of regulation. ~ G ~ +=+ From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu May 12 18:45:38 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu May 12 18:47:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? References: Message-ID: <016101c55712$1e955c60$869468d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > If a partnership does *not* have a history of similar > psyches, then the Law 75B phrase "but habitual violations > within a partnership may create implicit agreements, > which must be disclosed" is obviously not applicable, > due to an absence of any historical habit. What's the problem? [Nigel] You snipped it :) Some of the kinds of problem that might arise are: (1) The pair are strangers/foreigners; or the director(s) are visitors; anyway, for whatever reason, you don't know a pairs' relevant history but this one incident provides strong circumstantial evidence of a concealed partnership understanding or the use of other unauthorised information. (2) The pair claim to have no history of psyches/misbids. (3) The pair caim that they have no history of psyching *in this context* -- this was a first -- or a misbid. (4) The pair tell you that they both agreed to give up psyching (or perhaps just cut down) -- they just misbid or forgot. (5) The pair claim that the second psyche on the same hand was a coincidence rather than fielding. (6) This is the first outing for this pair but ... (a) They know each other's foibles from regular contact in the same team/circle/club; (b) One partner has an international reputation (like Zia). (c) Both belong to a discussion group like BLML or RGB, on which they admit to be regular psychers or describe some of their psyching habits. (d) The pair are acquaintances who regularly discuss tactics. For example, they are co-authoring a book on "Psyching". .... I don't like laws that over-reward rationalisation and prevarication -- that's why I favour more reliance on circumdtantial evidence and less reliance on confessions and telepathy. It might be better if "histories" were less hit or miss: For example, the WBF could set up an international on-line database of "psyches" and similar incidents (in conformance with local privacy laws). I guess that would be quite difficult to do. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 12 22:06:57 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu May 12 22:06:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <00fa01c5561b$a84cfa50$129868d5@James> References: <00fa01c5561b$a84cfa50$129868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050512155304.02b86230@pop.starpower.net> At 07:22 AM 5/11/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >I still think it is useful to have a term for a deviation >from announced methods that may be gross or slight, may or >may not be deliberate, and may or may not be subject to a >concealed agreement. Especially, as the former is a matter >of opinion and the latter two may also require telepathy. > >Perhaps the word I'm looking for is "misbid". I think the word Nigel is looking for is the one he used initially, "deviation". Nigel's three orthogonal criteria give eight possible combinations. Allow me to offer a table of appropriate terminology: Gross? Deliberate? Agreement? What is it? No No No Misbid No No Yes Misinformation No Yes No Judgment No Yes Yes CPU Yes No No Misbid Yes No Yes Misinformation Yes Yes No Psych Yes Yes Yes Cheating That's six possbilities for the eight combinations and, whether Nigel likes it or not, the laws do not allow us to treat them all alike. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu May 12 22:22:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu May 12 22:23:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <00fa01c5561b$a84cfa50$129868d5@James> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > No opponent of mine has ever declared anything about his psyching > propensities. Do you not play mostly in EBU land? Here we are explicitly forbidden from disclosing knowledge of psychic tendencies on the CC*, or in pre-alerts (stupid rule IMO). I know at least two posters on BLML who will happily disclose this knowledge if *asked* - it's getting players to *ask* that is the problem! Knowing partner's tendencies isn't really something one can avoid - and merely "knowing" doesn't constitute a systemic agreement. Nor does disclosing the knowledge give one the right to act on it oneself? *from memory this is in OB section 5 in the bit on WBF CCs at level 4. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 12 23:36:44 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu May 12 23:36:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: References: <00fa01c5561b$a84cfa50$129868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050512172453.02b81eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:22 PM 5/12/05, twm wrote: >Do you not play mostly in EBU land? Here we are explicitly forbidden >from >disclosing knowledge of psychic tendencies on the CC*, or in pre-alerts >(stupid rule IMO). I know at least two posters on BLML who will happily >disclose this knowledge if *asked* - it's getting players to *ask* >that is >the problem! Knowing partner's tendencies isn't really something one can >avoid - and merely "knowing" doesn't constitute a systemic >agreement. Nor >does disclosing the knowledge give one the right to act on it oneself? Things are even worse in North America. The ACBL insists that it has not banned psychs altogether, although the caveats and restrictions imposed by regulation so constrain the use of psychs that psychs that will pass legal muster in the ACBL are rarer than dodo birds. In particular, it is absolutely forbidden to have any agreements whatsoever, explicit or implicit, that in any way relate to psychs. That includes frequency; it used to be on the ACBL convention card, but now if you write anything down you are prima facie in violation of the rules against agreements related to psychs. If an opponent asks, and you can provide any answer other than a truthful, "I absolutely haven't got a ghost of a clue," you are in prima facie violation. If you even suggest that perhaps this might be a position in which a psych from a total stranger might not be entirely unexpected, you are in prima facie violation. If you try to help the opponents at all in what might be a possible psych situation, you are in prima facie violation. In the very few cases where you can avoid a prima facie violation and manage a successful psych, there will always be someone on the staff or AC with the creativity to find some other kind of violation. It is, as EK once wrote, perfectly legal to psych in ACBL competition provided you never do it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From uwibiazvqunchv at pp-market.com Fri May 13 00:47:27 2005 From: uwibiazvqunchv at pp-market.com (Roscoe Yoder) Date: Thu May 12 23:53:28 2005 Subject: [blml] size does matter! Message-ID: <68DE87FE.0P24-11D7.A3B5.0050E4C05556@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050512/14ae0dfd/attachment.html From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu May 12 23:53:19 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu May 12 23:55:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 12, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Do you not play mostly in EBU land? Here we are explicitly forbidden > from > disclosing knowledge of psychic tendencies on the CC*, or in pre-alerts > (stupid rule IMO). The WBFLC minute goes on to say "When a partnership understanding as to psychic action exists it is subject to regulation under the laws as being part of the methods of the partnership." IOW, such an action is no longer a psyche. Therefore, if a player is known to his partner to "psyche" in certain situations, this is an implicit partnership agreement, which should be disclosed IAW SO regulations. If the SO specifically *prohibits* a pair from disclosing that information on the CC then either (a) the SO must not then suggest that the pair has or may have a CPU or (b) the SO should require disclosure of the implicit agreement via some other regulation (e.g., an alert regulation). Which, pray tell, is the status in the EBU? Or the ACBL? From calorized at mrg.com Fri May 13 01:01:04 2005 From: calorized at mrg.com (Sage COX) Date: Fri May 13 01:08:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Employment offer Message-ID: Good evening, Do you want to earn some extra $$$ working from home? We have a great offer for you! Our corporation Ship & Pay Intl. is constantly looking for trustworthy people to be our representatives in your country! You'll need NO money and NO special skills to start working. Anyone can work with us, why not you?! If you're interested, please visit our corporate web-site: http://www.shipandpay.com/jobs.html Our requirements: 1. We don't work with persons under 21 2. Computer with access to internet, e-mail 3. 3-5 hours free during the week 4. Bank account to receive payments 5. Be able to lift 2-5 kg boxes. 6. Reply to e-mails immediately 7. Check your e-mail several times a day (each hour is welcome) 8. Be responsible, hard working and communicable 9. Be able to answer phone calls If you like to join our community don't hesitate to visit http://www.shipandpay.com/jobs.html and fill in the online application form. Thank you. Respectfully, Ship & Pay International From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 13 01:08:14 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri May 13 01:10:31 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? References: <000001c556c5$6572b710$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c55747$c0cafc30$31d8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:37 AM Subject: RE: [blml] MI or CPU? > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au ................. > The WBF LC has officially interpreted the "in conflict with > these Laws" caveat as only applying to the various parts of > Law 80. So, the WBF LC permits a sponsoring organisation > to, by regulation, over-ride any non-Law 80 provision in the > fabulous Lawbook merely by having its regulation vaguely > relating to some other provision in the Lawbook. < [Sven] I am not so sure this can be correct < +=+ No it is not correct. What is the case is that where the laws authorize the regulation of specific matters (40D, 40E, 78D, 79C, 80E) these regulations are separately authorized from, and not subject to the conditions appertaining to, regulation of other matters under Law 80F. +=+ From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 13 02:10:55 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri May 13 02:12:17 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <200505091415.j49EFO3G006221@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505091415.j49EFO3G006221@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4283F08F.6020308@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > So yes an improperly disclosed call is an "infraction". However that is not the > same as the call > being "illegal". When adjusting we consider probabilities had no infraction > occurred. The most > probable "no infraction" scenario is "same call properly disclosed". As far as I can tell, this view is equivalent to saying there is no such thing as a L40B infraction; all we ever have is ordinary MI. (I repeat: I am assuming for this thread that all infractions are inadvertent.) That doesn't seem consistent with the Albuquerque precedent. It seems to me we are at an impasse here. Grattan: may I suggest this is yet another topic for your drafting committee? If in some cases the call itself is illegal, while in others redress is based on what the opponents could have done if properly informed, the Laws should specify what circumstances call for which type of adjustment. (I won't repeat my own recommendation.) > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > In my opinion, if an SO legalises a relay system > (pursuant to its powers under Law 40B), but does *not* > require the complete relay system notes to be freely > available to the opponents before and during the auction > (such limitation of disclosure also pursuant to its > powers under Law 40B), then no infraction has occurred, > so redress can be denied. I agree with this (except that I think you meant 'L40D' in line 2). The problem of adequate disclosure is not unique to relay systems, of course. They just provide a convenient example. By coincidence there was another example on RGB not long ago: the unopposed, natural auction 1C-1H-1S. Is opener promising 4-5 in the blacks (Acol), or could he have a minimum 4-3-3-3 (Standard American)? I think there is no alternative here but to ask. No doubt there is a solution to this particular problem, but I think it illustrates how difficult disclosure can be in general. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Whilst there is no infraction I think an > irregularity has occurred inasmuch as the > procedure has not fulfilled the requirements > of Law 40. It is the SO that is at fault, of > course, but this does not deny protection > to the damaged side. I gather Grattan is suggesting a split score favorable to both sides. I am quite surprised by the suggestion. If this really is the intent of the Laws, I think they will need to be more explicit on the subject than they are now. As they stand, I think it would take quite a creative director to rule this way. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 13 02:12:01 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri May 13 02:13:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? References: Message-ID: <00d501c55750$632a6490$109868d5@James> [Tim West-Meads] > Do you not play mostly in EBU land? Here we are > explicitly forbidden from disclosing knowledge of > psychic tendencies on the CC*, or in pre-alerts > (stupid rule IMO). I know at least two posters on BLML > who will happily disclose this knowledge if *asked* - > it's getting players to *ask* that is the problem! > Knowing partner's tendencies isn't really something one > can avoid - and merely "knowing" doesn't constitute a > systemic agreement. Nor does disclosing the knowledge > give one the right to act on it oneself? [Nigel] Wow! Thanks Tim! According to Richard, if partner often psyches in certain contexts, then simply *knowing* this is an definite infraction, unless you declare it to opponents. Hence, If you are right about the meaning of EBU Orange Book section 4.3.4, then psyching is effectively banned in EBU events. An alternative interpretation of the regulation is that you must never psyche while using a WBF convention card. Given the spurious sophistication and fragmentation of Bridge rules, it is amazing that there are so few apparent anomalies like this. [Orange Book 4.3.4] > The WBF convention card, with all references to psychic > habits removed, is permitted in all Level 5 events, or > in other specified Level 4 events at the discretion of > the sponsoring organisation (eg the EBU Tournament > Committee or a County Association). From uwplatt at doneasy.com Fri May 13 04:30:34 2005 From: uwplatt at doneasy.com (Laverne Groves) Date: Fri May 13 03:38:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Pre-approved Application #AAFBI009 Message-ID: <115241.3425.uwplatt@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.ch00s3.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Martin Moseley to be remov(ed: http://www.ch00s3.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 May 13 03:50:38 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 13 03:52:06 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <4283F08F.6020308@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>In my opinion, if an SO legalises a relay system >>(pursuant to its powers under Law 40B), but does *not* >>require the complete relay system notes to be freely >>available to the opponents before and during the auction >>(such limitation of disclosure also pursuant to its >>powers under Law 40B), then no infraction has occurred, >>so redress can be denied. Steve Willner: >I agree with this (except that I think you meant 'L40D' >in line 2). Richard Hills: Nope, not a typo. I intentionally wrote Law 40B. Suppose that Ayn Rand founded a libertarian sponsoring organisation, which therefore refused to create any alert or system regulations. In such a libertarian SO, it would be illegal to use a relay system against most opponents, because the relay system would infract the Law 40B requirement that, "an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning". Relay systems are legal in Australia because they fulfil the alternative Law 40B requirement "or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation". But in a libertarian SO, it is impossible to disclose in accordance with non-existent regulations. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 13 03:52:23 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri May 13 03:53:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Decelerated Swiss In-Reply-To: <200505121417.j4CEH1Y7022870@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505121417.j4CEH1Y7022870@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42840857.1000503@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > I disagree that there is no over-Swissing problem. In view of Wayne's simulations, I think the burden of proof is on you to support this assertion. > In a Swiss where a number of teams qualify for the > next stage, the final round is of disproportionate > weighted importance compared to the weighting of > earlier rounds. How is that? As far as I can tell, all rounds count equally. > It is desirable that in the final and highly-weighted > round of a Swiss, the contending teams for the next > stage are playing against each other. It is most > undesirable that contending teams play non-contending > teams in the final round. The last sentence is true, and it isn't accounted for in Wayne's simulations. It isn't obvious, though, how often it's a problem for any given number of rounds. A simulation could tell us. > But a > round-robin of short matches may be less accurate than > a Swiss of long matches. Indeed, though not entirely for the reason you suggest (bunny bashing versus expert technique). The optimum number of rounds is something that can be determined through simulation for any specified conditions. As a first guess -- and I emphasize the word *guess* -- if you have N teams and want to determine M places, the number of rounds should be something like lg(N)+lg(M)+1, where lg is the binary logarithm. Perhaps a real mathematician or someone who has done the necessary simulations will refute this. If you take competition strength into account (see below), the optimum number of rounds may differ. If you really want accuracy, I think there is no substitute for taking into account the strength of competition a team has met. The simplest approach is to give each team a fraction of the VP's won by its competitors except in the head to head match. (I would just add this at the end, not use it to affect pairings.) Simulation should be able to tell whether this approach has merit and what the appropriate fraction should be. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 13 03:54:13 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri May 13 03:55:33 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <200505121418.j4CEIhrJ023033@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505121418.j4CEIhrJ023033@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <428408C5.1000803@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > In the 1975 edition of the Laws, the predecessor to Law 74B1 > had a narrower scope. In either the 1987 or 1997 revision of > the fabulous Lawbook, the constraints on Law 74B1 were > removed. It must have been prior to 1975. The change in 1987 removed a couple of illustrative examples, but I don't see that the scope was enlarged. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 13 03:58:22 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri May 13 03:59:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <200505091429.j49ETB8b007628@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505091429.j49ETB8b007628@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <428409BE.7010303@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > I note the inclusion of such key phrases as "grossly abnormal > action", "potentially collusive", "grotesque psyche" and "strong > smell"! To me, it is characteristics such as these which create a > L72B1 offense. Does that mean I was accusing myself of being a cheat when I suggested the TD might look at 72B1 when my own insufficient bid, barring partner, achieved a good result? From john at asimere.com Fri May 13 04:05:09 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri May 13 04:07:35 2005 Subject: [blml] When is a card nominated? In-Reply-To: <6ttmQUOcG2fCFwud@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <00bb01c54dc1$7728da00$5077893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <010d01c5521b$ae494840$ceac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050506082925.02b7da30@pop.starpower.net> <00ac01c5523f$fa9f5350$93bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6ttmQUOcG2fCFwud@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <1tYcXiAVtAhCFwe3@asimere.com> In article <6ttmQUOcG2fCFwud@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, Nanki Poo writes >Grattan Endicott > wrote >> snip > 45C4(b) refers only to the designation of a card. >>It does not say that. Further, 46B is quite plain in >>referring to "an incomplete ..... call by declarer of >>the card to be played from dummy." 'The six of' fits >>that description exactly. > > Exactly is putting it a bit high: it is an interpretation that does >not follow the normal interpretation of that Law. > > L46B is used in the common case where a designation is made, but it >does not follow the rule set down in L46A. When a player says "Spade" >to play the S6 from dummy, the Law could be childish and say that the TD >must be called, and the TD must ask the player to complete his >designation. Fortunately the law-makers did not go for such a childish >approach, but told us what "Spade" means. > > We have a different situation, where no designation has been made. It >is not an Incomplete or Erroneous call: in fact no call has been made >until the declarer has finished his designation, so "Play the six of ... >errr ... no wait a minute ... I mean play the heart ace" is not a >designation and no card is played until the end of the sentence. > With this interpretation I am entirely in accord. I am happy to continue to rule this way. I also agree that the inflection of the partial designation is significant in deciding whether we have a designated six, or whether we have a not-yet-complete designation. I also accept that other languages may have other rules. Myself I sometimes call "spade, six" but the inflection of "spade" makes it clear I am still in process of designation. I would rule consistently in both cases. cheers 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 13 05:35:02 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 13 05:36:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Decelerated Swiss In-Reply-To: <42840857.1000503@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>In a Swiss where a number of teams qualify for the >>next stage, the final round is of disproportionate >>weighted importance compared to the weighting of >>earlier rounds. Steve Willner: >How is that? As far as I can tell, all rounds >count equally. Richard Hills: In a lengthy Swiss qualifying, such as the 14-round qualifying Swiss of the Aussie National Open Teams, the early rounds are irrelevant for a mediocre team (such as my team) which has a borderline chance of sneaking into one of the eight qualifying places. Due to the nature of the Swiss draw, which pairs teams with similar VPs, if a good team beats my team in Round Three, we then meet a weak team in Round Four, thus bounce back up the rankings by beating the weak team. So, for my mediocre team, it is our performance in the last round or so which is decisive in determining whether or not we finish ahead of another mediocre team to finish in the last qualifying spot. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 13 06:11:02 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 13 06:12:19 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <428408C5.1000803@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>In the 1975 edition of the Laws, the predecessor to Law 74B1 >>had a narrower scope. In either the 1987 or 1997 revision of >>the fabulous Lawbook, the constraints on Law 74B1 were >>removed. Steve Willner: >It must have been prior to 1975. The change in 1987 removed >a couple of illustrative examples, but I don't see that the >scope was enlarged. Richard Hills: No, my point was that the now-deleted indicative examples intrinsically narrowed the scope of the former 1975 version Law 74B1. The current 1997 version of Law 74B1, which does *not* have a helpful constraint of indicative examples, might therefore be interpreted broadly by a particular sponsoring organisation, but interpreted narrowly by a different sponsoring organisation. Fortunately, fundamental differences in interpretation are less likely to recur in the 2006 version of the Laws. In an earlier posting on this thread, Grattan Endicott wrote: >>>+=+ Extract from one of my papers on new laws: >>> >>>"The laws should not be written in words that allow scope for >>>more than one interpretation depending which NBO or Zone you >>>are in; if there are to be differences in practice the laws >>>themselves should plainly provide for powers of regulation. >>> >>> ~ G ~ +=+ Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 13 06:38:34 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 13 06:39:51 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <000001c55747$c0cafc30$31d8403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Hypothetical SO regulation suggested by Sven Pran: >>Shuffle and Deal: Following a proper shuffle of the 52 cards >>four cards shall be removed from the pack and stored away >>without exposing them to the players. (These four cards shall be >>restored to the pack before shuffling for the next board). The >>remaining 48 cards are dealt according to law 6B except that >>each hand receives only 12 cards. Law 38 shall apply to any bid >>of more than six. [snip] Grattan Endicott clarification: >+=+ No it is not correct. What is the case is that where the laws >authorize the regulation of specific matters (40D, 40E, 78D, 79C, >80E) these regulations are separately authorized from, and not >subject to the conditions appertaining to, regulation of other >matters under Law 80F. +=+ Richard Hills pursuit of inconsistency: An earlier thread discussed whether or not it was legal for a sponsoring organisation to create a regulation abolishing the Law 68 right to claim. At that time Grattan Endicott argued that that regulation created by a Hobart SO was legal. Laws 40D, 40E, 78D and 79C are obviously irrelevant as a basis for a claim-abolishing regulation. That leaves Law 80E: "A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and powers: to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as written bidding, bidding boxes, screens - penalty provisions for actions not transmitted across a screen may be suspended)." But if "special conditions" include the power of an SO to abolish Law 68, then Sven Pran's reductio ad absurdum hypothetical SO reg is also legal, despite Sven's reg abolishing Law 1. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 13 07:49:28 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 13 07:51:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <428409BE.7010303@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau asserted: >>I note the inclusion of such key phrases as "grossly abnormal >>action", "potentially collusive", "grotesque psyche" and "strong >>smell"! To me, it is characteristics such as these which create a >>L72B1 offense. Steve Willner asked: >Does that mean I was accusing myself of being a cheat when I suggested >the TD might look at 72B1 when my own insufficient bid, barring partner, >achieved a good result? Richard Hills replies: No. In my opinion, Eric Landau is confusing the *reason* for the current version of Law 72B1 with the *text* of the current version of Law 72B1. By inserting "could have known" into Law 72B1, the *reason* to prevent cheating was solved by a *text* which broadened a Law 72B1 infraction to apply to both cheats and non-cheats. Or, in other words, in order to ensure that all cheats were caught in the net of Law 72B1, the WBF rewove a larger net which would catch all cheating sharks at the cost of also catching some non-cheating dolphins. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 13 08:19:20 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 13 08:20:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >If the SO specifically *prohibits* a pair from disclosing that >information on the CC then either (a) the SO must not then >suggest that the pair has or may have a CPU or (b) the SO >should require disclosure of the implicit agreement via some >other regulation (e.g., an alert regulation). Which, pray >tell, is the status in the EBU? Or the ACBL? Richard Hills: In my opinion, Ed's argument is back the front. In my opinion, the EBU and ACBL policy is actually: (c) particular types of illegal concealed partnership agreements are still illegal if revealed, since they are then prohibited conventions (or prohibited ultra-light non-conventions under the camel's nose clause of Law 40D); ergo it is not legal to unconceal and reveal them on the CC. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 13 08:50:44 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 13 08:52:16 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Two interesting extracts from ACBL LC minutes, March 2005, are attached. First extract, topic of future shock and decisiveness -> >It was mentioned that this commission should attempt to have >e-mail discussions between meetings. This was not suggested as >a way to eliminate face-to-face meetings but to clarify the >various positions on an issue. No decision was reached. Second extract, topic of legalising abolition of law -> >ACBL Management presented the concept of ACBL creating and >offering a sanction to clubs under which the club would be >given permission to make inoperative specific laws of the Laws >of Duplicate Contract Bridge. It is envisioned that this would >be done in a manner similar to that used in creating the ACBL >screen conditions. > >There was no consensus although there was a clear majority >that believed that having in place a different set of laws for >some levels of play was appropriate. Management stated that >any proposal created would be submitted to this commission or >to the co-chairmen. :-( :-( :-( Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From svenpran at online.no Fri May 13 09:16:27 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri May 13 09:17:53 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5578b$ae266670$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Hypothetical SO regulation suggested by Sven Pran: > > >>Shuffle and Deal: Following a proper shuffle of the 52 cards > >>four cards shall be removed from the pack and stored away > >>without exposing them to the players. (These four cards shall be > >>restored to the pack before shuffling for the next board). The > >>remaining 48 cards are dealt according to law 6B except that > >>each hand receives only 12 cards. Law 38 shall apply to any bid > >>of more than six. > > [snip] > > Grattan Endicott clarification: > > >+=+ No it is not correct. What is the case is that where the laws > >authorize the regulation of specific matters (40D, 40E, 78D, 79C, > >80E) these regulations are separately authorized from, and not > >subject to the conditions appertaining to, regulation of other > >matters under Law 80F. +=+ > > Richard Hills pursuit of inconsistency: > > An earlier thread discussed whether or not it was legal for a > sponsoring organisation to create a regulation abolishing the Law > 68 right to claim. > > At that time Grattan Endicott argued that that regulation created > by a Hobart SO was legal. Laws 40D, 40E, 78D and 79C are > obviously irrelevant as a basis for a claim-abolishing regulation. > That leaves Law 80E: > > "A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws has > the following duties and powers: to establish special conditions for > bidding and play (such as written bidding, bidding boxes, screens - > penalty provisions for actions not transmitted across a screen may > be suspended)." > > But if "special conditions" include the power of an SO to abolish > Law 68, then Sven Pran's reductio ad absurdum hypothetical SO reg is > also legal, despite Sven's reg abolishing Law 1. > > :-) And I didn't even abolish Law 1! I just made a minor change to Law 6B (and a corresponding adaptation to L38). 8-) (Having uttered no opinion on the legality of an SO issuing regulations affecting Law 68) Regards Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri May 13 09:55:25 2005 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Fri May 13 09:56:52 2005 Subject: [blml] defective Message-ID: L67B1b deals with a defective trick in which a player failed to contribute a card when he had no card of suit led. he is subject to the 1-trick penalty of L64 for having revoked. so far, so good, but which 1-trick from L64 is involved? the contractual trick in the first part of L64A2? or the additional trick of this law? jpr __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Fri May 13 10:51:32 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri May 13 10:52:56 2005 Subject: [blml] defective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c55798$f6a52230$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > L67B1b deals with a defective trick in which a player failed to contribute > a card when he had no card of suit led. he is subject to the 1-trick > penalty of L64 for having revoked. so far, so good, but which 1-trick from > L64 is involved? the contractual trick in the first part of L64A2? or the > additional trick of this law? We do not care whether he had a card of the suit led at the time he originally failed to contribute a card to a trick. All we care about is whether he has a card of that suit at the time he must correct the defective trick by disposing one of his cards. If not he is subject to a one trick revoke penalty (provided his side has won or wins at least one trick including or subsequent to the defective trick). You will (I am sure) convince yourself that the question of which 1-trick from L64 this involves is immaterial? But if you insist: The facts that the offender did not originally contribute any card to the defective trick and that the card later contributed to that trick does not alter the ownership of the trick, makes it clear that the offender definitely did not win the defective ("revoke") trick. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 13 12:50:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 13 12:51:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <00d501c55750$632a6490$109868d5@James> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > Wow! Thanks Tim! According to Richard, if partner often > psyches in certain contexts, then simply *knowing* this is > an definite infraction, unless you declare it to opponents. Not "declare" Nigel, "disclose as per SO regulation". In this case that means by answering questions and/or alerting in the EBU and pre-disclosing on the CC in WBF events. Regs in other SOs will vary. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 13 12:50:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 13 12:52:01 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <4283F08F.6020308@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > As far as I can tell, this view is equivalent to saying there is no > such thing as a L40B infraction; all we ever have is ordinary MI. (I > repeat: I am assuming for this thread that all infractions are > inadvertent.) That doesn't seem consistent with the Albuquerque > precedent. Try it the other way round. Of which law is "ordinary MI" an infraction? L40b seems the only one (apart from L75a which references back to L40) which mentions a general requirement to disclose. Ignore the heading of L40b (it's not part of the laws) and the equation "MI=L40b infraction" seems quite easy. OK technically one can sometimes rule MI as a L40e infraction if a CC is inaccurate but since that will also infract law40b (cc regs being SO regs) I never bother to make the distinction myself "You haven't disclosed as required in L40b, my judgement under L40c is that your opps were damaged so I am adjusting under L12c2". If you don't use L40b this way how to you get to apply L12c2 Steve? Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 13 12:50:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 13 12:52:04 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RJH wrote: > But in a libertarian SO, it is impossible to disclose in > accordance with non-existent regulations. Wrong way round. It is impossible to fail to disclose in accordance with non-existent regulations. In a libertarian SO the opponents know that any bid, alerted or not, may be conventional and can ask (as per the laws) if they need to know. If opps know to ask then the laws themselves work OK. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 13 13:57:49 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 13 13:58:30 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <000001c55747$c0cafc30$31d8403e@Mildred> References: <000001c556c5$6572b710$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000001c55747$c0cafc30$31d8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050513073948.02a400f0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:08 PM 5/12/05, Grattan wrote: +=+ No it is not correct. What is the case is that where the laws >authorize the regulation of specific matters (40D, 40E, 78D, 79C, >80E) these regulations are separately authorized from, and not subject >to the conditions appertaining to, regulation of other matters under >Law 80F. +=+ One might ask the purpose for writing the specific regulatory authorizations into those five laws. If, indeed, L80F grants that authority with regard to regulations that do not contain such specific authorization, granting it within specific laws is meaningless; the authority is deemed to be there for every law; if not explicit, it is granted by L80F anyhow. To the reader of TFLB, the current words of the Law certainly makes it appear as though L80F says what it seems to say on the surface, using "these laws" to mean "the laws that are in this book that you are reading". As I see it, the WBF has one and a half sensible choices: (a) reconsider the policy that interprets the law to allow NCBOs (or ZOs or whomever) to make any regulations they want to, or (b) drop the specific regulatory authorizations that appear in specific laws, and rewrite L80F to state clearly that NCBOs may make any regulations they want to. I leave it to the reader to decide which alternative I consider only half sensible. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 13 14:12:48 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 13 14:12:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <428409BE.7010303@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505091429.j49ETB8b007628@cfa.harvard.edu> <428409BE.7010303@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050513080739.02b174f0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:58 PM 5/12/05, Steve wrote: >>From: Eric Landau >> I note the inclusion of such key phrases as "grossly abnormal >>action", "potentially collusive", "grotesque psyche" and "strong >>smell"! To me, it is characteristics such as these which create a >>L72B1 offense. > >Does that mean I was accusing myself of being a cheat when I suggested >the TD might look at 72B1 when my own insufficient bid, barring >partner, achieved a good result? Not necessarily. It does mean, however, that you recognize that your actions were such that someone else might. Other than in convoluted plots of crime novels, people who voluntarily seek hearings to establish their guilt or innocence are rarely guilty. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 13 14:26:56 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 13 14:26:35 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050513082138.02a41eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:50 AM 5/13/05, richard.hills wrote: > >ACBL Management presented the concept of ACBL creating and > >offering a sanction to clubs under which the club would be > >given permission to make inoperative specific laws of the Laws > >of Duplicate Contract Bridge. It is envisioned that this would > >be done in a manner similar to that used in creating the ACBL > >screen conditions. > > > >There was no consensus although there was a clear majority > >that believed that having in place a different set of laws for > >some levels of play was appropriate. Management stated that > >any proposal created would be submitted to this commission or > >to the co-chairmen. No problem. "Duplicate Contract Bridge" is any game played in strict accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Under the extant WBF interpretation of L80F, the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge make it perfectly legal for the ACBL to run a pinochle tournament and call it "Duplicate Contract Bridge" without violating or exceeding the authority granted to them by those laws. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 13 14:44:04 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 13 14:43:43 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050513083523.02b06b00@pop.starpower.net> At 06:50 AM 5/13/05, twm wrote: >RJH wrote: > > > But in a libertarian SO, it is impossible to disclose in > > accordance with non-existent regulations. > >Wrong way round. It is impossible to fail to disclose in accordance with >non-existent regulations. In a libertarian SO the opponents know that >any >bid, alerted or not, may be conventional and can ask (as per the laws) if >they need to know. If opps know to ask then the laws themselves work OK. Unless, of course, the ultra-libertarian Ayn Rand DBC has chosen to exercise the authority granted to it by the WBF's official interpreation of L80F so as to forbid players from asking questions of their opponents(*). Whether one considers this "the laws working OK" is a separate question. (*) A "real" Ayn Rand DBC, of course, would forbid nothing. Questions would be permitted, but answering them would be optional. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 13 10:11:17 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri May 13 14:49:35 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? References: <000001c5578b$ae266670$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000201c557b9$7a052150$f6a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* Difficulties have arisen which are likely to prevent final approval of a new code of laws in Estoril. ~ Gr-rrrrr-attan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 8:16 AM Subject: RE: [blml] MI or CPU? > > > > Grattan Endicott clarification: > > > > >+=+ No it is not correct. What is the case is that where the laws > > >authorize the regulation of specific matters (40D, 40E, 78D, 79C, > > >80E) these regulations are separately authorized from, and not > > >subject to the conditions appertaining to, regulation of other > > >matters under Law 80F. +=+ > > > > Richard Hills pursuit of inconsistency: > > > > An earlier thread discussed whether or not it was legal for a > > sponsoring organisation to create a regulation abolishing the Law > > 68 right to claim. > > > > At that time Grattan Endicott argued that that regulation created > > by a Hobart SO was legal. Laws 40D, 40E, 78D and 79C are > > obviously irrelevant as a basis for a claim-abolishing regulation. > > That leaves Law 80E: > > +=+ I do not recall the facts of the case. It surprises me that I would say exactly that. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri May 13 14:51:01 2005 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Fri May 13 14:52:27 2005 Subject: [blml] defective Message-ID: "Sven Pran" > cc : Envoy? par : Objet : RE: [blml] defective blml-bounces@amster damned.org 13/05/2005 10:51 > On Behalf Of jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > L67B1b deals with a defective trick in which a player failed to contribute > a card when he had no card of suit led. he is subject to the 1-trick > penalty of L64 for having revoked. so far, so good, but which 1-trick from > L64 is involved? the contractual trick in the first part of L64A2? or the > additional trick of this law? We do not care whether he had a card of the suit led at the time he originally failed to contribute a card to a trick. All we care about is whether he has a card of that suit at the time he must correct the defective trick by disposing one of his cards. *** agreed *** If not he is subject to a one trick revoke penalty (provided his side has won or wins at least one trick including or subsequent to the defective trick). You will (I am sure) convince yourself that the question of which 1-trick from L64 this involves is immaterial? *** don't yet be so sure *** But if you insist: The facts that the offender did not originally contribute any card to the defective trick and that the card later contributed to that trick does not alter the ownership of the trick, makes it clear that the offender definitely did not win the defective ("revoke") trick. *** ok, we are in the case of L64A2, so penalty would be 0, 1 or 2 tricks. according to L67B1b, it is 0 or 1. criterion of determination must differ. in which way? jpr *** Regards Sven __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 13 15:16:59 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri May 13 15:18:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? References: Message-ID: <007e01c557be$0c1b0fb0$099468d5@James> [Tim West-Meads] > Not "declare" Nigel, "disclose as per SO regulation". > In this case that means by answering questions and/or > alerting in the EBU and pre-disclosing on the CC in WBF > events. Regs in other SOs will vary. [Nigel] Below are relevent sections of the EBU Orange Book. This sort of question is far more important to the average player than most of the interminable controversies on BLML. Also, in such fundamental matters, the law should be as clear and consistent as possible. Perhaps, local jurisdictions should be allowed to ban psyches (and/or deviations). If jurisdictions allow thems, however, they should all treat them the same way. If partner is known to "deviate" from system, sometimes, in certain contexts (for example, to reduce declared requirements, in third seat), then Richard points out that this is an implicit agreement. Deviation is enough - it doesn't have to be a psyche And No! it certainly isn't general knowledge! Some players don't deviate. Sections 5.1.2 and 5.2.1 state that you must alert such a call. IMO, you must also declare this on your card. I have played against many regular psychers, some of them BLMLers, and nobody has ever declared or alerted their partner's psyche propensities. Tim argues that 4.3.4 forbids him to mention partner's habits on his card. Arguably, 4.3.4 is just another Orange Book misprint. Anyway it appears to apply only if you are using the WBF card. Richard, please don't quibble that: if your psyching or deviating habits are known to partner then they are redefined as implicit agreements. Please femember that my tentative suggestions for an improved terminology met blanket rejection. [Orange Book 5.1.2] Alerting is compulsory at all levels of bidding. [Orange Book 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. [Orange Book 4.3.4] > The WBF convention card, with all references to psychic > habits removed, is permitted in all Level 5 events, or > in other specified Level 4 events at the discretion of > the sponsoring organisation (eg the EBU Tournament > Committee or a County Association). From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Fri May 13 15:31:30 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Fri May 13 15:32:53 2005 Subject: [blml] defective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > "Sven Pran" > > > cc : > Envoy? par : Objet : RE: [blml] >defective > blml-bounces@amster > damned.org > > > 13/05/2005 10:51 > > > > > > > > > > > On Behalf Of jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > > L67B1b deals with a defective trick in which a player failed to >contribute > > a card when he had no card of suit led. he is subject to the 1-trick > > penalty of L64 for having revoked. so far, so good, but which 1-trick >from > > L64 is involved? the contractual trick in the first part of L64A2? or >the > > additional trick of this law? > >We do not care whether he had a card of the suit led at the time he >originally failed to contribute a card to a trick. All we care about is >whether he has a card of that suit at the time he must correct the >defective >trick by disposing one of his cards. >*** >agreed >*** > >If not he is subject to a one trick revoke penalty (provided his side has >won or wins at least one trick including or subsequent to the defective >trick). > >You will (I am sure) convince yourself that the question of which 1-trick >from L64 this involves is immaterial? >*** >don't yet be so sure >*** > >But if you insist: The facts that the offender did not originally >contribute >any card to the defective trick and that the card later contributed to that >trick does not alter the ownership of the trick, makes it clear that the >offender definitely did not win the defective ("revoke") trick. >*** >ok, we are in the case of L64A2, so penalty would be 0, 1 or 2 tricks. >according to L67B1b, it is 0 or 1. criterion of determination must differ. >in which way? Huh? L67B1b say that the one-trick penalty of L64 may apply. Surely if OS won the defective trick or a later trick, 1 trick is transferred. If not, zero tricks is transferred. What's the problem? Regards, Harald Skj?ran > >jpr >*** > >Regards Sven > > > >__________________________________________________ >Jean-Pierre Rocafort >METEO-FRANCE >DSI/SC/D >42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis >31057 Toulouse CEDEX >Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) >Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) >e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > >Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr >___________________________________________________ > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 May 13 16:34:26 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri May 13 16:35:38 2005 Subject: [blml] defective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c557c8$dd4e5060$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr ................. > You will (I am sure) convince yourself that the question of which 1-trick > from L64 this involves is immaterial? > *** > don't yet be so sure > *** > > But if you insist: The facts that the offender did not originally > contribute any card to the defective trick and that the card later > contributed to that trick does not alter the ownership of the trick, > makes it clear that the offender definitely did not win the defective > ("revoke") trick. > *** > ok, we are in the case of L64A2, so penalty would be 0, 1 or 2 tricks. > according to L67B1b, it is 0 or 1. criterion of determination must differ. > in which way? No, we are not in L64A2, we are in L67B1b which states that the offender is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick for which offence he may be subject to the one-trick penalty of Law 64. Thus literally L67B1b explicitly limits the revoke penalty for this offence to a maximum of one trick. As a curious side effect of the wording in Law 67B1b this is the only situation that I am aware of where we rule a revoke but do not use Law 64C in case the prescribed penalty (one trick) should happen to be insufficient compensation for damage caused to the non-offending side. Instead we have of course L12A1 which in my opinion serves the same purpose. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri May 13 16:44:10 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri May 13 16:45:21 2005 Subject: [blml] defective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c557ca$3951ce40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran .............. > Huh? > L67B1b say that the one-trick penalty of L64 may apply. > Surely if OS won the defective trick or a later trick, 1 trick is > transferred. > If not, zero tricks is transferred. > > What's the problem? I feel pretty sure he is concerned with a situation where the offender fails to provide a spade (say) to trick 3, and then wins trick 5 with his Ace of spades and finally when the problem is discovered around trick 8 has no more spades left to provide for the missing spade in the deficient trick 3. (He may have discarded his remaining small spades in the meantime). Now he is deemed to have revoked on trick 3 and he has won trick 5 with a card he could have played to trick 3 so I guess our poster is looking for a two-trick revoke penalty. But we are still within L67B1b! Regards Sven From cytyjdkfrj at betawave.com Fri May 13 18:28:32 2005 From: cytyjdkfrj at betawave.com (Maria Davis) Date: Fri May 13 17:32:36 2005 Subject: [blml] RE: your private invitation Carmine In-Reply-To: <8637929.00b0a2650@designs.com> Message-ID: <256.7@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.easyhome-loans.net/2/index/bvk Best Regards, Maria Davis Regional CEO bailey geg cupboard xdv lucky yxb academia ftg marionette yv mold xh fayette af devoid zee nether bn paraphernalia wa maim km crank mi sybil nr fauna an quantile kem cogent mz http://easyhome-loans.net/rem.php From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri May 13 17:40:59 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri May 13 17:42:13 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <4283F08F.6020308@cfa.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at May 12, 2005 08:10:55 PM Message-ID: <200505131540.j4DFexbS000066@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Steve Willner writes: > > > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > > So yes an improperly disclosed call is an "infraction". However that is not the > > same as the call > > being "illegal". When adjusting we consider probabilities had no infraction > > occurred. The most > > probable "no infraction" scenario is "same call properly disclosed". > > As far as I can tell, this view is equivalent to saying there is no such > thing as a L40B infraction; all we ever have is ordinary MI. (I repeat: > I am assuming for this thread that all infractions are inadvertent.) > That doesn't seem consistent with the Albuquerque precedent. Well for the top level what happened at Albuquerque is without precedent. A convention card that didn't match what the pair was playing *and* an illegal (unapproved IIRC) convention. (That led to two double digit swings) According to what I've read their were at least two informal attempts to resolve the situation before it reached a crisis. (And I'm not asserting any official or director did anything wrong -- or that they could or should have done anything else). I know the Polish captain was asked about the cards -- that they seemed kind of sparse for a world class pair. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri May 13 17:50:03 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri May 13 17:52:00 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <321e164076b3577e3e1429fd98dac646@rochester.rr.com> On May 13, 2005, at 6:50 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > If you don't use L40b this way how to you get to apply L12c2? "I can make any ruling I want." -- local club director From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri May 13 18:09:02 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri May 13 18:10:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <27423bdd80568ed29149c7aed00f5a28@rochester.rr.com> On May 13, 2005, at 2:19 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > (c) particular types of illegal concealed partnership agreements > are still illegal if revealed, since they are then prohibited > conventions (or prohibited ultra-light non-conventions under > the camel's nose clause of Law 40D); ergo it is not legal to > unconceal and reveal them on the CC. > > What's the problem? Well, for starters, this thread gives me a headache. :-) Beyond that, an agreement is not necessarily a convention, unless you're using the general dictionary meaning of the latter ("a convention is an agreement as to meaning"). What I glean from this thread, hopefully incorrectly, is that (a) an SO may not ban psyches (Law 40A) but (b) an SO may make a regulation that bans psyches (Laws 40B, 40D, and 40E). You see why my head hurts? From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri May 13 18:35:22 2005 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Fri May 13 18:36:35 2005 Subject: [blml] defective Message-ID: "Sven Pran" > cc : Envoy? par : Objet : RE: [blml] defective blml-bounces@amster damned.org 13/05/2005 16:44 > On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran .............. > Huh? > L67B1b say that the one-trick penalty of L64 may apply. > Surely if OS won the defective trick or a later trick, 1 trick is > transferred. > If not, zero tricks is transferred. > > What's the problem? I feel pretty sure he is concerned with a situation where the offender fails to provide a spade (say) to trick 3, and then wins trick 5 with his Ace of spades and finally when the problem is discovered around trick 8 has no more spades left to provide for the missing spade in the deficient trick 3. (He may have discarded his remaining small spades in the meantime). *** it could be. but i thought of a simpler situation where trick 6 is defective, problem is discovered as soon as trick 7, offender's partner wins later tricks but offender doesn't. L67B1b refers to the 1-trick penalty of L64 but there are two 1-trick penalty in L64A2. should we transfer 1 trick because offending side won later tricks or 0 because offender didn't win a trick with a card he could have played to trick 6? logic tells us 1 but i suspect L67 update was forgotten last time L64 was changed, from a version where the penalty could only be 1 trick when the offending side (instead of player) didn't win the revoke trick. jpr *** Now he is deemed to have revoked on trick 3 and he has won trick 5 with a card he could have played to trick 3 so I guess our poster is looking for a two-trick revoke penalty. But we are still within L67B1b! Regards Sven __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Fri May 13 19:04:55 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri May 13 19:06:08 2005 Subject: [blml] defective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c557dd$e2f20d30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > > On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran > .............. > > Huh? > > L67B1b say that the one-trick penalty of L64 may apply. > > Surely if OS won the defective trick or a later trick, 1 trick is > > transferred. > > If not, zero tricks is transferred. > > > > What's the problem? > > I feel pretty sure he is concerned with a situation where the > offender fails to provide a spade (say) to trick 3, and then > wins trick 5 with his Ace of spades and finally when the problem > is discovered around trick 8 has no more spades left to provide > for the missing spade in the deficient trick 3. (He may have > discarded his remaining small spades in the meantime). > > *** > it could be. but i thought of a simpler situation where trick 6 is > defective, problem is discovered as soon as trick 7, offender's partner > wins later tricks but offender doesn't. L67B1b refers to the 1-trick > penalty of L64 but there are two 1-trick penalty in L64A2. should we > transfer 1 trick because offending side won later tricks or 0 because > offender didn't win a trick with a card he could have played to trick 6? > logic tells us 1 but i suspect L67 update was forgotten last time L64 was > changed, from a version where the penalty could only be 1 trick when the > offending side (instead of player) didn't win the revoke trick. Please let me sum up because apparently you seem a bit confused over the current "standard" revoke penalty rules: There is no penalty if the offending side did not win any trick subsequent to and including the revoke trick. There is a two-trick penalty if the offending side won at least two tricks starting with the revoke trick and at least one such trick was won by the offender either winning the revoke trick itself (obviously by using a trump) or winning a subsequent trick with a card he could legally have played to the revoke trick (obviously a card in the suit led to the revoke trick). In all other cases the revoke penalty is one trick only. Law 67B1b refers explicitly to the one-trick penalty in Law 64 so we are never to investigate the conditions in L64 for awarding a two-trick penalty when ruling under L67B1b. Regards Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri May 13 19:36:53 2005 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Fri May 13 19:38:05 2005 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_RE=3A_[blml]_defective?= Message-ID: "Sven Pran" > cc : Envoy? par : Objet : RE: [blml] defective blml-bounces@amster damned.org 13/05/2005 19:04 > On Behalf Of jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > > On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran > .............. > > Huh? > > L67B1b say that the one-trick penalty of L64 may apply. > > Surely if OS won the defective trick or a later trick, 1 trick is > > transferred. > > If not, zero tricks is transferred. > > > > What's the problem? > > I feel pretty sure he is concerned with a situation where the > offender fails to provide a spade (say) to trick 3, and then > wins trick 5 with his Ace of spades and finally when the problem > is discovered around trick 8 has no more spades left to provide > for the missing spade in the deficient trick 3. (He may have > discarded his remaining small spades in the meantime). > > *** > it could be. but i thought of a simpler situation where trick 6 is > defective, problem is discovered as soon as trick 7, offender's partner > wins later tricks but offender doesn't. L67B1b refers to the 1-trick > penalty of L64 but there are two 1-trick penalty in L64A2. should we > transfer 1 trick because offending side won later tricks or 0 because > offender didn't win a trick with a card he could have played to trick 6? > logic tells us 1 but i suspect L67 update was forgotten last time L64 was > changed, from a version where the penalty could only be 1 trick when the > offending side (instead of player) didn't win the revoke trick. Please let me sum up because apparently you seem a bit confused over the current "standard" revoke penalty rules: There is no penalty if the offending side did not win any trick subsequent to and including the revoke trick. There is a two-trick penalty if the offending side won at least two tricks starting with the revoke trick and at least one such trick was won by the offender either winning the revoke trick itself (obviously by using a trump) or winning a subsequent trick with a card he could legally have played to the revoke trick (obviously a card in the suit led to the revoke trick). In all other cases the revoke penalty is one trick only. *** i never thought otherwise. your description of the revoke law is adequate; the revoke law may be decomposed in many different but equivalent ways; your wording is one way, tflb has another wording. L67 refers to some part supposed to be inbedded in the text of L64. *** Law 67B1b refers explicitly to the one-trick penalty in Law 64 so we are never to investigate the conditions in L64 for awarding a two-trick penalty when ruling under L67B1b. *** if i take litteraly your interpretation of L67, i could say L67 only applies when the penalty in L64 is exactly 1 trick and doesn't apply (0 trick transfered) when the penalty in L64 should be 0 or 2 tricks. i don't think you mean this. ambiguity is so difficult to avoid. jpr *** Regards Sven __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri May 13 20:18:20 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri May 13 20:20:20 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes References: Message-ID: <002501c557e8$275d9200$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Sorry for the length, but I thought BLMLs would be interested in more of the LC minutes from recent meetings. - Marv >From Richard Hills > > Two interesting extracts from ACBL LC minutes, March 2005, > are attached. > > First extract, topic of future shock and decisiveness -> > > >It was mentioned that this commission should attempt to have > >e-mail discussions between meetings. This was not suggested as > >a way to eliminate face-to-face meetings but to clarify the > >various positions on an issue. No decision was reached. > > Second extract, topic of legalising abolition of law -> > > >ACBL Management presented the concept of ACBL creating and > >offering a sanction to clubs under which the club would be > >given permission to make inoperative specific laws of the Laws > >of Duplicate Contract Bridge. It is envisioned that this would > >be done in a manner similar to that used in creating the ACBL > >screen conditions. > > > >There was no consensus although there was a clear majority > >that believed that having in place a different set of laws for > >some levels of play was appropriate. Management stated that > >any proposal created would be submitted to this commission or > >to the co-chairmen. > Other minutes from recent LC meetings have the unintended effect of leaking some of what is going on in regard to contemplated revisions to the Laws. Some of these are troublesome IMO. New Orleans 2003: Proposed revisions to Law 12 were discussed and the commission reaffirmed its position that in the new laws for non-knockout events 12C3 should apply to the non-offending side but 12C2 should apply to the offending side. The problem of employing this approach in conjunction with Law 86B in knockout play insofar as it dilutes the effect of 12 on the offending side was noted. The commission expressed reservations about extending the use of 12C3 to knockout play. It was noted that the proposed new Law 15 will leave the current law as the default position but it will allow sponsoring organizations to vary its provisions. Strong reservations were noted to the idea of legislating that it is proper for a player to ask about the meaning of a bid only if the answer might affect his choice of actions at that turn. The commission believed that the potential for unauthorized information that might result from this change in the laws would be a serious problem. Reno 2004: Jeff Polisner's suggestion that Law 73F2 be amended to preclude score adjustments for players who draw a false inference from an opponent's deceptive action was discussed. A large majority of the Commission agreed that the law should be changed so that inferences may be drawn only at a player's own risk. As for the opponents, the Commission favors dealing with their deceptive actions through disciplinary action and/or procedural penalties. The Commission favors retaining Law 73D2. The Commission expressed no strong feelings on the WBF Drafting Committee proposal to amend Law 42B2 to allow dummy to attempt to prevent an irregularity by defenders as well as declarer if he so chooses. The consensus of the Commission was that the definition of when a card is played should be as objective as possible. The phrase "or nearly touching the table" should be deleted from Law 45C2 or, at the least, modified. New York City 2004: Strong reservations were expressed to the provisions of draft law 46A3(b) wherein the highest ranking trump card not played prior to a revoke is exempt from transfer to the non-offending side. A suggestion was made that even if such a provision is included in the new laws that it be made more general to include all situations where, absent a revoke, a trick could not be lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. Note was made that the draft laws do not fully reflect the philosophy of many Laws Commission members that "a card laid is a card played". A suggestion was made that an allowable change of call as permitted in draft law 23B should be changed to "without pause (in the same breath or in continuous action)". However, some on the commission were in favor of allowing changes of calls beyond this standard as long as it is clear that the player made the call as a result of a mechanical mishap and there was no pause "for thought". The issue of whether non-vocal methods of bidding should be specifically addressed in this law was also discussed. The provision of draft law 8C2(b) for calling the director immediately upon the sight of a dummy hand that may have used unauthorized information in the bidding was discussed. It was noted that the draft law is unclear on how strong the requirement is for the director to be called at that point, but no consensus emerged on how strong that requirement should be. [mlf] It should be very strong. Although nothing can be done by the TD at that point, the declarer should be aware that dummy has probably committed an irregularity. As Kaplan wrote: "If unwarned, declarer might gamble a top against a bottom trying for an overtrick--a ridiculous gamble if he will lose the top but keep the bottom." There was agreement that declarer should be permitted to examine an opponent's convention card even if not his turn to play, although it was agreed that defenders should not have this right. There was a consensus that the partner of the opening leader should be permitted to ask questions of the auction while his partner's lead is face down, and that draft law 29B be changed to reflect this. Serious reservations were expressed with the philosophy represented in and the practicality of draft law 4A1. The commission discussed the advisability of codifying in law the concept that players have a responsibility to protect themselves wherever possible from misinformation or lack of full explanation of opponents' agreements. It was suggested that this issue might be more properly addressed in the scope of the laws rather than in a specific law. It was agreed that the idea expressed in draft law 10C8 would be better placed within draft law 7. Reservations were noted with the provisions of draft law 21E3(b) and whether as written it accomplishes what is intended and is placed where it belongs in the draft laws. It was also mentioned that at a previous meeting of the commission there was a consensus that inferences drawn from opponents' actions should be drawn entirely at a player's own risk. Concern was expressed with the effect of draft law 51A1 and its possible conflict with draft law 8A2. It was suggested that these matters might be better left to the preface of the laws and/or sponsor regulation [mlf] The last three are not very informative for us eavesdroppers. Orlando 2004 Cohen reported that the idea of the revoke laws being revised such that a side cannot lose a trick to a revoke penalty if they hold the highest trump still in play at the point of the revoke has been abandoned. He noted that the current WBF draft provides for only a one trick penalty for all revokes (equity notwithstanding). A majority of the ACBL LC members present opposed a change from the penalty provisions of the current law. The commission once again reiterated reservations about changing laws that in general work well. Concerns were voiced that making radical or numerous changes to the laws detracts from the ability of players and administrators to understand and implement efficiently the changes that are made. As well, it was noted that changing any law risks creating unintended consequences, so the number of changes should be limited to those laws that have proven to currently cause problems. In response to this, Cohen noted that even though that may be the sentiment of the ACBL LC, many interested parties in the rest of the world do not necessarily share this view and their ideas will have to be accommodated to some extent in the new laws. Cohen also reported that earlier proposals to eliminate penalties for insufficient bids, inadmissible calls, and calls out of rotation in favor of dealing with them as unauthorized information alone have largely been abandoned. Cohen reported that changes to the laws on claims are still under discussion. Schoder reported that the attitude of the drafting committee seems to be that the claims laws are not seriously flawed as they stand currently, but could be improved by allowing the director to consider as evidence any play that occurred after the claim but before the director was summoned or arrived at the table. He reported that the drafting committee believes that the majority of any problems with claims are caused more by players' ignorance of the requirements of the law than by the law itself, and these could be corrected with better education. The WBF drafting committee sees problems with a defender's claim as more significant than any current problems with declarer's claim, and that issue is still under discussion. Several members of the ACBL LC noted their strong preference for changing the claim laws to allow play to continue after a claim has been made if both sides agree to do so. Even though not all members of the commission were in favor of this proposal, there was consensus that the claim laws should reflect either that change or allowing the director to consider further play after a claim as evidence of its validity. There was a discussion as to whether the new laws should under some circumstances allow for changes of conventional insufficient bids to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination without penalty when the meanings of the two bids are the same. Some concern was expressed that the extensive reordering of the sequence of the laws in the most recent draft may result in problems. Schoder pointed out that the current hierarchy of the laws progresses from general to specific and that any perceived conflicts in the laws that this is designed to correct are therefore not necessary and would be better served by cross references in the laws. It was agreed that changes to the current Law 12 should not eliminate the provisions of 12C2. Cohen suggested that the phrasing of 12C2 could be improved if changed from (for the non-offending side) "the most favorable result that was likely" to "the most likely favorable result". There was consensus that the idea it represents better reflects the wishes of the commission even if there were some reservations with the exact wording. [mlf] Bah!! The NOS deserves the most favorable result that was likely, even it is not the most likely favorable result. Adopt L12C3 if you don't like that. It was noted that the drafting committee had discussed a provision in the laws that addresses the issue of dumping and that it would be present in the draft laws from Istanbul. Schoder asked the commission to consider its position on how Law 12C1 should be changed to more fairly deal with situations where a pair is deprived of multiple results due to an irregularity not caused by the pair. Pittsburgh 2005 In accordance with its authority to regulate conventions (law 40 D), the ACBL (although not the concern of this commission, the WBF has done so also) has approved regulations that restrict the right of a player to psych specified conventional calls notwithstanding law 40 A. The commission was asked to clarify the relationship between law 40 A and D. While the legality of the current practice, which for the ACBL has existed for over 15 years, was questioned by some, the consensus was to legitimize current practice. There was a majority opinion that the new laws should specifically permit "sanctioning or zonal authorities" to regulate psychic use of conventional calls. There was a consensus that the new laws should clarify the current ambiguity between laws 40 A and D. Claims were discussed. The direction of the WBF drafting committee appears to be moving away from making any radical changes in the claims law. A consensus exists in this commission that there remains a desire to allow play to continue after a claim under some defined guidelines and circumstances. In addition, there was a consensus that the new laws should address a defender's claim and a declarer's claim separately. [mlf] As was the case in the 1963 Laws!! The "bureaucratise" of all this language is stifling. There should be a law against the use of passive voice. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From john at asimere.com Fri May 13 20:46:14 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri May 13 20:48:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <007e01c557be$0c1b0fb0$099468d5@James> References: <007e01c557be$0c1b0fb0$099468d5@James> Message-ID: In article <007e01c557be$0c1b0fb0$099468d5@James>, GUTHRIE writes >[Tim West-Meads] >> Not "declare" Nigel, "disclose as per SO regulation". >> In this case that means by answering questions and/or >> alerting in the EBU and pre-disclosing on the CC in WBF >> events. Regs in other SOs will vary. > >[Nigel] >Below are relevent sections of the EBU Orange Book. > >This sort of question is far more important to the average >player than most of the interminable controversies on BLML. >Also, in such fundamental matters, the law should be as >clear and consistent as possible. Perhaps, local >jurisdictions should be allowed to ban psyches (and/or >deviations). If jurisdictions allow thems, however, they >should all treat them the same way. > >If partner is known to "deviate" from system, sometimes, in >certain contexts (for example, to reduce declared >requirements, in third seat), then Richard points out that >this is an implicit agreement. Deviation is enough - it >doesn't have to be a psyche And No! it certainly isn't >general knowledge! Some players don't deviate. > >Sections 5.1.2 and 5.2.1 state that you must alert such a >call. IMO, you must also declare this on your card. I have >played against many regular psychers, some of them BLMLers, >and nobody has ever declared or alerted their partner's >psyche propensities. then you've not played against me. I alert some of Tim's bids as "occasionally psychic" or "may be a joke" as does he. We believe that this information must be available to opponents, and we actively choose to punish partner rather than attempt a field in situations where a psych is possible. "MI is forbidden, live with the consequences of UI" is our philosophy. We also believe that this is both within the spirit and the letter of the Law. > >Tim argues that 4.3.4 forbids him to mention partner's >habits on his card. Arguably, 4.3.4 is just another Orange >Book misprint. Anyway it appears to apply only if you are >using the WBF card. > >Richard, please don't quibble that: if your psyching or >deviating habits are known to partner then they are >redefined as implicit agreements. Please femember that my >tentative suggestions for an improved terminology met >blanket rejection. > >[Orange Book 5.1.2] >Alerting is compulsory at all levels of bidding. > >[Orange Book 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. > >[Orange Book 4.3.4] >> The WBF convention card, with all references to psychic >> habits removed, is permitted in all Level 5 events, or >> in other specified Level 4 events at the discretion of >> the sponsoring organisation (eg the EBU Tournament >> Committee or a County Association). > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 May 13 21:18:09 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri May 13 21:19:21 2005 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_R=E9f._:_RE:_=5Bblml=5D_defective?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c557f0$7fde2680$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr ............. > i never thought otherwise. your description of the revoke law is adequate; Good > the revoke law may be decomposed in many different but equivalent ways; My experience from training Director Candidates is that many candidates get confused because the laws do not clearly distinguish the conditions for one and two tricks penalties. > your wording is one way, tflb has another wording. L67 refers to some part > supposed to be inbedded in the text of L64. > *** > > Law 67B1b refers explicitly to the one-trick penalty in Law 64 so we are > never to investigate the conditions in L64 for awarding a two-trick > penalty > when ruling under L67B1b. > *** > if i take litteraly your interpretation of L67, i could say L67 only > applies when the penalty in L64 is exactly 1 trick and doesn't apply (0 > trick transfered) when the penalty in L64 should be 0 or 2 tricks. i don't > think you mean this. ambiguity is so difficult to avoid First of all (on a point of order): Observe that Law 67B only applies when BOTH sides have played to the trick following the defective trick (you mentioned a possible case where the defect was discovered already during that trick). Now back to Law 67B1b: This law remained unchanged from the 1987 version to the 1997 version and in the commentaries to the 1987 laws (issued by EBL in 1992) we read: "..... He is then deemed to have revoked on the defective trick; if that or any subsequent trick is won by the offender or his partner, there is a one trick penalty - one trick being transferred to the opposing side. ....." I am not aware that this law has ever since 1987 caused any confusion or misunderstanding and I am certainly a bit surprised that you do find L67B1b ambiguous or confusing. Regards Sven From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Fri May 13 21:58:57 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri May 13 21:55:43 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 13 May 2005 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > An earlier thread discussed whether or not it was legal for a > sponsoring organisation to create a regulation abolishing the Law > 68 right to claim. > > At that time Grattan Endicott argued that that regulation created > by a Hobart SO was legal. There was also an earlier thread where I inquired about an online site's regulation stating declarer could claim but defenders could not. In both of those cases, as I recall, the loophole is that there is no "right to claim" in L68 - simply a definition of what a claim is, followed by instructions as to how to handle one if one occurs. No comment as to whether claiming is a legal act or an irregularity. L74B4 hints that maybe you're supposed to do something other than play on when the rest of the tricks are surely yours, but doesn't say what. L48-49 tell us what to do when a hand is exposed, and refer us to 68 under certain circumstances. In other words, "you may not claim" or "you may claim only when ___ conditions are met" looks like it IS a legal regulation, not in conflict with the laws. On the other hand, a regulation *punishing* you for claiming at an inappropriate time is illegal (the correct 'penalty' for a claim is specified in L69-71 and L12B prevents you from changing it) and a regulation directing you to play on after a claim is illegal (68D). GRB From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 13 22:39:13 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 13 22:40:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <27423bdd80568ed29149c7aed00f5a28@rochester.rr.com> References: <27423bdd80568ed29149c7aed00f5a28@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050513163333.02b12eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:09 PM 5/13/05, Ed wrote: >On May 13, 2005, at 2:19 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>(c) particular types of illegal concealed partnership agreements >> are still illegal if revealed, since they are then prohibited >> conventions (or prohibited ultra-light non-conventions under >> the camel's nose clause of Law 40D); ergo it is not legal to >> unconceal and reveal them on the CC. >> >>What's the problem? > >Well, for starters, this thread gives me a headache. :-) > >Beyond that, an agreement is not necessarily a convention, unless >you're using the general dictionary meaning of the latter ("a >convention is an agreement as to meaning"). Which really doesn't matter, as the WBF's astoundingly broad interpretation of L40D allows an SO to make any rules they want about any kind of agreement, with the penalty for violation a total prohibition against playing any conventions whatsoever. We know this to be true, as the ACBL has already done exactly this, and has received the blessing of (or at least acceptance as legal by) the WBF. >What I glean from this thread, hopefully incorrectly, is that (a) an >SO may not ban psyches (Law 40A) but (b) an SO may make a regulation >that bans psyches (Laws 40B, 40D, and 40E). Sorry, Ed, but in practics that's the way it is. >You see why my head hurts? Take two WBF minutes (if you can get past the leopard) and call me in the morning. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat May 14 06:08:42 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat May 14 06:10:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050513163333.02b12eb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <27423bdd80568ed29149c7aed00f5a28@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050513163333.02b12eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6f0020e0357ffaf17e1950b8bed84f0e@rochester.rr.com> On May 13, 2005, at 4:39 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > Take two WBF minutes (if you can get past the leopard) and call me in > the morning. Heh. That will probably just make it worse. :-) From olga20050 at pochta.ru Sat May 14 09:07:13 2005 From: olga20050 at pochta.ru (Olga) Date: Sat May 14 09:22:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Hello Message-ID: Hello!!! My name is Olga. I live in Russia. I have seen your profile and decided to get to know you better. A few words about myself: I am searching serious relationships - if you want just to play with me I ask you not to answer on this letter! But if you want to find LOVE -my email: olgan@fromru.com I will send my picture after your answer in the next letter. I will wait your answer with great impatience. Hope to hear from you very soon!!! email: olgan@fromru.com sincere yours, Olga... From twm at cix.co.uk Sat May 14 11:31:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat May 14 11:32:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <007e01c557be$0c1b0fb0$099468d5@James> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > > If partner is known to "deviate" from system, sometimes, in > certain contexts (for example, to reduce declared > requirements, in third seat), then Richard points out that > this is an implicit agreement. Deviation is enough - it > doesn't have to be a psyche And No! it certainly isn't > general knowledge! Some players don't deviate. So if 3rd seat openers differ (by implicit agreement) to any great extent from other seats the CC should contain a reference to 3rd seat openers - wtp? When playing with John I use the (limited) space to say "often lead directing in third" this doesn't capture all the nuances but what good would an essay in 0.5 point font be to opps? > Sections 5.1.2 and 5.2.1 state that you must alert such a > call. OB 5.3.1a specifically states that "natural" (4+ card suit) openers are not alertable. > Tim argues that 4.3.4 forbids him to mention partner's > habits on his card. Arguably, 4.3.4 is just another Orange > Book misprint. Anyway it appears to apply only if you are > using the WBF card. It's the only direct reference in the OB - but if you want to check with EBU HQ they will (probably) tell you that psych disclosure is not allowed on the CC. I can't guarantee consistency, but I have been told in the past that I may not do so. In theory one could try and slip the disclosure through under the "ASPECTS OF SYSTEM WHICH OPPONENTS SHOULD NOTE" heading but awareness, despite being a disclosable part of partnership understanding/experience, is not the same as "system". And doesn't that sound ridiculous - one has to try and find loopholes in the EBU regs in order to disclose something one thinks opps are entitled to know! Tim From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat May 14 12:57:19 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat May 14 12:58:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? References: Message-ID: <009401c55873$b3802410$4a9468d5@James> [Tim West Meads smipped] > When playing with John I use the (limited) space to say > "often lead directing in third" > OB 5.3.1a specifically states that "natural" (4+ card > suit) openers are not alertable. [Nigel] OB 5.3.1(a) confirms that bids that show four (sometimes three) cards in the suit bid are "natural" for alerting purposes. You snipped OB 5.2.1 (requoted below). IMO 5.2.1(c) implies that even if bid is "natural", if it could just be "lead-directing", then it is alertable. Also remember the "Rule of 18/19" debate about third hand openers :) And the controversial "judgement exceptions" suggested by David Stevenson. I enjoyed David Burn's argument that you could "judge" to upgrade a hand containing a lot of eights and fives to be an opening bid. That dispute was never officially resolved, either. I suspect that the authors of TFLB and the Orange book fall about laughing, at the handicaps suffered by any player who is duped into trying to abide by their Delphic dictates. If the WBFLC were prepared to consider simplified disclosure suggestions (such as mine) then some of these problems could disappear. But that might reduce the directors' job satisfaction :) [Orange Book 5.2.1] > You must alert a call if > (a) it is not 'natural' (see 5.3). > (b) it is natural, but you have an agreement by which it > is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents > are unlikely to expect. > (c) it is natural, but its meaning is affected by other > agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect. From twm at cix.co.uk Sun May 15 01:56:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun May 15 01:58:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <009401c55873$b3802410$4a9468d5@James> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > OB 5.3.1(a) confirms that bids that show four (sometimes > three) cards in the suit bid are "natural" for alerting > purposes. You snipped OB 5.2.1 (requoted below). IMO > 5.2.1(c) implies that even if bid is "natural", if it could > just be "lead-directing", then it is alertable. There is also 5.4.4 "You should not alert.." (e) a `wide range' natural opening bid. > I suspect that the authors of TFLB and the Orange book fall > about laughing, at the handicaps suffered by any player who > is duped into trying to abide by their Delphic dictates. Quite possibly. All one can really do is make a stab at trying to get it right. IMO natural 3rd seat openers are not alertable. Some TDs may disagree with me (although I haven't had a problem up til now) - but such is life. Like you I struggle to understand/interpret some of the OB stuff (Why is responding 2C to 1S "natural" on AKxx,Kxx,xxx,AKx but 2D "not natural" on "AKxx,Kxx,AKx,xxx"). And as to what opponents are "likely to expect" to be honest I have almost no idea. Do they expect "Standard English" making 1C on 3424 alertable? Do they expect a minimum of 12 points (or 10) surely one of those must be alertable? Do they expect a strong NT - probably not so that's alertable too. Just to be on the safe side let's assume that everything we do is alertable - how does that help anyone? Tim From dagiax at cashspace.com Sun May 15 12:00:22 2005 From: dagiax at cashspace.com (louanne porter) Date: Sun May 15 06:00:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Medical Breathrough Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050515/8a7c2110/attachment.html From julieJohnson69 at arachnida.de Sun May 15 09:21:04 2005 From: julieJohnson69 at arachnida.de (Julie Mcfarland) Date: Sun May 15 08:22:06 2005 Subject: [blml] hi honey Message-ID: <200410031454.i93QakTw009175@www2.gmail.com> I'm new, it's Julie :) Alot of the times I feel weird, even my girlfriends told me that .... old time friend suggested to put my hot videos somehow online. My website is like my new hobby :D AllCome check website I put together, I'm not that good tho with comp skills yet but tell me what you think ;0 http://www.famousloaves.com/ju18/ you calla me gerundial me you ivory me assume me you apiece me dinnerware me you pall me passe me you blanket me chickadee me you norwich me effusion me you pony me craft me you ephraim me clinic me you befog me bustard me you quagmire me manual me From PSSDEWDDADN at yahoo.com Sun May 15 11:03:17 2005 From: PSSDEWDDADN at yahoo.com (Juliette Cates) Date: Sun May 15 10:08:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Cia-llis Softabs is the Best ec In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45931002160671.GI32082@.tech.sitadelle.com> "Ci-ialis Softabs" is better than Pfizer Viiagrra and normal Ci-ialis because: - Guaaraantees 36 hours lasting - Safe to take, no side effects at all - Boost and increase se-xual performance - Haarder e-rectiions and quick recharge - Proven and certified by experts and doctors - only $3.99 per tabs Cllick heree: http://liverymen.com/cs/?ronn o-ut of mai-lling lisst: http://liverymen.com/rm.php?ronn jLqs2c From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 15 10:43:11 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun May 15 10:43:56 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) References: <27423bdd80568ed29149c7aed00f5a28@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050513163333.02b12eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c5592a$3dd70f50$14d7403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fielding or not? > >>What I glean from this thread, hopefully incorrectly, > > is that (a) an SO may not ban psyches (Law 40A) > > but (b) an SO may make a regulation that bans > > psyches (Laws 40B, 40D, and 40E). > > Sorry, Ed, but in practice that's the way it is. > +=+ I have never made any secret of the fact that I devised the method, under the 1975 Laws, of controlling bidding methods by restricting the use of conventions when a side's (natural opening) bid did not match to standards laid down. I did so because Edgar told me that I could not control natural bidding and I was not prepared to be dictated to in my own back yard. Edgar agreed in writing that, as a regulation of conventions [1975 Law 40(c)], it was in conformity with the laws (and in a box file I still have his letter). My method was adopted by the EBU and, at a later date, by the ACBL. I assumed Edgar had kept it in mind - but perhaps someone in the USA had read the EBU regulation. I cite this history because it established under the 1975 Laws that 40(c) was not subject to Law 89(e). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam at irvine.com Fri May 13 20:29:13 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Sun May 15 10:54:51 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 13 May 2005 11:18:20 PDT." <002501c557e8$275d9200$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200505131829.LAA13589@mailhub.irvine.com> > The "bureaucratise" of all this language is stifling. There should be a law > against the use of passive voice. A law like this would be supported by me. -- Adam From oarnet4 at fadmail.com Sun May 15 12:32:25 2005 From: oarnet4 at fadmail.com (Pamela Hilton) Date: Sun May 15 11:40:18 2005 Subject: [blml] You've been selected for a low rate Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.truthfu1ly.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Mauricio Carpenter to be remov(ed: http://www.truthfu1ly.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 ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun May 15 20:32:27 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun May 15 20:34:23 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: <000001c5592a$3dd70f50$14d7403e@Mildred> References: <27423bdd80568ed29149c7aed00f5a28@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050513163333.02b12eb0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c5592a$3dd70f50$14d7403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On May 15, 2005, at 4:43 AM, Grattan wrote: > I have never made any secret of the fact that I devised the method, > under the 1975 Laws, of controlling bidding methods by restricting the > use of conventions when a side's (natural opening) bid did not match > to standards laid down. I did so because Edgar told me that I could > not control natural bidding and I was not prepared to be dictated to > in my own back yard. :-( From twm at cix.co.uk Sun May 15 23:01:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun May 15 23:02:35 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: <000001c5592a$3dd70f50$14d7403e@Mildred> Message-ID: > +=+ I have never made any secret of the fact that I > devised the method, under the 1975 Laws, of controlling > bidding methods by restricting the use of conventions > when a side's (natural opening) bid did not match to > standards laid down. Thus demonstrating the level of contempt for the law and its administrators one would wish to encourage amongst players. How nice. > I did so because Edgar told me that I could not control natural bidding > and I was not prepared to be dictated to in my own back yard. Actually Grattan I don't think anybody would care what you did in the privacy of your own backyard. When it comes to imposing spurious (albeit "legal") regulations on the EBU (and/or EBL) it would have been rather less immature to simply accept the intent of the laws. Tim From LXRHDFVZQLOGBC at tteam-ch.com Mon May 16 05:36:20 2005 From: LXRHDFVZQLOGBC at tteam-ch.com (Margarita Whitaker) Date: Mon May 16 04:46:37 2005 Subject: [blml] You can start eating sweets again! Message-ID: <135.f6bdd58.2a2b4284@dilo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050516/2e33febf/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 16 05:12:27 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 16 05:13:55 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or CPU? In-Reply-To: <000201c557b9$7a052150$f6a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Richard Hills pursuit of inconsistency: >>>>An earlier thread discussed whether or not it was legal for a >>>>sponsoring organisation to create a regulation abolishing the >>>>Law 68 right to claim. >>>> >>>>At that time Grattan Endicott argued that that regulation >>>>created by a Hobart SO was legal. Laws 40D, 40E, 78D and 79C >>>>are obviously irrelevant as a basis for a claim-abolishing >>>>regulation. That leaves Law 80E: [snip] Grattan Endicott current post: >>>+=+ I do not recall the facts of the case. It surprises me that >>>I would say exactly that. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan Endicott former post, Viking's Sunset thread, April 2004: >>+=+ I have repeatedly said that I think it right to enable those >>who set up tournaments to decide what is to be allowed in those >>tournaments. That goes for the EBL, the ACBL, every other Zone >>and NBO, and every local bridge club. So I believe I can >>subscribe to Kojak's sentiments without reservation. At the end >>of the day I cannot believe, either, that ton will wish >>otherwise. Ton Kooijman reply, Viking's Sunset thread, April 2004: >Well we are not at the end of the day yet and here I am telling >you both that I don't understand why you think that I could be a >blockade for the development of bridge. > >The thing I have problems with is that we write laws and then need >never-thought-of-and-even-contrary-to-the laws interpretations to >keep all of us happy. Because there is no limit to the >inventiveness of all of us. > >That amazes me to be honest. Grattan, who didn't like the way >Kaplan wrote the laws because anybody could read those the way he >wanted, coming up with all kinds of weird interpretations with the >same effect. > >So the big problem will be to decide till what stage of development >and interpretations we still want to call the game played elsewhere >'bridge'. > >That came up in my egocentric mind reading these contributions. > >ton Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 16 11:56:03 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon May 16 12:02:00 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) References: Message-ID: <003c01c559fd$931d0e00$b5ad87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* Difficulties have arisen which are likely to prevent final approval of a new code of laws in Estoril. ~ Gr-rrrrr-attan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 10:01 PM Subject: Re: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) > > Actually Grattan I don't think anybody would > care what you did in the privacy of your own > backyard. When it comes to imposing spurious > (albeit "legal") regulations on the EBU (and/or EBL) > it would have been rather less immature to simply > accept the intent of the laws. > > Tim > +=+ Well, Tim, of course I do understand that you would feel that way. But the position was that the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee was determined to set minimum standards for agreements on natural opening bids. We were being told by a foreign 'authority' that we could not do that for our own competitions. The committee was not minded to accept dictation from overseas as to what we could and could not do to regulate system in our own events and I looked for, and offered, a solution. The 1975 Code of Laws stated: "the Sponsoring Organisation may regulate the use of conventions" so we did just that. It was Kaplan's opinion ( I have it in writing ) that "where there is ambiguity we should turn to the intentions of the legislator" but in agreeing that we had every legal right to regulate as proposed he accepted that there was no ambiguity in this law and where he had failed to create ambiguity he did not suggest we should look to anything but the letter of the Law. He may have been conditioned, perhaps, by an awareness of attitudes in his 'own backyard'. I have no reservations as to my opinion, now as then, that people organising bridge tournaments should have an unchallenged right to say what methods may and may not be used in them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Mon May 16 14:39:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon May 16 14:41:01 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: <003c01c559fd$931d0e00$b5ad87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: > +=+ Well, Tim, of course I do understand that you > would feel that way. But the position was that the EBU > Laws & Ethics Committee was determined to set > minimum standards for agreements on natural opening > bids. No problem there. The Laws allow such using "with a hand of a king or more below average strength" as a yardstick - one assumes that was not a figure chosen at random! > We were being told by a foreign 'authority' that The WBF is not, and was not, a 'foreign' authority. It is, and was, the duly selected international body for the game. > we could not do that for our own competitions. One purpose of international ruling bodies is to set global standards and define the limits of subsidiarity. Had the EBU LE&C possessed anything resembling integrity they would have withdrawn from the WBF or put with the prohibition until they could secure agreed change. Of course I don't actually *expect* integrity from politicians in any field (hidden agendas, weasel words, lies and self-interest - yes, integrity - no). OTOH I don't have any difficult answering the self- serving politico's question "Why aren't we more respected?". I suppose I can try console myself that the EBU chucked its integrity in the bin for the sake of a regulation that now divides the L&EC as to whether it does, or doesn't, allow for judgement. Tim From user_id_0899082 at associatedbank.com Mon May 16 16:13:26 2005 From: user_id_0899082 at associatedbank.com (Associated Bank) Date: Mon May 16 15:29:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Recent change in your personal information Message-ID: <20050516141326.15750.qmail@waasdender.clb-net.be> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050516/ea6e1081/attachment.html From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Mon May 16 18:10:12 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Mon May 16 18:12:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: References: <007e01c557be$0c1b0fb0$099468d5@James> Message-ID: <1Ue1usDkXMiCFwF+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Tim West-Meads wrote >It's the only direct reference in the OB - but if you want to check with >EBU HQ they will (probably) tell you that psych disclosure is not allowed >on the CC. I can't guarantee consistency, but I have been told in the >past that I may not do so. In theory one could try and slip the >disclosure through under the "ASPECTS OF SYSTEM WHICH OPPONENTS SHOULD >NOTE" heading but awareness, despite being a disclosable part of >partnership understanding/experience, is not the same as "system". >And doesn't that sound ridiculous - one has to try and find loopholes in >the EBU regs in order to disclose something one thinks opps are entitled >to know! This is the approach that is necessary if you start with the premise that you know more than the EBU about how to control the English game. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Mon May 16 18:11:05 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Mon May 16 18:13:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Online case In-Reply-To: <000b01c54fe3$e4f4b4e0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <000b01c54fe3$e4f4b4e0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Hi craig >First off, you say they prealerted their 2s. That should have raised a >red flag. Then you say they had the alert details typed out in about 3 >seconds. That seems rather reasonable, especially allowing for >connection time if someone was on a dialup. Thirdly East had the >opportunity to request an undo and fails to do so once he sees the >alert. As I view it there is no infraction on BBO. East's actual >holding might well have woken him up as well if he was paying attention >instead of racing to catch a train. And what would he have bid that >would have ensured finding the slam? A natural 2NT seems blindingly obvious and will lead to a transfer, possibly a transfer break. Certainly slam is more likely to be bid if East knows what North has. > He was not going to overcall his four card heart suit was he? Would he >cue spades...possibly Michaels in SAYC. Double? OK, he has values in >the majors. Now perhaps 5c or atr least 4c and bidding space is >constrained. Even if there were an offense, which there was not, a more >favourable outcome is far from assured. It's good we don't have to >adjust :-) Advise east not to be in such a hurry he forgets to play >bridge. Commend N-S on an effective job of preemption that accomplished >its task with no infractions and no ethical lapses whatsoever. But >perhaps they should not play against such easily offended bunnies again. > >Craig > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" >To: "blml" >Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:34 AM >Subject: [blml] Online case > > >> >> This hand came up in a recent on-line league match. I was asked my >>opinion. >> So before doing so I've decided to consult with the group. >> >> N/S Vul Dealer N >> >> .......North >> .......S 4 >> .......H 983 >> .......D KJ73 >> .......C AQT94 >> >> West............East..............N......E......S......W >> S J9875.........S AKQT............2S(1)..P......4C.....P >> H AK752.........H QJ64............P......DBL....P......4H >> D 542...........D AT..............All Pass >> C -.............C 872 >> .......South >> .......S 632 >> .......H T >> .......D Q986 >> .......C KJ653 >> >> result 4H+3 510 >> >> I asked a few what I thought relevant Q's, if I missed some I apoligize. >> >> - N/S prealtered there 2's at the beginning of the match >> - N/S had a convention card posted >> - N/S where playing 2/1 + bits >> - E/W played pretty standard sayc >> >> (1) Alerted. The hand was played on BBO. You alert a bid and you >>CAN then >> afterwards write an explanation. This is not mandatory. The opps can >> request an explanation if they want. There will be a delay depending >>on the >> length of the explanation. >> >> E passed the 2S bid in about 2 secs. South Bid 4C's. In around the same >> time (+/-1 sec or so) the explanation came up about the 2S bid (minors & >> (<10 or big) or something similar). There is a bid roll back option >> available on BBO. >> >> E/W claim that with a proper timely alert they would have got to a major >> slam. >> >> Your ruling ... >> >> K. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Mon May 16 18:10:52 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Mon May 16 18:13:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <427638D7.7060101@hdw.be> References: <001301c54f1b$70a3a010$6900a8c0@WINXP> <427638D7.7060101@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Sven Pran wrote: > >> The very moment you accept that there is a certain possibility >>(however >> small) for a "could have known" situation with a pass out of turn ought to >> confirm also to you that we need L72B1 procedures even for such situations. >And the very moment you start looking for that possibility when someone >opens with a pass out of turn, is when you are turning to paranoia. Suppose you are suddenly offered a chance out of the blue for a big gain - but you know it is illegal. Perhaps you find a wallet lying around with a lot of cash in. What do you do? Ok, you take it to the police station. But would it be paranoid of someone to wonder about what you were doing if you still had it three days later, and said you had not had time to visit the police station? In the same way, there are a few situations where someone commits an infraction, and we can see the potential for gain - and he could see it. We do not need to accuse anyone of anything - perhaps you really had not had time to go to the police station - but it is not "paranoid" to consider the possibility that you are allowing for your persoanl gain. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Mon May 16 18:10:37 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Mon May 16 18:13:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <4276034C.40903@hdw.be> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <002801c54e3a$a9803ab0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> <000c01c54ee8$49ddf7b0$f7310952@AnnesComputer> <001801c54efb$30489c70$e89987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4276034C.40903@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Grattan, now you are going too far: > >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> +=+ Yes. However, it is indisputable, I suggest, that the the >>player *could* have known when he passed out of turn that Tony might >>be advantaged by the certainty he would pass any bid he made. So the >>Director can invoke 72B1 if opponents are damaged - see Laws 30A and >>30B2. We do not >> have to consider whether Tony was in fact so >> advantaged, that is immaterial - we skip directly >> to the question whether opponents were damaged >> through the irregularity, as for example through the fact that Tony >>could make any bid knowing his partner would pass. >If you rule that a player who passes out of turn "could know" that this >could be to his advantage, then you might as well write a law in the >2007 lawbook that says that passing out of turn guarantees an absolute >zero. That seems incredibly silly. There are certain positions where a player has a reasonable belief something can work to his advantage, there are others where that is not the case. Why not leave a perfectly workable law as it is? Look at the two cases mentioned here. The Rottweiler had knowledge that a certain action might work to his belief, Tony's partner had so such knowledge. Tony? But his was not the infraction, remember! L72B1 applies at the time of the infraction. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Mon May 16 18:11:37 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Mon May 16 18:13:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050501170735.0539a870@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: Hi Ed Reppert > >On May 1, 2005, at 3:13 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > >> The other day I got accused of unethical conduct under the >> following circumstances: > >No one has answered the implicit question in Tony's post. He was >accused of unethical conduct. Was his conduct unethical? > >I would say clearly not. I'm not so sure about the conduct of Tony's >accuser. :-) It depends what you mean by unethical. He certainly took action that is against the Laws of the game by using UI deliberately, but the reason was that he thought it was AI. No doubt the word unethical is a bit too strong, but it is not unreasonable for Tony's opponents to expect him to be aware of the UI considerations. Did the TD warn him about the UI? -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Mon May 16 18:11:46 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Mon May 16 18:13:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050513080739.02b174f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <200505091429.j49ETB8b007628@cfa.harvard.edu> <428409BE.7010303@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20050513080739.02b174f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 09:58 PM 5/12/05, Steve wrote: > >>>From: Eric Landau >>> I note the inclusion of such key phrases as "grossly abnormal >>>action", "potentially collusive", "grotesque psyche" and "strong >>>smell"! To me, it is characteristics such as these which create a >>>L72B1 offense. >> >>Does that mean I was accusing myself of being a cheat when I suggested >>the TD might look at 72B1 when my own insufficient bid, barring >>partner, achieved a good result? > >Not necessarily. It does mean, however, that you recognize that your >actions were such that someone else might. Other than in convoluted >plots of crime novels, people who voluntarily seek hearings to >establish their guilt or innocence are rarely guilty. Hmmm. My experience is that people who shout loudest about their innocence are usually the guilty ones. A remember a pair of young and very unethical Dutch players in Belgium many years ago ..... -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Mon May 16 18:14:31 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Mon May 16 18:16:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <008101c54f36$12673870$5b101d53@kocurzak> References: <008101c54f36$12673870$5b101d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Kent" > >> Playing a weak NT with partner in 1st seat V vs NV, you hold xxx xxx xxx >> xxxx. A POOT might save you from a large penalty. >> >> ...Dave Kent > >How? If I pass OOT and partner holds > >AKx >AKxx >Dxxx >Kx > >then knowing that I am barred for one round he will >gamble a 3NT opening (who wouldn't) and >we will end up in 3NTx down a million. > >OTOH if I don't pass OOT we will >end up in 1D (in natural systems) or >in 1NT in Polish Club (after 1C - 1D - 1NT - pass). > >Where is the advantage? How about the times that it gains? Sure if you are going to provide examples where it does not. Suppose he is a king weaker - what will he do? Probably pass - and you have avoided -1100. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From adam at irvine.com Mon May 16 18:31:44 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon May 16 18:33:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 16 May 2005 17:10:37 BST." Message-ID: <200505161631.JAA01242@mailhub.irvine.com> Minke meowed: > Herman De Wael wrote > > >Grattan, now you are going too far: > > > >Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > >> +=+ Yes. However, it is indisputable, I suggest, that the the > >>player *could* have known when he passed out of turn that Tony might > >>be advantaged by the certainty he would pass any bid he made. So the > >>Director can invoke 72B1 if opponents are damaged - see Laws 30A and > >>30B2. We do not > >> have to consider whether Tony was in fact so > >> advantaged, that is immaterial - we skip directly > >> to the question whether opponents were damaged > >> through the irregularity, as for example through the fact that Tony > >>could make any bid knowing his partner would pass. > > >If you rule that a player who passes out of turn "could know" that this > >could be to his advantage, then you might as well write a law in the > >2007 lawbook that says that passing out of turn guarantees an absolute > >zero. > > That seems incredibly silly. There are certain positions where a > player has a reasonable belief something can work to his advantage, > there are others where that is not the case. Why not leave a perfectly > workable law as it is? Since the cats are coming late into this discussion (no doubt because they couldn't squeeze it into their busy schedule of sleeping, sleeping, sleeping, sleeping, eating, and sleeping), it's been a while and I'm not sure I remember everything that had gone on. But I believe my position was approximately the same as Herman's---that if you rule against Tony's partner on this hand, you're pretty much saying that the term "could have known" in L72B1 is redundant because you always assume that anyone who commits an infraction "could have known" that it might work out. That's what I was arguing against, and that's what I believe Herman is arguing against also. Neither of us is suggesting that the Law be changed---we're suggesting that it be interpreted the way it's written. In other words, Minke, I think you're on the same side as we are, and calling his post "incredibly silly" was probably a mistake, unless your reasoning is that since Herman has the misfortune not to be feline then that makes everything he says automatically silly. > Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm I'd like to see what you look like these days, but the above link doesn't work. Can you fix it? -- Adam From john at asimere.com Mon May 16 18:33:56 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon May 16 18:36:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <1Ue1usDkXMiCFwF+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <007e01c557be$0c1b0fb0$099468d5@James> <1Ue1usDkXMiCFwF+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <1Ue1usDkXMiCFwF+@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, Nanki Poo writes >Tim West-Meads wrote > >>It's the only direct reference in the OB - but if you want to check with >>EBU HQ they will (probably) tell you that psych disclosure is not allowed >>on the CC. I can't guarantee consistency, but I have been told in the >>past that I may not do so. In theory one could try and slip the >>disclosure through under the "ASPECTS OF SYSTEM WHICH OPPONENTS SHOULD >>NOTE" heading but awareness, despite being a disclosable part of >>partnership understanding/experience, is not the same as "system". >>And doesn't that sound ridiculous - one has to try and find loopholes in >>the EBU regs in order to disclose something one thinks opps are entitled >>to know! > > This is the approach that is necessary if you start with the premise >that you know more than the EBU about how to control the English game. David please, Tim and I play bridge the same way at duplicate as we do at rubber. We play the systems covered by Level 1 (such as a rubber bridge player might play) and we play duplicate much as we play rubber. Are we saying that the only events we can play in are Level 1 events, or can we not continue to play our same game at level 3 or 4, and meet the disclosure requirements of the law? We both psych a fair bit. The opponents are entitled to know which calls might occasionally be psychic. Clearly our bank balances and master point totals can't afford to field partner's proclivities as it's just losing bridge. cheers 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 lauert at doramail.com Mon May 16 20:06:19 2005 From: lauert at doramail.com (Lori Dyer) Date: Mon May 16 19:13:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Save hundreds every month on 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.truthfu1ly.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Ralph Dupree to be remov(ed: http://www.truthfu1ly.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 resle at emailaccount.com Mon May 16 20:23:16 2005 From: resle at emailaccount.com (Royce Aaron) Date: Mon May 16 19:25:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Instant low rates Message-ID: <114741.9319.resle@emailaccount.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate.= You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.truthfu1ly.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Melisa Keys to be remov(ed: http://www.truthfu1ly.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 nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Mon May 16 19:52:51 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Mon May 16 19:54:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: References: <007e01c557be$0c1b0fb0$099468d5@James> <1Ue1usDkXMiCFwF+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article <1Ue1usDkXMiCFwF+@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, Nanki Poo > writes >>Tim West-Meads wrote >> >>>It's the only direct reference in the OB - but if you want to check with >>>EBU HQ they will (probably) tell you that psych disclosure is not allowed >>>on the CC. I can't guarantee consistency, but I have been told in the >>>past that I may not do so. In theory one could try and slip the >>>disclosure through under the "ASPECTS OF SYSTEM WHICH OPPONENTS SHOULD >>>NOTE" heading but awareness, despite being a disclosable part of >>>partnership understanding/experience, is not the same as "system". >>>And doesn't that sound ridiculous - one has to try and find loopholes in >>>the EBU regs in order to disclose something one thinks opps are entitled >>>to know! >> >> This is the approach that is necessary if you start with the premise >>that you know more than the EBU about how to control the English game. > >David please, > >Tim and I play bridge the same way at duplicate as we do at rubber. We >play the systems covered by Level 1 (such as a rubber bridge player >might play) and we play duplicate much as we play rubber. Are we saying >that the only events we can play in are Level 1 events, or can we not >continue to play our same game at level 3 or 4, and meet the disclosure >requirements of the law? > >We both psych a fair bit. The opponents are entitled to know which calls >might occasionally be psychic. Clearly our bank balances and master >point totals can't afford to field partner's proclivities as it's just >losing bridge. I have no problem with your approach to the game, John. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Mon May 16 19:52:26 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Mon May 16 19:54:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote >Since the cats are coming late into this discussion (no doubt because >they couldn't squeeze it into their busy schedule of sleeping, >sleeping, sleeping, sleeping, eating, and sleeping), it's been a while >and I'm not sure I remember everything that had gone on. But I >believe my position was approximately the same as Herman's---that if >you rule against Tony's partner on this hand, you're pretty much >saying that the term "could have known" in L72B1 is redundant because >you always assume that anyone who commits an infraction "could have >known" that it might work out. That's what I was arguing against, and >that's what I believe Herman is arguing against also. Neither of us >is suggesting that the Law be changed---we're suggesting that it be >interpreted the way it's written. In other words, Minke, I think >you're on the same side as we are, and calling his post "incredibly >silly" was probably a mistake, unless your reasoning is that since >Herman has the misfortune not to be feline then that makes everything >he says automatically silly. Of course it was the single post, not the totality. If I misunderstood where it came form fair enough. No, there is no case whatever for ruling against Tony's partner - I had not realised anyone was to suggest that. >> Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm > >I'd like to see what you look like these days, but the above link >doesn't work. Can you fix it? They work for me. It's only my email that's gone bonkers. Time for a new broadband provider, methinks. