From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 1 00:57:20 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Jun 1 00:58:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall 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: <002801c56634$1a8f5220$079868d5@James> [Eric Landau] > 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. [Nigel] IMO Eric has drawn attention to the nub of my differences with some BLMLers. If your partnership has an illegal agreement (for example to open something on less than 10 HCP), then that is an infraction, whether or not partner allows for it. After all, opponents may be damaged by your illegal bid, even when partner bids quite normally. I would go even further. IMO, the director should penalize an illegal agreement even if ... (A) Neither partner ever fields it! (B) Opponents are never damaged!! (C) The partnership have never had an opportunity to use it!!! From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 1 02:33:59 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Jun 1 02:34:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <002801c56634$1a8f5220$079868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >I would go even further. IMO, the director should penalize >an illegal agreement even if ... >(A) Neither partner ever fields it! >(B) Opponents are never damaged!! >(C) The partnership have never had an opportunity to use >it!!! Richard Hills: Technically, Nigel has a point. (A) and (B) are infractions of Law 40D. But (C) is a lesser infraction of Law 40E1, a convention card merely listing an illegal agreement. I (as TD) would award a standard PP for any *use* of an illegal agreement. But I (as TD) would merely award a PP of a warning - "Delete that illegal agreement from your CC, or else" - in situation (C). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From manoj at melbourneemail.com Thu Jun 2 08:20:48 2005 From: manoj at melbourneemail.com (eliz riley) Date: Wed Jun 1 02:34:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Feel young again Message-ID: <37EC724F.F031090@melbourneemail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050601/72779453/attachment.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jun 1 03:27:35 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Jun 1 03:34:06 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: <000601c56626$dd5c95f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002001c56649$2f4405c0$6c9187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* tolerate = to accept different beliefs or opinions (Chambers dictionary) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:22 PM Subject: RE: [blml] L35D 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. < +=+ Unlikely suggestion. The supervising examiner is the WBF CTD. +=+ From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Wed Jun 1 04:22:54 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Jun 1 04:24:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <002801c56634$1a8f5220$079868d5@James> Message-ID: >From: "GUTHRIE" >To: "BLML" >Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall >Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 23:57:20 +0100 > >[Eric Landau] > > 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. > >[Nigel] >IMO Eric has drawn attention to the nub of my differences >with some BLMLers. If your partnership has an illegal >agreement (for example to open something on less than 10 >HCP), then that is an infraction, whether or not partner >allows for it. After all, opponents may be damaged by your >illegal bid, even when partner bids quite normally. > >I would go even further. IMO, the director should penalize >an illegal agreement even if ... >(A) Neither partner ever fields it! >(B) Opponents are never damaged!! >(C) The partnership have never had an opportunity to use >it!!! > This seems reasonable. Although the laws of bridge are not primarily designed to be punative. Therefore depending on the circumstances a warning may be sufficient. On the other hand, ... IMO, the director should not penalize a departure from system on the assumption that it is an illegal agreement when there is actually no agreement even if ... (A) Partner fields it; (B) Partner also departs from our agreements on the same hand; (C) Partner allows for the departure in some other way (maybe this is just fielding). Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Become a fitness fanatic @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/health From oriond at atarijaguar.net Wed Jun 1 20:43:49 2005 From: oriond at atarijaguar.net (ardelia hawkins) Date: Wed Jun 1 05:06:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Health Watch: Medical Science Update Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050601/2adc4463/attachment.html From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 1 05:37:57 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Jun 1 05:38:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: Message-ID: <00d101c5665b$4dee7f20$069468d5@James> ]Wayne Burrowa] > IMO, the director should not penalize a departure from > system on the assumption that it is an illegal agreement > when there isactually no agreement even if ... > (A) Partner fields it; > (B) Partner also departs from our agreements on > the same hand; > (C) Partner allows for the departure in some other > way (maybe this is just fielding). [Nigel] Given that that there is no illegal partnership agreement. Wayne's corolary is manifestly true. In real life, such cetainty is unlikely. But this leads on naturally to the next issue on which I am at odds with most BLMLers. In particular Richard Jsmes Hills advances strong arguments against my point of view - which is as follows... Suppose that, on the contrary, the director feels that there may be an illegal agreement or unauthorised information, then, IMO, fielding is circumtantial evidence that reinforces such suspisions. The coincidence of both partners departing from disclosed agreements on the same hand (the second departure seemingly an attempt to mitigate adverse effects of the first) is suspicious. I contend that one swallow can sometimes make a Summer! Of coure, I concede that if the director rules against the putative offenders on the basis of one unlikely coincidence, then he may be mistaken. But many rulings are a matter of judgment and the balance of probability. A civil dispute rather than a criminal prosecution is the better legal analogy. Although some murder convictions have hinged on less convincing evidence! From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 1 08:57:35 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Jun 1 08:59:13 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <002001c56649$2f4405c0$6c9187d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>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. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Unlikely suggestion. The supervising >examiner is the WBF CTD. +=+ Law 16C2: "For the offending side, information arising from its own **withdrawn** action and from **withdrawn** actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised..." Law 35D: "...calls are **cancelled** without penalty." Law 16: "...To base a call or play on other extraneous information **may** be an infraction of law." Richard Hills: In my opinion, Sven has made an unwarranted logical leap by assuming that "cancelled" is a subset of "withdrawn". In my opinion, it "may" be possible that information from a "cancelled" call "may" in fact be authorised information to all. No doubt this ambiguity will be resolved in the next (2006 or 2007 or 2008) edition of the fabulous Lawbook. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 1 10:24:46 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 1 10:26:14 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c56683$5f2004d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > >>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. > > Grattan Endicott: > > >+=+ Unlikely suggestion. The supervising > >examiner is the WBF CTD. +=+ Then please consider what I now write at the bottom of this post > > Law 16C2: > > "For the offending side, information arising from > its own **withdrawn** action and from **withdrawn** > actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised..." > > Law 35D: > > "...calls are **cancelled** without penalty." > > Law 16: > > "...To base a call or play on other extraneous > information **may** be an infraction of law." > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, Sven has made an unwarranted logical > leap by assuming that "cancelled" is a subset of > "withdrawn". No, I do not explicitly need L16C, the preamble in L16 is sufficient because the "cancelled" calls have never been "legal" and so IMO are embraced in the clause: "other extraneous information". > > In my opinion, it "may" be possible that information > from a "cancelled" call "may" in fact be authorised > information to all. > > No doubt this ambiguity will be resolved in the next > (2006 or 2007 or 2008) edition of the fabulous Lawbook. I certainly hope so! Herman originally posted essentially this question: W N E S 1NT - Pass - 3NT - Pass Pass - Pass - Pass(1) - 1S(2) According to Law 35D call (1) and all subsequent calls are cancelled without penalty. Does this mean that South here has a free way with his bid (2) to tell North that he wants a Spade led? The fact that South made an "insufficient" bid is immaterial; the situation does not change if South bids 4S. And I have not found any law other than L16 that can be applied against North leading a spade in this situation? I am sure WBF CTD (or anybody else) does not want this "loophole" to be available for South? Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 1 11:03:39 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 1 11:03:34 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000001c56683$5f2004d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c56683$5f2004d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <429D79EB.9080708@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > I certainly hope so! > > Herman originally posted essentially this question: > > W N E S > 1NT - Pass - 3NT - Pass > Pass - Pass - Pass(1) - 1S(2) > > According to Law 35D call (1) and all subsequent calls are cancelled without > penalty. Does this mean that South here has a free way with his bid (2) to > tell North that he wants a Spade led? > > The fact that South made an "insufficient" bid is immaterial; the situation > does not change if South bids 4S. And I have not found any law other than > L16 that can be applied against North leading a spade in this situation? > > I am sure WBF CTD (or anybody else) does not want this "loophole" to be > available for South? > I believe this question has been answered, Sven. 1S (or 4S) is retracted _without penalty_, and this includes the lead penalties from L26 as well as the "penalties" from L16 (saying that North cannot do ...). Still, this does not exonerate South, against whom adjustments from L73 are still available. This seems to be about the only thread this year so far, on which there has been no discussion. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 1 11:39:35 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 1 11:41:02 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <429D79EB.9080708@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c5668d$d26f2b50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Herman originally posted essentially this question: > > > > W N E S > > 1NT - Pass - 3NT - Pass > > Pass - Pass - Pass(1) - 1S(2) > > > > According to Law 35D call (1) and all subsequent > > calls are cancelled without penalty. Does this mean > > that South here has a free way with his bid (2) to > > tell North that he wants a Spade led? > > > > The fact that South made an "insufficient" bid is > > immaterial; the situation does not change if South > > bids 4S. And I have not found any law other than > > L16 that can be applied against North leading a > > spade in this situation? > > > > I am sure WBF CTD (or anybody else) does not want > > this "loophole" to be available for South? > > > > I believe this question has been answered, Sven. 1S (or 4S) is > retracted _without penalty_, and this includes the lead penalties from > L26 as well as the "penalties" from L16 (saying that North cannot do ...). > > Still, this does not exonerate South, against whom adjustments from > L73 are still available. Had you written L72B1 I could follow you but L73? (against South?) L73 does not authorize any sanction (adjustment) except as specified in L73F1 which refers to L16. (L73F1 is actually a duplication of L16A2). So if we say that L35D "cancels" not only L26 but also L16 then L73 cannot help us because also L73 (like L16) must be "cancelled" by L35D. Regards Sven From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jun 1 12:40:01 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Jun 1 12:41:32 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <429D79EB.9080708@hdw.be> References: <000001c56683$5f2004d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <429D79EB.9080708@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 1 Jun 2005, at 10:03, Herman De Wael wrote: > as well as the "penalties" from L16 (saying that North cannot do ...). I don't think it helps any of us to pretend that the requirement to play the game by its Laws is a "penalty". > This seems to be about the only thread this year so far, on which > there has been no discussion. > I thought there had been plenty of discussion. Perhaps you mean it's about the only thread this year on which your views haven't provoked loud disagreement? :) -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 1 13:23:30 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 1 13:23:36 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000101c5668d$d26f2b50$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c5668d$d26f2b50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <429D9AB2.4030509@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Still, this does not exonerate South, against whom adjustments from >>L73 are still available. > > > Had you written L72B1 I could follow you but L73? (against South?) > I did not look it up and my memory betrayed me. L72B1 is indeed the one which has been cited before and again (erroneously) by me. I really believe this discussion is over and we have reached an agreement (for once). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 1 13:26:10 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 1 13:26:14 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: References: <000001c56683$5f2004d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <429D79EB.9080708@hdw.be> Message-ID: <429D9B52.3000107@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 1 Jun 2005, at 10:03, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> as well as the "penalties" from L16 (saying that North cannot do ...). > > > I don't think it helps any of us to pretend that the requirement to play > the game by its Laws is a "penalty". > It is when you are not allowed to play it to its full extent. Under some circumstances, 4He is a legal and good bid, yet I am prevented from bidding it by some irregularity, caused by partner. That sounds like a penalty to me. >> This seems to be about the only thread this year so far, on which >> there has been no discussion. >> > I thought there had been plenty of discussion. Perhaps you mean it's > about the only thread this year on which your views haven't provoked > loud disagreement? :) > I thought there was agreement, in the end, and very little discussion. Some people stated some things that were incorrect. They were corrected by others, and we haven't heard from them since. Do you mean you still disagree but are not willing to speak out over it? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jun 1 14:11:38 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Jun 1 14:13:10 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <429D9B52.3000107@hdw.be> References: <000001c56683$5f2004d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <429D79EB.9080708@hdw.be> <429D9B52.3000107@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5802014912c9a754a299f9434a0d944d@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 1 Jun 2005, at 12:26, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> On 1 Jun 2005, at 10:03, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> as well as the "penalties" from L16 (saying that North cannot do >>> ...). >> I don't think it helps any of us to pretend that the requirement to >> play the game by its Laws is a "penalty". > > It is when you are not allowed to play it to its full extent. Under > some circumstances, 4He is a legal and good bid, yet I am prevented > from bidding it by some irregularity, caused by partner. That sounds > like a penalty to me. It sounds like a restriction of options to me, not a penalty. Using the word "penalty" in a sloppy way like that, is likely to cause confusion in understanding and explaining the Laws. Do you also talk about "penalties" when you award an adjusted score? > >>> This seems to be about the only thread this year so far, on which >>> there has been no discussion. >>> >> I thought there had been plenty of discussion. Perhaps you mean it's >> about the only thread this year on which your views haven't provoked >> loud disagreement? :) > > I thought there was agreement, in the end, and very little discussion. > Some people stated some things that were incorrect. They were > corrected by others, and we haven't heard from them since. Do you mean > you still disagree but are not willing to speak out over it? Not at all. I just meant it was a welcome change from your usual contrary contributions :) -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 1 14:12:45 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 1 14:14:13 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <429D9AB2.4030509@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c566a3$381156d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Had you written L72B1 I could follow you but L73? (against South?) > > > > I did not look it up and my memory betrayed me. > L72B1 is indeed the one which has been cited before and again > (erroneously) by me. OK But as Koen correctly remarked to me: 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. (The "advantage" mentioned in L72B1 can only be achieved through a violation of L16, and there is no reason why L72B1 should not be cancelled the same way as in case L16 is cancelled from L35D). regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jun 1 13:42:48 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Jun 1 14:17:04 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: <000001c56683$5f2004d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004d01c566a3$0080a360$7b9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* tolerate = to accept different beliefs or opinions (Chambers dictionary) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 9:24 AM Subject: RE: [blml] L35D > In my opinion, it "may" be possible that information > from a "cancelled" call "may" in fact be authorised > information to all. > > No doubt this ambiguity will be resolved in the next > (2006 or 2007 or 2008) edition of the fabulous Lawbook. < +=+ It is too early to be certain. If the text stays as it is in this respect there will be no ambiguity. +=+ < -------------- \x/ --------------- < The fact that South made an "insufficient" bid is immaterial; the situation does not change if South bids 4S. And I have not found any law other than L16 that can be applied against North leading a spade in this situation? I am sure WBF CTD (or anybody else) does not want this "loophole" to be available for South? Regards Sven +=+ Personally I would say there is a clear cut case for invoking 72B1. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 1 14:29:24 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jun 1 14:28:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <002801c56634$1a8f5220$079868d5@James> References: <000001c55bae$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> <002801c56634$1a8f5220$079868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050601081802.02c04530@pop.starpower.net> At 06:57 PM 5/31/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >[Eric Landau] > > 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. > >[Nigel] >IMO Eric has drawn attention to the nub of my differences >with some BLMLers. If your partnership has an illegal >agreement (for example to open something on less than 10 >HCP), then that is an infraction, whether or not partner >allows for it. After all, opponents may be damaged by your >illegal bid, even when partner bids quite normally. But if there is no relevant "partnership understanding", "a player may make any call or play" [L40A]. If we use a J-type criterion to establish the existence of an understanding, then, by virtue of that criterion, there is no such thing as an illegal bid, only illegal partnership understandings. It is illegal (in most(?) jurisdictions) to have understandings which reduce the risk associated with deviations from one's announced methods, and we may use the term "illegal bid" to mean a bid "protected" by such an understanding, but it is the understanding, not the bid, which is subject to regulation. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 1 14:38:21 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jun 1 14:37:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <00d101c5665b$4dee7f20$069468d5@James> References: <00d101c5665b$4dee7f20$069468d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050601083256.02c19eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:37 PM 5/31/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >Suppose that, on the contrary, the director feels that there >may be an illegal agreement or unauthorised information, >then, IMO, fielding is circumtantial evidence that >reinforces such suspisions. The coincidence of both partners >departing from disclosed agreements on the same hand (the >second departure seemingly an attempt to mitigate adverse >effects of the first) is suspicious. I contend that one >swallow can sometimes make a Summer! Of coure, I concede >that if the director rules against the putative offenders on >the basis of one unlikely coincidence, then he may be >mistaken. But many rulings are a matter of judgment and the >balance of probability. A civil dispute rather than a >criminal prosecution is the better legal analogy. Although >some murder convictions have hinged on less convincing >evidence! That particular interpretation was proposed to the ACBLLC some years back by Bobby Wolff under the name "rule of coincidence". The ACBL utterly rejected it; today it is considered totally discredited (AFAIK any authorities in other jurisdiction who have addressed the issue agree). Given the ACBL's tendency to heavy-handedness, and given the position and influence of Mr. Wolff in the ACBL power structure, I think that says quite a lot. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 1 14:41:11 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 1 14:42:41 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <004d01c566a3$0080a360$7b9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000301c566a7$30f2d780$6400a8c0@WINXP> > From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] ............. > < > The fact that South made an "insufficient" bid is immaterial; > the situation does not change if South bids 4S. And I have > not found any law other than L16 that can be applied against > North leading a spade in this situation? > > I am sure WBF CTD (or anybody else) does not want this > "loophole" to be available for South? > > Regards Sven > > +=+ Personally I would say there is a clear > cut case for invoking 72B1. ~ G ~ +=+ That was my initial position as well, but L72B1 requires that opponents have indeed been damaged from an irregularity. Now how can we say that this has happened if we explicitly state that the information from the irregular call is authorized and that law 16 does not apply? Opponents have not been damaged from the 1S (or whatever) call from South as such, they have in case been damaged from North illegally using some information conveyed with this call. IMHO restraining a player from selecting a call or a play based on extraneous information (UI) is no "penalty" so I just cannot see the logic in stating that the clause "without penalty" in L35D means that the (extraneous) information from the cancelled calls becomes authorized. We find the word "(penalty)" several places in the laws to indicate that the following clause in fact refers to a specific penalty. We do not find this word anywhere within Law 16. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 1 15:05:47 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 1 15:05:53 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <5802014912c9a754a299f9434a0d944d@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <000001c56683$5f2004d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <429D79EB.9080708@hdw.be> <429D9B52.3000107@hdw.be> <5802014912c9a754a299f9434a0d944d@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <429DB2AB.1030200@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 1 Jun 2005, at 12:26, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >>> On 1 Jun 2005, at 10:03, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> as well as the "penalties" from L16 (saying that North cannot do ...). >>> >>> I don't think it helps any of us to pretend that the requirement to >>> play the game by its Laws is a "penalty". >> >> >> It is when you are not allowed to play it to its full extent. Under >> some circumstances, 4He is a legal and good bid, yet I am prevented >> from bidding it by some irregularity, caused by partner. That sounds >> like a penalty to me. > > > It sounds like a restriction of options to me, not a penalty. Using the > word "penalty" in a sloppy way like that, is likely to cause confusion > in understanding and explaining the Laws. Do you also talk about > "penalties" when you award an adjusted score? > In any case, I believe the consensus is that "without penalty" includes the L16 restrictions. >> >>>> This seems to be about the only thread this year so far, on which >>>> there has been no discussion. >>>> >>> I thought there had been plenty of discussion. Perhaps you mean it's >>> about the only thread this year on which your views haven't provoked >>> loud disagreement? :) >> >> >> I thought there was agreement, in the end, and very little discussion. >> Some people stated some things that were incorrect. They were >> corrected by others, and we haven't heard from them since. Do you mean >> you still disagree but are not willing to speak out over it? > > > Not at all. I just meant it was a welcome change from your usual > contrary contributions :) > Nice to see the world agree with me for once, indeed. ;-) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 1 15:09:40 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Jun 1 15:12:20 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <002001c56649$2f4405c0$6c9187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000601c56626$dd5c95f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <002001c56649$2f4405c0$6c9187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article <002001c56649$2f4405c0$6c9187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >******************************* >tolerate = to accept different > beliefs or opinions > (Chambers dictionary) >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:22 PM >Subject: RE: [blml] L35D > > > >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. >< >+=+ Unlikely suggestion. The supervising >examiner is the WBF CTD. +=+ against whom I'm currently 2-0 up :) 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 Wed Jun 1 15:13:53 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Jun 1 15:17:01 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: References: <002001c56649$2f4405c0$6c9187d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Sven Pran: > >>>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. > >Grattan Endicott: > >>+=+ Unlikely suggestion. The supervising >>examiner is the WBF CTD. +=+ wtp guys.? The auction finished with the third pass. No other calls ever existed, the law says so. They weren't calls but they were extraneous information much as the remark "I want a spade lead" is extraneous. 72B1 and 16 is fine. > >Law 16C2: > >"For the offending side, information arising from >its own **withdrawn** action and from **withdrawn** >actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised..." > >Law 35D: > >"...calls are **cancelled** without penalty." > >Law 16: > >"...To base a call or play on other extraneous >information **may** be an infraction of law." > >Richard Hills: > >In my opinion, Sven has made an unwarranted logical >leap by assuming that "cancelled" is a subset of >"withdrawn". > >In my opinion, it "may" be possible that information >from a "cancelled" call "may" in fact be authorised >information to all. > >No doubt this ambiguity will be resolved in the next >(2006 or 2007 or 2008) edition of the fabulous Lawbook. > > >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 hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 1 15:30:05 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 1 15:30:51 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000201c566a3$381156d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c566a3$381156d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <429DB85D.8020108@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> >>>Had you written L72B1 I could follow you but L73? (against South?) >>> >> >>I did not look it up and my memory betrayed me. >>L72B1 is indeed the one which has been cited before and again >>(erroneously) by me. > > > OK > > But as Koen correctly remarked to me: > > 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. > That may well be true, but since L16 is cancelled, you will need to use L72B1. > (The "advantage" mentioned in L72B1 can only be achieved through a violation > of L16, and there is no reason why L72B1 should not be cancelled the same > way as in case L16 is cancelled from L35D). > Yes there is such a reason - L16 is cancelled because the bid is cancelled "without penalty". L72B1 is however not a penalty which is consequent to the irregularity, it is larger than that. It is concerned with the irregularity, including its consequences. L72B1 says in effect: if the perpetrator could have known that his irregularity, including all its consequent penalties, would still result in a positive outcome, then that positive outcome is adjusted downwards. So in this case, the 1S bid is "without penalty" and the perpetrator could have known this (of course he could, he's just read blml, hasn't he?) so any damage done to the opponents will be taken back. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 1 15:38:21 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 1 15:38:24 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000301c566a7$30f2d780$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c566a7$30f2d780$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <429DBA4D.8020308@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > ............. > >>< >>The fact that South made an "insufficient" bid is immaterial; >>the situation does not change if South bids 4S. And I have >>not found any law other than L16 that can be applied against >> North leading a spade in this situation? >> >>I am sure WBF CTD (or anybody else) does not want this >>"loophole" to be available for South? >> >>Regards Sven >> >>+=+ Personally I would say there is a clear >>cut case for invoking 72B1. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > That was my initial position as well, but L72B1 requires that opponents have > indeed been damaged from an irregularity. Now how can we say that this has > happened if we explicitly state that the information from the irregular call > is authorized and that law 16 does not apply? > > Opponents have not been damaged from the 1S (or whatever) call from South as > such, they have in case been damaged from North illegally using some > information conveyed with this call. > > IMHO restraining a player from selecting a call or a play based on > extraneous information (UI) is no "penalty" so I just cannot see the logic > in stating that the clause "without penalty" in L35D means that the > (extraneous) information from the cancelled calls becomes authorized. > > We find the word "(penalty)" several places in the laws to indicate that the > following clause in fact refers to a specific penalty. We do not find this > word anywhere within Law 16. > Sven may well have a point here, actually. If something is "without penalty" then how can it be penalised? Consider a far less controvertial example: Declarer plays a card, and LHO starts thinking. If 4th hand now plays to the trick, there are penalties on 2nd hand. But if dummy (illegally) plays a card, then 4th hand can also play "without penalty" (L57C). This "not subject to penalty" includes L16, of that we are certain. Yet no one has suggested that L72B1 be invoked on the fourth hand player who deliberately plays to the trick and teherfor provides his partner with valuable information, which I believe to be AI. Maybe we do have this one wrong after all? You see Gordon, even when the whole world agrees with me, I manage to disagree with the whole world! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jun 1 15:56:54 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Jun 1 15:58:25 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <429DBA4D.8020308@hdw.be> References: <000301c566a7$30f2d780$6400a8c0@WINXP> <429DBA4D.8020308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <89dd580cbfbdf28bf21ffda69d3084b7@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 1 Jun 2005, at 14:38, Herman De Wael wrote: > You see Gordon, even when the whole world agrees with me, I manage to > disagree with the whole world! Why do I not find this surprising? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 1 16:36:51 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 1 16:38:23 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <429DB85D.8020108@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c566b7$5a1dd500$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > That may well be true, but since L16 is cancelled, you will need to > use L72B1. And this is where we disagree: A - If L16 should be cancelled because of "without penalty" so must L72 be cancelled for exactly the same reason? B - L16 has nothing to do with "penalty", in fact the word between parentheses "(penalty)" which you find in every (I believe) law that specifies a penalty is totally absent from L16. (An adjustment to restore equity is not a penalty). IMO L35D states that the affected calls are cancelled "without penalty" but it does not state that the information conveyed by such calls may be used any more than other extraneous information which is received. So there is really no reason to consider L16 as being cancelled (or suspended) by L35. (The most important law that is suspended by L35D is obviously L26). .......... > L72B1 is however not a penalty which is consequent to the > irregularity, it is larger than that. It is concerned with the > irregularity, including its consequences. > > L72B1 says in effect: if the perpetrator could have known that his > irregularity, including all its consequent penalties, would still > result in a positive outcome, then that positive outcome is adjusted > downwards. Well, this is a perfect description of damage consequent to an irregularity as handled in L72B1 but L72B1 is not concerned with the irregularity as such; it is concerned with the situation where an irregularity has caused damage to opponents and the perpetrator could have known at the time of his irregularity that this would be a likely outcome. Unlike L72B1 L16 is only concerned with three basic questions: 1: Has a player received extraneous information? 2: Has he (with some probability) based any action on such information? 3: Has opponents been damaged by such action? When we look at your original question I believe we should all agree that the irregular call 1S itself does not cause any damage to opponents. Damage is only caused if partner selects a play based on the information he may have received from this call? But if we rule that L16 is irrelevant because of L35 then partner's selection of a play is no longer an irregularity regardless of which card he selects to play, and the damage possibly caused is not consequent to any irregularity it is subsequent to the irregular bid of 1S. (It is a consequence of an action which just has been ruled no irregularity). You are correct that L72B1 is no penalty; nor is any part of L16. We do not find he word "(penalty)" within either law 72B1 or L16 and there is no particular penalty specified. Instead L72B1 law instructs the Director to adjust the result as necessary to compensate for the damage caused (if any), the same provision that is given in Law 16. > > So in this case, the 1S bid is "without penalty" and the perpetrator > could have known this (of course he could, he's just read blml, hasn't > he?) so any damage done to the opponents will be taken back. And exactly the same is achieved by using the equivalent but more directly to the point law 16. In addition to the establishment of having used illegal information and thereby causing damage (which is a requirement common to both L16 and L72B1) L72B1 requires the establishment of possible intent by the player who gave the information ("could have known at the time of his irregularity"). Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jun 1 16:47:08 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Jun 1 16:54:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: <00d101c5665b$4dee7f20$069468d5@James> Message-ID: <003c01c566b9$089061b0$c99287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* Probability is the very guide of life." ~ Joseph Butler. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall > > Suppose that, on the contrary, the director feels that there > may be an illegal agreement or unauthorised information, > then, IMO, fielding is circumtantial evidence that > reinforces such suspisions. The coincidence of both partners > departing from disclosed agreements on the same hand (the > second departure seemingly an attempt to mitigate adverse > effects of the first) is suspicious. I contend that one > swallow can sometimes make a Summer! Of coure, I concede > that if the director rules against the putative offenders on > the basis of one unlikely coincidence, then he may be > mistaken. But many rulings are a matter of judgment and the > balance of probability. A civil dispute rather than a > criminal prosecution is the better legal analogy. Although > some murder convictions have hinged on less convincing > evidence! > +=+ I confirm that counsel's opinion, when obtained some years ago, was that the legal standard for finding that a partnership has acted on the basis of a concealed partnership understanding is "a reasonable balance of probability". The circumstance in which a player departs from his announced agreements and his partner, without evidence from authorised information, then takes action that is clearly abnormal and that protects or mitigates the first player's violation of system is sufficient to constitute a reasonable balance of probability. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 1 16:59:53 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 1 17:01:35 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <429DBA4D.8020308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c566ba$912d4320$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > Sven may well have a point here, actually. If something is "without > penalty" then how can it be penalised? > > Consider a far less controvertial example: > > Declarer plays a card, and LHO starts thinking. If 4th hand now plays > to the trick, there are penalties on 2nd hand. But if dummy > (illegally) plays a card, then 4th hand can also play "without > penalty" (L57C). This "not subject to penalty" includes L16, of that > we are certain. Yet no one has suggested that L72B1 be invoked on the > fourth hand player who deliberately plays to the trick and teherfor > provides his partner with valuable information, which I believe to be AI. > > Maybe we do have this one wrong after all? I believe there is a distinction here which should not be overlooked: While L35D establishes that (at least) two irregularities have occurred, one (or more) from each side, and that all penalties directly associated with these irregularities shall be suspended, L57C in fact establishes (the way I read and understand that law) that under the conditions specified by this law any defender can legally play a card to a trick before his partner does. Consequently the case of an otherwise premature play by a defender when covered by L57C is not, and has never been an irregularity. Thus the information from such play is always authorized for the other defender. In contrast the information from a call cancelled as specified in Law 35D is "extraneous" according to L16 because that call was initially an irregularity. Sven From adam at irvine.com Wed Jun 1 17:19:19 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Jun 1 17:20:53 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:11:38 BST." <5802014912c9a754a299f9434a0d944d@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <200506011519.IAA24595@mailhub.irvine.com> Gordon wrote: > On 1 Jun 2005, at 12:26, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > >> On 1 Jun 2005, at 10:03, Herman De Wael wrote: > >>> as well as the "penalties" from L16 (saying that North cannot do > >>> ...). > >> I don't think it helps any of us to pretend that the requirement to > >> play the game by its Laws is a "penalty". > > > > It is when you are not allowed to play it to its full extent. Under > > some circumstances, 4He is a legal and good bid, yet I am prevented > > from bidding it by some irregularity, caused by partner. That sounds > > like a penalty to me. > > It sounds like a restriction of options to me, not a penalty. Using the > word "penalty" in a sloppy way like that, is likely to cause confusion > in understanding and explaining the Laws. Do you also talk about > "penalties" when you award an adjusted score? I agree with Gordon here. My opinion is that since the Laws go out of their way to explicitly make it clear that certain things are penalties, often by putting the word "penalty" in parentheses next to things that are to be considered penalties, I've concluded that things that the Laws don't call penalties aren't considered to be penalties by the Laws, even if they may seem like penalties to the rest of us. Maybe this is an area that needs to be clarified in a future version of the Laws, although in this case it may just be simpler to fix 35D. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed Jun 1 17:25:24 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Jun 1 17:26:57 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:13:53 BST." Message-ID: <200506011525.IAA24635@mailhub.irvine.com> John Probst wrote: > wtp guys.? The auction finished with the third pass. No other calls > ever existed, the law says so. If no other calls ever existed, then how could Law 35D ever apply? :) I mean, Law 35D talks about what we do if there's a "call after the final pass of the auction", but now John is saying there's no such thing because it can't exist, so Law 35D may as well be talking about a slithy tove after the final brillig borogove of the wabe. Sounds like one of those logic paradoxes.... -- Adam From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 1 17:48:26 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Jun 1 17:55:02 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: <000301c566a7$30f2d780$6400a8c0@WINXP> <429DBA4D.8020308@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L35D > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > >>The fact that South made an "insufficient" bid is immaterial; > >>the situation does not change if South bids 4S. And I have > >>not found any law other than L16 that can be applied against > >> North leading a spade in this situation? > >> > >>I am sure WBF CTD (or anybody else) does not want this > >>"loophole" to be available for South? > >> > >>Regards Sven > >> > >>+=+ Personally I would say there is a clear > >>cut case for invoking 72B1. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > > That was my initial position as well, but L72B1 requires that opponents have > > indeed been damaged from an irregularity. Now how can we say that this has > > happened if we explicitly state that the information from the irregular call > > is authorized and that law 16 does not apply? > > > > Opponents have not been damaged from the 1S (or whatever) call from South as > > such, they have in case been damaged from North illegally using some > > information conveyed with this call. > > > > IMHO restraining a player from selecting a call or a play based on > > extraneous information (UI) is no "penalty" so I just cannot see the logic > > in stating that the clause "without penalty" in L35D means that the > > (extraneous) information from the cancelled calls becomes authorized. > > > > We find the word "(penalty)" several places in the laws to indicate that the > > following clause in fact refers to a specific penalty. We do not find this > > word anywhere within Law 16. > > > > Sven may well have a point here, actually. If something is "without > penalty" then how can it be penalised? > > Consider a far less controvertial example: > > Declarer plays a card, and LHO starts thinking. If 4th hand now plays > to the trick, there are penalties on 2nd hand. But if dummy > (illegally) plays a card, then 4th hand can also play "without > penalty" (L57C). This "not subject to penalty" includes L16, of that > we are certain. Yet no one has suggested that L72B1 be invoked on the > fourth hand player who deliberately plays to the trick and teherfor > provides his partner with valuable information, which I believe to be AI. > > Maybe we do have this one wrong after all? A game founded upon principles that do not stand up to even cursory scrutiny leads to rules that do not stand up to scrutiny. L35D is a case in point: If the inadmissible call was a call after the final pass of the auction, that call and all subsequent calls are cancelled without penalty. Upon what principle guides to the creation of a rule that cancels irregular calls without penalty? Such a provision suggests that the canceled calls are free information. Yet it is deemed that there are 16 and 72B1 to cover the loop hole- yet at the most crucial part of TFLB they are not mentioned and thus stir confusion amongst players as well as adjudicators. regards roger pewick > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 1 18:03:49 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 1 18:03:58 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000001c566b7$5a1dd500$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c566b7$5a1dd500$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <429DDC65.3080706@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ........... > >>That may well be true, but since L16 is cancelled, you will need to >>use L72B1. > > > And this is where we disagree: > > A - If L16 should be cancelled because of "without penalty" so must L72 be > cancelled for exactly the same reason? > No, as I have explained. While the irregularity, by L35, carries no penalty (so L16 is cancelled), it still remains an irregularity for which L72B1 can be applied. > B - L16 has nothing to do with "penalty", in fact the word between > parentheses "(penalty)" which you find in every (I believe) law that > specifies a penalty is totally absent from L16. (An adjustment to restore > equity is not a penalty). > I think that you will find that the WBF has different ideas. You know as well as I do that with the letters from the book you can prove almost anything, so it's the interpretation that counts, and that seems to be quite unanimous - without penalty measn also without L16 restrictions. > IMO L35D states that the affected calls are cancelled "without penalty" but > it does not state that the information conveyed by such calls may be used > any more than other extraneous information which is received. So there is > really no reason to consider L16 as being cancelled (or suspended) by L35. > (The most important law that is suspended by L35D is obviously L26). > .......... > obviously. >>L72B1 is however not a penalty which is consequent to the >>irregularity, it is larger than that. It is concerned with the >>irregularity, including its consequences. >> >>L72B1 says in effect: if the perpetrator could have known that his >>irregularity, including all its consequent penalties, would still >>result in a positive outcome, then that positive outcome is adjusted >>downwards. > > > Well, this is a perfect description of damage consequent to an irregularity > as handled in L72B1 but L72B1 is not concerned with the irregularity as > such; it is concerned with the situation where an irregularity has caused > damage to opponents and the perpetrator could have known at the time of his > irregularity that this would be a likely outcome. > I feel this is eminently present in the example. Sadly, it is also present in the case for fourth man playing to a trick after dummy has played. > Unlike L72B1 L16 is only concerned with three basic questions: > 1: Has a player received extraneous information? > 2: Has he (with some probability) based any action on such information? > 3: Has opponents been damaged by such action? > > When we look at your original question I believe we should all agree that > the irregular call 1S itself does not cause any damage to opponents. Damage > is only caused if partner selects a play based on the information he may > have received from this call? > of course, it is the saying "partner, please lead spades" which causes the damage. > But if we rule that L16 is irrelevant because of L35 then partner's > selection of a play is no longer an irregularity regardless of which card he > selects to play, and the damage possibly caused is not consequent to any > irregularity it is subsequent to the irregular bid of 1S. (It is a > consequence of an action which just has been ruled no irregularity). > > You are correct that L72B1 is no penalty; nor is any part of L16. We do not > find he word "(penalty)" within either law 72B1 or L16 and there is no > particular penalty specified. Instead L72B1 law instructs the Director to > adjust the result as necessary to compensate for the damage caused (if any), > the same provision that is given in Law 16. > > >>So in this case, the 1S bid is "without penalty" and the perpetrator >>could have known this (of course he could, he's just read blml, hasn't >>he?) so any damage done to the opponents will be taken back. > > > And exactly the same is achieved by using the equivalent but more directly > to the point law 16. In addition to the establishment of having used illegal > information and thereby causing damage (which is a requirement common to > both L16 and L72B1) L72B1 requires the establishment of possible intent by > the player who gave the information ("could have known at the time of his > irregularity"). > Which is precisely why I believe this is the way the laws are worded. The lawmakers have apparently wanted to say this: if you inadvertently call after four passes, then there is nothing wrong - both pairs made a mistake, and no-one shoulc pay anything. But if you use this in order to tell partner something extra, then we won't allow that. Which is precisely the situation with the fourth hand, something I do quite often! (give my partner extra info by showing him the card I'm going to play, since that has been allowed by dummy playing illegally) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 1 18:07:00 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 1 18:06:58 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000101c566ba$912d4320$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c566ba$912d4320$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <429DDD24.1030804@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > I believe there is a distinction here which should not be overlooked: > > While L35D establishes that (at least) two irregularities have occurred, one > (or more) from each side, and that all penalties directly associated with > these irregularities shall be suspended, L57C in fact establishes (the way I > read and understand that law) that under the conditions specified by this > law any defender can legally play a card to a trick before his partner does. > > Consequently the case of an otherwise premature play by a defender when > covered by L57C is not, and has never been an irregularity. Thus the > information from such play is always authorized for the other defender. > I'm sorry to say it Sven, but I believe you are wrong here. (I wish you weren't) "A defender is not subject to penalty for playing before his partner ..." I read this as saying this remains an irregularity, for which there is no penalty - not that this is no longer an irregularity. > In contrast the information from a call cancelled as specified in Law 35D is > "extraneous" according to L16 because that call was initially an > irregularity. > I wish that were the solution, but it is not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 1 18:26:45 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jun 1 18:25:45 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000001c566b7$5a1dd500$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <429DB85D.8020108@hdw.be> <000001c566b7$5a1dd500$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050601121333.02c01020@pop.starpower.net> At 10:36 AM 6/1/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >........... > > That may well be true, but since L16 is cancelled, you will need to > > use L72B1. > >And this is where we disagree: > >A - If L16 should be cancelled because of "without penalty" so must L72 be >cancelled for exactly the same reason? > >B - L16 has nothing to do with "penalty", in fact the word between >parentheses "(penalty)" which you find in every (I believe) law that >specifies a penalty is totally absent from L16. (An adjustment to restore >equity is not a penalty). > >IMO L35D states that the affected calls are cancelled "without >penalty" but >it does not state that the information conveyed by such calls may be used >any more than other extraneous information which is received. So there is >really no reason to consider L16 as being cancelled (or suspended) by L35. >(The most important law that is suspended by L35D is obviously L26). >.......... > > L72B1 is however not a penalty which is consequent to the > > irregularity, it is larger than that. It is concerned with the > > irregularity, including its consequences. > > > > L72B1 says in effect: if the perpetrator could have known that his > > irregularity, including all its consequent penalties, would still > > result in a positive outcome, then that positive outcome is adjusted > > downwards. > >Well, this is a perfect description of damage consequent to an >irregularity >as handled in L72B1 but L72B1 is not concerned with the irregularity as >such; it is concerned with the situation where an irregularity has caused >damage to opponents and the perpetrator could have known at the time >of his >irregularity that this would be a likely outcome. > >Unlike L72B1 L16 is only concerned with three basic questions: >1: Has a player received extraneous information? >2: Has he (with some probability) based any action on such information? >3: Has opponents been damaged by such action? > >When we look at your original question I believe we should all agree that >the irregular call 1S itself does not cause any damage to opponents. >Damage >is only caused if partner selects a play based on the information he may >have received from this call? > >But if we rule that L16 is irrelevant because of L35 then partner's >selection of a play is no longer an irregularity regardless of which >card he >selects to play, and the damage possibly caused is not consequent to any >irregularity it is subsequent to the irregular bid of 1S. (It is a >consequence of an action which just has been ruled no irregularity). > >You are correct that L72B1 is no penalty; nor is any part of L16. We >do not >find he word "(penalty)" within either law 72B1 or L16 and there is no >particular penalty specified. Instead L72B1 law instructs the Director to >adjust the result as necessary to compensate for the damage caused (if >any), >the same provision that is given in Law 16. > > > > > So in this case, the 1S bid is "without penalty" and the perpetrator > > could have known this (of course he could, he's just read blml, hasn't > > he?) so any damage done to the opponents will be taken back. > >And exactly the same is achieved by using the equivalent but more directly >to the point law 16. In addition to the establishment of having used >illegal >information and thereby causing damage (which is a requirement common to >both L16 and L72B1) L72B1 requires the establishment of possible intent by >the player who gave the information ("could have known at the time of his >irregularity"). Does the difference of opinion over the word "penalty" really matter? The 1S bid is dealt with per L35D: It is cancelled, and no penalty (or adjustment, or redress, or whatever) is assessed. Once cancelled, it is no longer a "legal call" (it never was, actually), so any information conveyed by it is "other extraneous information" per L16. If the 1S bidder's partner later takes advantage of that information, it is a separate, subsequent infraction, by a different player, which occurred only after the first infraction has been fully dealt with. That the earlier infraction was resolved "without penalty" can have no effect on how we deal with a subsequent, unrelated infraction, whether that subsequent infraction occurs later in the same auction or at the next table. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 1 17:32:29 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Jun 1 18:34:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall 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><002801c56634$1a8f5220$079868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050601081802.02c04530@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00e601c566c7$e7c85c80$3e9468d5@James> [Eric Landau] > But if there is no relevant "partnership understanding", > "a player may make any call or play" [L40A]. {Nigel] My understanding is that, in some jurisdictions, you may not (for example) psyche your strongest artificial bid. [Eric] > If we use a J-type criterion to establish the existence > of an understanding, then, by virtue of that criterion, > there is no such thing as an illegal bid, only illegal > partnership understandings. It is illegal (in most(?) > jurisdictions) to have understandings which reduce the > risk associated with deviations from one's announced > methods, [Nigel] presumably, you mean regulations against new "psychic controls". But currently used conventions like "Drury" are relatively free from restriction. [Eric] > and we may use the term "illegal bid" to mean a bid > "protected" by such an understanding, but it is the > understanding, not the bid, which is subject to > regulation. [Nigel] IMO they are both infractions, subject to regulation. In practice, of course, it is hard to tell that a pair have an illegal agreement if they never use it. Richard Hills pointed out the exception: a pair may declare an illegal agreement on their card but never use it. Richard says that this is an offence but not as bad as using it. From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 1 18:37:21 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Jun 1 18:40:19 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <200506011525.IAA24635@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200506011525.IAA24635@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: In article <200506011525.IAA24635@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >John Probst wrote: > >> wtp guys.? The auction finished with the third pass. No other calls >> ever existed, the law says so. > >If no other calls ever existed, then how could Law 35D ever apply? :) > >I mean, Law 35D talks about what we do if there's a "call after the >final pass of the auction", but now John is saying there's no such >thing because it can't exist, so Law 35D may as well be talking about >a slithy tove after the final brillig borogove of the wabe. > >Sounds like one of those logic paradoxes.... The point is that the Law is quite clear as to correct procedure. The auction is completed after the third pass (or 4 passes with no bids). Further, post-auction "pseudo-calls" are not calls, and this is also made clear. However these, to borrow some RHillian-speak, meta-psycho- pseudo-calls are just as significant as saying "I'd like a spade lead" and we can and do use 72B1 for that. I don't see we need to fish around further than that. John > > -- Adam > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jun 1 18:45:41 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Jun 1 18:48:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <003c01c566b9$089061b0$c99287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00d101c5665b$4dee7f20$069468d5@James> <003c01c566b9$089061b0$c99287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article <003c01c566b9$089061b0$c99287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >******************************* >Probability is the very guide of life." > ~ Joseph Butler. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "GUTHRIE" >To: "BLML" >Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:37 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall > > >> >> Suppose that, on the contrary, the director feels that there >> may be an illegal agreement or unauthorised information, >> then, IMO, fielding is circumtantial evidence that >> reinforces such suspisions. The coincidence of both partners >> departing from disclosed agreements on the same hand (the >> second departure seemingly an attempt to mitigate adverse >> effects of the first) is suspicious. I contend that one >> swallow can sometimes make a Summer! Of coure, I concede >> that if the director rules against the putative offenders on >> the basis of one unlikely coincidence, then he may be >> mistaken. But many rulings are a matter of judgment and the >> balance of probability. A civil dispute rather than a >> criminal prosecution is the better legal analogy. Although >> some murder convictions have hinged on less convincing >> evidence! >> >+=+ I confirm that counsel's opinion, when obtained some >years ago, was that the legal standard for finding that a >partnership has acted on the basis of a concealed partnership >understanding is "a reasonable balance of probability". The >circumstance in which a player departs from his announced >agreements and his partner, without evidence from authorised >information, then takes action that is clearly abnormal and that >protects or mitigates the first player's violation of system is >sufficient to constitute a reasonable balance of probability. We're on a very sticky wicket here Grattan. This smacks of rule of co- incidence, and this leads to 1-psych-per-partnership and this is, I hope, entirely discredited. I'm not above adjusting a bizarre auction where both players are known to be active and both happen to be at it on one hand, but a single instance, such as you moot above, fails to convince me of the sustainability of your learned friend's opinion. I aver we need more evidence than that. john > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jun 1 18:41:49 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Jun 1 18:48:52 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: <000301c566a7$30f2d780$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000b01c566c8$f981e8a0$d4a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* Probability is the very guide of life." ~ Joseph Butler. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; "'blml'" Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 1:41 PM Subject: RE: [blml] L35D > From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] ............. > < > The fact that South made an "insufficient" bid is immaterial; > the situation does not change if South bids 4S. And I have > not found any law other than L16 that can be applied against > North leading a spade in this situation? > > I am sure WBF CTD (or anybody else) does not want this > "loophole" to be available for South? > > Regards Sven > > +=+ Personally I would say there is a clear > cut case for invoking 72B1. ~ G ~ +=+ That was my initial position as well, but L72B1 requires that opponents have indeed been damaged from an irregularity. Now how can we say that this has happened if we explicitly state that the information from the irregular call is authorized and that law 16 does not apply? Opponents have not been damaged from the 1S (or whatever) call from South as such, they have in case been damaged from North illegally using some information conveyed with this call. < +=+ There is no suggestion in 35D that somehow the irregularity did not happen. The occurrence is not expunged. It just says the call and subsequent calls are cancelled without penalty. The fact of the offence remains. The word that most interests me in 72B1 is 'Whenever' ['At every time when']. This takes no account of any factors other than (a) that there has been an irregularity, and (b) that the Director deems that the offender could have known at the time of his irregularity... etc. The provisions of any other law in the book have no impact on the application of this law. That is how I read the import of 'Whenever'. [It is well established that 'through the irregularity' says more than 'by' or 'in consequence of' the irregularity. It covers all routes by which the irregularity may lead to the damage.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 1 19:10:32 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 1 19:12:07 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000b01c566c8$f981e8a0$d4a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000201c566cc$d1d92e40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] ................ > +=+ There is no suggestion in 35D that somehow > the irregularity did not happen. The occurrence is > not expunged. It just says the call and subsequent > calls are cancelled without penalty. The fact of the > offence remains. It seems to me that the central question in this thread has become: How is the information from the calls cancelled under L35D to be considered? Is this information authorized for all players because of the "no penalty" clause in L35D (or for whatever other reason), or is it unauthorized at least for the respective partners? > The word that most interests me in 72B1 is > 'Whenever' ['At every time when']. This takes no > account of any factors other than (a) that there > has been an irregularity, and (b) that the Director > deems that the offender could have known at the > time of his irregularity... etc. The provisions of > any other law in the book have no impact on the > application of this law. That is how I read the > import of 'Whenever'. [It is well established that > 'through the irregularity' says more than 'by' or > 'in consequence of' the irregularity. It covers all > routes by which the irregularity may lead to the > damage.] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I have little problems with L72B1 except that I cannot follow the logic leading to L35C canceling (or suspending) L16 without similarly canceling also L72B1. Neither L16 nor L72B1 is a law specifying any penalty? I agree on the understanding of the word "whenever" in L72B1 but is this really strong enough to make L71B2 supersede every other law in the book? If that was the intention of L71B2 should it then not have been given a more predominant position in the book rather than be hidden away with a three level deep index? Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 1 19:50:38 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jun 1 19:51:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <00e601c566c7$e7c85c80$3e9468d5@James> References: <000001c55bae$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> <002801c56634$1a8f5220$079868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050601081802.02c04530@pop.starpower.net> <00e601c566c7$e7c85c80$3e9468d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050601131942.02c04020@pop.starpower.net> At 11:32 AM 6/1/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >[Eric Landau] > > But if there is no relevant "partnership understanding", > > "a player may make any call or play" [L40A]. > >{Nigel] >My understanding is that, in some jurisdictions, you may not >(for example) psyche your strongest artificial bid. Correct. "Your strongest artificial bid" is a "bidding convention", and the prohibition against psyching it is (arguably) considered an acceptable restriction on its use per the specific power to regulate the convention itself granted by L40D. Even those who accept this apparent sophistry do not argue that is generally applicable to methods other than those specifically so regulated under L40D (although some do appear to argue that there are no restrictions of any kind on what calls may be subject to regulation under L40D). >[Eric] > > If we use a J-type criterion to establish the existence > > of an understanding, then, by virtue of that criterion, > > there is no such thing as an illegal bid, only illegal > > partnership understandings. It is illegal (in most(?) > > jurisdictions) to have understandings which reduce the > > risk associated with deviations from one's announced > > methods, > >[Nigel] >presumably, you mean regulations against new "psychic >controls". But currently used conventions like "Drury" are >relatively free from restriction. Actually, "psychic controls", both the term and the types of agreements generally referred to by it, are at least as old as Drury, going back to the Roth-Stone methods of the early 1950s. The reality on the ground is that those conventions used and favored by the regulators are, and always will be, relatively free from restriction, whereas they will happily pile as many restrictions on conventions they don't like to see used against them as they can get away with. >[Eric] > > and we may use the term "illegal bid" to mean a bid > > "protected" by such an understanding, but it is the > > understanding, not the bid, which is subject to > > regulation. > >[Nigel] >IMO they are both infractions, subject to regulation. The question on the table is whether bids that are not so protected are or are not subject to regulation, so Nigel appears to be arguing circularly, i.e. assuming his conclusion. >In >practice, of course, it is hard to tell that a pair have an >illegal agreement if they never use it. All the more reason why it's counter-productive to call such agreements "illegal" unless we understand how we are using the term, i.e. to describe either (a) an agreement which is illegally protected or (b) an agreement whose purpose is to provide such illegal protection to some other agreement(s). >Richard Hills >pointed out the exception: a pair may declare an illegal >agreement on their card but never use it. Richard says that >this is an offence but not as bad as using it. And he'd be right. Which means anyone improperly attempting to get around the laws would never admit to it on their CC, and anyone who does do so presumably needs no further prompting to stop doing so immediately beyond being gently told what the rules are. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Wed Jun 1 21:45:21 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Jun 1 21:46:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <003c01c566b9$089061b0$c99287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: >From: "Grattan Endicott" >To: "BLML" >Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall >Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:47:08 +0100 > > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >******************************* >Probability is the very guide of life." > ~ Joseph Butler. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "GUTHRIE" >To: "BLML" >Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:37 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall > > > > > > Suppose that, on the contrary, the director feels that there > > may be an illegal agreement or unauthorised information, > > then, IMO, fielding is circumtantial evidence that > > reinforces such suspisions. The coincidence of both partners > > departing from disclosed agreements on the same hand (the > > second departure seemingly an attempt to mitigate adverse > > effects of the first) is suspicious. I contend that one > > swallow can sometimes make a Summer! Of coure, I concede > > that if the director rules against the putative offenders on > > the basis of one unlikely coincidence, then he may be > > mistaken. But many rulings are a matter of judgment and the > > balance of probability. A civil dispute rather than a > > criminal prosecution is the better legal analogy. Although > > some murder convictions have hinged on less convincing > > evidence! > > >+=+ I confirm that counsel's opinion, when obtained some >years ago, was that the legal standard for finding that a >partnership has acted on the basis of a concealed partnership >understanding is "a reasonable balance of probability". The >circumstance in which a player departs from his announced >agreements and his partner, without evidence from authorised >information, then takes action that is clearly abnormal and that >protects or mitigates the first player's violation of system is >sufficient to constitute a reasonable balance of probability. This interpretation is nonsense. It basically says that L40A is ineffective. I do not need any evidence from authorised information to depart from my system. L40A gives me that right so long as I have no partnership understanding. The director needs evidence that we have a partnership understanding. This "balanced of probabilities" mumbo jumbo interpreted in this way means that my legal departure of system based on no partnership understanding may be considered evidence of a partnership understanding. This sort of interpretation is just designed to save the TD doing his proper job of ascertaining the facts. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From bangi at doramail.com Thu Jun 2 00:58:22 2005 From: bangi at doramail.com (Leonor Mccarthy) Date: Thu Jun 2 00:02:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Mortage rates all time low 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 $400,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.cr3am.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Joan Bell to be remov(ed: http://www.cr3am.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Jun 2 00:40:41 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Thu Jun 2 00:39:59 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: <000201c566cc$d1d92e40$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000301c566fa$f0882ac0$0307a8c0@david> I would like to consider again Konrad's question. The auction starts 1H X X 1S The second double and 1S are cancelled and the auction now goes 1H X 4H P P 4S Do you allow a 4S that has been based on partner's cancelled 1S bid? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.3.3 - Release Date: 31/05/2005 From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 2 01:06:06 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Jun 2 01:07:40 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: <000201c566cc$d1d92e40$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000301c566fa$f0882ac0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 17:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L35D > I would like to consider again Konrad's question. > The auction starts 1H X X 1S > > The second double and 1S are cancelled and the > auction now goes > 1H X 4H P > P 4S > > Do you allow a 4S that has been based > on partner's cancelled 1S bid? > > ***************************************** > david.j.barton@lineone.net > ***************************************** I have a couple of comments: the cancelling of the calls has done great harm. [1] it has given the doubler a second turn to do better [2] it has given doubler UI from the canceled 1S upon which to base his 4H. regards roger pewick From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Thu Jun 2 02:11:29 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu Jun 2 02:08:14 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Roger Pewick wrote: > From: "David Barton" > > > I would like to consider again Konrad's question. > > The auction starts 1H X X 1S > > > > The second double and 1S are cancelled and the > > auction now goes > > 1H X 4H P > > P 4S > > > > Do you allow a 4S that has been based > > on partner's cancelled 1S bid? > > I have a couple of comments: > > the cancelling of the calls has done great harm. [1] it has given the > doubler a second turn to do better [2] it has given doubler UI from the > canceled 1S upon which to base his 4H. Is this harm, or justice - the specified price you pay when you make an inadmissible call? Read 72A4 and 72A5! I think the combined effect of 35D and 72A4 is that doubler has every right to take advantage of the situation, since third hand was the one who caused the infraction. Likewise in the previous case where a fourth pass by the declaring side carries a risk of letting the defence make a no-cost lead-directing call. Is the 1S by fourth hand an infraction too? That is the sticky point, I think: do we have an OS and a NOS, or two OSs? The 1S was sufficient and in rotation. I don't see how choosing to deliberately invoke L35 by calling over an inadmissible call is different from deliberately invoking 27A or 29A by accepting other irregular calls - whether your motivation is to waive the standard penalty, or to take advantage of the extra chance to communicate to your partner. If, on the other hand, it were made explicit that the 1S is also an infraction, and we made it clear the the 1S bid was AI only to first and third hand, and the inadmissible double only to second and fourth hand, I could live with that - though it would make the situation more complicated for the director. GRB From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 2 02:53:52 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Jun 2 02:55:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System Message-ID: wrote > > > > >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. > >:-) Not in practice: it is not your job to interpret the Laws. If the ABF tells you to do something, you can indicate to them that you think it illegal, but you do not refuse to do it. It is arrogant to assume that one person has a better knowledge of the Laws than the ABF. Of course, it may be true, but that's irrelevant. It may not be. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Thu Jun 2 03:07:16 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Jun 2 03:10:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: "David Stevenson" >To: "BLML" >Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System >Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 01:53:52 +0100 > > >Not in practice: it is not your job to interpret the Laws. It is precisely the TD's job to interpret the Laws: L81C5. "Law to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Read the latest Hollywood gossip @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/entertainment From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Thu Jun 2 03:57:25 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu Jun 2 03:54:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, David Stevenson wrote: > Not in practice: it is not your job to interpret the Laws. If the ABF > tells you to do something, you can indicate to them that you think it > illegal, but you do not refuse to do it. In the case of real-world law as opposed to bridge law, you are actually *required* to refuse if your employer/supervisor/whoever directs you to perform an illegal activity. In the case of bridge law, I assumed that 80F, 81C5, 82A, and even the choice of words in 81B2 ("*supplementary* regulations announced by the SO") made it abundantly clear that a director's obligation was to the laws first and the regulations second. I am sure I am not the only director who has insisted on upholding the law despite SO regulations to the contrary. I've had to do it more than once -- adjusting scores for people denied their L25A and 68D/70/71 rights by online software, and assigning proper ArtASs instead of "just skip it and tell the players it doesnt matter" in certain cases. Didn't even get fired for it. Yelled at, yes, but politely explained to management it was my job to do it right whether they liked it or not, and assured them I would continue to follow the laws in the future too. GRB From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 2 07:33:48 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Jun 2 07:35:29 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowledge?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst asserted: >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. Richard Hills quibbles: Yes and no. I very seldom call attention to an opponent's irregularity, an option under Law 9A which is specifically clarified as legal in the Scope of the Laws. But..... Whenever my side commits an irregularity, I draw attention to my side's irregularity, and I summon the director against my own interest. This in accordance with Law 9B1, which says that *any player* "must" summon the director, *not* the misconceived popular notion that the "must" obligation to summon the TD resides solely with the non-offending side. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 2 08:01:28 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Jun 2 08:03:10 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000001c566b7$5a1dd500$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran's axioms: [snip] >Unlike L72B1 L16 is only concerned with three basic questions: >1: Has a player received extraneous information? >2: Has he (with some probability) based any action on such information? >3: Has opponents been damaged by such action? [snip] Richard Hills' reductio ad absurdum: A player was about to sacrifice in 5D over 4S. Just before the player did so, the player noticed extraneous information from the duplicate board on the table that the player was vulnerable against not. So the player took an action based on that extraneous information to Pass, rather than to bid 5D. The opponents were damaged by that action, since they scored a mere +450 instead of a more satisfying +500. The player, wracked with guilt, draws attention to their despicable infraction of Law 16, and summons TD Sven Pran to the table. How does TD Sven Pran rule? :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 2 10:37:11 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 2 10:38:41 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5674e$45627e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au ......... > >Unlike L72B1 L16 is only concerned with three basic questions: > >1: Has a player received extraneous information? > >2: Has he (with some probability) based any action on such information? > >3: Has opponents been damaged by such action? ......... > Richard Hills' reductio ad absurdum: > > A player was about to sacrifice in 5D over 4S. Just before the player > did so, the player noticed extraneous information from the duplicate > board on the table that the player was vulnerable against not. So the > player took an action based on that extraneous information to Pass, > rather than to bid 5D. The opponents were damaged by that action, since > they scored a mere +450 instead of a more satisfying +500. > > The player, wracked with guilt, draws attention to their despicable > infraction of Law 16, and summons TD Sven Pran to the table. How does > TD Sven Pran rule? TD Sven Pran rules (Law 7A) that all information available from seeing the board (board number, vulnerability and dealer) is authorized for all players at the table (as is for instance information available from seeing opponents' system declaration or CC and seeing which persons are seated around the table). Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jun 2 12:25:55 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jun 2 12:57:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: <00d101c5665b$4dee7f20$069468d5@James><003c01c566b9$089061b0$c99287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <007501c56761$0d7b9a20$f79287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* Probability is the very guide of life." ~ Joseph Butler. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall > >> > >+=+ I confirm that counsel's opinion, when obtained some > >years ago, was that the legal standard for finding that a > >partnership has acted on the basis of a concealed partnership > >understanding is "a reasonable balance of probability". The > >circumstance in which a player departs from his announced > >agreements and his partner, without evidence from authorised > >information, then takes action that is clearly abnormal and that > >protects or mitigates the first player's violation of system is > >sufficient to constitute a reasonable balance of probability. > > We're on a very sticky wicket here Grattan. This smacks of rule > of co- incidence, and this leads to 1-psych-per-partnership and > this is, I hope, entirely discredited. I'm not above adjusting a > bizarre auction where both players are known to be active and > both happen to be at it on one hand, but a single instance, such > as you moot above, fails to convince me of the sustainability of > your learned friend's opinion. I aver we need more evidence > than that. john > > > +=+ Not my learned friend, John, but the EBU's learned friend. No doubt it is filed at Aylesbury. Orange Book 6.2 is based upon it. The point is that the standard of proof is 'a reasonable balance of probability' and the EBU deems that the standard is met in the circumstances described in its regulations. Authorities which do not specify what will meet the required level of proof leave it to their directors and ACs to judge case by case. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jun 2 12:49:53 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jun 2 12:57:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System References: Message-ID: <007601c56761$0e94f960$f79287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* Probability is the very guide of life." ~ Joseph Butler. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 2:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Indirect regulation of System > > I am sure I am not the only director who has insisted > on upholding the law despite SO regulations to the > contrary. < +=+ However, the law is the law as interpreted by the authorities empowered to interpret it. You have no authority as director for overriding an authorized interpretation. There is a WBFLC minute of recent years which delegates interim interpretations to Zones - by whom we could possibly find NBOs given scope to meet a need if there is one. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 2 14:14:05 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jun 2 14:13:06 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050602074418.02b9d7d0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:11 PM 6/1/05, Gordon wrote: >On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Roger Pewick wrote: > > > From: "David Barton" > > > > > I would like to consider again Konrad's question. > > > The auction starts 1H X X 1S > > > > > > The second double and 1S are cancelled and the > > > auction now goes > > > 1H X 4H P > > > P 4S > > > > > > Do you allow a 4S that has been based > > > on partner's cancelled 1S bid? > > > > I have a couple of comments: > > > > the cancelling of the calls has done great harm. [1] it has given the > > doubler a second turn to do better [2] it has given doubler UI from the > > canceled 1S upon which to base his 4H. > >Is this harm, or justice - the specified price you pay when you make an >inadmissible call? Read 72A4 and 72A5! > >I think the combined effect of 35D and 72A4 is that doubler has every >right to take advantage of the situation, since third hand was the one who >caused the infraction. Likewise in the previous case where a fourth pass >by the declaring side carries a risk of letting the defence make a no-cost >lead-directing call. > >Is the 1S by fourth hand an infraction too? That is the sticky point, I >think: do we have an OS and a NOS, or two OSs? The 1S was sufficient and >in rotation. I don't see how choosing to deliberately invoke L35 by >calling over an inadmissible call is different from deliberately invoking >27A or 29A by accepting other irregular calls - whether your motivation is >to waive the standard penalty, or to take advantage of the extra chance to >communicate to your partner. > >If, on the other hand, it were made explicit that the 1S is also an >infraction, and we made it clear the the 1S bid was AI only to first and >third hand, and the inadmissible double only to second and fourth hand, I >could live with that - though it would make the situation more complicated >for the director. Does it matter? It's a rather loose analogy, but I might, for example, claim. I have not committed an infraction, I have done nothing that might incur a penalty or adjustment of any kind, but that doesn't affect the fact that if someone at the next table overhears me, he has unauthorized information. We needn't call the 1S bid an "infraction" nor create a second "OS" in order to recognize that it "makes available to his partner extraneous information". That is *not* an infraction, but L16A is nevertheless applicable if some subsequent action violates it. Extraneous information can be transmitted without an infraction having been committed. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 2 14:12:26 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Jun 2 14:14:14 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 19:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L35D > > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Roger Pewick wrote: > > > From: "David Barton" > > > > > I would like to consider again Konrad's question. > > > The auction starts 1H X X 1S > > > > > > The second double and 1S are cancelled and the > > > auction now goes > > > 1H X 4H P > > > P 4S > > > > > > Do you allow a 4S that has been based > > > on partner's cancelled 1S bid? > > > > I have a couple of comments: > > > > the cancelling of the calls has done great harm. [1] it has given the > > doubler a second turn to do better [2] it has given doubler UI from the > > canceled 1S upon which to base his 4H. > > Is this harm, or justice - the specified price you pay when you make an > inadmissible call? Read 72A4 and 72A5! Have you missed the point that it is absurd to treat insufficient doubles and redoubles differently from insufficient bids? Whether or not it is crazy to condone such a double is a different matter- but doing so would be natural justice. regards roger pewick > I think the combined effect of 35D and 72A4 is that doubler has every > right to take advantage of the situation, since third hand was the one who > caused the infraction. Likewise in the previous case where a fourth pass > by the declaring side carries a risk of letting the defence make a no-cost > lead-directing call. > > Is the 1S by fourth hand an infraction too? That is the sticky point, I > think: do we have an OS and a NOS, or two OSs? The 1S was sufficient and > in rotation. I don't see how choosing to deliberately invoke L35 by > calling over an inadmissible call is different from deliberately invoking > 27A or 29A by accepting other irregular calls - whether your motivation is > to waive the standard penalty, or to take advantage of the extra chance to > communicate to your partner. > > If, on the other hand, it were made explicit that the 1S is also an > infraction, and we made it clear the the 1S bid was AI only to first and > third hand, and the inadmissible double only to second and fourth hand, I > could live with that - though it would make the situation more complicated > for the director. > > GRB ps I fail to see the relevance of 72A4,5 to your assertion. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 2 18:45:17 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 2 18:46:47 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050602074418.02b9d7d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c56792$75cd92a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ................ > Does it matter? ................ > We needn't call the 1S bid an "infraction" nor create a second "OS" in > order to recognize that it "makes available to his partner extraneous > information". That is *not* an infraction, but L16A is nevertheless > applicable if some subsequent action violates it. > > Extraneous information can be transmitted without an infraction having > been committed. We still have no authoritative statement whether the information conveyed by the 1S bid is extraneous or not! Several commentators seem to lean on L72B1 as the (only) law to settle this "problem". If the clause "without penalty" in L35D shall imply that not only L26 but also L16 is suspended then the 1S bid is AI. (I resent this!) If L16 is not suspended then the 1S bid is extraneous information (and we have no need for L72B1!). Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 2 20:01:28 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jun 2 20:02:55 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000001c56792$75cd92a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050602074418.02b9d7d0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c56792$75cd92a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050602134057.02c186d0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:45 PM 6/2/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau >................ > > Does it matter? >................ > > We needn't call the 1S bid an "infraction" nor create a second "OS" in > > order to recognize that it "makes available to his partner extraneous > > information". That is *not* an infraction, but L16A is nevertheless > > applicable if some subsequent action violates it. > > > > Extraneous information can be transmitted without an infraction having > > been committed. > >We still have no authoritative statement whether the information >conveyed by >the 1S bid is extraneous or not! Several commentators seem to lean on >L72B1 >as the (only) law to settle this "problem". > >If the clause "without penalty" in L35D shall imply that not only L26 but >also L16 is suspended then the 1S bid is AI. (I resent this!) > >If L16 is not suspended then the 1S bid is extraneous information (and we >have no need for L72B1!). ISTM that whatever laws may be "suspended" when L35D is applied, they can only be suspended for the purpose of dealing with the situation that caused L35D to be invoked. The "law against creating extraneous information" cannot be suspended, because there is no such law -- that was the point I was trying to make above. L35D cancels calls "without penalty", but it doesn't cancel calls "without possibility of creating extraneous information", which is not an infraction and has no associated penalty. We can "suspend" L16 if we like while we resolve the situation that triggered the use of L35D, but when we're done, we're done, and L16 is back in effect. If it is violated after the play starts, or on the next board, this cannot be affected by the fact that L35D was applied to something else at some earlier time. I just don't see a problem here. The 1S bid was an irregularity. L35D says there is no penalty for this irregularity. This cannot mean that there is also no penalty for any other irregularity committed by the same side on the same deal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 2 20:32:37 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 2 20:34:07 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050602134057.02c186d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000301c567a1$73eb1930$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............... > >We still have no authoritative statement whether the information > >conveyed by > >the 1S bid is extraneous or not! Several commentators seem to lean on > >L72B1 > >as the (only) law to settle this "problem". > > > >If the clause "without penalty" in L35D shall imply that not only L26 but > >also L16 is suspended then the 1S bid is AI. (I resent this!) > > > >If L16 is not suspended then the 1S bid is extraneous information (and we > >have no need for L72B1!). > > ISTM that whatever laws may be "suspended" when L35D is applied, they > can only be suspended for the purpose of dealing with the situation > that caused L35D to be invoked. The "law against creating extraneous > information" cannot be suspended, because there is no such law -- that > was the point I was trying to make above. L35D cancels calls "without > penalty", but it doesn't cancel calls "without possibility of creating > extraneous information", which is not an infraction and has no > associated penalty. We can "suspend" L16 if we like while we resolve > the situation that triggered the use of L35D, but when we're done, > we're done, and L16 is back in effect. If it is violated after the > play starts, or on the next board, this cannot be affected by the fact > that L35D was applied to something else at some earlier time. > > I just don't see a problem here. The 1S bid was an irregularity. L35D > says there is no penalty for this irregularity. This cannot mean that > there is also no penalty for any other irregularity committed by the > same side on the same deal. I agree with you but most of this discussion has essentially been on how to restrain partner to the player who bid 1S from legally using this (cancelled) bid as a lead directing call. And the argument is precisely that the "without penalty" clause in L35D effectively suspends L16 (among several laws involving penalty) in this situation. So far I cannot remember any authoritative comment to the effect that the information from the 1S bid is extraneous, most if not all seem to assume that L16 indeed is suspended. And then they seem to rely solely upon L72B1; a solution I indeed find both dubious and unnecessary. If only we could have somebody with authority confirm (if that is so) that L16 remains in effect and that the information from the calls cancelled under L35D is extraneous. (My preferred understanding). Or alternatively confirm that the information from such calls is not extraneous on the ground that L16 is suspended in this situation. Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 2 20:46:06 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Jun 2 20:48:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <007501c56761$0d7b9a20$f79287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00d101c5665b$4dee7f20$069468d5@James> <003c01c566b9$089061b0$c99287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <007501c56761$0d7b9a20$f79287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article <007501c56761$0d7b9a20$f79287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >******************************* >Probability is the very guide of life." > ~ Joseph Butler. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 5:45 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall > > >> >> >> >+=+ I confirm that counsel's opinion, when obtained some >> >years ago, was that the legal standard for finding that a >> >partnership has acted on the basis of a concealed partnership >> >understanding is "a reasonable balance of probability". The >> >circumstance in which a player departs from his announced >> >agreements and his partner, without evidence from authorised >> >information, then takes action that is clearly abnormal and that >> >protects or mitigates the first player's violation of system is >> >sufficient to constitute a reasonable balance of probability. >> >> We're on a very sticky wicket here Grattan. This smacks of rule >> of co- incidence, and this leads to 1-psych-per-partnership and >> this is, I hope, entirely discredited. I'm not above adjusting a >> bizarre auction where both players are known to be active and >> both happen to be at it on one hand, but a single instance, such >> as you moot above, fails to convince me of the sustainability of >> your learned friend's opinion. I aver we need more evidence >> than that. john >> >> > >+=+ Not my learned friend, John, but the EBU's learned friend. > No doubt it is filed at Aylesbury. Orange Book 6.2 is > based upon it. The point is that the standard of proof is > 'a reasonable balance of probability' and the EBU deems > that the standard is met in the circumstances described in > its regulations. Authorities which do not specify what will > meet the required level of proof leave it to their directors > and ACs to judge case by case. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan, I've had more than enough run-ins with the jurisprudential process to know that counsel's opinion is no more than opinion. It has to be tested and may fail. We are, I'm certain, agreed that my known active pair will always receive the purpural necate whereas our impeccavants still might expect the popular mitte. Do we not otherwise find ourselves ruling law of co-incidence based on a single instant, and are we not of the opinion that this is discredited? I would accept that a gross example by our neophytic pair would leave one with little option but to turn down the imperial thumb, but the level of transgression will have bearing on the final judgment between the two cases. John (Hope the impenetrability is to your satisfaction) :) > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 2 20:48:26 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Jun 2 20:51:22 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000001c56792$75cd92a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050602074418.02b9d7d0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c56792$75cd92a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c56792$75cd92a0$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >................ >> Does it matter? >................ >> We needn't call the 1S bid an "infraction" nor create a second "OS" in >> order to recognize that it "makes available to his partner extraneous >> information". That is *not* an infraction, but L16A is nevertheless >> applicable if some subsequent action violates it. >> >> Extraneous information can be transmitted without an infraction having >> been committed. > >We still have no authoritative statement whether the information conveyed by >the 1S bid is extraneous or not! Several commentators seem to lean on L72B1 >as the (only) law to settle this "problem". I strongly suggest that the words "one spade" spoken or displayed are/is not a call. > >If the clause "without penalty" in L35D shall imply that not only L26 but >also L16 is suspended then the 1S bid is AI. (I resent this!) > >If L16 is not suspended then the 1S bid is extraneous information (and we >have no need for L72B1!). > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 2 20:51:25 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Jun 2 20:54:05 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000301c567a1$73eb1930$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050602134057.02c186d0@pop.starpower.net> <000301c567a1$73eb1930$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000301c567a1$73eb1930$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes snip >So far I cannot remember any authoritative comment to the effect that the >information from the 1S bid is extraneous, most if not all seem to assume >that L16 indeed is suspended. And then they seem to rely solely upon L72B1; >a solution I indeed find both dubious and unnecessary. > >If only we could have somebody with authority confirm (if that is so) that >L16 remains in effect and that the information from the calls cancelled >under L35D is extraneous. (My preferred understanding). "Please lead a spade (aka 1S)". I have strongly argued for this case, and have not been refuted. > >Or alternatively confirm that the information from such calls is not >extraneous on the ground that L16 is suspended in this situation. > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 2 21:02:23 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jun 2 21:02:20 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000301c567a1$73eb1930$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050602134057.02c186d0@pop.starpower.net> <000301c567a1$73eb1930$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050602145226.02c197d0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:32 PM 6/2/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau >............... > > >We still have no authoritative statement whether the information > > >conveyed by > > >the 1S bid is extraneous or not! Several commentators seem to lean on > > >L72B1 > > >as the (only) law to settle this "problem". > > > > > >If the clause "without penalty" in L35D shall imply that not only > L26 but > > >also L16 is suspended then the 1S bid is AI. (I resent this!) > > > > > >If L16 is not suspended then the 1S bid is extraneous information > (and we > > >have no need for L72B1!). > > > > ISTM that whatever laws may be "suspended" when L35D is applied, they > > can only be suspended for the purpose of dealing with the situation > > that caused L35D to be invoked. The "law against creating extraneous > > information" cannot be suspended, because there is no such law -- that > > was the point I was trying to make above. L35D cancels calls "without > > penalty", but it doesn't cancel calls "without possibility of creating > > extraneous information", which is not an infraction and has no > > associated penalty. We can "suspend" L16 if we like while we resolve > > the situation that triggered the use of L35D, but when we're done, > > we're done, and L16 is back in effect. If it is violated after the > > play starts, or on the next board, this cannot be affected by the fact > > that L35D was applied to something else at some earlier time. > > > > I just don't see a problem here. The 1S bid was an irregularity. L35D > > says there is no penalty for this irregularity. This cannot mean that > > there is also no penalty for any other irregularity committed by the > > same side on the same deal. > >I agree with you but most of this discussion has essentially been on >how to >restrain partner to the player who bid 1S from legally using this >(cancelled) bid as a lead directing call. And the argument is >precisely that >the "without penalty" clause in L35D effectively suspends L16 (among >several >laws involving penalty) in this situation. > >So far I cannot remember any authoritative comment to the effect that the >information from the 1S bid is extraneous, most if not all seem to assume >that L16 indeed is suspended. And then they seem to rely solely upon >L72B1; >a solution I indeed find both dubious and unnecessary. > >If only we could have somebody with authority confirm (if that is so) that >L16 remains in effect and that the information from the calls cancelled >under L35D is extraneous. (My preferred understanding). > >Or alternatively confirm that the information from such calls is not >extraneous on the ground that L16 is suspended in this situation. Sven and I agree on how we'd like to see the law interpreted, and I continue to fail to see why we might have a problem with it. The situation is such that there has been an irregularity in the auction. We have no problem if someone wants to say that "L35D effectively suspends L16 in this situation", because by the time the play starts, that situation is in the past, it is over and done with, and we are no longer "in" it. Even if we suspended L16 "in that situation" it does not remain suspended once "that situation" is history. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From machelle at my-syte.com Thu Jun 2 15:16:36 2005 From: machelle at my-syte.com (thi flores) Date: Thu Jun 2 21:19:11 2005 Subject: [blml] natural enlargement Message-ID: <83577091.E670795@my-syte.com> I've been using your product for 4 months now. I've increased my length from 2 inches to nearly 6 inches. Your product has saved my sex life.-Matt, FL My girlfriend loves the results, but she doesn't know what I do. She thinks it's natural-Thomas, CA Pleasure your partner every time with a bigger, longer, stronger Unit Realistic gains quickly http://smv.R0Bx.onlineitemslinks.com/0/ to be a stud press here I believe it's about time I interfered with the politics of this Republic, he said, at last, as he closed the lid of the metal box and restored it to his pocket We have time, just now, and I'd rather face the invis'ble bears than those wooden imps If I don't take a hand there probably won't be a Republic of France very long and, as a good American, I prefer a republic to a monarchy address on site along with no more feature From schuster at eduhi.at Thu Jun 2 21:39:06 2005 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Thu Jun 2 21:40:48 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050602074418.02b9d7d0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c56792$75cd92a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 20:48:26 +0200, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > I strongly suggest that the words "one spade" spoken or displayed are/is > not a call. Yet they are designated a "call" four times in the one sentence of 35D... Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Thu Jun 2 22:38:56 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Jun 2 22:40:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <007501c56761$0d7b9a20$f79287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: >From: "Grattan Endicott" >To: >Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall >Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:25:55 +0100 > > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >******************************* >Probability is the very guide of life." > ~ Joseph Butler. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 5:45 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall > > > > >> > > >+=+ I confirm that counsel's opinion, when obtained some > > >years ago, was that the legal standard for finding that a > > >partnership has acted on the basis of a concealed partnership > > >understanding is "a reasonable balance of probability". The > > >circumstance in which a player departs from his announced > > >agreements and his partner, without evidence from authorised > > >information, then takes action that is clearly abnormal and that > > >protects or mitigates the first player's violation of system is > > >sufficient to constitute a reasonable balance of probability. > > > > We're on a very sticky wicket here Grattan. This smacks of rule > > of co- incidence, and this leads to 1-psych-per-partnership and > > this is, I hope, entirely discredited. I'm not above adjusting a > > bizarre auction where both players are known to be active and > > both happen to be at it on one hand, but a single instance, such > > as you moot above, fails to convince me of the sustainability of > > your learned friend's opinion. I aver we need more evidence > > than that. john > > > > > >+=+ Not my learned friend, John, but the EBU's learned friend. > No doubt it is filed at Aylesbury. Orange Book 6.2 is > based upon it. The point is that the standard of proof is > 'a reasonable balance of probability' and the EBU deems > that the standard is met in the circumstances described in > its regulations. Authorities which do not specify what will > meet the required level of proof leave it to their directors > and ACs to judge case by case. When "balance of probabilities" is used as an excuse to make gigantic illogical leaps of the type "If A happens then (unrelated) B must have occurred" then it is plain wrong. For example: If both members of a partnership psyche (or misbid) on the same board then there is no necessity that this is based on a concealed partnership understanding. When because of "balanced of probabilities" there is no defense that can be offered by an innocent pair that will be accepted then it is plain wrong. It is an excuse for allowing a TD to shirk his responsibility to ascertain the facts. I have been an innocent party that has presented a large amount of evidence to a committee while the opponents present no evidence and the committee just said "balance of probabilities"... this is utter nonsense. An innocent player must be allowed to excercise his lawful rights without being arbitrarily deemed to be guilty. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Looking for love? Check out XtraMSN Personals http://xtramsn.match.com/match/mt.cfm?pg=channel&tcid=200731 From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Thu Jun 2 22:42:24 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Jun 2 22:43:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <007601c56761$0e94f960$f79287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: >From: "Grattan Endicott" >To: >Subject: Re: [blml] Indirect regulation of System >Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:49:53 +0100 > > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >******************************* >Probability is the very guide of life." > ~ Joseph Butler. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Gordon Bower" >To: >Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 2:57 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Indirect regulation of System > > > > > > I am sure I am not the only director who has insisted > > on upholding the law despite SO regulations to the > > contrary. >< >+=+ However, the law is the law as interpreted by >the authorities empowered to interpret it. You have >no authority as director for overriding an authorized >interpretation. > There is a WBFLC minute of recent years which >delegates interim interpretations to Zones - by whom >we could possibly find NBOs given scope to meet a >need if there is one. The laws directly ascribe to the TD the power to interpret the laws. L81C5. A SO has no authority as the SO for overriding a law. The laws are plain on this matter too. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Looking for love? Check out XtraMSN Personals http://xtramsn.match.com/match/mt.cfm?pg=channel&tcid=200731 From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jun 2 23:06:18 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Jun 2 23:07:50 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <200506021911.j52JBsX3021949@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200506021911.j52JBsX3021949@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <429F74CA.5060407@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > We have no problem if someone wants to say that "L35D > effectively suspends L16 in this situation", It's not a question of suspending L16. The question is whether the inadmissible calls are AI or UI for each side. I don't think the answer is obvious. Grattan wants to bypass the L16 issue by saying that an inadmissible call -- at the time it is made -- will usually violate L72B1 if the call conveys useful information. Maybe so, but I don't think that is obvious either given the "without penalty" provision. Herman points out that whatever we do here, we probably need to do the same thing in the parallel case where declarer plays from both his hand and dummy, and the fourth-hand defender plays before second hand. I don't think it much matters what the resolution is, but I wish the rules were clear for everyone. (If I were writing the rules, I'd let everything be AI to everyone and play on, but maybe that's too simple- minded. I just like bridge results a lot better than adjusted scores.) From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jun 2 23:08:51 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Jun 2 23:10:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Meritless appeals (was Indirect reg...) In-Reply-To: <200505301902.j4UJ2npP019571@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505301902.j4UJ2npP019571@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <429F7563.9040100@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > 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. I don't think reading the relevant Laws from the book and explaining the reasoning behind the ruling is "going above and beyond the call of duty." If that is routine in Australia, then I apologize to Richard for misunderstanding him. It sure isn't routine around here. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jun 2 23:15:09 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Jun 2 23:16:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <200505301810.j4UIAd85019331@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200505301810.j4UIAd85019331@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <429F76DD.3060202@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Marvin French" > 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. I'm glad someone likes the suggestion, but the ranking should be from most to least _favorable_ (for the NOS). For example, if you judge the putative NOS contract will make +2 20%, +1 20%, +0 60%, assign the NOS the score for +1 and the OS the score for +2. (In much of the world, you would give a L12C3 weighted score, but that isn't legal in Zone 2.) From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 2 23:43:54 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jun 2 23:42:52 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <429F74CA.5060407@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200506021911.j52JBsX3021949@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <429F74CA.5060407@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050602172830.02c1bb00@pop.starpower.net> At 05:06 PM 6/2/05, Steve wrote: >>From: Eric Landau >> We have no problem if someone wants to say that "L35D effectively >> suspends L16 in this situation", > >It's not a question of suspending L16. The question is whether the >inadmissible calls are AI or UI for each side. I don't think the >answer is obvious. I don't think we need to get that far. The inadmissable call is not a "legal call or play", nor is it a "mannerism of opponents". That makes it "extraneous information". L35D is silent on the question of information transmitted by the illegal call, so cannot affect this. Whether any particular extraneous information is "authorized" or "unauthorized" for a particular player is determined by L16. That's an entirely separate issue, which has no relationship to L35. Keep in mind that "extraneous information" is any information other than from legal calls or plays or from mannerisms of the opponents. It simply exists; it "floats in the air". "Unauthorized information" is player-specific; the EI may be AI to some and UI to others. "EI" and "UI" are not synonyms. The bottom line is that there is no need for L35D, or its interpretation, to address whether the information is AI or UI. It is EI by definition, and, as with any other EI, L16 tells us who may use it and who may not. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 2 23:47:50 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 2 23:49:19 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <429F74CA.5060407@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000401c567bc$b9093c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner ........ > It's not a question of suspending L16. The question is whether the > inadmissible calls are AI or UI for each side. Well, it is kind of because L16 is the law that dictates what is AI and what is UI. > I don't think the answer is obvious. > Grattan wants to bypass the L16 issue by saying that an inadmissible > call -- at the time it is made -- will usually violate L72B1 if the call > conveys useful information. Maybe so, but I don't think that is obvious > either given the "without penalty" provision. The crucial question is exactly: What is embraced in the "without penalty" clause? Is it limited to suspending those laws that specifically include "(penalty)" in their text (like Law 26) or does it also include any law that imposes any kind of restriction on players (like Law 16)? > Herman points out that whatever we do here, we probably need to do the > same thing in the parallel case where declarer plays from both his hand > and dummy, and the fourth-hand defender plays before second hand. > > I don't think it much matters what the resolution is, but I wish the > rules were clear for everyone. (If I were writing the rules, I'd let > everything be AI to everyone and play on, but maybe that's too simple- > minded. I just like bridge results a lot better than adjusted scores.) If I were to write the rules discussed here I would explicitly state that a defender's play out of turn under the conditions specified in Law 57C shall be considered legal for all purposes, and that the "without penalty" and "as though there had been no irregularity" clauses in Law 35 still leave any call that has been cancelled under this law to be considered "extraneous information" for the purpose of applying Law 16. IMHO that is how I still believe that these laws have been intended all the time. BTW. Can we draw any inference from the fact that Law 27B1 states that law 16C2 does not apply to the situation handled in that law? This is the only Law in the book where Law 16C2 is explicitly suspended, and it is done in connection with an "as though the irregularity had not occurred" clause! Isn't it fair to assume that when Law 35 includes no similar suspension of Law 16 it is because Law 16 shall apply "with full force" on the cancelled calls? Regards Sven From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Fri Jun 3 00:28:14 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri Jun 3 00:25:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <429F76DD.3060202@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Marvin French" > > 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. > > I'm glad someone likes the suggestion, but the ranking should be from > most to least _favorable_ (for the NOS). Interesting to me that this is just a suggestion on BLML, and not the standard practice throughout the ACBL. I remember when I first heard the "1/3 and 1/6" guidance from the ACBL, it seemed completely obvious to me that this procedure was exactly what they meant. It didn't occur to me until some years later that this *wasnt* the universally accpeted way of doing things. The astute observer will quickly conclude that Steve and I must have both spent abnormally high portions of our lives in departments of mathematics. GRB From achen_vg at pfp.com.au Thu Jun 2 20:27:20 2005 From: achen_vg at pfp.com.au (Andy R. Chen) Date: Fri Jun 3 02:35:49 2005 Subject: [blml] how about this... Message-ID: try the new c1al-is s0ft-tabs - works in under 10 minutes! http://hybridisms.com/cs/?special no side effe-cts like the oth-ers, you can even mix alco-hol... no dizzy sensations so you can opera-te machinery safely! lasti-ng 35 hours, take once and enjoy the weekend ;) take 10 minutes before having se-x and have the hardest bon-er you've ever had! fast world-wide shippi-ng, over 1 milli-on satisfied custom-ers! http://hybridisms.com/cs/?special rmv: http://hybridisms.com/rm.php?special From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 3 02:43:03 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Jun 3 02:43:38 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000001c5674e$45627e80$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>>Unlike L72B1 L16 is only concerned with three basic questions: >>>1: Has a player received extraneous information? >>>2: Has he (with some probability) based any action on such information? >>>3: Has opponents been damaged by such action? Richard Hills' reductio ad absurdum: >>A player was about to sacrifice in 5D over 4S. Just before the player >>did so, the player noticed extraneous information from the duplicate >>board on the table that the player was vulnerable against not. [snip] Sven Pran: >TD Sven Pran rules (Law 7A) that all information available from seeing >the board (board number, vulnerability and dealer) is authorized for all >players [snip] Richard Hills: Ergo, Law 16 must be concerned with *four* basic questions: 1: Has a player received extraneous information? 2: **Is the extraneous information unauthorised information?** 3: Has he (with some probability) based any action on such information? 4: Has opponents been damaged by such action? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From support at postbank.de Fri Jun 3 06:20:33 2005 From: support at postbank.de (Postbank DE) Date: Fri Jun 3 03:16:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Warnung der Banksicherheitsdienst hinsichtlich der Internet - Misstaeter Message-ID: <3739321117772433@cpe-66-25-202-70.sw.res.rr.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050603/29290d93/attachment.html From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 3 04:35:42 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jun 3 04:38:24 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000401c567bc$b9093c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c567bc$b9093c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <486f946a23e95a36eccd15ef8f0ad95e@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 2, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > The crucial question is exactly: What is embraced in the "without > penalty" > clause? Is it limited to suspending those laws that specifically > include > "(penalty)" in their text (like Law 26) or does it also include any > law that > imposes any kind of restriction on players (like Law 16)? Look. Some laws specify a penalty for certain actions. Some don't say anything one way or the other. Some specify that there is no penalty *for the particular infraction(s) discussed in that law*. So if Law 35D says a call or calls are cancelled without penalty, then it means that there is no penalty specified in Law 35D (or anywhere else) for having made that particular call. It does *not* mean that there is no penalty for doing something illegal later, and it does *not* redefine any such later action as legal. It seems to me that any other interpretation is nonsense. Law 16 says a couple of things. "To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law," meaning also that it may not be. "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, ... the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." So if, in the case in point, the partner of the 1S bidder is on lead, he has extraneous information that indicates the bidder might like a spade lead, and so unless he has no logical alternative, *he may not make that lead*. This is not a penalty, it's a consequence of the fact that the 1S bid is extraneous information. Some here argue that because Law 35D says the call is "cancelled" that means it never happened, so it's AI. Baloney. All it means is that it is not part of the legal auction - it is then clearly extraneous. The difference between a withdrawn call and a cancelled call is that the former is still part of the legal auction - it was simply withdrawn because the circumstances allowed it to be withdrawn. The latter is *not* part of the legal auction, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen - and it doesn't mean that it didn't convey information to the partner of the caller. Now can we please stop arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and get back to bridge? :-) From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jun 3 09:26:23 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jun 3 09:26:19 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000401c567bc$b9093c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c567bc$b9093c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42A0061F.5040009@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > BTW. Can we draw any inference from the fact that Law 27B1 states that law > 16C2 does not apply to the situation handled in that law? This is the only > Law in the book where Law 16C2 is explicitly suspended, and it is done in > connection with an "as though the irregularity had not occurred" clause! > > Isn't it fair to assume that when Law 35 includes no similar suspension of > Law 16 it is because Law 16 shall apply "with full force" on the cancelled > calls? > This is an interesting idea, but I believe it enforces the exact opposite of Sven's point of view. Indeed L27B1 mentions L16C2, but it does so in parentheses. I believe that means that the lawmakers believed L16C2 was already included in the "no penalty", but that they wanted to add some special emphasis to a subset, because there is an exception about it in L27B1(b). If the mention of L16C2 were outside of the brackets, THEN Sven would be completely right that it wi?ould mean that the lawmakers decided to suspend all penalties _and L16 as well_. But the way this is framed, it shows us that the Lawmakers believed L16 is included in "no penalty". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 3 10:13:26 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 3 10:14:58 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A0061F.5040009@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c56814$1e15ffc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > BTW. Can we draw any inference from the fact > > that Law 27B1 states that law16C2 does not > > apply to the situation handled in that law? > > This is the only Law in the book where Law > > 16C2 is explicitly suspended, and it is done > > in connection with an "as though the > > irregularity had not occurred" clause! > > > > Isn't it fair to assume that when Law 35 > > includes no similar suspension of Law 16 it > > is because Law 16 shall apply "with full force" > > on the cancelled calls? > > > > This is an interesting idea, but I believe it > enforces the exact opposite of Sven's point of view. > > Indeed L27B1 mentions L16C2, but it does so in parentheses. I believe > that means that the lawmakers believed L16C2 was already included in > the "no penalty", but that they wanted to add some special emphasis to > a subset, because there is an exception about it in L27B1(b). > > If the mention of L16C2 were outside of the brackets, THEN Sven would > be completely right that it wi?ould mean that the lawmakers decided to > suspend all penalties _and L16 as well_. But the way this is framed, > it shows us that the Lawmakers believed L16 is included in "no penalty". Parentheses or no parentheses, if this clause was found necessary in L27B1 then the same clause should be required in L35 if it were to apply there. People do not look to L27B1 for the effect on L16 from "without penalty" in other laws. They (including me) expect to find such information either in L16 common for all "without penalty" laws or individually in each such law. Anyway, lacking a clarifying statement from WBFLC authorities I note that the consensus among most of us other combatants seems to be that Law 16 fully applies on the information from calls cancelled under Law 35D. Regards Sven From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Fri Jun 3 11:11:27 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Fri Jun 3 11:12:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Who has to authority to decide? Message-ID: <42A01EBF.1070507@hotmail.com> In another mail (L35D) there was discussion if L16 applies or not. This was a very straightforward issue that does not require real carding, bidding... interpretation. Question: - Is there an authority who decides on this? - Do any regular posters on blml have/are part of this authority? - Does this authority have a web site with the laws + an appendix with this kind of explanations? From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jun 3 11:25:47 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jun 3 11:25:55 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000001c56814$1e15ffc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c56814$1e15ffc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42A0221B.2010509@hdw.be> Sven, really! Sven Pran wrote: >> >>If the mention of L16C2 were outside of the brackets, THEN Sven would >>be completely right that it wi?ould mean that the lawmakers decided to >>suspend all penalties _and L16 as well_. But the way this is framed, >>it shows us that the Lawmakers believed L16 is included in "no penalty". > > > Parentheses or no parentheses, if this clause was found necessary in L27B1 > then the same clause should be required in L35 if it were to apply there. > No Sven, totally wrong. The parenthesis prove that the lawmakers believed L16 was already included in the "no penalty" bit for L27. So the same clause is not required anywhere else. > People do not look to L27B1 for the effect on L16 from "without penalty" in > other laws. They (including me) expect to find such information either in > L16 common for all "without penalty" laws or individually in each such law. > No, they believe "no penalty" means "no penalty". Not "no penalty, except L16". Sorry Sven, but you are in a minority here. > Anyway, lacking a clarifying statement from WBFLC authorities I note that > the consensus among most of us other combatants seems to be that Law 16 > fully applies on the information from calls cancelled under Law 35D. > That is totally wrong. There is a clear consensus on blml (barring Sven) that L16 does not apply when the laws stipulate "no penalty". In fact, this was one of the most clearly unanimous decisions on blml, before you chimed in. I felt that your arguments showed some merit, and tried to disprove them by logic. I will stop that now, less the world again begins to see this as a Sven vs Herman thingy, in which of course Herman can never be right. Please "most of us" who appear to be having a consensus, come out of the woodwork. Sven, show me one of those "most of us", I haven't seen anyone around here. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 3 12:08:09 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 3 12:09:40 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A0221B.2010509@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c56824$25b44650$6400a8c0@WINXP> .......... > Please "most of us" who appear to be having a consensus, come out of > the woodwork. Sven, show me one of those "most of us", I haven't seen > anyone around here. You'll find them if you look (f.i. sample first initial "E") To sum up my view: L16 imposes no penalty but may impose restrictions and/or adjustments. "as though there had been no irregularity" suspends all laws imposing penalty as well as all laws imposing restrictions and/or adjustments. "without penalty" (or words to the same effect) suspends all laws imposing penalty but does not affect the application of other laws (including L16). Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 3 12:37:09 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Jun 3 12:38:42 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: <000401c567bc$b9093c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <486f946a23e95a36eccd15ef8f0ad95e@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 21:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L35D > > On Jun 2, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > The crucial question is exactly: What is embraced in the "without > > penalty" > > clause? Is it limited to suspending those laws that specifically > > include > > "(penalty)" in their text (like Law 26) or does it also include any > > law that > > imposes any kind of restriction on players (like Law 16)? > > Look. Some laws specify a penalty for certain actions. Some > don't say anything one way or the other. Some specify that there is no > penalty *for the particular infraction(s) discussed in that law*. So if > Law 35D says a call or calls are cancelled without penalty, then it > means that there is no penalty specified in Law 35D (or anywhere else) > for having made that particular call. It does *not* mean that there is > no penalty for doing something illegal later, and it does *not* > redefine any such later action as legal. It seems to me that any other > interpretation is nonsense. first of all. Saying that an adjusted score is not a penalty does not make it so. because the standard of an adjusted score is the 'least favorable result' that makes an AssAS a penalty. When 'without penalty' is utilized absent qualification it suggests that there is no need to fear behavior arising as a consequence of the occurrence. To suitably qualify such a unilateral instruction avoids that suggestion. regards roger pewick > Law 16 says a couple of things. "To base a call or play on other > extraneous information may be an infraction of law," meaning also that > it may not be. > > "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information > that may suggest a call or play, ... the partner may not choose from > among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been > suggested over another by the extraneous information." So if, in the > case in point, the partner of the 1S bidder is on lead, he has > extraneous information that indicates the bidder might like a spade > lead, and so unless he has no logical alternative, *he may not make > that lead*. This is not a penalty, it's a consequence of the fact that > the 1S bid is extraneous information. > > Some here argue that because Law 35D says the call is "cancelled" that > means it never happened, so it's AI. Baloney. All it means is that it > is not part of the legal auction - it is then clearly extraneous. > > The difference between a withdrawn call and a cancelled call is that > the former is still part of the legal auction - it was simply withdrawn > because the circumstances allowed it to be withdrawn. The latter is > *not* part of the legal auction, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen > - and it doesn't mean that it didn't convey information to the partner > of the caller. > > Now can we please stop arguing about how many angels can dance on the > head of a pin and get back to bridge? :-) From beyla at didamail.com Fri Jun 3 13:40:34 2005 From: beyla at didamail.com (Austin Grady) Date: Fri Jun 3 12:46:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Your 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 $400,000 for as little as $400 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.cr3am.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Melba Clement to be remov(ed: http://www.cr3am.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jun 3 12:52:01 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jun 3 12:51:59 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000101c56824$25b44650$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c56824$25b44650$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42A03651.6020008@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > .......... > >>Please "most of us" who appear to be having a consensus, come out of >>the woodwork. Sven, show me one of those "most of us", I haven't seen >>anyone around here. > > > You'll find them if you look (f.i. sample first initial "E") > > To sum up my view: L16 imposes no penalty but may impose restrictions and/or > adjustments. > > "as though there had been no irregularity" suspends all laws imposing > penalty as well as all laws imposing restrictions and/or adjustments. > > "without penalty" (or words to the same effect) suspends all laws imposing > penalty but does not affect the application of other laws (including L16). > and to sum up my view : I have been directing for 20 years now, and you are the first one to offer this point of view. And we've been having this discussion now for two weeks, and I have seen no-one subscribing to your view. And you have been directing for more years than I have, and while you may never have run accross a L35 case, you must have come accros L57C. Did you rule UI in those cases, even when it says "not subject to penalty"? Did you ever rule L16 and not seen others disagree? To sum up, there is a huge huge majority of those who believe "no penalty" includes that L16 is not of application. You are quite alone in your point of view. In the light of such a unanimous field, I don't think your arguments are valuable. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 3 13:47:40 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jun 3 13:46:41 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <486f946a23e95a36eccd15ef8f0ad95e@rochester.rr.com> References: <000401c567bc$b9093c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <486f946a23e95a36eccd15ef8f0ad95e@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050603074432.031881f0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:35 PM 6/2/05, Ed wrote: > Look. Some laws specify a penalty for certain actions. Some >don't say anything one way or the other. Some specify that there is no >penalty *for the particular infraction(s) discussed in that law*. So >if Law 35D says a call or calls are cancelled without penalty, then it >means that there is no penalty specified in Law 35D (or anywhere else) >for having made that particular call. It does *not* mean that there is >no penalty for doing something illegal later, and it does *not* >redefine any such later action as legal. It seems to me that any other >interpretation is nonsense. > >Law 16 says a couple of things. "To base a call or play on other >extraneous information may be an infraction of law," meaning also that >it may not be. > >"After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information >that may suggest a call or play, ... the partner may not choose from >among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have >been suggested over another by the extraneous information." So if, in >the case in point, the partner of the 1S bidder is on lead, he has >extraneous information that indicates the bidder might like a spade >lead, and so unless he has no logical alternative, *he may not make >that lead*. This is not a penalty, it's a consequence of the fact that >the 1S bid is extraneous information. > >Some here argue that because Law 35D says the call is "cancelled" that >means it never happened, so it's AI. Baloney. All it means is that it >is not part of the legal auction - it is then clearly extraneous. > >The difference between a withdrawn call and a cancelled call is that >the former is still part of the legal auction - it was simply >withdrawn because the circumstances allowed it to be withdrawn. The >latter is *not* part of the legal auction, but that doesn't mean it >didn't happen - and it doesn't mean that it didn't convey information >to the partner of the caller. Thank you, Ed, I couldn't have said it better myself (obviously, as I've already tried three times). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 3 14:17:01 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jun 3 14:16:01 2005 Subject: [blml] L16A Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050603080110.0318beb0@pop.starpower.net> We arrive at a table and I notice that the opponents are playing a relay system. As I peruse their convention card, partner says to me, "These guys play a terrific system; their slam bidding, in particular, is pin-point accurate." We have a competitive auction, on which the opponents reach 6H. From the bidding, we might have a good save at 6S. But from my hand, it's not clear that 6H will make. I'm inclined not to risk the save. But, wait! I remember what partner said earlier. If these guys bid it, it's going to make. So I bid 6S, which turns out to be a good decision. My LAs were 6S and pass. My decision to bid 6S rather than pass was suggested by and based on partner's remark, as opposed to "legal calls [and/or] mannerisms of opponents". Should we adjust the score to 6H making? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 3 14:23:48 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Jun 3 14:25:20 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: <000401c567bc$b9093c70$6400a8c0@WINXP><486f946a23e95a36eccd15ef8f0ad95e@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050603074432.031881f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 6:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L35D > At 10:35 PM 6/2/05, Ed wrote: > >Some here argue that because Law 35D says the call is "cancelled" that > >means it never happened, so it's AI. Baloney. All it means is that it > >is not part of the legal auction - it is then clearly extraneous. > > > >The difference between a withdrawn call and a cancelled call is that > >the former is still part of the legal auction - it was simply > >withdrawn because the circumstances allowed it to be withdrawn. The > >latter is *not* part of the legal auction, but that doesn't mean it > >didn't happen - and it doesn't mean that it didn't convey information > >to the partner of the caller. > > Thank you, Ed, I couldn't have said it better myself (obviously, as > I've already tried three times). I would think that if one wanted to take inference from the choice of word that the inference to be taken is rspect to the condition that the call was removed ed from the auction; after all the normal useage of withdrawn and cancel is to remove. As such withdrawn has more to do with removing on one's volition and cancel has more to do with a higher power doing the removing. As for the distinction that one refers to being part of the legal auction and the other not, I don't see such a distinction arising due to the choice. regards roger pewick > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 3 14:27:02 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 3 14:28:32 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A03651.6020008@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c56837$8baa4910$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ......................... > And you have been directing for more years than I have, and while you > may never have run accross a L35 case, you must have come accros L57C. > Did you rule UI in those cases, even when it says "not subject to > penalty"? Did you ever rule L16 and not seen others disagree? I was trained as TD in 1979 with the then current laws 0f 1975. L57C was interpreted that premature plays by a defender after declarer had played from both hands were fully legal. This was, and still is the only interpretation that makes sense to me, and only recently have I become aware that this interpretation might be disputable. However, the law text on this point has not essentially been changed since 1932 and to my best knowledge the understanding of that law has never changed. Unauthorized information was a much simpler matter in 1975. Apparently it was more or less based upon the principle "I cannot define it but I know it when I see it". We learned through training and more training to identify cases of UI so that we could "know it when we saw it". This training sticks! Before 1987 your sample bid of 1S following the fourth pass would be a clear case of an incident generating UI to partner. To me it still is and I should be most happy to use L16 to rule that way if I ever meet the case. However, I realize that we have the unanswered question: Is the information from the 1S bid UI or AI to partner as a consequence of the "without penalty" clause in L35D? This is the main reason why I am so anxious to get a clear statement from WBFLC authorities on how we are to treat for instance L16 after irregularities which result in "no penalty". To me it is clearly contrary to the interest of the game for instance to give a player a "free road" to an irregular lead directing instruction to partner the way you originally described. And I certainly do not feel alone with my opinion that a lead of a spade after the call sequence presented must be illegal. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jun 3 15:03:31 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jun 3 15:03:26 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000001c56837$8baa4910$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c56837$8baa4910$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42A05523.3040003@hdw.be> > > Before 1987 your sample bid of 1S following the fourth pass would be a clear > case of an incident generating UI to partner. To me it still is and I should > be most happy to use L16 to rule that way if I ever meet the case. > That is interesting! Do we find others who would do this? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Fri Jun 3 15:05:17 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Fri Jun 3 15:06:52 2005 Subject: [blml] L16A In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050603080110.0318beb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050603/89bf4a56/attachment-0001.html From john at asimere.com Fri Jun 3 15:13:49 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Jun 3 15:16:51 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A0221B.2010509@hdw.be> References: <000001c56814$1e15ffc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A0221B.2010509@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <42A0221B.2010509@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Sven, really! > >Sven Pran wrote: > >>> >>>If the mention of L16C2 were outside of the brackets, THEN Sven would >>>be completely right that it wi?ould mean that the lawmakers decided to >>>suspend all penalties _and L16 as well_. But the way this is framed, >>>it shows us that the Lawmakers believed L16 is included in "no penalty". >> >> >> Parentheses or no parentheses, if this clause was found necessary in L27B1 >> then the same clause should be required in L35 if it were to apply there. >> > >No Sven, totally wrong. The parenthesis prove that the lawmakers >believed L16 was already included in the "no penalty" bit for L27. >So the same clause is not required anywhere else. > >> People do not look to L27B1 for the effect on L16 from "without penalty" in >> other laws. They (including me) expect to find such information either in >> L16 common for all "without penalty" laws or individually in each such law. >> Can we start with law 17E? This tells us how an auction is completed. Once an auction is complete other actions may take place. There may even be "look like" calls, but Law 39 tells us that these "pseudo-calls" are cancelled. Now, to me, something which is cancelled is as if it did not exist. When 35D cancels it is doing so for that reason and it makes clear that there is no penalty for making "looks like" calls. Nonetheless these "looks like" calls are extraneous and may contain UI. We get phrases elsewhere in the Laws like "as if the irregularity had not occurred" and that might suggest that any extraneous information is authorised, but nowhere in 35D is this suggested. So I don't have even to stretch my imagination to turn to 16 or 72B1, depending how I feel when a "pseudo-call" is made after the auction has been completed. Now I don't know which side I seem to be on here, but no-one seems to have tried to refute this basic tenet: The auction's already over, anything else may contain UI. > >No, they believe "no penalty" means "no penalty". Not "no penalty, >except L16". Sorry Sven, but you are in a minority here. > >> Anyway, lacking a clarifying statement from WBFLC authorities I note that >> the consensus among most of us other combatants seems to be that Law 16 >> fully applies on the information from calls cancelled under Law 35D. >> > >That is totally wrong. >There is a clear consensus on blml (barring Sven) that L16 does not >apply when the laws stipulate "no penalty". In fact, this was one of >the most clearly unanimous decisions on blml, before you chimed in. I >felt that your arguments showed some merit, and tried to disprove them >by logic. I will stop that now, less the world again begins to see >this as a Sven vs Herman thingy, in which of course Herman can never >be right. >Please "most of us" who appear to be having a consensus, come out of >the woodwork. Sven, show me one of those "most of us", I haven't seen >anyone around 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 Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Fri Jun 3 15:14:01 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Fri Jun 3 15:17:09 2005 Subject: [blml] L16A Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5D0F@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Eric Landau > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 14:17 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: [blml] L16A > > > We arrive at a table and I notice that the opponents are playing a > relay system. As I peruse their convention card, partner says to me, > "These guys play a terrific system; their slam bidding, in > particular, > is pin-point accurate." > > We have a competitive auction, on which the opponents reach 6H. From > the bidding, we might have a good save at 6S. But from my hand, it's > not clear that 6H will make. I'm inclined not to risk the save. > > But, wait! I remember what partner said earlier. If these guys bid > it, it's going to make. So I bid 6S, which turns out to be a good > decision. > > My LAs were 6S and pass. My decision to bid 6S rather than pass was > suggested by and based on partner's remark, as opposed to > "legal calls > [and/or] mannerisms of opponents". Should we adjust the score to 6H > making? That remark was made before the auction, was it not? I would say you can discuss whatever you like, as long as you are not playing (and you are playing if either of you have seen the face of the cards - L17A). If you adjust this, I propose the following situation. The evening before, you are discussing your system with partner. Partner says, "Hey, tomorrow we play X and their slam bidding is terrific." Sure enough, the next day you play X and, in a competitive auction, they reach 6H. You might have a good save, but maybe 6H doesn't make. But wait! You remember partner's remark of the evening before, and bid 6S, which turns out to be a good decision. Now do you adjust? -- Martin Sinot From john at asimere.com Fri Jun 3 15:14:51 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Jun 3 15:17:32 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000101c56824$25b44650$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <42A0221B.2010509@hdw.be> <000101c56824$25b44650$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000101c56824$25b44650$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >.......... >> Please "most of us" who appear to be having a consensus, come out of >> the woodwork. Sven, show me one of those "most of us", I haven't seen >> anyone around here. > >You'll find them if you look (f.i. sample first initial "E") > >To sum up my view: L16 imposes no penalty but may impose restrictions and/or >adjustments. > >"as though there had been no irregularity" suspends all laws imposing >penalty as well as all laws imposing restrictions and/or adjustments. > >"without penalty" (or words to the same effect) suspends all laws imposing >penalty but does not affect the application of other laws (including L16). > agreed 100% Sven, John >Sven -- 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 cibor at poczta.fm Fri Jun 3 15:21:01 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri Jun 3 15:22:38 2005 Subject: [blml] L16A Message-ID: <20050603132101.DE32433E873@poczta.interia.pl> > My LAs were 6S and pass. My decision to bid 6S rather than pass was > suggested by and based on partner's remark, as opposed to "legal calls > [and/or] mannerisms of opponents". Should we adjust the score to 6H > making? > It depends on when he said what he said. If he did that before the auction started then his remark is AI information to you. If the auction has started already (which means partner has seen his hand) then his remark is UI to you and we ajust to 6H. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ____________________ Cibor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Znajdz swoja milosc na wiosne... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f187a From john at asimere.com Fri Jun 3 15:20:50 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Jun 3 15:23:35 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000001c56837$8baa4910$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <42A03651.6020008@hdw.be> <000001c56837$8baa4910$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6YoPa6AykFoCFwls@asimere.com> In article <000001c56837$8baa4910$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes snip interesting history of major TD'ing experience. Look guys we've all TD'd at many tens of thousands of tables, we know which way is up. > >And I certainly do not feel alone with my opinion that a lead of a spade >after the call sequence presented must be illegal. I'd take issue with this. The case is as I have suggested: "I wouldn't mind a spade lead (aka psuedo-call 1S)". Now we're into "... carefully avoid ..." (73C) territory. A spade lead may still be legal. John > >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 Fri Jun 3 15:21:53 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Jun 3 15:24:56 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A05523.3040003@hdw.be> References: <000001c56837$8baa4910$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A05523.3040003@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <42A05523.3040003@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes > >> >> Before 1987 your sample bid of 1S following the fourth pass would be a clear >> case of an incident generating UI to partner. To me it still is and I should >> be most happy to use L16 to rule that way if I ever meet the case. >> > >That is interesting! Do we find others who would do this? Moi. I have been agreeing with Sven from the start. I might have taken a slightly different route. 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 Fri Jun 3 15:30:47 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Jun 3 15:33:39 2005 Subject: [blml] L16A In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050603080110.0318beb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050603080110.0318beb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In article <6.1.1.1.0.20050603080110.0318beb0@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >We arrive at a table and I notice that the opponents are playing a >relay system. As I peruse their convention card, partner says to me, >"These guys play a terrific system; their slam bidding, in particular, >is pin-point accurate." > >We have a competitive auction, on which the opponents reach 6H. From >the bidding, we might have a good save at 6S. But from my hand, it's >not clear that 6H will make. I'm inclined not to risk the save. > >But, wait! I remember what partner said earlier. If these guys bid >it, it's going to make. So I bid 6S, which turns out to be a good >decision. > >My LAs were 6S and pass. My decision to bid 6S rather than pass was >suggested by and based on partner's remark, as opposed to "legal calls >[and/or] mannerisms of opponents". Should we adjust the score to 6H >making? You are entitled to vary your style but not your system is my take. I'm sure you're entitled to take account of who your opponents are and what their methods are as part of this stylistic flexibilty. There are some players I double in thin 3N contracts, others I don't - those whose perception of a thin 3N is that it will get underwritten by Lloyds of London. Provided you hadn't inspected the face of your hand (or possibly withdrawn your cards from the board) before the remarks, I'd be of the view that your partner's remarks are entirely authorised. There really was one lady in the Japanese ladies club that I just about stopped doubling. I'm pretty sure she'd changed her style to sandbag me. > > >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 ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 3 15:47:48 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jun 3 15:46:46 2005 Subject: [blml] L16A In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050603080110.0318beb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050603094416.02ba1190@pop.starpower.net> At 09:05 AM 6/3/05, Harald wrote: > >Eric Landau werote: > > >My LAs were 6S and pass. My decision to bid 6S rather than pass was > >suggested by and based on partner's remark, as opposed to "legal > >calls [and/or] mannerisms of opponents". Should we adjust the score > >to 6H making? > > >Are you trying to be funny, Eric - I missed a smiley! I admit to being smiley challenged. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jun 3 15:58:42 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Jun 3 16:01:39 2005 Subject: [blml] L16A References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050603080110.0318beb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007301c56844$a7507560$4c9468d5@James> [Eric Landau] > We arrive at a table and I notice that the opponents are > playing a relay system. As I peruse their convention > card, partner says to me, "These guys play a terrific > system; their slam bidding, in particular, is pin-point > accurate." We have a competitive auction, on which the > opponents reach 6H. From the bidding, we might have a > good save at 6S. But from my hand, it's not clear that > 6H will make. I'm inclined not to risk the save. > But, wait! I remember what partner said earlier. If > these guys bid it, it's going to make. So I bid 6S, > which turns out to be a good decision. My LAs were 6S > and pass. My decision to bid 6S rather than pass was > suggested by and based on partner's remark, as opposed > to "legal calls [and/or] mannerisms of opponents". > Should we adjust the score to 6H making? [nigel] Tee hee! Very good Eric! Remember this John Collings (RIP) story? The Sharples Brothers bid 7H and return their hands to the board. "Wait a sec" says John. The Sharples look hurt but John isn't casting a slur on their bidding accuracy: Holding four spades, John bids 7S, hoping to show a profit (old scoring). Anticlimax: the Sharples bid 7N and make it. Post-mortem: One of the Sharples has SAKQJ and 7S would have gone 13 down. No! You can't penalize a player for knowing the reputation of his opponents :) From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jun 3 15:58:49 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Jun 3 16:01:40 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: <000401c567bc$b9093c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <486f946a23e95a36eccd15ef8f0ad95e@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <007401c56844$a87ce770$4c9468d5@James> [Ed Reppert] > After a player makes available to his partner extraneous > information that may suggest a call or play, ... the > partner may not choose from among logical alternative > actions one that could demonstrably have been > suggested over another by the extraneous information." > So if, in the case in point, the partner of the 1S > bidder is on lead, he has extraneous information that > indicates the bidder might like a spade lead, and so > unless he has no logical alternative, *he may not make > that lead*. This is not a penalty, it's a consequence of > the fact that the 1S bid is extraneous information. > Some here argue that because Law 35D says the call is > "cancelled" that means it never happened, so it's AI. > Baloney. All it means is that it is not part of the > legal auction - it is then clearly extraneous. > The difference between a withdrawn call and a cancelled > call is that the former is still part of the legal > auction - it was simply withdrawn because the > circumstances allowed it to be withdrawn. The latter is > *not* part of the legal auction, but that doesn't mean > it didn't happen - and it doesn't mean that it didn't > convey information to the partner of the caller. > Now can we please stop arguing about how many angels can > dance on the head of a pin and get back to bridge? :-) [nigel] You've convinced me Ed! One last query: When common sense agrees with Bridge Law - is that what we call the rule of coincidence? :) From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 3 16:02:44 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 3 16:04:14 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <6YoPa6AykFoCFwls@asimere.com> Message-ID: <000001c56844$ea6f3a70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst ......... > I'd take issue with this. The case is as I have suggested: "I wouldn't > mind a spade lead (aka psuedo-call 1S)". Now we're into "... carefully > avoid ..." (73C) territory. A spade lead may still be legal. John Sure. Just to avoid any misunderstanding: I would of course try all the considerations of logical alternatives etc. with Law 16 so if a spade lead had been obvious without any influence from partner then I would allow it. Regards Sven From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 3 16:03:45 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 3 16:05:23 2005 Subject: [blml] L16A Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >We arrive at a table and I notice that the opponents are playing a >relay system. As I peruse their convention card, partner says to me, >"These guys play a terrific system; their slam bidding, in particular, >is pin-point accurate." > >We have a competitive auction, on which the opponents reach 6H. From >the bidding, we might have a good save at 6S. But from my hand, it's >not clear that 6H will make. I'm inclined not to risk the save. > >But, wait! I remember what partner said earlier. If these guys bid >it, it's going to make. So I bid 6S, which turns out to be a good >decision. > >My LAs were 6S and pass. My decision to bid 6S rather than pass was >suggested by and based on partner's remark, as opposed to "legal calls >[and/or] mannerisms of opponents". Should we adjust the score to 6H >making? Nothing wrong with tactical discussions when the hand is not in progress. But if partner's remark had been during the auction then it becomes unauthorised. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 3 16:04:56 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 3 16:06:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote >On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Not in practice: it is not your job to interpret the Laws. If the ABF >> tells you to do something, you can indicate to them that you think it >> illegal, but you do not refuse to do it. > >In the case of real-world law as opposed to bridge law, you are actually >*required* to refuse if your employer/supervisor/whoever directs you to >perform an illegal activity. So, if in the real world, you are told what the Law is, you would presume whoever tells you is wrong and expect the courts to uphold you? Don't forget, this discussion is not about things that are generally agreed to be flaws in the Law. This is about one or two people who interpret the Laws differently from the ABF, the WBFLC, the EBU and so on. They believe they are right, the rest of the world are wrong, and therefore they are going to give rulings differently from what players expect and their SOs tell them. In my view their approach is arrogant and unwarranted. Do you really think the courts would uphold them? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 3 16:05:55 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 3 16:07:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article <003c01c566b9$089061b0$c99287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan >Endicott writes >>+=+ I confirm that counsel's opinion, when obtained some >>years ago, was that the legal standard for finding that a >>partnership has acted on the basis of a concealed partnership >>understanding is "a reasonable balance of probability". The >>circumstance in which a player departs from his announced >>agreements and his partner, without evidence from authorised >>information, then takes action that is clearly abnormal and that >>protects or mitigates the first player's violation of system is >>sufficient to constitute a reasonable balance of probability. >We're on a very sticky wicket here Grattan. This smacks of rule of co- >incidence, and this leads to 1-psych-per-partnership and this is, I >hope, entirely discredited. I'm not above adjusting a bizarre auction >where both players are known to be active and both happen to be at it on >one hand, but a single instance, such as you moot above, fails to >convince me of the sustainability of your learned friend's opinion. I >aver we need more evidence than that. Surprising that you work for the EBU then. It is part of our basic training and experience that a single hand may, together with other evidence gleaned about it, provide sufficient evidence of a CPU. 1-psych-per-partnership is completely different, of course. The RoC is a reasonable tool when used correctly. However, those who applied the RoC to say you have to assume something if something else went too far. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Currently having problems from home email for BLML only Web: blakjak.com From john at asimere.com Fri Jun 3 16:42:30 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Jun 3 16:45:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote >>In article <003c01c566b9$089061b0$c99287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan >>Endicott writes > >>>+=+ I confirm that counsel's opinion, when obtained some >>>years ago, was that the legal standard for finding that a >>>partnership has acted on the basis of a concealed partnership >>>understanding is "a reasonable balance of probability". The >>>circumstance in which a player departs from his announced >>>agreements and his partner, without evidence from authorised >>>information, then takes action that is clearly abnormal and that >>>protects or mitigates the first player's violation of system is >>>sufficient to constitute a reasonable balance of probability. > >>We're on a very sticky wicket here Grattan. This smacks of rule of co- >>incidence, and this leads to 1-psych-per-partnership and this is, I >>hope, entirely discredited. I'm not above adjusting a bizarre auction >>where both players are known to be active and both happen to be at it on >>one hand, but a single instance, such as you moot above, fails to >>convince me of the sustainability of your learned friend's opinion. I >>aver we need more evidence than that. > > Surprising that you work for the EBU then. It is part of our basic >training and experience that a single hand may, together with other >evidence gleaned about it, provide sufficient evidence of a CPU. > > 1-psych-per-partnership is completely different, of course. > > The RoC is a reasonable tool when used correctly. However, those who >applied the RoC to say you have to assume something if something else >went too far. Then I think we are in agreement. > -- 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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 3 17:10:20 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri Jun 3 17:12:12 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000101c56824$25b44650$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c56824$25b44650$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42A072DC.8050306@t-online.de> Hi folks, Sven Pran wrote: >.......... > > >>Please "most of us" who appear to be having a consensus, come out of >>the woodwork. Sven, show me one of those "most of us", I haven't seen >>anyone around here. >> >> > > > it`s time to come out of the woodwork :-) >You'll find them if you look (f.i. sample first initial "E") > >To sum up my view: L16 imposes no penalty but may impose restrictions and/or >adjustments. > > Quite so. >"as though there had been no irregularity" suspends all laws imposing >penalty as well as all laws imposing restrictions and/or adjustments. > >"without penalty" (or words to the same effect) suspends all laws imposingpenalty but does not affect the application of other laws (including L16). > > I have to think a while about the wording, English being no more my mother language than it is yours, but I at least agree with the general trend of your statement. I strongly suspect that we are in complete agreement here, any difficulties being based on language differences (if there _are_ any difficulties at all...). I think it is unanimously agreed on this list that a behaviour like in Herman`s example hand cannot be tolerated and that everyone who does not want to invoke Law 16 goes to law 72, taking the score away if the NOS has been damaged by the irregularity. I will now submit the view that this discussion is mainly academic, as any judgement whether the NOS has been damaged will be along the lines of law 16 anyway. Example: 1NT - pass - pass - pass pass - pass - pass - 1Spade 1S was bid with AKxx (or some such). Opening leader holds QJ1098, Ax, xxx, Axx. He leads a spade. Has the NOS been damaged by the irregularity? I think not. My grandma and her dog would lead a spade, and so would everyone else. But what about 1 heart instead of 1 spade, and now the ace of hearts is led? Completely different situation, isn`t it? Of course this is a UI case, as is the first example, and so is Herman`s example too. IMHO law 72B1 is for cases that can`t be handled with law 16 (or others), for example bidding, passing, or even psyching out of turn. For cases involving UI we go to law 16 and we`re done with it. Finishing up, I would like to point out that the word "penalty" or it`s plural doesn`t appear in law 16, so I don`t care whether any law cancels something "without penalty". Ethical responsibilities and the restrictions they impose on an ethical player are no penalties. A soccer player is not penalized because the rules forbid him to handle the ball unless he is the goalie. His choices how to achieve his goals (and his goals, of course :-) ) are restricted by the rules of the game, that`s all. And whether a player feels penalized because of this or because of law 16 in bridge doesn?t make me lose sleep. A penalty is what (and when) the law says it is, not what and when a player (or a director, for that matter) thinks it should be. Best regards Matthias >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Jun 3 17:22:45 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Jun 3 17:24:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: from "Gordon Bower" at Jun 01, 2005 05:57:25 PM Message-ID: <200506031522.j53FMjAD018011@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Gordon Bower writes: > > > > On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, David Stevenson wrote: > > > Not in practice: it is not your job to interpret the Laws. If the ABF > > tells you to do something, you can indicate to them that you think it > > illegal, but you do not refuse to do it. > > In the case of real-world law as opposed to bridge law, you are actually > *required* to refuse if your employer/supervisor/whoever directs you to > perform an illegal activity. Right. But it's not illegal for (say) the ABF to have a regulation contrary to the laws of bridge. Now whether you'd have a case for a wrongful dismissal suit if you were fired for refusing to enforce said reg I don't know. Probably varies from place to place. THen there are issues of constructive dismissal if they refuse to give you assignments based on your stand. I have to say though that to me your proposed cure is far worse than the disease. Even though you're acting in good faith with what you feel are the best interests of the game, it's a very short step to the rules are what I say they are. IE individual rules from every director -- radically different in some cases. It's bad for the game when everybody knows you'll give a different ruling than any other director. OK -- this is pretty much the standard state of affairs at ACBL club games. But it will happen a tournaments too. My preference would be regs that are indisputably in accordance with the laws of the game. No dodgy end runs (and starting earlier in the process, a FLB that doesn't lend itself to this -- and I'm truly heartened by what I've read from Grattan on this subject) I'm in agreement that regs shouldn't trump laws. When it happens though I have no doubt that the director should either grit his teeth and enforce the reg (and do what he can to get the policy changed) or simply refuse to work with the organization any longer. You may prevail legally if that's the path you want to go down, but it strikes me as a hollow victory. (Emphasis on the may. I'm no lawyer, but I've been on the fringes of quite a few wrongful dismissal cases. Suffice it to say that anybody who is really confident as to how the matter will turn out lacks experience in the matter) From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jun 3 18:34:48 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Jun 3 19:10:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System References: <200506031522.j53FMjAD018011@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <00b001c5685e$56aa67f0$94cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* Probability is the very guide of life." ~ Joseph Butler. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Indirect regulation of System > Gordon Bower writes: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > Not in practice: it is not your job to interpret the > > > Laws. If the ABF tells you to do something, you > > > can indicate to them that you think it illegal, but > > > you do not refuse to do it. > > > > In the case of real-world law as opposed to bridge > > law, you are actually *required* to refuse if your > > employer/supervisor/whoever directs you to > > perform an illegal activity. > > Right. But it's not illegal for (say) the ABF to have a > regulation contrary to the laws of bridge. > +=+ "illegal" here is perhaps not the question. It would be possible that the ABF (say) was a member of the World Bridge Federation. In that case it would have agreed to be bound by the Constitution and By-Laws of the World Bridge Federation. These contain an explicit provision that it is the Laws Committee of the WBF that has the authority to interpret the laws of the game. It might be argued that a contrary regulation is not directly illegal; however, it would constitute a breach of covenant and thus contravene the laws of contract. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jun 3 19:04:02 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Jun 3 19:10:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: Message-ID: <00b101c5685e$579da190$94cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* Probability is the very guide of life." ~ Joseph Butler. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 3:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall > John (MadDog) Probst wrote > >In article <003c01c566b9$089061b0$c99287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan > >Endicott writes > > >>+=+ I confirm that counsel's opinion, when obtained some > >>years ago, was that the legal standard for finding that a > >>partnership has acted on the basis of a concealed partnership > >>understanding is "a reasonable balance of probability". The > >>circumstance in which a player departs from his announced > >>agreements and his partner, without evidence from authorised > >>information, then takes action that is clearly abnormal and that > >>protects or mitigates the first player's violation of system is > >>sufficient to constitute a reasonable balance of probability. > > >We're on a very sticky wicket here Grattan. This smacks of rule of co- > >incidence, and this leads to 1-psych-per-partnership and this is, I > >hope, entirely discredited. I'm not above adjusting a bizarre auction > >where both players are known to be active and both happen to be at it on > >one hand, but a single instance, such as you moot above, fails to > >convince me of the sustainability of your learned friend's opinion. I > >aver we need more evidence than that. > > Surprising that you work for the EBU then. It is part of our basic > training and experience that a single hand may, together with other > evidence gleaned about it, provide sufficient evidence of a CPU. > > 1-psych-per-partnership is completely different, of course. > > The RoC is a reasonable tool when used correctly. However, those who > applied the RoC to say you have to assume something if something else > went too far. > +=+ I agree that 1-psych-per-partnership is not a natural consequence of RoC. The latter is not 'discredited' since improbable coincidence is a key constituent of the evidence. So far as John's position under the EBU is concerned I am not clear whether he is ready to apply the following (from the draft 2006 OB): < "6B2 - A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorised understanding and the score will be adjusted in principle (for example, 60% to the non-offending side and 30% to the offending side is normal in pairs). This is classified as a Red psyche." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Fri Jun 3 19:33:20 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Jun 3 19:36:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <00b101c5685e$579da190$94cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00b101c5685e$579da190$94cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article <00b101c5685e$579da190$94cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >******************************* >Probability is the very guide of life." > ~ Joseph Butler. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: "BLML" >Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 3:05 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall > > >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote >> >In article <003c01c566b9$089061b0$c99287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan >> >Endicott writes >> >> >>+=+ I confirm that counsel's opinion, when obtained some >> >>years ago, was that the legal standard for finding that a >> >>partnership has acted on the basis of a concealed partnership >> >>understanding is "a reasonable balance of probability". The >> >>circumstance in which a player departs from his announced >> >>agreements and his partner, without evidence from authorised >> >>information, then takes action that is clearly abnormal and that >> >>protects or mitigates the first player's violation of system is >> >>sufficient to constitute a reasonable balance of probability. >> >> >We're on a very sticky wicket here Grattan. This smacks of rule of co- >> >incidence, and this leads to 1-psych-per-partnership and this is, I >> >hope, entirely discredited. I'm not above adjusting a bizarre auction >> >where both players are known to be active and both happen to be at it on >> >one hand, but a single instance, such as you moot above, fails to >> >convince me of the sustainability of your learned friend's opinion. I >> >aver we need more evidence than that. >> >> Surprising that you work for the EBU then. It is part of our basic >> training and experience that a single hand may, together with other >> evidence gleaned about it, provide sufficient evidence of a CPU. >> >> 1-psych-per-partnership is completely different, of course. >> >> The RoC is a reasonable tool when used correctly. However, those who >> applied the RoC to say you have to assume something if something else >> went too far. >> >+=+ I agree that 1-psych-per-partnership is not a natural >consequence of RoC. The latter is not 'discredited' since >improbable coincidence is a key constituent of the evidence. >So far as John's position under the EBU is concerned I am >not clear whether he is ready to apply the following (from >the draft 2006 OB): > >< "6B2 - A partnership's actions on one board may be >sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorised >understanding and the score will be adjusted in principle >(for example, 60% to the non-offending side and 30% >to the offending side is normal in pairs). This is classified >as a Red psyche." > I'd need to know a bit more. If they're active players even playing in p/u partnership I have no problem at all, but given the same actions by a pair who to my knowledge and after consultation with peers, and after asking them, assured me that it had not happened before, then I would be most loathe to apply it. "may be sufficient" is my out. I've never played with Grattan. I'd expect anyone who found Grattan and me at work on the first occasion we played together would adjust, and rightly so - we each know what the other could do. But to nail John Thomas and Jayne Doe because they've had a mix up is patently unfair. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From pindy at emailaccount.com Fri Jun 3 20:36:36 2005 From: pindy at emailaccount.com (Felecia Hagen) Date: Fri Jun 3 19:41:08 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 $400,000 for as little as $400 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.cr3am.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Rocky Russell to be remov(ed: http://www.cr3am.com/deletion.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 bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 3 20:27:06 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 3 20:28:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote > Surprising that you work for the EBU then. It is part of our basic >training and experience that a single hand may, together with other >evidence gleaned about it, provide sufficient evidence of a CPU. > > 1-psych-per-partnership is completely different, of course. > > The RoC is a reasonable tool when used correctly. However, those who >applied the RoC to say you have to assume something if something else >went too far. I have been thinking some more about this, and BLML, and life, and so on. I wonder how many people here actually realise what TDs and ACs do in practice? They don't just jolly over to the table, glean two facts, go and look in a book, and make a judgement decision on a toss of a coin. What they actually do is get evidence, part of which is the actual hand, part of which is what the players tell them. They then use their training, their experience and their intelligence. They discuss the case with others, either with a consultant if they are a TD, or with each other if they are AC members. Then they decide. When people post on BLML about how a decision is made, perhaps they might consider the above. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 3 20:26:56 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jun 3 20:29:35 2005 Subject: [blml] L16A In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050603080110.0318beb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050603080110.0318beb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2005, at 8:17 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > My LAs were 6S and pass. My decision to bid 6S rather than pass was > suggested by and based on partner's remark, as opposed to "legal calls > [and/or] mannerisms of opponents". Should we adjust the score to 6H > making? If you had sat down with your partner the day before the session and had a similar discussion regarding opponents playing relay systems, would you ask this question? :-) Had he said something after the auction started on a board (IE, after either of you had looked at your cards) I might adjust, but to call discussions before the first board of the round "extraneous information" makes no sense to me whatever. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 3 20:31:46 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jun 3 20:34:25 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A0221B.2010509@hdw.be> References: <000001c56814$1e15ffc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A0221B.2010509@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2005, at 5:25 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > There is a clear consensus on blml (barring Sven) that L16 does not > apply when the laws stipulate "no penalty". This assertion turns out not to be correct. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 3 20:35:21 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jun 3 20:37:59 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: References: <000401c567bc$b9093c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <486f946a23e95a36eccd15ef8f0ad95e@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2005, at 6:37 AM, Roger Pewick wrote: > first of all. Saying that an adjusted score is not a penalty does not > make > it so. because the standard of an adjusted score is the 'least > favorable > result' that makes an AssAS a penalty. When 'without penalty' is > utilized > absent qualification it suggests that there is no need to fear behavior > arising as a consequence of the occurrence. To suitably qualify such > a > unilateral instruction avoids that suggestion. Saying that "least favorable result" makes an assigned adjusted score a penalty does not make it so. Define "penalty". From adam at irvine.com Fri Jun 3 20:40:24 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Jun 3 20:42:03 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 03 Jun 2005 14:31:46 EDT." Message-ID: <200506031840.LAA09172@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Jun 3, 2005, at 5:25 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > There is a clear consensus on blml (barring Sven) that L16 does not > > apply when the laws stipulate "no penalty". > > This assertion turns out not to be correct. Yes, I don't know where Herman got it from. I've been quiet on this thread after a few posts toward the beginning, but I was convinced that a "subsequent call that gets cancelled by Law 35D" is still a withdrawn call to which Law 16C applies, and I still am. I realize that some others prefer to think of it as "extraneous information" rather than a "withdrawn call", but I don't think it matters much. What does matter is that I definitely think Law 16 applies to it. So do Eric and John. Actually, I thought there was a clear consensus that Law 16 *does* apply, but I haven't actually gone back and counted so I could easily be wrong. -- Adam From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 3 20:39:45 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jun 3 20:42:25 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A03651.6020008@hdw.be> References: <000101c56824$25b44650$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A03651.6020008@hdw.be> Message-ID: <273414e7b3e01bc3ddac777d9ae1b418@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 3, 2005, at 6:52 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > and to sum up my view : I have been directing for 20 years now, So what? > and you are the first one to offer this point of view. And we've been > having this discussion now for two weeks, and I have seen no-one > subscribing to your view. Then you aren't looking. > And you have been directing for more years than I have, and while you > may never have run accross a L35 case, you must have come accros L57C. > Did you rule UI in those cases, even when it says "not subject to > penalty"? Did you ever rule L16 and not seen others disagree? Irrelevant. > To sum up, there is a huge huge majority of those who believe "no > penalty" includes that L16 is not of application. You are quite alone > in your point of view. In the light of such a unanimous field, I don't > think your arguments are valuable. Things aren't the way you want them to be, Herman, just because you say they are. Twenty years directing does not give you a right to arrogance. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 3 20:47:06 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jun 3 20:49:45 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <6YoPa6AykFoCFwls@asimere.com> References: <42A03651.6020008@hdw.be> <000001c56837$8baa4910$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6YoPa6AykFoCFwls@asimere.com> Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2005, at 9:20 AM, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <000001c56837$8baa4910$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran > writes > > snip interesting history of major TD'ing experience. Look guys we've > all > TD'd at many tens of thousands of tables, we know which way is up. Well, not all of us. Still, I don't see lack of experience makes my opinion irrelevant, as some seem to think. :-( >> >> after the call sequence presented must be illegal. > > I'd take issue with this. The case is as I have suggested: "I wouldn't > mind a spade lead (aka psuedo-call 1S)". Now we're into "... carefully > avoid ..." (73C) territory. A spade lead may still be legal. John I'm with you here, John. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 3 20:58:27 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jun 3 21:01:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:04 AM, David Stevenson wrote: > So, if in the real world, you are told what the Law is, you would > presume whoever tells you is wrong and expect the courts to uphold > you? > > Don't forget, this discussion is not about things that are generally > agreed to be flaws in the Law. This is about one or two people who > interpret the Laws differently from the ABF, the WBFLC, the EBU and so > on. They believe they are right, the rest of the world are wrong, and > therefore they are going to give rulings differently from what players > expect and their SOs tell them. > > In my view their approach is arrogant and unwarranted. Do you really > think the courts would uphold them? As one who throughout most of his adult life has been - and still is - subject to this "catch 22", I have to say that if I were given an order I considered unlawful, I would raise that objection with my superior. If he persisted, then I would have to decide, right then and there, which one of us I consider to be right. If I change my mind, and consider the order legal, I will obey it, forthwith. If I still consider the order illegal, I will refuse it, and accept whatever consequences accrue. I would *hope* to be upheld by investigation or court-martial, but if not, so be it. I will have satisfied my own sense of ethics, come what may. From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 3 21:58:05 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 3 21:59:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c56876$8e5e6df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ........... > As one who throughout most of his adult life has been - and still is - > subject to this "catch 22", I have to say that if I were given an order > I considered unlawful, I would raise that objection with my superior. > If he persisted, then I would have to decide, right then and there, > which one of us I consider to be right. If I change my mind, and > consider the order legal, I will obey it, forthwith. If I still > consider the order illegal, I will refuse it, and accept whatever > consequences accrue. I would *hope* to be upheld by investigation or > court-martial, but if not, so be it. I will have satisfied my own sense > of ethics, come what may. Quote N?rnberg? Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 3 22:58:44 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jun 3 23:01:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050603163456.02f65080@pop.starpower.net> At 10:05 AM 6/3/05, David wrote: >John (MadDog) Probst wrote >>In article <003c01c566b9$089061b0$c99287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan >>Endicott writes > >>>+=+ I confirm that counsel's opinion, when obtained some >>>years ago, was that the legal standard for finding that a >>>partnership has acted on the basis of a concealed partnership >>>understanding is "a reasonable balance of probability". The >>>circumstance in which a player departs from his announced >>>agreements and his partner, without evidence from authorised >>>information, then takes action that is clearly abnormal and that >>>protects or mitigates the first player's violation of system is >>>sufficient to constitute a reasonable balance of probability. > >>We're on a very sticky wicket here Grattan. This smacks of rule of co- >>incidence, and this leads to 1-psych-per-partnership and this is, I >>hope, entirely discredited. I'm not above adjusting a bizarre auction >>where both players are known to be active and both happen to be at it on >>one hand, but a single instance, such as you moot above, fails to >>convince me of the sustainability of your learned friend's opinion. I >>aver we need more evidence than that. > > Surprising that you work for the EBU then. It is part of our basic > training and experience that a single hand may, together with other > evidence gleaned about it, provide sufficient evidence of a CPU. > > 1-psych-per-partnership is completely different, of course. > > The RoC is a reasonable tool when used correctly. However, those > who applied the RoC to say you have to assume something if something > else went too far. We should be more careful with our terminology. The RoC is *not* "a reasonable tool when used correctly". Not every apparent lucky coincidence is genuinely coincidental, but some are. It is reasonable to make a determination that a specific single instance was not a coincidence, and rule accordingly. The Rule of Coincidence, as authored and propounded by Bobby Wolff, however, says that under such circumstances you *must* presume that that it was not a coincidence, and rule accordingly. There is no scope for investigation or judgment, which is why it is called a "Rule". John says it is mandatory to presume coincidence when there is only one instance in evidence -- that is a reasonable position. Grattan and David say that it is not mandatory to presume coincidence when there is only one instance in evidence -- that too is a reasonable position. Mr. Wolff says that it is mandatory *not* to presume coincidence, even with only one instance in evidence -- that is a totally unreasonable position, which belongs in the dustbin, as I'm confident Grattan and David agree. "Discredited" isn't a strong enough word. While we're talking terminology, it should be noted that it is an overstatement to call the ACBL's policy on psychs "one psych per partnership per lifetime". Their policy is much less restrictive; it is actually "one successful psych per partnership per lifetime". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From craigstamps at comcast.net Fri Jun 3 23:06:26 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Fri Jun 3 23:07:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050603163456.02f65080@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005f01c56880$1e2522e0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Actually Eric it more accurately is "One successful psych per partnership per lifetime if somebody complains" but a shorter definition would be "absurd". Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall > At 10:05 AM 6/3/05, David wrote: > >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote >>>In article <003c01c566b9$089061b0$c99287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan >>>Endicott writes >> >>>>+=+ I confirm that counsel's opinion, when obtained some >>>>years ago, was that the legal standard for finding that a >>>>partnership has acted on the basis of a concealed partnership >>>>understanding is "a reasonable balance of probability". The >>>>circumstance in which a player departs from his announced >>>>agreements and his partner, without evidence from authorised >>>>information, then takes action that is clearly abnormal and that >>>>protects or mitigates the first player's violation of system is >>>>sufficient to constitute a reasonable balance of probability. >> >>>We're on a very sticky wicket here Grattan. This smacks of rule of co- >>>incidence, and this leads to 1-psych-per-partnership and this is, I >>>hope, entirely discredited. I'm not above adjusting a bizarre auction >>>where both players are known to be active and both happen to be at it on >>>one hand, but a single instance, such as you moot above, fails to >>>convince me of the sustainability of your learned friend's opinion. I >>>aver we need more evidence than that. >> >> Surprising that you work for the EBU then. It is part of our basic >> training and experience that a single hand may, together with other >> evidence gleaned about it, provide sufficient evidence of a CPU. >> >> 1-psych-per-partnership is completely different, of course. >> >> The RoC is a reasonable tool when used correctly. However, those who >> applied the RoC to say you have to assume something if something else >> went too far. > > We should be more careful with our terminology. The RoC is *not* "a > reasonable tool when used correctly". Not every apparent lucky > coincidence is genuinely coincidental, but some are. > > It is reasonable to make a determination that a specific single instance > was not a coincidence, and rule accordingly. > > The Rule of Coincidence, as authored and propounded by Bobby Wolff, > however, says that under such circumstances you *must* presume that that > it was not a coincidence, and rule accordingly. There is no scope for > investigation or judgment, which is why it is called a "Rule". > > John says it is mandatory to presume coincidence when there is only one > instance in evidence -- that is a reasonable position. Grattan and David > say that it is not mandatory to presume coincidence when there is only one > instance in evidence -- that too is a reasonable position. Mr. Wolff says > that it is mandatory *not* to presume coincidence, even with only one > instance in evidence -- that is a totally unreasonable position, which > belongs in the dustbin, as I'm confident Grattan and David agree. > "Discredited" isn't a strong enough word. > > While we're talking terminology, it should be noted that it is an > overstatement to call the ACBL's policy on psychs "one psych per > partnership per lifetime". Their policy is much less restrictive; it is > actually "one successful psych per partnership per lifetime". > > > 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 AlanBackfordeiitvckg at netscape.net Sat Jun 4 16:46:12 2005 From: AlanBackfordeiitvckg at netscape.net (ALAN ) Date: Fri Jun 3 23:11:10 2005 Subject: [blml] BUSINESS PROPOSAL Message-ID: <4B31EE12.08713EE@netscape.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050603/6653247b/attachment.html From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Jun 4 01:41:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Jun 4 01:43:21 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" In-Reply-To: <003301c56543$9e66d240$409468d5@James> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > 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 :). The law-book confers on him no such thing. After the hand the TD can investigate to his hearts content if there is a claim for damage from non -disclosure. As part of that investigation one can ask what he knows from his GK&E and what reasons he has to suppose that that knowledge is, or is not, shared by his regular partner. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Jun 4 01:41:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Jun 4 01:43:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <007601c56761$0e94f960$f79287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > I am sure I am not the only director who has insisted > > on upholding the law despite SO regulations to the > > contrary. > < > +=+ However, the law is the law as interpreted by > the authorities empowered to interpret it. You have > no authority as director for overriding an authorized > interpretation. The WBF (as sole governing body) and the TD (as person on the ground) are empowered to interpret the law. ZOs/NBOs/SOs are not. > There is a WBFLC minute of recent years which > delegates interim interpretations to Zones - by whom > we could possibly find NBOs given scope to meet a > need if there is one. Beware of the leopard. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Jun 4 01:41:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Jun 4 01:43:27 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <429F74CA.5060407@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: > > From: Eric Landau > > We have no problem if someone wants to say that "L35D > > effectively suspends L16 in this situation", > > It's not a question of suspending L16. The question is whether the > inadmissible calls are AI or UI for each side. I don't think the > answer is obvious. > > Grattan wants to bypass the L16 issue by saying that an inadmissible > call -- at the time it is made -- will usually violate L72B1 if the > call conveys useful information. Maybe so, but I don't think that is > obvious either given the "without penalty" provision. Personally I am of the view that an "accidental" bid after an inadmissible call is not an infraction at all. It is the result of confusion caused by infracting opponents and it ill behooves us to even consider adjusting. OTOH a *deliberate* bid after an inadmissible call is, IMO, an infraction. I'm happy to use L72b2 to adjust if necessary. It remains a TD judgement call whether the late bid was deliberate or accidental. Tim From alanbackford01nyuggv at yahoo.de Sat Jun 4 15:49:49 2005 From: alanbackford01nyuggv at yahoo.de (ALAN ) Date: Sat Jun 4 01:58:09 2005 Subject: [blml] BUSINESS PROPOSAL Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050604/c8c00f16/attachment.html From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 4 02:30:48 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat Jun 4 02:32:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:04 AM, David Stevenson wrote: > >> So, if in the real world, you are told what the Law is, you would >>presume whoever tells you is wrong and expect the courts to uphold >>you? >> >> Don't forget, this discussion is not about things that are generally >>agreed to be flaws in the Law. This is about one or two people who >>interpret the Laws differently from the ABF, the WBFLC, the EBU and so >>on. They believe they are right, the rest of the world are wrong, and >>therefore they are going to give rulings differently from what players >>expect and their SOs tell them. >> >> In my view their approach is arrogant and unwarranted. Do you >>really think the courts would uphold them? > >As one who throughout most of his adult life has been - and still is - >subject to this "catch 22", I have to say that if I were given an order >I considered unlawful, I would raise that objection with my superior. >If he persisted, then I would have to decide, right then and there, >which one of us I consider to be right. If I change my mind, and >consider the order legal, I will obey it, forthwith. If I still >consider the order illegal, I will refuse it, and accept whatever >consequences accrue. I would *hope* to be upheld by investigation or >court-martial, but if not, so be it. I will have satisfied my own sense >of ethics, come what may. Fine. And are you also one who assumes that if 1000 people think it legal, and one - you - does not, then you should adopt this approach? The problem is not that these regs are illegal in any way - we all know they are not - but a couple of people on BLML are determined to presume that they are. That is what we are fighting - not a reasonable and reasoned objection. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 4 02:31:48 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat Jun 4 02:33:24 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Jun 3, 2005, at 5:25 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> There is a clear consensus on blml (barring Sven) that L16 does not >>apply when the laws stipulate "no penalty". > >This assertion turns out not to be correct. What's a clear consensus (barring Sven)? Does that mean that you have assumed that my opinion is such-and-such because I have not expressed one? Herman, you remind me of the EBU General Manager. Two years ago [and earlier] we had an excellent Year book, easy to read, with full details of competitions, how to contact the EBU, how to enter, amendments to the Orange book, and so on. It had an excellent Contents and Index. Last year it was replaced by a Diary, with tiny unreadable writing, over half the information missing, no Contents, no Index, just an awful booklet. I have asked quite a few people and am yet to come across the first person to like it. The EBU General Manager has received about thirty written complaints - including mine, of course. As a result he famously went to the Board of Directors, and said it was a complete success, because only thirty EBU members did not like it, and the remaining 29,970 liked it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 4 04:25:41 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Jun 4 04:26:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System References: <000001c56876$8e5e6df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003e01c568ac$b4956380$0a9868d5@James> [Sven Pran] Quote N?rnberg? [Nigel] Thank you, Sven, for reminding us we are talking about the rules of a game. Admittedly, the rules are fragmented and sophisticated. Hence few players have read and even fewer understand the relevant laws, rules, regulations, minutes and interpretations :) If BLML is any indicator, then many directors appear to be as lost as the players. Luckily for us, an inner circle of gurus is prepared to explain the law-makers' intentions, especially when that differs from what the words mean! :) Pity they don;t always agree among themselves either :) From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 4 05:21:38 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Jun 4 05:22:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050603163456.02f65080@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004301c568b4$85c80f50$0a9868d5@James> [Eric landau] > The Rule of Coincidence, as authored and propounded by > Bobby Wolff, however, says that under such circumstances > you *must* presume that that it was not a coincidence, > and rule accordingly. There is no scope for > investigation or judgment, which is why it is called a > "Rule". > Mr. Wolff says that it is mandatory *not* to presume > coincidence, even with only one instance in evidence -- > that is a totally unreasonable position, which belongs > in the dustbin, as I'm confident Grattan and David > agree. "Discredited" isn't a strong enough > word. [nigel] I prefer the EBU view as explained by David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott to John MadDog Probst's' version but I much prefer Bobby Wolf's suggestion for a change in the law to either of them. Mr Wolfe's rule of coincidence is simple, fair and reasonable. It requires some judgement; but it is less likely that the ruling will depend on the director you call or the composition of the appeals committee. It is amusing that John and Eric both think this law implies one (successful) psyche per lifetime! Over the years, my partners have psyched on numerous occasions. Diagnosing a "psyche" is hard when your partners don't "baby psyche" at every opportunity or in a recognisable pattern; and I lack Eric and John's clairvoyance, luck or whatever. Hence, although some of my partner's psyches have been successful, I have never successfully fielded one. Once I even played in 7NXX=7 after partner tried a vulnerable psych of 2N :( Perhaps that is the reason that these anti-cpu laws don't worry me much: I would never have been ruled against, even under Mr Wolfe's strict regime. Until you start fielding psyches on a regular basis, you'll be safe from the law. Even then you will be safe if you choose the right BLNL director. A reminder to law-makers: "psyche" is the wrong word. "psycho" is currently defined as a gross deviation outwith partnership agreement. For example. if you have an implicit agreement that partner opens light third in hand, then that fails to qualify as a "psych" on two counts. IMO, The laws and rules should be changed to refer to "miscalls" rather than "psyches" From craigstamps at comcast.net Sat Jun 4 06:28:19 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Sat Jun 4 06:29:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050603163456.02f65080@pop.starpower.net> <004301c568b4$85c80f50$0a9868d5@James> Message-ID: <001a01c568bd$d624f0e0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Nigel, I can only presume that you are British and play where directors have more than a modicum of training and their are clear OB guidelines. In ACBL territory the Wolff absurdity means EXACTLY one psych per partnership per lifetime. The "rule of coincidence" interpretation that you are guilty unless demonstrably proven innoncent is both stupid and common; it is akin to the way that "could have known" is applied. The better ACBL employed directors are fairer than that...but that accounts only for high level competition. Most games are not. Deceptive bidding, carding and play have been an important and valuable part of the game since its inception. There should be NO restriction on psychs unless there clearly has been partnership agreement. Period. When you claim fielding, you are tantamount to an accusation of cheating. With no clear system for recording patterns of deceptive bidding, you risk lawsuit also. By the way, the correct term is NOT psycho. We don't mind you adding an extraneous e to the word psych...but no O please! :-) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 11:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall > [Eric landau] >> The Rule of Coincidence, as authored and propounded by >> Bobby Wolff, however, says that under such circumstances >> you *must* presume that that it was not a coincidence, >> and rule accordingly. There is no scope for >> investigation or judgment, which is why it is called a >> "Rule". >> Mr. Wolff says that it is mandatory *not* to presume >> coincidence, even with only one instance in evidence -- >> that is a totally unreasonable position, which belongs >> in the dustbin, as I'm confident Grattan and David >> agree. "Discredited" isn't a strong enough >> word. > > [nigel] > I prefer the EBU view as explained by David Stevenson and > Grattan Endicott to John MadDog Probst's' version but I much > prefer Bobby Wolf's suggestion for a change in the law to > either of them. Mr Wolfe's rule of coincidence is simple, > fair and reasonable. It requires some judgement; but it is > less likely that the ruling will depend on the director you > call or the composition of the appeals committee. > > It is amusing that John and Eric both think this law implies > one (successful) psyche per lifetime! > > Over the years, my partners have psyched on numerous > occasions. Diagnosing a "psyche" is hard when your partners > don't "baby psyche" at every opportunity or in a > recognisable pattern; and I lack Eric and John's > clairvoyance, luck or whatever. > > Hence, although some of my partner's psyches have been > successful, I have never successfully fielded one. Once I > even played in 7NXX=7 after partner tried a vulnerable psych > of 2N :( > > Perhaps that is the reason that these anti-cpu laws don't > worry me much: I would never have been ruled against, even > under Mr Wolfe's strict regime. > > Until you start fielding psyches on a regular basis, you'll > be safe from the law. Even then you will be safe if you > choose the right BLNL director. > > A reminder to law-makers: "psyche" is the wrong word. > "psycho" is currently defined as a gross deviation outwith > partnership agreement. For example. if you have an implicit > agreement that partner opens light third in hand, then that > fails to qualify as a "psych" on two counts. > > IMO, The laws and rules should be changed to refer to > "miscalls" rather than "psyches" > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 4 06:48:41 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Jun 4 06:51:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <000001c56876$8e5e6df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c56876$8e5e6df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Quote N?rnberg? I'm not sure what you mean by this. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 4 07:06:31 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Jun 4 07:09:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2005, at 8:30 PM, David Stevenson wrote: > Fine. And are you also one who assumes that if 1000 people think it > legal, and one - you - does not, then you should adopt this approach? Depends on what "it" is. I am bound by my oath to obey the *lawful* [emphasis mine] orders of my superiors. I am constrained by military law to refuse to obey unlawful orders. Unfortunately, what makes an order unlawful is nowhere clearly defined. Therefore, when push comes to shove, it is up to the individual to decide for himself whether a given order is lawful. When push comes to shove, there is no time to consult 1000 people. It's just you, and the guy giving the order. That being the case, I will make up my own mind when the time comes, based on my understanding of the legal and ethical issues. And if I conclude that I should not obey a particular order, and a court-martial later finds otherwise, I will pay the price, whatever it may be. What I will *not* do is obey an order I believe to be unlawful, for *any* reason. > The problem is not that these regs are illegal in any way - we all > know they are not - but a couple of people on BLML are determined to > presume that they are. That is what we are fighting - not a > reasonable and reasoned objection. Much of the debate on blml is about what the laws (and regulations) *ought* to be. It is often difficult, however, to separate "what ought to be" debates from "what is" debates. If the WBFLC has stated that such-and-such a regulation, or class of regulations, is legal, then so be it. But that should not preclude debate on the question whether or not the WBFLC position logically follows from the words of the laws themselves. It is that, I think, that "a couple of people" here have been trying to get at. Personally, I suspect it's a waste of effort. :-) From toddz at att.net Sat Jun 4 10:45:20 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat Jun 4 10:46:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42A16A20.9090306@att.net> David Stevenson wrote: > The problem is not that these regs are illegal in any way - we all know > they are not - but a couple of people on BLML are determined to presume > that they are. That is what we are fighting - not a reasonable and > reasoned objection. It depends on which regs you're talking about, wouldn't it? With the laws as written, do you believe a regulation, promulgated and enforced by an individual club, stating verbatim, "you may not psych," is legal? I don't and I hope at least some small minority of rational people agree, even if the wind really blows the other way. Assuming you're of the mindset that agrees that players must be allowed to psych, what would you think of legal regulations whose sum is equivalent to "you may not psych?" I have a lot of sympathy for people taking up these arguments. The same logic applies against regulations effectively prohibiting opening 1NT on 9-counts. -Todd From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Fri Jun 3 13:28:53 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Sat Jun 4 11:05:39 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A03651.6020008@hdw.be> References: <000101c56824$25b44650$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A03651.6020008@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42A03EF5.9020201@hotmail.com> Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >> .......... >> >>> Please "most of us" who appear to be having a consensus, come out of >>> the woodwork. Sven, show me one of those "most of us", I haven't seen >>> anyone around here. >> >> >> >> You'll find them if you look (f.i. sample first initial "E") >> >> To sum up my view: L16 imposes no penalty but may impose restrictions >> and/or >> adjustments. >> >> "as though there had been no irregularity" suspends all laws imposing >> penalty as well as all laws imposing restrictions and/or adjustments. >> >> "without penalty" (or words to the same effect) suspends all laws >> imposing >> penalty but does not affect the application of other laws (including >> L16). >> > > and to sum up my view : I have been directing for 20 years now, and > you are the first one to offer this point of view. And we've been > having this discussion now for two weeks, and I have seen no-one > subscribing to your view. > And you have been directing for more years than I have, and while you > may never have run accross a L35 case, you must have come accros L57C. > Did you rule UI in those cases, even when it says "not subject to > penalty"? Did you ever rule L16 and not seen others disagree? > > To sum up, there is a huge huge majority of those who believe "no > penalty" includes that L16 is not of application. You are quite alone > in your point of view. In the light of such a unanimous field, I don't > think your arguments are valuable. > > "In the light of such a unanimous field": Besides Sven who thinks we should apply L16, we had following comments: : "We could use either one. I've argued that L16C2 does apply (not sure if my post has made it to BLML yet, though)." "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.)" : "wtp guys.? The auction finished with the third pass. No other calls ever existed, the law says so. They weren't calls but they were extraneous information much as the remark "I want a spade lead" is extraneous. 72B1 and 16 is fine." : "We needn't call the 1S bid an "infraction" nor create a second "OS" in order to recognize that it "makes available to his partner extraneous information". That is *not* an infraction, but L16A is nevertheless applicable if some subsequent action violates it." : "Some here argue that because Law 35D says the call is "cancelled" that means it never happened, so it's AI. Baloney. All it means is that it is not part of the legal auction - it is then clearly extraneous. The difference between a withdrawn call and a cancelled call is that the former is still part of the legal auction - it was simply withdrawn because the circumstances allowed it to be withdrawn. The latter is *not* part of the legal auction, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen - and it doesn't mean that it didn't convey information to the partner of the caller. " ...Not exactly unanimous. ============================================= unanimous adjective If a group of people are unanimous, they all agree about one particular matter or vote the same way, and if a decision or judgment is unanimous, it is formed or supported by everyone in a group -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050603/011472d3/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 4 11:46:17 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Jun 4 11:47:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c568ea$416dfb90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Jun 3, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Quote N?rnberg? > > I'm not sure what you mean by this. There was a war criminal court against top top German military officers and Nazi leaders established in the German city N?rnberg after WW2. Defenses like "I just followed orders" were not accepted as freeing from guilt when an act itself was deemed criminal offence against humanity. History my friend, history! Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Sat Jun 4 11:56:16 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Jun 4 11:56:10 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <273414e7b3e01bc3ddac777d9ae1b418@rochester.rr.com> References: <000101c56824$25b44650$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A03651.6020008@hdw.be> <273414e7b3e01bc3ddac777d9ae1b418@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <42A17AC0.5070704@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > > Things aren't the way you want them to be, Herman, just because you say > they are. Twenty years directing does not give you a right to arrogance. > No it doesn't. But it does give me the right to believe that something which I have been doing for all that time, and have not seen contradicted, to believe it is a commonly held view. If one director from Norway then tells me I'm wrong, I will tell him (arrogantly or politely, it's up to you to decide) that I believe he is wrong. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Sat Jun 4 12:00:05 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Jun 4 11:59:57 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: References: <000001c56814$1e15ffc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A0221B.2010509@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42A17BA5.2050901@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2005, at 5:25 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> There is a clear consensus on blml (barring Sven) that L16 does not >> apply when the laws stipulate "no penalty". > > This assertion turns out not to be correct. > Let's then go back to L57C, all of those who are with Sven here. Do you rule UI on the card shown in fourth hand? > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Sat Jun 4 12:05:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Jun 4 12:05:36 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42A17CF5.4010205@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Ed Reppert wrote > >> >> On Jun 3, 2005, at 5:25 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> There is a clear consensus on blml (barring Sven) that L16 does not >>> apply when the laws stipulate "no penalty". >> >> >> This assertion turns out not to be correct. > > > What's a clear consensus (barring Sven)? Does that mean that you have > assumed that my opinion is such-and-such because I have not expressed one? > Yes David, I assumed you were with the general consensus on this one, at the time the thread was almost dead. Especially you, who would not fail to comment if something sounded wrong to you. Let me express what I believed the general consensus to be: Since the call is cancelled without penalty, L16 does not apply on it. In order to rule against the player anyway, we turn to L72. That was it. Then Sven kept on complaining, because he believed L72 should be abolished together with L16 if we ruled L16 was to be abolished. He had a point there. Yet I argued against him, and see where it got us. One by one people started coming out of the woodwork believing that L16 did apply. And now we have a problem. Well, solve it guys, I'm out of this sub-thread. If you wish to continue to argue about L57C, I'm OK with it. But to me and to the players "without penalty" means "without penalty", and that means his partner cannot be penalised for leading spades. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From john at asimere.com Sat Jun 4 14:33:29 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat Jun 4 14:36:56 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A17BA5.2050901@hdw.be> References: <000001c56814$1e15ffc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A0221B.2010509@hdw.be> <42A17BA5.2050901@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <42A17BA5.2050901@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Ed Reppert wrote: > >> >> On Jun 3, 2005, at 5:25 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> There is a clear consensus on blml (barring Sven) that L16 does not >>> apply when the laws stipulate "no penalty". >> >> This assertion turns out not to be correct. >> > >Let's then go back to L57C, all of those who are with Sven here. >Do you rule UI on the card shown in fourth hand? yes. John > >> >> > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Sat Jun 4 14:37:33 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat Jun 4 14:40:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13X8hdCNCaoCFwXX@asimere.com> In article , David Stevenson writes >David Stevenson wrote > >> Surprising that you work for the EBU then. It is part of our basic >>training and experience that a single hand may, together with other >>evidence gleaned about it, provide sufficient evidence of a CPU. >> >> 1-psych-per-partnership is completely different, of course. >> >> The RoC is a reasonable tool when used correctly. However, those who >>applied the RoC to say you have to assume something if something else >>went too far. > > I have been thinking some more about this, and BLML, and life, and so >on. > > I wonder how many people here actually realise what TDs and ACs do in >practice? > > They don't just jolly over to the table, glean two facts, go and look >in a book, and make a judgement decision on a toss of a coin. > > What they actually do is get evidence, part of which is the actual >hand, part of which is what the players tell them. They then use their >training, their experience and their intelligence. They discuss the >case with others, either with a consultant if they are a TD, or with >each other if they are AC members. Then they decide. > > > When people post on BLML about how a decision is made, perhaps they >might consider the above. David, thank you for clarifying that point. There is no doubt in my mind that here on blml we push the envelope, compared with the way we go about our normal business. It is here that we can legitimately test the customs and practice which we normally adopt. I readily confess to being one of those who "pushes the envelope". 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 hermandw at hdw.be Sat Jun 4 14:58:26 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Jun 4 14:58:43 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was 35D) In-Reply-To: References: <000001c56814$1e15ffc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A0221B.2010509@hdw.be> <42A17BA5.2050901@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42A1A572.3070405@hdw.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <42A17BA5.2050901@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >>Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> >>>On Jun 3, 2005, at 5:25 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>> >>>>There is a clear consensus on blml (barring Sven) that L16 does not >>>>apply when the laws stipulate "no penalty". >>> >>>This assertion turns out not to be correct. >>> >> >>Let's then go back to L57C, all of those who are with Sven here. >>Do you rule UI on the card shown in fourth hand? > > > yes. John "A defender is not subject to penalty for playing before his partner if declarer has played from both hands" Grattan? > >>> > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 4 15:10:17 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Jun 4 15:11:50 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c56906$c1764100$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst ............ > >Let's then go back to L57C, all of those who are with Sven here. > >Do you rule UI on the card shown in fourth hand? > > yes. John I agree that literally taken L57C as of 1997 does not make the information from premature play by one defender authorized to his partner even when the condition in this law for "no penalty" is satisfied. I am very much in doubt whether L57C as of 1987 makes such information authorized or unauthorized. There can be little doubt that up till 1987 information arising from such play was indeed authorized for both sides and had been so at least since 1932. I have seen no indication anywhere that the law revisions in 1987 or 1997 were intended to change this rule. So breaking my own principle I shall continue to rule as if L57C were written something like: A defender's play before his partner plays a card is legal as though there had been no irregularity if declarer has already played from both hands, or if ....... (the remainder of the current L57C) Regards Sven From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 4 17:23:26 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Jun 4 17:24:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System References: <000001c56876$8e5e6df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002701c56919$5b7dd800$3d9468d5@James> [Ed Reppert] I'm not sure what you mean by this [N?rnberg]. [Nigel] The War Crimes Trials at the end of the War (1945) in what we British call "Nuremberg" disallowed "I was following orders" as an excuse for perpetrating atrocities. Several of my close family suffered badly as Prisoners of the Germans or Japanese but I still have misgivings about the legality of the International Military Tribunal. An analogy with directors complying with insane bridge rules is a bit over the top :) From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 4 17:31:00 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Jun 4 17:31:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall Message-ID: <004801c5691a$6997f640$3d9468d5@James> [craig] > Nigel, I can only presume that you are British and play > where directors have more than a modicum of training > and their are clear OB guidelines. In ACBL territory > the Wolff absurdity means EXACTLY one psych per > partnership per lifetime. The "rule of coincidence" > interpretation that you are guilty unless demonstrably > proven innoncent is both stupid and common; it is akin > to the way that "could have known" is applied. The > better ACBL employed directors are fairer than that... > but that accounts only for high level competition. > Most games are not. Deceptive bidding, carding and > play have been an important and valuable part of the > game since its inception. There should be NO > restriction on psychs unless there clearly has been > partnership agreement. Period. When you claim > fielding, you are tantamount to an accusation of > cheating. With no clear system for recording patterns > of deceptive bidding, you risk lawsuit also. By the > way, the correct term is NOT psycho. We don't mind > you adding an extraneous e to the word psych...but > no O please! :-) [Nigel] I'm British. Our regulations seem clear enough; but I've never heard of a case, anywhere, where a director penalized a "fielded" "psych". Directors rarely even record "psychs". I doubt whether anybody ever collates or analyses such records, anyway. In effect, in the UK, "psychers" have carte-blanche. Even in its strictest form, the "rule of coincidence", as its name implies, requires a series of unlikely events ... A. A player "misbids". B. On the same hand, his partner immediately "misbids" in a way that is likely to mitigate any potential damage to the partnership. C. If it is certain that somebody is misdescribing their assets then available authorised information does not make makes it more likely that partner misbid than opponents. How can you claim that this rule prevents you from psyching successfully, to your hearts content, for ever? Under such rules, unless you field partner's psyche, you will never be penalized. Even if you are penalized, the rule is the same for everybody, with no stigma attached. It is simple, reasonable and fair. Let us examine a similar "infraction" that generates slightly less emotion: You lean over backwards to make the call *not* suggested to you by partner's hesitation. Your call gets you a good result but the director judges that partner's hesitation could well suggest your action and that there were less successful logical alternatives were available to you. Hence, the director rules against you. He explains that he is certainly *not* accusing you of cheating. Whatever he rules, one side or the other must suffer, possibly unjustly. The director simply does his best to estimate probabilities. What else should he do? From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 4 17:50:42 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Jun 4 17:52:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <002701c56919$5b7dd800$3d9468d5@James> Message-ID: <000101c5691d$29fc3610$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of GUTHRIE > Sent: 4. juni 2005 17:23 > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Indirect regulation of System > > [Ed Reppert] > I'm not sure what you mean by this [N?rnberg]. > > [Nigel] > The War Crimes Trials at the end of the War (1945) in what > we British call "Nuremberg" disallowed "I was following > orders" as an excuse for perpetrating atrocities. > > Several of my close family suffered badly as Prisoners of > the Germans or Japanese but I still have misgivings about > the legality of the International Military Tribunal. > > An analogy with directors complying with insane bridge rules > is a bit over the top :) Indeed! Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Jun 4 20:37:49 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat Jun 4 20:38:46 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" In-Reply-To: References: <003301c56543$9e66d240$409468d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050604142547.02c56790@pop.starpower.net> At 07:41 PM 6/3/05, twm wrote: >Nigel wrote: > > > 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 :). > >The law-book confers on him no such thing. After the hand the TD can >investigate to his hearts content if there is a claim for damage from non >-disclosure. As part of that investigation one can ask what he knows >from >his GK&E and what reasons he has to suppose that that knowledge is, or is >not, shared by his regular partner. And if the TD is called at the time, he can tell the opponent to answer the d--ned question or get thrown out of the game [L90B8, L91]. That's a long way from "diplomatic immunity". And any TD who would let himself get pushed around as Nigel describes is an equally long way from "competent". I feel sorry for Nigel, who apparently can only find games where the TDs step aside while the bridge lawyers at the tables make the rulings. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Jun 4 20:59:58 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat Jun 4 21:00:54 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A17CF5.4010205@hdw.be> References: <42A17CF5.4010205@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050604144930.02c477b0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:05 AM 6/4/05, Herman wrote: >Well, solve it guys, I'm out of this sub-thread. If you wish to >continue to argue about L57C, I'm OK with it. But to me and to the >players "without penalty" means "without penalty", and that means his >partner cannot be penalised for leading spades. A player commits an irregularity during the auction. We resolve that irregularity "without penalty" per L35D, so he receives no penalty. Then the auction is over and the play starts. Herman believes that because the earlier infraction was adjusted "without penalty", L16A remains "suspended" during the play, so the partner of the earlier infractor cannot be penalized for leading spades. If he is to be consistent, he must also believe that because the earlier infraction was adjusted "without penalty", L44C remains "suspended" during the play, so the partner of the earlier infractor cannot be penalized for revoking. Where's the difference? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 4 21:50:01 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Jun 4 21:52:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <000501c568ea$416dfb90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c568ea$416dfb90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1a84d8a9c18ad47e8f0cd326a070fbc1@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 4, 2005, at 5:46 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > There was a war criminal court against top top German military > officers and > Nazi leaders established in the German city N?rnberg after WW2. > > Defenses like "I just followed orders" were not accepted as freeing > from > guilt when an act itself was deemed criminal offence against humanity. > > History my friend, history! I am well aware of that history, Sven, and its considerable impact on the current US military policy towards unlawful orders. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 4 21:52:46 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Jun 4 21:55:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <002701c56919$5b7dd800$3d9468d5@James> References: <000001c56876$8e5e6df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <002701c56919$5b7dd800$3d9468d5@James> Message-ID: On Jun 4, 2005, at 11:23 AM, GUTHRIE wrote: > An analogy with directors complying with insane bridge rules > is a bit over the top :) The gravity of the respective offenses is certainly not analogous. The "catch 22" that one is not permitted to do X, when X is not clearly specified (so that at trial it may turn out you did something "wrong" even though you did not think so) is. From brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk Sat Jun 4 23:28:29 2005 From: brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Sat Jun 4 23:30:03 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was L35D) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5694c$5a116e90$f4212b52@Zog> John (MadDog) Probst writes: > >Let's then go back to L57C, all of those who are with Sven here. > >Do you rule UI on the card shown in fourth hand? > > yes. John I find this a quite extraordinary conclusion. Assume that you are responsible for drafting L57C (declarer has played from both hands and the defender in 4th seat has played before his partner). You don't want to impose a specific penalty but you desire that the partner's choice of play to this trick should be restricted by the UI considerations of L16. Can you possibly imagine making a worse mess of it than stating "A defender is not subject to penalty for playing before his partner if declarer has played from both hands ..." without a vestige of cross reference to the law you wish to see applied. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.1 - Release Date: 03/06/05 From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 4 23:51:25 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Jun 4 23:52:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: <00b101c5685e$579da190$94cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <003d01c5694f$8e988420$1b9868d5@James> [John (MadDog) Probst] > I've never played with Grattan. I'd expect anyone who > found Grattan and me at work on the first occasion we > played together would adjust, and rightly so - we each > know what the other could do. I hope that John's argument about "one psyche per partnership" or one successful psych per life-time" has been thoroughly discredidted. Manifestly, You can psych as often as you like but your partner may be ruled against if ... (A) You psych *successfully* AND (B) The director is called AND (C) The director has read, understood and agreed with the law book AND (D) partner "fields* the psych OR (E) This is a regular psych or part of some pattern of psyches known to partner. The adds are against such an unlikely set of coincidences. But the law is still simple, fair and reasonable. Everybody is in the same boat. Unless you have implicitly agreed a pattern of "psychs", you are free to psych again. [MadDog] > But to nail John Thomas and Jayne Doe because they've > had a mix up is patently unfair. [Nigel] Please may we distinguish two of the meanings of "fairness". One is "justice" -- protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty -- an ideal to which law-makers and law-enforcers all aspire but which they can never be sure of attaining, especially in "balance of probability" cases. (However they should still try to do their best) The other is "equality before the law". This is also hard to achieve but it is an easier target than justice. IMO Mr & Mrs Doe should get exactly the same ruling as Grattan and John, in the same circumstances. From john at asimere.com Sun Jun 5 03:20:41 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun Jun 5 03:23:39 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was 35D) In-Reply-To: <42A1A572.3070405@hdw.be> References: <000001c56814$1e15ffc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A0221B.2010509@hdw.be> <42A17BA5.2050901@hdw.be> <42A1A572.3070405@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <42A1A572.3070405@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes > > >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> In article <42A17BA5.2050901@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael >> writes >> >>>Ed Reppert wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Jun 3, 2005, at 5:25 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>There is a clear consensus on blml (barring Sven) that L16 does not >>>>>apply when the laws stipulate "no penalty". >>>> >>>>This assertion turns out not to be correct. >>>> >>> >>>Let's then go back to L57C, all of those who are with Sven here. >>>Do you rule UI on the card shown in fourth hand? >> >> >> yes. John > >"A defender is not subject to penalty for playing before his partner >if declarer has played from both hands" If declarer plays a card from 3rd seat OOT, of course I can condone it in 4th. I'd misread the law in question. Sorry > >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 hermandw at hdw.be Sun Jun 5 11:46:49 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Jun 5 11:46:44 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050604144930.02c477b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <42A17CF5.4010205@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050604144930.02c477b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <42A2CA09.3000706@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 06:05 AM 6/4/05, Herman wrote: > >> Well, solve it guys, I'm out of this sub-thread. If you wish to >> continue to argue about L57C, I'm OK with it. But to me and to the >> players "without penalty" means "without penalty", and that means his >> partner cannot be penalised for leading spades. > > > A player commits an irregularity during the auction. We resolve that > irregularity "without penalty" per L35D, so he receives no penalty. > Then the auction is over and the play starts. > > Herman believes that because the earlier infraction was adjusted > "without penalty", L16A remains "suspended" during the play, so the > partner of the earlier infractor cannot be penalized for leading > spades. If he is to be consistent, he must also believe that because > the earlier infraction was adjusted "without penalty", L44C remains > "suspended" during the play, so the partner of the earlier infractor > cannot be penalized for revoking. Where's the difference? > The difference is that the 1S call is 'cancelled', so it no longer exists. You cannot have L16 restrictions on something which does not exist, can you? I don't believe L16 itself is 'cancelled', even if I may have used that word as a shorthand in the past. I certainly don't believe that L44 is cancelled. Nice try Eric, but no cigar. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 5 12:33:57 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Jun 5 12:35:33 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A2CA09.3000706@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c569ba$158cf500$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > The difference is that the 1S call is 'cancelled', so it no longer > exists. You cannot have L16 restrictions on something which does not > exist, can you? Although the 1S bid no longer "exists" the information created with that bid sure does! This information is extraneous information created by a player and L16A prohibits the partner to that player from choosing "from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". The situation is exactly as if the player instead of "bidding" 1S had said something like "I wish partner would lead a spade". End of L35D. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Jun 5 12:58:17 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Jun 5 12:58:11 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000001c569ba$158cf500$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c569ba$158cf500$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42A2DAC9.4010600@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > >>The difference is that the 1S call is 'cancelled', so it no longer >>exists. You cannot have L16 restrictions on something which does not >>exist, can you? > > > Although the 1S bid no longer "exists" the information created with that bid > sure does! This information is extraneous information created by a player > and L16A prohibits the partner to that player from choosing "from among > logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested > over another by the extraneous information". > There is no sense in repeating what you have said before. I interpret "without penalty" as including the L16 restriction, you don't. > The situation is exactly as if the player instead of "bidding" 1S had said > something like "I wish partner would lead a spade". > And then a law stating that because of some other thing that untterance being rendered "without penalty". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Jun 5 15:09:08 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun Jun 5 15:10:57 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A2DAC9.4010600@hdw.be> References: <000001c569ba$158cf500$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A2DAC9.4010600@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42A2F974.1040706@t-online.de> Herman De Wael wrote: > There is no sense in repeating what you have said before. I interpret > "without penalty" as including the L16 restriction, you don't. > There is no sense in repeating what you have said before, either. Could you please point out to me where the word penalty appears in L 16? L 16 imposes restrictions (as you noted above), because this is how the game should be played. There is no penalty for violating L16, only adjusted scores. Do you agree that a L12 adjusted score is not a penalty? >> The situation is exactly as if the player instead of "bidding" 1S had >> said >> something like "I wish partner would lead a spade". >> > > And then a law stating that because of some other thing that > untterance being rendered "without penalty". > Sure. No L 26 lead penalty. We all agree on this. Regards Matthias From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Jun 5 15:16:55 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun Jun 5 15:18:34 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A2CA09.3000706@hdw.be> References: <42A17CF5.4010205@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050604144930.02c477b0@pop.starpower.net> <42A2CA09.3000706@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42A2FB47.9080601@t-online.de> Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> At 06:05 AM 6/4/05, Herman wrote: >> >>> Well, solve it guys, I'm out of this sub-thread. If you wish to >>> continue to argue about L57C, I'm OK with it. But to me and to the >>> players "without penalty" means "without penalty", and that means >>> his partner cannot be penalised for leading spades. >> >> >> >> A player commits an irregularity during the auction. We resolve that >> irregularity "without penalty" per L35D, so he receives no penalty. >> Then the auction is over and the play starts. >> >> Herman believes that because the earlier infraction was adjusted >> "without penalty", L16A remains "suspended" during the play, so the >> partner of the earlier infractor cannot be penalized for leading >> spades. If he is to be consistent, he must also believe that because >> the earlier infraction was adjusted "without penalty", L44C remains >> "suspended" during the play, so the partner of the earlier infractor >> cannot be penalized for revoking. Where's the difference? >> > > The difference is that the 1S call is 'cancelled', so it no longer > exists. You cannot have L16 restrictions on something which does not > exist, can you? Sure you can. Extraneous information may stem from other tables. It didn`t exist in my table`s bidding, did it? If I am responsible for receiving this information (e.g. seeing another scorecard or some such) I will be under severe L16 restrictions (if the TD lets me play the hand at all). If my partner starts to wave with a garden spade I have received extraneous information, even if this happened after 17 people passed in a row. This is still information, it`s still extraneous, and L 16 still applies. > I don't believe L16 itself is 'cancelled', even if I may have used > that word as a shorthand in the past. So why not apply it? > I certainly don't believe that L44 is cancelled. Neither do I. > > Nice try Eric, but no cigar. > You can have one of mine, Eric. Regards Matthias From rathjen at emailaccount.com Sun Jun 5 16:14:11 2005 From: rathjen at emailaccount.com (Marsha Heller) Date: Sun Jun 5 15:24:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Re-finance at todays low rate Message-ID: <111141.7557.rathjen@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 $400,000 for as little as $400 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.cr3am.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Pearlie Wolff to be remov(ed: http://www.cr3am.com/deletion.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 Sun Jun 5 17:19:14 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sun Jun 5 17:19:18 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: <000001c569ba$158cf500$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A2DAC9.4010600@hdw.be> <42A2F974.1040706@t-online.de> Message-ID: <002801c569e1$ef83af70$519868d5@James> [Mathias Berghaus] Do you agree that a L12 adjusted score is not a penalty? [Nigel] Maybe sometimes; but not always; and not if applied in this case, Mathias. Although I would like to agree with you because I contend that "equity interpretations" tend to erode "penalties" -- a retrograde step that rewards transgression IMO. From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Jun 5 17:44:10 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Jun 5 17:44:05 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A2F974.1040706@t-online.de> References: <000001c569ba$158cf500$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A2DAC9.4010600@hdw.be> <42A2F974.1040706@t-online.de> Message-ID: <42A31DCA.8040200@hdw.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> There is no sense in repeating what you have said before. I interpret >> "without penalty" as including the L16 restriction, you don't. >> > > There is no sense in repeating what you have said before, either. Could > you please point out to me where the word penalty appears in L 16? L 16 > imposes restrictions (as you noted above), because this is how the game > should be played. There is no penalty for violating L16, only adjusted > scores. Do you agree that a L12 adjusted score is not a penalty? > No I don't. If I do something, and you say it is wrong, and you adjust my score, then I consider that a "penalty". If you tell me I can do something "without penalty", and I do it, and you then adjust my score after all, then I call you a bad regulation writer. As someone noted before, if the lawmakers' intent was to write a law where you could do something without being adjusted for except by use of L16, then to write "without penalty" is about the worst way of writing this. I agree that there is something wrong with the laws when they mean that I can bid 1S and ask a spade lead, "without penalty", but I don't intend to rule a penaly, even a L16 one, when the Lawmakers, perhaps by mistake, have written "without penalty". The other example, of L57C, is far easier to look at. There, it is clear to anyone that when the lawmakers wrote "not subject to penalty", they did in fact also want to exclude L16. Only Sven has argued for this one, perhaps out of consistency. John once said he would do to, but he retracted that later. "no penalty" must mean that L16 does not apply. >>> The situation is exactly as if the player instead of "bidding" 1S had >>> said >>> something like "I wish partner would lead a spade". >>> >> >> And then a law stating that because of some other thing that >> untterance being rendered "without penalty". >> > Sure. No L 26 lead penalty. We all agree on this. > Well, I was merely trying to complete Sven's analogy. The situation is analogous indeed to saying "I want a spade lead". But there is a law that says that in a particular situation, this can be done without penalty. You cannot write a law that says "you are allowed to ask for a spade lead in these circumstances" and then use a different law to say "but your partner is not allowed to lead spades if you ask for them". That is not the way to write laws, sorry. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jun 5 12:10:48 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun Jun 5 17:53:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System References: <000001c56876$8e5e6df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <003e01c568ac$b4956380$0a9868d5@James> Message-ID: <000e01c569e5$d5daf110$46a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* Probability is the very guide of life." ~ Joseph Butler. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 3:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Indirect regulation of System > > Luckily for us, an inner circle of gurus is prepared to > explain the law-makers' intentions, especially when that > differs from what the words mean! :) > > Pity they don;t always agree among themselves either :) > +=+ For one I consider this beneficial. There is no scope for it, of course, where the WBFLC has ruled, but short of that the non-agreement is a major route to the WBFLC agenda. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jun 5 12:49:46 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun Jun 5 17:53:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: <004801c5691a$6997f640$3d9468d5@James> Message-ID: <000f01c569e5$d6c21cc0$46a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* Probability is the very guide of life." ~ Joseph Butler. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall > > [Nigel] > I'm British. Our regulations seem clear > enough; but I've never heard of a case, > anywhere, where a director penalized > a "fielded" "psych". Directors rarely > even record "psychs". I doubt whether > anybody ever collates or analyses such > records, anyway. In effect, in the UK, > "psychers" have carte-blanche. > +=+ I am not clear what you are saying here, Nigel. There is a regular flow to the Laws & Erthics Committee of "Psychic Call/Report of Hand" forms. Most psychics are reported as 'Green' but a proportion are classified as yellow, another proportion red, psyches.The committee occasionally transfers a case from one category to another and has a procedure for contacting players or directors where it has concerns. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jun 5 17:58:10 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun Jun 5 19:33:43 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: Message-ID: <007b01c569f3$de6c3510$46a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* Probability is the very guide of life." ~ Joseph Butler. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 1:31 AM Subject: [blml] L35D > Herman, you remind me of the EBU General Manager. > Two years ago [and earlier] we had an excellent Year book, > easy to read, with full details of competitions, how to > contact the EBU, how to enter, amendments to the Orange > Bbook, and so on. It had an excellent Contents and Index. > > Last year it was replaced by a Diary, with tiny unreadable > writing, over half the information missing, no Contents, no > Index, just an awful booklet. I have asked quite a few > people and am yet to come across the first person to like it. > > The EBU General Manager has received about thirty > written complaints - including mine, of course. As a > result he famously went to the Board of Directors, and > said it was a complete success, because only thirty EBU > members did not like it, and the remaining 29,970 liked it. > +=+ Ah! A man who knows how to present his case. Did he add than no-one now gets the date wrong? +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jun 5 19:26:38 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun Jun 5 19:33:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: Message-ID: <007d01c569f3$e10ef370$46a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ******************************* Probability is the very guide of life." ~ Joseph Butler. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: ; Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall > > It is an excuse for allowing a TD to shirk his > responsibility to ascertain the facts. > > I have been an innocent party that has presented > a large amount of evidence to a committee while > the opponents present no evidence and the > committee just said "balance of probabilities"... > this is utter nonsense. > > An innocent player must be allowed to excercise > his lawful rights without being arbitrarily deemed > to be guilty. > +=+ There was no requirement for opponents to present evidence. The director was presenting the facts as he had ascertained them and it was the director's ruling that was under review. I have no doubt that you honestly believed his ruling to be wrong, but you could not be judge in your own cause and the AC found the evidence convincing. You have said nothing here that supports your use of the term 'arbitrarily'. In passing, I have not observed any reference in this oh-so-boring thread to one extension of the possible evidence which is mentioned several times in the statements in the WBF Code of Practice. It can be of significance that the Director considers there is in the partnership a heightened level of awareness of the possibility of a psychic call. If interested refer to the sub-paragraphs (a) thro (d) under 'Psychic Calls'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jun 5 21:41:07 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sun Jun 5 21:41:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: <004801c5691a$6997f640$3d9468d5@James> <000f01c569e5$d6c21cc0$46a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001c01c56a06$854b74b0$569468d5@James> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ I am not clear what you are saying here, Nigel. > There is a regular flow to the Laws & Erthics Committee > of "Psychic Call/Report of Hand" forms. Most psychics > are reported as 'Green' but a proportion are classified > as yellow, another proportion red, psyches. > The committee occasionally transfers a case from one > category to another and has a procedure for contacting > players or directors where it has concerns. [Nigel] Sorry Grattan! Thank you for the correction. I admit that Grattan's news implies that I'm mistaken on the issue of psych reportage! I'm delighted! Please gladden my heart further, Grattan, by supplying us with more statistics. In particular: How many of the reported red psyches attract an immediate score adjustment in the average year? From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 5 23:00:27 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun Jun 5 23:02:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> The problem is not that these regs are illegal in any way - we all >>know they are not - but a couple of people on BLML are determined to >>presume that they are. That is what we are fighting - not a >>reasonable and reasoned objection. > > It depends on which regs you're talking about, wouldn't it? With >the laws as written, do you believe a regulation, promulgated and >enforced by an individual club, stating verbatim, "you may not psych," >is legal? The main regs that tend to be attacked here again and again and again are: Those based on L40D whereby certain conventional calls in response to natural bids are controlled. The EBU's advice on asking questions which is always misquoted and then attacked on the basis that what they did not say is illegal. My view on some clubs who have certain illegal regs is that it is not worth fighting them. > I don't and I hope at least some small minority of rational >people agree, even if the wind really blows the other way. > > Assuming you're of the mindset that agrees that players must be >allowed to psych, what would you think of legal regulations whose sum >is equivalent to "you may not psych?" I have a lot of sympathy for >people taking up these arguments. The same logic applies against >regulations effectively prohibiting opening 1NT on 9-counts. The regs preventing 1NT on 9-counts are legal even if misguided. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 5 23:02:05 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun Jun 5 23:03:43 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Ed Reppert wrote >> >>> >>> On Jun 3, 2005, at 5:25 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> There is a clear consensus on blml (barring Sven) that L16 does not >>>>apply when the laws stipulate "no penalty". >>> >>> >>> This assertion turns out not to be correct. >> What's a clear consensus (barring Sven)? Does that mean that you >>have assumed that my opinion is such-and-such because I have not >>expressed one? >> > >Yes David, I assumed you were with the general consensus on this one, >at the time the thread was almost dead. Especially you, who would not >fail to comment if something sounded wrong to you. If I noticed. While I start every thread, there are a number of threads where about four posters produce longer and longer posts. I glance at the first page only. If nothing particular catches my eye I skip. There are also subjects where I do not comment for a variety of reasons which certainly do not always mean I agree with something. Perhaps I merely have nothing to say. Even so, I dislike being assumed to be in any consensus where I have not expressed an opinion. In future please can any comment on a consensus on BLML be of one of the following two: If I have expressed an opinion, fine to quote it. If I have not expressed an opinion, please do not consider me part of any consensus. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Jun 5 23:30:01 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun Jun 5 23:28:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <003d01c5694f$8e988420$1b9868d5@James> References: <00b101c5685e$579da190$94cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <003d01c5694f$8e988420$1b9868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050605163912.02c1dda0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:51 PM 6/4/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >I hope that John's argument about "one psyche per >partnership" or one successful psych per life-time" has been >thoroughly discredidted. Manifestly, You can psych as often >as you like but your partner may be ruled against if ... >(A) You psych *successfully* AND >(B) The director is called >AND >(C) The director has read, understood and agreed with the >law book AND >(D) partner "fields* the psych OR >(E) This is a regular psych or part of some pattern of >psyches known to partner. > >The adds are against such an unlikely set of coincidences. >But the law is still simple, fair and reasonable. Everybody >is in the same boat. Unless you have implicitly agreed a >pattern of "psychs", you are free to psych again. As one who has made frequent reference to the "'one psych per partnership' rule", I'm not sure exactly what Nigel thinks it is. When I use it, I'm talking about something very specific, which is manifestly not what Nigel describes. Perhaps it needs to be explained carefully. I refer to a regulation and accompanying official policy which was enacted by the ACBL in the 1970s and, notwithstanding some lack of consistency in its enforcement since then, remains the official policy of the ACBL. It was pushed through at or around the time Don Oakie was president of the ACBL, pursuant to what is sometimes called the "Oakie doctrine", which Edgar Kaplan described in The Bridge World as, "It's perfectly legal to psych as long as you never do it." The legal sophistry behind the rule is this: The regulation, which is permitted by L40D, says that it is illegal to have any partnerhip agreement whatsoever regarding psychs, including as to frequency. The supporting policy says is that if a partnership psychs, that establishes a prima facie implicit agreement that they psych with some frequency other than "never", which is an illegal agreement regarding psychs. So: (A) In theory, the psych needn't be successful. (B) In theory, the director need not be called, although, in practice, or course... (Nigel refers to my earlier smiley-challenged comment, intended to suggest that his (A) is probably a practical requirement of his (B)). (C) It is a matter of regulation; the Director need not know that the lawbook exists (something of a survival trait when it comes to stomaching some ACBL regulations). (D) The Oakie doctrinists hold that Nigel's (A) implies Nigel's (D) prima facie. (E) Right, so what "one psych per partnership" means in practice that (a) if you psych, (b) if it is brought to the attention of a TD or other official, (c) if the TD, after consulting with other TDs and the Recorder if there is one, determines that this partnership has even psyched in the past, then (QED) they throw the book at you. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Jun 5 23:42:04 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun Jun 5 23:40:55 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A2CA09.3000706@hdw.be> References: <42A17CF5.4010205@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050604144930.02c477b0@pop.starpower.net> <42A2CA09.3000706@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050605173111.02c2eac0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:46 AM 6/5/05, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >>At 06:05 AM 6/4/05, Herman wrote: >> >>>Well, solve it guys, I'm out of this sub-thread. If you wish to >>>continue to argue about L57C, I'm OK with it. But to me and to the >>>players "without penalty" means "without penalty", and that means >>>his partner cannot be penalised for leading spades. >> >>A player commits an irregularity during the auction. We resolve that >>irregularity "without penalty" per L35D, so he receives no penalty. >>Then the auction is over and the play starts. >>Herman believes that because the earlier infraction was adjusted >>"without penalty", L16A remains "suspended" during the play, so the >>partner of the earlier infractor cannot be penalized for leading >>spades. If he is to be consistent, he must also believe that because >>the earlier infraction was adjusted "without penalty", L44C remains >>"suspended" during the play, so the partner of the earlier infractor >>cannot be penalized for revoking. Where's the difference? > >The difference is that the 1S call is 'cancelled', so it no longer >exists. You cannot have L16 restrictions on something which does not >exist, can you? I don't believe L16 itself is 'cancelled', even if I >may have used that word as a shorthand in the past. I certainly don't >believe that L44 is cancelled. > >Nice try Eric, but no cigar. [Damn! I'd sort of hoped Herman meant it when he said he was out of this sub-thread. OK, this is for everyone else...] The 1S call is cancelled and, as Herman would have it, "no longer exists", but the extraneous information it has generated remains floating in the air, whence its subsequent plucking, which could not occur did it not still exist, is subject to the laws. All of them, including L16. WTP? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 6 01:42:03 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jun 6 01:43:47 2005 Subject: [blml] L16A In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050603080110.0318beb0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >We arrive at a table and I notice that the opponents are >playing a relay system. As I peruse their convention card, >partner says to me, "These guys play a terrific system; their >slam bidding, in particular, is pin-point accurate." > >We have a competitive auction, on which the opponents reach 6H. >From the bidding, we might have a good save at 6S. But from my >hand, it's not clear that 6H will make. I'm inclined not to >risk the save. > >But, wait! I remember what partner said earlier. If these >guys bid it, it's going to make. So I bid 6S, [snip] Richard Hills: No adjusted score. The opponents also remembered your partner's remark, so they psychically bid a hopeless slam, thus gratefully collected a top of +800 for your mandatory phantom save. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jun 6 02:14:43 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon Jun 6 02:15:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: <00b101c5685e$579da190$94cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><003d01c5694f$8e988420$1b9868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050605163912.02c1dda0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001901c56a2c$be32c230$049468d5@James> ]Eric landau] > As one who has made frequent reference to the "'one > psych per partnership' rule", I'm not sure exactly what > Nigel thinks it is. When I use it, I'm talking about > something very specific, which is manifestly not what > Nigel describes. Perhaps it needs to be explained > carefully. I refer to a regulation and accompanying > official policy which was enacted by the ACBL in the > 1970s and, notwithstanding some lack of consistency in > its enforcement since then, remains the official policy > of the ACBL. It was pushed through at or around the > time Don Oakie was president of the ACBL, pursuant to > what is sometimes called the "Oakie doctrine", which > Edgar Kaplan described in The Bridge World as, "It's > perfectly legal to psych as long as you never do it." > The legal sophistry behind the rule is this: The > regulation, which is permitted by L40D, says that it > is illegal to have any partnerhip agreement whatsoever > regarding psychs, including as to frequency. The > supporting policy says is that if a partnership psychs, > that establishes a prima facie implicit agreement that > they psych with some frequency other than "never", > which is an illegal agreement regarding psychs. > So: ( > (A) In theory, the psych needn't be successful. > (B) In theory, the director need not be called, > although, in practice, or course... (Nigel refers > to my earlier smiley-challenged comment, > intended to suggest that his (A) is probably a > practical requirement of his (B)). > (C) It is a matter of regulation; the Director need > not know that the lawbook exists (something of a > survival trait when it comes to stomaching some ACBL > regulations). > (D) The Oakie doctrinists hold that Nigel's (A) > implies Nigel's (D) prima facie. > (E) Right, so what "one psych per partnership" means > in practice that (a) if you psych, (b) if it is > brought to the attention of a TD or other official, > (c) if the TD, after consulting with other TDs and > the Recorder if there is one, determines that this > partnership has even psyched in the past, then (QED) > they throw the book at you. [Nigel] Fascinating, Eric! How much do players pay the ACBL for a license to flout this "Okie doctrine" with complete impunity? If you are a client of the likes of Zia Mahmoud do you have to fork out for this payment as part of his fee? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 6 02:41:17 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jun 6 02:42:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson: >So, if in the real world, you are told what >the Law is, you would presume whoever tells >you is wrong and expect the courts to uphold >you? [snip] Richard Hills: A topical issue is what the President of the United States told his subordinates to do in 1971, 1972 and 1973. Those subordinates who did *not* presume that President Nixon's orders were wrong were later sent to jail by the courts for conspiring to pervert the course of justice. The argument that President Nixon's doctrine of Executive Privilege was wrong was indeed upheld 8-0 by the Supreme Court. David Stevenson: >This is about one or two people who interpret >the Laws differently from the ABF, the WBFLC, >the EBU and so on. [snip] >In my view their approach is arrogant and >unwarranted. Do you really think the courts >would uphold them? Richard Hills: (Off-topic note: If the reference to the ABF implies that I arrogantly interpret Laws differently from the ABF, then David has misinterpreted my earlier hypothetical on this thread. I wrote, "...in the unlikely event that the ABF promulgated a regulation which was directly contrary to Law...". One reason that such a regulation is currently an unlikely event is that the chair of the ABF regulations sub-committee is a blml lurker.) Court actions which change SO regulations are not merely hypothetical. Court action (for sex discrimination against mixed partnerships) prompted the ACBL to stop regulating for parallel Men's and Women's Pairs at its nationals. The ACBL now regulates for parallel Open and Women's Pairs at its nationals. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jun 6 04:29:16 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon Jun 6 04:29:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System References: Message-ID: <000f01c56a3f$8a01b9e0$049468d5@James> [David Stevenson] >So, if in the real world, you are told what >the Law is, you would presume whoever tells >you is wrong and expect the courts to uphold >you? [Nigel] This is a serious dilemma if, for example, you are in the chain of command of USA military interrogators but there is less relevance to deciding between which of two conflicting rules of a game to enforce. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 6 08:22:28 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jun 6 08:24:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050601131942.02c04020@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: One Aussie defender tries to unilaterally bypass Law 73F2 (Player Injured by Illegal Deception) by placing his intended card face down on the table, then stating, "I am not thinking about this trick," before he (eventually) turns over his downfaced card. Note: This defender highly ethically has never substituted a new downfaced card for their original downfaced card. This defender succeeds in avoiding an infraction of Law 73F2, and also succeeds in preventing the declarer (and partner) from knowing on which future trick the defender does have a decision to make. The best of both worlds? Alas, no. This defender has infracted, albeit unintentionally, Law 73A2 (Proper Communication between Partners - Correct Manner for Calls and Plays) by using a special emphasis and mannerism. This defender also uses this ploy when declarer. As illegal communication by declarer to dummy is a meaningless infraction - given that dummy is "le mort" - is this ploy a legal tool in declarer's arsenal? How would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 6 08:58:24 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jun 6 09:00:07 2005 Subject: [blml] L16A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert asserted: [snip] >to call discussions before the first board of the >round "extraneous information" makes no sense to >me whatever. Richard Hills quibbles: It makes sense to me to call discussions before the first board of the round "extraneous but authorised information". Furthermore, Eric's hypothetical discussion with partner seems to me to have created an implicit partnership agreement, which should be disclosed to the opponents (thus giving the opponents scope to choose a tactical bid which takes advantage of the hypothetical Eric Landau & partner implicit agreement). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Jun 6 09:19:37 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Jun 6 09:19:37 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42A3F909.2070009@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Ed Reppert wrote >>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 3, 2005, at 5:25 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is a clear consensus on blml (barring Sven) that L16 does not >>>>> apply when the laws stipulate "no penalty". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This assertion turns out not to be correct. >>> >>> What's a clear consensus (barring Sven)? Does that mean that you >>> have assumed that my opinion is such-and-such because I have not >>> expressed one? >>> >> >> Yes David, I assumed you were with the general consensus on this one, >> at the time the thread was almost dead. Especially you, who would not >> fail to comment if something sounded wrong to you. > > > If I noticed. While I start every thread, there are a number of > threads where about four posters produce longer and longer posts. I > glance at the first page only. If nothing particular catches my eye I > skip. > > There are also subjects where I do not comment for a variety of reasons > which certainly do not always mean I agree with something. Perhaps I > merely have nothing to say. > > Even so, I dislike being assumed to be in any consensus where I have > not expressed an opinion. In future please can any comment on a > consensus on BLML be of one of the following two: > > If I have expressed an opinion, fine to quote it. > If I have not expressed an opinion, please do not consider me part of > any consensus. > David, please don't beat around the bush. You read the first post in this thread. You did not comment. Most of us came to the general conclusion that one needed to use L72 to counter the actions. You did not comment. If I then consider that you were in agreement with that consensus, please reply in either of two ways: - agree that you were with that consensus, and either say so or keep quiet; or - stipulate that you are not with that consensus, and either explain why (and why you did not tell us) or not But don't complain that I assumed you were in consensus. A consensus is a common point of view, and there is no need to express that you agree with it. Anyway, my reaction was to Sven, who was assuming the whole world was with him. I explained to him that the "consensus" that was reached was quite the reverse. BTW, David, rather than complaining that we have attributed an opinion to you when apparently you haven't, why don't you simply state that you agree with the opinion (or not)? What is it to be: is "without penalty" with or without application of L16. Please consider both L35D and L57C in your answer. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 6 09:38:32 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jun 6 09:40:12 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was 35D) In-Reply-To: <42A1A572.3070405@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >"A defender is not subject to penalty for playing >before his partner if declarer has played from both >hands" > >Grattan? Richard Hills: It was Grattan Endicott who (in an earlier thread) pointed out that Law 12B, "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side", did not preclude a director from using Law 12A1 to adjust a score. His argument then was that a Law 12B "penalty" applied to the offending side may result in an insufficient Law 12A1 "indemnity" awarded to the non-offending side. Ergo, Grattan Endicott disagrees with the De Wael hypothesis that an adjusted score for an offending side is a subset of "penalty". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From toddz at att.net Mon Jun 6 10:57:49 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon Jun 6 10:59:29 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A3F909.2070009@hdw.be> References: <42A3F909.2070009@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42A4100D.6050304@att.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > But don't complain that I assumed you were in consensus. > A consensus is a common point of view, and there is no need to express > that you agree with it. Silence is not a consensus. I don't respond to everything I disagree with. I don't have that much time. Actually related to the thread, I didn't see anyone mention L62D, where the phrase "no penalty" could have been used, but wasn't. Also a reference to L16 could have been made, but wasn't. Though this is admittedly weak evidence of intention, which might be why no one else (that I saw) bothered to mention it. -Todd From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 6 10:58:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 6 11:00:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > > The main regs that tend to be attacked here again and again and again > are: > > Those based on L40D whereby certain conventional calls in response to > natural bids are controlled. Those regs are criticised, quite justifiably, on the grounds that they are a) stupid b) contrary to the spirit of the laws. They are seldom attacked on the grounds of legality. > The EBU's advice on asking questions which is always misquoted and then > attacked on the basis that what they did not say is illegal. The advice is poorly written and misguided - not illegal. > My view on some clubs who have certain illegal regs is that it is not > worth fighting them. It needn't necessarily be a fight. In most cases the TD can educate rather than fight. Obviously a TD should not issue EBU masterpoints for club events played outwith the laws. The EBU byelaws state: 3.2 For the purpose of these Disciplinary Rules, the following shall amount to an “Offence”: (i) a breach of the Bye-Laws or Articles of the Company; (ii) a breach of the regulations laid down by the Board or any of its Standing or other Committees, or any Conditions of Contest or other tournament regulations; (iii) a breach of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997 or any subsequent re-enactment; It is a disciplinary offence for a TD to knowingly break the laws of bridge in an EBU sanctioned event. Non-affiliated clubs/events need not apply *any* of the laws of bridge - (I might ask such a club why they aren't using the laws but I would uphold their right not to do so). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 6 10:58:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 6 11:00:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: <000f01c56a3f$8a01b9e0$049468d5@James> Message-ID: > [David Stevenson] > >So, if in the real world, you are told what > >the Law is, you would presume whoever tells > >you is wrong and expect the courts to uphold > >you? > > [Nigel] > This is a serious dilemma if, for example, you are in the > chain of command of USA military interrogators but there is > less relevance to deciding between which of two conflicting > rules of a game to enforce. Strangely US military/civil law has never had an impact on my decisions as a TD. Bridge law/regulation does. It is a "serious dilemma" for a TD when law and regulation are in conflict (in the sense that surely we all want TDs to take their jobs seriously). Even if you regard it as a trivial dilemma it still needs to be solved. Drawing on the principles of wider law/subsidiarity etc may be helpful - even if the outcome will be rather less earth-shattering than the real world cases. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 6 10:58:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 6 11:00:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > One Aussie defender tries to unilaterally bypass > Law 73F2 (Player Injured by Illegal Deception) by > placing his intended card face down on the table, > then stating, "I am not thinking about this trick," > before he (eventually) turns over his downfaced > card. > This defender has infracted, albeit > unintentionally, Law 73A2 (Proper Communication > between Partners - Correct Manner for Calls and > Plays) by using a special emphasis and mannerism. Before deciding whether this is an infraction we must decide whether the emphasis/mannerism is, in this context, "special" or "within the bounds of normality". That is a TD judgement so there is no automatic infraction. Tim > This defender also uses this ploy when declarer. > As illegal communication by declarer to dummy is a > meaningless infraction - given that dummy is "le > mort" - is this ploy a legal tool in declarer's > arsenal? > > How would you rule? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jun 6 10:59:15 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon Jun 6 11:01:16 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A31DCA.8040200@hdw.be> References: <000001c569ba$158cf500$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A2DAC9.4010600@hdw.be> <42A2F974.1040706@t-online.de> <42A31DCA.8040200@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42A41063.8040809@t-online.de> Herman De Wael wrote: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> >> There is no sense in repeating what you have said before, either. >> Could you please point out to me where the word penalty appears in L >> 16? L 16 imposes restrictions (as you noted above), because this is >> how the game should be played. There is no penalty for violating L16, >> only adjusted scores. Do you agree that a L12 adjusted score is not a >> penalty? >> > > No I don't. If I do something, and you say it is wrong, and you adjust > my score, then I consider that a "penalty". If you look at L 12 carefully you will note that an adjusted score may not be given _instead_ of a penalty (except where the wrong penalty was applied - director`s error). Since the TD can give either a penalty _or_ an adjusted score, how can an AS _be_ a penalty? Herman, a penalty is not what you (or I, for that matter) think it is, it is what the lawmakers think it is. The lawmakers chose to write (penalty) whenever a penalty is to be applied. They did not do so in L 12 or L 16. What more do you need? A violation of L 16 sends us to L 12. L 12 is concerned with equtity, ot penalty. How can restoring equity be a ?enalty?? > If you tell me I can do something "without penalty", and I do it, and > you then adjust my score after all, then I call you a bad regulation > writer. If you call an adjusted score a penalty I call you a bad reader of rules. > > As someone noted before, if the lawmakers' intent was to write a law > where you could do something without being adjusted for except by use > of L16, then to write "without penalty" is about the worst way of > writing this. This is because people tend to look at their own set of connotations for words (e.g. penalty) instead of the connotations of the lawmakers. There are people who would consider being tickled under their feet to be a severe penalty, while others would just shrug and carry on with whatever they were doing. Was this a penalty. Sure it was. It missed its mark in the second case, but it was intended to penalize, so it was a penalty. If something is intended to adjust it is an adjustment, not a penalty. > > I agree that there is something wrong with the laws when they mean > that I can bid 1S and ask a spade lead, "without penalty", but I don't > intend to rule a penaly, even a L16 one, when the Lawmakers, perhaps > by mistake, have written "without penalty". This is the crux of the matter. "Without penalty" does _not_ mean "without possible adjustment". If you happen to commit this particular infraction (and this 1S call _is_ an infraction, the rules leave no doubt about that, you will not be penalized. Your score may be adjusted if your partner used the UI you generated, but this is a separate infraction. The first one is not to be penalized, L35D tells us so, the second one may be subject to score adjustment, depending on the logical alternatives of the opening leader. If you made available information regarding the spade suit no one can talk him out of a spade lead from QJ1098 and two quick entries to his hand against some number of no trump. No penalty against you for bidding 1S because of L35D, no adjustment against him for leading a spade because of L16. Zhe clause "without penalty" does not give absolution for future sins, it just tells us what to do with past and present ones. > > The other example, of L57C, is far easier to look at. There, it is > clear to anyone that when the lawmakers wrote "not subject to > penalty", they did in fact also want to exclude L16. Only Sven has > argued for this one, perhaps out of consistency. John once said he > would do to, but he retracted that later. "no penalty" must mean that > L16 does not apply. Careful, please. There are penaties in L 57, just not in the special case handled in 57C. This is in itself somewhat redundant, since declarer played out of turn (no other way to get to L57C). There are other laws to handle this, but the lawmakers took the opportunity to state explicitly that there is no penalty for this. > >>>> The situation is exactly as if the player instead of "bidding" 1S >>>> had said >>>> something like "I wish partner would lead a spade". >>>> >>> >>> And then a law stating that because of some other thing that >>> untterance being rendered "without penalty". >>> >> Sure. No L 26 lead penalty. We all agree on this. >> > > Well, I was merely trying to complete Sven's analogy. The situation is > analogous indeed to saying "I want a spade lead". But there is a law > that says that in a particular situation, this can be done without > penalty. You cannot write a law that says "you are allowed to ask for > a spade lead in these circumstances" and then use a different law to > say "but your partner is not allowed to lead spades if you ask for > them". That is not the way to write laws, sorry. > But a spade is not forbidden in this situation. There are no L26 lead penalties. It just is subject to scrutiny along L16 lines. Herman, we have two separate infractions here. One is handled by L35D, telling us not to apply a penalty. But this does not mean your partner can commit the next infraction (L16 now) with impunity. Your partner`s choices may well be restricted, but a spade lead is not utterly _verboten_. Do not confuse two separate infractions, and don`t throw them together. If you lead out of turn declarer may choose to forbid the lead of the suit you tried to lead. This is the prescribed penalty. The law now tells us that you may pick up your card. The penalty is paid, but the UI remains, doesn`t it? Regards Matthias From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 6 11:23:40 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 6 11:25:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c56a79$6d169230$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Richard wrote: > > > One Aussie defender tries to unilaterally bypass > > Law 73F2 (Player Injured by Illegal Deception) by > > placing his intended card face down on the table, > > then stating, "I am not thinking about this trick," > > before he (eventually) turns over his downfaced > > card. > > > > This defender has infracted, albeit > > unintentionally, Law 73A2 (Proper Communication > > between Partners - Correct Manner for Calls and > > Plays) by using a special emphasis and mannerism. > > Before deciding whether this is an infraction we must decide whether the > emphasis/mannerism is, in this context, "special" or "within the bounds of > normality". That is a TD judgement so there is no automatic infraction. > > Tim Agreed, but I would particularly like to find out his purpose of temporarily concealing from opponents (and partner) the card he has already decided to play while he is considering future trick(s). I have some difficulty understanding how he can have any legitimate bridge reason for that. If I decided to rule against him I guess I would use Law 74B4 (hardly L73!). Regards Sven From belch at fadmail.com Mon Jun 6 12:17:14 2005 From: belch at fadmail.com (Leopoldo Ash) Date: Mon Jun 6 11:25:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Just approved mortage rate Message-ID: <191.84e558d5.2a9ADI44@zhq.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 $400,000 for as little as $400 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.t0wers.net/signs.asp Best Regards, Frederick York to be remov(ed: http://www.t0wers.net/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Jun 6 12:41:27 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon Jun 6 12:40:59 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was 35D) References: Message-ID: <000501c56a84$4b00fb30$0307a8c0@david> My take on L57C:- (1) L57C makes it clear that the defender's action is an infraction even if it is an infraction not subject to penalty. Consequently the action is subject to L72B2. If I determine that the play ahead of partner is a deliberate infraction, I will issue a PP. (2) L57C refers to a defender (singular) and makes no reference to penalties or restrictions on offender's partner. (3) The use of UI (created by the card played out of turn) is a separate offence from the action that created the UI. (4) Any score adjustment from the use of the UI is a restoration of equity and NOT a penalty, and most certainly not a penalty for the play out of turn. I expect I will be in my usual minority of one. If anyone is keeping score put me down for application of L16 after L57 infractions. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.2 - Release Date: 04/06/2005 From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Jun 6 12:45:34 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon Jun 6 12:45:03 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was 35D) References: <000501c56a84$4b00fb30$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000901c56a84$de5f9300$0307a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L57C (was 35D) > My take on L57C:- > > (1) L57C makes it clear that the defender's action is an infraction > even if it is an infraction not subject to penalty. Consequently the > action is subject to L72B2. If I determine that the play ahead of > partner is a deliberate infraction, I will issue a PP. > > (2) L57C refers to a defender (singular) and makes no reference to > penalties or restrictions on offender's partner. > > (3) The use of UI (created by the card played out of turn) is a separate > offence from the action that created the UI. > > (4) Any score adjustment from the use of the UI is a restoration of > equity and NOT a penalty, and most certainly not a penalty for the > play out of turn. > > I expect I will be in my usual minority of one. > > If anyone is keeping score put me down for application of L16 > after L57 infractions. > Sorry - that should read .... after L35 infractions. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.2 - Release Date: 04/06/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Jun 6 12:57:54 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Jun 6 12:57:53 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A41063.8040809@t-online.de> References: <000001c569ba$158cf500$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A2DAC9.4010600@hdw.be> <42A2F974.1040706@t-online.de> <42A31DCA.8040200@hdw.be> <42A41063.8040809@t-online.de> Message-ID: <42A42C32.7010503@hdw.be> Hello Matthias, some interesting points here, I believe. Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> >>> >>> There is no sense in repeating what you have said before, either. >>> Could you please point out to me where the word penalty appears in L >>> 16? L 16 imposes restrictions (as you noted above), because this is >>> how the game should be played. There is no penalty for violating L16, >>> only adjusted scores. Do you agree that a L12 adjusted score is not a >>> penalty? >>> >> >> No I don't. If I do something, and you say it is wrong, and you adjust >> my score, then I consider that a "penalty". > > > > If you look at L 12 carefully you will note that an adjusted score may > not be given _instead_ of a penalty (except where the wrong penalty was > applied - director`s error). Since the TD can give either a penalty _or_ > an adjusted score, how can an AS _be_ a penalty? > Herman, a penalty is not what you (or I, for that matter) think it is, > it is what the lawmakers think it is. The lawmakers chose to write > (penalty) whenever a penalty is to be applied. They did not do so in L > 12 or L 16. What more do you need? A violation of L 16 sends us to L > 12. L 12 is concerned with equtity, ot penalty. How can restoring equity > be a ?enalty?? > Matthias, you know as well as I do that an application of L16 does not constitute a restoration of equity. If I tell my partner to lead a spade, then he cannot lead a spade (if there is a LA), even if he would be able to find a spade lead by himself. That is a penalty IMO, not a restoration of equity. It is not up to me, or to you, to decide whether or not L16 and L12 constitute "penalties". It is up to the Lawmakers. And they have done a bad job in writing down L16 in such a way that it is not clear if it is included in the "no penalty" clauses of L35 and L57C. >> If you tell me I can do something "without penalty", and I do it, and >> you then adjust my score after all, then I call you a bad regulation >> writer. > > > > If you call an adjusted score a penalty I call you a bad reader of rules. > Why? - because _you_ believe that a penalty is only something which is called a penalty? A prohibiting a spade lead by L26 is a penalty because it is called a penalty in the book; but prohibiting (effectively) a spade lead by L16 is not a penalty? Why am I a bad reader of rules and not you, who does not recognizes a penalty when something is prohibited? >> >> As someone noted before, if the lawmakers' intent was to write a law >> where you could do something without being adjusted for except by use >> of L16, then to write "without penalty" is about the worst way of >> writing this. > > > > This is because people tend to look at their own set of connotations for > words (e.g. penalty) instead of the connotations of the lawmakers. There > are people who would consider being tickled under their feet to be a > severe penalty, while others would just shrug and carry on with whatever > they were doing. Was this a penalty. Sure it was. It missed its mark in > the second case, but it was intended to penalize, so it was a penalty. > If something is intended to adjust it is an adjustment, not a penalty. > I look at my set of connotations, yes. If something is prohibited I call this a penalty. You look at your set of connotations. If something is called a penalty it is a penalty. Why should your interpretation carry any more value than mine? Because the Laws are generally consistently well-written, are they? >> >> I agree that there is something wrong with the laws when they mean >> that I can bid 1S and ask a spade lead, "without penalty", but I don't >> intend to rule a penaly, even a L16 one, when the Lawmakers, perhaps >> by mistake, have written "without penalty". > > > > This is the crux of the matter. "Without penalty" does _not_ mean > "without possible adjustment". Why not? Especially in the case of L57C, please andwer me that. I'm quite willing to accept your arguments, but they must be better than this. You are in fact telling me that it is like you say because it is like you say! > If you happen to commit this particular > infraction (and this 1S call _is_ an infraction, the rules leave no > doubt about that, you will not be penalized. Your score may be adjusted > if your partner used the UI you generated, but this is a separate > infraction. The first one is not to be penalized, L35D tells us so, the > second one may be subject to score adjustment, depending on the logical > alternatives of the opening leader. If you made available information > regarding the spade suit no one can talk him out of a spade lead from > QJ1098 and two quick entries to his hand against some number of no > trump. No penalty against you for bidding 1S because of L35D, no > adjustment against him for leading a spade because of L16. > Zhe clause "without penalty" does not give absolution for future sins, > it just tells us what to do with past and present ones. > Why? Please stick to arguments that are not based on the conclusion you are trying to prove. Your arguments above, being that L16 does not contain the words "penalty" in them, are far better than this "it is like this because it is like this". >> >> The other example, of L57C, is far easier to look at. There, it is >> clear to anyone that when the lawmakers wrote "not subject to >> penalty", they did in fact also want to exclude L16. Only Sven has >> argued for this one, perhaps out of consistency. John once said he >> would do to, but he retracted that later. "no penalty" must mean that >> L16 does not apply. > > > > Careful, please. There are penaties in L 57, just not in the special > case handled in 57C. This is in itself somewhat redundant, since > declarer played out of turn (no other way to get to L57C). There are > other laws to handle this, but the lawmakers took the opportunity to > state explicitly that there is no penalty for this. > Exactly. There are penalties in the general case of L39, but not in the special case of L35. L57C and L35 use "without penalty" and "not subject to penalty". Yet by the same argument you defend the use of L16 in the L35 case and not in the L57C case. This is simply not consistent! And BTW, I don't think it is you who is not being consistent, I do believe the WBF made an error in calling the subsequent calls "without penalty" in L35. >> >>>>> The situation is exactly as if the player instead of "bidding" 1S >>>>> had said >>>>> something like "I wish partner would lead a spade". >>>>> >>>> >>>> And then a law stating that because of some other thing that >>>> untterance being rendered "without penalty". >>>> >>> Sure. No L 26 lead penalty. We all agree on this. >>> >> >> Well, I was merely trying to complete Sven's analogy. The situation is >> analogous indeed to saying "I want a spade lead". But there is a law >> that says that in a particular situation, this can be done without >> penalty. You cannot write a law that says "you are allowed to ask for >> a spade lead in these circumstances" and then use a different law to >> say "but your partner is not allowed to lead spades if you ask for >> them". That is not the way to write laws, sorry. >> > But a spade is not forbidden in this situation. There are no L26 lead > penalties. It just is subject to scrutiny along L16 lines. > Herman, we have two separate infractions here. One is handled by L35D, > telling us not to apply a penalty. But this does not mean your partner > can commit the next infraction (L16 now) with impunity. Your partner`s > choices may well be restricted, but a spade lead is not utterly > _verboten_. Do not confuse two separate infractions, and don`t throw > them together. I understand quite well what you mean, and I don't know what to do either. But if I am to interpret L57C in the way I have done so in the past, then I see no reason why not to apply the same principle to L35. Or change my view on L57C. > If you lead out of turn declarer may choose to forbid the lead of the > suit you tried to lead. This is the prescribed penalty. The law now > tells us that you may pick up your card. The penalty is paid, but the UI > remains, doesn`t it? > Yes, but there was a penalty - it has been paid. And the UI remains. in the cases that we talk about, it is said there is no penalty. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Jun 6 13:47:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Jun 6 13:47:38 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was 35D) In-Reply-To: <000501c56a84$4b00fb30$0307a8c0@david> References: <000501c56a84$4b00fb30$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <42A437DD.7090102@hdw.be> Hello David, David Barton wrote: > My take on L57C:- > > (1) L57C makes it clear that the defender's action is an infraction > even if it is an infraction not subject to penalty. Consequently the > action is subject to L72B2. If I determine that the play ahead of > partner is a deliberate infraction, I will issue a PP. > So here you have a law which says, "a player is not subject to penalty if he ..." and then you issue a PP to a player who does this, simply because he does so deliberately? Surely you see this is wrong! > (2) L57C refers to a defender (singular) and makes no reference to > penalties or restrictions on offender's partner. > Indeed, that is a valid point. > (3) The use of UI (created by the card played out of turn) is a separate > offence from the action that created the UI. > That is a valid point as well. _IF_ the information created is UI. I don't see how information created by something which is not subject to penalty can become UI. But I may be wrong there, I admit. > (4) Any score adjustment from the use of the UI is a restoration of > equity and NOT a penalty, and most certainly not a penalty for the > play out of turn. > This I simply won't accept. Without the information, partner has two possible lines of play (or he would not be thinking). With the UI (if it is UI), he is no longer allowed to choose one of them. That sounds like a restriction to me, and like a penalty. > I expect I will be in my usual minority of one. > I happen to believe that you are not in a minority of one - I've seen others with the same views. You are all wrong IMHO. > If anyone is keeping score put me down for application of L16 > after L57 infractions. > OK, I will count you as second, after Sven. I refer to the answer given before - if the lawmakers truely intended this interpretation, they did a very bad job in writing this down! Please guys, there is no need for you to be consistent in what you believe to be the correct ruling in L35 and L57C. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Jun 6 13:48:37 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Jun 6 13:48:31 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was 35D) In-Reply-To: <000901c56a84$de5f9300$0307a8c0@david> References: <000501c56a84$4b00fb30$0307a8c0@david> <000901c56a84$de5f9300$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <42A43815.9060406@hdw.be> David Barton wrote: > >> My take on L57C:- >> >> (1) L57C makes it clear that the defender's action is an infraction >> even if it is an infraction not subject to penalty. Consequently the >> action is subject to L72B2. If I determine that the play ahead of >> partner is a deliberate infraction, I will issue a PP. >> >> (2) L57C refers to a defender (singular) and makes no reference to >> penalties or restrictions on offender's partner. >> >> (3) The use of UI (created by the card played out of turn) is a separate >> offence from the action that created the UI. >> >> (4) Any score adjustment from the use of the UI is a restoration of >> equity and NOT a penalty, and most certainly not a penalty for the >> play out of turn. >> >> I expect I will be in my usual minority of one. >> >> If anyone is keeping score put me down for application of L16 >> after L57 infractions. >> > > Sorry - that should read .... after L35 infractions. > and not in L57C? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 6 14:13:38 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jun 6 14:12:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <000001c56a79$6d169230$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c56a79$6d169230$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050606080131.02a5bc10@pop.starpower.net> At 05:23 AM 6/6/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > Richard wrote: > > > > > One Aussie defender tries to unilaterally bypass > > > Law 73F2 (Player Injured by Illegal Deception) by > > > placing his intended card face down on the table, > > > then stating, "I am not thinking about this trick," > > > before he (eventually) turns over his downfaced > > > card. > > > > > This defender has infracted, albeit > > > unintentionally, Law 73A2 (Proper Communication > > > between Partners - Correct Manner for Calls and > > > Plays) by using a special emphasis and mannerism. > > > > Before deciding whether this is an infraction we must decide > whether the > > emphasis/mannerism is, in this context, "special" or "within the > bounds of > > normality". That is a TD judgement so there is no automatic > infraction. > > > > Tim > >Agreed, but I would particularly like to find out his purpose of >temporarily >concealing from opponents (and partner) the card he has already decided to >play while he is considering future trick(s). I have some difficulty >understanding how he can have any legitimate bridge reason for that. If I >decided to rule against him I guess I would use Law 74B4 (hardly L73!). Where I play, this is not uncommon. Any hesitation provides partner with the UI that you have a problem. The purpose is to reduce that UI (and the extent to which partner may be constrained in his choice of actions by it) by making obvious only that you have a problem with something in the remaining play of the hand, rather than that you have a problem playing to a particular trick. Moreover, you usually do this when the previous trick has provided additional information about the distribution (perhaps someone showed out), so the hesitation at that time might be just to recount and reanalyze the hand with the new information rather than necessarily indicating that you are thinking about any particular future play. It is not dissimilar to the normal hesitation at trick one after dummy comes down, which is widely regarded as conveying very little UI. Of course, later in the hand, there may be more UI than there would have been at trick one, but still may be far less than if the specifically problematic trick (or even the fact that there is one) is revealed. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 6 14:30:24 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jun 6 14:29:17 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was 35D) In-Reply-To: <000501c56a84$4b00fb30$0307a8c0@david> References: <000501c56a84$4b00fb30$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050606081516.02bacc30@pop.starpower.net> At 06:41 AM 6/6/05, David wrote: >My take on L57C:- > >(1) L57C makes it clear that the defender's action is an infraction > even if it is an infraction not subject to penalty. Consequently the > action is subject to L72B2. If I determine that the play ahead of > partner is a deliberate infraction, I will issue a PP. > >(2) L57C refers to a defender (singular) and makes no reference to > penalties or restrictions on offender's partner. > >(3) The use of UI (created by the card played out of turn) is a separate > offence from the action that created the UI. > >(4) Any score adjustment from the use of the UI is a restoration of > equity and NOT a penalty, and most certainly not a penalty for the > play out of turn. > >I expect I will be in my usual minority of one. > >If anyone is keeping score put me down for application of L16 >after L57 infractions. I confess I do not understand the argument for the relevance of L57C to the interpretation of L35D. L57C strikes me as one of the more straightforward laws in the book. It says that if declarer plays from both his hand and dummy before either defender has played, either defender may treat the card played on his right as having been led to the trick, after which play proceeds normally, with declarer not allowed to change his third-hand play. Perhaps in very unusual cases there may be UI transmitted, not by a defender's play per se, but by the enthusiasm with which he plays, or his obvious desire to let partner play first, but that's no different in nature from the UI that can be generated by the manner in which any legal play is made. This discussion is the only time, in any context, that I've ever seen or heard anything that would suggest that there is any difference of opinion on the subject of how L57C is to be interpreted and applied. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 6 14:46:34 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Jun 6 14:48:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >DWS wrote: >> >> The main regs that tend to be attacked here again and again and again >> are: >> >> Those based on L40D whereby certain conventional calls in response to >> natural bids are controlled. > >Those regs are criticised, quite justifiably, on the grounds that they are >a) stupid >b) contrary to the spirit of the laws. Well, either that, or contrary to the views of a minority who do not want the game run for the populace, but want it run for their own peculiar minority ideas, and do not give a damn about the good of the game or the wishes of the majority. >They are seldom attacked on the grounds of legality. Perhaps it is time you spoke to Wayne. >> The EBU's advice on asking questions which is always misquoted and then >> attacked on the basis that what they did not say is illegal. > >The advice is poorly written and misguided - not illegal. Of course it is not illegal, and your opinions on it are not worth a carrot. But it is often misquoted here, and then the misquoted advice - which is illegal - is then decried as illegal. >> My view on some clubs who have certain illegal regs is that it is not >> worth fighting them. > >It needn't necessarily be a fight. In most cases the TD can educate >rather than fight. Obviously a TD should not issue EBU masterpoints for >club events played outwith the laws. Yeah, right, "obviously". It's not obvious at all, as you know full well, but you just like to be bloody-minded. Considering your own propensity to break Laws that do not suit you you have an unfortunate approach to other people's normal approach. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Jun 6 14:55:03 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Jun 6 14:55:05 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was 35D) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050606081516.02bacc30@pop.starpower.net> References: <000501c56a84$4b00fb30$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050606081516.02bacc30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <42A447A7.4020006@hdw.be> Well Eric, you have very little imagination. Eric Landau wrote: > > I confess I do not understand the argument for the relevance of L57C to > the interpretation of L35D. L57C strikes me as one of the more > straightforward laws in the book. It says that if declarer plays from > both his hand and dummy before either defender has played, either > defender may treat the card played on his right as having been led to > the trick, after which play proceeds normally, with declarer not allowed > to change his third-hand play. Perhaps in very unusual cases there may > be UI transmitted, not by a defender's play per se, but by the > enthusiasm with which he plays, or his obvious desire to let partner > play first, but that's no different in nature from the UI that can be > generated by the manner in which any legal play is made. > > This discussion is the only time, in any context, that I've ever seen or > heard anything that would suggest that there is any difference of > opinion on the subject of how L57C is to be interpreted and applied. > Surely you can see that showing the fourth card to the trick can be advantageous to layer in second hand. Surely if this card is treated as UI, you can imagine (difficult) rulings as to what card second hand is now legally allowed to play? I believe this discussion is eminently important in the discussion on L35D. Since if you, quite logically, conclude that the information carried by a shown card which is "not subject to penalty" is AI, then you should also conclude that the information carried in a bid which is "cancelled without penalty" is also AI? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 6 14:55:21 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Jun 6 14:57:00 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David, please don't beat around the bush. You read the first post in >this thread. You did not comment. Most of us came to the general >conclusion that one needed to use L72 to counter the actions. You did >not comment. If I then consider that you were in agreement with that >consensus, please reply in either of two ways: >- agree that you were with that consensus, and either say so or keep >quiet; or >- stipulate that you are not with that consensus, and either explain >why (and why you did not tell us) or not Why should I? What gives you the right to tell me to what threads I should give opinions? >But don't complain that I assumed you were in consensus. Don't you dare tell deliberate lies about me then. You have no right to make presumptions of this sort. >A consensus is a common point of view, and there is no need to express >that you agree with it. > >Anyway, my reaction was to Sven, who was assuming the whole world was >with him. I explained to him that the "consensus" that was reached was >quite the reverse. > >BTW, David, rather than complaining that we have attributed an opinion >to you when apparently you haven't, why don't you simply state that you >agree with the opinion (or not)? Because I do not wish to get involved, and I am not going to be bullied into it by your lying about me. I have a perfect right to decide which threads to answer to, and which not. Your presumption that anyone who does not wish to comment on this thread agrees with Herman De Wael is unacceptable. >What is it to be: is "without penalty" with or without application of >L16. Please consider both L35D and L57C in your answer. In the circumstances I am certainly not going to answer. By the way, I presume your "consensus" of everyone agreeing with you apart form Sven includes all the lurkers who never post? All the people who are in holiday and have not seen this post? Yes? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 6 14:58:19 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Jun 6 15:00:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? Message-ID: wrote > > > > >One Aussie defender tries to unilaterally bypass >Law 73F2 (Player Injured by Illegal Deception) by >placing his intended card face down on the table, >then stating, "I am not thinking about this trick," >before he (eventually) turns over his downfaced >card. > >Note: This defender highly ethically has never >substituted a new downfaced card for their original >downfaced card. > >This defender succeeds in avoiding an infraction of >Law 73F2, and also succeeds in preventing the >declarer (and partner) from knowing on which future >trick the defender does have a decision to make. > >The best of both worlds? > >Alas, no. This defender has infracted, albeit >unintentionally, Law 73A2 (Proper Communication >between Partners - Correct Manner for Calls and >Plays) by using a special emphasis and mannerism. This is a normal approach by ethical players. It is not an infraction in my view. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Jun 6 15:23:18 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon Jun 6 15:22:46 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was 35D) References: <000501c56a84$4b00fb30$0307a8c0@david> <42A437DD.7090102@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001301c56a9a$e72ef7d0$0307a8c0@david> DB>> My take on L57C:- >> DB>> (1) L57C makes it clear that the defender's action is an infraction DB>> even if it is an infraction not subject to penalty. Consequently the DB>> action is subject to L72B2. If I determine that the play ahead of DB>> partner is a deliberate infraction, I will issue a PP. >> > HdW> So here you have a law which says, "a player is not subject to penalty HdW> if he ..." and then you issue a PP to a player who does this, simply HdW> because he does so deliberately? Surely you see this is wrong! > No I don't see that this is wrong. It is inherent throughout the laws that infractions are NOT deliberate. It is a VERY serious offense to deliberately break a law, whether that law has a penalty provision attached to it or not. Surely you see that if the defender had the RIGHT to play ahead of his partner, it would be expressed as such. It would not be described as an infraction with a zero penalty. DB>> (2) L57C refers to a defender (singular) and makes no reference to DB>> penalties or restrictions on offender's partner. >> > HdW> Indeed, that is a valid point. > DB>> (3) The use of UI (created by the card played out of turn) is a separate DB>> offence from the action that created the UI. >> > HdW> That is a valid point as well. _IF_ the information created is UI. I HdW> don't see how information created by something which is not subject to HdW> penalty can become UI. But I may be wrong there, I admit. > Well consider an alert or an explanation. These are obviously not subject to penalty but can easily create UI. DB>> (4) Any score adjustment from the use of the UI is a restoration of DB>> equity and NOT a penalty, and most certainly not a penalty for the DB>> play out of turn. >> > HdW> This I simply won't accept. Without the information, partner has two HdW> possible lines of play (or he would not be thinking). With the UI (if HdW> it is UI), he is no longer allowed to choose one of them. That sounds HdW> like a restriction to me, and like a penalty. > To me it sounds like a restoration of equity with the benefit of doubt going to the non offenders. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.2 - Release Date: 04/06/2005 From john at asimere.com Mon Jun 6 16:38:12 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon Jun 6 16:42:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Tim West- Meads writes > >The EBU byelaws state: > >3.2 For the purpose of these Disciplinary Rules, the following shall >amount to an ?Offence?: >(i) a breach of the Bye-Laws or Articles of the Company; >(ii) a breach of the regulations laid down by the Board or any of its >Standing or other >Committees, or any Conditions of Contest or other tournament regulations; >(iii) a breach of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997 or any >subsequent re-enactment; > >It is a disciplinary offence for a TD to knowingly break the laws of >bridge in an EBU sanctioned event. Non-affiliated clubs/events need not >apply *any* of the laws of bridge - (I might ask such a club why they >aren't using the laws but I would uphold their right not to do so). > Tim and I direct a little club in Central London, which meets for a social duplicate twice a month. They play 2 WBF simultaneouses a year. I always explain to them that we have to be a lot stricter with the Laws on those nights as we're competing for master points. They accept that this is a realistic point of view. They do choose to use the Law Book for their social game, but we're very relaxed about it and I prefer to go with the flow on social nights. I think Tim is entirely right. >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 Mon Jun 6 16:42:10 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon Jun 6 16:46:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2bl8KVCCDGpCFw8n@asimere.com> In article , David Stevenson writes >Tim West-Meads wrote >>DWS wrote: >>> >>> The main regs that tend to be attacked here again and again and again >>> are: >>> >>> Those based on L40D whereby certain conventional calls in response to >>> natural bids are controlled. >> >>Those regs are criticised, quite justifiably, on the grounds that they are >>a) stupid >>b) contrary to the spirit of the laws. > > Well, either that, or contrary to the views of a minority who do not >want the game run for the populace, but want it run for their own >peculiar minority ideas, and do not give a damn about the good of the >game or the wishes of the majority. > >>They are seldom attacked on the grounds of legality. > > Perhaps it is time you spoke to Wayne. > >>> The EBU's advice on asking questions which is always misquoted and then >>> attacked on the basis that what they did not say is illegal. >> >>The advice is poorly written and misguided - not illegal. > > Of course it is not illegal, and your opinions on it are not worth a >carrot. But it is often misquoted here, and then the misquoted advice - >which is illegal - is then decried as illegal. > >>> My view on some clubs who have certain illegal regs is that it is not >>> worth fighting them. >> >>It needn't necessarily be a fight. In most cases the TD can educate >>rather than fight. Obviously a TD should not issue EBU masterpoints for >>club events played outwith the laws. > > Yeah, right, "obviously". It's not obvious at all, as you know full >well, but you just like to be bloody-minded. > > Considering your own propensity to break Laws that do not suit you you >have an unfortunate approach to other people's normal approach. To my knowledge Tim has never intentionally broken a bridge law. He has on occasion broken regulations which he believes are illegal, and that matter has yet to be tested. 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 bluejak666 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 6 16:50:26 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Jun 6 16:52:04 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was 35D) Message-ID: David Barton wrote >DB>> My take on L57C:- >>> >DB>> (1) L57C makes it clear that the defender's action is an infraction >DB>> even if it is an infraction not subject to penalty. >DB>>Consequently >the >DB>> action is subject to L72B2. If I determine that the play ahead of >DB>> partner is a deliberate infraction, I will issue a PP. >>> >> >HdW> So here you have a law which says, "a player is not subject to penalty >HdW> if he ..." and then you issue a PP to a player who does this, simply >HdW> because he does so deliberately? Surely you see this is wrong! >No I don't see that this is wrong. >It is inherent throughout the laws that infractions are NOT deliberate. >It is a VERY serious offense to deliberately break a law, whether that law >has a penalty provision attached to it or not. >Surely you see that if the defender had the RIGHT to play ahead of his >partner, it would be expressed as such. It would not be described as an >infraction with a zero penalty. That's one way of looking at it. The alternative is that the interpretation of this has been that a player may do so, and that interpretation has been followed for a very long time. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 6 16:54:12 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Jun 6 16:55:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article , David >Stevenson writes >>Tim West-Meads wrote >>>DWS wrote: >>>> >>>> The main regs that tend to be attacked here again and again and again >>>> are: >>>> >>>> Those based on L40D whereby certain conventional calls in response to >>>> natural bids are controlled. >>> >>>Those regs are criticised, quite justifiably, on the grounds that they >>>are >>>a) stupid >>>b) contrary to the spirit of the laws. >> >> Well, either that, or contrary to the views of a minority who do not >>want the game run for the populace, but want it run for their own >>peculiar minority ideas, and do not give a damn about the good of the >>game or the wishes of the majority. >> >>>They are seldom attacked on the grounds of legality. >> >> Perhaps it is time you spoke to Wayne. >> >>>> The EBU's advice on asking questions which is always misquoted and then >>>> attacked on the basis that what they did not say is illegal. >>> >>>The advice is poorly written and misguided - not illegal. >> >> Of course it is not illegal, and your opinions on it are not worth a >>carrot. But it is often misquoted here, and then the misquoted advice - >>which is illegal - is then decried as illegal. >> >>>> My view on some clubs who have certain illegal regs is that it is not >>>> worth fighting them. >>> >>>It needn't necessarily be a fight. In most cases the TD can educate >>>rather than fight. Obviously a TD should not issue EBU masterpoints for >>>club events played outwith the laws. >> >> Yeah, right, "obviously". It's not obvious at all, as you know full >>well, but you just like to be bloody-minded. >> >> Considering your own propensity to break Laws that do not suit you you >>have an unfortunate approach to other people's normal approach. > >To my knowledge Tim has never intentionally broken a bridge law. He has >on occasion broken regulations which he believes are illegal, and that >matter has yet to be tested. When a player has a different view of the Law from his regulating authority, and follows his own view knowing it to be different, he is knowingly breaking a bridge Law. If I decide that the Law permits me to drive on the wrong side of the road [perhaps because of some ancient unrepealed Law], so I do so, I believe I am deliberately and knowledgeably breaking the Law. This whole idea that one person can decide the Law is what he says it is leads to anarchy. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jun 6 13:31:59 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Jun 6 16:58:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: <004801c5691a$6997f640$3d9468d5@James><000f01c569e5$d6c21cc0$46a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001c01c56a06$854b74b0$569468d5@James> Message-ID: <002c01c56aa7$51d62ac0$f6c187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** 'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke --------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 8:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall > > [Nigel] > Sorry Grattan! Thank you for the correction. I admit that > Grattan's news implies that I'm mistaken on the issue of > psych reportage! I'm delighted! Please gladden my heart > further, Grattan, by supplying us with more statistics. In > particular: How many of the reported red psyches attract an > immediate score adjustment in the average year? > +=+ OB 6.2.2 says that, when a psyche is identified as 'red', "the score will be adjusted". I believe, therefore, that the answer is 100% ( if opponents were damaged, and I do not recall any where this is not the case among the forms I have seen - perhaps because opponents tend not to call the TD when they have a good score). ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jun 6 16:50:31 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Jun 6 16:58:19 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was 35D) References: Message-ID: <002e01c56aa7$54ad3f90$f6c187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** 'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke --------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L57C (was 35D) > > > Ergo, Grattan Endicott disagrees with the De Wael > hypothesis that an adjusted score for an offending > side is a subset of "penalty". > +=+ I wish it were so in the fog in which Kaplan set the laws. His use of 'penalty' is sometimes confusing and is capable of including or not including score adjustment, depending on the tilt of his pen on the day. I believe that score adjustment is to redress damage and in principle is not a 'penalty'. But I am not secure in this because of the wording of 84E - would not 'penalty' here cover any situation in which a score is adjusted? - and in Law 21B2 we have 'without penalty (unless... ' which calls for an AS if 'unless' triggers it, the AS being then apparently a penalty. Edgar would bend his arguments to occasion and he affected language that gave him and us great scope for doing so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Jun 6 17:12:31 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Jun 6 17:12:46 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42A467DF.9060808@hdw.be> David, no need to get on your high horse. David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> David, please don't beat around the bush. You read the first post in >> this thread. You did not comment. Most of us came to the general >> conclusion that one needed to use L72 to counter the actions. You did >> not comment. If I then consider that you were in agreement with that >> consensus, please reply in either of two ways: >> - agree that you were with that consensus, and either say so or keep >> quiet; or >> - stipulate that you are not with that consensus, and either explain >> why (and why you did not tell us) or not > > > Why should I? What gives you the right to tell me to what threads I > should give opinions? > No one, but when at last one thread appears to end on a consensus, and this has been commented upon, and you don't argue against said consensus, then there is a consensus. And I don't care whether you agree or not, but don't go calling it "not a consensus" when you don't agree but don't want to speak out on it. >> But don't complain that I assumed you were in consensus. > > > Don't you dare tell deliberate lies about me then. You have no right > to make presumptions of this sort. > I should re-read what I wrote before deciding whether or not I owe you an apology. I don't think I do, but I may be mistaken. >> A consensus is a common point of view, and there is no need to express >> that you agree with it. >> >> Anyway, my reaction was to Sven, who was assuming the whole world was >> with him. I explained to him that the "consensus" that was reached was >> quite the reverse. >> >> BTW, David, rather than complaining that we have attributed an opinion >> to you when apparently you haven't, why don't you simply state that >> you agree with the opinion (or not)? > > > Because I do not wish to get involved, and I am not going to be bullied > into it by your lying about me. > Then stay out of the discussion. > I have a perfect right to decide which threads to answer to, and which > not. Your presumption that anyone who does not wish to comment on this > thread agrees with Herman De Wael is unacceptable. > Well, it was acceptable a few weeks ago, when no-one (not even Sven) had spoken out against what appeared to be a consensus. I'll get back on this when I have re-examined this thread. >> What is it to be: is "without penalty" with or without application of >> L16. Please consider both L35D and L57C in your answer. > > > In the circumstances I am certainly not going to answer. > Then keep your mouth shut. > By the way, I presume your "consensus" of everyone agreeing with you > apart form Sven includes all the lurkers who never post? All the people > who are in holiday and have not seen this post? Yes? > Yes, when I see a thread that seems to have nothing but similar views and no disagreement, I presume we are in consensus. In fact, I still do believe we are in such a consensus. I have not yet seen anyone who wishes to allow a spade lead after 1NT pass 3NT pass pass pass pass 1Sp although we might have different routes towards it. In fact, after everyone agreed on this one, Sven was the one who threw a spanner in the works, causing this now un-ending thread. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 6 17:16:09 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jun 6 17:15:00 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was 35D) In-Reply-To: <42A447A7.4020006@hdw.be> References: <000501c56a84$4b00fb30$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050606081516.02bacc30@pop.starpower.net> <42A447A7.4020006@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050606110728.02bb7c80@pop.starpower.net> At 08:55 AM 6/6/05, Herman wrote: >Well Eric, you have very little imagination. > >Eric Landau wrote: > >>I confess I do not understand the argument for the relevance of L57C >>to the interpretation of L35D. L57C strikes me as one of the more >>straightforward laws in the book. It says that if declarer plays >>from both his hand and dummy before either defender has played, >>either defender may treat the card played on his right as having been >>led to the trick, after which play proceeds normally, with declarer >>not allowed to change his third-hand play. Perhaps in very unusual >>cases there may be UI transmitted, not by a defender's play per se, >>but by the enthusiasm with which he plays, or his obvious desire to >>let partner play first, but that's no different in nature from the UI >>that can be generated by the manner in which any legal play is made. >>This discussion is the only time, in any context, that I've ever seen >>or heard anything that would suggest that there is any difference of >>opinion on the subject of how L57C is to be interpreted and applied. > >Surely you can see that showing the fourth card to the trick can be >advantageous to layer in second hand. Surely if this card is treated >as UI, you can imagine (difficult) rulings as to what card second hand >is now legally allowed to play? I can indeed. I can equally well see that showing the second card to the trick can be advantageous to the player in fourth hand; that doesn't make it UI. My reading of L57C says that after declarer plays from both hands before an opponent has played, there is no "second" or "fourth" hand at that point: the first card played by either opponent *becomes* the second card to the trick, and his partner's becomes the fourth, subject to the same requirements and restrictions as any other play by fourth hand, which obviously do not include making his partner's played card UI to him. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Jun 6 17:41:39 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Jun 6 17:41:48 2005 Subject: [blml] L35 - consensus or not? Message-ID: <42A46EB3.5090700@hdw.be> There has been some reaction lately about whether we had reached a consensus or not. Let me therefor recap the thread L35: I posted the original (1NT-pass-3NT-pass-pass-pass-pass-1Sp) on 25/5. The first to reply was David Barton - he wanted to use L39 - I quickly pointed out he was wrong there. This created reactions from Koen Grauwels - who asked if L16 still applied, Eric Landau - who wanted to use L26 (erroneously, he later admitted) and Sven Pran - who pointed us to L72B1. The second to reply to the original was Petrus Schuster - he thought the 1Sp was cancelled only if it too was condoned - also wrong, as I pointed out, something which was confirmed by Harald Skjaeran and Sven Pran. The third to reply was Konrad Ciborowski, who went to L72B1 immediately. Koen Grauwels reacted to this one as well, asking once more if L16 still applied or not - to this one Sven replied that L16A still applied. Matthias Berghaus was the fourth to reply to the original. He also mentioned both L16 and L72. Adam Beneschan also reacted to the original, sadly with a wrong analysis - corrected later. Adam also answered Koen's 2 questions, being the first to state that L16 should not apply when L35D says "without penalty". He later doubted his own statement, but still thought it wouldn't matter since in any case L72B1 seemed to apply. Chas Fellows also told us that in an EBU exam, full marks were given for not awarding lead penalties. He draws a distinction between an inadvertent fifth call and a deliberate one, and he too believes L72 is there to deal with the deliberate one. Sven agreed to this view in his post of 31/5, 16:21. By 23:22 of the same day he did reintorduce L16 into the equation however. That is a summary of the whole thread in the month of May. One more comment was received from Grattan Endicott on 1/6: +=+ Personally I would say there is a clear cut case for invoking 72B1. ~ G ~ +=+ The month of June started with Richard Hills disagreeing with Sven, stating that 'it "may" be possible that information from a "cancelled" call "may" in fact be authorised information to all'. And then I wrote a sentence I now regret: "This seems to be about the only thread this year so far, on which there has been no discussion." Don't forget that we've been around the block for a whole week, and everyone seemed to agree that L72B was the one to go with. I call that a consensus, don't you? On that first of June, Sven and I then started discussing whether or not L16 applied. We're still nowhere in that discussion, and I don't think there is a right answer before the WBFLC tell us their view on the matter. On that same 1st of June, Sven argued that maybe L72 should also be cancelled under the 'no penalty' provisions of L35D. I believe he is wrong there, but he does have a valid point. Since then there have been 112 messages in this thread. I am not surprised that some people get tired of this list. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From john at asimere.com Mon Jun 6 18:01:05 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon Jun 6 18:04:59 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was 35D) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050606110728.02bb7c80@pop.starpower.net> References: <000501c56a84$4b00fb30$0307a8c0@david> <6.1.1.1.0.20050606081516.02bacc30@pop.starpower.net> <42A447A7.4020006@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050606110728.02bb7c80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In article <6.1.1.1.0.20050606110728.02bb7c80@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 08:55 AM 6/6/05, Herman wrote: > >>Well Eric, you have very little imagination. >> >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>I confess I do not understand the argument for the relevance of L57C >>>to the interpretation of L35D. L57C strikes me as one of the more >>>straightforward laws in the book. It says that if declarer plays >>>from both his hand and dummy before either defender has played, >>>either defender may treat the card played on his right as having been >>>led to the trick, after which play proceeds normally, with declarer >>>not allowed to change his third-hand play. Perhaps in very unusual >>>cases there may be UI transmitted, not by a defender's play per se, >>>but by the enthusiasm with which he plays, or his obvious desire to >>>let partner play first, but that's no different in nature from the UI >>>that can be generated by the manner in which any legal play is made. >>>This discussion is the only time, in any context, that I've ever seen >>>or heard anything that would suggest that there is any difference of >>>opinion on the subject of how L57C is to be interpreted and applied. >> >>Surely you can see that showing the fourth card to the trick can be >>advantageous to layer in second hand. Surely if this card is treated >>as UI, you can imagine (difficult) rulings as to what card second hand >>is now legally allowed to play? > >I can indeed. I can equally well see that showing the second card to >the trick can be advantageous to the player in fourth hand; that >doesn't make it UI. My reading of L57C says that after declarer plays >from both hands before an opponent has played, there is no "second" or >"fourth" hand at that point: the first card played by either opponent >*becomes* the second card to the trick, and his partner's becomes the >fourth, subject to the same requirements and restrictions as any other >play by fourth hand, which obviously do not include making his >partner's played card UI to him. In essence if a player has played out of turn the Law is *always* "You may condone this". The only penalty is on the player who did play out of turn (declarer in this example) and the penalty on him is that either player can play next. I don't see that this Law has any bearing on the L35 one we've been discussing. The "without penalty" has entirely different connotations to my English-speaking mind. John > > >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 Mon Jun 6 18:08:42 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon Jun 6 18:12:22 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A467DF.9060808@hdw.be> References: <42A467DF.9060808@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <42A467DF.9060808@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip >> >> >> In the circumstances I am certainly not going to answer. >> > >Then keep your mouth shut. Stop it you two. This is ridiculous. > >> By the way, I presume your "consensus" of everyone agreeing with you >> apart form Sven includes all the lurkers who never post? All the people >> who are in holiday and have not seen this post? Yes? >> > >Yes, when I see a thread that seems to have nothing but similar views >and no disagreement, I presume we are in consensus. My take on the thread was that the consensus view was that "1S" after the auction was completed had made spades a lead that his partner had to exclude from amongst LAs. This is a line which both Sven and I had followed since almost the beginning of the thread. I, and at least one other, treat the "1S" "call" as being of the like import to "I'd like a spade lead" after the auction is completed (per 17). Sven has a slightly different tack but concurs with our final view that we can go to 72B1 or 16 if we so need. I'm not quite sure what Herman thinks. cheers John > >In fact, I still do believe we are in such a consensus. I have not yet >seen anyone who wishes to allow a spade lead after >1NT pass 3NT pass >pass pass pass 1Sp >although we might have different routes towards it. In fact, after >everyone agreed on this one, Sven was the one who threw a spanner in >the works, causing this now un-ending thread. > -- 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 johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Jun 6 18:14:56 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Jun 6 18:16:39 2005 Subject: [blml] "General knowldge?" In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050604142547.02c56790@pop.starpower.net> from "Eric Landau" at Jun 04, 2005 02:37:49 PM Message-ID: <200506061614.j56GEu8l004895@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Eric Landau writes: > > At 07:41 PM 6/3/05, twm wrote: > > >Nigel wrote: > > > > > 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 :). > > > >The law-book confers on him no such thing. After the hand the TD can > >investigate to his hearts content if there is a claim for damage from non > >-disclosure. As part of that investigation one can ask what he knows > >from > >his GK&E and what reasons he has to suppose that that knowledge is, or is > >not, shared by his regular partner. > > And if the TD is called at the time, he can tell the opponent to answer > the d--ned question or get thrown out of the game [L90B8, L91]. I've brought up Albuquerque often enough. I should dig up the hand, but from memory (cue probable problems) declarer asked about a signal and was told that the meaning (three possible meanings IIRC) varied according to "Bridge logic" The director required the player to explain the underlying considerations. > That's > a long way from "diplomatic immunity". And any TD who would let > himself get pushed around as Nigel describes is an equally long way > from "competent". I feel sorry for Nigel, who apparently can only find > games where the TDs step aside while the bridge lawyers at the tables > make the rulings. To be fair to Nigel this kind of nonsense does happen all the time in club games. I've even seen it happen occasionally at tournaments. Never with a director worth his salt though. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jun 6 18:21:55 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon Jun 6 18:23:42 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A42C32.7010503@hdw.be> References: <000001c569ba$158cf500$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A2DAC9.4010600@hdw.be> <42A2F974.1040706@t-online.de> <42A31DCA.8040200@hdw.be> <42A41063.8040809@t-online.de> <42A42C32.7010503@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42A47823.8040703@t-online.de> Herman De Wael wrote: > > Matthias, you know as well as I do that an application of L16 does not > constitute a restoration of equity. If I tell my partner to lead a > spade, then he cannot lead a spade (if there is a LA), even if he > would be able to find a spade lead by himself. That is a penalty IMO, > not a restoration of equity. Oh please. Just look at L73C. This is just how the game ought to be played. Humans being fallible we need L16 to decide what to do if there was an infraction of L73C. That does not make these restrictions a penalty. Iz`s an obligation to anyone who tries to play the game. Oh yes, sometimes we fail in our endeavour. Nobody is perfect, least of all directors. > > It is not up to me, or to you, to decide whether or not L16 and L12 > constitute "penalties". It is up to the Lawmakers. And they have done > a bad job in writing down L16 in such a way that it is not clear if it > is included in the "no penalty" clauses of L35 and L57C. Well, I find it abundantly clear, just by looking where the lawmakers wrote "penalty" and where they did not. We all know that the laws are not perfect. They cannot be, because there are people with different viewpoints of what is allowed, ehat is forbidden, what is clear and what is not. You and me cannot agree on a small part of the laws, and we are just two. How can millions agree? It won`t happen. Not with the 1997 laws, not 2006, not ever. What we need is the will to perceive what the lawmakers wanted, and if we can`t fathom their intent occasionally we have our instincts to guide us, to tell us how the game has to be played. What do your instincts tell you about someone who bids the by-now-famous 1S intentionally? (I know we can`t prove it, but we know our customers, don`t we?) And what do they tell you about a player who can`t be bothered to count the number of passes since the last meaningful call? > > Why? - because _you_ believe that a penalty is only something which is > called a penalty? A prohibiting a spade lead by L26 is a penalty > because it is called a penalty in the book; but prohibiting > (effectively) a spade lead by L16 is not a penalty? > Why am I a bad reader of rules and not you, who does not recognizes a > penalty when something is prohibited? Where does it state that a spade is prohibited? It`s just that a bridgeplayer shouldn`t _want_ to lead a spade after receiving UI, he should actively look for logical alternatives and choose only among those. This is a cornerstone of bridge itself, as much as "thou shalt not kill" is a cornerstone not only of the christian faith but of society, and the fact that this principle is violated thousands of times every day does not detract from it`s importance. Something may well be perceived as a penalty without being intended as such. The deciding factor has to be intent, not personal opinion. The only way to perceive the intent of the lawmakers is to look at the words. There it is.... "then (penalty)..... Don`t you think that a penalty is intended? Or.... "without penalty".... Something happened that might under certain circumstances merit a penalty, but because of the circumstances described in this law there is no penalty for this specific infraction. And _over and above_ certain laws there still lie the principles of bridge. The general principles are laid down in L72. > > I look at my set of connotations, yes. If something is prohibited I > call this a penalty. You look at your set of connotations. If > something is called a penalty it is a penalty. Why should your > interpretation carry any more value than mine? Because the Laws are > generally consistently well-written, are they? Let us assume (just for argument`s sake) that the spade lead is prohibited. It is also prohibited to drive your car faster than 30 miles an hour through a city. Are you constantly being penalized by this? It is prohibited to sell alcohol to children. Is this a penalty? No? Then how can a restriction (not even a prohibition) to lead a spade be a penalty? It is just a restriction, nothing more, but also nothing less. If you give UI regarding the spade suit your partner`s choices are restricted, yes. But in certain circumstances he may still lead a spade. His hand may leave him no choice, or the bidding may do so. Possibly you doubled spade bids three times in the auction. The "penalty" for the offender (the 1S-bidder) may well be the score he receives after his partner did the ethical and correct thing and led something else. If you feel penalized by ethical partners I can`t help you. If I receive UI I try to choose some logical alternative. Being human I fail now and then. If I do the TD is there to correct me. > >> This is the crux of the matter. "Without penalty" does _not_ mean >> "without possible adjustment". > > > Why not? Especially in the case of L57C, please andwer me that. > I'm quite willing to accept your arguments, but they must be better > than this. You are in fact telling me that it is like you say because > it is like you say! No,Herman, I am telling you because the reason for the adjustment will - in cases like this one - lie in the future. The adjustment has of course to be because of another infraction (except where the law says otherwise, c.f. L27B1b). May I turn your attention to L72A5? "Subject to Law 16C2,after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty......" If L16C2 is in operation even after the penalty has been paid, how can it be inoperative when there wasn`t even a penalty? I think L27B1a is the only law whrer L16 is disabled, and even then only conditionally. > >> If you happen to commit this particular infraction (and this 1S call >> _is_ an infraction, the rules leave no doubt about that, you will not >> be penalized. Your score may be adjusted if your partner used the UI >> you generated, but this is a separate infraction. The first one is >> not to be penalized, L35D tells us so, the second one may be subject >> to score adjustment, depending on the logical alternatives of the >> opening leader. If you made available information regarding the spade >> suit no one can talk him out of a spade lead from QJ1098 and two >> quick entries to his hand against some number of no trump. No penalty >> against you for bidding 1S because of L35D, no adjustment against him >> for leading a spade because of L16. >> Zhe clause "without penalty" does not give absolution for future >> sins, it just tells us what to do with past and present ones. >> > > Why? Please stick to arguments that are not based on the conclusion > you are trying to prove. Your arguments above, being that L16 does not > contain the words "penalty" in them, are far better than this "it is > like this because it is like this". No, it is because of L72A5, see above. And if you try to argue that "without penalty" is differnt from this I again can`t help you. You have to open your eyes and be willing to see what is written. > Exactly. There are penalties in the general case of L39, but not in > the special case of L35. L57C and L35 use "without penalty" and "not > subject to penalty". Yet by the same argument you defend the use of > L16 in the L35 case and not in the L57C case. This is simply not > consistent! You could be right about L57C. I have to reconsider my position here. My first opinion was given because of a faulty (as I now realize) memory of the wording of the law. It is at least clear that the penalties mentioned in L57C are those of 57A. I have to look through the laws a bit, but it may well be that L16 is applicable here. > > > I understand quite well what you mean, and I don't know what to do > either. But if I am to interpret L57C in the way I have done so in the > past, then I see no reason why not to apply the same principle to L35. > Or change my view on L57C. If there is no other law concerned with this situation we have to treat 35 and 57 the same way, yes. > >> If you lead out of turn declarer may choose to forbid the lead of the >> suit you tried to lead. This is the prescribed penalty. The law now >> tells us that you may pick up your card. The penalty is paid, but the >> UI remains, doesn`t it? >> > > Yes, but there was a penalty - it has been paid. And the UI remains. > in the cases that we talk about, it is said there is no penalty. > Well, see 72A5 again. I believe that after an infraction the restrictions of 16C2 remain. It is so after a penalty has been paid (because the law says so), and I believe it to be so because an infraction remains an infraction, even if no penalty is applied, and the UI remains (as you agree above), so the restrictions remain too. I can`t remember another law where L16 is (conditionally) disabled besides 27, but I may have overlooked one. In my opinion the fact that L16 is explicitly disabled in L27B1b speaks for itself. Regards Matthias From relace at emailaccount.com Mon Jun 6 19:54:04 2005 From: relace at emailaccount.com (Tammy Fraser) Date: Mon Jun 6 19:03:37 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 $400,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.t0wers.net/signs.asp Best Regards, Elbert London to be remov(ed: http://www.t0wers.net/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 6 17:39:33 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jun 6 19:41:23 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C (was 35D) In-Reply-To: <001301c56a9a$e72ef7d0$0307a8c0@david> References: <000501c56a84$4b00fb30$0307a8c0@david> <42A437DD.7090102@hdw.be> <001301c56a9a$e72ef7d0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050606112216.02bb6630@pop.starpower.net> At 09:23 AM 6/6/05, David wrote: >DB>> My take on L57C:- >DB>> (1) L57C makes it clear that the defender's action is an infraction >DB>> even if it is an infraction not subject to penalty. >Consequently the >DB>> action is subject to L72B2. If I determine that the play ahead of >DB>> partner is a deliberate infraction, I will issue a PP. >HdW> So here you have a law which says, "a player is not subject to >penalty >HdW> if he ..." and then you issue a PP to a player who does this, simply >HdW> because he does so deliberately? Surely you see this is wrong! > >No I don't see that this is wrong. >It is inherent throughout the laws that infractions are NOT deliberate. >It is a VERY serious offense to deliberately break a law, whether that law >has a penalty provision attached to it or not. >Surely you see that if the defender had the RIGHT to play ahead of his >partner, it would be expressed as such. It would not be described as an >infraction with a zero penalty. > >DB>> (2) L57C refers to a defender (singular) and makes no reference to >DB>> penalties or restrictions on offender's partner. > >HdW> Indeed, that is a valid point. > >DB>> (3) The use of UI (created by the card played out of turn) is a >separate >DB>> offence from the action that created the UI. > >HdW> That is a valid point as well. _IF_ the information created is UI. I >HdW> don't see how information created by something which is not >subject to >HdW> penalty can become UI. But I may be wrong there, I admit. > >Well consider an alert or an explanation. These are obviously not subject >to penalty but can easily create UI. > >DB>> (4) Any score adjustment from the use of the UI is a restoration of >DB>> equity and NOT a penalty, and most certainly not a penalty >for the >DB>> play out of turn. >HdW> This I simply won't accept. Without the information, partner has two >HdW> possible lines of play (or he would not be thinking). With the UI (if >HdW> it is UI), he is no longer allowed to choose one of them. That sounds >HdW> like a restriction to me, and like a penalty. >To me it sounds like a restoration of equity with the benefit of doubt >going to the >non offenders. Really, guys, it doesn't matter. Let's define a "penalty" as "any adverse consequence to a player resulting from the fact that an action he has taken is a violation of law". Note that this does not mean he winds up worse off than he would have had he not taken that action, but rather that he winds up worse off than he would have been had his action been deemed to be legal, so it would, as Herman would have it, include any score adjustments not explicitly labeled as penalties. Even so, it requires that there be an infraction before there can be a "penalty". The strictures of L16 are still *not* "penalties" by this definition, as they apply whether or not there has been some infraction committed previously. They are simply requirements, carrying their own penalties if violated. Just like the requirements of L44. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Jun 6 21:59:19 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Jun 6 21:59:14 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A47823.8040703@t-online.de> References: <000001c569ba$158cf500$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A2DAC9.4010600@hdw.be> <42A2F974.1040706@t-online.de> <42A31DCA.8040200@hdw.be> <42A41063.8040809@t-online.de> <42A42C32.7010503@hdw.be> <42A47823.8040703@t-online.de> Message-ID: <42A4AB17.1090407@hdw.be> Hello Matthias, considering the amount of time you have spent on your reply, I feel I owe you some of the same. Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >> Matthias, you know as well as I do that an application of L16 does not >> constitute a restoration of equity. If I tell my partner to lead a >> spade, then he cannot lead a spade (if there is a LA), even if he >> would be able to find a spade lead by himself. That is a penalty IMO, >> not a restoration of equity. > > > > Oh please. Just look at L73C. This is just how the game ought to be > played. Humans being fallible we need L16 to decide what to do if there > was an infraction of L73C. That does not make these restrictions a > penalty. Iz`s an obligation to anyone who tries to play the game. Oh > yes, sometimes we fail in our endeavour. Nobody is perfect, least of all > directors. > What I mean is that L16 (and L73) put an obligation on partner. That obligation limits his choices and that is clearly a "penalty". Sometimes a player will be forbidden to lead a spade by L26, sometimes he will be forbidden to lead a spade by L16. Both are, IMO, exactly the same. Both are, in one sense of the word "penalties". >> >> It is not up to me, or to you, to decide whether or not L16 and L12 >> constitute "penalties". It is up to the Lawmakers. And they have done >> a bad job in writing down L16 in such a way that it is not clear if it >> is included in the "no penalty" clauses of L35 and L57C. > > > > Well, I find it abundantly clear, just by looking where the lawmakers > wrote "penalty" and where they did not. As I said before, that is the one argument in your favor. I still believe there is at least one argument in my favor as well. > We all know that the laws are > not perfect. That is true. Which is why you should not be so adamant in your arguments but try to see reason in mine as well. > They cannot be, because there are people with different > viewpoints of what is allowed, ehat is forbidden, what is clear and what > is not. That one is not true. I am quite certain that the lawmakers, once they have grasped the problem we are facing, will decide one way or the other - whether a mention of "no penalty" shall or shall not include L16. After which they will probably also alter L35D and L57C to reflect what level of allowance they will give to those infractions without penalties. > You and me cannot agree on a small part of the laws, and we are > just two. How can millions agree? It won`t happen. Not with the 1997 > laws, not 2006, not ever. What we need is the will to perceive what the > lawmakers wanted, and if we can`t fathom their intent occasionally we > have our instincts to guide us, to tell us how the game has to be > played. What do your instincts tell you about someone who bids the > by-now-famous 1S intentionally? (I know we can`t prove it, but we know > our customers, don`t we?) And what do they tell you about a player who > can`t be bothered to count the number of passes since the last > meaningful call? > >> >> Why? - because _you_ believe that a penalty is only something which is >> called a penalty? A prohibiting a spade lead by L26 is a penalty >> because it is called a penalty in the book; but prohibiting >> (effectively) a spade lead by L16 is not a penalty? >> Why am I a bad reader of rules and not you, who does not recognizes a >> penalty when something is prohibited? > > > > Where does it state that a spade is prohibited? It`s just that a > bridgeplayer shouldn`t _want_ to lead a spade after receiving UI, he > should actively look for logical alternatives and choose only among > those. This is a cornerstone of bridge itself, as much as "thou shalt > not kill" is a cornerstone not only of the christian faith but of > society, and the fact that this principle is violated thousands of times > every day does not detract from it`s importance. If he cannot (or will not) lead a space, isn't that as much of a penalty as if he were forbidden by L26? > Something may well be perceived as a penalty without being intended as > such. The deciding factor has to be intent, not personal opinion. The > only way to perceive the intent of the lawmakers is to look at the > words. There it is.... "then (penalty)..... Don`t you think that a > penalty is intended? Or.... "without penalty".... Something happened > that might under certain circumstances merit a penalty, but because of > the circumstances described in this law there is no penalty for this > specific infraction. And _over and above_ certain laws there still lie > the principles of bridge. The general principles are laid down in L72. > And who are you to say that when the lawmakers wrote L57C they actually wanted to say "there are no penalties, but the shown card is UI during this trick"? How can you deduce the lawmakers' intent from L72? >> >> I look at my set of connotations, yes. If something is prohibited I >> call this a penalty. You look at your set of connotations. If >> something is called a penalty it is a penalty. Why should your >> interpretation carry any more value than mine? Because the Laws are >> generally consistently well-written, are they? > > > > Let us assume (just for argument`s sake) that the spade lead is > prohibited. It is also prohibited to drive your car faster than 30 miles > an hour through a city. Are you constantly being penalized by this? It > is prohibited to sell alcohol to children. Is this a penalty? No? Then > how can a restriction (not even a prohibition) to lead a spade be a > penalty? It is just a restriction, nothing more, but also nothing less. What kind of analogy is that? Either a spade lead is allowed or it is not. Both by L26 and by L16 a spade lead can be disallowed. There are minor differences between the two - such as in the way they are punished, but in both cases the partner is forbidden to lead a card he might have wanted to lead. > If you give UI regarding the spade suit your partner`s choices are > restricted, yes. But in certain circumstances he may still lead a spade. > His hand may leave him no choice, or the bidding may do so. Possibly you > doubled spade bids three times in the auction. The "penalty" for the > offender (the 1S-bidder) may well be the score he receives after his > partner did the ethical and correct thing and led something else. If you > feel penalized by ethical partners I can`t help you. The same is true of L26. Sometimes a player is forbidden to lead a spade and he puts the SA on the table. He might have none others left. > If I receive UI I try to choose some logical alternative. Being human I > fail now and then. If I do the TD is there to correct me. > >> >>> This is the crux of the matter. "Without penalty" does _not_ mean >>> "without possible adjustment". >> >> >> >> Why not? Especially in the case of L57C, please andwer me that. >> I'm quite willing to accept your arguments, but they must be better >> than this. You are in fact telling me that it is like you say because >> it is like you say! > > > > No,Herman, I am telling you because the reason for the adjustment will - > in cases like this one - lie in the future. The adjustment has of course > to be because of another infraction (except where the law says > otherwise, c.f. L27B1b). May I turn your attention to L72A5? "Subject to > Law 16C2,after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty......" > If L16C2 is in operation even after the penalty has been paid, how can > it be inoperative when there wasn`t even a penalty? I think L27B1a is > the only law whrer L16 is disabled, and even then only conditionally. > Well, IMO L16 is disabled in all cases where the lawmakers have written "no penalty". So you telling me that there are no other cases, so L16 is not disabled in this case, sounds like circular reasoning to me. L27B1a has been mentioned by Sven before. I use it as an argument in my favor. If the mention of L16 were outside of brackets, that would indicate that the lawmakers intend the cancelling of L16 as a separate issue, next to the writing of "no penalty". But L16 is mentioned inside brackets, which tells me that the lamwakers intended L16 to be included in the "no penalty" bit. >> >>> If you happen to commit this particular infraction (and this 1S call >>> _is_ an infraction, the rules leave no doubt about that, you will not >>> be penalized. Your score may be adjusted if your partner used the UI >>> you generated, but this is a separate infraction. The first one is >>> not to be penalized, L35D tells us so, the second one may be subject >>> to score adjustment, depending on the logical alternatives of the >>> opening leader. If you made available information regarding the spade >>> suit no one can talk him out of a spade lead from QJ1098 and two >>> quick entries to his hand against some number of no trump. No penalty >>> against you for bidding 1S because of L35D, no adjustment against him >>> for leading a spade because of L16. >>> Zhe clause "without penalty" does not give absolution for future >>> sins, it just tells us what to do with past and present ones. >>> >> >> Why? Please stick to arguments that are not based on the conclusion >> you are trying to prove. Your arguments above, being that L16 does not >> contain the words "penalty" in them, are far better than this "it is >> like this because it is like this". > > > > No, it is because of L72A5, see above. And if you try to argue that > "without penalty" is differnt from this I again can`t help you. You have > to open your eyes and be willing to see what is written. > So do you, actually. Look Matthias, I am not trying to prove that I am right. I am merely trying to open your eyes to let you see that your arguments are circular (well, most of them), and that we won't get any nearer to the intent of the lawmakers than by asking them. Please put us out of misery, Grattan! > > > >> Exactly. There are penalties in the general case of L39, but not in >> the special case of L35. L57C and L35 use "without penalty" and "not >> subject to penalty". Yet by the same argument you defend the use of >> L16 in the L35 case and not in the L57C case. This is simply not >> consistent! > > > > You could be right about L57C. I have to reconsider my position here. My > first opinion was given because of a faulty (as I now realize) memory of > the wording of the law. It is at least clear that the penalties > mentioned in L57C are those of 57A. I have to look through the laws a > bit, but it may well be that L16 is applicable here. > You see what the problem is? You read L57C and you agree that it is logical to allow this, and to not apply L16. So you read that "no penalty" clause in the way I have been argueing. And then you read L35D and you tell yourself that it cannot have been the lawmakers' intent to have L16 abolished here (and I agree with you). So you try to read L35D in such a way that L16 is included. Rather, you should say that the lawmakers did a sloppy job of L35D. And they should change it. >> >> >> I understand quite well what you mean, and I don't know what to do >> either. But if I am to interpret L57C in the way I have done so in the >> past, then I see no reason why not to apply the same principle to L35. >> Or change my view on L57C. > > > > If there is no other law concerned with this situation we have to treat > 35 and 57 the same way, yes. > Thank you. >> >>> If you lead out of turn declarer may choose to forbid the lead of the >>> suit you tried to lead. This is the prescribed penalty. The law now >>> tells us that you may pick up your card. The penalty is paid, but the >>> UI remains, doesn`t it? >>> >> >> Yes, but there was a penalty - it has been paid. And the UI remains. >> in the cases that we talk about, it is said there is no penalty. >> > Well, see 72A5 again. I believe that after an infraction the > restrictions of 16C2 remain. It is so after a penalty has been paid > (because the law says so), and I believe it to be so because an > infraction remains an infraction, even if no penalty is applied, and the > UI remains (as you agree above), so the restrictions remain too. I can`t > remember another law where L16 is (conditionally) disabled besides 27, > but I may have overlooked one. In my opinion the fact that L16 is > explicitly disabled in L27B1b speaks for itself. > See above. In my opinion the fact that L16 is mentioned between brackets speaks for itself. Iit's still 1-1, IMO. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From watsun at fadmail.com Tue Jun 7 00:58:52 2005 From: watsun at fadmail.com (Shelby Harmon) Date: Tue Jun 7 00:03:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Become one of the low rates Message-ID: <141.17e558d5.2a9EYM44@jvq.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 $400,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.t0wers.net/signs.asp Best Regards, Carol Beck to be remov(ed: http://www.t0wers.net/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 7 01:39:28 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Jun 7 01:42:08 2005 Subject: [blml] L12C2 ambiguity? Message-ID: <00da01c56af0$fd00a3a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Okay, I'll try again. The OS balances vs a 2H contract, illeglly going to 3C with the help of UI. 3C would have gone -200 with at least a 1/6 probability, but the NOS goes to 3H off one, with the level of contract not a factor in the play. The NOS get +110, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. The OS get the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, which is what??? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Tue Jun 7 01:57:34 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Jun 7 01:59:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: "David Stevenson" > The regs preventing 1NT on 9-counts are legal even if misguided. 1NT being not conventional and within a King of average is not allowed to be regulated. Therefore a reg preventing 1NT on a 9-count is illegal. I think you know this David. Why do you insist on stating something that is not true. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Read the latest Hollywood gossip @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/entertainment From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 7 03:17:43 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Jun 7 03:18:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson: >>The regs preventing 1NT on 9-counts are legal even if misguided. Wayne Burrows: >1NT being not conventional and within a King of average is not >allowed to be regulated. Therefore a reg preventing 1NT on a >9-count is illegal. > >I think you know this David. Why do you insist on stating >something that is not true. Richard Hills: While pedantry is the soul of blml, I think that Wayne is being obtusely pedantic in his post. Observe the title of this thread, "Indirect regulation...". David obviously referred to regs which indirectly discourage opening 1NT on 9-counts (by disallowing use of conventions by such partnerships), and David colloquially used "preventing" instead of super-precisely writing "indirectly discouraged". As these "indirectly discouraging" regulations have been specifically deemed legal by an explicit interpretation of Law 40D by the WBF Laws Committee, it seems that Wayne and David must be in agreement? :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 7 03:31:36 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Jun 7 03:32:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System References: Message-ID: <008001c56b00$a5ec0e50$159868d5@James> [David Stevenson] > Well, either that, or contrary to the views of a > minority who do not want the game run for the populace, > but want it run for their own peculiar minority ideas, > and do not give a damn about the good of the game or > the wishes of the majority. [Nigel] Has any attempt ever been made to poll players on law-changes? It is no use just asking directors and administrators because the have a different agenda, in some respects. In particular, some directors seem to feel that their job-satisfaction would be eroded by simpler more objective rules. I was righltly criticised for claiming ot speak for most players when I should have said something like "most players with whom I've discussed these matters". I apologised. David Stevenson should not be allowed to get away with a similar gross exageration. [David] > Of course it is not illegal, and your opinions on it are > not worth a carrot. [Nigel] The nearest so far that David's contribution got to rational argument. [David] Yeah, right, "obviously". It's not obvious at all, as you know full well, but you just like to be bloody-minded. Considering your own propensity to break Laws that do not suit you you have an unfortunate approach to other people's normal approach. [Nigel] Aah! More rational argument! However much David disagrees with Tim's views, IMO BLML should impose some limits on gratuitous insolence. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 7 03:52:14 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Jun 7 03:52:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: <004801c5691a$6997f640$3d9468d5@James><000f01c569e5$d6c21cc0$46a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><001c01c56a06$854b74b0$569468d5@James> <002c01c56aa7$51d62ac0$f6c187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <00a001c56b03$87ca4060$159868d5@James> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ OB 6.2.2 says that, when a psyche is identified as > 'red', "the score will be adjusted". I believe, > therefore, that the answer is 100% ( if opponents were > damaged, and I do not recall any where this is not the > case among the forms I have seen - perhaps because > opponents tend not to call the TD when they have a good > score). [Nigel] Thank you Grattan! You've cheered me up considerably! IMO that makes for a fairer game! You've encouraged me to ask team-mates to request a ruling whenever they suspect a "red psyche" against them. I confess that, from my limited experience, I was under the mistaken impression that, in practice, red psyches hardly ever attracted a score adjustment. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 7 04:13:58 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Jun 7 04:14:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System References: Message-ID: <00cd01c56b06$9114c340$159868d5@James> [Wayne Burrows] > 1NT being not conventional and within a King of average > is not allowed to be regulated. Therefore a reg > preventing 1NT on a 9-count is illegal. I think you > know this David. Why do you insist on stating something > that is not true. [Nigel] Tee hee, rough justice, Wayne! I wish local jurisdictions didn't have to plug the holes in the law-book. Until the law-book is completed, however, they must continue to do so; and you can hardly blame them for the inevitable inconsistencies and inanities. Anyway, as you well know, local sophists have no problem devising an effective ban on any kind of call, conventional or not. They simply outlaw the use of any *subsequent* conventional call. Arguably, this is against the spirit of the law, but seems to accord with the letter. From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Tue Jun 7 04:53:38 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Jun 7 04:55:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <004801c5691a$6997f640$3d9468d5@James> Message-ID: >From: "GUTHRIE" >To: "BLML" >Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall >Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 16:31:00 +0100 > >[craig] > > Nigel, I can only presume that you are British and play > > where directors have more than a modicum of training > > and their are clear OB guidelines. In ACBL territory > > the Wolff absurdity means EXACTLY one psych per > > partnership per lifetime. The "rule of coincidence" > > interpretation that you are guilty unless demonstrably > > proven innoncent is both stupid and common; it is akin > > to the way that "could have known" is applied. The > > better ACBL employed directors are fairer than that... > > but that accounts only for high level competition. > > Most games are not. Deceptive bidding, carding and > > play have been an important and valuable part of the > > game since its inception. There should be NO > > restriction on psychs unless there clearly has been > > partnership agreement. Period. When you claim > > fielding, you are tantamount to an accusation of > > cheating. With no clear system for recording patterns > > of deceptive bidding, you risk lawsuit also. By the > > way, the correct term is NOT psycho. We don't mind > > you adding an extraneous e to the word psych...but > > no O please! :-) > >[Nigel] >I'm British. Our regulations seem clear enough; but I've >never heard of a case, anywhere, where a director penalized >a "fielded" "psych". Directors rarely even record "psychs". >I doubt whether anybody ever collates or analyses such >records, anyway. In effect, in the UK, "psychers" have >carte-blanche. > >Even in its strictest form, the "rule of coincidence", as >its name implies, requires a series of unlikely events ... >A. A player "misbids". >B. On the same hand, his partner immediately "misbids" in a >way that is likely to mitigate any potential damage to the >partnership. >C. If it is certain that somebody is misdescribing their >assets then available authorised information does not make >makes it more likely that partner misbid than opponents. > >How can you claim that this rule prevents you from psyching >successfully, to your hearts content, for ever? Under such >rules, unless you field partner's psyche, you will never be >penalized. Even if you are penalized, the rule is the same >for everybody, with no stigma attached. It is simple, >reasonable and fair. > >Let us examine a similar "infraction" that generates >slightly less emotion: > >You lean over backwards to make the call *not* suggested >to you by partner's hesitation. Your call gets you a good >result but the director judges that partner's hesitation >could well suggest your action and that there were less >successful logical alternatives were available to you. >Hence, the director rules against you. He explains that >he is certainly *not* accusing you of cheating. >Whatever he rules, one side or the other must >suffer, possibly unjustly. The director simply does his >best to estimate probabilities. What else should he do? The obvious difference between these two situations is that when a player and his partner both misbid on the same hand there has been no infraction of law and therefore absolutely no need to rule against the misbidders. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Find the coolest online games @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 7 05:05:23 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (axman22) Date: Tue Jun 7 05:06:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 03:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? > Richard wrote: > > > One Aussie defender tries to unilaterally bypass > > Law 73F2 (Player Injured by Illegal Deception) by > > placing his intended card face down on the table, > > then stating, "I am not thinking about this trick," > > before he (eventually) turns over his downfaced > > card. It looks like improper comunication to me. He has communicated to his partner other than by his play that he had no problem to that trick but did for a future trick. The gratuitous remark and the manner [delayed exposure] have conveyed information from which inferences are available. imo the most appropriate way is to not quit his trick until he is ready to proceed. It least likely to deceive and minimizes any inference to partner. regards roger pewick > > This defender has infracted, albeit > > unintentionally, Law 73A2 (Proper Communication > > between Partners - Correct Manner for Calls and > > Plays) by using a special emphasis and mannerism. > > Before deciding whether this is an infraction we must decide whether the > emphasis/mannerism is, in this context, "special" or "within the bounds of > normality". That is a TD judgement so there is no automatic infraction. > > Tim > > > > > This defender also uses this ploy when declarer. > > As illegal communication by declarer to dummy is a > > meaningless infraction - given that dummy is "le > > mort" - is this ploy a legal tool in declarer's > > arsenal? > > > > How would you rule? > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard Hills From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Tue Jun 7 05:12:09 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Jun 7 05:13:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <007d01c569f3$e10ef370$46a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: >From: "Grattan Endicott" >To: >Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall >Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 18:26:38 +0100 > > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >******************************* >Probability is the very guide of life." > ~ Joseph Butler. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Wayne Burrows" >To: ; >Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 9:38 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall > > > > > > It is an excuse for allowing a TD to shirk his > > responsibility to ascertain the facts. > > > > I have been an innocent party that has presented > > a large amount of evidence to a committee while > > the opponents present no evidence and the > > committee just said "balance of probabilities"... > > this is utter nonsense. > > > > An innocent player must be allowed to excercise > > his lawful rights without being arbitrarily deemed > > to be guilty. > > >+=+ There was no requirement for opponents to >present evidence. The director was presenting the >facts as he had ascertained them and it was the >director's ruling that was under review. I have no >doubt that you honestly believed his ruling to be >wrong, but you could not be judge in your own >cause and the AC found the evidence convincing. >You have said nothing here that supports your use >of the term 'arbitrarily'. A ruling is arbitrary IMO when no evidence is gathered. How can the director ascertain facts without investigation? The appeal committee heard no evidence in support of the case. The director merely said "In cases like this we presume on balance of probabilities ...". This is not evidence. This is a farce. I didn't believe the director was wrong. I knew he was wrong. > In passing, I have not observed any reference >in this oh-so-boring thread to one extension of the >possible evidence which is mentioned several times >in the statements in the WBF Code of Practice. It >can be of significance that the Director considers >there is in the partnership a heightened level of >awareness of the possibility of a psychic call. If >interested refer to the sub-paragraphs (a) thro (d) >under 'Psychic Calls'. The CoP provides necessary but not sufficient conditions for the director to consider an implicit understanding exists. That is the CoP does not say if there is a heightened level of awareness then there is an implicit understanding only that if there is a heightened awareness then there might be an implicit understanding. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Become a fitness fanatic @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/health From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 7 06:15:11 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jun 7 06:18:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2610a4309be5b3ee1959ccf6b332d99c@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 6, 2005, at 11:05 PM, axman22 wrote: > imo the most appropriate way is to not quit his trick until he is > ready to > proceed. It least likely to deceive and minimizes any inference to > partner. The last three times I've done that, the winner of the not-yet-quitted trick has ignored that fact and led to the next one. From ardelm at bigpond.net.au Tue Jun 7 08:28:14 2005 From: ardelm at bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue Jun 7 08:27:53 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: References: <42A467DF.9060808@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050607162510.03cb2850@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> >John Probst: >My take on the thread was that the consensus view was that "1S" after >the auction was completed had made spades a lead that his partner had to >exclude from amongst LAs. This is a line which both Sven and I had >followed since almost the beginning of the thread. I, and at least one >other, treat the "1S" "call" as being of the like import to "I'd like a >spade lead" after the auction is completed (per 17). Sven has a slightly >different tack but concurs with our final view that we can go to 72B1 or >16 if we so need. I'm not quite sure what Herman thinks. cheers John Please include me in this consensus. So obvious it doesnt need posting. (I hope I can include DWS in this opinion :)) Tony (Sydney) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.4 - Release Date: 6/06/2005 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 7 09:54:59 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Jun 7 09:56:44 2005 Subject: [blml] L35 - consensus or not? In-Reply-To: <42A46EB3.5090700@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >The month of June started with Richard Hills disagreeing with Sven, >stating that 'it "may" be possible that information from a "cancelled" >call "may" in fact be authorised information to all'. > >And then I wrote a sentence I now regret: > >"This seems to be about the only thread this year so far, on which >there has been no discussion." > >Don't forget that we've been around the block for a whole week, and >everyone seemed to agree that L72B was the one to go with. [snip] Richard Hills: I have never been in consensus with Herman's assertion that Law 35D "suspended" Law 16. Rather, I merely noted that, while Law 16 still had full force, it was ambiguous under the current Law 16 provisions whether a cancelled call was authorised or unauthorised information. A similar problem occurs with Law 24 exposed cards; they are left face up on the table, so are not Law 16C "withdrawn" actions. Thus, it is ambiguous under the current Law 16 provisions whether a Law 24 exposed card is authorised information during the auction. The problem is the accretional nature of editions of the Lawbook under the suzerainty of Edgar Kaplan. When Law 16C was created in 1997, the consequential required modifications and cross-references were not inserted in Laws 24 and 35. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 7 11:51:20 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Jun 7 11:51:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: Message-ID: <009301c56b46$7607c2b0$309468d5@James> [Nigel] >> You lean over backwards to make the call *not* suggested >> to you by partner's hesitation. Your call gets you a good >> result but the director judges that partner's hesitation >> could well suggest your action and that there were less >> successful logical alternatives were available to you. >> Hence, the director rules against you. He explains that >> he is certainly *not* accusing you of cheating. >> Whatever he rules, one side or the other must >> suffer, possibly unjustly. The director simply does his >> best to estimate probabilities. What else should he do? [Wayne Burrows] > The obvious difference between these two situations is > that > when a player and his partner both misbid on the same hand > there has been no infraction of law and therefore > absolutely no need to rule against the misbidders. [Nigel] What was the infraction in my second situation (repeated above) Wayne? In case you missed it, my point is that in both cases the director may judge that there has been an infraction based on the circumstantial evidence available; that he will usually be right; but that he may sometimes be wrong; and that however he rules there is potential injustice to one side or the other. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 7 11:52:12 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Jun 7 11:52:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? Message-ID: <009c01c56b46$945cf550$309468d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > One Aussie defender tries to unilaterally bypass > Law 73F2 (Player Injured by Illegal Deception) by > placing his intended card face down on the table, > then stating, "I am not thinking about this trick," > before he (eventually) turns over his downfaced > card. Note: This defender highly ethically has never > substituted a new downfaced card for their original > downfaced card. This defender succeeds in avoiding > an infraction of Law 73F2, and also succeeds in > preventing the declarer (and partner) from knowing > on which future trick the defender does have a > decision to make. The best of both worlds? > Alas, no. This defender has infracted, albeit > unintentionally, Law 73A2 (Proper Communication > between Partners - Correct Manner for Calls and > Plays) by using a special emphasis and mannerism. [David Stevenson] > This is a normal approach by ethical players. It > is not an infraction in my view. [Nigel] I agree with David. The laws should be changes to make this normal acceptable behaviour, From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 7 11:53:22 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Jun 7 11:53:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall Message-ID: <00ad01c56b46$be77eb60$309468d5@James> [craig] > Nigel, I can only presume that you are British and play > where directors have more than a modicum of training > and their are clear OB guidelines. In ACBL territory > the Wolff absurdity means EXACTLY one psych per > partnership per lifetime. The "rule of coincidence" > interpretation that you are guilty unless demonstrably > proven innoncent is both stupid and common; it is akin > to the way that "could have known" is applied. The > better ACBL employed directors are fairer than that... > but that accounts only for high level competition. > Most games are not. Deceptive bidding, carding and > play have been an important and valuable part of the > game since its inception. There should be NO > restriction on psychs unless there clearly has been > partnership agreement. Period. When you claim > fielding, you are tantamount to an accusation of > cheating. With no clear system for recording patterns > of deceptive bidding, you risk lawsuit also. By the > way, the correct term is NOT psycho. We don't mind > you adding an extraneous e to the word psych...but > no O please! :-) [Nigel] I'm British. Our regulations seem clear enough; but I've never heard of a case, anywhere, where a director penalized a "fielded" "psych". Directors rarely even record "psychs". I doubt whether anybody ever collates or analyses such records, anyway. In effect, in the UK, "psychers" have carte-blanche. Even in its strictest form, the "rule of coincidence", as its name implies, requires a series of unlikely events ... A. A player "misbids". B. On the same hand, his partner immediately "misbids" in a way that is likely to mitigate any potential damage to the partnership. C. If it is certain that somebody is misdescribing their assets then available authorised information does not make makes it more likely that partner misbid than opponents. How can you claim that this rule prevents you from psyching successfully, to your hearts content, for ever? Under such rules, unless you field partner's psyche, you will never be penalized. Even if you are penalized, the rule is the same for everybody, with no stigma attached. It is simple, reasonable and fair. Let us examine a similar "infraction" that generates slightly less emotion: You lean over backwards to make the call *not* suggested to you by partner's hesitation. Your call gets you a good result but the director judges that partner's hesitation could well suggest your action and that there were less successful logical alternatives. The director rules against you but he explains that he is certainly *not* accusing you of cheating. Whatever he rules, one side or the other must suffer, possibly unjustly. The director simply does his best to estimate probabilities. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 7 12:17:05 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Jun 7 12:17:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: Message-ID: <00bc01c56b4a$0ecf5d70$309468d5@James> [Wayne Burrows] >> It is an excuse for allowing a TD to shirk his >> responsibility to ascertain the facts. >> I have been an innocent party that has presented >> a large amount of evidence to a committee while >> the opponents present no evidence and the >> committee just said "balance of probabilities"... >> this is utter nonsense. An innocent player must be >> allowed to excercise his lawful rights without >> being arbitrarily deemed to be guilty. [Wayne again] > A ruling is arbitrary IMO when no evidence is gathered. > How can the director ascertain facts without > investigation? The appeal committee heard no evidence > in support of the case. The director merely said "In > cases like this we presume on balance of probabilities > ...". This is not evidence. This is a farce. I > didn't believe the director was wrong. I knew he was > wrong. [Nigel] You and others castigate the TD for failing to ascertain the facts. Arguably, if you can do this reliably, you are wasted as a TD. For example, you could win some Nobel prizes. TDs and ACs are fallible. They may even fail to gather all relevant facts. All they can do is the best. On two occasions when I've sat on a unanimous AC, a friend later persuaded me that we delivered the wrong verdict. In both cases the AC called the TD back to review the facts again and make sure of relevant law. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 7 12:21:57 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Jun 7 12:22:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? References: <2610a4309be5b3ee1959ccf6b332d99c@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <00c501c56b4a$bc616aa0$309468d5@James> [Ed Reppert[ > The last three times I've done that, the winner of the > not-yet-quitted trick has ignored that fact and led to > the next one. [Nigel] In view of what happened at the final of the Bermuda Bowl, the WBFLC will be shirking their duty unless they decide whether or not this is legal in the next edition of the laws. From iugai at hotmail.com Wed Jun 8 05:32:09 2005 From: iugai at hotmail.com (Ned Cody) Date: Tue Jun 7 13:37:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Does 8incches Enough 4 U? xha Message-ID: 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://dusked.biz/extender/?ronn o-ut of mai-lling lisst: http://dusked.biz/rm.php?ronn NbsG From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Tue Jun 7 13:36:55 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Jun 7 13:38:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <009301c56b46$7607c2b0$309468d5@James> Message-ID: >From: "GUTHRIE" >To: "BLML" >Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall >Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:51:20 +0100 > >[Nigel] > >> You lean over backwards to make the call *not* suggested > >> to you by partner's hesitation. Your call gets you a good > >> result but the director judges that partner's hesitation > >> could well suggest your action and that there were less > >> successful logical alternatives were available to you. > >> Hence, the director rules against you. He explains that > >> he is certainly *not* accusing you of cheating. > >> Whatever he rules, one side or the other must > >> suffer, possibly unjustly. The director simply does his > >> best to estimate probabilities. What else should he do? > >[Wayne Burrows] > > The obvious difference between these two situations is > > that > > when a player and his partner both misbid on the same hand > > there has been no infraction of law and therefore > > absolutely no need to rule against the misbidders. > >[Nigel] >What was the infraction in my second situation (repeated >above) Wayne? In case you missed it, my point is that in >both cases the director may judge that there has been an >infraction based on the circumstantial evidence available; >that he will usually be right; but that he may sometimes be >wrong; and that however he rules there is potential >injustice to one side or the other. > To my mind a hesitation situation is completely different. In a hesitation situation if you disagree with the director's judgement you can go to appeal and at least try and convince the committee that the director's judgement is wrong. In a CPU situation where the director applies a set of arbitrary rules when you go to the committee they will apply the say nonsense arbitrary rules. So you are fixed without recourse when you have done nothing wrong. The first situation is pure judgement. The second situation is a matter of fact. If the arbitrary rules do not encourage the director to ascertain the facts then we have deliberate injustice. The arbitrary rules are contrary to the laws which require the director to ascertain the facts before he makes a presumption of an offending side. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Need a new job? Check out XtraMSN Careers http://xtramsn.co.nz/careers From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 7 14:03:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 7 14:05:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > When a player has a different view of the Law from his regulating > authority, and follows his own view knowing it to be different, he is > knowingly breaking a bridge Law. If a player follows the laws correctly he is not breaking them. If he follows an official WBF interpretation and his regulating authority does not the player is in the right (even if in a minority). That however is by-the-by and I am not aware of it having any personal relevance to me. The EBU, to the best of my knowledge, does not give specific permission to open a 1NT which is neither conventional nor more than a king below average strength - and why would they, it's known to be legal. The EBU does not have a regulation forbidding such 1NT openers (to do so would clearly be illegal), or forbidding conventions over such openers (which would be legal but silly). What the EBU has is regulations under the convention section of the OB which attempt to make it *seem* illegal. So Mr S. A nice apology for your libellous statements in this newsgroup or you will, as the saying goes, be hearing from my solicitor. Tim. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 7 14:03:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 7 14:05:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > >> > >> The main regs that tend to be attacked here again and again and > > again > >> are: > >> > >> Those based on L40D whereby certain conventional calls in response to > >> natural bids are controlled. > > > >Those regs are criticised, quite justifiably, on the grounds that they > are > >a) stupid > >b) contrary to the spirit of the laws. > > Well, either that, or contrary to the views of a minority who do not > want the game run for the populace, but want it run for their own > peculiar minority ideas, and do not give a damn about the good of the > game or the wishes of the majority. Some idiots can't see that the "good of the game" is best served by being true to the integrity of the game itself and the spirit of the laws. You may be right that the idiots are in a majority (such, it seems all too often, is life). > >They are seldom attacked on the grounds of legality. > > Perhaps it is time you spoke to Wayne. I said seldom - not never. But IIRC Wayne's attacks on legality are primarily reserved for the NZ regulators (whose regulations, again IIRC, fail to take advantage of the EBU loophole). > >> The EBU's advice on asking questions which is always misquoted and > > then > >> attacked on the basis that what they did not say is illegal. > > > >The advice is poorly written and misguided - not illegal. > > Of course it is not illegal, and your opinions on it are not worth a > carrot. But it is often misquoted here, and then the misquoted advice - > which is illegal - is then decried as illegal. Perhaps the problem is that the regulation is written in such a way as to be easy to misquote/misunderstand. That it is widely misunderstood by readers of the OB is not just my opinion (Is there an EBU director who hasn't heard the "you aren't allowed to ask questions unless you are planning to bid" misinterpretation? > >> My view on some clubs who have certain illegal regs is that it is > > not > >> worth fighting them. > > > >It needn't necessarily be a fight. In most cases the TD can educate > >rather than fight. Obviously a TD should not issue EBU masterpoints > >for club events played outwith the laws. > > Yeah, right, "obviously". It's not obvious at all, as you know full > well, but you just like to be bloody-minded. I'm not 100% sure of my ground in this example (I'd check if it became relevant). I think the EBU requires that events in private members clubs be open to visitors and non-discriminatory for in order for MPs to be awarded. I don't know how the EBU feels about Auction/Minibridge (rather than Contract) but again I would check before awarding masterpoints (I rather think the EBU requires the 97 laws to be used). Sessions awarding Masterpoints are bound by the EBU, which is bound in turn by the WBF. Private games/non-affiliated clubs can do what they like (unless the EBU forbids their members from participating). They may end up with a game similar to, but not quite, duplicate bridge but that is not a problem in my view. "Official" games are a different matter. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 7 14:03:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 7 14:05:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Indirect regulation of System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > >From: "David Stevenson" > > > The regs preventing 1NT on 9-counts are legal even if misguided. > > 1NT being not conventional and within a King of average is not allowed > to be regulated. Therefore a reg preventing 1NT on a 9-count is > illegal. > > I think you know this David. Why do you insist on stating something > that is not true. Because he wants to wind you up? The EBU does not actually have regs preventing 1N on a 9 count. It has a reg preventing the subsequent use of conventions if 1N can be a 9 count by agreement (which may be explicit or implicit of course) - that is legal (albeit unseemly). Tim From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 7 19:42:36 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Jun 7 19:45:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh NABC Appeal N-02 Message-ID: <002801c56b88$4cf9f0e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> I have been unable to download the text of this appeal in order to copy it into this e-mail. Except for case N-00, each line of text has a horizontal line running through it, and moreover the symbols don't get represented correctly. So, this is typed in. The regional cases, all handled by TD panels, look pretty good to me, but some of the NABC+ cases have problems IMO. Case N-00 and N-01, look okay, both TD and AC did well on these two easy BIT cases, although the first deserved an AWMW too. A non-vul 1NT opener balances opposite a BIT by bidding 3C with AQJxxx clubs and Jxx K10 KJ outside, characterized accurately by the TD and AC as a 100% action. I can't imagine appealing that ruling. Case N-02 casts doubt on the NABC judicial system. Board 26, LM Women's Pairs 4th session, East dealer both vulnerable. S J H Q108 D 87632 C J532 S KQ8532 S A74 H 6 H AK7 D 954 D AKQJ10 C KQ4 C A6 S 1096 H J95432 D void C 10987 West North East South 2C P 2S P 4NT P 5D (1) P 5H P 5S (2) P 7NT All pass (1) One key card (2) BIT Facts: 7NT made fo +2220 after the lead of the club 10. The 5D bid showed one key card. There was an extended pause (about 30 seconds) before the 5S bid, which happened to be observed by the TD. East, in consultation with the TD away from he table after the auction was completed, said that she thought that her partner was confused and that she thought the king-sixth of spades would be enough for her to justify her bidding 7NT. [mlf] This "consultation" was improper, held away from the table before the deal has even been played. East should say nothing until play is completed and the TD rules in response to a UI complaint, and then whatever East has to say should be heard by N-S. Of course she thought her partner was confused, as West obviously held the spade queen and could not remember how to show it. The TD paid no attention to these remarks, very good, but should not have listened to them. "Why are you wasting my time?" Director's Ruling: The TD ruled that UI existed from the hesitation, which suggested that West was confused and might have the spade queen, systematically denied by the 5S bid. Applying Law 16A, the TD adjusted the result to 6S making seven, E-W +1460, per Law 12C2. [mlf] Did the TD not notice the diamond void in South's hand? Surely the most favorable result that was likely for N-S when defending a 6S contract was-1430. The Appeal: The E-W pair ackknowledged tht there was a significant BIT over the 5H queen ask. The pair also said that the positive 2S response could be made on as little as king-sixth of spades and an outside queen. East acknowledged that she thought her partner could be uncertain about the meaning of the 5H bid. The N-S pair contended that the BIT should constrain E-W from bidding at the seven level. They also pointed out that 6S could be held to six with a diamond lead. The Decision: The AC determined that the BIT suggested West's 5S response might not be accurate and, therefore, made bidding a grand slam more attractive. The AC found that there were logical alternatives to bidding a grand slam. Applying Law 12C2, the AC determined that the most unfavorable result at all probable for E-W was 6NT, not 6S. The AC considered that the same rationale used by East to opt for 7NT instead of 7S would also lead East to choose NT at the six level, if a grand slam were not to be bid. [mlf] "the same rationale" included an illegal assumption that West held the spade queen, making it unacceptable. Therefore the best result that was likely for N-S was 6NT by E-W. Also the worst result at all probable for E-W was 6NT. The contract easily makes all the tricks for reciprocal 1460s. Since the AC gave E-W a better score than the TD had done, the AC did not seriously consider whether the appeal was without merit. Committee: Jon Wittes, chairperson, Riggs Thayer, John Solodar, Ed Lazarus, Aaron Silverstein. [mlf] Give West king-sixth of spades and the club queen (admitted as a possibility by East), or the heart QJ and no club queen, 6NT could be defeated with a club lead and no 2-2 spade split, while 6S might well make, West's club(s) being discarded before N-S can ruff in. That makes 6S an LA to 6NT. The TD ruling was right, except for the adjusted score, which should have been +/-1430. While it is true that a double by South to suggest a void might cause East to run to 6NT, that scenario doesn't seem very likely. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ooga at shaw.ca Wed Jun 8 00:38:52 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Wed Jun 8 00:41:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42A621FC.8040507@shaw.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > One Aussie defender tries to unilaterally bypass > Law 73F2 (Player Injured by Illegal Deception) by > placing his intended card face down on the table, > then stating, "I am not thinking about this trick," > before he (eventually) turns over his downfaced > card. > > Note: This defender highly ethically has never > substituted a new downfaced card for their original > downfaced card. > > This defender succeeds in avoiding an infraction of > Law 73F2, and also succeeds in preventing the > declarer (and partner) from knowing on which future > trick the defender does have a decision to make. > I have occasionally seen this FDAP (Face Down Announcement Play), usually by a very good player with the best of ethical intentions. However, when this happens and I am the declarer or the other defender, it irks to have a long pause in the middle of a trick. Surely it would be equivalent to place the card face down on the table and say instead "I'll need to do some overall thinking about this deal at the end of this trick," then immediately play the card and then leave it face up until ready to continue. Against a gung-ho declarer intent on finishing within fifteen seconds one might even place one's STOP card on the table. If you found yourself needing to "redo your sums" when declarer led a suit in which you held a singleton, would you gow with the FDAP? Surely not, and if you did I would rule against you if declarer was misled. The scariest part about the FDAP is that used against (or in the company of) a novice player (or kibitzer) it may be completely misunderstood, and end up as an illegal tactic which the novice thinks legal. > The best of both worlds? > > Alas, no. This defender has infracted, albeit > unintentionally, Law 73A2 (Proper Communication > between Partners - Correct Manner for Calls and > Plays) by using a special emphasis and mannerism. Unintentionally? Only in the sense that he perhaps doesn't know this Law. He has certainly not used a special emphasis and mannerism accidentally. > This defender also uses this ploy when declarer. > As illegal communication by declarer to dummy is a > meaningless infraction - given that dummy is "le > mort" - is this ploy a legal tool in declarer's > arsenal? > > How would you rule? Still ruling from the standpoint of courtesy--let's complete tricks and then do overall thinking. As bridge players we are conditioned to be suspicious of mid-trick huddles--it's wrong to disguise these tells by ocassionally pausing in the middle of a trick where you have nothing to think about that couldn't wait until the trick is over. -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | Bruce McIntyre | email: ooga@shaw.ca | | 6636 Dow Ave., #203 | "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca" | | Burnaby BC CANADA | Editor, the Matchpointer | | V5H 3C9 604/438-9735 |(ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Publication)| }-----------------------?----------------------------------{ | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://www.unit430.com/IMPhome.htm | | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | www.unit430.com www.matchpointer.com | | (Projects I'll be working on in 2005) | `----------------------------------------------------------? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 8 02:09:12 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Jun 8 02:09:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <42A621FC.8040507@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>This defender also uses this ploy when declarer. >>As illegal communication by declarer to dummy is a >>meaningless infraction - given that dummy is "le >>mort" - is this ploy a legal tool in declarer's >>arsenal? >> >>How would you rule? Bruce McIntyre: [snip] >Still ruling from the standpoint of courtesy--let's >complete tricks and then do overall thinking. As >bridge players we are conditioned to be suspicious >of mid-trick huddles--it's wrong to disguise these >tells by occasionally pausing in the middle of a >trick where you have nothing to think about that >couldn't wait until the trick is over. Richard Hills: Sure, a Law 74A courtesy ruling could be applied to any idiosyncratic habit which annoys the opponents (or annoys partner). But, if neither partner nor opponents are annoyed, is it intrinsically illegal for declarer to use the Face Down Announcement Play? Law 73A2: >>> ... plays should be made ... without undue >>>hesitation ... (however, sponsoring organisations >>>may require mandatory pauses, as on ... the first >>>trick)." Richard Hills: It seems that a sponsoring organisation may, if they so desire, create a regulation which would legalise the use of the FDAP ploy by a declarer. But what if no such SO regulation exists? Say a declarer uses an FDAP pause on trick three, when holding a singleton, not to mislead the defenders about the singleton, but rather to think about trick five. Is declarer's FDAP an *undue* hesitation? In my opinion, yes. There is no bridge reason to hesitate at trick three, since the hesitation can be deferred to trick five. Of course, if declarer legitimately hesitates at trick five, that might assist the defenders in finding the killing defence, since the defenders gain authorised information that declarer has a trick five problem. Law 73D1: >>>It is desirable, though not always required, for >>>players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying >>>manner. However, players should be **particularly >>>careful** in positions in which variations may work >>>to the **benefit** of their side. Otherwise, >>>**inadvertently** to vary the tempo or manner in >>>which a call or play is made does not in itself >>>constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences >>>from such variation may appropriately be drawn only >>>by an opponent, and at his own risk. Richard Hills: The non-inadvertent FDAP hesitation at trick three does not directly benefit declarer, since the defenders are not misled about the existence of declarer's singleton at trick three. But the non-inadvertent FDAP hesitation does indirectly benefit declarer at the subsequent trick five, by depriving the defenders of their authorised information that declarer has a trick five problem. So, in my opinion, a declarer who uses the non-inadvertent FDAP ploy has particularly carelessly infracted Law 73D1. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 8 02:36:09 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Jun 8 02:36:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh NABC Appeal N-02 References: <002801c56b88$4cf9f0e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <005b01c56bc2$113d88c0$229868d5@James> I agree with Marvin that 6S= is the correct ruling. Had the AC so-ruled, then it could also have penalized the the offenders with the AWMW that they deserved. From latina at yebox.com Wed Jun 8 03:42:50 2005 From: latina at yebox.com (Rachelle Armstrong) Date: Wed Jun 8 02:49:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Re-finance at todays low rate Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $400,000 for as little as $400 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.pr0ved.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Francesca Koenig to be remov(ed: http://www.pr0ved.com/deletion.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 bluejak666 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 8 02:55:25 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Jun 8 02:57:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? Message-ID: Bruce McIntyre wrote >I have occasionally seen this FDAP (Face Down Announcement Play), >usually by a very good player with the best of ethical intentions. >However, when this happens and I am the declarer or the other defender, >it irks to have a long pause in the middle of a trick. Surely it would >be equivalent to place the card face down on the table and say instead >"I'll need to do some overall thinking about this deal at the end of >this trick," then immediately play the card and then leave it face up >until ready to continue. Against a gung-ho declarer intent on >finishing within fifteen seconds one might even place one's STOP card >on the table. If you wish to think at this moment, then placing a card and expecting declarer not to is not only optimistic, it seems incredibly complicated and leading to argument. When you have a much simpler option available, such as placing the card face down, why go for the poorer option? >If you found yourself needing to "redo your sums" when declarer led a >suit in which you held a singleton, would you gow with the FDAP? Why not? I am allowed to think about the hand when I want, so I am being ethical by indicating it is not this card. >Surely not, and if you did I would rule against you if declarer was >misled. How on earth can he be misled? > The scariest part about the FDAP is that used against (or in the >company of) a novice player (or kibitzer) it may be completely >misunderstood, and end up as an illegal tactic which the novice thinks >legal. First, it is legal. Second, it is a good tactic to teach to a novice. Third, if you do not teach novices ethical ideas, how are they going to learn them? >Still ruling from the standpoint of courtesy--let's complete tricks and >then do overall thinking. As bridge players we are conditioned to be >suspicious of mid-trick huddles--it's wrong to disguise these tells by >ocassionally pausing in the middle of a trick where you have nothing to >think about that couldn't wait until the trick is over. Pshaw! You have a right to think when you want to, not when someone of an incredibly super-suspicious mind wants you to. And if you wait till the end of the trick, you have not only done your thinking when you do not wish to, you have also got to stop someone leading to the next trick. It is ******FAR****** better to do your thinking at the time that anyone will expect, namely when it is your turn to play. To do otherwise is discourteous, unnecessary, and not fair on yourself. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From ooga at shaw.ca Wed Jun 8 06:02:01 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Wed Jun 8 06:04:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42A66DB9.9080004@shaw.ca> David Stevenson wrote: > Bruce McIntyre wrote > >> I have occasionally seen this FDAP (Face Down Announcement Play), >> usually by a very good player with the best of ethical intentions. >> However, when this happens and I am the declarer or the other >> defender, it irks to have a long pause in the middle of a trick. >> Surely it would be equivalent to place the card face down on the table >> and say instead "I'll need to do some overall thinking about this deal >> at the end of this trick," then immediately play the card and then >> leave it face up until ready to continue. Against a gung-ho declarer >> intent on finishing within fifteen seconds one might even place one's >> STOP card on the table. > > If you wish to think at this moment, then placing a card and expecting > declarer not to is not only optimistic, it seems incredibly complicated > and leading to argument. When you have a much simpler option available, > such as placing the card face down, why go for the poorer option? Your way is to place the card you know you are going to play face down and think about the deal. My way is to play the card I know I am going to play, let the trick be completed, and then leave my card face up and if necessary indicate to the trick winner than I need to think a minute. "Placing a card and expecting declarer not to" is YOUR way, not mine. I fail to see how my way is "incredibly complicated and leading to argument." >> If you found yourself needing to "redo your sums" when declarer led a >> suit in which you held a singleton, would you go with the FDAP? > > Why not? I am allowed to think about the hand when I want, so I am > being ethical by indicating it is not this card. Sure you are. But what Law allows you to tell the table what you are or are not thinking about? >> Surely not, and if you did I would rule against you if declarer was >> misled. > > How on earth can he be misled? If South ruffs a suit led for the first time by the defence at say, trick five and now leads immediately a side suit he has a crucial decision in, and you pull the FDAP play with a singleton, do you really expect declarer to believe you when you say you are not thinking about this trick? >> The scariest part about the FDAP is that used against (or in the >> company of) a novice player (or kibitzer) it may be completely >> misunderstood, and end up as an illegal tactic which the novice thinks >> legal. > > First, it is legal. By a good player, yes, legal, but I argue discourteous and unnecessary. If you have something to think about and it is not the current trick, how on earth can the play of at most two more cards disrupt your thinking process? > Second, it is a good tactic to teach to a novice. I greatly fear a novice might misunderstand this to mean that he can play a singleton face down and pretend to think about the rest of the deal for thirty seconds when he has nothing to think about except how smug a play this is to conceal the fact that the card he plays is a stiff. > Third, if you do not teach novices ethical ideas, how are they going to > learn them? I don't think it is ever a good idea to teach a novice something by doing it in a game. They swallow it (convention, play idea, treatment, whatever) whole without comprehension. If you wish to teach them this outside the game in a lesson, I guess so, but I still don't see why thinking cannot wait until the trick is over. >> Still ruling from the standpoint of courtesy--let's complete tricks >> and then do overall thinking. As bridge players we are conditioned to >> be suspicious of mid-trick huddles--it's wrong to disguise these tells >> by ocassionally pausing in the middle of a trick where you have >> nothing to think about that couldn't wait until the trick is over. > > Pshaw! You have a right to think when you want to, not when someone of > an incredibly super-suspicious mind wants you to. And if you wait till > the end of the trick, you have not only done your thinking when you do > not wish to, you have also got to stop someone leading to the next trick. Excuse me. If you leave your card face up AND have asked for time to think, a premature lead to the next trick is not your problem, nor your fault. > It is ******FAR****** better to do your thinking at the time that > anyone will expect, namely when it is your turn to play. To do > otherwise is discourteous, unnecessary, and not fair on yourself. Perhaps we need an example. Show me a defensive situation where a defender: a) knows which card he/she will always play to this trick b) needs time to think about the rest of the hand c) cannot wait until the end of the trick for some reason One would think in 25 years of playing this game even a player as mediocre as myself would remember such a situation. But I don't. -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | Bruce McIntyre | email: ooga@shaw.ca | | 6636 Dow Ave., #203 | "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca" | | Burnaby BC CANADA | Editor, the Matchpointer | | V5H 3C9 604/438-9735 |(ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Publication)| }-----------------------?----------------------------------{ | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://www.unit430.com/IMPhome.htm | | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | www.unit430.com www.matchpointer.com | | (Projects I'll be working on in 2005) | `----------------------------------------------------------? From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Wed Jun 8 08:29:24 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Jun 8 08:31:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: <00bc01c56b4a$0ecf5d70$309468d5@James> Message-ID: >From: "GUTHRIE" >To: "BLML" >Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall >Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 11:17:05 +0100 > >[Wayne Burrows] > >> It is an excuse for allowing a TD to shirk his > >> responsibility to ascertain the facts. > >> I have been an innocent party that has presented > >> a large amount of evidence to a committee while > >> the opponents present no evidence and the > >> committee just said "balance of probabilities"... > >> this is utter nonsense. An innocent player must be > >> allowed to excercise his lawful rights without > >> being arbitrarily deemed to be guilty. > >[Wayne again] > > A ruling is arbitrary IMO when no evidence is gathered. > > How can the director ascertain facts without > > investigation? The appeal committee heard no evidence > > in support of the case. The director merely said "In > > cases like this we presume on balance of probabilities > > ...". This is not evidence. This is a farce. I > > didn't believe the director was wrong. I knew he was > > wrong. > >[Nigel] >You and others castigate the TD for failing to ascertain >the facts. Arguably, if you can do this reliably, you are >wasted as a TD. For example, you could win some Nobel >prizes. > >TDs and ACs are fallible. They may even fail to gather all >relevant facts. All they can do is the best. > >On two occasions when I've sat on a unanimous AC, a friend >later persuaded me that we delivered the wrong verdict. >In both cases the AC called the TD back to review the facts >again and make sure of relevant law. > I am not complaining because the TD or the AC get the ruling wrong. It is inevitable that we all will get some rulings wrong. What I am not accepting of is a situation where a non-offending side have no route to prove their innocence. Where two completely coincidental psyches occur on the same board this non-offending side must have a means to show their innocence. When the ruling is mechanical rather than investigative then this innocent pair have no chance. I don't accept this as a reasonable process. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 8 11:47:03 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 8 11:48:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050606080131.02a5bc10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001601c56c0f$06b82d90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau .............. > Where I play, this is not uncommon. Any hesitation provides partner > with the UI that you have a problem. The purpose is to reduce that UI > (and the extent to which partner may be constrained in his choice of > actions by it) by making obvious only that you have a problem with > something in the remaining play of the hand, rather than that you have > a problem playing to a particular trick. Moreover, you usually do this > when the previous trick has provided additional information about the > distribution (perhaps someone showed out), so the hesitation at that > time might be just to recount and reanalyze the hand with the new > information rather than necessarily indicating that you are thinking > about any particular future play. I simply do not understand the difference in implications when you select a play and places that card face down before you take your time to consider the future play and you do exactly the same except that you face the played card immediately. In both cases it should be obvious that your hesitation has nothing to do with the current trick, and in both cases it should be obvious from your hesitation that you are considering "something" related to future tricks. What is the difference other than that you have taken away from your opponents and partner the possibility to do their thinking while you do your thinking? Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 8 12:03:35 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 8 12:05:10 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A467DF.9060808@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001701c56c11$564e40e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................ > In fact, I still do believe we are in such a consensus. I have not yet > seen anyone who wishes to allow a spade lead after > 1NT pass 3NT pass > pass pass pass 1Sp > although we might have different routes towards it. In fact, after > everyone agreed on this one, Sven was the one who threw a spanner in > the works, causing this now un-ending thread. Huh? At that time "everyone" (who had spoken up, they were not many) "agreed" (mainly by not objecting) that you had a point when you argued that this seemed to be a free road to instruct partner to lead a spade. I pointed out that this could not possibly be the intentions of the law and that Law 16 should be applicable. If you (still?) have an opinion that a spade lead should be OK under the circumstances then please explicitly state so. I must admit I no longer understand what position you are really arguing. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 8 12:22:04 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 8 12:23:38 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A4AB17.1090407@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001801c56c13$eaa1ae10$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > Sometimes a player will be forbidden to lead a spade by L26, sometimes > he will be forbidden to lead a spade by L16. Both are, IMO, exactly > the same. Both are, in one sense of the word "penalties". No Herman, they are not. A player is NEVER forbidden by L16 to (for instance) play a spade. He is in case forbidden to play a spade if that is a play that could demonstrably have been suggested over another logical alternative by extraneous information which he has received from his partner. You cannot and should not compare L16 and L26 this way any more than you can compare apples and oranges. L26 specifies explicit penalties, L16 specifies conditional restrictions. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 8 12:37:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 8 12:37:45 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <001701c56c11$564e40e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001701c56c11$564e40e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42A6CA75.7060602@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ................ > >>In fact, I still do believe we are in such a consensus. I have not yet >>seen anyone who wishes to allow a spade lead after >>1NT pass 3NT pass >>pass pass pass 1Sp >>although we might have different routes towards it. In fact, after >>everyone agreed on this one, Sven was the one who threw a spanner in >>the works, causing this now un-ending thread. > > > Huh? > > At that time "everyone" (who had spoken up, they were not many) "agreed" > (mainly by not objecting) that you had a point when you argued that this > seemed to be a free road to instruct partner to lead a spade. > I did not believe that to be the consensus. Rather, the consensus was that L72B1 ought to be used to penalize the spade lead if it came. > I pointed out that this could not possibly be the intentions of the law and > that Law 16 should be applicable. > I agree that this could not possibly be the intention of the lawmakers. I don't agree that this means that L16 should be applicable. The text is clear - IMO - "no penalty". You are wrong in assuming that if the lawmakers write "L16 is not applicable" and this cannot possibly be their intention, then L16 must be applicable. Again, I stress that it is my interpretation that equals "no penalty" with "L16 is not applicable". This is not a very strongly held view. But you are wrong in assuming that, since the lawmakers could not possibly have intended this, they must have assumed that L16 still applied. That in itself is a very bad argument. The lawmakers could simply have made a mistake - or they could have intended otherwise, who knows! > If you (still?) have an opinion that a spade lead should be OK under the > circumstances then please explicitly state so. I must admit I no longer > understand what position you are really arguing. > I do not believe a spade lead should be OK. I see however no real way we can get to this result, except by saying that bidding 1S is equal to saying "I want a spade lead". L16 would apply to this. I actually followed you when you stated that if L16 is abolished, then so should L72B1. If something is allowed by the laws, then you cannot afterwards rule that it is an infraction. As it stands, a "fifth" bid after three passes is allowed and there are no penalties for it. I agree that this is a bad law and it should be amended. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 8 12:47:28 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 8 12:47:25 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <001801c56c13$eaa1ae10$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001801c56c13$eaa1ae10$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42A6CCC0.1060302@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ................. > >>Sometimes a player will be forbidden to lead a spade by L26, sometimes >>he will be forbidden to lead a spade by L16. Both are, IMO, exactly >>the same. Both are, in one sense of the word "penalties". > > > No Herman, they are not. > yes they are. > A player is NEVER forbidden by L16 to (for instance) play a spade. > yes he is. > He is in case forbidden to play a spade if that is a play that could > demonstrably have been suggested over another logical alternative by > extraneous information which he has received from his partner. > so he is forbidden to lead a spade. > You cannot and should not compare L16 and L26 this way any more than you can > compare apples and oranges. > yes, you can, both are fruits. L26 and L16 are both penalties. > L26 specifies explicit penalties, L16 specifies conditional restrictions. > that is no difference. When the conditions are satisfied, L16 restricts a spade lead. There are conditions in L26 as well, which have to be satisfied before a spade lead can be forbidden. There is a small difference between the two: If you are forbidden by L26 to lead a spade, and you do so anyway, you will have revoked. If you are forbidden by L16 to lead a spade, and you do so anyway, the TD will give a L12 adjusted score against you. Other than that, and the fact that in L26 the TD will tell you not to lead a spade, while under L16 he can at most tell you to not lead a spade if you have LA's, there is no difference between the two. In both cases, you cannot lead a spade. Note that L16 is quite clear in this matter: it actually says that you are not allowed to ... (lead a spade). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 8 13:27:46 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Jun 8 13:29:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >.............. >> Where I play, this is not uncommon. Any hesitation provides partner >> with the UI that you have a problem. The purpose is to reduce that UI >> (and the extent to which partner may be constrained in his choice of >> actions by it) by making obvious only that you have a problem with >> something in the remaining play of the hand, rather than that you have >> a problem playing to a particular trick. Moreover, you usually do this >> when the previous trick has provided additional information about the >> distribution (perhaps someone showed out), so the hesitation at that >> time might be just to recount and reanalyze the hand with the new >> information rather than necessarily indicating that you are thinking >> about any particular future play. > >I simply do not understand the difference in implications when you select a >play and places that card face down before you take your time to consider >the future play and you do exactly the same except that you face the played >card immediately. > >In both cases it should be obvious that your hesitation has nothing to do >with the current trick, and in both cases it should be obvious from your >hesitation that you are considering "something" related to future tricks. > >What is the difference other than that you have taken away from your >opponents and partner the possibility to do their thinking while you do >your >thinking? You are allowed to choose when to think. Nothing in the laws [or even the Proprieties, or in general etiquette] suggests you should deliberately put yourself at a disadvantage. I find it very strange that people here should suggest that a player who is ethical should place himself at a further disadvantage which is not mandated by Law. If you play a card face up you cannot stop the next player playing so you do not get a chance to think when you want. As for others thinking there is no bar to others thinking when I am thinking! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 8 13:45:25 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 8 13:47:00 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A6CCC0.1060302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001901c56c1f$8fcd0050$6400a8c0@WINXP> Can you not see the difference? Under L26 a "penalty" is served directly as a consequence of what happened at the table. Under L16 no "penalty" is served at all but the Director must judge after the play has ended whether there was any cause for adjustment and only if he finds such cause he shall adjust the result obtained on the board. Sven (PS.: Don't ever expect any comments from me to unsubstantiated "yes, they are", "yes, he is" arguments) > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ................. > > > >>Sometimes a player will be forbidden to lead a spade by L26, sometimes > >>he will be forbidden to lead a spade by L16. Both are, IMO, exactly > >>the same. Both are, in one sense of the word "penalties". > > > > > > No Herman, they are not. > > > > yes they are. > > > A player is NEVER forbidden by L16 to (for instance) play a spade. > > > > yes he is. > > > He is in case forbidden to play a spade if that is a play that could > > demonstrably have been suggested over another logical alternative by > > extraneous information which he has received from his partner. .............. > There is a small difference between the two: If you are forbidden by > L26 to lead a spade, and you do so anyway, you will have revoked. If > you are forbidden by L16 to lead a spade, and you do so anyway, the TD > will give a L12 adjusted score against you. "A *SMALL* difference?" ????? From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jun 8 14:04:25 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed Jun 8 14:06:20 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A6CCC0.1060302@hdw.be> References: <001801c56c13$eaa1ae10$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A6CCC0.1060302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42A6DEC9.3010001@t-online.de> Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Sometimes a player will be forbidden to lead a spade by L26, sometimes >>> he will be forbidden to lead a spade by L16. Both are, IMO, exactly >>> the same. Both are, in one sense of the word "penalties". >> >> >> No Herman, they are not. >> > > yes they are. > >> A player is NEVER forbidden by L16 to (for instance) play a spade. >> > > yes he is. Please. There are three-year-olds who can do better than that, and so can you. We have seen you present arguments. Do so again. Proof by assertion leads us nowhere. > >> He is in case forbidden to play a spade if that is a play that could >> demonstrably have been suggested over another logical alternative by >> extraneous information which he has received from his partner. >> > > so he is forbidden to lead a spade. Forbidden by whom? By the laws and the ethical principles of the game, if a logical alternative presents itself. By one`s conscience, so to speak. Do you feel penalized by your conscience when partner makes UI available? >> L26 specifies explicit penalties, L16 specifies conditional >> restrictions. >> > > that is no difference. When the conditions are satisfied, L16 > restricts a spade lead. There are conditions in L26 as well, which > have to be satisfied before a spade lead can be forbidden. > There is a small difference between the two: If you are forbidden by L26 to lead a spade, and you do so anyway, you will have revoked. If you are forbidden by L16 to lead a spade, and you do so > anyway, the TD will give a L12 adjusted score against you. > > Other than that, and the fact that in L26 the TD will tell you not to > lead a spade, while under L16 he can at most tell you to not lead a > spade if you have LA's, there is no difference between the two. In > both cases, you cannot lead a spade. So you think a penalty may be something that applies itself? The TD will usually not be there to explain L16. In most cases he will be summoned after someone allegedly violated L16, only seldom before he might do it. So, out of thin air, there appears this penalty, forbidding me to lead a spade right after my partner did something he should rather not have done? Come on, Herman, a restriction and a penalty is as much the same as murder, accidental manslaughter and killing in self-defense are the same. The result may be the same, someone being dead, but that does not make them identic. Of course L16 and L26 may have the same effect on a player, no one said they didn`t, but calling a donkey a horse does not make him one. > > Note that L16 is quite clear in this matter: it actually says that you > are not allowed to ... (lead a spade). > Sure. But if it were the same we would treat it as a revoke too, wouldn`t we? Regards Matthias From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 8 14:17:30 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Jun 8 14:19:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? Message-ID: Bruce McIntyre wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> Bruce McIntyre wrote >> >>> I have occasionally seen this FDAP (Face Down Announcement Play), >>>usually by a very good player with the best of ethical intentions. >>>However, when this happens and I am the declarer or the other >>>defender, it irks to have a long pause in the middle of a trick. >>>Surely it would be equivalent to place the card face down on the >>>table and say instead "I'll need to do some overall thinking about >>>this deal at the end of this trick," then immediately play the card >>>and then leave it face up until ready to continue. Against a gung- >>>ho declarer intent on finishing within fifteen seconds one might >>>even place one's STOP card on the table. >> If you wish to think at this moment, then placing a card and >>expecting declarer not to is not only optimistic, it seems incredibly >>complicated and leading to argument. When you have a much simpler >>option available, such as placing the card face down, why go for the >>poorer option? > >Your way is to place the card you know you are going to play face down >and think about the deal. > >My way is to play the card I know I am going to play, let the trick be >completed, and then leave my card face up and if necessary indicate to >the trick winner than I need to think a minute. Explain to me why *you* have the right to dictate to others that *they* should follow your approach, rather than theirs. There is no Law [including the Proprieties] nor general etiquette that limits when you are allowed to think ***so long as*** it does not mislead opponents. >"Placing a card and expecting declarer not to" is YOUR way, not mine. >I fail to see how my way is "incredibly complicated and leading to >argument." If you want to think at that moment it is very difficult to see ho you stop the next player from playing. >>> If you found yourself needing to "redo your sums" when declarer led >>>a suit in which you held a singleton, would you go with the FDAP? >> Why not? I am allowed to think about the hand when I want, so I am >>being ethical by indicating it is not this card. > >Sure you are. But what Law allows you to tell the table what you are >or are not thinking about? Oh, please! Are you going to ban all thinking now? >>> Surely not, and if you did I would rule against you if declarer was >>>misled. >> How on earth can he be misled? > >If South ruffs a suit led for the first time by the defence at say, >trick five and now leads immediately a side suit he has a crucial >decision in, and you pull the FDAP play with a singleton, do you really >expect declarer to believe you when you say you are not thinking about >this trick? Yes, I have not been accused of bad ethics in this position ever that I can remember, nor have I heard of the other ethical players who do this being so accused. Since you have indicated you are not thinking of playing other than this card it is difficult to see how anyone can accuse you of bad ethics anyway: what are they suggesting - that you are wondering whether to follow suit or not? >>> The scariest part about the FDAP is that used against (or in the >>>company of) a novice player (or kibitzer) it may be completely >>>misunderstood, and end up as an illegal tactic which the novice >>>thinks legal. >> First, it is legal. > >By a good player, yes, legal, but I argue discourteous and unnecessary. >If you have something to think about and it is not the current trick, >how on earth can the play of at most two more cards disrupt your >thinking process? I am sorry, if you do not know this, then I cannot really explain: this is a forum on the laws, not on how to play the game. But most players think when they want to: why you want to limit ethical players form doing so I cannot imagine. >> Second, it is a good tactic to teach to a novice. > >I greatly fear a novice might misunderstand this to mean that he can >play a singleton face down and pretend to think about the rest of the >deal for thirty seconds when he has nothing to think about except how >smug a play this is to conceal the fact that the card he plays is a >stiff. Novices learn by example, instruction, and so on. Obviously they do not always understand things first time, but to assume they will never seems harsh. >> Third, if you do not teach novices ethical ideas, how are they going >>to learn them? > >I don't think it is ever a good idea to teach a novice something by >doing it in a game. They swallow it (convention, play idea, treatment, >whatever) whole without comprehension. If you wish to teach them this >outside the game in a lesson, I guess so, but I still don't see why >thinking cannot wait until the trick is over. I play against [on average] 200 people a week of lesser ability and/or experience than myself. While I try to spend a lot of time helping others at this game, and have done so for the last forty years, I do not have time to speak to each one at the end of every game. >>> Still ruling from the standpoint of courtesy--let's complete tricks >>>and then do overall thinking. As bridge players we are conditioned >>>to be suspicious of mid-trick huddles--it's wrong to disguise these >>>tells by ocassionally pausing in the middle of a trick where you >>>have nothing to think about that couldn't wait until the trick is >>>over. >> Pshaw! You have a right to think when you want to, not when >>someone of an incredibly super-suspicious mind wants you to. And if >>you wait till the end of the trick, you have not only done your >>thinking when you do not wish to, you have also got to stop someone >>leading to the next trick. > >Excuse me. If you leave your card face up AND have asked for time to >think, a premature lead to the next trick is not your problem, nor your >fault. But I do not want to think then, I want to think now. Why should I not? Everyone else is - why am I to be singled out? I, and the other ethical players? >> It is ******FAR****** better to do your thinking at the time that >>anyone will expect, namely when it is your turn to play. To do >>otherwise is discourteous, unnecessary, and not fair on yourself. > >Perhaps we need an example. Show me a defensive situation where a >defender: >a) knows which card he/she will always play to this trick >b) needs time to think about the rest of the hand >c) cannot wait until the end of the trick for some reason > >One would think in 25 years of playing this game even a player as >mediocre as myself would remember such a situation. But I don't. It is common for a player to decide he wants to think now. Why should he not? Everyone does - I am sorry, everyone except yourself. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 8 14:21:20 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 8 14:22:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001e01c56c24$942ac2e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson > >.............. > >I simply do not understand the difference in implications when > >you select a play and place that card face down before you > >take your time to consider the future play and you do exactly > >the same except that you face the played card immediately. > > > >In both cases it should be obvious that your hesitation has > >nothing to do with the current trick, and in both cases it > >should be obvious from your hesitation that you are considering > >"something" related to future tricks. > > > >What is the difference other than that you have taken away from > >your opponents and partner the possibility to do their thinking > >while you do your thinking? > > You are allowed to choose when to think. Sure (unless L74B4 or L73D2 is deemed to apply). > Nothing in the laws [or even > the Proprieties, or in general etiquette] suggests you should > deliberately put yourself at a disadvantage. What disadvantage? > I find it very strange > that people here should suggest that a player who is ethical should > place himself at a further disadvantage which is not mandated by Law. Again: What disadvantage? And is it ethical to keep opponents unnecessary in the dark as to which card you have decided to play? > > If you play a card face up you cannot stop the next player playing so > you do not get a chance to think when you want. Of course you can. As long as you keep your card played to the current trick face up there is nothing to prevent you from requesting all other players to maintain their cards to that trick face up as well. If a player then tries to lead to the next trick you just tell him you have not yet completed your considerations. I cannot imagine any situation where it matters if the next player plays to the current trick while I am considering my plays to later tricks? If there is any impact from this I would expect it to be an advantage (knowing the card being played) rather than a disadvantage. Remember that we are not discussing the case where a player might change his mind as to which card he will play to the current trick! > > As for others thinking there is no bar to others thinking when I am > thinking! Sure no, but why prevent them from knowing what you have decided to play to the current trick once there is no chance you are going to change that decision? Can this be ethical? Regards Sven From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 8 14:34:33 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Jun 8 14:36:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall References: Message-ID: <000901c56c26$6d7f8d40$409868d5@James> [Wayne Burrows] > I am not complaining because the TD or the AC get the > ruling wrong. It is inevitable that we all will get > some rulings wrong. What I am not accepting of is a > situation where a non-offending side have no route to > prove their innocence. Where two completely coincidental > psyches occur on the same board this non-offending side > must have a means to show their innocence. > When the ruling is mechanical rather than investigative > then this innocent pair have no chance. > I don't accept this as a reasonable process. [Nigel] Rarely can putative offenders "prove" their innocence; but often they can cast doubt on the case agaist them. In your case, you say the TD and AC failed to investigate facts or ignored them. What was this evidence? How would it affect the balance of probaility? From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 8 15:16:28 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 8 15:16:31 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A6DEC9.3010001@t-online.de> References: <001801c56c13$eaa1ae10$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A6CCC0.1060302@hdw.be> <42A6DEC9.3010001@t-online.de> Message-ID: <42A6EFAC.8050700@hdw.be> Sorry Matthias, but I have to disagree. Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>>> Sometimes a player will be forbidden to lead a spade by L26, sometimes >>>> he will be forbidden to lead a spade by L16. Both are, IMO, exactly >>>> the same. Both are, in one sense of the word "penalties". >>> >>> >>> >>> No Herman, they are not. >>> >> >> yes they are. >> >>> A player is NEVER forbidden by L16 to (for instance) play a spade. >>> >> >> yes he is. > > > > Please. There are three-year-olds who can do better than that, and so > can you. We have seen you present arguments. Do so again. Proof by > assertion leads us nowhere. > Well, I can do no better than that here. Sven asserted one thing, I asserted another. >> >>> He is in case forbidden to play a spade if that is a play that could >>> demonstrably have been suggested over another logical alternative by >>> extraneous information which he has received from his partner. >>> >> >> so he is forbidden to lead a spade. > > > > Forbidden by whom? By the laws and the ethical principles of the game, > if a logical alternative presents itself. By one`s conscience, so to > speak. Do you feel penalized by your conscience when partner makes UI > available? > Forbidden by whom? by the laws of course. Your conscience is only involved inasmuch as the laws tell you you should not do something, and then you don't do it. Someone with lesser conscience will lead a spade, and will find out that he has broken L16. In essence therefor, L16 tells you (and him) not to lead a spade. >>> L26 specifies explicit penalties, L16 specifies conditional >>> restrictions. >>> >> >> that is no difference. When the conditions are satisfied, L16 >> restricts a spade lead. There are conditions in L26 as well, which >> have to be satisfied before a spade lead can be forbidden. > > > > There is a small difference between the two: If you are forbidden by > L26 to lead a spade, and you do so anyway, you will have revoked. If you > are forbidden by L16 to lead a spade, and you do so > > anyway, the TD will give a L12 adjusted score against you. > >> >> Other than that, and the fact that in L26 the TD will tell you not to >> lead a spade, while under L16 he can at most tell you to not lead a >> spade if you have LA's, there is no difference between the two. In >> both cases, you cannot lead a spade. > > > > So you think a penalty may be something that applies itself? The TD will Yes of course it is. The TD is there to see to it that the laws are followed, but it is the laws, not the TD, that tell the player not to lead a spade. > usually not be there to explain L16. In most cases he will be summoned > after someone allegedly violated L16, only seldom before he might do it. > So, out of thin air, there appears this penalty, forbidding me to lead a > spade right after my partner did something he should rather not have > done? Come on, Herman, a restriction and a penalty is as much the same > as murder, accidental manslaughter and killing in self-defense are the > same. The result may be the same, someone being dead, but that does not > make them identic. Of course L16 and L26 may have the same effect on a > player, no one said they didn`t, but calling a donkey a horse does not > make him one. > Sven used fruits, you use Equines. Don't you see that we are talking semantics here? I I say that both apples and oranges are fruits, why do you keep insisting that apples aren't oranges? I never said L16 was an orange, or a donkey, only a fruit or an equine. >> >> Note that L16 is quite clear in this matter: it actually says that you >> are not allowed to ... (lead a spade). >> > Sure. But if it were the same we would treat it as a revoke too, > wouldn`t we? > No of course we don't. But L16 is a type of penalty. And that's that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 8 15:21:21 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 8 15:21:24 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <001901c56c1f$8fcd0050$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001901c56c1f$8fcd0050$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42A6F0D1.6080406@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Can you not see the difference? > can you not see that there's no difference. > Under L26 a "penalty" is served directly as a consequence of what happened > at the table. > And don't you see that a L16 ruling is a "consequence of what happened at the table"? > Under L16 no "penalty" is served at all but the Director must judge after > the play has ended whether there was any cause for adjustment and only if he > finds such cause he shall adjust the result obtained on the board. > No, the director must rule after the play whether or not the player has broken the law that told him not to lead a spade. If the circumstances are met, then the player should know that he should not lead a spade. If he does then he will face a corrective penalty. This sentence is valid both for L26 and L16. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 8 15:28:49 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Jun 8 15:30:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? References: <001e01c56c24$942ac2e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003a01c56c2e$02053bc0$409868d5@James> [Sven Pran] > Sure no, but why prevent them from knowing what you have > decided to play to the current trick once there is no > chance you are going to change that decision? Can this > be ethical? [Nigel] Probably not. OK, Sven. I've changed my mind. You've convinced me. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 8 15:55:45 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jun 8 15:58:40 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A6EFAC.8050700@hdw.be> References: <001801c56c13$eaa1ae10$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A6CCC0.1060302@hdw.be> <42A6DEC9.3010001@t-online.de> <42A6EFAC.8050700@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Jun 8, 2005, at 9:16 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > But L16 is a type of penalty. And that's that. This ain't Dogpatch, and you ain't Mammy Yokum. I have been taught that a score adjustment is not a penalty. You, apparently, have not. That, in itself, doesn't make either position the right one. And continuing to say "I'm right, nyah, nyah, nyah" serves nothing except your own ego. So knock it off, and go ask the WBFLC for their position. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 8 16:22:15 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jun 8 16:25:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <003a01c56c2e$02053bc0$409868d5@James> References: <001e01c56c24$942ac2e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <003a01c56c2e$02053bc0$409868d5@James> Message-ID: <0474dc8ac48f41a653479f949a0f3d48@rochester.rr.com> "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the laws." - Law 72A1 "Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing." - Law 74A3 "Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him." - Law 45A Law 45 is in Chapter VI (The Play), Part One (Procedure), Section One (Correct Procedure). I see no scope here for varying one's manner in playing a card. As for thinking when one wants to think, sure, but whether you play a card face up or face down doesn't affect your ability to think at that time, and neither would a play by any (or all) other players. So there's another card or two face up on the table - so what? If it affects whatever you have to think about, I should think you would want to know what it is; if it doesn't, I would ignore it - at least until I'm done thinking about whatever. I would be happier if the Laws specified that one may not lead to the next trick until the current trick is quitted, and that the current trick is not quitted until all four players have turned their cards. Still, I am convinced that playing a card face down in order to have time to think is *not* correct procedure. From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 8 17:06:41 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Jun 8 17:09:48 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A6CA75.7060602@hdw.be> References: <001701c56c11$564e40e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A6CA75.7060602@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <42A6CA75.7060602@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip > >I do not believe a spade lead should be OK. >I see however no real way we can get to this result, except by saying >that bidding 1S is equal to saying "I want a spade lead". L16 would >apply to this. >I actually followed you when you stated that if L16 is abolished, then >so should L72B1. If something is allowed by the laws, then you cannot >afterwards rule that it is an infraction. >As it stands, a "fifth" bid after three passes is allowed and there >are no penalties for it. >I agree that this is a bad law and it should be amended. The "pseudo call" itself attracts no penalties, we are agreed. Its information content may contain UI. 72B1, 16, take your pick. > > -- 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 Jun 8 17:10:08 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Jun 8 17:13:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Miscall In-Reply-To: References: <00bc01c56b4a$0ecf5d70$309468d5@James> Message-ID: In article , Wayne Burrows writes > > snip >What I am not accepting of is a situation where a non-offending >side have no route to prove their innocence. > >Where two completely coincidental psyches occur on the same >board this non-offending side must have a means to show their >innocence. > >When the ruling is mechanical rather than investigative then >this innocent pair have no chance. > >I don't accept this as a reasonable process. This is also my objection to the will-he nill-he application of the Rule of co-incidence. I need, at least, "heightened awareness" before I'll move towards an adjustment. I think we're reading from the same page, Wayne. I also think we're not in disagreement with the essential principles. John > >Wayne > >_________________________________________________________________ >Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! >http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ > > >_______________________________________________ >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 mustikka at charter.net Wed Jun 8 17:33:55 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed Jun 8 17:35:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? References: <001e01c56c24$942ac2e0$6400a8c0@WINXP><003a01c56c2e$02053bc0$409868d5@James> <0474dc8ac48f41a653479f949a0f3d48@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002801c56c3f$7cbf04c0$e1ddd642@DFYXB361> Ed Reppert wrote: > Still, I am convinced that playing a card face down in order to have time > to think is *not* correct procedure. If I were the opponent, I would be annoyed by a controlling maneuvre such as that. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 8 18:35:42 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Jun 8 18:37:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? References: <001e01c56c24$942ac2e0$6400a8c0@WINXP><003a01c56c2e$02053bc0$409868d5@James><0474dc8ac48f41a653479f949a0f3d48@rochester.rr.com> <002801c56c3f$7cbf04c0$e1ddd642@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <003f01c56c48$1d3cdbe0$5b9868d5@James> [Sven Pran] >>> Sure no, but why prevent them from knowing what you >>> have decided to play to the current trick once there >>> is no chance you are going to change that decision? >>> Can this be ethical? [Ed Reppert] >> Still, I am convinced that playing a card face down >> in order to have time to think is *not* correct >> procedure. [Raija] > If I were the opponent, I would be annoyed by a > controlling maneuvre such as that. [Nigel] It's even worse when you finesse a dummy's knave and RHO tanks. You wonder why he has such a problem with his discard and try to work out what you can do about this bad break -- when he triumphantly produces the queen -- usually from queen doubleton. Anyway, Richard's question is now settled. We have more than we need for a BLML concensus. So the matter is decided. From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 8 18:44:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 8 18:46:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <42A66DB9.9080004@shaw.ca> Message-ID: Bruce McIntyre wrote > > Perhaps we need an example. Show me a defensive situation where a > defender: > a) knows which card he/she will always play to this trick > b) needs time to think about the rest of the hand > c) cannot wait until the end of the trick for some reason You are, in theory, correct. The FDAP *should* never be necessary. However, if the laws allow opponents to lead to the *next* trick before the current trick is quitted (even though you have asked them not to) you may not get the thinking time you need when you want it. The FDAP was invented because the laws lack clarity in this area. An SO regulation requiring players to wait until a trick is quitted before leading to the next one would not, IMO, be in conflict with the laws so we need not wait for the WBF to make up its mind. FDAP abuse is, IMO, a serious (albeit very rare) infraction. A player who changes his card after making a FDAP should be hit with a big procedural penalty plus any score adjustment that may be justified. The same is true if the TD judges the player to have been thinking about the current trick if the card is not changed. Tim From toddz at att.net Wed Jun 8 19:22:18 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed Jun 8 19:24:01 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A6EFAC.8050700@hdw.be> References: <001801c56c13$eaa1ae10$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A6CCC0.1060302@hdw.be> <42A6DEC9.3010001@t-online.de> <42A6EFAC.8050700@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42A7294A.6070103@att.net> Herman De Wael wrote: >>>> A player is NEVER forbidden by L16 to (for instance) play a spade. >>> >>> yes he is. >> >> Please. There are three-year-olds who can do better than that, and so >> can you. We have seen you present arguments. Do so again. Proof by >> assertion leads us nowhere. > > Well, I can do no better than that here. Sven asserted one thing, I > asserted another. You can do better as I'm still convinced by Sven's argument and baffled by yours. In the auction 1NT - P - 3NT - "1S corrected to pass" - P - P, holding xxx Kxxx Kxxx Kx, a spade lead might be allowable. Holding AKQJT xxx xxx xx, a spade lead is certainly allowable. L16 is not an absolute that will forbid a spade lead, though it frequently works out that way. -Todd From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 8 19:51:06 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jun 8 19:49:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <003f01c56c48$1d3cdbe0$5b9868d5@James> References: <001e01c56c24$942ac2e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <003a01c56c2e$02053bc0$409868d5@James> <0474dc8ac48f41a653479f949a0f3d48@rochester.rr.com> <002801c56c3f$7cbf04c0$e1ddd642@DFYXB361> <003f01c56c48$1d3cdbe0$5b9868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050608134825.02bc5230@pop.starpower.net> At 12:35 PM 6/8/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >Anyway, Richard's question is now settled. We have more >than we need for a BLML concensus. So the matter is decided. "Consensus: Collective opinion or concord; general agreement or accord" [AHD]. We should use this word correctly. It is not a synonym for "majority opinion". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 8 20:02:17 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Jun 8 20:05:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: References: <42A66DB9.9080004@shaw.ca> Message-ID: In article , Tim West- Meads writes >Bruce McIntyre wrote >> >> Perhaps we need an example. Show me a defensive situation where a >> defender: >> a) knows which card he/she will always play to this trick >> b) needs time to think about the rest of the hand >> c) cannot wait until the end of the trick for some reason > >You are, in theory, correct. The FDAP *should* never be necessary. >However, if the laws allow opponents to lead to the *next* trick before >the current trick is quitted (even though you have asked them not to) you >may not get the thinking time you need when you want it. The FDAP was >invented because the laws lack clarity in this area. An SO regulation >requiring players to wait until a trick is quitted before leading to the >next one would not, IMO, be in conflict with the laws so we need not wait >for the WBF to make up its mind. > >FDAP abuse is, IMO, a serious (albeit very rare) infraction. A player who >changes his card after making a FDAP should be hit with a big procedural >penalty plus any score adjustment that may be justified. The same is true >if the TD judges the player to have been thinking about the current trick >if the card is not changed. > >Tim > Tim and I both strongly hold the view that the creation of MI is a clear infraction, whereas the creation of UI does nothing more than give partner an ethical problem. I see no problem at all with the FDAP as its purpose is to ensure that MI is not created, at the potential cost of creating UI. 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 Wed Jun 8 20:26:06 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 8 20:27:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001f01c56c57$89066760$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............. > However, if the laws allow opponents to lead to the *next* trick before > the current trick is quitted (even though you have asked them not to) you > may not get the thinking time you need when you want it. The FDAP was > invented because the laws lack clarity in this area. An SO regulation > requiring players to wait until a trick is quitted before leading to the > next one would not, IMO, be in conflict with the laws so we need not wait > for the WBF to make up its mind. Please tell me: What prevents a player from using Law 66A and 1: request all cards played to a trick to remain faced, 2: refuse to play to the next trick, until he has turned his own last played card face down? I shall "insist" that there is not and never has been any justifying reason for "inventing" what I notice is called FDAP. (If his partner has a habit of premature leads or plays, i.e. before he has turned his card face down, then that is a matter between the two of them and does not warrant FDAP) I further consider FDAP to be a violation of Law 74A2 just to mention one. Sven From oculars at didamail.com Thu Jun 9 01:29:08 2005 From: oculars at didamail.com (Bonita Galvan) Date: Thu Jun 9 00:39:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Get the low rates before its late Message-ID: <923c.fsf@calle70.net> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $400,000 for as little as $400 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.pr0ved.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Laura Ott to be remov(ed: http://www.pr0ved.com/deletion.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 bluejak666 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 9 01:28:56 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Jun 9 01:30:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >Please tell me: What prevents a player from using Law 66A and >1: request all cards played to a trick to remain faced, >2: refuse to play to the next trick, >until he has turned his own last played card face down? Nothing. That is a method of thinking at the end of a trick. But if a player wishes to think when it is his turn to play - which he has a perfect right to do - this procedure does not help at all. >I shall "insist" that there is not and never has been any justifying reason >for "inventing" what I notice is called FDAP. (If his partner has a habit >of >premature leads or plays, i.e. before he has turned his card face down, >then >that is a matter between the two of them and does not warrant FDAP) You can insist all you like, Sven, but you do not have the right to invent Laws. There is no Law saying that a player may only think when a trick is finished. Players often like to think at their turn to play, and you do not have the right to invent a law stooping that procedure. >I further consider FDAP to be a violation of Law 74A2 just to mention one. Nice one. So if a player acts in a reasonable fashion, thinking at his turn to play like 9% of other players, but also is ethical, not misleading the opponents, your reward for this is to invent an infraction for him. Why? Are there so few people infracting Laws that you have to invent infractions to deal with the ethical players as well? I am sorry, Sven, unless you are prepared to use L74A2 to deal with all players who think when it is their turn to play, you cannot just use it on the ethical ones. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 9 01:31:49 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Jun 9 01:33:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of David Stevenson >> >.............. >> >I simply do not understand the difference in implications when >> >you select a play and place that card face down before you >> >take your time to consider the future play and you do exactly >> >the same except that you face the played card immediately. >> > >> >In both cases it should be obvious that your hesitation has >> >nothing to do with the current trick, and in both cases it >> >should be obvious from your hesitation that you are considering >> >"something" related to future tricks. >> > >> >What is the difference other than that you have taken away from >> >your opponents and partner the possibility to do their thinking >> >while you do your thinking? >> >> You are allowed to choose when to think. > >Sure (unless L74B4 or L73D2 is deemed to apply). > >> Nothing in the laws [or even >> the Proprieties, or in general etiquette] suggests you should >> deliberately put yourself at a disadvantage. > >What disadvantage? Everyone is allowed to think when they want, except ethical players who run into your rules. That is a disadvantage. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 9 01:35:45 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Jun 9 01:37:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? Message-ID: raija wrote >Ed Reppert wrote: >> Still, I am convinced that playing a card face down in order to have >>time to think is *not* correct procedure. > >If I were the opponent, I would be annoyed by a controlling maneuvre >such as that. Why? You have an opponent who wishes to think, as is his right. Lots of your opponents think when it is their turn. The only difference is that, being ethical, he does not wish you to be misled in thinking he has a choice here. So which is it that annoys you, that he is thinking, as most of your opponents do some of the time when it is their turn to play, or that he is ethical about it? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From walt1 at verizon.net Thu Jun 9 01:55:57 2005 From: walt1 at verizon.net (Walt) Date: Thu Jun 9 01:58:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <002801c56c3f$7cbf04c0$e1ddd642@DFYXB361> References: <001e01c56c24$942ac2e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <003a01c56c2e$02053bc0$409868d5@James> <0474dc8ac48f41a653479f949a0f3d48@rochester.rr.com> <002801c56c3f$7cbf04c0$e1ddd642@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050608194504.0343aa18@incoming.verizon.net> At 11:33 AM 6/8/2005, raija wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: >>Still, I am convinced that playing a card face down in order to have time >>to think is *not* correct procedure. > >If I were the opponent, I would be annoyed by a controlling maneuvre such >as that. Raija I expect that your irritation with the face down play is a function of having played in a different bridge culture. When I was first playing duplicate bridge seriously (in North Carolina in the mid 1970's) and for at least ten years after that, this was standard behavior and considered to be the most ethical way to handle the need to think about the play of the hand when it did not concern the current trick. I believe that this was standard throughout the ACBL. All of the expert and advanced players and many of the intermediate players would play a card face down when they needed a moment to think. If this is something you are not used to I can understand that it might be an irritant. Walt From bawtie at didamail.com Thu Jun 9 03:16:48 2005 From: bawtie at didamail.com (Ricardo Reeves) Date: Thu Jun 9 02:22:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Your low mortage rate Message-ID: <20041apqhz3.ED8DA244AE@mailhost1p.lists.techtarget.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 $400,000 for as little as $400 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.pr0ved.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Noelle Rangel to be remov(ed: http://www.pr0ved.com/deletion.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 Jun 9 04:13:07 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Jun 9 04:14:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson: >There is no Law [including the Proprieties] nor >general etiquette that limits when you are >allowed to think ***so long as*** it does not >mislead opponents. Richard Hills: David's interpretation of the Proprieties does not seem (to me) to be fully consistent with the first two sentences of Law 73D1: >>It is desirable, though not always required, for >>players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying >>manner. However, players should be particularly >>careful in positions in which variations may work >>to the benefit of their side. (1) A declarer unnecessarily and deliberately varied tempo and manner with their trick three singleton. (2) The declarer cheerily announced to defenders, "My face down card is a singleton, but I am thinking now about one of the later tricks (you have to guess which later trick it is)." (3) Because declarer no longer gave AI to defenders at trick five that declarer had to think about trick five, the defenders no longer found the double-dummy killing defence. (4) Declarer gained the *benefit* of a game swing, due to their deliberate unsteady tempo and ultra- varying manner when playing a singleton. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 9 04:17:03 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Jun 9 04:18:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050608194504.0343aa18@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Walt: [big snip] >this was standard behavior [big snip] RJH: Interesting, but "standard behaviour" does not necessarily imply "Lawful behaviour". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 9 07:27:16 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Jun 9 07:28:52 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card References: Message-ID: <003201c56cb3$e6933500$0f9868d5@James> [Ed Reppert] > I would be happier if the Laws specified that one may > not lead to the next trick until the current trick is > quitted, and that the current trick is not quitted > until all four players have turned their cards. [Time West-Meades] > However, if the laws allow opponents to lead to the > *next* trick before the current trick is quitted (even > though you have asked them not to) you may not get the > thinking time you need when you want it. [nige1] Another reminder to Grattan. I hope the WBFLC don't drop this "hot potato" before clarifying the matter in the new edition of TFLB. From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jun 9 09:32:00 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu Jun 9 09:33:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2118b276ec82e6801d1dc08438670eb1@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 9 Jun 2005, at 00:35, David Stevenson wrote: > > So which is it that annoys you, that he is thinking, as most of your > opponents do some of the time when it is their turn to play, or that > he is ethical about it? What is annoying, as you have been told on many occasions before, is that you are denying your opponents the opportunity to use the thinking time themselves, because you are hiding from them the information that you have of which card you intend to play. Fortunately I don't seem to encounter this manoeuvre much any more; I think it was a fad among a certain group of players that has largely fallen out of fashion. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 9 09:32:35 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 9 09:34:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c56cc5$67b772c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson > >Please tell me: What prevents a player from using Law 66A and > >1: request all cards played to a trick to remain faced, > >2: refuse to play to the next trick, > >until he has turned his own last played card face down? > > Nothing. That is a method of thinking at the end of a trick. But if > a player wishes to think when it is his turn to play - which he has a > perfect right to do - this procedure does not help at all. I agree with you absolutely all the way David, EXCEPT when a player has decided his play and there is no chance he will change his mind. Facing his card immediately once he has decided that he will definitely play that particular card does not deprive him of any rights to think whenever he wants and for as long as he wants. Here we have a player who claims that he has decided which card he will play but he refuses to face it on the ground that he is considering his play to a future trick. Legally that player is entitled to change his mind and play another card to the current trick as long as he has not faced his first selected card. His statement that he is not thinking on this current trick does not bind him. We have a well established practice in Norway that a player who deceives an opponent by a break in tempo (hesitation) during his play is NOT heard on an argument that he was not thinking on his play to the current trick; he was considering some following trick(s). (Unless of course if we find and accept that he indeed had some bridge reason for his break in tempo). If your player has some bridge reason to think twice on the card he has selected to play to the current trick, fine. If not I still do not understand how allowing opponents (and partner) to complete the current trick while he is doing his thinking can put him at any disadvantage (and I should appreciate an example). IMO knowledge of the cards subsequently played to the current trick by the other players ought to be an advantage, not a disadvantage? And he cannot be forced to quit the trick until he has completed his thinking, so even seeing the card in case led by some player to the following trick while he is thinking should be a further advantage? Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Jun 9 09:39:06 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Jun 9 09:39:03 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A7294A.6070103@att.net> References: <001801c56c13$eaa1ae10$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A6CCC0.1060302@hdw.be> <42A6DEC9.3010001@t-online.de> <42A6EFAC.8050700@hdw.be> <42A7294A.6070103@att.net> Message-ID: <42A7F21A.8040807@hdw.be> Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >>>>> A player is NEVER forbidden by L16 to (for instance) play a spade. >>>> >>>> >>>> yes he is. >>> >>> >>> Please. There are three-year-olds who can do better than that, and so >>> can you. We have seen you present arguments. Do so again. Proof by >>> assertion leads us nowhere. >> >> >> Well, I can do no better than that here. Sven asserted one thing, I >> asserted another. > > > You can do better as I'm still convinced by Sven's argument and > baffled by yours. > Sven says that L16 never forbids a spade lead. > In the auction 1NT - P - 3NT - "1S corrected to pass" - P - P, > holding xxx Kxxx Kxxx Kx, a spade lead might be allowable. Holding > AKQJT xxx xxx xx, a spade lead is certainly allowable. L16 is not an > absolute that will forbid a spade lead, though it frequently works out > that way. > So let's focus on your first hand. The player holding this hand will ask the director "what can I do", and the director will read L16 out to him. Now both the player, and later the director will ask themselves the following two questions: "does the UI suggest a spade lead?" and "are there alternatives to a spade lead?". The way the laws have been formulated and interpreted, both these questions have a single answer. Opinions may vary, but in principle these things are quite fixed. From the answer to these two questions (presumably YES to both) comes the result in L16: "the partner may not choose ..." will translate into "the player may not lead a spade". Compare to L26. There again, a number of conditions apply : first of all, the call that has dissappeared needs to point to a particular suit, secondly, declarer must make a decision as to asking or refusing, and thirdly, the player must have cards other than those in the suit that is forbidden. When those conditions are met, the words of L26 translate into "prohibit the player from leading spades". Now really, I see no difference at all in these two cases: when certain conditions are met, a player is not allowed to lead a particular card. If you call one a penalty, then so must you the other. And I really don't see what is so incomprehensible in my point of view. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 9 09:39:36 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 9 09:41:11 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <003201c56cb3$e6933500$0f9868d5@James> Message-ID: <000101c56cc6$62e7f3e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of GUTHRIE > [Ed Reppert] > > I would be happier if the Laws specified that one may > > not lead to the next trick until the current trick is > > quitted, and that the current trick is not quitted > > until all four players have turned their cards. > > [Time West-Meades] > > However, if the laws allow opponents to lead to the > > *next* trick before the current trick is quitted (even > > though you have asked them not to) you may not get the > > thinking time you need when you want it. > > [nige1] > Another reminder to Grattan. I hope the WBFLC don't drop > this "hot potato" before clarifying the matter in the new > edition of TFLB. There is really no need for any law change on this "cold(!) potato": Law 66A gives the "thinking player" all the rights he needs. Regards Sven From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jun 9 09:45:49 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu Jun 9 09:47:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <000001c56cc5$67b772c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c56cc5$67b772c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 9 Jun 2005, at 08:32, Sven Pran wrote: > Here we have a player who claims that he has decided which card he > will play > but he refuses to face it on the ground that he is considering his > play to a > future trick. Legally that player is entitled to change his mind and > play > another card to the current trick as long as he has not faced his first > selected card. I have played against someone who did exactly that. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 9 10:51:44 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 9 10:53:19 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A7F21A.8040807@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c56cd0$76633e20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > So let's focus on your first hand. The player holding this hand will > ask the director "what can I do", and the director will read L16 out > to him. And the "correct" instruction by the Director should be something like: You are free to take whatever action you want, but it is your responsibility not to take any action that could have been suggested from the UI (if any) you have received. If after the play I find that you had indeed received UI, that your action could have been suggested from this UI and that your opponents were damaged from this action I shall adjust the score and give your opponents redress for such damage. This instruction is quite different from the instruction given by the Director in for instance a Law 26 case: Here (depending upon the details) the Director will tell the player: (L26A1): You are free to lead whichever card you want, or (L26A2): You are required to lead or prohibited from leading (at the discretion of declarer) the suit referred to in the withdrawn call, or (L26B): You are prohibited from leading the suit named by declarer. There will be no post mortem analysis of possible damage on this account. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jun 9 11:07:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jun 9 11:08:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <001f01c56c57$89066760$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Please tell me: What prevents a player from using Law 66A and > 1: request all cards played to a trick to remain faced, Nothing - but it is still declarers lead and he may do so before the trick is quitted. > 2: refuse to play to the next trick, > until he has turned his own last played card face down? On what grounds? He is no more (or less) allowed to think about the whole hand now than he was before - declarer has played at his own turn and it is (sadly) legally irrelevant that the previous trick has not been quitted. Until law/regulation makes opps playing before the trick is quitted an infraction I will continue to allow the FDAP in games I direct (I don't like it, and I don't use it myself - but that's not the issue). Tim > I further consider FDAP to be a violation of Law 74A2 just to mention > one. If said courteously it is not a discourtesy - and since it prevents opps from being misled it is not gratuitous. It creates UI for partner but no more or less than requesting declarer not to lead to the next trick. To be honest I can't see what the problem would be with saying that leading before a trick is quitted is an infraction (seldom penalised but leading to an adjustment if it causes a problem). Tim From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Jun 9 11:33:58 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Jun 9 11:35:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? Message-ID: <20050609093358.3DF9C3B7994@poczta.interia.pl> > You can insist all you like, Sven, but you do not have the right to > invent Laws. Neither do you. You cannot do that face-down-ploy for some of your tricks because L74A3 tells you that you can't. If, from to time, you play your card face down and take some time before you turn it over then you are not playing your cards in a "uniform" fashion required by L74A3. L45A says also: "Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him" The combination of "Facing it" and "immediately" unambigously forbids you to put your card face down. These are the laws that are currently in place so you cannot invent yours. Yes, you *are* allowed to think whenever you want to but nonetheless you must play your cards in a manner required by the laws. Dura lex, sed lex. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ____________________ Cibor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Znajdz swoja milosc na wiosne... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f187a From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Jun 9 11:41:14 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Jun 9 11:41:29 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000201c56cd0$76633e20$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c56cd0$76633e20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42A80EBA.7000706@hdw.be> No Sven, you are twisting the words of the director: Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ........... > >>So let's focus on your first hand. The player holding this hand will >>ask the director "what can I do", and the director will read L16 out >>to him. > > > And the "correct" instruction by the Director should be something like: > > You are free to take whatever action you want, but it is your responsibility > not to take any action that could have been suggested from the UI (if any) > you have received. > No Sven, that is not what the director should say: he should say "you are not allowed to take the actions suggested unless you have no logical alternative". You might argue that that is the same thing, but you would be wrong, in this discussion we are having. We are discussing whether or not L16 limits the actions of the partner. You say it does not limit them, and as evidence you suggest something the director might say - which is not a limitation, as you express it. I say it does limit them, and I offer as evidence a sentence the director could also say. The difference is that my sentence is formulated in the same manner as the lawbook's. > If after the play I find that you had indeed received UI, that your action > could have been suggested from this UI and that your opponents were damaged > from this action I shall adjust the score and give your opponents redress > for such damage. > Indeed - but that is only the penalty for the not following of the restriction imposed. > This instruction is quite different from the instruction given by the > Director in for instance a Law 26 case: Here (depending upon the details) > the Director will tell the player: > (L26A1): You are free to lead whichever card you want, or > (L26A2): You are required to lead or prohibited from leading (at the > discretion of declarer) the suit referred to in the withdrawn call, or > (L26B): You are prohibited from leading the suit named by declarer. > The only difference is that under L26, the director is able to translate the lawbook into a definite sentence: "you should not lead a spade". Consequently, the penalty for breaking this injunction is quite severe: it would even be considered revoking! Under L16, the injunction "you should not lead a spade" is also present, at the time of partner's actions. The difference is that the Director is not yet able to translate the lawbook into this simple sentence. A consequence of this is that breaking the injunction is relatively harmless: the score will be adjusted to equity via L12. Someone has said that L12 is not a penalty, since it does not reduce the score. That is true - but it is only because beforehand, L16 has reduced the score. Suppose that a player says "I wish you would lead a spade". With a spade lead, the contact goes 2 down. With a heart lead, it goes one down. Without the saying, partner might lead a spade or a heart. Average score : -1.5. With the saying, L16 restricts the spade lead. Now either the player leads a heart (final score -1) or he leads a spade (temporary score : -2, final score after L12: -1). In any case, L12 has not lowered the score, but L16 has. I really see no difference between a director saying "you are not allowed to lead a spade" and a director saying "you are not allowed to do the suggested action". > There will be no post mortem analysis of possible damage on this account. > That one was about L26, yes: well, there would be. Say the TD tells you not to lead a spade. You put down the SA. No-one follows suit. What is the TD going to do? (apart from asking you why you did not bid 7Sp?) And even if you don't have 13 spades, what is the TD going to do? If he knows his business, he won't say a thing - and if the opponents ask, he'll tell them - if he has a spade he has now revoked. So here too, there can be a post mortem (less frequently, of course) > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Dow at heuer.com Thu Jun 9 11:44:18 2005 From: Dow at heuer.com (Irene) Date: Thu Jun 9 11:50:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Buy Cheap Viagra from a real pharmacy Message-ID: <1379868610.12143486280@85.101.95.46> Buy popular drugs online http://commodities.chudomeds.info/?drinkingxtvuybetzsvKhrushchev Slow and steady wins the race. Without tenderness, a man is uninteresting. Nothing can be pleasing which is not also becoming. Courage is found in unlikely places. From knots at realmofdarkness.every1.net Thu Jun 9 11:44:25 2005 From: knots at realmofdarkness.every1.net (Augustus) Date: Thu Jun 9 11:50:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Our Viagra Pharmacy uses only licensed US medical doctors Message-ID: <9772356434.11331847245@85.101.95.46> Viagra shipped privately and discreetly to your door. No prescription necessary http://evolving.chudomeds.info/?figsxtvuygreetzgvEskimo His only fault is that he has no fault. And now the sequence of events in no particular order. Life's a tough proposition, and the first hundred years are the hardest. Circumstances rule men and not men rule circumstances. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 9 11:59:47 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 9 12:01:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c56cd9$f7d96610$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > > Please tell me: What prevents a player from using Law 66A and > > 1: request all cards played to a trick to remain faced, > > Nothing - but it is still declarers lead and he may do so before the trick > is quitted. > > > 2: refuse to play to the next trick, > > until he has turned his own last played card face down? > > On what grounds? On exactly the same ground that he otherwise would apply FDAP: He has not completed his considerations on the tricks to come. > He is no more (or less) allowed to think about the whole > hand now than he was before - declarer has played at his own turn and it > is (sadly) legally irrelevant that the previous trick has not been > quitted. Until law/regulation makes opps playing before the trick is > quitted an infraction I will continue to allow the FDAP in games I direct. The fact that declarer has led to the next trick alters nothing: The defender who has not turned his own played card face down retains all his rights to think about the play including his right to delay his play to the next trick. > (I don't like it, and I don't use it myself - but that's not the issue). > > Tim > > > > I further consider FDAP to be a violation of Law 74A2 just to mention > > one. > > If said courteously it is not a discourtesy - and since it prevents opps > from being misled it is not gratuitous. It creates UI for partner but no > more or less than requesting declarer not to lead to the next trick. And no more or less than exposing his played card before starting thinking on the next tricks. The ONLY essential difference is that he unnecessarily delays the moment when opponents (and partner) receive their information on what card he played. > > To be honest I can't see what the problem would be with saying that > leading before a trick is quitted is an infraction (seldom penalised but > leading to an adjustment if it causes a problem). For a starter you might look at the possible conflict between L45E (when the Director deems that the fifth card played to a trick was actually led to the following trick) and your proposed new rule. Next to might try to determine what you really want to achieve with your new rule that is not already available with the present laws. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 9 12:06:40 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 9 12:08:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <20050609093358.3DF9C3B7994@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <000401c56cda$ee4692c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski ............... > L45A says also: > > "Each player except dummy plays a card > by detaching it from his hand and facing it on > the table immediately before him" > > The combination of "Facing it" and "immediately" > unambigously forbids you to put your card > face down. There is a technicality here Konrad: In this sentence the word "immediately" goes on position (immediately in front of him) rather than on time (facing it immediately)! Not that I disagree with you, but just this part of your argument does not hold water. I think the most important argument goes on the clause "unvarying manner". Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jun 9 12:29:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jun 9 12:31:17 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000101c56cc6$62e7f3e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > There is really no need for any law change on this "cold(!) potato": > Law 66A gives the "thinking player" all the rights he needs. L66a actually says: So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced. 1. If one asks for the other cards to faced when one has no interest in what they are it can mislead declarer as much as a hesitation. 2. It does not change the fact that even with the previous cards faced it is still the players "turn" and if he is not thinking about the (now) current trick he still has to say he is thinking about "the hand" rather than the trick (or mislead declarer) - no different to a FDAP! "Premature" (my word, not the laws) leads very seldom cause problems for the opponents and should not be subject to automatic penalties. However, when confusion arises, or when the premature lead deprives opps of time to think I would like to have grounds for adjustment - currently I do not. All I want is a simple law/regulation that says it isn't a player's turn to lead until the previous trick is quitted. Thinking at the end of a trick creates the same UI to partner as does a FDAP but declarer will not be misled even if nothing is said. NB Playing rubber bridge (which Sven thinks is irrelevant) one may request that a previous trick be left on the table - since it hasn't been "gathered" it isn't yet the turn of the winning player to lead so this works OK. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jun 9 12:29:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jun 9 12:31:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <20050609093358.3DF9C3B7994@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Konrad wrote: > L45A says also: > > "Each player except dummy plays a card > by detaching it from his hand and facing it on > the table immediately before him" > > The combination of "Facing it" and "immediately" > unambigously forbids you to put your card > face down. Sorry Konrad, but this is a trick of the English language. The "immediately" here is a geographic reference to the location on the table - not a temporal reference to "without delay". Tim From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Jun 9 13:00:46 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Jun 9 13:02:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? Message-ID: <20050609110046.D01543B799D@poczta.interia.pl> > > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > ............... > > L45A says also: > > > > "Each player except dummy plays a card > > by detaching it from his hand and facing it on > > the table immediately before him" > > > > The combination of "Facing it" and "immediately" > > unambigously forbids you to put your card > > face down. > > There is a technicality here Konrad: In this sentence the word > "immediately" > goes on position (immediately in front of him) rather than on time > (facing > it immediately)! > Indeed... I have just checked both Polish and French translation and it looks that you are right. Funny because only yesterday I was arguing on the Polish TD Mailing List with someone who misuderstood in a similar way the following phrase from the WBF Systems Policy "An overcall of a natural opening bid of one of a suit" I explained to him that contrary to what he thought the clause "one of a suit" didn't refer to "overcall" but rather to "opening bid". And the very next day I made an identical mistake! Alghough if I were in the mood for doing some hair splitting I might say that there is nothing in the L45A, Your Honor, that precludes my interpretation. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ____________________ Cibor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Znajdz swoja milosc na wiosne... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f187a From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 9 14:04:53 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jun 9 14:04:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: References: <000001c56cc5$67b772c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050609075116.02bcb5f0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:45 AM 6/9/05, Gordon wrote: >On 9 Jun 2005, at 08:32, Sven Pran wrote: > >>Here we have a player who claims that he has decided which card he >>will play >>but he refuses to face it on the ground that he is considering his >>play to a >>future trick. Legally that player is entitled to change his mind and play >>another card to the current trick as long as he has not faced his first >>selected card. > >I have played against someone who did exactly that. One hopes that the TD threw the book at him. This is just as flagrant a violation of L73D as is hesitating with a singleton. Whatever one's opinion of the propriety of placing a card face down and announcing "no problem", it is clearly a serious infraction to do it with a problem. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 9 14:15:49 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jun 9 14:14:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <20050609093358.3DF9C3B7994@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050609093358.3DF9C3B7994@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050609080744.02a45e80@pop.starpower.net> At 05:33 AM 6/9/05, Konrad wrote: >L45A says also: > >"Each player except dummy plays a card >by detaching it from his hand and facing it on >the table immediately before him" > >The combination of "Facing it" and "immediately" >unambigously forbids you to put your card >face down. English can be a bit subtle. The word "immediately" in L45A modifies "before" ["Immediate: 6. Close at hand; near" [AHD]]. It is a grammatical error to read the sentence as equivalent to, "...and immediately facing it on the table before him." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 9 14:31:51 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jun 9 14:32:39 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050609083035.02a376e0@pop.starpower.net> Once again missent and re-forwarded. Apologies to Herman for the double post. >At 05:41 AM 6/9/05, Herman wrote: > >>I really see no difference between a director saying "you are not >>allowed to lead a spade" and a director saying "you are not allowed >>to do the suggested action". > >"You are not allowed to lead a spade" applies to a particular lead as >the consequence of a particular infraction. On the next hand, or >tomorrow, or next week, you will be allowed to lead a spade. > >"You are not allowed to do the suggested action," is a direct >restatement of the rule, "You are not allowed to do any extraneously >suggested action." On the next hand, or tomorrow, or next week, you >will still not be allowed to do any extraneously suggested action. > >That looks like a pretty clear difference to me. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jun 9 17:02:44 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jun 9 17:09:03 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: <001801c56c13$eaa1ae10$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A6CCC0.1060302@hdw.be> <42A6DEC9.3010001@t-online.de> <42A6EFAC.8050700@hdw.be><42A7294A.6070103@att.net> <42A7F21A.8040807@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000701c56d04$4f7a0260$6aab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** 'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke --------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 8:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L35D > > So let's focus on your first hand. The player holding this hand will > ask the director "what can I do", and the director will read L16 out > to him. Now both the player, and later the director will ask > themselves the following two questions: "does the UI suggest a spade > lead?" and "are there alternatives to a spade lead?". The way the laws > have been formulated and interpreted, both these questions have a > single answer. Opinions may vary, but in principle these things are > quite fixed. From the answer to these two questions (presumably YES to > both) comes the result in L16: "the partner may not choose ..." will > translate into "the player may not lead a spade". > > Compare to L26. There again, a number of conditions apply : first of > all, the call that has dissappeared needs to point to a particular > suit, secondly, declarer must make a decision as to asking or > refusing, and thirdly, the player must have cards other than those in > the suit that is forbidden. When those conditions are met, the words > of L26 translate into "prohibit the player from leading spades". > > Now really, I see no difference at all in these two cases: when > certain conditions are met, a player is not allowed to lead a > particular card. If you call one a penalty, then so must you the other. > +=+ Two considerations. 1. With a holding of K.Q.J.T.x.x. it might be thought there was no logical alternative to a Spade lead in many circumstances. 2. If there is no infraction there is nothing to penalize. There may be a restriction applying in given circumstances where there is no infraction, it being then an infraction to breach the restriction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jun 9 17:11:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jun 9 17:13:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <000301c56cd9$f7d96610$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > > > > > > Please tell me: What prevents a player from using Law 66A and > > > 1: request all cards played to a trick to remain faced, > > > > Nothing - but it is still declarers lead and he may do so before the > > trick is quitted. > > > > > 2: refuse to play to the next trick, > > > until he has turned his own last played card face down? > > > > On what grounds? > > On exactly the same ground that he otherwise would apply FDAP: He has > not completed his considerations on the tricks to come. But if thinking about "tricks to come" is not permitted for a FDAP it is not permitted here either. Declarer will be equally misled if one is not thinking about the current trick. > > He is no more (or less) allowed to think about the whole > > hand now than he was before - declarer has played at his own turn and > > it is (sadly) legally irrelevant that the previous trick has not been > > quitted. Until law/regulation makes opps playing before the trick is > > quitted an infraction I will continue to allow the FDAP in games I > > direct. > > The fact that declarer has led to the next trick alters nothing: The > defender who has not turned his own played card face down retains all > his rights to think about the play including his right to delay his play > to the next trick. Only if he is thinking about *that* trick. > > (I don't like it, and I don't use it myself - but that's not the > > issue). > > > > Tim > > > > > > > I further consider FDAP to be a violation of Law 74A2 just to > > > mention > > > one. > > > > If said courteously it is not a discourtesy - and since it prevents > > opps > > from being misled it is not gratuitous. It creates UI for partner > > but no > > more or less than requesting declarer not to lead to the next trick. > > And no more or less than exposing his played card before starting > thinking on the next tricks. The ONLY essential difference is that he > unnecessarily delays the moment when opponents (and partner) receive > their information on what card he played. But before he faces his card is the only time (under current law) he can *prevent* declarer leading to the next trick (and him being obliged to play to it). > > To be honest I can't see what the problem would be with saying that > > leading before a trick is quitted is an infraction (seldom penalised > > but leading to an adjustment if it causes a problem). > > For a starter you might look at the possible conflict between L45E > (when the Director deems that the fifth card played to a trick was > actually led to the following trick) and your proposed new rule. What conflict? We are not talking about a 5th card (though that can still happen) but about a *lead* to the next trick before opps have quitted theirs. When L55 (referenced via L45e) talks about declarer's "lead out of turn" it only covers when he has led from the wrong hand/defence were on lead. A lead from the correct hand is not (currently) considered "out of turn"). > Next to might try to determine what you really want to achieve with > your new rule that is not already available with the present laws. 1. I want players to be allowed to delay play in order to think without misleading declarer - contrary to your opinion this is *not* catered to in the current laws. 2. When, for example, declarer makes a lead while West has his card unquitted and East is confused into thinking that that card is West's play to the current trick I want grounds for adjustment if damage occurs. Tim From terrey at doneasy.com Thu Jun 9 19:09:17 2005 From: terrey at doneasy.com (Georgina Parsons) Date: Thu Jun 9 18:16:58 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 $400,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.pr0ved.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Eddie Hoskins to be remov(ed: http://www.pr0ved.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jun 9 18:26:47 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jun 9 18:33:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? References: <000401c56cda$ee4692c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002501c56d10$2ab1b200$b69d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** 'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke --------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 11:06 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? There is a technicality here Konrad: In this sentence the word "immediately" goes on position (immediately in front of him) rather than on time (facing it immediately)! < +=+ Yes this describes the position of the card not the timing of the placement. Here ' immediately ' means 'without any intervening space'. +=+ < Not that I disagree with you, but just this part of your argument does not hold water. I think the most important argument goes on the clause "unvarying manner". +=+ On the other hand, I believe that all the argument shows is that the face-down card is not a played card. It may deceive in some way but it is not played, unless it is an opening lead (Law 41A). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 9 18:46:37 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 9 18:48:13 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A80EBA.7000706@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000501c56d12$cd6c6880$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................... > No Sven, that is not what the director should say: he should say "you > are not allowed to take the actions suggested unless you have no > logical alternative". There is no way the Director can make any ruling under Law 16 until he has seen the cards involved. He should never look at any hand and then make a ruling until play is completed. At the time the player must decide whether he may lead a spade (in this case) there is nobody who can give him a firm ruling on this question, the decision is all his own responsibility. All he can obtain at this time from a Director who knows his business is general information on the principles laid down in L16 and that is what the Director should give him. .............. > > This instruction is quite different from the instruction given by the > > Director in for instance a Law 26 case: Here (depending upon the > details) > > the Director will tell the player: > > (L26A1): You are free to lead whichever card you want, or > > (L26A2): You are required to lead or prohibited from leading (at the > > discretion of declarer) the suit referred to in the withdrawn call, or > > (L26B): You are prohibited from leading the suit named by declarer. > > > > The only difference is that under L26, the director is able to > translate the lawbook into a definite sentence: "you should not lead a > spade". Consequently, the penalty for breaking this injunction is > quite severe: it would even be considered revoking! The "only" difference is that under Law 26 the Director makes his ruling on the spot, under Law 16 he must postpone his ruling until the play has been completed. And that is not a minor difference; it describes the whole difference between the types of Law 16 versus Law 26 and other penalty laws. Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 9 18:53:53 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 9 18:55:29 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c56d13$d144a430$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............. > 1. If one asks for the other cards to faced when one has no interest in > what they are it can mislead declarer as much as a hesitation. > 2. It does not change the fact that even with the previous cards faced it > is still the players "turn" and if he is not thinking about the (now) > current trick he still has to say he is thinking about "the hand" rather > than the trick (or mislead declarer) - no different to a FDAP! It doesn't matter what you say; what matters is what you do. Any time you deviate from your "unvarying style" you create UI to partner and possible deception to opponents. FDAP includes the annoyance to opponents and partner that they are not shown the identity of the card you (allegedly) have decided to play. Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 9 19:01:56 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 9 19:03:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050609075116.02bcb5f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000701c56d14$f19f0030$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > At 03:45 AM 6/9/05, Gordon wrote: > >On 9 Jun 2005, at 08:32, Sven Pran wrote: > > > >>Here we have a player who claims that he has decided > >>which card he will play but he refuses to face it on > >>the ground that he is considering his play to a > >>future trick. Legally that player is entitled to change > >>his mind and play another card to the current trick as > >>as long as he has not faced his first selected card. > > > >I have played against someone who did exactly that. > > One hopes that the TD threw the book at him. This is just as flagrant > a violation of L73D as is hesitating with a singleton. Whatever one's > opinion of the propriety of placing a card face down and announcing "no > problem", it is clearly a serious infraction to do it with a problem. Who said anything about "no problem"? Gordon did not AFAIK refer to any statement to that effect? I do not appreciate such activity by any player, but he did nothing wrong other than changing his mind on which card to play before he had actually played any card at all. Except for the opening lead a player is entitled to retract any card he is about to play as long as his partner cannot possibly have seen the face of that card. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jun 9 19:41:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jun 9 19:43:02 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000701c56d04$4f7a0260$6aab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > 2. If there is no infraction there is nothing to penalize. There may > be a restriction applying in given circumstances where there is no > infraction, it being then an infraction to breach the restriction. I understand the words... But why, in the context of L35D, would there be a restriction if the TD has deemed there was no infraction? We don't impose restrictions or give score adjustments against an NOS. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jun 9 19:41:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jun 9 19:43:05 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000601c56d13$d144a430$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ............. > > 1. If one asks for the other cards to faced when one has no interest > > in > > what they are it can mislead declarer as much as a hesitation. > > 2. It does not change the fact that even with the previous cards > > faced it > > is still the players "turn" and if he is not thinking about the (now) > > current trick he still has to say he is thinking about "the hand" > > rather > > than the trick (or mislead declarer) - no different to a FDAP! > > It doesn't matter what you say; what matters is what you do. > > Any time you deviate from your "unvarying style" you create UI to > partner Not important here. You create the same UI whether you delay by by of a FDAP or a "Please don't play to the next trick". If the UI creates suggested actions the TD is going to adjust either way. > and possible deception to opponents. Again not particularly important - opps are probably less misled by a (truthful) FDAP than by a "leave the cards face up" (although the difference is marginal). > FDAP includes the annoyance to opponents and partner that they are not > shown the identity of the card you (allegedly) have decided to play. It may annoy the opponents, if they are particularly testy (indeed it sometimes annoys me slightly). However DWS (and others who use this approach) are not trying to annoy, they are trying to be courteous while following the legal exhortation to be "particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side" by ensuring that declarer is not misled by the reasons for the thinking. There is no "(allegedly)" about a FDAP. DWS (and others who use this approach) would expect to be hit with a ton of bricks if the TD discovered the FDAP was a lie. That's the same ton of bricks I'd hit a player with if he said "I'd like to see the previous trick" when what he actually wanted was to delay play while thinking about the rest of the hand. Truthful extraneous comments are one thing - untruthful ones are a whole different ball game. Tim From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Thu Jun 9 19:49:02 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu Jun 9 19:51:59 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: <000401c567bc$b9093c70$6400a8c0@WINXP><486f946a23e95a36eccd15ef8f0ad95e@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <005a01c56d1b$d1adcca0$8c063dd4@c6l8v1> > > Define "penalty". > > A thief has stolen a hand-bag of an old lady. A policeman happened to be there and to see it. He ordered to give the hand-bag back to the lady. Is this return a penalty? A call is illegally given and cancelled. Is it a penalty if partner is forbidden to make use of the information? Ben From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 9 20:45:03 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 9 20:46:39 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c56d23$59370c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads .......... > > FDAP includes the annoyance to opponents and partner that they are not > > shown the identity of the card you (allegedly) have decided to play. > > It may annoy the opponents, if they are particularly testy (indeed it > sometimes annoys me slightly). However DWS (and others who use this > approach) are not trying to annoy, they are trying to be courteous while > following the legal exhortation to be "particularly careful in positions > in which variations may work to the benefit of their side" by ensuring > that declarer is not misled by the reasons for the thinking. > > There is no "(allegedly)" about a FDAP. DWS (and others who use this > approach) would expect to be hit with a ton of bricks if the TD discovered > the FDAP was a lie. That's the same ton of bricks I'd hit a player with > if he said "I'd like to see the previous trick" when what he actually > wanted was to delay play while thinking about the rest of the hand. > Truthful extraneous comments are one thing - untruthful ones are a whole > different ball game. Then why, why, why do they have to conceal their play instead of exposing it with the same information: "I am not thinking on this trick, I am thinking on my further play"? There is no difference in the delay/hesitation and there is no difference in possible UI created. In fact (as I have already said many times) the ONLY difference is that opponents have to wait rather than to receive information immediately on the identity of the card played. As a side point: Exposing the card immediately removes every possible doubt about the player suddenly changing his mind while thinking, retracting his not yet played card and instead play another. I have not noticed anybody so far showing any legitimate advantage of FDAP nor any disadvantage of exposing the played card immediately. Unless I have overlooked something every "advantage" claimed to be available from FDAP is already available from L66A. Sven From shina at didamail.com Thu Jun 9 22:32:14 2005 From: shina at didamail.com (Eliseo Goodman) Date: Thu Jun 9 21:40:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Get the low rates before its late Message-ID: <844c.fsf@calle39.net> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.jo1nt.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Jarvis Holland to be remov(ed: http://www.jo1nt.com/deletion.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 mcelwee at doneasy.com Thu Jun 9 22:36:45 2005 From: mcelwee at doneasy.com (Kris Pickett) Date: Thu Jun 9 21:41:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Low mortage rate accepted Message-ID: <181.13e558d5.2a9RYY44@cpb.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.jo1nt.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Doris Brunson to be remov(ed: http://www.jo1nt.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 9 21:57:02 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jun 9 21:56:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <000701c56d14$f19f0030$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050609075116.02bcb5f0@pop.starpower.net> <000701c56d14$f19f0030$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050609155049.02cc4ca0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:01 PM 6/9/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > At 03:45 AM 6/9/05, Gordon wrote: > > >On 9 Jun 2005, at 08:32, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > >>Here we have a player who claims that he has decided > > >>which card he will play but he refuses to face it on > > >>the ground that he is considering his play to a > > >>future trick. Legally that player is entitled to change > > >>his mind and play another card to the current trick as > > >>as long as he has not faced his first selected card. > > > > > >I have played against someone who did exactly that. > > > > One hopes that the TD threw the book at him. This is just as flagrant > > a violation of L73D as is hesitating with a singleton. Whatever one's > > opinion of the propriety of placing a card face down and announcing "no > > problem", it is clearly a serious infraction to do it with a problem. > >Who said anything about "no problem"? Gordon did not AFAIK refer to any >statement to that effect? Richard, who started the thread originally. The case we have been discussing has been one in which the player does exactly that. Allow me to quote from Richard's original message: "Defender plac[es] his intended card face down on the table, then stating, "I am not thinking about this trick," before he (eventually) turns over his downfaced card. "Note: This defender highly ethically has never substituted a new downfaced card for their original downfaced card. "This defender succeeds in avoiding an infraction of Law 73F2, and also succeeds in preventing the declarer (and partner) from knowing on which future trick the defender does have a decision to make." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From oyujxuvbnwa at yahoo.com Thu Jun 9 22:55:38 2005 From: oyujxuvbnwa at yahoo.com (Ofelia Trent) Date: Thu Jun 9 22:02:18 2005 Subject: [blml] re[21]: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050609/29339032/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: jogging.GIF Type: image/gif Size: 11443 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050609/29339032/jogging.gif From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 10 00:23:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 10 00:25:42 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000801c56d23$59370c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > I have not noticed anybody so far showing any legitimate advantage of > FDAP nor any disadvantage of exposing the played card immediately. > Unless I have overlooked something every "advantage" claimed to be > available from FDAP is already available from L66A. That is because you are reading something into L66A that just isn't there. Asking to see the last trick does not change the fact that declarer is allowed to play to the next one, you are required to play TO THAT straight away (unless you are thinking about that trick or are going to risk misleading declarer), partner is not allowed to delay either. Declarer may then play to the next trick - etc. The FDAP prevents subsequent tricks being played before you have had time to think about the hand - L66a doesn't. L66A is there to ensure that players can see the cards played - not to give them time to think. Tim From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 10 00:41:02 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri Jun 10 00:42:57 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42A8C57E.1000901@t-online.de> Tim West-Meads wrote: >Grattan wrote: > > > >>2. If there is no infraction there is nothing to penalize. There may >>be a restriction applying in given circumstances where there is no >>infraction, it being then an infraction to breach the restriction. >> >> > >I understand the words... But why, in the context of L35D, would there be >a restriction if the TD has deemed there was no infraction? We don't >impose restrictions or give score adjustments against an NOS. > >Tim > > Where does it say no infraction? There has been an infraction in L35D, in fact there have been two. Because of the second infraction there is no penalty for either of them. But the UI remains. To _use_ the UI would be an infraction of L16.. Matthias From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 10 01:29:36 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Jun 10 01:30:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <002501c56d10$2ab1b200$b69d87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Yes this describes the position of the card >not the timing of the placement. Here 'immediately' >means 'without any intervening space'. +=+ Richard Hills: Given that the word "immediately" has a secondary meaning of location as well as its primary meaning of timing, perhaps confusion could be avoided by the 2007 edition of the Laws replacing the current Law 45A phrase "immediately before him" with the less ambiguous phrase "directly in front of the player". Grattan Endicott: >+=+ On the other hand, I believe that all the >argument shows is that the face-down card is >not a played card. It may deceive in some >way but it is not played, unless it is an >opening lead (Law 41A). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Under this interpretation, the Face Down part of the Face Down Announcement Ploy is unnecessary. Equally legal (or equally illegal) would be for declarer to simply delay playing their singleton at trick three, and merely announce that they were thinking about the entire hand. Konrad Ciborowski referred to Law 74A3: "Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing." In my opinion, Law 73D1 modifies Law 74A3 with its saving clause: "Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety," Putting it all together, I would give this two- part interpretation: 1(a) Declarer inadvertently hesitates with a singleton at trick three. 1(b) Declarer announces, "Sorry, no problem." 1(c) Declarer has been saved by Law 73D1 from committing a Law 74A3 infraction. But... 2(a) Declarer deliberately hesitates with a singleton at trick three 2(b) Declarer announces, "Sorry, no problem." 2(c) Declarer has irretrievably committed a Law 74A3 infraction. Also, it is important to remember Law 72B2: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 10 01:42:32 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 10 01:44:09 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c56d4c$e7f321a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > I have not noticed anybody so far showing any legitimate advantage of > > FDAP nor any disadvantage of exposing the played card immediately. > > Unless I have overlooked something every "advantage" claimed to be > > available from FDAP is already available from L66A. > > That is because you are reading something into L66A that just isn't there. > Asking to see the last trick does not change the fact that declarer is > allowed to play to the next one, you are required to play TO THAT straight > away (unless you are thinking about that trick or are going to risk > misleading declarer), partner is not allowed to delay either. Declarer > may then play to the next trick - etc. The FDAP prevents subsequent > tricks being played before you have had time to think about the hand - > L66a doesn't. L66A is there to ensure that players can see the cards > played - not to give them time to think. If I feel the need to think about my play to a trick there is no law in the book that can force me to play to that trick before I feel ready to do so. It does not matter whether my thinking is needed just for that particular trick or for that trick in preparation for future tricks. And if as part of thinking I feel I need to see the cards played to the last completed but not yet quitted trick I shall gladly execute my right under Law 66A to have all four cards for that trick remain exposed until I am satisfied. But please note that my right to think is not dependent upon having executed my right under Law 66A. However, if declarer wants to lead to the next trick before I have quitted the previous trick so be it; that will be his problem, not mine. My thinking will in any case halt any further progress of the game because I shall not play to the next trick while thinking. I do not need FDAP for this, and with or without FDAP I generate exactly the same extraneous information to my partner and to my opponents with my thinking. On the other hand, if I have no problem with my play to the current trick (although I may foresee a problem with future tricks) I shall (except during trick one) not spend time delaying the game with my thinking until I need it. Again FDAP makes no difference, the extraneous information created will still be there whether I use FDAP or not. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 10 02:56:43 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Jun 10 02:58:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Restrictions on non-offending side In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From the endless "L35D" thread..... Grattan Endicott noted: [snip] >>>If there is no infraction there is nothing to >>>penalize. There may be a restriction applying >>>in given circumstances where there is no >>>infraction, it being then an infraction to >>>breach the restriction. Tim West-Meads asserted: >>I understand the words... But why, in the context >>of L35D, would there be a restriction if the TD has >>deemed there was no infraction? We don't impose >>restrictions or give score adjustments against an >>NOS. Richard Hills hair-splits: Sure, negative score adjustments are not imposed on a non-offending side, but *restrictions* might apply to a non-offending side. Law 73D1: [snip] >Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner >in which a call or play is made does not in itself >constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences >from such variation may appropriately be drawn only >by an opponent, and at his own risk. Richard Hills nomenclature: So, sometimes transmitting unauthorised information to your partner is not an infraction, so after that transmittal both sides are non-offending sides. Only if partner later *uses* that unauthorised information does your side become an offending side. Therefore, in that particular case, a restriction under Law 16 is not a "penalty", because only an offending side can receive a penalty. So, in that particular case, Herman De Wael is incorrect in grouping Law 26 lead penalties and Law 16 lead restrictions together, and then defining them both as "penalties". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 10 03:15:46 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jun 10 03:18:38 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000201c56cd0$76633e20$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c56cd0$76633e20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Jun 9, 2005, at 4:51 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > If after the play I find that you had indeed received UI, that your > action > could have been suggested from this UI and that your opponents were > damaged > from this action I shall adjust the score and give your opponents > redress > for such damage. Why is it not incumbent on the TD to identify UI when it exists? Is this another "Catch 22" (you are not allowed to use UI, but I'm not going to tell you if you have any)? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 10 03:19:28 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jun 10 03:22:19 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000501c56d12$cd6c6880$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c56d12$cd6c6880$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <957a56e7e02c3b69a6d7ac57c8755977@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 9, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > There is no way the Director can make any ruling under Law 16 until he > has > seen the cards involved. He should never look at any hand and then > make a > ruling until play is completed. > > At the time the player must decide whether he may lead a spade (in this > case) there is nobody who can give him a firm ruling on this question, > the > decision is all his own responsibility. All he can obtain at this time > from > a Director who knows his business is general information on the > principles > laid down in L16 and that is what the Director should give him. I agree, insofar as the player's determination of logical alternatives. I do *not* agree insofar as the question whether his partner's 1S call after the fourth pass is UI to the player. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jun 10 03:21:54 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Jun 10 03:23:27 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card References: Message-ID: <001001c56d5a$ca517f30$079468d5@James> [Tim West-Meades] > That is because you are reading something into L66A > that just isn't there. Asking to see the last trick > does not change the fact that declarer is allowed to > play to the next one, you are required to play TO > THAT straight away (unless you are thinking about > that trick or are going to risk misleading declarer), > partner is not allowed to delay either. [Nigel] I would like the law to be clarified: preferably so that it is illegal to lead to the next trick until all cards from the previous trick have been turned. This would often save declarer from being confused or flustered. And it would achieve the same effect as a face down played card for a player who wanted to think. BTW only a fool would just want to think about just the cards played to the *current* trick = they would always want to plan the play of the rest of the hand; so in neither case would opponents be misled. The face-down play is not really a play. IMO, the player can legally change his mind without penalty, no matter what he says. What it does do is delay opponents sight of the card you intend to play and so deprive them of useful thinking time; hence it deliberately slows the game. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 10 03:25:50 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jun 10 03:28:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <20050609093358.3DF9C3B7994@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050609093358.3DF9C3B7994@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: On Jun 9, 2005, at 5:33 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > "Each player except dummy plays a card > by detaching it from his hand and facing it on > the table immediately before him" > > The combination of "Facing it" and "immediately" > unambigously forbids you to put your card > face down. Um. Small nit. "Immediately" in this context does not mean "right away" but rather "directly", as in "directly in front of him". I agree that "facing it" in this law leaves no room *not* to face it if we are to consider it played - and if we are not so to consider, then it makes no difference where he sticks the card. From john at asimere.com Fri Jun 10 03:36:26 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Jun 10 03:39:44 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000501c56d12$cd6c6880$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <42A80EBA.7000706@hdw.be> <000501c56d12$cd6c6880$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000501c56d12$cd6c6880$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >................... >> No Sven, that is not what the director should say: he should say "you >> are not allowed to take the actions suggested unless you have no >> logical alternative". > >There is no way the Director can make any ruling under Law 16 until he has >seen the cards involved. He should never look at any hand and then make a >ruling until play is completed. > >At the time the player must decide whether he may lead a spade (in this >case) there is nobody who can give him a firm ruling on this question, the >decision is all his own responsibility. All he can obtain at this time from >a Director who knows his business is general information on the principles >laid down in L16 and that is what the Director should give him. I completely agree. The TD should interpret the Law so that the player is in the best possible position to understand and act on his legal and ethical requirements. Law 26 is a totally different animal. 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 ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 10 03:38:21 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jun 10 03:41:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0d897bd255cefe304235c50453c73792@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 9, 2005, at 11:11 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > But before he faces his card is the only time (under current law) he > can > *prevent* declarer leading to the next trick (and him being obliged to > play to it). I don't see where he is obliged to play to it immediately. Certainly a break in normal tempo may lead to UI, but that's true in *any* case, is it not? >>> To be honest I can't see what the problem would be with saying that >>> leading before a trick is quitted is an infraction (seldom penalised >>> but leading to an adjustment if it causes a problem). >> >> For a starter you might look at the possible conflict between L45E >> (when the Director deems that the fifth card played to a trick was >> actually led to the following trick) and your proposed new rule. > > What conflict? We are not talking about a 5th card (though that can > still > happen) but about a *lead* to the next trick before opps have quitted > theirs. When L55 (referenced via L45e) talks about declarer's "lead > out of > turn" it only covers when he has led from the wrong hand/defence were > on > lead. A lead from the correct hand is not (currently) considered "out > of > turn"). > >> Next to might try to determine what you really want to achieve with >> your new rule that is not already available with the present laws. > > 1. I want players to be allowed to delay play in order to think without > misleading declarer - contrary to your opinion this is *not* catered > to in > the current laws. > 2. When, for example, declarer makes a lead while West has his card > unquitted and East is confused into thinking that that card is West's > play > to the current trick I want grounds for adjustment if damage occurs. Might I suggest, if the LC has not already covered this in the next revision, that law 45G be amended to read: "G. Turning the Trick No player should turn his card face down until all four players have played to the trick. No player should lead to the next trick until all four players have turned their cards." The current law is not specific on the question whether it is better to place a card on the table face down, saying "no problem with this trick" or to place it face up, and not do anything else with one's cards until one is through thinking. However, one can infer from what the law *does* says that one should not do the former - it is not proper procedure. As to whether the latter is improper procedure, as some seem to imply, I disagree - the law does not say (other than questions of "tempo") *when* after one's RHO plays to a trick one must do so. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 10 03:43:32 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jun 10 03:46:21 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000601c56d13$d144a430$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c56d13$d144a430$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Jun 9, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Any time you deviate from your "unvarying style" you create UI to > partner No. Not unless you put the word "may" before "create". From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 10 03:51:23 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jun 10 03:54:14 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0fcbd70d4a6633c04dd7a8f0258bd770@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 9, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > That is because you are reading something into L66A that just isn't > there. > Asking to see the last trick does not change the fact that declarer is > allowed to play to the next one, you are required to play TO THAT > straight > away (unless you are thinking about that trick or are going to risk > misleading declarer), partner is not allowed to delay either. Declarer > may then play to the next trick - etc. The FDAP prevents subsequent > tricks being played before you have had time to think about the hand - > L66a doesn't. L66A is there to ensure that players can see the cards > played - not to give them time to think. This scenario occurs to me: Declarer leads, I play to the trick (since I have no problem with this trick). Declarer plays from dummy, partner plays. Declarer, having won the trick in hand, and in spite of the fact I have not yet turned my card, leads to the next trick.... "Director please!" ... "I believe declarer has violated Law 74A1". Now, while the director is sorting that out (which in the clubs around here would probably require the TD to go find a law book :), I can think about whatever it is I need to think about. Comments? :-) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 10 04:04:20 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Jun 10 04:06:07 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <001001c56d5a$ca517f30$079468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Law 66A: >>>So long as his side has not led or played to the next >>>trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has >>>turned his own card face down on the table, require >>>that all cards just played to the trick be faced. Nigel Guthrie: >>BTW only a fool would just want to think about just the >>cards played to the *current* trick Horace (65-8 BCE): >Misce stultiam consilius brevem: >Dulce est despire in loco > >Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans: >it's lovely to be silly at the right moment. Best wishes Richard Hills Fool and paronomasiac From wangate at didamail.com Fri Jun 10 05:02:47 2005 From: wangate at didamail.com (Zachariah Posey) Date: Fri Jun 10 04:07:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Dont miss out on low rates Message-ID: <101.86e558d5.2a9BLJ44@rms.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.jo1nt.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Annmarie Childers to be remov(ed: http://www.jo1nt.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 10 06:12:57 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Jun 10 06:14:49 2005 Subject: [blml] L12C2 ambiguity? In-Reply-To: <00da01c56af0$fd00a3a0$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marvin French: >Okay, I'll try again. > >The OS balances vs a 2H contract, illegally going to 3C with the help >of UI. > >3C would have gone -200 with at least a 1/6 probability, but the NOS >goes to 3H off one, with the level of contract not a factor in the >play. > >The NOS get +110, the most favorable result that was likely had the >irregularity not occurred. > >The OS get the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, which >is what??? Richard Hills: In my opinion, not quite the right question. What should be asked in the non-Law 12C3 ACBL is this; does: (a) the "a priori" probability that the non-offending side passes 3C multiplied by (b) the probability that 3C would fail by two vulnerable undertricks plus (c) the "a priori" probability that the non-offending side doubles 3C multiplied by (d) the probability that 3Cx would fail by one vulnerable undertrick give a grand total probability of at least 16.67%? If so, then the offending side does get a Law 12C2 adjusted score of -200. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Fri Jun 10 06:18:47 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Jun 10 06:20:31 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <0fcbd70d4a6633c04dd7a8f0258bd770@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: >From: Ed Reppert >To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 21:51:23 -0400 > > >On Jun 9, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >>That is because you are reading something into L66A that just isn't there. >>Asking to see the last trick does not change the fact that declarer is >>allowed to play to the next one, you are required to play TO THAT straight >>away (unless you are thinking about that trick or are going to risk >>misleading declarer), partner is not allowed to delay either. Declarer >>may then play to the next trick - etc. The FDAP prevents subsequent >>tricks being played before you have had time to think about the hand - >>L66a doesn't. L66A is there to ensure that players can see the cards >>played - not to give them time to think. > > >This scenario occurs to me: > >Declarer leads, I play to the trick (since I have no problem with this >trick). Declarer plays from dummy, partner plays. Declarer, having won the >trick in hand, and in spite of the fact I have not yet turned my card, >leads to the next trick.... > >"Director please!" ... "I believe declarer has violated Law 74A1". Now, >while the director is sorting that out (which in the clubs around here >would probably require the TD to go find a law book :), I can think about >whatever it is I need to think about. > >Comments? :-) > I'd be inclined to penalize the player who called the director for a frivilous director call. Actually I would be more likely to warn the player but if he tried this trick another time I would have no hesitation in penalizing him. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Find the coolest online games @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming From james.boyce at oracle.com Thu Jun 9 22:33:02 2005 From: james.boyce at oracle.com (James Boyce) Date: Fri Jun 10 07:35:59 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000801c56d23$59370c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c56d23$59370c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42A8A77E.6080109@oracle.com> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >> >> >.......... > > >>>FDAP includes the annoyance to opponents and partner that they are not >>>shown the identity of the card you (allegedly) have decided to play. >>> >>> >>It may annoy the opponents, if they are particularly testy (indeed it >>sometimes annoys me slightly). However DWS (and others who use this >>approach) are not trying to annoy, they are trying to be courteous while >>following the legal exhortation to be "particularly careful in positions >>in which variations may work to the benefit of their side" by ensuring >>that declarer is not misled by the reasons for the thinking. >> >>There is no "(allegedly)" about a FDAP. DWS (and others who use this >>approach) would expect to be hit with a ton of bricks if the TD discovered >>the FDAP was a lie. That's the same ton of bricks I'd hit a player with >>if he said "I'd like to see the previous trick" when what he actually >>wanted was to delay play while thinking about the rest of the hand. >>Truthful extraneous comments are one thing - untruthful ones are a whole >>different ball game. >> >> > >Then why, why, why do they have to conceal their play instead of exposing it >with the same information: "I am not thinking on this trick, I am thinking >on my further play"? > >There is no difference in the delay/hesitation and there is no difference in >possible UI created. In fact (as I have already said many times) the ONLY >difference is that opponents have to wait rather than to receive information >immediately on the identity of the card played. > >As a side point: Exposing the card immediately removes every possible doubt >about the player suddenly changing his mind while thinking, retracting his >not yet played card and instead play another. > >I have not noticed anybody so far showing any legitimate advantage of FDAP >nor any disadvantage of exposing the played card immediately. Unless I have >overlooked something every "advantage" claimed to be available from FDAP is >already available from L66A. > >Sven > > There is a significant difference between playing your singleton face down and thinking about as opposed to playing it face up and thinking about when your topic of thought is "Did I revoke (unestablished) on the previous trick?" When I was in that situation, it did not occur to me to play the singleton face-down. Instead, I hesitated. I was shocked to find a diamond among my hearts and was trying to figure out just how badly I had messed up. Declarer asked about the hesitation after the hand and admitted that this particular problem had not occurred to him. -jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050609/44618de2/attachment.html From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Fri Jun 10 07:41:07 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Fri Jun 10 07:42:48 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <001001c56d5a$ca517f30$079468d5@James> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050610/a8e4ee33/attachment.html From tricar at doneasy.com Fri Jun 10 09:10:22 2005 From: tricar at doneasy.com (Ronda Leonard) Date: Fri Jun 10 08:13:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Just approved mortage rate Message-ID: <20041kojfp3.ED8DA244AE@mailhost1w.lists.techtarget.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.jo1nt.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Bonnie Proctor to be remov(ed: http://www.jo1nt.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jun 10 09:00:35 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jun 10 09:00:36 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <005a01c56d1b$d1adcca0$8c063dd4@c6l8v1> References: <000401c567bc$b9093c70$6400a8c0@WINXP><486f946a23e95a36eccd15ef8f0ad95e@rochester.rr.com> <005a01c56d1b$d1adcca0$8c063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <42A93A93.1040600@hdw.be> I see where you're tryying to get, Ben, and the response is easy: Ben Schelen wrote: >>Define "penalty". >> >> > > A thief has stolen a hand-bag of an old lady. > A policeman happened to be there and to see it. > He ordered to give the hand-bag back to the lady. > > Is this return a penalty? > No it is not. The thief is not worse off after the restoration than before the crime. As a deterrent against stealing, this does not really work. > A call is illegally given and cancelled. > Is it a penalty if partner is forbidden to make use of the information? > Yes it is. The partnership is worse off than before the "crime" of giving illegal information. What you are trying to get me to say is that the L12 restoration is a restoration like the handbag being given back. And although this is not absolutely true, it has enough truth to be important. But the using of the illegal information (if it is illegal) is the second crime. And indeed, that crime is not "penalised", in the sense that L12 only restores to the equitable situation of the non-spade lead. But if L12 does not make the partnership worse off, then L16 does so. After all, L16 restricts the player, and either he follows the restriction, or L12 is used to bring about the same result, but in final, the partnership is worse off. I do not want to hear replies saying that giving UI is not a crime. I know it is not, but it is penalized all the same. If you can avoid giving UI, your partnership will be better off. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jun 10 09:01:36 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jun 10 09:01:47 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050609081849.02a588a0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000201c56cd0$76633e20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A80EBA.7000706@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050609081849.02a588a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <42A93AD0.80306@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:41 AM 6/9/05, Herman wrote: > >> I really see no difference between a director saying "you are not >> allowed to lead a spade" and a director saying "you are not allowed to >> do the suggested action". > > > "You are not allowed to lead a spade" applies to a particular lead as > the consequence of a particular infraction. On the next hand, or > tomorrow, or next week, you will be allowed to lead a spade. > > "You are not allowed to do the suggested action," is a direct > restatement of the rule, "You are not allowed to do any extraneously > suggested action." On the next hand, or tomorrow, or next week, you > will still not be allowed to do any extraneously suggested action. > > That looks like a pretty clear difference to me. > Not to me, sorry. "you are not allowed to lead a spade" sound totally NOT different to "you are not allowed to lead a spade". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jun 10 09:06:33 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jun 10 09:06:30 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <000501c56d12$cd6c6880$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c56d12$cd6c6880$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42A93BF9.8000309@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ................... > >>No Sven, that is not what the director should say: he should say "you >>are not allowed to take the actions suggested unless you have no >>logical alternative". > > > There is no way the Director can make any ruling under Law 16 until he has > seen the cards involved. He should never look at any hand and then make a > ruling until play is completed. > Sorry Sven, but that is not what I was trying to say above. You turned a sentence so that it seemed that a player was allowed to do everything. I turned the sentence around, so as to show that the partner was NOT allowed to do everything he wanted. > At the time the player must decide whether he may lead a spade (in this > case) there is nobody who can give him a firm ruling on this question, the > decision is all his own responsibility. All he can obtain at this time from > a Director who knows his business is general information on the principles > laid down in L16 and that is what the Director should give him. > I quite realize that, Sven, but if you are the ethical partner, you will make the analysis before you lead something, and you will arrive at the same conclusion as the director after the deal, and you will not lead a spade. Your actions are restricted, and the fact that the TD will not tell you beforehand what the restrictions are going to be is IMO not important enough a difference to say that your actions are not restricted! > > The "only" difference is that under Law 26 the Director makes his ruling on > the spot, under Law 16 he must postpone his ruling until the play has been > completed. And that is not a minor difference; it describes the whole > difference between the types of Law 16 versus Law 26 and other penalty laws. > You have used the apples and oranges analogy before. I am not trying to say that apples are oranges, I am trying to say that apples and oranges are both fruits. Of course there are differences between the two! So what! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jun 10 09:08:07 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jun 10 09:08:08 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <957a56e7e02c3b69a6d7ac57c8755977@rochester.rr.com> References: <000501c56d12$cd6c6880$6400a8c0@WINXP> <957a56e7e02c3b69a6d7ac57c8755977@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <42A93C57.8050501@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> At the time the player must decide whether he may lead a spade (in this >> case) there is nobody who can give him a firm ruling on this question, >> the >> decision is all his own responsibility. All he can obtain at this time >> from >> a Director who knows his business is general information on the >> principles >> laid down in L16 and that is what the Director should give him. > > > I agree, insofar as the player's determination of logical alternatives. > I do *not* agree insofar as the question whether his partner's 1S call > after the fourth pass is UI to the player. > Ah no, certainly not. When the player has received this information, it is very important that he can ask the director if it is UI or AI. And the director will tell him! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jun 10 09:10:05 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jun 10 09:10:16 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A8C57E.1000901@t-online.de> References: <42A8C57E.1000901@t-online.de> Message-ID: <42A93CCD.7000707@hdw.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> Grattan wrote: >> >> >> >>> 2. If there is no infraction there is nothing to penalize. There may >>> be a restriction applying in given circumstances where there is no >>> infraction, it being then an infraction to breach the restriction. >>> >> >> >> I understand the words... But why, in the context of L35D, would >> there be a restriction if the TD has deemed there was no infraction? >> We don't impose restrictions or give score adjustments against an NOS. >> >> Tim >> >> > Where does it say no infraction? There has been an infraction in L35D, > in fact there have been two. Because of the second infraction there is > no penalty for either of them. But the UI remains. To _use_ the UI would > be an infraction of L16.. > Only if it is UI! It has been our contention from the beginning that because of the words of L35D ("without penalty") there is no UI! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Fri Jun 10 10:41:13 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Fri Jun 10 10:42:54 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A93CCD.7000707@hdw.be> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050610/ab1c831b/attachment.html From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 10 11:01:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 10 11:03:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <0d897bd255cefe304235c50453c73792@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Wrote: > > But before he faces his card is the only time (under current law) he > > can *prevent* declarer leading to the next trick (and him being > > obliged to play to it). > > I don't see where he is obliged to play to it immediately. Certainly a > break in normal tempo may lead to UI, but that's true in *any* case, is > it not? If he delays playing because he is thinking about the hand rather than the current trick he risks misleading declarer. If he requires the previous trick to be displayed for a while he risks misleading declarer as to his interest in partner's carding on that trick. Basically it's the same position as the FDAP but half a trick later. The Law45G amendment you suggest would solve the problem as far as I am concerned. By the simple expedient of leaving his own card face the player gets the thinking time he needs (and to which I believe he should be entitled) and it is obvious it is a "hand" think not a "trick" think. As you said UI is unavoidable, it is the potentially misleading element that can be done away with. > "G. Turning the Trick > No player should turn his card face down until all four players have > played to the trick. No player should lead to the next trick until all > four players have turned their cards." Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 10 11:01:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 10 11:03:17 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000f01c56d4c$e7f321a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > Sven wrote: > > > > > I have not noticed anybody so far showing any legitimate advantage > > > of > > > FDAP nor any disadvantage of exposing the played card immediately. > > > Unless I have overlooked something every "advantage" claimed to be > > > available from FDAP is already available from L66A. > > > > That is because you are reading something into L66A that just isn't > > there. > > Asking to see the last trick does not change the fact that declarer is > > allowed to play to the next one, you are required to play TO THAT > > straight > > away (unless you are thinking about that trick or are going to risk > > misleading declarer), partner is not allowed to delay either. > > Declarer > > may then play to the next trick - etc. The FDAP prevents subsequent > > tricks being played before you have had time to think about the hand - > > L66a doesn't. L66A is there to ensure that players can see the cards > > played - not to give them time to think. > > If I feel the need to think about my play to a trick there is no law in > the book that can force me to play to that trick before I feel ready to > do so. It does not matter whether my thinking is needed just for that > particular trick or for that trick in preparation for future tricks. Indeed. But we aren't talking about a player who has something to think about on the *current* trick (that player may think as long as need be without misleading declarer). We a talking about the player who wishes to consider the whole hand while *not* having anything to think about on the current trick. > And if as part of thinking I feel I need to see the cards played to the > last completed but not yet quitted trick I shall gladly execute my right > under Law 66A to have all four cards for that trick remain exposed until > I am satisfied. Of course - but if your thinking is unrelated to the cards played previously it is misleading declarer to exercise your L66a right. > But please note that my right to think is not dependent upon > having executed my right under Law 66A. Indeed, your right to think is related to taking particular care to ensure that declarer is not misled. > On the other hand, if I have no problem with my play to the current > trick (although I may foresee a problem with future tricks) I shall > except during trick one) not spend time delaying the game with my > thinking until I need it. That is your choice - by doing so you may create more UI to partner and AI to declarer than is necessary but that is not illegal. There are others who, visualising a future problem, prefer to take the time to plan for so as to minimise such UI/AI. Bridge is a thinking game and I believe players have a right to think in these circumstances (so long as they are careful to ensure declarer is not misled). > Again FDAP makes no difference, the extraneous information created > will still be there whether I use FDAP or not. The extraneous information will still be there. The FDAP (or equivalent after leaving one's card face up) remove the misleading possibilities from the EI. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 10 11:01:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 10 11:03:21 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A8C57E.1000901@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias wrote: > >>2. If there is no infraction there is nothing to penalize. There may > >>be a restriction applying in given circumstances where there is no > >>infraction, it being then an infraction to breach the restriction. > > > >I understand the words... But why, in the context of L35D, would > > there be a restriction if the TD has deemed there was no infraction? > > We don't impose restrictions or give score adjustments against an NOS. > > > Where does it say no infraction? Please see the first sentence of Grattan's "2.If there is no infraction there is nothing to penalize." > There has been an infraction in L35D, > in fact there have been two. Because of the second infraction there is > no penalty for either of them. But the UI remains. To _use_ the UI > would be an infraction of L16. In EBU games an accidental bid arising from the confusion caused by the first inadmissible call is not (IIRC) deemed an infraction. For example: (1n)-p-(2N)-P-(P)-P-(3N)-X. I believe it is easy for doubler to mistake this for a legitimate auction and, unless he admits to being fully aware, will not deem the X an infraction. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 10 11:01:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 10 11:03:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Restrictions on non-offending side In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Tim West-Meads asserted: > > >>I understand the words... But why, in the context > >>of L35D, would there be a restriction if the TD has > >>deemed there was no infraction? We don't impose > >>restrictions or give score adjustments against an > >>NOS. > > Richard Hills hair-splits: > > Sure, negative score adjustments are not imposed on a > non-offending side, but *restrictions* might apply to > a non-offending side. I asked in the context of L35D specifically. Reference L16C 1. Non-offending Side For the non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorised, whether the action be its own or its opponents'. I suppose one can hair-split that the call was cancelled rather than withdrawn (although maybe the WBF resolved that one?). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 10 11:01:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 10 11:03:28 2005 Subject: [blml] L12C2 ambiguity? In-Reply-To: <00da01c56af0$fd00a3a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > The OS balances vs a 2H contract, illeglly going to 3C with the help > of UI. > > 3C would have gone -200 with at least a 1/6 probability, but the NOS > goes to 3H off one, with the level of contract not a factor in the > play. > > The NOS get +110, the most favorable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred. > > The OS get the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, which > is what??? The full text of the law is: 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 favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. To me "had the irregularity not occurred" is also implicit in the adjustment for OS. An OS adjustment of -140 could be possible I suppose, but not -200. NB I'm dubious about whether the UI really suggests risking -200 on a part-score deal but that's a different matter. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 10 11:02:47 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jun 10 11:05:37 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2acee67b66a5fcf8c7fbb8ed7f240d2a@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 10, 2005, at 12:18 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > I'd be inclined to penalize the player who called the director for a > frivilous director call. > > Actually I would be more likely to warn the player but if he tried this > trick another time I would have no hesitation in penalizing him. Which law prohibits frivolous director calls? And why is this one frivolous? From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jun 10 11:39:00 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jun 10 11:39:07 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C Message-ID: <42A95FB4.1010906@hdw.be> I believe the thread on L35D has about run its course. Allow me to cite one last thing on it: Harald Skj?ran wrote: > I'm of the firm belief > that the information from the cancelled 1S call is UI. > I believe we have one consensus at least. Nobody seriously wishes to allow the partner of the 1S bidder to be able to lead a spade. Which is probably why so many of you wish to consider this as UI, even when the laws consider that it is "without penalty". Which is why I would like to shift attention to another law which has the same (kind of) mention "not subject to penalty". Consider the following example (NT contract, declarer in West): S A H A D - C - S 2 S - H - H - D - D 2 C J C 2 S - H 2 D 3 C - case 1: Declarer plays the CJ, and North starts thinking. South throws the H2. By L57A, declarer can now prohibit a heart discard from North, and he makes the last trick with the S2. case 2: Declarer plays the CJ, North starts thinking, declarer names the club 2, South throws the H2. By L57C, this is "not subject to penalty", so declarer cannot ask anything. By some interpretations however, The H2 is still an irregularity, and L16 applies to it, so if North now jettisons the HA, the TD could use L16 to rule against him, and rule an extra trick to declarer by way of L12. I am quite convinced that I am not alone in believing L16 does not apply to a player who does something which is "not subject to penalty". Comments? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 10 11:43:06 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 10 11:44:42 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c56da0$cdb34500$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ........... > > Again FDAP makes no difference, the extraneous information created > > will still be there whether I use FDAP or not. > > The extraneous information will still be there. The FDAP (or > equivalent after leaving one's card face up) remove the misleading > possibilities from the EI. As will a verbal statement to the effect that my thinking is not related to what I shall eventually play to the current trick. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 10 11:45:21 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 10 11:46:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Restrictions on non-offending side In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c56da1$1e94aef0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads .............. > I asked in the context of L35D specifically. Reference L16C > 1. Non-offending Side > For the non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn > action is authorised, whether the action be its own or its opponents'. > > I suppose one can hair-split that the call was cancelled rather than > withdrawn (although maybe the WBF resolved that one?). Wrong law, use L16A, not L16C! Sven From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 10 11:46:55 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri Jun 10 11:48:49 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A93CCD.7000707@hdw.be> References: <42A8C57E.1000901@t-online.de> <42A93CCD.7000707@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42A9618F.3030909@t-online.de> Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Only if it is UI! It has been our contention from the beginning that > because of the words of L35D ("without penalty") there is no UI! > Herman, this discussion is not getting us anywhere. You assert that L16 is a penalty. I disagree. Because of this you think that L16 is disabled in L35D, I disagree. I asked some questions I thought to be relevant to the case but got no answer. That may have been an oversight, so I state some of them again. Then I`m out of this thread. I will read any replies you send, but I will not reply any more unless something _convinces_ me. Not very likely, as you may have gathered. But not impossible. 1. I asked where "penalty" or words to that effect appear in L16. 2. I asked how something that has not yet happened can be a penalty. 3. I asked (in different words) how the obeisance (is this correct usage, native speakers?) of a rule can be a penalty. Is a soccer player penalized because the rules of the game do not allow him to touch the ball with his hands? 4. I asked: what is the difference between "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not drive your car faster than 30 miles per hour inside city limits" and "thou shalt not use UI". And do not try to avoid this by telling me that there is no UI in L35D. Even if I were to agree this it wold not take anything away from the question. There are other laws in the book. 5. Are the ten commandments or the laws governing traffic penalties? You may not use counterfeit money. Is this a penalty because you are restricted in your ability to purchase the goods you would like to own? 6. If the answer to (5) should be "no, they are not penalties", then I ask: why should then L16 be a penalty? Herman, I do not expect to convince you. I tried for some time and failed. This is my last shot. The bottom line is this: There have been two infractions in L35D. Both are not penalized because L35D says so. There _may_ be a future infraction, the violation of L16. It is not forbidden to lead a spade, it is forbidden to break the rules. The rules define how the game is played and how it is not. You are not penalized because you may not play two cards to one trick, are you? The rule forbids you to do it. Is it a penalty? From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 10 12:00:14 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri Jun 10 12:02:35 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42A964AE.4020403@t-online.de> Tim West-Meads wrote: >Matthias wrote: > > > >>>>2. If there is no infraction there is nothing to penalize. There may >>>>be a restriction applying in given circumstances where there is no >>>>infraction, it being then an infraction to breach the restriction. >>>> >>>> >>>I understand the words... But why, in the context of L35D, would >>>there be a restriction if the TD has deemed there was no infraction? >>>We don't impose restrictions or give score adjustments against an NOS. >>> >>> >>> >>Where does it say no infraction? >> >> > >Please see the first sentence of Grattan's "2.If there is no infraction >there is nothing to penalize." > > > You asked why there would be a restriction if the TD has deemed there was no infraction. As I pointed out below there have been infractions in L35D, just no penalties. Grattan refers to the fact that _giving_ UI is no infraction, only _using_ it. >>There has been an infraction in L35D, >>in fact there have been two. Because of the second infraction there is >>no penalty for either of them. But the UI remains. To _use_ the UI >>would be an infraction of L16. >> >> > >In EBU games an accidental bid arising from the confusion caused by the >first inadmissible call is not (IIRC) deemed an infraction. For example: >(1n)-p-(2N)-P-(P)-P-(3N)-X. I believe it is easy for doubler to mistake >this for a legitimate auction and, unless he admits to being fully aware, >will not deem the X an infraction. > > I cannot speak about EBU games. Where I come from you have to play by the rules, even after someone else infracted them. There are mitigating circumstances, so no penalty is applied (L35D). The UI remains (not much in the case you present above, but inferences could possibly be drawn. If there were no UI after a L35 D case anyone being fast enough could slip in a lead director after someone sufficiently confused infracted L39. No typo here, the first infraction puts us in L39, only the second one in L35D. Matthias >Tim > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 10 12:50:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 10 12:51:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Restrictions on non-offending side In-Reply-To: <000f01c56da1$1e94aef0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > .............. > > I asked in the context of L35D specifically. Reference L16C > > 1. Non-offending Side > > For the non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn > > action is authorised, whether the action be its own or its opponents'. > > > > I suppose one can hair-split that the call was cancelled rather than > > withdrawn (although maybe the WBF resolved that one?). > > Wrong law, use L16A, not L16C! Please keep up Sven. Here we are talking about a call after a call after the final pass which has been ruled "not an infraction". L16c is obviously the correct law in that instance - we have a clearly identifiable NOS. In Herman's original case the 1S was a deliberate attempt to get in a free lead director, and thus an infraction, (I don't have a particular problem with you using L16a in *that* situation although I'd use Law72b2 myself as it provides for a, IMO justifiably, more severe penalty). Tim From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 10 12:52:41 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 10 12:54:18 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C In-Reply-To: <42A95FB4.1010906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001001c56daa$86261dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > Consider the following example (NT contract, declarer in West): > S A > H A > D - > C - > S 2 S - > H - H - > D - D 2 > C J C 2 > S - > H 2 > D 3 > C - > > case 1: Declarer plays the CJ, and North starts thinking. South throws > the H2. By L57A, declarer can now prohibit a heart discard from North, > and he makes the last trick with the S2. > > case 2: Declarer plays the CJ, North starts thinking, declarer names > the club 2, South throws the H2. By L57C, this is "not subject to > penalty", so declarer cannot ask anything. > By some interpretations however, The H2 is still an irregularity, and > L16 applies to it, so if North now jettisons the HA, the TD could use > L16 to rule against him, and rule an extra trick to declarer by way of > L12. > > I am quite convinced that I am not alone in believing L16 does not > apply to a player who does something which is "not subject to penalty". > > Comments? I have commented on this before. L57C is not well written. Literally it indicates that South in case 2 commits an irregularity (by playing out of turn) which is not subject to penalty. That would still leave L16 applicable to this case. However the fact is that at least since 1932 the undisputed principle has been that once declarer has played from both hands defenders may play in either sequence to that trick and both defenders' play is considered to be fully legal and in turn. Consequently there is no cause here for L16. There is no indication anywhere that this principle has been changed since 1932. You can also arrive at the same result through a slightly different approach: South's play of C2 is not cancelled or withdrawn in any way. That card remains played so the information from this play is necessarily available to everybody around the table (including North). This means that the information from this play by South is not extraneous and therefore cannot result in any restriction on what actions North may select. (Notice the difference from L35D where the information from the cancelled calls clearly become extraneous as the actions change status from calls to remarks when they are cancelled). Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jun 10 12:54:29 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jun 10 12:54:30 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A964AE.4020403@t-online.de> References: <42A964AE.4020403@t-online.de> Message-ID: <42A97165.3020901@hdw.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > If there were no UI after a L35 D case anyone being fast enough could > slip in a lead director after someone sufficiently confused infracted > L39. No typo here, the first infraction puts us in L39, only the second > one in L35D. > And this is just where you go wrong, Matthias. You assume that since this should be forbidden, it is. You conclude that L16 should apply, rather than try and work out if it does. Look at L57C again, will you? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Fri Jun 10 13:23:16 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Jun 10 13:24:58 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <2acee67b66a5fcf8c7fbb8ed7f240d2a@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: >From: Ed Reppert >To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:02:47 -0400 > > >On Jun 10, 2005, at 12:18 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>I'd be inclined to penalize the player who called the director for a >>frivilous director call. >> >>Actually I would be more likely to warn the player but if he tried this >>trick another time I would have no hesitation in penalizing him. > >Which law prohibits frivolous director calls? And why is this one >frivolous? > 1. No infraction has occurred. There is no law preventing a player from leading to a trick that he has won while his opponent or even his partner has their card face up on the table. 2. Calling the director when there has been no infraction is an inappropriate. If the laws don't say so then I think you should try a little experiment and call the director repeatedly and say I am reporting that there is no infraction you can disguise this if you want but I think you will find that with any competent director you will soon get an instruction to not call unless there has been an infraction. This is the nature of the warning that I would give to the player. 3. Calling the director against a player that has not committed an infraction as if they had I would find discourteous. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Read the latest Hollywood gossip @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/entertainment From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Fri Jun 10 13:26:04 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Jun 10 13:27:45 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000e01c56da0$cdb34500$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Subject: RE: [blml] 5th card >Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:43:06 +0200 > > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >........... > > > Again FDAP makes no difference, the extraneous information created > > > will still be there whether I use FDAP or not. > > > > The extraneous information will still be there. The FDAP (or > > equivalent after leaving one's card face up) remove the misleading > > possibilities from the EI. > >As will a verbal statement to the effect that my thinking is not related to >what I shall eventually play to the current trick. > This sounds like an improper communication with your partner. As far as I can tell your partner is not entitled to know that you are thinking about a subsequent trick. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Check out the latest video @ http://xtra.co.nz/streaming From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 10 13:34:55 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 10 13:36:31 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001101c56db0$6d1806d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > From: Wayne Burrows [mailto:wayne.burrows@hotmail.com] > >........... > > > > Again FDAP makes no difference, the extraneous information created > > > > will still be there whether I use FDAP or not. > > > > > > The extraneous information will still be there. The FDAP (or > > > equivalent after leaving one's card face up) remove the misleading > > > possibilities from the EI. > > > >As will a verbal statement to the effect that my thinking > >is not related to what I shall eventually play to the > >current trick. > > > > This sounds like an improper communication with your partner. > > As far as I can tell your partner is not entitled to know that you are > thinking about a subsequent trick. In that case FDAP is also a (highly) improper communication with partner. Simply "playing" a card face down is not really playing it, the player is free to take it back and play a different card instead. So without any additional information to that effect it is definitely not clear that your thinking is on a future and not on the current trick! Come on and make up your mind. You cannot both eat your cake and have it. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 10 13:48:18 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 10 13:49:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Restrictions on non-offending side In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c56db2$4b695e10$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > .............. > > > I asked in the context of L35D specifically. Reference L16C > > > 1. Non-offending Side > > > For the non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn > > > action is authorised, whether the action be its own or its opponents'. > > > > > > I suppose one can hair-split that the call was cancelled rather than > > > withdrawn (although maybe the WBF resolved that one?). > > > > Wrong law, use L16A, not L16C! > > Please keep up Sven. Here we are talking about a call after a call after > the final pass which has been ruled "not an infraction". L16c is > obviously the correct law in that instance - we have a clearly > identifiable NOS. The effects of L16A and L16C2 are identical. An L16C2 caswe will (almost?) always also be an L16A case. The main difference is that with L16A you don't need to bother about infractions, OS or any such matter. If you find that a player has received extraneous information from his partner he is subject to L16A restrictions (except if that information is explicitly ruled authorized for him in other laws) regardless of how that information arose or whether there is any OS or penalty. Are we back to the old debate on whether the 1S "bid" (which by L35D is not a call, it is "erased") should be considered differently from a remark like "I hope for a spade lead"? I thought that debate was finished long ago. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 10 13:54:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 10 13:56:00 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A964AE.4020403@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias wrote: > You asked why there would be a restriction if the TD has deemed there > was no infraction. As I pointed out below there have been infractions > in L35D, just no penalties. Grattan refers to the fact that _giving_ UI > is no infraction, only _using_ it. Grattan stated "if there had been no infraction". I don't care (at this particular moment) what we are supposed to do if the final call is an infraction (ie if you are going to rule that the final call is always an infraction). However *if* there is no infraction there is an NOS, there is a cancelled call (to which I believe L16c applies) and thus there is no UI. > > > >In EBU games an accidental bid arising from the confusion caused by > the >first inadmissible call is not (IIRC) deemed an infraction. For > example: >(1n)-p-(2N)-P-(P)-P-(3N)-X. I believe it is easy for > doubler to mistake >this for a legitimate auction and, unless he admits > to being fully aware, >will not deem the X an infraction. > > I cannot speak about EBU games. Where I come from you have to play by > the rules, even after someone else infracted them. There are mitigating > circumstances, so no penalty is applied (L35D). Where I direct I don't consider it an infraction if opponents are to blame. If they say "It's your lead" then a lead is not an infraction. If they play out of sequence then play by the next hand clockwise is not an infraction. If they confuse you, even accidentally (by an illegal call), into thinking the auction is ongoing then bidding isn't an infraction. If adjustment is required the side misled will be treated as the NOS, the misleaders as OS. Just to clarify. It is obvious that the 1S bid suggested by Herman does not fall into the "opps misled me" category. Tim The UI remains (not > much in the case you present above, but inferences could possibly be > drawn. > > If there were no UI after a L35 D case anyone being fast enough could > slip in a lead director after someone sufficiently confused infracted > L39. No typo here, the first infraction puts us in L39, only the second > one in L35D. > > Matthias > > >Tim > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 10 13:58:44 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 10 14:00:20 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001301c56db3$c03ffe00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows .............. > 2. Calling the director when there has been no infraction is an > inappropriate. If the laws don't say so then I think you should try a > little experiment and call the director repeatedly and say I am reporting > that there is no infraction you can disguise this if you want but I think > you will find that with any competent director you will soon get an > instruction to not call unless there has been an infraction. This is the > nature of the warning that I would give to the player. If I find it appropriate I always tell "my" players when I am directing that "it is never wrong to call the Director if you feel you need him for whatever reason". It is definitely not the job for any player to decide that there has been some irregularity which warrants calling the Director to the table. Any Director that warns "his" players not to call him unless there has been some irregularity has grossly misunderstood his job. > 3. Calling the director against a player that has not committed an > infraction as if they had I would find discourteous. Calling the director should always be done in a way not causing embarrassment to any player or the Director. It ought to be obvious that repeatedly calling the Director to tell him that he is not needed is a grave violation of Law 74B5. I believe you could benefit from reading this law with which you apparently are not familiar? Sven From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Jun 10 14:24:51 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Jun 10 14:26:35 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04d43f268962ce9b14d160aaa833d8c2@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 10 Jun 2005, at 12:23, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > 2. Calling the director when there has been no infraction is an > inappropriate. If the laws don't say so then I think you should try a > little experiment and call the director repeatedly and say I am > reporting that there is no infraction you can disguise this if you > want but I think you will find that with any competent director you > will soon get an instruction to not call unless there has been an > infraction. This is the nature of the warning that I would give to > the player. I'd have thought 90A, 90B, 74A & 74B would cover it. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 10 14:26:58 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri Jun 10 14:28:49 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A97165.3020901@hdw.be> References: <42A964AE.4020403@t-online.de> <42A97165.3020901@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42A98712.4020700@t-online.de> Herman De Wael wrote: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> >> If there were no UI after a L35 D case anyone being fast enough could >> slip in a lead director after someone sufficiently confused infracted >> L39. No typo here, the first infraction puts us in L39, only the >> second one in L35D. >> > > And this is just where you go wrong, Matthias. You assume that since > this should be forbidden, it is. A call after the final pass is an infraction (l39). Any call after an infraction of L39 is still an infraction, is it not? Even if Tim seems to think that "without penalty" means " no infraction" it is clear from the laws that such a call is not allowed, even if not subject to penalty. Since we are busy trying to look at other laws: "All this rests on what you call a penalty. I call a penalty something which is imposed and lessens my score." Your words from another post. Certain revokes are not subject to penalty (L64B). Your score may be adjusted after a 64B revoke. Your score is lessened if your side revoked. (Don`t tell me a 64C adjustment is different from a 16 adjustment. Both are done through L12.) So by way of 64C the director may penalize you for something that is not subject to penalty? "When,...., including those not subject to penalty,....., he shall assign an adjusted score." Going by your definitions this is completely illegal, is it not? You were not subject to penalty, yet your score is lessened. How can this be? Is it because L64C is illegal? Or maybe because your definition of penalty leaves something to be desired? Or even, if your definition were perfect and crystal clear, because it does not coincide with the lawmakers`definition? You can have another go at L72B1 (and a couple of others, for that matter). Our famous 1S-bidder could have known, at the time of the irregularity,......... This is a penalty, yes? It is a score adjustment after an irregularity not subject to penalty. So 72B1 is disabled too if a law contains the by-now infamous phrase "Without penalty"? Definitions: An assigned adjusted score is awarded to one side, or to both sides, to be the result of the deal in place of the result actually obtained after an irregularity. If it is a penalty if your score is lessened, what do you call it if your score is increased? A reward? If so, for what? Apologies for breaking my resolve. I will think about an appropriate way to penalize myself. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 10 14:39:08 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri Jun 10 14:41:06 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42A989EC.2000905@t-online.de> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > 1. No infraction has occurred. There is no law preventing a player > from leading to a trick that he has won while his opponent or even his > partner has their card face up on the table. > > 2. Calling the director when there has been no infraction is an > inappropriate. If the laws don't say so then I think you should try a > little experiment and call the director repeatedly and say I am > reporting that there is no infraction you can disguise this if you > want but I think you will find that with any competent director you > will soon get an instruction to not call unless there has been an > infraction. This is the nature of the warning that I would give to > the player. > > 3. Calling the director against a player that has not committed an > infraction as if they had I would find discourteous. > > Wayne > I would deem such actions - if deliberate - violations of L74A2, tell one player that inadvertant plays of this kind are not real infractions (and that a polite statement to his opponent should usually be sufficient), and tell the other that _deliberate_ actions of this kind _are_ infractions, so he better keep his eye on the table to see whether it is appropriate to lead to the next trick Matthias From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jun 10 15:02:47 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jun 10 15:02:53 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C In-Reply-To: <001001c56daa$86261dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001001c56daa$86261dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42A98F77.60508@hdw.be> I believe Sven and I are almost in agreeement on everything now: Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > .............. > >>Consider the following example (NT contract, declarer in West): >> S A >> H A >> D - >> C - >>S 2 S - >>H - H - >>D - D 2 >>C J C 2 >> S - >> H 2 >> D 3 >> C - >> >>case 1: Declarer plays the CJ, and North starts thinking. South throws >>the H2. By L57A, declarer can now prohibit a heart discard from North, >>and he makes the last trick with the S2. >> >>case 2: Declarer plays the CJ, North starts thinking, declarer names >>the club 2, South throws the H2. By L57C, this is "not subject to >>penalty", so declarer cannot ask anything. >>By some interpretations however, The H2 is still an irregularity, and >>L16 applies to it, so if North now jettisons the HA, the TD could use >>L16 to rule against him, and rule an extra trick to declarer by way of >>L12. >> >>I am quite convinced that I am not alone in believing L16 does not >>apply to a player who does something which is "not subject to penalty". >> >>Comments? > > > I have commented on this before. L57C is not well written. let's enlarge this a bit: the laws are not well written. > Literally it > indicates that South in case 2 commits an irregularity (by playing out of > turn) which is not subject to penalty. That would still leave L16 applicable > to this case. > Yet: > However the fact is that at least since 1932 the undisputed principle has > been that once declarer has played from both hands defenders may play in > either sequence to that trick and both defenders' play is considered to be > fully legal and in turn. Consequently there is no cause here for L16. > So, you would not mind agreeing with me that in the case of L57C, L16 is included in the "not subject to penalty", would you? > There is no indication anywhere that this principle has been changed since > 1932. > > You can also arrive at the same result through a slightly different > approach: > > South's play of C2 is not cancelled or withdrawn in any way. That card > remains played so the information from this play is necessarily available to > everybody around the table (including North). > You could arrive at that conclusion, but I don't agree that you MUST arrive at that conclusion. I could find arguments against it, but I won't look for them. > This means that the information from this play by South is not extraneous > and therefore cannot result in any restriction on what actions North may > select. > > (Notice the difference from L35D where the information from the cancelled > calls clearly become extraneous as the actions change status from calls to > remarks when they are cancelled). > I believe, Sven, that we are in agreement over the crux of the matter. Neither of us will allow a spade lead after the 1Sp in L35D. Neither of us will rule L16 on the prematurely shown H2 in case 2 above. Would it not be the easiest if we both agree that the 1Sp bid is considered both a cancelled bid and an extra remark, and that L16 does not apply on the cancelled bid (and on the prematurely shown H2) but that it does apply on the extra remark? And that we therefor agree that in principle "no penalty" includes L16 being cancelled? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Fri Jun 10 14:32:01 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri Jun 10 15:24:08 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: <000001c569ba$158cf500$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A2DAC9.4010600@hdw.be><42A2F974.1040706@t-online.de> <42A31DCA.8040200@hdw.be> Message-ID: <008601c56dbf$77fede20$9a493dd4@c6l8v1> > > The other example, of L57C, is far easier to look at. There, it is > clear to anyone that when the lawmakers wrote "not subject to > penalty", they did in fact also want to exclude L16. Only Sven has > argued for this one, perhaps out of consistency. John once said he > would do to, but he retracted that later. "no penalty" must mean that > L16 does not apply. > > If a defender plays prematurely L57A is applicable. If a defender plays prematurely AND declarer has played from both hands, or if dummy has played a card, he is "not subject to penalty". What could be the reason that the WBFLC did not mention that L57A is not applicable and that partner may select the most advantageous card? What is the difference with "not subject to penalty" ? Is there more to it? Ben From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Fri Jun 10 15:13:07 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri Jun 10 15:24:11 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D References: <000001c569ba$158cf500$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42A2DAC9.4010600@hdw.be> <42A2F974.1040706@t-online.de> <42A31DCA.8040200@hdw.be><42A41063.8040809@t-online.de> <42A42C32.7010503@hdw.be> Message-ID: <008701c56dbf$78639360$9a493dd4@c6l8v1> > > And BTW, I don't think it is you who is not being consistent, I do > believe the WBF made an error in calling the subsequent calls "without > penalty" in L35. > > "No penalty for the inadmissible call". Any penalty? Why the addition of L26? Is it limited to L26 or is that meant as an example? Ben From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 10 15:50:54 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jun 10 15:50:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Restrictions on non-offending side In-Reply-To: References: <000f01c56da1$1e94aef0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050610094045.02c905c0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:50 AM 6/10/05, twm wrote: >Sven wrote: > > > Wrong law, use L16A, not L16C! > >Please keep up Sven. Here we are talking about a call after a call after >the final pass which has been ruled "not an infraction". L16c is >obviously the correct law in that instance - we have a clearly >identifiable NOS. As I see it, it is nonsense to say that the call was "not an infraction"; if it were "not an infraction" it would be a legal call, and the auction would continue. It is a violation of L22B, which in combination with L17E, forbids any further calls after there have been three passes in rotation. L35D tells us that it is an infraction for which there is no penalty, which is not the same thing at all. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 10 16:26:42 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 10 16:28:20 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C In-Reply-To: <42A98F77.60508@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c56dc8$6c582550$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > > You can also arrive at the same result through a slightly different > > approach: > > > > South's play of C2 is not cancelled or withdrawn in any way. That card > > remains played so the information from this play is necessarily > available to > > everybody around the table (including North). > > > > You could arrive at that conclusion, but I don't agree that you MUST > arrive at that conclusion. I could find arguments against it, but I > won't look for them. Well, as it is a play that is sustained it can hardly be considered UI to anybody. ............. > I believe, Sven, that we are in agreement over the crux of the matter. > Neither of us will allow a spade lead after the 1Sp in L35D. Neither > of us will rule L16 on the prematurely shown H2 in case 2 above. Indeed! > > Would it not be the easiest if we both agree that the 1Sp bid is > considered both a cancelled bid and an extra remark, and that L16 does > not apply on the cancelled bid (and on the prematurely shown H2) but > that it does apply on the extra remark? This is very technical and next to splitting hairs, but I have no objections to the reasoning as such. > And that we therefor agree that in principle "no penalty" includes L16 > being cancelled? No I don't want to go that far without carefully examining every law in the book that contains words to the effect "no penalty". (Which I am not going to do). My prime concern on L16 is that L16A is applicable in each and every case where we find extraneous information having been made available by a player's partner. I remember stating something to the effect that "extraneous information" is poorly defined (if really defined at all) in the laws. And we compensate for this deficiency in the laws by training our Directors to recognize "extraneous information" when they see it. (Famous old proverb: I cannot define an Elephant but I know him when I see him). IMO the correct procedure is rather than "suspending" L16 in certain cases we decide whether the information in question is extraneous or not. Deciding that the information from the 1S bid is extraneous is no different from deciding that the information from "I wish for a spade lead" is extraneous. And I have no problem deciding that the information from the discard of a small heart in your example for L57C is not extraneous because that play is sustained as if it were entirely proper. Regards Sven From pxwkgqyg at msn.com Fri Jun 10 17:30:01 2005 From: pxwkgqyg at msn.com (Demetrius Romero) Date: Fri Jun 10 16:29:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Is yours Below 5 Innches Long? HPRPXJ Message-ID: 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://impactions.net/extender/?ronn o-ut of mai-lling lisst: http://impactions.net/rm.php?ronn GuXV From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 10 16:49:18 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jun 10 16:48:41 2005 Subject: [blml] L57C In-Reply-To: <000001c56dc8$6c582550$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <42A98F77.60508@hdw.be> <000001c56dc8$6c582550$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050610103839.02c600c0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:26 AM 6/10/05, Sven wrote: >I remember stating something to the effect that "extraneous >information" is >poorly defined (if really defined at all) in the laws. And we >compensate for >this deficiency in the laws by training our Directors to recognize >"extraneous information" when they see it. (Famous old proverb: I cannot >define an Elephant but I know him when I see him). Item for Grattan's notebook: The reference to "other extraneous information" in the second sentence of L16 should be corrected. As is, the only possible referent for "other" is contained in the first sentence, which, grammatically, makes the information "authorized" there "extraneous" as well. This could be fixed by deleting either "other" or "extraneous", or by putting a comma between them. That said, IMO the intent is quite clear: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays, and from mannerisms of the opponents." Any other information is, by definition, "extraneous", and "*may*" be "unauthorized" ("an infraction of law"). The remainder of L16 tells us when "extraneous" information is "unauthorized" and when it is not. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 10 17:36:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 10 17:38:29 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <001101c56db0$6d1806d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > In that case FDAP is also a (highly) improper communication with > partner. > > Simply "playing" a card face down is not really playing it, the player > is free to take it back and play a different card instead. So without > any additional information to that effect it is definitely not clear > that your thinking is on a future and not on the current trick! > > Come on and make up your mind. You cannot both eat your cake and have > it. At times one is faced with a choice between giving UI to partner or potentially misleading declarer (sometimes when giving an explanation, sometimes by when one is thinking). My preferred approach is *ensure* that declarer is not misled while expecting partner to avoid taking advantage of UI (I trust my partners). An alternative is to risk misleading declarer and call the TD at the end of the hand if he may have been damaged. Whilst the latter approach may be taken to extremes by a certain HdW I don't think either approach deserves to be called improper (only players *trying* to ethical care about these things). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 10 17:36:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 10 17:38:33 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <42A989EC.2000905@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias wrote: > I would deem such actions - if deliberate - violations of L74A2, tell > one player that inadvertant plays of this kind are not real infractions > (and that a polite statement to his opponent should usually be > sufficient), and tell the other that _deliberate_ actions of this kind > _are_ infractions, so he better keep his eye on the table to see > whether it is appropriate to lead to the next trick Not under the current law Matthias (though I would wish it otherwise). It becomes declarer's turn to lead *immediately* after winning the preceding trick and there is no requirement to wait for cards to be turned (unless your club has a regulation to that effect). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 10 17:36:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 10 17:38:35 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A98712.4020700@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias wrote: > A call after the final pass is an infraction (l39). Any call after an > infraction of L39 is still an infraction, is it not? Even if Tim seems > to think that "without penalty" means " no infraction" That is neither what I think nor what I said. I will rule it an infraction if I think it was done deliberately. I will not rule it an infraction if I think it arises from confusion caused by the opponents infraction (the NOS should in no way be disadvantaged here, even if not penalised). Where I rule "infraction" there is no penalty associated with the cancelled call under L39b. There may be both a penalty and a score adjustment under L72b. I have no need for L16a here since an NOS gets a 16c adjustment and an OS gets the harsher L72b2. To give a related example. Suppose a player misexplains his partner's bid over 2D as "13-16 both majors" when it is a take-out double that is an infraction. However, if he does so *because* his opps have given him (but not his partner) a CC saying "Multi" when they are actually playing a weak 2D I will rule "no infraction". The misinformation (and UI to his partner) is *not* the player's fault - his side should be considered as the NOS when adjusting. (Obviously there was an infraction by the 2D bidding side). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 10 17:36:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 10 17:38:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Restrictions on non-offending side In-Reply-To: <001201c56db2$4b695e10$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > > .............. > > > > I asked in the context of L35D specifically. Reference L16C > > > > 1. Non-offending Side > > > > For the non-offending side, all information arising from a > > > > withdrawn > > > > action is authorised, whether the action be its own or its > > > > opponents'. > > > > > > > > I suppose one can hair-split that the call was cancelled rather > > > > than > > > > withdrawn (although maybe the WBF resolved that one?). > > > > > > Wrong law, use L16A, not L16C! > > > > Please keep up Sven. Here we are talking about a call after a call > > after > > the final pass which has been ruled "not an infraction". L16c is > > obviously the correct law in that instance - we have a clearly > > identifiable NOS. > > The effects of L16A and L16C2 are identical. An L16C2 caswe will > (almost?) > always also be an L16A case. The main difference is that with L16A you > don't > need to bother about infractions, OS or any such matter. > > If you find that a player has received extraneous information from his > partner he is subject to L16A restrictions (except if that information > is explicitly ruled authorized for him in other laws) regardless of how > that information arose or whether there is any OS or penalty. Yes Sven. And law16c is one of those specific laws. > Are we back to the old debate on whether the 1S "bid" (which by L35D is > not a call, it is "erased") should be considered differently from a > remark like "I hope for a spade lead"? I thought that debate was > finished long ago. The 1S call in Herman's example was a deliberate attempt to secure a spade lead. That's an infraction, and since it is a deliberate one L72b2 can be used (which I'd use on a player who said "I hope for a spade lead?" just the same). Note that going via L72b2 I can adjust against OS even if a spade lead hits the 70% UI threshold but an alternative hits the (16.7% guideline) L12 requirement - plus I can impose a penalty under L72b2). I am not being as lenient as you towards deliberate offenders. Grattan stated that there might be a restriction "even if there were no infraction". Whilst this recognises that there might be situations where the final call is *not* an infraction it does not clarify why a pair should not be treated as NOS in such a situation. I am being more lenient than you when I have judged that a pair is the NOS. Tim From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 10 18:05:12 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 10 18:06:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Restrictions on non-offending side In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c56dd6$2f2fd520$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............. > > The effects of L16A and L16C2 are identical. > > An L16C2 caswe will (almost?) always also be > > an L16A case. The main difference is that > > with L16A you don't need to bother about > > infractions, OS or any such matter. > > > > If you find that a player has received > > extraneous information from his partner he is > > subject to L16A restrictions (except if that > > information is explicitly ruled authorized for > > him in other laws) regardless of how that > > information arose or whether there is any OS or > > penalty. > > Yes Sven. And law16c is one of those specific laws. Oh, I would probably never apply L16C in Herman's case of four passes and a 1S bid. I am perfectly happy with L16A alone considering the 1S "bid" equivalent to a careless remark. ............. > The 1S call in Herman's example was a deliberate attempt to secure a spade > lead. An interesting view which I believe illustrates some major differences between the cultures in Norway (read Scandinavia) and some other areas: We always assume that infractions are accidental unless we have convincing evidence that they are deliberate. I don't think we are na?ve and our culture works pretty well here. > That's an infraction, and since it is a deliberate one L72b2 can be > used (which I'd use on a player who said "I hope for a spade lead?" just > the same). Note that going via L72b2 I can adjust against OS even if a > spade lead hits the 70% UI threshold but an alternative hits the (16.7% > guideline) L12 requirement - plus I can impose a penalty under L72b2). > I am not being as lenient as you towards deliberate offenders. And as we normally would consider these incidents grossly careless but not deliberate we do perfectly well with L16A. I believe we had some "deliberate" cases some 20 or 40 years ago that resulted in expulsion etc. The players know perfectly well that we shall absolutely not tolerate intentional infractions and they live up to that standard. > > Grattan stated that there might be a restriction "even if there were no > infraction". Whilst this recognises that there might be situations where > the final call is *not* an infraction it does not clarify why a pair > should not be treated as NOS in such a situation. I am being more lenient > than you when I have judged that a pair is the NOS. We concentrate upon redress for damage and may add a warning that repeated incidents could be treated more severely if we "smell a rat". Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 10 18:09:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 10 18:11:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Restrictions on non-offending side In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050610094045.02c905c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > As I see it, it is nonsense to say that the call was "not an > infraction"; if it were "not an infraction" it would be a legal call, > and the auction would continue. It is a violation of L22B, which in > combination with L17E, forbids any further calls after there have been > three passes in rotation. > > L35D tells us that it is an infraction for which there is no penalty, > which is not the same thing at all. The above tells us that such a call is an irregularity. While all infractions are irregularities the converse is not true. The laws, I believe, allow the TD to judge whether the call was a deliberate attempt to take advantage of a perceived loophole (infraction) or a call resulting from confusion caused by opps (merely an irregularity). As a TD I wish to handle the two cases very differently - punishing deliberate offenders and treating confused players as the NOS due to their opponent's prior, and causative, infraction. Tim From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 10 18:19:38 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 10 18:21:15 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c56dd8$32f13800$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads .............. > At times one is faced with a choice between giving UI to partner or > potentially misleading declarer (sometimes when giving an explanation, > sometimes by when one is thinking). My preferred approach is *ensure* > that declarer is not misled while expecting partner to avoid taking > advantage of UI (I trust my partners). An alternative is to risk > misleading declarer and call the TD at the end of the hand if he may have > been damaged. Whilst the latter approach may be taken to extremes by a > certain HdW I don't think either approach deserves to be called improper > (only players *trying* to ethical care about these things). Giving partner UI is no offence, the offence can be if he uses that UI. Giving opponents MI is indeed an offence and should always be avoided. Please explain exactly how you run the risk of misleading declarer by playing your card exposed and then delaying your play to the following trick if needed while you are thinking. Next explain how you eliminate this risk by playing your card and keeping it face down until you have completed your thinking. If you utter "not thinking on this trick" or words to that effect you do so in both cases. However with an exposed play everybody knows that your play is final and cannot be changed. With a "hidden play" you are perfectly free to change your mind and replace that card with another before you face it regardless of what you may have said. Sven From uwtijs at terra.com.mx Fri Jun 10 19:29:08 2005 From: uwtijs at terra.com.mx (Melanie Smith) Date: Fri Jun 10 18:32:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Subject: Re: disparate Marplan Message-ID: <1023502610.3c1e9e7a4c3e2@webmail.avalon.net> 0nline Rx HYDR0S - $7O VlC0S - $llO VlAGRA - $7O VALlUM - $7O ClALlS - $7O AMBlEN - $llO S0MA - $6O and more.. Visit: http://nevin.l73.net/p/jones1/enter.htm No thanks http://l73.net/b.php From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 10 18:33:25 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Jun 10 18:36:46 2005 Subject: [blml] L12C2 ambiguity? References: Message-ID: <001701c56dda$358a95a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" > Marv wrote: > > > The OS balances vs a 2H contract, illeglly going to 3C with the help > > of UI. > > > > 3C would have gone -200 with at least a 1/6 probability, but the NOS > > goes to 3H off one, with the level of contract not a factor in the > > play. > > > > The NOS get +110, the most favorable result that was likely had the > > irregularity not occurred. > > > > The OS get the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, which > > is what??? > > The full text of the law is: 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 favourable result that was > likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the > most unfavourable result that was at all probable. A reasonable reading, espoused by Adam and favored by me for a long time. Others convinced me that there are no words to be "understood," for one reason because the "or," (note the comma) separates the two clauses enough to make them independent. The second part of the sentence can stand alone grammatically: [The score is] for the offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. Whatever, the lawmakers should clarify the intended meaning in the next version of the Laws. > To me "had the irregularity not occurred" is also implicit in the > adjustment for OS. An OS adjustment of -140 could be possible I suppose, > but not -200. If any words need to be "understood," they could just as well be "in any event" [my reading] as "had the irregularity not occurred." That is, the NOS gets a score that assumes no irregulaity, while the OS gets a score that recognizes the existence of the irregularity. > > NB I'm dubious about whether the UI really suggests risking -200 on a > part-score deal but that's a different matter. Yes, I had to make up something to illustrate my point, not easy because the circumstance would be extremely rare. I could have done better, admittedly. I could have said that the -200 would result from a possible double and excellent defense, and that the 3C bid was reasonable even though passing was a logical alternative. It doesn't seem right that the OS should be able to bid an illegal 3C with little risk, an adjusted score giving them what they would have had anyway, and maybe the opponents won't recognize the crime. I believe that is what the lawmakers had in mind, but I could be wrong. A mystery is why they are not participating in this discussion. Do they agree with Adam, or do they not want to contradict a fellow LC member? Is the matter perhaps being discussed behind closed doors, becoming part of the law-revision process that must be kept secret from us mere players of the game?. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 10 19:04:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 10 19:05:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Restrictions on non-offending side In-Reply-To: <000101c56dd6$2f2fd520$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > The 1S call in Herman's example was a deliberate attempt to secure a > > spade lead. > > An interesting view which I believe illustrates some major differences > between the cultures in Norway (read Scandinavia) and some other areas: > > We always assume that infractions are accidental unless we have > convincing evidence that they are deliberate. Sven - Herman's very first question on this thread was "Is this a free road to the lead-directing bid?" Is that not sufficient evidence for me to assume he was talking about someone doing it deliberately? BTW It doesn't to be a deliberate attempt to commit an infraction. It need only be a deliberate attempt to bid 1S knowing that the auction is over while believing the bid to be legal (although there I would only adjust - not give a PP) > I don't think we are naïve and our culture works pretty well here. This disturbs me even more in a way. Now you are saying that, even assuming an accident, a pair that got confused because their opps infracted the laws and, as a direct result, committed an irregularity should receive a score adjustment as if they, and not their opps, were the OS. Suppose for a moment that 1S was accidental and, as it happens, a (beneficial) spade lead is about 50/50 on the actual deal. As a result of applying L16a the *original* offenders get a good score and the "confused by the offence" pair get a bad one. Note that a "fourth pass" by the declaring side is now an absolute free kick. If it generates confusion opps get put under UI restrictions - if not "no penalty, no restrictions, no comeback". Does that sound fair? And if we are going to apply L72b1 to the 4th pass there's no point applying L16a to the 5th call. That there are fewer devious Scandinavians than Englishmen I can (in theory) accept - that there are none I refuse to believe. Tim From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 10 19:04:08 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 10 19:06:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote > >> You can insist all you like, Sven, but you do not have the right to >> invent Laws. > >Neither do you. You cannot do that face-down-ploy >for some of your tricks because L74A3 tells you >that you can't. If, from to time, you play >your card face down and take some >time before you turn it over then you are >not playing your cards in a "uniform" fashion >required by L74A3. > >L45A says also: > >"Each player except dummy plays a card >by detaching it from his hand and facing it on >the table immediately before him" > >The combination of "Facing it" and "immediately" >unambigously forbids you to put your card >face down. > >These are the laws that are currently in place >so you cannot invent yours. Yes, you *are* allowed >to think whenever you want to but nonetheless >you must play your cards in a manner required by the >laws. Dura lex, sed lex. Interesting. This is the only argument I have seen so far that seems to have any validity. It is unfortunate if it is used to persuade people to adopt a less ethical approach. Of course there are other options, such as saying "I am not thinking about this trick" but this method has always seemed the simplest and clearest. It appears from the second Law above that to play the card does need to detach and immediately put down. So, to be legal, after putting the card down, it must be put back into your hand, and then taken out again. Some what of a pain just to be ethical. I am less convinced by the first law you quote. I am not playing a card by putting it face-down: I am passing information to the opponents to avoid them being misled. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 10 19:07:54 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 10 19:09:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Contact Message-ID: My email service gets worse! Not only can I not send simple emails via BT, but now I cannot connect at all! Fortunately I have a backup system via Onetel. If anyone wishes to contact me in the next few days - my new server is meant to come online on the 24th - I recommend duplicating emails to three eddresses: -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 10 19:15:29 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 10 19:17:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >Facing his card immediately once he has decided that he will definitely >play >that particular card does not deprive him of any rights to think whenever >he >wants and for as long as he wants. Of course it does: it means that you have decided he may not think when he wants. >Here we have a player who claims that he has decided which card he will >play >but he refuses to face it on the ground that he is considering his play to >a >future trick. Legally that player is entitled to change his mind and play >another card to the current trick as long as he has not faced his first >selected card. His statement that he is not thinking on this current trick >does not bind him. Rubbish. If he has made it clear that he is not changing his card it is a clear breach of the proprieties to do otherwise. >We have a well established practice in Norway that a player who deceives an >opponent by a break in tempo (hesitation) during his play is NOT heard on >an >argument that he was not thinking on his play to the current trick; he was >considering some following trick(s). (Unless of course if we find and >accept >that he indeed had some bridge reason for his break in tempo). I cannot believe that your practice in Norway is to assume something when you know it not to be true. If that were true then you are deliberately ruling incorrectly under the Law. >If your player has some bridge reason to think twice on the card he has >selected to play to the current trick, fine. If not I still do not >understand how allowing opponents (and partner) to complete the current >trick while he is doing his thinking can put him at any disadvantage (and I >should appreciate an example). > >IMO knowledge of the cards subsequently played to the current trick by the >other players ought to be an advantage, not a disadvantage? > >And he cannot be forced to quit the trick until he has completed his >thinking, so even seeing the card in case led by some player to the >following trick while he is thinking should be a further advantage? I find it difficult to believe that your approach is to persuade players to be unethical. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 10 19:19:33 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 10 19:21:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote >On 9 Jun 2005, at 00:35, David Stevenson wrote: >> So which is it that annoys you, that he is thinking, as most of your >>opponents do some of the time when it is their turn to play, or that >>he is ethical about it? > >What is annoying, as you have been told on many occasions before, is >that you are denying your opponents the opportunity to use the thinking >time themselves, because you are hiding from them the information that >you have of which card you intend to play. So, are you of the view that people who want to think at *that* should adopt the unethical approach of not telling opponents? >Fortunately I don't seem to encounter this manoeuvre much any more; I >think it was a fad among a certain group of players that has largely >fallen out of fashion. Are you sure it is not because they are acting in a less ethical fashion? I agree it is less seen than previously but I have my doubts as to the reason in some cases. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From souses at didamail.com Fri Jun 10 20:21:04 2005 From: souses at didamail.com (Bryon Russo) Date: Fri Jun 10 19:26:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Your low mortage rate Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.jo1nt.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Carmen Herron to be remov(ed: http://www.jo1nt.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 10 19:51:05 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 10 19:52:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Restrictions on non-offending side In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c56de4$f9b4bd70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............. > > I don't think we are na?ve and our culture works pretty well here. > > This disturbs me even more in a way. Now you are saying that, even > assuming an accident, a pair that got confused because their opps > infracted the laws and, as a direct result, committed an irregularity > should receive a score adjustment as if they, and not their opps, were the > OS. Suppose for a moment that 1S was accidental and, as it happens, a > (beneficial) spade lead is about 50/50 on the actual deal. As a result of > applying L16a the *original* offenders get a good score and the "confused > by the offence" pair get a bad one. Note that a "fourth pass" by the > declaring side is now an absolute free kick. If it generates confusion > opps get put under UI restrictions - if not "no penalty, no restrictions, > no comeback". Does that sound fair? And if we are going to apply L72b1 > to the 4th pass there's no point applying L16a to the 5th call. I said nothing to that effect as I am aware of. When we compensate a non offending side for an irregularity by opponents we make sure that the compensation restores the best result they could have hoped for. When we take away an unjust advantage from an offending side we make sure they shall not have gained anything. If a player gets confused from an irregularity by an opponent we try to figure out to what extent he can be criticized for contributing to his own damage if any at all. We do not automatically give him a "carte Blanc" nor do we penalize him for what is essentially caused by his opponents. But we still do require some attention for the game. None of this establishes any need to consider an irregularity "deliberate", does it? Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 10 20:26:53 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 10 20:28:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c56de9$f9eddc90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson ................... > >Facing his card immediately once he has decided that he > >will definitely play that particular card does not > >deprive him of any rights to think whenever he wants > >and for as long as he wants. > > Of course it does: it means that you have decided he may > not think when he wants. How? Why? If he wants to start thinking after he has played his card what prevents him? If he wants to continue thinking after that trick is completed what prevents him? > > > >Here we have a player who claims that he has decided > >which card he will play but he refuses to face it on the > >ground that he is considering his play to a future trick. > >Legally that player is entitled to change his mind and play > >another card to the current trick as long as he has not > >faced his first selected card. His statement that he is not > >thinking on this current trick does not bind him. > > Rubbish. If he has made it clear that he is not changing > his card it is a clear breach of the proprieties to do otherwise. Would you mind quoting the precise law that supports this statement please? According to Law 45 a card is not played and need not be played unless it has been held in such a position or named so that opponents and/or partner can have learned the identity of the card. Until it has been played or must be played according to this Law that player is free to change his mind and play another card regardless of what other remarks he may have uttered. (Except of course for the opening lead to trick one). That we may frown on such a change of mind by a player is one thing, but he does not break any law that I am aware of? > > > >We have a well established practice in Norway that a player > >who deceives an opponent by a break in tempo (hesitation) > >during his play is NOT heard on an argument that he was not > >thinking on his play to the current trick; he was considering > >some following trick(s). (Unless of course if we find and > >accept that he indeed had some bridge reason for his break > >in tempo). > > I cannot believe that your practice in Norway is to assume > something when you know it not to be true. If that were true > then you are deliberately ruling incorrectly under the Law. What was not true? If we establish that a player has indeed been deceived we do not accept silly excuses by the player who caused the deception. If that player had stated in time (i.e. when he resumes his play) words to the effect: "Sorry I was sleeping" or "sorry, I had nothing to consider" etc. we accept it. But if after damage has been done he tries the same excuses then we just "convict" him unless we find that he really had a bridge reason for his break in tempo. ........... > I find it difficult to believe that your approach is to persuade players > to be unethical. And to return the honour: I find it difficult to understand how it can be unethical to expose the just played card to opponents before you start thinking on a future trick instead of after the thinking is completed. It even happens ever so often that we have completed our thinking before the trick is quitted so that we cause no delay at all! Sven From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Fri Jun 10 22:18:58 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Jun 10 22:20:40 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <001101c56db0$6d1806d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Subject: RE: [blml] 5th card >Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:34:55 +0200 > > > From: Wayne Burrows [mailto:wayne.burrows@hotmail.com] > > >........... > > > > > Again FDAP makes no difference, the extraneous information created > > > > > will still be there whether I use FDAP or not. > > > > > > > > The extraneous information will still be there. The FDAP (or > > > > equivalent after leaving one's card face up) remove the misleading > > > > possibilities from the EI. > > > > > >As will a verbal statement to the effect that my thinking > > >is not related to what I shall eventually play to the > > >current trick. > > > > > > > This sounds like an improper communication with your partner. > > > > As far as I can tell your partner is not entitled to know that you are > > thinking about a subsequent trick. > >In that case FDAP is also a (highly) improper communication with partner. > >Simply "playing" a card face down is not really playing it, the player is >free to take it back and play a different card instead. So without any >additional information to that effect it is definitely not clear that your >thinking is on a future and not on the current trick! > >Come on and make up your mind. You cannot both eat your cake and have it. > If you know what you are going to play then play it. It seems improper to not play a card (FDAP if you like) but think about a subsequent trick. This is obviously too likely to deceive declarer. On the other hand stating that you are thinking about subsequent tricks is an improper communication with your partner. The solution is simple. Play your card, in tempo if at all possible. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Check out the latest video @ http://xtra.co.nz/streaming From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Fri Jun 10 22:23:33 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Jun 10 22:25:16 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <42A989EC.2000905@t-online.de> Message-ID: >From: Matthias Berghaus >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:39:08 +0200 > >Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >>1. No infraction has occurred. There is no law preventing a player from >>leading to a trick that he has won while his opponent or even his partner >>has their card face up on the table. >> >>2. Calling the director when there has been no infraction is an >>inappropriate. If the laws don't say so then I think you should try a >>little experiment and call the director repeatedly and say I am reporting >>that there is no infraction you can disguise this if you want but I think >>you will find that with any competent director you will soon get an >>instruction to not call unless there has been an infraction. This is the >>nature of the warning that I would give to the player. >> >>3. Calling the director against a player that has not committed an >>infraction as if they had I would find discourteous. >> >>Wayne >> >I would deem such actions - if deliberate - violations of L74A2, tell one >player that inadvertant plays of this kind are not real infractions (and >that a polite statement to his opponent should usually be sufficient), and >tell the other that _deliberate_ actions of this kind _are_ infractions, >so he better keep his eye on the table to see whether it is appropriate to >lead to the next trick > Playing to the next trick while a player has his card face up is not an infraction. There is no law against it. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Read the latest Hollywood gossip @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/entertainment From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Fri Jun 10 22:30:59 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri Jun 10 22:32:41 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <001301c56db3$c03ffe00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Subject: RE: [blml] 5th card >Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:58:44 +0200 > > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows >.............. > > 2. Calling the director when there has been no infraction is an > > inappropriate. If the laws don't say so then I think you should try a > > little experiment and call the director repeatedly and say I am >reporting > > that there is no infraction you can disguise this if you want but I >think > > you will find that with any competent director you will soon get an > > instruction to not call unless there has been an infraction. This is >the > > nature of the warning that I would give to the player. > >If I find it appropriate I always tell "my" players when I am directing >that >"it is never wrong to call the Director if you feel you need him for >whatever reason". > >It is definitely not the job for any player to decide that there has been >some irregularity which warrants calling the Director to the table. Any >Director that warns "his" players not to call him unless there has been >some >irregularity has grossly misunderstood his job. > > > 3. Calling the director against a player that has not committed an > > infraction as if they had I would find discourteous. > >Calling the director should always be done in a way not causing >embarrassment to any player or the Director. > >It ought to be obvious that repeatedly calling the Director to tell him >that >he is not needed is a grave violation of Law 74B5. I believe you could >benefit from reading this law with which you apparently are not familiar? > I am familiar hence my willingness to issue a penalty or at least a warning. Calling the director to try to win a private battle against another contestent who has not infracted any law by playing to the next trick in a timely manner is seriously discourteous. I would not tolerate repeated calls of this nature. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Find the coolest online games @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 10 22:35:51 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jun 10 22:35:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <000401c56de9$f9eddc90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c56de9$f9eddc90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050610162752.02be26d0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:26 PM 6/10/05, Sven wrote: >Until it has been played or must be played according to this Law that >player >is free to change his mind and play another card regardless of what other >remarks he may have uttered. (Except of course for the opening lead to >trick >one). That we may frown on such a change of mind by a player is one thing, >but he does not break any law that I am aware of? He can't change his mind without thinking first, so if he changes his mind, he was thinking about his play to this trick. If he has made a remark to the effect that he was not thinking about his play to this trick, he has "attempt[ed] to mislead an opponent by way of a remark" in violation of L73D2. It is the (false and misleading) remark, not the change of play, which breaks the law and may be penalized. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 10 23:35:48 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 10 23:37:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050610162752.02be26d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000501c56e04$5e2b2ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > At 02:26 PM 6/10/05, Sven wrote: > > >Until it has been played or must be played according to this Law that > >player > >is free to change his mind and play another card regardless of what other > >remarks he may have uttered. (Except of course for the opening lead to > >trick > >one). That we may frown on such a change of mind by a player is one > thing, > >but he does not break any law that I am aware of? > > He can't change his mind without thinking first, so if he changes his > mind, he was thinking about his play to this trick. If he has made a > remark to the effect that he was not thinking about his play to this > trick, he has "attempt[ed] to mislead an opponent by way of a remark" > in violation of L73D2. It is the (false and misleading) remark, not > the change of play, which breaks the law and may be penalized. And while he was only thinking on further tricks and honestly said so, but eventually unexpectedly discovered that the result of his considerations also affected his play to the current trick? He was honest when he stated that he was not thinking on his play to the current trick but only on future tricks. Nobody could do anything while he had his card face down on the table in front of him. They could not even consider what to play to the current trick because they had no knowledge of the card he intended to play. Nobody was misled or deceived once eventually he disclosed that his considerations in fact turned out to affect also his play to the current trick after all, they were all correctly informed that he apparently had found an unexpected solution and had to change his play correspondingly. Is there any law in the book that denies him the right to pick up the card he had placed face down on the table and instead play another card? I don't know of any. Is there any cause for anybody to claim that they have been misled or deceived and consequently damaged? I don't think so. If anybody is still claiming ethics here: Would it not serve ethics better if he had played the card he intended face up so that he was stuck with that selection instead of keeping the other players in the dark and finally exercise his right to change the card he had decided upon but not exposed? Like any hesitation (whether a card was "played" face down or played face up but not turned face down when the trick was completed) his partner would receive extraneous information. And it would be the responsibility of his partner to avoid using such information in conflict with L16A. Sven From john at asimere.com Sat Jun 11 00:07:20 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat Jun 11 00:12:11 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42A93CCD.7000707@hdw.be> References: <42A8C57E.1000901@t-online.de> <42A93CCD.7000707@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2dgcboBY8gqCFwkx@asimere.com> In article <42A93CCD.7000707@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >>> Grattan wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> 2. If there is no infraction there is nothing to penalize. There may >>>> be a restriction applying in given circumstances where there is no >>>> infraction, it being then an infraction to breach the restriction. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I understand the words... But why, in the context of L35D, would >>> there be a restriction if the TD has deemed there was no infraction? >>> We don't impose restrictions or give score adjustments against an NOS. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >> Where does it say no infraction? There has been an infraction in L35D, >> in fact there have been two. Because of the second infraction there is >> no penalty for either of them. But the UI remains. To _use_ the UI would >> be an infraction of L16.. >> > >Only if it is UI! It has been our contention from the beginning that >because of the words of L35D ("without penalty") there is no UI! your contention, Herman :-)) > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Sat Jun 11 00:11:15 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat Jun 11 00:16:10 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000e01c56da0$cdb34500$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000e01c56da0$cdb34500$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000e01c56da0$cdb34500$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >........... >> > Again FDAP makes no difference, the extraneous information created >> > will still be there whether I use FDAP or not. >> >> The extraneous information will still be there. The FDAP (or >> equivalent after leaving one's card face up) remove the misleading >> possibilities from the EI. > >As will a verbal statement to the effect that my thinking is not related to >what I shall eventually play to the current trick. that is also acceptable IMO. I prefer the FDAP as if it gets changed the TD can roast the player. > >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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Jun 11 00:23:10 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat Jun 11 00:25:03 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42AA12CE.8020308@t-online.de> Tim West-Meads wrote: >Matthias wrote: > > > >>A call after the final pass is an infraction (l39). Any call after an >>infraction of L39 is still an infraction, is it not? Even if Tim seems >>to think that "without penalty" means " no infraction" >> >> > >That is neither what I think nor what I said. I will rule it an >infraction if I think it was done deliberately. I will not rule it an >infraction if I think it arises from confusion caused by the opponents >infraction (the NOS should in no way be disadvantaged here, even if not >penalised). Where I rule "infraction" there is no penalty associated with >the cancelled call under L39b. There may be both a penalty and a score >adjustment under L72b. I have no need for L16a here since an NOS gets a >16c adjustment and an OS gets the harsher L72b2. > > Hm. That is not quite my approach, even if we will usually arrive at the same result. Of course a deliberate infraction a la 1S in Herman`s case is a much more severe infraction. As I mentioned in my first post (seems a long time ago) I will hit such a player with a procedural penalty for deliberate violation of the laws on top of anything I can milk out of the rules for the actual case at hand. I will rule infraction against the other side for the superflous pass (which is not penalized anyway, whether condoned or not). The fourth pass _is_ an infraction, albeit a completely harmless one. It is not penalized, so that`s that. If someone is goaded into a L35D case by his opponents (difficult to imagine how, but assume it was done) I may rule no infraction because of L21B1. The auction period is not over (the auction is over, but not the auction period, see L17E), so if the opps goaded them into something I can let them take it back. >To give a related example. Suppose a player misexplains his partner's bid >over 2D as "13-16 both majors" when it is a take-out double that is an >infraction. However, if he does so *because* his opps have given him (but >not his partner) a CC saying "Multi" when they are actually playing a weak >2D I will rule "no infraction". > I will rule it an "infraction" (which it technically is, but that will not matter), but will surely not penalize them. Either it will be cleared up immediately, in which case the correct explanation will be given and there is no UI, or the board will be rendered unplayable, and we agree about whose fault that is. > The misinformation (and UI to his >partner) is *not* the player's fault - his side should be considered as >the NOS when adjusting. (Obviously there was an infraction by the 2D >bidding side). > > Sure. No question about it. Sometimes things happen that infract the rules of the game. So we call them infraction. Some carry a penalty, some don`t. Even the ones "worthy" of a penalty may not be the players fault, so we find a way to rule in a way that does not disadvantage that player. Matthias >Tim > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Jun 11 00:38:26 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat Jun 11 00:40:19 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42AA1662.2010604@t-online.de> Wayne Burrows wrote: > Matthias wrote: > >> I would deem such actions - if deliberate - violations of L74A2, >> tell one player that inadvertant plays of this kind are not real >> infractions (and that a polite statement to his opponent should >> usually be sufficient), and tell the other that _deliberate_ actions >> of this kind _are_ infractions, so he better keep his eye on the >> table to see whether it is appropriate to lead to the next trick >> > > Playing to the next trick while a player has his card face up is not > an infraction. There is no law against it. > > Wayne > Wayne, I think you would be hard pressed to find a law that explicitly forbids me to put my face 2 inches from yours and stare into your eyes for 2 hours. This is regulated by certain proprieties, be it in bridge or in "normal" life. To disregard another player`s wish to look at the trick is a violation of the proprieties set out in L74A2. You don`t need a law which states "you may not play to the next trick before the old one is quitted by all players". You just don`t do it. Matthias From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 11 01:08:04 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Jun 11 01:10:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77265f8f2d6146e73bd4cdf9f3a5b712@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 10, 2005, at 5:01 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > If he delays playing because he is thinking about the hand rather than > the > current trick he risks misleading declarer. And if he does so intentionally, he violates Law 72B2. But if such was not his intention, what law has he violated? From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 11 01:10:53 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Jun 11 01:12:23 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card References: Message-ID: <002e01c56e11$a7788500$179868d5@James> [Wayne Burrows] > Playing to the next trick while a player has his card > face up is not an infraction. There is no law against > it. [Nigel] Intuitively, you would expect it to be illegal; the confusion was probably a drafting oversight; I hope that the WBFLC will *clearly* outlaw it in the next edition of TFLB; as pointed out in previous threads, many laws *imply* that it is illegal. For example if the order in which you cash winners may signal information to partner, then allowing you to expose cards to consecutive tricks at the same time may reinforce that message. At the very least, this seems against the *spirit* or the law. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 11 01:18:23 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Jun 11 01:21:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <000501c56e04$5e2b2ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c56e04$5e2b2ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <959ca6941ecb36ccd6b7ca511ef1b277@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 10, 2005, at 5:35 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > If anybody is still claiming ethics here: Would it not serve ethics > better > if he had played the card he intended face up so that he was stuck > with that > selection instead of keeping the other players in the dark and finally > exercise his right to change the card he had decided upon but not > exposed? Ethics. Hm. The Laws would seem to allow, in principle, players to think about what they're doing. It cannot then be unethical to do so. Certainly a break in tempo may create UI, but creating UI is not unethical either. Everybody keeps talking about misleading declarer. It seems as if they've seen a law somewhere that says one must make every effort to avoid doing so - but then psyches and falsecards would be illegal, would they not? So where is this law? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 11 01:20:02 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Jun 11 01:22:52 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 10, 2005, at 5:01 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Indeed, your right to think is related to taking particular care to > ensure > that declarer is not misled. Under which law? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 11 01:26:05 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Jun 11 01:28:53 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185d5a024dc3112cb6b96a56fe7c074b@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 10, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > No infraction has occurred. There is no law preventing a player from > leading to a trick that he has won while his opponent or even his > partner has their card face up on the table. > > 2. Calling the director when there has been no infraction is an > inappropriate. If the laws don't say so then I think you should try a > little experiment and call the director repeatedly and say I am > reporting that there is no infraction you can disguise this if you > want but I think you will find that with any competent director you > will soon get an instruction to not call unless there has been an > infraction. This is the nature of the warning that I would give to > the player. > > 3. Calling the director against a player that has not committed an > infraction as if they had I would find discourteous. What did I say when I called the director? "I believe there has been an infraction." To tell me I was wrong to call the director because I was mistaken and there was no infraction is to tell me I can call the director only when I *know* there has been one - IOW, I have to be much more familiar with the laws than I had previously understood. I don't believe it. Calling the director when I *know* there has been no infraction may be "inappropriate" - but I can't see that applying to situations where I don't know. If a TD instructs me not to call unless I know there has been an infraction, I won't call him again. Ever, 'cause I won't be playing in his game. I don't call directors "against" anybody - I call directors to resolve problems I perceive at the table. I would find "crowding" me by leading to the next trick when I have clearly not quitted this one to be discourteous. Now what? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 11 01:28:09 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Jun 11 01:30:58 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 10, 2005, at 7:26 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > As far as I can tell your partner is not entitled to know that you are > thinking about a subsequent trick. This equates to "you are not entitled to provide information which would indicate to your partner the subject of your thought process." If true, then a necessary corollary is that you aren't allowed to provide it to declarer either. From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Sat Jun 11 01:33:05 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat Jun 11 01:34:47 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <185d5a024dc3112cb6b96a56fe7c074b@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: >From: Ed Reppert >To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:26:05 -0400 > > >On Jun 10, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> No infraction has occurred. There is no law preventing a player from >>leading to a trick that he has won while his opponent or even his partner >>has their card face up on the table. >> >>2. Calling the director when there has been no infraction is an >>inappropriate. If the laws don't say so then I think you should try a >>little experiment and call the director repeatedly and say I am reporting >>that there is no infraction you can disguise this if you want but I think >>you will find that with any competent director you will soon get an >>instruction to not call unless there has been an infraction. This is the >>nature of the warning that I would give to the player. >> >>3. Calling the director against a player that has not committed an >>infraction as if they had I would find discourteous. > >What did I say when I called the director? "I believe there has been an >infraction." To tell me I was wrong to call the director because I was >mistaken and there was no infraction is to tell me I can call the director >only when I *know* there has been one - IOW, I have to be much more >familiar with the laws than I had previously understood. I don't believe >it. > >Calling the director when I *know* there has been no infraction may be >"inappropriate" - but I can't see that applying to situations where I don't >know. If a TD instructs me not to call unless I know there has been an >infraction, I won't call him again. Ever, 'cause I won't be playing in his >game. > >I don't call directors "against" anybody - I call directors to resolve >problems I perceive at the table. > >I would find "crowding" me by leading to the next trick when I have clearly >not quitted this one to be discourteous. Now what? > I would find attempting to delay the game when it is my turn to play by holding your card face up to be discourteous. Now what? Further to call the director when you didn't get your way with these delaying tactics I would find even more discourteous. Now what? Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Need a new job? Check out XtraMSN Careers http://xtramsn.co.nz/careers From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 11 02:14:16 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Jun 11 02:15:46 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card References: Message-ID: <001c01c56e1a$81e68360$119868d5@James> [Wayne Burrows] > I would find attempting to delay the game when it is > my turn to play by holding your card face up to be > discourteous. Now what? > Further to call the director when you didn't get your > way with these delaying tactics I would find even more > discourteous. Now what? [Nigel IMO, Wayne would be wrong to regard this as discourtesy. You are enjoined to try to play in tempo but there is no law against thinking. Deliberately preventing an opponent from thinking, however, should be against the law; for example by refusing to face the card that you have decided to play, thus depriving opponents of rightful thinking time and deliberately delaying the game. Deliberately playing to the next trick to frustrate opponents, while cards from the current trick are still faced, is likely to be an offence against the proprieties. I hope that only Wayne seriously considers penalizing the flustered and harassed victims. From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Sat Jun 11 03:46:18 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat Jun 11 03:48:00 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: Ed Reppert >To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:28:09 -0400 > > >On Jun 10, 2005, at 7:26 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>As far as I can tell your partner is not entitled to know that you are >>thinking about a subsequent trick. > >This equates to "you are not entitled to provide information which would >indicate to your partner the subject of your thought process." If true, >then a necessary corollary is that you aren't allowed to provide it to >declarer either. > There is a difference between declarer and partner since there is a law restricting how you may communicate with your partner. Telling him that you are not thinking about the current trick is an illegal form of communication. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Discover fun and games at @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/kids From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Sat Jun 11 03:51:16 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat Jun 11 03:52:57 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <001c01c56e1a$81e68360$119868d5@James> Message-ID: >From: "GUTHRIE" >To: "BLML" >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 01:14:16 +0100 > >[Wayne Burrows] > > I would find attempting to delay the game when it is > > my turn to play by holding your card face up to be > > discourteous. Now what? > > > Further to call the director when you didn't get your > > way with these delaying tactics I would find even more > > discourteous. Now what? > >[Nigel >IMO, Wayne would be wrong to regard this as discourtesy. >You are enjoined to try to play in tempo but there is no law >against thinking. Deliberately preventing an opponent from >thinking, however, should be against the law; for example by >refusing to face the card that you have decided to play, >thus depriving opponents of rightful thinking time and >deliberately delaying the game. > >Deliberately playing to the next trick to frustrate >opponents, while cards from the current trick are still >faced, is likely to be an offence against the proprieties. I >hope that only Wayne seriously considers penalizing the >flustered and harassed victims. > Your right to think is not something that is given to you above your opponent's right to play when it is their turn. You can think while the opponents are thinking or playing and when it is your turn to play. What's the problem with using those times? Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Shop ‘til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping http://shopping.xtramsn.co.nz/home/ From bluejak666 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 11 04:01:27 2005 From: bluejak666 at hotmail.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat Jun 11 04:03:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >If anybody is still claiming ethics here: Would it not serve ethics better >if he had played the card he intended face up so that he was stuck with >that >selection instead of keeping the other players in the dark and finally >exercise his right to change the card he had decided upon but not exposed? It is not a question of better: a player wishes to think at this moment: his alternative is to think and do nothing else because he knows you will rule against him. Thus you have pushed him into a less ethical position. Why do you want to punish the ethical players? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Home email receives emails but will not send them Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From senior at emailaccount.com Sat Jun 11 05:06:54 2005 From: senior at emailaccount.com (Deirdre Cullen) Date: Sat Jun 11 04:12:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Low mortage rate accepted Message-ID: <191.03e558d5.2a9UAF44@oir.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.jo1nt.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Darren Draper to be remov(ed: http://www.jo1nt.com/deletion.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 Sat Jun 11 05:04:40 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Jun 11 05:06:23 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <835b58716aa27ca1b8cf162bc9e5600d@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 10, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > I would find attempting to delay the game when it is my turn to play > by holding your card face up to be discourteous. Now what? > > Further to call the director when you didn't get your way with these > delaying tactics I would find even more discourteous. Now what? Maybe we need a simple law: you are not allowed to think for more than 3 seconds at any given time before you take your next required action (call, play, turn over a card). Or have we ventured into the realm of the ridiculous yet again? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 11 05:06:39 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Jun 11 05:08:23 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 10, 2005, at 9:46 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > There is a difference between declarer and partner since there is a > law restricting how you may communicate with your partner. > > Telling him that you are not thinking about the current trick is an > illegal form of communication. and if you tell declarer that, when partner can hear you, you're also telling partner. So you can't do it. Or are we now supposed to become schoolchildren passing each other notes at the table? From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Sat Jun 11 06:02:19 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat Jun 11 06:04:03 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: Ed Reppert >To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:06:39 -0400 > > >On Jun 10, 2005, at 9:46 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>There is a difference between declarer and partner since there is a >>law restricting how you may communicate with your partner. >> >>Telling him that you are not thinking about the current trick is an >>illegal form of communication. > >and if you tell declarer that, when partner can hear you, you're also >telling partner. So you can't do it. > >Or are we now supposed to become schoolchildren passing each other notes at >the table? > It is quite simple don't tell declarer. Just play bridge. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Sat Jun 11 06:05:02 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat Jun 11 06:06:44 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <835b58716aa27ca1b8cf162bc9e5600d@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: >From: Ed Reppert >To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:04:40 -0400 > > >On Jun 10, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>I would find attempting to delay the game when it is my turn to play >>by holding your card face up to be discourteous. Now what? >> >>Further to call the director when you didn't get your way with these >>delaying tactics I would find even more discourteous. Now what? > > >Maybe we need a simple law: you are not allowed to think for more than 3 >seconds at any given time before you take your next required action (call, >play, turn over a card). > >Or have we ventured into the realm of the ridiculous yet again? > You can think as much as you like. You are not though entitled to delay the game at another player's turn to play. There is nothing in the laws that even suggest this is reasonable. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Find the coolest online games @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 11 07:49:41 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Jun 11 07:51:20 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c56e49$5cf3d9c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > >........... > >> > Again FDAP makes no difference, the extraneous information created > >> > will still be there whether I use FDAP or not. > >> > >> The extraneous information will still be there. The FDAP (or > >> equivalent after leaving one's card face up) remove the misleading > >> possibilities from the EI. > > > >As will a verbal statement to the effect that my thinking is not related > to > >what I shall eventually play to the current trick. > > that is also acceptable IMO. I prefer the FDAP as if it gets changed the > TD can roast the player. With reference to which law, please? Sven From courtship at hammel.com Sat Jun 11 09:58:03 2005 From: courtship at hammel.com (Raymond) Date: Sat Jun 11 09:49:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Better sex! Better relationship! Message-ID: <796514039.3434075108@kepka.lam.cz> Many specialty drugs, including injectables commonly stocked and available. http://clove.chudomeds.info/?hookerxtvuyBienzsvKirby Tradition is laziness. Youth is easily deceived because it is quick to hope. Only a scientific people can survive in a scientific future. You see, but you do not observe. From blink at utilicraft.com Sat Jun 11 09:58:05 2005 From: blink at utilicraft.com (Nicholas) Date: Sat Jun 11 09:49:44 2005 Subject: [blml] You and your partner can relax and take your time to choose the moment that's right for both of you. Message-ID: <797221669.12842421457@kepka.lam.cz> Affordable - the way medications should be http://disguises.yourowndoctor.info/?homelessxtvuyemzsvCheriton The higher the buildings, the lower the morals. Beat me, hate me, you can never break me. God's in His Heaven, all's right with the world I don't believe in God but I'm very interested in her. From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Jun 11 10:51:10 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat Jun 11 10:52:53 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <42AA1662.2010604@t-online.de> References: <42AA1662.2010604@t-online.de> Message-ID: <85cc4a22fff63a1829e42fa6ab11af0d@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 10 Jun 2005, at 23:38, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Wayne, I think you would be hard pressed to find a law that explicitly > forbids me to put my face 2 inches from yours and stare into your eyes > for 2 hours. 74C5 -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From john at asimere.com Sat Jun 11 11:31:01 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat Jun 11 11:34:07 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000101c56e49$5cf3d9c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c56e49$5cf3d9c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000101c56e49$5cf3d9c0$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst >> >........... >> >> > Again FDAP makes no difference, the extraneous information created >> >> > will still be there whether I use FDAP or not. >> >> >> >> The extraneous information will still be there. The FDAP (or >> >> equivalent after leaving one's card face up) remove the misleading >> >> possibilities from the EI. >> > >> >As will a verbal statement to the effect that my thinking is not related >> to >> >what I shall eventually play to the current trick. >> >> that is also acceptable IMO. I prefer the FDAP as if it gets changed the >> TD can roast the player. > >With reference to which law, please? the defender lied to declarer. Take it from there. On balance I prefer the "please leave the cards face up while I think" approach > >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 11 15:11:41 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Jun 11 15:13:23 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c56e87$1ba02e90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst .............. > >> that is also acceptable IMO. I prefer the FDAP as if it gets changed > the > >> TD can roast the player. > > > >With reference to which law, please? > > the defender lied to declarer. Take it from there. > > On balance I prefer the "please leave the cards face up while I think" > approach Good, because the player will claim that he did not lie to declarer but he discovered something (while thinking) that made him change his mind. And he has not violated any law in the book! Regards Sven From ranier at yebox.com Sat Jun 11 17:48:16 2005 From: ranier at yebox.com (Eduardo Hooker) Date: Sat Jun 11 17:00:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Pre-approved Application #PTGKT688 Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.jo1nt.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Gloria Diggs to be remov(ed: http://www.jo1nt.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Jun 11 19:29:17 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat Jun 11 19:32:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 Message-ID: <003301c56eab$19a16e00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> CASE N-01 Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff Silodor Open Pairs Second Qualifying Board: 17 Dealer North Vul: none S 96 H Q752 D Q82 C J754 S K1087 S Q4 H AK86 H J104 D K975 D J43 C K9 K Q10632 S AJ532 H K93 D A106 C A8 West North East South Pass Pass 1S Pass(1) Pass 2C(2) All Pass Disputed hesitation / gesture Agreed upon BIT The Facts: Two clubs made nine tricks, +110 EW. The opening lead was the CA. The director was called at the end of play. NS claimed that their opponents had agreed to the first hesitation noted above. South thought West made a gesture after 1S. EW denied any such agreement, or to the fact that a break in tempo or gesture occurred prior to West's Pass. The Ruling: There was no agreement as to the facts, therefore no UI was established. Having no basis on which to adjust the score the table results was allowed to stand. The Appeal: NS appealed. Both appeared before the committee, along with East. South claimed that West was "startled" by her opening bid and hesitated and motioned before passing. South felt that this information caused East to balance with a sub-minimum hand. When East balanced, South said "I think we need some protection" East, who had hesitated before bidding 2C agreed, thinking the comment referred to his hesitation. North said that she did not notice anything unusual, but that she was not particularly paying attention. [mlf] Not surprising, considering that she was probably considering whether to bid or pass. Statements by the other side: EW never agreed to a hesitation over 1S and denied any hand motion. The Decision: West's hand did not suggest a hesitation, so the only indication to the contrary was South's uncorroborated statement. [mlf] Is this a joke? West's hand is a very common example of the sort of hand that many players "hitch" with when RHO opens in one of their suits. Not strong enough to overcall 1NT, not shapely enough for a takeout double, what to do? Just hitch, and hope for the best. I cannot imagine that any reputable player qualified for the second session of the Open would invent UI that didn't exist. After seeing that East hand, perhaps, but not at the time East bids 2C. Let us hope that any hitch in this case was inadvertent and went unnoticed by East. We can't judge a UI case solely on the basis of the hands held, even if they arouse suspicions. [mlf] Last night an opponent holding S J1098xx xx QJ9x x balanced with a double after 1H-P-1S-P; 2C-P-P, and caught her partner, who bid just 2D, with 17 HCP. They missed the right contract, which was 2S (or 2C doubled for +200). Looks suspicious, right? But I knew there was no UI created or communicated, some people bid like that, no problem. Had 2D been a bad board for us and I asked for a ruling contending that there must have been UI, look at the hands, that would be rightly considered a waste of TD time. The director's ruling indicated that there was no basis for an adjustment. East made a case for his bid, pointing to the fact that West was marked for a decent hand, finesses rated to be onside and he took the risk of bidding at matchpoint scoring. The committee affirmed the table result. The AC felt that merely because East balanced did not demonstrate that UI had been conveyed. [mlf] Right, but East's comments are irrelevant without corroboration (e.g., system notes, general practice) and deserve zero weight . NS could not demonstrate that an unmistakable hesitation occurred and brought no new facts to the AC. Therefore an AWMW was issued. [mlf] That seems rather harsh, given that we all know what probably happened even if there is no way of proving it. Perhaps the appellants hoped the AC would be more successful in establishing the existence and illegal usage of UI than the TD was. Not a big sin, I would say. Committee: Ron Gerard, Non-voting Chair, Dick Budd, Eddie Wold, BillPassell, Mike Kovacich and Doug Doub [mlf] It was odd that nothing was made of East's acknowledged BIT and West's decision to pass 2C. Passed hand or not, East could easily have had South's club ace, giving West enough resources to roll a 3NT contract. Of course with that ace East may not have thought so long before bidding 2C. The TD/AC would have been justified to adjust the score for both sides to 2NT by West off one, +/-50. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From flofxo at yahoo.com Sat Jun 11 22:16:42 2005 From: flofxo at yahoo.com (Earl Bunch) Date: Sat Jun 11 21:31:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Re [7] Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050611/88b0d678/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: gorky.GIF Type: image/gif Size: 9522 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050611/88b0d678/gorky.gif From kikkawa at didamail.com Sat Jun 11 23:07:56 2005 From: kikkawa at didamail.com (Amber Tate) Date: Sat Jun 11 22:11:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Rates just dropped Message-ID: <101.42e558d5.2a9GDK44@tnx.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.jo1nt.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Earlene Aldrich to be remov(ed: http://www.jo1nt.com/deletion.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 Sat Jun 11 22:11:49 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat Jun 11 22:15:56 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000201c56e87$1ba02e90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c56e87$1ba02e90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000201c56e87$1ba02e90$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst >.............. >> >> that is also acceptable IMO. I prefer the FDAP as if it gets changed >> the >> >> TD can roast the player. >> > >> >With reference to which law, please? >> >> the defender lied to declarer. Take it from there. >> >> On balance I prefer the "please leave the cards face up while I think" >> approach > >Good, because the player will claim that he did not lie to declarer but he >discovered something (while thinking) that made him change his mind. > >And he has not violated any law in the book! He has clearly misled declarer. Declarer, who may well know the position, will have done his own thinking based not on this trick. > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Jun 11 22:40:17 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat Jun 11 22:39:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <000501c56e04$5e2b2ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050610162752.02be26d0@pop.starpower.net> <000501c56e04$5e2b2ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050611144347.02a5a480@pop.starpower.net> At 05:35 PM 6/10/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > At 02:26 PM 6/10/05, Sven wrote: > > > > >Until it has been played or must be played according to this Law that > > >player > > >is free to change his mind and play another card regardless of > what other > > >remarks he may have uttered. (Except of course for the opening lead to > > >trick > > >one). That we may frown on such a change of mind by a player is one > > thing, > > >but he does not break any law that I am aware of? > > > > He can't change his mind without thinking first, so if he changes his > > mind, he was thinking about his play to this trick. If he has made a > > remark to the effect that he was not thinking about his play to this > > trick, he has "attempt[ed] to mislead an opponent by way of a remark" > > in violation of L73D2. It is the (false and misleading) remark, not > > the change of play, which breaks the law and may be penalized. > >And while he was only thinking on further tricks and honestly said so, but >eventually unexpectedly discovered that the result of his considerations >also affected his play to the current trick? > >He was honest when he stated that he was not thinking on his play to the >current trick but only on future tricks. > >Nobody could do anything while he had his card face down on the table in >front of him. They could not even consider what to play to the current >trick >because they had no knowledge of the card he intended to play. > >Nobody was misled or deceived once eventually he disclosed that his >considerations in fact turned out to affect also his play to the current >trick after all, they were all correctly informed that he apparently had >found an unexpected solution and had to change his play correspondingly. > >Is there any law in the book that denies him the right to pick up the card >he had placed face down on the table and instead play another card? >I don't know of any. > >Is there any cause for anybody to claim that they have been misled or >deceived and consequently damaged? >I don't think so. > >If anybody is still claiming ethics here: Would it not serve ethics better >if he had played the card he intended face up so that he was stuck >with that >selection instead of keeping the other players in the dark and finally >exercise his right to change the card he had decided upon but not >exposed? > >Like any hesitation (whether a card was "played" face down or played >face up >but not turned face down when the trick was completed) his partner would >receive extraneous information. And it would be the responsibility of his >partner to avoid using such information in conflict with L16A. Let me give a real-life answer here for a change. I noted earlier that the "FDAP" is an accepted and not uncommon practice in my local area. Because David S. is quite right when he says that the players who use it, whatever its technical legality, do so because they regard it as an actively ethical practice. Placing the card one will play to the trick face down serves around here as a request to stop play for a "think break"; turning it up signals readiness for the action to continue. Adding the statement that one is thinking ahead rather than about the current trick is intended to prevent opponents' assuming an immediate problem, which they're otherwise entitled, within reason, to do. The director probably wouldn't be called, and anyone who asked for a technical ruling would be satisfied with the explanation that while the player could have "properly" stopped the action by just going into the tank without putting his card down first or saying anything, he was just trying to be helpful. An opponent (or even the partner of a defender) will, indeed, occasionally ask to see the card; the player then will turn it face up, while the table waits for some verbal or gestural indication that he's ready for play to continue. In the situation Sven describes, what would happen is that the player would tell the opponents that his consideration of the entire hand has caused him to want to change his play, and request their permission to do so, which might or might not be granted. OK, enough of real life, and back to the BLML stuff. If I did somehow find myself called to the table by some Secretary Bird in the wake of a disagreement, I would rule that when the player put his originally intended card face down on the table and announced that he was not considering his play to that trick, he had "designate[d] it as the card he propose[d] to play" subject to L45C4. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Jun 11 22:48:25 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat Jun 11 22:47:09 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <42AA1662.2010604@t-online.de> References: <42AA1662.2010604@t-online.de> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050611164313.02d27ac0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:38 PM 6/10/05, Matthias wrote: >I think you would be hard pressed to find a law that explicitly >forbids me to put my face 2 inches from yours and stare into your eyes >for 2 hours. This is regulated by certain proprieties, be it in bridge >or in "normal" life. To disregard another player`s wish to look at the >trick is a violation of the proprieties set out in L74A2. You don`t >need a law which states "you may not play to the next trick before the >old one is quitted by all players". You just don`t do it. I don't usually post "me too" type messages, but this is a voice crying out in the wilderness that deserves to be heard! So what's it doing in this forum, one might ask? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Jun 11 23:07:20 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat Jun 11 23:06:05 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <002e01c56e11$a7788500$179868d5@James> References: <002e01c56e11$a7788500$179868d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050611164928.02d27eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:10 PM 6/10/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >[Wayne Burrows] > > Playing to the next trick while a player has his card > > face up is not an infraction. There is no law against > > it. > >[Nigel] >Intuitively, you would expect it to be illegal; the >confusion was probably a drafting oversight; I hope that the >WBFLC will *clearly* outlaw it in the next edition of TFLB; >as pointed out in previous threads, many laws *imply* that >it is illegal. For example if the order in which you cash >winners may signal information to partner, then allowing you >to expose cards to consecutive tricks at the same time may >reinforce that message. At the very least, this seems >against the *spirit* or the law. Nigel should go back and re-read Matthias' reply to Wayne. Under current law, it is not an infraction unless someone at the table objects to it, at which point it becomes illegal for as long as the person objecting to it remains at the table. WTP? The letter of the law may be ambiguous, but it certainly *could* be interpreted that way, and I don't see why anyone concerned with the "*spirit* of the law" would want to interpret it otherwise. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 11 23:08:06 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Jun 11 23:09:45 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001501c56ec9$a9b91c90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > >.............. > >> On balance I prefer the "please leave the cards face up while I think" > >> approach > > > >Good, because the player will claim that he did not lie to declarer but > he > >discovered something (while thinking) that made him change his mind. > > > >And he has not violated any law in the book! > > He has clearly misled declarer. Declarer, who may well know the > position, will have done his own thinking based not on this trick. Not really! Although his original statement (with FDAP) eventually turned out to be false and possibly misleading he has clearly corrected this misinformation by changing his mind on the card he wanted to play. That obvious change of mind cancels his misinformation and makes certain that declarer is not misled after all. If this situation leads to declarer needing more time to plan his future tricks he shall have it like any other player. I do not see any cause for damage. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 11 23:52:17 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Jun 11 23:54:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <003301c56eab$19a16e00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003301c56eab$19a16e00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Jun 11, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Marvin French wrote: > [mlf] Right, but East's comments are irrelevant without corroboration > (e.g., system notes, general practice) and deserve zero weight . Oh? I would think that's way too harsh. East's comments are certainly relevant (how are they not?) IMO, and while I might not give them a lot of weight, zero is way too little. Again, IMO. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jun 12 01:08:14 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun Jun 12 01:11:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 References: <003301c56eab$19a16e00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <006801c56eda$738d67a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > > Marvin French wrote: > > > [mlf] Right, but East's comments are irrelevant without corroboration > > (e.g., system notes, general practice) and deserve zero weight . > > Oh? I would think that's way too harsh. East's comments are certainly > relevant (how are they not?) IMO, and while I might not give them a lot > of weight, zero is way too little. Again, IMO. > Players will usually justify their strange actions with uncorroborated and unverifiable statements. TDs/ACs should let such rationlizations go in one ear and out the other. It is not fair to the opponents that they should be given any weight. A player violating L16A will say, "I would always take that action." We don't give that any weight whatsoever, it's irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there is a logical alternative to an action suggested by UI. East's denial of a BIT by West is relevant. If East were to argue that there was no LA to a 2C bid, giving bridge reasons for that statement, or showing system notes that require it, then that would be relevant. But just saying "I bid two clubs because blah, blah" is not relevant Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jun 12 01:57:56 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sun Jun 12 01:59:22 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card References: <002e01c56e11$a7788500$179868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050611164928.02d27eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <012801c56ee1$646959d0$219868d5@James> [Matthias Beghaus] >> You don`t need a law which states "you may not play >> to the next trick before the old one is quitted by >> all players". You just don`t do it. [Eric landau] > Nigel should go back and re-read Matthias' reply to > Wayne. [nige1] I feel that relies too much on players agreeing with Matthias. If the laws really do say it's OK, how can you criticise a player for doing it. For example, nobody criticised Soloway in the last Bermuda Bowl Final From thoth at emailaccount.com Sun Jun 12 07:54:47 2005 From: thoth at emailaccount.com (Christina Sheridan) Date: Sun Jun 12 07:01:40 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 been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.jo1nt.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Young Espinosa to be remov(ed: http://www.jo1nt.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Jun 12 12:17:31 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Jun 12 12:17:31 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <001501c56ec9$a9b91c90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001501c56ec9$a9b91c90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42AC0BBB.6060509@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst >> >>>discovered something (while thinking) that made him change his mind. >>> >>>And he has not violated any law in the book! >> >>He has clearly misled declarer. Declarer, who may well know the >>position, will have done his own thinking based not on this trick. > > > Not really! > > Although his original statement (with FDAP) eventually turned out to be > false and possibly misleading he has clearly corrected this misinformation > by changing his mind on the card he wanted to play. > > That obvious change of mind cancels his misinformation and makes certain > that declarer is not misled after all. > No, not at all! In this particular case his original statement has proven to be a lie to declarer, but if this happens, it could mean that in other cases too, the player has been lying to declarer when he said he was not thinking about this trick. In some cases, he was thinking, only he did not change his mind. A player who performs this particular trick once will be admonished nby me that if he ever does the FDAP again, I will rule that he could havve been thinking about the present trick, thereby perhaps misleading declarer. Remember, the original poster said the player was totally honest and NEVER ever changed the faced down card. That may be legal or not, but if he changes his mind even once, it becomes certainly illegal. > If this situation leads to declarer needing more time to plan his future > tricks he shall have it like any other player. I do not see any cause for > damage. > Not here, no. But all the other times, yes. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 12 12:31:49 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Jun 12 12:33:22 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card References: <002e01c56e11$a7788500$179868d5@James><6.1.1.1.0.20050611164928.02d27eb0@pop.starpower.net> <012801c56ee1$646959d0$219868d5@James> Message-ID: <000001c56f3a$1fe40270$7b08e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 12:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card > > [nige1] > I feel that relies too much on players agreeing with > Matthias. If the laws really do say it's OK, how can you > criticise a player for doing it. For example, nobody > criticised Soloway in the last Bermuda Bowl Final > +=+ The action is lawful. Furthermore the player who does it is not in breach of any ethical standard. If there are places where it is not the done thing, this is a matter of local culture. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Sun Jun 12 13:47:50 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Sun Jun 12 12:53:36 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card References: <835b58716aa27ca1b8cf162bc9e5600d@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <007201c56f44$95a05860$798616ac@mycomputer> A "simple" law? In chess you call it another game "blitz" Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 5:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card > > On Jun 10, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > I would find attempting to delay the game when it is my turn to play > > by holding your card face up to be discourteous. Now what? > > > > Further to call the director when you didn't get your way with these > > delaying tactics I would find even more discourteous. Now what? > > > Maybe we need a simple law: you are not allowed to think for more than > 3 seconds at any given time before you take your next required action > (call, play, turn over a card). > > Or have we ventured into the realm of the ridiculous yet again? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 12 13:12:16 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Jun 12 13:13:57 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <42AC0BBB.6060509@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c56f3f$97ead6e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > No, not at all! > In this particular case his original statement has proven to be a lie It proves nothing of the kind; all it proves is that we still can assume the player to be fully honest and that he for whatever reason changed his mind while thinking. It is not difficult to find an example where the play by a defender to the current trick causes no doubt, but where that player if he analyses the deal in time realizes that he must definitely not make that "obvious" play. (I do not have "Right through the pack" readily available, but if I remember correct it was the tale by the Ace of Diamonds). > to declarer, but if this happens, it could mean that in other cases > too, the player has been lying to declarer when he said he was not > thinking about this trick. In some cases, he was thinking, only he did > not change his mind. > A player who performs this particular trick once will be admonished > nby me that if he ever does the FDAP again, I will rule that he could > havve been thinking about the present trick, thereby perhaps > misleading declarer. Why does it strike me that you seem to assume bridge players being natural cheats unless proven otherwise? Where I come from Bridge is considered a sport for gentlemen and ladies. > > Remember, the original poster said the player was totally honest and > NEVER ever changed the faced down card. That may be legal or not, but > if he changes his mind even once, it becomes certainly illegal. Why? Could you provide a law reference to substantiate this allegation? > > If this situation leads to declarer needing more time to plan his future > > tricks he shall have it like any other player. I do not see any cause > for > > damage. > > > > Not here, no. But all the other times, yes. Nice that we agree I am correct here. Can you show some examples of "other times"? Are you arguing for or against FDAP? It appears to me that you are corroborating my animosity against FDAP very successfully? Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 12 13:16:22 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Jun 12 13:17:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050527130256.02b77710@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c56f40$4d7d8930$d4cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:05 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Re: Indirect regulation of System >> >>>>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. > ('Tim' = West-Meads) > Again, Richard Hills wrote: 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 <<< [Grattan] +=+ There are now NBOs where under EU law it is possible for an external non-bridge court of arbitration to intervene. Opinion thinks it very likely that a principal concern of such a body might be to investigate whether an authority has exceeded the powers granted to it under the rules of the game. Among the matters which I regard as important in simplifying the Laws of Duplicate Bridge is the use of explicit language, to include unequivocal statements as to the scope and limitations of the powers of regulating authorities, appeals committees and directors, and their accountability for the exercise of those powers. I think also that the letter of the law should embody the spirit of the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Jun 12 14:17:32 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Jun 12 14:17:29 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000001c56f3f$97ead6e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c56f3f$97ead6e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42AC27DC.8000902@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............. > >>No, not at all! >>In this particular case his original statement has proven to be a lie > > > It proves nothing of the kind; all it proves is that we still can assume the > player to be fully honest and that he for whatever reason changed his mind > while thinking. > Yes Sven, it proves absolutely that it was a lie. Saying, I'm not thinking about the current trick means you cannot be thinking about the current trick. Changing your mind means you ARE stil thinking about the whole deal, including the current trick. To maintain otherwise means you have totally misunderstood this problem. Sorry Sven, but your attitude seems to be "if Herman says A, then it must be B". > It is not difficult to find an example where the play by a defender to the > current trick causes no doubt, but where that player if he analyses the deal > in time realizes that he must definitely not make that "obvious" play. > (I do not have "Right through the pack" readily available, but if I remember > correct it was the tale by the Ace of Diamonds). > In that case, the player should not be saying, that he's not thinking about the current trick. That too is deceiving declarer. We are talking here of a player who, once he has selected his card, takes it out of his hand and then keeps it closed for some time. Either this player does this because he is still thinking about the current trick (and then if he does it with a singleton, he is deceiving declarer) or he does this to be able to think about future tricks (and in that case if he does it while still unsure about the card he's playing, he is deceiving declarer). We were talking about the first case, not the second. > > Why does it strike me that you seem to assume bridge players being natural > cheats unless proven otherwise? Where I come from Bridge is considered a > sport for gentlemen and ladies. > Because many bridge players (although by no means all) have too little knowledge about correct procedure that they do things that cheats would also do. We should educate them. > >>Remember, the original poster said the player was totally honest and >>NEVER ever changed the faced down card. That may be legal or not, but >>if he changes his mind even once, it becomes certainly illegal. > > > Why? Could you provide a law reference to substantiate this allegation? > Illegal deception, maybe? You are not allowed to think with a singleton, are you? Now if you say that you always wait before showing your card, so that your delay does not show that you are still thinking about the current trick, then that may well be legal. But if it turns out that in some cases, you do the same while you ARE still thinking, your assertion that you always wait turns out to be false. So your actions are no longer protected. > >>>If this situation leads to declarer needing more time to plan his future >>>tricks he shall have it like any other player. I do not see any cause >> >>for >> >>>damage. >>> >> >>Not here, no. But all the other times, yes. > > > Nice that we agree I am correct here. Can you show some examples of "other > times"? > What I mean is that a player who holds his card, indicating that he is not thinking about the current trick, turns out to be thinking after all, has given false deceptive signals. Consider the following example: Declarer tries to induce a signal from defender by very quickly leading the jack from AJ10xx to a table of Kxx. Defender quickly plays low (although holding the queen). Declarer takes the king and finesses the ten. Well played by defender who quickly plays the small one. At a second table, play proceeds exactly the same, but here, defender wishes to insert a pause in order to check if it is not better to play the queen after all. So he takes out the small card, and holds it in such a manner that he indicates he's not thinking about this trick at all. If he now plays the small one, he's had an advantage over the first defender, as he's also analysed the deal and not made the mistake of not covering in case partner holds the A10. Do you agree that this second defender has illegally deceived declarer by telling him he was not considering this trick? Which means that the action of playing without facing is only allowed IF the played card is NEVER ever changed. > Are you arguing for or against FDAP? > against, actually, because I believe it should be condoned ONLY if it is done very ethically. And no player can be ethically enough and still believe it is possible to use this tactic. I would not do it, I would use the more traditional method of asking for thee trick to remain open and not even consider playing to the next trick. > It appears to me that you are corroborating my animosity against FDAP very > successfully? > I am, in fact. But your arguments are lacking persuasiveness. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Jun 12 14:15:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Jun 12 14:17:35 2005 Subject: [blml] L35D In-Reply-To: <42AA12CE.8020308@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias wrote: > I will rule it an "infraction" (which it technically is, but that will > not matter), but will surely not penalize them. Either it will be > cleared up immediately, in which case the correct explanation will be > given and there is no UI, or the board will be rendered unplayable, and > we agree about whose fault that is. That is not, IMO, legal. If we rule "infraction" the side *must* be treated as an OS - no option under law. If we we rule "irregularity, no infraction" we have options - such is my style style, it works for me, I offer no guaantees as to legality. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Jun 12 14:15:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Jun 12 14:17:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Restrictions on non-offending side In-Reply-To: <000301c56de4$f9b4bd70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > This disturbs me even more in a way. Now you are saying that, even > > assuming an accident, a pair that got confused because their opps > > infracted the laws and, as a direct result, committed an irregularity > > should receive a score adjustment as if they, and not their opps, > > were the OS. Suppose for a moment that 1S was accidental and, as it > > happens, a (beneficial) spade lead is about 50/50 on the actual deal. > > As a result of applying L16a the *original* offenders get a good score > > and the "confused by the offence" pair get a bad one. > I said nothing to that effect as I am aware of. That's exactly what you said. The adjustment I describe above is the effect of applying Law16a to the 1S as if the confused side were "OS". > When we compensate a non offending side for an irregularity by > opponents we make sure that the compensation restores the best result > they could have hoped for. Prior to the first irregularity (the call after final pass), the expectation of the NOS might be 30% of 3N= (minority choice but reasonable spade lead), 70% of 3N+1 (any other lead). If, following the confusion inspired 1S call, we apply L16a to that both sides will score 3N+1 (either because a S lead was avoided at the table or by adjusting if a Spade was led). > When we take away an unjust advantage from an offending side we make > sure they shall not have gained anything. How do you do that? Once L16a has been applied the "OS", of necessity, end up with a better score than they might have got absent their offence. > If a player gets confused from an irregularity by an opponent we try to > figure out to what extent he can be criticized for contributing to his > own damage if any at all. OK - but in this case I think the choices are simple: Either the player bid because he was confused into thinking the auction was still "live" (not to blame) or he bid knowing the auction was over (to blame). > We do not automatically give him a "carte Blanc" And nor do I - I do not allow the player to benefit from deliberately bidding if he knows the auction is over. > nor do we penalize him for what is essentially caused by his opponents. While I agree that a subsequent L16a adjustment is not a penalty as such - a pair operating under UI restrictions is often worse off than a pair not under such restrictions. > But we still do require some attention for the game. I could understand a TD ruling that the Extraneous Info arising from the whole fiasco is such that the board is unplayable and awarding an adjusted score on that basis (treating fourth passer as OS). That would give the NOS the benefit of a plausible spade lead, but not so much benefit as to lead a spade based on the call be AI under L16c). > None of this establishes any need to consider an irregularity > "deliberate", does it? I think it does. I don't wish to give the same ruling to "confused" pairs as to "deliberate" infractors - thus I must determine which sort of case I am dealing with. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Jun 12 14:15:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Jun 12 14:17:49 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000201c56dd8$32f13800$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > .............. > > At times one is faced with a choice between giving UI to partner or > > potentially misleading declarer (sometimes when giving an explanation, > > sometimes by when one is thinking). My preferred approach is *ensure* > > that declarer is not misled while expecting partner to avoid taking > > advantage of UI (I trust my partners). An alternative is to risk > > misleading declarer and call the TD at the end of the hand if he may > > have > > been damaged. Whilst the latter approach may be taken to extremes by > > a > > certain HdW I don't think either approach deserves to be called > > improper > > (only players *trying* to ethical care about these things). > > Giving partner UI is no offence, the offence can be if he uses that UI. > > Giving opponents MI is indeed an offence and should always be avoided. > > Please explain exactly how you run the risk of misleading declarer by > playing your card exposed and then delaying your play to the following > trick if needed while you are thinking. Because declarer is now entitled to assume you are thinking about *that* trick. > Next explain how you eliminate this risk by playing your card and > keeping it face down until you have completed your thinking. > > If you utter "not thinking on this trick" or words to that effect you > do so in both cases. There will sometimes be a difference. Because leaving your card face up allow declarer to move the hand on a trick the statement may no longer be true. This makes it easier for declarer to know what you are thinking about, is AI to him, and may lead to him getting a decision right. I believe there *should* be a point in any trick where a player can stop and think about the rest of the hand (but not that trick) if he so chooses, without the risk of misleading declarer. The current laws provide for such a moment *only* by use of a FDAP (a manoeuvre I dislike, but allow). > However with an exposed play everybody knows that your play is final and > cannot be changed. With a "hidden play" you are perfectly free to change > your mind and replace that card with another before you face it > regardless of what you may have said. Of course - but you will also be subject to a PP for making a gratuitous and misleading comment. I am aware that if the card is actually changed declarer will no longer be misled but if you want to use a FDAP in games I direct you will have to accept automatic penalties for getting it wrong. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Jun 12 14:15:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Jun 12 14:17:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <77265f8f2d6146e73bd4cdf9f3a5b712@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed asked: > > If he delays playing because he is thinking about the hand rather > > than the current trick he risks misleading declarer. > > And if he does so intentionally, he violates Law 72B2. But if such was > not his intention, what law has he violated? 73d1 the bit about "However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side." If it seems at all likely that declarer will be misled by the break in tempo then taking particular care includes issuing a disclaimer (whether or not one has placed a card face down. The disclaimer must be truthful and is UI to partner. "I'm sorry I was distracted by the length (or lack thereof) of Zanetta's skirt." may be appropriate in some circumstances "Sorry, nothing to think about on this trick." in others. These statements are extra-legal but I don't know what else a player can do once he realises that declarer may well be misled if he says nothing. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Jun 12 14:15:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Jun 12 14:17:54 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000001c56f3a$1fe40270$7b08e150@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > [nige1] > > I feel that relies too much on players agreeing with > > Matthias. If the laws really do say it's OK, how can you > > criticise a player for doing it. For example, nobody > > criticised Soloway in the last Bermuda Bowl Final > > > +=+ The action is lawful. Furthermore the player who > does it is not in breach of any ethical standard. One might go further and say that the practice is actually required by current law (ie to *not* lead at one's turn is an intentional variation of tempo). > If there are places where it is not the done thing, this > is a matter of local culture. Or possibly local regulation? A reg requiring a player to wait until the previous trick is quitted would be not dissimilar to a skip bid pause requirement in terms of legality IMO. OK Grattan? Although I'd prefer that to be in the laws (even if Zones were given the option not to apply it). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Jun 12 15:20:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Jun 12 15:22:01 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000001c56f3f$97ead6e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > in time realizes that he must definitely not make that "obvious" play. > (I do not have "Right through the pack" readily available, but if I > remember correct it was the tale by the Ace of Diamonds). It's the tale of the 7 of diamonds. The hand in question was played by Professor Hardacre - a man whose powers of analysis are considered phenomenal. It is 100% clear from the write-up that he was considering his play to the first trick in the context of the whole hand before finding the duck when dummy held stiff DK and he was looking at DAQJ8762 and defending 4N. Had Hardacre said "I'm not thinking about this trick." no penalty would have been necessary - the gentleman would have left the club in shame en route to committing suicide. He was an honourable man. For those wondering about the technicalities the duck is the only defence to break up the triple squeeze on his partner. The D7 was Hardacre's chosen play to trick 1 - thus gaining ownership of the story. Tim From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 12 15:31:41 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Jun 12 15:33:24 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <42AC27DC.8000902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c56f53$1281eac0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > > It proves nothing of the kind; all it proves is > > that we still can assume the player to be fully > > honest and that he for whatever reason changed > > his mind while thinking. > > > > Yes Sven, it proves absolutely that it was a lie. Saying, I'm not > thinking about the current trick means you cannot be thinking about > the current trick. Changing your mind means you ARE stil thinking > about the whole deal, including the current trick. This argument indicates that informing opponents "I am not thinking on the current trick, only on the rest of the play" should imply that the player has no legal choice between alternative plays, i.e. that he is in fact holding a singleton in the suit led. In absolutely all other cases there will exist a definite possibility that he while honestly thinking only on future tricks may realize that he also has to reconsider his play to the current trick. > To maintain otherwise means you have totally misunderstood this problem. > Sorry Sven, but your attitude seems to be "if Herman says A, then it > must be B". > > > It is not difficult to find an example where the play by a > > defender to the current trick causes no doubt, but where > > that player if he analyses the deal in time realizes that > > he must definitely not make that "obvious" play. > > (I do not have "Right through the pack" readily available, > > but if I remember correct it was the tale by the Ace of Diamonds). > > > > In that case, the player should not be saying, that he's not thinking > about the current trick. That too is deceiving declarer. We are > talking here of a player who, once he has selected his card, takes it > out of his hand and then keeps it closed for some time. Either this > player does this because he is still thinking about the current trick > (and then if he does it with a singleton, he is deceiving declarer) or > he does this to be able to think about future tricks (and in that case > if he does it while still unsure about the card he's playing, he is > deceiving declarer). We were talking about the first case, not the second. Quite. And as a player is fully entitled to change a card he has selected for his play regardless of what he may have said or declared so long as he has not in any way revealed the identity of his first selected play he should never announce that he is not thinking on the current trick unless he has no legal choice, i.e. he holds a singleton. (A different and fully both legal and ethical situation is if he subsequent to thinking and playing the card announces that he was not really thinking on this trick but on tricks to come). ............... > >>Remember, the original poster said the player was totally honest and > >>NEVER ever changed the faced down card. That may be legal or not, but > >>if he changes his mind even once, it becomes certainly illegal. > > > > > > Why? Could you provide a law reference to substantiate this allegation? > > > > Illegal deception, maybe? > You are not allowed to think with a singleton, are you? It depends. I do not know what you are accustomed to, but if a player when he resumes his play announces something like: "Sorry, I was not thinking on this trick" or "Sorry, I was sleeping" we do accept that as fully clarifying the situation and canceling any extraneous information, deceptive or not, that may have been created. ............. > >>> I do not see any cause for damage. > >>> > >> > >>Not here, no. But all the other times, yes. > > > > > > Nice that we agree I am correct here. Can you show some > > examples of "other times"? > > > > What I mean is that a player who holds his card, indicating that he is > not thinking about the current trick, turns out to be thinking after > all, has given false deceptive signals. > > Consider the following example: > > Declarer tries to induce a signal from defender by very quickly > leading the jack from AJ10xx to a table of Kxx. Defender quickly plays > low (although holding the queen). Declarer takes the king and finesses > the ten. Well played by defender who quickly plays the small one. > At a second table, play proceeds exactly the same, but here, defender > wishes to insert a pause in order to check if it is not better to play > the queen after all. So he takes out the small card, and holds it in > such a manner that he indicates he's not thinking about this trick at > all. If he now plays the small one, he's had an advantage over the > first defender, as he's also analysed the deal and not made the > mistake of not covering in case partner holds the A10. Do you agree > that this second defender has illegally deceived declarer by telling > him he was not considering this trick? Unless he positively states that he is not thinking on his play to the current trick my ruling will be that he is indeed doing just that whether he delays taking a card from his hand or he takes a card from his hand but delays exposing it. If he does state that he is not thinking on his play to the current trick I will in case investigate his reason for not forthwith exposing the card he allegedly had selected to play. My investigation will be made with full attention to the fact that his statement does in no way prevent him from changing his card. > > Which means that the action of playing without facing is only allowed > IF the played card is NEVER ever changed. Does that include that FDAP is illegal today by a player who in two years time will suddenly experience a situation where he indeed changes his card? > > > Are you arguing for or against FDAP? > > > > against, actually, because I believe it should be condoned ONLY if it > is done very ethically. And no player can be ethically enough and > still believe it is possible to use this tactic. I would not do it, I > would use the more traditional method of asking for thee trick to > remain open and not even consider playing to the next trick. > > > It appears to me that you are corroborating my animosity against FDAP > very > > successfully? > > > > I am, in fact. But your arguments are lacking persuasiveness. Possibly, but I have lost count on those who have announced that my reasoning has caused them to change their opinion from favoring FDAP to opposing it. Sven From helmets at nyssen.net Sun Jun 12 18:22:42 2005 From: helmets at nyssen.net (Mark) Date: Sun Jun 12 18:15:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Informed Investors are winners Message-ID: <15474119509.423625588@202.149.210.54> Are you tired of Public Companies without anything substantial backing their story - how about a revolutionary invention that will change the Security industry forever, and the company just went public!!! Company Name: snif fex inc Ticker: SN FX Rating: Strong Buy industry: Security, Homeland Security, Cargo Screening and EDS Reason for the TOP 2005 Rating: Unique Exp losive Detection Device Capable of finding its targets from tens or hundreds of meters!!! There is no other EDS device which is so powerfull that can locate almost any explosve behind concrete walls from distance of tens of meters!! The Competition: There are many companies in the industry of Sniffing exp losives, some of them are public and they are companies like iSON HWPR or HiET and all of them have devices which can locate exp losive from 10 inches, 1 feet, 2 feet or close to that. Compared to these results SN FX device is tens of times better and smaller in size and yet CHEAPER!! "SN FX announced the release of snif fex Version 1.1, a handheld exp losives detection device which the Company claims can locate nitro-based exp losives from a distance of 10 to 100 feet depending on the quantity of the exp losive and environmental conditions. The Company also stated that, to the best of their knowledge, snif fex is the first device of its kind that can operate from such distances and find exp losives behind barriers." Could this company be amongst the top deals on wallstreet this year!!! YES its trading at only 75 cents now and this brand new stock could be $3-4 easily in the next few weeks as the story unfolds!! SN FX is in process of presenting the new device in USA and to Worldwide Markets and as soon as they receive some substantial orders and feedback from big institutional clients, this stock will fly in the skies, as an example iSON traded almost 1 billion dollars after they announced they are in process of developing some device, and SN FX already has the device and it proved it works in numerous tests!! Company Name: snif fex inc Ticker: SN FX Rating: Strong Buy This stock is going to be the hottest issue for the summer!! important information: This newsletter was paid $18000 from third party (Argue promotions) to send this report. All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such. We may own, take position and sell any securities mentioned at any time. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, goals, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward looking statements." Forward looking statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through the use of words such as: "projects", "foresee", "expects". in compliance with Section 17(b), we disclose the holding of SN FX shares prior to the publication of this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such holdings due to our intent to profit from the liquidation of these shares. Shares may be sold at any time, even after positive statements have been made regarding the above company. Since we own shares, there is an inherent conflict of interest in our statements and opinions. Readers of this publication are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and expectations involving various risks and uncertainties, that could cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward- looking statements. This is not solicitation to buy or sell stocks, this text is for informational purpose only and you should seek professional advice from registered financial advisor before you do anything related with buying or selling stocks, penny stocks are very high risk and you can lose your entire investment. From deformed at centennialmedical.com Sun Jun 12 18:22:50 2005 From: deformed at centennialmedical.com (Raphael) Date: Sun Jun 12 18:15:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Equity Previews Message-ID: <7092979076.85541108675@202.149.210.54> Are you tired of Public Companies without anything substantial backing their story - how about a revolutionary invention that will change the Security industry forever, and the company just went public!!! Company Name: snif fex inc Ticker: SN FX Rating: Strong Buy industry: Security, Homeland Security, Cargo Screening and EDS Reason for the TOP 2005 Rating: Unique Exp losive Detection Device Capable of finding its targets from tens or hundreds of meters!!! There is no other EDS device which is so powerfull that can locate almost any explosve behind concrete walls from distance of tens of meters!! The Competition: There are many companies in the industry of Sniffing exp losives, some of them are public and they are companies like iSON HWPR or HiET and all of them have devices which can locate exp losive from 10 inches, 1 feet, 2 feet or close to that. Compared to these results SN FX device is tens of times better and smaller in size and yet CHEAPER!! "SN FX announced the release of snif fex Version 1.1, a handheld exp losives detection device which the Company claims can locate nitro-based exp losives from a distance of 10 to 100 feet depending on the quantity of the exp losive and environmental conditions. The Company also stated that, to the best of their knowledge, snif fex is the first device of its kind that can operate from such distances and find exp losives behind barriers." Could this company be amongst the top deals on wallstreet this year!!! YES its trading at only 75 cents now and this brand new stock could be $3-4 easily in the next few weeks as the story unfolds!! SN FX is in process of presenting the new device in USA and to Worldwide Markets and as soon as they receive some substantial orders and feedback from big institutional clients, this stock will fly in the skies, as an example iSON traded almost 1 billion dollars after they announced they are in process of developing some device, and SN FX already has the device and it proved it works in numerous tests!! Company Name: snif fex inc Ticker: SN FX Rating: Strong Buy This stock is going to be the hottest issue for the summer!! important information: This newsletter was paid $18000 from third party (Argue promotions) to send this report. All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such. We may own, take position and sell any securities mentioned at any time. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, goals, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward looking statements." Forward looking statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through the use of words such as: "projects", "foresee", "expects". in compliance with Section 17(b), we disclose the holding of SN FX shares prior to the publication of this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such holdings due to our intent to profit from the liquidation of these shares. Shares may be sold at any time, even after positive statements have been made regarding the above company. Since we own shares, there is an inherent conflict of interest in our statements and opinions. Readers of this publication are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and expectations involving various risks and uncertainties, that could cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward- looking statements. This is not solicitation to buy or sell stocks, this text is for informational purpose only and you should seek professional advice from registered financial advisor before you do anything related with buying or selling stocks, penny stocks are very high risk and you can lose your entire investment. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jun 12 18:58:05 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun Jun 12 19:01:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-02 Correected Message-ID: <003201c56f6f$f22fd080$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Sorry everyone, the previous Pittsburgh N-02 case I commented on was actually from the Orlando NABC. Here is the right one: Subject: UI/MI DIC: Cukoff Silodor Open Pairs Second Qualifying Board 3 Dealer South EW vulnerable S Q62 H 6 D KQJ854 C 1087 S 4 S KJ873 H QJ10854 H AK3 D 102 D A76 C KJ64 C Q2 S A1095 H 972 D 93 C A953 West North East South Pass 2H Pass 2NT Pass 3C (1) Pass 3H Pass 4H All Pass (1) Alerted and described as bad hand, bad suit. Facts: The director was called after the auction. He determined that North had asked the meaning of 3C and was told that it was a bad hand, bad suit. If 3C were a feature she would have bid 3D to suggest a save, but over bad/bad she did not want to risk -300. The final contract was 4H by West. On the DK opening lead 10 tricks were scored, +620 for EW. Director?s Ruling: The director was unable to determine the EW agreement. It is possible that West had bid 3C to show a feature and the explanation clarified the misunderstanding and was UI (Law 16). The contract was changed to 3H +170 EW. [mlf] A pretty easy ruling, but how is it that the TD could not determine the E-W agreement and the AC could?? The convention card has a place for this, was it there or not? Also, does this partnership play that West's hand is bad-bad? West's hand looks like a better-than-minimum weak two bid, as evidenced by East's failure to bid 4H himself. Whatever the agreement, is there any evidence that 3H is invitational? No one that I know plays it that way, and it is a common agreement that a weak two bidder does not bid again unless forced or invited without a very unusual hand, not just a 6-4. The Appeal: East and West were the only players to attend the hearing. EW contended that the explanation given was correct per their agreements. The Decision: The committee determined that EW were playing Ogust, the explanation given was correct. With no other indication of an irregularity, the committee restored the table result of 4H West +620 EW. Committee: Jeff Polisner, Chair, David Berkowitz, Ed Lazarus, Marlene Passell and Bob White [mlf] Having shown a bad-bad hand presumably, why did West bid 4H? If Ogust was not on the CC (if it had been, the TD would surely have seen it), then they weren't playing it. An AC should not accept any testimony that contradicts the CC, if that is how they "determined.that E-W were playing Ogust." Whatever the agreement, Is it not obvious that 3C was meant to show a feature, and that the Alert explanation startled West into realizing that his non-bad-bad hand should go on to 4H? [mlf] We have to know what was on the CC, we have to know whether West indeed had a bad-bad hand for the partnership's weak twos, and we have to know whether there was evidence that 3H was invitational. The writeup gives us none of this information, making it bad-bad. Scores so far: TD AC N-00 1 1 N-01 0 0 N-02 1 0 Total 2 1 out of 3 cases Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 12 21:59:27 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Jun 12 22:01:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <92c1315ce554af05f4beafa727e15a45@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 12, 2005, at 8:15 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > 73d1 the bit about "However, players should be particularly careful in > positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side." Okay, fair enough. > If it seems at all likely that declarer will be misled by the break in > tempo then taking particular care includes issuing a disclaimer > (whether > or not one has placed a card face down. The disclaimer must be > truthful > and is UI to partner. "I'm sorry I was distracted by the length (or > lack > thereof) of Zanetta's skirt." may be appropriate in some circumstances > "Sorry, nothing to think about on this trick." in others. These > statements are extra-legal but I don't know what else a player can do > once > he realises that declarer may well be misled if he says nothing. I don't know either - but I can't see that the law *requires* such disclaimers - particularly since, as you say, they are extra-legal. What if the player doesn't realize declarer might be misled? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 12 22:04:21 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Jun 12 22:06:06 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <007201c56f44$95a05860$798616ac@mycomputer> References: <835b58716aa27ca1b8cf162bc9e5600d@rochester.rr.com> <007201c56f44$95a05860$798616ac@mycomputer> Message-ID: <447907a5987bd2ae2319d61c85548063@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 12, 2005, at 7:47 AM, Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > A "simple" law? Certainly. Not complex at all. Simple. > In chess you call it another game "blitz" Chess is not bridge. Still, the effect of this proposed law may be to make the game something other than what we now call bridge, but then that's why I mentioned the realm of the ridiculous, isn't it? :-) From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Jun 12 23:22:57 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun Jun 12 23:21:45 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: <835b58716aa27ca1b8cf162bc9e5600d@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050612165625.02abc9d0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:05 AM 6/11/05, wayne.burrows wrote: >>From: Ed Reppert >> >>On Jun 10, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >>>I would find attempting to delay the game when it is my turn to play >>>by holding your card face up to be discourteous. Now what? >>> >>>Further to call the director when you didn't get your way with these >>>delaying tactics I would find even more discourteous. Now what? >> >>Maybe we need a simple law: you are not allowed to think for more >>than 3 seconds at any given time before you take your next required >>action (call, play, turn over a card). >> >>Or have we ventured into the realm of the ridiculous yet again? > >You can think as much as you like. > >You are not though entitled to delay the game at another player's >turn to play. There is nothing in the laws that even suggest this >is reasonable. Applying L74A can require the most delicate sorts of judgment calls directors must make. In real life situations it cuts both ways. Mr. Smith's offense at Ms. Jones holding up the game is Ms. Jones' offense at Mr. Smith's trying to rush her. We often find two "OSs". But it's meaningless to say that one type of offense is "more discourteous" than another. Courtesy isn't about what you do, it's about how you do it. If you do something in a way that almost everyone would think sufficiently courteous but someone present is overly quick to take offense at it, who is being more discourteous to whom? You, or Tim's opponent, can hold up the action (or your card) courteously or discourteously; it's not the action itself that violates L74A. L74A2 has been called "the most important law in the book", but in terms of how we actually apply it, we really don't need it. Operatively, it's redundant to L74A1. They both merely restate the Eleventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not be an asshole." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Jun 12 23:44:58 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun Jun 12 23:43:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <006801c56eda$738d67a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003301c56eab$19a16e00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <006801c56eda$738d67a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050612172544.02aac270@pop.starpower.net> At 07:08 PM 6/11/05, Marvin wrote: >From: "Ed Reppert" > > > > Marvin French wrote: > > > > > [mlf] Right, but East's comments are irrelevant without >corroboration > > > (e.g., system notes, general practice) and deserve zero weight . > > > > Oh? I would think that's way too harsh. East's comments are >certainly > > relevant (how are they not?) IMO, and while I might not give them a >lot > > of weight, zero is way too little. Again, IMO. > >Players will usually justify their strange actions with uncorroborated >and unverifiable statements. TDs/ACs should let such rationlizations >go in one ear and out the other. It is not fair to the opponents that >they should be given any weight. > >A player violating L16A will say, "I would always take that action." >We don't give that any weight whatsoever, it's irrelevant. What is >relevant is whether there is a logical alternative to an action >suggested by UI. > >East's denial of a BIT by West is relevant. If East were to argue that >there was no LA to a 2C bid, giving bridge reasons for that statement, >or showing system notes that require it, then that would be relevant. >But just saying "I bid two clubs because blah, blah" is not relevant In a dispute over the facts of a case, an AC must act much like a jury in a civil courtroom. One of things it must do is listen to the principals to the dispute and make judgments as to their credibililty -- often the only thing. You can't do your job if you let "such rationalizations go in one ear and out the other"; that's prejudging the credibility of all the parties on both sides as equal -- zero -- and leaves far less than you should have, if not nothing, on which to base the decisions you're expected to make. Not every self-serving statement is false, and not every witness has zero credibility. Even Marv starts by saying "Players will usually...", but then wants us to presume that they will do it always. Corroboration and verification will always add weight, and as Ed suggests, their lack may seriously constrain what weight we might be inclined to assign, but we owe those suspected self-serving rationalizing liars the opportunity to speak in their own defense and be heard. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 00:05:42 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Jun 13 00:07:26 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000001c56f3a$1fe40270$7b08e150@Mildred> Message-ID: >From: "Grattan" >To: "BLML" >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:31:49 +0100 > > >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: "GUTHRIE" >To: "BLML" >Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 12:57 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card > > >> >>[nige1] >>I feel that relies too much on players agreeing with Matthias. If the laws >>really do say it's OK, how can you criticise a player for doing it. For >>example, nobody criticised Soloway in the last Bermuda Bowl Final >> >+=+ The action is lawful. Furthermore the player who > does it is not in breach of any ethical standard. If > there are places where it is not the done thing, this > is a matter of local culture. This is exactly right. There are certainly places where it is common to lead to the next trick before everyone has quit the previous trick. It is not illegal. Therefore it would be wrong to claim that it was illegal. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Check out the latest video @ http://xtra.co.nz/streaming From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 00:17:11 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Jun 13 00:18:55 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050612165625.02abc9d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: >From: Eric Landau >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:22:57 -0400 > >At 12:05 AM 6/11/05, wayne.burrows wrote: > >>>From: Ed Reppert >>> >>>On Jun 10, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: >>> >>>>I would find attempting to delay the game when it is my turn to play >>>>by holding your card face up to be discourteous. Now what? >>>> >>>>Further to call the director when you didn't get your way with these >>>>delaying tactics I would find even more discourteous. Now what? >>> >>>Maybe we need a simple law: you are not allowed to think for more than 3 >>>seconds at any given time before you take your next required action >>>(call, play, turn over a card). >>> >>>Or have we ventured into the realm of the ridiculous yet again? >> >>You can think as much as you like. >> >>You are not though entitled to delay the game at another player's >>turn to play. There is nothing in the laws that even suggest this >>is reasonable. > >Applying L74A can require the most delicate sorts of judgment calls >directors must make. In real life situations it cuts both ways. Mr. >Smith's offense at Ms. Jones holding up the game is Ms. Jones' offense at >Mr. Smith's trying to rush her. We often find two "OSs". > >But it's meaningless to say that one type of offense is "more discourteous" >than another. Courtesy isn't about what you do, it's about how you do it. >If you do something in a way that almost everyone would think sufficiently >courteous but someone present is overly quick to take offense at it, who is >being more discourteous to whom? You, or Tim's opponent, can hold up the >action (or your card) courteously or discourteously; it's not the action >itself that violates L74A. > >L74A2 has been called "the most important law in the book", but in terms of >how we actually apply it, we really don't need it. Operatively, it's >redundant to L74A1. They both merely restate the Eleventh Commandment, >"Thou shalt not be an asshole." > I would consider someone who called the director when I legally played a card "an asshole". Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Check out the latest video @ http://xtra.co.nz/streaming From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jun 13 00:24:02 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon Jun 13 00:25:26 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card References: <002e01c56e11$a7788500$179868d5@James><6.1.1.1.0.20050611164928.02d27eb0@pop.starpower.net><012801c56ee1$646959d0$219868d5@James> <000001c56f3a$1fe40270$7b08e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <002301c56f9d$7080b940$229468d5@James> [Grattan Endicot] > +=+ The action [playing to the next trick before the > old one is quitted by all players] is lawful. > Furthermore the player who does it is not in breach > of any ethical standard. If there are places where it > is not the done thing, this is a matter of local > culture. [Nigel] Thank you Grattan, for clarifying the official position on this matter; although I wish it were different; and I'm not the only player to whom it will come as a surprize. :( From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 01:07:20 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Jun 13 01:09:04 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <002301c56f9d$7080b940$229468d5@James> Message-ID: >From: "GUTHRIE" >To: "BLML" >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:24:02 +0100 > >[Grattan Endicot] > > +=+ The action [playing to the next trick before the > > old one is quitted by all players] is lawful. > > Furthermore the player who does it is not in breach > > of any ethical standard. If there are places where it > > is not the done thing, this is a matter of local > > culture. > >[Nigel] >Thank you Grattan, for clarifying the official position on >this matter; although I wish it were different; and I'm not >the only player to whom it will come as a surprize. :( > For me it comes as a surprise that some would expect me to wait for them. I could live with a law change but I imagine it would take some getting used to. I have a habit of playing when I am ready. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Need a new job? Check out XtraMSN Careers http://xtramsn.co.nz/careers From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 13 01:08:45 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 13 01:10:29 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c56fa3$aeec20b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows .............. > I would consider someone who called the director when I legally played > a card "an asshole". Without even knowing why he called the Director? Sven From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 02:21:41 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Jun 13 02:23:25 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000801c56fa3$aeec20b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Subject: RE: [blml] 5th card >Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 01:08:45 +0200 > > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows >.............. > > I would consider someone who called the director when I legally played > > a card "an asshole". > >Without even knowing why he called the Director? I should have said "because" instead of "when"... and some say I am the pedant ;-) Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Need a new job? Check out XtraMSN Careers http://xtramsn.co.nz/careers From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Mon Jun 13 02:47:51 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon Jun 13 02:44:33 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >[Grattan Endicot] > > > +=+ The action [playing to the next trick before the > > > old one is quitted by all players] is lawful. That won't surprise anyone, I don't think. > > > Furthermore the player who does it is not in breach > > > of any ethical standard. If there are places where it > > > is not the done thing, this is a matter of local > > > culture. This, on the other hand, does surprise me, unless it's coming from someone of the "there is no difference between legal and ethical, both are fixed by the rules of a game" school. > For me it comes as a surprise that some would expect me > to wait for them. > > I could live with a law change but I imagine it would take > some getting used to. I have a habit of playing when I am > ready. Most of the time it's a non-issue since all four players tend to turn their cards over at about the same time, and the person who wins the trick usually turns over the old card and plays the new one with the same hand. But yes, in my area, it's normal to not lead if you notice an opponent looking thoughtful and not turning his card over - in fact if he does so for more than a couple seconds, you'll often see the other three cards spontaneously re-faced (even though this technically IS illegal unless asked.) If an opponent looks "lost in space" we often do go ahead and lead, and point out his unturned card to him if he doesn't notice it on his own. If he's still paying attention to the game and acting like his card is face up for a reason, though, then leading is very rude - indeed, if such a lead caused defender B to play to the next trick when defender A still wanted to see the previous trick, I would very much want to find leader in violation of 73D2 trying to deprive his opponent of his legal right to see the previous trick. (Unfortunately, 73F2 only lets me adjust the score at the end if the NOS can point out what clue they missed on the unreviewed trick, doesn't allow me to suspend 66A/66C and allow the inspection.) For the present, 66A means that if your opponents lead overhastily, your response is to refuse to follow until your partner turns his card over. Players not familiar with the laws, however, tend not to be aware of this defence, and get taken advantage of by the sharks playing at lightning speed. For the record, I would support a law that established leading after the previous trick is quitted by declarer and both defenders as correct procedure. From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 03:03:02 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Jun 13 03:04:46 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: Gordon Bower >CC: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:47:51 -0800 (AKDT) > > > >On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > >[Grattan Endicot] > > > > +=+ The action [playing to the next trick before the > > > > old one is quitted by all players] is lawful. > >That won't surprise anyone, I don't think. > > > > > Furthermore the player who does it is not in breach > > > > of any ethical standard. If there are places where it > > > > is not the done thing, this is a matter of local > > > > culture. > >This, on the other hand, does surprise me, unless it's coming from someone >of the "there is no difference between legal and ethical, both are fixed >by the rules of a game" school. > > > For me it comes as a surprise that some would expect me > > to wait for them. > > > > I could live with a law change but I imagine it would take > > some getting used to. I have a habit of playing when I am > > ready. > >Most of the time it's a non-issue since all four players tend to turn >their cards over at about the same time, and the person who wins the trick >usually turns over the old card and plays the new one with the same hand. > >But yes, in my area, it's normal to not lead if you notice an opponent >looking thoughtful and not turning his card over - in fact if he does so >for more than a couple seconds, you'll often see the other three cards >spontaneously re-faced (even though this technically IS illegal unless >asked.) If an opponent looks "lost in space" we often do go ahead and >lead, and point out his unturned card to him if he doesn't notice it on >his own. > >If he's still paying attention to the game and acting like his card is >face up for a reason, though, then leading is very rude - indeed, if such >a lead caused defender B to play to the next trick when defender A still >wanted to see the previous trick, I would very much want to find leader in >violation of 73D2 trying to deprive his opponent of his legal right to see >the previous trick. He has no legal right if his partner plays to the next trick. >(Unfortunately, 73F2 only lets me adjust the score at >the end if the NOS can point out what clue they missed on the unreviewed >trick, doesn't allow me to suspend 66A/66C and allow the inspection.) > >For the present, 66A means that if your opponents lead overhastily, your >response is to refuse to follow until your partner turns his card over. I do not think this is a valid reason to play out of tempo. If in doing so you mislead the opponent and could have known that you might mislead him then you are in danger of a score adjustment against your side. >Players not familiar with the laws, however, tend not to be aware of this >defence, and get taken advantage of by the sharks playing at lightning >speed. I would call the player who is delaying the game the "shark". If playing at lightning speed is your normal tempo then the laws encourage you to play at that speed constantly. They do not encourage you to vary your tempo simply to counter the opponent's tempo which you do not like. Deliberately varying your tempo for this reason puts your side at risk. > >For the record, I would support a law that established leading after the >previous trick is quitted by declarer and both defenders as correct >procedure. > Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Become a fitness fanatic @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/health From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 13 05:48:20 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jun 13 05:50:07 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47b71c2366011a98b49a86c1aaf5084f@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 12, 2005, at 9:03 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > I would call the player who is delaying the game the "shark". > > If playing at lightning speed is your normal tempo then the laws > encourage you > to play at that speed constantly. They do not encourage you to vary > your > tempo simply to counter the opponent's tempo which you do not like. > Deliberately varying your tempo for this reason puts your side at risk. We have a player around here for whom "normal tempo" is about 15 seconds. If you force him to play faster, when he needs that time to figure out what's going on, are you being fair to him? From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 07:08:55 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Jun 13 07:10:40 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <47b71c2366011a98b49a86c1aaf5084f@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: >From: Ed Reppert >To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:48:20 -0400 > > >On Jun 12, 2005, at 9:03 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>I would call the player who is delaying the game the "shark". >> >>If playing at lightning speed is your normal tempo then the laws encourage >>you >>to play at that speed constantly. They do not encourage you to vary your >>tempo simply to counter the opponent's tempo which you do not like. >>Deliberately varying your tempo for this reason puts your side at risk. > >We have a player around here for whom "normal tempo" is about 15 seconds. >If you force him to play faster, when he needs that time to figure out >what's going on, are you being fair to him? > This isn't what I am saying at all. I am not rushing a player when it is his turn to play. I am saying that other players are allowed to play in their normal tempo when it is their turn to play. If this player wants to play in his "normal tempo" of he is welcome to but another player is equally entitled to play in his "normal tempo". If you take 15 sec to play your card there is no way you can expect me to take the same time to play my card. That is getting ridiculous. I would have a different problem with a player with a "normal tempo" of 15 sec per play. That is 3 minutes 15 sec just for that player to play out the hand. If every player had that tempo that is 13 minutes to play the hand *after* we have completed the bidding. I would expect that a player that had a "normal tempo" of 15 sec to play a card would be incurring slow play penalties at least as often as every other board. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 09:34:07 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Mon Jun 13 09:35:53 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050613/4da4ae96/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 13 10:15:57 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 13 10:17:41 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c56ff0$20565490$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran Gordon Bower wrote: .................... >For the record, I would support a law that established leading after the >previous trick is quitted by declarer and both defenders as correct >procedure. ? As would I. Such an explicit law should be accompanied by another law that establishes rapidly playing (exposing) cards one at a time without awaiting plays from the other players correct procedure when claiming. Regards Sven From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Mon Jun 13 10:21:49 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon Jun 13 10:18:32 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >If he's still paying attention to the game and acting like his card is > >face up for a reason, though, then leading is very rude - indeed, if such > >a lead caused defender B to play to the next trick when defender A still > >wanted to see the previous trick, I would very much want to find leader in > >violation of 73D2 trying to deprive his opponent of his legal right to see > >the previous trick. > > He has no legal right if his partner plays to the next trick. In the auction, we distinguish between L21A and L21B, and allow you to correct a bid you make after being misled by your opponent. There is currently no similar provision in L66. Declarer is allowed to lead while RHO's lead is face-up even though doing so will trick an inattentive LHO into ending RHO's inspection period. Apparently you don't belive this is a problem; lucky for you. It was done more times than I could count when I was new to tournaments, and I see it done by strong players against inexperienced opponents often. In contrast, newer players rarely play fast, and experienced players playing against each other seem to show more respect for their opponents and not rush the play. > >For the present, 66A means that if your opponents lead overhastily, your > >response is to refuse to follow until your partner turns his card over. > > I do not think this is a valid reason to play out of tempo. Out of tempo? Someone's card from the previous trick is still faced, a clear indication that someone is not ready for the next trick to be played. I never -- absolutely NEVER -- play to a trick if I am defending and partner's previous card is faced. Nor should anyone who knows what L66 says. If a director ruled such a pause was "out of tempo" I would burst out laughing. If he penalized my side for allegedly confusing declarer, I'd earn my penalty fairly by knocking his front teeth out. I am flabbergasted you suggest such a pause is inappropriate. Thank you for pointing out a deficiency in my previous suggestion.In my last post I suggested adding a law that correct procedure is to not lead until the previous trick is quitted; to that should be added either a L21-like statement that L66A's time period is lengthened after a premature lead (a change in the laws I'd like to see), or an explicit warning that second hand shall not follow to a premature lead, with loss of L66 rights as the penalty for so doing (spelling out the current state of affairs explicitly.) GRB From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Jun 13 10:24:00 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon Jun 13 10:25:46 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9e8797a4368213a6707bd3f200ba5d99@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 13 Jun 2005, at 01:47, Gordon Bower wrote: > Most of the time it's a non-issue since all four players tend to turn > their cards over at about the same time, and the person who wins the > trick > usually turns over the old card and plays the new one with the same > hand. > > But yes, in my area, it's normal to not lead if you notice an opponent > looking thoughtful and not turning his card over - in fact if he does > so > for more than a couple seconds, you'll often see the other three cards > spontaneously re-faced (even though this technically IS illegal unless > asked.) If an opponent looks "lost in space" we often do go ahead and > lead, and point out his unturned card to him if he doesn't notice it on > his own. > > If he's still paying attention to the game and acting like his card is > face up for a reason, though, then leading is very rude - indeed, if > such > a lead caused defender B to play to the next trick when defender A > still > wanted to see the previous trick, I would very much want to find > leader in > violation of 73D2 trying to deprive his opponent of his legal right to > see > the previous trick. (Unfortunately, 73F2 only lets me adjust the score > at > the end if the NOS can point out what clue they missed on the > unreviewed > trick, doesn't allow me to suspend 66A/66C and allow the inspection.) > > For the present, 66A means that if your opponents lead overhastily, > your > response is to refuse to follow until your partner turns his card over. > Players not familiar with the laws, however, tend not to be aware of > this > defence, and get taken advantage of by the sharks playing at lightning > speed. > > For the record, I would support a law that established leading after > the > previous trick is quitted by declarer and both defenders as correct > procedure. > I agree with all of this, both the description of normal procedure as I experience it played, and the suggestion for the law change. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Jun 13 10:24:08 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon Jun 13 10:25:53 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 13 Jun 2005, at 00:07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > For me it comes as a surprise that some would expect me > to wait for them. > > I could live with a law change but I imagine it would take > some getting used to. I have a habit of playing when I am > ready. Does no-one ever ask you to wait? And if they do, what do you say? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From interdependency at sara.ru Mon Jun 13 11:44:25 2005 From: interdependency at sara.ru (Paddy) Date: Mon Jun 13 11:46:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Seven days - seven ways to save! 10% off hard drivres & point of sale. Message-ID: <7849999763.940226615@81.31.160.4> All the Software You'll Ever Need To Successfully Make Money Online! http://aulmc.c1y9xbu59mujrdu.honeyedlyfm.com Love much. Earth has enough of bitter in it. Life itself is a quotation. From footsteps at russ.com Mon Jun 13 11:44:00 2005 From: footsteps at russ.com (Emmanuel) Date: Mon Jun 13 11:50:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Shopping for software? Now in your language & currency! Message-ID: <1813352520.21575109500@81.31.160.4> Why pay big bucks? Create your OWN website now! http://aulmc.c1y9xbu59mujrdu.honeyedlyfm.com The day is for honest men, the night for thieves. People say that life is the thing, but I prefer reading. From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 13:07:43 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Jun 13 13:09:29 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: Gordon Bower >CC: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 00:21:49 -0800 (AKDT) > > > >On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > >If he's still paying attention to the game and acting like his card is > > >face up for a reason, though, then leading is very rude - indeed, if >such > > >a lead caused defender B to play to the next trick when defender A >still > > >wanted to see the previous trick, I would very much want to find leader >in > > >violation of 73D2 trying to deprive his opponent of his legal right to >see > > >the previous trick. > > > > He has no legal right if his partner plays to the next trick. > >In the auction, we distinguish between L21A and L21B, and allow you to >correct a bid you make after being misled by your opponent. > >There is currently no similar provision in L66. Declarer is allowed to >lead while RHO's lead is face-up even though doing so will trick an >inattentive LHO into ending RHO's inspection period. This is no trick. If I lead then it is my turn to play. I am allowed to play in normal tempo. If it is my turn to play and partner still has a card faced then it is completely inappropriate for me to refuse to play because partner's card is faced. If I did so, for example with a singleton then there is a significant risk that I would illegally mislead declarer. >Apparently you don't >belive this is a problem; lucky for you. It was done more times than I >could count when I was new to tournaments, and I see it done by strong >players against inexperienced opponents often. In contrast, newer players >rarely play fast, and experienced players playing against each other seem >to show more respect for their opponents and not rush the play. > > > >For the present, 66A means that if your opponents lead overhastily, >your > > >response is to refuse to follow until your partner turns his card over. > > > > I do not think this is a valid reason to play out of tempo. > >Out of tempo? Someone's card from the previous trick is still faced, a >clear indication that someone is not ready for the next trick to be >played. There is nothing in the laws that gives a player whose turn it is not to play the right to dictate the tempo at which another player plays. I think it is ridiculous to suggest that I have a right to tell my opponent when he can play a card. >I never -- absolutely NEVER -- play to a trick if I am defending >and partner's previous card is faced. Nor should anyone who knows what L66 >says. You are deliberately breaking your normal tempo. The laws require that you are careful when this break could mislead the opponents. > >If a director ruled such a pause was "out of tempo" I would burst out >laughing. If he penalized my side for allegedly confusing declarer, I'd >earn my penalty fairly by knocking his front teeth out. I am flabbergasted >you suggest such a pause is inappropriate. If it is "out of tempo" it is "out of tempo". Pretending it isn't is poor sportsmanship. >Thank you for pointing out a deficiency in my previous suggestion.In my >last post I suggested adding a law that correct procedure is to not lead >until the previous trick is quitted; to that should be added either a >L21-like statement that L66A's time period is lengthened after a premature >lead (a change in the laws I'd like to see), or an explicit warning that >second hand shall not follow to a premature lead, with loss of L66 rights >as the penalty for so doing (spelling out the current state of affairs >explicitly.) Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Looking for love? Check out XtraMSN Personals http://xtramsn.match.com/match/mt.cfm?pg=channel&tcid=200731 From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 13 13:11:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 13 13:13:43 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote: > Out of tempo? Someone's card from the previous trick is still faced, a > clear indication that someone is not ready for the next trick to be > played. Irrelevant I'm afraid. It's not a matter of who is "ready" but a matter of "whose turn". > I never -- absolutely NEVER -- play to a trick if I am defending > and partner's previous card is faced. Nor should anyone who knows what > L66 says. You do not have a right to delay play for your partner's benefit. If you need to think then think. If not play at your turn without delay. That is what the current law requires. > If a director ruled such a pause was "out of tempo" I would burst out > laughing. If he penalized my side for allegedly confusing declarer, I'd > earn my penalty fairly by knocking his front teeth out. Right - blame the director. His job is to enforce the law and when he does so you knock his teeth out - great! > I am flabbergasted you suggest such a pause is inappropriate. That is the current law. You obviously don't like it any more than I do, lobby your club to introduce a regulation, lobby for change in the law, but don't blame a TD for what he is legally obliged to rule. > Thank you for pointing out a deficiency in my previous suggestion.In my > last post I suggested adding a law that correct procedure is to not lead > until the previous trick is quitted; to that should be added either a > L21-like statement that L66A's time period is lengthened after a > premature lead (a change in the laws I'd like to see) Why would that be needed? Since, under such a law, the player with a face up card could simply request that declarer wait his turn it should not cause a problem. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 13 13:11:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 13 13:13:48 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000701c56ff0$20565490$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > >For the record, I would support a law that established leading after > >the previous trick is quitted by declarer and both defenders as correct > >procedure. >   > As would I. OK - If Sven is happy to come round on this one I will state that *given such a law* I can envisage no circumstances in which a FDAP would be either necessary or justified. > Such an explicit law should be accompanied by another law that > establishes rapidly playing (exposing) cards one at a time without > awaiting plays from the other players correct procedure when claiming. That would do no harm - although I think current law embraces the legality of this approach. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 13 13:11:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 13 13:13:52 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > >[Grattan Endicot] > > > > +=+ The action [playing to the next trick before the > > > > old one is quitted by all players] is lawful. > > That won't surprise anyone, I don't think. > > > > > Furthermore the player who does it is not in breach > > > > of any ethical standard. If there are places where it > > > > is not the done thing, this is a matter of local > > > > culture. > > This, on the other hand, does surprise me, unless it's coming from > someone of the "there is no difference between legal and ethical, both > are fixed by the rules of a game" school. To be unethical one must deliberately break the law *knowing* one is doing so. Most "illegalities" we encounter are not unethical. OTOH if a ploy is legal it cannot be unethical to use it - that way lies madness. Tim From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 13:18:40 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Jun 13 13:20:24 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: Gordon Rainsford >CC: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:24:08 +0100 > > >On 13 Jun 2005, at 00:07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>For me it comes as a surprise that some would expect me >>to wait for them. >> >>I could live with a law change but I imagine it would take >>some getting used to. I have a habit of playing when I am >>ready. > >Does no-one ever ask you to wait? And if they do, what do you say? > I can't recall being asked to wait. I can recall a player asking to inspect the previous trick. I oblige that request. It would never occur to me to tell (or ask) my opponent to wait when it was his turn to play. That would be positively rude. If I have already played to the next trick why would my opponent ask me to wait. I would not automatically complain about my opponent's slow play. However there are situations where I might consider complaining although I cannot recall that ever happening. Certainly if I was misled by the slow tempo I would be willing to get a director's ruling. Also if there were time issues at the table then I would be drawing the director's attention to the slow play. I would really object if someone suggested that my proper practice was in any way improper. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Check out the latest video @ http://xtra.co.nz/streaming From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 13:27:44 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Jun 13 13:29:28 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000701c56ff0$20565490$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Subject: RE: [blml] 5th card >Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:15:57 +0200 > >On Behalf Of Harald Skjæran >Gordon Bower wrote: >.................... > >For the record, I would support a law that established leading after the > >previous trick is quitted by declarer and both defenders as correct > >procedure. >  >As would I. > >Such an explicit law should be accompanied by another law that establishes >rapidly playing (exposing) cards one at a time without awaiting plays from >the other players correct procedure when claiming. > Side track ... This reminds me of one of the most bizarre director's and appeal's committee decisions that I have had. I claimed by placing my cards face up on the table one at a time accompanied by the sloppy statement "I am *not* playing them in this order". The director and the AC ruled that I must play them in the order that I placed them on the table which was essentially the only order in which I created a blockage - I think I played all my trumps first and then had no entry back to hand to win the final trick with a long side card in my hand. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 13:34:28 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Jun 13 13:36:13 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card 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] 5th card >Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:11 +0100 (BST) > > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > >[Grattan Endicot] > > > > > +=+ The action [playing to the next trick before the > > > > > old one is quitted by all players] is lawful. > > > > That won't surprise anyone, I don't think. > > > > > > > Furthermore the player who does it is not in breach > > > > > of any ethical standard. If there are places where it > > > > > is not the done thing, this is a matter of local > > > > > culture. > > > > This, on the other hand, does surprise me, unless it's coming from > > someone of the "there is no difference between legal and ethical, both > > are fixed by the rules of a game" school. > >To be unethical one must deliberately break the law *knowing* one is doing >so. Most "illegalities" we encounter are not unethical. OTOH if a ploy is >legal it cannot be unethical to use it - that way lies madness. > I seem to have been 'quoted' a few times recently when I did not in fact write any of the quoted text. I don't believe I wrote any of the above quoted text. ;-) It doesn't particularly worry me but it gets a bit confusing following the various opinions. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Need a new job? Check out XtraMSN Careers http://xtramsn.co.nz/careers From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 13 14:00:27 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jun 13 13:59:12 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000101c56f53$1281eac0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <42AC27DC.8000902@hdw.be> <000101c56f53$1281eac0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050613074807.02ad4b00@pop.starpower.net> At 09:31 AM 6/12/05, Sven wrote: >Quite. And as a player is fully entitled to change a card he has selected >for his play regardless of what he may have said or declared so long as he >has not in any way revealed the identity of his first selected play he >should never announce that he is not thinking on the current trick >unless he >has no legal choice, i.e. he holds a singleton. A player may legally play a card, and hence not be permitted to change it, without revealing its identity, if he "otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play" [L45C4{a}]. If a player were to drop his card face down on the table, point to it, and say, "I'm playing that one," we would surely apply L45C4. IMO we should treat the FDAP as doing exactly that. Does that not solve the problem? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 13 14:16:25 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jun 13 14:15:10 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050612165625.02abc9d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050613080936.0316f030@pop.starpower.net> At 06:17 PM 6/12/05, wayne.burrows wrote: >>From: Eric Landau >> >>L74A2 has been called "the most important law in the book", but in >>terms of how we actually apply it, we really don't need >>it. Operatively, it's redundant to L74A1. They both merely restate >>the Eleventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not be an asshole." > >I would consider someone who called the director when I legally played >a card "an asshole". So would I. But if someone were to inform you politely that this was bothering them and ask you to stop doing it, and you were to tell them to f--k off because it was perfectly legal, who's the asshole then? It's not what you do, it's how you do it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 13 14:40:17 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jun 13 14:39:00 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <002301c56f9d$7080b940$229468d5@James> References: <002e01c56e11$a7788500$179868d5@James> <6.1.1.1.0.20050611164928.02d27eb0@pop.starpower.net> <012801c56ee1$646959d0$219868d5@James> <000001c56f3a$1fe40270$7b08e150@Mildred> <002301c56f9d$7080b940$229468d5@James> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050613081955.03169c30@pop.starpower.net> At 06:24 PM 6/12/05, GUTHRIE wrote: >[Grattan Endicot] > > +=+ The action [playing to the next trick before the > > old one is quitted by all players] is lawful. > > Furthermore the player who does it is not in breach > > of any ethical standard. If there are places where it > > is not the done thing, this is a matter of local > > culture. > >[Nigel] >Thank you Grattan, for clarifying the official position on >this matter; although I wish it were different; and I'm not >the only player to whom it will come as a surprize. :( Nigel's reply merely reinforces Grattan's assertion that it's a matter of local culture. What constitutes a "courteous attitude", what might be expected to "cause annoyance or embarrassment", what is required to obtain "enjoyment of the game", are all inherently culturally relative. Most of the laws refer only to matters inherent in the game itself, and could theoretically be -- whether or not one likes the idea -- enforced uniformly everywhere duplicate bridge is played. But there are a few that refer to cultural mores (e.g. L74A1, L74A2, L74B5, L81C3) which simply could not. If Nigel plays in a cultural milieu where the consensus is that this particular action is discourteous and ought to be illegal, L74A makes it so, notwithstanding that it remains perfectly legal where Grattan plays and where I do. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Jun 13 14:42:04 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon Jun 13 14:43:50 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 13 Jun 2005, at 12:18, Wayne Burrows wrote: >> Does no-one ever ask you to wait? And if they do, what do you say? >> > > I can't recall being asked to wait. I can recall a player asking to > inspect > the previous trick. I oblige that request. How strange: you allow them to see a quitted trick, to which they have no right, but you refuse to refrain from playing to the next trick when a current trick has not yet been quit. Clearly the workaround solution, when playing against Wayne, is to quit the trick and then ask to see it again. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jun 13 15:05:26 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon Jun 13 15:07:31 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42AD8496.3070702@t-online.de> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > This is no trick. > > If I lead then it is my turn to play. I think it is the other way `round (and probably so do you). If it is your turn to play you are entitled to lead. Else every LOOT would be legal. > I am allowed to play in normal tempo. > If it is my turn to play and partner still has a card faced then it is > completely > inappropriate for me to refuse to play because partner's card is > faced. If I > did so, for example with a singleton then there is a significant risk > that I would > illegally mislead declarer. > > There is nothing in the laws that gives a player whose turn it is not > to play > the right to dictate the tempo at which another player plays. There is nothing in the laws (except the proprieties, which you seem to consider second-class-laws, superseded by others) that denies me the right to play a card (by touching the table with it), turn it around with maximum speed (if this is my normal tempo, and a bit of practice could make it so, effectively denying the opps any realistic chance to see which card I played) and immediately play to the next trick. I am very fast, remember? Someone will probably want to see which card it was, and if his card is still face up (which it usually will be) I would be forced to show it to him. But once or twice in the tournament I might catch someone off guard. In your view (as I understand it from your postings) I would be entirely within my rights, and if some opp would ever dare to summon the TD because I play with my normal speed I would deem him to violate the proprieties.......... > > I think it is ridiculous to suggest that I have a right to tell my > opponent when > he can play a card. > > The laws require that you are > careful when this break of tempo could mislead the opponents. Right. By pointing out that there is still a card face up from the previous trick I will reduce the risk to zero. "TD. he did not play a card before his partner had quitted the last trick, so I thought he had a problem....." > > > If it is "out of tempo" it is "out of tempo". Pretending it isn't is > poor > sportsmanship. > > So declarer (who sees all 26 cards at his side`s disposal and who made a plan of play a couple of tricks ago) may play very fast (always doing so, of course, no break of tempo), thereby either denying his opps time to think or make them break tempo, calling the TD on them if they took a moment to digest information declarer always had, because they broke tempo, thereby probably transmitting UI, and generally behaved unsportsmanlike, yes? Matthias > Wayne > > _________________________________________________________________ > Looking for love? Check out XtraMSN Personals > http://xtramsn.match.com/match/mt.cfm?pg=channel&tcid=200731 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 13 15:22:42 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 13 15:24:26 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5701a$faae1360$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ............ > If it is my turn to play and partner still has a card faced > then it is completely inappropriate for me to refuse to play > because partner's card is faced. > If I did so, for example with a singleton then there is a > significant risk that I would illegally mislead declarer. This cannot possibly be correct! A defender must have every right to protect his partner's rights under Law 66A by refusing to play a card to the next trick as long as partner still has his card that was played to the last trick faced. If he is requested to play then he should simply point out that his partner has not yet quitted the previous trick. Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 13 15:34:22 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 13 15:36:08 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050613074807.02ad4b00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000101c5701c$9cf479b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............ > A player may legally play a card, and hence not be permitted to change > it, without revealing its identity, if he "otherwise designates it as > the card he proposes to play" [L45C4{a}]. If a player were to drop his > card face down on the table, point to it, and say, "I'm playing that > one," we would surely apply L45C4. IMO we should treat the FDAP as > doing exactly that. Does that not solve the problem? NO. We may look to L46A where the term "designating a card" is defined as stating both the suit and the rank of a card. Pointing at the back of a card lying face down on the table and saying words to the effect: "I play that card" is NOT designating it! Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Jun 13 16:35:47 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Jun 13 16:36:10 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000101c5701c$9cf479b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c5701c$9cf479b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42AD99C3.4030305@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > ............ > >>A player may legally play a card, and hence not be permitted to change >>it, without revealing its identity, if he "otherwise designates it as >>the card he proposes to play" [L45C4{a}]. If a player were to drop his >>card face down on the table, point to it, and say, "I'm playing that >>one," we would surely apply L45C4. IMO we should treat the FDAP as >>doing exactly that. Does that not solve the problem? > > > NO. We may look to L46A where the term "designating a card" is defined as > stating both the suit and the rank of a card. > > Pointing at the back of a card lying face down on the table and saying words > to the effect: "I play that card" is NOT designating it! > Wrong, sven. L46A says how one should designate a card from dummy. Other than dummy, most players "designate" a card by simply showing it. I could imagine that a player can designate that he plays a penalty card by simply pointing to it. So pointing to the back of a card is also designating it. Keeping it face down and saying "this is the card that I am going to play, but I'll let you guess for a while, ha ha" is designating the card. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 13 17:02:14 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jun 13 17:00:56 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000101c5701c$9cf479b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050613074807.02ad4b00@pop.starpower.net> <000101c5701c$9cf479b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050613105503.02e94eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:34 AM 6/13/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau >............ > > A player may legally play a card, and hence not be permitted to change > > it, without revealing its identity, if he "otherwise designates it as > > the card he proposes to play" [L45C4{a}]. If a player were to drop his > > card face down on the table, point to it, and say, "I'm playing that > > one," we would surely apply L45C4. IMO we should treat the FDAP as > > doing exactly that. Does that not solve the problem? > >NO. We may look to L46A where the term "designating a card" is defined as >stating both the suit and the rank of a card. > >Pointing at the back of a card lying face down on the table and saying >words >to the effect: "I play that card" is NOT designating it! L46A applies "when calling a card to be played from dummy". It has no bearing on the question of when a card is played from a player's closed hand. L46A directs declarer to "state both the suit and the rank of the desired card". Is this not exactly what is meant by "naming" it? L45C4[a] applies "if a player names or otherwise designates it". Surely "otherwise designates" must mean *something*! Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Jun 13 17:01:06 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon Jun 13 17:02:52 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <42AD99C3.4030305@hdw.be> References: <000101c5701c$9cf479b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42AD99C3.4030305@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3026c1a942eb1b6f06f7893541c2cdd8@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 13 Jun 2005, at 15:35, Herman De Wael wrote: > Other than dummy, most players "designate" a card by simply showing it. That's how they play it, not how they designate it. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jun 13 19:05:47 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Jun 13 19:08:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-03 Message-ID: <003c01c5703a$28d9bea0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> CASE N-03 Subject: Miscellaneous DIC: Cukoff Silodor Open Pairs, First Final Board 9, Dealer North, E-W vulnerable S 96 H 102 D A10864 C KQJ10 S AJ7 S K10843 H AJ863 H K54 D J7 D K3 C 984 C 653 S Q52 H Q97 D Q952 C A72 West North East South Pass Pass Pass 1H 2NT 3C(1) 3D? 3H (1) Unusual over Unusual Facts: The final contract was 3H making three for a score of EW + 140 after the CK opening lead. The director was called during the play after trick four. After the opening lead the play had gone DA, CQ and a club to the CA at which time West said "That ?s all," and North said "I trust you." South called for the director. West said there was a lot of joking and he was just having fun and not claiming. West subsequently finessed South for both major suit Queens. The Ruling: The director ruled that no claim was made and, therefore, no line of play was indicated. [mlf] While probably not intended, West's words constitute a "statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks," making it a claim per L68A. The Appeal: South was the only player to attend. He had a copy of the appeal form during the screening director's presentation and had read and signed it. At neither time did he dispute the facts. When presenting his argument as to why the director ruling had been incorrect he said that West had stated "Making three" rather than "That's all." [mlf] A dubious argument, irrelevant considering that he acccepted the TD's "facts" previously. The Decision: The first part of Law 68.A says "when a claim is made, play ceases" [mlf] Not L68A, but L68D, and the words are "After any claim or concession, play ceases." Are these people quoting the Laws from faulty memory? RTFLB! However, the second part goes on to say "unless no claim was intended." "That ?s all" was deemed by the director not to be a claim, whereas "Making three" might very well have been considered to be one. [mlf] Why can't ACs quote Laws accurately? Do they not have a copy available? The actual words are "unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim," far different from the words quoted. Accurate paraphrasing is okay, but putting quotes around words that are not the right words is unacceptable.Anyway, I do not see that West "demonstrably did not intend to claim." Moreover, those words apply only when a claimer "shows his cards," not so in this case. West's comment was wrong, but the AC could not see how declarer could go wrong in the play. North, a passed hand, had shown up with CK CQ CJ and DA. Had "Making three" in deed been the comment, the director would most likely have insisted West declare his line of play rather than let play continue. The AC ruled for a contract of 3H making three for +140 for EW and -140 for NS. [mlf] Law 70E does not say "if the claimer could not go wrong in the play," but " unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational." Again, why not quote the actual wording of applicable Laws? The matter to be decided is whether losing to one of the missing queens would be irrational rather than merely "careless or inferior." The appeal was decided to have some merit given West's statement. [mlf] Reasonable conclusion, dubious basis. (Note: The AC assumed West was joking in that, having already lost four tricks, he could not afford to lose any more. However, the comment should not have been made.) [mlf] Such assumptions should not be made by an AC when there is a reasonable contrary interpretation of words spoken, which should be taken at face value in the absence of a recording. Committee: Bob Schwartz, Chair, Ed Lazarus, Jeff Roman, Bruce Rogoff and Tom Peters [mlf] West claimed, if I read L68A correctly. That would give him no right to an unproven finesse unless failure to take it would be irrational rather than merely "careless or inferior." If the AC so concludes, fine, but the writeup is both careless and inferior. Scores so far: TD AC N-00 1 1 N-01 0 0 N-02 1 0 N-03 0 1/2 Total 2 1-1/2 out of 4 cases Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 13 19:22:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 13 19:24:05 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <42AD8496.3070702@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias wrote: > There is nothing in the laws (except the proprieties, which you seem to > consider second-class-laws, superseded by others) The proprieties are full laws just lke any other. However, when a specific law states whose turn it is to play a vague interpretation of the proprieties doesn't change that. > that denies me the > right to play a card (by touching the table with it), turn it around > with maximum speed (if this is my normal tempo, and a bit of practice > could make it so, effectively denying the opps any realistic chance to > see which card I played) and immediately play to the next trick. Whether you play to the next trick or not is irrelevant. Opps L66a right is determined by whether one of them has played, if either of them surrenders that right (by playing) that is their problem - not yours. > I am very fast, remember? Someone will probably want to see which card > was, and if his card is still face up (which it usually will be) I > would be forced to show it to him. But once or twice in the tournament > I might catch someone off guard. So what? Once or twice in a tournament I may be able to get a clue about opponents hands by making an unexpected suit switch. This is perfectly legal. > In your view (as I understand it from > your postings) I would be entirely within my rights, and if some opp You are within your rights provided you have complied with: L45a "Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him." And L65a "When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table." If you didn't let go of the card it wasn't "played" and must not be turned over (you will be required to play it L45c2). If you turned the card over before someone else had played to the trick you'd probably fetch a PP from me. > > The laws require that you are > > careful when this break of tempo could mislead the opponents. > > > Right. By pointing out that there is still a card face up from the > previous trick I will reduce the risk to zero. "TD. he did not play a > card before his partner had quitted the last trick, so I thought he had > a problem....." And the first time you get a polite warning. Whether your partner has his card face up is no business of yours. You are not allowed to remind of his L66a rights. If declarer/dummy has a card unquitted then I will consider declarer in breach of L65c - but that's a different matter. > > > > > > > If it is "out of tempo" it is "out of tempo". Pretending it isn't is > > poor > > sportsmanship. > > > > > > So declarer (who sees all 26 cards at his side`s disposal and who made > a plan of play a couple of tricks ago) may play very fast (always doing > so, of course, no break of tempo), thereby either denying his opps time > to think or make them break tempo, calling the TD on them if they took > a moment to digest information declarer always had, because they broke > tempo, thereby probably transmitting UI, and generally behaved > unsportsmanlike, yes? If opps need to think about a trick they are allowed to do so. That it transmits UI is no reason to call the TD (only the subsequent possible use of UI gives such grounds). If an opp wants to think about the hand as whole he can make a statement to that effect and declarer will have no grounds to claim being misled. The current law does not permit you to delay play simply by leaving your card face up. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 13 19:22:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 13 19:24:09 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000001c5701a$faae1360$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > ............ > > If it is my turn to play and partner still has a card faced > > then it is completely inappropriate for me to refuse to play > > because partner's card is faced. > > If I did so, for example with a singleton then there is a > > significant risk that I would illegally mislead declarer. > > This cannot possibly be correct! > > A defender must have every right to protect his partner's rights under > Law 66A by refusing to play a card to the next trick as long as partner > still has his card that was played to the last trick faced. Maybe he should have such a right, but he does not. Maybe he should have right to correct MI provided by opponents, again he does not. Maybe he should have a right not to condone partner's revoke, he does not. Maybe he should have a right to exercise L66a himself if he believes his partner hasn't seen the previous trick, again he does not. Maybe he shouldn't have the right to try and prevent partner bidding/leading out-of-turn but he does. The laws are full of idiosyncracies :) > If he is requested to play then he should simply point out that his > partner has not yet quitted the previous trick. And then the TD *should* tell him this has no bearing on his being required to play in tempo. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 13 19:22:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 13 19:24:14 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > I can't recall being asked to wait. I can recall a player asking to > > inspect the previous trick. I oblige that request. > > How strange: you allow them to see a quitted trick, to which they have > no right, I think Wayne meant that if one of them had not yet quitted the previous trick he will allow them to see it (as he should). His having played to a subsequent trick does not affect *their* rights to see the previous one under L66a. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 13 19:22:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 13 19:24:18 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050613081955.03169c30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > If Nigel plays in a cultural milieu where the consensus is that this > particular action is discourteous and ought to be illegal, L74A makes > it so, I disagree with this. A visitor to that milieu is entitled to play bridge by the laws - a local regulation might make playing to the next trick illegal but even then I would not rule a stranger unaware of the regulation as being discourteous. One might end up as TD in a milieu where it is considered "rude" to double opponents for penalties - don't think I'd be ruling a penalty double illegal even so! Tim From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Mon Jun 13 14:18:15 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon Jun 13 19:37:22 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card References: <835b58716aa27ca1b8cf162bc9e5600d@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050612165625.02abc9d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c5703e$61bbad60$64063dd4@c6l8v1> > > L74A2 has been called "the most important law in the book", > > In that case it should be law number 1; in any case it should be placed before Law17. Ben From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 13 20:26:02 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jun 13 20:24:43 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050613081955.03169c30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050613142007.02dc40b0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:22 PM 6/13/05, twm wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > If Nigel plays in a cultural milieu where the consensus is that this > > particular action is discourteous and ought to be illegal, L74A makes > > it so, > >I disagree with this. A visitor to that milieu is entitled to play >bridge >by the laws - a local regulation might make playing to the next trick >illegal but even then I would not rule a stranger unaware of the >regulation as being discourteous. Of course not; nor would I. But I would tell him politely that in this club it is considered discourteous, and ask him to refrain from doing it in the future. If some Secretary Bird now cited chapter and verse and demanded his right under the law to continue to do it, everyone else in the room be damned, then I would hope that even Tim would call his actions discourteous. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 13 20:36:46 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jun 13 20:38:34 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000101c5701c$9cf479b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c5701c$9cf479b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <496f4d221f1b60261ca3dd880c23f4fe@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 13, 2005, at 9:34 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > NO. We may look to L46A where the term "designating a card" is defined > as > stating both the suit and the rank of a card. > > Pointing at the back of a card lying face down on the table and saying > words > to the effect: "I play that card" is NOT designating it! I disagree. :-) L46A says "When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card." First, this defines the proper way to call for a card *from dummy* - it says nothing about how defenders should do things. Second, L45C4(a) says "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposed to play." "Or otherwise designates" clearly allows for the possibility that a card may be designated by some means *other* than stating its suit and rank. If a declarer says, on dummy's turn to play, "play the card farthest from me in the column on my left" has he designated a card? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 13 20:40:54 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jun 13 20:42:42 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38601c323dc6fa2ceae7c2d2e45d43c6@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 13, 2005, at 1:22 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > If you didn't let go of the card it wasn't "played" This turns out not to be the case. The law says nothing about letting go of the card. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 13 22:01:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 13 22:03:36 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050613142007.02dc40b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > > Of course not; nor would I. But I would tell him politely that in this > club it is considered discourteous, and ask him to refrain from doing > it in the future. If some Secretary Bird now cited chapter and verse > and demanded his right under the law to continue to do it, everyone > else in the room be damned, then I would hope that even Tim would call > his actions discourteous. Me? I'd write it as a regulation on the spot and pin it on the wall. He might challenge my authority to represent the SO but I'd not feel on such dodgy legal ground as telling a player that acting strictly according to the requirements of law can be considered discourteous - I remain of the belief that I am bound to enforce the laws (regardless of my dislikes). Alternatively I'd inform the visitor that the club only plays a game "a bit like bridge" and uses it's own laws rather than the WBF ones. I admit that the vast majority of my directing has been in a Chicago environment where a simple request to leave the last trick face up *prevents* a legal lead to the next trick and everybody knows it is because the player wants to think about the hand so nobody is misled. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 13 22:01:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 13 22:03:40 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <38601c323dc6fa2ceae7c2d2e45d43c6@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: > > On Jun 13, 2005, at 1:22 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > If you didn't let go of the card it wasn't "played" > > This turns out not to be the case. The law says nothing about letting > go of the card. The law (45a)says "Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him." If it isn't released it isn't "faced on the table" and thus not legally "played". That doesn't prevent it from being a card that "must be played" (L45c). For most practical purposes there isn't any difference between "played cards" and "cards it is compulsory to play" but if somebody is going to claim that a card exposed for a millisecond and then turned was "played" I'm ruling it wasn't. It was however "maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played" when the player turned it over with his other "played" cards - thus I will now give that player the "opportunity" to "play" it (he doesn't get an option to refuse this opportunity). Tim From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 22:17:28 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Jun 13 22:19:15 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050613080936.0316f030@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: >From: Eric Landau >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:16:25 -0400 > >At 06:17 PM 6/12/05, wayne.burrows wrote: > >>>From: Eric Landau >>> >>>L74A2 has been called "the most important law in the book", but in terms >>>of how we actually apply it, we really don't need it. Operatively, it's >>>redundant to L74A1. They both merely restate the Eleventh Commandment, >>>"Thou shalt not be an asshole." >> >>I would consider someone who called the director when I legally played >>a card "an asshole". > >So would I. > >But if someone were to inform you politely that this was bothering them and >ask you to stop doing it, and you were to tell them to f--k off because it >was perfectly legal, who's the asshole then? > >It's not what you do, it's how you do it. > I wouldn't tell someone to "f--k off" but I would expect to be harrassed about doing something that is perfectly legal because some other player preferred a different approach. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Need a new job? Check out XtraMSN Careers http://xtramsn.co.nz/careers From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 22:33:07 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Jun 13 22:34:53 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: Gordon Rainsford >CC: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:42:04 +0100 > > >On 13 Jun 2005, at 12:18, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>>Does no-one ever ask you to wait? And if they do, what do you say? >>> >> >>I can't recall being asked to wait. I can recall a player asking to >>inspect >>the previous trick. I oblige that request. > >How strange: you allow them to see a quitted trick, to which they have no >right, but you refuse to refrain from playing to the next trick when a >current trick has not yet been quit. I am sorry Gordon but you are writing nonsense. I did not say a trick was quitted. Certainly not by the player who asked. I lead to the next trick as is my right and proper procedure. Now if either defender has not turned their card face down and until one of them plays to the current trick (the one I have led to) then they still have the right to see the previous trick. L66A "So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced." It is 100% clear from this law that the lawmakers envisaged a situation in which one side might lead to the next trick when while the opponents still have the previous trick face up. There is no hint that this is an inappropriate practice. > >Clearly the workaround solution, when playing against Wayne, is to quit the >trick and then ask to see it again. > More nonsense. This is not something that you can infer from my previous posts. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 22:41:19 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Jun 13 22:43:03 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <42AD8496.3070702@t-online.de> Message-ID: >From: Matthias Berghaus >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:05:26 +0200 > >Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >> >>This is no trick. >> >>If I lead then it is my turn to play. > I don't think this is what I intended to write. >I think it is the other way `round (and probably so do you). If it is your >turn to play you are entitled to lead. Else every LOOT would be legal. > >> I am allowed to play in normal tempo. > >>If it is my turn to play and partner still has a card faced then it is >>completely >>inappropriate for me to refuse to play because partner's card is faced. >>If I >>did so, for example with a singleton then there is a significant risk that >>I would >>illegally mislead declarer. >> >>There is nothing in the laws that gives a player whose turn it is not to >>play >>the right to dictate the tempo at which another player plays. > > >There is nothing in the laws (except the proprieties, which you seem to >consider second-class-laws, superseded by others) Excuse me. Where did this conclusion come from. Because I do not agree with you you consider my way discourteous. I have pointed out that I consider a player that attempts to slow my legal play and then makes a fuss about it discourteous. I certainly think that courtesy etc is important. >that denies me the right to play a card (by touching the table with it), >turn it around with maximum speed (if this is my normal tempo, and a bit of >practice could make it so, effectively denying the opps any realistic >chance to see which card I played) and immediately play to the next trick. >I am very fast, remember? Someone will probably want to see which card it >was, and if his card is still face up (which it usually will be) I would be >forced to show it to him. But once or twice in the tournament I might catch >someone off guard. In your view (as I understand it from your postings) I >would be entirely within my rights, and if some opp would ever dare to >summon the TD because I play with my normal speed I would deem him to >violate the proprieties.......... If you were doing this to deny a player his right to ever see the card then I do not think this would be appropriate. > >> >>I think it is ridiculous to suggest that I have a right to tell my >>opponent when >>he can play a card. > >> >> The laws require that you are >>careful when this break of tempo could mislead the opponents. > > >Right. By pointing out that there is still a card face up from the previous >trick I will reduce the risk to zero. "TD. he did not play a card before >his partner had quitted the last trick, so I thought he had a problem....." The fact that his partner had a card face up to a previous trick is irrelevant to his tempo to the current trick. This is my point. > >> >> >>If it is "out of tempo" it is "out of tempo". Pretending it isn't is poor >>sportsmanship. >> >> > >So declarer (who sees all 26 cards at his side`s disposal and who made a >plan of play a couple of tricks ago) may play very fast (always doing so, >of course, no break of tempo), thereby either denying his opps time to >think or make them break tempo, calling the TD on them if they took a >moment to digest information declarer always had, because they broke tempo, >thereby probably transmitting UI, and generally behaved unsportsmanlike, >yes? The defense also see 26 cards. It is the same amount of information. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Discover fun and games at @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/kids From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 22:42:48 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon Jun 13 22:44:32 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000001c5701a$faae1360$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Subject: RE: [blml] 5th card >Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:22:42 +0200 > > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows >............ > > If it is my turn to play and partner still has a card faced > > then it is completely inappropriate for me to refuse to play > > because partner's card is faced. > > If I did so, for example with a singleton then there is a > > significant risk that I would illegally mislead declarer. > >This cannot possibly be correct! > >A defender must have every right to protect his partner's rights under Law >66A by refusing to play a card to the next trick as long as partner still >has his card that was played to the last trick faced. > >If he is requested to play then he should simply point out that his partner >has not yet quitted the previous trick. > There is no basis in law for this practice. It is contrary to all of the law regarding playing in tempo. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Discover fun and games at @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/kids From KESRGXP at yahoo.com Mon Jun 13 23:42:02 2005 From: KESRGXP at yahoo.com (Angeline Munson) Date: Mon Jun 13 22:44:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Woww..8o-% 0ff Phar maacy se Message-ID: <27441130090241.CFB1968DE@.starnetusa.net> Highest quality medds at "Lowest Price" V-codin - 65.00 Valliuum - 75.00 Vi graa - 70.00 Cai llis - 85.00 Codeinne - 65.00 Xa naax - 96.00 Le vittra - 99.00 All orderrs are delivered by Fedex with full tracking 24/7. Satisfactiionnss guaaranteeed... http://asdkjashdjkh12jk3h1jk2h31.ljwekrlwenmaahj.info/d/ e1BDR From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jun 13 23:20:49 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon Jun 13 23:22:10 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050613081955.03169c30@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20050613142007.02dc40b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <015301c5705d$c5d53180$549868d5@James> [Grattan's Law] > +=+ The action [playing to the next trick before the > old one is quitted by all players] is lawful. > Furthermore the player who does it is not in breach > of any ethical standard. If there are places where it > is not the done thing, this is a matter of local > culture. Just for interest, other possibly relevant laws ... [74A1] > A player should maintain a courteous attitude at > all times. [74B1] > As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain > from paying insufficient attention to the game. [: Tim West-Meads Do you remember, TIm? from an old thread :] > Leading when you know the trick has > not been quitted is discourteous (Law74A1). > Leading when you don't realise > a trick has not been quitted is > paying insufficient attention (Law74b1). [L65A] > When four cards have been played to a trick, each > player turns his own card face down near him on > the table. Grattan's law appears to supersede this. [66C] > Thereafter, until play ceases, quitted tricks may > not be inspected (except at the Director's > specific instruction; for example, to verify a > claim of a revoke. Grattan's law appears to supersede this. [L45E1] > A fifth card contributed to a trick by a > defender becomes a penalty card, subject to Law 50, > unless the Director deems that it was led, in which > case Law 53 or Law 56 applies [which are LOOT laws] These laws clearly instruct the TD to treat a fifth card played to a trick as a penalty card; alternatively or additionally, he may treat the offending card as a lead out of turn. Grattan's law appears to supersede this. [40E2 footnote] > A player is not entitled, during the auction and > play periods, to any aids to his memory, > calculation or technique. So if you lead to the next trick you must not look at any of the cards played to the current trick. And the other players are not allowed to look at your lead. [73A1] > Communication between partners during the auction > and play shall be effected only by means of the > calls and plays themselves. [73B1] > Partners shall not communicate through the manner > in which calls or plays are made, through > extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions > asked or not asked of the opponents or through > alerts and explanations given or not given to > them. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jun 13 23:57:04 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon Jun 13 23:59:08 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42AE0130.6060903@t-online.de> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > I have pointed out that I consider a player that attempts to slow my > legal play and then makes a fuss about it discourteous. Well, I consider someone who tries to deny me the time to inspect the trick and think about the implications from the fall of the cards and then makes a fuss about it discourteous. > > I certainly think that courtesy etc is important. > >> that denies me the right to play a card (by touching the table with >> it), turn it around with maximum speed (if this is my normal tempo, >> and a bit of practice could make it so, effectively denying the opps >> any realistic chance to see which card I played) and immediately play >> to the next trick. I am very fast, remember? Someone will probably >> want to see which card it was, and if his card is still face up >> (which it usually will be) I would be forced to show it to him. But >> once or twice in the tournament I might catch someone off guard. In >> your view (as I understand it from your postings) I would be entirely >> within my rights, and if some opp would ever dare to summon the TD >> because I play with my normal speed I would deem him to violate the >> proprieties.......... > > > If you were doing this to deny a player his right to ever see the card > then I do not think this would be appropriate. So would I. Let`s face it, Wayne. In this case two people have certain rights. The law is worded in a way that in exercising his rights one player may infringe the rights of the other. This cannot be solved by laws and rights. This can only be done by respecting the needs of the other. Denying someone the time to think is as discourteous as holding up the play unnecessarily. > >> So declarer (who sees all 26 cards at his side`s disposal and who >> made a plan of play a couple of tricks ago) may play very fast >> (always doing so, of course, no break of tempo), thereby either >> denying his opps time to think or make them break tempo, calling the >> TD on them if they took a moment to digest information declarer >> always had, because they broke tempo, thereby probably transmitting >> UI, and generally behaved unsportsmanlike, yes? > > > The defense also see 26 cards. It is the same amount of information. Please. Wouldn`t you agree that defending is usually more difficult than defending? I have many hands make that could have been defeated, but comparatively few go down that could have been made (at the same level of play, of course). Declarer is better able to plan in advance, he is less likely to give the show away, and he will never generate UI. Matthias > > Wayne > > _________________________________________________________________ > Discover fun and games at @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/kids > > > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 14 00:11:16 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jun 14 00:13:05 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6d09eed4eadcbe03058724829e00b18d@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 13, 2005, at 4:01 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > If it isn't released it isn't "faced on the table" and thus not legally > "played". If it is face up it is "faced". If it is on the table, it is "on the table". If it is both, it is "faced on the table" and thus legally played, whether "released" or not. > That doesn't prevent it from being a card that "must be > played" (L45c). For most practical purposes there isn't any difference > between "played cards" and "cards it is compulsory to play" but if > somebody is going to claim that a card exposed for a millisecond and > then > turned was "played" I'm ruling it wasn't. It was however "maintained > in > such a position as to indicate that it has been played" when the player > turned it over with his other "played" cards - thus I will now give > that > player the "opportunity" to "play" it (he doesn't get an option to > refuse > this opportunity). I think you're splitting hairs here. But... it seems to me that if a player turns his card so fast that others don't see it, they have the right to ask to see it. I suppose unless they turn over their own card first. I don't like the idea that a player might be able to get away with concealing which card he's played, though, even if his opponents are induced to turn their own cards. From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 14 00:35:55 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Jun 14 00:37:16 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card Message-ID: <000d01c57068$44346000$229868d5@James> [Eric Landau] >> If Nigel plays in a cultural milieu where the >> consensus is that this particular action is >> discourteous and ought to be illegal, L74A makes >> it so, {Tim West-Meades] > I disagree with this. A visitor to that milieu is > entitled to play bridge by the laws - a local > regulation might make playing to the next trick > illegal but even then I would not rule a stranger > unaware of the regulation as being discourteous. > One might end up as TD in a milieu where it is > considered "rude" to double opponents for penalties > - don't think I'd be ruling a penalty double illegal > even so! [Nigel] Thank you Graattan and Eric, for trying to let me off the hook, but I admit that Tim is right here. I believe you must obey the law, even if locals think it's impolite to do so, unless there is a local regulation that rescinds the law -- (assuming, of course, that a SO does have the power to overturn, say, "Grattan's law". I confess that, previously, I've been unconsciosly cheating, by delaying my lead, and hence deliberately playing out of tempo, whenever a player asked for time to inspect the previous trick. I suppose there must be conceivable circumstances, when it is right to break a Bridge law, in the interests of politeness; but, even then, you would be honour-bound to call the director to ensure that he imposes the appropriate penalty. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 14 00:43:39 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue Jun 14 00:44:55 2005 Subject: [blml] The heart grows fonder Message-ID: <001401c57069$7cc41770$abea403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: Tim West-Meads asserted: >To me "had the irregularity not occurred" is also implicit in the >adjustment for OS. Richard Hills: Adam Wildavsky used logic to reach the same conclusion. But the WBF Laws Committee used non-Euclidean logic to specifically state in an official interpretation of Law 12C2 that the Wildavsky & West-Meads conclusion is incorrect. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 14 01:05:33 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Jun 14 01:06:53 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card References: <000d01c57068$44346000$229868d5@James> Message-ID: <002a01c5706c$67c2dd90$229868d5@James> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ The action [playing to the next trick before the > old one is quitted by all players] is lawful. > Furthermore the player who does it is not in breach > of any ethical standard. If there are places where it > is not the done thing, this is a matter of local > culture. [Nigel] I like Grattan's law a little better, now that I'm beginning to understand its implications. Three examples ... A. "Aide-memoire". Sometimes you miss partner's signal because you forget spot cards played to consecutive tricks. In future, you can avoid this problem if you keep a card faced in the current trick until partner plays to the next trick. (If you usually do this it will be part of your normal tempo). B. "Bridge au Grattan". Applying Grattan's law recursively: with opponents' agreement, you can keep cards played to *all previous tricks* face-up. This might be be a welcome change for fours consisting of older players. It might even be useful at the end of a world championsip round-robin, if two teams met who were likely to qualify barring a horrendous loss. C. I suggested that B depends on opponents' agreement but perhaps I'm wrong. If anyone seems reluctant to lead to the next trick before the current trick is quitted, out of a misguided idea of courtesy or the law, you can call Wayne or Tim to put him right. From put at stahlwerk.ch Tue Jun 14 23:13:44 2005 From: put at stahlwerk.ch (Rosaline) Date: Tue Jun 14 01:14:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Keeping your private medical issues... private Message-ID: <6695563570.31621121005@adsl-213-192-192-81.adsl.iam.net.ma> Upgrade your life with our lifestyle medications! http://stoutly.worldcardonline.info/?snowshoextvuyretortedzvprustler RADICALISM, n. The conservatism of to-morrow injected into the affairs of to-day. Slight not what's near, while aiming at what's far. He is not great who is not greatly good. Never trust the advice of a man in difficulties. From neglected at hoefer.com Tue Jun 14 23:13:46 2005 From: neglected at hoefer.com (Patrick) Date: Tue Jun 14 01:15:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Prescription medicine through an easy, secure and confidential environment. Message-ID: <6693371200.12573767324@adsl-213-192-192-81.adsl.iam.net.ma> Your in-home source of health information http://virulent.worldcardonline.info/?smotextvuyVietzvpstubbornness New York: where everyone mutinies but no one deserts. It's hard to work in groups when you're omnipotent. CandyIs dandyBut liquorIs quicker. The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius is limited. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 14 02:05:25 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Jun 14 02:07:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Director call (was 5th card) In-Reply-To: <185d5a024dc3112cb6b96a56fe7c074b@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >What did I say when I called the director? "I believe there >has been an infraction." To tell me I was wrong to call the >director because I was mistaken and there was no infraction >is to tell me I can call the director only when I *know* >there has been one - IOW, I have to be much more familiar >with the laws than I had previously understood. I don't >believe it. [snip] Richard Hills: Believe it. The only Law which specifically authorises the summoning of the director when an irregularity might not have occurred is Law 16A2. Otherwise, Law 9B1 applies. Drawing attention to an irregularity authorises (indeed requires) the summoning of the director. Other summonings of the director are not illegal as such, merely extraneous to the Laws. And it is possible that an extraneous summoning of the director might become an infraction of Law. For example: The "unduly delays" provision of Law 90A. In my experience I have known a paranoid player who was convinced that his opponents were continually using UI, so he continually summoned the director requesting a Law 16 adjusted score. One blunt TD warned this paranoid player against any further nonsense, so this paranoid player has since avoided the use of frivolous director calls (instead delegating to his partner the decision on when to call the director). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 14 02:16:45 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Jun 14 02:18:36 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <835b58716aa27ca1b8cf162bc9e5600d@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Maybe we need a simple law: you are not allowed to think for >more than 3 seconds at any given time before you take your next >required action (call, play, turn over a card). > >Or have we ventured into the realm of the ridiculous yet again? Richard Hills: Maybe that simple law could read, "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner." Or is Ed ridiculously unaware that that Law already exists? :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 14 03:09:21 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Jun 14 03:11:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Discourteous (was 5th card) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050613081955.03169c30@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau asserted: [snip] >If Nigel plays in a cultural milieu where the consensus is >that this particular action is discourteous and ought to be >illegal, L74A makes it so, notwithstanding that it remains >perfectly legal where Grattan plays and where I do. Richard Hills reductio ad absurdum: Two hypothetical opposing defenders thought that my double squeeze was discourteous and ought to be illegal. So they called the hypothetical TD, Eric Landau. Eric adjusted the score pursuant to Law 74A to what would have happened if I had instead taken a courteous (but unsuccessful) finesse. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 14 04:34:15 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jun 14 04:36:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Director call (was 5th card) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 13, 2005, at 8:05 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Otherwise, Law 9B1 applies. Drawing attention to an > irregularity authorises (indeed requires) the summoning of > the director. And drawing attention to something that *appears* to be an irregularity, but is not? You cite "unduly delaying the game" but I don't think you can (or should) apply that to a player's error of this kind, your paranoid player notwithstanding. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 14 06:00:36 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Jun 14 06:02:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Director call (was 5th card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Otherwise, Law 9B1 applies. Drawing attention to an >>irregularity authorises (indeed requires) the summoning of >>the director. Ed Reppert: >And drawing attention to something that *appears* to be an >irregularity, but is not? Richard Hills: That is an extraneous-to-Law summoning of the director (except in the specified exception defined by Law 16A2). Ed Reppert: >You cite "unduly delaying the game" but I don't think you >can (or should) apply that to a player's error of this >kind, your paranoid player notwithstanding. Richard Hills: Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. If a player is silly enough to continually misinterpret the appearance of a non- irregularity, thus unduly delaying the game by frivolous and extraneous-to-Law summonings of the director, the director does have the power to use the "unduly delays" clause of Law 90A to assess a procedural penalty on that player. Merely because a player *believes* that they are acting in accordance with the requirements of Law 9B1 does not mean that they are *actually* acting in accordance with the requirements of Law 9B1. Of course, in most circumstances, a mistaken call for the director will not cause the director to assess a procedural penalty. But sea-lawyers and Secretary Birds do *not* have an untrammelled right to mistakenly summon the director. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Tue Jun 14 07:59:06 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Jun 14 08:00:51 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <42AE0130.6060903@t-online.de> Message-ID: >From: Matthias Berghaus >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:57:04 +0200 > >Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >> >>I have pointed out that I consider a player that attempts to slow my >>legal play and then makes a fuss about it discourteous. > > >Well, I consider someone who tries to deny me the time to inspect the trick >and think about the implications from the fall of the cards and then makes >a fuss about it discourteous. There is no "time to ... think about the implications" allowed for in the laws. You do your thinking in your 'own' time - while others are playing, waiting for them to play or when it is your turn to play. You have no right to time when it is another's player turn. > >> >>I certainly think that courtesy etc is important. >> >>>that denies me the right to play a card (by touching the table with it), >>>turn it around with maximum speed (if this is my normal tempo, and a bit >>>of practice could make it so, effectively denying the opps any realistic >>>chance to see which card I played) and immediately play to the next >>>trick. I am very fast, remember? Someone will probably want to see which >>>card it was, and if his card is still face up (which it usually will be) >>>I would be forced to show it to him. But once or twice in the tournament >>>I might catch someone off guard. In your view (as I understand it from >>>your postings) I would be entirely within my rights, and if some opp >>>would ever dare to summon the TD because I play with my normal speed I >>>would deem him to violate the proprieties.......... >> >> >>If you were doing this to deny a player his right to ever see the card >>then I do not think this would be appropriate. > > >So would I. > >Let`s face it, Wayne. In this case two people have certain rights. The law >is worded in a way that in exercising his rights one player may infringe >the rights of the other. This cannot be solved by laws and rights. This can >only be done by respecting the needs of the other. Denying someone the time >to think is as discourteous as holding up the play unnecessarily. > This is not so. The player who has not won the previous trick has no right to time to think before the player who has won has played to the current trick. There is no basis on which to assume this player has a right to time. Even the right to see the previous trick is a limited right - it expires when he or his partner plays to the current trick. If under the current law I waited for an opponent to have done his thinking then I expose myself to a danger. That danger is that the opponents will draw a false inference from my slow tempo to this trick. The laws require that I be careful in such situations to not mislead the opponents. Therefore my only lawful (and courteous) action is to play in tempo. >> >>>So declarer (who sees all 26 cards at his side`s disposal and who made a >>>plan of play a couple of tricks ago) may play very fast (always doing so, >>>of course, no break of tempo), thereby either denying his opps time to >>>think or make them break tempo, calling the TD on them if they took a >>>moment to digest information declarer always had, because they broke >>>tempo, thereby probably transmitting UI, and generally behaved >>>unsportsmanlike, yes? >> >> >>The defense also see 26 cards. It is the same amount of information. > > >Please. Wouldn`t you agree that defending is usually more difficult than >defending? I have many hands make that could have been defeated, but >comparatively few go down that could have been made (at the same level of >play, of course). Declarer is better able to plan in advance, he is less >likely to give the show away, and he will never generate UI. > This is a red herring. The difficulty of defense or declarer play does not confer a right to extra time to think at another player's turn to play. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Find the coolest online games @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 14 08:12:29 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Jun 14 08:14:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Both ethical and illegal (was 5th card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower: >>This, on the other hand, does surprise me, unless it's coming >>from someone of the "there is no difference between legal and >>ethical, both are fixed by the rules of a game" school. Tim West-Meads: >To be unethical one must deliberately break the law *knowing* >one is doing so. Most "illegalities" we encounter are not >unethical. OTOH if a ploy is legal it cannot be unethical to >use it - that way lies madness. Richard Hills: In my opinion, unless one distorts the dictionary meaning of "ethical", it is possible for a deliberately illegal action to be ethical. For a real-life example, if I had been a United States citizen in 1850, I would have had no compunction in deliberately breaking the Fugitive Slave Act by assisting slaves to escape to Canada on the underground railroad. I believe that I would have been ethical in deliberately choosing this illegal action. Of course, anyone who deliberately chooses to act illegally because of their sense of ethics must live with the consequences of their deliberately illegal choices. For a bridge example, I apply over-strict criteria to my logical alternatives. A gullible director or a gullible appeals committee would (if they got the chance) occasionally rule that the choice I took was an illogical alternative, and that the demonstrably suggested choice that I avoided was the only logical alternative. Not only is it legal to gain a competitive advantage via the gullibility of a TD and/or AC, Edgar Kaplan might have ruled that Laws 72A5 and 74B1 *require* such a gain of a competitive advantage. But I am happy to live with the competitive consequences of my over-strict illegal choices; fewer championships than I might otherwise win, but I sleep better at night. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From shollenberger at didamail.com Tue Jun 14 11:44:27 2005 From: shollenberger at didamail.com (Joesph Fisher) Date: Tue Jun 14 10:52:15 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 been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.sllly.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Sybil Chamberlain to be remov(ed: http://www.sllly.com/deletion.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 kgrauwel at hotmail.com Tue Jun 14 11:02:01 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Tue Jun 14 11:03:51 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) Message-ID: <42AE9D09.9010104@hotmail.com> I'm a local club director with not a lot of experience. Therefor I would appreciate any comments on below case: MP's Declarer plays a 4S contract. Around trick 8 LHO plays a small club. Declarer plays the Ace from dummy (from Ax), small club from RHO and club K from declarer (from Kxx). Club K: declarer did show club K nearly touching the table. This declarer tends to play fast, not always releasing his cards on the table (so touching the table, but keeping them in his hand when playing a card). Immediatly after showing the club K declarer replaces it by a small club, saying that he did not intend to play the club K (club K was obviously wrong and giving away an extra trick). 1. Can he change club K for a small club, assuming that he mispulled it? After the evening this declarer tells you that he was already thinking at the next trick: He would play small club to his King and ruff a club afterwards. And that is probably why he played the club King a trick too early. (As said before: he plays (too) fast). 2. If he was allowed to change the card (assuming that he mispulled it); would you still allow it with this extra info? Thanks, Koen From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Jun 14 11:16:39 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue Jun 14 11:18:27 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64EA@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of koen > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 11:02 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) > > > I'm a local club director with not a lot of experience. > Therefor I would > appreciate any comments on below case: > > MP's > Declarer plays a 4S contract. > Around trick 8 LHO plays a small club. Declarer plays the Ace > from dummy > (from Ax), small club from RHO and club K from declarer (from Kxx). > > Club K: declarer did show club K nearly touching the table. This > declarer tends to play fast, not always releasing his cards > on the table > (so touching the table, but keeping them in his hand when > playing a card). > Immediatly after showing the club K declarer replaces it by a small > club, saying that he did not intend to play the club K (club K was > obviously wrong and giving away an extra trick). > > 1. Can he change club K for a small club, assuming that he > mispulled it? L45C2 is very clear: declarer's card is played when it (nearly) touches the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. That seems to be the case, so the CK is played. The reason for the wrong play is irrelevant (although declarer need not play a card which he dropped - L48A). > After the evening this declarer tells you that he was already > thinking > at the next trick: He would play small club to his King and > ruff a club > afterwards. And that is probably why he played the club King > a trick too > early. (As said before: he plays (too) fast). > > 2. If he was allowed to change the card (assuming that he > mispulled it); > would you still allow it with this extra info? As said, the reason for the wrong play is irrelevant; the CK is held in the played position, and therefore played. > > Thanks, > Koen > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Martin Sinot From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Tue Jun 14 11:20:33 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Tue Jun 14 11:22:21 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system Message-ID: <42AEA161.10106@hotmail.com> I'm a local club director with not a lot of experience. Therefor I would appreciate any comments on below case: MP's S/All xx x Kxxx T98xx Qxxx KJxxx KQxxx AJxxx Jx Ax xx K Ax xx QTxxx AQJx Bidding: 1D-(P)-3D-(DBL) 4C-(P)-4D-(DBL) All pass Making +1 I was sitting South. We used to play fit jumps after a 1D opening in which case 3D was weak. But we didn't like that anymore because 2NT and 3NT were also artificial then after a 1D opening. So we decided that we didn't play fit jumps any more after a 1D opening and we would go back to 'normal'. After this change we didn't agree anything about 2D/3D and we didn't agree to play inverted. I alerted 3D and before his first DBL RHO asked what it was. I said that it was a limit raise (around 10-11 pts), but that I was not sure. Maybe it was preemptive. Before the second DBL RHO asked again what the 3D bid was. I said that I was still not sure, but that it started to look more like a preempt now. Remark: Opps are rather weak players. Remartk2: I did bid 4C because I was sure that opps have a good fit in the majors and maybe with a double fit we can make 5D. At our club nobody uses convention cards. But as the director you can believe what I explained above (I was not sure if 3D was limit or preemptive). What is your ruling? Thanks, Koen From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Jun 14 11:25:32 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Jun 14 11:25:34 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) In-Reply-To: <42AE9D09.9010104@hotmail.com> References: <42AE9D09.9010104@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <42AEA28C.9090102@hdw.be> koen wrote: > I'm a local club director with not a lot of experience. Therefor I would > appreciate any comments on below case: > > MP's > Declarer plays a 4S contract. > Around trick 8 LHO plays a small club. Declarer plays the Ace from dummy > (from Ax), small club from RHO and club K from declarer (from Kxx). > > Club K: declarer did show club K nearly touching the table. From everything you tell us it seams as if the conditions of L45C2 are met. The King is played. > This > declarer tends to play fast, not always releasing his cards on the table > (so touching the table, but keeping them in his hand when playing a card). > Immediatly after showing the club K declarer replaces it by a small > club, saying that he did not intend to play the club K (club K was > obviously wrong and giving away an extra trick). > Intention has nothing to do with playing from declarer's hand. Only in dummy can the intent matter sometimes. > 1. Can he change club K for a small club, assuming that he mispulled it? > No, a mispulled card which is held as if played - is played. > After the evening this declarer tells you that he was already thinking > at the next trick: He would play small club to his King and ruff a club > afterwards. And that is probably why he played the club King a trick too > early. (As said before: he plays (too) fast). > > 2. If he was allowed to change the card (assuming that he mispulled it); > would you still allow it with this extra info? > Certainly not - but you do not need the extra info to disallow a change. > Thanks, > Koen > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 14 11:25:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 14 11:27:51 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <6d09eed4eadcbe03058724829e00b18d@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: > > On Jun 13, 2005, at 4:01 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > If it isn't released it isn't "faced on the table" and thus not > > legally "played". > > If it is face up it is "faced". If it is on the table, it is "on the > table". The card is not "on the table" if it is "in the players hand". It may also be "partially touching the table", it may be "mostly on the table". It can be "on the table" with the players finger on the corner I suppose but even that will prevent it being turned over too rapidly to be visible. > If it is both, it is "faced on the table" and thus legally > played, whether "released" or not. > > > > That doesn't prevent it from being a card that "must be > > played" (L45c). For most practical purposes there isn't any > > difference between "played cards" and "cards it is compulsory to play" > > I think you're splitting hairs here. Of course I'm splitting hairs - I'm trying to deal with a BL who reckons he can legitimately flip a card out and over before anyone has a chance to see it. > But... it seems to me that if a player turns his card so fast that > others don't see it, they have the right to ask to see it. Of course they do. > I suppose unless they turn over their own card first. If the card wasn't legally played they have a right to see it even if they have turned their own card over. > I don't like the idea that a player might be able to get away > with concealing which card he's played, though, even if his opponents > are induced to turn their own cards. Nor do I - which is why I will split a legal hair to prevent it happening. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 14 11:25:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 14 11:27:57 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <42AE0130.6060903@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias wrote: > Well, I consider someone who tries to deny me the time to inspect the > trick and think about the implications from the fall of the cards and > then makes a fuss about it discourteous. You are not denied the time to think when necessary. If there is something to think about on the current trick then even if declarer guesses wrong about what you were thinking the TD will not rule that he was misled. You are not denied the right to inspect the previous trick by your opponents actions (only you/partner can end the L66a inspection period. However, if you want to think about the rest of the hand (excluding the current trick) you will either have to postpone doing so or make some sort of statement to ensure declarer is not misled. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 14 11:25:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 14 11:28:01 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000d01c57068$44346000$229868d5@James> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > I confess that, previously, I've been unconsciosly cheating, > by delaying my lead, and hence deliberately playing out of > tempo, whenever a player asked for time to inspect the > previous trick. Don't be silly Nigel. If you delay playing at the request of an opponent there is no way a TD is going to consider the opponent was misled by your compliance (or that you could have known..). That you are not legally bound to comply does not mean you are legally bound not to comply. The requirement to take particular care to play in tempo applies only to situations where delays might work to your advantage. However, I would not be comfortable with a player who delayed playing at his partner's request and used that delay to reconsider his choice of play (not something I think you would do). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 14 11:25:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 14 11:28:05 2005 Subject: [blml] L12C2 ambiguity? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > Tim West-Meads asserted: > > >To me "had the irregularity not occurred" is also implicit in the > >adjustment for OS. > > Richard Hills: > > Adam Wildavsky used logic to reach the same conclusion. But the > WBF Laws Committee used non-Euclidean logic to specifically state > in an official interpretation of Law 12C2 that the Wildavsky & > West-Meads conclusion is incorrect. Was that not in an MI + UI case? I can certainly understand the logic of allowing the worst possible "mix-up" based on the UI from the MI while protecting NOS from the MI. UI is a single irregularity, MI is actually two irregularities (since it is always UI too). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 14 11:25:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 14 11:28:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Both ethical and illegal (was 5th card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > > >>This, on the other hand, does surprise me, unless it's coming > >>from someone of the "there is no difference between legal and > >>ethical, both are fixed by the rules of a game" school. > > Tim West-Meads: > > >To be unethical one must deliberately break the law *knowing* > >one is doing so. Most "illegalities" we encounter are not > >unethical. OTOH if a ploy is legal it cannot be unethical to > >use it - that way lies madness. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, unless one distorts the dictionary meaning of > "ethical", it is possible for a deliberately illegal action to > be ethical. I'd not argue with that. If one is not also trying to gain advantage by knowingly breaking the law I don't think "unethical" comes into it. > For a bridge example, I apply over-strict criteria to my > logical alternatives. That is not illegal - providing you manage to "carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side." > A gullible director or a gullible > appeals committee would (if they got the chance) occasionally > rule that the choice I took was an illogical alternative, and > that the demonstrably suggested choice that I avoided was the > only logical alternative. They might rule that way but they wouldn't adjust the score would they? On what grounds are you seeking a ruling? > Not only is it legal to gain a competitive advantage via the > gullibility of a TD and/or AC, That isn't legal. To gain advantage from a "gullible" TD one must first choose an alternative one considers suggested by UI and then convince the TD/AC there were no LAs. Or one must ask for a ruling against opps despite believing they had no LA. Or claim to be misled when one wasn't. Or some such. It is possible to win in committee in such circumstances (and the illegality of so doing will likely remain hidden). Tim From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Tue Jun 14 11:32:42 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Tue Jun 14 11:34:30 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64EA@rama.micronas.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64EA@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <42AEA43A.8080108@hotmail.com> Sinot Martin wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org >>[mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of koen >>Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 11:02 >>To: blml@rtflb.org >>Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) >> >> >>I'm a local club director with not a lot of experience. >>Therefor I would >>appreciate any comments on below case: >> >>MP's >>Declarer plays a 4S contract. >>Around trick 8 LHO plays a small club. Declarer plays the Ace >>from dummy >>(from Ax), small club from RHO and club K from declarer (from Kxx). >> >>Club K: declarer did show club K nearly touching the table. This >>declarer tends to play fast, not always releasing his cards >>on the table >>(so touching the table, but keeping them in his hand when >>playing a card). >>Immediatly after showing the club K declarer replaces it by a small >>club, saying that he did not intend to play the club K (club K was >>obviously wrong and giving away an extra trick). >> >>1. Can he change club K for a small club, assuming that he >>mispulled it? >> >> > >L45C2 is very clear: declarer's card is played when it (nearly) touches >the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has >been played. That seems to be the case, so the CK is played. The reason >for the wrong play is irrelevant (although declarer need not play a card >which he dropped - L48A). > > > >>After the evening this declarer tells you that he was already >>thinking >>at the next trick: He would play small club to his King and >>ruff a club >>afterwards. And that is probably why he played the club King >>a trick too >>early. (As said before: he plays (too) fast). >> >>2. If he was allowed to change the card (assuming that he >>mispulled it); >>would you still allow it with this extra info? >> >> > >As said, the reason for the wrong play is irrelevant; the CK is held >in the played position, and therefore played. > > > That is very clear. No possibility for correcting mispull. This closes my question if everybody agrees. (I ruled correct on this one, except that I would better use the law book at the table. Problem is that I'm also playing and can't take the neceassry time for these cases) >>Thanks, >>Koen >> >> >> >> From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 14 11:37:27 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 14 11:39:13 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) In-Reply-To: <42AE9D09.9010104@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c570c4$add7a920$6400a8c0@WINXP> A lot depends upon how seriously you play Bridge at your club. I know many clubs where they would say something like: "It is OK, just take back the CK because we all know that it was a mistake". But the rules are that declarer may not "change his mind", he may only correct a play in progress when it is obvious that he never intended to play the card he exposed first. One obvious example is when he accidentally drops a card. So if you want to have a club culture where you play strict rules then the CK was played. He deliberately started to play his CK and progressed to the point of no return (Law 45C2) before he "discovered" that he was still playing "to the previous trick". Then he apparently changed his mind to play the card desired for that trick. This "change of mind" is not permissible. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of koen > Sent: 14. juni 2005 11:02 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) > > I'm a local club director with not a lot of experience. Therefor I would > appreciate any comments on below case: > > MP's > Declarer plays a 4S contract. > Around trick 8 LHO plays a small club. Declarer plays the Ace from dummy > (from Ax), small club from RHO and club K from declarer (from Kxx). > > Club K: declarer did show club K nearly touching the table. This > declarer tends to play fast, not always releasing his cards on the table > (so touching the table, but keeping them in his hand when playing a card). > Immediatly after showing the club K declarer replaces it by a small > club, saying that he did not intend to play the club K (club K was > obviously wrong and giving away an extra trick). > > 1. Can he change club K for a small club, assuming that he mispulled it? > > After the evening this declarer tells you that he was already thinking > at the next trick: He would play small club to his King and ruff a club > afterwards. And that is probably why he played the club King a trick too > early. (As said before: he plays (too) fast). > > 2. If he was allowed to change the card (assuming that he mispulled it); > would you still allow it with this extra info? > > Thanks, > Koen > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Tue Jun 14 11:48:07 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Tue Jun 14 11:49:55 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) In-Reply-To: <000001c570c4$add7a920$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c570c4$add7a920$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42AEA7D7.6070801@hotmail.com> Sven Pran wrote: >A lot depends upon how seriously you play Bridge at your club. I know many >clubs where they would say something like: "It is OK, just take back the CK >because we all know that it was a mistake". > >But the rules are that declarer may not "change his mind", he may only >correct a play in progress when it is obvious that he never intended to play >the card he exposed first. One obvious example is when he accidentally drops >a card. > >So if you want to have a club culture where you play strict rules then the >CK was played. > In a lot of cases the players will not call me. If they tell me then afterwards when the evening is finished, I would tend to say that they had to call me at the table when it happened. But if they immediatly call me at table then I will apply the rules as strict as possible. I don't think that there is another possibility and it also avoids dicussions afterwards. >He deliberately started to play his CK and progressed to the >point of no return (Law 45C2) before he "discovered" that he was still >playing "to the previous trick". Then he apparently changed his mind to play >the card desired for that trick. This "change of mind" is not permissible. > >Regards Sven > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] >>On Behalf Of koen >>Sent: 14. juni 2005 11:02 >>To: blml@rtflb.org >>Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) >> >>I'm a local club director with not a lot of experience. Therefor I would >>appreciate any comments on below case: >> >>MP's >>Declarer plays a 4S contract. >>Around trick 8 LHO plays a small club. Declarer plays the Ace from dummy >>(from Ax), small club from RHO and club K from declarer (from Kxx). >> >>Club K: declarer did show club K nearly touching the table. This >>declarer tends to play fast, not always releasing his cards on the table >>(so touching the table, but keeping them in his hand when playing a card). >>Immediatly after showing the club K declarer replaces it by a small >>club, saying that he did not intend to play the club K (club K was >>obviously wrong and giving away an extra trick). >> >>1. Can he change club K for a small club, assuming that he mispulled it? >> >>After the evening this declarer tells you that he was already thinking >>at the next trick: He would play small club to his King and ruff a club >>afterwards. And that is probably why he played the club King a trick too >>early. (As said before: he plays (too) fast). >> >>2. If he was allowed to change the card (assuming that he mispulled it); >>would you still allow it with this extra info? >> >>Thanks, >>Koen >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr Tue Jun 14 12:17:35 2005 From: defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr (defranchi.henri) Date: Tue Jun 14 12:24:00 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? Message-ID: <000c01c570ca$4934f800$0a02a8c0@PATRICK> ----- Original Message ----- From: defranchi.henri To: blml@amsterdamned.org Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:07 AM Subject: Question First of all,I apologize to you for my approximate english Anyway,I will try to explain the problem I met (all the players are a little drunk ) South was declarer(contract 2H ) and led(!) West put down his cards as a dummy and East asked:"what contract am I playing?" "2H" West answered...The board was played:down 4(-400) At the end of the match,partners,astonished,called the TD (it's you...) What is your ruling ? Are the following results make a difference (in the closed room) -Opponents played 2H just made -Opponents played 2H dbl just made (+670) Rather funny but true...Many thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050614/a084e6ea/attachment.html From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Jun 14 12:54:28 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Jun 14 12:54:29 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <000c01c570ca$4934f800$0a02a8c0@PATRICK> References: <000c01c570ca$4934f800$0a02a8c0@PATRICK> Message-ID: <42AEB764.4080701@hdw.be> defranchi.henri wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: defranchi.henri > To: blml@amsterdamned.org > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:07 AM > Subject: Question > > First of all,I apologize to you for my approximate english All our englishes are approximate (even the english ones). No need to apologize if your english is more approximate than others'. > Anyway,I will try to explain the problem I met (all the > players are a little drunk ) obviously. > South was declarer(contract 2H ) That is a fact which will not be changed by the subsequent happenings. and led(!) That is a lead out of turn. It is apparently going to be accepted, so there is nothing wrong there. West put down his cards as a > dummy That creates 13 penalty cards. and East asked:"what contract am I playing?" "2H" West > answered... That is an error ("I" is not playing), although the lawbook only dictates that the correct contract be the answer, not by whom it was bid! The board was played:down 4(-400) you mean east-west went four down in their 2H - so they made 8-4=4 tricks? Well, the rulings are as followes: - the original lead out of turn is accepted - no-one asked for a ruling about the 13 penalty cards, so no-one gets a ruling - East has illegally suggested, 13 times, to west, which card he should play. This constitutes UI to west, who has maliciously made use of the UI in playing exactly the card that was suggested - maybe cause for some correction. However, L16A1 tells us that NS ought to have called the director when they believe East-West have been exchanging UI; since they have not done so on the first instance, I shall not rule on any other instances - and probably not on the first one either. - real dummy north has not faced his cards - but no-one complained. I see no reason not to award the 9 tricks that they made to NS in their 2H contract: 2H+1. > At the end of the match,partners,astonished,called the TD (it's you...) > What is your ruling ? Are the following results make a difference (in > the closed room) > -Opponents played 2H just made > -Opponents played 2H dbl just made (+670) Why should the result in one room affect a ruling in the other? > Rather funny but true...Many thanks > Maybe you should ban alcohol to these four! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue Jun 14 12:55:38 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue Jun 14 12:57:25 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C6D9@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: defranchi.henri [mailto:defranchi.henri@wanadoo.fr] Sent: 14 June 2005 11:18 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] all drunk ? First of all, I apologize to you for my approximate English Anyway, I will try to explain the problem I met (all the players are a little drunk ) South was declarer (contract 2H) and led(!) West put down his cards as a dummy and East asked: "what contract am I playing?" "2H" West answered... The board was played: down 4(-400) At the end of the match, partners, astonished, called the TD (it's you...) What is your ruling ? Are the following results make a difference (in the closed room) - Opponents played 2H just made - Opponents played 2H dbl just made (+670) Rather funny but true...Many thanks ----- Hi, My ruling. Play stands: there were several irregularity but both sides were at fault. The hand was played with hearts as trumps, so the ownership of each trick is right. EW made 4 tricks, NS made 9. But NS were the declaring side, so the score is 2H+1 (NS+140). I don't think my ruling depends on the result in the other room. 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 twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 14 13:30:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 14 13:32:21 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <000c01c570ca$4934f800$0a02a8c0@PATRICK> Message-ID: Henri wrote: > First of all,I apologize to you for my approximate english > Anyway,I will try to explain the problem I met (all the > players are a little drunk ) > South was declarer(contract 2H ) and led(!) West put down his cards as > a dummy and East asked:"what contract am I playing?" "2H" West > answered...The board was played:down 4(-400) That doesn't sound right. The contract at the table was 2H by South (apparently making 8 tricks) - which scores 110, once that scoring error is corrected (79c) we can consider an adjustment. From the description there were several procedural errors, all serially condoned by opponents and I would see no reason to rule other than result stands (2H= NS +110). Tim From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 14 13:37:40 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 14 13:39:24 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <000c01c570ca$4934f800$0a02a8c0@PATRICK> Message-ID: <000601c570d5$78c4b730$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of defranchi.henri ............. Anyway,I will try to explain the problem I met (all the players are a little drunk ) South was declarer(contract 2H ) and led(!) West put down his cards as a dummy and East asked:"what contract am I playing?" "2H" West answered...The board was played:down 4(-400) At the end of the match,partners,astonished,called the TD (it's you...) What is your ruling ? Are the following results make a difference (in the closed room) -Opponents played 2H just made -Opponents played 2H dbl just made (+670) Rather funny but true...Many thanks I do not find this funny; I think the players need a lesson. This has nothing to do with (serious) Bridge. If the players were too drunk to play Bridge (as they apparently were) I would expel them from the event and tell them to come back when they become competent again. At matchpoints I would give both sides a clean bottom (they were all responsible for destroying the board so I give both sides A- according to L12C1 and in addition impose a procedural penalty on each side bringing their total score on the board down to 0%). At teams (Knock-out) I would seriously consider canceling the entire match between these two teams and leave it to the proper authority to decide further sanctions. My recommendation would be to let both teams "lose" the match giving the next opponent to the "would have been winner" a walk-over victory. If instead the match is part of a series I would again cancel at least that board and impose a PP in the order of 5 to 10 VP on each team. (I might however at series also decide to cancel the match between these two teams and if so I would assign a match result of zero IMPS and zero VP to each team). And finally I would report the incident to the appropriate discipline authority for possible further sanctions. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 14 13:39:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 14 13:41:09 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <000c01c570ca$4934f800$0a02a8c0@PATRICK> Message-ID: Oops. Make that 9 tricks, +140. I obviously can't subtract! Tim From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Tue Jun 14 13:41:47 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Jun 14 13:43:33 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card 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] 5th card >Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:25 +0100 (BST) > >Matthias wrote: > > > Well, I consider someone who tries to deny me the time to inspect the > > trick and think about the implications from the fall of the cards and > > then makes a fuss about it discourteous. > >You are not denied the time to think when necessary. If there is >something to think about on the current trick then even if declarer >guesses wrong about what you were thinking the TD will not rule that he >was misled. You are not denied the right to inspect the previous trick by >your opponents actions (only you/partner can end the L66a inspection >period. However, if you want to think about the rest of the hand >(excluding the current trick) you will either have to postpone doing so or >make some sort of statement to ensure declarer is not misled. > I think that a statement risks being an illegal form of communication with your partner. Therefore personally I would prefer to think in my own time. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jun 14 14:26:44 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue Jun 14 14:28:37 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42AECD04.7030900@t-online.de> Tim West-Meads wrote: >Matthias wrote: > > > >>Well, I consider someone who tries to deny me the time to inspect the >>trick and think about the implications from the fall of the cards and >>then makes a fuss about it discourteous. >> >> > >You are not denied the time to think when necessary. If there is >something to think about on the current trick then even if declarer >guesses wrong about what you were thinking the TD will not rule that he >was misled. You are not denied the right to inspect the previous trick by >your opponents actions (only you/partner can end the L66a inspection >period. However, if you want to think about the rest of the hand >(excluding the current trick) you will either have to postpone doing so or >make some sort of statement to ensure declarer is not misled. > > > How am I going to mislead declarer if all 4 players have played to this trick? I cannot have to consider what card to play, can I? So I am thinking about the picture as a whole and its implications for the next tricks. Maybe I am planning my next 5 discards, declarer being about to run his long suit. I cannot imagine how I could ever mislead declarer in this situation. Matthias >Tim > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jun 14 14:57:45 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue Jun 14 14:59:54 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <000c01c570ca$4934f800$0a02a8c0@PATRICK> References: <000c01c570ca$4934f800$0a02a8c0@PATRICK> Message-ID: <42AED449.8000108@t-online.de> Hello Henri, defranchi.henri wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* defranchi.henri > *To:* blml@amsterdamned.org > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:07 AM > *Subject:* Question > > First of all,I apologize to you for my approximate english Don`t. Most of us are not native speakers of English, so we all try to mangle the language as little as we are able to. As Herman put it: we approximate the best we can. Actually I think this is a pretty good description of what a non-native speaker does. > Anyway,I will try to explain the problem I met (all the > players are a little drunk ) This seems to be quite an understatement. It is far beyond anything I ever witnessed. > South was declarer(contract 2H ) and led(!) West put down his cards as > a dummy and East asked:"what contract am I playing?" "2H" West > answered...The board was played:down 4(-400) > At the end of the match,partners,astonished,called the TD (it's you...) > What is your ruling ? Are the following results make a difference (in > the closed room) > -Opponents played 2H just made > -Opponents played 2H dbl just made (+670) > Rather funny but true...Many thanks Hmmm. What to do? If this was a serious event I am afraid I would have to take a stance like Sven: A couple of penalties at least. In a social event I might try to save the evening with a ruling a la Herman or Robin, depends on how long this tournament is and how serious the situation.. Afterwards I would have a good long talk with these guys. When they are sober again, that is. If they were no problem otherwise they would be welcome to play again - sober - , if there was any problem with their behaviour they would face about 3 months suspension at least. This kind of thing is not acceptable at any level of play. A couple of questions remain, mainly: how could it come to this? These players have no business playing bridge in this state. Something ought to have been done earlier, possibly much earlier. A wise course could have been to take the 4 players from the other table, make a team out of them, and send the other four to the next bar or something. A bit difficult if they got drunk during the tournament, that`s true. If they didn`t care for the tournament their other pairs probably wouldn`t have minded being kicked out of the tournament too. I would not enjoy myself if I had to compare my scores with two drunkards..... Matthias >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jun 14 15:12:02 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Jun 14 15:13:52 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant Message-ID: <20050614131202.55C0EEB31E@poczta.interia.pl> Sven Pran napisa?(a): > I do not find this funny; I may be biased but most of the Scandinavian people I met (I spent three months in Helsinki and also had the opportunity to work with some Swedish guys) must have made vows not to reveal a glimmer of sense of humor during their entire lives. (politically correct version: "their sense of humor is substantially different from the rest of the world albeit certainly not worse; it is just different). I got a good laugh from Henry's story (as everybody else, I guess...) but reading Sven firing with both barrels ("this has nothing to do with serious bridge", "I give cold bottoms to both sides", "I write a disciplinary report") nearly made me fall from my chair. To my disappointment Sven stopped short of suggesting cruel tortures and 10 years of work camp for both pairs. OK, Sven, now before you sue me and put me into your killfile let me say that I enjoy a lot your contributions to BLML. I simply enjoyed that last piece in a different way. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f186c From blml at blakjak.com Tue Jun 14 15:40:19 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Jun 14 15:43:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: References: <77265f8f2d6146e73bd4cdf9f3a5b712@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >Ed asked: > >> > If he delays playing because he is thinking about the hand rather >> > than the current trick he risks misleading declarer. >> >> And if he does so intentionally, he violates Law 72B2. But if such was >> not his intention, what law has he violated? > >73d1 the bit about "However, players should be particularly careful in >positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side." > >If it seems at all likely that declarer will be misled by the break in >tempo then taking particular care includes issuing a disclaimer (whether >or not one has placed a card face down. The disclaimer must be truthful >and is UI to partner. "I'm sorry I was distracted by the length (or lack >thereof) of Zanetta's skirt." may be appropriate in some circumstances >"Sorry, nothing to think about on this trick." in others. These >statements are extra-legal but I don't know what else a player can do once >he realises that declarer may well be misled if he says nothing. Exactly: and once he has issued a disclaimer, or put his card face-down, or whatever, he has been "particularly careful" so there is no infraction. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 14 16:15:51 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 14 16:17:36 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: <20050614131202.55C0EEB31E@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <000001c570eb$92271ef0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski .................. > OK, Sven, now before you sue me and > put me into your killfile let me say that > I enjoy a lot your contributions to BLML. > I simply enjoyed that last piece in > a different way. Does it help your impression when I tell you that in a serious event I shall always consider the described behavior contempt of the game of Bridge? I have conducted events (like Christmas end of season parties) where we had even more fantastic happenings (to some extent caused by the use of alcohol), but at those events everybody expected to sit in on a social party with bridge as an accessory. Nobody expected serious bridge and nobody got hurt (in any way). In the described case as I said: It is not funny. Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 14 15:59:22 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Jun 14 16:57:52 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card References: <002e01c56e11$a7788500$179868d5@James><6.1.1.1.0.20050611164928.02d27eb0@pop.starpower.net><012801c56ee1$646959d0$219868d5@James> <000001c56f3a$1fe40270$7b08e150@Mildred> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 5:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card > > 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: "GUTHRIE" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 12:57 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card prev quotes for context [Matthias Beghaus] >> You don`t need a law which states "you may not play >> to the next trick before the old one is quitted by >> all players". You just don`t do it. [Eric landau] > Nigel should go back and re-read Matthias' reply to > Wayne. end > > [nige1] > > I feel that relies too much on players agreeing with > > Matthias. If the laws really do say it's OK, how can you > > criticise a player for doing it. For example, nobody > > criticised Soloway in the last Bermuda Bowl Final > > > +=+ The action is lawful. Furthermore the player who > does it is not in breach of any ethical standard. If > there are places where it is not the done thing, this > is a matter of local culture. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am aware of Grattan's attention to detail and tendency of being methodical. But what I have noticed is that he has not qualified his statement. This is as if to say that whenever it happens, by law it is lawful without condition. That makes me uneasy for reasons such as the following: [a] it was not the player's rightful turn. [b] the played card was not in accordance with a restriction [c] the player had not quitted his card before playing another one I am sure that Grattan considered those situations when making his statements so he meant it. As for the ethics. I am sure it has been pointed out that playing to the next trick while other players have suggested [by not quitting their recently faced cards] can lure them into hasty play so as to not appear to vary their tempo; or even lure them into believing that the player had played a different card to that trick and cause them to believe they have revoked inducing them to expose a 5th card. Which is to say that at a minimum to avoid being labeled sharp practice it is necessary for [a] it to be the player's rightful turn and [b] there was a reasonable time for the other players to quit the trick. And I believe that is a reasonable ethical standard. regards roger pewick From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jun 14 17:12:29 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue Jun 14 17:14:29 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: <20050614131202.55C0EEB31E@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050614131202.55C0EEB31E@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <42AEF3DD.4020507@t-online.de> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >I may be biased but most of the Scandinavian >people I met (I spent three months in >Helsinki and also had the opportunity >to work with some Swedish guys) >must have made vows not to >reveal a glimmer of sense of humor during their entire lives. >(politically correct version: "their >sense of humor is substantially >different from the rest of the world >albeit certainly not worse; it is just different). > > It probably is, but I had lots of fun with folks from Scandinavia, it may be your humor that`s different :-P I remember a guy from Iceland on lead on the last board of a european championship (consolation ;-) ) telling me: "I am now about to make my last disastrous lead of this tournament!" Which he did :-) After the hand he told his partner about our talk. His partner replied: "I wish you had told me!" >I got a good laugh from Henry's story >(as everybody else, I guess...) but reading >Sven firing with both barrels >("this has nothing to do with serious bridge", >"I give cold bottoms to both sides", >"I write a disciplinary report") nearly made me >fall from my chair. To my disappointment >Sven stopped short of suggesting >cruel tortures and 10 years of work camp >for both pairs. > > Be fair, Konrad. Of course this is a hilarious story if you are not involved, our even when you are and these guys are not rowdy or obnoxious. It may well look different to you if you are the President or Chairman or whatever name you give to the (nominal) boss of a bridge club with 300 members (which makes it one of the biggest in my country). Of course other people are doing most of the work, but now a lot of members come running to you and complain..... I have had it happen to me, and that part was not much fun. Only last Friday we suspended a player because of constant problems with his behaviour towards other players. Of course, if these guys were just quitly drunk and incapable of playing bridge 5 years of work camp should be enough ;-) Jokes aside, if this was a club event they should have been turned back (politely) before the tournament began, or - if they were sober then - their supply of alcohol should have been limited. We are not a dry club, you could get quite a number of beers here, or other stuff, but you would be firmly discouraged from getting _that_ drunk. Anyway, Henri had a good story to tell, and I am glad that he did. Speaking of clubs: If anyone from BLML should happen to stay in or around Essen, Germany sometime in the future you simply have to come over to my club, have a talk and a game of bridge (and a few drinks if you like). I already met a couple of people from BLML, but it is always good to enlarge the collection :-) Matthias >OK, Sven, now before you sue me and >put me into your killfile let me say that >I enjoy a lot your contributions to BLML. >I simply enjoyed that last piece in >a different way. > > >Konrad Ciborowski >Krak?w, Poland > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Startuj z INTERIA.PL! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f186c > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From Priscilla at pacificdie.com Tue Jun 14 17:37:01 2005 From: Priscilla at pacificdie.com (Bertram) Date: Tue Jun 14 17:38:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Prescription medication for mens health and wellness. Message-ID: <14107129428.9735780688@adsl-13-172.cytanet.com.cy> Discover the new winning sexual erection pills! That which is not just is not law. I celebrate myself, and sing myself. Music is essentially useless, as life is. From moonshine at ryker.com Tue Jun 14 17:36:59 2005 From: moonshine at ryker.com (Leo) Date: Tue Jun 14 17:38:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Top 10 popular pharmacy drugs Message-ID: <126712901.1138842332@adsl-13-172.cytanet.com.cy> Find cheap prescriptions on the internet pharmacy! It's hard to work in groups when you're omnipotent. The greatest oak was once a little nut who held its ground.... Marriage is the only adventure open to the cowardly. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 14 17:40:34 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jun 14 17:42:23 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) In-Reply-To: <42AEA43A.8080108@hotmail.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64EA@rama.micronas.com> <42AEA43A.8080108@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <981c6bc0c19b81e8f09da6a82535d30a@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 14, 2005, at 5:32 AM, koen wrote: > Problem is that I'm also playing and can't take the neceassry time for > these cases) If playing prevents you from properly acting as director, IMO you shouldn't play. From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Jun 14 17:56:18 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue Jun 14 17:59:20 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520589A93C@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 17:41 > To: 'Bridge Laws Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) > > > > On Jun 14, 2005, at 5:32 AM, koen wrote: > > > Problem is that I'm also playing and can't take the > neceassry time for > > these cases) > > If playing prevents you from properly acting as director, IMO you > shouldn't play. I fully agree. But who else does the directing then? -- Martin Sinot From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 14 18:16:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 14 18:18:46 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <42AECD04.7030900@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias wrote: > > > >You are not denied the time to think when necessary. If there is > >something to think about on the current trick then even if declarer > >guesses wrong about what you were thinking the TD will not rule that > he >was misled. You are not denied the right to inspect the previous > trick by >your opponents actions (only you/partner can end the L66a > inspection >period. However, if you want to think about the rest of > the hand >(excluding the current trick) you will either have to > postpone doing so or >make some sort of statement to ensure declarer is > not misled. > > How am I going to mislead declarer if all 4 players have played to this > trick? They haven't - the card you/partner has face up belongs to the previous trick. The next trick is in play and it is your turn. > I cannot have to consider what card to play, can I? Why on earth not? Declarer has led (in turn), it is now your turn - if you aren't thinking about the current trick declarer may be misled. As Nigel pointed out I used to believe that it wasn't declarer's turn to lead until the previous trick had been quitted - I don't like the fact that the laws don't say this but I can't change them. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 14 18:16:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 14 18:18:50 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: <000001c570eb$92271ef0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Does it help your impression when I tell you that in a serious event I > shall always consider the described behavior contempt of the game of > Bridge? That is purely a matter for SO regulation. If the event has regulations forbidding excessive (or any) alcohol a penalty is, of course, in order. In the absence of such regulations one considers whether the behaviour of the players has caused annoyance at the table (regardless of alcohol). Since everybody at the table was happy and team-mates should have known what they were in for there are no worries on that score. That leaves the TD himself - one might expect the story to provide sufficient "dining out" value that he should not get annoyed. If he *is* sufficiently outraged to issue a penalty it should be separate from any score adjustment (and equal for both sides). NB, if the customers thought the event was serious they probably wouldn't have had that much to drink, and since both sides were drinking it really isn't the director's place to contradict them:) Tim From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 14 18:50:45 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue Jun 14 18:52:05 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card Message-ID: <005a01c57101$365d7e50$4d9868d5@James> [Tim West-Meades] > Don't be silly Nigel. If you delay playing at the > request of an opponent there is no way a TD is going > to consider the opponent was misled by your > compliance (or that you could have known..). [nige1] Silly? I can't help feeling that this law is silly but but the interpretation is Wayne's, not mine. From john at asimere.com Tue Jun 14 19:12:28 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Jun 14 19:16:04 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Wayne Burrows writes > > >>From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) >>Reply-To: twm@cix.co.uk >>To: blml@rtflb.org >>Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >>Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:25 +0100 (BST) >> >>Matthias wrote: >> >> > Well, I consider someone who tries to deny me the time to inspect the >> > trick and think about the implications from the fall of the cards and >> > then makes a fuss about it discourteous. >> >>You are not denied the time to think when necessary. If there is >>something to think about on the current trick then even if declarer >>guesses wrong about what you were thinking the TD will not rule that he >>was misled. You are not denied the right to inspect the previous trick by >>your opponents actions (only you/partner can end the L66a inspection >>period. However, if you want to think about the rest of the hand >>(excluding the current trick) you will either have to postpone doing so or >>make some sort of statement to ensure declarer is not misled. >> > >I think that a statement risks being an illegal form of communication with >your partner. I don't think anyone disagrees with this, maybe I wouldn't use "illegal". However, the creation of unauthorised information per se is *not* illegal. The creation of mis-information *is*. Take your pick. > >Therefore personally I would prefer to think in my own time. > >Wayne > >_________________________________________________________________ >Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ >http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Tue Jun 14 19:17:47 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Jun 14 19:20:43 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <42AED449.8000108@t-online.de> References: <000c01c570ca$4934f800$0a02a8c0@PATRICK> <42AED449.8000108@t-online.de> Message-ID: In article <42AED449.8000108@t-online.de>, Matthias Berghaus writes >Hello Henri, > >defranchi.henri wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* defranchi.henri >> *To:* blml@amsterdamned.org >> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:07 AM >> *Subject:* Question >> >> First of all,I apologize to you for my approximate english > > >Don`t. Most of us are not native speakers of English, so we all try to >mangle the language as little as we are able to. As Herman put it: we >approximate the best we can. Actually I think this is a pretty good >description of what a non-native speaker does. > >> Anyway,I will try to explain the problem I met (all the >> players are a little drunk ) > > >This seems to be quite an understatement. It is far beyond anything I >ever witnessed. > >> South was declarer(contract 2H ) and led(!) West put down his cards as >> a dummy and East asked:"what contract am I playing?" "2H" West >> answered...The board was played:down 4(-400) >> At the end of the match,partners,astonished,called the TD (it's you...) >> What is your ruling ? Are the following results make a difference (in >> the closed room) >> -Opponents played 2H just made >> -Opponents played 2H dbl just made (+670) >> Rather funny but true...Many thanks > Was the TD called during the hand? NO! How many tricks did the proper declaring side make? 9 Result: 2H+1. wtp? > >Hmmm. What to do? If this was a serious event I am afraid I would have >to take a stance like Sven: A couple of penalties at least. >In a social event I might try to save the evening with a ruling a la >Herman or Robin, depends on how long this tournament is and how serious >the situation.. Afterwards I would have a good long talk with these >guys. When they are sober again, that is. If they were no problem >otherwise they would be welcome to play again - sober - , if there was >any problem with their behaviour they would face about 3 months >suspension at least. This kind of thing is not acceptable at any level >of play. >A couple of questions remain, mainly: how could it come to this? These >players have no business playing bridge in this state. Something ought >to have been done earlier, possibly much earlier. A wise course could >have been to take the 4 players from the other table, make a team out of >them, and send the other four to the next bar or something. A bit >difficult if they got drunk during the tournament, that`s true. If they >didn`t care for the tournament their other pairs probably wouldn`t have >minded being kicked out of the tournament too. I would not enjoy myself >if I had to compare my scores with two drunkards..... > >Matthias > >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 -- 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 Jun 14 19:20:00 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Jun 14 19:23:24 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: <000001c570eb$92271ef0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <20050614131202.55C0EEB31E@poczta.interia.pl> <000001c570eb$92271ef0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c570eb$92271ef0$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski >.................. >> OK, Sven, now before you sue me and >> put me into your killfile let me say that >> I enjoy a lot your contributions to BLML. >> I simply enjoyed that last piece in >> a different way. > >Does it help your impression when I tell you that in a serious event I shall >always consider the described behavior contempt of the game of Bridge? Were you called to the table during the hand Sven? Nope. It's none of your business. What equity needs to be restored? None. So what if it's a serious event? You were not called to the table. John > >I have conducted events (like Christmas end of season parties) where we had >even more fantastic happenings (to some extent caused by the use of >alcohol), but at those events everybody expected to sit in on a social party >with bridge as an accessory. Nobody expected serious bridge and nobody got >hurt (in any way). > >In the described case as I said: It is not funny. > >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 14 19:42:24 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 14 19:44:10 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c57108$6c9c5930$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > Does it help your impression when I tell you that in a serious event I > > shall always consider the described behavior contempt of the game of > > Bridge? > > That is purely a matter for SO regulation. If the event has regulations > forbidding excessive (or any) alcohol a penalty is, of course, in order. > In the absence of such regulations one considers whether the behaviour of > the players has caused annoyance at the table (regardless of alcohol). > Since everybody at the table was happy and team-mates should have known > what they were in for there are no worries on that score. That leaves the > TD himself - one might expect the story to provide sufficient "dining out" > value that he should not get annoyed. If he *is* sufficiently outraged to > issue a penalty it should be separate from any score adjustment (and > equal for both sides). > > NB, if the customers thought the event was serious they probably wouldn't > have had that much to drink, and since both sides were drinking it > really isn't the director's place to contradict them:) An unfounded assumption! I have had some (very few) cases where I had to warn players that I was just about to rule contempt and take drastic actions against them unless they behaved. That has always been sufficient. I have never had to expel a player although I have on one or maybe a few occasions instructed a team captain to replace a player for a session or so (until he sobered up). And I have received very positive feedback from other players on my effort to maintain discipline and order to everybody's pleasure. And I don't need any specific SO regulation to tell me when I may rule contempt! I have Law 74 and I have Law 81C4. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 14 20:13:23 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jun 14 20:12:07 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050614135616.02b22b40@pop.starpower.net> At 07:41 AM 6/14/05, wayne.burrows wrote: >>From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) >> >>You are not denied the time to think when necessary. If there is >>something to think about on the current trick then even if declarer >>guesses wrong about what you were thinking the TD will not rule that he >>was misled. You are not denied the right to inspect the previous >>trick by >>your opponents actions (only you/partner can end the L66a inspection >>period. However, if you want to think about the rest of the hand >>(excluding the current trick) you will either have to postpone doing >>so or >>make some sort of statement to ensure declarer is not misled. > >I think that a statement risks being an illegal form of communication with >your partner. > >Therefore personally I would prefer to think in my own time. When you hesitate, it creates a presumption that you have something immediate to think about. Declarer is entitled to use this presumption to his advantage, but partner is not; it is UI to him. If you have nothing to think about, your hesitation may mislead declarer. It may "mislead" partner as well, but partner may not use the (misleading) information anyway, so it cannot affect his actions. If you offer a statement as Tim suggests, you prevent declarer from being misled. You also let partner know that the presumptive UI which he was not allowed to use in any event happens not to be true. How can this work to your side's advantage? Is Wayne seriously suggesting that in order to "carefully avoid taking advantage" of the UI from the remark partner must act as though he were illegally taking advantage of the UI from the huddle? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Tue Jun 14 20:21:19 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Jun 14 20:23:06 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <005a01c57101$365d7e50$4d9868d5@James> Message-ID: >From: "GUTHRIE" >To: "BLML" >Subject: Re: [blml] 5th card >Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:50:45 +0100 > >[Tim West-Meades] > > Don't be silly Nigel. If you delay playing at the > > request of an opponent there is no way a TD is going > > to consider the opponent was misled by your > > compliance (or that you could have known..). > >[nige1] >Silly? I can't help feeling that this law is silly but >but the interpretation is Wayne's, not mine. > I didn't make this interpretation. If you delay playing because an opponent has a card face up to the previous trick then you may mislead. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Check out the latest video @ http://xtra.co.nz/streaming From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 14 20:24:31 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jun 14 20:23:10 2005 Subject: Fwd: RE: [blml] 5th card Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050614142319.02de6a70@pop.starpower.net> Missent and forwarded... >At 01:22 PM 6/13/05, twm wrote: > >> > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows >> >> > If he is requested to play then he should simply point out that his >> > partner has not yet quitted the previous trick. >> >>And then the TD *should* tell him this has no bearing on his being >>required to play in tempo. > >Were it me, I might reply that I try always to play my card within 1-2 >seconds after the previous trick is quitted or it becomes my turn to >play, whichever occurs later, making that my normal tempo. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam at tameware.com Tue Jun 14 20:41:48 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue Jun 14 20:43:54 2005 Subject: [blml] L12C2 ambiguity? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:25 AM +0100 6/14/05, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Richard wrote: >> >> Tim West-Meads asserted: >> >> >To me "had the irregularity not occurred" is also implicit in the >> >adjustment for OS. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Adam Wildavsky used logic to reach the same conclusion. But the >> WBF Laws Committee used non-Euclidean logic to specifically state >> in an official interpretation of Law 12C2 that the Wildavsky & >> West-Meads conclusion is incorrect. > >Was that not in an MI + UI case? I can certainly understand the logic of >allowing the worst possible "mix-up" based on the UI from the MI while >protecting NOS from the MI. UI is a single irregularity, MI is actually >two irregularities (since it is always UI too). The interpretation was not in the context of a particular case. I subsequently asked for examples here on BLML where the interpretation would make a difference -- apart from Marv's I have yet to receive one. I requested examples because I did not and do not understand how the WBF would like its interpretation to be applied. Let's suppose that it were possible for a few of us to apply the WBF's interpretation in a consistent manner. It would occasionally result in a harsher adjustment for the OS. The reason for this harsher adjustment is to provide a disincentive for potential offenders, in the hope that players will be less likely to become the OS. If the WBF interpretation will make a difference only rarely, and if even then few know what that difference is or ought to be, then I submit that such a disincentive is ineffective. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 14 20:54:13 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 14 20:55:59 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c57112$7535fe70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst ................. > >Does it help your impression when I tell you > >that in a serious event I shall always consider > >the described behavior contempt of the game of Bridge? > > Were you called to the table during the hand Sven? Nope. It's none of > your business. What equity needs to be restored? None. So what if it's a > serious event? You were not called to the table. John I described how I would have handled the case. Naturally if I was not called to the table and the situation did not catch my attention in any other way I would not have any reason for action as TD. In that case I would have let the reported result stand as it apparently reflected the result actually obtained on the board. IMHO either this result (+400 North/South) must stand, or the board must be cancelled. I suppose this is more easily seen and understood if East in fact had "played" a contract in a denomination different from the contract in which South should have been the declarer? An alternative could of course be to use L12C2 with both sides considered OS. In that case East/West would be left with their result of -400 while North/South would receive the score not better than for 2H just made (the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. 2H= is definitely probable being a result from the other room but we do not know if it was the most unfavorable result at all probable). I still do not accept the described behavior by the players in a serious event. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 14 21:02:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 14 21:04:12 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <005a01c57101$365d7e50$4d9868d5@James> Message-ID: > [Tim West-Meades] > > Don't be silly Nigel. If you delay playing at the > > request of an opponent there is no way a TD is going > > to consider the opponent was misled by your > > compliance (or that you could have known..). > > [nige1] > Silly? I can't help feeling that this law is silly but > but the interpretation is Wayne's, not mine. Nigel - I agree the law is silly (it should stipulate waiting for the previous trick to be quitted as correct procedure) but at no stage did Wayne (as far as I can tell) suggest that you are *obliged* to play after an opponent has requested a delay. That one need not comply does not make doing so an infraction. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 14 21:02:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 14 21:04:15 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: <000301c57108$6c9c5930$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > An unfounded assumption! > > I have had some (very few) cases where I had to warn players that I was > just about to rule contempt and take drastic actions against them unless > they behaved. So what? If the drunks are happy together at their own table (and not interfering in any way with other tables) such warnings would be priggish and officious. Cases where a player/pair are causing problems (whether fuelled by alcohol or not) are a different matter entirely. > And I don't need any specific SO regulation to tell me when I may rule > contempt! I have Law 74 and I have Law 81C4. Using either L74 or Law81c4 against a polite, well-behaved drunk (in the absence of a no alcohol regulation) would be a gross abuse of power. There was nothing in Henri's story which gave any indication of bad behaviour - and it's not even as if getting to a fair ruling was particularly difficult (except for me, when stone cold sober, taking two attempts to count to 13!). Tim From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 14 21:08:06 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 14 21:09:52 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c57114$65d91fa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ............. > If you delay playing because an opponent has a card > face up to the previous trick then you may mislead. If a player delays his lead or play and makes it clear that he does so just awaiting another player to turn his card from the previous trick face down I shall never accept any allegation that he is misleading opponents or communicating illegally with his partner from this delay alone. My understanding of the laws is that a player has the right to lead and to play in his normal tempo even if another player still has the card he played to the previous trick face up, but he also has the right to await all four cards being turned face down before he leads or plays to the next trick. Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 14 21:38:52 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 14 21:40:37 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c57118$b1914a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ......... > Using either L74 or Law81c4 against a polite, well-behaved drunk (in the > absence of a no alcohol regulation) would be a gross abuse of power. Who has indicated anything about taking any action against a well-behaving player whether sober or drunk? > There was nothing in Henri's story which gave any indication of bad > behaviour - and it's not even as if getting to a fair ruling was > particularly difficult (except for me, when stone cold sober, taking two > attempts to count to 13!). There were indeed four players who by their mere acts proved guilty in violating at least Law 74B1 if no other law as well. And as a result they caused normal scoring of this board to be impossible. Incidentally: Ruling +140 for North-South effective for either side which seems to me is the opinion of most posters in this case cannot possibly be correct as I have shown in a separate post. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 15 00:26:02 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Jun 15 00:26:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Both ethical and illegal (was 5th card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 2D(1) ? (1) Multi. Usually a weak 2 in hearts or a weak 2 in spades. Very rarely is very strong and balanced. You, South, hold: AQJ3 85 Q952 KJ3 Because of an irregularity that you are not authorised to remember (but your opponents are authorised to remember) your partner must pass at their first turn to call. What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 15 00:45:51 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Jun 15 00:46:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Both ethical and illegal (was 5th card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>A gullible director or a gullible appeals committee would (if >>they got the chance) occasionally rule that the choice I took >>was an illogical alternative, and that the demonstrably >>suggested choice that I avoided was the only logical >>alternative. Tim West-Meads: >They might rule that way but they wouldn't adjust the score >would they? On what grounds are you seeking a ruling? Richard Hills: Insufficient lateral thinking. I am *preventing* a TD or AC from giving a ruling. I do this by choosing an alternate call to a demonstrably suggested call that the TD and AC would rule that my peers would choose at least 75% of the time. This is because I illegally apply a 100% rule to my selection of calls when a call is demonstrably suggested - I only elect to choose a demonstrably suggested call if I assess that 100% of Richard Hills clones would choose that call. Tim West-Meads: [snip] >That isn't legal. To gain advantage from a "gullible" TD one >must first choose an alternative one considers suggested by >UI and then convince the TD/AC there were no LAs. [snip] >It is possible to win in committee in such circumstances (and >the illegality of so doing will likely remain hidden). Richard Hills: In my opinion, Tim is confusing illegal with unethical. If an AC judges that a demonstrably suggested LA is the only LA, then Law 93B3 and Law 85 state that the AC's ruling is ipso facto legal. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Wed Jun 15 02:11:47 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed Jun 15 02:08:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Both ethical and illegal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: [IMPs, ourside vul, Multi 2D from my RHO] > > You, South, hold: > > AQJ3 > 85 > Q952 > KJ3 > > Because of an irregularity that you are not > authorised to remember (but your opponents > are authorised to remember) your partner > must pass at their first turn to call. > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? I pass. Nothing else is reasonable. I have no long suit, and no stopper in RHO's most likely long suit. Can I bid 1NT? If they don't accept it partner is barred anyway and we won't be in any deeper than we already are. (No, that's not a serious suggestion. I know I can't.) GRB From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 15 03:06:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 15 03:08:21 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: <000601c57118$b1914a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ......... > > Using either L74 or Law81c4 against a polite, well-behaved drunk (in > > the absence of a no alcohol regulation) would be a gross abuse of > > power. > > Who has indicated anything about taking any action against a > well-behaving player whether sober or drunk? You did. The players in this case got confused - there is nothing to indicate that they misbehaved. > > > There was nothing in Henri's story which gave any indication of bad > > behaviour - and it's not even as if getting to a fair ruling was > > particularly difficult (except for me, when stone cold sober, taking > > two > > attempts to count to 13!). > > There were indeed four players who by their mere acts proved guilty in > violating at least Law 74B1 if no other law as well. And as a result > they caused normal scoring of this board to be impossible. How did they violate 74b1? They were paying attention to the best of their collective ability (and did so perfectly reasonably bar a little confusion over who was declarer), there was no suggestion from any of the players that their opponents had been discourteous in any way. We do not require players to be competent and, if players know eachother well enough to have fun together, we to do not penalise under L74b1 when nobody has taken offence. > Incidentally: Ruling +140 for North-South effective for either side > which seems to me is the opinion of most posters in this case cannot > possibly be correct as I have shown in a separate post. You haven't shown it at all. The contract was played in 2H. Each trick comprised a legal set of cards (no revokes, no trumping with spades, no wrong hand leads, etc). Every infraction was condoned by the opposing side and the number of tricks taken by each side was well within the bounds of "equity". Any adjustment (bar the scoring correction) would be a gross miscarriage of justice. The case would be a lot harder had the contract been played in a different denomination to the one bid. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 15 03:06:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 15 03:08:25 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000501c57114$65d91fa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > If a player delays his lead or play and makes it clear that he does so > just awaiting another player to turn his card from the previous trick > face down I shall never accept any allegation that he is misleading > opponents Of course not. But then if he is going to make such extra-legal indications he may as well use a FDAP in similar circumstances! It's exactly the same - one hesitates while not thinking about the current trick and issues a disclaimer to avoid misleading declarer. The disclaimer is UI to his partner - but not all UI suggests one action over another. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 15 03:06:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 15 03:08:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Both ethical and illegal (was 5th card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > > >>A gullible director or a gullible appeals committee would (if > >>they got the chance) occasionally rule that the choice I took > >>was an illogical alternative, and that the demonstrably > >>suggested choice that I avoided was the only logical > >>alternative. > > Tim West-Meads: > > >They might rule that way but they wouldn't adjust the score > >would they? On what grounds are you seeking a ruling? > > Richard Hills: > > Insufficient lateral thinking. I am *preventing* a TD or AC > from giving a ruling. I do this by choosing an alternate call > to a demonstrably suggested call that the TD and AC would rule > that my peers would choose at least 75% of the time. You aren't "preventing" a TD/AC from ruling - how could you? Of course by selecting a call that opps are highly unlikely to consider to be taking advantage you reduce the likelihood of a TD/AC being called to rule. > This is > because I illegally apply a 100% rule to my selection of calls > when a call is demonstrably suggested - Why do you consider this illegal? If you feel comfortable using the 100% rule to avoid taking advantage you may surely do so. What law do you think you are breaking by making a special effort to avoid a suggested call? > I only elect to choose > a demonstrably suggested call if I assess that 100% of Richard > Hills clones would choose that call. Normal and legal I would have thought. I use 100% of TWM clones + 80% of those I believe a TD would broadly consider my peers. > > [snip] > > >That isn't legal. To gain advantage from a "gullible" TD one > >must first choose an alternative one considers suggested by > >UI and then convince the TD/AC there were no LAs. > > [snip] > > >It is possible to win in committee in such circumstances (and > >the illegality of so doing will likely remain hidden). > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, Tim is confusing illegal with unethical. If an > AC judges that a demonstrably suggested LA is the only LA, > then Law 93B3 and Law 85 state that the AC's ruling is ipso > facto legal. What has the legality of the AC/TD ruling to do with it? ACs sometimes give legal rulings based on poor judgement. If a player lies to a gullible committee in order to benefit from their poor judgement his lying remains illegal. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 15 03:06:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 15 03:08:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Both ethical and illegal (was 5th card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 2D(1) ? > > (1) Multi. Usually a weak 2 in hearts or a > weak 2 in spades. Very rarely is very > strong and balanced. > > You, South, hold: > > AQJ3 > 85 > Q952 > KJ3 > > Because of an irregularity that you are not > authorised to remember (but your opponents > are authorised to remember) your partner > must pass at their first turn to call. Then I'll assume based on the AI that partner POOTed before anyone else bid (there may be other ways of getting the same restriction but that's the only one I can remember). The law number under which the TD ruled might also jog my memory. > What call do you make? 2S, X or pass. Depends on quality of opps, their agreements about pass/XX and other follow-ups, state of the match. > What other calls do you consider making? The other two. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 15 04:34:46 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 15 04:36:32 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c57152$cba43340$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............. > > Incidentally: Ruling +140 for North-South effective for either side > > which seems to me is the opinion of most posters in this case cannot > > possibly be correct as I have shown in a separate post. > > You haven't shown it at all. The contract was played in 2H. Each trick > comprised a legal set of cards (no revokes, no trumping with spades, no > wrong hand leads, etc). Every infraction was condoned by the opposing > side and the number of tricks taken by each side was well within the > bounds of "equity". Any adjustment (bar the scoring correction) would be > a gross miscarriage of justice. So if the reason that East only got four tricks was because South made the opening lead while if the board had been played correctly with South as declarer East and West would have held South to only 8 tricks is none of the Director's business to consider? The contract was played in 2H by East for a result of +400 to North/South. This contract that cannot be "converted" to the same contract played by South without assessing the number of tricks to be won by South. And as South was as "guilty" as any of the other three players (he was even the first player to commit an irregularity) he shall in case not have assigned an adjusted score better than for the least favorable result that was at all probable for him. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 15 04:40:48 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 15 04:42:34 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c57153$a39e9330$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > > If a player delays his lead or play and makes it clear that he does so > > just awaiting another player to turn his card from the previous trick > > face down I shall never accept any allegation that he is misleading > > opponents > > Of course not. But then if he is going to make such extra-legal > indications he may as well use a FDAP in similar circumstances! It's > exactly the same - one hesitates while not thinking about the current > trick and issues a disclaimer to avoid misleading declarer. > The disclaimer is UI to his partner - but not all UI suggests one action > over another. What similar circumstances? Now he is not waiting for somebody; he is positively pausing for thought with a claim that his thinking concerns future trick(s). The only real achievement by FDAP is that he causes annoyances to his opponents (and partner) who are delayed the information on which card he has decided to play so they cannot use the same time effectively. Sven From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 15 05:27:09 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Jun 15 05:28:26 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card References: Message-ID: <009901c5715a$1d9ed130$169868d5@James> [Tim West-Meades] >> Nigel - I agree the law is silly (it should stipulate >> waiting for the previous trick to be quitted as correct >> procedure) but at no stage did Wayne (as far as I can >> tell) suggest that you are *obliged* to play after >> an opponent has requested a delay. That one need not >> comply does not make doing so an infraction. [Wayne Birrows] > I didn't make this interpretation. If you delay > playing because an opponent has a card face up to the > previous trick then you may mislead. [Nigel] I apologise, Wayne, for misrepresenting your view :( I'm in a contrite mood, so I also reluctantly admit that L45E1 about "the 5th card played to a trick" has more than one possible interpretaiton :( From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 15 05:36:37 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Jun 15 05:37:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Both ethical and illegal (was 5th card) References: Message-ID: <00a601c5715b$6fd21a10$169868d5@James> {Richard James Hills] > Imps LHO We vul: AQJ3 85 Q952 KJ3 > LHO YOU > 2D(1) ? > (1) Multi. Usually a weak 2 in hearts or a > weak 2 in spades. Very rarely is very > strong and balanced. > Because of an irregularity that you are not > authorised to remember (but your opponents > are authorised to remember) your partner > must pass at their first turn to call. > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? [Nigel] P=10 X=9 2S=2 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 15 06:20:29 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Jun 15 06:22:22 2005 Subject: [blml] For the Love of Benji In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 2S(1) Pass Pass ? (1) Benji Two - 6 card suit & 6-10 hcp You, South, hold: 98 AT43 AJ76 Q85 What call do you make? What other call do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Wed Jun 15 08:03:27 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Jun 15 08:05:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? Message-ID: AKQJ J1053 Q105 106 Nil Vul MP Pairs Dealer North 1D* 1H 1S P 2S 3H 3S** P 4S P * Some sort of Precision ** Agreed break in tempo - extremely fast. South bid 3S (written bidding) as soon East's 3H was completed. She had her pen to the paper as East was writing. It was as if she was ready to invite game with 3S without further competition. At the AC hearing NS counted this by claiming that their agreement was that 3S in competition shows 10+ points and five spades and that double would have shown 10+ points and four spades. Apparently they did not play negative doubles on this sequence. They were quizzed as to what they would do with competitive values without game interest. They gave no answer. They provided no documentation for this unusual style. Nevertheless the AC accepted their statement of their agreement. Would you? Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Check out the latest video @ http://xtra.co.nz/streaming From felixw at didamail.com Wed Jun 15 08:49:10 2005 From: felixw at didamail.com (Norris Hodge) Date: Wed Jun 15 08:14:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Rates just dropped Message-ID: <20041vbllx3.ED8DA244AE@mailhost1q.lists.techtarget.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.sllly.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Earline Nadeau to be remov(ed: http://www.sllly.com/deletion.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 Jun 15 08:51:28 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Jun 15 08:53:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [big snip] >Apparently they did not play negative doubles on this >sequence. > >They were quizzed as to what they would do with >competitive values without game interest. They gave no >answer. > >They provided no documentation for this unusual style. > >Nevertheless the AC accepted their statement of their >agreement. Would you? Richard Hills: 1. Expect the unexpected. Unusual agreements are usual. Contrariwise, it is unusual for a partnership to agree to adopt exclusively usual agreements. 2. Self-serving evidence is still evidence. 3. Evidence that that pair is lying is insufficient. In New Zealand it is not illegal for a bunny pair to have a bidding system with a hole in it, whereby particular types of hands are unbiddable for that bunny pair. 4. If, on a subsequent occasion, evidence is discovered that that bunny pair has deliberately lied to the AC about their partnership agreements, then that bunny pair has committed a Law 73B2 "gravest possible offence". 5. By using the words "Apparently" and "Nevertheless" in his posting, the tenor of Wayne's post suggests that Wayne might support a balance-of-probabilities AC ruling that that bunny pair's self-serving evidence is an infraction of Law 73B2. If I have correctly interpreted Wayne's implicit position, that seems somewhat inconsistent with Wayne's previous polemics against balance-of-probabilities rulings. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jun 15 08:57:36 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed Jun 15 08:59:40 2005 Subject: [blml] For the Love of Benji In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42AFD160.50600@t-online.de> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: South >Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- Pass >2S(1) Pass Pass ? > >(1) Benji Two - 6 card suit & 6-10 hcp > >You, South, hold: > >98 >AT43 >AJ76 >Q85 > >What call do you make? > > Double. >What other call do you consider making? > > None. What other calls? Or do we speak about someone holding a gun to my head? In that case I double. Matthias > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Wed Jun 15 09:10:48 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Wed Jun 15 09:12:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Both ethical and illegal (was 5th card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050615/e67c6d1c/attachment.html From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Wed Jun 15 09:14:49 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Wed Jun 15 09:16:36 2005 Subject: [blml] For the Love of Benji In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050615/6d16c4ae/attachment-0001.html From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jun 15 09:15:44 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed Jun 15 09:17:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42AFD5A0.9010201@t-online.de> Wayne Burrows wrote: > AKQJ > J1053 > Q105 > 106 Presumably these are dealer`s cards. I am going to proceed on zhis assumption. > > Nil Vul > MP Pairs > Dealer North > > 1D* 1H 1S P > 2S 3H 3S** P > 4S P > > * Some sort of Precision What is the 1NT range? > > ** Agreed break in tempo - extremely fast. > > South bid 3S (written bidding) as soon East's 3H was completed. She > had her pen to the paper as East was writing. > > It was as if she was ready to invite game with 3S without further > competition. I am extremely unfamiliar with written bidding. Without BLML I would not know that such a thing exists. So any observation of mine regarding this type of bidding will be somewhat unreliable. I gather that the equivalent would be someone "hovering" over the bidding box ? > > At the AC hearing NS counted this by claiming that their agreement was > that 3S in competition shows 10+ points and five spades and that > double would have shown 10+ points and four spades. Apparently they > did not play negative doubles on this sequence. > They were quizzed as to what they would do with competitive values > without game interest. They gave no answer. That does not lend credibility to their contention. Would 3S without competition been invitational? If not it would further take away credibility. If you play preemptive raises in one situation you probably do in the other too. > > They provided no documentation for this unusual style. > > Nevertheless the AC accepted their statement of their agreement. > Would you? I would like to have more information. From what I have I would tend not to belive this. Matthias > > Wayne > > _________________________________________________________________ > Check out the latest video @ http://xtra.co.nz/streaming > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Wed Jun 15 09:20:50 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Wed Jun 15 09:22:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050615/13281eb8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 15 09:20:48 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Jun 15 09:22:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Cogito ergo declarer? In-Reply-To: <959ca6941ecb36ccd6b7ca511ef1b277@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Ethics. Hm. The Laws would seem to allow, in principle, players >to think about what they're doing. It cannot then be unethical >to do so. Richard Hills: The Laws merely give a *conditional* right to players to think. If a player thinks when that player does not have a demonstrable bridge reason to think, then that may be an infraction. Example in Law 73D2: "(as in hesitating before playing a singleton)". Ed Reppert: >Certainly a break in tempo may create UI, but creating UI is >not unethical either. Richard Hills: *Inadvertent* creation of UI is not necessarily an infraction, as Law 73D1 states. But if a player *deliberately* creates UI when that player is not compelled by Law (as in answering a Law 75C question) to create UI, then that player's deliberate creation of UI is at best extraneous to Law, and at worst an infraction of Law 73B1 [Gratuitous Information] or Law 73F2 [Player Injured by Illegal Deception]. Ed Reppert: >Everybody keeps talking about misleading declarer. It seems >as if they've seen a law somewhere that says one must make >every effort to avoid doing so - but then psyches and >falsecards would be illegal, would they not? So where is >this law? Edgar Kaplan on falsecards: >>It is the card, not the tempo, which must deceive. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jun 15 09:42:34 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Jun 15 09:44:19 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant Message-ID: <20050615074234.C2976A41A1@poczta.interia.pl> Sven Pran napisa?(a): > The contract was played in 2H by East for a result of 400 to > North/South. > This contract that cannot be "converted" to the same contract played by > South without assessing the number of tricks to be won by South. 1 - the last bid in the auction was 2H 2 - the bid was made by one of the players of the North/South side 3 - the first player to bid hearts was South So how can you claim that East was declarer? The laws of contract bridge are above the TD's wishful thinking and these laws say that the final contract was 2H by South. We aren't "converting" anything, we rule that South was declarer in 2H because that's what the laws tell us. Then West exposed all his thirteen cards (although no one complained) etc. Herman got this one right. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f186c From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 15 09:53:02 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Jun 15 09:54:54 2005 Subject: [blml] L12C2 ambiguity? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >The interpretation was not in the context of a particular >case. I subsequently asked for examples here on BLML >where the interpretation would make a difference -- apart >from Marv's I have yet to receive one. [snip] >If the WBF interpretation will make a difference only >rarely, and if even then few know what that difference is >or ought to be, then I submit that such a disincentive is >ineffective. Richard Hills: Actually, in my opinion, I believe that - provided that the WBF solves their "Beware of the leopard" problem - their interpretation will make a frequent difference. Take this generic auction -> Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: North-South WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1S 2H 3S 4H 4S Pass(1) Pass 5H 5S Pass Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo If: (a) West's break in tempo demonstrably suggested East's 5H. (b) East had a logical alternative of Pass. (c) South had two, and only two logical alternatives over 5H, either Double or Pass. (d) At the table, spades always makes 10 tricks. (e) At the table, hearts always makes 7 tricks. Then the WBF interpretation on this generic auction gives an adjusted Law 12C2 score of NS +620 and EW -800. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jun 15 10:10:06 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Jun 15 10:11:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? Message-ID: <20050615081006.6A761A4182@poczta.interia.pl> Wayne Burrows napisa?(a): > AKQJ > J1053 > Q105 > 106 > > Nil Vul > MP Pairs > Dealer North > > 1D* 1H 1S P > 2S 3H 3S** P > 4S P > > * Some sort of Precision > > ** Agreed break in tempo - extremely fast. > > South bid 3S (written bidding) as soon East's 3H was completed. She had > her > pen to the paper as East was writing. > > It was as if she was ready to invite game with 3S without further > competition. > > At the AC hearing NS counted this by claiming that their agreement was > that > 3S in competition shows 10 points and five spades and that double would > have shown 10 points and four spades. Apparently they did not play > negative doubles on this sequence. > > They were quizzed as to what they would do with competitive values without > > game interest. They gave no answer. > > They provided no documentation for this unusual style. > > Nevertheless the AC accepted their statement of their agreement. Would > you? > Not in a million years. I have seen it dozens of times. A player makes a bid suggested by UI and then starts the "I would always" line of defence which includes statements like "in our system the 2C bid shows 14 HCP with exactly 1=5=4=3 and a singleton spade king so must bid what I bid". People who frequently don't have very basic first-round agreements suddenly claim to have precise, uncommon and complex agreements in the third round of competitive sequence which, incidently, are not documented anywhere. That said I don't think that this is always a simple "do they lie or not" case. I remember a case from a club in Denver when the bidding went 1H - pass - 1NT and opener alerted 1NT as artificial, showing 5 spades. That shut us out and of course the 1NT bidder had a normal 1NT response with a singleton spade. The pair in question were between novices and intermediate players. We called the TD and responder assured him that though they had no written documentation they indeed had agreed to play that 1NT showing 5 S. "Well, it'a rub-of-the-green" - concluded the TD and let the result stand. Now I don't believe that responder was lying to the TD. But I was 95% certain that these two had never actually "agreed" anything - it was that one player from the partnership said something somewhere to the other and the other either wasn't listening or failed to understand the complex treatment. A similar case was described in IPBM in the late 80s (it was probably January'90 issue IIRC). The conclusion of the article was that a TDs shouldn't accept evidence of that kind because it puts the NOs into a position where appealing would be tantamount of accusing their opponents of lying to the TD. In no other sport the umpire's ruling depends on whether he believes player's words or not ("were you offside, sir?", "No, I was onside, I swear by my mother's grave!", "OK, goal allowed!") That's why I like the Polish Bridge Union policy that if you cannot provide written documentation you are automatically ruled MI (or as in Wayne's case, that you don't actually have the agreement you claim to have). Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Znajdz swoja milosc na wiosne... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f187a From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Wed Jun 15 11:19:45 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Jun 15 11:21:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? >Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:51:28 +1000 > > > > > >Wayne Burrows: > >[big snip] > > >Apparently they did not play negative doubles on this > >sequence. > > > >They were quizzed as to what they would do with > >competitive values without game interest. They gave no > >answer. > > > >They provided no documentation for this unusual style. > > > >Nevertheless the AC accepted their statement of their > >agreement. Would you? > >Richard Hills: > >1. Expect the unexpected. Unusual agreements are usual. >Contrariwise, it is unusual for a partnership to agree to >adopt exclusively usual agreements. > >2. Self-serving evidence is still evidence. > >3. Evidence that that pair is lying is insufficient. In >New Zealand it is not illegal for a bunny pair to have a >bidding system with a hole in it, whereby particular >types of hands are unbiddable for that bunny pair. > >4. If, on a subsequent occasion, evidence is discovered >that that bunny pair has deliberately lied to the AC about >their partnership agreements, then that bunny pair has >committed a Law 73B2 "gravest possible offence". > >5. By using the words "Apparently" and "Nevertheless" in >his posting, the tenor of Wayne's post suggests that Wayne >might support a balance-of-probabilities AC ruling that >that bunny pair's self-serving evidence is an infraction >of Law 73B2. If I have correctly interpreted Wayne's >implicit position, that seems somewhat inconsistent with >Wayne's previous polemics against balance-of-probabilities >rulings. > "Apparently" is based on my own deduction as the question of negative doubles was not persued as I as I know. I consider that the AC did a good job in trying to investigate by asking how these players would have bid with competitive hands. This is the type of investigation that could uncover the true agreements. I would have required an answer to the question "How do you bid competitive hands?" Obviously I would accept documented evidence of their methods if that was supplied. I would also accept a statement like "We never compete on these auctions with 8 hcp?" or possibly even "Sometimes we compete but then we often end up in 4S failing". Although in this later case there could still be UI issues. In the actual case I believe the appeal committee asked good questions but got unsatisfactory answers (rather non-answers). I would have persued the questions further to identify the facts. Therefore "Nevertheless" is based on 'no answer' and 'no documentation' and not on a balanced of probabilities. Almost an 'in spite' of no supporting evidence and some doubts their statement was accepted without further question. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Find the coolest online games @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 15 11:42:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 15 11:44:45 2005 Subject: [blml] For the Love of Benji In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard asked: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 2S(1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) Benji Two - 6 card suit & 6-10 hcp > > You, South, hold: > > 98 > AT43 > AJ76 > Q85 > > What call do you make? Double - unless East has broken tempo. > What other call do you consider making? Pass - if I think east has values and no fit. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 15 11:43:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 15 11:44:56 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: <000001c57152$cba43340$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > So if the reason that East only got four tricks was because South made > the opening lead while if the board had been played correctly with South > as declarer East and West would have held South to only 8 tricks is none > of the Director's business to consider? The LOOT was accepted. The appearance of 13 penalty cards in a defenders hand was accepted. Declarer chose to let his opponent nominate which penalty card was played to each trick. Dummy wasn't tabled but that too was accepted. > The contract was played in 2H by East for a result of +400 to > North/South. The contract was 2H by NS. That is established fact and one cannot rule otherwise. If any adjustment is to be assigned it must be on that basis. > This contract that cannot be "converted" to the same contract played by > South without assessing the number of tricks to be won by South. One isn't "converting" anything. We know what the contract was. > And as South was as "guilty" as any of the other three players (he was > even the first player to commit an irregularity) he shall in case not > have assigned an adjusted score better than for the least favorable > result that was at all probable for him. So what? We are not assigning an adjusted score. We are allowing the play to stand. +400 is an incorrectly computed score for 2H+1. This was brought to our attention during the correction period so we correct to +140 -wtp? Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 15 11:43:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 15 11:45:01 2005 Subject: [blml] 5th card In-Reply-To: <000101c57153$a39e9330$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > Sven wrote: > > > > > > If a player delays his lead or play and makes it clear that he does > > > so > > > just awaiting another player to turn his card from the previous > > > trick > > > face down I shall never accept any allegation that he is misleading > > > opponents > > > > Of course not. But then if he is going to make such extra-legal > > indications he may as well use a FDAP in similar circumstances! It's > > exactly the same - one hesitates while not thinking about the current > > trick and issues a disclaimer to avoid misleading declarer. > > The disclaimer is UI to his partner - but not all UI suggests one > > action > > over another. > > What similar circumstances? Now he is not waiting for somebody; he is > positively pausing for thought with a claim that his thinking concerns > future trick(s). If nothing is said in either case the player is breaking tempo in a way that could mislead declarer (who doesn't know the tempo break is unrelated to the current trick). > The only real achievement by FDAP is that he causes > annoyances to his opponents (and partner) who are delayed the > information on which card he has decided to play so they cannot use the > same time effectively. And the only real achievement of waiting for some other player to turn his card is... actually pretty much the same. If, for whatever reason, you decide not to play in tempo and say nothing and declarer is misled you will get an adjusted score. If, for whatever reason, you make a statement in order to avoid misleading declarer it is UI to your partner, and if he takes advantage that too will lead to an adjustment. Tim From defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr Wed Jun 15 11:42:56 2005 From: defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr (Henri DEFRANCHI) Date: Wed Jun 15 11:46:24 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? Thanks Message-ID: <18476351.1118828576135.JavaMail.www@wwinf1527> Thanks to all of you for your opinion. I appreciate Konrad's humour but I understand Sven's anger. It is really happened to a friend of mine who was TD for the first time.Can you fancy her feeling of helpless caused by this surreal situation ? Actually she called G?rard Tissot ( international TD ) who advice her to cancel the board (with the agreement of all the players ) wich was done... Regards for all of you -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050615/464980d7/attachment.html From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jun 15 14:19:03 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed Jun 15 14:21:03 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: <42AEA161.10106@hotmail.com> References: <42AEA161.10106@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <42B01CB7.6000207@t-online.de> Hello Koen, since nobody else seems to be interested I will have a go at it. This will be rather quick since I have to leave soon. There`s some directing to do.... koen wrote: > I'm a local club director with not a lot of experience. Therefor I > would appreciate any comments on below case: > > MP's > S/All > xx > x > Kxxx > T98xx > Qxxx KJxxx > KQxxx AJxxx > Jx Ax > xx K > Ax > xx > QTxxx > AQJx > > Bidding: > 1D-(P)-3D-(DBL) > 4C-(P)-4D-(DBL) > All pass > > Making +1 > > I was sitting South. We used to play fit jumps after a 1D opening in > which case 3D was weak. But we didn't like that anymore because 2NT > and 3NT were also artificial then after a 1D opening. So we decided > that we didn't play fit jumps any more after a 1D opening and we would > go back to 'normal'. After this change we didn't agree anything about > 2D/3D and we didn't agree to play inverted. Since you didn`t have any new agreements concerning a 3D bid the old agreements are still on. As I understand you only the "fit-showing" part was cancelled. That doesn`t really touch any agreements you had about 2D or 3D. Looks like you inferred your "new agreement" from what seemed logical to you, but not to your partner..... > I alerted 3D and before his first DBL RHO asked what it was. I said > that it was a limit raise (around 10-11 pts), but that I was not sure. > Maybe it was preemptive. A "good" (considering the circumstances) explanation could have been: "we used to play this as weak. We recently changed the system, but we did not explicitly talk about this sequence." That is the least you should do. > Before the second DBL RHO asked again what the 3D bid was. I said that > I was still not sure, but that it started to look more like a preempt > now. > Remark: Opps are rather weak players. I can see that from what happened. They got confused and failed to hold it to four. Not that this would have done them any good, 4H being cold. There was misinformation. There was some questionable bridge (I`m not talking about that overtrick, only about leaving in a double which strongly suggests somehing like the actual East hand). Whether this is enough to deny them redress is impossible to tell from here, but most probably I would adjust to 4H making. There are players who I would leave this score, but not that many, and none whom I would describe as weak players. > Remartk2: I did bid 4C because I was sure that opps have a good fit in > the majors and maybe with a double fit we can make 5D. > At our club nobody uses convention cards. But as the director you can > believe what I explained above (I was not sure if 3D was limit or > preemptive). Seems to me that you had the best of two worlds, bidding semi-preemptively while leaving doubt in your opponents brains. Regards Matthias > > What is your ruling? > > Thanks, > Koen > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From rulings at lan-wizards.com Wed Jun 15 17:04:13 2005 From: rulings at lan-wizards.com (Montagu) Date: Wed Jun 15 17:06:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Our pills doctor tested and approved! Message-ID: <3381651825.11582116174@dsl.static859619197.ttnet.net.tr> Your best source for VIAGRA and more....Get harder, stay hard...longer http://gthb.4j7x85mf1wmc85m.duffha.com Beware of the man whose God is in the skies. Close your mouth, Michael; we are not a codfish. If you choose not to live in a cluster, uh, dorm... From respite at atsalesinc.com Wed Jun 15 17:04:23 2005 From: respite at atsalesinc.com (Martin) Date: Wed Jun 15 17:06:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Convenient refills for Viagra - Satisfaction guaranteed Message-ID: <10232574037.13003526949@dsl.static859619197.ttnet.net.tr> 36 hours of freedom. http://pvywmq.3i6epmlw0dlt743.beirahc.com Whatever we well understand we express clearly, and words flow with ease. Follow your inclinations with due regard to the policeman round the corner. In archaeology you uncover the unknown. In diplomacy you cover the known. From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 15 18:08:14 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Jun 15 18:09:55 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? Thanks References: <18476351.1118828576135.JavaMail.www@wwinf1527> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Henri DEFRANCHI To: blml@rtflb.org Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 4:42 AM Subject: [blml] all drunk ? Thanks Thanks to all of you for your opinion. I appreciate Konrad's humour but I understand Sven's anger. It is really happened to a friend of mine who was TD for the first time.Can you fancy her feeling of helpless caused by this surreal situation ? Actually she called G?rard Tissot ( international TD ) who advice her to cancel the board (with the agreement of all the players ) wich was done... Regards for all of you *** The case reminds me of a story in Popular Bridge of going to bridge player's hell. The devil gave the smuck the NS hands as a puzzle: the contract is 4S, devise the EW hands so as to be able to make 4S against best defense. Of course, the most tricks smuck can get NS to take is 9. It is EW that could take 10. And I suspect that THESE players would have solved the puzzle! Anyway- That the hand was not played in accordance with proper bridge procedure does not of itself make it unplayable [subject to