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From photosh at execs2k.com Mon May 16 21:30:56 2005 From: photosh at execs2k.com (Photoshop Training) Date: Mon May 16 19:54:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Photoshop Video Training Message-ID: 7 Hours of Photoshop Video Training - $29.95 Download a DEMO Here http://www.photoshop-video-teacher.com/DEMO.htm Adobe Photoshop CS Adobe Photoshop CS is a professional tool for editing digital images. With Photoshop Tutorials on Video, you'll get to peek over the shoulder of a professional graphic designer and learn at your own pace. With access to more than 7 hours of Photoshop instruction, you'll discover the secrets of editing digital photos like a pro, how-to create cool objects for web sites, and learn a myriad of other useful tricks - all in one comprehensive step-by-step course. 7 hours of Video Training All Photoshop tutorials are presented in crystal-clear 1024x768 video quality, and are available to you as a downloadable file. No streaming, no activation, no copyright protection - simply download a file and watch it as many times as you like. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a video explains things far more clearly and concisely. Try our demo and discover how easy working in Adobe Photoshop can be. Editing Digital Photos Digital photography is one of the fastest-growing tech markets, but learning how image editing software works hasn't been easy. With this set of clearly-worded Photoshop tutorials, you can enter the digital photography world at your own pace and discover ways to improve your imagery with Adobe Photoshop. We'll show you how-to remove distracting objects, assemble panoramas, restore damaged photos, remove red-eye, adjust color, and address a myriad of other digital photo issues and projects. Step By Step Course "I wish I had known about this video before. I've bought four books, but this set of Photoshop tutorials gave me much more." "Books are great as a quick reference, but if you really want to learn how-to edit digital photos, Photoshop Tutorials on Video is the way to go. It's so much easier to follow! Thanks for your great service!" - Don Bryant, Woodland Hills, CA No future mailings http://www.photoshop-video-teacher.com/r.htm From adam at irvine.com Mon May 16 20:08:29 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon May 16 20:09:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 16 May 2005 18:52:26 BST." Message-ID: <200505161808.LAA01741@mailhub.irvine.com> Minke caterwauled: > >> Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm > > > >I'd like to see what you look like these days, but the above link > >doesn't work. Can you fix it? > > They work for me. It's only my email that's gone bonkers. > > Time for a new broadband provider, methinks. Hmmm . . . I tried http://www.blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm and it works fine (and your pictures are adorable), but it doesn't work without the "www.". My browser seems to resolve the host name fine, but communicating with it seems to be a problem. Interesting. -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon May 16 20:16:05 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon May 16 20:18:02 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) References: Message-ID: <002e01c55a43$548777c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" > > +=+ Well, Tim, of course I do understand that you > > would feel that way. But the position was that the EBU > > Laws & Ethics Committee was determined to set > > minimum standards for agreements on natural opening > > bids. > > No problem there. The Laws allow such using "with a hand of a king or > more below average strength" as a yardstick - one assumes that was not a > figure chosen at random! > > > We were being told by a foreign 'authority' that > > The WBF is not, and was not, a 'foreign' authority. It is, and was, the > duly selected international body for the game. > > > we could not do that for our own competitions. > > One purpose of international ruling bodies is to set global standards and > define the limits of subsidiarity. Had the EBU LE&C possessed anything > resembling integrity they would have withdrawn from the WBF or put with > the prohibition until they could secure agreed change. The ACBL too ought to withdraw from the WBF, whose authority it does not recognize even in its By-Laws. Quote: The ACBL Laws Commission shall consist of a minimum of nine (9) members and a maximum o (15) members. The members shall be appointed by the President of the ACBL with the approval of the Board of Directors and each shall serve for a five (5) year term. The Commission will prepare the Laws under which both duplicate and rubber bridge games will be governed. These Laws may be reviewed and revised periodically by the Commission. ############ Gee, and I thought the WBFLC had the responsibility for preparing, reviewing, and revising the Laws. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cibor at poczta.fm Mon May 16 20:21:06 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon May 16 20:22:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct Message-ID: <20050516182106.8846232EE11@poczta.interia.pl> Nanki Poo napisa?(a): > Konrad Ciborowski > wrote > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "David Kent" >dkent@sujja.com> > > > >> Playing a weak NT with partner in 1st seat V vs NV, you hold xxx xxx > xxx > >> xxxx. A POOT might save you from a large penalty. > >> > >> ...Dave Kent > > > >How? If I pass OOT and partner holds > > > >AKx > >AKxx > >Dxxx > >Kx > > > >then knowing that I am barred for one round he will > >gamble a 3NT opening (who wouldn't) and > >we will end up in 3NTx down a million. > > > >OTOH if I don't pass OOT we will > >end up in 1D (in natural systems) or > >in 1NT in Polish Club (after 1C - 1D - 1NT - pass). > > > >Where is the advantage? > > How about the times that it gains? Sure if you are going to provide > examples where it does not. Suppose he is a king weaker - what will he > do? Probably pass - and you have avoided -1100. Yes, theoretically passing out of turn with this hand can lead to a gain (as almost any idiocy in bridge succeeds once in a while) but it is wildly against the odds. If you hold the hand from David Kent's example xxx xxx xxx xxxx then passing out of turn is not likely to gain (one of the conditions from the "could have known" law), quite the opposite - barring oneself with this hand is likely to lead to a disaster. Even for a downright zero-ethics villain it simply pays off to wait for your turn to bid. So the conditions to invoke the "could have known" law aren't met. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Znajdz swoja milosc na wiosne... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f187a From eryxare at caswell.k12.nc.us Tue May 17 02:38:46 2005 From: eryxare at caswell.k12.nc.us (Tommie Hughes) Date: Tue May 17 01:41:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Become a stud in bed, all it takes is 20 minutes! Message-ID: <109657053247.camel@naldoco> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050517/e53fbd51/attachment.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 17 01:46:34 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue May 17 01:48:22 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) References: <002e01c55a43$548777c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c55a71$c0a88100$f8e2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:16 PM Subject: Re: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) >> >> No problem there. The Laws allow such using >> "with a hand of a king or more below average strength" >> as a yardstick - one assumes that was not a >> figure chosen at random! >> +=+ Did you note this was pre-1987? +=+ >> >> One purpose of international ruling bodies is to set global >> standards and define the limits of subsidiarity. Had the >> EBU LE&C possessed anything resembling integrity they >> would have withdrawn from the WBF or put with the >> prohibition until they could secure agreed change. > +=+ We acted entirely within the laws, and obtained confirmation of this in correspondence with EK There vwas no such prohibition as you suggest. +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 17 03:14:01 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 17 03:15:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Sense and Sensibility In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050513073948.02a400f0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In the thread "MI or CPU?", Eric Landau asserted: [snip] >As I see it, the WBF has one and a half sensible choices: > >(a) reconsider the policy that interprets the law to allow > NCBOs (or ZOs or whomever) to make any regulations they > want to, > >or > >(b) drop the specific regulatory authorizations that appear > in specific laws, and rewrite L80F to state clearly > that NCBOs may make any regulations they want to. > >I leave it to the reader to decide which alternative I >consider only half sensible. Richard Hills quibbles: I both agree and disagree with Eric Landau. In particular, in opinion, I think that Eric is unfairly showing Pride and Prejudice towards the post-Kaplan WBF Laws Committee. Given that Edgar Kaplan left the Laws in an over-specific, over-succinct and over-ambiguous mess (including drafting by Edgar which attempted to render illegal any regulation of non- conventional calls), to permit an SO to achieve an outcome which is both practical and legal needs a touch of creativity in the WBF LC's interpretation of the 1997 fabulous Lawbook. So, I am of the Persuasion that instead the post-Kaplan WBF Laws Drafting Sub-Committee might escape from Edgar's gnomic Northanger Abbey with an alternative Sense and Sensibility: (c) The WBF could delete excessive detail in the 2006 Lawbook, given that many areas currently dealt with by mandatory over-prescriptive Laws are more properly dealt with by local SO customs. Example: The current over-prescriptive appeals procedures in the 1997 Laws 92 and 93 could be profitably deleted. And..... (d) The WBF could acknowledge that some Laws are mutable (as being merely matters of local bridge taste), and such Laws should specifically state within their text that they are merely defaults, with sponsoring organisations given the specific power to amend or repeal those Laws. Example: The current Law 73A2 (Correct Manner for Calls and Plays) specifically grants sponsoring organisations the power to amend its default. But..... (e) The WBF could acknowledge that some Laws are immutable (as being fundamental to the nature of bridge). Example: The current Law 1 (The Pack - Rank of Cards and Suits) is obviously fundamental. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 17 03:41:37 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 17 03:42:58 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes In-Reply-To: <002501c557e8$275d9200$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Extract from Orlando 2004 ACBL LC minutes: >The commission once again reiterated reservations about changing >laws that in general work well. Concerns were voiced that making >radical or numerous changes to the laws detracts from the ability >of players and administrators to understand and implement >efficiently the changes that are made. As well, it was noted that >changing any law risks creating unintended consequences, so the >number of changes should be limited to those laws that have >proven to currently cause problems. In response to this, Cohen >noted that even though that may be the sentiment of the ACBL LC, >many interested parties in the rest of the world do not >necessarily share this view and their ideas will have to be >accommodated to some extent in the new laws. Richard Hills notes: In my first post on this thread, I implicitly criticised an ACBL LC non-decision on use of out-of-session email. I also implicitly criticised an ACBL LC in-principle decision to permit abolition of specific Laws by affiliated sponsoring organisations. I wish to make amends by applauding all the sentiments listed in the above paragraph, especially those of Commissioner Cohen. I note that the ACBL LC was correct in stating "changing any law risks creating unintended consequences", but did not (in my opinion) go far enough. Some of the recent ACBL LC decisions and recommendations (such as in-principle support of abolition of specific Laws) failed to pay sufficient attention (in my opinion) to the very probable (in my opinion) unintended consequences. If the ACBL LC sensibly used out-of-session email to correspond between its formal meetings, it would be more likely that very probable unintended consequences to its decisions would be discovered, analysed and averted. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 17 04:03:12 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 17 04:04:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <20050516182106.8846232EE11@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: [snip] >If you hold the hand from David Kent's example > >xxx >xxx >xxx >xxxx > >then passing out of turn is not likely to gain (one of the >conditions from the "could have known" law), quite the >opposite - barring oneself with this hand is likely >to lead to a disaster. Even for a downright zero-ethics >villain it simply pays off to wait for your turn to bid. Richard Hills: I think that Grattan's original example of a zero-ethics villain was one who *only* passed out of turn when holding circa 0 to 4 hcp (too weak to respond to an opening bid). And Grattan's argument was that the high standard of proof required for application of Law 73B2 (Prearranged Communication) meant that it was useful to change the Law 72B1 criterion from "knew" to "could have known". Konrad Ciborowski: >So the conditions to invoke the "could have known" law >aren't met. Richard Hills: This discussion is moot, anyway. From 1987 to 1997 the "could have known" Law 72B1 was the only practical way that a TD could prevent such cheating from being a profitable exercise for the cheaters. But since 1997, the new Law 16C2 (Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays - Offending Side) means that any information pard provides about their lack of values, because of a withdrawn Pass, is automatically UI whether or not pard "could have known". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 17 04:21:03 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 17 04:22:23 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: <002e01c55a43$548777c0$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: ACBL By-Laws: >>The Commission will prepare the Laws under which both duplicate and >>rubber bridge games will be governed. These Laws may be reviewed and >>revised periodically by the Commission. Marvin French: >Gee, and I thought the WBFLC had the responsibility for preparing, >reviewing, and revising the Laws. Richard Hills: Marv has failed to understand the legal powers of the ACBL. Four bodies have joint responsibility to approve new Laws of Contract Bridge -> The Portland Club The American Contract Bridge League European Bridge League The World Bridge Federation As the World Bridge Federation was founded recently, in 1958, it lacks the experience to have exclusive competency in approving new Laws. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Tue May 17 06:30:44 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue May 17 06:27:29 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > ACBL By-Laws: > > >>The Commission will prepare the Laws under which both duplicate and > >>rubber bridge games will be governed. These Laws may be reviewed and > >>revised periodically by the Commission. > Marvin French: > > >Gee, and I thought the WBFLC had the responsibility for preparing, > >reviewing, and revising the Laws. > > Richard Hills: > > Marv has failed to understand the legal powers of the ACBL. Four bodies > have joint responsibility to approve new Laws of Contract Bridge -> > > The Portland Club > The American Contract Bridge League > European Bridge League > The World Bridge Federation I am curious whether that is still the case or not. In old lawbooks, there was a page of "promulgating bodies," listing representatives of all four. In the European version of the 1997 lawbook, it says "promulgated by the WBF", and "approved by" the others including the ACBL. The ACBL continues to assert "promulgated in the Western Hemisphere by the ACBL" (and only the ACBL) on the title page, but lists both ACBL and WBF on the page headed Promulgating Bodies. One gets the impression that somewhere along the way, the Portland Club and the EBL ceded certain powers and the ACBL deliberately did not --or that the WBF thinks the ACBL did and the ACBl says it didn't. GRB From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 17 12:54:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 17 12:55:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? In-Reply-To: <1Ue1usDkXMiCFwF+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Nanki Poo wrote: > This is the approach that is necessary if you start with the premise > that you know more than the EBU about how to control the English game. It wouldn't exactly be a challenge little pussy-cat. However just for clarification is EBU position: a) Opps are not entitled to know what I know of partner's psychic habits. b) I am allowed to disclose that knowledge on the CC but not required to. c) I am allowed to disclose that knowledge via alerts if I so choose and required to disclose in answer to questions. We can, I hope, take it as a given that I am neither allowed to select an abnormal bid based on a concealed knowledge of partner's habits nor to play an illegal system. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 17 12:54:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 17 12:55:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nanki Poo wrote: > >How? If I pass OOT and partner holds > > > >AKx > >AKxx > >Dxxx > >Kx > > How about the times that it gains? Sure if you are going to provide > examples where it does not. Suppose he is a king weaker - what will he > do? Probably pass - and you have avoided -1100. Make it a king weaker and 3N (opposite a barred partner) is still just about in the running as an LA (close I grant). 1N is definitely an LA. Pass is suggested over 1N by the UI. One is more likely to go doubled in 1N opposite a bust than had one (playing weak NT) opened 1H/D. I think I'd allow a 1N opener but certainly not pass. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 17 12:54:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 17 12:55:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: Message-ID: nanki Poo wrote: > > Hmmm. My experience is that people who shout loudest about their > innocence are usually the guilty ones. A remember a pair of young and > very unethical Dutch players in Belgium many years ago ..... Some amongst the innocent will shout long and loud to protest their innocence, Some amongst the guilty will shout long and loud in an attempt to conceal their guilt. Trying to draw a conclusion from the volume of the protest is pointless. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 17 12:54:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 17 12:55:58 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: <000001c55a71$c0a88100$f8e2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > >> > >> No problem there. The Laws allow such using > >> "with a hand of a king or more below average strength" > >> as a yardstick - one assumes that was not a > >> figure chosen at random! > >> > +=+ Did you note this was pre-1987? +=+ Then waiting until 1987 would have shown integrity. In 2006 the EBU may even get the full range of powers it desires without having to act like weasels. The Ro19 regulation will still be, in a technical sense, stupid and/or ambiguous but that will no longer be an issue of integrity. > >> One purpose of international ruling bodies is to set global > >> standards and define the limits of subsidiarity. Had the > >> EBU LE&C possessed anything resembling integrity they > >> would have withdrawn from the WBF or put with the > >> prohibition until they could secure agreed change. > > > +=+ We acted entirely within the laws, and obtained > confirmation of this in correspondence with EK > There vwas no such prohibition as you suggest. +=+ Indeed. Admirable in the way one admires a lawyer who gets a violent criminal off through a loophole when he knows his client is guilty. Very clever no doubt, but hardly the reason for having a judicial system. When the ethos of the SO is to try to wriggle through loopholes the expected behaviour of the players is to do the same. Whether they are trying to find loopholes in the regulations to get back to the laws or other loopholes in law to exploit for gain they are being led by example. Great approach! Tim From cibor at poczta.fm Tue May 17 13:28:20 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue May 17 13:29:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct Message-ID: <20050517112820.3EBA8DAC9E@poczta.interia.pl> > nanki Poo wrote: > > > > Hmmm. My experience is that people who shout loudest about their > > innocence are usually the guilty ones. In John Swanson's "Inside The Bermuda Bowl" there is a description of the Houston incident (Cohen - Katz were suspended as ACBL members obviously for cheating although no formal accusation was made). Swanson admitted that he considered them guilty at the time because they didn't defend their innocence in public. "Why not protest, scream injustice?" - he writes. So clearly Swanson expects inncocent people to shout loudest. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Znajdz swoja milosc na wiosne... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f187a From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 17 13:28:52 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue May 17 13:34:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Sense and Sensibility References: Message-ID: <001201c55ad3$b1828f10$7c66893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "There are two things which I am confident I can do very well: one is an introduction to any literary work, stating what it should contain, and how it is to be executed in the most perfect manner; the other is a conclusion, shewing from various causes why the execution has not been equal to what the author promised to himself and to the public." [ Boswell]. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 2:14 AM Subject: [blml] Sense and Sensibility > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > So, I am of the Persuasion that instead the post-Kaplan WBF > Laws Drafting Sub-Committee might escape from Edgar's gnomic > Northanger Abbey with an alternative Sense and Sensibility: > > (c) The WBF could delete excessive detail in the 2006 Lawbook, > given that many areas currently dealt with by mandatory > over-prescriptive Laws are more properly dealt with by > local SO customs. > > Example: The current over-prescriptive appeals procedures > in the 1997 Laws 92 and 93 could be profitably deleted. > > And..... > > (d) The WBF could acknowledge that some Laws are mutable (as > being merely matters of local bridge taste), and such Laws > should specifically state within their text that they > are merely defaults, with sponsoring organisations given > the specific power to amend or repeal those Laws. > > Example: The current Law 73A2 (Correct Manner for Calls > and Plays) specifically grants sponsoring organisations > the power to amend its default. > > But..... > > (e) The WBF could acknowledge that some Laws are immutable (as > being fundamental to the nature of bridge). > > Example: The current Law 1 (The Pack - Rank of Cards and > Suits) is obviously fundamental. > +=+ This is approximate to the philosophy enunciated by the majority of the Drafting Subcommittee early in the first three years of its existence. However (i) this does not imply that any two members of the committee necessarily place identical subjects in each category, and (ii) there is no guarantee that the same philosophy will obtain for the next three years of its existence. :-( Note, however, that (c) causes problems if the SO does not regulate; a default situation needs to exist for the sake of directors in remote situations three and a half kilometres (occasionally more) from the seat of the NBO. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Tue May 17 14:10:34 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue May 17 14:10:21 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again Message-ID: <4289DF3A.10406@hdw.be> I believe that I undertook to publish the frequency of my Spanish heart opening by mentioning it to you guys whenever I performed it. Well, I did so again yesterday. I cannot remember the previous time, but there ought to be a trace of it on blml. And, I certainly remember never to have passed a 3-pointer or less in third seat during the same time. And the number of 3rd-in-hand heart openings Surely frequency must count for something in determining whether or not a strict habit is systemic or not? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 17 14:32:43 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 17 14:35:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: References: <001301c54f1b$70a3a010$6900a8c0@WINXP> <427638D7.7060101@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050517082432.02a3fbd0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:10 PM 5/16/05, Nanki wrote: >Herman De Wael > wrote >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> The very moment you accept that there is a certain possibility >>> (however >>>small) for a "could have known" situation with a pass out of turn >>>ought to >>>confirm also to you that we need L72B1 procedures even for such >>>situations. > >>And the very moment you start looking for that possibility when >>someone opens with a pass out of turn, is when you are turning to paranoia. > > Suppose you are suddenly offered a chance out of the blue for a big > gain - but you know it is illegal. Perhaps you find a wallet lying > around with a lot of cash in. What do you do? > > Ok, you take it to the police station. But would it be paranoid of > someone to wonder about what you were doing if you still had it three > days later, and said you had not had time to visit the police station? > > In the same way, there are a few situations where someone commits > an infraction, and we can see the potential for gain - and he could > see it. We do not need to accuse anyone of anything - perhaps you > really had not had time to go to the police station - but it is not > "paranoid" to consider the possibility that you are allowing for your > persoanl gain. But it would be paranoid indeed to consider the possibility that someone who decided to go for a walk around the block did so because he could have known that he might find a wallet lying around with a lot of cash in it and subsequently decide to keep it for personal gain. IMO, that is a much closer analogy to an opening pass out of turn, which was the particular subject of Herman's comment. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue May 17 15:02:38 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue May 17 15:02:38 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <4289DF3A.10406@hdw.be> References: <4289DF3A.10406@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4289EB6E.4020808@hdw.be> I missed part of a sentence here: Herman De Wael wrote: > I believe that I undertook to publish the frequency of my Spanish heart > opening by mentioning it to you guys whenever I performed it. > Well, I did so again yesterday. > I cannot remember the previous time, but there ought to be a trace of it > on blml. > And, I certainly remember never to have passed a 3-pointer or less in > third seat during the same time. > And the number of 3rd-in-hand heart openings that I performed in the same period is too numerous to count. > Surely frequency must count for something in determining whether or not > a strict habit is systemic or not? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 17 14:23:26 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue May 17 17:41:08 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) References: Message-ID: <000a01c55af6$19c0fd60$94aa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "There are two things which I am confident I can do very well: one is an introduction to any literary work, stating what it should contain, and how it is to be executed in the most perfect manner; the other is a conclusion, shewing from various causes why the execution has not been equal to what the author promised to himself and to the public." [ Boswell]. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:54 AM Subject: Re: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) > > > > > +=+ We acted entirely within the laws, and obtained > > confirmation of this in correspondence with EK > > There was no such prohibition as you suggest. +=+ > > Indeed. Admirable in the way one admires a lawyer who > gets a violent criminal off through a loophole when he > knows his client is guilty. Very clever no doubt, but hardly > the reason for having a judicial system. When the ethos of > the SO is to try to wriggle through loopholes the expected > behaviour of the players is to do the same. Whether they > are trying to find loopholes in the regulations to get back > to the laws or other loopholes in law to exploit for gain > they are being led by example. Great approach! > +=+ In the eye of the beholder. No doubt you have never taken the line that we should apply the laws as they are written, but some have and they can have no argument at all.with the EBU L&E on this - then, or now. ~ G ~ +=+ From cibarium at belice.com Tue May 17 18:37:10 2005 From: cibarium at belice.com (Cali VALENTINE) Date: Tue May 17 18:56:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Employment opportunity Message-ID: <7bf301c55afe$232cd952$66786321@belice.com> Good evening, Do you want to earn some extra $$$ working from home? We have a great offer for you! Our corporation Ship & Pay Intl. is constantly looking for trustworthy people to be our representatives in your country! You'll need NO money and NO special skills to start working. Anyone can work with us, why not you?! If you're interested, please visit our corporate web-site: http://www.shipandpay.com/jobs.html Our requirements: 1. We don't work with persons under 21 2. Computer with access to internet, e-mail 3. 3-5 hours free during the week 4. Bank account to receive payments 5. Be able to lift 2-5 kg boxes. 6. Reply to e-mails immediately 7. Check your e-mail several times a day (each hour is welcome) 8. Be responsible, hard working and communicable 9. Be able to answer phone calls If you like to join our community don't hesitate to visit http://www.shipandpay.com/jobs.html and fill in the online application form. Thank you. Kind regards, Ship & Pay International From ladeau at emailaccount.com Tue May 17 22:18:27 2005 From: ladeau at emailaccount.com (Clarence Downing) Date: Tue May 17 21:29:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Your account #1M7702 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.truthfu1ly.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Becky Mayberry to be remov(ed: http://www.truthfu1ly.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 Wed May 18 01:28:44 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 18 01:29:23 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower: [snip] >In old lawbooks, there was a page of "promulgating bodies," listing >representatives of all four. > >In the European version of the 1997 lawbook, it says "promulgated by >the WBF", and "approved by" the others including the ACBL. The ACBL >continues to assert "promulgated in the Western Hemisphere by the >ACBL" (and only the ACBL) on the title page, but lists both ACBL and >WBF on the page headed Promulgating Bodies. > >One gets the impression that somewhere along the way, the Portland >Club and the EBL ceded certain powers and the ACBL deliberately did >not -- or that the WBF thinks the ACBL did and the ACBL says it >didn't. Richard Hills: Wrong impression. The international Laws of Bridge were originally created jointly by a trans-Atlantic partnership between the New York Whist Club and The Portland Club. The New York Whist Club ceded its powers to the ACBL, but the Portland Club did not cede its powers to the English Bridge Union. At a later stage, the European Bridge League extended the reach of the international Laws to non-English speaking European countries. Still later (in 1958), the WBF was created, and therefore gained a coordinating role in the promulgation of new international Laws. The copyright of (and consequent promulgating bodies for) the international Laws is therefore split three ways: (1) All non-English speaking countries in Europe (other than Spain and Portugal) -> European Bridge League. (2) British Commonwealth past and present (other than the Western Hemisphere), the Continent of Africa, Spain, Portugal and all English speaking countries in the Eastern Hemisphere -> The Portland Club. (3) Western Hemisphere and the Republic of the Philippines -> ACBL. The ACBL is therefore within its rights in the Western Hemisphere (and The Philippines) to state that it is the promulgating body for the Laws. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Wed May 18 01:58:05 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Wed May 18 01:59:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9mUXCCbNUoiCFwnX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Tim West-Meads wrote >nanki Poo wrote: >> >> Hmmm. My experience is that people who shout loudest about their >> innocence are usually the guilty ones. A remember a pair of young and >> very unethical Dutch players in Belgium many years ago ..... > >Some amongst the innocent will shout long and loud to protest their >innocence, Some amongst the guilty will shout long and loud in an attempt >to conceal their guilt. Trying to draw a conclusion from the volume of >the protest is pointless. I merely mentioned my experience. Your experience may differ. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From julieAvery69 at doook.net Wed May 18 03:21:49 2005 From: julieAvery69 at doook.net (Julie Foster) Date: Wed May 18 02:26:10 2005 Subject: [blml] guess who :) Message-ID: <1096982523.494000-77695julieAvery69@doook.net> I'm new, it's Julie :) Any times of the day I feel not in a mood alot of times... old time friend suggested to have my life on the internet . My girlfriends like the idea of the site and I will post their pictures too ;D Verify your age and connect to my webcam today -) I want to have a cyber friend if you don't mind -) http://www.foursamurais.com/ju18/ you bravery me obsequy me you peacetime me procession me you predilect me internal me you lebensraum me convalesce me you arouse me prayer me you rung me choir me you ampersand me coy me you fade me tuscan me From twm at cix.co.uk Wed May 18 02:28:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed May 18 02:29:36 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: <000a01c55af6$19c0fd60$94aa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ In the eye of the beholder. No doubt you have never > taken the line that we should apply the laws as they are > written, but some have and they can have no argument at > all.with the EBU L&E on this - then, or now. Don't even try it. The laws "as written" did not require the EBU to restrict natural bids. Indeed the laws "as written" made clear that natural bids were not intended to be regulated. You took a cheap, tawdry, scumsucking shyster approach to what the laws said - well bully for you. You are proud of having done so - bully for you too. That your actions demean the world's most beautiful game, sully the players by mere association, and set a disgusting example of low morals and ethics you care not one whit - bully for you yet a third time. Well done Grattan! Tim From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed May 18 02:59:16 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed May 18 03:00:37 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050518005916.31416.qmail@web14721.mail.yahoo.com> --- Grattan Endicott wrote: > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "There are two things which I am > confident I can do very well: one > is an introduction to any literary > work, stating what it should contain, > and how it is to be executed in the > most perfect manner; the other is a > conclusion, shewing from various > causes why the execution has not > been equal to what the author promised > to himself and to the public." [ Boswell]. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:54 AM > Subject: Re: Indirect regulation of System > (was[blml] Fielding or not?) > > > > > > > > > +=+ We acted entirely within the laws, and > obtained > > > confirmation of this in correspondence > with EK > > > There was no such prohibition as you > suggest. +=+ > > > > Indeed. Admirable in the way one admires a lawyer > who > > gets a violent criminal off through a loophole > when he > > knows his client is guilty. Very clever no doubt, > but hardly > > the reason for having a judicial system. When the > ethos of > > the SO is to try to wriggle through loopholes the > expected > > behaviour of the players is to do the same. > Whether they > > are trying to find loopholes in the regulations > to get back > > to the laws or other loopholes in law to exploit > for gain > > they are being led by example. Great approach! > > > +=+ In the eye of the beholder. No doubt you have > never > taken the line that we should apply the laws as they > are > written, but some have and they can have no argument > at > all.with the EBU L&E on this - then, or now. > We would call a player who tried the apply the letter of the law in a way that it was not intended a Bridge Lawyer and we would mean this is a derogatory sense. The same applies to a NO that wriggles around the written law. Following this example my NO has taken the position that L40D was "NEVER" (their emphasis not mine - actually "NEVER" was capitalized and bolded in their correspondence) intended to constrain National Associations. This position and the like are contemptible. It is clear that natural (more precisely non-conventional) bids within a King of average strength were not intended to be constrained by L40D and it is also clear that the power to regulate conventions was not intended to be used this way. Our game would be much better if the regulators had the same respect for the laws that is expected of the players. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 18 03:08:59 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed May 18 03:15:21 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) References: Message-ID: <000001c55b47$1083dcd0$03e8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:28 AM Subject: Re: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) > Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ In the eye of the beholder. No doubt you > > have never taken the line that we should apply > > the laws as they are written, but some have and > > they can have no argument at all.with the EBU > > L&E on this - then, or now. > > Don't even try it. The laws "as written" did not > require the EBU to restrict natural bids. Indeed > the laws "as written" made clear that natural bids > were not intended to be regulated. You took a > cheap, tawdry, scumsucking shyster approach to > what the laws said - well bully for you. You are > proud of having done so - bully for you too. > > That your actions demean the world's most > beautiful game, sully the players by mere association, > and set a disgusting example of low morals and > ethics you care not one whit - bully for you yet a > third time. > > Well done Grattan! > > Tim > +=+ Did I upset you or something ? Since the regulation has been renewed to this day I should thank you, Tim, for your opinion on behalf of all those who were originally, and subsequently have been, involved in the EBU L&E decision making process in this matter. +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 18 03:33:17 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 18 03:34:38 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: <20050518005916.31416.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >This position and the like are contemptible. It is >clear that natural (more precisely non-conventional) >bids within a King of average strength were not >intended to be constrained by L40D and it is also >clear that the power to regulate conventions was not >intended to be used this way. > >Our game would be much better if the regulators had >the same respect for the laws that is expected of the >players. Richard Hills: Blml discussion would be much better if blmlers had the same respect for the laws that those blmlers expect of the regulators. On this issue of "the spirit of the laws" versus "the letter of the laws", it seems to me that Wayne has been inconsistently blowing hot and cold. On the issue of psyching versus concealed implicit agreements, it seems to me that Wayne has taken a very narrow "letter of the laws" approach. But on the issue of regulation of conventions, it seems to me that Wayne is taking a very broad "spirit of the laws" approach. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 18 04:24:57 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 18 04:26:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Sense and Sensibility In-Reply-To: <001201c55ad3$b1828f10$7c66893e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>(c) The WBF could delete excessive detail in the >> 2006 Lawbook, given that many areas currently >> dealt with by mandatory over-prescriptive Laws >> are more properly dealt with by local SO customs. >> >> Example: The current over-prescriptive appeals >> procedures in the 1997 Laws 92 and 93 could be >> profitably deleted. [snip] Grattan Endicott: [snip] > Note, however, that (c) causes problems if the >SO does not regulate; a default situation needs to >exist for the sake of directors in remote situations >three and a half kilometres (occasionally more) from >the seat of the NBO. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: A non-problematic example of (c) would be this simple non-prescriptive hypothetical 2006 replacement for the over-prescriptive 1997 appeals laws: "Unless the sponsoring organisation regulates otherwise, the Director's decision is final and may not be appealed." This is what happens in practice anyway at the South Canberra Bridge Club. During its two decades of existence (with sessions every Wednesday evening) only once has there been an appeal against a TD ruling. And that time was when the TD (moi) strongly suggested to the putative offending side that they should appeal. (Note: I was right in so suggesting, since the AC correctly decided that the putative offending side was in fact a non-offending side.) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From dreyfu at didamail.com Wed May 18 06:20:21 2005 From: dreyfu at didamail.com (Johnathon Schmitt) Date: Wed May 18 05:22:07 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.truthfu1ly.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Wilda Conley to be remov(ed: http://www.truthfu1ly.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 Wed May 18 06:17:02 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 18 06:18:26 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <4289EB6E.4020808@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >And, I certainly remember never to have passed a 3-pointer >or less in third seat during the same time. > >And the number of 3rd-in-hand heart openings that I >performed in the same period is too numerous to count. > >Surely frequency must count for something in determining >whether or not a strict habit is systemic or not? Richard Hills: Interesting. It is very rare for the auction to start: Dealer RHO Herman Pass Pass ? and for Herman to then hold 0-3 hcp. But, in this very rare situation, Herman has a 100% record of not passing, but rather opening 1H. Does a 100.00% probability multiplied by a 0.01% probability create an implicit concealed partnership understanding? To put it another way, does a 100% probability multiplied by a 0.01% probability mean that Herman is using an illegal convention? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 18 08:52:56 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 18 08:54:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050517082432.02a3fbd0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >But it would be paranoid indeed to consider the possibility >that someone who decided to go for a walk around the block >did so because he could have known that he might find a >wallet lying around with a lot of cash in it and >subsequently decide to keep it for personal gain. > >IMO, that is a much closer analogy to an opening pass out >of turn, which was the particular subject of Herman's >comment. Richard Hills: "You've got to pick a pocket or two." Although the possibility of a cheating pickpocket is unlikely, a careful TD will still judiciously assess whether a player "could have known" that pocket-picking with an out-of-turn pass was "likely" to be beneficial to their side. If both the answers to "could have known?" and "likely?" are yes, then a careful TD is required to apply Law 72B1, consequently possibly adjusting the score. "Careful" does not have a one-to-one correspondence with "paranoid", since lucky innocents and cheating pickpockets receive the same "could have known" Law 72B1 ruling. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From hermandw at hdw.be Wed May 18 09:11:23 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed May 18 09:11:08 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <428AEA9B.4000709@hdw.be> Gordon Bower wrote: > > On Tue, 17 May 2005, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>>I believe that I undertook to publish the frequency of my Spanish heart >>>opening by mentioning it to you guys whenever I performed it. >>>Well, I did so again yesterday. > > > And how did it turn out? Inquiring minds want to know. > opponents got to 3NT and partner suspected they were doing so on a seven-card diamond length or some such, so she did not double. average. > Incidentally, I am holding you responsible for a bottom I got last Friday > night. > > My regular partner, "MikeY," decided some time ago that the next time he > was in 3rd seat with 0-3 points and I passed as dealer, he was going to > psych. Here is the hand: > > S dealer QJ8 > Both vul 532 > 87543 > 85 > A93 KT765 > AT96 Q84 > KJ AQ > AKJT Q62 > 42 > KJ7 > T962 > 9743 > > W N E S > Pass > 1C 1H! 1S 2H > 3NT Pass Pass Pass > that is not a spanish heart - that is just plain silly! and I can't believe that this was the first time you passed as dealer and he had 0-3. It's only when second hand also passes that we get into rare (once a year or so) territory. This is far more common and if MikeY told you, you would be guilty of CPU, GordY. > ...and the rest of the room had an uncontested auction to 6NT down one. > well, that's just plain bad luck. > We did get one whole matchpoint out of it, since one pair was allowed to > make six somehow. Lucky for him we didn't get doubled since we were going > for a LOT more than the value of a game, and if I had had 4 hearts and > raised to 3H, we might have gone down more than the value of a making > slam. > > GRB > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From artlike at doramail.com Wed May 18 10:07:15 2005 From: artlike at doramail.com (Mohammad Pitts) Date: Wed May 18 09:12:59 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.truthfu1ly.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Edmund Dempsey to be remov(ed: http://www.truthfu1ly.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 hermandw at hdw.be Wed May 18 09:15:47 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed May 18 09:15:29 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <428AEBA3.5030000@hdw.be> Interesting questions, as always from Richard: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > > >>And, I certainly remember never to have passed a 3-pointer >>or less in third seat during the same time. >> >>And the number of 3rd-in-hand heart openings that I >>performed in the same period is too numerous to count. >> >>Surely frequency must count for something in determining >>whether or not a strict habit is systemic or not? > > > Richard Hills: > > Interesting. It is very rare for the auction to start: > > Dealer RHO Herman > Pass Pass ? > > and for Herman to then hold 0-3 hcp. > > But, in this very rare situation, Herman has a 100% record > of not passing, but rather opening 1H. > > Does a 100.00% probability multiplied by a 0.01% probability > create an implicit concealed partnership understanding? > > To put it another way, does a 100% probability multiplied by > a 0.01% probability mean that Herman is using an illegal > convention? > I think one has to look at it from another angle. When the bidding starts pass-pass, I have a 0.01% chance of finding myself with 0-3 HCP. I have a 20% chance of finding myself with 13+HCP and a hand suitable for a 1H opening. In both cases, I have a 100% record for opening 1H. This translates (I forgotten whose law this is) into saying that if I open 1H in third position, there is 0.05% chance that it is on a 0-3 range, and 99.95% that I hold 13+. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 18 09:22:00 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 18 09:23:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <20050517112820.3EBA8DAC9E@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Stevenson: >>Hmmm. My experience is that people who shout loudest about >>their innocence are usually the guilty ones. [snip] Konrad Ciborowski: [snip] >So clearly Swanson expects innocent people to shout loudest. Richard Hills: J'accuse David and Konrad. Consider the Dreyfus Affair. Popular prejudices (such as those created by 19th century anti-Semitism) are not evidence. And, in the archived thread "Groundhog Day", I demonstrated how easy it was for professional TDs to be prejudiced in their assessments of logical alternatives, depending upon in which varying non-relevant context they were asked to make such assessments of logical alternatives. Or, alternatively, read the archived thread "The Monty Hall Trap", in which a prominent blmler was led astray by his common-sense prejudices. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed May 18 09:51:40 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed May 18 09:59:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: Message-ID: <001501c55b7e$bfb38f70$b19c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "There are two things which I am confident I can do very well: one is an introduction to any literary work, stating what it should contain, and how it is to be executed in the most perfect manner; the other is a conclusion, shewing from various causes why the execution has not been equal to what the author promised to himself and to the public." [ Boswell]. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:30 AM Subject: Re: Indirect regulation of System > > > One gets the impression that somewhere along the > way, the Portland Club and the EBL ceded certain > powers and the ACBL deliberately did not --or > that the WBF thinks the ACBL did and the ACBl > says it didn't. > > GRB > +=+ The ACBL arranges printing itself. The EBU has undertaken the printing (of the Laws in English) for the other two. Meanwhile in the South Pacific rumour has it that there are locally produced law books. This thread has been about the exercise of power to restrain the use of weak one-openers in natural bidding. In Europe there had been minimum standards set by the 'Rule of 19' and these had been included in regulations as 'guidelines', enforced on a rather vague basis. A minority of players have always reacted with hostility to this (but not, Tim, with crude vituperation). The EBU merely set out to put control on a lawful basis and it found a way to do so. My part was to discover that means for my committee colleagues; they did not have to adopt it unless they considered the policy of control was desirable for the good of the majority and therefore of the game. In the ACBL there were many who disagreed with Kaplan's opinion (of what was desirable) but for many years he dominated the field of law and regulation. Eventually he was sufficiently outnumbered in committee for the ACBL to take up what had been the English position for some years. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Wed May 18 10:29:05 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed May 18 10:30:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct Message-ID: <20050518082905.4B8823C324@poczta.interia.pl> richard.hills@immi.gov.au napisa?(a): > > > > > David Stevenson: > > >>Hmmm. My experience is that people who shout loudest about > >>their innocence are usually the guilty ones. > > [snip] > > Konrad Ciborowski: > > [snip] > > >So clearly Swanson expects innocent people to shout loudest. > > Richard Hills: > > J'accuse David and Konrad. Why me? I merely pointed out to David that other people might draw different conclusions from the particular behavior of the accused people. I didn't suggest it should be taken as evidence. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Znajdz swoja milosc na wiosne... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f187a From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Wed May 18 10:30:28 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Wed May 18 10:31:48 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or bad bidding. Do you correct? Message-ID: <428AFD24.7020508@hotmail.com> MP S/NS Qx xx Jxxx Kxxxx - xxx AKJxx Qxxxx Qxxx AKx xxxx xx AKJxxxxx x xx AQ 2C-(P)-2D-(P) 2S-(P)-2NT-(P) 3S-(P)-4S-All Pass 2C: Explained as strong (22+) or 8+ tricks 2D: relay 2S: 9+ tricks in unknown suit 2NT: relay 3S: 9 tricks in Spades Actually the agreement that NS have about 2C is that is can only be weak with 6-card D. Over 2C West did some thinking (more then 10 secs). After the hand he says that he would have bid 2H over 2C if he had received a correct explanation of 2C (that it can also be weak 6-card D). And they would have found a save to 5H. Suppose that you are convinced about the above: Will you correct the result even if the MI did correspond to the actual hand? From svenpran at online.no Wed May 18 11:07:51 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed May 18 11:09:09 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or bad bidding. Do you correct? In-Reply-To: <428AFD24.7020508@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c55b89$12244060$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of koen > MP > S/NS > Qx > xx > Jxxx > Kxxxx > - xxx > AKJxx Qxxxx > Qxxx AKx > xxxx xx > AKJxxxxx > x > xx > AQ > > 2C-(P)-2D-(P) > 2S-(P)-2NT-(P) > 3S-(P)-4S-All Pass > > 2C: Explained as strong (22+) or 8+ tricks > 2D: relay > 2S: 9+ tricks in unknown suit > 2NT: relay > 3S: 9 tricks in Spades > > Actually the agreement that NS have about 2C is that is can only be weak > with 6-card D. > Over 2C West did some thinking (more then 10 secs). After the hand he > says that he would have bid 2H over 2C if he had received a correct > explanation of 2C (that it can also be weak 6-card D). And they would > have found a save to 5H. > Suppose that you are convinced about the above: > Will you correct the result even if the MI did correspond to > the actual hand? There is a very big IF here: Exactly what are the existing agreements between North and South? The fact is that the actual auction indicates correct information, no MI, but it all depends upon other evidence as well. Now to your question: IF I am convinced about the above (and that East/West have been misinformed) then I would accept West's word for it and adjust unless I find his claim on what he would have done to be absurd. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Wed May 18 11:18:50 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed May 18 11:18:39 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or bad bidding. Do you correct? In-Reply-To: <428AFD24.7020508@hotmail.com> References: <428AFD24.7020508@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <428B087A.3090704@hdw.be> koen wrote: > MP > S/NS Qx > xx > Jxxx > Kxxxx > - xxx > AKJxx Qxxxx > Qxxx AKx > xxxx xx > AKJxxxxx > x > xx > AQ > > 2C-(P)-2D-(P) > 2S-(P)-2NT-(P) > 3S-(P)-4S-All Pass > > 2C: Explained as strong (22+) or 8+ tricks > 2D: relay > 2S: 9+ tricks in unknown suit > 2NT: relay > 3S: 9 tricks in Spades > > Actually the agreement that NS have about 2C is that is can only be weak > with 6-card D. > Over 2C West did some thinking (more then 10 secs). After the hand he > says that he would have bid 2H over 2C if he had received a correct > explanation of 2C (that it can also be weak 6-card D). And they would > have found a save to 5H. > Suppose that you are convinced about the above: > Will you correct the result even if the MI did correspond to > the actual hand? > Yes of course you would. The fact that the hand conformed to the MI is not important. It still is MI. But I would ask EW to really confirm to me that they would bid 2H in second position. Rather, if West is afraid of the strong version (which apparently he is), with correct information, West could wait for the bidding to return to him after 2D-p-p. Considering that he did not act over "only strong", I would force him also to pass over "weak with diamonds or strong". He has more reason to act over the first explanation than over the second one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 18 12:39:49 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 18 12:43:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <001501c55b7e$bfb38f70$b19c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <00a701c55b96$368e13b0$1d9868d5@James> [Grattan Endicott] > This thread has been about the exercise of > power to restrain the use of weak one-openers in > natural bidding. In Europe there had been minimum > standards set by the 'Rule of 19' and these had > been included in regulations as 'guidelines', > enforced on a rather vague basis. [Nigel] A couple of problems with this local rule are: A. Directors fall into two camps as to whether a player can use "judgement" to upgrade say AJxxxx Kxxx xx x to rule of 19. The David Stevenson camp seem to think that you may upgrade. IMO, however, those who read the Orange Book would agree with David Burn that upgrading is against the letter and the spirit if the regulations. I feel strongly about this because my team has lost matches by blindly following a literal interpretation --especially when third in hand after two passes. B. Another controversial point is whether you can "psyche" a bid with such a lower limit regulation. For example, suppose the lower limit for a 1N opener is 10 HCP. Presumably, you may not open 1N on a 9 count; but may you psyche 1N on a 6 count? The UK problem would be far worse if more people read the Orange Book. As it is, must players are blissfully ignorant of its dictates. A pity that TFLB does not specify a complete set of default laws so that players would not be expected to cope with so many arbitrary local variations. Also, such controversies seem to go on forever without any official resolution. An argument for more frequent editions of the law-books - at least to remove some of the ambiguities and anomalies. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 18 11:45:42 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 18 12:44:08 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again References: Message-ID: <00a401c55b96$2fec8960$1d9868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > Interesting. It is very rare for the auction to start: > Dealer RHO Herman > Pass Pass ? > and for Herman to then hold 0-3 hcp. > But, in this very rare situation, Herman has a 100% > record of not passing, but rather opening 1H. > Does a 100.00% probability multiplied by a 0.01% > probability create an implicit concealed partnership > understanding? To put it another way, does a 100% > probability multiplied by a 0.01% probability mean that > Herman is using an illegal convention? [Nigel] IMO Yes Yes ... A. If it is not declared then it is a concealed partnership understanding and ... B. If local rules impose lower limits for opening bids then it is an illegal convention. Previously, I suggested an even better way of cheating that is hard to detect :) Consider a psyche whenever you hold certain combinations of small cards. For example .... If you have four deuces then seriously consider a psyche of 1C; with four treys, 1D; with four fours 1H; and so on. Suppose partner suspects your 1D bid. If he holds any trey then he knows it is genuine; but if he has no treys then it is likely to be psychic and he can consider fielding it :) Please do *not* try this at home, however much you dislike the psyche laws. IMO players should abide by the letter and spirit of Bridge laws. If you don't like a law, don't break it -- just explain how it can be improved. From svenpran at online.no Wed May 18 13:59:45 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed May 18 14:01:04 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <00a401c55b96$2fec8960$1d9868d5@James> Message-ID: <000201c55ba1$15c261d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of GUTHRIE ........... > [Richard James Hills] > > Interesting. It is very rare for the auction to start: > > Dealer RHO Herman > > Pass Pass ? > > and for Herman to then hold 0-3 hcp. > > But, in this very rare situation, Herman has a 100% > > record of not passing, but rather opening 1H. > > Does a 100.00% probability multiplied by a 0.01% > > probability create an implicit concealed partnership > > understanding? To put it another way, does a 100% > > probability multiplied by a 0.01% probability mean that > > Herman is using an illegal convention? > > [Nigel] > > IMO Yes Yes ... > > A. If it is not declared then it is a concealed partnership > understanding and ... > > B. If local rules impose lower limits for opening bids then > it is an illegal convention. > > Previously, I suggested an even better way of cheating that > is hard to detect :) > > Consider a psyche whenever you hold certain combinations of > small cards. For example .... > > If you have four deuces then seriously consider a psyche of > 1C; with four treys, 1D; with four fours 1H; and so on. > > Suppose partner suspects your 1D bid. If he holds any trey > then he knows it is genuine; but if he has no treys then it > is likely to be psychic and he can consider fielding it :) > > Please do *not* try this at home, however much you dislike > the psyche laws. IMO players should abide by the letter and > spirit of Bridge laws. If you don't like a law, don't break > it -- just explain how it can be improved. Please do not try this anywhere in Norway without clearly announcing it in advance. If I ever saw any example of CPU this is one. The moment we found out what is going on I expect you would be expelled from any and all organized Bridge here. (But I assume you were not really to be taken seriously were you?) regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 18 14:02:01 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 18 14:01:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050517082432.02a3fbd0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050518074723.02b32010@pop.starpower.net> At 02:52 AM 5/18/05, richard.hills wrote: >Eric Landau: > > >But it would be paranoid indeed to consider the possibility > >that someone who decided to go for a walk around the block > >did so because he could have known that he might find a > >wallet lying around with a lot of cash in it and > >subsequently decide to keep it for personal gain. > > > >IMO, that is a much closer analogy to an opening pass out > >of turn, which was the particular subject of Herman's > >comment. > >Richard Hills: > >"You've got to pick a pocket or two." Although the >possibility of a cheating pickpocket is unlikely, a careful >TD will still judiciously assess whether a player "could >have known" that pocket-picking with an out-of-turn pass >was "likely" to be beneficial to their side. If both the >answers to "could have known?" and "likely?" are yes, then >a careful TD is required to apply Law 72B1, consequently >possibly adjusting the score. > >"Careful" does not have a one-to-one correspondence with >"paranoid", since lucky innocents and cheating pickpockets >receive the same "could have known" Law 72B1 ruling. > >What's the problem? The problem is that calling for the TD to "judiciously assess" the possibility of a successful "pocket-picking" asks him to make a decision not about a generic player in a generic situation, but about a particular player in a particular situation in which a particular violation is already known to have worked out to his advantage. Was it likely to have done so? Well, it did, and one out of one is 100% of the sample. Could the player have known it would? Well, it did, so the course of events was theoretically predictable. Unless one is thoroughly grounded in statistical theory, that looks like pretty strong prima facie evidence for the application of L72B1. Strong enough, indeed, to convict based on a "preponderance of evidence" standard when there is no other evidence to be had. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed May 18 14:18:05 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed May 18 14:17:50 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <00a401c55b96$2fec8960$1d9868d5@James> References: <00a401c55b96$2fec8960$1d9868d5@James> Message-ID: <428B327D.5030300@hdw.be> GUTHRIE wrote: >>understanding? To put it another way, does a 100% >>probability multiplied by a 0.01% probability mean that >>Herman is using an illegal convention? > > > [Nigel] > > IMO Yes Yes ... > > A. If it is not declared then it is a concealed partnership > understanding and ... > The malice this word has already done! Nigel clearly uses the word concealed, which only exists in the title, not the body of the laws, in its pejorative, "cheating" meaning. YES - my partnership can be considered guilty of MI. in just the same manner as it was, at the same table, guilty of not explaining beforehand that we were playing four card majors. Both these MI could have been avoided by us having a CC on the table, which could state, among other things, the sentences "flemish acol" and "HDW is known to psyche in third hand". Sadly, such a mention on CC's is never regarded in its true meaning, and sentiments such as Nigel's below are common all over the world - and not correct however many people ascribe to them: > B. If local rules impose lower limits for opening bids then > it is an illegal convention. > NO. it is not. Any system regulation that absolutely forbids opening below lower limits is, by L40A, wrong. Any system regulation that would try to forbid my completely honest "I do this whenever it occurs, which is less than once a year", will only succeed in my being less honest, and still do it, and maintain when I have done it that I have never done it with the current partner. Such regulations would be counter-productive. I do not believe such a regulation is in force, even using a Law-of-18, as my NCBO in fact does. I do not propose to write complete regulations to distinguish between real and pseudo-psyches, but frequency and systemic catering are certainly a part of those distinctions. Bridge would be far better off with ways of having me divulge my tendencies to others than of trying to forbid me psyching in this manner. > Previously, I suggested an even better way of cheating that > is hard to detect :) > "even better" - you see that nigel believes I am cheating? What you describe below IS cheating, Nigel. By putting this in the same thread with my spanish heart you clearly indicate that you believe I am also cheating. I demand an apology. > Consider a psyche whenever you hold certain combinations of > small cards. For example .... > > If you have four deuces then seriously consider a psyche of > 1C; with four treys, 1D; with four fours 1H; and so on. > > Suppose partner suspects your 1D bid. If he holds any trey > then he knows it is genuine; but if he has no treys then it > is likely to be psychic and he can consider fielding it :) > > Please do *not* try this at home, however much you dislike > the psyche laws. IMO players should abide by the letter and > spirit of Bridge laws. If you don't like a law, don't break > it -- just explain how it can be improved. > I don't consider that I am breaking any law. I may have MI my opponents but it would be a far better world if this can be achieved and dealt with without needing to establish that I did anything wrong. My opponents may have been misinformed. Please tell me how they could have done better with the added knowledge that a third-in-hand 1H might be 0-3. Even during play this particular declarer did not notice anything wrong in my point count. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 18 14:57:07 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 18 14:58:21 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again References: <000201c55ba1$15c261d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001c01c55ba9$19dc5d40$069868d5@James> {Sven pran] > Please do not try this anywhere in Norway without > clearly announcing it in advance. If I ever saw any > example of CPU this is one. The moment we found out > what is going on I expect you would be expelled from > any and all organized Bridge here. (But I assume you > were not really to be taken seriously were you?) [Nigel] Sven, I included smilies, I clearly explained that it was cheating, I warned against it, even as a form of protest. However, my intent is deadly serious. What I described is just an extreme form of what seems to be rationalised and justified by some sophisticated players. IMO, if you can discern any pattern in partner's "deviations" or "psyches" (where, when, or how), then you have an implicit understanding that you are duty-bound to disclose (convention card, pre-announce, and alert). In answer to a question by Tim West-Meades, David Stevenson, another inveterate psycher, seemed to imply that such information (about "deviations" and "psyches") should not appear on your convention card. I hope that is not the official view. Is it? When (if ever) will these matters be resolved? IMO the law on disclosure should be strengthened by banning mealy-mouthed appeals to a mythical "general knowledge" and outlawing "undiscussed" or "unsure" prevarications. Please not, Herman, that I am not defending local regulations that ban certain psyches. I am simply stating my opinion that if you dislike a game-rule that is no excuse to break it. From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Wed May 18 11:15:38 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Wed May 18 15:05:04 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or bad bidding. Do you correct? In-Reply-To: <000001c55b89$12244060$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c55b89$12244060$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <428B07BA.2090301@hotmail.com> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of koen >>MP >>S/NS >> Qx >> xx >> Jxxx >> Kxxxx >>- xxx >>AKJxx Qxxxx >>Qxxx AKx >>xxxx xx >> AKJxxxxx >> x >> xx >> AQ >> >>2C-(P)-2D-(P) >>2S-(P)-2NT-(P) >>3S-(P)-4S-All Pass >> >>2C: Explained as strong (22+) or 8+ tricks >>2D: relay >>2S: 9+ tricks in unknown suit >>2NT: relay >>3S: 9 tricks in Spades >> >>Actually the agreement that NS have about 2C is that is can only be weak >>with 6-card D. >>Over 2C West did some thinking (more then 10 secs). After the hand he >>says that he would have bid 2H over 2C if he had received a correct >>explanation of 2C (that it can also be weak 6-card D). And they would >>have found a save to 5H. >>Suppose that you are convinced about the above: >> Will you correct the result even if the MI did correspond to >>the actual hand? >> >> > >There is a very big IF here: Exactly what are the existing agreements >between North and South? The fact is that the actual auction indicates >correct information, no MI, but it all depends upon other evidence as well. > The agreement is that 2C does also include a weak 6-card D. > >Now to your question: IF I am convinced about the above (and that East/West >have been misinformed) then I would accept West's word for it and adjust >unless I find his claim on what he would have done to be absurd. > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050518/38f1c5cb/attachment.html From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Wed May 18 09:43:06 2005 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Wed May 18 15:05:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Tenerife Message-ID: <006501c55b7d$3aeeb810$0a6bcc0a@cbbolivier> Hello, I shall (probably) go to Tenerife, in june, but i am still waiting for a written order, who knows who is going? Have they received something? Hoping to see a lot of you there after a (too) long directing pause :)) Thanks, Olivier -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050518/4884fddb/attachment-0001.html From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Wed May 18 14:47:37 2005 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Wed May 18 15:05:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Tenerife Message-ID: <002401c55ba7$c5a1d2b0$0a6bcc0a@cbbolivier> Hello, I shall (probably) go to Tenerife, in june, but i am still waiting for a written order, who knows who is going? Have they received something? Hoping to see a lot of you there after a (too) long directing pause :)) Thanks, Olivier -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050518/4813f16c/attachment.html From twm at cix.co.uk Wed May 18 15:20:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed May 18 15:21:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <001501c55b7e$bfb38f70$b19c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > This thread has been about the exercise of > power to restrain the use of weak one-openers in > natural bidding. In Europe there had been minimum > standards set by the 'Rule of 19' and these had > been included in regulations as 'guidelines', enforced > on a rather vague basis. A minority of players have > always reacted with hostility to this (but not, Tim, > with crude vituperation). Whether one considers my vituperation crude or eloquent is no doubt a matter of taste, but in the words of John Donne: "When a man becomes untractable and inaccessible by fierceness and pride, then vituperation comes upon him." That others choose not to exercise extreme censure when it is so clearly justified is a matter for their consciences. > The EBU merely set out to put control on a lawful basis and it found a > way to do so. In truth the EBU set out to find a loophole in a law they clearly understood to forbid them from regulating weak 1 openers. > My part was to discover that means for > my committee colleagues; That you agreed to do so lessens the respect you may merit in the eyes of others. That you took, and take, pride in doing so diminishes it entirely. > they did not have to adopt it unless they considered the policy of > control was desirable for the good of the majority and > therefore of the game. It was also necessary that they consider their personal agendas more important than respecting the spirit of the law. That they considered engendering a disrespect for the spirit of the law and elevating the finding of loopholes to a desirable practice to be "good for the game" showed woeful lack of judgement. That they would consider such a regulation desirable, even were it fully within the spirit of the law, merely demonstrates a lack of understanding of the game itself. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed May 18 15:20:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed May 18 15:21:40 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or bad bidding. Do you correct? In-Reply-To: <428AFD24.7020508@hotmail.com> Message-ID: > MP > S/NS > Qx > xx > Jxxx > Kxxxx > - xxx > AKJxx Qxxxx > Qxxx AKx > xxxx xx > AKJxxxxx > x > xx > AQ > > 2C-(P)-2D-(P) > 2S-(P)-2NT-(P) > 3S-(P)-4S-All Pass > > 2C: Explained as strong (22+) or 8+ tricks Regardless of the weak 2D option I am suspicious of MI. Was the explanation: "Strong - 22+ or 8+tricks" or "Either strong (22+) OR 8+ tricks". The former is clearly misleading, the latter doesn't quite make clear that distributional, rather than strong, hands are included but is less misleading. > 2D: relay > 2S: 9+ tricks in unknown suit > 2NT: relay > 3S: 9 tricks in Spades > > Actually the agreement that NS have about 2C is that is can only be > weak with 6-card D. > Over 2C West did some thinking (more then 10 secs). After the hand he > says that he would have bid 2H over 2C if he had received a correct > explanation of 2C (that it can also be weak 6-card D). And they would > have found a save to 5H. > Suppose that you are convinced about the above: > Will you correct the result even if the MI did correspond > to the actual hand? Of course, it is the disclosure of agreements that matters, not the holding. Whether I would be easily convinced is a different matter. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed May 18 15:20:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed May 18 15:21:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > "Careful" does not have a one-to-one correspondence with > "paranoid", since lucky innocents and cheating pickpockets > receive the same "could have known" Law 72B1 ruling. > > What's the problem? Not particularly a problem, but the only way a player could have a possibility of knowing that it would be likely to work to his advantage is if he expects partner to act ultra-cautiously thereafter. If this is part of pattern one can rule "Because you are aware, from partnership experience, that partner tends to be cautious in this situation you could have known it might work to your benefit." The innocents who have an unfortunate pattern of such bidding get the same adjustment as the cheats who do it deliberately. If not part of a pattern the cheats and the innocents get the same "could not have known" ruling. The relative odds of cheats and innocents developing similar patterns are open to speculation but I'm pretty sure the former would happen quickly and the latter very rarely. For knowledgeable innocents the correct form is: POOT(alert!) "Please explain?" "Partner has an unfortunate habit of forgetting to wait for his turn to pass with very weak hands." Call TD, avoid using UI when instructed to play on. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed May 18 15:37:23 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed May 18 15:38:40 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <001c01c55ba9$19dc5d40$069868d5@James> Message-ID: <000001c55bae$b907f230$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of GUTHRIE > {Sven pran] > > Please do not try this anywhere in Norway without > > clearly announcing it in advance. If I ever saw any > > example of CPU this is one. The moment we found out > > what is going on I expect you would be expelled from > > any and all organized Bridge here. (But I assume you > > were not really to be taken seriously were you?) > > [Nigel] > > Sven, I included smilies, I clearly explained that it was > cheating, I warned against it, even as a form of protest. > However, my intent is deadly serious. What I described is > just an extreme form of what seems to be rationalised and > justified by some sophisticated players. Good! Now, I have a very simplified view on psyches and agreements: A psyche by definition is a gross deviation from partnership agreements, so if for whatever reason not readily available to your opponents you can successfully diagnose your partner's call a probable psyche then that call does not qualify as a psyche; it is part of (special) partnership agreements or experience. I don't care about specific regulations. I simply ask (myself): Do you know anything relevant to your partner's calls that your opponents cannot reasonably be expected to know? If the answer to this question is yes then you have some outstanding disclosure to clear up. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Wed May 18 15:45:50 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed May 18 15:45:41 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <001c01c55ba9$19dc5d40$069868d5@James> References: <000201c55ba1$15c261d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001c01c55ba9$19dc5d40$069868d5@James> Message-ID: <428B470E.8030600@hdw.be> OK Nigel, I will accept this as the apology that I asked for. GUTHRIE wrote: > {Sven pran] > >>Please do not try this anywhere in Norway without >>clearly announcing it in advance. If I ever saw any >>example of CPU this is one. The moment we found out >>what is going on I expect you would be expelled from >>any and all organized Bridge here. (But I assume you >>were not really to be taken seriously were you?) > > > [Nigel] > > Sven, I included smilies, I clearly explained that it was > cheating, I warned against it, even as a form of protest. > However, my intent is deadly serious. What I described is > just an extreme form of what seems to be rationalised and > justified by some sophisticated players. > OK, intention explained and understood. > IMO, if you can discern any pattern in partner's > "deviations" or "psyches" (where, when, or how), then you > have an implicit understanding that you are duty-bound to > disclose (convention card, pre-announce, and alert). > And this is where we part company. You are correct in the sense that opponents are entitled to know this. You are correct in the sense that they do not know it, because we have not found a way to properly disclose it. But you are not correct in concluding malicious intent from this. It is impossible to alert all bids and explain "might be psychic". That much ought to be covered in "general bridge knowledge". I opened 2000 third-in-hand 1H's in the past twelve months. Impossible to alert them all. It is equally inpractible to pre-announce a psychic tendency. It is practicable to put something on the CC. But the problem with that one is that many directors will not allow it. Erroneously, but there. Which is why I prefer to keep it in the class of small, probably harmless MI. I am quite willing to accept adjustments in rare cases where the MI caused damage. That would have to be something like an opponent, who has done a point count, was able to deduce positively that there was a psycher somewhere. That opponent would have MI in the sense that in my partnership it is possibly I who psyche, not my partner. If he plays my partner for the psyche, I could envisage an AS. > In answer to a question by Tim West-Meades, David Stevenson, > another inveterate psycher, seemed to imply that such > information (about "deviations" and "psyches") should not > appear on your convention card. I hope that is not the > official view. Is it? When (if ever) will these matters be > resolved? > When the powers that be accept that such information does not create systems that would be forbidden. > IMO the law on disclosure should be strengthened by banning > mealy-mouthed appeals to a mythical "general knowledge" and > outlawing "undiscussed" or "unsure" prevarications. > That's my opinion as well. > Please not, Herman, that I am not defending local > regulations that ban certain psyches. I am simply stating > my opinion that if you dislike a game-rule that is no excuse > to break it. > Which game-rule did I break? The one imposing me to put my psyching frequency on my CC? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Wed May 18 16:16:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed May 18 16:18:13 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <00a401c55b96$2fec8960$1d9868d5@James> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > A. If it is not declared then it is a concealed partnership > understanding and ... "disclosed according to SO regulations" rather than declared. > B. If local rules impose lower limits for opening bids then > it is an illegal convention. not is but *may be*. The existence of disclosable partnership experience does not make a bid conventional or an occasional departure from the normal meaning systemic. Nor does Herman's claim that the bid is not systemic guarantee that it isn't. I'll be talking to Herman and his partner to find out whether systemic/stylistic controls on the psych exist before making a ruling. > Previously, I suggested an even better way of cheating that > is hard to detect :) > > Consider a psyche whenever you hold certain combinations of > small cards. For example .... > > If you have four deuces then seriously consider a psyche of > 1C; with four treys, 1D; with four fours 1H; and so on. 1. Fairly obviously this information must be disclosed as the SO requires. 2. Horrible method - whevenever one opens a normal 1x with 2 or 3 of the "psych card" there is a good chance partner will misjudge the auction. Tim From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 18 16:31:57 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 18 16:33:10 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again References: <000201c55ba1$15c261d0$6900a8c0@WINXP><001c01c55ba9$19dc5d40$069868d5@James> <428B470E.8030600@hdw.be> Message-ID: <007d01c55bb6$59112b00$069868d5@James> [Herman de Wael] > OK Nigel, I will accept this as the apology that I > asked for. [Nigel] I know that I hold extreme and simplistic views on disclosure and other Bridge matters :) So do you :) Of course, I apologise if mine offend you :( [Herman[ > And this is where we part company. You are correct in > the sense that opponents are entitled to know this. You > are correct in the sense that they do not know it, > because we have not found a way to properly disclose it. > But you are not correct in concluding malicious intent > from this. It is impossible to alert all bids and > explain "might be psychic". That much ought to be > covered in "general bridge knowledge". I opened 2000 > third-in-hand 1H's in the past twelve months. Impossible > to alert them all. It is equally inpractible to pre- > announce a psychic tendency. It is practicable to put > something on the CC. But the problem with that one is > that many directors will not allow it. Erroneously, > but there. Which is why I prefer to keep it in the class > of small, probably harmless MI. I am quite willing to > accept adjustments in rare cases where the MI caused > damage. That would have to be something like an > opponent, who has done a point count, was able to > deduce positively that there was a psycher somewhere. > That opponent would have MI in the sense that in my > partnership it is possibly I who psyche, not my partner. > If he plays my partner for the psyche, I could envisage > an AS. [Nigel] IMO you should declare and alert a 3rd seat 1H opner which may have 0-3 HCP. I don't know the law well enough to pronounce on whether a director might regard it as cheating. But I don't like the smell of it at all. If partner suspects a psyche, he can make useful deductions predicated on your assumed HCP maximum of three, which are unavailable to your opponents. You do not say whether or not you report the psyche, yourself, even when opponents don't notice. Anyway IMO it is an infraction, against which a director may rule, whether or not it caused damage. However, I agree It would be wonderful to get an official opinion that would resolve such issues. {Herman about Nigel's views on outlawing "general knowlege" and "undiscussed"] > That's my opinion as well. [Nigel] Good :) I know :) I followed your lead :) From hermandw at hdw.be Wed May 18 16:35:04 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed May 18 16:34:55 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000001c55bae$b907f230$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c55bae$b907f230$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <428B5298.6040607@hdw.be> Yes Sen, exactly. Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of GUTHRIE >>{Sven pran] >> >>>Please do not try this anywhere in Norway without >>>clearly announcing it in advance. If I ever saw any >>>example of CPU this is one. The moment we found out >>>what is going on I expect you would be expelled from >>>any and all organized Bridge here. (But I assume you >>>were not really to be taken seriously were you?) >> >>[Nigel] >> >>Sven, I included smilies, I clearly explained that it was >>cheating, I warned against it, even as a form of protest. >>However, my intent is deadly serious. What I described is >>just an extreme form of what seems to be rationalised and >>justified by some sophisticated players. > > > Good! > > Now, I have a very simplified view on psyches and agreements: > > A psyche by definition is a gross deviation from partnership agreements, so > if for whatever reason not readily available to your opponents you can > successfully diagnose your partner's call a probable psyche then that call > does not qualify as a psyche; it is part of (special) partnership agreements > or experience. > > I don't care about specific regulations. I simply ask (myself): Do you know > anything relevant to your partner's calls that your opponents cannot > reasonably be expected to know? If the answer to this question is yes then > you have some outstanding disclosure to clear up. > The disclosure (and I don't even know nor care if my partner at the time knew this) would be "every time Herman is in third hand with 0-3 points, he may well open 1H". How does it help opponents if they know this. The bidding goes : pass - pass - 1He and you hold 18 points (he did) - you double, it continues: 1Sp - 2Di - pass back to you. You might suspect something is wrong, but what are you going to do? And if you know the psyching habits of your RHO, do you do something else? > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed May 18 17:24:16 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed May 18 17:25:41 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: from "Tim West-Meads" at May 18, 2005 01:28:00 AM Message-ID: <200505181524.j4IFOH32020559@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Tim West-Meads writes: > > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ In the eye of the beholder. No doubt you have never > > taken the line that we should apply the laws as they are > > written, but some have and they can have no argument at > > all.with the EBU L&E on this - then, or now. > > Don't even try it. The laws "as written" did not require the EBU to > restrict natural bids. Indeed the laws "as written" made clear that > natural bids were not intended to be regulated. I'd point out that there *may* be a consequence of the EBU's approach. David Stevenson (and others) have noted the rise in meritless appeals in EBU events. I think it's possible that this is because the EBU has conveyed the impression that the meaning of the laws is arguable. I don't insist on this -- but it would be a good example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. From svenpran at online.no Wed May 18 17:35:29 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed May 18 17:36:47 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428B5298.6040607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > > Now, I have a very simplified view on psyches and agreements: > > > > A psyche by definition is a gross deviation from partnership agreements, > so > > if for whatever reason not readily available to your opponents you can > > successfully diagnose your partner's call a probable psyche then that > call > > does not qualify as a psyche; it is part of (special) partnership > agreements > > or experience. > > > > I don't care about specific regulations. I simply ask (myself): Do you > know > > anything relevant to your partner's calls that your opponents cannot > > reasonably be expected to know? If the answer to this question is yes > then > > you have some outstanding disclosure to clear up. > > > > The disclosure (and I don't even know nor care if my partner at the > time knew this) would be "every time Herman is in third hand with 0-3 > points, he may well open 1H". > > How does it help opponents if they know this. > > The bidding goes : > pass - pass - 1He > and you hold 18 points (he did) - you double, it continues: > 1Sp - 2Di - pass > back to you. > You might suspect something is wrong, but what are you going to do? > And if you know the psyching habits of your RHO, do you do something else? First of all: Your 1He opening bid has now become a brown sticker as it by agreement (experience) can be made on a hand of less value than a King below an average hand so in order to keep up that habit you (at least according to our regulations in Norway) must provide your opponents with an approved defense system against that third hand opening bid. Once I have seen your suggested defense system I may possibly have the pleasure of addressing how I will continue from there on. It's your call! Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Wed May 18 18:18:15 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed May 18 18:18:03 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <007d01c55bb6$59112b00$069868d5@James> References: <000201c55ba1$15c261d0$6900a8c0@WINXP><001c01c55ba9$19dc5d40$069868d5@James> <428B470E.8030600@hdw.be> <007d01c55bb6$59112b00$069868d5@James> Message-ID: <428B6AC7.9050104@hdw.be> Hello Nigel, GUTHRIE wrote: > [Herman de Wael] > >>OK Nigel, I will accept this as the apology that I >>asked for. > > [Nigel] > I know that I hold extreme and simplistic views on > disclosure and other Bridge matters :) So do you :) Of > course, I apologise if mine offend you :( > You are, as always, one I like to argue with. > [Herman[ > >>And this is where we part company. You are correct in >>the sense that opponents are entitled to know this. You >>are correct in the sense that they do not know it, >>because we have not found a way to properly disclose it. >>But you are not correct in concluding malicious intent >>from this. It is impossible to alert all bids and >>explain "might be psychic". That much ought to be >>covered in "general bridge knowledge". I opened 2000 >>third-in-hand 1H's in the past twelve months. Impossible >>to alert them all. It is equally inpractible to pre- >>announce a psychic tendency. It is practicable to put >>something on the CC. But the problem with that one is >>that many directors will not allow it. Erroneously, >>but there. Which is why I prefer to keep it in the class >>of small, probably harmless MI. I am quite willing to >>accept adjustments in rare cases where the MI caused >>damage. That would have to be something like an >>opponent, who has done a point count, was able to >>deduce positively that there was a psycher somewhere. >>That opponent would have MI in the sense that in my >>partnership it is possibly I who psyche, not my partner. >>If he plays my partner for the psyche, I could envisage >>an AS. > > [Nigel] > IMO you should declare and alert a 3rd seat 1H opner which > may have 0-3 HCP. Even when this is once in a year? I don't think so. If a pair in my tournament started alerting all their bids "could be psychic", I would tell them to stop. If a psyche becomes so frequent as that, it is no longer a psyche. So sorry Nigel, no, I don't think my partners should start alerting all my third-in-hand openings. > I don't know the law well enough to > pronounce on whether a director might regard it as cheating. Please forget that awful word. > But I don't like the smell of it at all. If partner > suspects a psyche, he can make useful deductions predicated > on your assumed HCP maximum of three, which are unavailable > to your opponents. That one is true, and I've often looked for that possibility myself. Once it transpires I don't have 5 (or 4 in this case) hearts, one can deduce from my psyching habits that I have less than 4 points. I have once gone further than that - when an opponent of mine once laughed, indicating he had discovered my psyche, I wrote him a note saying 'that means I have less than 4 points as well'. Don't forget for a moment that it is sometimes difficult to declare these things to opponents. Rather, I go for an adjustment after the facts. > You do not say whether or not you report > the psyche, yourself, even when opponents don't notice. I always report the psyche. I did, and the director in charge asked me what he should do with the report. I told him to inform the VBL chairman of the appeals committee (you guessed it, that's me). In addition, I report the fact to an austere body of directors called blml. > Anyway IMO it is an infraction, against which a director may > rule, whether or not it caused damage. However, I agree It > would be wonderful to get an official opinion that would > resolve such issues. > I don't happen to think that MI is an infraction as such. After all, MI is about the most common of the more complicated rulings a director has to make, and when have you last issued a penalty over and above the redress for damage? > {Herman about Nigel's views on outlawing "general knowlege" > and "undiscussed"] > >>That's my opinion as well. > > > [Nigel] > Good :) I know :) I followed your lead :) > This man shows potential! ;-) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed May 18 18:23:27 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed May 18 18:23:20 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > First of all: Your 1He opening bid has now become a brown sticker as it by > agreement (experience) can be made on a hand of less value than a King below > an average hand so in order to keep up that habit you (at least according to > our regulations in Norway) must provide your opponents with an approved > defense system against that third hand opening bid. > Sorry Sven, but if that is your line of attack then I shall refrain from ever telling Norwegian directors what they want to know. I shall keep shtum and allow you to make up your mind after sifting through 6 years of evidence that I do this "always". That won't help your countrymen one iota, because I will still do the same psyches and you won't be able to catch me because I won't admit to it. Only with sensible system regulations will you get psychers to admit to the tendencies that they do have. If you want to outlaw psyching, then do so. I will not play in Norway. But don't tell me that Norwegian players, among whom there are a few who have psyched in their careers before, don't have particular favourites or returnees. My system is not that 1He shows either a true heart or 0-3. Nothing in my system notes is there to cater for that second possibility (I even refuse to play Drury). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed May 18 18:29:45 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed May 18 18:31:00 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be> References: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@mail.gmail.com> Simple question to Herman Assume that you are dealt a hand suitable for a "spainish" 1H opening... (Approximately) what percentage of the time do you open 1H as opposed to passing? -- "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed May 18 20:34:52 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed May 18 20:36:43 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or bad bidding. Do you correct? In-Reply-To: <428B07BA.2090301@hotmail.com> References: <000001c55b89$12244060$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B07BA.2090301@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <342b97f4584aee87bd463255d6a0401a@rochester.rr.com> On May 18, 2005, at 5:15 AM, koen wrote: > 2C: Explained as strong (22+) or 8+ tricks > Actually the agreement that NS have about 2C is that is can only be > weak > with 6-card D. > The agreement is that 2C does also include a weak 6-card D. Okay, which is it? Strong only, weak only, or possibly either? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed May 18 20:38:47 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed May 18 20:40:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050518074723.02b32010@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050517082432.02a3fbd0@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050518074723.02b32010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On May 18, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Was it likely to have done so? Well, it did, and one out of one is > 100% of the sample. Come on, Eric, you know better than that. If you flip a coin there's a 50% chance it'll come up heads. That it *does* come up heads (or for that matter, does not) doesn't change the original probability. From adam at irvine.com Wed May 18 20:49:05 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed May 18 20:50:22 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or bad bidding. Do you correct? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 May 2005 10:30:28 +0200." <428AFD24.7020508@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <200505181849.LAA17631@mailhub.irvine.com> Koen wrote: > MP > S/NS > Qx > xx > Jxxx > Kxxxx > - xxx > AKJxx Qxxxx > Qxxx AKx > xxxx xx > AKJxxxxx > x > xx > AQ > > 2C-(P)-2D-(P) > 2S-(P)-2NT-(P) > 3S-(P)-4S-All Pass > > 2C: Explained as strong (22+) or 8+ tricks > 2D: relay > 2S: 9+ tricks in unknown suit > 2NT: relay > 3S: 9 tricks in Spades > > Actually the agreement that NS have about 2C is that is can only be weak > with 6-card D. > Over 2C West did some thinking (more then 10 secs). After the hand he > says that he would have bid 2H over 2C if he had received a correct > explanation of 2C (that it can also be weak 6-card D). And they would > have found a save to 5H. > Suppose that you are convinced about the above: > Will you correct the result even if the MI did correspond to > the actual hand? I think the Laws require that we adjust. The definition of "damage", according to the WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees, is: Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction. Assuming we believe West that he would have overcalled over a 2C that could be a weak diamond bid, then E/W's expectation is either +450 or +100 or +200 (in 5S perhaps doubled). They achieved a less favorable result because of the infraction. Therefore, there was damage, and thus an adjustment is required. Whether I adjust to +450 or +650 (5Hx), or +100/+200, or a weighted or split score, depends in part on what N/S's agreements are for coping with interference, which would help me judge how likely N/S are to find their save over E/W's "save". In any case, whether the MI corresponds to the actual hand is *not* one of the criteria spelled out in the Laws and COP for determining whether there is damage or an adjustment is required. -- Adam From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed May 18 21:29:26 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed May 18 21:31:15 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <001c01c55ba9$19dc5d40$069868d5@James> References: <000201c55ba1$15c261d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001c01c55ba9$19dc5d40$069868d5@James> Message-ID: On May 18, 2005, at 8:57 AM, GUTHRIE wrote: > IMO the law on disclosure should be strengthened by banning > mealy-mouthed appeals to a mythical "general knowledge" and > outlawing "undiscussed" or "unsure" prevarications. If l am not allowed to have failed to discuss every possible auction (or even some particular auction that somebody thinks is "to be expected") and I am not allowed to forget my agreements, then I will take up another game. Bridge is apparently too hard for me. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 18 22:30:57 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 18 22:30:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050517082432.02a3fbd0@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050518074723.02b32010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050518162025.02a4ca00@pop.starpower.net> At 02:38 PM 5/18/05, Ed wrote: >On May 18, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> Was it likely to have done so? Well, it did, and one out of one is >> 100% of the sample. > >Come on, Eric, you know better than that. Of course I do. But, as I wrote in the same paragraph, "Unless one is thoroughly grounded in statistical theory, that looks like... evidence". I can attest that it does indeed look like evidence to some TDs and ACs. Re-read the thread on the opening pass out of turn and you'll discover that it looks like evidence to some BLML members as well. The lack of understanding that it is no such thing is a key part of my answer to Tim's, "What's the problem?" Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 18 22:46:30 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 18 22:45:48 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: References: <000201c55ba1$15c261d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001c01c55ba9$19dc5d40$069868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050518163306.02b42b20@pop.starpower.net> At 03:29 PM 5/18/05, Ed wrote: >On May 18, 2005, at 8:57 AM, GUTHRIE wrote: > >>IMO the law on disclosure should be strengthened by banning >>mealy-mouthed appeals to a mythical "general knowledge" and >>outlawing "undiscussed" or "unsure" prevarications. > >If l am not allowed to have failed to discuss every possible auction >(or even some particular auction that somebody thinks is "to be >expected") and I am not allowed to forget my agreements, then I will >take up another game. Bridge is apparently too hard for me. It's OK, Ed. "Undiscussed" or "unsure" prevarications are and always have been illegal. Indeed, the "De Wael School" notwithstanding, all prevarications in response to requests for information about one's agreements are and always have been illegal. But there's nothing wrong or illegal about "undiscussed" or "unsure" if one is not prevaricating. Nigel's position seems to be that one never knows who the prevaricators are, but we must get them somehow, even if we hang a thousand innocents for every cheat; to accomplish this, the law should treat any "undiscussed"s or "unsure"s as prima facie presumptive prevarications, because if we don't, we might let one get away. I can't say I agree. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu May 19 02:26:35 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu May 19 02:27:47 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again References: <000201c55ba1$15c261d0$6900a8c0@WINXP><001c01c55ba9$19dc5d40$069868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050518163306.02b42b20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <008301c55c09$6af3c9b0$0f9468d5@James> [Eric Landau] > Nigel's position seems to be that one never knows > who the prevaricators are, but we must get them > somehow, even if we hang a thousand innocents > for every cheat; to accomplish this, the law should > treat any "undiscussed"s or "unsure"s as prima facie > presumptive prevarications, because if we don't, we > might let one get away. I can't say I agree. [Nigel] Eric has exagerated my view but I confess that he's quite close. I've often, simply and clearly explained the law-change that I would like: If asked about the meaning of a call, you may not answer "no agreement" or "undiscussed" or "unsure". Of course, I agree that relatively inexperienced partnerships can truthfully answer *unsure" to most queries. Even after a short chat and a few boards, however, new partners are likely to make a better stab at the meaning of an "undiscussed" call than a random pair of strangers opposing them. For instance there are usually a lot of negative inferences available to partners. Many BLMLers believe that you should be allowed to claim "general knowledge" or "no agreement", in such circumstances. In practice, nowadays, you will certainly escape without censure. Already, however, a few BLMLers sensibly interpret the law to say that you should disclose such vague inferences. I go only a little further in coaxing the taciturn. I feel that you should be oblidged to disclose "guesses". These guesses, I assure the reticent, will be right surprisingly often and, at any rate, are likely to be much better than chance. Even more controversially, I believe that if you guess wrong it should be a misinformation infraction. Please note carefully: A. I am not asking players "to lie". B. I am simply asking players to make their best "guess". C. Mistaken explanations by players trying to learn the "standard" system should not be penalized. D. I accept that the *current* law seems to ban "guessing" so (unlike Herman de Wael) I don't advocate "guessing" until the law is changed. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu May 19 02:46:19 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu May 19 02:48:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Fox or rabbit? Message-ID: <428BE1DB.9020308@cfa.harvard.edu> While we are discussing L72B1, here's a case from real life. (Actually it's L23; does anyone think that makes a difference?) South holds KT7 AK4 KJ98 765, none vulnerable, IMPs. North deals and opens 1D, East bids 2NT (hearts and clubs), and South bids 2H (uh oh). The TD reads out L27B2, West does not accept the IB, North is barred, and South punts 3NT which makes for a good score. Of course NS have no agreements about 2H, but 3H would have been a game force with a spade suit. 3NT could have been beaten only with a club lead, but the heart lead is normal from West's hand. Was South a villain or a lucky rabbit? Do you apply L23/72B1? If so, to what do you adjust? Does South's reputation matter to your decision? From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu May 19 02:49:46 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu May 19 02:51:02 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <200505181443.j4IEhFcV018911@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505181443.j4IEhFcV018911@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <428BE2AA.9030800@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > Surely frequency must count for something in determining whether or > not a strict habit is systemic or not? The CoP says frequency counts, but that seems illogical to me. I'd say the only relevant factors are the rest of the system and whether partner's actions appear to make allowance for the "strict habit." Frequency does, in my opinion, count as regards _disclosure_, but that's a different matter. From adam at irvine.com Thu May 19 02:57:28 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu May 19 02:58:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Fox or rabbit? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 May 2005 20:46:19 EDT." <428BE1DB.9020308@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200505190057.RAA19669@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > While we are discussing L72B1, here's a case from real life. (Actually > it's L23; does anyone think that makes a difference?) > > South holds KT7 AK4 KJ98 765, none vulnerable, IMPs. North deals and > opens 1D, East bids 2NT (hearts and clubs), and South bids 2H (uh oh). > The TD reads out L27B2, West does not accept the IB, North is barred, > and South punts 3NT which makes for a good score. Of course NS have no > agreements about 2H, but 3H would have been a game force with a spade > suit. 3NT could have been beaten only with a club lead, but the heart > lead is normal from West's hand. > > Was South a villain or a lucky rabbit? Do you apply L23/72B1? If so, > to what do you adjust? Does South's reputation matter to your decision? If N/S had an agreement that 3NT would be conventional over East's 2NT, then clearly an adjustment is necessary. But if 3NT would just be a normal 3NT, then I don't see that bidding 3NT with partner barred produces any advantage over just bidding 3NT normally, so the "could have known" criterion of L23 or 72B1 isn't met. I don't see a reason to adjust here. -- Adam From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu May 19 03:02:57 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu May 19 03:04:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <200505161703.j4GH3DQu005263@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505161703.j4GH3DQu005263@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <428BE5C1.2040701@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Nanki Poo > In the same way, there are a few situations where someone commits an > infraction, and we can see the potential for gain - and he could see it. > We do not need to accuse anyone of anything - perhaps you really had not > had time to go to the police station - but it is not "paranoid" to > consider the possibility that you are allowing for your persoanl gain. That's all fine in general, but in the specific case of the OPOOT we have yet to be shown a hand where a villain would find the strategy sensible. (It is ridiculous on any very weak hand.) > My experience is that people who shout loudest about their > innocence are usually the guilty ones. Among athletes with positive drug tests, there are examples of those who loudly proclaim their innocence and of others who admit guilt. I don't see why the population of villainous bridge players should manifest only one of these attitudes. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu May 19 03:12:42 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu May 19 03:13:57 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes In-Reply-To: <200505131919.j4DJJPRK007649@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505131919.j4DJJPRK007649@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <428BE80A.5050802@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Marvin French" > Sorry for the length, but I thought BLMLs would be interested in more of the > LC minutes from recent meetings. Thanks, Marv. Very much appreciated. > Reno 2004: > Jeff Polisner's suggestion that Law 73F2 be amended to preclude score > adjustments for players who draw a false inference from an opponent's > deceptive action was discussed. A large majority of the Commission agreed that > the law should be changed so that inferences may be drawn only at a player's > own risk. As for the opponents, the Commission favors dealing with their > deceptive actions through disciplinary action and/or procedural penalties. The > Commission favors retaining Law 73D2. (For those who don't have it memorized :-), L72D2 forbids intentional deception.) Isn't the "large majority" view the equivalent of going back to pre-1975 rules on UI, where "using UI" was a conduct offense, not a score adjustment matter? Suppose a defender hesitates with a singleton, and declarer is deceived. Today there's an essentially automatic score adjustment. Under the "large majority" proposed rule, wouldn't declarer's calling the TD be equivalent to a cheating accusation? Even if not, with no score adjustment in prospect, why would any declarer bother to call the TD? Does the phrase "bad old days" ring any bells here? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 19 03:24:31 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 19 03:25:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Fox or rabbit? In-Reply-To: <428BE1DB.9020308@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >While we are discussing L72B1, here's a case from real >life. (Actually it's L23; does anyone think that makes a >difference?) [snip] Richard Hills: The specific Law 23 tautologically repeats words from the general Law 72B1 (and, indeed, includes a cross-reference to Law 72B1). It seems to me that the only reason for the current existence of the now-tautological Law 23 was the late Edgar Kaplan's well-known aversion to renumbering the Laws. Of course, in previous editions of the Lawbook (before the insertion of "could have known" into Law 72B1), the then Law 23 was not a subset of Law 72B1, so it then had a justification for its independent existence. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 19 03:45:35 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 19 03:46:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Fox or rabbit? In-Reply-To: <428BE1DB.9020308@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >Was South a villain or a lucky rabbit? [snip] >Does South's reputation matter to your decision? Richard Hills: I don't need to know whether South is a villain. I don't need to know about South's reputation. As TD, Laws 23 and 72B1 specifically instruct me to avoid making findings of intent when deciding whether to adjust the score. Law 72B2 (Infraction of Law - Intentional) is a horse of a different colour. Infracting that Law is a disciplinary issue, not a score-adjustment issue. As TD, *if* I find some prima facie evidence of an intentional infraction of the Laws. *then* I use Law 81C9 to refer that prima facie evidence to the local Conduct and Ethics Committee for a formal disciplinary hearing. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 19 03:56:39 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 19 03:57:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Fox or rabbit? In-Reply-To: <428BE1DB.9020308@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >South holds KT7 AK4 KJ98 765, none vulnerable, IMPs. North >deals and opens 1D, East bids 2NT (hearts and clubs), and >South bids 2H (uh oh). The TD reads out L27B2, West does >not accept the IB, North is barred, and South punts 3NT >which makes for a good score. Of course NS have no >agreements about 2H, but 3H would have been a game force >with a spade suit. 3NT could have been beaten only with a >club lead, but the heart lead is normal from West's hand. [snip] >Do you apply L23/72B1? [snip] Richard Hills: No. For this case, the key phrase in Law 23/Law 72B1 is "at the time of his irregularity". At "the time", a contract of 6D was plausible, so derailing the North-South auction was not likely to be helpful, as it made any sensible investigation of slam chances impossible. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu May 19 04:24:56 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu May 19 04:26:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: <200505161703.j4GH3DQu005263@cfa.harvard.edu> <428BE5C1.2040701@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 20:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Unethical conduct > > From: Nanki Poo > > In the same way, there are a few situations where someone commits an > > infraction, and we can see the potential for gain - and he could see it. > > We do not need to accuse anyone of anything - perhaps you really had not > > had time to go to the police station - but it is not "paranoid" to > > consider the possibility that you are allowing for your persoanl gain. > > That's all fine in general, but in the specific case of the OPOOT we > have yet to be shown a hand where a villain would find the strategy > sensible. (It is ridiculous on any very weak hand.) Hearing a fast pass from partner might give one the thought that it is more likely that partner may not have the values to respond to an opening bid- as in 'why is partner is such a hurry?'. In that case there is some protection for psyching an opening since partner probably won't respond. Some years ago both vul I picked up xxx-xx-xx-Txxxxxx and opened 1C with spectacular success where partner had no call and indeed passed while the opponents stopped in 6H making overtricks. I must admit that I was dealer and no one bid out of turn. Some years later my RHO grabbed a pass card from my bidding box and slapped it down on the table [in front of me]. A thinking person might wonder what could evoke such behavior. Perhaps his hand was so powerful that he would expect me to pass. Indeed I held as dealer xxx-x-xxxx-xxxxx. Perhaps if I had been on my toes I would have opened 1H with the probable effect of putting the kibosh on their 7H. In the former case where in indeed an OPOOT happens it is indeed possible to foresee that benefit from the UI could arise as in [a] creating a protected psych situation when partner's cards are right [b] ward off action by dealer partner when he has marginal hands. But the only thing that it means is that the LC got the law wrong. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 19 04:43:57 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 19 04:44:33 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Willey: >Simple question to Herman > >Assume that you are dealt a hand suitable for >a "spanish" 1H opening... > >(Approximately) what percentage of the time do >you open 1H as opposed to passing? Richard Hills: Surely if Herman passed third-in-hand with a yarborough, that would be a psyche, in violation of Herman's Spanish 1H convention? So surely Richard Willey's question is an illegal attempt at a psychic control of Herman's Spanish 1H convention? :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 19 08:34:00 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 19 08:35:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <001501c55b7e$bfb38f70$b19c87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >In Europe there had been minimum standards set by the >'Rule of 19' and these had been included in regulations >as 'guidelines', enforced on a rather vague basis. A >minority of players have always reacted with hostility >to this (but not, Tim, with crude vituperation). The >EBU merely set out to put control on a lawful basis and >it found a way to do so. [snip] Richard Hills: For a number of years Australia imitated the EBU by adopting a Rule of 18 and 15 in its system regulation. A *majority* of Aussie players always reacted with hostility to the Rule of 18 and 15, constantly flouting the Rule. The ABF bureaucrats were spirit-of-the-Laws uneasy about the dubious legal basis for the Rule. Furthermore, oddly, the ABF bureaucrats have an unusual democratic idea that a regulation should be consistent with what the vast majority of its punters want. Compare and contrast with the Sir Humphrey Appleby nanny-state policy of another national bridge organisation, which tells their punters that they cannot possibly want to play meritless conventions. :-) Ergo, the ABF bureaucrats abolished the Rule of 18 and 15, now spirit-of-the-Laws relying on the Law 40D "King or more below average strength" as a replacement rule. Does Tim West-Meads want to migrate to Australia? In the Aussie culture, crude vituperation of geeks is an esteemed tradition. We also have many Immigration Reception Centres to welcome refugees at our golden door. Emma Lazarus (1849-1887), The New Colossus, lines 10-14: >>Give me your tired, your poor, >>Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, >>The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. >>Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, >>I lift my lamp beside the golden door! Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 19 08:46:03 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 19 08:47:26 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or bad bidding. Do you correct? In-Reply-To: <428AFD24.7020508@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Koen: [snip] >he would have bid 2H over 2C if he had received a correct >explanation of 2C (that it can also be weak 6-card D). And >they would have found a save to 5H. > >Suppose that you are convinced about the above: > >Will you correct the result even if the MI did correspond >to the actual hand? Richard Hills: *If* the above assumptions are true, *then* there has been a MI infraction, *and* the TD must adjust the score. If: (a) the partnership agreement was that 2C was a three-way multi-meaning bid, but (b) only two of the three meanings was explained, then (c) it is irrelevant that the unexplained meaning did not occur at the table; Laws 40B and 75 create a clear obligation that a full explanation should have been provided. Only the De Wael School *might* argue otherwise, but in this *particular* case I think that even a De Wael School director would admit that the score must be adjusted. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 19 08:54:40 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 19 08:56:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <20050518082905.4B8823C324@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: [snip] >>>So clearly Swanson expects innocent people to >>>shout loudest. Richard Hills: >>J'accuse David and Konrad. [snip] Konrad Ciborowski: >Why me? I merely pointed out to David that >other people might draw different conclusions >from the particular behavior of the accused people. >I didn't suggest it should be taken as evidence. Richard Hills: My apologies for my unwarranted nigellian assumption that quoting John Swanson meant agreeing with John Swanson. In fact, I have self-demonstrated my main point; it is very easy for anyone to leap to conclusions. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From hermandw at hdw.be Thu May 19 09:08:01 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu May 19 09:07:41 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@mail.gmail.com> References: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <428C3B51.5020002@hdw.be> richard willey wrote: > Simple question to Herman > > Assume that you are dealt a hand suitable for a "spainish" 1H opening... > (Approximately) what percentage of the time do you open 1H as opposed > to passing? > Approximately all the time. Does that matter? Are you talking about negative inferences? I've indeed had partners saying to the table after a third-hand pass of mine: "too much for a psyche". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Thu May 19 09:24:24 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu May 19 09:24:05 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or bad bidding. Do you correct? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <428C3F28.60308@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Koen: > > [snip] > > >>he would have bid 2H over 2C if he had received a correct >>explanation of 2C (that it can also be weak 6-card D). And >>they would have found a save to 5H. >> >>Suppose that you are convinced about the above: >> >>Will you correct the result even if the MI did correspond >>to the actual hand? > > > Richard Hills: > > *If* the above assumptions are true, *then* there has been > a MI infraction, *and* the TD must adjust the score. > > If: > > (a) the partnership agreement was that 2C was a three-way > multi-meaning bid, but > > (b) only two of the three meanings was explained, then > > (c) it is irrelevant that the unexplained meaning did not > occur at the table; Laws 40B and 75 create a clear > obligation that a full explanation should have been > provided. > > Only the De Wael School *might* argue otherwise, but in > this *particular* case I think that even a De Wael School > director would admit that the score must be adjusted. > Of course he does! Why do you assume otherwise? Well, apart of course from my contention that I don't believe the player would have bid 2H over the correct explanation. But that's a different matter altogether. Why do you drag the De Wael school in here? Because I maintain that any explanation not fitting the hand ought to be misinformation? I do maintain that, but it does not follow that any explanation that fits the hand is correct information, does it? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 19 09:22:54 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 19 09:24:17 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes In-Reply-To: <428BE80A.5050802@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >Suppose a defender hesitates with a singleton, and declarer is deceived. >Today there's an essentially automatic score adjustment. Under the >"large majority" proposed rule, wouldn't declarer's calling the TD be >equivalent to a cheating accusation? Even if not, with no score >adjustment in prospect, why would any declarer bother to call the TD? > >Does the phrase "bad old days" ring any bells here? Richard Hills: The other side of the coin is "bad new days", with litigious Secretary Birds gaining a double shot at a good score after receiving AI from their bunny opponents. If a Secretary Bird's deduction from AI is correct, the Secretary Bird gets a top. If a Secretary Bird's deduction from AI is incorrect, they call the TD, the TD adjusts the score pursuant to Law 73F2, and the Secretary Bird still gets a top. Perhaps Steve's thesis and the ACBL LC's antithesis could be profitably combined into a synthesis in the 2006 version of Law 73F2. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From hermandw at hdw.be Thu May 19 09:30:58 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu May 19 09:30:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <428C40B2.3030704@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > > > > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > For a number of years Australia imitated the EBU by > adopting a Rule of 18 and 15 in its system regulation. > > A *majority* of Aussie players always reacted with > hostility to the Rule of 18 and 15, constantly flouting > the Rule. > > The ABF bureaucrats were spirit-of-the-Laws uneasy about > the dubious legal basis for the Rule. Furthermore, oddly, > the ABF bureaucrats have an unusual democratic idea that > a regulation should be consistent with what the vast > majority of its punters want. Compare and contrast with > the Sir Humphrey Appleby nanny-state policy of another > national bridge organisation, which tells their punters > that they cannot possibly want to play meritless > conventions. > > :-) > > Ergo, the ABF bureaucrats abolished the Rule of 18 and 15, > now spirit-of-the-Laws relying on the Law 40D "King or > more below average strength" as a replacement rule. > And why does this change anything? Either you wish to regulate light openings, and then you need some way of determining what a light opening is, or you don't. Either you use "king below average strength" and you leave it dead letter, or you turn it into a real definition (4333 with 7 points? 4333 with 10 points? - I've never understood what they meant with average strength: 10 points or 13 - average for an opening hand). If you create a definition such as this one, then you are in exactly the same situation as with a rule of 18: opening such a hand becomes, in effect, illegal. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Thu May 19 09:44:06 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Thu May 19 09:45:25 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or bad bidding. Do you correct? In-Reply-To: <342b97f4584aee87bd463255d6a0401a@rochester.rr.com> References: <000001c55b89$12244060$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B07BA.2090301@hotmail.com> <342b97f4584aee87bd463255d6a0401a@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <428C43C6.3080905@hotmail.com> Ed Reppert wrote: > On May 18, 2005, at 5:15 AM, koen wrote: > >> 2C: Explained as strong (22+) or 8+ tricks > > >> Actually the agreement that NS have about 2C is that is can only be weak >> with 6-card D. > > >> The agreement is that 2C does also include a weak 6-card D. > > > Okay, which is it? Strong only, weak only, or possibly either? > Initially we started with 2C is either: - 22-23 HCP - 26+HCP - 8+ tricks in a suit with some points partner always bid 2D relay so that opener can describe his hand. Because partner always had to bid 2D relay we did add to the 2C opening the possibility: - 6-card D and 5-10 HCP (can be a bit different - eg 5-card - in 3th seat). From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed May 18 18:28:49 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu May 19 09:50:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: Message-ID: <005e01c55c46$af4a5ec0$4c9687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "There are two things which I am confident I can do very well: one is an introduction to any literary work, stating what it should contain, and how it is to be executed in the most perfect manner; the other is a conclusion, shewing from various causes why the execution has not been equal to what the author promised to himself and to the public." [ Boswell]. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > In truth the EBU set out to find a loophole in a > law they clearly understood to forbid them from > regulating weak 1 openers. > +=+ Tim, you recognize that your opinion is of no concern to me. However, do get the facts right. We knew that Kaplan considered it so but there was nothing from the WBF Laws Committee as such. When we put our intention to extend to the EBU the EBL practice of setting minimum standards for one openers, and disclosed the method by which we would do it, we received a formal acceptance that we were acting within the laws. It seems Edgar was deputed to tell us so, and yes, the language of his response on behalf of the WBF LC was grudging - they had not backed his wish to condemn the EBU - nor by extension the EBL. At no stage did we understand that the WBFLC, as distinct from Kaplan the individual, opposed the standing practice of the EBL. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 19 09:44:05 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu May 19 09:50:34 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again References: <000001c55bae$b907f230$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006001c55c46$b1af02b0$4c9687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "There are two things which I am confident I can do very well: one is an introduction to any literary work, stating what it should contain, and how it is to be executed in the most perfect manner; the other is a conclusion, shewing from various causes why the execution has not been equal to what the author promised to himself and to the public." [ Boswell]. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:37 PM Subject: RE: [blml] I did it again A psyche by definition is a gross deviation from partnership agreements, so if for whatever reason not readily available to your opponents you can successfully diagnose your partner's call a probable psyche then that call does not qualify as a psyche; it is part of (special) partnership agreements or experience. +=+ The 1997 Laws have a curious definition of 'psychic call' which allows that it deliberately and grossly misstates honour strength or suit length, but does not exclude the possibility that a psychic call may be the subject of partnership agreement, whereupon it becomes subject to system regulations but apparently does not escape its definition as a psychic call. I used to say that it ceased to be psychic because I understood the phrase as signfying an action of which partner can have no prior awareness. However this is not quite what the definition says although it is in conflict to an extent with the wording of Law 40A. Maybe the subject was not thought through clearly when writing the definition and has been left in a slightly murky state, a feature that is not unknown elsewhere in the law book. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 19 11:15:25 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu May 19 11:22:09 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes References: Message-ID: <010501c55c53$7cbeb0c0$4c9687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "There are two things which I am confident I can do very well: one is an introduction to any literary work, stating what it should contain, and how it is to be executed in the most perfect manner; the other is a conclusion, shewing from various causes why the execution has not been equal to what the author promised to himself and to the public." [ Boswell]. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes > > Perhaps Steve's thesis and the ACBL LC's > antithesis could be profitably combined into > a synthesis in the 2006 version of Law 73F2. > +=+ Tell me more - I quote: "of course I have kept my eye open for anything ....... on blml that suggests a real gap in the 1997 laws". ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 19 11:47:00 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu May 19 11:53:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <001501c55b7e$bfb38f70$b19c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <00a701c55b96$368e13b0$1d9868d5@James> Message-ID: <004401c55c57$eb58e970$46ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "There are two things which I am confident I can do very well: one is an introduction to any literary work, stating what it should contain, and how it is to be executed in the most perfect manner; the other is a conclusion, shewing from various causes why the execution has not been equal to what the author promised to himself and to the public." [ Boswell]. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > Also, such controversies seem to go on forever > without any official resolution. An argument for > more frequent editions of the law-books - at least > to remove some of the ambiguities and anomalies. > +=+ The suggestion of an interim opportunity to adjust laws in alternate years has been firmly rejected. It is held that reprinting costs plus the confusion to players (and catch-up times in bridge regions reacting slowly) all militate against it. This has disappointed me. On the other hand the given reasons are cogent. We do occasionally add a footnote but law changes are rare, were even rarer before ton took the chair - two in this period I think (one by 'interpretation'), alteration in foortnote to Law 69 and application of 'consequently' and 'subsequently'. I am not sure how widely these changes have been picked up - the only certainty is in the printed book. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu May 19 12:46:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu May 19 12:47:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Fox or rabbit? In-Reply-To: <428BE1DB.9020308@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > While we are discussing L72B1, here's a case from real life. (Actually > it's L23; does anyone think that makes a difference?) > > South holds KT7 AK4 KJ98 765, none vulnerable, IMPs. North deals and > opens 1D, East bids 2NT (hearts and clubs), and South bids 2H (uh oh). > The TD reads out L27B2, West does not accept the IB, North is barred, > and South punts 3NT which makes for a good score. Of course NS have no > agreements about 2H, but 3H would have been a game force with a spade > suit. 3NT could have been beaten only with a club lead, but the heart > lead is normal from West's hand. > > Was South a villain or a lucky rabbit? Do you apply L23/72B1? If so, > to what do you adjust? Does South's reputation matter to your decision? There are two possible routes to L72b1. The first, via L23, seems inappropriate because I cannot see any reason to wish to bar partner on this hand. The second is slightly more intricate - would the explanation of what 3H *would have been* increase the attractiveness of a H lead relative to a C vs 3N? I'm going to be investigating the system/agreements in either case as my mind is not made up but my instinct is to go direct to L72b1 for the initial infraction. I suspect South is a villain and I'll be recording this for reference - but a lucky rabbit will get the same adjustment (unless I judge him way too clueless to have possibly worked this out). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu May 19 12:46:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu May 19 12:47:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <005e01c55c46$af4a5ec0$4c9687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: > +=+ Tim, you recognize that your opinion is > of no concern to me. However, do get the facts > right. We knew that Kaplan considered it so but > there was nothing from the WBF Laws Committee > as such. Nothing apart from the clearly written laws themselves which limited regulation to conventions rather than natural openings. > When we put our intention to extend to > the EBU the EBL practice of setting minimum > standards for one openers, and disclosed the > method by which we would do it, we received > a formal acceptance that we were acting within > the laws. It seems Edgar was deputed to tell us > so, and yes, the language of his response on > behalf of the WBF LC was grudging - they had > not backed his wish to condemn the EBU - nor > by extension the EBL. Of course it was grudging. He knew you had found a lawyer's loophole in the spirit of the laws and that he couldn't stop you using it. That he could not persuade the WBF to issue the condemnation your actions so clearly deserved is a shame, but no great surprise. > At no stage did we > understand that the WBFLC, as distinct from > Kaplan the individual, opposed the standing > practice of the EBL. Sure, and at no stage did you doubt the reliability of evidence of WMD or have any concern about the ambiguity of legal advice from the Attorney General. Politicians don't wish to understand things that conflict with their personal agendas and have a peculiar talent for avoiding thought about such issues. People of integrity behave differently. Tim From SEZTWQNWIZACM at prodigy.net Thu May 19 16:22:22 2005 From: SEZTWQNWIZACM at prodigy.net (Merrill Whitten) Date: Thu May 19 15:23:39 2005 Subject: [blml] C$ALIS SOFT greg Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 6919 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050519/cb5c8a76/attachment.jpe From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Wed May 18 15:29:28 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Thu May 19 15:25:37 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or bad bidding. Do you correct? In-Reply-To: <428B087A.3090704@hdw.be> References: <428AFD24.7020508@hotmail.com> <428B087A.3090704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <428B4338.7060305@hotmail.com> Herman De Wael wrote: > koen wrote: > >> MP >> S/NS Qx >> xx >> Jxxx >> Kxxxx >> - xxx >> AKJxx Qxxxx >> Qxxx AKx >> xxxx xx >> AKJxxxxx >> x >> xx >> AQ >> >> 2C-(P)-2D-(P) >> 2S-(P)-2NT-(P) >> 3S-(P)-4S-All Pass >> >> 2C: Explained as strong (22+) or 8+ tricks >> 2D: relay >> 2S: 9+ tricks in unknown suit >> 2NT: relay >> 3S: 9 tricks in Spades >> >> Actually the agreement that NS have about 2C is that is can only be >> weak with 6-card D. >> Over 2C West did some thinking (more then 10 secs). After the hand he >> says that he would have bid 2H over 2C if he had received a correct >> explanation of 2C (that it can also be weak 6-card D). And they would >> have found a save to 5H. >> Suppose that you are convinced about the above: >> Will you correct the result even if the MI did correspond >> to the actual hand? >> > > Yes of course you would. > > The fact that the hand conformed to the MI is not important. It still > is MI. Ok. Tx. > But I would ask EW to really confirm to me that they would bid 2H in > second position. Rather, if West is afraid of the strong version > (which apparently he is), with correct information, West could wait > for the bidding to return to him after 2D-p-p. > Considering that he did not act over "only strong", I would force him > also to pass over "weak with diamonds or strong". He has more reason > to act over the first explanation than over the second one. > Suppose EW can convince you that bidding would be different with the correct explanation then you would correct. But then N tells you that the weak D variant is a new agreement on their CC and he forgot about it. Does that change the ruling? Remark: I did give the above hand as an example. So the answer "The fact that the hand conformed to the MI is not important. It still is MI." did in fact answer the question. It does remember me an MP hand: I opened in 3th hand with 2H Muiderberg. Recently we agreed that in 3th hand this can be gambling (does not necessarily need 4 card m; or can be very weak; or can be a bit stronger, up to 13 HCP). I had a normal Muiderberg opening and my partner explained the 2H as Muiderberg (he did forget about the gambling part). Opps did go to 4D doubled for a top for us. After the hand I told my partner he also should give the gambling part of the explanation (so he would remember this new agreement). Opps then said they would not have competed that high if we would have given the correct explanation - the possiblity that it could be up to 13 HCP. I said my partner did forget about this and that my hand did correspond to the explanation, so there could NOT be an issue ... apparantly I was wrong about this? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050518/ef455571/attachment.html From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu May 19 16:08:48 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu May 19 16:09:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct References: Message-ID: <00a601c55c7c$47c94500$0f9468d5@James> [Ruchard James Hills] > My apologies for my unwarranted nigellian assumption > that quoting John Swanson meant agreeing with John > Swanson. [Nigel] You've excelled yourself, Richard: demeaning Konrad Ciborowski, John Swanson and me, all in one pithy sentence :) From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu May 19 16:46:42 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu May 19 16:48:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Fox or rabbit? References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fox or rabbit? > Steve wrote: > > > While we are discussing L72B1, here's a case from real life. (Actually > > it's L23; does anyone think that makes a difference?) > > > > South holds KT7 AK4 KJ98 765, none vulnerable, IMPs. North deals and > > opens 1D, East bids 2NT (hearts and clubs), and South bids 2H (uh oh). > > The TD reads out L27B2, West does not accept the IB, North is barred, > > and South punts 3NT which makes for a good score. Of course NS have no > > agreements about 2H, but 3H would have been a game force with a spade > > suit. 3NT could have been beaten only with a club lead, but the heart > > lead is normal from West's hand. > > > > Was South a villain or a lucky rabbit? Do you apply L23/72B1? If so, > > to what do you adjust? Does South's reputation matter to your decision? > > There are two possible routes to L72b1. The first, via L23, seems > inappropriate because I cannot see any reason to wish to bar partner on > this hand. The second is slightly more intricate - would the explanation > of what 3H *would have been* increase the attractiveness of a H lead > relative to a C vs 3N? > > I'm going to be investigating the system/agreements in either case as my > mind is not made up but my instinct is to go direct to L72b1 for the > initial infraction. I suspect South is a villain and I'll be recording > this for reference - but a lucky rabbit will get the same adjustment > (unless I judge him way too clueless to have possibly worked this out). > > Tim I agree with Tim that the facts are insufficient for a [could have known] ruling. Not only is the NS system missing [as well as the EW system] but the W hand as well [if the dispute is over the judgment of the OL, those cards are relevant]. That not withstanding, [a] it was mentioned that 3H would be a game going transfer to spades but if S had spades and a wide open round suit there would be a strong likelihood that he would rest in S rather than NT. A logical conclusion would be that failure to bid spades would suggest that bidding 3H was not on the mind of S when he bid 2H. [b] if W chooses to judge that S has a hand corresponding to a 3H call in spite of the strong inference from the failure to bid spades that S doesn't have such a hand that is his business. No one ought to could have known that W was out to lunch. [c] we are told that W had compelling reasons to lead a H and he led a H. Now, for W to claim he was damaged to the tune that he was going to lead a C had there been no insufficient bid I think a necessary condition for adjusting the score is that W demonstrate valid reasons [1] why the C was his first choice and [2] why the normal H was not his first choice. [d] a normal inference from the illegal 2H call is that S had hearts which in turn suggests that hearts may not be a good suit to attack [particularly if the W's holding is weak and short- which apparently it was not] [e] S landed in a contract that could have been beaten [f] S's bidding presumably suggested,- if anything, not leading a heart- as opposed to leading a heart. As such, given the likelihood that a non-heart lead would mean a club lead, and given the length and weakness of his clubs S could have expected that the illegal 2H would be beneficial to W against 3N by S. regards roger pewick From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu May 19 16:47:04 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu May 19 16:48:15 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes References: Message-ID: <00af01c55c81$a0430310$0f9468d5@James> [Steve Willner] >> Suppose a defender hesitates with a singleton, and >> declarer is deceived. Today there's an essentially >> automatic score adjustment. Under the large majority" >> proposed rule, wouldn't declarer's calling the TD be >> equivalent to a cheating accusation? Even if not, >> with no score adjustment in prospect, why would any >> declarer bother to call the TD? Does the phrase "bad >> old days" ring any bells here? [Richard Hills] > The other side of the coin is "bad new days", with > litigious Secretary Birds gaining a double shot at a > good score after receiving AI from their bunny > opponents. If a Secretary Bird's deduction from AI > is correct, the Secretary Bird gets a top. If a > Secretary Bird's deduction from AI is incorrect, > they call the TD, the TD adjusts the score pursuant > to Law 73F2, and the Secretary Bird still gets a top. > Perhaps Steve's thesis and the ACBL LC's antithesis > could be profitably combined into a synthesis in the > 2006 version of Law 73F2. [Nigel] I agree with Steve, that a player is most unlikely to call the director to investigate a possible a infraction by his opponents, if all that he is likely to earn is resentment from opponents. Such laws reward infraction even more than the modern equity approach does. When you detect an infraction against you and you can persuade the director to agree that it occurred and rule against it, then it is frustrating if you get no compensation or some "calculated score" compromise, especially when you consider how often you are damaged by such infractions when undetected or unpunished. Bridge Laws are becoming increasingly incomprehensible by the average player. Equity rulings seem to award inadequate compensation even in the case of clear-cut infractions that an ordinary player can understand. The laws seem designed to foster an unpleasant new attitude to Bridge - regarding it as a form of "Cheat": "Crime does pay. If you can't beat them join them." Hesitations cause so much hassle, that law-makers might consider two alternative massive legal simplification: A. Punish the tempo-break itself, deceptive or not; and whether anyone uses the information or not. You could use something like chess-clocks or egg-timers. B. Ignore most hesitations for legal purposes. You can try to "bluff" with them, with impunity. An opponent takes inferences therefrom, entirely at his own risk. Exceptions: (1) The law should frown on ridiculously long hestitations (2) Of course, if you indulge in a lot of random hesitations, you are still liable to be fined for slow play. From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu May 19 16:58:01 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu May 19 16:59:19 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428C3B51.5020002@hdw.be> References: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@mail.gmail.com> <428C3B51.5020002@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e050519075861332c7c@mail.gmail.com> On 5/19/05, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > richard willey wrote: > > > Simple question to Herman > > > > Assume that you are dealt a hand suitable for a "spainish" 1H opening... > > (Approximately) what percentage of the time do you open 1H as opposed > > to passing? > > > > Approximately all the time. > Does that matter? Yes. From perspective, this means that you are engaged in highly unethical behavior. I wouldn't hesitate to use the expression cheating. The fact that you open a "Spanish" 1H every time that you hold an appropriate hand means that you are playing a 2-way 1H opening bid. Just as a "Carrot" 1C opening promises either a weak balanced hand or a variety of strong hand types, the "Herman" 3rd seat 1H opening promises either a normal 1H opening bid or a "Spanish" 1H opening. I readily admit that I am not an expert in the regulatory structure used in Belgium, however, it sounds suspiciously like you are using the concept of a psyche to permit you to play a convention that probably isn't permitted by the local regulatory structure. 1.The definition of a brown sticker convention includes the following clause: "Psychic bids protected by system or required by system". The fact that you chose to make this particular psyche 100% of the time clearly suggests that this is required by system. 2.This opening bid is clearly a violation of the rule of 18. As I understand matters, your regulatory structure defines different categories for events. A allows green systems, and only elementary conventions B allows green and blue systems, and only elementary conventions C allows green and blue systems, and all conventions except brown sticker D allows green, blue and red systems, and all conventions except brown sticker E allows green, blue and red systems, and all conventions except brown sticker, rule of 18 not active in 3rd seat F allows green, blue and red systems, all conventions, rule of 18 not active in 3rd seat G allows all systems, all conventions, rule of 18 not active in 3rd seat" Your 1H opening would be permitted in events using Category F and G. (2nd Nationals or higher) However, its clearly illegal in categories A through E. -- "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54 From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Thu May 19 17:52:46 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Thu May 19 17:55:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: <428BE5C1.2040701@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505161703.j4GH3DQu005263@cfa.harvard.edu> <428BE5C1.2040701@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote >> From: Nanki Poo >> My experience is that people who shout loudest about their >> innocence are usually the guilty ones. > >Among athletes with positive drug tests, there are examples of those >who loudly proclaim their innocence and of others who admit guilt. I >don't see why the population of villainous bridge players should >manifest only one of these attitudes. Oh dear. What is so difficult about the English language? Why is it that these days if you write something simple people assume you mean something totally different. My *** experience *** is etc. My experience does not include drug tests on athletes. Now, is you comment on drug tests on athletes - whatever relevance that has - suggesting I am wrong, I am lying or what? -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Thu May 19 17:52:57 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Thu May 19 17:55:10 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c55af6$19c0fd60$94aa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >That your actions demean the world's most beautiful game, sully the >players by mere association, and set a disgusting example of low morals >and ethics you care not one whit - bully for you yet a third time. Or perhaps it is your approach that does this. No, I forgot, you know far more about this game than the EBU. That must be true - you have said so. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Thu May 19 17:55:52 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Thu May 19 17:58:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <001501c55b7e$bfb38f70$b19c87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <0MC$OuSIcLjCFwcc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote > > > > >Grattan Endicott: > >[snip] > >>In Europe there had been minimum standards set by the >>'Rule of 19' and these had been included in regulations >>as 'guidelines', enforced on a rather vague basis. A >>minority of players have always reacted with hostility >>to this (but not, Tim, with crude vituperation). The >>EBU merely set out to put control on a lawful basis and >>it found a way to do so. > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >For a number of years Australia imitated the EBU by >adopting a Rule of 18 and 15 in its system regulation. > >A *majority* of Aussie players always reacted with >hostility to the Rule of 18 and 15, constantly flouting >the Rule. Funny. They did not seem to while I was there. You don't, by any chance, mean a majority of top Aussie players? -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Thu May 19 17:55:40 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Thu May 19 17:58:12 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: <200505181524.j4IFOH32020559@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200505181524.j4IFOH32020559@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <+Mv9eZS8bLjCFw83@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ron Johnson wrote >I'd point out that there *may* be a consequence of the EBU's >approach. David Stevenson (and others) have noted the rise in >meritless appeals in EBU events. > >I think it's possible that this is because the EBU has conveyed >the impression that the meaning of the laws is arguable. > >I don't insist on this -- but it would be a good example of >the Law of Unintended Consequences. My own view is that there are three reasons for the increase in meritless appeals. One. The world, and therefore bridge players, is getting more litigious. Two. EBU and WBU Appeal Committees do not keep enough deposits, so meritless appeals are not seen to cost money. Three. The idea, which seems to have started in North America, that offenders should not be punished for their actions. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Thu May 19 17:56:03 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Thu May 19 17:58:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Unethical conduct In-Reply-To: References: <20050517112820.3EBA8DAC9E@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: wrote > > > > >David Stevenson: > >>>Hmmm. My experience is that people who shout loudest about >>>their innocence are usually the guilty ones. > >[snip] > >Konrad Ciborowski: > >[snip] > >>So clearly Swanson expects innocent people to shout loudest. > >Richard Hills: > >J'accuse David and Konrad. Consider the Dreyfus Affair. >Popular prejudices (such as those created by 19th century >anti-Semitism) are not evidence. Perhaps Australian dictionaries do not include the word "usually"? -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From hermandw at hdw.be Thu May 19 18:27:38 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu May 19 18:27:37 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e050519075861332c7c@mail.gmail.com> References: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@mail.gmail.com> <428C3B51.5020002@hdw.be> <2da24b8e050519075861332c7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be> Richard, you are totally off the wall here: richard willey wrote: > On 5/19/05, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >>richard willey wrote: >> >> >>>Simple question to Herman >>> >>>Assume that you are dealt a hand suitable for a "spainish" 1H opening... >>>(Approximately) what percentage of the time do you open 1H as opposed >>>to passing? >>> >> >>Approximately all the time. >>Does that matter? > > > Yes. From perspective, this means that you are engaged in highly > unethical behavior. I wouldn't hesitate to use the expression > cheating. The fact that you open a "Spanish" 1H every time that you > hold an appropriate hand means that you are playing a 2-way 1H opening > bid. Just as a "Carrot" 1C opening promises either a weak balanced > hand or a variety of strong hand types, the "Herman" 3rd seat 1H > opening promises either a normal 1H opening bid or a "Spanish" 1H > opening. > You Richard, whenever you open 1S, you either hold a regular spade opening, or you have a psyching hand. Me, when I open 1H, I either have a regular heart opening, or a spanish heart, or a psyching heart anything. Any opening is either correct or psychic. That does not mean that the opening has a systemic meaning that it can be psyched. And the fact that a particular hand is "always" psyched or only 50% of the time has no bearing on its meaning. The meaning of my 1H opening is "I have 13+, with hearts". Nothing else. And the only reason why you assume something else is because I am being honest. Nothing except my honesty can be found to prove that I "always" do this. Even if you had a perfect record of all my biddings, the best you could deduce is that I have performed no other psyches than this one. And if I were to say that last week I held a 3-pointer that I did not open - would that be enough for you to rule otherwise? No Richard, the frequency of this psychic meaning means that no partner can ever describe the opening in the way you cite above. > I readily admit that I am not an expert in the regulatory structure > used in Belgium, however, it sounds suspiciously like you are using > the concept of a psyche to permit you to play a convention that > probably isn't permitted by the local regulatory structure. > If I were to play this as a "convention", then I would first of all inform my partner (if he doesn't already know from experience), I would put it on my CC somewhere else than under psyches (and it would be banned indeed), and I would arrange an escape sequence. I have done neither of these. OK, you could say that I would not do 1 and 2 because then I would not be able to perform the psyche, but you can see that I don't do 3. > 1.The definition of a brown sticker convention includes the following > clause: "Psychic bids protected by system or required by system". The > fact that you chose to make this particular psyche 100% of the time > clearly suggests that this is required by system. No it is not. I would not blame partner for not doing it, f.i. And I would not blame him either for not drawing the negative inference if I pass in third hand. Besides, I am telling you that I did it 100% of the time in the recent past. Who says that next time the hand comes up I don't "feel like it". I did it on monday against a particular opponent. I would not have done it against one or two other beginners pairs, whom I know to be totally unaware of psyches. > 2.This opening bid is clearly a violation of the rule of 18. > Only if you read the rule of 18 as "you are not allowed to open under 18". The rule of 18 does not include psyches. You cannot use the rule of 18 to then decide that something is or is not a psyche. > As I understand matters, your regulatory structure defines different > categories for events. > > A allows green systems, and only elementary conventions > B allows green and blue systems, and only elementary conventions > C allows green and blue systems, and all conventions except brown sticker > D allows green, blue and red systems, and all conventions except brown sticker > E allows green, blue and red systems, and all conventions except brown > sticker, rule of 18 not active in 3rd seat > F allows green, blue and red systems, all conventions, rule of 18 not > active in 3rd seat > G allows all systems, all conventions, rule of 18 not active in 3rd seat" > > Your 1H opening would be permitted in events using Category F and G. > (2nd Nationals or higher) However, its clearly illegal in categories A > through E. > You have done your homework! But only to the extent that you rule that this is systemic. I don't agree that something one does once a year (or less frequently) can be systemic, even if one admits to doing it all the time in a particular situation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 19 18:56:00 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu May 19 19:05:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System References: Message-ID: <006101c55c94$409d6820$9372893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "There are two things which I am confident I can do very well: one is an introduction to any literary work, stating what it should contain, and how it is to be executed in the most perfect manner; the other is a conclusion, shewing from various causes why the execution has not been equal to what the author promised to himself and to the public." [ Boswell]. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Indirect regulation of System > > > The ABF bureaucrats were spirit-of-the-Laws > uneasy about the dubious legal basis for the Rule. > Furthermore, oddly, the ABF bureaucrats have > an unusual democratic idea that a regulation should > be consistent with what the vast majority of its > punters want. Compare and contrast with > the Sir Humphrey Appleby nanny-state policy > of another national bridge organisation, which > tells their punters that they cannot possibly want > to play meritless conventions. > > :-) > +=+ You will be content then to learn that the Minutes of the EBU L&E committee require confirmation in meeting of its Council (now a Meeting of Shareholders), an elected body composed, as to its voting members, to an overwhelming degree of players of no special distinction (but including a minority of expert players), thus reflecting the membership of the English Bridge Union of whom probably fewer than one in nine are regular national tournament participants and, among these, a much smaller number could be described as 'expert'. The contents of the Orange Book are thus required to meet the wishes of the majority of the members. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Thu May 19 19:47:03 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu May 19 19:48:22 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000501c55c9a$c4314750$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ...................... > The meaning of my 1H opening is "I have 13+, with hearts". Nothing else. Your case reduces to one simple question: Is your partner from agreement or experience alert that your third seat opening bid in 1H has a significant (but not necessarily as high as for instance 50%) probability of not conforming to the above statement? >From your previous statements here I have the impression that the answer to this question is "yes", in fact that this opening bid can regularly be made on hands holding less than 7 HCP. If this is correct then that opening bid is clearly a brown sticker according to every brown sticker regulation that I have come across. Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 19 19:55:18 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu May 19 20:02:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: Message-ID: <002201c55c9c$272d7030$77b187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "There are two things which I am confident I can do very well: one is an introduction to any literary work, stating what it should contain, and how it is to be executed in the most perfect manner; the other is a conclusion, shewing from various causes why the execution has not been equal to what the author promised to himself and to the public." [ Boswell]. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > People of integrity behave differently. > > Tim > +=+ You are confused on the subject of integrity. You disagree with my actions. But whatever I contributed was given because I believed, and believe, it is in the interests of the game to set boundaries on system (according to the nature of the event). In this I and others disagreed with Kaplan. If this is a lack of integrity in your eyes, then you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to have no regard for it. In the meantime the regulation has been implemented because it obtained majority backing among those for whom it was designed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 19 20:07:49 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu May 19 20:13:48 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again References: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@mail.gmail.com><428C3B51.5020002@hdw.be><2da24b8e050519075861332c7c@mail.gmail.com> <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004201c55c9d$c1d80db0$77b187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "There are two things which I am confident I can do very well: one is an introduction to any literary work, stating what it should contain, and how it is to be executed in the most perfect manner; the other is a conclusion, shewing from various causes why the execution has not been equal to what the author promised to himself and to the public." [ Boswell]. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I did it again > > > > You have done your homework! > But only to the extent that you rule that this > is systemic. I don't agree that something one > does once a year (or less frequently) can be > systemic, even if one admits to doing it all > the time in a particular situation. > +=+ Herman, what you admit to will not affect judgement of it. If you do it all the time in a particular situation it is systemic. What you are arguing is that even so partner is unlikely to suspect it - a moot point - and thus you suggest 'no agreement, not even implicit'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu May 19 20:37:02 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu May 19 20:37:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: <000001c55bae$b907f230$6900a8c0@WINXP> <006001c55c46$b1af02b0$4c9687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <007e01c55ca1$c0721840$729468d5@James> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ The 1997 Laws have a curious definition of 'psychic call' which allows that it deliberately and grossly misstates honour strength or suit length, but does not exclude the possibility that a psychic call may be the subject of partnership agreement, whereupon it becomes subject to system regulations but apparently does not escape its definition as a psychic call. I used to say that it ceased to be psychic because I understood the phrase as signfying an action of which partner can have no prior awareness. However this is not quite what the definition says although it is in conflict to an extent with the wording of Law 40A. Maybe the subject was not thought through clearly when writing the definition and has been left in a slightly murky state, a feature that is not unknown elsewhere in the law book. [Nigel] I agree with Grattan that the official vocabulary for the treatment of "psyches" is inadequate. Other BLMLers and I have suggested various alternatives. Suppose we define MISCALL as a "call that is a departure from disclosed partnership methods". Then a miscall may be ... A. Gross? or minor? B. Deliberate? or by mistake? C. An equal surprise to partner and opponents? or subject to a pattern such that partner may be better placed than opponents to guess its circumstances, nature, or frequency (that is: the subject of a concealed partnership understanding)? D. Suspect to partner? or not? E. If suspect then by virtue of "authorised information"? or by "unauthorised information"? F. If suspect, then could opponents have "miscalled"? or is partner the only likely culprit? G. Treated as a normal bid by partner? or "fielded" ie handled differently from normal as it might be if partner suspected a misbid? H. If "fielded", then is the fielding deliberate? or accidental (that is coincidental)? I. If deliberately fielded, would the correct contract still be reached if partner is genuine -- ie was the field a cost-nothing "psychic control" like "Drury"? or could the fielding jeopardise reaching the optimum contract if partner had not miscalled? Two other points ... 1. The basic simple descriptive vocabulary should define only *objective* features. For example "fielded gross miscall" shouldn't imply intention or wrong doing. Subjective features (like whether the "miscall" or "field" are deliberate, or whether there was "unauthorised information" or "concealed partnership understanding") are separate issues to be judged later according to the balance of probability from circumstantial evidence. 2. If "PSYCHE" means deliberate *gross* deviation, then new rules are needed to deal with *minor* miscalls (deviations). These too may be subject to concealed partnership understandings and so on. Perhaps, it would be easier just to drop the qualifier "gross" from the definition of psyche. From thackery at doneasy.com Thu May 19 21:38:12 2005 From: thackery at doneasy.com (Deirdre Bartlett) Date: Thu May 19 20:45:46 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 $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h1gh3r.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Brady Albert to be remov(ed: http://www.h1gh3r.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From hermandw at hdw.be Thu May 19 21:56:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu May 19 21:56:28 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000501c55c9a$c4314750$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c55c9a$c4314750$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <428CEF79.9020404@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ...................... > >>The meaning of my 1H opening is "I have 13+, with hearts". Nothing else. > > > Your case reduces to one simple question: > > Is your partner from agreement or experience alert that your third seat > opening bid in 1H has a significant (but not necessarily as high as for > instance 50%) probability of not conforming to the above statement? > >>From your previous statements here I have the impression that the answer to > this question is "yes", in fact that this opening bid can regularly be made > on hands holding less than 7 HCP. If this is correct then that opening bid > is clearly a brown sticker according to every brown sticker regulation that > I have come across. > Sven, have you gone completely off your marbles? Have you not even the slightest notion of probabilities? How often do you think you have 0-3 points in third hand (this means two particular hands have less than 11 points). I have this hand once a year. I have more than 100 times opened 1He on ral values during that time. So your notion that "this opening bid can regularly be made > on hands holding less than 7 HCP" is completely false. Once in over a hundred times it is on less than 4 points. No brown sticker about it - certainly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Thu May 19 22:36:44 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu May 19 22:38:04 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428CEF79.9020404@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000601c55cb2$788f2bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ...................... > > > >>The meaning of my 1H opening is "I have 13+, with hearts". Nothing else. > > > > > > Your case reduces to one simple question: > > > > Is your partner from agreement or experience alert that your third seat > > opening bid in 1H has a significant (but not necessarily as high as for > > instance 50%) probability of not conforming to the above statement? ............ > Sven, have you gone completely off your marbles? > Have you not even the slightest notion of probabilities? > How often do you think you have 0-3 points in third hand (this means > two particular hands have less than 11 points). > I have this hand once a year. > I have more than 100 times opened 1He on ral values during that time. Why can you not just answer the question? Will your partner from his experience with you ever consider the possibility that your third hand opening bid of 1H may show less than 13 HCP and/or less than 4 hearts? (This includes of course the possibility that you more specific show 0-3 HCP and any shape) Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 19 22:49:18 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu May 19 22:48:42 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be> References: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@mail.gmail.com> <428C3B51.5020002@hdw.be> <2da24b8e050519075861332c7c@mail.gmail.com> <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050519164332.02a404c0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:27 PM 5/19/05, Herman wrote: >But only to the extent that you rule that this is systemic. I don't >agree that something one does once a year (or less frequently) can be >systemic, even if one admits to doing it all the time in a particular >situation. For 30 years, I have played the auction 2D(weak)-P-4D as a natural, game-forcing slam try. It has been over a dozen years since I last made that particular bid. According to Herman, this bid cannot be considered as part of my bidding system, because it does not come up often enough. That's just silly. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schneid at doneasy.com Fri May 20 00:01:12 2005 From: schneid at doneasy.com (Joan Carey) Date: Thu May 19 23:07:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Become a homeowner with low rates Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h1gh3r.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Rusty Pham to be remov(ed: http://www.h1gh3r.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 Wed May 18 23:36:15 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu May 19 23:17:26 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) References: <200505181524.j4IFOH32020559@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <000201c55cb8$28d59130$2cea403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) > > > I think it's possible that this is because the EBU has conveyed > the impression that the meaning of the laws is arguable. > +=+ I doubt that anything the EBU has done is in the same league as blml when it comes to creating that impression. +=+ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri May 20 00:40:23 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri May 20 00:41:46 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be> References: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@mail.gmail.com> <428C3B51.5020002@hdw.be> <2da24b8e050519075861332c7c@mail.gmail.com> <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <428D15D7.9040104@t-online.de> Hello Herman, Herman De Wael wrote: > > You Richard, whenever you open 1S, you either hold a regular spade > opening, or you have a psyching hand. Me, when I open 1H, I either > have a regular heart opening, or a spanish heart, or a psyching heart > anything. > Any opening is either correct or psychic. That does not mean that the > opening has a systemic meaning that it can be psyched. And the fact > that a particular hand is "always" psyched or only 50% of the time has > no bearing on its meaning. > > The meaning of my 1H opening is "I have 13+, with hearts". Nothing else. No, Herman, the meaning of your 1S oprning is "I have 13+ (13? really? nce to see someone who doesn`t open any garbage these days :-) ), with spades, nothing else." Your 1H opening is a different kettle of fish altogether. > > And the only reason why you assume something else is because I am > being honest. Nothing except my honesty can be found to prove that I > "always" do this. Even if you had a perfect record of all my biddings, > the best you could deduce is that I have performed no other psyches > than this one. And if I were to say that last week I held a 3-pointer > that I did not open - would that be enough for you to rule otherwise? Wasn`t it you who proudly related how he ruled against a psychic cue-bid because you knew about certain tendencies? And you want to tell me that the other players in your club don`t know your favorite ploy? Of course they do. You even told us that some partner of yours alerted a third-seat 1H. And the frequency doesn`t have anything to do with it. For 8 years I played 1C (strong) - 1H (positive with 5+ spades) - 1 NT as RKCB for _hearts_, hearts are trumps, no discussion, further bids will be spiral scan. It did not come up _ever_, but it was part of the system. I knew it, my partner knew it, it was in the systems file. It never happened, but it was systemic nonetheless. Best regards Matthias From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 20 00:44:36 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 20 00:45:14 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428CBE7A.60308@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >I don't agree that something one does once a year (or less >frequently) can be systemic, even if one admits to doing it >all the time in a particular situation. Richard Hills: The core of this De Wael versus Pran/Willey/Hills debate. My partner and I have agreed to use the Acol Blackwood convention (an opening bid of 4NT asks pard to show the specific location of his ace, if any). Naturally, a hand which is suitable to employ the Acol Blackwood convention only comes up about once a year. Does this mean that the Acol Blackwood convention is not part of my system? Does this mean that the Spanish 1H is not part of Herman De Wael's system? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Fri May 20 00:54:33 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri May 20 00:51:18 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000601c55cb2$788f2bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > How often do you think you have 0-3 points in third hand (this means > > two particular hands have less than 11 points). Since the subject came up, I thought I'd run a quick simulation. First hand 0-11, second hand 0-11, third hand 0-3, any distribution: 457 times in 100,000 trials = between 1 in 200 and 1 in 240 with 95% confidence. Same with limits of 0-10 on first two hands: 209 times = between 1 in 420 and 1 in 555 with 95% confidence. Absolute frequency: HdW will, of course, only be dealer one hand in four, and only be NV half the time. But this 'perfect opportunity for psyching' will, apparently, arise something like once in 2000 hands, which translates into a couple times a year for someone like me who averages two sessions a week plus a few tournaments. His long suit will vary, of course, each time it comes up. Relative frequency: By contrast, the combination first hand 0-11, second hand 0-11, third hand 12+ comes up about 22% of the time. This suggests the odds are between 45:1 and 50:1 that any given third seat opening by HdW is psychic. This is rarer than a Multi 2D turning out to be a balanced 21-22 (just shy of a 10% chance) but comparable to the probability of the Impossible Negative in Precision (1C = 16+, 1D response any 0-7, but sometimes a strong 4441, about 1/30th as common as the weak hand.) People who play the Impossible Negative have gotten in trouble in the ACBL for MI if they don't include the rare possibility in their explanation of the 1D bid response. I am glad I did this little experiment today: I would have guessed that psychs represented only about 1% of third seat NV openings. GRB From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 20 01:06:48 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 20 01:07:23 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428C3B51.5020002@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Are you talking about negative inferences? >I've indeed had partners saying to the table after a >third-hand pass of mine: "too much for a psyche". Richard Hills: And *that* is where Herman's partner gains an unfair advantage over the rest of the field. Because a third-seat pass by Herman *guarantees* values, it is easier for Herman's partner to successfully diagnose a subsequent penalty double. And, of course, third-seat passes by Herman have a more than once-a-year frequency, so even Herman must agree that his Spanish Pass convention is one of his partnership agreements. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 20 01:56:02 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 20 01:56:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <006101c55c94$409d6820$9372893e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>Compare and contrast with the Sir Humphrey Appleby nanny-state >>policy of another national bridge organisation, which tells >>their punters that they cannot possibly want to play meritless >>conventions. >> >>:-) Grattan Endicott: [snip] >The contents of the Orange Book are thus required to meet the >wishes of the majority of the members. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906), An Enemy of the People (1882), Act 4: "The majority has the might - more's the pity - but it hasn't right ... The minority is always right." David Stevenson, "EBU Orange Book" thread, February 2005: [snip] >>> Somewhat more recently, ie in the last twenty years, a >>>convention called Roche became popular in clubs. You must >>>realise that in England players like the weak no-trump, >>>regarding the strong no-trump as a quirk of our former >>>colonists. However, they get upset when they pick up a >>>balanced 12-14, and someone opens 1NT ahead of them. Note: 1 >>>of a suit does not upset them because then they use the takeout >>>double whatever their shape. >>> >>> So someone came up with the idea of playing 2C over 1NT to >>>say "You have a weak NT? Well, so do I!" To make it playable >>>[!!!] it shows at least three clubs. I have played it when my >>>friend from South-West of Melbourne visited Liverpool and it >>>worked beautifully: show me anyone else who could reach 2C on a >>>4-4 fit for 90! >>> >>> Anyway, the EBU Council said that conventions with no bridge >>>merit should not be permitted, and Roche was deleted. This >>>caused an outcry. This was before my time on the L&EC, and I >>>thought they were bark^H^H^H^Hmisguided because it was played >>>in a lot of clubs. >>> >>> A few years later half-way through a wet afternoon on the >>>L&EC when I was presenting things to them for agreement they >>>looked so somnolent that I offered Roche in my most bored voice >>>and it went through unchallenged!!! Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 20 02:38:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 20 02:40:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Fox or rabbit? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > That not withstanding, [a] it was mentioned that 3H would be a game > going transfer to spades but if S had spades and a wide open round suit > there would be a strong likelihood that he would rest in S rather than > NT. Not a transfer. A game force with S. To me this included the possibility of a hand with 4S and doubtful H stop (ie pard is expected to bid 3N with 3-S+H stopper). I wonder what X/3C would have shown. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 20 02:38:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 20 02:40:04 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000501c55c9a$c4314750$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Your case reduces to one simple question: > > Is your partner from agreement or experience alert that your third seat > opening bid in 1H has a significant (but not necessarily as high as for > instance 50%) probability of not conforming to the above statement? That addresses the question of whether the habit is a disclosable understanding. It completely fails to address the question of whether it is an habitual departure from system of which partner is aware or a matter of system itself. There are questions one may ask to address this second issue such as: Does Herman's partner make similar choices? Does pass in 3rd seat deny hands of 0-3 points? What sequences exist to determine whether 1H is genuine or not? What actions has Herman's partner taken which indicate systemic usage? There is an important line that must be drawn between "system" and "understanding based on experience" when assessing possible breaches of SO regulations. Herman claims that his habit is a matter of style/judgement rather than system. As it happens I believe him. Other TDs may choose to disbelieve his claims and judge the bid systemic. Last time I tried opening an HdW 1H I was doubled, partner raised to 4, got doubled and I had to pull to 4S, which was also doubled. Not sure I will be trying it every time - next time dummy may not track with a perfect 5521 9 count! Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 20 02:38:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 20 02:40:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <002201c55c9c$272d7030$77b187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ You are confused on the subject > of integrity. You disagree with my actions. > But whatever I contributed was given > because I believed, and believe, it is in the > interests of the game to set boundaries on > system (according to the nature of the event). No Grattan, I see your "integrity" with perfect clarity. You are not so stupid as to have thought what you did was in tune with the spirit of the laws but you did it anyway because you thought twisting the words to achieve your own ends more important than engendering a respect for the law. > If this is a lack of integrity in your eyes, > then you are entitled to your opinion and > I am entitled to have no regard for it. I have no real expectation of you having regard for my opinions - I lack your ability for self-delusion. > the meantime the regulation has been > implemented because it obtained majority > backing among those for whom it was > designed. And the majority is always right, and all voters know what their candidates stand for, and 26% of the electorate is a mandate, and Ian Paisley is much better for NI than David Trimble, and.. But even assuming it had not been necessary to drop integrity in favour of finding loopholes in the law which genius came up with "I know, we're in a country where the most popular bidding system is one based on the principle of light opening bids, where the basic books on the system advocate such an approach, where people unfamiliar with duplicate use such an approach so let us then regulate that light opening bids are illegal." That must be good for the game - Brilliant! Oh wait a minute - we can do better than that. Let's write the regulation in such a way that AT98xx,KT9xx,x,x is enshrined as weaker than 65432,65432,AQ,K - Sheer Inspiration! Finally some really bright spark on the committee suggests that, just to really keep people on their toes, a perpetual position of non-committal should be maintained on whether judgment might be used by players when deciding whether to open hands which do not comply - Masterful, Godlike! Tim From DanielSolow at latinmail.com Fri May 20 03:13:24 2005 From: DanielSolow at latinmail.com (Daniel Solow) Date: Fri May 20 03:14:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Confirm receipt Message-ID: Daniel Solow Direct Tel: +27 83 767 5601, +871-762-535915 Direct Fax: +27 11 5075512 Personal/private email: dsolow@latinmail.com I am Mr. Daniel Solow, a native of Cape Town in South Africa and I am an Executive Accountant with the South Africa Department of Mining & Natural Resources. First and foremost, I apologized using this medium to reach you for a transaction/business of this magnitude, but this is due to confidentiality and prompt access reposed on this medium. Be informed that a member of the South Africa Export Promotion Council (SEPC) who was at the Government delegation to your country during a trade exhibition gave your credentials/particulars to me. I have decided to seek a confidential co-operation with you in the execution of the deal described hereunder for the benefit of all parties and hope you will keep it as a top secret because of the nature of this transaction. Within the Department of Mining & Natural Resources where I work as an Executive Accountant, we have in our possession as overdue payment bills totaling Eighteen Million, Three Hundred Thousand U. S. Dollars, which we want to transfer abroad with the assistance and cooperation of a foreign individual to receive the said fund on our behalf or a reliable foreign account to receive such funds. More so, we are handicapped in the circumstances, as the South Africa Civil Service Code of Conduct does not allow us to operate offshore account hence your importance in the whole transaction. The fund represents the balance of the total contract value executed on behalf of my Department by a foreign contracting firm, which we the officials over-invoiced deliberately. Though the actual contract cost have been paid to the original contractor, leaving the balance in the tune of the said amount which we have in principles gotten approval to remit by Telegraphic Transfer (T.T) to any foreign bank account you will provide by filing in an application form which will be fax to you, with the Justice Ministry here in South Africa for the transfer of rights and privileges of the former contractor to you hence provide me with your private/direct fax number. I have the authority of my partners involved to propose that should you be willing to assist us in the transaction, your share of the sum will be 15% of the fund, 80% for us and 5% for taxation and miscellaneous expenses. The business itself is 100% safe, on your part provided you treat it with utmost secrecy and confidentiality. Also your area of specialization is not a hindrance to the successful execution of this transaction. I have reposed my confidence in you and hope that you will not disappoint me. Endeavor to contact me immediately through my above telephone and fax number or my e-mail address, whether or not you are interested in this deal. I want to assure you that my partner and myself are in a position to make the payment of this claim possible provided you can give us a very strong assurance and guarantee that our share will be secured and please remember to treat this matter as very confidential matter, because we will not comprehend with any form of exposure as we are still in active Government Service and remember once again that time is of the essence in this business. I wait in anticipation of your fullest co-operation. Yours truly, Daniel Solow Email: dsolow@latinmail.com From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri May 20 03:23:13 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri May 20 03:24:30 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428CEF79.9020404@hdw.be> References: <000501c55c9a$c4314750$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428CEF79.9020404@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e05051918237632cf21@mail.gmail.com> > Sven, have you gone completely off your marbles? > Have you not even the slightest notion of probabilities? > How often do you think you have 0-3 points in third hand (this means > two particular hands have less than 11 points). > I have this hand once a year. > I have more than 100 times opened 1He on ral values during that time. > > So your notion that "this opening bid can regularly be made > > on hands holding less than 7 HCP" is completely false. Once in over > a hundred times it is on less than 4 points. > > No brown sticker about it - certainly. You seem to be laboring under a couple of mistaken assumptions: 1. You are assuming that because an event is rare, it is also irrelevant. A billion lottery players would probably disagree with this theory. 2. You are assuming (once again) that you get to pick and chose the precise information you provide to the opponents. This example is even more ethically suspect that the DWS crap that you so proudly spout. -- "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54 From jqjbblml at rtflb.org Fri May 20 04:43:15 2005 From: jqjbblml at rtflb.org (Kent Elinore) Date: Fri May 20 03:44:48 2005 Subject: [blml] claIis available now Message-ID: Look at this! Ready for R0mance in just 15minz 1ncreased S.ex Drive B00st S'exua1 P!erf0rmance Fu11er and H!ard!er Erect-ions 1ncreased S!tamina & End!urance Qu!cker Rec!harges, 1ess S!ide Aff!ects Discreet 0n1ine Orde-ring - DHL Express Delivery Specia1 Ends S00n... Or,der Here http://IciZa.ecomomics.net/cs/?unxx Bye Kent Elinore From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Fri May 20 05:25:32 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri May 20 05:26:50 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050520032532.79388.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> --- richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > [snip] > > >This position and the like are contemptible. It is > >clear that natural (more precisely > non-conventional) > >bids within a King of average strength were not > >intended to be constrained by L40D and it is also > >clear that the power to regulate conventions was > not > >intended to be used this way. > > > >Our game would be much better if the regulators had > >the same respect for the laws that is expected of > the > >players. > > Richard Hills: > > Blml discussion would be much better if blmlers had > the same respect for the laws that those blmlers > expect of the regulators. > > On this issue of "the spirit of the laws" versus > "the > letter of the laws", it seems to me that Wayne has > been inconsistently blowing hot and cold. > > On the issue of psyching versus concealed implicit > agreements, it seems to me that Wayne has taken a > very narrow "letter of the laws" approach. > > But on the issue of regulation of conventions, it > seems to me that Wayne is taking a very broad > "spirit > of the laws" approach. > > :-) I certainly do not think of my position like this. I see a great deal of similarity between the position of a sponsoring organization that looks for loopholes to outlaw natural bids and the same sponsoring organization writing a regulation that defines as a concealed partnership understanding something that is not a concealed partnership understanding. As an aside : One of my aims in bridge is to play super-light openings or maybe just a super-light 1NT in some jurisdiction that "bans" them but without any subsequent conventions so that it is legal. Unfortunately I cannot do that in New Zealand because they don't try to disguise that fact that the regulation is illegal and just illegally say you cannot play very light openings. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 20 05:31:49 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri May 20 05:32:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: Message-ID: <011801c55cec$75ed7260$3f9468d5@James> [Tim West-Meades] > No Grattan, I see your "integrity" with perfect clarity. > You are not so stupid as to have thought what you did > was in tune with the spirit of the laws but you did it > anyway because you thought twisting the words to achieve > your own ends more important than engendering a respect > for the law. [Nigel] I agree that that the WBFLC should complete the law-book themselves rather than force local jursidictions to plug the gaps. I agree that the EBU should not have used the powers that the WBFLC devolved to them to generate even more sophisticated local laws and invitably, even more anomalies. It is the committees who decide on the laws. Grattan is merely a member of these committees and in spite of the obvious dangers of devolution, Gratton has consistently argued that it is good for the game -- especially so in the case of the regulation of systems. So, if Grattan is voting the same way as his WBF and EBU committees, how can you impugn Grattan's integrity? [: Snipped political analogy. I agree with Tim's politics but I disagree that the analogy is apt :] [Tim] Let's write the regulation in such a way that AT98xx KT9xx x x is enshrined as weaker than 65432 65432 AQ K Sheer Inspiration! Finally some really bright spark on the committee suggests that, just to really keep people on their toes, a perpetual position of non-committal should be maintained on whether judgment might be used by players when deciding whether to open hands which do not comply - Masterful, Godlike! [Nigel] I agree with Tim that there should be a speedy resolution to such simple practical questions, even if some affect only the minority of players who try to comply with the dictates of the EBU Orange Book. Personally, I think that players should *not* be allowed to use "judgement" to widen legal restrictions. Some committee members seem to agree with me, others with Tim. Until this question is resolved, our team is likely to continue to lose close matches because of our literal interpretation. Grattan seems to believe that in order to clarify such ambiguities and anomalies for the ordinary player, the law-makers must wait to publish a new paper edition of a rule-book or law book, at five or ten year intervals. BLMLers have repeatedly pointed out the simpler solution: that maintaining an official up-to-date web edition (with the errata corrected in place) would be quite adequate for the purposes of almost all directors and players. The existence of the web-edition could be prominently advertised in bridge-clubs and bridge-periodicals; local bridge sites could publish links to it. From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Fri May 20 05:50:50 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri May 20 05:52:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050520035050.83521.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> --- GUTHRIE wrote: > Personally, I think that players should *not* be > allowed to > use "judgement" to widen legal restrictions. Some > committee > members seem to agree with me, others with Tim. What if the use of "judgement" does not widen the legal restriction? I am thinking of "judgement" that includes some hands that are outside the superficial range of the regulation but excludes some that are within that range. The net affect being that the range is maintained. It is certainly true that in some areas standard expert practice is outside the literal regulations e.g. opening 1NT with a singleton (honour) in some jurisdictions. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 20 06:35:13 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri May 20 06:36:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050520035050.83521.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <015701c55cf5$5117bbe0$3f9468d5@James> [Wayne Burrows] > What if the use of "judgement" does not widen the > legal restriction? I am thinking of "judgement" that > includes some hands that are outside the superficial > range of the regulation but excludes some that are > within that range. The net affect being that the > range is maintained. [Nigel] Take a practical example to examine Wayne's argument: Suppose you define an HCP range as 10-12. If I judge to include some eight and nine point hands but compensate by excluding most eleven and twelve point hands, am I really "maintaining the range"? From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Fri May 20 06:50:45 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri May 20 06:52:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050520045045.70842.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> --- GUTHRIE wrote: > [Wayne Burrows] > > What if the use of "judgement" does not widen the > > legal restriction? I am thinking of "judgement" > that > > includes some hands that are outside the > superficial > > range of the regulation but excludes some that are > > within that range. The net affect being that the > > range is maintained. > > [Nigel] > Take a practical example to examine Wayne's > argument: > Suppose you define an HCP range as 10-12. If I judge > to > include some eight and nine point hands but > compensate by > excluding most eleven and twelve point hands, am I > really > "maintaining the range"? I am more thinking of a player who upgrades some nines and down-grades some tens. For this player has the range really been extended. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri May 20 07:15:44 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri May 20 07:17:33 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes In-Reply-To: <00af01c55c81$a0430310$0f9468d5@James> References: <00af01c55c81$a0430310$0f9468d5@James> Message-ID: <403cbb87909c2980cc0f7b54294abcf7@rochester.rr.com> On May 19, 2005, at 10:47 AM, GUTHRIE wrote: > A. Punish the tempo-break itself, deceptive or not; and > whether anyone uses the information or not. You could use > something like chess-clocks or egg-timers. In chess, iirc, the penalty for failing to make your move before the clock runs out is that you lose your turn. That's no problem in chess - it *would* be a problem in bridge. > B. Ignore most hesitations for legal purposes. You can try > to "bluff" with them, with impunity. An opponent takes > inferences therefrom, entirely at his own risk. Exceptions: > (1) The law should frown on ridiculously long hestitations > (2) Of course, if you indulge in a lot of random > hesitations, you are still liable to be fined for slow play. Define "ridiculously long" and "a lot of random". And why "of course"? From svenpran at online.no Fri May 20 07:47:02 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri May 20 07:48:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <015701c55cf5$5117bbe0$3f9468d5@James> Message-ID: <000001c55cff$594299c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> ............ > [Nigel] > Take a practical example to examine Wayne's argument: > Suppose you define an HCP range as 10-12. If I judge to > include some eight and nine point hands but compensate by > excluding most eleven and twelve point hands, am I really > "maintaining the range"? A similar question came up during the recent Masters League in Norway: According to our regulations an opening bid in the range 2C to 2NT is a Brown Sticker if it can include hands with less than 10 HCP unless all hands with less than 13 HCP promise one specific known suit with at least 4 cards. The question was whether a pair who has declared their opening bids 2m and/or 2M as 10-12 with an unknown suit may vary their strength to occasionally include hands with only 9 HCP. The decision was that the 10 HCP lower limit in this case is absolute, such opening bids become Brown Stickers if they vary the limit down to 9 HCP. It was further ruled that even if they use a HCP value scale other than the common 4-3-2-1 the actual evaluation for deciding BS or not shall still be done using the 4-3-2-1 scale. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 20 08:24:55 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 20 08:26:24 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes In-Reply-To: <010501c55c53$7cbeb0c0$4c9687d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Perhaps Steve's thesis and the ACBL LC's >>antithesis could be profitably combined into >>a synthesis in the 2006 version of Law 73F2. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Tell me more - I quote: > >"of course I have kept my eye open for >anything ....... on blml that suggests a >real gap in the 1997 laws". > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The ACBL LC has expressed a desire for Laws 12C2 and 12C3 to be rewritten in the 2006 Lawbook so that the ACBL would be empowered to legally create a 12C2/12C3 split-score. The ACBL LC wants, in 2006, to be able to give the non-offending side a Law 12C3 "equity" score, while simultaneously giving the offending side a Law 12C2 "punitive" score. If the WBF drafting sub-committee follows the ACBL LC down this yellow brick road, then a synthesis for the 2006 Law 73F2 could use the same split-score approach. That is, a NOS gets a Law 12C3 "equity" weighted adjusted score, based on the probabilities of the various NOS various outcomes if the OS deceptive hesitation had not occurred. Meanwhile, the OS deceptive hesitation gets nuked with a Law 12C2 "punitive" score of their worst plausible result. Note: The ACBL LC has defined a 1/6th chance as the benchmark of plausible. Further note: Law 12C2 currently uses the idiosyncratic and confusing phrase "at all probable". I suggest replacing that phrase with "plausible", and adding this definition of the word "plausible" in a footnote. (1) Until the sponsoring organisation regulates otherwise, "plausible" shall be taken to mean a cumulative probability of at least 1/6th. This 2006 version of Law 73F2 would satisfy the ACBL LC concern about a Secretary Bird getting double-shot tops. And this 2006 version of Law 73F2 would satisfy the Steve Willner concern about a Charlie the Chimp getting coffee-house tops. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 20 08:43:16 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri May 20 08:44:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <000001c55cff$594299c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000801c55d07$344db7f0$189868d5@James> [Sven Pran] > A similar question came up during the recent Masters > League in Norway: > According to our regulations an opening bid in the > range 2C to 2NT is a Brown Sticker if it can include > hands with less than 10 HCP unless all hands with less > than 13 HCP promise one specific known suit with at > least 4 cards. The question was whether a pair who has > declared their opening bids 2m and/or 2M as 10-12 with > an unknown suit may vary their strength to occasionally > include hands with only 9 HCP. The decision was that > the 10 HCP lower limit in this case is absolute, such > opening bids become Brown Stickers if they vary the > limit down to 9 HCP. It was further ruled that even if > they use a HCP value scale other than the common 4-3-2-1 > the actual evaluation for deciding BS or not shall still > be done using the 4-3-2-1 scale. [Nigel] It is better to have no restrictions at all. But if law-makers must impose restrictions then they should keep them as simple and objective as Norway does. Even a beginner can count the number of cards in a suit. Compared with 7531 and other scales "Milton Work 4321 HCP" may be crude but at least it is a fairly common measure. When comparing hand shapes, honour combinations, honour placement and suit texture, each book on bidding seems to recommend a different evaluation method. Hence, IMO, it would be the height of folly for a rule-book try take such sophisticated refinements into account. From hermandw at hdw.be Fri May 20 09:27:34 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri May 20 09:27:16 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000601c55cb2$788f2bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c55cb2$788f2bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <428D9166.5060702@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Why can you not just answer the question? > > Will your partner from his experience with you ever consider the possibility > that your third hand opening bid of 1H may show less than 13 HCP and/or less > than 4 hearts? (This includes of course the possibility that you more > specific show 0-3 HCP and any shape) > Yes, he would (or he could - most of my partners wouldn't, but that's not important IMO). But not more so that that Zia's partner knows that Zia does not always have what he advertises. My partner does not know, when I open 1He, that I am psyching. He knows the possibility is there, and he knows the possibility is larger than with most Belgian players. That knowledge should also be forwarded to the opponents, or there is MI. But there is nothing more systemic about it. If you rule that my admissions make my psyches systemic, and ban them as a result, then all you will accomplish is that I (or others) will not admit to their tendencies. And there is nothing in the evidence (even with complete knowledge) that can lead you to the same conclusions with my admissions. Which is why, in order to decide whether or not a particular psyche is more or less systemic, I prefer to start looking for things like catering (which is what the brown sticker regulations actually do say), not frequency, and certainly not the fact that a player has decided to open all 0-counts in fourth hand. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri May 20 09:59:07 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri May 20 09:58:49 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <428D98CB.90401@hdw.be> Thank you Gordon, for your calculations. Gordon Bower wrote: > > >>>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > >>>How often do you think you have 0-3 points in third hand (this means >>>two particular hands have less than 11 points). > > > Since the subject came up, I thought I'd run a quick simulation. > > First hand 0-11, second hand 0-11, third hand 0-3, any distribution: 457 > times in 100,000 trials = between 1 in 200 and 1 in 240 with 95% confidence. > > Same with limits of 0-10 on first two hands: 209 times = between 1 in 420 > and 1 in 555 with 95% confidence. > > Absolute frequency: > HdW will, of course, only be dealer one hand in four, and only be NV half > the time. But this 'perfect opportunity for psyching' will, apparently, > arise something like once in 2000 hands, which translates into a couple > times a year for someone like me who averages two sessions a week plus a > few tournaments. His long suit will vary, of course, each time it comes > up. > I have not noticed "a couple of times a year" I told you when it last happened - too long ago to remember. And I play more than 2 sessions a week. I have discovered why this is so: some of the 0-11 in first or second hand are being opened with light openings. This brings the frequency lower than 1 in 2000 hands, more in line with the "slightly less than once a year" that I have discovered empirically. > Relative frequency: > > By contrast, the combination first hand 0-11, second hand 0-11, third hand > 12+ comes up about 22% of the time. > > This suggests the odds are between 45:1 and 50:1 that any given third seat > opening by HdW is psychic. Considering that, if I have 0-3, the relative chances that the first two have 8-11, are higher than if I have 12+, I would say that the relative frequency of me having 12+ rather than 0-3, when both hands have passed, is lower than 1/50. But I will go along with "third hand opening: once a week, third hand psyche: once a year". > This is rarer than a Multi 2D turning out to be > a balanced 21-22 (just shy of a 10% chance) but comparable to the > probability of the Impossible Negative in Precision (1C = 16+, 1D response > any 0-7, but sometimes a strong 4441, about 1/30th as common as the weak > hand.) > > People who play the Impossible Negative have gotten in trouble in the ACBL > for MI if they don't include the rare possibility in their explanation of > the 1D bid response. > There are two differences though: first of all, a psychic alternate meaning can be construed as GBK, and secondly, I'm certain the players of precision have a way of showing the impossible negative in the second round. That makes it more systemic than my 1 heart. Remember that I don't even play Drury. > I am glad I did this little experiment today: I would have guessed that > psychs represented only about 1% of third seat NV openings. > well, it's only slightly larger than that - not even double. What it does show is that when I next play with Gordon, he shall alert my 1He opening, third in hand, and explain that the psyching frequency of that bid is about 2%. Does that change anything to the legality of the issue, though? > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri May 20 10:02:50 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri May 20 10:02:42 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e05051918237632cf21@mail.gmail.com> References: <000501c55c9a$c4314750$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428CEF79.9020404@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05051918237632cf21@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <428D99AA.2050001@hdw.be> richard willey wrote: >>Sven, have you gone completely off your marbles? >>Have you not even the slightest notion of probabilities? >>How often do you think you have 0-3 points in third hand (this means >>two particular hands have less than 11 points). >>I have this hand once a year. >>I have more than 100 times opened 1He on ral values during that time. >> >>So your notion that "this opening bid can regularly be made >> > on hands holding less than 7 HCP" is completely false. Once in over >>a hundred times it is on less than 4 points. >> >>No brown sticker about it - certainly. > > > You seem to be laboring under a couple of mistaken assumptions: > > 1. You are assuming that because an event is rare, it is also > irrelevant. A billion lottery players would probably disagree with > this theory. > I am not saying that it is irrelevant. I am saying that the low frequency makes it non-systemic. > 2. You are assuming (once again) that you get to pick and chose the > precise information you provide to the opponents. This example is > even more ethically suspect that the DWS crap that you so proudly > spout. > Yes, I pick and choose. I tell them (before the facts on my CC if I am allowed to do so) that I open third in hand all 0-3's. What's wrong with that information? Please come up with better arguments before using words that are truely hurtful (suspect, crap?). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri May 20 10:06:50 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri May 20 10:06:43 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <428D9A9A.4060106@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > > That addresses the question of whether the habit is a disclosable > understanding. Which I have always confirmed it to be. > It completely fails to address the question of whether it > is an habitual departure from system of which partner is aware or a matter > of system itself. > > There are questions one may ask to address this second issue such as: > Does Herman's partner make similar choices? no, never, not a single one. > Does pass in 3rd seat deny hands of 0-3 points? I would not hold my partner to that. As it happens, in the past, I have always opened them. But I have always looked to my left and right and decided that the opponents were sufficiently able to cope with a psyche - I would not do it against beginners or "wailers". > What sequences exist to determine whether 1H is genuine or not? none whatsoever - fourth hand invariably does something and all sequences are non-forcing thereafter. I simply pass, something I would certainly also do with a minimum heart hand. > What actions has Herman's partner taken which indicate systemic usage? > none, of course. > There is an important line that must be drawn between "system" and > "understanding based on experience" when assessing possible breaches of SO > regulations. > > Herman claims that his habit is a matter of style/judgement rather than > system. As it happens I believe him. Other TDs may choose to disbelieve > his claims and judge the bid systemic. > > Last time I tried opening an HdW 1H I was doubled, partner raised to 4, > got doubled and I had to pull to 4S, which was also doubled. > Not sure I will be trying it every time - next time dummy may not track > with a perfect 5521 9 count! > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri May 20 10:08:58 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri May 20 10:08:40 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050519164332.02a404c0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@mail.gmail.com> <428C3B51.5020002@hdw.be> <2da24b8e050519075861332c7c@mail.gmail.com> <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050519164332.02a404c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <428D9B1A.1080901@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 12:27 PM 5/19/05, Herman wrote: > >> But only to the extent that you rule that this is systemic. I don't >> agree that something one does once a year (or less frequently) can be >> systemic, even if one admits to doing it all the time in a particular >> situation. > > > For 30 years, I have played the auction 2D(weak)-P-4D as a natural, > game-forcing slam try. It has been over a dozen years since I last made > that particular bid. According to Herman, this bid cannot be considered > as part of my bidding system, because it does not come up often enough. > That's just silly. > No, that is not what I meant. In those same dozen years you did not have a priamry meaning for 4D which did come up. It is not that frequency which makes a meaning systemic or not, it is the relative frequency of the alternate meaning which does so. And - even more importantly - the ways of distinguishing between the alternates. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri May 20 10:15:08 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri May 20 10:14:56 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428D15D7.9040104@t-online.de> References: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@mail.gmail.com> <428C3B51.5020002@hdw.be> <2da24b8e050519075861332c7c@mail.gmail.com> <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be> <428D15D7.9040104@t-online.de> Message-ID: <428D9C8C.7050606@hdw.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Hello Herman, > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >> You Richard, whenever you open 1S, you either hold a regular spade >> opening, or you have a psyching hand. Me, when I open 1H, I either >> have a regular heart opening, or a spanish heart, or a psyching heart >> anything. >> Any opening is either correct or psychic. That does not mean that the >> opening has a systemic meaning that it can be psyched. And the fact >> that a particular hand is "always" psyched or only 50% of the time has >> no bearing on its meaning. >> >> The meaning of my 1H opening is "I have 13+, with hearts". Nothing else. > > > > No, Herman, the meaning of your 1S oprning is "I have 13+ (13? really? > nce to see someone who doesn`t open any garbage these days :-) ), with > spades, nothing else." Your 1H opening is a different kettle of fish > altogether. > This is a point which I had thought about and not yet dealt with. Indeed I have noticed that I prefer the 1H psyche to the 1S one. I simply haven't yet encountered a psychable hand with hearts. I presume I would open that 1S, but it has not yet come up. If you insist that this is important, then I will now decide that from now on my psyches will always be in the shorter major, or, if equal, in the shortest colour. That means the 1S and 1H alternate meanings are equal. >> >> And the only reason why you assume something else is because I am >> being honest. Nothing except my honesty can be found to prove that I >> "always" do this. Even if you had a perfect record of all my biddings, >> the best you could deduce is that I have performed no other psyches >> than this one. And if I were to say that last week I held a 3-pointer >> that I did not open - would that be enough for you to rule otherwise? > > > > Wasn`t it you who proudly related how he ruled against a psychic cue-bid > because you knew about certain tendencies? Yes, but we are talking system regulation here, not MI. There is no problem with MI in my case - I have always maintained that my opponents are entitled to more knowledge than they usually have at the table - and that I regret not being able to give them more info. That famous case was a MI case. This thread is about my being guilty of playing brown sticker thingeys! > And you want to tell me that > the other players in your club don`t know your favorite ploy? Of course > they do. You even told us that some partner of yours alerted a > third-seat 1H. And the frequency doesn`t have anything to do with it. > For 8 years I played 1C (strong) - 1H (positive with 5+ spades) - 1 NT > as RKCB for _hearts_, hearts are trumps, no discussion, further bids > will be spiral scan. It did not come up _ever_, but it was part of the > system. I knew it, my partner knew it, it was in the systems file. It > never happened, but it was systemic nonetheless. > > Best regards > Matthias > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri May 20 10:15:50 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri May 20 10:16:02 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <428D9CB6.7060702@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > > >>I don't agree that something one does once a year (or less >>frequently) can be systemic, even if one admits to doing it >>all the time in a particular situation. > > > Richard Hills: > > The core of this De Wael versus Pran/Willey/Hills debate. > > My partner and I have agreed to use the Acol Blackwood > convention (an opening bid of 4NT asks pard to show the > specific location of his ace, if any). Naturally, a hand > which is suitable to employ the Acol Blackwood convention > only comes up about once a year. Does this mean that the > Acol Blackwood convention is not part of my system? Does > this mean that the Spanish 1H is not part of Herman De > Wael's system? > Does you argument mean that it is? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri May 20 10:18:11 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri May 20 10:17:55 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <428D9D43.3050909@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael: > > >>Are you talking about negative inferences? >>I've indeed had partners saying to the table after a >>third-hand pass of mine: "too much for a psyche". > > > Richard Hills: > > And *that* is where Herman's partner gains an unfair > advantage over the rest of the field. Because a > third-seat pass by Herman *guarantees* values, it is > easier for Herman's partner to successfully diagnose > a subsequent penalty double. > Again Richard, even if it were true, wrong tack. You are not discussing MI here - you are discussing illegal system. I am quite willing to have my opponents share the information that my partner could have. Or to accept a MI ruling when they don't. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion you guys are having with me in this thread - whether or not my "system" is permitted. > And, of course, third-seat passes by Herman have a > more than once-a-year frequency, so even Herman must > agree that his Spanish Pass convention is one of his > partnership agreements. > > No discussion about that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From brogley at doneasy.com Fri May 20 14:19:17 2005 From: brogley at doneasy.com (Chang Charles) Date: Fri May 20 13:19:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Rates fixed wont last long 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.h1gh3r.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Fletcher Chatman to be remov(ed: http://www.h1gh3r.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 May 20 15:01:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 20 15:02:35 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote > > >That your actions demean the world's most beautiful game, sully the > >players by mere association, and set a disgusting example of low morals > >and ethics you care not one whit - bully for you yet a third time. > > Or perhaps it is your approach that does this. Possibly. OTOH my views are posted in a pretty narrow forum whilst the results of Grattan's lack of integrity are widely available for all to see in the OB. Whilst I realise that Grattan is not solely to blame I reserve the majority of my opprobrium for the organ-grinder rather than one of his monkeys. > No, I forgot, you know far more about this game than the EBU. That > must be true - you have said so. Actually I said it wouldn't exactly be a challenge to know more about how to control the English game than the EBU - not quite the same thing. In part the EBU suffers from the deficiencies of many committee-based drafting bodies. In part it suffers from a culture of fear (well, trepidation) in that many good players know that "rocking the boat" will affect their chances of selection. In part it suffers from lack of resources (and, often, misdirection of scarce resources) and, of course, in part it suffers from a lack of integrity. Not to say that the EBU doesn't do a decent job on lots of things I'd be hopeless at (almost anything which involves organising things for a start). Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 20 15:25:16 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri May 20 15:38:33 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes References: Message-ID: <00aa01c55d40$76dfb670$749b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "... And Chingford to the eastward could be seen. With a lot of 'andsome glasses You could see to 'ackney marshes - If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". - Gus Elen. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 7:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes > > Richard Hills: > > The ACBL LC has expressed a desire for Laws > 12C2 and 12C3 to be rewritten in the 2006 > Lawbook so that the ACBL would be empowered to > legally create a 12C2/12C3 split-score. > > The ACBL LC wants, in 2006, to be able to give > the non-offending side a Law 12C3 "equity" > score, while simultaneously giving the offending > side a Law 12C2 "punitive" score. > +=+ As we stand, if we knew where we are, the drafts do not prescribe a specific adjustment as 12C2 did, instead they allow of sufficient flexibility for the ACBL to issue guidelines that would meet that wish. +=+ > > If the WBF drafting sub-committee follows the > ACBL LC down this yellow brick road, then a > synthesis for the 2006 Law 73F2 could use the > same split-score approach. > > That is, a NOS gets a Law 12C3 "equity" weighted > adjusted score, based on the probabilities of > the various NOS various outcomes if the OS > deceptive hesitation had not occurred. > > Meanwhile, the OS deceptive hesitation gets > nuked with a Law 12C2 "punitive" score of their > worst plausible result. > +=+ When there is to be a score adjustment all roads lead to Rome - or to Memphis as it may be. However, bring in the clowns, I do not guarantee we will stand next year where we stand today. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 20 15:45:24 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri May 20 15:52:57 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) References: Message-ID: <00da01c55d42$7a2caca0$749b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "... And Chingford to the eastward could be seen. With a lot of 'andsome glasses You could see to 'ackney marshes If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". - Gus Elen. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 2:01 PM Subject: Re: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) > DWS wrote > > > > >That your actions demean the world's most > > >beautiful game, sully the players by mere association, > > >and set a disgusting example of low morals and ethics > > > you care not one whit - bully for you yet a third time. > > > > Or perhaps it is your approach that does this. > > In part it suffers from lack of > resources (and, often, misdirection of scarce resources) > and, of course, in part it suffers from a lack of integrity. > > Not to say that the EBU doesn't do a decent job on lots > of things I'd be hopeless at (almost anything which > involves organising things for a start). > > Tim > +=+ Hi David, I think we can leave this ranter to his bile. The world will continue to turn out of his control. The thread is one that I have now wholly deleted. ~ Grattan~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri May 20 16:06:40 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri May 20 16:08:01 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428D9166.5060702@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c55d45$258f6bd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Why can you not just answer the question? > > > > Will your partner from his experience with you ever > > consider the possibility that your third hand opening > > bid of 1H may show less than 13 HCP and/or less than > > 4 hearts? (This includes of course the possibility > > that you more specific show 0-3 HCP and any shape) > > > > Yes, he would (or he could - most of my partners wouldn't, > but that's not important IMO). No that is not important. But this means that you have an agreement (a partnership experience) with the partner (or those of your partners) that would consider such a possibility and thus take it into account when selecting their further calls. The consequence is that this agreement/experience is part of your system and subject to relevant regulations on admissible systemic calls. > But not more so that that Zia's partner knows that Zia does > not always have what he advertises. > My partner does not know, when I open 1He, that I am psyching. > He knows the possibility is there, and he knows the possibility > is larger than with most Belgian players. That knowledge should > also be forwarded to the opponents, or there is MI. > But there is nothing more systemic about it. Everything you wrote here confirms that this particular bid is not "protected" by Law 40A (freedom to select any call); it is actually part of your system because your partner will know about the alternative meaning(s) the call may have. The fundamental requirement for a call to be "protected" by Law 40A is that your partner shall have no more "knowledge" than your opponents about that particular call. Furthermore a call is not considered "psychic" if any sort of partnership understanding exists about the true nature of that call even if this nature has been disclosed to opponents. Such calls are part of your system. > > If you rule that my admissions make my psyches systemic, and ban them > as a result, then all you will accomplish is that I (or others) will > not admit to their tendencies. And there is nothing in the evidence > (even with complete knowledge) that can lead you to the same > conclusions with my admissions. Try me. Eventually your (now concealed) system will be revealed and the penalty for using a concealed partnership understanding will exceed anything you can imagine, at least here in Norway. We call that cheating and act accordingly. Don't they in Belgium? > > Which is why, in order to decide whether or not a particular psyche is > more or less systemic, I prefer to start looking for things like > catering (which is what the brown sticker regulations actually do > say), not frequency, and certainly not the fact that a player has > decided to open all 0-counts in fourth hand. A psyche cannot be systemic. A psyche is a gross violation of (all) partnership agreements and understandings. Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri May 20 17:04:50 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri May 20 17:08:51 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 8:01 AM Subject: Re: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) > DWS wrote > > > > >That your actions demean the world's most beautiful game, sully the > > >players by mere association, and set a disgusting example of low morals > > >and ethics you care not one whit - bully for you yet a third time. > > > > Or perhaps it is your approach that does this. > > Possibly. OTOH my views are posted in a pretty narrow forum whilst the > results of Grattan's lack of integrity are widely available for all to see > in the OB. Whilst I realise that Grattan is not solely to blame I reserve > the majority of my opprobrium for the organ-grinder rather than one of his > monkeys. I recall vaguely from my eight grade of school. There was a group of us that were rather bright and one day there appeared a large supply of marbles, legos, and a sandbox without the sand. I do not recall what sort of instructions that were given but I do recollect what happened. We constructed an economy with government and the people. We decided that it was valuable to roll marbles through wickets. And we created a society around the government selling wickets for marbles, and paying rewards with marbles for the type of wicket that marbles were rolled through, and collecting taxes of marbles. From day to day not only did the number of rules magically grow but we also became more clever in the rules we, or should it be mentioned- that I crafted. Anyway, I would not be so hard upon Grattan. The lesson I learned is that government has the propensity creep but in one direction. regards roger pewick > Tim From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri May 20 17:08:37 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri May 20 17:10:05 2005 Subject: Indirect regulation of System (was[blml] Fielding or not?) In-Reply-To: <000201c55cb8$28d59130$2cea403e@Mildred> from "Grattan" at May 18, 2005 10:36:15 PM Message-ID: <200505201508.j4KF8c5g002201@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Grattan writes: > > > I think it's possible that this is because the EBU has conveyed > > the impression that the meaning of the laws is arguable. > > > +=+ I doubt that anything the EBU has done is in the same > league as blml when it comes to creating that impression. +=+ Well the vast majority of EBU players don't even know that blml exists. Still, we've all seen cases where people on BLML take dramatically different views on "the plain meaning" of the laws -- in perfectly good faith. And I think this is both unfortunate and probably unavoidable. I've mentioned my experience in touch football before. A very senior official thought that the choice of the phrase "leading edge of the ball" as opposed to "any part of the ball" was both intentional and significant (He wanted the footballs painted so that he could tell which end of the football was the leading edge) In fact (and I know this because I asked the guy wrote actually edited the rule book) the phrase, "any part of the ball" was exactly what they had in mind. They simply didn't think of that phrase. Fortunately, touch football updated their rulebook yearly. (Unfortunately, touch football updated their rulebook yearly, take your pick) From hermandw at hdw.be Fri May 20 17:23:45 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri May 20 17:23:38 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000001c55d45$258f6bd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c55d45$258f6bd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <428E0101.3080001@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >>>Why can you not just answer the question? >>> >>>Will your partner from his experience with you ever >>>consider the possibility that your third hand opening >>>bid of 1H may show less than 13 HCP and/or less than >>>4 hearts? (This includes of course the possibility >>>that you more specific show 0-3 HCP and any shape) >>> >> >>Yes, he would (or he could - most of my partners wouldn't, >>but that's not important IMO). > > > No that is not important. But this means that you have an agreement (a > partnership experience) with the partner (or those of your partners) that > would consider such a possibility and thus take it into account when > selecting their further calls. The consequence is that this > agreement/experience is part of your system and subject to relevant > regulations on admissible systemic calls. > Yes Sven, for what it's worth, that would make this part of my "system". But what is "this" - nothing more than a "knowledge" that a certain psyche occurs with a certain frequency. This knowledge in itself does not alter the "meaning" of any opening bid. And although it follows that the "system" is subject to regulation, that does not equate to it being regulated. There could, f.i., be a regulation which says that a "knowledge" of psyching frequency of more than once-per-2000-boards is illegal. My particular habits would then be looked at from a point of view like what Gordon did, and would be allowed. In fact, there is such a regulation: brown includes nowadays "psyches protected by system". I have not yet discovered anything in my psyches that fall faul to that rule. No Sven, the fact that something is disclosable may well mean that it is regulatable, but not that it is in fact regulated, or that it is prohibited. > >>But not more so that that Zia's partner knows that Zia does >>not always have what he advertises. >>My partner does not know, when I open 1He, that I am psyching. >>He knows the possibility is there, and he knows the possibility >>is larger than with most Belgian players. That knowledge should >>also be forwarded to the opponents, or there is MI. >>But there is nothing more systemic about it. > > > Everything you wrote here confirms that this particular bid is not > "protected" by Law 40A (freedom to select any call); it is actually part of > your system because your partner will know about the alternative meaning(s) > the call may have. > > The fundamental requirement for a call to be "protected" by Law 40A is that > your partner shall have no more "knowledge" than your opponents about that > particular call. Furthermore a call is not considered "psychic" if any sort > of partnership understanding exists about the true nature of that call even > if this nature has been disclosed to opponents. Such calls are part of your > system. > And as such, they are disclosable to the opponents - so what? Reasonings like this are just bans on psyching altogether. You are completely in the wrong if you act like this. Zia's partners knwo that Zia may well have psyched the previous call. That does not render Zia's bids illegal, does it? > >>If you rule that my admissions make my psyches systemic, and ban them >>as a result, then all you will accomplish is that I (or others) will >>not admit to their tendencies. And there is nothing in the evidence >>(even with complete knowledge) that can lead you to the same >>conclusions with my admissions. > > > Try me. Eventually your (now concealed) system will be revealed and the > penalty for using a concealed partnership understanding will exceed anything > you can imagine, at least here in Norway. We call that cheating and act > accordingly. Don't they in Belgium? > Boloney! > >>Which is why, in order to decide whether or not a particular psyche is >>more or less systemic, I prefer to start looking for things like >>catering (which is what the brown sticker regulations actually do >>say), not frequency, and certainly not the fact that a player has >>decided to open all 0-counts in fourth hand. > > > A psyche cannot be systemic. A psyche is a gross violation of (all) > partnership agreements and understandings. > You just told me that my psyches are systemic. I agree. You cannot have it both ways. Look Sven, I am trying to be helpful to the opponents. Don't make me the bad guy in all this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From john at asimere.com Fri May 20 17:27:04 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri May 20 17:29:43 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be> References: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@mail.gmail.com> <428C3B51.5020002@hdw.be> <2da24b8e050519075861332c7c@mail.gmail.com> <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Richard, you are totally off the wall here: > >richard willey wrote: >> On 5/19/05, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> >>>richard willey wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Simple question to Herman >>>> >>>>Assume that you are dealt a hand suitable for a "spainish" 1H opening... >>>>(Approximately) what percentage of the time do you open 1H as opposed >>>>to passing? >>>> >>> >>>Approximately all the time. >>>Does that matter? Let's assume that unlike Herman I don't psych 1H in 3rd seat on a bust. Let us assume that Herman and I sit North respectively at tables 1 and 2 week after week in a robust game at the Squeeze or the YC. Let us assume that our opponents know our proclivities. In what way is it beneficial for either Herman's or my partner, or indeed our opponents to vary their methods at each of our tables to cater for a 1 in 500 psyche? It's so obviously losing bridge that I find any suggestion that Herman's method is illegal as a CPU to be a joke. Now we come to questions of MI. Even here wtp? let's suppose that suddenly I felt the urge to open a herman heart and stuffed the opponents. So what. What difference is there between my table and Herman's regarding a 1 in 500 action? Systemic very low frequency actions have negligible MI connotations if no-one has any prepared method, where indeed it is contra-indicated to have such, to cater for them. I write this from the standpoint of one who is very harsh on MI. john >> >> >> Yes. From perspective, this means that you are engaged in highly >> unethical behavior. I wouldn't hesitate to use the expression >> cheating. The fact that you open a "Spanish" 1H every time that you >> hold an appropriate hand means that you are playing a 2-way 1H opening >> bid. Just as a "Carrot" 1C opening promises either a weak balanced >> hand or a variety of strong hand types, the "Herman" 3rd seat 1H >> opening promises either a normal 1H opening bid or a "Spanish" 1H >> opening. >> > >You Richard, whenever you open 1S, you either hold a regular spade >opening, or you have a psyching hand. Me, when I open 1H, I either >have a regular heart opening, or a spanish heart, or a psyching heart >anything. >Any opening is either correct or psychic. That does not mean that the >opening has a systemic meaning that it can be psyched. And the fact >that a particular hand is "always" psyched or only 50% of the time has >no bearing on its meaning. > >The meaning of my 1H opening is "I have 13+, with hearts". Nothing else. > >And the only reason why you assume something else is because I am >being honest. Nothing except my honesty can be found to prove that I >"always" do this. Even if you had a perfect record of all my biddings, >the best you could deduce is that I have performed no other psyches >than this one. And if I were to say that last week I held a 3-pointer >that I did not open - would that be enough for you to rule otherwise? > >No Richard, the frequency of this psychic meaning means that no >partner can ever describe the opening in the way you cite above. > >> I readily admit that I am not an expert in the regulatory structure >> used in Belgium, however, it sounds suspiciously like you are using >> the concept of a psyche to permit you to play a convention that >> probably isn't permitted by the local regulatory structure. >> > >If I were to play this as a "convention", then I would first of all >inform my partner (if he doesn't already know from experience), I >would put it on my CC somewhere else than under psyches (and it would >be banned indeed), and I would arrange an escape sequence. I have done >neither of these. OK, you could say that I would not do 1 and 2 >because then I would not be able to perform the psyche, but you can >see that I don't do 3. > >> 1.The definition of a brown sticker convention includes the following >> clause: "Psychic bids protected by system or required by system". The >> fact that you chose to make this particular psyche 100% of the time >> clearly suggests that this is required by system. > >No it is not. I would not blame partner for not doing it, f.i. >And I would not blame him either for not drawing the negative >inference if I pass in third hand. Besides, I am telling you that I >did it 100% of the time in the recent past. Who says that next time >the hand comes up I don't "feel like it". I did it on monday against a >particular opponent. I would not have done it against one or two other >beginners pairs, whom I know to be totally unaware of psyches. > >> 2.This opening bid is clearly a violation of the rule of 18. >> > >Only if you read the rule of 18 as "you are not allowed to open under >18". The rule of 18 does not include psyches. You cannot use the rule >of 18 to then decide that something is or is not a psyche. > >> As I understand matters, your regulatory structure defines different >> categories for events. >> >> A allows green systems, and only elementary conventions >> B allows green and blue systems, and only elementary conventions >> C allows green and blue systems, and all conventions except brown sticker >> D allows green, blue and red systems, and all conventions except brown sticker >> E allows green, blue and red systems, and all conventions except brown >> sticker, rule of 18 not active in 3rd seat >> F allows green, blue and red systems, all conventions, rule of 18 not >> active in 3rd seat >> G allows all systems, all conventions, rule of 18 not active in 3rd seat" >> >> Your 1H opening would be permitted in events using Category F and G. >> (2nd Nationals or higher) However, its clearly illegal in categories A >> through E. >> > >You have done your homework! >But only to the extent that you rule that this is systemic. I don't >agree that something one does once a year (or less frequently) can be >systemic, even if one admits to doing it all the time in a particular >situation. > -- 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 May 20 17:34:17 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri May 20 17:37:05 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428D9A9A.4060106@hdw.be> References: <428D9A9A.4060106@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <428D9A9A.4060106@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> >> That addresses the question of whether the habit is a disclosable >> understanding. > >Which I have always confirmed it to be. > >> It completely fails to address the question of whether it >> is an habitual departure from system of which partner is aware or a matter >> of system itself. >> >> There are questions one may ask to address this second issue such as: >> Does Herman's partner make similar choices? > >no, never, not a single one. > >> Does pass in 3rd seat deny hands of 0-3 points? > >I would not hold my partner to that. As it happens, in the past, I >have always opened them. But I have always looked to my left and right >and decided that the opponents were sufficiently able to cope with a >psyche - I would not do it against beginners or "wailers". This is a shame. The Vogon hated psychs, so we'd psych every opportunity we could against him. I like psyching against wailers. Just to add to my 1 in 500 shot comments earlier in the thread it seems to be closer to 1 in 100. This does not change my view about protecting opponents from it. Going on to the case of the impossible negative I can see situations where MI would be likely to cause damage. I'm more inclined to make an MI adjustment here. -- 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 May 20 17:38:05 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri May 20 17:40:26 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050519164332.02a404c0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@mail.gmail.com> <428C3B51.5020002@hdw.be> <2da24b8e050519075861332c7c@mail.gmail.com> <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050519164332.02a404c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In article <6.1.1.1.0.20050519164332.02a404c0@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 12:27 PM 5/19/05, Herman wrote: > >>But only to the extent that you rule that this is systemic. I don't >>agree that something one does once a year (or less frequently) can be >>systemic, even if one admits to doing it all the time in a particular >>situation. > >For 30 years, I have played the auction 2D(weak)-P-4D as a natural, >game-forcing slam try. It has been over a dozen years since I last >made that particular bid. According to Herman, this bid cannot be >considered as part of my bidding system, because it does not come up >often enough. That's just silly. It's fine to have this agreement. I've played 2C 2D 2M 4m as solid suit off an Ace all my life. I've never made the call. It's still systemic. However we're not comparing like with like. We're talking about a relatively high frequency action with good signal to noise ratio. Why on earth should one choose to filter on the off-chance that the noise has distorted the true message? > > >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 john at asimere.com Fri May 20 17:42:41 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri May 20 17:45:07 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: References: <428C3B51.5020002@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Herman De Wael: > >>Are you talking about negative inferences? >>I've indeed had partners saying to the table after a >>third-hand pass of mine: "too much for a psyche". > >Richard Hills: > >And *that* is where Herman's partner gains an unfair >advantage over the rest of the field. Because a >third-seat pass by Herman *guarantees* values, it is >easier for Herman's partner to successfully diagnose >a subsequent penalty double. > >And, of course, third-seat passes by Herman have a >more than once-a-year frequency, so even Herman must >agree that his Spanish Pass convention is one of his >partnership agreements. Sheesh. I've passed and Herman's denied 0-3? How does that help? You mean it allows me to pick partner for a specific king when he showed up with J third trump? Almost no UI IMO. > > >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 richard.willey at gmail.com Fri May 20 18:09:28 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri May 20 18:10:46 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: References: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@mail.gmail.com> <428C3B51.5020002@hdw.be> <2da24b8e050519075861332c7c@mail.gmail.com> <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e050520090967aabe7c@mail.gmail.com> On 5/20/05, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Let's assume that unlike Herman I don't psych 1H in 3rd seat on a bust. > Let us assume that Herman and I sit North respectively at tables 1 and 2 > week after week in a robust game at the Squeeze or the YC. Let us assume > that our opponents know our proclivities. > > In what way is it beneficial for either Herman's or my partner, or > indeed our opponents to vary their methods at each of our tables to > cater for a 1 in 500 psyche? It's so obviously losing bridge that I find > any suggestion that Herman's method is illegal as a CPU to be a joke. > > Now we come to questions of MI. Even here wtp? let's suppose that > suddenly I felt the urge to open a herman heart and stuffed the > opponents. So what. What difference is there between my table and > Herman's regarding a 1 in 500 action? Systemic very low frequency > actions have negligible MI connotations if no-one has any prepared > method, where indeed it is contra-indicated to have such, to cater for > them. > > I write this from the standpoint of one who is very harsh on MI. The issue here is not one of MI or even CPU, but rather System Regulation. Assume for the moment that Herman and I are playing the identical system. In both cases a 3rd seat 1H opening promises either a "normal" 1H opening or a "Spanish" 1H opening. In both cases, the players will chose to open a "Spanish" 1H 100% of the time that they hold the appropriate hand type. I choose to describe my 3rd seat 1H opening as a convention. 2 Hearts is explicitly defined as a 2-way opening bid. Herman describes his 1H opening as "natural", maintain that the repeated Spanish 1H openings are simple a psyche that occurs each and every time he holds the right hand type. Unfortunately, the system regulation mean that I am banned from playing my methods (I'm using an illegal convention) while Herman is allowed to play his. I maintain that players should not be permitted to use selective disclosure to make an end run around the system regulations. We certainly can't catch every person who might attempt to do so. However, when this behavior is identified, it needs to be punished severely. Equally significant, we need to consider whether its desirable to have a regulatory structure that incents players to use such selective disclosure... -- "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54 From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Fri May 20 18:11:52 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Fri May 20 18:14:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <006101c55c94$409d6820$9372893e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: wrote > > > > >Richard Hills: > >[snip] > >>>Compare and contrast with the Sir Humphrey Appleby nanny-state >>>policy of another national bridge organisation, which tells >>>their punters that they cannot possibly want to play meritless >>>conventions. >>> >>>:-) > >Grattan Endicott: > >[snip] > >>The contents of the Orange Book are thus required to meet the >>wishes of the majority of the members. >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906), An Enemy of the People (1882), Act 4: > >"The majority has the might - more's the pity - but it hasn't >right ... The minority is always right." > >David Stevenson, "EBU Orange Book" thread, February 2005: > >[snip] > >>>> Somewhat more recently, ie in the last twenty years, a >>>>convention called Roche became popular in clubs. You must >>>>realise that in England players like the weak no-trump, >>>>regarding the strong no-trump as a quirk of our former >>>>colonists. However, they get upset when they pick up a >>>>balanced 12-14, and someone opens 1NT ahead of them. Note: 1 >>>>of a suit does not upset them because then they use the takeout >>>>double whatever their shape. >>>> >>>> So someone came up with the idea of playing 2C over 1NT to >>>>say "You have a weak NT? Well, so do I!" To make it playable >>>>[!!!] it shows at least three clubs. I have played it when my >>>>friend from South-West of Melbourne visited Liverpool and it >>>>worked beautifully: show me anyone else who could reach 2C on a >>>>4-4 fit for 90! >>>> >>>> Anyway, the EBU Council said that conventions with no bridge >>>>merit should not be permitted, and Roche was deleted. This >>>>caused an outcry. This was before my time on the L&EC, and I >>>>thought they were bark^H^H^H^Hmisguided because it was played >>>>in a lot of clubs. >>>> >>>> A few years later half-way through a wet afternoon on the >>>>L&EC when I was presenting things to them for agreement they >>>>looked so somnolent that I offered Roche in my most bored voice >>>>and it went through unchallenged!!! Just out of interest, what relevance has this? Are you calling Grattan a liar, or are you making some rather more obscure point? -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Fri May 20 18:11:39 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Fri May 20 18:14:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <000001c55cff$594299c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <015701c55cf5$5117bbe0$3f9468d5@James> <000001c55cff$594299c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >............ >> [Nigel] >> Take a practical example to examine Wayne's argument: >> Suppose you define an HCP range as 10-12. If I judge to >> include some eight and nine point hands but compensate by >> excluding most eleven and twelve point hands, am I really >> "maintaining the range"? > >A similar question came up during the recent Masters League in Norway: > >According to our regulations an opening bid in the range 2C to 2NT is a >Brown Sticker if it can include hands with less than 10 HCP unless all hands >with less than 13 HCP promise one specific known suit with at least 4 cards. > >The question was whether a pair who has declared their opening bids 2m >and/or 2M as 10-12 with an unknown suit may vary their strength to >occasionally include hands with only 9 HCP. > >The decision was that the 10 HCP lower limit in this case is absolute, such >opening bids become Brown Stickers if they vary the limit down to 9 HCP. It >was further ruled that even if they use a HCP value scale other than the >common 4-3-2-1 the actual evaluation for deciding BS or not shall still be >done using the 4-3-2-1 scale. The point about such a regulation is that it is perfectly legal, and the Norwegians have an absolute right to make such a regulation. whether it is fair, reasonable, or right are completely separate questions. Personally, I think that a regulation that limits judgement in such a way is a bad regulation, but that's just my opinion. 2C shows either 10-15 with five plus diamonds, or 12+ with both majors. To say it is BSC if the bid might be made on Ax -- KQT987xxx xx but not if it is made on QJ QJ 7xxxx KJ32 does not fill me with a good feeling. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Fri May 20 18:18:21 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Fri May 20 18:19:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Email Message-ID: <$5ztTuoN3gjCFwPa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In case anyone is wondering my email has picked up the habit of not leaving my Outbox if it does not feel like it. I think I know the cause, though not the solution. My current idea is to switch ISP to one with a decent Helpline that will actually save me money. The bit that is very strange, and I can think of no reason for whatever, is that if I change who it is sent *from* then it often goes. It seems to like some 'From' eddresses and not others. That is why the cats are posting so much. Their emails seem to go: my normal BLML eddresses do not. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From adam at irvine.com Fri May 20 18:36:12 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri May 20 18:37:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Email In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 20 May 2005 17:18:21 BST." <$5ztTuoN3gjCFwPa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <200505201636.JAA00996@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > In case anyone is wondering my email has picked up the habit of not > leaving my Outbox if it does not feel like it. I think I know the > cause, though not the solution. My current idea is to switch ISP to one > with a decent Helpline that will actually save me money. > > The bit that is very strange, and I can think of no reason for > whatever, is that if I change who it is sent *from* then it often goes. > It seems to like some 'From' eddresses and not others. > > That is why the cats are posting so much. Their emails seem to go: my > normal BLML eddresses do not. Something is fishy here. Cats don't do anything if they don't feel like it. Your mail doesn't leave your Outbox if it doesn't feel like it. Your cats can send mail and you can't. Hmmmmmm . . . -- Adam (P.S. Is there any possibility that there was a virus on your computer that caused it to send out spam with your name on it, and your ISP now thinks you're a spammer and won't accept e-mail from that From address? Just a wild thought. However, we did have a situation where someone managed to use our system as an open relay or something to send spam, and as a result AOL started rejecting all e-mail from our IP address, and it took several hours on the phone with them before we got it straightened out.) From svenpran at online.no Fri May 20 19:23:17 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri May 20 19:24:37 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428E0101.3080001@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c55d60$9d00b500$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > >>But not more so that that Zia's partner knows that Zia does > >>not always have what he advertises. You have, I believe, stated that your third hand opening bid of 1H shows either a hand with 13+ HCP and at least four hearts or a hand with less than four HCP and any distribution and you claim this second alternative to be a psyche which is allowed by Law 40A? Until your partner(s) from experience or otherwise became aware that your third hand "psyches" were so well defined I would accept them as psyches. But now they are part of your partnership experience and as such no longer qualify as psychic calls. Begin using your third hand psychic opening bid of 1H on anything from 0 to 10 HCP regardless of distribution (and even more than 10 HCP without hearts) and I shall be most happy to accept this opening bid as a psyche provided that your partner is no wiser than your opponents and cannot assume anything about the way you have violated your partnership agreements (if you have). You ask for the difference when Zia's partner "knows" that Zia occasionally psyches. Is Zia's hand defined in any particular way when Zia psyches? ................ > And as such, they are disclosable to the opponents - so what? A psyche can never be disclosed to opponents simply because a psyche is a violation of (all) agreements so there cannot be any existing agreement that "covers" a psyche. > Reasonings like this are just bans on psyching altogether. You are > completely in the wrong if you act like this. Zia's partners knwo that > Zia may well have psyched the previous call. That does not render > Zia's bids illegal, does it? If Zia's partner "knows" that Zia's last call was a psyche then something illegal is going on. We cannot tell what, but the point is that a psyche shall not be part of any agreement or understanding; it shall be a (gross) violation of the same and this violation shall be as unpredictable to partner as it is to opponents. This certainly does not make psyches illegal. But psyches are only legal when partner shall be at least as "surprised" as opponents. ................ > > A psyche cannot be systemic. A psyche is a gross violation of (all) > > partnership agreements and understandings. > > > > You just told me that my psyches are systemic. I agree. You cannot > have it both ways. I am not. No psyche can ever be "systemic" and no "systemic" call can ever be psychic. I have stated this before and I state again: A psyche is by definition a gross violation of partnership agreements so at the very moment a call becomes in any way part of partnership agreements or experience ("systemic") it can no longer legally be used as a psyche. Sven From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Fri May 20 19:33:51 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Fri May 20 19:36:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Email In-Reply-To: <200505201636.JAA00996@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <$5ztTuoN3gjCFwPa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <200505201636.JAA00996@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote > > >David wrote: > >> In case anyone is wondering my email has picked up the habit of not >> leaving my Outbox if it does not feel like it. I think I know the >> cause, though not the solution. My current idea is to switch ISP to one >> with a decent Helpline that will actually save me money. >> >> The bit that is very strange, and I can think of no reason for >> whatever, is that if I change who it is sent *from* then it often goes. >> It seems to like some 'From' eddresses and not others. >> >> That is why the cats are posting so much. Their emails seem to go: my >> normal BLML eddresses do not. > >Something is fishy here. Cats don't do anything if they don't feel >like it. Your mail doesn't leave your Outbox if it doesn't feel like >it. Your cats can send mail and you can't. Hmmmmmm . . . > > -- Adam > > >(P.S. Is there any possibility that there was a virus on your computer >that caused it to send out spam with your name on it, and your ISP now >thinks you're a spammer and won't accept e-mail from that From >address? Just a wild thought. However, we did have a situation where >someone managed to use our system as an open relay or something to >send spam, and as a result AOL started rejecting all e-mail from our >IP address, and it took several hours on the phone with them before we >got it straightened out.) According to the log provided by Turnpike: Fri, 20 May 2005 17:17:09 SMTP command rejected while talking to mail.btinternet.com: DATA 530 authentication required - Your email could not be sent. To fix this you must make a simple change to your email (known as SMTP authentication). For advice visit www.btyahoo.com/smtp or call 0800 328 9968 So I visited www.btyahoo.com/smtp which requires a username and password to get in, and does not tell you what to do with Turnpike anyway. I rang 0800 328 9968 who did not know what I was talking about but suggested a Helpline that involves a thirty minute wait and did not know what I was talking about but suggested a Helpline ....... -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From svenpran at online.no Fri May 20 19:48:05 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri May 20 19:49:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c55d64$13a83270$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Minke .............. > Personally, I think that a regulation that limits judgement in such a > way is a bad regulation, but that's just my opinion. > > 2C shows either 10-15 with five plus diamonds, or 12+ with both > majors. > > To say it is BSC if the bid might be made on > > Ax > -- > KQT987xxx > xx > > but not if it is made on > > QJ > QJ > 7xxxx > KJ32 > > does not fill me with a good feeling. Your "problem" above will disappear if you alter the 12+ (with both majors) to 13+ (or even more). Your problem will also disappear if you open the first hand with any bid that doesn't leave an ambiguity on which suit is indicated with the weak variant. I believe we have intentionally established objective limitations with our BS regulations in order for both players and Directors to have unambiguous easy to use rules that leave nothing to judgment when there really is no particular need for such judgment. (Note that we have one explicit exception to this BS regulation: An opening bid of 2 in a minor suit showing at least five cards in one of the major suits is not a BS e.g. "multi 2D") purr purr Sven From adam at irvine.com Fri May 20 19:54:58 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri May 20 19:56:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Email In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 20 May 2005 18:33:51 BST." Message-ID: <200505201754.KAA01608@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > According to the log provided by Turnpike: > > Fri, 20 May 2005 17:17:09 SMTP command rejected while talking to > mail.btinternet.com: DATA > 530 authentication required - Your email could not be sent. To fix this > you must make a simple change to your email (known as SMTP > authentication). For advice visit www.btyahoo.com/smtp or call 0800 328 > 9968 > > So I visited www.btyahoo.com/smtp which requires a username and > password to get in, and does not tell you what to do with Turnpike > anyway. I rang 0800 328 9968 who did not know what I was talking about > but suggested a Helpline that involves a thirty minute wait and did not > know what I was talking about but suggested a Helpline ....... I don't know anything about Turnpike. But a quick search of their website turned this up: http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/technicallibrary/adsl/smtpauth/index.html and click on "Turnpike". Maybe it will help. Maybe not. I have no idea. -- Adam From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 20 22:08:27 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri May 20 22:12:58 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes Message-ID: <006501c55d77$b003d620$789468d5@James> [Ed Reppert] > In chess, iirc, the penalty for failing to make your > move before the clock runs out is that you lose your > turn. That's no problem in chess - it *would* be a > problem in bridge. [Nigel] Wow! I've never played serious chess but if you are in zugzwang, or in a mutual-blocking position, surely that could be an advantage? Well to answer your question, it seems unlikely that the current WBFLC would reconsider sproposals such as a timed-game, even in principle; but Yes, Ed, that is one of the difficult details that would have to be decided. (Perhaps an imp or a match-point every few seconds). Also difficult would be dealing with legitimate and extraneous reasons for delay (question and answer, spilt bidding box, coughing fit, taking pill, sniffing inhaler, buying drink, and so on). [Ed[ Define "ridiculously long" and "a lot of random". And why "of course"? [Nigel] I think the law should start to try to combat "ridiculously long trances" such as those for which my old friend, Barnet Schenken has earned an unjust reputation. By "a lot of random hesitations", I mean hesitations of varying length that, when added together, take you over some pre-set time limit. "Of course" I think there should be a limit on each side's total thinking time. Doesn't everybody? A properly timed game would ensure you fined the side(s) responsible. From mcneely at doramail.com Sat May 21 00:53:08 2005 From: mcneely at doramail.com (Desmond Arias) Date: Fri May 20 23:51:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Instant low rates Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h1gh3r.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Lacey Williamson to be remov(ed: http://www.h1gh3r.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 gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat May 21 00:43:07 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat May 21 00:44:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Email In-Reply-To: References: <$5ztTuoN3gjCFwPa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <200505201636.JAA00996@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <0dbcf11380bceb8b96657779efa05ba9@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 20 May 2005, at 18:33, Nanki Poo wrote: > According to the log provided by Turnpike: > > Fri, 20 May 2005 17:17:09 SMTP command rejected while talking to > mail.btinternet.com: DATA > 530 authentication required - Your email could not be sent. To fix > this you must make a simple change to your email (known as SMTP > authentication). For advice visit www.btyahoo.com/smtp or call 0800 > 328 9968 > > So I visited www.btyahoo.com/smtp which requires a username and > password to get in, and does not tell you what to do with Turnpike > anyway. I rang 0800 328 9968 who did not know what I was talking > about but suggested a Helpline that involves a thirty minute wait and > did not know what I was talking about but suggested a Helpline ....... BTYahoo introduced SMTP authentication a few weeks ago as part of their battle against spam. What I had to do (which may differ a bit for you since I'm on a Mac) was to go into my email program Preferences, select my Account, choose SMTP Server Settings, and under "Authentication" select "Password"; then enter my username and password. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat May 21 02:14:36 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sat May 21 02:15:52 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes In-Reply-To: <403cbb87909c2980cc0f7b54294abcf7@rochester.rr.com> References: <00af01c55c81$a0430310$0f9468d5@James> <403cbb87909c2980cc0f7b54294abcf7@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050520200830.0310fe88@mail.comcast.net> At 01:15 AM 5/20/2005, Ed Reppert wrote: >On May 19, 2005, at 10:47 AM, GUTHRIE wrote: > >>A. Punish the tempo-break itself, deceptive or not; and >>whether anyone uses the information or not. You could use >>something like chess-clocks or egg-timers. > >In chess, iirc, the penalty for failing to make your move before the clock >runs out is that you lose your turn. That's no problem in chess - it >*would* be a problem in bridge. No, you forfeit the chess game if the clock runs out. The clock is cumulative; you might have two hours to make your first 40 moves in a chess game. This still does not work in bridge because there is no single "loss" except in KO or board-a-match. It would be possible to penalize a player a given number of matchpoints or IMPs for overrunning the clock, with a penalty not accruing to the other side. From minke2 at blakjak.com Sat May 21 02:35:39 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Sat May 21 02:38:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <000201c55d64$13a83270$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c55d64$13a83270$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of Minke >.............. >> Personally, I think that a regulation that limits judgement in such a >> way is a bad regulation, but that's just my opinion. >> >> 2C shows either 10-15 with five plus diamonds, or 12+ with both >> majors. >> >> To say it is BSC if the bid might be made on >> >> Ax >> -- >> KQT987xxx >> xx >> >> but not if it is made on >> >> QJ >> QJ >> 7xxxx >> KJ32 >> >> does not fill me with a good feeling. > >Your "problem" above will disappear if you alter the 12+ (with both majors) >to 13+ (or even more). > >Your problem will also disappear if you open the first hand with any bid >that doesn't leave an ambiguity on which suit is indicated with the weak >variant. But that is not what I want to play. >I believe we have intentionally established objective limitations with our >BS regulations in order for both players and Directors to have unambiguous >easy to use rules that leave nothing to judgment when there really is no >particular need for such judgment. OK, so you do not think there is a need for judgement: but we do. We think it is a bad regulation that limits judgement. There have been plenty of complaints about the ACBL's approach ot 10-12 1NT openings. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Sat May 21 02:37:03 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Sat May 21 02:38:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Email In-Reply-To: <0dbcf11380bceb8b96657779efa05ba9@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <$5ztTuoN3gjCFwPa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <200505201636.JAA00996@mailhub.irvine.com> <0dbcf11380bceb8b96657779efa05ba9@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <8bLNbUDvKojCFwsa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Gordon Rainsford wrote >On 20 May 2005, at 18:33, Nanki Poo wrote: >> According to the log provided by Turnpike: >> >> Fri, 20 May 2005 17:17:09 SMTP command rejected while talking to >>mail.btinternet.com: DATA >> 530 authentication required - Your email could not be sent. To fix >>this you must make a simple change to your email (known as SMTP >>authentication). For advice visit www.btyahoo.com/smtp or call 0800 >>328 9968 >> >> So I visited www.btyahoo.com/smtp which requires a username and >>password to get in, and does not tell you what to do with Turnpike >>anyway. I rang 0800 328 9968 who did not know what I was talking >>about but suggested a Helpline that involves a thirty minute wait and >>did not know what I was talking about but suggested a Helpline ....... > >BTYahoo introduced SMTP authentication a few weeks ago as part of their >battle against spam. What I had to do (which may differ a bit for you >since I'm on a Mac) was to go into my email program Preferences, select >my Account, choose SMTP Server Settings, and under "Authentication" >select "Password"; then enter my username and password. But no-one, me included, seems to know my username and password. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From julieHaynes69 at atiworld.com Sat May 21 06:12:10 2005 From: julieHaynes69 at atiworld.com (Julie Talbot) Date: Sat May 21 05:19:28 2005 Subject: [blml] hi honey Message-ID: <1096402523.498000-77650julieHaynes69@atiworld.com> My name is Julie. I am a high school senior in Houston, TX. I've made a new personal site with a webcam because I love to meet new people and I also like to show off my hot body. I thought you may like to check it out. It's completely free. http://www.famousloaves.com/ju18/ you straggle me blinn me you thump me pray me you strategic me ncar me you acropolis me cabal me From svenpran at online.no Sat May 21 08:54:59 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat May 21 08:56:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c55dd2$0197d450$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Minke ............... > But that is not what I want to play. > > >I believe we have intentionally established > >objective limitations with our BS regulations > >in order for both players and Directors to have > >unambiguous easy to use rules that leave > >nothing to judgment when there really is no > >particular need for such judgment. > > OK, so you do not think there is a need for judgement: but we do. We > think it is a bad regulation that limits judgement. There have been > plenty of complaints about the ACBL's approach ot 10-12 1NT openings. I believe there are some similar regulations based upon a "law of 19" or a "law on 20" in use in some areas. Are those limitations (where used) subject to judgment or are they absolute? If I understand your position you want such regulations to be something like: "A call is a Brown Sticker if the Director intuitively feels that it should not be allowed as a regular call"? Miiaaoow! Sven From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat May 21 09:26:52 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat May 21 09:27:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <000001c55dd2$0197d450$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000801c55dd6$7683a290$2c9468d5@James> [Minke] > But that is not what I want to play. [Sven Pran] > If I understand your position you want such regulations > to be something like: "A call is a Brown Sticker if the > Director intuitively feels that it should not be allowed >as a regular call"? Miiaaoow! {Nigel quoting Kipling] Now this is the Law of the Bungle, As clear as a muddy flood brook: Mad Dog and Cat use judgement; Burn rules by the daft bloody book. From schuster at eduhi.at Sat May 21 09:51:09 2005 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat May 21 09:52:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <000001c55dd2$0197d450$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c55dd2$0197d450$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:54:59 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > I believe there are some similar regulations based upon a "law of 19" or > a > "law on 20" in use in some areas. Are those limitations (where used) > subject > to judgment or are they absolute? > Law of 18 is absolute in Austria. regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat May 21 10:17:36 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat May 21 10:18:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System Message-ID: <000601c55ddd$8c7f8490$109868d5@James> [Minke] >> But that is not what I want to play. [Sven Pran] > If I understand your position you want such regulations > to be something like: "A call is a Brown Sticker if the > Director intuitively feels that it should not be allowed > as a regular call"? Miiaaoow! {Nigel - after Kipling] Now this is the Law of the Bungle, Just as clear as a muddy flood brook: Mad Dog and Mad Cat use their "judgement"; But Burn rules by the ruddy dud book. (slightly Bowdlerised version) From hermandw at hdw.be Sat May 21 11:48:29 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat May 21 11:48:28 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000101c55d60$9d00b500$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c55d60$9d00b500$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <428F03ED.6000509@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > >>>>But not more so that that Zia's partner knows that Zia does >>>>not always have what he advertises. > > > You have, I believe, stated that your third hand opening bid of 1H shows > either a hand with 13+ HCP and at least four hearts or a hand with less than > four HCP and any distribution and you claim this second alternative to be a > psyche which is allowed by Law 40A? > You make a leap here Sven, from "1He is also bid with 0-3" to "1He shows 0-3". I'm not certain that leap is warranted. Which is all I'm going to say really - because all the rest of your opinion follows from this leap and is basically, correct. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Sat May 21 11:59:59 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat May 21 11:59:42 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e050520090967aabe7c@mail.gmail.com> References: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@mail.gmail.com> <428C3B51.5020002@hdw.be> <2da24b8e050519075861332c7c@mail.gmail.com> <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be> <2da24b8e050520090967aabe7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <428F069F.1000703@hdw.be> Hello Richard, I fully understand your poit of view. However: richard willey wrote: > On 5/20/05, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > >>Let's assume that unlike Herman I don't psych 1H in 3rd seat on a bust. >>Let us assume that Herman and I sit North respectively at tables 1 and 2 >>week after week in a robust game at the Squeeze or the YC. Let us assume >>that our opponents know our proclivities. >> >>In what way is it beneficial for either Herman's or my partner, or >>indeed our opponents to vary their methods at each of our tables to >>cater for a 1 in 500 psyche? It's so obviously losing bridge that I find >>any suggestion that Herman's method is illegal as a CPU to be a joke. >> >>Now we come to questions of MI. Even here wtp? let's suppose that >>suddenly I felt the urge to open a herman heart and stuffed the >>opponents. So what. What difference is there between my table and >>Herman's regarding a 1 in 500 action? Systemic very low frequency >>actions have negligible MI connotations if no-one has any prepared >>method, where indeed it is contra-indicated to have such, to cater for >>them. >> >>I write this from the standpoint of one who is very harsh on MI. > > > The issue here is not one of MI or even CPU, but rather System Regulation. > > Assume for the moment that Herman and I are playing the identical > system. In both cases a 3rd seat 1H opening promises either a > "normal" 1H opening or a "Spanish" 1H opening. In both cases, the > players will chose to open a "Spanish" 1H 100% of the time that they > hold the appropriate hand type. > > I choose to describe my 3rd seat 1H opening as a convention. 2 Hearts > is explicitly defined as a 2-way opening bid. > 1Heart, surely. > Herman describes his 1H opening as "natural", maintain that the > repeated Spanish 1H openings are simple a psyche that occurs each and > every time he holds the right hand type. > > Unfortunately, the system regulation mean that I am banned from > playing my methods (I'm using an illegal convention) while Herman is > allowed to play his. > > I maintain that players should not be permitted to use selective > disclosure to make an end run around the system regulations. We > certainly can't catch every person who might attempt to do so. > However, when this behavior is identified, it needs to be punished > severely. Equally significant, we need to consider whether its > desirable to have a regulatory structure that incents players to use > such selective disclosure... > > This is all completely true. BUT: 1) I never said that I would do the 1He EVERY time it would come up (I have admitted that I have done it every time it came up in the past). 2) Consequently, I have never agreed with partner that a third hand pass would show 4+. 3) I have not agreed with partner to play some sort of escape (or confirmation of the strong option) sequence which would tell him later on which of the two versions it was. If I were to do either of these three things, I agree that the opening would be part of the system, and subject to regulation. If you do neither of them - then I would rule that even with your explanation to opponents, you would not be playing a brown system. Please remember the thing I will disclose (if I can) to my opponents: "HDW (not his partner) will open one in a major (presumably his shorter one) when he has 0-3 in third seat - this will occur about once a year". That is not the same as: "by agreement, 1M shows either 13+ or 0-3. We have ways of finding out which one it is, both when you pass and when you bid or double". As I have said before - any system regulation which treats the former in the same way as the latter will only result in players with psyching habits to keep them hidden. Sven said something like "if you do it on 0-10, then I'll allow it". Well, all I need to do in Norway is to announce it like that - and then never open on 4-10. That's just plain silly and I am certain that there are many people out there who have psyching habits and are not disclosing them for just that reason. I believe the opponents need more protection than they are currently getting. Surely the system regulations were not intended to ban stupid fellows who psyche once or twice a year! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Sat May 21 12:27:03 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat May 21 12:28:23 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428F069F.1000703@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c55def$a1662500$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > Sven said something like "if you do it on 0-10, then I'll allow it". > Well, all I need to do in Norway is to announce it like that - and > then never open on 4-10. That's just plain silly and I am certain that > there are many people out there who have psyching habits and are not > disclosing them for just that reason. I believe the opponents need > more protection than they are currently getting. That would indeed be plain silly and you should know that it would also be plain cheating. What I tried to show was that if an alleged psychic call according to partnership experience shows a hand with some particular features rather than just about anything then that call no longer qualifies as a psyche, it has become part of "special partnership experience". Sven From svenpran at online.no Sat May 21 12:34:28 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat May 21 12:35:49 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428F03ED.6000509@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c55df0$aa991320$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > > You have, I believe, stated that your third hand opening bid of 1H > > shows either a hand with 13+ HCP and at least four hearts or a hand > > with less than four HCP and any distribution and you claim this > > second alternative to be a psyche which is allowed by Law 40A? > > > > You make a leap here Sven, from "1He is also bid with 0-3" to "1He > shows 0-3". I'm not certain that leap is warranted. May I remind you that I wrote: "either a hand ..... or a hand ...." Where is my leap? > Which is all I'm going to say really - because all the rest of your > opinion follows from this leap and is basically, correct. I am not sure that you really intended to admit this, but I am very glad you did because the whole thing hinges upon the "fact" that by experience you have established your third hand opening bid in 1H as a bid with two alternative meanings, both of which must now be considered part of your "system" and thus neither of which can be considered psychic. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Sat May 21 12:55:48 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat May 21 12:55:32 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000201c55df0$aa991320$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c55df0$aa991320$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <428F13B4.8020506@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> >>>............... >>>You have, I believe, stated that your third hand opening bid of 1H >>>shows either a hand with 13+ HCP and at least four hearts or a hand >>>with less than four HCP and any distribution and you claim this >>>second alternative to be a psyche which is allowed by Law 40A? >>> >> >>You make a leap here Sven, from "1He is also bid with 0-3" to "1He >>shows 0-3". I'm not certain that leap is warranted. > > > May I remind you that I wrote: "either a hand ..... or a hand ...." > Of course - I intended to do the same. > Where is my leap? > From "can be done with" to "shows". If a bid "shows" a particular set of hands, then the next bid should narrow down the "showing". The second bid by a multi-opener "shows" whether he's weak or strong. That is not the case with my 1He. So 1He cannot "show" 0-3, although it "can be done on". > >>Which is all I'm going to say really - because all the rest of your >>opinion follows from this leap and is basically, correct. > > > I am not sure that you really intended to admit this, but I am very glad you > did because the whole thing hinges upon the "fact" that by experience you > have established your third hand opening bid in 1H as a bid with two > alternative meanings, both of which must now be considered part of your > "system" and thus neither of which can be considered psychic. > And that is where you are wrong and why your conclusions, anthough correct from the starting point onwards, are still incorrect, since your starting point is wrong. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Sat May 21 13:04:04 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat May 21 13:03:47 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000101c55def$a1662500$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c55def$a1662500$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <428F15A4.1020502@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............ > >>Sven said something like "if you do it on 0-10, then I'll allow it". >>Well, all I need to do in Norway is to announce it like that - and >>then never open on 4-10. That's just plain silly and I am certain that >>there are many people out there who have psyching habits and are not >>disclosing them for just that reason. I believe the opponents need >>more protection than they are currently getting. > > > That would indeed be plain silly and you should know that it would also be > plain cheating. > > What I tried to show was that if an alleged psychic call according to > partnership experience shows a hand with some particular features rather > than just about anything then that call no longer qualifies as a psyche, it > has become part of "special partnership experience". > Yes, and I have never said it didn't. But that's the MI angle, not the system regulation one. Look Sven, all regulators that I know of, when writing system regulations, have always stated that they were not there to banish psyching. You realize just as I do that rules that turn into "you are allowed to psych provided you do it only once" are bad rules, or badly interpreted rules. If you believe that the point at which psyching tendencies become disclosable and the point at which a psyche becomes systemic are one and the same, then you are interpreting the regulation as "once in a lifetime". Most players want to be honest, and want to tell their opponents as much as they believe their partner can also know. If you ask those players "did you ever do this psyche before?", then they'll answer truthfully. You can then decide how much knowledge was withheld from their opponents and rule whether or not the opponents have been damaged by the psyche. But if you are going to rule "illegal system" on the player who answers truthfully about past psyches, then a- you have created a "once in a lifetime" psyche rule, and b- you may no longer get truthful answers. And this will only result in opponent's damage no longer being corrected. There simply MUST be some area in between "this bid can be done on 0-3" and "this bid shows 0-3". The former is information that the opponents are entitled to, the latter is a forbidden system. If you omit any difference between the two, you have just banned psyching altogether. Because every psyche has some history. Do you realize what my point is? I'm just being more honest than most psychers - don't punish me for it, and certainly not by regulating something that the regulators did not intend. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.willey at gmail.com Sat May 21 17:19:10 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sat May 21 17:20:29 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428F15A4.1020502@hdw.be> References: <000101c55def$a1662500$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428F15A4.1020502@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e05052108192338850b@mail.gmail.com> > There simply MUST be some area in between "this bid can be done on > 0-3" and "this bid shows 0-3". The former is information that the > opponents are entitled to, the latter is a forbidden system. >From my perspective, that line has clearly been crossed when stae that you chose to make the psyche "all the time". You can, of course, claim that at hypothetical point in the future that you will choose not to open 1H. However, from my perspective, this strikes me as somewhat self-serving. > Do you realize what my point is? > I'm just being more honest than most psychers - don't punish me for > it, and certainly not by regulating something that the regulators did > not intend. I find it extremely interesting that so many of your attempts at being "honest" involve lies... ______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54 From svenpran at online.no Sat May 21 19:00:08 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat May 21 19:02:07 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <428F13B4.8020506@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c55e26$8cbafcc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >>>............... > >>>You have, I believe, stated that your third hand opening bid of 1H > >>>shows either a hand with 13+ HCP and at least four hearts or a hand > >>>with less than four HCP and any distribution and you claim this > >>>second alternative to be a psyche which is allowed by Law 40A? > >>> > >> > >>You make a leap here Sven, from "1He is also bid with 0-3" to "1He > >>shows 0-3". I'm not certain that leap is warranted. > > > > > > May I remind you that I wrote: "either a hand ..... or a hand ...." > > > > Of course - I intended to do the same. > > > Where is my leap? > > > > From "can be done with" to "shows". > > If a bid "shows" a particular set of hands, then the next bid should > narrow down the "showing". > The second bid by a multi-opener "shows" whether he's weak or strong. > That is not the case with my 1He. > So 1He cannot "show" 0-3, although it "can be done on". Frankly I don't see the difference. Any call can "be done" on any of the 635013559600 possible different hands, there is nothing in the laws as such to prohibit this. When you state that your 1H opening bid in the third hand "can be done" on 0-3 HCP (but for instance not on 4-11 HCP) you must therefore necessarily imply a reference to some kind of a partnership agreement or understanding that has established this limit. When I state that a call "shows" something this is also according to the same kind of partnership agreement or understanding, and I must beg you to clarify the difference between "can be done" and "shows" when both clauses refer to the same set of partnership agreements/understandings. As stated above I just cannot see the difference. Whether the actual meaning of a call with multiple alternatives will be revealed during the continued auction depends a lot upon the actual development of this auction. It is not uncommon for the actual meaning to remain unresolved due to such developments. But that doesn't in any way alter the fact that according to agreements and/or understandings the call "showed" a multitude of possible hands. Sven From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sat May 21 19:13:55 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sat May 21 19:18:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Number of boards? (was I did it again) References: <428AEBA3.5030000@hdw.be> Message-ID: <005d01c55e28$dc0d7760$3c063dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] I did it again > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >>And, I certainly remember never to have passed a 3-pointer > >>or less in third seat during the same time. > >>And the number of 3rd-in-hand heart openings that I > >>performed in the same period is too numerous to count. > >>Surely frequency must count for something in determining > >>whether or not a strict habit is systemic or not? > > > > Does a 100.00% probability multiplied by a 0.01% probability > > create an implicit concealed partnership understanding? > > > > To put it another way, does a 100% probability multiplied by > > a 0.01% probability mean that Herman is using an illegal > > convention? > > > I think one has to look at it from another angle. > When the bidding starts pass-pass, I have a 0.01% chance of finding > myself with 0-3 HCP. I have a 20% chance of finding myself with 13+HCP > and a hand suitable for a 1H opening. In both cases, I have a 100% > record for opening 1H. > This translates (I forgotten whose law this is) into saying that if I > open 1H in third position, there is 0.05% chance that it is on a 0-3 > range, and 99.95% that I hold 13+. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 3:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I did it again > > It is impossible to alert all bids and explain "might be psychic". > That much ought to be covered in "general bridge knowledge". I opened > 2000 third-in-hand 1H's in the past twelve months. Impossible to alert > them all. > Question: What is the average number of boards that Herman has played per day in the past twelve months? Ben From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Sat May 21 22:07:46 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat May 21 22:09:06 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050521200746.7953.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> --- Herman De Wael wrote: > It is not that frequency which makes a meaning > systemic or not, it is > the relative frequency of the alternate meaning > which does so. > And - even more importantly - the ways of > distinguishing between the > alternates. > I do not think frequency is a determining factor with whether or not a bid is systemic. An infrequent bid can be part of your explicit agreements however infrequent it is compared with other meanings. Similarly an implicit agreement could develop however infrequent it happenens to occur. Of course with implicit agreements frequency will have an affect on whether the habitual violation develops into an agreement. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Sat May 21 22:19:21 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat May 21 22:20:40 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050521201921.62077.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> --- Herman De Wael wrote: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > There are questions one may ask to address this > second issue such as: > > Does Herman's partner make similar choices? > > no, never, not a single one. It is possible to have an asymmetrical agreement so I doubt whether it is relevant what partner does with similar hands. If you have an asymmetrical agreement then in many jurisdictions that would make your agreements illegal. However asymmetrical actions do not automatically create asymmetrical agreements. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From minke2 at blakjak.com Sat May 21 23:23:20 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Sat May 21 23:25:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <000001c55dd2$0197d450$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c55dd2$0197d450$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of Minke >............... >> But that is not what I want to play. >> >> >I believe we have intentionally established >> >objective limitations with our BS regulations >> >in order for both players and Directors to have >> >unambiguous easy to use rules that leave >> >nothing to judgment when there really is no >> >particular need for such judgment. >> >> OK, so you do not think there is a need for judgement: but we do. We >> think it is a bad regulation that limits judgement. There have been >> plenty of complaints about the ACBL's approach ot 10-12 1NT openings. > >I believe there are some similar regulations based upon a "law of 19" or a >"law on 20" in use in some areas. Are those limitations (where used) subject >to judgment or are they absolute? Subject to judgement in England. The regulation says that an agreement is to be Rule of 19: but when a hand comes along which is clearly good enough we do not say they are playing an illegal system when they open it. >If I understand your position you want such regulations to be something >like: "A call is a Brown Sticker if the Director intuitively feels that it >should not be allowed as a regular call"? Of course that is not my position. A call is BSC if the rules say so, subject to obvious use of common sense and judgement. Is there some reason why TDs and ACs are allowed to use judgement in all their other rulings and not these ones? -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat May 21 23:34:50 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat May 21 23:36:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <000001c55dd2$0197d450$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <24940d5c9a5ccc80a8ac8d0870431a35@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 21 May 2005, at 22:23, Minke wrote: > Subject to judgement in England. The regulation says that an > agreement is to be Rule of 19: but when a hand comes along which is > clearly good enough we do not say they are playing an illegal system > when they open it. I seem to remember from previous discussions that the L&EC is not unanimous about this. Certainly, from reading the regulation, I wouldn't have expected exceptions to be allowed: it reads to me like a limit within which you may exercise your judgement, much as a speed limit does not allow exceptions just because the road is empty and the weather good. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Sun May 22 00:58:14 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sun May 22 00:54:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <24940d5c9a5ccc80a8ac8d0870431a35@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 May 2005, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > Certainly, from reading the regulation, I wouldn't have expected > exceptions to be allowed: it reads to me like a limit within which you > may exercise your judgement, much as a speed limit does not allow > exceptions just because the road is empty and the weather good. This is a frighteningly apt analogy. At least in the US states I have lived in, the speed limit is "slow enough to be safe under the prevailing conditions, but no faster than the posted number." If the sign says 45 MPH, and in winter I slide on a patch of ice and have an accident, I get a speeding ticket even if I was only going 25! I am allowed to use my judgment within the limits - and if the policeman's judgment is different than mine, tough, I am still in trouble. In bridge terms, a mean-spirited policeman may well insist that opening Qxxx QJ KJx QJxx in second seat red is a Rule of 19 violation despite that fact that 12+4+4=20! (I hope no bridge policemen really do this with Rule of 19 ... but they sure do with psyching, where success = speeding.) GRB From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 22 01:44:48 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun May 22 01:46:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <000001c55dd2$0197d450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <24940d5c9a5ccc80a8ac8d0870431a35@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000201c55e5f$4be26740$5a00e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Cc: Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > > Certainly, from reading the regulation, I wouldn't have > expected exceptions to be allowed: it reads to me like > a limit within which you may exercise your judgement, > much as a speed limit does not allow exceptions just > because the road is empty and the weather good. > +=+ These days the absence of traffic cameras is a common requisite of uncommon speed.+=+ From sato at doramail.com Sun May 22 05:01:15 2005 From: sato at doramail.com (Herminia Stevenson) Date: Sun May 22 04:00:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Save hundreds every month on 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.h1gh3r.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Barry Black to be remov(ed: http://www.h1gh3r.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 wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Sun May 22 03:59:08 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun May 22 04:00:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050522015908.28619.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> --- Minke wrote: > Subject to judgement in England. The regulation > says that an > agreement is to be Rule of 19: but when a hand comes > along which is > clearly good enough we do not say they are playing > an illegal system > when they open it. The problem is "Whose judgement do you use? - When a hand does not technically meet the rule of 19 or whatever" There is something wrong with a regulation that allows an expert can use his expert judgement and violate the letter of the law but a palooka cannot use his palooka judgement to violate the same law (regulation). This issue is contained in any "judgement" style regulation. For this reason I believe "judgement" style regulations are necessarily poor. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From oftener at yebox.com Sun May 22 11:58:58 2005 From: oftener at yebox.com (Ophelia Key) Date: Sun May 22 11:00:18 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.j0ys.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Dave Cody to be remov(ed: http://www.j0ys.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 Sun May 22 12:34:47 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun May 22 12:34:32 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000001c55e26$8cbafcc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c55e26$8cbafcc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42906047.8040302@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> >>>>>............... >>>>>You have, I believe, stated that your third hand opening bid of 1H >>>>>shows either a hand with 13+ HCP and at least four hearts or a hand >>>>>with less than four HCP and any distribution and you claim this >>>>>second alternative to be a psyche which is allowed by Law 40A? >>>>> >>>> >>>>You make a leap here Sven, from "1He is also bid with 0-3" to "1He >>>>shows 0-3". I'm not certain that leap is warranted. >>> >>> >>>May I remind you that I wrote: "either a hand ..... or a hand ...." >>> >> >>Of course - I intended to do the same. >> >> >>>Where is my leap? >>> >> >> From "can be done with" to "shows". >> >>If a bid "shows" a particular set of hands, then the next bid should >>narrow down the "showing". >>The second bid by a multi-opener "shows" whether he's weak or strong. >>That is not the case with my 1He. >>So 1He cannot "show" 0-3, although it "can be done on". > > > Frankly I don't see the difference. > Well then there's not a lot I can do, can I? > Any call can "be done" on any of the 635013559600 possible different hands, > there is nothing in the laws as such to prohibit this. > > When you state that your 1H opening bid in the third hand "can be done" on > 0-3 HCP (but for instance not on 4-11 HCP) you must therefore necessarily > imply a reference to some kind of a partnership agreement or understanding > that has established this limit. > Well, in fact, no. But as I said, that's not important. If there is a basic tendency that I can detect, then so could my partner. Whether of not he has done so does not alter the fact that it is disclosable to opponents. I don't want to hide behind "but my partner knows nothing". The opponents should have been informed. What it does alter is the systemic nature of it. If I have never discussed the fact with my partner, how can it be systemic? But again, I don't want to use that as an excuse. After the previous ^syche, I will have said something like "I always like doing this". So my present partner could know this. Again I don't want to hide behind him knowing or not. But if him knowing (or could know) is enough to render my psyche illegal, then you are simply banning my psyches. And you have no right to do that. Besides, you would be banning all psyches, because just like me, everyone has psyching tendencies. They just don't reveal them, out of fear of you ruling their psyches illegal. Conclusion : the cheats can psyche, the honest guy cannot, and the opponents don't receive the knowledge they are entitled to. > When I state that a call "shows" something this is also according to the > same kind of partnership agreement or understanding, and I must beg you to > clarify the difference between "can be done" and "shows" when both clauses > refer to the same set of partnership agreements/understandings. As stated > above I just cannot see the difference. > > Whether the actual meaning of a call with multiple alternatives will be > revealed during the continued auction depends a lot upon the actual > development of this auction. It is not uncommon for the actual meaning to > remain unresolved due to such developments. But that doesn't in any way > alter the fact that according to agreements and/or understandings the call > "showed" a multitude of possible hands. > Well Sven, if you still haven't seen the fundamental difference between a spanish heart and a multi-2d, let me explain once more: in a multi 2D, partners have specifically agreed a way of distinguishing betweenb one and the other. > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Sun May 22 12:35:34 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun May 22 12:35:25 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e05052108192338850b@mail.gmail.com> References: <000101c55def$a1662500$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428F15A4.1020502@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05052108192338850b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <42906076.5040101@hdw.be> richard willey wrote: > > > I find it extremely interesting that so many of your attempts at being > "honest" involve lies... > > What lies? Please explain or retract such slander. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From stools at fadmail.com Sun May 22 16:17:29 2005 From: stools at fadmail.com (Kenton Whalen) Date: Sun May 22 15:29:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Become a homeowner with low rates Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate.= You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.j0ys.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Burt Diaz to be remov(ed: http://www.j0ys.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun May 22 15:39:13 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun May 22 15:40:33 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <42906076.5040101@hdw.be> References: <000101c55def$a1662500$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428F15A4.1020502@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05052108192338850b@mail.gmail.com> <42906076.5040101@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e05052206395b32c1b9@mail.gmail.com> On 5/22/05, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard willey wrote: > > > > > > > I find it extremely interesting that so many of your attempts at being > > "honest" involve lies... > > > > > > What lies? > > Please explain or retract such slander. Certainly... In the case at hand, you are lying to the opponents and the regulators each and every time you describe your third seat 1H opening. If I had to ascribe a motivation, I suspect that you recognize that you not be permitted to play a two-way 1H opening and are resorting to semantics's. Equally significant, your own De Wael school is based on lying to the opponents. In your own words (emphasis added) "I also act like this - when partner misexplains a bid, I then continue to explain all bidding as of his first explanation, all the while bidding as if I hadn't heard it, of course. I think this is the most ethical manner of proceeding IMO. THE FACT THAT I NOW CONTINUE TO GIVE WRONG EXPLANATION TO OPPONENTS IS MINOR, I SHOULD THINK. They already have misinformation and we shall face the TD or the firing squad on that one already." From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 22 13:04:50 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun May 22 15:46:17 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again References: <000b01c55bbf$38d2fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428B6BFF.1030106@hdw.be><2da24b8e05051809297c1f0325@mail.gmail.com> <428C3B51.5020002@hdw.be><2da24b8e050519075861332c7c@mail.gmail.com> <428CBE7A.60308@hdw.be> <2da24b8e050520090967aabe7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001c01c55ed3$dd73ee80$917f893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Oh it is a very pretty garden, And Chingford to the eastward could be seen. Wiv a ladder and some glasses You could see to 'ackney marshes If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". - Gus Elen. (after Edgar Bateman) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "richard willey" To: "John (MadDog) Probst" Cc: Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I did it again Unfortunately, the system regulation mean that I am banned from playing my methods (I'm using an illegal convention) while Herman is allowed to play his. I maintain that players should not be permitted to use selective disclosure to make an end run around the system regulations. We certainly can't catch every person who might attempt to do so. However, when this behavior is identified, it needs to be punished severely. Equally significant, we need to consider whether its desirable to have a regulatory structure that incents players to use such selective disclosure... < +=+ It does not look to me as though there is anything for me to pick up in this thread. It is prolific and I have not read it all. But it is being deleted. Anyone with a 'message' for me let me know under a new and different subject title. I do think Herman is driving a coach and horses through regulations but that is a matter for the regulators concerned. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 22 13:05:18 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun May 22 15:46:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? References: Message-ID: <001d01c55ed3$de5b4140$917f893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Oh it is a very pretty garden, And Chingford to the eastward could be seen. Wiv a ladder and some glasses You could see to 'ackney marshes If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". - Gus Elen. (after Edgar Bateman) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fielding or not? > > In my opinion, Ed's argument is back the front. In my opinion, > the EBU and ACBL policy is actually: > > (c) particular types of illegal concealed partnership agreements > are still illegal if revealed, since they are then prohibited > conventions (or prohibited ultra-light non-conventions under > the camel's nose clause of Law 40D); ergo it is not legal to > unconceal and reveal them on the CC. > +=+ Various ways of saying it, but this is close enough to the truth, as I see it. Another thread for deletion. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 22 13:05:47 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun May 22 15:46:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Email References: <$5ztTuoN3gjCFwPa@blakjak.demon.co.uk><200505201636.JAA00996@mailhub.irvine.com><0dbcf11380bceb8b96657779efa05ba9@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <8bLNbUDvKojCFwsa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <001e01c55ed3$df237340$917f893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Oh it is a very pretty garden, And Chingford to the eastward could be seen. Wiv a ladder and some glasses You could see to 'ackney marshes If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". - Gus Elen. (after Edgar Bateman) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nanki Poo" To: Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Email > > >BTYahoo introduced SMTP authentication a > >few weeks ago as part of their battle against > >spam. What I had to do (which may differ a > >bit for you since I'm on a Mac) was to go into > >my email program Preferences, select my > >Account, choose SMTP Server Settings, and > >under "Authentication" select "Password"; then > >enter my username and password. > > But no-one, me included, seems to know my > username and password. > +=+ Spam seems to be winning the battle in some areas. The counter measures are interfering with honest communication. Neither tiscali nor wanadoo is giving me any problem - wanadoo puts it into my inbox, clearly labelled, and I delete as the first move in reading mail; tiscali downloads it into a box on the website and I go there every few days to delete it. In the handling of messages I send AT&T are giving me the hardest time - several messages have failed to reach destinations and AT&T need to rethink. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 22 13:06:16 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun May 22 15:46:33 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes References: <006501c55d77$b003d620$789468d5@James> Message-ID: <001f01c55ed3$e00f80f0$917f893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Oh it is a very pretty garden, And Chingford to the eastward could be seen. Wiv a ladder and some glasses You could see to 'ackney marshes If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". - Gus Elen. (after Edgar Bateman) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 9:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes > > Well to answer your question, it seems unlikely that the > current WBFLC would reconsider sproposals such as a > timed-game, even in principle; but Yes, Ed, that is one of > the difficult details that would have to be decided. > (Perhaps an imp or a match-point every few seconds). Also > difficult would be dealing with legitimate and extraneous > reasons for delay (question and answer, spilt bidding box, > coughing fit, taking pill, sniffing inhaler, buying drink, > and so on). > +=+ It is not a WBFLC subject. It is clearly open to regulation if a regulator is so minded for certain tournaments. The high speed games have control of the subject in some way, so it is presumably feasible. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 22 14:01:29 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun May 22 15:46:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System References: <006101c55c94$409d6820$9372893e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <002001c55ed3$e0c25630$917f893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Oh it is a very pretty garden, And Chingford to the eastward could be seen. Wiv a ladder and some glasses You could see to 'ackney marshes If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". - Gus Elen. (after Edgar Bateman) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nanki Poo" To: Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 5:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Indirect regulation of System > > Just out of interest, what relevance has this? > Are you calling Grattan a liar, or are you making > some rather more obscure point? > +=+ He just does not accept that the veto of the Shareholders meeting, composed largely of players of no pretension and all voting members elected by and to represent the members of county associations, is 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people'. His is probably the sadness of the member of the minority who does not wish to consent to government under the rules of a democracy. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 22 15:38:25 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun May 22 15:46:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <000601c55ddd$8c7f8490$109868d5@James> Message-ID: <002101c55ed3$e18cf930$917f893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "The hope I dreamed of was a dream, Was but a dream, and now I wake, Exceeding comfortless, and worn, and old, For a dream's sake." [Christina Rossetti] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > {Nigel - after Kipling] > Now this is the Law of the Bungle, > Just as clear as a muddy flood brook: > Mad Dog and Mad Cat use their "judgement"; > But Burn rules by the ruddy dud book. > > (slightly Bowdlerised version) > +=+ Alternatively, in defence of Burn, one may substitute 'ruddy dud book' with 'ruddy good book'. It is, after all, such morality as we have for now. I believe in government according to law; but I maintain that the law has to be set in unarguable terms, which countless threads bear witness is not the case currently. We are trying to do better and there is in existence now a book of A4 dimensions, 14 millimetres thick, representing the product in draft of three years' internet deliberations and numerous face-to-face meetings. To quote our chairman, "we now have what I said we would have-- a viable set of Laws rewritten in what is to me clear language and incorporating some agreed changes and improvements. They are there, ready to be promulgated." His target, and mine, is to deliver to the Executive in Estoril. But I was wrong to suggest this target is shared by all the subcommittee. It transpires that individual members have not gained all the ground they wish to occupy and we are to go on talking. Those who believe that, except for further work on the contested claims law and a few marginal or subliminal adjustments, the job is done, are feeling frustrated, but it seems 'tis we 'are the dreamers of dreams' so, is it unreasonable that we wonder in the vein of William Morris, why we should 'strive to set the crooked straight?' Wearily, but not conceding, we talk on - hoping beyond hope that we are not to go over yet again ground that we have already covered ad nauseam. I say this much in response to CTDs and others who ask me about progress. Don't hold your breath. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Sun May 22 16:05:32 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun May 22 16:06:54 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <42906047.8040302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c55ed7$51a9cfb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > > Any call can "be done" on any of the 635013559600 > > possible different hands, there is nothing in the > > laws as such to prohibit this. > > > > When you state that your 1H opening bid in the > > third hand "can be done" on0-3 HCP (but for > > instance not on 4-11 HCP) you must therefore > > necessarily imply a reference to some kind of > > a partnership agreement or understanding > > that has established this limit. > > > > Well, in fact, no. But as I said, that's not important. "Not important!?!?!?!?!" How has the limits 0 to 3 HCP been established? And what makes you think this specification is not part of your partnership understanding once you feel obliged to disclose this possibility to your opponents? (Not important - my ass.) ............. > Well Sven, if you still haven't seen the fundamental difference > between a spanish heart and a multi-2d, let me explain once more: in a > multi 2D, partners have specifically agreed a way of distinguishing > betweenb one and the other. If they have agreed on some convention where the initial call is ambiguous then they still have an agreement on this call which must be disclosed as part of their system. Whether they have further agreements on how to resolve such ambiguity is completely irrelevant in this respect. You have as part of your system (according to your own statement) a third hand opening bid of 1H which either shows 13+ HCP with hearts or 0-3 HCP regardless of distribution. My judgment is that the alternative 0-3 HCP with no known suit makes this call a brown sticker according to all BS regulations I know about. (But I admit, I am not familiar with the Belgian regulations) The fact that you have no special agreement on how to further resolve the ambiguity with this opening bid does not change the status for your third hand 1H opening bid. BTW. What is your reaction if the auction goes at IMP (with your partner as dealer): Pass - pass - (you) 1H - And regardless of whether your LHO passes, doubles or makes some bid your partner raises directly to 4H? (Please consider both the case when you have 13+ with hearts and the case when you have xxxx, x, xxxx, xxxx) Sven From john at asimere.com Sun May 22 16:52:56 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun May 22 16:55:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <000801c55dd6$7683a290$2c9468d5@James> References: <000001c55dd2$0197d450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000801c55dd6$7683a290$2c9468d5@James> Message-ID: In article <000801c55dd6$7683a290$2c9468d5@James>, GUTHRIE writes >[Minke] >> But that is not what I want to play. >[Sven Pran] >> If I understand your position you want such regulations >> to be something like: "A call is a Brown Sticker if the >> Director intuitively feels that it should not be allowed >>as a regular call"? Miiaaoow! > >{Nigel quoting Kipling] >Now this is the Law of the Bungle, >As clear as a muddy flood brook: >Mad Dog and Cat use judgement; >Burn rules by the daft bloody book. > ROFL > >_______________________________________________ >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 nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Sun May 22 16:57:47 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Sun May 22 16:59:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <24940d5c9a5ccc80a8ac8d0870431a35@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <000001c55dd2$0197d450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <24940d5c9a5ccc80a8ac8d0870431a35@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote > >On 21 May 2005, at 22:23, Minke wrote: > >> Subject to judgement in England. The regulation says that an >>agreement is to be Rule of 19: but when a hand comes along which is >>clearly good enough we do not say they are playing an illegal system >>when they open it. > >I seem to remember from previous discussions that the L&EC is not >unanimous about this. That's because you have believed people who have said this. Actually, whether we are unanimous makes not one jot of difference: the important thing is what the minutes say. >Certainly, from reading the regulation, I wouldn't have expected >exceptions to be allowed: it reads to me like a limit within which you >may exercise your judgement, much as a speed limit does not allow >exceptions just because the road is empty and the weather good. The regulation says what agreements are allowed. The fact that a lot of people deduce from this that it means something quite different, namely that it becomes illegal if there is a bid made, is understandable. The fact that people to whom this has been explained do not understand it is not so understandable. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Sun May 22 16:57:56 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Sun May 22 16:59:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <20050522015908.28619.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050522015908.28619.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote > >--- Minke wrote: >> Subject to judgement in England. The regulation >> says that an >> agreement is to be Rule of 19: but when a hand comes >> along which is >> clearly good enough we do not say they are playing >> an illegal system >> when they open it. > >The problem is "Whose judgement do you use? - When a >hand does not technically meet the rule of 19 or >whatever" > >There is something wrong with a regulation that allows >an expert can use his expert judgement and violate the >letter of the law but a palooka cannot use his palooka >judgement to violate the same law (regulation). > >This issue is contained in any "judgement" style >regulation. For this reason I believe "judgement" >style regulations are necessarily poor. That's looking at one side of a problem, and ignoring the other sides. A judgement-type rule, whether it be Law, reg, CoC or whatever, is more difficult to apply, but that does not make it wrong. In fact the game does quite well with judgement-type rules. If you do not allow judgement-type rules you upset a lot of players who think things are obvious when they are obvious except to pedants. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From john at asimere.com Sun May 22 16:57:00 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun May 22 16:59:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <20050522015908.28619.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050522015908.28619.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In article <20050522015908.28619.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com>, Wayne Burrows writes > >--- Minke wrote: >> Subject to judgement in England. The regulation >> says that an >> agreement is to be Rule of 19: but when a hand comes >> along which is >> clearly good enough we do not say they are playing >> an illegal system >> when they open it. > >The problem is "Whose judgement do you use? - When a >hand does not technically meet the rule of 19 or >whatever" > >There is something wrong with a regulation that allows >an expert can use his expert judgement and violate the >letter of the law but a palooka cannot use his palooka >judgement to violate the same law (regulation). I think this is untrue. The palooka will open 2C on a hand I'd open a 1 bid. We allow the palooka to open 2C on a hand that bears no resemblance to a 2C opener. 9 solid 2-1-1 was one case in point. > >This issue is contained in any "judgement" style >regulation. For this reason I believe "judgement" >style regulations are necessarily poor. > >Wayne > > > > >Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. >http://au.movies.yahoo.com > >_______________________________________________ >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 hermandw at hdw.be Sun May 22 17:00:52 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun May 22 17:00:38 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000001c55ed7$51a9cfb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c55ed7$51a9cfb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42909EA4.7050009@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > >>>Any call can "be done" on any of the 635013559600 >>>possible different hands, there is nothing in the >>>laws as such to prohibit this. >>> >>>When you state that your 1H opening bid in the >>>third hand "can be done" on0-3 HCP (but for >>>instance not on 4-11 HCP) you must therefore >>>necessarily imply a reference to some kind of >>>a partnership agreement or understanding >>>that has established this limit. >>> >> >>Well, in fact, no. But as I said, that's not important. > > > "Not important!?!?!?!?!" > Of course not - I'm telling you that I have not had any conversations about this with any partner - as partnership talk, I have done so just as bridge talk - and I'm also telling you that I don't consider it important that I haven't done so; I am in fact agreeing with you - you want me to tell you that I have partnership agreement, and I'm telling you that in fact I have not, but in law I accept that you rule that I do. That is why I don't consider your question important - your ruling should really be the same regardless of the answer. > How has the limits 0 to 3 HCP been established? And what makes you think > this specification is not part of your partnership understanding once you > feel obliged to disclose this possibility to your opponents? > Of course it is part of my partnership understanding - since in fact I DO feel obliged to disclose it. It is YOU who keeps insisting that disclosable partnership understanding and reulatable partnership agreement are one and the same thing - I'm trying to make you see that they are not necessarily so. > (Not important - my ass.) > ............. > >>Well Sven, if you still haven't seen the fundamental difference >>between a spanish heart and a multi-2d, let me explain once more: in a >>multi 2D, partners have specifically agreed a way of distinguishing >>betweenb one and the other. > > > If they have agreed on some convention where the initial call is ambiguous > then they still have an agreement on this call which must be disclosed as > part of their system. Whether they have further agreements on how to resolve > such ambiguity is completely irrelevant in this respect. > But we have NOT agreed on an ambiguous meaning. He might realize that I deviate from the meaning with some frequency - but that is not the same as saying we have agreed on a secondary meaning. > You have as part of your system (according to your own statement) a third > hand opening bid of 1H which either shows 13+ HCP with hearts or 0-3 HCP > regardless of distribution. My judgment is that the alternative 0-3 HCP with > no known suit makes this call a brown sticker according to all BS > regulations I know about. (But I admit, I am not familiar with the Belgian > regulations) > For purposes of this thread, let us consider all local regulations as basically the same as the WBF ones. And your judgment is wrong under all of them. The fact that a particular psyche frequency is known and divulged is not synonymous to these psyches being systemic. Look at it this way. I have discovered, through trial and error, that psyching this way on more than 4 points is not a good idea. I have therefor created a habit. Before I discovered the fact, I would, at a whim, open some 5- and 6-pointers as well. At that point, the disclosable fact of my psyching habits was "frequency of psyche in third hand is slightly larger than usual in Belgium". That should be disclosed. Does that make all my heart openings 0-19? No it does not. Later on, I started to omit 4-6 pointers among my psyches. Does that change anything to my psyche habit - no it does not. I still psyche a "larger proportion of third hand openings than usual in Belgium". This still is disclosable - together with the mention that 0-3 is common, 4-6 less so (I have never said I won't open a 6-pointer some day if the mood strikes me). But if you are going to rule against me, then you should also rule against anyone who ever opens a second time a third hand on less than 10. Because after his first psyche, there is a disclosable fact : "this person has once before psyched a third in hand opening". Basically, that is not in any way different to my "this person has often psyched in this position before". It is knowledge which should be available to opponents, but it is not system. > The fact that you have no special agreement on how to further resolve the > ambiguity with this opening bid does not change the status for your third > hand 1H opening bid. > > BTW. What is your reaction if the auction goes at IMP (with your partner as > dealer): > > Pass - pass - (you) 1H - > And regardless of whether your LHO passes, doubles or makes some bid your > partner raises directly to 4H? (Please consider both the case when you have > 13+ with hearts and the case when you have xxxx, x, xxxx, xxxx) > I pass. So what - up to fourth-in-hand to guess, in full knowledge of my tendencies, whether his partner has 10 and I have zero, or vice-versa. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Sun May 22 17:02:46 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun May 22 17:02:30 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e05052206395b32c1b9@mail.gmail.com> References: <000101c55def$a1662500$6900a8c0@WINXP> <428F15A4.1020502@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05052108192338850b@mail.gmail.com> <42906076.5040101@hdw.be> <2da24b8e05052206395b32c1b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <42909F16.2010909@hdw.be> richard willey wrote: > On 5/22/05, Herman De Wael wrote: > >>richard willey wrote: >> >> >>> >>>I find it extremely interesting that so many of your attempts at being >>>"honest" involve lies... >>> >>> >> >>What lies? >> >>Please explain or retract such slander. > > > Certainly... In the case at hand, you are lying to the opponents and > the regulators each and every time you describe your third seat 1H > opening. If I had to ascribe a motivation, I suspect that you > recognize that you not be permitted to play a two-way 1H opening and > are resorting to semantics's. > What semantics? "in third hand, holding 0-3, HDW may well open his shorter major". What lies? > Equally significant, your own De Wael school is based on lying to the > opponents. In your own words (emphasis added) > Not lying - I'm telling them exactly what my partner holds in his hands, and exactly what he meant with his previous bid. But let's not go into this at this time. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Sun May 22 17:32:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun May 22 17:33:47 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000001c55d45$258f6bd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > No that is not important. But this means that you have an agreement (a > partnership experience) How many times need it be said: PARTNERSHIP EXPERIENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS AN AGREEMENT. Understandings based on experience are disclosable but not necessarily subject to SO regulation. Knowing partner's habits does not equate to either endorsing them or basing decisions upon them. Before we rule a conventional *agreement* we have to INVESTIGATE. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun May 22 17:32:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun May 22 17:33:51 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000101c55d60$9d00b500$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > You have, I believe, stated that your third hand opening bid of 1H shows > either a hand with 13+ HCP and at least four hearts or a hand with less > than four HCP and any distribution and you claim this second alternative > to be a psyche which is allowed by Law 40A? Herman has never claimed, to the best of my knowledge, that he will not psych 1H in third position with some other hands. If his psychs (and hais partner's bidding) form a pattern which appears systemic we can, of course, rule illegal convention. We do not have sufficient evidence to rule 1H as a conventional bid. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun May 22 17:32:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun May 22 17:33:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Email In-Reply-To: <200505201636.JAA00996@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: > Something is fishy here. Cats don't do anything if they don't feel > like it. Your mail doesn't leave your Outbox if it doesn't feel like > it. Your cats can send mail and you can't. Hmmmmmm . . . Get real Adam. Cats can do it, when they choose, because a) they are superior beings, b) the mouse is too afraid not to co-operate. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun May 22 17:32:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun May 22 17:34:00 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000001c55ed7$51a9cfb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > You have as part of your system (according to your own statement) a > third hand opening bid of 1H which either shows 13+ HCP with hearts or > 0-3 HCP regardless of distribution. No he doesn't. According to his statement he has a system where 1H shows a normal 1H opening bid but his partner has disclosable partnership experience that it is occasionally psyched on 0-3 hcp. > The fact that you have no special agreement on how to further resolve > the ambiguity with this opening bid does not change the status for your > third hand 1H opening bid. It doesn't of itself. However it provides a degree of evidence that the bid is psychic rather than systemic. Note that the actions of Herman's partner should come under extreme scrutiny. His disclosure of Herman's habits does *not* entitle him to use the information himself. If the psych remains unexposed by the auction and the partner takes an action based on that information we will have compelling evidence that the 1H call is being used systemically. Were HdW and partner playing the 1H as systemic it might be a BSC but it would be legal for his partner to base subsequent decisions on that info. I can recall at least two instances when playing with John where I have disclosed to opps that one of his calls was likely to be psychic (and indeed it was) but had my own bidding constrained because the auction has not exposed the psych. I can recall other situations where I have disclosed what John *intended* as a psych as an implicit agreement showing a 2-way hand. The difference being that the 2-way use is permitted under relevant system regs and it is legal for me use that knowledge in the subsequent auction (not legal for John to use the UI from my alert/explanation of course). On the whole knowledge of partner's psyching habits is detrimental to one's own interests since one is required to give opps knowledge which they can often exploit but you often cannot - that makes psychs a lot riskier. However, knowledge cannot be undone and I think the laws are correct to make it disclosable. Tim From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun May 22 17:42:06 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun May 22 17:43:27 2005 Subject: Fwd: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0505220841699f3b5f@mail.gmail.com> References: <000101c55d60$9d00b500$6900a8c0@WINXP> <2da24b8e0505220841699f3b5f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0505220842433ad633@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: richard willey Date: May 22, 2005 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] I did it again To: twm@cix.co.uk On Sun, 22 May 2005 16:32 +0100 (BST), Tim West-Meads wrote: > Sven wrote: > > > You have, I believe, stated that your third hand opening bid of 1H shows > > either a hand with 13+ HCP and at least four hearts or a hand with less > > than four HCP and any distribution and you claim this second alternative > > to be a psyche which is allowed by Law 40A? > > Herman has never claimed, to the best of my knowledge, that he will not > psych 1H in third position with some other hands. If his psychs (and > hais partner's bidding) form a pattern which appears systemic we can, of > course, rule illegal convention. We do not have sufficient evidence to > rule 1H as a conventional bid. > > Tim Excuse me? Herman directly stated that he has a history of always opening 1H when he has an appropriate hand for a "Spanish" 1H opening. He may muddy the water by also making pyches with other hand types, but this does not impact the fact that he is playing a convention two-way 1H opening bid. -- "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54 From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun May 22 18:33:03 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun May 22 18:34:24 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0505220842433ad633@mail.gmail.com> References: <000101c55d60$9d00b500$6900a8c0@WINXP> <2da24b8e0505220841699f3b5f@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0505220842433ad633@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e05052209331a85fcdd@mail.gmail.com> Herman, I was curious whether you would be willing to submit a query to the Belgian Bridge authorities regarding your methods? Ultimately their opinion carries a lot more weight than anyone participating in this debate. I certainly would be extremely interested in seeing a ruling on this... >From my perspective the salient issue to focus on when framing the question is one of frequency: I content that a "psyche" that is made 100% of the time that you hold the appropriate hand type makes the bid systemic regardless of the frequency of the weak hand type. You content that the frequency of the weak hand hand type is sufficiently small that the bid can be considered a psyche. From hermandw at hdw.be Sun May 22 18:43:43 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun May 22 18:43:30 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e05052209331a85fcdd@mail.gmail.com> References: <000101c55d60$9d00b500$6900a8c0@WINXP> <2da24b8e0505220841699f3b5f@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0505220842433ad633@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e05052209331a85fcdd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4290B6BF.7010205@hdw.be> richard willey wrote: > Herman, I was curious whether you would be willing to submit a query > to the Belgian Bridge authorities regarding your methods? Ultimately > their opinion carries a lot more weight than anyone participating in > this debate. I certainly would be extremely interested in seeing a > ruling on this... > Well, actually, I don't. The BBF is not composed of a different set of directors than blml. Among them too, some are of the erroneaous opinions of Sven and yourself. If I can't vote on myself, I'd rather not ask the question. Yes, I know that this is silly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Sun May 22 18:43:56 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun May 22 18:45:21 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <42909EA4.7050009@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c55eed$72456de0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > Of course not - I'm telling you that I have not had any conversations > about this with any partner - as partnership talk, I have done so just > as bridge talk - and I'm also telling you that I don't consider it > important that I haven't done so; I am in fact agreeing with you - you > want me to tell you that I have partnership agreement, and I'm telling > you that in fact I have not, but in law I accept that you rule that I > do. That is why I don't consider your question important - your ruling > should really be the same regardless of the answer. Law 75B: A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). ... The effect of the parentheses clause is that once partner can reasonably be expected to be aware of such "violations" when they occur these are no longer "violations" but part of the implicit agreements within the partnership. As such they must be disclosed as you appear to realize, but as you do not seem to realize they can also be subject to regulations on conventions according to Law 40D. That is why I consider your position untenable. Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun May 22 18:51:57 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun May 22 18:53:21 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c55eee$914060f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > You have, I believe, stated that your third hand opening bid of 1H shows > > either a hand with 13+ HCP and at least four hearts or a hand with less > > than four HCP and any distribution and you claim this second alternative > > to be a psyche which is allowed by Law 40A? > > Herman has never claimed, to the best of my knowledge, that he will not > psych 1H in third position with some other hands. If his psychs (and > hais partner's bidding) form a pattern which appears systemic we can, of > course, rule illegal convention. We do not have sufficient evidence to > rule 1H as a conventional bid. Herman has indeed stated that he never (any more) "psyches" this 1H opening bid holding more than 3 HCP so according to his own statement he has a two way opening bid of 1H in third hand: 13+ with hearts or 0-3 with any distribution. And in just so many words he tries to claim that the weak version of this bid does not fall under the clause between parentheses in Law 75B. I have so far not found his reasoning tenable. Sven From john at asimere.com Sun May 22 19:52:46 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun May 22 19:55:43 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000101c55eed$72456de0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <42909EA4.7050009@hdw.be> <000101c55eed$72456de0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000101c55eed$72456de0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >............. >> Of course not - I'm telling you that I have not had any conversations >> about this with any partner - as partnership talk, I have done so just >> as bridge talk - and I'm also telling you that I don't consider it >> important that I haven't done so; I am in fact agreeing with you - you >> want me to tell you that I have partnership agreement, and I'm telling >> you that in fact I have not, but in law I accept that you rule that I >> do. That is why I don't consider your question important - your ruling >> should really be the same regardless of the answer. > >Law 75B: A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as >his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a >partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). ... we're all up for this Sven. The Herman Heart is sufficiently low frequency that it's not habitual. The MadDog 1NT is however, and my partners alert it as "occasional psych". I once had an agreement that an opening bid of 5 of a minor showed the normal hand or 6-6 in the majors with a bust. Since it *never* came up it would hardly be habitual would it? > >The effect of the parentheses clause is that once partner can reasonably be >expected to be aware of such "violations" when they occur these are no >longer "violations" but part of the implicit agreements within the >partnership. > >As such they must be disclosed as you appear to realize, but as you do not >seem to realize they can also be subject to regulations on conventions >according to Law 40D. > >That is why I consider your position untenable. > >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 Sun May 22 19:54:18 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun May 22 19:57:03 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e05052209331a85fcdd@mail.gmail.com> References: <000101c55d60$9d00b500$6900a8c0@WINXP> <2da24b8e0505220841699f3b5f@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0505220842433ad633@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e05052209331a85fcdd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In article <2da24b8e05052209331a85fcdd@mail.gmail.com>, richard willey writes >Herman, I was curious whether you would be willing to submit a query >to the Belgian Bridge authorities regarding your methods? Ultimately >their opinion carries a lot more weight than anyone participating in >this debate. I certainly would be extremely interested in seeing a >ruling on this... > >>From my perspective the salient issue to focus on when framing the >question is one of frequency: > >I content that a "psyche" that is made 100% of the time that you hold >the appropriate hand type makes the bid systemic regardless of the >frequency of the weak hand type. > >You content that the frequency of the weak hand hand type is >sufficiently small that the bid can be considered a psyche. I agree with Herman's contention. It is absurd for his partner to cater for it, and thus is of equal surprise to all players at the table. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran at online.no Sun May 22 20:48:20 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun May 22 20:49:42 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c55efe$d36198e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > >............. > >Law 75B: A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, > >so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual > >violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, > >which must be disclosed). ... > > we're all up for this Sven. The Herman Heart is sufficiently low > frequency that it's not habitual. The MadDog 1NT is however, and my > partners alert it as "occasional psych". I once had an agreement that an > opening bid of 5 of a minor showed the normal hand or 6-6 in the majors > with a bust. Since it *never* came up it would hardly be habitual would > it? The actual frequency of how often a particular situation occurs is immaterial. What matters is whether partner has any reason (from partnership experience etc.) to be aware of the situation. > >The effect of the parentheses clause is that once partner can > >reasonably be expected to be aware of such "violations" when > >they occur these are no longer "violations" but part of the > >implicit agreements within the partnership. > > > >As such they must be disclosed as you appear to realize, but > >as you do not seem to realize they can also be subject to > >regulations on conventions according to Law 40D. Herman has himself stated that he finds cause for disclosing his "special" 1H opening bid. Now why should he do that unless he considers this call part of his partnership agreements (see Laws 20, 21, 40 and 75)? If he discloses something that is not part of his partnership agreements he is actually giving misinformation regardless of how well his disclosure matches the actual hand! > >That is why I consider your position untenable. > > > >Sven From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Sun May 22 21:37:32 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun May 22 21:38:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> --- "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > In article > <20050522015908.28619.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com>, > Wayne > Burrows writes > > > >There is something wrong with a regulation that > allows > >an expert can use his expert judgement and violate > the > >letter of the law but a palooka cannot use his > palooka > >judgement to violate the same law (regulation). > > I think this is untrue. The palooka will open 2C on > a hand I'd open a 1 > bid. We allow the palooka to open 2C on a hand that > bears no > resemblance to a 2C opener. 9 solid 2-1-1 was one > case in point. I am thinking more of a situation where the rule says for illustrative purposes only that you must have 10 hcp to open the bidding at the one-level. We then accept the expert who opens on: AK10987 Q10987 2 2 but not the palooka who opens on QJ543 QJ32 Q2 J2 who claims he had nine hcp a 5-4 distribution *and* two doubletons. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 22 22:48:59 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun May 22 23:06:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050522015908.28619.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000201c55f12$19943300$4fed403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> >>There is something wrong with a regulation that allows >>an expert can use his expert judgement and violate the >>letter of the law but a palooka cannot use his palooka >>judgement to violate the same law (regulation). > +=+ If that were the case there would be something very wrong with it. The Director is not permitted, by law (40E1), to apply a system regulation in a manner to restrict style or judgement. A regulation that purports to do that is ultra vires. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 22 22:52:04 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun May 22 23:06:22 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again References: Message-ID: <000301c55f12$1a935380$4fed403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 4:32 PM Subject: RE: [blml] I did it again > Sven wrote: > >> You have as part of your system (according >> to your own statement) a third hand opening >> bid of 1H which either shows 13+ HCP with >> hearts or 0-3 HCP regardless of distribution. > > No he doesn't. According to his statement he > has a system where 1H shows a normal 1H > opening bid but his partner has disclosable > partnership experience that it is occasionally > psyched on 0-3 hcp. > +=+ Reinforced by universal public announcement of his systemic method on the internet, reducing the chances that the Director will be unaware of his relevant, and recorded, assertions - and ensuring that the Director has solid grounds for an assumption that the partner is likewise aware. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Sun May 22 23:06:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun May 22 23:07:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nanki Poo wrote: > The regulation says what agreements are allowed. Which might be ok when dealing with pick-up partnerships where the chances of ruling an implicit agreement are pretty low. However, it is (almost) inconceivable that in a regular partnership of decent players the TD should rule anything other than "implicit partnership agreement". Ie the investigation is likely to reveal that both players regard the upgrade as "normal", both would probably make the same upgrade, both would generally expect the other to make the upgrade, neither will bat an eyelid on seeing the hand because "it's obvious". Cases where we have sufficient evidence to rule that no implicit agreement exists will be pretty rare. In reality there is a wider range of *actual* rulings because interpretation/judgement varies a lot from TD to TD (AC to AC). >From what DWS's cats say I am inclined to believe that he will be less strict in ruling "implicit agreement" than I will, although I might be a tad less strict than DALB or Nigel (Pace, Nigel. I'm imagining you on an AC not as a TD). Note that my personal dislike for the rule will not prevent me from applying it to the best of my ability if acting as an EBU TD - I believe the reasoning I outline above to be sound. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun May 22 23:06:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun May 22 23:07:54 2005 Subject: Fwd: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0505220842433ad633@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard wrote: > He may muddy the water by also making pyches with other hand types, > but this does not impact the fact that he is playing a convention > two-way 1H opening bid. Not "is" but "may be". For example if HDW and pard play that: P-(P)-1H-(X)-2N shows "a good value based raise to 3H" I would be more inclined to rule that the 1H is non-systemic (simply because my judgement is that this would be a masochistic agreement opposite a systemic HdW1H). OTOH if Herman's partner failed to make such a bid when holding a suitable hand I would treat this failure as prima-facie evidence of the systemic nature of the 1H opener. The fact that Herman always bids 1H on this sort of hand is sufficient, in and of itself, for me to *investigate* whether the meaning should be considered systemic. Indeed I will tend to look for reasons as to why it *should* be ruled systemic rather than otherwise (If Herman were to play Drury I'd be ruling "systemic" pretty damn fast). However, I will not attempt to avoid my duty to rule well by failing to investigate. I accept that there may be some variability of TD judgement as to "systemic" even if the facts revealed by investigation are agreed by all. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun May 22 23:06:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun May 22 23:07:59 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000101c55eed$72456de0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Law 75B: A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so > long as his partner is unaware of the violation Unless Herman has a "tell" his partner will be unaware, at the time of the opening bid, that a violation has occurred. He may be aware of the *possibility* of a violation - but that is not a problem per se. > (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit > agreements, which must be disclosed). Yes, they may. But, quite obviously, they need not - it's a matter for TD judgement. Even if habitual violations are judged *not* to have created an implicit agreement disclosure is still required under L75c "a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience". Please note this disclosure requirement is *far* wider than what falls under "system". I have an occasional habit of forgetting Lebensohl - disclosable! I will tend to overcall a 5cM to making a t/o X on hands where both are reasonable systemic choices - disclosable! I tend to open 2434 hands 1C whearas John tends towards 1H - both calls are systemically "correct" - disclosable! NB - all of the above are mutually known through "experience". The overall system remains Acol-based with all the scope for individual judgement/context sensitive choices that that implies. The SO may mandate disclosure by additional means (cc, alerting, announcing etc). > The effect of the parentheses clause is that once partner can > reasonably be expected to be aware of such "violations" when they occur Sure, but on what basis are you suggesting that Herman's partner will actually be aware of any specific violation? While frequency is not particularly relevant when ruling on whether a bid is systemic I'd want a little evidence before deciding that something this infrequent could be "read" before 4th acted. > As such they must be disclosed as you appear to realize, but as you do > not seem to realize they can also be subject to regulations on > conventions according to Law 40D. They can be regulated (under L40d) if they are judged systemic, but they cannot be regulated (under L40d) if they are judged non-systemic. Disclosure and system regulations are completely separate issues addressed under different laws. Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 22 23:10:52 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun May 22 23:12:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001c55f12$e496b820$0c04e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > I am thinking more of a situation where the rule says > for illustrative purposes only that you must have 10 > hcp to open the bidding at the one-level. > > We then accept the expert who opens on: > > AK10987 > Q10987 > 2 > 2 > > but not the palooka who opens on > > QJ543 > QJ32 > Q2 > J2 > > who claims he had nine hcp a 5-4 distribution *and* > two doubletons. > > Wayne > +=+ A crucial question is whether the latter opener would be acceptable in the hands of an expert. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Sun May 22 23:29:19 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun May 22 23:29:06 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000101c55eed$72456de0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c55eed$72456de0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4290F9AF.3050001@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............. > >>Of course not - I'm telling you that I have not had any conversations >>about this with any partner - as partnership talk, I have done so just >>as bridge talk - and I'm also telling you that I don't consider it >>important that I haven't done so; I am in fact agreeing with you - you >>want me to tell you that I have partnership agreement, and I'm telling >>you that in fact I have not, but in law I accept that you rule that I >>do. That is why I don't consider your question important - your ruling >> should really be the same regardless of the answer. > > > Law 75B: A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as > his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a > partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). ... > Well, first of all notice the word 'may' and 'implicit'. This really just clears up that the psyching tendencies must be disclosed, something we have never had any discussion about. > The effect of the parentheses clause is that once partner can reasonably be > expected to be aware of such "violations" when they occur these are no > longer "violations" but part of the implicit agreements within the > partnership. > again, implicit. > As such they must be disclosed as you appear to realize, but as you do not > seem to realize they can also be subject to regulations on conventions > according to Law 40D. > yes, they are subject to it - but does that mean that the current regulations are applicable? I don't think so. I would say that an SO which would write a regulation banning any second psyche by the same partnership, would be able to find its authorization to do so in here. But the regulatory bodies have often stated that things like the 'rule of 18' don't apply to psyches, so yet again, I don't believe your argument supports your conclusion that my imlplicit agreements are banned by the regulation. I suggest that you go to the letter of the regulation and see what it says. I believe you will find things like 'by agreement' and 'shows'. I am telling you again that there is no agreement, and that my 1M does not 'show' 0-3. > That is why I consider your position untenable. > And I don't agree with you. Do you really WANT to ban psyches, or are you just blindingly following regulations, even when you know that the writers of those regulations did not want to ban psyches either? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Sun May 22 23:53:34 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun May 22 23:54:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050522215334.5142.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> --- Minke wrote: > Wayne Burrows > wrote > > > >--- Minke wrote: > >> Subject to judgement in England. The > regulation > >> says that an > >> agreement is to be Rule of 19: but when a hand > comes > >> along which is > >> clearly good enough we do not say they are > playing > >> an illegal system > >> when they open it. > > > >The problem is "Whose judgement do you use? - When > a > >hand does not technically meet the rule of 19 or > >whatever" > > > >There is something wrong with a regulation that > allows > >an expert can use his expert judgement and violate > the > >letter of the law but a palooka cannot use his > palooka > >judgement to violate the same law (regulation). > > > >This issue is contained in any "judgement" style > >regulation. For this reason I believe "judgement" > >style regulations are necessarily poor. > > That's looking at one side of a problem, and > ignoring the other sides. > A judgement-type rule, whether it be Law, reg, CoC > or whatever, is more > difficult to apply, but that does not make it wrong. > In fact the game > does quite well with judgement-type rules. > > If you do not allow judgement-type rules you > upset a lot of players > who think things are obvious when they are obvious > except to pedants. And when you do make judgement rules you upset players whose judgement does not match yours or perhaps more importantly doesn't match some other players. "But last week 'Mr Expert' opened with 9 points and you said that was ok" ... "Why is it different for me?" Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From twm at cix.co.uk Sun May 22 23:59:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon May 23 00:01:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <000201c55f12$19943300$4fed403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > >> > >>There is something wrong with a regulation that allows > >>an expert can use his expert judgement and violate the > >>letter of the law but a palooka cannot use his palooka > >>judgement to violate the same law (regulation). > > > +=+ If that were the case there would be something > very wrong with it. The Director is not permitted, by > law (40E1), to apply a system regulation in a manner > to restrict style or judgement. A regulation that purports > to do that is ultra vires. Would that this were true. Sadly the law actually says "The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a convention card on which partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method)." Thus the restriction only applies to a requirement relating to both players employing the same system. In a better world the law would read "The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a convention card on which partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may establish regulations for its use (such regulations must not restrict style and judgement, only method), including a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same system." As it is currently SOs remain free to base general regulations on HCP (a form of evaluation which renders any judgement moot). Lest the irony of this should escape anyone I would ask them to consider the juxtaposition of Grattan's view that regulations may not restrict style and judgement while having written a regulation which enforces a specific method of hand evaluation (Rule of..) with my own dislike of that regulation partly because it enforces a particular evaluation method! Tim From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon May 23 00:09:32 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon May 23 00:10:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050522220932.63261.qmail@web14721.mail.yahoo.com> --- Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "If we can't stamp out literature in the > country, we can at least stop it being > brought in from outside." [Evelyn Waugh] > > ============================= > >> > >>There is something wrong with a regulation that > allows > >>an expert can use his expert judgement and violate > the > >>letter of the law but a palooka cannot use his > palooka > >>judgement to violate the same law (regulation). > > > +=+ If that were the case there would be something > very wrong with it. The Director is not permitted, > by > law (40E1), to apply a system regulation in a manner > > to restrict style or judgement. A regulation that > purports > to do that is ultra vires. I wish this were true but it is not. L40E1 only applies to both members of the partnership playing the same system. That is we cannot say that the members of a partnership are playing a different system when the only differences are about style or judgement. I am referring to TD judgements that the experts opinion that this hand is worth 10 points is ok but the palooka's (bad) judgement that another hand is worth 10 points is not ok. This is a serious flaw in my opinion. I want the palooka's to be able to exercise their poor judgement as often as possible. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon May 23 00:15:05 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon May 23 00:16:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050522221505.9405.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> --- Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "If we can't stamp out literature in the > country, we can at least stop it being > brought in from outside." [Evelyn Waugh] > > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 8:37 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of > System > > > > > > > I am thinking more of a situation where the rule > says > > for illustrative purposes only that you must have > 10 > > hcp to open the bidding at the one-level. > > > > We then accept the expert who opens on: > > > > AK10987 > > Q10987 > > 2 > > 2 > > > > but not the palooka who opens on > > > > QJ543 > > QJ32 > > Q2 > > J2 > > > > who claims he had nine hcp a 5-4 distribution > *and* > > two doubletons. > > > > Wayne > > > +=+ A crucial question is whether the latter opener > would > be acceptable in the hands of an expert. ~ G ~ > +=+ > Why is it crucial what an expert would do? If the expert is allowed to exercise his expert judgement why is the palooka not allowed to exercise his palooka judgement? We want our opponents to exercise their bad judgement as often as possible this is what this game is about? Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon May 23 00:30:23 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon May 23 00:31:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050522223023.4228.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> --- Tim West-Meads wrote: > Grattan wrote: > > >> > > >>There is something wrong with a regulation that > allows > > >>an expert can use his expert judgement and > violate the > > >>letter of the law but a palooka cannot use his > palooka > > >>judgement to violate the same law (regulation). > > > > > +=+ If that were the case there would be something > > very wrong with it. The Director is not permitted, > by > > law (40E1), to apply a system regulation in a > manner > > to restrict style or judgement. A regulation that > purports > > to do that is ultra vires. > > Would that this were true. Sadly the law actually > says > "The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a > convention card on which > partners are to list their conventions and other > agreements and may > establish regulations for its use, including a > requirement that both > members of a partnership employ the same system > (such a regulation must > not restrict style and judgement, only method)." > > Thus the restriction only applies to a requirement > relating to both > players employing the same system. In a better > world the law would read > "The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a > convention card on which > partners are to list their conventions and other > agreements and may > establish regulations for its use (such regulations > must not restrict > style and judgement, only method), including a > requirement that both > members of a partnership employ the same system." > > As it is currently SOs remain free to base general > regulations on HCP (a > form of evaluation which renders any judgement > moot). Lest the irony > of this should escape anyone I would ask them to > consider the > juxtaposition of Grattan's view that regulations may > not restrict style > and judgement while having written a regulation > which enforces a specific > method of hand evaluation (Rule of..) with my own > dislike of that > regulation partly because it enforces a particular > evaluation method! > Well said Tim. It is certainly wrong to make regulations that are based on a particular form of evaluation and especially so when the expert is allowed to vary but the palooka is not. As an example the expert opinion of a number of experts is that a 1NT opening with a singleton honour is ok even where the regulations do not allow this. In the ACBL the interpretation document states that 1% is the threshold but the frequency of just 4-4-4-1 hands in which a singleton high-honour occurs is significantly higher than that. Nevertheless (many) experts continue to open 1NT on these hands without penalty. Meanwhile a palooka who does not grasp the concept who begins opening 1NT with a singleton at will is more likely to be penalized. If regulations continue to be based on methods of judgement that are not fundamentally part of the game there will continue to be problems with those regulations. The problems will occur because it will always be possible to find examples where the prescribed method of judgement does not agree with the individual player's method of judgement. It does not matter whether the particular player is expert or palooka. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon May 23 00:42:23 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon May 23 00:43:45 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <42906047.8040302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <20050522224223.68785.qmail@web14721.mail.yahoo.com> --- Herman De Wael wrote: > > What it does alter is the systemic nature of it. If > I have never > discussed the fact with my partner, how can it be > systemic? Systemic agreements can be explicit or implicit. Having not discussed something is not a reason to not disclose it. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 23 00:59:20 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 23 01:00:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson: >Just out of interest, what relevance has this? Are you calling >Grattan a liar, or are you making some rather more obscure point? Richard Hills: No, definitely not calling Grattan a liar. Merely making the obscure point about what has been called "tyranny of the majority". Majority rule is necessary, but not sufficient, for a true democracy. Tolerance of minority opinions and actions is also needed for a healthy democracy. Ergo, the fact that the EBU Orange Book has been supported by a majority does not necessarily mean that the EBU Orange Book is democratic. The EBU Orange Book is over-restrictive in its intolerance of minority conventions (such as its until-recent prohibition of the Roche convention). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon May 23 00:59:31 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon May 23 01:00:52 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050522225931.8209.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> --- Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............. > > Of course not - I'm telling you that I have not > had any conversations > > about this with any partner - as partnership talk, > I have done so just > > as bridge talk - and I'm also telling you that I > don't consider it > > important that I haven't done so; I am in fact > agreeing with you - you > > want me to tell you that I have partnership > agreement, and I'm telling > > you that in fact I have not, but in law I accept > that you rule that I > > do. That is why I don't consider your question > important - your ruling > > should really be the same regardless of the > answer. > > Law 75B: A player may violate an announced > partnership agreement, so long as > his partner is unaware of the violation (but > habitual violations within a > partnership may create implicit agreements, which > must be disclosed). ... > > The effect of the parentheses clause is that once > partner can reasonably be > expected to be aware of such "violations" when they > occur these are no > longer "violations" but part of the implicit > agreements within the > partnership. > That is simply not what the law says. It only goes as far as to say that a habitual violation *may* create an implicit agreement. It is easy to imagine a situation in which a habitual violation may be subject to partnership disagreement. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon May 23 01:08:03 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon May 23 01:09:24 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050522230803.17139.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> --- "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > we're all up for this Sven. The Herman Heart is > sufficiently low > frequency that it's not habitual. The MadDog 1NT is > however, and my > partners alert it as "occasional psych". I once had > an agreement that an > opening bid of 5 of a minor showed the normal hand > or 6-6 in the majors > with a bust. Since it *never* came up it would > hardly be habitual would > it? I have habits that I engage in daily and habits that I engage in yearly and probably some that are more frequent and less frequent than those. You can speculate as much as you like on what those habits might be - I wouldn't bother I am pretty boring really. I am scheduled for one of my favourite habits this coming Friday - it is a once a year habit. I do not think that frequency has any correlation with habitual. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon May 23 01:11:12 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon May 23 01:12:34 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050522231112.52491.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> --- Sven Pran wrote: > > Herman has himself stated that he finds cause for > disclosing his "special" > 1H opening bid. Now why should he do that unless he > considers this call part > of his partnership agreements (see Laws 20, 21, 40 > and 75)? If he discloses > something that is not part of his partnership > agreements he is actually > giving misinformation regardless of how well his > disclosure matches the > actual hand! The laws require disclosure of agreements and of experience. These are separate things that do not necessarily overlap. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 23 01:18:52 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon May 23 01:25:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: Message-ID: <006001c55f24$b86056f0$8a9287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Oh it is a very pretty garden, And Chingford to the eastward could be seen. Wiv a ladder and some glasses You could see to 'ackney marshes If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". - Gus Elen. (after Edgar Bateman) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > Grattan wrote: > > >> > > >>There is something wrong with a regulation that allows > > >>an expert can use his expert judgement and violate the > > >>letter of the law but a palooka cannot use his palooka > > >>judgement to violate the same law (regulation). > > > > > +=+ If that were the case there would be something > > very wrong with it. The Director is not permitted, by > > law (40E1), to apply a system regulation in a manner > > to restrict style or judgement. A regulation that purports > > to do that is ultra vires. > > Would that this were true. Sadly the law actually says > "The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a convention card on which > partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may > establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both > members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation must > not restrict style and judgement, only method)." > > Thus the restriction only applies to a requirement relating to both > players employing the same system. In a better world the law would read > "The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a convention card on which > partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may > establish regulations for its use (such regulations must not restrict > style and judgement, only method), including a requirement that both > members of a partnership employ the same system." > > As it is currently SOs remain free to base general regulations on HCP (a > form of evaluation which renders any judgement moot). Lest the irony > of this should escape anyone I would ask them to consider the > juxtaposition of Grattan's view that regulations may not restrict style > and judgement while having written a regulation which enforces a specific > method of hand evaluation (Rule of..) with my own dislike of that > regulation partly because it enforces a particular evaluation method! > > Tim > +=+ That, certainly, is one reading of 'such a regulation'. However, it is not the only possible reading since the second use of 'regulation' should refer contextually to the earlier use in the same sentence. Need I add that I hastened to re-read the relevant provisions in the 14 mm of A4, to see if greater clarity prevails? Oh, and incidentally, I have based my bidding judgements in suit contracts mainly on losing trick count throughout my bridge life. That has not prevented me from compliance with regulations set in other terms of valuation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon May 23 01:34:13 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon May 23 01:35:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050522215334.5142.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <011a01c55f26$c3c2d9d0$129468d5@James> ]Wayne Burrows] "But last week 'Mr Expert' opened with 9 points and you said that was ok" ... "Why is it different for me?" [Nigel] Wayne is right. Directors respect the judgement of players that they judge to be expert. Tim West-Meades cites hands that are rule of 17 or 18 but he judges worth more than many rule of 19 or 20 hands. David Stevenson rejects some of Tim's examples, but cites other rule of 17/18 hands that he would happily open, especially third in hand. Why such disparities? Whereas almost all players, when sober, count their Milton Work high card points and suit lengths the same way; there are almost as many ways of evaluating suit texture, honour combination and honour placement as there are expert books on bidding. For example, tongue in cheek, Burn claimed that, in his judgement, hands with 85 combinations are very strong. Superior judgement already gives experts" an enormous advantage over palookas. Spurious "judgment" laws award "legal experts" an even greater advantage. Most ordinary players have no idea what some directors will let themselves away with. Where does such madness end? An extreme example is Herman De Wael using his "legal expertise" and "judgement" to justify an asymmetric system in which he upgrades even a Yarborough with a void in hearts to a legal third in hand opening 1H bid. From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon May 23 01:42:40 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon May 23 01:44:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050522234240.82187.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> --- Grattan Endicott > +=+ That, certainly, is one reading of 'such a > regulation'. However, it > is not the only possible reading since the second > use of 'regulation' > should refer contextually to the earlier use in the > same sentence. > Need I add that I hastened to re-read the relevant > provisions in > the 14 mm of A4, to see if greater clarity prevails? > Oh, and incidentally, I have based my bidding > judgements > in suit contracts mainly on losing trick count > throughout my > bridge life. That has not prevented me from > compliance with > regulations set in other terms of valuation. Ok I am willing to accept this. Now the following regulations that restrict style and judgement are necessarily illegal: 1NT openings restricted to balanced hands - restricts style; Rule of 18 or whatever number - restricts judgement; Restrictions on canape openings - restricts style etc etc Thanks for this Grattan Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon May 23 02:11:45 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon May 23 02:12:45 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again References: Message-ID: <013501c55f2c$01eb1330$129468d5@James> [Tim West-Meades] > How many times need it be said: PARTNERSHIP EXPERIENCE > IS NOT THE SAME AS AN AGREEMENT. Understandings based > on experience are disclosable but not necessarily > subject to SO regulation. Knowing partner's habits does > not equate to either endorsing them or basing decisions > upon them. Before we rule a conventional *agreement* > we have to INVESTIGATE. [Nigel] Even if Tim never uses the knowledge imparted, most legal experts would agree with Richard Jamse Hills that bridge patterns in his partnership experience constitute implicit agreements. Suppose in the EBU, for example, partner insists, no matter how much you protest, on treating *all* your Four Notrump bids as "Blackwood". I presume that Tim believes his partner's A-response is not alertable, in those contexts where he disapproves of the convention and has never agreed to use it. Many experienced pairs have another complementary kind of implicit agreement, for example about about "Ghostem" and "Tricot". Whatever is written on their card, as a matter of principle, they rarely get it right, especially at favourable vulnerability. IMO such consistent "forgetting" is tantamount to agreeing random overcalls. Thus it is disclosable, too. From dkzfxplzz at montijo.net Mon May 23 03:56:39 2005 From: dkzfxplzz at montijo.net (Dollie Grimes) Date: Mon May 23 03:03:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Are you still fat? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050523/ac1159ca/attachment.html From minke2 at blakjak.com Mon May 23 03:44:41 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Mon May 23 03:46:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote >I am thinking more of a situation where the rule says >for illustrative purposes only that you must have 10 >hcp to open the bidding at the one-level. > >We then accept the expert who opens on: > >AK10987 >Q10987 >2 >2 > >but not the palooka who opens on > >QJ543 >QJ32 >Q2 >J2 > >who claims he had nine hcp a 5-4 distribution *and* >two doubletons. Of course, which is why - as I mentioned earlier in the thread - I think such rules are better when judgement is allowed. You are proposing a rule that says you must have 10 HCP to open. I think that a terrible rule, myself. Fortunately we do not have rules of that type in England. Our rules say what agreements are allowed. Despite a lot of people saying otherwise here and on RGB they do not say what you cannot open a hand on. The advantage of such a rule, which lends itself ot one type of mind here, is that it is easier to rule where judgement-less regs are used. I do not believe running the game to make the TDs life easier benefits the game. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Mon May 23 03:44:58 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Mon May 23 03:46:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >David Stevenson: > >>Just out of interest, what relevance has this? Are you calling >>Grattan a liar, or are you making some rather more obscure point? > >Richard Hills: > >No, definitely not calling Grattan a liar. Merely making the >obscure point about what has been called "tyranny of the majority". > >Majority rule is necessary, but not sufficient, for a true >democracy. Tolerance of minority opinions and actions is also >needed for a healthy democracy. Majority rule is, fortunately, totally unnecessary for a democracy, otherwise certain countries would not have anything approaching democratic rule. >Ergo, the fact that the EBU Orange Book has been supported by a >majority does not necessarily mean that the EBU Orange Book is >democratic. The EBU Orange Book is over-restrictive in its >intolerance of minority conventions (such as its until-recent >prohibition of the Roche convention). Well, either that or it is too tolerant of minority conventions. As I may have mentioned before, the fact that Australians consider our regulations wrong for English players is not necessarily the strongest evidence that we have got it wrong. I could tell you that the Australian lack of restriction is unfair on a number of players or whatever, but it just seems none of my business. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From schoderb at msn.com Mon May 23 03:55:24 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon May 23 03:56:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Has BLML degenerated to pet animals taking positions on our game? Or are their owners afraid to take responsibility for the content of those messages? Seems to me that there may be some misplaced humor (or at least an attempt at humor). Oh well, why be forthright when it's so easy to be funny? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Minke" To: Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > Wayne Burrows > wrote > > >I am thinking more of a situation where the rule says > >for illustrative purposes only that you must have 10 > >hcp to open the bidding at the one-level. > > > >We then accept the expert who opens on: > > > >AK10987 > >Q10987 > >2 > >2 > > > >but not the palooka who opens on > > > >QJ543 > >QJ32 > >Q2 > >J2 > > > >who claims he had nine hcp a 5-4 distribution *and* > >two doubletons. > > Of course, which is why - as I mentioned earlier in the thread - I > think such rules are better when judgement is allowed. You are > proposing a rule that says you must have 10 HCP to open. I think that a > terrible rule, myself. > > Fortunately we do not have rules of that type in England. Our rules > say what agreements are allowed. Despite a lot of people saying > otherwise here and on RGB they do not say what you cannot open a hand > on. > > The advantage of such a rule, which lends itself ot one type of mind > here, is that it is easier to rule where judgement-less regs are used. I > do not believe running the game to make the TDs life easier benefits the > game. > > -- > Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ > Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ > Minke ( | | ) =( + )= > Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon May 23 05:20:18 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon May 23 05:21:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050523032018.17537.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> --- Minke wrote: > Wayne Burrows > wrote > > >I am thinking more of a situation where the rule > says > >for illustrative purposes only that you must have > 10 > >hcp to open the bidding at the one-level. > > > >We then accept the expert who opens on: > > > >AK10987 > >Q10987 > >2 > >2 > > > >but not the palooka who opens on > > > >QJ543 > >QJ32 > >Q2 > >J2 > > > >who claims he had nine hcp a 5-4 distribution *and* > >two doubletons. > > Of course, which is why - as I mentioned earlier > in the thread - I > think such rules are better when judgement is > allowed. You are > proposing a rule that says you must have 10 HCP to > open. I think that a > terrible rule, myself. Absolutely not. It is a bad as a regulation that says you need Rule of 18 (or any other number to open). The idea of having a prescribed method of judgement written into the rule is flawed. Whatever that particular method of judgement is. It should be up to players to use their own judgement good or bad. Of course they need to give reasonable disclosure of their methods and style. Wayne > > Fortunately we do not have rules of that type in > England. Our rules > say what agreements are allowed. Despite a lot of > people saying > otherwise here and on RGB they do not say what you > cannot open a hand > on. > > The advantage of such a rule, which lends itself > ot one type of mind > here, is that it is easier to rule where > judgement-less regs are used. I > do not believe running the game to make the TDs life > easier benefits the > game. > > -- > Purrs and headbutts from: > /\_/\ /\ /\ > Nanki Poo =( ^*^ > )= @ @ > Minke ( | | > ) =( + )= > Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ > ^~ ~ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon May 23 06:22:09 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon May 23 06:23:31 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050523042209.22250.qmail@web14726.mail.yahoo.com> --- GUTHRIE wrote: > [Tim West-Meades] > > How many times need it be said: PARTNERSHIP > EXPERIENCE > > IS NOT THE SAME AS AN AGREEMENT. Understandings > based > > on experience are disclosable but not necessarily > > subject to SO regulation. Knowing partner's > habits does > > not equate to either endorsing them or basing > decisions > > upon them. Before we rule a conventional > *agreement* > > we have to INVESTIGATE. > > [Nigel] > Even if Tim never uses the knowledge imparted, most > legal > experts would agree with Richard Jamse Hills that > bridge > patterns in his partnership experience constitute > implicit > agreements. If they say that they are wrong. The laws most certainly do not equate these distinct concepts. Habitual violates (experience) only *may* create implicit agreements. This is certainly the language of overlapping not equivalent concepts. It is also the language of the Code of Practice for determining when there might exist a concealed partnership understanding. The necessary but not sufficient intention of the relevant phrase in the CoP has been confirmed by Grattan, I think, in this forum. The laws speak of : Partnership Agreements and Understandings which must be disclosed; Gross misstatements - psychic bids which need not be disclosed ahead of time when not based on an understanding; If there are gross misstatements then by inference it must be possible to have a minor misstatement these also would be subject to L40A - no disclosure is required ahead of making the bid if there is no partnership understanding; Partnership experience which must be disclosed in answer to a question. This would require disclosure of departures, gross or otherwise, from partnership agreements and understandings when answering questions.; Habitual violations which might (and therefore also might not) create an implicit partnership understanding which would then need to be disclosed. There is a paradox here since prior disclosure of an implicit understanding would transform that implicit understanding into an explicit understanding. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 23 06:33:19 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 23 06:34:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>The EBU Orange Book is over-restrictive in its >>intolerance of minority conventions (such as its >>until-recent prohibition of the Roche convention). David Stevenson: >Well, either that or it is too tolerant of minority >conventions. [snip] >the Australian lack of restriction is unfair on a >number of players or whatever, but it just seems >none of my business. Richard Hills: I think that David and I agree on the fundamental issue that some restrictions on conventions are necessary for the greater good of all players participating in an event. I think that David and I also agree that protecting a minority from themselves by prohibiting their pet convention (such as the Roche convention) merely because it is without bridge merit is an example of over-regulation. The boundary line which I think that David and I agree upon is when a minority convention *damages* the majority because of its unusual surprise value. Example: The highly unusually surprising and damaging Forcing Pass systems (a.k.a. "fertiliser" systems) are universally regulated so that their use is restricted to some high-level events. And I think that David and I agree that unusual surprise values differ between England and Australia (with lots of Aussies unsurprised about many common- as-mud Aussie Brown Sticker conventions). Where I think that David and I *disagree* is that David implies that it is "none of my business" for an English TD to critique Aussie regulations on blml. In my opinion, nationalism should not impede analysis and debate on an international mailing list. Nor has it in the past, since an English TD once critiqued on blml the ACBL and Aussie regulations which required seeding of some of their events. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 23 07:25:55 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 23 07:27:27 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <006001c55c46$b1af02b0$4c9687d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In the "I did it again" thread, Grattan Endicott revealed: >+=+ The 1997 Laws have a curious definition of >'psychic call' which allows that it deliberately and >grossly misstates honour strength or suit length, >but does not exclude the possibility that a psychic >call may be the subject of partnership agreement, >whereupon it becomes subject to system regulations >but apparently does not escape its definition as a >psychic call. I used to say that it ceased to be psychic >because I understood the phrase as signifying an >action of which partner can have no prior awareness. >However this is not quite what the definition says >although it is in conflict to an extent with the wording >of Law 40A. Maybe the subject was not thought >through clearly when writing the definition and has >been left in a slightly murky state, a feature that is >not unknown elsewhere in the law book. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills flabbergasts: Who would have thunk it? I have always been at one with Sven Pran on interpreting the definition of Psychic Call. In our opinion, a "gross misstatement" grossly misstates to all three opponents. So we thought that a "gross misstatement" is ipso facto *not* a partnership agreement. Contrariwise, Sven Pran and I believed that once a partnership agreement was formed about a particular type of psyche, that particular type of psyche then ipso facto ceased to be a psyche, now automatically transmogrifying into an implicit or explicit partnership agreement. One hopes when the new Laws are finalised (in 2006 or 2007 or 2008 or 2009) that this definition of psyche will be clarified. My hope would be for a very explicit and fully demurked definition that one's *partner* must also be "grossly" misled by one's psychic call. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From hermandw at hdw.be Mon May 23 09:23:25 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon May 23 09:23:09 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <20050522224223.68785.qmail@web14721.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050522224223.68785.qmail@web14721.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <429184ED.1050508@hdw.be> Wayne, if you drop into a thread half-way, you are liable to write things that are not under discussion in it. Wayne Burrows wrote: > --- Herman De Wael wrote: > >>What it does alter is the systemic nature of it. If >>I have never >>discussed the fact with my partner, how can it be >>systemic? > > > Systemic agreements can be explicit or implicit. > Having not discussed something is not a reason to not > disclose it. > We are not having a discussion about disclosure. Sven however, tries to equate something which must be disclosed, with something which is regulated as a system and hence forbidden. Sven makes a leap not supported by the text of the laws. > Wayne > > Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. > http://au.movies.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ardelm at bigpond.net.au Mon May 23 09:23:36 2005 From: ardelm at bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon May 23 09:25:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050523172027.04739eb0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> A cat: > Fortunately we do not have rules of that type in England. Our rules > say what agreements are allowed. Despite a lot of people saying > otherwise here and on RGB they do not say what you cannot open a hand on. Not to be disputatious, but I was speaking with a player yesterday who was going to UK later this year. He claimed that he would not be allowed to whatever brand of multi 2's he and his wife play without anyone turning a hair at the local club. I thought that to be extremely unlikely, but he claimed he had spent time reading from the Orange or White Book on system regulations. Please say it isnt so Tony (Sydney) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon May 23 09:29:09 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon May 23 09:38:38 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: Message-ID: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> > > In the "I did it again" thread, Grattan Endicott revealed: > >>+=+ The 1997 Laws have a curious definition of >>'psychic call' which allows that it deliberately and >>grossly misstates honour strength or suit length, >>but does not exclude the possibility that a psychic >>call may be the subject of partnership agreement, >>whereupon it becomes subject to system regulations >>but apparently does not escape its definition as a >>psychic call. I used to say that it ceased to be psychic >>because I understood the phrase as signifying an >>action of which partner can have no prior awareness. >>However this is not quite what the definition says >>although it is in conflict to an extent with the wording >>of Law 40A. Maybe the subject was not thought >>through clearly when writing the definition and has >>been left in a slightly murky state, a feature that is >>not unknown elsewhere in the law book. >> I agree with Sven and Richard and possibly others that Grattan's remark doesn't cut wood as we say in Dutch. Reading the definition there can't be any serious doubt that partner should be misled in the same way as opponents are when a psyche is used. ton From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 23 09:41:55 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 23 09:43:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Meritless appeals (was Indirect reg...) In-Reply-To: <+Mv9eZS8bLjCFw83@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Stevenson: >My own view is that there are three reasons for the increase in >meritless appeals. [snip] >Two. EBU and WBU Appeal Committees do not keep enough >deposits, so meritless appeals are not seen to cost money. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, monetary deposits are doubly the wrong approach. Firstly, $50 is a significant amount of money to an impecunious student, but a trivial amount of money to a wealthy sponsor. Secondly, prevention is better than cure. It is better to have an Aussie Appeals Advisor (or an ACBL screener) give reasons *before* the fact why an appeal might lack merit, than to have an *after* the fact keeping of deposit by an Appeals Committee. A fence on the cliff is better than an ambulance down in the valley. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon May 23 10:02:48 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon May 23 10:04:10 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050523080248.98969.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> --- Herman De Wael wrote: > Wayne, if you drop into a thread half-way, you are > liable to write > things that are not under discussion in it. Actually I have read nearly every post in this thread. > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > --- Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >>What it does alter is the systemic nature of it. > If > >>I have never > >>discussed the fact with my partner, how can it be > >>systemic? > > > > > > Systemic agreements can be explicit or implicit. > > Having not discussed something is not a reason to > not > > disclose it. > > > > We are not having a discussion about disclosure. > Sven however, tries > to equate something which must be disclosed, with > something which is > regulated as a system and hence forbidden. Sven > makes a leap not > supported by the text of the laws. Maybe I should not have added the note about disclosure. My primary point was that something you have not discussed is still possibly an implicit agreement. Conversely not discussing something does not automatically make it non-systemic. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon May 23 10:12:38 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon May 23 10:14:00 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050523081238.62330.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> --- Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > > In the "I did it again" thread, Grattan Endicott > revealed: > > > >>+=+ The 1997 Laws have a curious definition of > >>'psychic call' which allows that it deliberately > and > >>grossly misstates honour strength or suit length, > >>but does not exclude the possibility that a > psychic > >>call may be the subject of partnership agreement, > >>whereupon it becomes subject to system regulations > >>but apparently does not escape its definition as a > >>psychic call. I used to say that it ceased to be > psychic > >>because I understood the phrase as signifying an > >>action of which partner can have no prior > awareness. > >>However this is not quite what the definition says > >>although it is in conflict to an extent with the > wording > >>of Law 40A. Maybe the subject was not thought > >>through clearly when writing the definition and > has > >>been left in a slightly murky state, a feature > that is > >>not unknown elsewhere in the law book. > >> > > > I agree with Sven and Richard and possibly others > that Grattan's remark > doesn't cut wood as we say in Dutch. > > Reading the definition there can't be any serious > doubt that partner should > be misled in the same way as opponents are when a > psyche is used. > There is absolutely nothing in the definition of a psychic bid that requires partner to be misled. However L40A does require that there is no partnership understanding. Even so it is possible that for reasons other than partnership understanding that partner maybe misled less or a in a different way than an opponent. This could be based on his own general knowledge and experience and be completely independent of any possible illegal partnership understanding. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From twm at cix.co.uk Mon May 23 10:52:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon May 23 10:53:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <006001c55f24$b86056f0$8a9287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Oh it is a very pretty garden, > And Chingford to the eastward could > be seen. > Wiv a ladder and some glasses > You could see to 'ackney marshes > If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". > - Gus Elen. > (after Edgar Bateman) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 10:59 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > >> > > > >>There is something wrong with a regulation that allows > > > >>an expert can use his expert judgement and violate the > > > >>letter of the law but a palooka cannot use his palooka > > > >>judgement to violate the same law (regulation). > > > > > > > +=+ If that were the case there would be something > > > very wrong with it. The Director is not permitted, by > > > law (40E1), to apply a system regulation in a manner > > > to restrict style or judgement. A regulation that purports > > > to do that is ultra vires. > > > > Would that this were true. Sadly the law actually says > > "The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a convention card on which > > partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may > > establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both > > members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation > > must > > not restrict style and judgement, only method)." > > > > Thus the restriction only applies to a requirement relating to both > > players employing the same system. In a better world the law would > > read > > "The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a convention card on which > > partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may > > establish regulations for its use (such regulations must not restrict > > style and judgement, only method), including a requirement that both > > members of a partnership employ the same system." > > > > As it is currently SOs remain free to base general regulations on HCP > > (a > > form of evaluation which renders any judgement moot). Lest the irony > > of this should escape anyone I would ask them to consider the > > juxtaposition of Grattan's view that regulations may not restrict > > style > > and judgement while having written a regulation which enforces a > > specific > > method of hand evaluation (Rule of..) with my own dislike of that > > regulation partly because it enforces a particular evaluation method! > > > > Tim > > > +=+ That, certainly, is one reading of 'such a regulation'. However, it > is not the only possible reading since the second use of 'regulation' > should refer contextually to the earlier use in the same sentence. There's not too much wrong with my grammar Grattan. The parenthetical restriction, being singular, can only be a reference to "a requirement", not the earlier use of "regulations". The "requirement" in question is a particular type of regulation as referenced by "such". All this despite my desire to read the law otherwise. Indeed were one entitled to read the law as you suggest then any "Rule of" system restriction would be rendered illegal or meaningless. I'd just write "One level openings: 2-suited hands are evaluated using LTC rather than HCP - unbalanced 6 loser hands are normally opened." > Need I add that I hastened to re-read the relevant provisions in > the 14 mm of A4, to see if greater clarity prevails? Not so much a matter of clarity as of the laws saying what is intended. As it happens I think the intent of the parenthetical phrase was intended to reference "requirement" - albeit some members of the authoring body may have missed the significance. I have frequent experience of EBU TDs telling my opponents that the descriptions on my CC are "stylistic" rather than "systemic" - but always in the context of the EBU "same system" requirement. > Oh, and incidentally, I have based my bidding judgements > in suit contracts mainly on losing trick count throughout my > bridge life. That has not prevented me from compliance with > regulations set in other terms of valuation. I very seldom have compliance problems using my own evaluation methods with pick-up partners. It is in playing with regular partners, whose approach is similar to my own, that such evaluations can easily become the subject not just of disclosable understandings but of implicit (or even explicit) agreements. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon May 23 10:52:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon May 23 10:53:37 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <20050523042209.22250.qmail@web14726.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > Gross misstatements - psychic bids which need not be > disclosed ahead of time when not based on an > understanding; This depends on SO regulations. If using a WBF CC experiential knowledge of partner's psyching habits must be pre-disclosed even when they do not constitute implicit agreements (ie partner is aware of the possibility but neither the decision to psych nor partner's subsequent actions are based on that awareness). IMO this is a good thing for everybody - it has nothing to do with system legality but rather is a regulation under L40E that causes no conflict with other laws. A different SO might require alerts, verbal pre-alerts, or the wearing of special badges by habitual psychers (all reasonable IMO). The laws themselves provide a "long-stop" position whereby such experience is disclosed in response to questions - a regulation forbidding "long-stop" disclosure would be in conflict with the laws but regulations requiring earlier/compulsory disclosure are not. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 23 10:22:52 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon May 23 11:02:57 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <006501c55f75$72122010$26904c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Oh it is a very pretty garden, And Chingford to the eastward could be seen. Wiv a ladder and some glasses You could see to 'ackney marshes If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". - Gus Elen. (after Edgar Bateman) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: ; Cc: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > > > > > I agree with Sven and Richard and possibly > others that Grattan's remark doesn't cut wood > as we say in Dutch. > > Reading the definition there can't be any serious > doubt that partner should be misled in the same > way as opponents are when a psyche is used. > > ton > +=+ Indeed this is what is believed, and what I think was intended. However, there is nothing in the statement in the definitions to say so; it is only not a matter of doubt when something of your belief is added to the words that are present. Simply 'reading the definition' is not enough. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From toddz at att.net Mon May 23 11:03:07 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon May 23 11:04:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <20050523032018.17537.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050523032018.17537.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42919C4B.2000400@att.net> Wayne Burrows wrote: > The idea of having a prescribed method of judgement > written into the rule is flawed. Whatever that > particular method of judgement is. It should be up to > players to use their own judgement good or bad. Of > course they need to give reasonable disclosure of > their methods and style. Some people's idea of good judgement is to use a forcing pass system and open the bidding on all awful hands regardless of shape. While I've enjoyed my experiments with such and have seen remarkable success with forcing pass systems employed, do you believe an SO should be without the power to ban their use should they so choose? -Todd From hermandw at hdw.be Mon May 23 11:09:06 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon May 23 11:08:50 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <20050523081238.62330.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050523081238.62330.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42919DB2.9080502@hdw.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > --- Ton Kooijman wrote: > >> >>Reading the definition there can't be any serious >>doubt that partner should >>be misled in the same way as opponents are when a >>psyche is used. >> > > > There is absolutely nothing in the definition of a > psychic bid that requires partner to be misled. > Exactly. > However L40A does require that there is no partnership > understanding. > Not even that. > Even so it is possible that for reasons other than > partnership understanding that partner maybe misled > less or a in a different way than an opponent. This > could be based on his own general knowledge and > experience and be completely independent of any > possible illegal partnership understanding. > > Wayne Very true, Wayne. There is something ver wrong in the way many people are thinking about L40 and MI. L40 is turned in a very awkward way: it is made illegal to have partnership understanding which has not been revealed to opponents. Compbined with the highly misleading term CPU, this article has been used to try and make all sorts of things illegal. Yet the same article is used on ordinary missing alerts and the like, and no-one has suggested any ideas of cheating. A player bids 3Cl over 1Di, holding both majors. His partner does not alert, and believes it to show clubs. The TD assumes that Ghestem is the true system. Almost all directors will now rule MI, adjust the score to something with correct information, and let it at that. No mention of CPU, no-one will do anything. But another player opens 1He third in hand, and it turns out he has done this before. Even without any evidence that the partner actually knows anything about it, some directors will rule not only MI, but also drag in L40, saying that to open 1He with a "concealed partnership understanding" is illegal, and scrap the 1He bid altogether. Yet in both cases L40 is cited as the origin for these rulings. I prefer to see L40 turned around. One can bid as one likes, but all pieces of partnership experience have to be disclosed to opponents. If they are not, then all damage will be adjusted for. But no need for using words like concealment and illegal unless prior disclosure. Which is actually what you all do in common cases of MI. Why then be so harsh on some other applications of the same law? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon May 23 11:11:12 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon May 23 11:12:47 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <20050523081238.62330.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001501c55f77$68de1920$adf5f0c3@LNV> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > > --- Ton Kooijman wrote: >> > >> > In the "I did it again" thread, Grattan Endicott >> revealed: >> > >> >>+=+ The 1997 Laws have a curious definition of >> >>'psychic call' which allows that it deliberately >> and >> >>grossly misstates honour strength or suit length, >> >>but does not exclude the possibility that a >> psychic >> >>call may be the subject of partnership agreement, >> >>whereupon it becomes subject to system regulations >> >>but apparently does not escape its definition as a >> >>psychic call. I used to say that it ceased to be >> psychic >> >>because I understood the phrase as signifying an >> >>action of which partner can have no prior >> awareness. >> >>However this is not quite what the definition says >> >>although it is in conflict to an extent with the >> wording >> >>of Law 40A. Maybe the subject was not thought >> >>through clearly when writing the definition and >> has >> >>been left in a slightly murky state, a feature >> that is >> >>not unknown elsewhere in the law book. >> >> >> >> >> I agree with Sven and Richard and possibly others >> that Grattan's remark >> doesn't cut wood as we say in Dutch. >> >> Reading the definition there can't be any serious >> doubt that partner should >> be misled in the same way as opponents are when a >> psyche is used. >> Wayne: > There is absolutely nothing in the definition of a > psychic bid that requires partner to be misled. ton: OK, we read things differently then. > > However L40A does require that there is no partnership > understanding. ?????, that is what I mean. > > Even so it is possible that for reasons other than > partnership understanding that partner maybe misled > less or a in a different way than an opponent. This > could be based on his own general knowledge and > experience and be completely independent of any > possible illegal partnership understanding. > > Wayne Which can be true for the opponents as well, It reads like hairsplitting once more, ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon May 23 11:20:51 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon May 23 11:22:15 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> <006501c55f75$72122010$26904c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <003e01c55f78$bbb03a10$adf5f0c3@LNV> . >> >> Reading the definition there can't be any serious >> doubt that partner should be misled in the same >> way as opponents are when a psyche is used. >> >> ton Grattan: > +=+ Indeed this is what is believed, and what I think > was intended. However, there is nothing in the statement > in the definitions to say so; it is only not a matter of doubt > when something of your belief is added to the words > that are present. Simply 'reading the definition' is not > enough. No, we need some obvious interpretation, but that is probably true for any non-mathematical definition ton From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 23 11:47:37 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon May 23 11:53:48 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> <006501c55f75$72122010$26904c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> <003e01c55f78$bbb03a10$adf5f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <009d01c55f7c$8caeda60$26904c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Oh it is a very pretty garden, And Chingford to the eastward could be seen. Wiv a ladder and some glasses You could see to 'ackney marshes If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". - Gus Elen. (after Edgar Bateman) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > . > > > +=+ Indeed this is what is believed, and what I think > > was intended. However, there is nothing in the statement > > in the definitions to say so; it is only not a matter of doubt > > when something of your belief is added to the words > > that are present. Simply 'reading the definition' is not > > enough. > > > > No, we need some obvious interpretation, but that is > probably true for any non-mathematical definition > > ton > +=+ I am conditioned at the moment to read the text of any law with mistrust, a question what some struggling TD in the wilds of Belgium might make of it. One of the elephant traps is to think that the words say what we think they say because we are conditioned by practice. I look in particular for questions raised by Directors because they are face-to-face with a need for answers. ~ G ~ +=+ From ZLYKQCDYTXXA at hotmail.com Mon May 23 12:47:21 2005 From: ZLYKQCDYTXXA at hotmail.com (Keven Shultz) Date: Mon May 23 11:59:17 2005 Subject: [blml] You Gonna Love This qZ7K In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <09431002160457.GI32191@.tech.sitadelle.com> The Only Clinically Tested Penis En_Largement Products! - Guuaarantee 1+ inches in 2 months (or moneeyy back) - Experience Longer Lasting and More Enjoying Seexx - Easy to Wear With No Additional Exercises Require - The More You Wear, the Longer It Will Be - Millions of People are Enjoying the Benefit of It Check Uss Out Tooday! http://gallanted.com/extender/?ronn o-ut of mai-lling lisst: http://gallanted.com/rm.php?ronn hvPg From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 23 13:58:41 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 23 13:58:56 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000101c55eed$72456de0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <42909EA4.7050009@hdw.be> <000101c55eed$72456de0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050523073930.030e1950@pop.starpower.net> At 12:43 PM 5/22/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >............. > > Of course not - I'm telling you that I have not had any conversations > > about this with any partner - as partnership talk, I have done so just > > as bridge talk - and I'm also telling you that I don't consider it > > important that I haven't done so; I am in fact agreeing with you - you > > want me to tell you that I have partnership agreement, and I'm telling > > you that in fact I have not, but in law I accept that you rule that I > > do. That is why I don't consider your question important - your ruling > > should really be the same regardless of the answer. > >Law 75B: A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so >long as >his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a >partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). ... > >The effect of the parentheses clause is that once partner can >reasonably be >expected to be aware of such "violations" when they occur these are no >longer "violations" but part of the implicit agreements within the >partnership. > >As such they must be disclosed as you appear to realize, but as you do not >seem to realize they can also be subject to regulations on conventions >according to Law 40D. > >That is why I consider your position untenable. L40 says: "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents." "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation." "Habitual violations with a partnership may create implicit agreements." (Note "may".) "When explaining..., a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience." (Note "or".) For these statements to be consistent with one another there must exist a non-empty category of "special information conveyed... through... partnership experience" which does *not* "create [an] implicit agreement[]". We may reject Herman's argument that his "Spanish 1H" bid falls into this category, but it is both misguided and wrong to argue that it cannot based on a reading of the laws by which nothing can. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 23 14:24:08 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 23 14:23:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050523080849.030e08e0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:37 PM 5/22/05, wayne.burrows wrote: >--- "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article > > ><20050522015908.28619.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com>, > > Wayne > > Burrows writes > > > > > >There is something wrong with a regulation that > > allows > > >an expert can use his expert judgement and violate > > the > > >letter of the law but a palooka cannot use his > > palooka > > >judgement to violate the same law (regulation). > > > > I think this is untrue. The palooka will open 2C on > > a hand I'd open a 1 > > bid. We allow the palooka to open 2C on a hand that > > bears no > > resemblance to a 2C opener. 9 solid 2-1-1 was one > > case in point. > >I am thinking more of a situation where the rule says >for illustrative purposes only that you must have 10 >hcp to open the bidding at the one-level. > >We then accept the expert who opens on: > >AK10987 >Q10987 >2 >2 > >but not the palooka who opens on > >QJ543 >QJ32 >Q2 >J2 > >who claims he had nine hcp a 5-4 distribution *and* >two doubletons. Do we? If the regulation says that one cannot have an agreement to open with fewer than 10 HCP, but deviations based on judgment are permitted, then it is permissable to open with fewer than 10 HCP if one believes that the hand is worth more than an average 10-HCP hand. The regulation does not -- and must not -- allow only deviations based on *good* judgment. What matters is what the player thinks, not whether they are right. Granted, we readily accept the expert's judgment, because we agree with it. But we do not, conversely, reject the palooka's judgment because we disagree with it; we give them a chance to explain to us why they chose to treat that awful hand as worth more than an average 10-count. They will perforce spout nonsense, but if we conclude that they genuinely believe that nonsense, we may choose to extraneously educate them on the finer points of hand evaluation, but do not hold them in violation of the regulation. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Mon May 23 14:33:25 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Mon May 23 14:35:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: WILLIAM SCHODER wrote >Has BLML degenerated to pet animals taking positions on our game? Or are >their owners afraid to take responsibility for the content of those >messages? Seems to me that there may be some misplaced humor (or at least an >attempt at humor). Oh well, why be forthright when it's so easy to be funny? I have explained that I am having email troubles. Some of my eddresses will post - including my cats' eddresses and my wife's eddress - and some will not - including my BLML eddress. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Mon May 23 14:36:08 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Mon May 23 14:38:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050523172027.04739eb0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20050523172027.04739eb0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove wrote >A cat: > > >> Fortunately we do not have rules of that type in England. Our >>rules say what agreements are allowed. Despite a lot of people >>saying otherwise here and on RGB they do not say what you cannot open >>a hand on. > >Not to be disputatious, but I was speaking with a player yesterday who >was going to UK later this year. He claimed that he would not be allowed >to whatever brand of multi 2's he and his wife play without anyone turning >a hair at the local club. I thought that to be extremely unlikely, but he >claimed he had spent time reading from the Orange or White Book on >system regulations. > >Please say it isnt so This hardly seem of any relevance to the post you quote, but still. There are regulations as to what agreements you are allowed, and what you are not allowed. If you do not know that then you have never read BLML before. It is, of course, true that Australians know what is best for our members better than us. I know that - they keep telling us. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From hermandw at hdw.be Mon May 23 14:45:55 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon May 23 14:45:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4291D083.2000709@hdw.be> Maybe you server knows what is interesting and what not! Nanki Poo wrote: > > I have explained that I am having email troubles. Some of my > eddresses will post - including my cats' eddresses and my wife's eddress > - and some will not - including my BLML eddress. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From minke2 at blakjak.com Mon May 23 14:50:48 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Mon May 23 14:52:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Meritless appeals (was Indirect reg...) In-Reply-To: References: <+Mv9eZS8bLjCFw83@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: wrote > > > > >David Stevenson: > >>My own view is that there are three reasons for the increase in >>meritless appeals. > >[snip] > >>Two. EBU and WBU Appeal Committees do not keep enough >>deposits, so meritless appeals are not seen to cost money. > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >In my opinion, monetary deposits are doubly the wrong approach. > >Firstly, $50 is a significant amount of money to an impecunious >student, but a trivial amount of money to a wealthy sponsor. *yawn* I suppose the fiftieth time this was discussed on BLML it had some merit. As you know perfectly well, your methods also suffer from disadvantages. >Secondly, prevention is better than cure. It is better to have >an Aussie Appeals Advisor (or an ACBL screener) give reasons >*before* the fact why an appeal might lack merit, than to have >an *after* the fact keeping of deposit by an Appeals Committee. You mean that our English Appeals Advisors are useless, and we should use Aussie ones? Is that because we use people who serve on ACs, and you and the ACBL do not? This seems an incredible post by you: perhaps you could explain it further. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From hermandw at hdw.be Mon May 23 15:05:38 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon May 23 15:05:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050523080849.030e08e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050523080849.030e08e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4291D522.5060505@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> We then accept the expert who opens on: >> >> AK10987 >> Q10987 >> 2 >> 2 >> >> but not the palooka who opens on >> >> QJ543 >> QJ32 >> Q2 >> J2 >> >> who claims he had nine hcp a 5-4 distribution *and* >> two doubletons. > > > Do we? If the regulation says that one cannot have an agreement to open > with fewer than 10 HCP, but deviations based on judgment are permitted, > then it is permissable to open with fewer than 10 HCP if one believes > that the hand is worth more than an average 10-HCP hand. The regulation > does not -- and must not -- allow only deviations based on *good* > judgment. What matters is what the player thinks, not whether they are > right. Granted, we readily accept the expert's judgment, because we > agree with it. But we do not, conversely, reject the palooka's judgment > because we disagree with it; we give them a chance to explain to us why > they chose to treat that awful hand as worth more than an average > 10-count. They will perforce spout nonsense, but if we conclude that > they genuinely believe that nonsense, we may choose to extraneously > educate them on the finer points of hand evaluation, but do not hold > them in violation of the regulation. > The problem then arises when we come accross the cheat who insists on opening all 9HCP hands and who claims that the second one is worth 10 HCP because of the two doubletons. Why should you believe the palooka but not the cheat? So the regulation will be, in fact, worthless. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Mon May 23 17:07:28 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon May 23 17:08:48 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <006501c55f75$72122010$26904c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000801c55fa9$228db070$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > From: "Ton Kooijman" > To: ; > Cc: > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 8:29 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Sven and Richard and possibly > > others that Grattan's remark doesn't cut wood > > as we say in Dutch. > > > > Reading the definition there can't be any serious > > doubt that partner should be misled in the same > > way as opponents are when a psyche is used. > > > > ton > > > +=+ Indeed this is what is believed, and what I think > was intended. However, there is nothing in the statement > in the definitions to say so; it is only not a matter of doubt > when something of your belief is added to the words > that are present. Simply 'reading the definition' is not > enough. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ "You THINK" ????? I think it is really high time this "accidental misinformation" in the laws is corrected by the WBFLC! I shall never accept being forced to read the laws of duplicate bridge like the devil reads the Bible. Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon May 23 17:13:26 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon May 23 17:14:48 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050523073930.030e1950@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000901c55fa9$f7edb670$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ................... > For these statements to be consistent with one another there must exist > a non-empty category of "special information conveyed... through... > partnership experience" which does *not* "create [an] implicit > agreement[]". Your statement above depends upon the laws being consistent with boolean algebra but we have to realize that they are not. End of argument. Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 23 17:19:39 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon May 23 17:27:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050523080849.030e08e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007501c55fab$285bfa50$f2974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Oh it is a very pretty garden, And Chingford to the eastward could be seen. Wiv a ladder and some glasses You could see to 'ackney marshes If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". - Gus Elen. (after Edgar Bateman) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > If the regulation says that one cannot have an agreement to > open with fewer than 10 HCP, but deviations based on > judgment are permitted, then it is permissable to open with > fewer than 10 HCP if one believes that the hand is worth > more than an average 10-HCP hand. The regulation does > not -- and must not -- allow only deviations based on *good* > judgment. What matters is what the player thinks, not whether > they are right. Granted, we readily accept the expert's judgment, > because we agree with it. But we do not, conversely, reject the > palooka's judgment because we disagree with it; we give them > a chance to explain to us why they chose to treat that awful > hand as worth more than an average 10-count. They will > perforce spout nonsense, but if we conclude that they > genuinely believe that nonsense, we may choose to educate > them extraneously on the finer points of hand evaluation, but > do not hold them in violation of the regulation. > +=+ If the judgement is one we would accept from an expert the palooka is entitled to use the same judgement. It is not for a director to invoke class of player when the law does not provide for it. Also, in the above I think that reference to an 'average' 10-count is incorrect, as indeed the inclusion of the words 'more than'. A regulation of this kind works best when absolute. ~ G ~ +=+ From amesquieto at fadmail.com Mon May 23 19:45:24 2005 From: amesquieto at fadmail.com (Clair Flynn) Date: Mon May 23 18:51:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Pre-approved Application #KXASI393 Message-ID: <114641.5812.amesquieto@fadmail.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.j0ys.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Brandie Beatty to be remov(ed: http://www.j0ys.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 ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 23 19:54:54 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 23 19:55:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <4291D522.5060505@hdw.be> References: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050523080849.030e08e0@pop.starpower.net> <4291D522.5060505@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050523134449.02cdbe20@pop.starpower.net> At 09:05 AM 5/23/05, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>>We then accept the expert who opens on: >>> >>>AK10987 >>>Q10987 >>>2 >>>2 >>> >>>but not the palooka who opens on >>> >>>QJ543 >>>QJ32 >>>Q2 >>>J2 >>> >>>who claims he had nine hcp a 5-4 distribution *and* >>>two doubletons. >> >>Do we? If the regulation says that one cannot have an agreement to >>open with fewer than 10 HCP, but deviations based on judgment are >>permitted, then it is permissable to open with fewer than 10 HCP if >>one believes that the hand is worth more than an average 10-HCP >>hand. The regulation does not -- and must not -- allow only >>deviations based on *good* judgment. What matters is what the player >>thinks, not whether they are right. Granted, we readily accept the >>expert's judgment, because we agree with it. But we do not, >>conversely, reject the palooka's judgment because we disagree with >>it; we give them a chance to explain to us why they chose to treat >>that awful hand as worth more than an average 10-count. They will >>perforce spout nonsense, but if we conclude that they genuinely >>believe that nonsense, we may choose to extraneously educate them on >>the finer points of hand evaluation, but do not hold them in >>violation of the regulation. > >The problem then arises when we come accross the cheat who insists on >opening all 9HCP hands and who claims that the second one is worth 10 >HCP because of the two doubletons. Why should you believe the palooka >but not the cheat? >So the regulation will be, in fact, worthless. It is true that palookas and cheats don't come with "palooka" or "cheat" written on their respective foreheads, but if the need to use our judgment to make such distinctions rendered a regulation worthless, most of our laws and regulations would be worthless. "What matters is what the player thinks... we give them a chance to explain to us why they chose" to do what they did, and they either convince us that they acted legally or they don't. Of course, we must use our judgment, along with others' (fellow TDs consulted with, or fellow AC members), to decide whether what we are hearing when we question the player is rationale or rationalization, but that is no more nor less than we are called upon to do every day as we enforce a wide variety of rules and regs involving some exercise of judgment. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon May 23 20:10:15 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon May 23 20:12:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 23, 2005, at 12:33 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Example: The highly unusually surprising and > damaging Forcing Pass systems (a.k.a. "fertiliser" > systems) are universally regulated so that their > use is restricted to some high-level events. Or, as in the ACBL, to *no* events. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 23 20:18:14 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 23 20:17:44 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <000901c55fa9$f7edb670$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050523073930.030e1950@pop.starpower.net> <000901c55fa9$f7edb670$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050523140744.02cdcc50@pop.starpower.net> At 11:13 AM 5/23/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau >................... > > For these statements to be consistent with one another there must exist > > a non-empty category of "special information conveyed... through... > > partnership experience" which does *not* "create [an] implicit > > agreement[]". > >Your statement above depends upon the laws being consistent with boolean >algebra but we have to realize that they are not. > >End of argument. We don't really need Boolean algebra; ordinary Aristotelian logic will suffice. But to say that the laws are not consistent with the rules of logic is to say that he laws are, quite literally, nonsense. If we cannot fathom the meanings of our laws, or resolve their linguistic ambiguity, using the rules of logic, we cannot know what they mean, or even might mean, other than by being willing to accept without reservation the words of whichever of our self-declared betters deigns to tell us what they mean. If that's the case, why not write the lawbook in Martian? Why even try to discuss what the laws mean? If we accept up front that logic cannot help us understand our lawbook, what are we all doing posting our hopefully logical reasoning to BLML? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon May 23 20:04:05 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon May 23 20:18:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com><6.1.1.1.0.20050523080849.030e08e0@pop.starpower.net> <007501c55fab$285bfa50$f2974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Oh it is a very pretty garden, > And Chingford to the eastward could > be seen. > Wiv a ladder and some glasses > You could see to 'ackney marshes > If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". > - Gus Elen. > (after Edgar Bateman) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:24 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > > > > > If the regulation says that one cannot have an agreement to > > open with fewer than 10 HCP, but deviations based on > > judgment are permitted, then it is permissable to open with > > fewer than 10 HCP if one believes that the hand is worth > > more than an average 10-HCP hand. The regulation does > > not -- and must not -- allow only deviations based on *good* > > judgment. What matters is what the player thinks, not whether > > they are right. Granted, we readily accept the expert's judgment, > > because we agree with it. But we do not, conversely, reject the > > palooka's judgment because we disagree with it; we give them > > a chance to explain to us why they chose to treat that awful > > hand as worth more than an average 10-count. They will > > perforce spout nonsense, but if we conclude that they > > genuinely believe that nonsense, we may choose to educate > > them extraneously on the finer points of hand evaluation, but > > do not hold them in violation of the regulation. > > > +=+ If the judgement is one we would accept from an expert > the palooka is entitled to use the same judgement. It is not for > a director to invoke class of player when the law does not > provide for it. Also, in the above I think that reference to an > 'average' 10-count is incorrect, as indeed the inclusion of the > words 'more than'. > A regulation of this kind works best when absolute. On a scale of 0-10 such a regulation rates a [-]5...... at its best. There are reasons that it rates so low. It is one thing to constrict by regulation what agreement may be permitted to exist. It is vastly different to constrict what a player may do- whatever agreements he has in effect. As for the vocabulary of bidding the restriction to 15 words is an onerous constriction itself considering that there are a billion times a trillion deals to play. It would be stupendous for a system of 15 words to achieve good effectiveness 50% of the time***. And that leaves players to wallow the other 50% if they do not deviate from system [use judgment]. But the proclivity of SO is to not only further constrict agreements of the 15 words allowed but to constrict, nay strangle, how the reduced set is used. So, in the end, the failure of the selected system must be breached by what the players do using their judgment with respect to their system. And whether or not is wrong to regulate what agreements a partnership may have, it is wrong to regulate their judgment. regards roger pewick *** I was watching the 2005US team trials. The general comment was that the standard of bridge was high during the Welland- Ekeblad final. By my count there were about 600 imps scored and by my reckoning each side left at least 400 imps on the table. > ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon May 23 20:20:22 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon May 23 20:22:34 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <20050522225931.8209.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050522225931.8209.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On May 22, 2005, at 6:59 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > It is easy to imagine a > situation in which a habitual violation may be subject > to partnership disagreement. Hm. Need an explicit disagreement be disclosed? :-) From support_refnum_65626215237180 at southtrust.com Mon May 23 21:15:00 2005 From: support_refnum_65626215237180 at southtrust.com (SOUTHTRUST) Date: Mon May 23 20:25:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Identity theft solutions [Mon, 23 May 2005 15:21:00 -0400] Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050523/14564842/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dinnerware.GIF Type: image/gif Size: 7376 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050523/14564842/dinnerware.gif From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon May 23 20:38:27 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon May 23 20:40:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050523080849.030e08e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050523080849.030e08e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6bd0b49dcaffd1bbb808b9109968573d@rochester.rr.com> On May 23, 2005, at 8:24 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Do we? If the regulation says that one cannot have an agreement to > open with fewer than 10 HCP, but deviations based on judgment are > permitted, then it is permissable to open with fewer than 10 HCP if > one believes that the hand is worth more than an average 10-HCP hand. > The regulation does not -- and must not -- allow only deviations based > on *good* judgment. What matters is what the player thinks, not > whether they are right. Agree, so far, in principle at least. > Granted, we readily accept the expert's judgment, because we agree > with it. We readily accept the expert's judgment *because he's an expert*. :-) > But we do not, conversely, reject the palooka's judgment because we > disagree with it; we give them a chance to explain to us why they > chose to treat that awful hand as worth more than an average 10-count. > They will perforce spout nonsense, but if we conclude that they > genuinely believe that nonsense, we may choose to extraneously educate > them on the finer points of hand evaluation, but do not hold them in > violation of the regulation. That is how it *should* work. I'm not so sure that's how it *does* work, in practice. Particularly at club level. From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon May 23 22:40:47 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon May 23 22:42:17 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050523204048.43987.qmail@web14724.mail.yahoo.com> --- Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ................... > > For these statements to be consistent with one > another there must exist > > a non-empty category of "special information > conveyed... through... > > partnership experience" which does *not* "create > [an] implicit > > agreement[]". > > Your statement above depends upon the laws being > consistent with boolean > algebra but we have to realize that they are not. > > End of argument. > It is not boolean algebra it is a plain language reading of what is written. The laws must say what they mean to be useful not mean what we want them to mean in spite of what is written. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Mon May 23 22:46:31 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon May 23 22:47:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> --- Grattan Endicott wrote: > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Oh it is a very pretty garden, > And Chingford to the eastward could > be seen. > Wiv a ladder and some glasses > You could see to 'ackney marshes > If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". > - Gus Elen. > (after Edgar Bateman) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:24 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of > System > > > > > > If the regulation says that one cannot have an > agreement to > > open with fewer than 10 HCP, but deviations based > on > > judgment are permitted, then it is permissable to > open with > > fewer than 10 HCP if one believes that the hand is > worth > > more than an average 10-HCP hand. The regulation > does > > not -- and must not -- allow only deviations based > on *good* > > judgment. What matters is what the player thinks, > not whether > > they are right. Granted, we readily accept the > expert's judgment, > > because we agree with it. But we do not, > conversely, reject the > > palooka's judgment because we disagree with it; we > give them > > a chance to explain to us why they chose to treat > that awful > > hand as worth more than an average 10-count. They > will > > perforce spout nonsense, but if we conclude that > they > > genuinely believe that nonsense, we may choose to > educate > > them extraneously on the finer points of hand > evaluation, but > > do not hold them in violation of the regulation. > > > +=+ If the judgement is one we would accept from an > expert > the palooka is entitled to use the same judgement. > It is not for > a director to invoke class of player when the law > does not > provide for it. Also, in the above I think that > reference to an > 'average' 10-count is incorrect, as indeed the > inclusion of the > words 'more than'. > A regulation of this kind works best when > absolute. > ~ Who does it work best for? It does not work best for the players when their judgement says that hand A is worth an opening bid and hand B is not and then they check and find that hand A only has 9 'whatever type points' but hand B has the requisit 10 'whatever type points'. The problem is that the regulation is based on a particular form of judgement. It is a form of judgement that every player does not necessarily use. It should be fundamental to our game that a player can use his own judgement. After all the game is a game of judgement. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From svenpran at online.no Mon May 23 23:29:57 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon May 23 23:31:19 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050523140744.02cdcc50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c55fde$91b5b3f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >................... > > > For these statements to be consistent with one another > > > there must exist a non-empty category of > > > "special information conveyed... through... > > > partnership experience" which does *not* > > > "create [an] implicit agreement[]". > > > >Your statement above depends upon the laws being consistent with boolean > >algebra but we have to realize that they are not. > > > >End of argument. > > We don't really need Boolean algebra; ordinary Aristotelian logic will > suffice. But to say that the laws are not consistent with the rules of > logic is to say that he laws are, quite literally, nonsense. If we > cannot fathom the meanings of our laws, or resolve their linguistic > ambiguity, using the rules of logic, we cannot know what they mean, or > even might mean, other than by being willing to accept without > reservation the words of whichever of our self-declared betters deigns > to tell us what they mean. If that's the case, why not write the > lawbook in Martian? Why even try to discuss what the laws mean? If we > accept up front that logic cannot help us understand our lawbook, what > are we all doing posting our hopefully logical reasoning to BLML? We cannot expect that the laws of duplicate contract bridge have been written so that the different parts of the laws cover non-overlapping situations without any "holes" between them. Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 23 23:45:45 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue May 24 00:28:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "Oh it is a very pretty garden, And Chingford to the eastward could be seen. Wiv a ladder and some glasses You could see to 'ackney marshes If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". - Gus Elen. (after Edgar Bateman) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > --- Grattan Endicott > wrote: > > > > > A regulation of this kind works best when > > absolute. > > ~ > > Who does it work best for? > +=+ Oh, the regulating body and the director, of course. ~ G ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Tue May 24 01:30:13 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue May 24 01:31:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Has anyone considered that it may work best for the game of bridge, and the players? Shame, shame. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Oh it is a very pretty garden, > And Chingford to the eastward could > be seen. > Wiv a ladder and some glasses > You could see to 'ackney marshes > If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". > - Gus Elen. > (after Edgar Bateman) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:46 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > > > > > --- Grattan Endicott > > wrote: > > > > > > > A regulation of this kind works best when > > > absolute. > > > ~ > > > > Who does it work best for? > > > +=+ Oh, the regulating body and the director, > of course. ~ G ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 24 01:41:36 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 24 01:43:17 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <20050523204048.43987.qmail@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows asserted: >>>The laws must say what they mean to be useful not mean >>>what we want them to mean in spite of what is written. Eric Landau asserted: >>For these statements to be consistent with one another >>there must exist a non-empty category of "special >>information conveyed... through...partnership experience" >>which does *not* "create [an] implicit agreement[]". Grattan Endicott noted: >+=+ I am conditioned at the moment to read the text of >any law with mistrust, a question what some struggling >TD in the wilds of Belgium might make of it. One of the >elephant traps is to think that the words say what we >think they say because we are conditioned by practice. >I look in particular for questions raised by Directors >because they are face-to-face with a need for answers. > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills asserts: It is truth universally acknowledged, that a singularly poorly written 1997 Lawbook must be in want of a careful revision. But, until that revision is published, how should the current poorly written 1997 Lawbook be pragmatically interpreted at-the-table by a TD? If a TD chooses to Burrow aboard a Landau with a fringe on top, it may be a beautiful morning for pedants, but complaints from the other players will rise as high as an elephant's eye. On the other hand, even the Laws pedant David Stevenson has pragmatically supported the idea that an at-the-table ruling by a TD should be informed by a common-sensical appreciation of the intentions of the Law makers. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue May 24 04:07:43 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue May 24 04:08:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050522193732.18911.qmail@web14725.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <018f01c56005$5f851f70$189468d5@James> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > Has BLML degenerated to pet animals taking positions > on our game? Or are their owners afraid to take > responsibility for the content of those messages? > Seems to me that there may be some misplaced humor > (or at least an attempt at humor). Oh well, why be > forthright when it's so easy to be funny? [Bridge Law is a Cabaret - Nigel] How can they open such rubbish Most players would chuck in the bin? They're clever, they're smart, they write rulebooks Don't rate breaking the law a sin (like I do) Ferdinand madly opens a Dog, A Seven count satisfies Mystic Mog, A Heartless Yarborough unalloyed? -- De cunning Whale opens de void. When they're bidding together We sneer when they "psyche" such a hand, But under eighteen, rules don't apply! Why can't we all understand? I understand your abjection, I grant you the problem's not small. But if you could see it through their eyes ... It wouldn't seem cheating at all! From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue May 24 04:19:04 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue May 24 04:20:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System Message-ID: <01cf01c56006$f574a5e0$189468d5@James> [slightly improved version] [WILLIAM SCHODER] > Has BLML degenerated to pet animals taking positions > on our game? Or are their owners afraid to take > responsibility for the content of those messages? > Seems to me that there may be some misplaced humor > (or at least an attempt at humor). Oh well, why be > forthright when it's so easy to be funny? [Bridge Law is a Cabaret - Nigel] How can they open such rubbish Most players would chuck in the bin? They're clever, they're smart, they write rulebooks Don't rate law-breaking a sin (like I do) Ferdinand madly opens a Dog, A Seven count satisfies Mystic Mog, A Heartless Yarborough unalloyed? -- De cunning Whale opens de void. When they're bidding together We sneer when they "psyche" such a hand, But under eighteen, rules don't apply! Why can't we all understand? I understand your abjection, I grant you the problem's not small. But if you could JUDGE it through their eyes ... It wouldn't seem cheating at all! From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue May 24 05:01:26 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue May 24 05:02:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System References: Message-ID: <01ec01c5600c$e0caac60$189468d5@James> Many players regard System Restrictions as arbitrary, petty, ambiguous, inconsistent and plain stupid; but the few of of us who have read them, try to comply with them, in letter and spirit. Such players would be shocked by the legal experts in BLML who employ their superior "judgement" to ride teams of coaches and horses through these regulations! Is that really fair? In the circumstances, I hope that law-makers seriously reconsider the simplifying proposal that would remove 99& of these problems: Allow only two levels of competition: A. Simple system: The sponsor specifies a convention card for a standard published system that all players must use. They may not add conventions but may delete those that they don't want to play. Only those (natural) substiturtes are disclosable (i.e. alert or whatever) No treatments. Sponsor has option to ban psyches. B. Anything goes: Forcing pass, random calls, encrypted signals, psychic contols (like Drury), even the dreaded Multi! Full convention card and system notes (or book) are essential. Disclose (e.g. alert) any departure from the "standard" system. From petasos at doramail.com Tue May 24 06:35:16 2005 From: petasos at doramail.com (Hilda Purcell) Date: Tue May 24 05:38:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Save hundreds every month on 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.j0ys.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Francesca Williams to be remov(ed: http://www.j0ys.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 Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue May 24 05:52:57 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue May 24 05:53:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <000601c55ddd$8c7f8490$109868d5@James> <002101c55ed3$e18cf930$917f893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <023d01c56014$130f4f30$189468d5@James> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Alternatively, in defence of Burn, one may substitute > 'ruddy dud book' with 'ruddy good book'. It is, after > all, such morality as we have for now. I believe in > government according to law; but I maintain that the > law has to be set in unarguable terms, which countless > threads bear witness is not the case currently. We are > trying to do better and there is in existence now a book > of A4 dimensions, 14 millimetres thick, representing the > product in draft of three years' internet deliberations > and numerous face-to-face meetings. To quote our > chairman, "we now have what I said we would have-- > a viable set of Laws rewritten in what is to me clear > language and incorporating some agreed changes and > improvements. They are there, ready to be promulgated." > His target, and mine, is to deliver to the Executive in > Estoril. But I was wrong to suggest this target is > shared by all the subcommittee. It transpires that > individual members have not gained all the ground they > wish to occupy and we are to go on talking. Those who > believe that, except for further work on the contested > claims law and a few marginal or subliminal adjustments, > the job is done, are feeling frustrated, but it seems > 'tis we 'are the dreamers of dreams' so, is it > unreasonable that we wonder in the vein of William > Morris, why we should 'strive to set the crooked > straight?' Wearily, but not conceding, we talk on - > hoping beyond hope that we are not to go over yet again > ground that we have already covered ad nauseam. > I say this much in response to CTDs and others who ask > me about progress. Don't hold your breath. [Nigel] Thank you Grattan, for such a frank progress report! I agree with Grattan that The law-book is a great book although I do wish it were a little more clear, simple, objective, and comprehensive. David Burn advocates sticking to the letter and spirit if the law. I reckon many players agree with him. Anyway, I approve of his approach. Please, Grattan, don't be hard on the "individuals who have not gained all the ground they want to occupy" (:presumably they take a different stand from yours:). We have waited many years for a new edition of the laws. Most players woudl not grudge a few more months to make the best job possible. It would be different if you were prepared to issue interim editions to correct anomalies. As it is, for many of us, the resulting laws, warts and all, will be fixed for the rest of our lives! At a minimum, I hope the new law book will resolve the interminable disputes about interpretaion on BLML. For example, one that puzzled me: Is it legal to lead to the next trick before the cards of the current trick are turned over? My interpretation was No. Most BLMLers disagreed with me. (:I suspect that some opinions may have been tainted by the fact that such a lead may have helped the USA to win a Bermuda Bowl:) Anyway the new law-book should clearly resolve such basic points. Anyway my doggerel was just a pathetic attempt at humour - no offence pretence of profundity intended. Final version: {Nigel - after Kipling] Now this is the Law of the Bungle, As clear as a muddy flood brook: Mad Dog and Cat use their "judgement"; Burn rules by the ruddy dud* book. [* or "good" as the case may well be] From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 24 00:36:30 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue May 24 08:57:16 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again References: <000001c55fde$91b5b3f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000401c5602d$0c435020$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* " Two heads are better than one." * ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:29 PM Subject: RE: [blml] I did it again Eric Landau > > >................... > > If we accept up front that logic cannot help us > > understand our lawbook, what are we all doing > > posting our hopefully logical reasoning to BLML? > > We cannot expect that the laws of duplicate contract > bridge have been written so that the different parts > of the laws cover non-overlapping situations without > any "holes" between them. > > Sven > +=+ I have rarely found that a law has more than two potential meanings. You could almost toss a coin for it*. :-( ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Tue May 24 09:34:40 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue May 24 09:34:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4292D910.9060607@hdw.be> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Has anyone considered that it may work best for the game of bridge, and the > players? > Shame, shame. > Well, I actually believe it does. If a regulation says you cannot open (systemically) on less than 10 HCP, then I believe it is better on players that the regulation states that you cannot open on 10HCP, rather than saying that you can also open on 9HCP provided there is judgment involved. Whose judgment? the players will ask. Some will pass something they want to open, only to see their neighbour opening the same and getting away with it. Considering that the players may not like the regulation, but will follow it nevertheless, I'm certain manuy players will prefer strict and easy regulations to loose, unexplainable ones. > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 5:45 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > > >>from Grattan Endicott >>grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >>[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >>******************************* >>"Oh it is a very pretty garden, >>And Chingford to the eastward could >> be seen. >> Wiv a ladder and some glasses >> You could see to 'ackney marshes >> If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between". >> - Gus Elen. >> (after Edgar Bateman) >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Wayne Burrows" >>To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >>Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:46 PM >>Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System >> >> >> >>>--- Grattan Endicott >>>wrote: >>> >>>> A regulation of this kind works best when >>>>absolute. >>>> ~ >>> >>>Who does it work best for? >>> >> >>+=+ Oh, the regulating body and the director, >> of course. ~ G ~ +=+ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Tue May 24 09:46:14 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue May 24 09:46:06 2005 Subject: [blml] interpretation of L23 Message-ID: <4292DBC6.8020907@hdw.be> The bidding starts: W N E 1He 2NT 2He After the TD has explained the possibilities, East bids 3NT, silencing his partner. The bidding continues: W N E S 1He 2NT 3NT 4Cl pass pass dble pass pass pass The TD wants to apply L23. However, this says: "when ... compel ... partner to pass at his next turn, if ... the offender, at the time ... could have known that the enforcing pass would be likely to damage ..." Here, it is not THE enforcing pass (the first one, as referred to higher in the article) that does the damage, but rather the second enforced pass. Does L23 apply? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 24 10:03:57 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue May 24 10:11:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <000601c55ddd$8c7f8490$109868d5@James><002101c55ed3$e18cf930$917f893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <023d01c56014$130f4f30$189468d5@James> Message-ID: <005801c56037$6cb16500$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "And always keep a-hold of Nurse For fear of finding something worse." ~ Hilaire Belloc ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 4:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > Please, Grattan, don't be hard on the "individuals who have > not gained all the ground they want to occupy" (:presumably > they take a different stand from yours:). < +=+ Nothing identified as yet. The issue is whether the review of all the drafts in Istanbul produced final positions (except for language) on all the laws except for a couple.+=+ ----------------- \x/-------------------- > At a minimum, I hope the new law book will resolve the > interminable disputes about interpretaion on BLML. > +=+ I suspect that blml will continue to find something to argue about - but there is hope that the new language will be much plainer and tighter than the old. +=+ < > For example, one that puzzled me: Is it legal to lead to the > next trick before the cards of the current trick are turned > over? My interpretation was No. Most BLMLers disagreed > with me. (:I suspect that some opinions may have been tainted > by the fact that such a lead may have helped the USA to win > a Bermuda Bowl:) > +=+ In the 1997 Code Law 57A tells us that a lead is premature if it is made before partner plays to the current trick. I am unable to identify the Bermuda Bowl situation that you mention. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 24 10:14:50 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue May 24 10:29:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292D910.9060607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "And always keep a-hold of Nurse For fear of finding something worse." ~ Hilaire Belloc ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > Has anyone considered that it may work best > > for the game of bridge, and the players? > > Shame, shame. > > > > Well, I actually believe it does. > If a regulation says you cannot open (systemically) on less than 10 > HCP, then I believe it is better on players that the regulation states > that you cannot open on 10HCP, rather than saying that you can also > open on 9HCP provided there is judgment involved. > > +=+ Whence the irony of my remark. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Tue May 24 11:19:32 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue May 24 11:19:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292D910.9060607@hdw.be> <007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be> It would be better sometimes, Grattan, if: Grattan Endicott wrote: >> > +=+ Whence the irony of my remark. ~ G ~ +=+ > you clearly stated what your view is on some matters. Do you ascribe to the view that if a regulation forbids systems that open on less than 10 HCP, this should be interpreted as also forbidding to open on less than 10HCP (barring psyches)? Or do you believe that it is OK to use judgment and open some 9HCP hands that the player judges to be worth 10HCP? Which one is it - irony left aside for just one instant? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 24 12:58:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 24 13:00:06 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <013501c55f2c$01eb1330$129468d5@James> Message-ID: > Even if Tim never uses the knowledge imparted, most legal > experts would agree with Richard Jamse Hills that bridge > patterns in his partnership experience constitute implicit > agreements. Not if they actually read the law which states quite clearly that habitual violations *may* create implicit agreements. That they also may not is implicit in that statement. I did not say that I "never" use knowledge of partner's habits - I said that using knowledge of partner's habits would be prima-facie evidence of an implicit systemic agreement - just as making a call that obviously didn't use the knowledge would be some evidence that the bid is non-systemic. Thus, in situations where a systemic use of the bid would be contrary to regulations, I *try* to avoid using the knowledge. In situations where the usage would be legal by regulation I am free to use the knowledge. In either case I will disclose as required. Opps are entitled (in answer to questions or as otherwise required by the SO) to know my partnership experience *as well* as any agreements. Law75c says "partnership agreement or partnership experience" not "partnership agreement (including partnership experience)" so please Nigel, do not pretend that there is no difference between the two in the current laws. The duty, in any given case, of deciding whether something properly disclosed constitutes an agreement or experience must fall, in the first instance, to the TD. I'd consider a TD inept if he didn't conduct an investigation before making such a decision. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 24 12:58:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 24 13:00:11 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <006501c55f75$72122010$26904c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > Reading the definition there can't be any serious > > doubt that partner should be misled in the same > > way as opponents are when a psyche is used. > > > +=+ Indeed this is what is believed, and what I think > was intended. However, there is nothing in the statement > in the definitions to say so; it is only not a matter of doubt > when something of your belief is added to the words > that are present. Simply 'reading the definition' is not > enough. This is not a problem if disclosure rules are written/used wisely. Where relevant experience exists and is disclosed opps will be no more misled than partner anyway (indeed in some circumstances they will be better positioned since they may use the info but he may not). This business about "partner being equally misled" is, and always should be, a nonsense. If I and two other players sit down with a random stranger there is an excellent chance that I will be less misled by one of his psychs than those other players simply due to my background sensitivity. Certainly the chances of me being misled relative to the other two are independent of whether the stranger is partner or opponent. Please also note that the restriction in Law40a is against *basing* a call on a partnership understanding - not against making a call where partner is aware of the possibility of a deviation. Indeed any player who has knocked around a bit is always aware of the possibility that any call (by partner or opps) is a possible deviation from system (deliberate or otherwise). By way of example: A weak NT is opened non-vul first in hand at IMPs. Next hand (vul) doubles for penalties. The conditions are such that everybody at the table knows the next bid may well be a psych. And yet still, with a suitable hand, one psychs - not based on an understanding, not based on a futile attempt to "mislead" but in the hope that one will be able to create enough disruption that opponents' methods/judgement will come under pressure and they will do the wrong thing. Just for the record. It worked, one opp made a poor judgement under pressure, neither opp was misled for even a nano-second as to whether I might have had my first bid (although both considered it a psych not systemic). To the suggestion that they could get a ruling in their favour since my pard didn't disclose (wbf rules) the reply was along the lines of "If you think we're going to tell a TD we're too clueless to work out what was going on...It's just bridge." Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 24 13:20:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 24 13:21:30 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > On May 22, 2005, at 6:59 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > It is easy to imagine a > > situation in which a habitual violation may be subject > > to partnership disagreement. > > Hm. Need an explicit disagreement be disclosed? :-) Yes - or at least any information conveyed by partnership experience of the disagreement should be. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 24 13:20:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 24 13:21:35 2005 Subject: [blml] interpretation of L23 In-Reply-To: <4292DBC6.8020907@hdw.be> Message-ID: > The bidding starts: > W N E > 1He 2NT 2He > After the TD has explained the possibilities, East bids 3NT, silencing > his partner. The bidding continues: > W N E S > 1He 2NT 3NT 4Cl > pass pass dble pass > pass pass > > The TD wants to apply L23. > However, this says: > > "when ... compel ... partner to pass at his next turn, if ... the > offender, at the time ... could have known that the enforcing pass > would be likely to damage ..." > > Here, it is not THE enforcing pass (the first one, as referred to > higher in the article) that does the damage, but rather the second > enforced pass. If barring partner from pulling the double seems a good idea then barring partner from bidding 4H immediately over 4C is also likely to be a good idea. I'd have no problem applying L23 here on those grounds. I accept that this doesn't answer the question and that Law23 would be better if "his next" was replaced by "any subsequent" but don't think practical cases where it will make a difference will be very common. Tim From thorsted at yebox.com Tue May 24 14:26:26 2005 From: thorsted at yebox.com (Debora Barnhart) Date: Tue May 24 13:34:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Become a homeowner with low rates Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.j0ys.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Patrice Wyatt to be remov(ed: http://www.j0ys.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 24 13:52:17 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 24 13:52:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050524073701.02c663f0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:45 PM 5/23/05, Grattan wrote: >From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > --- Grattan Endicott > > wrote: > > > > > A regulation of this kind works best when > > > absolute. > > > > Who does it work best for? > >+=+ Oh, the regulating body and the director, > of course. Quite so (although I suspect Grattan thought he was being sarcastic). The principal benefit of having such regulations be absolute is that it insulates directors (and others involved, including AC members) from being perceived as biased when judgment decisions go in favor of some friend, or some expert, or, human nature being what it is, anyone at all -- any judgment decision will be perceived as creating a "winner" and a "loser". Removing the potential for bias, which inevitably engenders a perception of actual bias, is undoubtedly good for "the game" and benefits everyone, players included. Whether this outweighs the obvious benefits of allowing players scope to use their judgment in a game that is, at its best, won or lost based on the quality of that judgment is legitimately debatable, although personally I don't believe it does. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 24 14:12:36 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 24 14:11:47 2005 Subject: [blml] interpretation of L23 In-Reply-To: <4292DBC6.8020907@hdw.be> References: <4292DBC6.8020907@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050524075957.02c670e0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:46 AM 5/24/05, Herman wrote: >The bidding starts: >W N E >1He 2NT 2He >After the TD has explained the possibilities, East bids 3NT, silencing >his partner. The bidding continues: >W N E S >1He 2NT 3NT 4Cl >pass pass dble pass >pass pass > >The TD wants to apply L23. >However, this says: > >"when ... compel ... partner to pass at his next turn, if ... the >offender, at the time ... could have known that the enforcing pass >would be likely to damage ..." > >Here, it is not THE enforcing pass (the first one, as referred to >higher in the article) that does the damage, but rather the second >enforced pass. >Does L23 apply? It's awfully hard to see how. Unless East has had a peek at South's hand, how could he have known that South was likely to bid 4C (or anything else) over 3NT? Of course, that doesn't answer the generic question of whether L23 can ever apply to a second enforced pass, which can only occur if the opponents act over the bid taken subsequent to the irregularity that caused partner to be barred. Can we come up with a scenario in which an offender could have known that the opponents were likely to take an action which would result in putting him in a position in which he would stand to gain an advantage by having his partner be required to pass? I'm not at all sure we can. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Tue May 24 14:35:21 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue May 24 14:36:46 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: Message-ID: My comments are interspersed below - Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > Wayne Burrows asserted: > > >>>The laws must say what they mean to be useful not mean > >>>what we want them to mean in spite of what is written. > > Eric Landau asserted: > > >>For these statements to be consistent with one another > >>there must exist a non-empty category of "special > >>information conveyed... through...partnership experience" > >>which does *not* "create [an] implicit agreement[]". > > Grattan Endicott noted: > > >+=+ I am conditioned at the moment to read the text of > >any law with mistrust, a question what some struggling > >TD in the wilds of Belgium might make of it. One of the > >elephant traps is to think that the words say what we > >think they say because we are conditioned by practice. > >I look in particular for questions raised by Directors > >because they are face-to-face with a need for answers. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills asserts: > > It is truth universally acknowledged, that a singularly > poorly written 1997 Lawbook must be in want of a careful > revision. "UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED" BY WHOM? THE BLML? Come off it, my friend, the practice of pedantry in BLML does not destroy the present laws. HAVE YOU TAKEN A LOOK ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE 1997 AND THE 1987 LAW BOOKS? I DOUBT IT, OR YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO DEFINITE. As to a careful revision, let's see what becomes of that before digging in our spikes for further pedantry. > > But, until that revision is published, how should the > current poorly written 1997 Lawbook be pragmatically > interpreted at-the-table by a TD? > EXACTLY THE WAY THE LAW HAS BEEN INTERPRETED FOR YOU WHENEVER YOU ASKED. > NOT YOUR ARGUMENTS, YOURS OR OTHERS OPINIONS, BUT WHAT THE LAW HAS BEEN > INTERPRETED TO SAY BY THOSE WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO INTERPRET FOR THE WBF THE > WBFLC,AND THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES, AND NOT ANY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS > SELF-APPOINTED TO DO SO.. > If a TD chooses to Burrow aboard a Landau with a fringe > on top, it may be a beautiful morning for pedants, but > complaints from the other players will rise as high as an > elephant's eye. TD'S WHO GO OFF ON TANGENTS, NO MATTER HOW WELL INTENTIONED, ARE ANATHEMA TO ME. > > On the other hand, even the Laws pedant David Stevenson > has pragmatically supported the idea that an at-the-table > ruling by a TD should be informed by a common-sensical > appreciation of the intentions of the Law makers. WHO APPOINTED DAVID STEVENSON AS THE PEDANT? NEVERTHELESS HE HAS BEEN A STEADYING AND INTELLIGENT LIGHT IN THE DARK FOR THOSE WHOSE INTERESTS ARE OTHER THAN PROVIDING THE BEST GAME AVAILABLE. IT WOULD DO WELL TO FOLLOW HIS ADVICE, EVEN AFTER THE "NEW" LAWS ARE PROMULGATED. > > > Best wishes BEST WISHES > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist NAH, JUST HIGHLY EXPERIENCED IN THE LAST 50 YEARS AT ALL LEVELS OF PLAY. KOJAK. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 24 14:44:02 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 24 14:44:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be> References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292D910.9060607@hdw.be> <007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050524081934.02c632b0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:19 AM 5/24/05, Herman wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>+=+ Whence the irony of my remark. ~ G ~ +=+ >Do you ascribe to the view that if a regulation forbids systems that >open on less than 10 HCP, this should be interpreted as also >forbidding to open on less than 10HCP (barring psyches)? > >Or do you believe that it is OK to use judgment and open some 9HCP >hands that the player judges to be worth 10HCP? > >Which one is it - irony left aside for just one instant? This debate is deteriorating into nonsense. Let's see if we can get it back on track. Facts: (1) If a regulation forbids partnerships from having agreements that permit opening on less than 10 HCP, it is legal to exercise one's judgment to open on a hand with less than 10 HCP that one believes is worth as much as a good 10-HCP hand. (2) If a regulation forbids players from opening on less than 10 HCP, it is not legal to exercise one's judgment to open on a hand with less than 10 HCP even if one believes it is worth as much as a good 10-HCP hand. (3) Under the current interpretation of the laws by the WBF, an SO (or NCBO or ZO or whichever) is free to make either of these regulations as it chooses. The only legitimate debate here is which form of regulation -- or neither -- serves the best interests of the game and/or its players. One may or may not believe that the answer varies depending on the specific agreements/bids being so regulated. One may or may not believe that the answer varies depending on the SO in question. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From emu at fwi.net.au Tue May 24 14:52:19 2005 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Tue May 24 14:53:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <01ec01c5600c$e0caac60$189468d5@James> Message-ID: <001f01c5605f$6be81a60$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of GUTHRIE Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:01 PM To: BLML Subject: Re: [blml] Indirect regulation of System >A. Simple system: The sponsor specifies a convention card >for a standard published system that all players must use. >They may not add conventions but may delete those that they >don't want to play. Only those (natural) substiturtes are >disclosable (i.e. alert or whatever) >No treatments. Sponsor has option to ban psyches. >B. Anything goes: Forcing pass, random calls, encrypted >signals, psychic contols (like Drury), even the dreaded >Multi! Full convention card and system notes (or book) are >essential. Disclose (e.g. alert) any departure from the >"standard" system. Like the spirit, but no, too restrictive. Suggest you make your B a C and insert: New B: Intermediate/Complex system: The sponsor specifies a convention card for a standard published system that all players must use. They may add conventions from an 'allowed' list and may delete any that they don't want to play but must disclose all inclusions and exclusions on the card. All deviations are disclosable (i.e. alert or whatever). Only specified treatments from an 'allowed' list may be used. Sponsor cannot ban psyches. regards, Noel _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wpggkjrztod at yahoo.com Tue May 24 15:01:28 2005 From: wpggkjrztod at yahoo.com (Truman Ross) Date: Tue May 24 15:14:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Please Her Tonite MfzFW Message-ID: <10956743144732.R37489@.noc..gr> The Only Clinically Tested Penis En_Largement Products! - Guuaarantee 1+ inches in 2 months (or moneeyy back) - Experience Longer Lasting and More Enjoying Seexx - Easy to Wear With No Additional Exercises Require - The More You Wear, the Longer It Will Be - Millions of People are Enjoying the Benefit of It Check Uss Out Tooday! http://gallanted.com/extender/?ronn o-ut of mai-lling lisst: http://gallanted.com/rm.php?ronn jCQ From toddz at att.net Tue May 24 16:07:34 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue May 24 16:09:02 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42933526.7010709@att.net> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: >>Richard Hills asserts: >>It is truth universally acknowledged, that a singularly >>poorly written 1997 Lawbook must be in want of a careful >>revision. > > "UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED" BY WHOM? THE BLML? Come off it, my friend, the He's just making a joke of a quote from Jane Austen. Actually, the exact line that made me fall in love with her writing, conveniently located as the first sentence of _Pride and Prejudice_, "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." I love the way she can turn a phrase. -Todd From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 24 16:04:24 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue May 24 16:12:59 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: Message-ID: <002f01c56069$e93bf360$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "And always keep a-hold of Nurse For fear of finding something worse." ~ Hilaire Belloc ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > > Please also note that the restriction in Law40a > is against *basing* a call on a partnership > understanding - not against making a call > where partner is aware of the possibility of a > deviation. < +=+ Yes, that is absolutely right. It means that a player may not make a call which he is aware partner will read in consequence of an understanding developed out of the experience in the partnership, unless the understanding has been disclosed. If he does so it is an illegal call. If awareness is gained from his experience of the game played generally it is not a *partnership* understanding, but this does not extend to such things as psychic action after 1NT - double- ? where a substantial number of players are not given to psyching and the practice is not therefore general. The regulations of the WBF, for example, are in conformity with the law on this aspect of the game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 24 16:06:49 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue May 24 16:13:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292D910.9060607@hdw.be><007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* "And always keep a-hold of Nurse For fear of finding something worse." ~ Hilaire Belloc ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > you clearly stated what your view is on some matters. > > Do you ascribe to the view that if a regulation forbids > systems that open on less than 10 HCP, this should > be interpreted as also forbidding to open on less than > 10HCP (barring psyches)? > > Or do you believe that it is OK to use judgment and > open some 9HCP hands that the player judges to be > worth 10HCP? > > Which one is it - irony left aside for just one instant? > > -- +=+ I believe regulating bodies should say what they mean. If a regulation simply says that opening on less than 10 HCP is not permitted, for my part it does not leave scope for exercise of judgement. If the regulator intends that the minimum should be 10HCP or equivalent values the regulation should include words to this effect. Personally I think the former is more precise and efficient but it is a matter for the regulating authority, and it should certainly depend on its view of what is better for the game. So, as to the debate in this thread, my opinion is that contributors should look to the wording of the regulation - and to any parallel guidance issued to directors with the force of regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue May 24 16:15:04 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue May 24 16:15:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System Message-ID: <00c401c5606a$fbf22f00$0a9868d5@James> [Bridge Law is a Cabaret - Nigel - version 3] How can we open such rubbish Most players would chuck in the bin? We're clever, we're smart, we write rulebooks Rate breaking bad laws not a sin (like we do) Ferdinand madly opens a Dog, A Seven count satisfies Mystic Mog, A Heartless Yarborough unalloyed? -- De cunning Whale opens de void! When we're bidding together They sneer when we "psyche" such a hand, To us under eighteens, laws don't apply! Why can't they all understand? We understand your abjection, We grant you the problem's not small. But if you could judge it through our eyes ... It wouldn't seem cheating at all! From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Tue May 24 17:26:24 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Tue May 24 16:31:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Fielding or not? References: Message-ID: <007801c56074$f8baed40$f46dfa55@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fielding or not? > Nanki Poo wrote: > > > Th is is the approach that is necessary if you start with the premise > > that you know more than the EBU about how to control the English game. >IS THIS REALLY THE E B U POSITION > ISRAEL It wouldn't exactly be a challenge little pussy-cat. > ?> However just for clarification is EBU position: > a) Opps are not entitled to know what I know of partner's psychic habits. > b) I am allowed to disclose that knowledge on the CC but not required to. > c) I am allowed to disclose that knowledge via alerts if I so choose and > required to disclose in answer to questions. > > We can, I hope, take it as a given that I am neither allowed to select an > abnormal bid based on a concealed knowledge of partner's habits nor to > play an illegal system. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 24 16:31:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 24 16:32:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050524081934.02c632b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > (1) If a regulation forbids partnerships from having agreements that > permit opening on less than 10 HCP, it is legal to exercise one's > judgment to open on a hand with less than 10 HCP that one believes is > worth as much as a good 10-HCP hand. Yes it is legal to exercise one's judgement. However it would not be legal to explicitly *agree* to exercise such judgement. The scenario is sufficiently common that any exercise of judgement will (almost certainly) create an *implicit* partnership agreement as to the use of such judgement. If the TD considers there to be a (likely) implicit agreement he rules exactly as if there is an explicit agreement (obviously). So to all intents and purposes (OK each case on its merits) the rule translates as "You may not use judgement in a regular partnership." Or put another way, what evidence would a TD consider sufficient to rule "no implicit agreement" when a member of a regular partnership made such a judgement? > (2) If a regulation forbids players from opening on less than 10 HCP, > it is not legal to exercise one's judgment to open on a hand with less > than 10 HCP even if one believes it is worth as much as a good 10-HCP > hand. Such a rule could not be legal. It would restrict the Law40A right to select *any* call not based on a partnership understanding. Tim From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue May 24 16:36:26 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue May 24 16:37:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <000601c55ddd$8c7f8490$109868d5@James><002101c55ed3$e18cf930$917f893e@yourtkrv58tbs0><023d01c56014$130f4f30$189468d5@James> <005801c56037$6cb16500$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <00e501c5606d$f807f520$0a9868d5@James> > [Nigel] >> At a minimum, I hope the new law book will resolve the >> interminable disputes about interpretation on BLML. >> For example, one that puzzled me: Is it legal to lead to >> the next trick before the cards of the current trick are >> turned over? {Grattan] > +=+ In the 1997 Code Law 57A tells us that a lead is > premature if it is made before partner plays to the > current trick. I am unable to identify the Bermuda Bowl > situation that you mention. [Nigel] Yesterday, the news was that those with damaged prefrontal lobes may have difficulty recognising irony. Grattan's pronouncements would provide researchers with copious test-data :) I am sure Grattan could make a good guess at the case to which I allude :) and he does not address the question that I asked :) From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue May 24 16:55:42 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue May 24 16:56:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System References: <001f01c5605f$6be81a60$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <00fc01c56070$a9086330$0a9868d5@James> [Noel & Pamela] Like the spirit, but no, too restrictive. Suggest you make your B a C and insert: New B: Intermediate/Complex system: The sponsor specifies a convention card for a standard published system that all players must use. They may add conventions from an 'allowed' list and may delete any that they don't want to play but must disclose all inclusions and exclusions on the card. All deviations are disclosable (i.e. alert or whatever). Only specified treatments from an 'allowed' list may be used. Sponsor cannot ban psyches. [Nigel] Good stuff, Noel! I agree that the "Standard simple system" OR "Anything goes" dichotomy may be too drastic. Your suggestion adds a clear compromise that most players would appreciate. It seams reasonable but my only worry that it could get a bit complex - like the EBU rules before the Orange Book. From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Tue May 24 18:10:01 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Tue May 24 18:11:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Herman De Wael wrote: > > you clearly stated what your view is on some matters. > > > > Do you ascribe to the view that if a regulation forbids > > systems that open on less than 10 HCP, this should > > be interpreted as also forbidding to open on less than > > 10HCP (barring psyches)? > > > > Or do you believe that it is OK to use judgment and > > open some 9HCP hands that the player judges to be > > worth 10HCP? > > > > Which one is it - irony left aside for just one instant? > > > > -- >+=+ I believe regulating bodies should say what they >mean. If a regulation simply says that opening on less >than 10 HCP is not permitted, for my part it does not >leave scope for exercise of judgement. If the regulator >intends that the minimum should be 10HCP or >equivalent values the regulation should include words >to this effect. > Personally I think the former is more precise and >efficient but it is a matter for the regulating authority, >and it should certainly depend on its view of what is >better for the game. > So, as to the debate in this thread, my opinion is >that contributors should look to the wording of the >regulation - and to any parallel guidance issued to >directors with the force of regulation. >From the WBF systems policy: Definition: Average Hand: a hand containing 10 high card points (Milton Work) with no distributional values. 2.4 Brown Sticker Conventions and Treatments The following conventions or treatments are categorised as 'Brown Sticker': a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that: i) could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below average strength) AND [snip] That's a good example of a regulation which apperantly opens up for players judgement, or is it - who knows? The definition of average hand uses hcp but then adds "with no distributonal values" a concept NOT defined in the systems policy. So how are players to know which openings will be BSC or not. If you play openings from 2NT through 3S showing either 5-9 hcp and a 7 card suit in the suit above the opening bid or 10-13 hcp and the two suits below the opening bid, and you'll open 3C on KJTxx - KQTxx - xx - x, is your opening a Brown Sticker Convention or not? If you excange the HQ for the HJ? It's easy to argue that suit quality and distrubution qualify both hands, even though you've got 9 and 8 hcp. But is that what's intended in the Systems Policy? Hard to know. Regards, Harald Skj?ran > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >_______________________________________________ >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 twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 24 18:55:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 24 18:56:32 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <002f01c56069$e93bf360$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ******************************* > "And always keep a-hold of Nurse > For fear of finding something worse." > ~ Hilaire Belloc > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:58 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > > > > > > Please also note that the restriction in Law40a > > is against *basing* a call on a partnership > > understanding - not against making a call > > where partner is aware of the possibility of a > > deviation. > < > +=+ Yes, that is absolutely right. It means > that a player may not make a call which he > is aware partner will read in consequence > of an understanding developed out of the > experience in the partnership, Of course. But if partner won't "read" it either because he can't tell or because he chooses not then it isn't *based* on an understanding. If you want a law that says you may not psych if partner may be slightly more aware of the due partnership experience then write one (and get it agreed by the WBF). > unless the understanding has been disclosed. If he > does so it is an illegal call. Knowledge based on experience is disclosable (L75c, and possibly specific SO regs ). Knowledge based on experience is clearly separate from agreements (explicit or implicit) under the current laws. WBF regs require prior disclosure of such knowledge, EBU regs do not. I consider the WBF regs superior on this count. The WBF regs do not make clear that such a call is illegal if not pre-disclosed. Based purely on reading them I'd expect a transgression to be dealt with under an MI adjustment (albeit I think that it would be legal for the reg to treat it as an illegal call). In practical terms I'd reckon an MI adjustment more appropriate. > If awareness is gained from his > experience of the game played generally > it is not a *partnership* understanding, > but this does not extend to such things as > psychic action after 1NT - double- ? Huh? I know many players will psych with suitable hands after 1N-(x) at favourable - I know this whoever partner is and whether I know anything about him or not - it's part of "his general knowledge" when "he" is "me". Of course if know that my specific partner is one of that group then *that* knowledge is disclosable. Indeed in EBU land with such a partner any bid here is alertable and I would describe it as "Either a genuine suit or pard is operating (probably based on a good suit elsewhere)." This is, of course, completely legal whether one considers the bid systemic or a disclosed psych habit. Had opps been damaged by the lack of alert/explanation they would, of course, be entitled to an adjustment. Against opps who would (jokingly) enquire after 1H-(X)-1S "can he actually have S in this sequence?" and who are perfectly capable players (and psychers) in their own right the failure to alert is unlikely to cause damage (particularly when they said they knew I was operating). But this has nothing to do with Law40a. Law40a doesn't *care* what opps know. Law40a doesn't care about partner's awareness. Law40a only cares about whether one is basing the call on a partnership understanding. If, in the TDs judgement, the call is based on the hand/auction/state of match and the psycher probably doesn't give two hoots whether partner reads it or not there is probably no infraction of law40a. OTOH if the success of the psych appears likely to depend on partner "fielding" (English sense) then the TD is more likely to deem it *based* on an understanding. If the partner actually *does* field in such circumstances the TD is almost certain to determine it was *based* on a PU. > where a substantial number of players > are not given to psyching and the practice > is not therefore general. Nothing is "general" in the sense of "universal". Against some opponents the lack of alert would be seriously likely to cause damage (and might even be considered deliberate concealment). Against others, although technically required, it isn't a problem. > The regulations > of the WBF, for example, are in conformity > with the law on this aspect of the game. The regulations of the WBF are indeed compliant. They require disclosure of psychic habits on the CC, this is additional too, but not in conflict with, L75c. The psych regulations of the WBF even take care to give examples of what *sort* of psychic habits come under brown sticker regulations while also clarifying that, in general, "Subject to satisfactory disclosure [psyching] methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event." IE it is explicitly recognised that such habits do NOT automatically come under normal system regulations. The WBF regs do say "It continues to be the case that random psychics may occur as the laws allow, without warning, so long as these can no more be anticipated by the partner than by the opponents" but they say it in the context of what has gone before. I'm damn sure a WBF TD isn't going to rule against a player whose partner is better able to anticipate simply by virtue of being a better player if he judges disclosure requirements have been met. (ie having already addressed the issue of disclosing specific habits). If I have given the impression I don't like the WBF regulations I apologise. I think they are coherent, reasonably complete, and show an understanding of the key legal issues around both system and disclosure. I know I don't have any problems playing under them and I don't think I'd have any particular problems ruling under them (beyond normal judgement problems in borderline cases). OK, I have some quibbles with the wording but they are minor quibbles. The EBU regulations are, IMO, somewhat inferior to the WBF ones. Although this is partially down to their implementation/interpretation as well as their wording. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 24 22:01:44 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 24 22:00:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <001f01c5605f$6be81a60$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <01ec01c5600c$e0caac60$189468d5@James> <001f01c5605f$6be81a60$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050524154023.02a407f0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:52 AM 5/24/05, Noel wrote: >On Behalf Of GUTHRIE > > >A. Simple system: The sponsor specifies a convention card > >for a standard published system that all players must use. > >They may not add conventions but may delete those that they > >don't want to play. Only those (natural) substiturtes are > >disclosable (i.e. alert or whatever) > >No treatments. Sponsor has option to ban psyches. > > >B. Anything goes: Forcing pass, random calls, encrypted > >signals, psychic contols (like Drury), even the dreaded > >Multi! Full convention card and system notes (or book) are > >essential. Disclose (e.g. alert) any departure from the > >"standard" system. > >Like the spirit, but no, too restrictive. > >Suggest you make your B a C and insert: > >New B: Intermediate/Complex system: The sponsor specifies a convention >card >for a standard published system that all players must use. >They may add conventions from an 'allowed' list and may delete any >that they > >don't want to play but must disclose all inclusions and exclusions on the >card. All deviations are >disclosable (i.e. alert or whatever). >Only specified treatments from an 'allowed' list may be used. Sponsor >cannot >ban psyches. How about... D. Natural bidding. No standard system, but the only conventions allowed are a very short list of essentially universal ones (artificial strong 2C opening, Stayman, simple Blackwood, control-showing cue-bids, takeout doubles of opening bids, maybe a couple of others). All natural treatments are allowed, i.e. bids that show only the suit bid, but may be weak, intermediate or strong, forcing, invitational, generally non-forcing or "drop dead", as the partnership chooses. At one time there was talk of holding such events in the ACBL. The ACBL Board set up a committee which was initially charged with creating conditions of contest for a "natural bidding" game. But the committee, following its members' own agendas, instead came out with the ACBL "yellow card" system, AKA SAYC, which is far from being a "natural" system, and just barely qualifies as "bidding"; they appear to have fallen foul of the tendency prevalent among newbies to treat "natural" as synonymous with "what I'm used to". I've wondered ever since what might have happened if they had taken the idea of "a 'natural bidding' game" a bit more literally. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Tue May 24 22:58:13 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Tue May 24 22:03:44 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> Hi There should be no doubt that partner Should be as surprised as the opponents.Unfortunately partner of even an occasional psycher is not so surprised. Regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: ; Cc: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > > > > In the "I did it again" thread, Grattan Endicott revealed: > > > >>+=+ The 1997 Laws have a curious definition of > >>'psychic call' which allows that it deliberately and > >>grossly misstates honour strength or suit length, > >>but does not exclude the possibility that a psychic > >>call may be the subject of partnership agreement, > >>whereupon it becomes subject to system regulations > >>but apparently does not escape its definition as a > >>psychic call. I used to say that it ceased to be psychic > >>because I understood the phrase as signifying an > >>action of which partner can have no prior awareness. > >>However this is not quite what the definition says > >>although it is in conflict to an extent with the wording > >>of Law 40A. Maybe the subject was not thought > >>through clearly when writing the definition and has > >>been left in a slightly murky state, a feature that is > >>not unknown elsewhere in the law book. > >> > > > I agree with Sven and Richard and possibly others that Grattan's remark > doesn't cut wood as we say in Dutch. > > Reading the definition there can't be any serious doubt that partner should > be misled in the same way as opponents are when a psyche is used. > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 24 22:23:28 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 24 22:22:38 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <002f01c56069$e93bf360$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <002f01c56069$e93bf360$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050524160357.02a49cf0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:04 AM 5/24/05, Grattan wrote: >From: "Tim West-Meads" > > > Please also note that the restriction in Law40a > > is against *basing* a call on a partnership > > understanding - not against making a call > > where partner is aware of the possibility of a > > deviation. > >+=+ Yes, that is absolutely right. It means >that a player may not make a call which he >is aware partner will read in consequence >of an understanding developed out of the >experience in the partnership, unless the >understanding has been disclosed. If he >does so it is an illegal call. > If awareness is gained from his >experience of the game played generally >it is not a *partnership* understanding, >but this does not extend to such things as >psychic action after 1NT - double- ? >where a substantial number of players >are not given to psyching and the practice >is not therefore general. The regulations >of the WBF, for example, are in conformity >with the law on this aspect of the game. "General knowledge and experience" is not the same as general practice. That "a substantial number of players are not given to psyching" cannot matter. What would matter would be whether a substantial number of players were not aware that there are other players who are "given to psyching" in a particular situation. That only an insignificant fraction of the world's population are serial murderers does not prevent the fact that serial murderers do exist from being general knowledge. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 24 22:44:32 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 24 22:44:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292D910.9060607@hdw.be> <007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be> <003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net> At 10:06 AM 5/24/05, Grattan wrote: >+=+ I believe regulating bodies should say what they >mean. If a regulation simply says that opening on less >than 10 HCP is not permitted, for my part it does not >leave scope for exercise of judgement. If the regulator >intends that the minimum should be 10HCP or >equivalent values the regulation should include words >to this effect. > Personally I think the former is more precise and >efficient but it is a matter for the regulating authority, >and it should certainly depend on its view of what is >better for the game. > So, as to the debate in this thread, my opinion is >that contributors should look to the wording of the >regulation - and to any parallel guidance issued to >directors with the force of regulation. Grattan states the blitheringly obvious: if we want to know what a regulation says, read it. No wonder folks out there think we spout pedantic nonsense on BLML, if they think that's a legitimate answer "as to the debate in this thread". Yes, regulating bodies should say what they mean. Yes, a regulation that leaves no allowance for players' judgment is "more precise and efficient". Of course whether we make such regulations "should certainly depend on [our] view of what is better for the game". But some of us take this debate seriously, and have genuine opinions, possibly even worthy of being shared, on the subject of what is better for the game. Can we stop telling each other to read the rules, and get back to the real issue? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 24 23:24:33 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 24 23:23:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050524081934.02c632b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050524165600.02a4e970@pop.starpower.net> At 10:31 AM 5/24/05, twm wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > (1) If a regulation forbids partnerships from having agreements that > > permit opening on less than 10 HCP, it is legal to exercise one's > > judgment to open on a hand with less than 10 HCP that one believes is > > worth as much as a good 10-HCP hand. > >Yes it is legal to exercise one's judgement. However it would not be >legal to explicitly *agree* to exercise such judgement. The scenario is >sufficiently common that any exercise of judgement will (almost >certainly) >create an *implicit* partnership agreement as to the use of such >judgement. If the TD considers there to be a (likely) implicit agreement >he rules exactly as if there is an explicit agreement (obviously). So to >all intents and purposes (OK each case on its merits) the rule translates >as "You may not use judgement in a regular partnership." Or put another >way, what evidence would a TD consider sufficient to rule "no implicit >agreement" when a member of a regular partnership made such a judgement? In a game in which (over the long term) winning or losing depends solely on the quality of one's judgment, I don't see how concepts such as an "implicit agreement" to exercise one's judgment, or a rule that "translates" to "you may not agree to use judgment", can be meaningful. I think Herman is right about this: one has a valid agreement that an opening bid shows 10 HCP if the partnership always bids exactly as they would given that opening bidder will always hold 10 HCP, regardless of what he may actually hold in any given instance (notwithstanding that any experience suggesting the possibility that opener might hold less than 10 HCP must be disclosed). Such an agreement, even if we grant its existence, can be deviated from without being "violated" per se. > > (2) If a regulation forbids players from opening on less than 10 HCP, > > it is not legal to exercise one's judgment to open on a hand with less > > than 10 HCP even if one believes it is worth as much as a good 10-HCP > > hand. > >Such a rule could not be legal. It would restrict the Law40A right to >select *any* call not based on a partnership understanding. Well, I used to think so too. But I have learned in this forum that the WBF has formally and officially, with the full force and majesty of the law theirs to do with as they wish, stated that L40A doesn't mean what anyone reading it in ignorance of their interpretation would assume it to mean, and has told us quite unambiguously that such a rule is legal. We may disagree, but must at least thank the WBF for making it no longer necessary for SOs to employ tortured backwards illogic about "implicit agreements that illegally allow for judgment" when all they're really trying to accomplish is simply to prevent folks from playing any agreements that they don't like. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue May 24 23:38:20 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue May 24 23:39:43 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <4289DF3A.10406@hdw.be> References: <4289DF3A.10406@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e05052414382849b40e@mail.gmail.com> I'd like to focus in on an isolated comment of Herman's take it completely out of contect, and then use this to extend the conversation... Said comment actually suggests that we share some similar theories on this topic: >Only with sensible system regulations will you get psychers to admit >to the tendencies that they do have. I am in complete agreement with this comment... I might even extend it further than Herman >From my perspective, the "best" solution to this entire issue would be to permit Herman to play a new convention (Let's name it it the Herman 1H opening) in third seat. The Herman 1H opening explictly promises either a standard 1H opening OR a hand with 0-3 HCP. I an similiar fashion, I have argued in the past that most examples of "psyches" are more properly modelled as examples of mixed strategy equilibria. Zia's well known psychic cue bids clearly fall into this category. So long as the regulatory structure does not accurate describe the real worl behavior of players we're going to be faced with some exceedingly complicated problems... Personally, I have a great deal -- "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 24 23:44:46 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 24 23:44:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050524173314.02c605e0@pop.starpower.net> My thanks to Steve Willner, who wrote to me privately, pointing out that my faulty memory caused me, in my reply to Noel, to refer to SAYC when the history I recounted was actually of a somewhat later attempt by the ACBL to create a "natural" game, which was called "Classic Bridge". Otherwise, the story is as I related it. Indeed, I now recall that when "Classic Bridge" was actually played (it was introduced at an NABC and lasted only two or three days before being permanently abandoned and almost universally forgotten), it was described to me by one pair who had tried it as "just a slightly warmed-over version of the yellow card". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed May 25 01:17:02 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed May 25 01:18:26 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050524231702.12873.qmail@web14721.mail.yahoo.com> --- Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > Hi > There should be no doubt that partner Should be as > surprised as the > opponents.Unfortunately > partner of even an occasional psycher is not so > surprised. > Regards > Israel This is a fallacy that is not supported by the laws. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 25 01:40:59 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed May 25 01:41:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com><00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292D910.9060607@hdw.be><007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be><003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c560ba$26370250$1401e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > At 10:06 AM 5/24/05, Grattan wrote: > >>+=+ I believe regulating bodies should say what they >>mean. If a regulation simply says that opening on less >>than 10 HCP is not permitted, for my part it does not >>leave scope for exercise of judgement. If the regulator >>intends that the minimum should be 10HCP or >>equivalent values the regulation should include words >>to this effect. >> Personally I think the former is more precise and >>efficient but it is a matter for the regulating authority, >>and it should certainly depend on its view of what is >>better for the game. >> So, as to the debate in this thread, my opinion is >>that contributors should look to the wording of the >>regulation - and to any parallel guidance issued to >>directors with the force of regulation. > > Grattan states the blitheringly obvious: if we want to > know what a regulation says, read it. No wonder folks > out there think we spout pedantic nonsense on BLML, > if they think that's a legitimate answer "as to the debate > in this thread". Yes, regulating bodies should say what > they mean. Yes, a regulation that leaves no allowance > for players' judgment is "more precise and efficient". > Of course whether we make such regulations "should > certainly depend on [our] view of what is better for > the game". But some of us take this debate seriously, > and have genuine opinions, possibly even worthy of > being shared, on the subject of what is better for the > game. Can we stop telling each other to read the rules, > and get back to the real issue? > +=+ By all means, Eric, carry on with your own debate What I wrote was an answer to a specific question put to me in open forum. .The question was: < > "Do you ascribe to the view that if a regulation forbids > systems that open on less than 10 HCP, this should > be interpreted as also forbidding to open on less than > 10HCP (barring psyches)? > > Or do you believe that it is OK to use judgment and > open some 9HCP hands that the player judges to be > worth 10HCP?" and I answered it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schuerman at yebox.com Wed May 25 02:47:14 2005 From: schuerman at yebox.com (Heidi Godwin) Date: Wed May 25 02:00:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Instant low rates Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.j0ys.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Ulysses Phillips to be remov(ed: http://www.j0ys.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From schoderb at msn.com Wed May 25 02:07:14 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed May 25 02:08:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com><00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292D910.9060607@hdw.be><007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be><003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0><6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net> <000001c560ba$26370250$1401e150@Mildred> Message-ID: But grattan, don't you realize that you are not talking to people interested in the application of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge? This is exactly the kind of posturing and crap that goes on in BLML. God forbid you should yourself sucked into this horseshit. All it can produce reduced justification for your positions for the betterment of the LAWS: these guys are sick! Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "If we can't stamp out literature in the > country, we can at least stop it being > brought in from outside." [Evelyn Waugh] > > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 9:44 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > > > At 10:06 AM 5/24/05, Grattan wrote: > > > >>+=+ I believe regulating bodies should say what they > >>mean. If a regulation simply says that opening on less > >>than 10 HCP is not permitted, for my part it does not > >>leave scope for exercise of judgement. If the regulator > >>intends that the minimum should be 10HCP or > >>equivalent values the regulation should include words > >>to this effect. > >> Personally I think the former is more precise and > >>efficient but it is a matter for the regulating authority, > >>and it should certainly depend on its view of what is > >>better for the game. > >> So, as to the debate in this thread, my opinion is > >>that contributors should look to the wording of the > >>regulation - and to any parallel guidance issued to > >>directors with the force of regulation. > > > > Grattan states the blitheringly obvious: if we want to > > know what a regulation says, read it. No wonder folks > > out there think we spout pedantic nonsense on BLML, > > if they think that's a legitimate answer "as to the debate > > in this thread". Yes, regulating bodies should say what > > they mean. Yes, a regulation that leaves no allowance > > for players' judgment is "more precise and efficient". > > Of course whether we make such regulations "should > > certainly depend on [our] view of what is better for > > the game". But some of us take this debate seriously, > > and have genuine opinions, possibly even worthy of > > being shared, on the subject of what is better for the > > game. Can we stop telling each other to read the rules, > > and get back to the real issue? > > > +=+ By all means, Eric, carry on with your own debate > What I wrote was an answer to a specific question put > to me in open forum. .The question was: > < > > "Do you ascribe to the view that if a regulation forbids > > systems that open on less than 10 HCP, this should > > be interpreted as also forbidding to open on less than > > 10HCP (barring psyches)? > > > > Or do you believe that it is OK to use judgment and > > open some 9HCP hands that the player judges to be > > worth 10HCP?" > > and I answered it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Wed May 25 02:13:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed May 25 02:14:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050524165600.02a4e970@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > In a game in which (over the long term) winning or losing depends > solely on the quality of one's judgment, I don't see how concepts such > as an "implicit agreement" to exercise one's judgment, or a rule that > "translates" to "you may not agree to use judgment", can be > meaningful. You may be right. I, on the other hand, can see why such a rule may be considered stupid but cannot see any other way of enforcing it. I'm not going to rule differently against the honest players who admit to it being part of their agreement (eg they have agreed 1955 Acol) and those who claim "judgement" even though I know damn well they are playing 1955 Acol *by agreement*. > Well, I used to think so too. But I have learned in this forum that > the WBF has formally and officially, with the full force and majesty of > the law theirs to do with as they wish, stated that L40A doesn't mean > what anyone reading it in ignorance of their interpretation would > assume it to mean, and has told us quite unambiguously that such a rule > is legal. I don't really care what the WBF say. The laws say what they say and no amount of pretence from the WBF will change that. Should they choose to re-write the laws that is their privilege, but an "interpretation" that black is white would cut little ice in a courtroom. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed May 25 04:01:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed May 25 04:02:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jeez you're full of shit sometimes Kojak. There's plenty of poor schmuks on BLML who have to apply the laws on the ground without being able to say "They mean what I want them to - so there!" Strangely enough we actually care enough to read the damn things. Within the last few days Grattan has stated: > The Director is not permitted, by > law (40E1), to apply a system regulation in a manner > to restrict style or judgement. A regulation that purports > to do that is ultra vires. And > If a regulation simply says that opening on less > than 10 HCP is not permitted, for my part it does not > leave scope for exercise of judgement. If the regulator > intends that the minimum should be 10HCP or > equivalent values the regulation should include words > to this effect. Personally I think the former is more precise and > efficient. Obviously you support Grattan's position - but which one? Perhaps that the regulator should write regulations which preclude judgement but TD's should not enforce them since they are ultra vires? BTW, since nobody really cares, if HCP are actually defined it's "fewer" not "less" - otherwise, as non-integral values, the scope for judgement is inherent in the statement. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 25 04:01:23 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 25 04:02:54 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills paronomasia: >>>It is truth universally acknowledged, that a singularly >>>poorly written 1997 Lawbook must be in want of a careful >>>revision. Kojak replied: >>"UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED" BY WHOM? THE BLML? Come off it, >>my friend, Todd M. Zimnoch revealed: >He's just making a joke of a quote from Jane Austen. >Actually, the exact line that made me fall in love with her >writing, conveniently located as the first sentence of >_Pride and Prejudice_, "It is a truth universally >acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good >fortune must be in want of a wife." I love the way she can >turn a phrase. Richard Hills poor phrasing: >>>On the other hand, even the Laws pedant David Stevenson >>>has pragmatically supported the idea that an at-the-table >>>ruling by a TD should be informed by a common-sensical >>>appreciation of the intentions of the Law makers. Kojak quibbled: >>WHO APPOINTED DAVID STEVENSON AS THE PEDANT? Richard Hills grammatical correction: "On the other hand, even such a Laws pedant as David Stevenson..." (It takes one to know one.) :-) Kojak continued: >>NEVERTHELESS HE HAS BEEN A STEADYING AND INTELLIGENT LIGHT >>IN THE DARK FOR THOSE WHOSE INTERESTS ARE OTHER THAN >>PROVIDING THE BEST GAME AVAILABLE. IT WOULD DO WELL TO >>FOLLOW HIS ADVICE, EVEN AFTER THE "NEW" LAWS ARE >>PROMULGATED. Richard Hills full agreement: Yes, we both agree that David Stevenson is a light in the darkness, illuminating murky Laws. The core of our disagreement appears to be this issue -> Kojak condemned: >>TD'S WHO GO OFF ON TANGENTS, NO MATTER HOW WELL >>INTENTIONED, ARE ANATHEMA TO ME. Grattan Endicott noted: >>>>+=+ I am conditioned at the moment to read the text of >>>>any law with mistrust, a question what some struggling >>>>TD in the wilds of Belgium might make of it. One of >>>>the elephant traps is to think that the words say what >>>>we think they say because we are conditioned by >>>>practice. Richard Hills asks: Has the goat (greatest of all time) TD been conditioned by his vast practical experience to metamorphose into an elephant TD? :-) Anathemas do not help a struggling TD avoid a tangent. *If* the only advice available for a struggling TD is their copy of the 1997 Lawbook, *then* the gnomic wording and/or the recondite format of the 1997 Lawbook might *encourage* a struggling TD to go off on a tangent. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed May 25 04:09:16 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed May 25 04:10:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <200505242008.j4OK8BTV021175@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505242008.j4OK8BTV021175@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4293DE4C.3060507@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > How about... > > D. Natural bidding. No standard system, but the only conventions > allowed are a very short list of essentially universal ones ... > At one time there was talk of holding such events in the ACBL. The > ACBL Board set up a committee which was initially charged with creating > conditions of contest for a "natural bidding" game. But the committee, > following its members' own agendas, instead came out with... [Classic Bridge] > I've wondered ever since what > might have happened if they had taken the idea of "a 'natural bidding' > game" a bit more literally. As it happens, a group of 15 Usenet readers tackled this very problem. You can read the summary of results, including the desired features and reasoning, at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/msg/9c799324d10ae4a3?dmode=source&hl=en (It is message-id Dxp11D.Eso@cfanews.harvard.edu if the above link fails.) The summary is below. Sound like an interesting game? I think it is way better than the ACBL's "Classic Bridge;" it's up to you readers to judge whether that says more about me or about the ACBL. If you do think the result is interesting, you might also think about committees and how decisions are usually made. In brief, the proposal was to allow: Opening 2C strong and artificial; 2D response artificial Artificial 2NT negative response to strong opening two-bids Takeout doubles by second or fourth hand Bid in opponents' suit artificial and strong or showing support for partner's suit Stayman (clubs, not two-way) Blackwood Unusual notrump for minors or two lower unbid suits And consider allowing: Negative doubles Gerber over NT openings, overcalls, and 2C-2D-2NT 2NT artificial response to two-bid openings (This does not authorize artificial _rebids_ after the 2NT.) Double jump by responder as splinter raise Blackwood variations (RKC, DOPI), grand slam force, etc. Lead-directing doubles (perhaps of slams only.) NT bids over takeout double as artificial raise of opener's suit Redouble over takeout double to show misfit with opener. Western cue in opponents' suit Fourth suit artificial (perhaps required to be game forcing) Notably prohibited would be: Transfers 2NT and 3NT responses as artificial raise of major Michaels or other two-suited overcalls (except UNT) SOS redoubles Herbert negative to strong opening two-bids Two-way Stayman 1C artificial and strong, 1D negative 2NT response to one-bid as artificial game force Splinter raises other than double jumps by responder Other artificial methods over 1NT openings, either ours or opponents' Lebensohl Drury From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed May 25 04:13:28 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed May 25 04:14:40 2005 Subject: [blml] interpretation of L23 In-Reply-To: <200505241442.j4OEgmck022452@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505241442.j4OEgmck022452@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4293DF48.4020309@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > Here, it is not THE enforcing pass (the first one, as referred to > higher in the article) that does the damage, but rather the second > enforced pass. > Does L23 apply? It doesn't really matter; there's always L72B1 if you think L23 doesn't apply. In practice, it seems hard to imagine how an IB'er "could have known" that silencing partner on the second round but not the first would be likely to damage opponents, but if the situation comes up, I can't imagine failing to adjust. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed May 25 04:34:05 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed May 25 04:36:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Fox or rabbit? In-Reply-To: <200505191423.j4JEN0jg020828@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505191423.j4JEN0jg020828@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4293E41D.1010308@cfa.harvard.edu> >>South holds KT7 AK4 KJ98 765, none vulnerable, IMPs. North deals and >>opens 1D, East bids 2NT (hearts and clubs), and South bids 2H (uh oh). >>The TD reads out L27B2, West does not accept the IB, North is barred, >>and South punts 3NT which makes for a good score. > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > There are two possible routes to L72b1. The first, via L23, seems > inappropriate because I cannot see any reason to wish to bar partner on > this hand. The second is slightly more intricate - would the explanation > of what 3H *would have been* increase the attractiveness of a H lead > relative to a C vs 3N? An interesting question. I think you also have to weigh the probability that 3NT is not the right contract. After all, opener is unlimited, and 6D or even 7D could be making. And of course 3NT may be hopeless even withough an initial club. > I'm going to be investigating the system/agreements in either case as my > mind is not made up but my instinct is to go direct to L72b1 for the > initial infraction. As noted in another thread, I don't think it matters whether you use L23 or 72B1. The important question is whether the conditions are met. See below for system agreements; 3H appears to discourage a spade lead. > I suspect South is a villain and I'll be recording > this for reference - but a lucky rabbit will get the same adjustment I very much like the sentiment about the lucky rabbit. So far, no one thinks South's reputation matters. Is that unanimous? Here's some more info on the NS system. Does it change your view? Double would have been penalty suggestion. Most hands with exactly four spades and poor diamond support would start with double. 3C would have been a diamond raise, forcing only to 3D but unlimited. 3D would have been natural, purely competitive, not really expecting to make unless opener has extras. 3H would have shown typically five or more spades and been game-forcing; opener would bid naturally (including possibly 3NT or diamonds). 3S would have been natural, non-forcing. 3NT would have been to play, tending to be unbalanced with a source of tricks (else double first). These are all fairly popular agreements among "scientific" pairs in our area. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed May 25 04:48:04 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed May 25 04:49:17 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes In-Reply-To: <200505191416.j4JEGhlO020210@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505191416.j4JEGhlO020210@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4293E764.80007@cfa.harvard.edu> >>Suppose a defender hesitates with a singleton, and declarer is deceived. >>Today there's an essentially automatic score adjustment. > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > The other side of the coin is "bad new days", with litigious Secretary > Birds gaining a double shot at a good score after receiving AI from > their bunny opponents. > > If a Secretary Bird's deduction from AI is correct, the Secretary Bird > gets a top. > > If a Secretary Bird's deduction from AI is incorrect, they call the TD, > the TD adjusts the score pursuant to Law 73F2, and the Secretary Bird > still gets a top. Richard is exaggerating. One of those two options must be the normal play, which will score average. Or if half the field chooses each one, the Secretary Bird will score 75% either way, not a top. That seems fair enough to me: why should players who hesitate with singletons get good scores? But one can certainly imagine giving a L12C3 weighted score. Whatever result one assigns, I see no reason not to give the same one to both sides. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed May 25 04:53:09 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed May 25 04:54:20 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes In-Reply-To: <200505202043.j4KKhCx5004224@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505202043.j4KKhCx5004224@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4293E895.7050707@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "GUTHRIE" > "Of course" I think there should be a limit on each side's > total thinking time. Doesn't everybody? A properly timed > game would ensure you fined the side(s) responsible. Remind me never to claim if this goes into effect. And of course I'll be sure to play unusual methods in both bidding and on defense. And will false-card as often as possible, even at the risk of misleading partner. Opponents will have to use up their allotted time wondering what I've done. The above are just a few quick thoughts. I look forward to reading all the texts that will be written explaining how to put the opponents into time trouble. :-) :-) :-) for the sarcasm-impaired. From craigstamps at comcast.net Wed May 25 04:58:34 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Wed May 25 04:59:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com><00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292D910.9060607@hdw.be><007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be><003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0><6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net><000001c560ba$26370250$1401e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <001801c560d5$a40d4200$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Kojak for heaven's sake, take a blood pressure pill before you explode :-) You are far too fine a guy to let this upset you so much. Besides, this is Eric who has been making a large number of constructive suggestions, a large number of them rather palatable, for at least the past 5 years. You know very well that blml is not meant to be a super "Duplicate Decisions" alone, it is also a forum for discussing and suggesting how the laws might be improved. What better time than now to actively discuss such matters, in front of at least some of the fine gentlemen who are about to promulgate the Laws for the next decade or so. Surely in your illustrious career as director and interpreter of laws you might have wished for some improvements, and surely you are trying to get them implemented at this time. Let us allow that amidst the dross there may indeed be gold nuggets? If you truly think all the other blml contributors are sick and all their comments naught but posturing and crap I fear you have taken an overdose of Rogaine. Please take the antidote and concede that a lot of us are here in the hopes of bequeathing from our experiences a legacy of improved law and regulation that may reverse the decline of our most excellent game. Grattan has the right approach...even a blind pig roots up a turnip sometimes, and the elite lawmakers have no monopoly on good ideas. It is too easy to get caught up in the pomp and circumstance, we need the unprofessional view sometimes to see that the emperor is not garbed so royally. Craig Senior ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Grattan" Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > But grattan, don't you realize that you are not talking to people > interested in the application of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge? This is > exactly the kind of posturing and crap that goes on in BLML. God forbid > you should yourself sucked into this horseshit. All it can produce > reduced justification for your positions for the betterment of the LAWS: > these guys are sick! > > Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:40 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > >> >> Grattan Endicott> [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ********************************* >> "If we can't stamp out literature in the >> country, we can at least stop it being >> brought in from outside." [Evelyn Waugh] >> >> ============================= >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eric Landau" >> To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 9:44 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System >> >> >> > At 10:06 AM 5/24/05, Grattan wrote: >> > >> >>+=+ I believe regulating bodies should say what they >> >>mean. If a regulation simply says that opening on less >> >>than 10 HCP is not permitted, for my part it does not >> >>leave scope for exercise of judgement. If the regulator >> >>intends that the minimum should be 10HCP or >> >>equivalent values the regulation should include words >> >>to this effect. >> >> Personally I think the former is more precise and >> >>efficient but it is a matter for the regulating authority, >> >>and it should certainly depend on its view of what is >> >>better for the game. >> >> So, as to the debate in this thread, my opinion is >> >>that contributors should look to the wording of the >> >>regulation - and to any parallel guidance issued to >> >>directors with the force of regulation. >> > >> > Grattan states the blitheringly obvious: if we want to >> > know what a regulation says, read it. No wonder folks >> > out there think we spout pedantic nonsense on BLML, >> > if they think that's a legitimate answer "as to the debate >> > in this thread". Yes, regulating bodies should say what >> > they mean. Yes, a regulation that leaves no allowance >> > for players' judgment is "more precise and efficient". >> > Of course whether we make such regulations "should >> > certainly depend on [our] view of what is better for >> > the game". But some of us take this debate seriously, >> > and have genuine opinions, possibly even worthy of >> > being shared, on the subject of what is better for the >> > game. Can we stop telling each other to read the rules, >> > and get back to the real issue? >> > >> +=+ By all means, Eric, carry on with your own debate >> What I wrote was an answer to a specific question put >> to me in open forum. .The question was: >> < >> > "Do you ascribe to the view that if a regulation forbids >> > systems that open on less than 10 HCP, this should >> > be interpreted as also forbidding to open on less than >> > 10HCP (barring psyches)? >> > >> > Or do you believe that it is OK to use judgment and >> > open some 9HCP hands that the player judges to be >> > worth 10HCP?" >> >> and I answered it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 25 05:55:42 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 25 05:57:14 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes References: <200505202043.j4KKhCx5004224@cfa.harvard.edu> <4293E895.7050707@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <020b01c560dd$ba04c1c0$099868d5@James> [Steve Willner on a Timed game] > Remind me never to claim if this goes into effect. > And of course I'll be sure to play unusual methods > in both bidding and on defense. And will false-card as > often as possible, even at the risk of misleading > partner. Opponents will have to use up their allotted > time wondering what I've done. The above are just a few > quick thoughts. I look forward to reading all the texts > that will be written explaining how to put the opponents > into time trouble. :-) :-) :-) for the sarcasm-impaired. [Nigel restating the obvious, as usual] Many Bridge competitions already impose time limits. Without clocks, however, they can be unfair. If you know a simple way to take all the tricks that will save time, then present law imposes a duty to claim. Those who deliberately flout the law are cheats :) I grant you, Steve, that the trend in Bridge laws is to encourage cheating (: Manifestly, unusual methods, False-carding and so on are legitimate ploys -- like playing for complications at chess to confuse opponents and put them in time-trouble. Automatic time-limits may also save time on Director-calls and appeals -- many of which are currently about the use of unauthorised information from tempo-breaks. Swings and roundabouts. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed May 25 06:14:24 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed May 25 06:16:37 2005 Subject: [blml] split score? Message-ID: <2ad96105a56e5ac9432cbcec49ecd338@rochester.rr.com> I ran across this at today's club game (31 tables, a record :): EW are novices, NS are experienced intermediates. The bidding went: W N E S 1NT 2C 2D P 2NT 3S P P 3NT all pass 2C and 3S were natural. 2D was intended by east as a transfer to hearts, but taken by West as natural. West has 4 hearts, btw. After the play, NS called the Director, South saying that if he had known that 2D was a transfer he would have doubled for the lead, and North saying that she would (of course) had led a diamond in that case. EW each explained their understanding of their bidding as above. Neither had a convention card. As the cards lay, I'm told (I did not see the hands) 11 tricks are cold in both 3NT and 4H. As *everyone* else in the field was in 4H, this EW got a top. NS were not happy. The TD adjusted the score for NS to "Average" and let the EW score stand. When I asked what law she used, I got a confused look, and a long discussion that went nowhere. Questions: Is a split score at all reasonable in this case? What is the correct ruling? What laws apply? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 25 06:17:28 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 25 06:18:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <4293DE4C.3060507@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>D. Natural bidding. No standard system, but the only conventions >>allowed are a very short list of essentially universal ones ... >> >>At one time there was talk of holding such events in the ACBL. The >>ACBL Board set up a committee which was initially charged with >>creating conditions of contest for a "natural bidding" game. But >>the committee, following its members' own agendas, [snip] >>it was described to me by one pair who had tried it as "just a >>slightly warmed-over version of the yellow card". [snip] >>I've wondered ever since what might have happened if they had taken >>the idea of "a 'natural bidding' game" a bit more literally. Steve Willner: >As it happens, a group of 15 Usenet readers tackled this very problem. [snip] >Conventions that should be allowed: > >(There was virtually no controversy about the following, though not >everyone mentioned everything. I think a lot of people don't even >realize that takeout doubles are conventional.) [snip] Richard Hills: By legalising the ancient convention "takeout doubles", and by legalising other ancient conventions, such as Stayman, the committee convened by Steve Willner followed its members' own agendas. It created yet another slightly warmed-over (albeit idiosyncratic) version of the yellow card. The late American champion B.J. Becker was successful throughout his career, despite him being recalcitrant in adopting the pitiful crutch of the Stayman convention. So, a truly interesting experiment would be to create a viable system with *zero* conventions. Such a creation is theoretically possible, since the Laws have this caveat "an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed May 25 06:18:06 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed May 25 06:20:17 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> <02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> Message-ID: <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> On May 24, 2005, at 4:58 PM, Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > There should be no doubt that partner Should be as surprised as the > opponents. Unfortunately partner of even an occasional psycher is not > so surprised. I have never partnered Zia, but I am aware that he has a reputation for psyching. That, btw, is the extent of my awareness. Are you suggesting that because he has that reputation, if I ever do partner him I should be required to say so in some auctions? Which ones? From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 25 06:57:23 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 25 06:57:23 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV><02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001401c560e6$3e055a90$069468d5@James> [Ed Reppert] > I have never partnered Zia, but I am aware that he has a > reputation for psyching. That, btw, is the extent of my > awareness. Are you suggesting that because he has that > reputation, if I ever do partner him I should be > required to say so in some auctions? Which ones? [Nigel] I've never played with or against Zia, but I'm told he is less secretive about his psyching proclivities than most BLMLers appear to be. His psychig habits seem to be declared on his convention card and system notes. (: I presume that you'll agree a system and use identical convention cards :). Hence, you should have no problem as to which calls to alert as possible psyches. I dare say, if, for example, on the first board in an individual, then your disclosure obligation would be satisfied if you told opponents that partner has a reputatuon for psyching. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 25 08:20:26 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 25 09:28:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Fox or rabbit? In-Reply-To: <4293E41D.1010308@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >Here's some more info on the NS system. Does it change your view? [snip] >3C would have been a diamond raise, forcing only to 3D but unlimited. [snip] >These are all fairly popular agreements among "scientific" pairs in >our area. Richard Hills: No, it confirms my original view that South could *not* "have known, at the time" that silencing partner would be advantageous, given that South had a scientific method available to investigate slam. So, in my opinion, an infraction of Law 72B1 (Infraction of Law - Adjusted Score) did not occur. In my opinion, an infraction of Law 72B2 (Infraction of Law - Intentional) may _theoretically_ have occurred. Hypothetical example: South overheard another pair discussing the board, with one saying, "3NT was the best spot, but impossible to bid in our scientific style". But the evidence provided so far is insufficient for a TD to rule that that hypothetical intentional infraction of Law had actually happened. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Wed May 25 09:09:56 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Wed May 25 09:29:38 2005 Subject: [blml] split score? In-Reply-To: <2ad96105a56e5ac9432cbcec49ecd338@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: >Ed Reppert wrote: > >I ran across this at today's club game (31 tables, a record :): > >EW are novices, NS are experienced intermediates. > >The bidding went: > >W N E S >1NT 2C 2D P >2NT 3S P P >3NT all pass > >2C and 3S were natural. 2D was intended by east as a transfer to hearts, >but taken by West as natural. West has 4 hearts, btw. After the play, NS >called the Director, South saying that if he had known that 2D was a >transfer he would have doubled for the lead, and North saying that she >would (of course) had led a diamond in that case. EW each explained their >understanding of their bidding as above. Neither had a convention card. As >the cards lay, I'm told (I did not see the hands) 11 tricks are cold in >both 3NT and 4H. As *everyone* else in the field was in 4H, this EW got a >top. NS were not happy. The TD adjusted the score for NS to "Average" and >let the EW score stand. When I asked what law she used, I got a confused >look, and a long discussion that went nowhere. > >Questions: > >Is a split score at all reasonable in this case? >What is the correct ruling? >What laws apply? Since EW has no CC and W's explanation of E's 2D bid doesn't fit his hand, one should rule MI. If it's correct that 11 tricks are cold in both 3NT and 4H, then NS has not been damadged by this MI. Thus result stands, 3NT+2. Laws applied: L21B, L40C, L75A, L75C 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 hermandw at hdw.be Wed May 25 09:34:26 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed May 25 09:34:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42942A82.50101@hdw.be> Tim may not have gathered that Eric wrote three types of regulation, one of which must be the adopted one. When he rants against both (1) and (2) then he puts the regulation writers into a very difficult position. Let's look at what he says about (2): Tim West-Meads wrote: > Eric wrote: > > >>(2) If a regulation forbids players from opening on less than 10 HCP, >>it is not legal to exercise one's judgment to open on a hand with less >>than 10 HCP even if one believes it is worth as much as a good 10-HCP >>hand. > > > Such a rule could not be legal. It would restrict the Law40A right to > select *any* call not based on a partnership understanding. > Tim falls into a common trap. He equates a rule of type (2) with a rule that breaks L40A. But L40A is broken all the time, if you forget to read it in full. L40A does NOT say: you can bid what you like, it adds "provided it is not based on PU". A rule of type (2) simply states that you are not allowed to use judgment to equate 9 points to 10, or rather that if you do so, your call will be judged to be based on partnership understanding, so that the director will be able to not have to use L40A and rule against you. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed May 25 09:57:49 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed May 25 09:57:34 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D Message-ID: <42942FFD.6050702@hdw.be> The bidding goes: 1NT pass 3NT pass pass pass pass 1Sp read law 35D and tell me if there are lead penalties. Is this a free road to the lead-directing bid? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From david.j.barton at lineone.net Wed May 25 10:35:32 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Wed May 25 10:34:59 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: <42942FFD.6050702@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002e01c56104$b70db720$0307a8c0@david> Wrong Law. Try L39B. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 8:57 AM Subject: [blml] L35D > The bidding goes: > > 1NT pass 3NT pass > pass pass pass 1Sp > > read law 35D and tell me if there are lead penalties. > Is this a free road to the lead-directing bid? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed May 25 10:57:36 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed May 25 10:57:37 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <002e01c56104$b70db720$0307a8c0@david> References: <42942FFD.6050702@hdw.be> <002e01c56104$b70db720$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <42943E00.9050308@hdw.be> David Barton wrote: > Wrong Law. > > Try L39B. > I did. On the fourth pass. It redirected me to L35D. Which tells that the pass - and all subsequent bids - are cancelled without penalty. Since the 1Sp is cancelled I cannot apply L39B on that one anymore. > > ***************************************** > david.j.barton@lineone.net > ***************************************** > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 8:57 AM > Subject: [blml] L35D > > >> The bidding goes: >> >> 1NT pass 3NT pass >> pass pass pass 1Sp >> >> read law 35D and tell me if there are lead penalties. >> Is this a free road to the lead-directing bid? >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://www.hdw.be >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/2005 >> >> > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Wed May 25 11:02:10 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed May 25 11:03:32 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <002e01c56104$b70db720$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000001c56108$6f9007f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton > Sent: 25. mai 2005 10:36 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] L35D > > Wrong Law. > > Try L39B. (And in addition we still have L72B1 as a last resource!) regards Sven > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 8:57 AM > Subject: [blml] L35D > > > > The bidding goes: > > > > 1NT pass 3NT pass > > pass pass pass 1Sp > > > > read law 35D and tell me if there are lead penalties. > > Is this a free road to the lead-directing bid? > > > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://www.hdw.be > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/2005 > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From koen.grauwels at oracle.com Wed May 25 11:13:13 2005 From: koen.grauwels at oracle.com (Koen Grauwels) Date: Wed May 25 11:14:40 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42943E00.9050308@hdw.be> References: <42942FFD.6050702@hdw.be> <002e01c56104$b70db720$0307a8c0@david> <42943E00.9050308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <429441A9.7070905@oracle.com> Herman De Wael wrote: > David Barton wrote: > >> Wrong Law. >> >> Try L39B. >> > > I did. On the fourth pass. It redirected me to L35D. Which tells that > the pass - and all subsequent bids - are cancelled without penalty. If there was a subsequent bid then still law 16C2 applies... or not? > Since the 1Sp is cancelled I cannot apply L39B on that one anymore. > >> >> ***************************************** >> david.j.barton@lineone.net >> ***************************************** >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "blml" >> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 8:57 AM >> Subject: [blml] L35D >> >> >>> The bidding goes: >>> >>> 1NT pass 3NT pass >>> pass pass pass 1Sp >>> >>> read law 35D and tell me if there are lead penalties. >>> Is this a free road to the lead-directing bid? >>> >>> -- >>> Herman DE WAEL >>> Antwerpen Belgium >>> http://www.hdw.be >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blml mailing list >>> blml@amsterdamned.org >>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> -- >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >>> Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/2005 >>> >>> >> >> > From svenpran at online.no Wed May 25 11:19:18 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed May 25 11:20:40 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42943E00.9050308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c5610a$d46c4600$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 25. mai 2005 10:58 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] L35D > > David Barton wrote: > > > Wrong Law. > > > > Try L39B. > > > > I did. On the fourth pass. It redirected me to L35D. Which tells that > the pass - and all subsequent bids - are cancelled without penalty. > Since the 1Sp is cancelled I cannot apply L39B on that one anymore. Why not? It is a call (another call) after the final pass. But if you insist, the director still has L72B1 available so the answer to your original question is NO - this is no free way to anything. Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Wed May 25 11:23:54 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed May 25 11:25:19 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D Message-ID: <20050525092354.9FE48F61E9@poczta.interia.pl> > David Barton wrote: > > > Wrong Law. > > > > Try L39B. > > > > I did. On the fourth pass. It redirected me to L35D. Which tells that > the pass - and all subsequent bids - are cancelled without penalty. > Since the 1Sp is cancelled I cannot apply L39B on that one anymore. > Is 1S a violation of the correct procedure? If it is then it is an infraction so we can apply L72B1 - all the conditions ("could have known", "at the time of the irregularity" and "likely") are met. ____________________ Cibor ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ekstra filmy, ekstra materialy! >> http://link.interia.pl/f1882 << From schuster at eduhi.at Wed May 25 11:30:36 2005 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed May 25 11:32:02 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42942FFD.6050702@hdw.be> References: <42942FFD.6050702@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:57:49 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > The bidding goes: > > 1NT pass 3NT pass > pass pass pass 1Sp > > read law 35D and tell me if there are lead penalties. > Is this a free road to the lead-directing bid? > Only if NOS condones it by a further all (see L 35D 1st para). Otherwise, see L39B Regards Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From twm at cix.co.uk Wed May 25 11:42:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed May 25 11:44:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Fox or rabbit? In-Reply-To: <4293E41D.1010308@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > I suspect South is a villain and I'll be recording > > this for reference - but a lucky rabbit will get the same adjustment > > I very much like the sentiment about the lucky rabbit. So far, no one > thinks South's reputation matters. Is that unanimous? > Here's some more info on the NS system. Does it change your view? Well, I am now of the view that *if* South is a villain he's a more devious one than I can imagine. With the system described I can see no motive for bidding the hand other than normally, and thus no reason to adjust. It hasn't changed my view that lead-averting villainy is possible and that I should investigate carefully next time too. Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Wed May 25 12:09:10 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed May 25 12:09:00 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: References: <42942FFD.6050702@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42944EC6.6040404@hdw.be> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:57:49 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> The bidding goes: >> >> 1NT pass 3NT pass >> pass pass pass 1Sp >> >> read law 35D and tell me if there are lead penalties. >> Is this a free road to the lead-directing bid? >> > > Only if NOS condones it by a further all (see L 35D 1st para). > Otherwise, see L39B No Petrus, you are not reading right (I think) L35 1st para talks about an inadmissible call (the fourth pass) which has been "condoned" (by the 1Sp). L35D tells us what happens with this call ("that call ... (is) cancelled without penalty") but also what happens to the 1Sp ("... and all subsequent calls are cancelled without penalty"). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Wed May 25 13:20:29 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Wed May 25 12:25:45 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> <02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <00a201c5611b$c8774c80$798616ac@mycomputer> Hi I just wanted to point out a fact of life .If I partnered Zia by chance I'd consider his reputation as 'general bridge knowledge' . So no reason to mention it. Regards Israel - - --- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 6:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > On May 24, 2005, at 4:58 PM, Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > > > There should be no doubt that partner Should be as surprised as the > > opponents. Unfortunately partner of even an occasional psycher is not > > so surprised. > > I have never partnered Zia, but I am aware that he has a reputation for > psyching. That, btw, is the extent of my awareness. Are you suggesting > that because he has that reputation, if I ever do partner him I should > be required to say so in some auctions? Which ones? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Wed May 25 13:10:29 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed May 25 13:11:51 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42944EC6.6040404@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c5611a$5c5ba100$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: ......... > >> The bidding goes: > >> > >> 1NT pass 3NT pass > >> pass pass pass 1Sp > >> > >> read law 35D and tell me if there are lead penalties. > >> Is this a free road to the lead-directing bid? > >> > > > > Only if NOS condones it by a further all (see L 35D 1st para). > > Otherwise, see L39B > > No Petrus, you are not reading right (I think) > L35 1st para talks about an inadmissible call (the fourth pass) which > has been "condoned" (by the 1Sp). L35D tells us what happens with this > call ("that call ... (is) cancelled without penalty") but also what > happens to the 1Sp ("... and all subsequent calls are cancelled > without penalty"). I have studied this a bit further and believe that you (Herman) are on the right track as far as penalties are concerned. But the 1S inadmissible bid is still an irregularity, and if the effect of this irregularity is damage to opponents (which the player "could have known to be likely") then the Director shall apply L72B1 and adjust the result on that board. Such application of L72B1 is not a "penalty" that is cancelled as specified in for instance L35. This is rather a matter of restoring equity. Regards Sven From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Wed May 25 13:16:40 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Wed May 25 13:18:05 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42944EC6.6040404@hdw.be> Message-ID: >Herman De Wael wrote: > >Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > >>On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:57:49 +0200, Herman De Wael >>wrote: >> >>>The bidding goes: >>> >>>1NT pass 3NT pass >>>pass pass pass 1Sp >>> >>>read law 35D and tell me if there are lead penalties. >>>Is this a free road to the lead-directing bid? >>> >> >>Only if NOS condones it by a further all (see L 35D 1st para). >>Otherwise, see L39B > >No Petrus, you are not reading right (I think) >L35 1st para talks about an inadmissible call (the fourth pass) which has >been "condoned" (by the 1Sp). L35D tells us what happens with this call >("that call ... (is) cancelled without penalty") but also what happens to >the 1Sp ("... and all subsequent calls are cancelled without penalty"). Herman's got this one right. Laws 36-39 deal with irregulaities when they are not condoned in any way. The 4th pass was condoned by LHO's 1S, thus we're in L35. Since the pass was a call after Final (the pass) and all subsequent calls (1S) are cencelled without penalty. But, as others have pointed out, L72B1 applies. So even though there's no lead penalty, we can still adjust the score. Regards, Harald Skj?ran > >-- >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 Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 25 13:38:53 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 25 13:40:14 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV><02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer><0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> <00a201c5611b$c8774c80$798616ac@mycomputer> Message-ID: <007f01c5611e$54b246d0$269868d5@James> [Israel Erdnbaum] > I just wanted to point out a fact of life . If I > partnered Zia by chance I'd consider his reputation > as 'general bridge knowledge' . So no reason to mention > it. [Nigel] I'm told that Zia-Rosenberg are not so reticent: they disclose their psyching habits; which is fortunate for any of Zia's opponents who aren't familiar with Israel's "general knowledge" :) From schoderb at msn.com Wed May 25 14:00:30 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed May 25 14:01:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com><00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292D910.9060607@hdw.be><007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be><003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0><6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net><000001c560ba$26370250$1401e150@Mildred> <001801c560d5$a40d4200$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Craig, you are absolutely correct! My frustrations need to be controlled. When good people are interested in improving the game, I'm all for it. When others are nit-picking the present Laws, reading intentions into them that have been clearly stated were not there, and posing as experts I need to take a bunch of deep breaths, reach for the delete key, and go back to the heavy work we are presently engaged in in rewriting the laws. The structure whereby a law is published, and LCs throughout the system interpret this law for their constituents, and the applications are what the WBFLC intended will continue, as will the nit-picking. My apologies to those who, as you succinctly state, are making contributions to the laws. I've been wrong before. Thanks again for putting me back on track. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "craig" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > Kojak for heaven's sake, take a blood pressure pill before you explode :-) > You are far too fine a guy to let this upset you so much. Besides, this is > Eric who has been making a large number of constructive suggestions, a > large > number of them rather palatable, for at least the past 5 years. You know > very well that blml is not meant to be a super "Duplicate Decisions" > alone, > it is also a forum for discussing and suggesting how the laws might be > improved. What better time than now to actively discuss such matters, in > front of at least some of the fine gentlemen who are about to promulgate > the > Laws for the next decade or so. Surely in your illustrious career as > director and interpreter of laws you might have wished for some > improvements, and surely you are trying to get them implemented at this > time. Let us allow that amidst the dross there may indeed be gold nuggets? > If you truly think all the other blml contributors are sick and all their > comments naught but posturing and crap I fear you have taken an overdose > of > Rogaine. Please take the antidote and concede that a lot of us are here in > the hopes of bequeathing from our experiences a legacy of improved law and > regulation that may reverse the decline of our most excellent game. > Grattan > has the right approach...even a blind pig roots up a turnip sometimes, and > the elite lawmakers have no monopoly on good ideas. It is too easy to get > caught up in the pomp and circumstance, we need the unprofessional view > sometimes to see that the emperor is not garbed so royally. > > Craig Senior > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Grattan" > > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:07 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > > > But grattan, don't you realize that you are not talking to people > > interested in the application of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge? This is > > exactly the kind of posturing and crap that goes on in BLML. God forbid > > you should yourself sucked into this horseshit. All it can produce > > reduced justification for your positions for the betterment of the LAWS: > > these guys are sick! > > > > Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:40 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > > > > > >> > >> Grattan Endicott >> [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > >> ********************************* > >> "If we can't stamp out literature in the > >> country, we can at least stop it being > >> brought in from outside." [Evelyn Waugh] > >> > >> ============================= > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Eric Landau" > >> To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 9:44 PM > >> Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > >> > >> > >> > At 10:06 AM 5/24/05, Grattan wrote: > >> > > >> >>+=+ I believe regulating bodies should say what they > >> >>mean. If a regulation simply says that opening on less > >> >>than 10 HCP is not permitted, for my part it does not > >> >>leave scope for exercise of judgement. If the regulator > >> >>intends that the minimum should be 10HCP or > >> >>equivalent values the regulation should include words > >> >>to this effect. > >> >> Personally I think the former is more precise and > >> >>efficient but it is a matter for the regulating authority, > >> >>and it should certainly depend on its view of what is > >> >>better for the game. > >> >> So, as to the debate in this thread, my opinion is > >> >>that contributors should look to the wording of the > >> >>regulation - and to any parallel guidance issued to > >> >>directors with the force of regulation. > >> > > >> > Grattan states the blitheringly obvious: if we want to > >> > know what a regulation says, read it. No wonder folks > >> > out there think we spout pedantic nonsense on BLML, > >> > if they think that's a legitimate answer "as to the debate > >> > in this thread". Yes, regulating bodies should say what > >> > they mean. Yes, a regulation that leaves no allowance > >> > for players' judgment is "more precise and efficient". > >> > Of course whether we make such regulations "should > >> > certainly depend on [our] view of what is better for > >> > the game". But some of us take this debate seriously, > >> > and have genuine opinions, possibly even worthy of > >> > being shared, on the subject of what is better for the > >> > game. Can we stop telling each other to read the rules, > >> > and get back to the real issue? > >> > > >> +=+ By all means, Eric, carry on with your own debate > >> What I wrote was an answer to a specific question put > >> to me in open forum. .The question was: > >> < > >> > "Do you ascribe to the view that if a regulation forbids > >> > systems that open on less than 10 HCP, this should > >> > be interpreted as also forbidding to open on less than > >> > 10HCP (barring psyches)? > >> > > >> > Or do you believe that it is OK to use judgment and > >> > open some 9HCP hands that the player judges to be > >> > worth 10HCP?" > >> > >> and I answered it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 25 14:08:22 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 25 14:08:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <000001c560ba$26370250$1401e150@Mildred> References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292D910.9060607@hdw.be> <007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be> <003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net> <000001c560ba$26370250$1401e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050525075748.02c7f620@pop.starpower.net> At 07:40 PM 5/24/05, Grattan wrote: >+=+ By all means, Eric, carry on with your own debate >What I wrote was an answer to a specific question put to me in open >forum. .The question was: >< >>"Do you ascribe to the view that if a regulation forbids systems that >>open on less than 10 HCP, this should be interpreted as also >>forbidding to open on less than 10HCP (barring psyches)? >>Or do you believe that it is OK to use judgment and open some 9HCP >>hands that the player judges to be worth 10HCP?" > >and I answered it. The tone of my post may have been a bit sharp, but was not directed specifically at Grattan -- he just happened to have written the post in the long sequence that prompted me to pop off a bit. The answer to the above question, on which I'm sure Grattan and I agree, is that if the regulators do their job right, the regulation shouldn't be left open to interpretation, but should tell us explicitly whether or not judgmental deviations are permitted. In my lexicon, however, banning agreements to open with less than 10 HCP is very different from banning openings with less than 10 HCP -- agreements may be broken, regulations may not. IMO such language is explicit enough to leave no ambiguity. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed May 25 14:18:55 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed May 25 14:20:38 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42942FFD.6050702@hdw.be> References: <42942FFD.6050702@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42946D2F.1030102@t-online.de> I think Herman is right as far as lead penalties are concerned. Since there is still Law 16 and 72 to be applied the TD will manage to take any advantage away from the defender`s side. 1 Spade in this sequence is no error, so I will hit the player with a procedural penalty on top of that. This reminds me of: 1H - p - 1S - p - 2D - p - 2NT - p - p - p - p - p ? TD! Responders pass came after a hesitation, so opener started to think about 3 NT..... Opps wanted to reserve their rights........ Best regards Matthias Herman De Wael wrote: > The bidding goes: > > 1NT pass 3NT pass > pass pass pass 1Sp > > read law 35D and tell me if there are lead penalties. > Is this a free road to the lead-directing bid? > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 25 14:28:33 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 25 14:27:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292D910.9060607@hdw.be> <007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be> <003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net> <000001c560ba$26370250$1401e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050525081225.02a543d0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:07 PM 5/24/05, WILLIAM wrote: >But grattan, don't you realize that you are not talking to people >interested in the application of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge? This is >exactly the kind of posturing and crap that goes on in BLML. God >forbid you >should yourself sucked into this horseshit. All it can produce reduced >justification for your positions for the betterment of the LAWS: these >guys >are sick! But, Kojak, don't you realize that this forum was not formed for people interested only in the application of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, but rather as a forum for people interested primarily in the content of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge? It's original purpose was to provide input to our regulators on what our laws should be. Because one thing we all agree they should be is unambiguous, it is important to identify areas in which the current laws are ambiguous and discuss how they both are and should be interpreted, and whether those interpretations need clarification in future versions of the laws, and we do, indeed, spend a lot of time in such discussions. We also talk about what the laws should be, independently of what they currently are. Of course, we can talk about what we think the laws should be all we want; it's up to our regulators to decide whether to listen or whether to just dismiss the opinions of hundreds of interested players who have taken the trouble to join a forum on which they can express their opinions on the subject as "horseshit". There are numerous other fora in which supplicants can take questions on the application of the current laws as currently interpreted to those self-styled gurus who will hand down definitive answers expecting them to be taken as the Word of the Gospels, to which any demurral or disagreement will be appropriately regarded as "posturing and crap". This is not one of them. Those of us who think it is, or ought to be, might find a more suitable venue for their unarguable pronouncements elsewhere. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Wed May 25 14:59:35 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Wed May 25 15:01:58 2005 Subject: [blml] split score? In-Reply-To: <2ad96105a56e5ac9432cbcec49ecd338@rochester.rr.com> References: <2ad96105a56e5ac9432cbcec49ecd338@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >I ran across this at today's club game (31 tables, a record :): > >EW are novices, NS are experienced intermediates. > >The bidding went: > >W N E S >1NT 2C 2D P >2NT 3S P P >3NT all pass > >2C and 3S were natural. 2D was intended by east as a transfer to >hearts, but taken by West as natural. West has 4 hearts, btw. After the >play, NS called the Director, South saying that if he had known that 2D >was a transfer he would have doubled for the lead, and North saying >that she would (of course) had led a diamond in that case. EW each >explained their understanding of their bidding as above. Neither had a >convention card. As the cards lay, I'm told (I did not see the hands) >11 tricks are cold in both 3NT and 4H. As *everyone* else in the field >was in 4H, this EW got a top. NS were not happy. The TD adjusted the >score for NS to "Average" and let the EW score stand. When I asked what >law she used, I got a confused look, and a long discussion that went nowhere. > >Questions: > >Is a split score at all reasonable in this case? No. If there is MI and damage you adjust: if either is missing you don't. >What is the correct ruling? I give E/W a fair chance at convincing me what their system is. However, with no CC it will need to be a pretty convincing argument for them to convince me the do not play 2D as a transfer. If the can convince me, no MI, no adjustment. Next I look to see what would have happened if N/S had known it was a transfer. Do *I* believe South would have doubled? might have doubled? How would the auction have gone? Has West got a diamond stop? Would 11 tricks make on a diamond lead? We have not got sufficient information, but you say "11 tricks are cold in NT": so long as you mean it, the chances are high that the ruling is no damage, so no adjustment. >What laws apply? L21B3, L40C. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From minke2 at blakjak.com Wed May 25 15:02:02 2005 From: minke2 at blakjak.com (Minke) Date: Wed May 25 15:04:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net> References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292D910.9060607@hdw.be> <007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be> <003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >Grattan states the blitheringly obvious: if we want to know what a >regulation says, read it. No wonder folks out there think we spout >pedantic nonsense on BLML, if they think that's a legitimate answer "as >to the debate in this thread". Yes, regulating bodies should say what >they mean. Yes, a regulation that leaves no allowance for players' >judgment is "more precise and efficient". Of course whether we make >such regulations "should certainly depend on [our] view of what is >better for the game". But some of us take this debate seriously, and >have genuine opinions, possibly even worthy of being shared, on the >subject of what is better for the game. Can we stop telling each other >to read the rules, and get back to the real issue? Excuse me. 90% of posts on two specific topics, minimum openings allowed by the EBU/WBU and EBU/WBU policy on asking questions are made by one of these types of people: * People who have never read the regulations * People who have read the regulations but assume they do not mean what they say What Grattan says may be blitheringly obvious, but since members for BLML do not do it and argue quite stupidly about irrelevancies perhaps you should listen to him. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 25 15:15:04 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 25 15:14:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <4293DE4C.3060507@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505242008.j4OK8BTV021175@cfa.harvard.edu> <4293DE4C.3060507@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050525084339.02c81210@pop.starpower.net> At 10:09 PM 5/24/05, Steve wrote: >>From: Eric Landau >>How about... >>D. Natural bidding. No standard system, but the only conventions >>allowed are a very short list of essentially universal ones ... > >>At one time there was talk of holding such events in the ACBL. The >>ACBL Board set up a committee which was initially charged with >>creating conditions of contest for a "natural bidding" game. But the >>committee, following its members' own agendas, instead came out with... >[Classic Bridge] >>I've wondered ever since what might have happened if they had taken >>the idea of "a 'natural bidding' game" a bit more literally. > >As it happens, a group of 15 Usenet readers tackled this very problem. >You can read the summary of results, including the desired features >and reasoning, at >http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/msg/9c799324d10ae4a3?dmode=source&hl=en >(It is message-id Dxp11D.Eso@cfanews.harvard.edu if the above link fails.) > >The summary is below. Sound like an interesting game? It does to me. I would choose to play in it given the opportunity. >I think it is way better than the ACBL's "Classic Bridge;" it's up to >you readers to judge whether that says more about me or about the >ACBL. If you do think the result is interesting, you might also think >about committees and how decisions are usually made. Based on history, there seems to be a general consensus that just about anything would be way better than the ACBL's "Classic Bridge". >In brief, the proposal was to allow: >Opening 2C strong and artificial; 2D response artificial >Artificial 2NT negative response to strong opening two-bids >Takeout doubles by second or fourth hand >Bid in opponents' suit artificial and strong or showing support for > partner's suit >Stayman (clubs, not two-way) >Blackwood >Unusual notrump for minors or two lower unbid suits > >And consider allowing: >Negative doubles >Gerber over NT openings, overcalls, and 2C-2D-2NT >2NT artificial response to two-bid openings (This does not authorize > artificial _rebids_ after the 2NT.) >Double jump by responder as splinter raise >Blackwood variations (RKC, DOPI), grand slam force, etc. >Lead-directing doubles (perhaps of slams only.) >NT bids over takeout double as artificial raise of opener's suit >Redouble over takeout double to show misfit with opener. >Western cue in opponents' suit >Fourth suit artificial (perhaps required to be game forcing) > >Notably prohibited would be: >Transfers >2NT and 3NT responses as artificial raise of major >Michaels or other two-suited overcalls (except UNT) >SOS redoubles >Herbert negative to strong opening two-bids >Two-way Stayman >1C artificial and strong, 1D negative >2NT response to one-bid as artificial game force >Splinter raises other than double jumps by responder >Other artificial methods over 1NT openings, either ours or opponents' >Lebensohl >Drury I have a few quibbles with the list, but on the whole it works. I wouldn't want to allow most of what's on Steve's "consider allowing" list, although I'd consider it clear to allow lead-directing doubles, which I don't consider a convention as such. There's a good case for negative doubles and Gerber being pretty much "universal", but that's about it. The only convention on Steve's "notably prohibited" list that I'd consider allowing would be a 2NT response as an artificial raise of a major; it is one of the oldest and, at one time, best-established conventions in bridge, going back to the time when players first started using limit raises. I would, however, forbid any artificial rebids, including Jacoby replies, which are a relatively recent (30 years or so?) development and have not achieved the "essentially universal" status that the original convention has (had?). What we, or at least I, specifically do not want is a game in which everyone is required to play the same system, a la Yellow Card or Classic Bridge. Any natural treatment should be permitted. There is no doubt, however, that Steve's proposal, as it stands, strives to fulfill the original intent of the ACBL when they created "Classic Bridge", which was to update and revive not the ACBL "Yellow Card" game (which was, at the time, far too new to be meaningfully "updated and revived"), but the rather older ACBL "Green Card" game. Does anyone out there remember the Green Card? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 25 15:19:56 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 25 15:21:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: <000001c55bae$b907f230$6900a8c0@WINXP><006001c55c46$b1af02b0$4c9687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <007e01c55ca1$c0721840$729468d5@James> Message-ID: <009801c5612c$727f7c60$269868d5@James> {Eric Landau] > In my lexicon, however, banning agreements to open with > less than 10 HCP is very different from banning openings > with less than 10 HCP -- agreements may be broken, > regulations may not. IMO such language is explicit > enough to leave no ambiguity. [Nigel] In trepidation of the wrath of Kojak, I admit that I still discern some ambiguity in the language. IMO there are more than two possibilities. For example, here are five ... (In some context) you may open on fewer than 10 HCP ... A. NEVER - not even as a "psyche". B. Only as a PSYCHE i.e. You may open with 0-7 HCP if it is as much a surprize to partner as to opponents. C. Only as a DEVIATION or psyche i.e. you may open with 0-9 HCP if it is as much a surprise to partner as to opponents. D. If, according to EXPERT JUDGEMENT, the hand is actually worth ten or more points i.e. you have an implicit agreement to that effect. E. If, according to your ordinary judgement, EVEN FLAWED JUDGEMENT, the hand is worth ten points or more. As I understand it, in many parts of the world, the regulations are close to A. Whereas, in the UK, we run the whole gamut, depending on which director you call. I don't like restrictions at all but if there must be some, then surely players will find (A) easiest to understand. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 25 15:30:11 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 25 15:29:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <4293DE4C.3060507@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050525092153.02a509e0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:17 AM 5/25/05, richard.hills wrote: >By legalising the ancient convention "takeout doubles", and by >legalising other ancient conventions, such as Stayman, the committee >convened by Steve Willner followed its members' own agendas. It >created yet another slightly warmed-over (albeit idiosyncratic) version >of the yellow card. Not at all. Yellow Card (and Classic Bridge) are "standard system" games, in which everyone plays with identical convention cards. The conventions on the Yellow Card list were mandatory; in Steve's game, one would be free to play those (few) conventions on the list or not as one chose. With all non-conventional methods permitted, Steve's game is one in which there would be a vast amount of scope for variation among partnerships in their approach to bidding and system construction. That makes a huge difference -- IMO, it might just be the difference between success and failure. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 25 15:36:42 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 25 15:35:51 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <001401c560e6$3e055a90$069468d5@James> References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> <02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> <001401c560e6$3e055a90$069468d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050525093120.02c750a0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:57 AM 5/25/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >[Ed Reppert] > > I have never partnered Zia, but I am aware that he has a > > reputation for psyching. That, btw, is the extent of my > > awareness. Are you suggesting that because he has that > > reputation, if I ever do partner him I should be > > required to say so in some auctions? Which ones? > >[Nigel] >I've never played with or against Zia, but I'm told he is >less secretive about his psyching proclivities than most >BLMLers appear to be. His psychig habits seem to be >declared on his convention card and system notes. (: I >presume that you'll agree a system and use identical >convention cards :). Hence, you should have no problem as >to which calls to alert as possible psyches. I dare say, >if, for example, on the first board in an individual, then >your disclosure obligation would be satisfied if you told >opponents that partner has a reputatuon for psyching. If Zia declares his psyching habits on his convention card, he must do so only when he plays in international competition under the auspices of the WBF. Zia's current home zone, as it has been for many years now, is the ACBL, where any mention of psyching habits on one's convention card is strictly forbidden, based on a blanket prohibition against having any agreements of any kind, whether explicit or implicit, relating to psychs. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 25 15:48:17 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 25 15:47:26 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42943E00.9050308@hdw.be> References: <42942FFD.6050702@hdw.be> <002e01c56104$b70db720$0307a8c0@david> <42943E00.9050308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050525094259.02c8ca80@pop.starpower.net> At 04:57 AM 5/25/05, Herman wrote: >David Barton wrote: > >>Wrong Law. >>Try L39B. > >I did. On the fourth pass. It redirected me to L35D. Which tells that >the pass - and all subsequent bids - are cancelled without penalty. >Since the 1Sp is cancelled I cannot apply L39B on that one anymore. L39 redirects you to L35D only "if offender's LHO calls". If LHO does not call, you are directed to L26. On the auction as given, L26A2 would apply. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 25 15:59:21 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 25 15:59:54 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <007f01c5611e$54b246d0$269868d5@James> References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> <02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> <00a201c5611b$c8774c80$798616ac@mycomputer> <007f01c5611e$54b246d0$269868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050525095121.02c8d0d0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:38 AM 5/25/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >[Israel Erdnbaum] > > I just wanted to point out a fact of life . If I > > partnered Zia by chance I'd consider his reputation > > as 'general bridge knowledge' . So no reason to mention > > it. > >[Nigel] >I'm told that Zia-Rosenberg are not so reticent: they >disclose their psyching habits; which is fortunate for any >of Zia's opponents who aren't familiar with Israel's >"general knowledge" :) Israel knows only that Zia psychs a lot. Mr. Rosenberg presumably knows much more than that about the circumstances under which Zia is likely to psych and the form the psych is likely to take; that is "special information conveyed to him through... partnership experience" that Israel lacks, and that Mr. Rosenberg is thus obligated to disclose. This has no bearing on the issue of whether "Zia psychs a lot" is or is not "general knowledge". Given that everyone who has posted on the subject has claimed to be aware of the fact that Zia psychs a lot, despite the fact that none of them have actually partnered him, Israel has a good case for claiming that it is. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Wed May 25 17:00:36 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Wed May 25 16:06:04 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> <02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> <00a201c5611b$c8774c80$798616ac@mycomputer> <007f01c5611e$54b246d0$269868d5@James> Message-ID: <003801c5613a$887cb9c0$798616ac@mycomputer> Hi Zia and any of his regular partners are doing what they should "they Disclose"what they KNOW" -from practice or [and] discussion-.An occasional partner {unless asked to do so by Zia} has to tell the opp.what he AGREED to play with Zia.Original Message ----- regards Israel iSRAELrom: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > [Israel Erdnbaum] > > I just wanted to point out a fact of life . If I > > partnered Zia by chance I'd consider his reputation > > as 'general bridge knowledge' . So no reason to mention > > it. > > [Nigel] > I'm told that Zia-Rosenberg are not so reticent: they > disclose their psyching habits; which is fortunate for any > of Zia's opponents who aren't familiar with Israel's > "general knowledge" :) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 25 16:09:30 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 25 16:08:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292D910.9060607@hdw.be> <007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be> <003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net> <000001c560ba$26370250$1401e150@Mildred> <001801c560d5$a40d4200$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050525100110.02c7f7b0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:00 AM 5/25/05, WILLIAM wrote: >Craig, you are absolutely correct! My frustrations need to be >controlled. >When good people are interested in improving the game, I'm all for it. >When >others are nit-picking the present Laws, reading intentions into them >that >have been clearly stated were not there, and posing as experts I need to >take a bunch of deep breaths, reach for the delete key, and go back to >the >heavy work we are presently engaged in in rewriting the laws. The >structure >whereby a law is published, and LCs throughout the system interpret >this law >for their constituents, and the applications are what the WBFLC intended >will continue, as will the nit-picking. My apologies to those who, as you >succinctly state, are making contributions to the laws. I've been wrong >before. The kind of nit-picking we do here is critical to improving the laws. Nit-picking is the process of removing nits. The nits in our laws, which we all wish to see picked, are the imprecise linguistic constructions that give rise in the minds of those who merely read the laws as written to interpretations other than those the WBFLC intended. We must remember that "those who merely read the laws as written" include almost everyone: players, TDs, AC members, even members of those "LCs throughout the system". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Wed May 25 16:12:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed May 25 16:14:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <42942A82.50101@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > Such a rule could not be legal. It would restrict the Law40A right > > to select *any* call not based on a partnership understanding. > Tim falls into a common trap. He equates a rule of type (2) with a > rule that breaks L40A. No I don't - can you not see my reference to something not being based on a partnership understanding. The type two rule is illegal because it attempts to regulate what players may *do* rather than to regulate what they may *agree* to do. > But L40A is broken all the time, if you forget > to read it in full. L40A does NOT say: you can bid what you like, it > adds "provided it is not based on PU". Precisely Herman. Thus if a rule says "you may not use judgement even when playing with a complete stranger and there is no possibility of a PU" then it is an illegal rule. DWS and I are in accord on this - regulations of this nature must address *agreements* not bidding decisions. > A rule of type (2) simply states that you are not allowed to use > judgment to equate 9 points to 10, or rather that if you do so, your > call will be judged to be based on partnership understanding, so that > the director will be able to not have to use L40A and rule against you. A TD should not judge there is a PU if the evidence is overwhelming that there cannot be. A law requiring a TD to "judge" in this fashion might (just about) be legal but it would be very wrong. With Type 1 laws (those which address agreements) the agreements may be implicit or explicit - the TD will investigate the style/history of the partnership to determine whether an agreement of either sort exists. I accept that, even in a regular partnership, the TD *might* find sufficient evidence to rule that there is no such agreement but I think, in practical application, this will be a very rare event. Tim From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Wed May 25 17:32:58 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Wed May 25 16:38:23 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> <02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> <00a201c5611b$c8774c80$798616ac@mycomputer> <007f01c5611e$54b246d0$269868d5@James> Message-ID: <00bf01c5613f$0d49c720$798616ac@mycomputer> If partnering Zia in an individual and NOT being told by him {but you say he DOES}there is no reason to DISLOSE. More so DISCLOSING may unnecessarily 'worry' inexperienced opp. regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > [Israel Erdnbaum] > > I just wanted to point out a fact of life . If I > > partnered Zia by chance I'd consider his reputation > > as 'general bridge knowledge' . So no reason to mention > > it. > > [Nigel] > I'm told that Zia-Rosenberg are not so reticent: they > disclose their psyching habits; which is fortunate for any > of Zia's opponents who aren't familiar with Israel's > "general knowledge" :) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Wed May 25 16:51:46 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed May 25 16:53:11 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050525094259.02c8ca80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c56139$462f9200$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > At 04:57 AM 5/25/05, Herman wrote: > > >David Barton wrote: > > > >>Wrong Law. > >>Try L39B. > > > >I did. On the fourth pass. It redirected me to L35D. Which tells that > >the pass - and all subsequent bids - are cancelled without penalty. > >Since the 1Sp is cancelled I cannot apply L39B on that one anymore. > > L39 redirects you to L35D only "if offender's LHO calls". If LHO does > not call, you are directed to L26. On the auction as given, L26A2 > would apply. I certainly hope that you do not apply such logic if/when you are directing? Initially I was a bit worried by Herman's question but his logic is sound: We have two irregularities: First the fourth pass in a row by the player to become Dummy and thereafter the 1S bid by his LHO. Therefore we have the precise situation described in L35: An inadmissible call (Pass) is condoned by the offender's LHO (who subsequently bid 1S). Thus both the inadmissible Pass and the subsequent 1S bid are cancelled "without penalty" as prescribed in L35D. Herman's original question was: Does this give a defender a clear way to make a lead directing call and the answer is no. Although there is no penalty for the inadmissible Pass or the subsequent 1S bid L72B1 still applies (the adjustment prescribed on certain conditions in this law is not a "penalty"!). So if the Director finds that the player who made the 1S bid "could have known" that this irregularity "would be likely to damage" his opponents and that such damage in fact occurred then he shall adjust the final result on the board. Sven From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 25 16:52:52 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 25 16:54:13 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV><02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer><0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com><001401c560e6$3e055a90$069468d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050525093120.02c750a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001401c56139$6e0b1f60$0f9868d5@James> [Eric Landau] > If Zia declares his psyching habits on his convention > card, he must do so only when he plays in international > competition under the auspices of the WBF. Zia's current > home zone, as it has been for many years now, is the > ACBL, where any mention of psyching habits on one's > convention card is strictly forbidden, based on a blanket > prohibition against having any agreements of any kind, > whether explicit or implicit, relating to psychs. [Nigel] I take your point, Eric, but carefully used the word "habits" rather than "agreements" -- that is -- past history -- not an undertaking for the future. My understanding is that Zia's card for the recent US trials did declare their (asymmetric) psyching habits in some detail. If that really is illegal, then, obviously, the ACBL need to revise their regulations in a hurry - if they do not want to subject Zia's opponents to an even greater disadvantage.. From schoderb at msn.com Wed May 25 16:53:23 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed May 25 16:54:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com><00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292D910.9060607@hdw.be><007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be><003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0><6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net><000001c560ba$26370250$1401e150@Mildred><001801c560d5$a40d4200$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> <6.1.1.1.0.20050525100110.02c7f7b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: At the risk of incurring further wrath, please understand the following. Law 40D assigns the regulation of bidding or play conventions to the Zonal and Sponsoring organizations. So please, when you talk about Laws, stop talking about regulations and vice-versa. Bridge is played under Laws AND regulations/rules, and it is up to the Sponsors and Zones to do what they wish in the later. There is no doubt that there are distinct differences between those regulations/rules in the South Pacific, ACBL, EBL, various zones, etc., and they are what the players want. It is not helpful to nit-pick regulations/rules when they are beyond the purview of the Laws, and deem it helpful assistance to and interest in the drafting of future laws. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > At 08:00 AM 5/25/05, WILLIAM wrote: > > >Craig, you are absolutely correct! My frustrations need to be > >controlled. > >When good people are interested in improving the game, I'm all for it. > >When > >others are nit-picking the present Laws, reading intentions into them > >that > >have been clearly stated were not there, and posing as experts I need to > >take a bunch of deep breaths, reach for the delete key, and go back to > >the > >heavy work we are presently engaged in in rewriting the laws. The > >structure > >whereby a law is published, and LCs throughout the system interpret > >this law > >for their constituents, and the applications are what the WBFLC intended > >will continue, as will the nit-picking. My apologies to those who, as you > >succinctly state, are making contributions to the laws. I've been wrong > >before. > > The kind of nit-picking we do here is critical to improving the > laws. Nit-picking is the process of removing nits. The nits in our > laws, which we all wish to see picked, are the imprecise linguistic > constructions that give rise in the minds of those who merely read the > laws as written to interpretations other than those the WBFLC > intended. We must remember that "those who merely read the laws as > written" include almost everyone: players, TDs, AC members, even > members of those "LCs throughout the system". > > > 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 ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 25 17:50:03 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 25 17:49:11 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000001c56139$462f9200$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050525094259.02c8ca80@pop.starpower.net> <000001c56139$462f9200$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050525114745.02c77ca0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:51 AM 5/25/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > At 04:57 AM 5/25/05, Herman wrote: > > > > >David Barton wrote: > > > > > >>Wrong Law. > > >>Try L39B. > > > > > >I did. On the fourth pass. It redirected me to L35D. Which tells that > > >the pass - and all subsequent bids - are cancelled without penalty. > > >Since the 1Sp is cancelled I cannot apply L39B on that one anymore. > > > > L39 redirects you to L35D only "if offender's LHO calls". If LHO does > > not call, you are directed to L26. On the auction as given, L26A2 > > would apply. > >I certainly hope that you do not apply such logic if/when you are >directing? > >Initially I was a bit worried by Herman's question but his logic is sound: > >We have two irregularities: First the fourth pass in a row by the >player to >become Dummy and thereafter the 1S bid by his LHO. > >Therefore we have the precise situation described in L35: An inadmissible >call (Pass) is condoned by the offender's LHO (who subsequently bid 1S). > >Thus both the inadmissible Pass and the subsequent 1S bid are cancelled >"without penalty" as prescribed in L35D. > >Herman's original question was: Does this give a defender a clear way to >make a lead directing call and the answer is no. Although there is no >penalty for the inadmissible Pass or the subsequent 1S bid L72B1 still >applies (the adjustment prescribed on certain conditions in this law >is not >a "penalty"!). > >So if the Director finds that the player who made the 1S bid "could have >known" that this irregularity "would be likely to damage" his >opponents and >that such damage in fact occurred then he shall adjust the final result on >the board. Sven is correct; I got this one wrong. I misread the original post, and mistook the 1S bid in question for the first irregularity in the auction. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 25 19:26:56 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 25 19:28:16 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV><02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer><0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com><00a201c5611b$c8774c80$798616ac@mycomputer><007f01c5611e$54b246d0$269868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050525095121.02c8d0d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003a01c5614e$f436c2a0$619868d5@James> [Eric Landau] > Israel knows only that Zia psychs a lot. Mr. Rosenberg > presumably knows much more than that about the > circumstances under which Zia is likely to psych and > the form the psych is likely to take; that is > "special information conveyed to him through... > partnership experience" that Israel lacks, and that > Mr. Rosenberg is thus obligated to disclose. This > has no bearing on the issue of whether "Zia psychs a > lot" is or is not "general knowledge". Given that > everyone who has posted on the subject has claimed > to be aware of the fact that Zia psychs a lot, > despite the fact that none of them have actually > partnered him, Israel has a good case for claiming > that it is. [Nigel] If all you know is partner "psyches a lot", I believe that information is atill disclosable. Also, I maintain that "general knowledge" is too often used as an excuse for secretiveines about implicit agreements. For example, I dispute that "Zia psyches a lot" is really "general knowledge." (A) Some players don't read bridge magazines. (B) Some readers are uninterested in the idisosyncracies of professionals. (C) Even among those readers who are interested, some have poor eyesight and don't recognise strangers from photographs ... An illustrative anecdote: At the first board in a National Competition, Rosemary C, a friend who is a succesful and experienced bridge-player, looked round the room and innocently asked "Are there any good players here?" This was worth two tops from her famous international opponents. Back on topic: IMO the law should not gratuitously provide the naturally secretive with the additional rationalisation of "General Knowledge" From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 25 19:36:52 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 25 19:36:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292D910.9060607@hdw.be> <007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be> <003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net> <000001c560ba$26370250$1401e150@Mildred> <001801c560d5$a40d4200$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> <6.1.1.1.0.20050525100110.02c7f7b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050525115423.02c76c50@pop.starpower.net> At 10:53 AM 5/25/05, WILLIAM wrote: >At the risk of incurring further wrath, please understand the following. >Law 40D assigns the regulation of bidding or play conventions to the >Zonal >and Sponsoring organizations. So please, when you talk about Laws, stop >talking about regulations and vice-versa. Bridge is played under Laws >AND >regulations/rules, and it is up to the Sponsors and Zones to do what they >wish in the later. There is no doubt that there are distinct differences >between those regulations/rules in the South Pacific, ACBL, EBL, various >zones, etc., and they are what the players want. It is not helpful to >nit-pick regulations/rules when they are beyond the purview of the >Laws, and >deem it helpful assistance to and interest in the drafting of future laws. This will certainly incur no wrath from me; Kojak is very much on point. L40D may be the most controversial law in the book; I believe it is critical for our regulators to come to a firm consensus on what it permits ZOs and their designates to do and what it does not, and to strive to make that intention as clear as possible in the next edition of TFLB. The first will undoubtedly involve disagreement, controversy, even vituperation, while the second is something all of us can agree on. L40D has historically been about what its title says it's about, "Regulation of Conventions". But some ZOs (one in particular) went to great lengths to find complex and esoteric justifications for regulating any methods they wanted to, conventional or not, claiming this to be within the powers granted by L40D. The "poster case" was the ACBL's blanket prohibition against opening 1NT with less than 10 HCP, subject to an automatic penalty if the partnership in question played any convention whatsoever in response. The WBF, under pressure from the ACBL, initially did the sensible thing; it expanded the law to explicitly permit regulation of light opening bids so the ACBL could have its way with the 9-point 1NT opening, while otherwise leaving the words, and presumably the intention, of L40D intact. That wasn't good enough for a ZO demanding the right to do whatever it wants, so today we must live with a WBFLC "interpretation" of L40D under which it should be retitled "Regulation of Any Bidding Methods Whatsoever". The current interpretation, IMO, is nonsense; it says, in effect, "We have explcitly granted limited regulatory powers to ZOs, but our intention is that those limited regulatory powers in fact be unlimited". Should there be limitiations on the regulatory powers of ZOs and their designates, and, if so, what should those limitations be? There are some out there who would argue that this is the single most important question for the future of international bridge. Kojak asserts that "they [i.e. the status quo or something very much like it] are what the players want". This is arguable; what is certain is that handed-down pronouncements from those who claim to be authorities on the current law will not provide the answer. "What do the players want?" is the question the WBF should be striving to answer. To do so, it must listen to those players. What players want is whatever they perceive to be good, sensible regulations. So what do they want from L40D? Where players perceive that their ZOs (or their designates) are responsive to their needs and desires, they want the WBF to reduce or eliminate whatever restrictions may remain on those ZOs; where players perceive that their ZOs are more responsive to the idiosyncratic concerns of the folks that run them than they are to the players who comprise their membership, they want the old restrictions, based on a more literal reading of L40D than the WBF's, reinstated or expanded. Which is more of a problem for the players out there, ZOs in need of less restriction, so that they are free to make more rules their players like, or ZOs in need of more restriction, to prevent them from making more rules that their players don't like? Only by answering this question can we determine the appropriate direction for whatever will replace L40D. If we are to address not the theoretical concerns of the lawyers and language-parsers, but rather the practical considerations involved in providing the best possible game, we can decide which way we want to take future analogs of L40D only by reaching an understanding of what those SOs out there are actually doing with the freedom they have been given by the WBF's interpretation of L40D. When we discuss regulations made in the South Pacific, ACBL, EBL, various zones, etc., we are seeking to understand whether, in general, the regulators out there are or are not giving the players what they want. The WBF says they don't care, that if the players don't like what is being done under the rubric of L40D by their ZOs, they should talk to their ZOs, not to the WBF. A lot of us consider this a dereliction of duty by the organization we have charged with writing the laws of the game. We -- the ones who play in the games the regulators regulate -- do care about L40D. We care a lot. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 25 20:00:49 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed May 25 20:02:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com><00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292D910.9060607@hdw.be><007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be><003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0><6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net><000001c560ba$26370250$1401e150@Mildred><001801c560d5$a40d4200$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <005501c56153$af4e47d0$619868d5@James> [William Schoder] > Craig, you are absolutely correct! My frustrations need > to be controlled. When good people are interested in > improving the game, I'm all for it. When others are nit- > picking the present Laws, reading intentions into them > that have been clearly stated were not there, and posing > as experts I need to take a bunch of deep breaths, > reach for the delete key, and go back to the heavy work > we are presently engaged in in rewriting the laws. The > structure whereby a law is published, and LCs throughout > the system interpret this law for their constituents, > and the applications are what the WBFLC intended will > continue, as will the nit-picking. My apologies to > those who, as you succinctly state, are making > contributions to the laws. I've been wrong before. > Thanks again for putting me back on track. [Nigel] Excellent stuff, Kojak! (: Granny suys "When you're reduced to the farmyard, privy or bedroom as an armoury, then you've lost the dispute :) I don't pose as a Bridge expert and I admit my relative ignorance of bridge rules. Pedants please assume "rules" = "laws" + "regulations" or whatever. My opinion on bridge rules, however, has the same weight as Kojak's. Bridge rules exist to provide ordinary players like me with an enjoyable game. Yhey should be simple and clear enough for us to understand and comply with them. BLMLers seem to forget that the primary purpose of the rules is not to entertain directors and law-makers. Kojak may be right that players' opinions are "HorseShit". We still hope that that our humble suggestions will provide the fertilizer from which may grow a more simple, clear, consistent, complete and objective set of rules -- that we can all comprehend and enjoy. From schoderb at msn.com Wed May 25 20:07:28 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed May 25 20:08:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com><00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292D910.9060607@hdw.be><007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be><003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0><6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net><000001c560ba$26370250$1401e150@Mildred><001801c560d5$a40d4200$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u><6.1.1.1.0.20050525100110.02c7f7b0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20050525115423.02c76c50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: The so called "headings" in the ACBL published Lawbook are not part of the Laws. It seems to me that you are pleading that action be taken against Zonal and Sponsoring organizations who go beyond what you think the law permits. How would you care to do that? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > At 10:53 AM 5/25/05, WILLIAM wrote: > > >At the risk of incurring further wrath, please understand the following. > >Law 40D assigns the regulation of bidding or play conventions to the > >Zonal > >and Sponsoring organizations. So please, when you talk about Laws, stop > >talking about regulations and vice-versa. Bridge is played under Laws > >AND > >regulations/rules, and it is up to the Sponsors and Zones to do what they > >wish in the later. There is no doubt that there are distinct differences > >between those regulations/rules in the South Pacific, ACBL, EBL, various > >zones, etc., and they are what the players want. It is not helpful to > >nit-pick regulations/rules when they are beyond the purview of the > >Laws, and > >deem it helpful assistance to and interest in the drafting of future > >laws. > > This will certainly incur no wrath from me; Kojak is very much on > point. L40D may be the most controversial law in the book; I believe > it is critical for our regulators to come to a firm consensus on what > it permits ZOs and their designates to do and what it does not, and to > strive to make that intention as clear as possible in the next edition > of TFLB. The first will undoubtedly involve disagreement, controversy, > even vituperation, while the second is something all of us can agree on. > > L40D has historically been about what its title says it's about, > "Regulation of Conventions". But some ZOs (one in particular) went to > great lengths to find complex and esoteric justifications for > regulating any methods they wanted to, conventional or not, claiming > this to be within the powers granted by L40D. The "poster case" was > the ACBL's blanket prohibition against opening 1NT with less than 10 > HCP, subject to an automatic penalty if the partnership in question > played any convention whatsoever in response. The WBF, under pressure > from the ACBL, initially did the sensible thing; it expanded the law to > explicitly permit regulation of light opening bids so the ACBL could > have its way with the 9-point 1NT opening, while otherwise leaving the > words, and presumably the intention, of L40D intact. That wasn't good > enough for a ZO demanding the right to do whatever it wants, so today > we must live with a WBFLC "interpretation" of L40D under which it > should be retitled "Regulation of Any Bidding Methods Whatsoever". The > current interpretation, IMO, is nonsense; it says, in effect, "We have > explcitly granted limited regulatory powers to ZOs, but our intention > is that those limited regulatory powers in fact be unlimited". > > Should there be limitiations on the regulatory powers of ZOs and their > designates, and, if so, what should those limitations be? There are > some out there who would argue that this is the single most important > question for the future of international bridge. > > Kojak asserts that "they [i.e. the status quo or something very much > like it] are what the players want". This is arguable; what is certain > is that handed-down pronouncements from those who claim to be > authorities on the current law will not provide the answer. "What do > the players want?" is the question the WBF should be striving to > answer. To do so, it must listen to those players. > > What players want is whatever they perceive to be good, sensible > regulations. So what do they want from L40D? Where players perceive > that their ZOs (or their designates) are responsive to their needs and > desires, they want the WBF to reduce or eliminate whatever restrictions > may remain on those ZOs; where players perceive that their ZOs are more > responsive to the idiosyncratic concerns of the folks that run them > than they are to the players who comprise their membership, they want > the old restrictions, based on a more literal reading of L40D than the > WBF's, reinstated or expanded. > > Which is more of a problem for the players out there, ZOs in need of > less restriction, so that they are free to make more rules their > players like, or ZOs in need of more restriction, to prevent them from > making more rules that their players don't like? Only by answering > this question can we determine the appropriate direction for whatever > will replace L40D. > > If we are to address not the theoretical concerns of the lawyers and > language-parsers, but rather the practical considerations involved in > providing the best possible game, we can decide which way we want to > take future analogs of L40D only by reaching an understanding of what > those SOs out there are actually doing with the freedom they have been > given by the WBF's interpretation of L40D. When we discuss regulations > made in the South Pacific, ACBL, EBL, various zones, etc., we are > seeking to understand whether, in general, the regulators out there are > or are not giving the players what they want. > > The WBF says they don't care, that if the players don't like what is > being done under the rubric of L40D by their ZOs, they should talk to > their ZOs, not to the WBF. A lot of us consider this a dereliction of > duty by the organization we have charged with writing the laws of the > game. We -- the ones who play in the games the regulators regulate -- > do care about L40D. We care a lot. > > > 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 wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed May 25 20:17:27 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed May 25 20:18:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525181727.42087.qmail@web14722.mail.yahoo.com> --- Minke wrote: > Eric Landau > wrote > > >Grattan states the blitheringly obvious: if we want > to know what a > >regulation says, read it. No wonder folks out > there think we spout > >pedantic nonsense on BLML, if they think that's a > legitimate answer "as > >to the debate in this thread". Yes, regulating > bodies should say what > >they mean. Yes, a regulation that leaves no > allowance for players' > >judgment is "more precise and efficient". Of > course whether we make > >such regulations "should certainly depend on [our] > view of what is > >better for the game". But some of us take this > debate seriously, and > >have genuine opinions, possibly even worthy of > being shared, on the > >subject of what is better for the game. Can we > stop telling each other > >to read the rules, and get back to the real issue? > > Excuse me. 90% of posts on two specific topics, > minimum openings > allowed by the EBU/WBU and EBU/WBU policy on asking > questions are made > by one of these types of people: > > * People who have never read the regulations > * People who have read the regulations but assume > they do not mean what > they say This rates right up there with 87% of statistics are made up. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz Wed May 25 21:32:18 2005 From: wayneburrows at yahoo.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed May 25 21:33:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050525193218.9215.qmail@web14728.mail.yahoo.com> --- WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > At the risk of incurring further wrath, please > understand the following. > Law 40D assigns the regulation of bidding or play > conventions to the Zonal > and Sponsoring organizations. So please, when you > talk about Laws, stop > talking about regulations and vice-versa. Bridge is > played under Laws AND > regulations/rules, and it is up to the Sponsors and > Zones to do what they > wish in the later. There is no doubt that there are > distinct differences > between those regulations/rules in the South > Pacific, ACBL, EBL, various > zones, etc., and they are what the players want. It > is not helpful to > nit-pick regulations/rules when they are beyond the > purview of the Laws, and > deem it helpful assistance to and interest in the > drafting of future laws. The problem in this regard is that the various Sponsoring Organizations overstep their powers when creating regulations under the law. My National Organization holds the view (or at least wrote in correspondence to me) that L40D was *NEVER* intended to contrain them. We are discussing a regulation of 10 hcp hands. If this is a non-conventional bid then L40D gives the regulating authority no right to make such a regulation. Wayne Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From schoderb at msn.com Wed May 25 22:18:36 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed May 25 22:20:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com><00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292D910.9060607@hdw.be><007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be><003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0><6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net><000001c560ba$26370250$1401e150@Mildred><001801c560d5$a40d4200$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> <005501c56153$af4e47d0$619868d5@James> Message-ID: I can't help but agree to the last paragraph. The fight is uphill all the way, and the job is going to be monumental. The best fertilizer is not the complaint with what is written or codified. The best fertilizer is a cogent, terse, complete, better, substitute from what is objected to. Unfortunately I find more of the former than the later. Keep suggestions coming for sure, and I guarantee that I for one will read them and use them. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > [William Schoder] > > Craig, you are absolutely correct! My frustrations need > > to be controlled. When good people are interested in > > improving the game, I'm all for it. When others are nit- > > picking the present Laws, reading intentions into them > > that have been clearly stated were not there, and posing > > as experts I need to take a bunch of deep breaths, > > reach for the delete key, and go back to the heavy work > > we are presently engaged in in rewriting the laws. The > > structure whereby a law is published, and LCs throughout > > the system interpret this law for their constituents, > > and the applications are what the WBFLC intended will > > continue, as will the nit-picking. My apologies to > > those who, as you succinctly state, are making > > contributions to the laws. I've been wrong before. > > Thanks again for putting me back on track. > > [Nigel] > Excellent stuff, Kojak! > > (: Granny suys "When you're reduced to the farmyard, privy > or bedroom as an armoury, then you've lost the dispute :) > > I don't pose as a Bridge expert and I admit my relative > ignorance of bridge rules. Pedants please assume > "rules" = "laws" + "regulations" or whatever. > My opinion on bridge rules, however, has the same weight as > Kojak's. Bridge rules exist to provide ordinary players > like me with an enjoyable game. Yhey should be simple and > clear enough for us to understand and comply with them. > BLMLers seem to forget that the primary purpose of the rules > is not to entertain directors and law-makers. > > Kojak may be right that players' opinions are "HorseShit". > We still hope that that our humble suggestions will provide > the fertilizer from which may grow a more simple, clear, > consistent, complete and objective set of rules -- that we > can all comprehend and enjoy. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john at asimere.com Wed May 25 23:24:39 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed May 25 23:27:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292D910.9060607@hdw.be> <007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be> <003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net> <000001c560ba$26370250$1401e150@Mildred> <001801c560d5$a40d4200$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >Craig, you are absolutely correct! My frustrations need to be controlled. >When good people are interested in improving the game, I'm all for it. When >others are nit-picking the present Laws, reading intentions into them that >have been clearly stated were not there, and posing as experts I need to >take a bunch of deep breaths, reach for the delete key, and go back to the >heavy work we are presently engaged in in rewriting the laws. The structure >whereby a law is published, and LCs throughout the system interpret this law >for their constituents, and the applications are what the WBFLC intended >will continue, as will the nit-picking. My apologies to those who, as you >succinctly state, are making contributions to the laws. I've been wrong >before. > >Thanks again for putting me back on track. Thank you Kojak. John > >Kojak > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Wed May 25 23:28:45 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed May 25 23:31:15 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> <02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com>, Ed Reppert writes >On May 24, 2005, at 4:58 PM, Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > >> There should be no doubt that partner Should be as surprised as the >> opponents. Unfortunately partner of even an occasional psycher is not >> so surprised. > >I have never partnered Zia, but I am aware that he has a reputation for >psyching. That, btw, is the extent of my awareness. Are you suggesting >that because he has that reputation, if I ever do partner him I should >be required to say so in some auctions? Which ones? slamtry auctions where he cues. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed May 25 23:33:40 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed May 25 23:35:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <000001c55dd2$0197d450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <24940d5c9a5ccc80a8ac8d0870431a35@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <33bc8a1fc4a8753740d06ec0023d854f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 22 May 2005, at 15:57, Nanki Poo wrote: > Gordon Rainsford > wrote >> >> On 21 May 2005, at 22:23, Minke wrote: >> >>> Subject to judgement in England. The regulation says that an >>> agreement is to be Rule of 19: but when a hand comes along which is >>> clearly good enough we do not say they are playing an illegal system >>> when they open it. >> >> I seem to remember from previous discussions that the L&EC is not >> unanimous about this. > > That's because you have believed people who have said this. No, the person I remember presenting a different view was himself a member of the L&EC, here on blml. > Actually, whether we are unanimous makes not one jot of difference: > the important thing is what the minutes say. Which lot of minutes is that? I thought I'd downloaded and read them all, but I must have missed something. > >> Certainly, from reading the regulation, I wouldn't have expected >> exceptions to be allowed: it reads to me like a limit within which >> you may exercise your judgement, much as a speed limit does not allow >> exceptions just because the road is empty and the weather good. > > The regulation says what agreements are allowed. The fact that a > lot of people deduce from this that it means something quite > different, namely that it becomes illegal if there is a bid made, is > understandable. That's not the deduction I've made, but we do have a well established idea of an "implicit agreement", don't we? > The fact that people to whom this has been explained do not > understand it is not so understandable. I've read a lot of your contributions to this debate, but I don't think I've identified that as being the core argument. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Thu May 26 01:09:49 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Thu May 26 00:15:08 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> <02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> <00a201c5611b$c8774c80$798616ac@mycomputer> <007f01c5611e$54b246d0$269868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050525095121.02c8d0d0@pop.starpower.net> <003a01c5614e$f436c2a0$619868d5@James> Message-ID: <000c01c5617e$e1745bc0$798616ac@mycomputer> You should tell the opponents what you AGREED with your casual partner, if your partner tells you he is likely to psyche- then and only y then you and HE SHOULD TELL the opponents. This seems to be obvious ,can you explain why it is not to you. Thanks and regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > [Eric Landau] > > > Israel knows only that Zia psychs a lot. Mr. Rosenberg > > presumably knows much more than that about the > > circumstances under which Zia is likely to psych and > > the form the psych is likely to take; that is > > "special information conveyed to him through... > > partnership experience" that Israel lacks, and that > > Mr. Rosenberg is thus obligated to disclose. This > > has no bearing on the issue of whether "Zia psychs a > > lot" is or is not "general knowledge". Given that > > everyone who has posted on the subject has claimed > > to be aware of the fact that Zia psychs a lot, > > despite the fact that none of them have actually > > partnered him, Israel has a good case for claiming > > that it is. > > [Nigel] > > If all you know is partner "psyches a lot", I believe that > information is atill disclosable. > > Also, I maintain that "general knowledge" is too often used > as an excuse for secretiveines about implicit agreements. > > For example, I dispute that "Zia psyches a lot" is really > "general knowledge." (A) Some players don't read bridge > magazines. (B) Some readers are uninterested in the > idisosyncracies of professionals. (C) Even among those > readers who are interested, some have poor eyesight and > don't recognise strangers from photographs ... > > An illustrative anecdote: At the first board in a National > Competition, Rosemary C, a friend who is a succesful and > experienced bridge-player, looked round the room and > innocently asked "Are there any good players here?" This > was worth two tops from her famous international opponents. > > Back on topic: IMO the law should not gratuitously provide > the naturally secretive with the additional rationalisation > of "General Knowledge" > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu May 26 01:54:45 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu May 26 01:57:00 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <000c01c5617e$e1745bc0$798616ac@mycomputer> References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> <02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> <00a201c5611b$c8774c80$798616ac@mycomputer> <007f01c5611e$54b246d0$269868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050525095121.02c8d0d0@pop.starpower.net> <003a01c5614e$f436c2a0$619868d5@James> <000c01c5617e$e1745bc0$798616ac@mycomputer> Message-ID: <61679c7b53703f400e1ec360e4244a1a@rochester.rr.com> On May 25, 2005, at 7:09 PM, Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > You should tell the opponents what you AGREED with your casual > partner, if > your partner tells you he is likely to psyche- then and only y then > you and > HE SHOULD TELL the opponents. > This seems to be obvious ,can you explain why it is not to you. Can you explain why it is? My efforts, as always, are directed towards learning what the law requires. BLMLers sometimes post as if what they think the law says, or what they would like the law to say, is in fact what it does say - and they are not always correct. I'm just trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu May 26 02:08:11 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu May 26 02:09:32 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> <02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> <00a201c5611b$c8774c80$798616ac@mycomputer> <007f01c5611e$54b246d0$269868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050525095121.02c8d0d0@pop.starpower.net> <003a01c5614e$f436c2a0$619868d5@James> <000c01c5617e$e1745bc0$798616ac@mycomputer> Message-ID: <000601c56187$018c2c50$309868d5@James> [Israel] > You should tell the opponents what you AGREED with > your casual partner, if your partner tells you he is > likely to psyche- then and only then you and HE SHOULD > TELL the opponents. This seems to be obvious,can you > explain why it is not to you. Thanks and regards Israel [Nigel] I'm just an ordinary player not a director and I warn you, Israel, that my views on this issue conflict with most EBU directors. Of course, I agree that you (and your new partner) should disclose to your opponents what you've discussed. In many obvious situations, however, IMO you should also disclose *implicit* agreements -- especially those of which opponents may be unaware ... A. Partner is notorious for psyches but he has not, in fact, told you or opponents. B. Porter is notorious for deviations (not full-blown psyches, just minor departures from system) C. Partner has a reputation for miscalls (especially Truscott and Ghestem) D. You and partner have played the same system with another player of group or club of players. E. Partner has written a book on the system and you have studied aspects that are undiscussed. F. Other so-called "general bridge knowledge" about which opponents may be unaware I am sure Richard Hills could supply dozens of other straight-forward examples. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu May 26 02:18:51 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu May 26 02:21:02 2005 Subject: [blml] split score? In-Reply-To: <2ad96105a56e5ac9432cbcec49ecd338@rochester.rr.com> References: <2ad96105a56e5ac9432cbcec49ecd338@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On May 25, 2005, at 12:14 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > Questions: > > Is a split score at all reasonable in this case? > What is the correct ruling? > What laws apply? Thanks, all, for the replies. You said pretty much what I did yesterday at the game. And yeah, Steve, I agree EW need a reminder about CCs. :-) From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Thu May 26 02:42:41 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Thu May 26 02:45:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <33bc8a1fc4a8753740d06ec0023d854f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <000001c55dd2$0197d450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <24940d5c9a5ccc80a8ac8d0870431a35@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <33bc8a1fc4a8753740d06ec0023d854f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote > >On 22 May 2005, at 15:57, Nanki Poo wrote: > >> Gordon Rainsford >> wrote >>> >>> On 21 May 2005, at 22:23, Minke wrote: >>> >>>> Subject to judgement in England. The regulation says that an >>>>agreement is to be Rule of 19: but when a hand comes along which is >>>>clearly good enough we do not say they are playing an illegal system >>>>when they open it. >>> >>> I seem to remember from previous discussions that the L&EC is not >>>unanimous about this. >> >> That's because you have believed people who have said this. > >No, the person I remember presenting a different view was himself a >member of the L&EC, here on blml. > >> Actually, whether we are unanimous makes not one jot of difference: >>the important thing is what the minutes say. > >Which lot of minutes is that? I thought I'd downloaded and read them >all, but I must have missed something. A long time ago an EBU TD who teaches and writes put a hand in English Bridge that he said was an automatic opening bid. It did not satisfy the Rule of 19, and led to a lot of discussion, including in the L&EC. When? Sorry, no idea. >>> Certainly, from reading the regulation, I wouldn't have expected >>>exceptions to be allowed: it reads to me like a limit within which >>>you may exercise your judgement, much as a speed limit does not allow >>>exceptions just because the road is empty and the weather good. >> >> The regulation says what agreements are allowed. The fact that a >>lot of people deduce from this that it means something quite >>different, namely that it becomes illegal if there is a bid made, is >>understandable. > >That's not the deduction I've made, but we do have a well established >idea of an "implicit agreement", don't we? Sure. But that does not alter the regulation, does it? >> The fact that people to whom this has been explained do not >>understand it is not so understandable. > >I've read a lot of your contributions to this debate, but I don't think >I've identified that as being the core argument. I find that in two particular EBU regs people make assumptions that are not in the regs. I just do not know how to attack those oft-repeated assumptions, and am beginning to despair. In the one we are discussing here nothing in the EBU regs tells a player what he may or may not bid [well, maybe a couple of special cases, but not the general one]. This is different from Austria, for example, where you are not allowed to open with less than a certain amount. Despite the fact that the regulation only regulates agreements, people say again and again that they regulate bids. Eventually, I just tire of this - what more can I say? Should it be the reg? Is the Austria reg better, fairer, worse, whatever? These are reasonable questions. But continuous waffling about how we have this reg that we don't does not seem to me to get anywhere. Wahey Liverpool!!!! -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu May 26 03:21:32 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu May 26 03:22:58 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again Message-ID: <4295249C.1080901@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard willey [to Herman] > I find it extremely interesting that so many of your attempts at being > "honest" involve lies... Aside from being offensive, the above shows a complete misunderstanding of what Herman is saying. Think of Frank Stewart's character Minnie. (I hope I have the name right.) Her vision is bad, and she often mixes up kings and jacks. Does anyone claim her agreed notrump range is 13 to 19 instead of her alleged 15-17? Or maybe 11-21 because she might make the same mistake with two cards on the same hand? The subject of psychs seems to stimulate lots of emotion but little logical thinking, even from people who ought to know better. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu May 26 03:39:56 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu May 26 03:41:16 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" Message-ID: <000501c56193$d35ea850$029468d5@James> TYPICAL SCENE -- ANY BRIDGE GAME - ANYWHERE [At Game all, first in hand, the secretary bird opens 1S and RHO raises to 4S. The Walrus, in fourth seat, enquires about the auction ... ] Walrus: What does 4S show? Secretary bird [surprised]: I didn't alert! Walrus [patiently: Natural? Secretary bird [offended]: Are you accusing me of cheating? Walrus [apologetic]: Sorry! No! but does 4S show opening values? Secretary bird: it's pre-emptive. Walrus [persistently]: Obviously! But is it weak or strong? Secretary bird [snapping]: Weak, of course. Walrus [imploringly]: How weak? Secretary bird [angrily]: I'm not here to teach you Bridge! Walrus [broken record]: Can tell me any more about 4S? Secretary bird [completely exasperated]: Enough is enough! It's just "General Knowledge and Experience"! [... OK, we all know that, in real life, by now, the Secretary Bird would have called the "Zero tolerance" Director to impose a procedural penalty on the wicked Walrus for harassment. But let's pretend that the Secretary Bird is in an unusually tolerant mood ...] According to the Walrus's "general knowledge", a weak pre-empt should conform to the "rule of 500" ... but he has lots of points ... so he doubles, reluctantly. Luckily for the Walrus, the Secretary bird is more up to date in his "General knowledge": The Secretary bird's "General knowledge" features "The law of total tricks" -- which roughly equates to what the Walrus might term "rule of 2200" OK. The good news is that the Walrus survives the information famine; but What's the point of all this? Well, "General knowledge" covers lots of ideas. How can the Walrus know whether the Secretary Bird is referring to the "losing trick count", rule of 500, or whatever? In fact, "The Law of Total Tricks" could well be part of a trendy Walrus's "General knowledge" but how can he be sure that the Secretary Bird is on the same page of the fashion catalo? From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu May 26 04:00:56 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu May 26 04:02:15 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" References: <000501c56193$d35ea850$029468d5@James> Message-ID: <001a01c56196$c1e2c4a0$029468d5@James> TYPICAL SCENE -- ANY BRIDGE GAME - ANYWHERE (with some typos corrected) [At Game all, first in hand, the secretary bird opens 1S, raised to 4S. The Walrus, in fourth seat, considers his options ...] Walrus: What does the auction show? Secretary bird [surprised]: We didn't alert! Walrus [patiently: Natural? Secretary bird [offended]: Are you accusing us of cheating? Walrus [apologetic]: Sorry! No! Does 4S show opening values? Secretary bird: it's pre-emptive. Walrus [persistently]: Obviously! But is it weak or strong? Secretary bird [snapping]: Weak, of course. Walrus [imploringly]: How weak? Secretary bird [angrily]: I'm not here to teach you Bridge! Walrus [broken record]: Can tell me any more about 4S? Secretary bird [completely exasperated]: Enough is enough! It's just "General Knowledge and Experience"! [... OK, in real life, by now, the Secretary Bird would have called the "Zero tolerance" Director to impose a procedural penalty on the wicked Walrus for harassment. But let's pretend that the Secretary Bird is in an unusually tolerant mood ...] According to the Walrus's "General knowledge", a weak pre-empt should conform to the "rule of 500" ... but he has lots of points ... so he doubles, reluctantly. Luckily for the Walrus, the Secretary bird is more up to date in his "General knowledge": The Secretary bird's "General knowledge" features "The law of total tricks" -- which roughly equates to what the Walrus might term "rule of 2000" OK. The good news is that the Walrus survives the information famine; but What's the point of all this? Well, "General knowledge" covers lots of ideas. How can the Walrus know whether the Secretary Bird is referring to the "losing trick count", rule of 500, or whatever? In fact, "The Law of Total Tricks" could well be part of a trendy Walrus's "General knowledge" but how can he be sure that the Secretary Bird is on the same page of the fashion catalogue? From john at asimere.com Thu May 26 04:08:08 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu May 26 04:11:14 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <4295249C.1080901@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4295249C.1080901@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <$v7+nGBI+SlCFw+1@asimere.com> In article <4295249C.1080901@cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: richard willey >[to Herman] >> I find it extremely interesting that so many of your attempts at being >> "honest" involve lies... > >Aside from being offensive, the above shows a complete misunderstanding >of what Herman is saying. > >Think of Frank Stewart's character Minnie. (I hope I have the name >right.) Her vision is bad, and she often mixes up kings and jacks. >Does anyone claim her agreed notrump range is 13 to 19 instead of her >alleged 15-17? Or maybe 11-21 because she might make the same mistake >with two cards on the same hand? > >The subject of psychs seems to stimulate lots of emotion but little >logical thinking, even from people who ought to know better. I was playing on-line with Tim tonight. Strong teams game against 2 members from Pakistan at our table. Tim opened 1NT (11-13 and sometimes quite off shape 5431 any, 6322 any etc). RHO overcalls 2C (single suiter) LHO bids 2D (puppet and paradox) and Tim bids 2H. Now, I KNOW a number of things about this fairly common sort of auction. He may not have hearts for a starter and is going to walk the dog. He's done something similar maybe once every 6 months for the last 3 years. It seems perfectly clear to me that I should alert and explain all of this. I accept that *I* can't use the psyching information as our agreements are "11-13, can be off shape" but surely the opponents are entitled to know of his canine proclivities? Does anyone think any of this is illegal and if so why? cheers john > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From tijerino at doramail.com Thu May 26 05:54:55 2005 From: tijerino at doramail.com (Janine Young) Date: Thu May 26 04:59:15 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 $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.pr1ces.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Lauri Wu to be remov(ed: http://www.pr1ces.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 26 06:06:12 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 26 06:07:29 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <$v7+nGBI+SlCFw+1@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: [snip] >and Tim rebids 2H. > >Now, I KNOW a number of things about this fairly common >sort of auction. He may not have hearts for a starter and >is going to walk the dog. He's done something similar >maybe once every 6 months for the last 3 years. It seems >perfectly clear to me that I should alert and explain all >of this. I accept that *I* can't use the psyching >information as our agreements are "11-13, can be off >shape" but surely the opponents are entitled to know of >his canine proclivities? > >Does anyone think any of this is illegal and if so why? Richard Hills: Depends on the online regs whether or not a "walk-the-dog" two-way rebid of 2H (heart length or heart shortage) is legal. In most Aussie events, responses and rebids tend to be unregulated, so (if Tim and MadDog were Aussies) it would usually be legal for them to have an implicit agreement of a two-way 2H rebid, *provided* that that canine implicit agreement was disclosed to the opponents. However, in that case, MadDog's assumption "*I* can't use the ... information" would be incorrect. In Australia, a legal (and fully disclosed) agreement of a two-way 2H rebid would be authorised information to all three of Tim's opponents. Of course, since that implicit agreement of a two-way 2H rebid is now published on blml, it is metamorphosed into an _explicit_ agreement. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From enney at didamail.com Thu May 26 07:43:12 2005 From: enney at didamail.com (Dana Dodd) Date: Thu May 26 06:51:06 2005 Subject: [blml] You've been selected for a low rate Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.pr1ces.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Felix Underwood to be remov(ed: http://www.pr1ces.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu May 26 08:50:38 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu May 26 08:52:22 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" References: <000501c56193$d35ea850$029468d5@James> Message-ID: <002801c561bf$4a325eb0$81e5f1c3@LNV> > TYPICAL SCENE -- ANY BRIDGE GAME - ANYWHERE > > [At Game all, first in hand, the secretary bird opens 1S and > RHO raises to 4S. The Walrus, in fourth seat, enquires about > the auction ... ] Reading this, one thing I am sure of is that "Typical scene' is right but any and anywhere? Even in the new laws, with more flexibility for local organizers we don't go this far. ton From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Thu May 26 10:02:37 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Thu May 26 12:37:53 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <20050525092354.9FE48F61E9@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050525092354.9FE48F61E9@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <4295829D.3010909@hotmail.com> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >>David Barton wrote: >> >> >> >>>Wrong Law. >>> >>>Try L39B. >>> >>> >>> >>I did. On the fourth pass. It redirected me to L35D. Which tells that >>the pass - and all subsequent bids - are cancelled without penalty. >>Since the 1Sp is cancelled I cannot apply L39B on that one anymore. >> >> >> > >Is 1S a violation of the correct procedure? >If it is then it is an infraction so >we can apply L72B1 - all the conditions >("could have known", "at the time >of the irregularity" and "likely") >are met. > > > (excuse me if the question below is rather stupid. I don't have a lot of experience in this. I'm only directing at my club) In L35D it says "...cancelled without penalty.". Does this mean that L16C2 does also not apply? If L16C2 is applicable then L72B1 should never be used: I don't see what advantage the 1S bidder can have if this bid is UI for his partner. It will only be used against him. We simply use L16C2? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050526/291a6623/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 26 14:16:49 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu May 26 14:16:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <20050523204631.50605.qmail@web14727.mail.yahoo.com> <00c001c55fe5$eeb906e0$94dd883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292D910.9060607@hdw.be> <007801c56039$f22301b0$91ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4292F1A4.8060305@hdw.be> <003001c56069$ea0b5150$1ad9883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20050524162939.02c69060@pop.starpower.net> <000001c560ba$26370250$1401e150@Mildred> <001801c560d5$a40d4200$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> <6.1.1.1.0.20050525100110.02c7f7b0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20050525115423.02c76c50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050526075558.02b62eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:07 PM 5/25/05, WILLIAM wrote: >The so called "headings" in the ACBL published Lawbook are not part of >the >Laws. It seems to me that you are pleading that action be taken against >Zonal and Sponsoring organizations who go beyond what you think the law >permits. How would you care to do that? If an SO passes a regulation that goes beyond what the law permits, I expect the WBF (WBFLC?) to send a minuted letter to that SO pointing out that such-and-such regulation goes beyond what the law permits. I don't think that's too much to ask of the organization responsible for promulgating and interpreting the laws. I do not advocate hiring mercenary soldiers to take over the headquarters of recalcitrant SOs, if that's what's worrying Kojak. Kojak is quite right that what I seek is such action against SOs who go beyond what *I* think the law permits. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue what I think the law permits. Hence my previous post, suggesting that it is incumbent on the WBF to come a consensus on what the law permits, tell me and others in clear language what they have decided that the law permits (or rather will, when the next revision appears), and thus be in a position to take (rhetorical) action (that's all they have the real power to do) if an SO goes beyond what they, I, and the rest of us think the law permits. I don't think that's too much to ask. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu May 26 14:16:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu May 26 14:17:52 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Depends on the online regs whether or not a "walk-the-dog" > two-way rebid of 2H (heart length or heart shortage) is > legal. It would be legal (any meaning for 2H would). Indeed had John described the bid as "systemically either 5H or 5S+a shortage elsewhere or short H" he would be be entitled to use the info. Problem is that John thought this was a psych I perpetrate very occasionally because we lack any implicit agreements about how to distinguish the hand types. If, in my partner's opinion, it was knowledge based on experience but lacked the pre-requisites to be an implicit systemic agreement then surely that is what he should have explained? I don't disagree with the premise, in this example, that having discussed the issue in some detail on BLML, which we both clearly read, and having shown that we have a degree of accord on what it should show and no disapproval, then *next time* he should describe it as a systemic agreement. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu May 26 14:16:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu May 26 14:17:56 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" In-Reply-To: <001a01c56196$c1e2c4a0$029468d5@James> Message-ID: Wrong cast Nigel. The Secretary Bird is a stickler for law, will be aware of Law75c, and will explain everything he knows in detail when the Walrus asks his first question. Granted there are some people around who behave like your mooted SB. The laws are not on the side of such people and if either side called the TD this should be discovered. The extent of the Walrus's general knowledge is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the SB knows from agreements (explicit or implicit) and partnership experience. If he is playing 4S as LoTT based he *must* describe the hand types that make LoTT based raises. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 26 14:37:20 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu May 26 14:36:28 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <$v7+nGBI+SlCFw+1@asimere.com> References: <4295249C.1080901@cfa.harvard.edu> <$v7+nGBI+SlCFw+1@asimere.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050526083006.02a45d70@pop.starpower.net> At 10:08 PM 5/25/05, John wrote: >I was playing on-line with Tim tonight. Strong teams game against 2 >members from Pakistan at our table. Tim opened 1NT (11-13 and sometimes >quite off shape 5431 any, 6322 any etc). RHO overcalls 2C (single >suiter) LHO bids 2D (puppet and paradox) and Tim bids 2H. > >Now, I KNOW a number of things about this fairly common sort of auction. >He may not have hearts for a starter and is going to walk the dog. He's >done something similar maybe once every 6 months for the last 3 years. >It seems perfectly clear to me that I should alert and explain all of >this. I accept that *I* can't use the psyching information as our >agreements are "11-13, can be off shape" but surely the opponents are >entitled to know of his canine proclivities? > >Does anyone think any of this is illegal and if so why? I can't imagine anyone would think any of this is illegal. I suspect that John intended to ask the inverse of that question: Does anyone think it would not have been illegal not to alert and explain? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu May 26 16:10:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu May 26 16:11:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050526075558.02b62eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > If an SO passes a regulation that goes beyond what the law permits, I > expect the WBF (WBFLC?) to send a minuted letter to that SO pointing > out that such-and-such regulation goes beyond what the law permits. A clarification that TDs are supposed to enforce the laws (and supplementary regulations not in conflict with the laws) would also be helpful. I know that this is already there if one reads the current laws carefully. I know that as a TD I'm never supposed to enforce an illegal SO regulation. The current state of affairs where I, as a TD, am solely responsible for deciding whether one of my own SOs regulations is illegal is unsatisfactory. OK, I'm no shrinking violet and can handle this should I have to but life would be simpler were the WBF website to provide a list of illegal SO regulations (as and when they become aware of them). There are number of EBU regs I consider "bad but legal" - my duty is to enforce those regs regardless of my personal feelings. There are a couple of regs that fall, IMO, into the category of "bad and illegal". My duty is to refuse to enforce such regs. In theory there could be a reg I consider "good but illegal". My duty would again be to refuse to enforce such a reg regardless of personal feelings. > Kojak is quite right that what I seek is such action against SOs who go > beyond what *I* think the law permits. Eric and I both (albeit we may believe different things). We would settle for the WBF acting against SOs whose regulations the WBF think are illegal. My ability to understand item 8.8 of the WBF bye-laws may be as "erratic" as my ability to understand some of the laws themselves but to me it seems this is something the WBFLC should already be doing. Tim From svenpran at online.no Thu May 26 18:21:52 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu May 26 18:23:16 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <4295829D.3010909@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <000a01c5620f$07271340$6900a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of koen .............. (excuse me if the question below is rather stupid. I don't have a lot of experience in this. I'm only directing at my club) In L35D it says "...cancelled without penalty.". Does this mean that L16C2 does also not apply? If L16C2 is applicable then L72B1 should never be used: I don't see what advantage the 1S bidder can have if this bid is UI for his partner. It will only be used against him. We simply use L16C2? L16C2 does not apply but L16A1 does! (As does L72B1) Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu May 26 18:23:31 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu May 26 18:24:59 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D Message-ID: <000b01c5620f$42e0fe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Correction: ... but L16A does! Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] > Sent: 26. mai 2005 18:22 > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] L35D > > On Behalf Of koen > .............. > (excuse me if the question below is rather stupid. I don't have a lot of > experience in this. I'm only directing at my club) > In L35D it says "...cancelled without penalty.". > Does this mean that L16C2 does also not apply? > If L16C2 is applicable then L72B1 should never be used: I don't see what > advantage the 1S bidder can have if this bid is UI for his partner. It > will only be used against him. We simply use L16C2? > > L16C2 does not apply but L16A1 does! (As does L72B1) > > Regards Sven From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu May 26 19:15:01 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu May 26 19:16:35 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <001401c56139$6e0b1f60$0f9868d5@James> from "GUTHRIE" at May 25, 2005 03:52:52 PM Message-ID: <200505261715.j4QHF1AT001310@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> GUTHRIE writes: > > [Eric Landau] > > If Zia declares his psyching habits on his convention > > card, he must do so only when he plays in international > > competition under the auspices of the WBF. Zia's current > > home zone, as it has been for many years now, is the > > ACBL, where any mention of psyching habits on one's > > convention card is strictly forbidden, based on a blanket > > prohibition against having any agreements of any kind, > > whether explicit or implicit, relating to psychs. > > [Nigel] > I take your point, Eric, but carefully used the word > "habits" rather than "agreements" -- that is -- past > history -- not an undertaking for the future. My > understanding is that Zia's card for the recent US trials > did declare their (asymmetric) psyching habits in some > detail. If that really is illegal, then, obviously, the ACBL > need to revise their regulations in a hurry - if they do not > want to subject Zia's opponents to an even greater > disadvantage.. Well not really. It's not like anybody who chooses to play in the US trials is unaware of Zia (or in recent years Sidney Lazard -- far more playful than Zia) There *have* been disclosure issues in the US trials, but knowledge of general playing style has never been an issue. I've read many comments that make it clear that the players were aware that [say] Ron Gerard (and yes, I know he didn't play this year, but he's probably the most conservative active American expert) has his bid and that Meckwell are a constistent king light. On the other hand, early in my bridge playing days I played against Heitner and Lowenthal in the side game at a regional. The last place you'd expect to find players who were about as good as you can be and basically unknown by most bridge players. (They were well known by the top players) Not that we were damaged by it, but there's no way of disclosing that both were extremely imaginative and unorthodox players. (one of Lowenthal's partners came up with a series of rules for playing with Lowenthal. Among them was that when Lowenthal led a trump, he probably had a singleton some place. Another was that the lead of an honor *denied* a touching honor, if he had an honor sequence he'd probably have led a low card.) Lowenthal didn't psyche much, but his decision making process and the inferences that he drew were, to put it mildly, unexpected. From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu May 26 19:33:53 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu May 26 19:35:19 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Commission minutes In-Reply-To: <4293E895.7050707@cfa.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at May 24, 2005 10:53:09 PM Message-ID: <200505261733.j4QHXrvx001480@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Steve Willner writes: > > > From: "GUTHRIE" > > "Of course" I think there should be a limit on each side's > > total thinking time. Doesn't everybody? A properly timed > > game would ensure you fined the side(s) responsible. > > Remind me never to claim if this goes into effect. And of course I'll > be sure to play unusual methods in both bidding and on defense. And > will false-card as often as possible, even at the risk of misleading > partner. Opponents will have to use up their allotted time wondering > what I've done. > > The above are just a few quick thoughts. I look forward to reading all > the texts that will be written explaining how to put the opponents into > time trouble. > > :-) :-) :-) for the sarcasm-impaired. Years ago Edgar Kaplan wrote an editorial pointing out how Paul Soloway almost certainly cost himself a victory in the US trials through claims. Close match which was won by the other team thanks to a couple of imps worth of time penalties. IIRC if Soloway could have got them to think for a mere extra two minutes he'd have won the match. Interestingly there was a hand where it looks like Goldman is in fact trying for a squeeze against the clock. More likely he simply mis-counted his tricks, because he claimed two tricks after he had all of the remaining tricks. From ghere at emailaccount.com Thu May 26 20:54:09 2005 From: ghere at emailaccount.com (Collin Herrera) Date: Thu May 26 19:58:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Lowest rates in 45 years Message-ID: <118841.1084.ghere@emailaccount.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.pr1ces.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Carol Youngblood to be remov(ed: http://www.pr1ces.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 regains at didamail.com Thu May 26 21:47:15 2005 From: regains at didamail.com (Lucia Mejia) Date: Thu May 26 20:52:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Pre-approved Application #CNHNI313 Message-ID: <119341.7886.regains@didamail.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.pr1ces.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Karin Holley to be remov(ed: http://www.pr1ces.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Thu May 26 22:05:50 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu May 26 22:07:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050526075558.02b62eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: >From: Eric Landau >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System >Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 08:16:49 -0400 > >At 02:07 PM 5/25/05, WILLIAM wrote: > >>The so called "headings" in the ACBL published Lawbook are not part of the >>Laws. It seems to me that you are pleading that action be taken against >>Zonal and Sponsoring organizations who go beyond what you think the law >>permits. How would you care to do that? > >If an SO passes a regulation that goes beyond what the law permits, I >expect the WBF (WBFLC?) to send a minuted letter to that SO pointing out >that such-and-such regulation goes beyond what the law permits. I don't >think that's too much to ask of the organization responsible for >promulgating and interpreting the laws. I do not advocate hiring mercenary >soldiers to take over the headquarters of recalcitrant SOs, if that's >what's worrying Kojak. > >Kojak is quite right that what I seek is such action against SOs who go >beyond what *I* think the law permits. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue >what I think the law permits. Hence my previous post, suggesting that it >is incumbent on the WBF to come a consensus on what the law permits, tell >me and others in clear language what they have decided that the law permits >(or rather will, when the next revision appears), and thus be in a position >to take (rhetorical) action (that's all they have the real power to do) if >an SO goes beyond what they, I, and the rest of us think the law permits. >I don't think that's too much to ask. > Additionally for non-cooperative National or Zonal Organizations they could refuse them entry at WBF events. I don't think that is unreasonable. Why would a Zone or Nation want to play in the WBF tournaments if they do not want to play by the WBF rules. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Become a fitness fanatic @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/health From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 26 23:17:02 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu May 26 23:16:12 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <200505261715.j4QHF1AT001310@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <001401c56139$6e0b1f60$0f9868d5@James> <200505261715.j4QHF1AT001310@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050526153439.02ece5c0@pop.starpower.net> ALERT: If you're not in the mood for some rambling random thoughts, you might want to skip this... At 01:15 PM 5/26/05, Ron wrote: >GUTHRIE writes: > > > [Nigel] > > I take your point, Eric, but carefully used the word > > "habits" rather than "agreements" -- that is -- past > > history -- not an undertaking for the future. My > > understanding is that Zia's card for the recent US trials > > did declare their (asymmetric) psyching habits in some > > detail. If that really is illegal, then, obviously, the ACBL > > need to revise their regulations in a hurry - if they do not > > want to subject Zia's opponents to an even greater > > disadvantage.. > >Well not really. It's not like anybody who chooses to play >in the US trials is unaware of Zia (or in recent years >Sidney Lazard -- far more playful than Zia) > >There *have* been disclosure issues in the US trials, but >knowledge of general playing style has never been an >issue. I've read many comments that make it clear that >the players were aware that [say] Ron Gerard (and yes, I know >he didn't play this year, but he's probably the most conservative >active American expert) has his bid and that Meckwell are >a constistent king light. > >On the other hand, early in my bridge playing days I played >against Heitner and Lowenthal in the side game at a regional. > >The last place you'd expect to find players who were about >as good as you can be and basically unknown by most bridge >players. (They were well known by the top players) > >Not that we were damaged by it, but there's no way of >disclosing that both were extremely imaginative and unorthodox >players. (one of Lowenthal's partners came up with a series of >rules for playing with Lowenthal. Among them was that when >Lowenthal led a trump, he probably had a singleton some place. >Another was that the lead of an honor *denied* a touching honor, >if he had an honor sequence he'd probably have led a low card.) > >Lowenthal didn't psyche much, but his decision making process >and the inferences that he drew were, to put it mildly, unexpected. I infer from this post that Ron and I started playing competitively at more or less the same time and in the same general area. I am struck by the fact that what he describes would have, at the time, been absolutely ordinary, routine, non-controversial. I'm not talking about the infamous "bad old days" or "that ol' black magic" -- players violating, or at least stretching, the laws (or, in those days when it might have mattered, the "proprieties") with impunity conveyed by assertions of lack of intent -- but what players honestly believed law, propriety and ethics rendered appropriate in the way of disclosure. Systems were disclosed, of course, conventions were disclosed, of course, but everyone knows that everyone plays a bit differently, that styles vary, that some folks bid more wildly and others more conservatively, that some bidders are point-count fanatics while others play fast and loose with their nominal ranges; it would not have occured even to those with spotless reputations for impeccable ethics that these sorts of things might be legally subject to disclosure. What has changed? Well, as systems and conventions have gotten more complex, the questions connected with disclosing them have gotten more complex, and the regulatory structure has perforce followed. Also, responding to players fed up with "that ol' black magic", the rules have been tightened, and, later, lawyer-proofed. That's all good, because it means we're doing a better job of disclosure of our systems and conventions. But notwithstanding the development of systems and conventions, and notwithstanding the change in our attitudes towards disclosing them, it's still the case that everyone plays a bit differently, that styles vary, that some folks bid more wildly and others more conservatively, that some bidders are point-count fanatics while others play fast and loose with their nominal ranges, and everyone still knows it. So why did we start thinking that this kind of stuff, as opposed to systems and conventions, should be subject to disclosure? Both more complex rules and tightened rules produce more of an enforcement structure. It becomes the business of that enforcement structure to police marginal cases, plug loopholes, make sure the laws work to their primary purpose. That leads to even more complex and further tightened rules. It can become a never-ending process, for wherever the line is, someone will always try to walk it. And what was once beyond the pale for the regulators becomes grist for the mill. Once, disclosure rules were about systems and conventions. Now the reach of the law has expanded into the territory of style and judgment. When we talk today about how the law treats "style and judgment", we put it in quotes, and argue over whether it provides a legitimate and appropriate exception to the otherwise pervasive reach of the regulators or is a vestigial phrase cited only by the marginally ethical to avoid incurring penalties. We've come a long way from the attitude that style and judgment are what makes bridge, just as differences of opinion are what makes horse racing, and lie well outside the purview of the rules. Have we gone too far? Is it time to rethink, not the laws and rules, but the attitude with which we write, interpret and enforce them? Is it time to remind ourselves that everyone plays a bit differently, that styles vary, that some folks bid more wildly and others more conservatively, that some bidders are point-count fanatics while others play fast and loose with their nominal ranges, and that everyone still knows it? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam at irvine.com Thu May 26 17:31:39 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu May 26 23:55:42 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 May 2005 10:02:37 +0200." <4295829D.3010909@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <200505261531.IAA14987@mailhub.irvine.com> Koen wrote: > (excuse me if the question below is rather stupid. I don't have a lot of > experience in this. I'm only directing at my club) > In L35D it says "...cancelled without penalty.". > Does this mean that L16C2 does also not apply? No, it doesn't. Only things that are explicitly called "penalties" in the Laws, or have something like "(penalty)" attached to them, are considered to be penalties. Other things that affect the score aren't penalties. In particular, adjusting the score to restore equity (Law 12), or ruling that a claimer does not get all the tricks they claimed, are not penalties. > If L16C2 is applicable then L72B1 should never be used: I don't see what > advantage the 1S bidder can have if this bid is UI for his partner. It > will only be used against him. We simply use L16C2? We could use either one. I've argued that L16C2 does apply (not sure if my post has made it to BLML yet, though). -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed May 25 17:58:23 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu May 26 23:55:48 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 May 2005 09:57:49 +0200." <42942FFD.6050702@hdw.be> Message-ID: <200505251558.IAA06832@mailhub.irvine.com> > The bidding goes: > > 1NT pass 3NT pass > pass pass pass 1Sp > > read law 35D and tell me if there are lead penalties. > Is this a free road to the lead-directing bid? No. Law 35D deals with an inadmissible call that has been condoned because offender's LHO acts over it. The inadmissible call to which 35D applies, and therefore the inadmissible call that is cancelled without penalty, is the fourth pass after the 3NT, not the 1S bid. The penalties pertaining to 1S aren't cancelled by 35D since it hasn't been condoned. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed May 25 18:00:54 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu May 26 23:55:53 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 May 2005 08:58:23 PDT." <200505251558.IAA06832@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200505251600.JAA06876@mailhub.irvine.com> I wrote: > > The bidding goes: > > > > 1NT pass 3NT pass > > pass pass pass 1Sp > > > > read law 35D and tell me if there are lead penalties. > > Is this a free road to the lead-directing bid? > > No. Law 35D deals with an inadmissible call that has been condoned > because offender's LHO acts over it. The inadmissible call to which > 35D applies, and therefore the inadmissible call that is cancelled > without penalty, is the fourth pass after the 3NT, not the 1S bid. > The penalties pertaining to 1S aren't cancelled by 35D since it hasn't > been condoned. Never mind, I missed the "and all subsequent calls" part of 35D, which does make things interesting. I'll have to think about this a bit more. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed May 25 18:20:12 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu May 26 23:55:56 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 May 2005 09:00:54 PDT." <200505251600.JAA06876@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200505251620.JAA06988@mailhub.irvine.com> I wrote: > I wrote: > > > > The bidding goes: > > > > > > 1NT pass 3NT pass > > > pass pass pass 1Sp > > > > > > read law 35D and tell me if there are lead penalties. > > > Is this a free road to the lead-directing bid? > > > > No. Law 35D deals with an inadmissible call that has been condoned > > because offender's LHO acts over it. The inadmissible call to which > > 35D applies, and therefore the inadmissible call that is cancelled > > without penalty, is the fourth pass after the 3NT, not the 1S bid. > > The penalties pertaining to 1S aren't cancelled by 35D since it hasn't > > been condoned. > > Never mind, I missed the "and all subsequent calls" part of 35D, which > does make things interesting. I'll have to think about this a bit > more. OK. I've thought about it a bit. The lead penalties of Law 26 don't apply. However, I think Law 16C still does apply. The 1S call is not a legal call (and thus a lead based on that information goes contrary to the preamble to Law 16), and I think that it qualifies as a withdrawn call (although one for which no other action is substituted), so I think the UI rules of 16C apply. (And, as everyone else has said, Law 72B1 can be used.) I think this is an error in drafting the Laws. Does the "and all subsequent calls" part of 35D serve any purpose? I suppose it could, in a case where a the player who makes the final non-pass call of an auction bids again after the final pass and lulls a sleepy LHO into continuing the auction. In this case, it could be argued that we don't want the first offender to bamboozle LHO into something that ends up penalizing his side. It's not a very strong argument, though, because LHO still ought to be paying attention, so I don't have too much of a problem with penalizing him. If this is still a concern, perhaps 35D could be modified so that the penalty for "all subsequent calls" is removed only if the inadmissible call after the last pass of the auction is a non-pass call. In reality, it probably doesn't matter much. In my nearly 25 years of playing bridge, I don't think I've ever heard a call after the final pass of an auction, other than an occasional extra pass (just one), and jokes like this: 1S pass 2S pass 3S pass pass pass 2S which I used to hear a lot back when everyone still played 3S as invitational; or when someone on the declaring side doubles after the auction is over to say "Uh-oh, I think I overbid and got us into a mess"... Anyway, I'd vote for removing the "and all subsequent calls" clause from L35D. -- Adam From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri May 27 00:01:11 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri May 27 00:03:22 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 26, 2005, at 8:16 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Wrong cast Nigel. The Secretary Bird is a stickler for law, will be > aware > of Law75c, and will explain everything he knows in detail when the > Walrus > asks his first question. Granted there are some people around who > behave > like your mooted SB. The laws are not on the side of such people and > if > either side called the TD this should be discovered. The extent of the > Walrus's general knowledge is irrelevant. The only thing that matters > is > what the SB knows from agreements (explicit or implicit) and > partnership > experience. If he is playing 4S as LoTT based he *must* describe the > hand > types that make LoTT based raises. Heh. A while back, opponents had an unopposed auction something like 1D-1H-3H-4NT-5H-P. I asked for an explanation of the auction IAW Law 20. I got blank looks, "huh?", and similar reactions. When I repeated my request, they called the director. In the ensuing discussion, the one heart bidder stated "I don't have to tell him what 3H means" - and the Director backed her up. In the end it didn't matter, but it left me wondering if anyone around here knows what "full disclosure" means. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 27 00:18:28 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 27 00:19:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Contumacious? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ABF Newsletter May 2005, extract from a Letter To The Editors by John O'Brien: [snip] >We waited to hear from the director. He eventually >arrived and said "I have decided to award an >adjusted score. The score is such and such and I >am not going to discuss it." > >I was furious, not at the decision, but the secret >way it was determined. We appealed. The appeal >was held in our absence. The chief tournament >director was warned at the start of that day's play >that, as I was unwell on that day we would probably >be leaving at lunch time so that I could go to bed. >This is what happened. The appeal was held that >afternoon without our attendance. > >Clearly there is a prima facie case of denying us >natural justice. My limited understanding of the >laws is that they oblige directors to listen to our >opponents' gripe but are silent on how we should be >treated. > >I complained of our treatment to the State >Association. My basic complaint was with the >procedure which allowed that action by the >directors. The Association eventually closed my >complaint because the directors merely followed >normally accepted procedures. > >For my part, all that was required was an admission >that a flawed procedure was followed: an apology >for the conduct and an intention to see that it did >not happen again. All I got was a lot of defensive >irrelevancies confusing the basic issue - we should >have been consulted before the decision was made to >adjust the score. [snip] Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 27 00:40:47 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri May 27 00:41:28 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <200505261715.j4QHF1AT001310@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <001a01c56243$f675e6e0$149868d5@James> > [Eric Landau] >> If Zia declares his psyching habits on his convention >> card, he must do so only when he plays in international >> competition under the auspices of the WBF. Zia's current >> home zone, as it has been for many years now, is the >> ACBL, where any mention of psyching habits on one's >> convention card is strictly forbidden, based on a >> blanket prohibition against having any agreements of >> any kind, whether explicit or implicit, relating to >> psychs. >> [Nigel] >> I take your point, Eric, but carefully used the word >> "habits" rather than "agreements" -- that is -- past >> history -- not an undertaking for the future. My >> understanding is that Zia's card for the recent US >> trials did declare their (asymmetric) psyching habits >> in some detail. If that really is illegal, then, >> obviously, the ACBL need to revise their regulations >> in a hurry - if they do not want to subject Zia's >> opponents to an even greater disadvantage.. [Ron Anderson] > Well not really. It's not like anybody who chooses to > play in the US trials is unaware of Zia (or in recent > years idney Lazard -- far more playful than Zia) [Nigel] Zia disclosed his psyching habits in the US trials - so no problem there :) Obviously, what would concern players is your contention that ACBL regulations prevent Zia from being as frank in lesser events. From svenpran at online.no Fri May 27 00:52:36 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri May 27 00:54:01 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <200505251600.JAA06876@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000d01c56245$9c89a8e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> With all these continued entries on this thread I again just want you to look up Law 72B1 which is applicable to the player who made the 1S bid and Law 16A which is applicable to his partner. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > Sent: 25. mai 2005 18:01 > To: blml > Cc: adam@irvine.com > Subject: Re: [blml] L35D > > > I wrote: > > > > The bidding goes: > > > > > > 1NT pass 3NT pass > > > pass pass pass 1Sp > > > > > > read law 35D and tell me if there are lead penalties. > > > Is this a free road to the lead-directing bid? > > > > No. Law 35D deals with an inadmissible call that has been condoned > > because offender's LHO acts over it. The inadmissible call to which > > 35D applies, and therefore the inadmissible call that is cancelled > > without penalty, is the fourth pass after the 3NT, not the 1S bid. > > The penalties pertaining to 1S aren't cancelled by 35D since it hasn't > > been condoned. > > Never mind, I missed the "and all subsequent calls" part of 35D, which > does make things interesting. I'll have to think about this a bit > more. > > -- Adam > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Fri May 27 01:09:04 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Fri May 27 01:11:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050526075558.02b62eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >Eric wrote: > >> If an SO passes a regulation that goes beyond what the law permits, I >> expect the WBF (WBFLC?) to send a minuted letter to that SO pointing >> out that such-and-such regulation goes beyond what the law permits. > >A clarification that TDs are supposed to enforce the laws (and >supplementary regulations not in conflict with the laws) would also be >helpful. I know that this is already there if one reads the current laws >carefully. I know that as a TD I'm never supposed to enforce an illegal >SO regulation. The current state of affairs where I, as a TD, am solely >responsible for deciding whether one of my own SOs regulations is illegal >is unsatisfactory. OK, I'm no shrinking violet and can handle this should >I have to but life would be simpler were the WBF website to provide a list >of illegal SO regulations (as and when they become aware of them). This seems an unnecessarily arrogant approach to regulations. It is the SO's job ot provide regs and to make sure they are legal. It is not the TD's job. Suppose you think something is illegal, and you are wrong? I would suggest that you should just follow the regs and avoid the unnecessary view that it is your job to decide what they should be. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Fri May 27 01:19:58 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri May 27 01:21:24 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: Ed Reppert >To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" >Subject: Re: [blml] "General knowldge?" >Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 18:01:11 -0400 > > >On May 26, 2005, at 8:16 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >>Wrong cast Nigel. The Secretary Bird is a stickler for law, will be aware >>of Law75c, and will explain everything he knows in detail when the Walrus >>asks his first question. Granted there are some people around who behave >>like your mooted SB. The laws are not on the side of such people and if >>either side called the TD this should be discovered. The extent of the >>Walrus's general knowledge is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is >>what the SB knows from agreements (explicit or implicit) and partnership >>experience. If he is playing 4S as LoTT based he *must* describe the hand >>types that make LoTT based raises. > >Heh. A while back, opponents had an unopposed auction something like >1D-1H-3H-4NT-5H-P. I asked for an explanation of the auction IAW Law 20. I >got blank looks, "huh?", and similar reactions. When I repeated my request, >they called the director. In the ensuing discussion, the one heart bidder >stated "I don't have to tell him what 3H means" - and the Director backed >her up. In the end it didn't matter, but it left me wondering if anyone >around here knows what "full disclosure" means. > I am glad this doesn't only happen to me. Two weekends ago I was on lead against the following auction: 1NT 2S* 3C 3NT I asked "can you explain the auction please?" Expecting to get a NT range a description of 2S and perhaps 3C. I got absolute stone silence. So I asked "Is someone going to answer my question?" To which the opponents answered "We didn't know who you were asking". Eventually one opponent said "2S is a rangefinder" I said "is that all? what about the NT range and 3C?" He said "12-14" or whatever it was and "3C just shows a maximum" Then added gratuitiously "It is all pretty obvious really" Really? 3C hadn't even been alerted and appeared to be artificial. Well not to me its not and even if it was why can't they just give simple answers to simple questions. I eventually called the director and explained how difficult it was to get a proper explanation. The director did at least tell them that they should make an effort to give a good explanation but I doubt that it will do much long term good. Here's hoping Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html From winonagerrish at go4.it Thu May 26 17:30:59 2005 From: winonagerrish at go4.it (margarette phillips) Date: Fri May 27 01:27:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Heighten sensation Message-ID: <7F4E6357.1F8B901@go4.it> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050527/0066de13/attachment.html From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 27 01:55:20 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri May 27 01:56:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050526075558.02b62eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000d01c5624e$6068a8d0$189868d5@James> [David Stevenson[ > This seems an unnecessarily arrogant approach to > regulations. It is the SO's job ot provide regs and > to make sure they are legal. It is not the TD's job. > Suppose you think something is illegal, and you are > wrong? I would suggest that you should just follow the > regs and avoid the nnecessary view that it is your job > to decide what they should be. [Nigel] Tim is right that inconsistencies and anomalies are inevitable when sponsoring organisations are forced to plug the gaps in the law book by cobbling together local regulations. manifestly, David is also right that directors should enforce the laws and regulations as written. The problem that David carefully refuses to recognize or address is that a local regulation may appear to contradict the law book: presenting the director with a dilemma. Obviously, it would be simpler and better if the law-book were comprehensive. Arguably, however, even when the law-book is complete, if a sponsoring organisation wants to over-ride a universal law with a local regulation, then they should have carte-blanche to do so. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 27 03:22:32 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 27 03:23:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson sensibly advised: >This seems an unnecessarily arrogant approach to regulations. It is >the SO's job to provide regs and to make sure they are legal. It is >not the TD's job. Richard Hills paradoxes: The TD's job includes Law 81B2 -> "The Director is bound by these Laws... Of course, Law 81B2 concludes -> "...and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organisation." Therefore, in the unlikely event that the ABF promulgated a regulation which was directly contrary to Law, as an Aussie TD my attempt to obey Law 81B2 would send me into an infinite loop. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 27 03:53:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 27 03:54:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > > OK, I'm no shrinking violet and can handle this should > >I have to but life would be simpler were the WBF website to provide a > >list of illegal SO regulations (as and when they become aware of them). > > This seems an unnecessarily arrogant approach to regulations. It is > the SO's job ot provide regs and to make sure they are legal. Maybe, but if they don't do their job somebody has to mop up. If TDs aren't going to stand up for the laws who will? > It is not the TD's job. Suppose you think something is illegal, and you > are wrong? Suppose I think something is an LA and I am wrong? I end up making a bad ruling - I won't be happy about but there you are. Actually it's usually easier to judge an illegal regulation than an LA. > I would suggest that you should just follow the regs and avoid the > unnecessary view that it is your job to decide what they should be. The TD's duty is to uphold the law. I will not, for example, enforce a "no psychs" regulation even if a club where I am directing tells me to. They don't have to employ me - but if they do the regulation will be in abeyance for the session. I don't think any TD should penalise legitimate psychs - and I'm disappointed that you would. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 27 03:53:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 27 03:54:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > >That's not the deduction I've made, but we do have a well established > >idea of an "implicit agreement", don't we? > > Sure. But that does not alter the regulation, does it? It doesn't alter the regulation, but it does affect the impact of the regulation. If pair agrees to only open "really good non Ro19 hands" it is an explicit illegal agreement. If a pair agrees "old-fashioned Acol" (and all the books give examples non Ro19 openers) it is an explicit illegal agreement. If pair who know eachothers style but haven't discussed it directly would routinely upgrade some Ro19 hands it is an implicit illegal agreement. > In the one we are discussing here nothing in the EBU regs tells a > player what he may or may not bid As you can work out from the above it *does* tell him, in many circumstances, what he may not bid (or rather that he may bid it but it will be deemed illegal if he or his partner make a conventional bid thereafter). Tim From craigstamps at comcast.net Fri May 27 04:10:05 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Fri May 27 04:12:42 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV><02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer><0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com><001401c560e6$3e055a90$069468d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050525093120.02c750a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00c601c56261$60b74360$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > At 12:57 AM 5/25/05, GUTHRIE wrote: > >>[Ed Reppert] >> > I have never partnered Zia, but I am aware that he has a >> > reputation for psyching. That, btw, is the extent of my >> > awareness. Are you suggesting that because he has that >> > reputation, if I ever do partner him I should be >> > required to say so in some auctions? Which ones? >> >>[Nigel] >>I've never played with or against Zia, but I'm told he is >>less secretive about his psyching proclivities than most >>BLMLers appear to be. His psychig habits seem to be >>declared on his convention card and system notes. (: I >>presume that you'll agree a system and use identical >>convention cards :). Hence, you should have no problem as >>to which calls to alert as possible psyches. I dare say, >>if, for example, on the first board in an individual, then >>your disclosure obligation would be satisfied if you told >>opponents that partner has a reputatuon for psyching. > > If Zia declares his psyching habits on his convention card, he must do so > only when he plays in international competition under the auspices of the > WBF. Zia's current home zone, as it has been for many years now, is the > ACBL, where any mention of psyching habits on one's convention card is > strictly forbidden, based on a blanket prohibition against having any > agreements of any kind, whether explicit or implicit, relating to psychs. Which of course is utter foolishness...when will we overcome the Oakie syndrome and get back to playing bridge in North America? Craig > > > 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 swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 27 04:34:55 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri May 27 04:36:18 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <200505201436.j4KEadaB000665@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505201436.j4KEadaB000665@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4296874F.6030701@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > There is an important line that must be drawn between "system" and > "understanding based on experience" when assessing possible breaches of SO > regulations. This seems exactly right to me. Minnie's difficulty with kings and jacks is in the latter category. Does anybody disagree? Both categories are subject to disclosure, but only the former can be regulated. The problem is to draw the line between these two. Whatever the distinction is, it has to be enforceable. Basing it on the player's own testimony or history does not meet that test. From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I was playing on-line with Tim tonight. Strong teams game against 2 > members from Pakistan at our table. Tim opened 1NT (11-13 and sometimes > quite off shape 5431 any, 6322 any etc). RHO overcalls 2C (single > suiter) LHO bids 2D (puppet and paradox) and Tim bids 2H. > > Now, I KNOW a number of things about this fairly common sort of auction. > He may not have hearts for a starter and is going to walk the dog. He's > done something similar maybe once every 6 months for the last 3 years. > It seems perfectly clear to me that I should alert and explain all of > this. Certainly you would have to explain if asked any questions. Whether you would have to alert depends on the regulations of the online club. Most SOs would have regulations about alerting the 1NT opening itself; in some an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton would be illegal. (I know you know all this, John, but it doesn't hurt to spell it out.) > I accept that *I* can't use the psyching information as our > agreements are "11-13, can be off shape" but surely the opponents are > entitled to know of his canine proclivities? If your agreements make no provision for the weak version -- and even Stayman may be such a provision if Tim opens with short majors and long clubs -- and if your own actions do not cater to anything other than what the bidding shows, then it seems to me you have an "understanding based on experience" and not "system." If so, there's no problem with L40B or 40D, and as long as you disclose as required there's no MI. Even if the 1NT bid or followup is "system," it may be legal in some jurisdictions. (Presumably such jurisdictions would provide for adequate disclosure.) If such a system is legal, you are entitled to use the information yourself. From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Fri May 27 04:46:59 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri May 27 04:48:25 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <4296874F.6030701@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: >From: Steve Willner >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] I did it again >Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 22:34:55 -0400 >Certainly you would have to explain if asked any questions. Whether you >would have to alert depends on the regulations of the online club. Most >SOs would have regulations about alerting the 1NT opening itself; in some >an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton would be illegal. (I know you >know all this, John, but it doesn't hurt to spell it out.) It is not clear to me that a sponsoring organization has the right to regulate a 1NT opening because it might have a singleton. I do not see why this would make it conventional and therefore subject to regulations. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Read the latest Hollywood gossip @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/entertainment From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 27 04:56:16 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri May 27 04:57:38 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <200505262229.j4QMTPIs018858@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505262229.j4QMTPIs018858@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42968C50.4030601@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > Systems were disclosed, of course, conventions were > disclosed, of course, but everyone knows that everyone plays a bit > differently, that styles vary, that some folks bid more wildly and > others more conservatively, that some bidders are point-count fanatics > while others play fast and loose with their nominal ranges; it would > not have occured even to those with spotless reputations for impeccable > ethics that these sorts of things might be legally subject to > disclosure. What has changed? I think the main thing is that a much wider variety of methods are played now. When I started playing, it was "Goren all the way." (But I was very young at the time!) Yes the Italians played something different, but no one I knew had ever seen one of them let alone played against them. Nowadays, the Italian stars show up at all the NABCs (and win a bunch of events). Some of them even live in Florida! And other people -- even non-Italians -- play Precision or Polish Club or KS or (God save us!) EHAA. :-) With all this system proliferation, there has to be a lot more disclosure or bridge becomes unplayable. (People have proposed "no disclosure," but then the game becomes one of who can invent the most obscure bidding system. Sounds boring to me.) Once you accept that a great deal of disclosure is needed, the easiest rule to write is "disclose everything." Of course the "disclose everything" rule leads to difficult judgment decisions. How does the TD decide whether it has been complied with or not? It wouldn't be ridiculous to back off a bit, but then you have the problem of writing a different rule that is clear and enforceable (at least as enforceable as "disclose everything"). It isn't obvious how to do that in a sensible way. Of course as we are discussing in a different thread, "disclose everything" does not mean "everything is system and subject to regulation." Keep thinking about Minnie's kings and jacks if psychs upset you. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 27 05:05:11 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri May 27 05:06:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Fox or rabbit? In-Reply-To: <200505251411.j4PEBDVb027376@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505251411.j4PEBDVb027376@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42968E67.9030601@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > Well, I am now of the view that *if* South is a villain he's a more > devious one than I can imagine. I'm glad to hear it, because I was the rabbit South. (Don't ask what bizarre mental breakdown led to the insufficient 2H bid, but it didn't have anything to do with misleading the opponents or preventing a lead.) > It hasn't changed my view that lead-averting villainy is possible and that > I should investigate carefully next time too. Indeed. And this brings me to the point of this whole thread: even a rabbit may accidentally perpetrate a villainous maneuver. It is entirely proper to investigate and adjust the score if warranted, no matter what the perpetrator's reputation may be. Such an adjustment should not be viewed as an aspersion on character; it is just like any routine adjustment for UI or MI or whatever. From mikopera at nyc.rr.com Fri May 27 06:38:12 2005 From: mikopera at nyc.rr.com (Michael Kopera) Date: Fri May 27 06:39:42 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C2 (ACBL) Message-ID: <4296A434.20008@nyc.rr.com> 12C2 Assigned score: When the director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. In percentage terms, what is "the most favorable result that was likely" and what is "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable". Reminder: under ACBL jurisdiction. -- Mike Kopera If you never try anything new, you'll miss out on many of life's greatest disappointments. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri May 27 07:23:37 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri May 27 07:25:48 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C2 (ACBL) In-Reply-To: <4296A434.20008@nyc.rr.com> References: <4296A434.20008@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: On May 27, 2005, at 12:38 AM, Michael Kopera wrote: > In percentage terms, what is "the most favorable result that was > likely" and what is "the most unfavorable result that was at all > probable". > > Reminder: under ACBL jurisdiction. I don't know what the ACBL says, but it seems to me that "likely" means "credible" or "believable" so you look at the favorable results you think are believable, and that "at all probable" means "probability > 0" so you go to the most unfavorable result you think had *any* chance of occurring, credible or not. I'm not sure you can (or should) quantify it any more closely than that. :-) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 27 07:39:58 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 27 07:40:46 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C2 (ACBL) In-Reply-To: <4296A434.20008@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Mike Kopera asked: >12C2 Assigned score: When the director awards an assigned adjusted score >in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score >is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely >had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most >unfavorable result that was at all probable. > >In percentage terms, what is "the most favorable result that was likely" >and what is "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable". > >Reminder: under ACBL jurisdiction. Richard Hills replies: The ACBL interpretation -> (a) The offending side is awarded a particular unfavourable score whose combined probability (combined with the probability of even more unfavourable scores for the offending side) is at least a 16.67% chance. (b) The non-offending side is awarded a particular favourable score whose combined probability (combined with the probability of even more favourable scores for the non-offending side) is at least a 33.33% chance. (c) The Law 12C2 phrase "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance" means that a split score is awarded to the two sides if the (a) and (b) assessments are not complementary. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Fri May 27 11:21:48 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri May 27 11:23:18 2005 Subject: [blml] claim:inferior play by defence to allow declarer to be careless? Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C6B5@hotel.npl.co.uk> E/Both Vul/Teams IMPs W N E S 8 4 1S 2H 9 4 2 3D P 4C P Q 7 6 3 4S P P P 8 7 4 3 A Q K J 9 6 3 J 8 6 5 none A J 10 8 5 2 K 4 J A Q 10 9 6 5 10 7 5 2 A K Q 10 7 3 9 K 2 1: HA ruffed. 2: Sx to A. 3: CJ to Q and K. 4: HK ruffed. 5: Sx to Q. 6: Dx to K. 7: SK. 8: CA. East claims the rest: cashing 4 clubs and DA. South objects: he still has S10! North says we will take (at least) three tricks: S10, HQ and DQ. East says he wouldn't throw a heart from dummy, even when he thinks he is taking the rest. The position is (Tricks: NS 1, EW 7) - - Q 7 6 8 7 - - J 8 - A J 10 4 - 10 9 6 5 10 Q 10 7 3 - - Your ruling? East leads C10 and South ruffs, is pitching H8 normal? East leads C10, might South duck to see what dummy pitches? If East leads C10 and South ducks, is pitching H8 normal now? 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, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Fri May 27 11:37:54 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Fri May 27 11:39:21 2005 Subject: [blml] claim:inferior play by defence to allow declarer to becareless? Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64E6@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Robin Barker > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 11:22 > To: 'blml@rtflb.org' > Subject: [blml] claim:inferior play by defence to allow declarer to > becareless? > > > E/Both Vul/Teams IMPs W N E S > 8 4 1S 2H > 9 4 2 3D P 4C P > Q 7 6 3 4S P P P > 8 7 4 3 > A Q K J 9 6 3 > J 8 6 5 none > A J 10 8 5 2 K 4 > J A Q 10 9 6 5 > 10 7 5 2 > A K Q 10 7 3 > 9 > K 2 > > > 1: HA ruffed. 2: Sx to A. 3: CJ to Q and K. > 4: HK ruffed. 5: Sx to Q. 6: Dx to K. > 7: SK. 8: CA. > > East claims the rest: cashing 4 clubs and DA. > South objects: he still has S10! > North says we will take (at least) three tricks: > S10, HQ and DQ. > East says he wouldn't throw a heart from dummy, > even when he thinks he is taking the rest. > > The position is (Tricks: NS 1, EW 7) > - > - > Q 7 6 > 8 7 > - - > J 8 - > A J 10 4 > - 10 9 6 5 > 10 > Q 10 7 3 > - > - > > Your ruling? > > East leads C10 and South ruffs, is pitching H8 normal? > East leads C10, might South duck to see what dummy pitches? > If East leads C10 and South ducks, is pitching H8 normal now? > > Robin If South ruffs the C10, then I consider pitching a heart foolish. East is allowed to wake up if an unexpected trump appears. However, if South does not ruff the first club, West has to discard four times on the clubs, and there is no reason why he shouldn't start with a heart. Since the first scenario gives NS three tricks and the second four, I choose the second scenario. One trick for East in this position. -- Martin Sinot From hermandw at hdw.be Fri May 27 12:06:12 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri May 27 12:06:04 2005 Subject: [blml] claim:inferior play by defence to allow declarer to be careless? In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C6B5@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C6B5@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <4296F114.9010106@hdw.be> Robin Barker wrote: > E/Both Vul/Teams IMPs W N E S > 8 4 1S 2H > 9 4 2 3D P 4C P > Q 7 6 3 4S P P P > 8 7 4 3 > A Q K J 9 6 3 > J 8 6 5 none > A J 10 8 5 2 K 4 > J A Q 10 9 6 5 > 10 7 5 2 > A K Q 10 7 3 > 9 > K 2 > > > 1: HA ruffed. 2: Sx to A. 3: CJ to Q and K. > 4: HK ruffed. 5: Sx to Q. 6: Dx to K. > 7: SK. 8: CA. > let's just note that the timing of this claim is totally consistent with East viewing the hand (especially the clubs) correctly, except for the outstanding trump. > East claims the rest: cashing 4 clubs and DA. > South objects: he still has S10! > North says we will take (at least) three tricks: > S10, HQ and DQ. > East says he wouldn't throw a heart from dummy, > even when he thinks he is taking the rest. > > The position is (Tricks: NS 1, EW 7) > - > - > Q 7 6 > 8 7 > - - > J 8 - > A J 10 4 > - 10 9 6 5 > 10 > Q 10 7 3 > - > - > > Your ruling? > > East leads C10 and South ruffs, is pitching H8 normal? I don't believe it is. > East leads C10, might South duck to see what dummy pitches? well, I don't think this is important. I always say that opponents in a claim are called Belladonna-Garozzo. It is a possible play. > If East leads C10 and South ducks, is pitching H8 normal now? > I think it is. Claimer believes all he needs is the DA. So discarding both hearts and both low diamonds on the four high clubs can be done in any order whatsoever. So we rule that the H8 is discarded on the first club, the second club is ruffed, and South wins S10, HQ, H10 and H7. 4 tricks to NS, added to the one they already have, means 4S-2 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Fri May 27 12:13:01 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri May 27 12:14:24 2005 Subject: [blml] claim:inferior play by defence to allow declarer to becareless? In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C6B5@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000101c562a4$aa183940$6900a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Robin Barker > Sent: 27. mai 2005 11:22 > To: 'blml@rtflb.org' > Subject: [blml] claim:inferior play by defence to allow declarer to > becareless? > > E/Both Vul/Teams IMPs W N E S > 8 4 1S 2H > 9 4 2 3D P 4C P > Q 7 6 3 4S P P P > 8 7 4 3 > A Q K J 9 6 3 > J 8 6 5 none > A J 10 8 5 2 K 4 > J A Q 10 9 6 5 > 10 7 5 2 > A K Q 10 7 3 > 9 > K 2 > > > 1: HA ruffed. 2: Sx to A. 3: CJ to Q and K. > 4: HK ruffed. 5: Sx to Q. 6: Dx to K. > 7: SK. 8: CA. > > East claims the rest: cashing 4 clubs and DA. > South objects: he still has S10! > North says we will take (at least) three tricks: > S10, HQ and DQ. > East says he wouldn't throw a heart from dummy, > even when he thinks he is taking the rest. > > The position is (Tricks: NS 1, EW 7) > - > - > Q 7 6 > 8 7 > - - > J 8 - > A J 10 4 > - 10 9 6 5 > 10 > Q 10 7 3 > - > - > > Your ruling? NS get all five remaining tricks. > > East leads C10 and South ruffs, is pitching H8 normal? YES (actually "normal" in the meaning "not irrational") > East leads C10, might South duck to see what dummy pitches? > If East leads C10 and South ducks, is pitching H8 normal now? YES Regards Sven From arikawa at doneasy.com Fri May 27 13:28:38 2005 From: arikawa at doneasy.com (Melva Delaney) Date: Fri May 27 12:38:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Rates fixed wont last long Message-ID: <115241.3889.arikawa@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.pr1ces.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Marlin Medrano to be remov(ed: http://www.pr1ces.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 May 27 12:45:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 27 12:47:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote > > "...and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring > organisation." > > Therefore, in the unlikely event that the ABF promulgated a > regulation which was directly contrary to Law, as an Aussie TD my > attempt to obey Law 81B2 would send me into an infinite loop. Don't think we can wait that long for a ruling! On error goto: L80F If then apply law, exit loop It is not just the ABF, but the club itself that can cause such loops. Whether it is "no psychs" or "give UI abusers an average(-) not a full adjusted score" or "rule for regulars against guests" or "redeal passed out boards" etc. (nb some of those "regulations" may only be announced to the TD at the time of a ruling). While I have seen NO regulations that are obviously illegal (and some less obviously) clubs (also SOs) can be far worse offenders than NOs. I think David is very wrong to say that a TD should enforce such regulations - in my view the TD should not only *not* enforce them but also draw them to the attention of the NO under whose general auspices the club is operating. The same principle applies if the NO is the SO (although if the NO takes no action one should then should draw it to the attention of the WBF). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 27 12:45:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 27 12:47:29 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > >Certainly you would have to explain if asked any questions. Whether > you >would have to alert depends on the regulations of the online club. > Most >SOs would have regulations about alerting the 1NT opening > itself; in some >an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton would be > illegal. (I know you >know all this, John, but it doesn't hurt to > spell it out.) > > It is not clear to me that a sponsoring organization has the right to > regulate a 1NT opening because it might have a singleton. They are entitled to regulate the *alerting* of 1N which may contain a singleton - or indeed any other form of disclosure. They are entitled to regulate which conventions may be played if 1N may be opened on a singleton. They are even entitled, as the EBU has done, to write regulations which make it *appear* illegal to open certain 1NT hands with a singleton. Fortunately one knows that, whatever it says in all the pages on "permitted conventions", there is no need for them to give explicit permission to open a 1NT which is not conventional since non- conventional (even if unconventional) 1N bids are not subject to direct regulation. Tim From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 27 12:49:19 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri May 27 12:50:36 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" References: Message-ID: <004901c562a9$bd0eb560$2c9868d5@James> [Tim] > Granted there are some people around who behave > like your mooted SB. The laws are not on the side of > such people and if either side called the TD this > should be discovered. The extent of the Walrus's > general knowledge is irrelevant. The only thing > that matters is what the SB knows from agreements > (explicit or implicit) and partnership experience. > If he is playing 4S as LoTT based he *must* describe > the hand types that make LoTT based raises. [Nigel] My understanding of the laws is that neither a director nor a player can force an opponent to divulge any more once he has said "I have told you our agreements apart from what is general knolwdge and experience." My experince bears this out. Like Eric Landau I've never received any satisfaction from calling a director; although I nave often discovered later that opponents had an wrong idea of my general knowledge From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 27 13:01:02 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri May 27 13:02:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <000001c55dd2$0197d450$6900a8c0@WINXP><24940d5c9a5ccc80a8ac8d0870431a35@gordonrainsford.co.uk><33bc8a1fc4a8753740d06ec0023d854f@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <006001c562ab$5fb95bc0$2c9868d5@James> [Nanki Poo] > Despite the fact that the regulation only regulates > agreements, people say again and again that they > regulate bids. Eventually, I just tire of this - > what more can I say? {Nigel] In a level 3 EBU even, you open 1S third in hand on a "rule of 17 hand". say AT0876 QT9876 9 - If that is comes as much a surprise to partner as it is to regulation abiding opponents, then it is OK according to the EBU OB. But if you have an agreement (implicit or explicit) to use judgement to upgrade such hands, then most players (and even some law-makers like David Burn and Grattan Endicott) believe you are breaking the regulation. Naughty Pussy! QED From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Fri May 27 13:36:10 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri May 27 13:37:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <006001c562ab$5fb95bc0$2c9868d5@James> Message-ID: >From: "GUTHRIE" >To: "BLML" >Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System >Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 12:01:02 +0100 > >[Nanki Poo] > > Despite the fact that the regulation only regulates > > agreements, people say again and again that they > > regulate bids. Eventually, I just tire of this - > > what more can I say? > >{Nigel] >In a level 3 EBU even, you open 1S third in hand on > a "rule of 17 hand". say AT0876 QT9876 9 - > >If that is comes as much a surprise to partner as it is to >regulation abiding opponents, then it is OK according to the >EBU OB. > >But if you have an agreement (implicit or explicit) to use >judgement to upgrade such hands, then most players (and even >some law-makers like David Burn and Grattan Endicott) >believe you are breaking the regulation. > What if you use judgement to upgrade this hand but have no agreement explicit or implicit, about it but partner is not as surprised as the opponents. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Fri May 27 13:40:20 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri May 27 13:41:46 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) >Reply-To: twm@cix.co.uk >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] I did it again >Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 11:45 +0100 (BST) > >Wayne wrote: > > >Certainly you would have to explain if asked any questions. Whether > > you >would have to alert depends on the regulations of the online club. > > Most >SOs would have regulations about alerting the 1NT opening > > itself; in some >an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton would be > > illegal. (I know you >know all this, John, but it doesn't hurt to > > spell it out.) I did not write any of the above. > > > > It is not clear to me that a sponsoring organization has the right to > > regulate a 1NT opening because it might have a singleton. > >They are entitled to regulate the *alerting* of 1N which may contain a >singleton - or indeed any other form of disclosure. They are entitled to >regulate which conventions may be played if 1N may be opened on a >singleton. They are even entitled, as the EBU has done, to write >regulations which make it *appear* illegal to open certain 1NT hands with >a singleton. Fortunately one knows that, whatever it says in all the >pages on "permitted conventions", there is no need for them to give >explicit permission to open a 1NT which is not conventional since non- >conventional (even if unconventional) 1N bids are not subject to direct >regulation. > How does the TD and committee rule when you play this legal method after you do not commit an infraction by opening 1NT with a singleton? Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Discover fun and games at @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/kids From nankipoo2 at blakjak.com Fri May 27 13:59:51 2005 From: nankipoo2 at blakjak.com (Nanki Poo) Date: Fri May 27 14:02:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <++lgd0L3uwlCFwfm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Tim West-Meads wrote >DWS wrote: >> > OK, I'm no shrinking violet and can handle this should >> >I have to but life would be simpler were the WBF website to provide a >> >list of illegal SO regulations (as and when they become aware of them). >> >> This seems an unnecessarily arrogant approach to regulations. It is >> the SO's job ot provide regs and to make sure they are legal. > >Maybe, but if they don't do their job somebody has to mop up. If TDs >aren't going to stand up for the laws who will? > >> It is not the TD's job. Suppose you think something is illegal, and you >> are wrong? > >Suppose I think something is an LA and I am wrong? I end up making a bad >ruling - I won't be happy about but there you are. Actually it's usually >easier to judge an illegal regulation than an LA. The difference is that making decisions about LAs is your job, so if you do your best it matters not that sometimes you will make a mistake. Deciding whether an SO's regs are legal is not your job. >> I would suggest that you should just follow the regs and avoid the >> unnecessary view that it is your job to decide what they should be. > >The TD's duty is to uphold the law. I will not, for example, enforce a >"no psychs" regulation even if a club where I am directing tells me to. >They don't have to employ me - but if they do the regulation will be in >abeyance for the session. I don't think any TD should penalise legitimate >psychs - and I'm disappointed that you would. I am disappointed that you have so .little respect for the game of bridge or for the people who play it that you are not prepared to do your job. It is certainly not your job to over-ride the SO. Yes, you are arrogant enough to believe that you must be right, but you may not be, and you are demeaning the game and abrogating your duty to the players. -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 27 14:41:21 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 27 14:40:30 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <42968C50.4030601@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505262229.j4QMTPIs018858@cfa.harvard.edu> <42968C50.4030601@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050527081415.02a402c0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:56 PM 5/26/05, Steve wrote: >>From: Eric Landau >> Systems were disclosed, of course, conventions were >>disclosed, of course, but everyone knows that everyone plays a bit >>differently, that styles vary, that some folks bid more wildly and >>others more conservatively, that some bidders are point-count >>fanatics while others play fast and loose with their nominal ranges; >>it would not have occured even to those with spotless reputations for >>impeccable ethics that these sorts of things might be legally subject >>to disclosure. What has changed? > >I think the main thing is that a much wider variety of methods are >played now. When I started playing, it was "Goren all the way." (But >I was very young at the time!) Yes the Italians played something >different, but no one I knew had ever seen one of them let alone >played against them. Nowadays, the Italian stars show up at all the >NABCs (and win a bunch of events). Some of them even live in >Florida! And other people -- even non-Italians -- play Precision or >Polish Club or KS or (God save us!) EHAA. :-) > >With all this system proliferation, there has to be a lot more >disclosure or bridge becomes unplayable. (People have proposed "no >disclosure," but then the game becomes one of who can invent the most >obscure bidding system. Sounds boring to me.) Once you accept that a >great deal of disclosure is needed, the easiest rule to write is >"disclose everything." > >Of course the "disclose everything" rule leads to difficult judgment >decisions. How does the TD decide whether it has been complied with >or not? It wouldn't be ridiculous to back off a bit, but then you >have the problem of writing a different rule that is clear and >enforceable (at least as enforceable as "disclose everything"). It >isn't obvious how to do that in a sensible way. That makes sense. And it describes what did happen. But the regulatory creep continues. When did the policy of "disclose everything" metamorphose from "disclose everything relevant to your bidding agreements" to "disclose everything relevant to your bidding"? The camel's nose was the notion of "implicit agreement". Its original goal was to plug a serious loophole: in the days of "that ol' black magic", pairs who knew exactly what one another were doing would weasel out of their disclosure requirements with "we haven't discussed it", that being the literal truth. We needed a rule that said, in effect, "If it looks like an agreement, walks like an agreement and quacks like an agreement, it's an agreement," so we invented "implicit agreements". But today we have thoughtful and knowledgeable correspondents arguing that if we are drafted in mid-session to fill in as the partner of an expert whom we have never met, but whom we have read enough about in The Bridge World to know that he is prone to psyching his cuebids, with whom our two-second discussion of methods was "basically Standard, let's fake it", we have an "implicit agreement" that our partnership is prone to psyching cuebids, and we have a legal obligation to alert every cuebid. We have been reduced to debating the seemingly self-evident truth that if only one person knows about it, it cannot be called an agreement. To quote Steve, it wouldn't be ridiculous to back off a bit. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 27 15:16:01 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 27 15:15:09 2005 Subject: [blml] claim:inferior play by defence to allow declarer to be careless? In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C6B5@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C6B5@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050527090048.02b87eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:21 AM 5/27/05, Robin wrote: >E/Both Vul/Teams IMPs W N E S > 8 4 1S 2H > 9 4 2 3D P 4C P > Q 7 6 3 4S P P P > 8 7 4 3 >A Q K J 9 6 3 >J 8 6 5 none >A J 10 8 5 2 K 4 >J A Q 10 9 6 5 > 10 7 5 2 > A K Q 10 7 3 > 9 > K 2 > > >1: HA ruffed. 2: Sx to A. 3: CJ to Q and K. >4: HK ruffed. 5: Sx to Q. 6: Dx to K. >7: SK. 8: CA. > >East claims the rest: cashing 4 clubs and DA. >South objects: he still has S10! >North says we will take (at least) three tricks: > S10, HQ and DQ. >East says he wouldn't throw a heart from dummy, > even when he thinks he is taking the rest. > >The position is (Tricks: NS 1, EW 7) > - > - > Q 7 6 > 8 7 >- - >J 8 - >A J 10 4 >- 10 9 6 5 > 10 > Q 10 7 3 > - > - > >Your ruling? > >East leads C10 and South ruffs, is pitching H8 normal? No. East has presumptively forgotten the outstanding trump. It would be "normal" to pitch the H8 if unaware of the outstanding trump, but when South puts it on the table we allow East to "see" it and adjust his play accordingly. We have no reason to presume that he has also forgotten the heart position. >East leads C10, might South duck to see what dummy pitches? Yes. We presume this automatically, whether or not we believe that the particular South at the table might have found it. Hypothetical defenders hypothetically defending hands curtailed after faulty claims always play flawlessly. >If East leads C10 and South ducks, is pitching H8 normal now? Yes. Nothing has occurred which would "tell" East that his claim was faulty. Thinking he has four club tricks and the DA, it is presumptively "normal" to pitch any card except the DA. I award four tricks to N-S, one (the C10) to E-W. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 27 15:13:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 27 15:15:27 2005 Subject: [blml] claim:inferior play by defence to allow declarer to be In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C6B5@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: Robin wrote: > The position is (Tricks: NS 1, EW 7) > - > - > Q 7 6 > 8 7 > - - > J 8 - > A J 10 4 > - 10 9 6 5 > 10 > Q 10 7 3 > - > - > > Your ruling? > > East leads C10 and South ruffs, is pitching H8 normal? Probably not, since East will be deemed to notice the trump. However, if East is a pretty good player he *might* envisage a layout like - Q Q 7 8 7 - - J 8 - A J 10 4 - 10 9 6 5 10 10 7 3 6 - Where ditching the H8 in hope of a defensive misjudgement is the best chance. Such thinking would not be remotely "normal" for an average East but at least if you do rule on this basis East gets a warm glow from your assessment of his abilities. > East leads C10, might South duck to see what dummy pitches? He might, I know I would. If South is *absolutely adamant* that he would have ruffed the first round I'll have no "doubtful point" to rule against claimer, but otherwise... > If East leads C10 and South ducks, is pitching H8 normal now? 100%. He is obviously unaware of the missing trump. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 27 15:13:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 27 15:15:32 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" In-Reply-To: <004901c562a9$bd0eb560$2c9868d5@James> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > [Tim] > > Granted there are some people around who behave > > like your mooted SB. The laws are not on the side of > > such people and if either side called the TD this > > should be discovered. The extent of the Walrus's > > general knowledge is irrelevant. The only thing > > that matters is what the SB knows from agreements > > (explicit or implicit) and partnership experience. > > If he is playing 4S as LoTT based he *must* describe > > the hand types that make LoTT based raises. > > [Nigel] > > My understanding of the laws is that neither a director nor > a player can force an opponent to divulge any more once he > has said "I have told you our agreements apart from what is > general knolwdge and experience." If he's telling the truth then no. If the TD suspects that he knows more than he is letting on then we have ways of making him talk (or adjusting if he doesn't). > My experince bears this out. Like Eric Landau I've never > received any satisfaction from calling a director; The laws are clear - the quality of TD is a matter of risk. If you don't think the TD is competent you have the choice of playing at a different club. Good TDs will get this sort of thing right. > although I nave often discovered later that opponents had an wrong > idea of my general knowledge *Your* general knowledge remains irrelevant. I'm only talking about cases where the opps have specific agreements/experience that *they* know. This is a common auction. A regular partnership (of any competence) *will* know what sort of hands their partner has bid it on before. They *will* know whether they have some other method for showing a value raise, they *will* have inferences from bids their partner has not made. The less regular (and competent) the partnership the less they are likely to be able to tell you - their general knowledge of the game hasn't changed but their relevant experience has. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 27 15:13:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 27 15:15:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > >From: "GUTHRIE" > >To: "BLML" > >Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System > >Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 12:01:02 +0100 > > > >[Nanki Poo] > > > Despite the fact that the regulation only regulates > > > agreements, people say again and again that they > > > regulate bids. Eventually, I just tire of this - > > > what more can I say? > > > >{Nigel] > >In a level 3 EBU even, you open 1S third in hand on > > a "rule of 17 hand". say AT0876 QT9876 9 - > > > >If that is comes as much a surprise to partner as it is to > >regulation abiding opponents, then it is OK according to the > >EBU OB. > > > >But if you have an agreement (implicit or explicit) to use > >judgement to upgrade such hands, then most players (and even > >some law-makers like David Burn and Grattan Endicott) > >believe you are breaking the regulation. You are only breaking the (EBU) regulation if partner subsequently makes a conventional bid (obviously you would avoid making a conventional bid oneself). Thus *at the time of bidding* the upgrade is always legal. The (possibly quite high) risk is that partner will unknowingly commit an infraction by making a conventional bid later. > What if you use judgement to upgrade this hand but have no > agreement explicit or implicit, about it but partner is not as > surprised as the opponents. If partner is less surprised than opps by dint of experience of playing/talking/knowing you then there is an implicit agreement. If partner is less surprised purely by dint of general experience then there is no problem (and will be no adjustment). Oh Jeez - penny finally drops!!! I've read that reg about 40 times and only now do I understand what DWS has been getting at. Hands that players judge to be *stronger* than a minimum rule of 19 opener (even if themselves non-compliant with Ro19) are not addressed by the regulation *at all*. Thus one may explicitly agree to open such hands with no risk of infraction. At last all those veiled hints of his make sense. Now if he only he had explained that in the first place I would have written much less on the subject! Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 27 15:27:57 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 27 15:27:04 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" In-Reply-To: <004901c562a9$bd0eb560$2c9868d5@James> References: <004901c562a9$bd0eb560$2c9868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050527092353.02b83730@pop.starpower.net> At 06:49 AM 5/27/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >Like Eric Landau I've never >received any satisfaction from calling a director; I haven't a clue why Nigel thinks this. Unless it was due to a "senior moment" of which I was completely unaware at the time, I have never written anything that would even remotely suggest this. In any case, it is categorically not true. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 27 15:37:53 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 27 15:36:59 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" In-Reply-To: <004901c562a9$bd0eb560$2c9868d5@James> References: <004901c562a9$bd0eb560$2c9868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050527092809.02b82ae0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:49 AM 5/27/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >My understanding of the laws is that neither a director nor >a player can force an opponent to divulge any more once he >has said "I have told you our agreements apart from what is >general knolwdge and experience." No player can "force" an opponent to do anything. A director, however, may require a player to divulge anything the director deems appropriate, and the player may not refuse (L90B8). If he does, he may be summarily thrown out of the event, with no recourse to appeal (L91A). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 27 16:53:22 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 27 16:52:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <006001c562ab$5fb95bc0$2c9868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050527094635.02b77010@pop.starpower.net> At 07:36 AM 5/27/05, wayne.burrows wrote: >What if you use judgement to upgrade this hand but have no >agreement explicit or implicit, about it but partner is not as >surprised as the opponents. Because partner is not as surprised as the opponents, you have "special information" which must be disclosed per L75C. The SO may, if it chooses, impose additional disclosure requirements (L80F). Because you have no agreement, explicit or implicit, the SO may not prohibit you from judging the value of your hand as you choose and acting on that judgment when selecting your calls (L40A). The above is self-evident and unarguable, but there is a legitimate debate over whether it is meaningful. Some argue that if you have any such special information, it automatically gives rise to a presumptive implicit agreement, so that the situation Wayne describes cannot exist, that if partner is not as surprised as the opponents, you have an agreement by definition. Others, myself included, take the position that such situations are routine. We argue that you cannot have an partnership agreement, by definition, unless both members of the partnership are aware of it. L75C refers to "special information conveyed... through partnership agreement or partnership experience". Some read this to mean that "special information" is inherently one thing, whether it is conveyed through partnership agreement or through partnership experience, and thus is to be treated as one thing in all applications of the laws. Others read this to mean that "special information conveyed through partnership agreement" and "special information conveyed through partnership experience" are two different things, to be treated identically when applying L75C, but not necessarily when applying other laws. We can answer Wayne's question definitively, but it does not resolve the debate. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 27 17:11:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 27 17:13:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <++lgd0L3uwlCFwfm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads > wrote > >DWS wrote: > >> > OK, I'm no shrinking violet and can handle this should > >> >I have to but life would be simpler were the WBF website to provide > > a > >> >list of illegal SO regulations (as and when they become aware of > > them). > >> > >> This seems an unnecessarily arrogant approach to regulations. It > > is > >> the SO's job ot provide regs and to make sure they are legal. > > > >Maybe, but if they don't do their job somebody has to mop up. If TDs > >aren't going to stand up for the laws who will? > > > >> It is not the TD's job. Suppose you think something is illegal, and > > you > >> are wrong? > > > >Suppose I think something is an LA and I am wrong? I end up making a > bad > >ruling - I won't be happy about but there you are. Actually it's > usually > >easier to judge an illegal regulation than an LA. > > The difference is that making decisions about LAs is your job, so if > you do your best it matters not that sometimes you will make a mistake. > Deciding whether an SO's regs are legal is not your job. > > >> I would suggest that you should just follow the regs and avoid the > >> unnecessary view that it is your job to decide what they should be. > > > >The TD's duty is to uphold the law. I will not, for example, enforce a > >"no psychs" regulation even if a club where I am directing tells me to. > >They don't have to employ me - but if they do the regulation will be in > >abeyance for the session. I don't think any TD should penalise > legitimate > >psychs - and I'm disappointed that you would. > > I am disappointed that you have so little respect for the game of > bridge or for the people who play it that you are not prepared to do > your job. And I that you are unprepared to do yours. The TD's job *IS* to uphold the law. > It is certainly not your job to over-ride the SO. Yes, you > are arrogant enough to believe that you must be right. Arrogance has nothing to with it. In general I know what the laws says, I know what regulations say, and I know where to look things up if I am unsure. I will check carefully and give my reasons. My rulings will be subject to appeal both locally and to the NA. > but you may not be, and you are demeaning the game and abrogating your > duty to the players. Yes I *may* be wrong - but I can only do my best. *You* may be prepared to enforce a "whites only" policy for a club that has such a rule. I am *not* going to. And don't give me any rubbish about that being "a different principle" it's enshrined in WBF/EBU regulations as much any other law (and I wouldn't begin to know if it was generally legal in Jersey/Isle of Man/or several other countries where clubs/tournaments may be EBU/WBF affiliated). My duty to the players is to uphold the laws and *legal* regulations. Yours is the same - though you seem not to care. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 27 17:42:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 27 17:43:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050527094635.02b77010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > The above is self-evident and unarguable, but there is a legitimate > debate over whether it is meaningful. Some argue that if you have any > such special information, it automatically gives rise to a presumptive > implicit agreement Technically a partnership understanding which, by virtue of experience, *may* constitute an implicit agreement. The difficulty is that the difference between a Ro18 hand and a Ro19 compliant hand is often a meaningless short-suit jack. Thus whatever your systemic agreements are they will cater to the Ro18 hand just as easily - at least in an Acol based structure. A Roth/Stone pair would have a much greater chance of persuading a TD that such a call was non-systemic in 1st/2nd seat (almost zero chance in 3rd, though). Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 27 19:05:26 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 27 19:04:33 2005 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050527130256.02b77710@pop.starpower.net> Originally missent as a private reply. Apologies to Nanki Poo for the double post. >At 07:59 AM 5/27/05, Nanki wrote: > >>Tim West-Meads >> wrote >>>DWS wrote: >>>> > OK, I'm no shrinking violet and can handle this should >>>> >I have to but life would be simpler were the WBF website to provide a >>>> >list of illegal SO regulations (as and when they become aware of >>>> them). >>>> >>>> This seems an unnecessarily arrogant approach to >>>> regulations. It is >>>>the SO's job ot provide regs and to make sure they are legal. >>> >>>Maybe, but if they don't do their job somebody has to mop up. If TDs >>>aren't going to stand up for the laws who will? >>> >>>>It is not the TD's job. Suppose you think something is illegal, >>>>and you >>>>are wrong? >>> >>>Suppose I think something is an LA and I am wrong? I end up making >>>a bad >>>ruling - I won't be happy about but there you are. Actually it's >>>usually >>>easier to judge an illegal regulation than an LA. >> >> The difference is that making decisions about LAs is your job, so >> if you do your best it matters not that sometimes you will make a >> mistake. Deciding whether an SO's regs are legal is not your job. > >OK, then, so whose job is it? > >One would naturally assume that it is the WBF's, but the WBF has >refused to acknowledge that it is theirs, and appears determined to >keep whatever opinions they may have as to the legality of regulations >made by their member SOs to themselves. They have effectively >delegated the job of deciding whether a particular SO-enacted >regulation is legal to the SO that enacted it. Perhaps they expect >previously misguided SOs to suddenly and spontaneously realize and >declare that their own regulations are in fact illegal, but I doubt >they're quite as naive as that. Which means that, as things now >stand, it is nobody's job; if an SO makes any regulation whatsoever, >it is de facto a legal regulation, regardless of what TFLB might >actually have to say about it. > >That the only existing check or constraint on the unlimited powers of >SOs to make whatever regulations they please with no regard for the >Laws is the consciences of individual TDs is wrong, it is pitiful, it >is shameful, it is... well, choose your own adjective, and make it as >pejoritive as you'd like. But it is a fact. It's a dirty job, and it >certainly shouldn't be the TD's, but *somebody* has to do it if it is >ever to get done. > >>>> I would suggest that you should just follow the regs and avoid the >>>>unnecessary view that it is your job to decide what they should be. >>> >>>The TD's duty is to uphold the law. I will not, for example, enforce a >>>"no psychs" regulation even if a club where I am directing tells me to. >>>They don't have to employ me - but if they do the regulation will be in >>>abeyance for the session. I don't think any TD should penalise >>>legitimate >>>psychs - and I'm disappointed that you would. >> >> I am disappointed that you have so .little respect for the game of >> bridge or for the people who play it that you are not prepared to do >> your job. It is certainly not your job to over-ride the SO. Yes, >> you are arrogant enough to believe that you must be right, but you >> may not be, and you are demeaning the game and abrogating your duty >> to the players. > >The WBF may continue to tailor its interpretations of the laws so as >to provide justifications for SOs making whatever regulations they >choose without regard for the words in the lawbook, and their >apologists may excoriate folks like Tim for acting childish when they >refuse to unquestioningly accept them, but at least Tim knows a naked >emperor when he sees one. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri May 27 19:21:32 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri May 27 19:23:08 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <001a01c56243$f675e6e0$149868d5@James> from "GUTHRIE" at May 26, 2005 11:40:47 PM Message-ID: <200505271721.j4RHLW8x007178@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> GUTHRIE writes: > > > [Eric Landau] > >> If Zia declares his psyching habits on his convention > >> card, he must do so only when he plays in international > >> competition under the auspices of the WBF. Zia's current > >> home zone, as it has been for many years now, is the > >> ACBL, where any mention of psyching habits on one's > >> convention card is strictly forbidden, based on a > >> blanket prohibition against having any agreements of > >> any kind, whether explicit or implicit, relating to > >> psychs. > > >> [Nigel] > >> I take your point, Eric, but carefully used the word > >> "habits" rather than "agreements" -- that is -- past > >> history -- not an undertaking for the future. My > >> understanding is that Zia's card for the recent US > >> trials did declare their (asymmetric) psyching habits > >> in some detail. If that really is illegal, then, > >> obviously, the ACBL need to revise their regulations > >> in a hurry - if they do not want to subject Zia's > >> opponents to an even greater disadvantage.. > > [Ron Anderson] Thanks for the compliment. However I'm neither dead nor a great matchpoint pro. It's Johnson not Andersen (and I'm not the ACBL director either. But I'm used to name confusion) > > Well not really. It's not like anybody who chooses to > > play in the US trials is unaware of Zia (or in recent > > years idney Lazard -- far more playful than Zia) > > [Nigel] > Zia disclosed his psyching habits in the US trials - so no > problem there :) Obviously, what would concern players is > your contention that ACBL regulations prevent Zia from being > as frank in lesser events. Can't speak for Zia in lesser events -- I don't think he does them. I *can* speak for Joe Silver though. And Silver is *far* more playful than Zia. I've only played against him a handful of times, and he manages to make his opponents aware of his style. It's guys like Marshall Miles and John Lowenthal who are going to be tricky. They simply think differently than anybody else. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 27 19:50:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 27 19:52:29 2005 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050527130256.02b77710@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: >> The difference is that making decisions about LAs is your job, so >> if you do your best it matters not that sometimes you will make a >> mistake. Deciding whether an SO's regs are legal is not your job. >OK, then, so whose job is it? >One would naturally assume that it is the WBF's, but the WBF has >refused to acknowledge that it is theirs, and appears determined to >keep whatever opinions they may have as to the legality of regulations >made by their member SOs to themselves. This is true in the specific case where the SO is also the ZO/NA. In many instances the SO will be a club affiliated to a ZO/NA. I don't understand why David is being so shirty about this. If I find what I consider to be an illegal regulation in an EBU affiliated club he is actually one of the people I would consider phoning for an opinion on its legality (if it isn't *blindingly* obvious). I'd much rather make these sort of decisions after consultation than in isolation. The EBU will, I like to believe, take action against clubs using illegal regs and I'm almost certain they expect TDs to report these things to them. Where the SO *is* the NO the principle remains but the *process* is a lot tougher. It's harder to find independent people to consult (obviously NO officials are ruled out), it may even be impossible to get the WBF to give an opinion and/or take action. But toughness in the process does not, to use Eric's analogy, put clothes on the emperor. Tim From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri May 27 19:54:13 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri May 27 19:56:34 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C2 (ACBL) References: <4296A434.20008@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: <005501c562e5$1c338b20$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > > I don't know what the ACBL says, but it seems to me that "likely" means > "credible" or "believable" Ed is, as usual, correct that the context of "likely" in L12C2 does not refer to a >50% chance, as many have argued. The wording of L12C2 should be altered to remove the possibility of that misinterpretation. Other words to be clarified in L12C2 are the ones relaing to the right adjustment for the OS. . Some believe (as I once did) that "had the irregularity not occurred" is to be understood in the latter part of the sentence referring to the OS. There is no need to supply words that are not there. The intent is clear that the score adjustment for the OS is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable *either* absent the irregularity or following the irregularity. Example: The NOS bids 2H, the OS bids 3C with the aid of UI, and the NOS goes off one in 3H. There's at least a 1/6 chance that 3C would have gone -200 . Now, isn't that the right score adjustment for the OS, with +110 for the NOS? Note for the lawmakers: "Following" means "subsequent to" in your language. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 27 20:38:03 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 27 20:37:09 2005 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050527130256.02b77710@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050527140416.02b76e00@pop.starpower.net> At 01:50 PM 5/27/05, twm wrote: >Eric wrote: > > >> The difference is that making decisions about LAs is your job, so > >> if you do your best it matters not that sometimes you will make a > >> mistake. Deciding whether an SO's regs are legal is not your job. > > >OK, then, so whose job is it? > > >One would naturally assume that it is the WBF's, but the WBF has > >refused to acknowledge that it is theirs, and appears determined to > >keep whatever opinions they may have as to the legality of regulations > >made by their member SOs to themselves. > >This is true in the specific case where the SO is also the ZO/NA. >In many instances the SO will be a club affiliated to a ZO/NA. >I don't understand why David is being so shirty about this. If I find >what I consider to be an illegal regulation in an EBU affiliated club he >is actually one of the people I would consider phoning for an opinion on >its legality (if it isn't *blindingly* obvious). I'd much rather make >these sort of decisions after consultation than in isolation. The EBU >will, I like to believe, take action against clubs using illegal regs and >I'm almost certain they expect TDs to report these things to them. > >Where the SO *is* the NO the principle remains but the *process* is a lot >tougher. It's harder to find independent people to consult (obviously NO >officials are ruled out), it may even be impossible to get the WBF to >give >an opinion and/or take action. But toughness in the process does not, to >use Eric's analogy, put clothes on the emperor. I accept Tim's point; it's a little hard, when, in every game I play, the ZO and the NO are the same, and in half of them they are the SO as well, to keep all those nominal functions separated. I do not expect the WBF to act against every SO that passes an illegal regulation; I expect such action from whatever O the offending O is immediately subordinate to. But if the superior O is itself responsible for granting the authority to the subordinate O to promulgate such illegal regulations, it is the higher-level O which is itself in violation, creating cause for action by whatever the next level of O up the line is. Responsiblity for action in specific instances may move to higher and higher levels, but the ultimate responsibility for seeing that action is taken lies at the top. If the WBF claims to be the ultimate authority for promulgating and interpreting the laws, they must recognize that the buck stops with them, and abandon their insistence on refusing to accept it. It's easy enough to say that if the cops don't catch the crooks, blame the cops, not the mayor. But when the mayor has appointed the crooks to be the cops, and they don't catch themselves, I say blame the mayor. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Fri May 27 21:44:49 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri May 27 21:41:38 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C2 (ACBL) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Here's a rather perverse thought: On Fri, 27 May 2005 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >12C2 Assigned score: When the director awards an assigned adjusted score > >in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score > >is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely > >had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most > >unfavorable result that was at all probable. And, in the next sentence: "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance, *and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing.*" > The ACBL interpretation -> > > (a) The offending side is awarded a particular unfavourable score whose > combined probability (combined with the probability of even more > unfavourable scores for the offending side) is at least a 16.67% chance. > > (b) The non-offending side is awarded a particular favourable score whose > combined probability (combined with the probability of even more > favourable scores for the non-offending side) is at least a 33.33% chance. So, if I wanted to, I could give an assigned adjusted score of 67/17 every time L12C2 was invoked, without even looking at the board, right? (OK, the OS might get even less, if the most unfavourable result after the irregularity was even worse than that.) More generally, anyone have any idea why 12C2 allows assigning a score in matchpoints -- which is exactly what an artificial adjusted score is, except that 12C2 gives more wide-ranging freedom what to assign? GRB From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Fri May 27 21:41:40 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri May 27 21:43:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <++lgd0L3uwlCFwfm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: >From: Nanki Poo >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System >Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 12:59:51 +0100 > >Tim West-Meads > wrote >>DWS wrote: >>> > OK, I'm no shrinking violet and can handle this should >>> >I have to but life would be simpler were the WBF website to provide a >>> >list of illegal SO regulations (as and when they become aware of them). >>> >>> This seems an unnecessarily arrogant approach to regulations. It is >>>the SO's job ot provide regs and to make sure they are legal. >> >>Maybe, but if they don't do their job somebody has to mop up. If TDs >>aren't going to stand up for the laws who will? >> >>>It is not the TD's job. Suppose you think something is illegal, and you >>>are wrong? >> >>Suppose I think something is an LA and I am wrong? I end up making a bad >>ruling - I won't be happy about but there you are. Actually it's usually >>easier to judge an illegal regulation than an LA. > > The difference is that making decisions about LAs is your job, so if you >do your best it matters not that sometimes you will make a mistake. >Deciding whether an SO's regs are legal is not your job. > >>> I would suggest that you should just follow the regs and avoid the >>>unnecessary view that it is your job to decide what they should be. >> >>The TD's duty is to uphold the law. I will not, for example, enforce a >>"no psychs" regulation even if a club where I am directing tells me to. >>They don't have to employ me - but if they do the regulation will be in >>abeyance for the session. I don't think any TD should penalise legitimate >>psychs - and I'm disappointed that you would. > > I am disappointed that you have so .little respect for the game of >bridge or for the people who play it that you are not prepared to do your >job. It is certainly not your job to over-ride the SO. Yes, you are >arrogant enough to believe that you must be right, but you may not be, and >you are demeaning the game and abrogating your duty to the players. > Is this arrogance equal to or greater than the arrogance of regulators that think they can make regulations contrary to the laws of the game? Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Looking for love? Check out XtraMSN Personals http://xtramsn.match.com/match/mt.cfm?pg=channel&tcid=200731 From john at asimere.com Fri May 27 22:12:27 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri May 27 22:15:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <++lgd0L3uwlCFwfm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <++lgd0L3uwlCFwfm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <96TuiEBr83lCFwu+@asimere.com> In article <++lgd0L3uwlCFwfm@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, Nanki Poo writes >Tim West-Meads > wrote >>DWS wrote: >>> > OK, I'm no shrinking violet and can handle this should >>> >I have to but life would be simpler were the WBF website to provide a >>> >list of illegal SO regulations (as and when they become aware of them). >>> >>> This seems an unnecessarily arrogant approach to regulations. It is >>> the SO's job ot provide regs and to make sure they are legal. >> >>Maybe, but if they don't do their job somebody has to mop up. If TDs >>aren't going to stand up for the laws who will? >> >>> It is not the TD's job. Suppose you think something is illegal, and you >>> are wrong? >> >>Suppose I think something is an LA and I am wrong? I end up making a bad >>ruling - I won't be happy about but there you are. Actually it's usually >>easier to judge an illegal regulation than an LA. > > The difference is that making decisions about LAs is your job, so if >you do your best it matters not that sometimes you will make a mistake. >Deciding whether an SO's regs are legal is not your job. > >>> I would suggest that you should just follow the regs and avoid the >>> unnecessary view that it is your job to decide what they should be. >> >>The TD's duty is to uphold the law. I will not, for example, enforce a >>"no psychs" regulation even if a club where I am directing tells me to. >>They don't have to employ me - but if they do the regulation will be in >>abeyance for the session. I don't think any TD should penalise legitimate >>psychs - and I'm disappointed that you would. > > I am disappointed that you have so .little respect for the game of >bridge or for the people who play it that you are not prepared to do >your job. It is certainly not your job to over-ride the SO. Yes, you >are arrogant enough to believe that you must be right, but you may not >be, and you are demeaning the game and abrogating your duty to the >players. > You'll be asking the club to cease issuing master points and dis- affiliate itself from it's NO then? We do that for redeals of passouts, why not for psyches? 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 roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr Sat May 28 00:09:01 2005 From: roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Sat May 28 00:10:20 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C2 (ACBL) References: <4296A434.20008@nyc.rr.com> <005501c562e5$1c338b20$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003501c56308$b0a46860$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> >From Roger Eymard : I would be grateful if I could get here some other points of view... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C2 (ACBL) > > From: "Ed Reppert" >> >> I don't know what the ACBL says, but it seems to me that "likely" means >> "credible" or "believable" > > Ed is, as usual, correct that the context of "likely" in L12C2 does not > refer > to a >50% chance, as many have argued. The wording of L12C2 should be > altered > to remove the possibility of that misinterpretation. > > Other words to be clarified in L12C2 are the ones relaing to the right > adjustment for the OS. . > > Some believe (as I once did) that "had the irregularity not occurred" is > to > be understood in the latter part of the sentence referring to the OS. > There is > no need to supply words that are not there. The intent is clear that the > score > adjustment for the OS is the most unfavorable result that was at all > probable > *either* absent the irregularity or following the irregularity. > > Example: > > The NOS bids 2H, the OS bids 3C with the aid of UI, and the NOS goes off > one > in 3H. There's at least a 1/6 chance that 3C would have gone -200 . Now, > isn't > that the right score adjustment for the OS, with +110 for the NOS? > I suppose that the NOS has not been deprived of a better result than +110. I thought that if the result obtained at the table was -200, I had to keep it for the OS (with +110 for the NOS), but that if it was -100, I had to change it to -110 for the OS (+110 for the NOS ), whatever the probabilities of all the possible results after the irregularity. It seems to me that "punishing" the OS is better achieved (if it seems needed)by a suitable PP on Law 73C basis, than by an hypothetical score in a contract which would never have been obtained in a game played by ethical players. Am I wrong? why? Roger Eymard > Note for the lawmakers: "Following" means "subsequent to" in your > language. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam at tameware.com Sat May 28 05:58:40 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat May 28 06:00:17 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C2 (ACBL) In-Reply-To: <005501c562e5$1c338b20$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <4296A434.20008@nyc.rr.com> <005501c562e5$1c338b20$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: At 10:54 AM -0700 5/27/05, Marvin French wrote: >Some believe (as I once did) that "had the irregularity not occurred" is to >be understood in the latter part of the sentence referring to the OS. There is >no need to supply words that are not there. The intent is clear that the score >adjustment for the OS is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable >*either* absent the irregularity or following the irregularity. > >Example: > >The NOS bids 2H, the OS bids 3C with the aid of UI, and the NOS goes off one >in 3H. There's at least a 1/6 chance that 3C would have gone -200 . Now, isn't >that the right score adjustment for the OS, with +110 for the NOS? Marvin and I have discussed this recently -- I'm one of those "some". I think Marvin's position (which also seems to be the WBF's) depends a fundamental error, which can be expressed in terms of probability or grammar. We can discuss probabilities meaningfully only in terms of events which have not yet occurred or in hypothetical situations which did not occur. In the example above it is not true that there's a chance the NOS would have gone for 200. We already know what their score would have been subsequent to the irregularity. It was -110, with 100% probability. As for the grammatical aspect, here's what I posted in 2001, also in reply to a message from Marvin: ================== "Had the irregularity not occurred" must be understood for the second clause -- any other reading is perverse. This clause uses the subjunctive mood, one which has been discussed here previously in the context of Law 6. It's meaningless without a modifying clause. If "Had the irregularity not occurred" is not to be applied to the OS, then what is? From some of your examples you seem to suggest we should understand "Had the irregularity not occurred or had the NOS bid and played to best advantage after the irregularity." That is certainly not implicit. The authors could not have intended that we should understand that meaning or they would have stated it explicitly. One could equally well guess the missing hypothetical modifier is "had the pairs sat in opposite directions" or "had the game been pinochle." The meaning can only be "or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred." This is consonant with all of Edgar's examples. Why do the Laws not include the extra words? Because the repetition is (or ought to be!) unnecessary, and would sound awkward. I doubt the authors even dreamt that any other interpretation was possible. ================== -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Sat May 28 07:40:45 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat May 28 07:42:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh cases posted Message-ID: I've posted the case write-ups from the Spring 2005 NABC under my bridge laws page at http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/ If you spot any typos please drop me a line and I'll pass the info on. I won't have time to start on my comments for several weeks, but I'll post them once I've written some. I am pleased to be able to report that the year long downward trend in caseload continues unbroken. There were only 23 cases in total, tying the modern record set in Phoenix in the Fall of 2002. I trust that only part of the decline was due to the low turnout in Pittsburgh. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From hermandw at hdw.be Sat May 28 13:48:55 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat May 28 13:48:45 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050526153439.02ece5c0@pop.starpower.net> References: <001401c56139$6e0b1f60$0f9868d5@James> <200505261715.j4QHF1AT001310@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <6.1.1.1.0.20050526153439.02ece5c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <42985AA7.1040502@hdw.be> (indeed inadvertently sent only to Eric, sorry about that) Eric Landau wrote: > ALERT: If you're not in the mood for some rambling random thoughts, you > might want to skip this... > That's all right Eric, though I suspect that some of your ramblings used copy-and-paste: > > Have we gone too far? Is it time to rethink, not the laws and rules, > but the attitude with which we write, interpret and enforce them? Is it > time to remind ourselves that everyone plays a bit differently, that > styles vary, that some folks bid more wildly and others more > conservatively, that some bidders are point-count fanatics while others > play fast and loose with their nominal ranges, and that everyone still > knows it? > Yes, but don't you consider that it's only fair that your opponents know whether you "bid more wildly or more conservatively", whether you "are a point-count fanatic or play fast and loose with your nominal ranges"? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat May 28 16:34:39 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat May 28 16:36:05 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <001401c56139$6e0b1f60$0f9868d5@James> <200505261715.j4QHF1AT001310@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca><6.1.1.1.0.20050526153439.02ece5c0@pop.starpower.net> <42985AA7.1040502@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 6:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > (indeed inadvertently sent only to Eric, sorry about that) > > Eric Landau wrote: > > ALERT: If you're not in the mood for some rambling random thoughts, you > > might want to skip this... > > > > That's all right Eric, though I suspect that some of your ramblings > used copy-and-paste: > > > > > Have we gone too far? Is it time to rethink, not the laws and rules, > > but the attitude with which we write, interpret and enforce them? Is it > > time to remind ourselves that everyone plays a bit differently, that > > styles vary, that some folks bid more wildly and others more > > conservatively, that some bidders are point-count fanatics while others > > play fast and loose with their nominal ranges, and that everyone still > > knows it? > > > > Yes, but don't you consider that it's only fair that your opponents > know whether you "bid more wildly or more conservatively", whether you > "are a point-count fanatic or play fast and loose with your nominal > ranges"? I not only do not consider it 'only fair', i consider it extremely unfair if for no other reason that it lays a trap for the opponents in a deceptive way. For instance, you tell the opponents that partner is conservative and what has been made at the top of their minds? Of course, be careful- and what happens then, their normal game is thrown off and they 'underbid'. And conversely, you tell the opponents you bid light and they are going to think they need to compete with less than normal strength which leads to having their heads handed to them. Some years ago the ACBL insisted that my partnership emphasize to the opponents the part of system where [a] there was no forcing opening and [b] suit openings included hands upwards of 27+ hcp. What followed were unpleasant hours unmatched except for time spent playing against cheaters. The opponents complained about being influenced/misled by the disclosure, and, we were ridiculed for our system. The point is that drawing attention to some aspect of judgment emphasizes it so as to distract the opponents from what is relevant. And conversely, the assertion of opponents [after the fact btw] that had they been advbised of the judgment proclivities they would have gotten a good score is dubious at best. Why? Because if such was done for every hand they would have gotten it wrong in 80% of the decisions given they would have gotten it right in the one time they made the assertion. There is a great difference between describing your agreements and describing your judgment as to how those agreements are employed. Judgments are too unreliable to effect useful communication. I think that all of the effort should be put toward describing [actual] agreements because that is the information that is useful. Which means that if the system is loose you should describe it in terms of normal strength and length and not in terms of loose. I didn't say it necessarily is easy, but it ought to be close to easy. The real problem is that players that choose actions that might be considered dubious [whether loose or ultra conservative] frequently rely on OBM to distinguish what is going on and they 'can't help it'. And that is not a disclosure problem, it is a UI problem. And, if the lawmakers can't spell out on paper the point at which habit is an agreement [which is different from defining a so called habit as an agreement whether or not it makes a reliable communication] it is Orwellian to expect players to be able to do something about it. To put it a differently the normal condition for getting the most from the cards is deviating from sytem 60% of the time. Which means that some times a player will judge to deviate and some of the time he will be compelled to judge to deviate. If he is playing fair his partner will have no tell tale sign one way or another; and it is wrong to presume that the frequent deviations are system- as deviations are the norm. regards roger pewick > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat May 28 18:52:25 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat May 28 18:54:42 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C2 (ACBL) References: <4296A434.20008@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: <003601c563a5$a18c3040$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Michael Kopera" > 12C2 Assigned score: When the director awards an assigned adjusted score > in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score > is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely > had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable. > > In percentage terms, what is "the most favorable result that was likely" In fraction form 1/3 probability > and what is "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable". 1/6 probability > Reminder: under ACBL jurisdiction. > These numbers were suggested as guidelines by the ACBLC some years ago, responding to queries from bewildered TDs as to the intent of L12C2. They were just guidelines, not to be taken too literally. The number 1/3 for the NOS should have done away with the belief by many that the word "likely" meant >50% probability, but we still see that misinterpretation in some appeals writeups. "The most favorable....that was likely" is, in idiomatic English, not necessarily a likely result, and in fact may be rather unlikely. The lawmakers would do well to change the wording to make this clear to everyone. When there are numerous possible outcomes, each with a percentage probability attached, it may be difficult to decide on the proper adjustment per L12C2. I like Steve Wilner's suggestion that the possibilities be ranked from least probable to most probable in percentage terms, and when a potential score causes the accumulative sum to exceed 1/3, assign that result. It does not satisfy the 1/3 criterion, but that's okay because the criterion is only a guideline that is not to be taken literally Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From john at asimere.com Sat May 28 19:18:49 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat May 28 19:21:52 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: References: <$v7+nGBI+SlCFw+1@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >John (MadDog) Probst: > >[snip] > >>and Tim rebids 2H. >> >>Now, I KNOW a number of things about this fairly common >>sort of auction. He may not have hearts for a starter and >>is going to walk the dog. He's done something similar >>maybe once every 6 months for the last 3 years. It seems >>perfectly clear to me that I should alert and explain all >>of this. I accept that *I* can't use the psyching >>information as our agreements are "11-13, can be off >>shape" but surely the opponents are entitled to know of >>his canine proclivities? >> >>Does anyone think any of this is illegal and if so why? > >Richard Hills: > >Depends on the online regs whether or not a "walk-the-dog" >two-way rebid of 2H (heart length or heart shortage) is >legal. > >In most Aussie events, responses and rebids tend to be >unregulated, so (if Tim and MadDog were Aussies) it would >usually be legal for them to have an implicit agreement of >a two-way 2H rebid, *provided* that that canine implicit >agreement was disclosed to the opponents. > >However, in that case, MadDog's assumption "*I* can't use >the ... information" would be incorrect. In Australia, a >legal (and fully disclosed) agreement of a two-way 2H >rebid would be authorised information to all three of >Tim's opponents. > >Of course, since that implicit agreement of a two-way 2H >rebid is now published on blml, it is metamorphosed into >an _explicit_ agreement. It's not an agreement. 2H is natural. Both of us are capable of psyching it. We know that. We disclose each others proclivities. It's not an agreement because we don't bid 2H on all hands where we want to mess around. It is an occasional psych (perhaps 3 times in total). We have a similar one where we occasionally JS in response to a weak 2. This is natural and forcing. It is occasionally a psychic splinter (precisely twice). Again we disclose. We also respond 3NT to a pre-empt (about 3 or four times), It is natural to play. Again we disclose "could be an attempt to buy the contract as a sac later". This is *so* routine I don't even know why we bother as it's GBK. You can't play several thousand boards in an active partnership without 1) knowing what your agreements are, and 2) knowing partner's canine proclivities. In all cases we discount the possibility of it being psychic as that is just losing bridge, since the frequency doesn't merit trying to cater for it as an explicit agreement (even though all of these are probably legal as agreements). Overall we psyche quite low frequency and with little discernable pattern but we *do* do it and we tell opponents we do. Every now and then we add a new one to the "list" that I'm sure both of us mentally keep. Tim for example alerts my 1NT overcalls, I don't alert his, he hasn't done it yet. > > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > >_______________________________________________ >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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat May 28 19:28:51 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat May 28 19:31:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <006001c562ab$5fb95bc0$2c9868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050527094635.02b77010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004401c563aa$b80124c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > At 07:36 AM 5/27/05, wayne.burrows wrote: > > >What if you use judgement to upgrade this hand but have no > >agreement explicit or implicit, about it but partner is not as > >surprised as the opponents. > > Because partner is not as surprised as the opponents, you have "special > information" which must be disclosed per L75C. The SO may, if it > chooses, impose additional disclosure requirements (L80F). > Most of my opponents are surprised at nearly all of my actions, mainly because they are too lazy to remedy their ignorance of ACBL disclosure regulations and the general nature of the game itself. Some of my non-Alertable calls may surprise opponents, who often assume what they should not assume. That's their tough luck if they don't ask for an explanation of the auction.. The ACBL has regulations governing disclosure obligations, but there is one "suggestion" that ought to be a requirement, which is that before the opening lead declarer and/or dummy should volunteer any information about their auction that might surprise even a knowledgeable opponent. Defenders should routinely ask for this information, since its disclosure is required by L75 regardless of what the ACBL says. A good habit is for the opening leader to ask for a complete explanation of the opponents' auction before leading, just in case there is something surprising in it..Some of my opponents will ask questions like "Did the notrump bid deny a major?" Such questions are illegal, in violation of both 20F1 and 20F2. Defenders can't voluntarily provide information about their auction unless playing behind a screen, which is unfortunate. Declarers would be wise to ask for an explanation of the opposing auction, just in case it includes a surprise. Unlike defenders, declarer can even ask about a specific call or defensive play at any time (L20F2). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat May 28 20:29:03 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat May 28 20:30:26 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C2 (ACBL) In-Reply-To: <200505271453.j4RErChg015776@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505271453.j4RErChg015776@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4298B86F.2070300@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Michael Kopera > In percentage terms, what is "the most favorable result that was likely" > and what is "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable". > > Reminder: under ACBL jurisdiction. The guideline used to be 1/3 for "likely" and 1/6 for "at all probable," but I am fairly sure the ACBL LC rescinded the numerical guidelines a few years ago. Does anyone remember for sure or have records to check? I have a vague memory that it might have been an Orlando or another Florida meeting say 3-5 years ago. I don't think the LC intended any change, but somehow they thought having no guideline at all was less confusing than a numerical one. My personal view is that using the former guideline won't be too far wrong even if it has been rescinded. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat May 28 21:17:23 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat May 28 21:18:45 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <200505191923.j4JJNL0g017286@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505191923.j4JJNL0g017286@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4298C3C3.9000709@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > If you do it all the > time in a particular situation it is systemic. This is a popular notion, but it has the problem that it leads directly to the "one psych per lifetime" rule. Does anyone besides Don Oakie think that is really good for bridge? Does anyone think such a rule is even enforceable? Unless you keep careful records, players will simply "forget" that it ever happened before. Much more sensible, it seems to me, is to judge on the basis of whether either the system or partner allows for the purported psych. If either is true, _then_ it is systemic. If not, it isn't, regardless of frequency. This rule at least has the merit of being enforceable, and it seems quite close (maybe identical) to what I understand the EBU does. Of course a misleading bid (or false card) may be still legal even if systemic provided appropriate conditions are met. From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > There is an important line that must be drawn between "system" and > "understanding based on experience" when assessing possible breaches of SO > regulations. Exactly. > There are questions one may ask to address this second issue such as: > Does Herman's partner make similar choices? > Does pass in 3rd seat deny hands of 0-3 points? > What sequences exist to determine whether 1H is genuine or not? > What actions has Herman's partner taken which indicate systemic usage? I'd say the first one doesn't matter, and the last two do. A perhaps better way of stating the second criterion is whether the partnership has a _different_ sequence that systemically allows for the hand type in question. For example, if someone opens 1NT on a 4441 type and claims it is "just judgment," we need to ask what the systemic action is with that type. If there isn't one (say 1C is strong and 1D/H/S all promise 5 cards), we judge the offshape 1NT to be systemic with whatever consequences follow. In Herman's case, if we find his partner assuming his passes do show 4+, we can rule the "psych" is really system. > On the whole knowledge of partner's psyching habits is detrimental to > one's own interests since one is required to give opps knowledge which > they can often exploit but you often cannot - that makes psychs a lot > riskier. However, knowledge cannot be undone... Indeed. And I hope "regular partnerships should not be allowed to psych" is a minority opinion. Yet that is where the rules some support must lead. > and I think the laws are correct to make it disclosable. I tend to agree, but see Eric's comments for a different view. We also have the problem of enforceability. If a pair does not disclose their psyching habits when they should, how will the TD ever know? (Of course there is no problem for prominent pairs, but the rules whatever they are should be the same for unknowns as for celebrities.) Maybe Eric's proposed rule "disclose system but not experience" or something along those lines is worth thinking about. > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > My partner and I have agreed to use the Acol Blackwood > convention (an opening bid of 4NT asks pard to show the > specific location of his ace, if any). Naturally, a hand > which is suitable to employ the Acol Blackwood convention > only comes up about once a year. Does this mean that the > Acol Blackwood convention is not part of my system? A good example. You have an explicit partnership agreement, no doubt with a set of followup responses, and you have every expectation that partner will know and allow for your hand type if the bid is made. Clearly systemic. Frequency has nothing to do with the matter. From: Gordon Bower > People who play the Impossible Negative have gotten in trouble in the ACBL > for MI if they don't include the rare possibility in their explanation of > the 1D bid response. [1/30 of 1D responses according to Gordon.] Now we are discussing disclosure, which includes both partnership agreement and also "style and judgment" learned from partnership experience. _In response to a question_, I think something as common as a 3% chance has to be disclosed. I expect Herman agrees. A much harder question would arise in a jurisdiction that did not require an alert for a normal 1D negative. Would adding the "impossible negative" at 3% make the bid alertable? I don't know; presumably you would have to ask the SO. I used to have a similar problem. One partner and I played that Stayman 2C promised a 4cM except with one very rare hand type. In fact, I don't think either of us ever held that hand type in all the time we played together, which must have included a thousand or more Stayman auctions. At the time, ACBL mandated that 2C not promising a 4cM should be alerted. So should we have alerted all our Stayman bids? (I don't think so; we didn't.) Something like these analogies is pretty close to the position Herman's partner is in when Herman opens 1H in third seat NV. From adam at tameware.com Sat May 28 21:30:37 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat May 28 21:32:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh cases posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 1:40 AM -0400 5/28/05, I wrote: >There were only 23 cases in total, tying the modern record set in >Phoenix in the Fall of 2002. Actually there were 24 cases in Pittsburgh. Anyone who examines the files will understand the cause of my error. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Sat May 28 22:19:05 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat May 28 22:20:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <004401c563aa$b80124c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: >From: "Marvin French" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System >Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 10:28:51 -0700 > > >A good habit is for the opening leader to ask for a complete explanation >of >the opponents' auction before leading, just in case there is something >surprising in it..Some of my opponents will ask questions like "Did the >notrump bid deny a major?" Such questions are illegal, in violation of both >20F1 and 20F2. I agree that questions like "Explain the auction" are best. They reduce the potential problems of creating UI. However it is not 100% clear to me that 20F1 makes questions about specific calls illegal. There is an ambiguity between "a full explanation of the opponents’ auction" and the parenthetical comment "questions may be asked about calls actually made ...". I would be happy to be convinced that questions about specific calls are illegal. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Check out the latest video @ http://xtra.co.nz/streaming From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun May 29 02:40:23 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun May 29 02:42:41 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C2 (ACBL) References: <4296A434.20008@nyc.rr.com> <005501c562e5$1c338b20$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <003501c56308$b0a46860$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> Message-ID: <005b01c563e7$0107a2c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> > From Roger Eymard : > > I would be grateful if I could get here some other points of view... Amen to that! > > I thought that if the result obtained at the table was -200, I had to keep > it for the OS (with +110 for the NOS), No, Roger, in that case the irregularity has caused no damage, so no score adjustment. >but that if it was -100, I had to > change it to -110 for the OS (+110 for the NOS ), whatever the > probabilities of all the possible results after the irregularity. That is correct, but we're talking about a -200 possibility. > > It seems to me that "punishing" the OS is better achieved (if it seems > needed)by a suitable PP on Law 73C basis, than by an hypothetical score in a > contract which would never have been obtained in a game played by ethical > players. > But the 3C bid was made, that's not hypothetical, and if the hard-pressed NOS had passed instead of bidding (or doubling perhaps), that contract would quite possibly have gone -200. We can't give +200 to the NOS, of course, they get just +110 (probably, don't quibble), the score they would have had absent the irregularity. However, I say the OS gets -200. Adam disagrees but says the WBF seems to agree. Adam's grammatcal arguments are intimidating because I don't understand them. Can't we hear from members of the WBFLC??? Am I right or wrong? TDs and ACs would like to know, I'm sure. Where is David Burn when I need him? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun May 29 08:09:38 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun May 29 08:11:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: Message-ID: <006001c56414$ffa8c020$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Wayne Burrows" > > I agree that questions like "Explain the auction" are best. They reduce the > potential problems of creating UI. However it is not 100% clear to me that > 20F1 makes questions about specific calls illegal. There is an ambiguity > between > "a full explanation of the opponents? auction" and the parenthetical comment > "questions may be asked about calls actually made ...". > The parenthetical comment is embedded in the statement about explanation of the auction, making it subordinate, not independent. Having asked for an explanation of the auction, if you need to get additional clarification about some call that was made or a relevant call that was available but not made, that is okay (but subject to L16, of course).. If you look at L20F2, the matter becomes more clear. It says that a defender may ask for an explanation of the auction, but only declarer may ask about a particular call. If "explanation of the opponents' auction" included the right to ask about a particular call rather than the whole auction, L20F2 would not have made that distinction. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr Sun May 29 10:08:58 2005 From: roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Sun May 29 10:10:06 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C2 (ACBL) References: <4296A434.20008@nyc.rr.com><005501c562e5$1c338b20$6701a8c0@san.rr.com><003501c56308$b0a46860$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> <005b01c563e7$0107a2c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001e01c56425$aaf7c7e0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> >From Roger Eymard : Thanks for your reply ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 2:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C2 (ACBL) >> From Roger Eymard : >> >> I would be grateful if I could get here some other points of > view... > > Amen to that! >> >> I thought that if the result obtained at the table was -200, I had > to keep >> it for the OS (with +110 for the NOS), > > No, Roger, in that case the irregularity has caused no damage, so no > score > adjustment. of course you are right... a lapse due to copy-and-pass. > >>but that if it was -100, I had to >> change it to -110 for the OS (+110 for the NOS ), whatever the >> probabilities of all the possible results after the irregularity. > > That is correct, but we're talking about a -200 possibility. >> >> It seems to me that "punishing" the OS is better achieved (if it > seems >> needed)by a suitable PP on Law 73C basis, than by an hypothetical > score in a >> contract which would never have been obtained in a game played by > ethical >> players. >> > But the 3C bid was made, that's not hypothetical, and if the > hard-pressed NOS > had passed instead of bidding (or doubling perhaps), that contract > would quite > possibly have gone -200. We can't give +200 to the NOS, of course, > they get > just +110 (probably, don't quibble), the score they would have had > absent the > irregularity. When assigning an adjusted score, we must keep all the regular calls before the irregular one. If the irregular one causes no damage, there is no adjustment. If it causes a damage, do we cancel it (and all the subsequent bids) only for the NOS, and keep it (plus some of the subsequent bids) for the OS if there is a chance that the result be detrimental for the OS ? What is the border between the calls we keep and the calls we cancel ? Which Law do we apply then ? It seems to me that, when applying Law 16A2, in case of a damage, it would be clearer to cancel for both sides all the calls starting with the irregular one ( making them UI for the OS when determining the outcome of the adjusted contract ?), and to examine the attribution of a suitable PP to the OS in name of the irregularity itself. > > However, I say the OS gets -200. Adam disagrees but says the WBF > seems to > agree. Adam's grammatcal arguments are intimidating because I don't > understand > them. > > Can't we hear from members of the WBFLC??? Am I right or wrong? TDs > and ACs > would like to know, I'm sure. > > Where is David Burn when I need him? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Roger Eymard From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Sun May 29 11:13:14 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Sun May 29 11:14:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050529/d02f548e/attachment.html From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Sun May 29 11:19:12 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Sun May 29 11:20:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <006001c56414$ffa8c020$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050529/0f0530ba/attachment.html From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Sun May 29 17:52:06 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Sun May 29 17:04:10 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> <02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> <00a201c5611b$c8774c80$798616ac@mycomputer> <007f01c5611e$54b246d0$269868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050525095121.02c8d0d0@pop.starpower.net> <003a01c5614e$f436c2a0$619868d5@James> <000c01c5617e$e1745bc0$798616ac@mycomputer> <61679c7b53703f400e1ec360e4244a1a@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000701c56467$4dc51d60$798616ac@mycomputer> Hi For better or worse the Laws of bridge require that information passed between partners through bids should be available to the opponents. In the case of Rodwell - Meckstroth that required of them to print a book. In the case of a casual partnership the partners agree on system [conventions] they are going to use and it is this information [and this ONLY] they are by Law bound to make available to the opponents. If you know any Law that says differently let me know please. Thanks and best regards Israel -- --- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" Cc: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 1:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > > On May 25, 2005, at 7:09 PM, Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > > > You should tell the opponents what you AGREED with your casual > > partner, if > > your partner tells you he is likely to psyche- then and only y then > > you and > > HE SHOULD TELL the opponents. > > This seems to be obvious ,can you explain why it is not to you. > > Can you explain why it is? > > My efforts, as always, are directed towards learning what the law > requires. BLMLers sometimes post as if what they think the law says, or > what they would like the law to say, is in fact what it does say - and > they are not always correct. I'm just trying to separate the wheat from > the chaff. > > From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Sun May 29 18:13:35 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Sun May 29 17:19:11 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> <02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> <00a201c5611b$c8774c80$798616ac@mycomputer> <007f01c5611e$54b246d0$269868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050525095121.02c8d0d0@pop.starpower.net> <003a01c5614e$f436c2a0$619868d5@James> <000c01c5617e$e1745bc0$798616ac@mycomputer> <61679c7b53703f400e1ec360e4244a1a@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000e01c56469$6d310540$798616ac@mycomputer> Hi For better or worse the Laws of Bridge require that information passed between partners via bids should be available to the opponents. To do this Rodwell - Mexwell printed a book. A casual duplicate partnership agrees to use a certain system [conventions] it is THIS agreement and THIS agreement only that they are by Law bound to make available to the opponents. If you know a Law that says differently ,please let me know Thanks and best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" Cc: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 1:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > > On May 25, 2005, at 7:09 PM, Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > > > You should tell the opponents what you AGREED with your casual > > partner, if > > your partner tells you he is likely to psyche- then and only y then > > you and > > HE SHOULD TELL the opponents. > > This seems to be obvious ,can you explain why it is not to you. > > Can you explain why it is? > > My efforts, as always, are directed towards learning what the law > requires. BLMLers sometimes post as if what they think the law says, or > what they would like the law to say, is in fact what it does say - and > they are not always correct. I'm just trying to separate the wheat from > the chaff. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Sun May 29 18:19:26 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Sun May 29 17:24:49 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV> <02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer> <0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com> <00a201c5611b$c8774c80$798616ac@mycomputer> <007f01c5611e$54b246d0$269868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050525095121.02c8d0d0@pop.starpower.net> <003a01c5614e$f436c2a0$619868d5@James> <000c01c5617e$e1745bc0$798616ac@mycomputer> <000601c56187$018c2c50$309868d5@James> Message-ID: <001901c5646a$3633c2c0$798616ac@mycomputer> Hi Only Most? best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 2:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] One hundred and forty-four > [Israel] > > You should tell the opponents what you AGREED with > > your casual partner, if your partner tells you he is > > likely to psyche- then and only then you and HE SHOULD > > TELL the opponents. This seems to be obvious,can you > > explain why it is not to you. Thanks and regards Israel > > [Nigel] > I'm just an ordinary player not a director and I warn you, > Israel, that my views on this issue conflict with most EBU > directors. > Of course, I agree that you (and your new partner) should > disclose to your opponents what you've discussed. > In many obvious situations, however, IMO you should also > disclose *implicit* agreements -- especially those of which > opponents may be unaware ... > A. Partner is notorious for psyches but he has not, > in fact, told you or opponents. > B. Porter is notorious for deviations (not full-blown > psyches, just minor departures from system) > C. Partner has a reputation for miscalls (especially > Truscott and Ghestem) > D. You and partner have played the same system with > another player of group or club of players. > E. Partner has written a book on the system and you > have studied aspects that are undiscussed. > F. Other so-called "general bridge knowledge" about > which opponents may be unaware > > I am sure Richard Hills could supply dozens of other > straight-forward examples. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Sun May 29 17:40:11 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun May 29 17:40:16 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <42985AA7.1040502@hdw.be> References: <001401c56139$6e0b1f60$0f9868d5@James> <200505261715.j4QHF1AT001310@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <6.1.1.1.0.20050526153439.02ece5c0@pop.starpower.net> <42985AA7.1040502@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050529110059.02c719d0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:48 AM 5/28/05, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>Have we gone too far? Is it time to rethink, not the laws and rules, >>but the attitude with which we write, interpret and enforce them? Is >>it time to remind ourselves that everyone plays a bit differently, >>that styles vary, that some folks bid more wildly and others more >>conservatively, that some bidders are point-count fanatics while >>others play fast and loose with their nominal ranges, and that >>everyone still knows it? > >Yes, but don't you consider that it's only fair that your opponents >know whether you "bid more wildly or more conservatively", whether you >"are a point-count fanatic or play fast and loose with your nominal >ranges"? If my partner knows my tendencies, then they are "special information conveyed to him through... partnership experience", subject to L75C, and must be disclosed. This does not, however, transmute my tendencies into "special partnership agreements". They are not part of our bidding system, which would make them disclosable whether or not partner was aware of them (and would, in some jurisdictions, create a proactive obligation on partner's part to be aware of them). They are my style style and judgment, as opposed to my partnership's agreements, and, as such, not subject to regulation as agreements under L40. L75C says that my opponents are entitled to ask what I know about partner's tendencies and I'm obligated to tell them. But it is a matter of "general knowledge and experience" that not every player has the same tendencies. My opponents are expected to know that, and cannot expect redress from my failure to inform them proactively that partner is a point-count fanatic, or that partner plays fast and loose with our nominal ranges, whichever happens to be the opposite of what they may expect or imagine. I argue only that I am entitled to expect my opponents to know that, if they want to know the answer, it is up to them to ask the question. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun May 29 18:27:55 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun May 29 18:30:03 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C2 (ACBL) In-Reply-To: <001e01c56425$aaf7c7e0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> References: <4296A434.20008@nyc.rr.com> <005501c562e5$1c338b20$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <003501c56308$b0a46860$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> <005b01c563e7$0107a2c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <001e01c56425$aaf7c7e0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> Message-ID: <5810d6848d89cc57e843d7164e4fc217@rochester.rr.com> On May 29, 2005, at 4:08 AM, Roger Eymard wrote: > When assigning an adjusted score, we must keep all the regular calls > before the irregular one. If the irregular one causes no damage, there > is no adjustment. If it causes a damage, do we cancel it (and all the > subsequent bids) only for the NOS, and keep it (plus some of the > subsequent bids) for the OS if there is a chance that the result be > detrimental for the OS ? > What is the border between the calls we keep and the calls we cancel ? > Which Law do we apply then ? > > It seems to me that, when applying Law 16A2, in case of a damage, it > would be clearer to cancel for both sides all the calls starting with > the irregular one ( making them UI for the OS when determining the > outcome of the adjusted contract ?), and to examine the attribution of > a suitable PP to the OS in name of the irregularity itself. IMHO, it is a mistake to think in terms of canceling or not canceling calls when considering adjusting scores. The auction is what it is; it happened. We are not *changing* the auction, we are considering that the OS committed an infraction (using extraneous information in deciding what to call) which led to damage to the NOS, and adjusting the result on the board. In adjusting we are considering the possible results on the board had the infraction not occurred, but we are *not* canceling any calls. The issuance of a procedural penalty is a separate issue. If a player commits an irregularity, a procedural penalty might be awarded, *even* *if* there was no damage to the opponents. We don't often do that, nor should we, but the determination whether a PP is warranted is based on less stringent criteria than the decision whether to adjust the score, the reluctance of TDs (well, at the least, club TDs around here) to award *any* PP not withstanding. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun May 29 19:27:24 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun May 29 19:30:00 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C2 (ACBL) References: <4296A434.20008@nyc.rr.com> <005501c562e5$1c338b20$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <003501c56308$b0a46860$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> <005b01c563e7$0107a2c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <001e01c56425$aaf7c7e0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> Message-ID: <003101c56473$b8732e20$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Roger Eymard" > > When assigning an adjusted score, we must keep all the regular > calls before the irregular one. If the irregular one causes no damage, > there is no adjustment. If it causes a damage, do we cancel it (and all the >subsequent bids) only for the NOS, and keep it (plus some of the subsequent >bids) for the OS if there is a chance that the result be detrimental for the >OS ? What is the border between the calls we keep and the calls we >cancel ? Which Law do we apply then ? I think you're making it more complicated than it is. If there is damage we apply L12C2, period. For the offending side, damage is defined as an improved score attributable to the irregularity. Damage for the non-offending side is a score worsened because of the irregularity, but if its score is worsened only because of a wild, irrational, or gambling action on their part after the irregularity, they keep the table result even if the score is adjusted for the offending side. If the scores are adjusted for both sides, the adjustments need not balance, either because the non-offenders have done something egregious that annuls their right to redress or because the L12C2 criteria for score adjustments are not the same for both sides. > > It seems to me that, when applying Law 16A2, in case of a damage, > it would be clearer to cancel for both sides all the calls starting with > the irregular one ( making them UI for the OS when determining the > outcome of the adjusted contract ?), and to examine the attribution of a > suitable PP to the OS in name of the irregularity itself. > That is new law, let the ACBL Laws Commission know your opinion if you hope to get it included in the next version of the Laws. I will say that it is contrary to the spirit of the game, which favors justice over mere equity, and that the proper role of PPs is not a disciplinary one. Infractions that cause damage are handled by L12C2; the Laws prescribe no penalty for an infraction that causes no damage. Except for egregious cases requiring immediate action in accordance with L91, discipline should be handled outside of the game, not within the game. Do we take points off the rubber bridge score sheet when a player breaks a law in a way that causes no damage? No, we take away points only when a player is obviously guillty of outright cheating and is barred from further play. A violation of the proper procedures of duplicate bridge, as described in L90, is penalized on the score sheet, but that is not a disciplinary action. The title of L90 was changed many years ago from "Disciplinary Penalties" to "Procedural Penalties" in order to make this clear. The ACBL has a Player Memo (PM) form for documenting apparently unethical actions. These are filed away by a Recorder who will usually talk to the PM's subject about it, and who may suggest disciplinary action to a Conduct and Ethics committee when a player's dossier seems to warrant that. The PM isn't used much, which I attribute to laziness. It's so much easier to ignore a non-damaging infraction (a TD custom) or to assess a PP (an AC custom) than to write out a PM. In my experience, ACBL TDs will fill out a PM only to appease an outraged victim of a psych or other uncommon (but legal) tactical action, and PMs seem to be unknown to ACs. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 30 00:05:13 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 30 00:04:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <004401c563aa$b80124c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <006001c562ab$5fb95bc0$2c9868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050527094635.02b77010@pop.starpower.net> <004401c563aa$b80124c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050529171924.02c74440@pop.starpower.net> At 01:28 PM 5/28/05, Marvin wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > At 07:36 AM 5/27/05, wayne.burrows wrote: > > > > >What if you use judgement to upgrade this hand but have no > > >agreement explicit or implicit, about it but partner is not as > > >surprised as the opponents. > > > > Because partner is not as surprised as the opponents, you have "special > > information" which must be disclosed per L75C. The SO may, if it > > chooses, impose additional disclosure requirements (L80F). > > >Most of my opponents are surprised at nearly all of my actions, mainly >because >they are too lazy to remedy their ignorance of ACBL disclosure >regulations and >the general nature of the game itself. Some of my non-Alertable calls may >surprise opponents, who often assume what they should not assume. >That's their >tough luck if they don't ask for an explanation of the auction.. I wonder if Marv's opponents are really "surprised", which would mean, literally, that Marv's actions were outside the scope of his opponents' expectations. More likely, most of Marv's opponents take it as a fact of life that they cannot predict what action Marv will take with a given hand, notwithstanding that they do have some set of rough expectations about the general run of correspondence between hands and actions in the sorts of partnerships that they're likely to come across. They might be too sensible to make an automatic leap from "that's not what I would have bid" to "I'm surprised". Without substantively affecting the point of Marv's post, I'd have started with, "Most of my opponents are unable to predict nearly any of my actions, mainly because..." The difference, I believe, has much to do with the problem Marv speaks to. There has been a trend in the ACBL towards redefining "the right to full disclosure" from "the right not to be surprised at the opponents' actions" to "the right to be able to have predicted the opponents' actions". This has led to a complex tangle of disclosure regulations, guidelines and interpretations that most less-than-top-level players cannot be expected to fully comprehend. >The ACBL has regulations governing disclosure obligations, but there >is one >"suggestion" that ought to be a requirement, which is that before the >opening >lead declarer and/or dummy should volunteer any information about their >auction that might surprise even a knowledgeable opponent. Defenders >should >routinely ask for this information, since its disclosure is required >by L75 >regardless of what the ACBL says. > >A good habit is for the opening leader to ask for a complete >explanation of >the opponents' auction before leading, just in case there is something >surprising in it..Some of my opponents will ask questions like "Did the >notrump bid deny a major?" Such questions are illegal, in violation of >both >20F1 and 20F2. > >Defenders can't voluntarily provide information about their auction >unless >playing behind a screen, which is unfortunate. Declarers would be wise >to ask >for an explanation of the opposing auction, just in case it includes a >surprise. Unlike defenders, declarer can even ask about a specific >call or >defensive play at any time (L20F2). In real life, against serious opponents, I will often ask, or be asked, something like "Is there anything I ought to know about your auction?", which will be properly translated as, "Please explain, leave out the blitheringly obvious, assume I will ask for the gruesome details if I care; we're adults here, playing with the cards not the rules." It works for me. Marv is right in his prescription. No set of disclosure regulations, however complex, however closely followed, will provide the same level of disclosure as the sensible use of L75C by reasonable and ethical players. Overregulation of disclosure can only confuse honest folks into seeing conflicts (real or not) between meeting detailed requirements of disclosure regulations on the one hand and simply doing their best to be forthcoming on the other hand, and provide arguable loopholes to the less-than-ethical few who would seek reasons not to meet the straightforward obligations embodied in L75C. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 30 03:19:21 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 30 03:20:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Contumacious? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: My initial posting on this thread lacked context, so was therefore excessively obscure. Attached are some other relevant extracts from the May 2005 ABF Newsletter which provide context. In a frontpage "Opinion", co-Editor David Lusk wrote: [snip] >Many clubs are providing directors with more >protection from players who openly challenge their >authority [snip] >With added power comes the danger that players will >react unfavourably to disciplinary procedure. As with >other areas where normal procedures are not well >accepted, there is an increasing and disturbing trend >for players to turn to the legal system to resolve >disputes. When such action is initiated, the potential >financial and time costs are horrendous. [snip] >In the end, sponsoring organizations must underpin >these procedures with appropriate review structures. >These structures must allow all parties appropriate >input and feedback. Not only will this strengthen the >position of the sponsoring organization in any legal >battle, it will also provide an opportunity for >aggrieved parties to put their side of the story and, >hopefully, avoid the need for resolution outside of >the club jurisdiction. > >Pertinent to all of this is a letter from John O'Brien >(see page 3). If John's first anecdote doesn't send a >shiver down the spine, you are obviously not a club >director or administrator. In the first part of his Letter to the Editor, John O'Brien wrote: >>RE: SPONSORSHIP ORGANISATIONS, ISSUE NO 110 >> >>The article describes the responsibilities of the >>sponsoring organisation and the directors. If the Laws >>of Bridge adequately cover all issues likely to come up >>during a congress, all bases seem to be covered. >>However, there is one aspect which is not adequately >>covered. My concern can best be illustrated by >>describing two real stories. >> >>Smith v NSW Harness Racing Association. >>An owner of pacers whom I shall call Smith (his real >>name is not relevant in this letter), owned a horse >>which crossed the finishing line first in a prestigious >>event at Harold Park. A protest was entered and an >>inquiry held. Smith lost the protest and the race was >>awarded to another owner. Smith challenged the protest >>results in the NSW judicial system. His claim was that, >>as he was not allowed to attend the protest hearing, he >>had been denied natural justice. The Association denied >>any fault because the hearing had been held in >>accordance with the procedures of the club. The judge >>ruled the procedures were inadequate and ruled in Smith's >>favour. Thus establishing, at least within NSW, if not >>Australia, the principle that stewards must follow the >>principles of natural justice when they are at variance >>with other procedures. This principle is equally >>applicable to directors in performing their duties. >> >>A GNOT incident. >>Playing in the State GNOT finals, my right hand opponent >>opened a strong NT. I passed, as did left hand opponent. >>Partner showed a weak two suiter with hearts being one of >>the suits. Opener called the director claiming partner >>could not bid because I had hesitated before passing. The >>director accepted partner's assurance that her bid was >>clear cut and ordered play to continue. >> >>I bid and made 3NT. We scored up and took the results to >>our opponents for agreement. They refused to sign as they >>wanted the director to award an adjusted score. We waited >>to hear from the director. He eventually arrived and said >>"I have decided to award an adjusted score. The score is >>such and such and I am not going to discuss it." >> >>I was furious, not at the decision, but the secret way it >>was determined. [snip] Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 30 08:29:57 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 30 08:31:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Meritless appeals (was Indirect reg...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson: >You mean that our English Appeals Advisors are useless, and we >should use Aussie ones? Is that because we use people who serve >on ACs, and you and the ACBL do not? > >This seems an incredible post by you: perhaps you could explain >it further. Richard Hills: My apologies, I did not intend to imply that English Appeals Advisors are more useless than Aussie or ACBL Appeals Advisors. In the parallel thread "Contumacious?" that I recently started, it seems that an Aussie player launched a meritless appeal due to their misunderstanding of how Law 16 is applied, and what a Law 16 ruling implies. If that particular Aussie event had had available an Appeals Advisor to explain the nuances of Law to that disgruntled Aussie player, that player may have eschewed their subsequent appeal against the Director's ruling and their later public complaint about NSWBA procedures. The significant number of meritless appeals reaching EBU and Aussie and ACBL appeals committees suggests that there is a flaw in the system; either: (a) some Appeals Advisors occasionally give erroneous advice (with some of their errors possibly being caused by biased "factoids" that the potential appellants provide to them), and/or (b) some potential appellants are too pigheaded to bother to take advice from Appeals Advisors before they appeal, and/or (c) zero Appeals Advisors are appointed for a particular event. In low-level club events problem (c) can be mitigated by the TD themself going above and beyond the call of duty by educating grumpy players in the nuances of their ruling. The 2004 ACBL manual "Duplicate Decisions" recommends (page 102): >>The Director has the opportunity to discourage frivolous >>protests but he is not intended to act as a buffer between >>appellant and committee, passing along only those appeals he >>considers meritorious. He is intended to refer all protests >>routinely to committee, although he may, under unusual >>circumstances, offer informal, friendly advice to an appellant >>not to waste his own time and that of the committee's. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon May 30 08:43:44 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon May 30 08:46:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: Message-ID: <008501c564e2$ee188ce0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Harald Skj?ran" Marv wrote: > > > >If you look at L20F2, the matter becomes more clear. It says that a > >defender may ask for an explanation of the auction, but only > >declarer may ask about a particular call. If "explanation of the > >opponents' auction" included the right to ask about a particular > >call rather than the whole auction, L20F2 would not have made that > >distinction. > > You should be aware that L20F1 and L20F2 does not apply to the same period - 20F1 is applied during the auction period and L20F2 the play period. The distinction does not apply to the auction period - if it did, the distinction would have been made inL20F1 also. > Gee, thanks a lot Harald, I wouldn't have guessed that they applied to different periods. Of course the distinction does not apply to the auction period, because during that time one can ask only for an explanation of the auction, and within that context a request for further clarification of any individual call is permitted if needed. It is only during the play that a player, the declarer, can ask about a particular call. The reason is obvious, I should think. Asking about a particular call creates too much UI during the auction, as it does during the play when a defender asks. Declarer cannot create UI for dummy, and so is free from any such constraint. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 30 09:22:27 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 30 09:24:01 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four In-Reply-To: <42968C50.4030601@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >With all this system proliferation, there has to be a lot more >disclosure or bridge becomes unplayable. (People have proposed "no >disclosure," but then the game becomes one of who can invent the most >obscure bidding system. Sounds boring to me.) Once you accept that a >great deal of disclosure is needed, the easiest rule to write is >"disclose everything." [snip] Richard Hills: It may be an easy rule, but it is an impractical rule. The best rule is -> "Give maximum reasonable disclosure (as much as you practically can) in a succinct and comprehensible way". A problem is, of course, when players get an unfair "surprise" advantage by playing unusual methods. (Such as the young Scottish hotshot George Jesner gained by playing the unusual method "Benjamin Twos" in the 1950s.) By the way, the young Scottish hotshot George Jesner has just celebrated his eightieth birthday, and is still winning bridge events in his adopted home of Canberra. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 30 17:03:20 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 30 17:03:25 2005 Subject: [blml] I did it again In-Reply-To: <4298C3C3.9000709@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505191923.j4JJNL0g017286@cfa.harvard.edu> <4298C3C3.9000709@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050530105122.030a43e0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:17 PM 5/28/05, Steve wrote: >From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) >>There is an important line that must be drawn between "system" and >>"understanding based on experience" when assessing possible breaches >>of SO regulations. > >Exactly. > >>There are questions one may ask to address this second issue such as: >> Does Herman's partner make similar choices? >> Does pass in 3rd seat deny hands of 0-3 points? >> What sequences exist to determine whether 1H is genuine or not? >> What actions has Herman's partner taken which indicate systemic usage? > >I'd say the first one doesn't matter, and the last two do. A perhaps >better way of stating the second criterion is whether the partnership >has a _different_ sequence that systemically allows for the hand type >in question. For example, if someone opens 1NT on a 4441 type and >claims it is "just judgment," we need to ask what the systemic action >is with that type. If there isn't one (say 1C is strong and 1D/H/S >all promise 5 cards), we judge the offshape 1NT to be systemic with >whatever consequences follow. In Herman's case, if we find his >partner assuming his passes do show 4+, we can rule the "psych" is >really system. > >>On the whole knowledge of partner's psyching habits is detrimental to >>one's own interests since one is required to give opps knowledge >>which they can often exploit but you often cannot - that makes psychs >>a lot riskier. However, knowledge cannot be undone... > >Indeed. And I hope "regular partnerships should not be allowed to >psych" is a minority opinion. Yet that is where the rules some >support must lead. > > > and I think the laws are correct to make it disclosable. > >I tend to agree, but see Eric's comments for a different view. We >also have the problem of enforceability. If a pair does not disclose >their psyching habits when they should, how will the TD ever >know? (Of course there is no problem for prominent pairs, but the >rules whatever they are should be the same for unknowns as for >celebrities.) Maybe Eric's proposed rule "disclose system but not >experience" or something along those lines is worth thinking about. That's not quite my position, although I can see where my previous remarks might have made it appear so. My actual argument is that disclosure regulations made by SOs, beyond those in TFLB, should pertain to system but not experience. Experience should be, as it is now, disclosable as per the provisions of L75C. My view is that the Q&A envisioned by L75C is the only sensible mechanism by which disclosure of style and judgment should be accomplished, that attempts to require proactive disclosure of style and judgment (such as, as has been suggested by some, alerting sequences in which one knows that partner is not unlikely to psych), absent an inquiry from the opponents, creates more problems than it solves. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon May 30 20:15:53 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon May 30 20:16:58 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" References: Message-ID: <003301c56543$9e66d240$409468d5@James> [Tim West-Meades] > Your* general knowledge remains irrelevant. I'm only > talking about cases where the opps have specific > agreements/experience that *they* know. This is a common > auction. A regular partnership (of any competence) > *will* know what sort of hands their partner has bid it > on before. They *will* know whether they have some > other method for showing a value raise, they *will* > have inferences from bids their partner has not made. > The less regular (and competent) the partnership the > less they are likely to be able to tell you - their > general knowledge of the game hasn't changed but > their relevant experience has. [Nigel] Some of the TDs we have called are competent. They realize that, if an opponent keeps saying "I have told you all our agreements except for what is general knowledge and experience" then the law book confers on him "diplomatic immunity" from further interrogation :). Harassment from a director is just as bad as harassment from a player :) The problem is usually deliberate concealment but not always. It is still damaging if an opponent is genuinely mistaken about "general knowledge" or bases his actions on an unfashionable parrot-cry, which he loyally regards as "general knowledge" :) If you peruse BLML, you will find many threads, in which distinguished directors say information must be disclosed that another director classes as "general knowledge". To study what such directors class as "general knowledge" is salutary, clearly demonstrating to players how ignorant we are. At least the study would help players to appreciate how the legally sophisticated routinely use the "general knowledge" dodge to avoid disclosure. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon May 30 20:32:31 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon May 30 22:16:37 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" References: <004901c562a9$bd0eb560$2c9868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050527092353.02b83730@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000301c56554$555836f0$179468d5@James> > I haven't a clue why Nigel thinks "Like Eric Landau > I've never received any satisfaction from calling a > director"; Unless it was due to a "senior moment" of > which I was completely unaware at the time, I have never > written anything that would even remotely suggest this. > In any case, it is categorically not true. [Nigel] Grovelling apologies, Eric. I quoted the wrong person; and, anyway, I exaggerated. Ed Reppert reported a single example to support my thesis. Perhaps players are wary of bending the law when playing against directors. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon May 30 20:51:24 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon May 30 22:16:42 2005 Subject: [blml] One hundred and forty-four References: <003301c55f6a$41940940$aaf6f0c3@LNV><02c701c560a3$5bd74ee0$798616ac@mycomputer><0075eca2b8cf074b29e3b2a2e79dfa5a@rochester.rr.com><00a201c5611b$c8774c80$798616ac@mycomputer><007f01c5611e$54b246d0$269868d5@James><6.1.1.1.0.20050525095121.02c8d0d0@pop.starpower.net><003a01c5614e$f436c2a0$619868d5@James><000c01c5617e$e1745bc0$798616ac@mycomputer><000601c56187$018c2c50$309868d5@James> <001901c5646a$3633c2c0$798616ac@mycomputer> Message-ID: <000401c56554$5678c220$179468d5@James> >> [Israel] >>> You should tell the opponents what you AGREED with >>> your casual partner, if your partner tells you he is >>> likely to psyche- then and only then you and HE SHOULD >>> TELL the opponents. This seems to be obvious,can you >>> explain why it is not to you. Thanks and regards Israel > [Nigel] >> I'm just an ordinary player not a director and I warn >> you, >> Israel, that my views on this issue conflict with most >> EBU >> directors. >> Of course, I agree that you (and your new partner) should >> disclose to your opponents what you've discussed. >> In many obvious situations, however, IMO you should also >> disclose *implicit* agreements -- especially those of >> which >> opponents may be unaware ... >> A. Partner is notorious for psyches but he has not, >> in fact, told you or opponents. >> B. Partner is notorious for deviations (not full-blown >> psyches, just minor departures from system) >> C. Partner has a reputation for miscalls (especially >> Truscott and Ghestem) >> D. You and partner have played the same system with >> another player of group or club of players. >> E. Partner has written a book on the system and you >> have studied aspects that are undiscussed. >> F. Other so-called "general bridge knowledge" about >> which opponents may be unaware >> >> I am sure Richard Hills could supply dozens of other >> straight-forward examples. > [Isael] > Only Most? > best regards Israel [Nigel] Having been mistaken before, I hestiate to attribute opinions to others. Nevertherless, I believe that, even in the EBU, there are a few sticklers for the letter and spirit of the law who agree with me on this matter. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon May 30 23:30:44 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon May 30 23:31:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: <000001c55bae$b907f230$6900a8c0@WINXP><006001c55c46$b1af02b0$4c9687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><007e01c55ca1$c0721840$729468d5@James> <009801c5612c$727f7c60$269868d5@James> Message-ID: <002301c5655e$d6a69620$179468d5@James> {Nigel] Splitting more hairs on the difference between "opening on less than 10 HCP" and having an agreement to do so, especially third in hand: Some more nuances of ban ... (In some context) you may open on fewer than 10 HCP ... A. NEVER - not even as a "psyche". B. Only as a DEVIATION (i.e. you may open with 7-9 HCP if it is as much a surprise to partner as to opponents). C. Only as a PSYCHE (i.e. You may open with 0-6 HCP if it is as much a surprize to partner as to opponents). D. Only as a deviation OR psyche may you open on 0-9 HCP. E. If, according to SPECIFIC EXPERT JUDGEMENT (for example David Burn or a specified book with an objective method of hand evaluation) the hand is actually worth 10 HCP or more). F. If according to SOME EXPERT judgement, the hand is worth 10 HCP or more. (The problem is that there are almost as many methods of evaluation as there are experts or books; and experts would have an even greater advantage). G. If, according DIRECTOR judgement, the hand is worth more that 10 HCP. (Even more of a lottery). H. If, according, to PEER judgement (a sampe of like players), the hand is worth 10 HCP or more. (Forcing an expert to bid like the average palooka). I. If, according to a the PLAYER'S JUDGEMENT, EVEN FLAWED JUDGEMENT, the hand is worth ten points or more. Then there would be no need to bother with any regulation. Intuitively, E-I inclusive are likely to be illegal in the EBU. For example, as soon as you realize that partner is using "judgement" to open on fewer than 10 HCP, in third seat, then you have an implicit partnership agreement. Most people find this issue clear-cut - almost beyond argument - but this is a fascinating debate, since it seems to divide directors roughtly down the middle. In the interests of sanity, this regulations must be clarified ... or better dropped completely. At the moment, it disadvantages only the few who read such regulations and abide by them, but if this regulation were ever enforced, it would be a different matter. From brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk Tue May 31 13:44:56 2005 From: brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Tue May 31 13:46:21 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000d01c56245$9c89a8e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c565d6$2b154c70$f4212b52@Zog> Sven Pran writes: > With all these continued entries on this thread I again just want you to > look up Law 72B1 which is applicable to the player who made the 1S bid and > Law 16A which is applicable to his partner. I don't think this is right. There is a question on an EBU TDs course which IIRC went like this: 1N 2C 2N NB NB NB NB! 3C! You are told that the 3C bidder has stated that he was momentarily confused by his RHO's pass and thought that he had another bid. Full marks were obtained by citing L39A & L35D, cancelling the last two calls, returning the contract to 2N and confirming that there were no lead penalties. I think this is correct. Both sides have infracted, albeit that the 4th pass would of itself incur no penalty. L35D deals with this precise situation and states that both the extra pass and the 3C bids are to be cancelled *without penalty*. No further action of any sort is implied and it is IMO inappropriate to attempt to apply either L16A or L72B1. Herman's sequence is a different kettle of fish: 1N NB 3N NB NB NB NB! 1S! Here it seems unlikely that the 1S bidder could convince the TD that his action was based on the belief that the auction was still 'live' and now I would expect the TD to take action under L72B2. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.0 - Release Date: 30/05/05 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 31 14:33:24 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 31 14:33:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <002301c5655e$d6a69620$179468d5@James> References: <000001c55bae$b907f230$6900a8c0@WINXP> <006001c55c46$b1af02b0$4c9687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <007e01c55ca1$c0721840$729468d5@James> <009801c5612c$727f7c60$269868d5@James> <002301c5655e$d6a69620$179468d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050531082955.02c1cd20@pop.starpower.net> At 05:30 PM 5/30/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >Splitting more hairs on the difference between "opening on >less than 10 HCP" and having an agreement to do so, >especially third in hand: Some more nuances of ban ... > >(In some context) you may open on fewer than 10 HCP ... > >A. NEVER - not even as a "psyche". > >B. Only as a DEVIATION (i.e. you may open with 7-9 HCP if it >is as much a surprise to partner as to opponents). > >C. Only as a PSYCHE (i.e. You may open with 0-6 HCP if it is >as much a surprize to partner as to opponents). > >D. Only as a deviation OR psyche may you open on 0-9 HCP. > >E. If, according to SPECIFIC EXPERT JUDGEMENT (for example >David Burn or a specified book with an objective method of >hand evaluation) the hand is actually worth 10 HCP or more). > >F. If according to SOME EXPERT judgement, the hand is worth >10 HCP or more. (The problem is that there are almost as >many methods of evaluation as there are experts or books; >and experts would have an even greater advantage). > >G. If, according DIRECTOR judgement, the hand is worth more >that 10 HCP. (Even more of a lottery). > >H. If, according, to PEER judgement (a sampe of like >players), the hand is worth 10 HCP or more. (Forcing an >expert to bid like the average palooka). > >I. If, according to a the PLAYER'S JUDGEMENT, EVEN FLAWED >JUDGEMENT, the hand is worth ten points or more. Then there >would be no need to bother with any regulation. J. At any time, for any reason, provided that partner's subsequent choice of actions in no way allows for the possibility that you might hold less than 10 HCP. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue May 31 14:45:36 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue May 31 14:45:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050531082955.02c1cd20@pop.starpower.net> References: <000001c55bae$b907f230$6900a8c0@WINXP> <006001c55c46$b1af02b0$4c9687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <007e01c55ca1$c0721840$729468d5@James> <009801c5612c$727f7c60$269868d5@James> <002301c5655e$d6a69620$179468d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050531082955.02c1cd20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <429C5C70.3010305@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:30 PM 5/30/05, GUTHRIE wrote: > >> Splitting more hairs on the difference between "opening on >> less than 10 HCP" and having an agreement to do so, >> especially third in hand: Some more nuances of ban ... >> > > J. At any time, for any reason, provided that partner's subsequent > choice of actions in no way allows for the possibility that you might > hold less than 10 HCP. > Sorry Eric, but that's ludicrous. If a partner caters for 10 points, how can you say that he "in no way allows for the possibility that you hold 9"? I realize that you are trying to add to the list of possible interpretations, but this one won't work at all. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue May 31 15:17:52 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue May 31 15:19:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <008501c564e2$ee188ce0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <008501c564e2$ee188ce0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <80e4b2a12464da1c41fd8f3c07ca398c@rochester.rr.com> On May 30, 2005, at 2:43 AM, Marvin French wrote: > Of course the distinction does not apply to the auction period, > because during > that time one can ask only for an explanation of the auction, and > within that > context a request for further clarification of any individual call is > permitted if needed. It is only during the play that a player, the > declarer, > can ask about a particular call. > > The reason is obvious, I should think. Asking about a particular call > creates > too much UI during the auction, as it does during the play when a > defender > asks. Declarer cannot create UI for dummy, and so is free from any such > constraint. Certainly. Of course, the alert regulation kind of renders this provision of law moot, since under that regulation, you ask about the single alerted call. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue May 31 15:21:35 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue May 31 15:23:40 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" In-Reply-To: <003301c56543$9e66d240$409468d5@James> References: <003301c56543$9e66d240$409468d5@James> Message-ID: <93279b8990a9a6406331ecc6adedca95@rochester.rr.com> On May 30, 2005, at 2:15 PM, GUTHRIE wrote: > If you peruse BLML, you will find many threads, in which > distinguished directors say information must be disclosed > that another director classes as "general knowledge". To > study what such directors class as "general knowledge" is > salutary, clearly demonstrating to players how ignorant we > are. You would do better, I think, to enumerate these differences of opinion as to "general knowledge" rather than to make a bald assertion and leave it up to your readers to do the work. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue May 31 15:29:17 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue May 31 15:31:20 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" In-Reply-To: <000301c56554$555836f0$179468d5@James> References: <004901c562a9$bd0eb560$2c9868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050527092353.02b83730@pop.starpower.net> <000301c56554$555836f0$179468d5@James> Message-ID: On May 30, 2005, at 2:32 PM, GUTHRIE wrote: > Grovelling apologies, Eric. I quoted the wrong person; and, > anyway, I exaggerated. Ed Reppert reported a single example > to support my thesis. If by your thesis you mean the statement that you "have never received satisfaction from a director", no, that's not why I posted my example. My thesis would be that directors, especially club directors who have been "doing it their way" for a long time have developed bad habits (not reading from TFLB, ruling according to vague memories or according to what they *think* the law means, ruling in such a way as to attempt not to displease anyone too much - there's probably more) which could easily be avoided by a little work on their part. I haven't kept a count of the number of good vs. bad rulings I've gotten at clubs - it seems a waste of time. One remembers the bad ones, I think. Still, I *have* received good, if often poorly expressed, rulings, even at clubs. AFAIR, I've never received a bad ruling at a tournament. From svenpran at online.no Tue May 31 16:21:38 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue May 31 16:23:05 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000001c565d6$2b154c70$f4212b52@Zog> Message-ID: <000101c565ec$0eb5cd50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Brambledown > Sven Pran writes: > > > With all these continued entries on this thread > > I again just want you to look up Law 72B1 which > > is applicable to the player who made the 1S bid > > and Law 16A which is applicable to his partner. > > I don't think this is right. > > There is a question on an EBU TDs course which IIRC went like this: > > 1N 2C 2N NB > NB NB NB! 3C! > > You are told that the 3C bidder has stated that he was momentarily > confused by his RHO's pass and thought that he had another bid. > > Full marks were obtained by citing L39A & L35D, cancelling the last two > calls, returning the contract to 2N and confirming that there were no > lead penalties. > > I think this is correct. Both sides have infracted, albeit that the > 4th pass would of itself incur no penalty. L35D deals with this > precise situation and states that both the extra pass and the 3C bids > are to be cancelled *without penalty*. No further action of any sort is > implied and it is IMO inappropriate to attempt to apply either L16A or > L72B1. Neither Law 16A nor Law 72B1 implies any "penalty". Do you really consider the information conveyed by the 3C bid to be authorized for that player's partner? And do you discard the duty for the Director to investigate the 3C bid under Law 72B1? Only after investigation if the Director finds that the condition in L72B1 is satisfied (or that unauthorized information has been used illegally) shall he make any kind of adjustment, but I do not see why or how Law 35D prevents the Director from investigations according to Laws 16 and/or 72B1. > > Herman's sequence is a different kettle of fish: > > 1N NB 3N NB > NB NB NB! 1S! > > Here it seems unlikely that the 1S bidder could convince the TD that his > action was based on the belief that the auction was still 'live' and now > I would expect the TD to take action under L72B2. Law 35D explicitly states that all subsequent calls are cancelled without penalty. There is no condition in L35D that the subsequent call(s) must be legal in all other respects than that they follow an inadmissible call after the final pass. The Director need not and must not try to prove intent, he must limit himself to using L72B2 only when intent is obvious and cannot be disputed. In all other cases he must try the case under L72B1. Regards Sven From brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk Tue May 31 18:38:26 2005 From: brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Tue May 31 18:39:51 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000101c565ec$0eb5cd50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c565ff$2b5e3fb0$f4212b52@Zog> Sven Pran writes: > > There is a question on an EBU TDs course which IIRC went like this: > > > > 1N 2C 2N NB > > NB NB NB! 3C! > > > > You are told that the 3C bidder has stated that he was momentarily > > confused by his RHO's pass and thought that he had another bid. > > > > Full marks were obtained by citing L39A & L35D, cancelling the last two > > calls, returning the contract to 2N and confirming that there were no > > lead penalties. > > > > I think this is correct. Both sides have infracted, albeit that the > > 4th pass would of itself incur no penalty. L35D deals with this > > precise situation and states that both the extra pass and the 3C bids > > are to be cancelled *without penalty*. No further action of any sort is > > implied and it is IMO inappropriate to attempt to apply either L16A or > > L72B1. > > Neither Law 16A nor Law 72B1 implies any "penalty". Words! As TD, you've read L35D and told the defence that the last two calls are withdrawn *without penalty*. If you now seek to restrict their lead choices or adjust the result in favour of declarer they will certainly feel penalized. > Do you really consider the information conveyed by the 3C bid to be > authorized for that player's partner? I believe that is what L35D is telling me - and apparently that is the view of the EBU examiners. You seem to be trying to treat declarer/dummy as the NOS, but it was their superfluous pass that caused the problem in the first place. Clearly the defence may not try to gain an advantage by knowingly continuing an auction that they know should have ceased (this offends L72B2), but IMO L35D makes it clear that any accidental further bidding is ignored entirely and both sides must live with the consequences. > And do you discard the duty for the Director to investigate the 3C bid under > Law 72B1? The 3C bidder has explained his action and IMO L72B1is irrelevant in these circumstances. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.0 - Release Date: 30/05/05 From adam at irvine.com Tue May 31 18:45:12 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue May 31 18:46:43 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 31 May 2005 17:38:26 BST." <000001c565ff$2b5e3fb0$f4212b52@Zog> Message-ID: <200505311645.JAA16917@mailhub.irvine.com> Brambledown wrote: > Sven Pran writes: > > Neither Law 16A nor Law 72B1 implies any "penalty". > Words! As TD, you've read L35D and told the defence that the last two > calls are withdrawn *without penalty*. If you now seek to restrict > their lead choices or adjust the result in favour of declarer they will > certainly feel penalized. I reread Law 35D carefully, and my copy of the Laws doesn't appear to say "all subsequent calls are cancelled without making the offenders feel penalized". A penalty is whatever the Laws say it is, not whatever the players feel like it is. -- Adam From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Tue May 31 16:44:36 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Tue May 31 20:49:54 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000101c565ec$0eb5cd50$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c565ec$0eb5cd50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <429C7854.8070105@hotmail.com> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Brambledown >>Sven Pran writes: >> >> >> >>>With all these continued entries on this thread >>>I again just want you to look up Law 72B1 which >>>is applicable to the player who made the 1S bid >>>and Law 16A which is applicable to his partner. >>> >>> >>I don't think this is right. >> >>There is a question on an EBU TDs course which IIRC went like this: >> >>1N 2C 2N NB >>NB NB NB! 3C! >> >>You are told that the 3C bidder has stated that he was momentarily >>confused by his RHO's pass and thought that he had another bid. >> >>Full marks were obtained by citing L39A & L35D, cancelling the last two >>calls, returning the contract to 2N and confirming that there were no >>lead penalties. >> >>I think this is correct. Both sides have infracted, albeit that the >>4th pass would of itself incur no penalty. L35D deals with this >>precise situation and states that both the extra pass and the 3C bids >>are to be cancelled *without penalty*. No further action of any sort is >>implied and it is IMO inappropriate to attempt to apply either L16A or >>L72B1. >> >> > >Neither Law 16A nor Law 72B1 implies any "penalty". > >Do you really consider the information conveyed by the 3C bid to be >authorized for that player's partner? > >And do you discard the duty for the Director to investigate the 3C bid under >Law 72B1? > >Only after investigation if the Director finds that the condition in L72B1 >is satisfied (or that unauthorized information has been used illegally) >shall he make any kind of adjustment, but I do not see why or how Law 35D >prevents the Director from investigations according to Laws 16 and/or 72B1. > > >>Herman's sequence is a different kettle of fish: >> >>1N NB 3N NB >>NB NB NB! 1S! >> >>Here it seems unlikely that the 1S bidder could convince the TD that his >>action was based on the belief that the auction was still 'live' and now >>I would expect the TD to take action under L72B2. >> >> > >Law 35D explicitly states that all subsequent calls are cancelled without >penalty. There is no condition in L35D that the subsequent call(s) must be >legal in all other respects than that they follow an inadmissible call after >the final pass. > >The Director need not and must not try to prove intent, he must limit >himself to using L72B2 only when intent is obvious and cannot be disputed. >In all other cases he must try the case under L72B1. > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > You will never have to apply law 72B1 in this case because if you apply law 16 then the irregularity will not damage the NOS. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050531/a88d30a3/attachment-0001.html From john at asimere.com Tue May 31 20:58:56 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue May 31 21:02:01 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" In-Reply-To: <000301c56554$555836f0$179468d5@James> References: <004901c562a9$bd0eb560$2c9868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050527092353.02b83730@pop.starpower.net> <000301c56554$555836f0$179468d5@James> Message-ID: In article <000301c56554$555836f0$179468d5@James>, GUTHRIE writes >> I haven't a clue why Nigel thinks "Like Eric Landau >> I've never received any satisfaction from calling a >> director"; Unless it was due to a "senior moment" of >> which I was completely unaware at the time, I have never >> written anything that would even remotely suggest this. >> In any case, it is categorically not true. > >[Nigel] >Grovelling apologies, Eric. I quoted the wrong person; and, >anyway, I exaggerated. Ed Reppert reported a single example >to support my thesis. > >Perhaps players are wary of bending the law when playing >against directors. although directors very seldom call the TD, as it might be perceived they are using their extra-ordinary knowledge of the laws to gain an unfair advantage. John > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran at online.no Tue May 31 23:06:13 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue May 31 23:07:41 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <429C7854.8070105@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <000501c56624$94205590$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of koen ............. You will never have to apply law 72B1 in this case because if you apply law 16 then the irregularity will not damage the NOS. And I think that is correct! Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue May 31 23:22:35 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue May 31 23:24:03 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000001c565ff$2b5e3fb0$f4212b52@Zog> Message-ID: <000601c56626$dd5c95f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Brambledown ............. > Words! As TD, you've read L35D and told the defence that the last two > calls are withdrawn *without penalty*. If you now seek to restrict > their lead choices or adjust the result in favour of declarer they will > certainly feel penalized. As TD I have read them L35D and told them that there is no (immediate or automatic) penalty but that the information from any withdrawn call is still unauthorized as per L16. > > > Do you really consider the information conveyed by the 3C bid to be > > authorized for that player's partner? > > I believe that is what L35D is telling me - and apparently that is the > view of the EBU examiners. I am not going to discuss the views of the EBU examiners, but I strongly suspect that they have not thought of the UI implications with L35D. In the "normal" L35D case UI will not be any problem. > > You seem to be trying to treat declarer/dummy as the NOS, but it was > their superfluous pass that caused the problem in the first place. > Clearly the defence may not try to gain an advantage by knowingly > continuing an auction that they know should have ceased (this offends > L72B2), but IMO L35D makes it clear that any accidental further bidding > is ignored entirely and both sides must live with the consequences. Law 16: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." Is it a "penalty" when a player who has received such extraneous information may not base a call or play on that information? (I agree with koen that L72B1 is irrelevant because opponents cannot be damaged unless Law 16 is violated). Sven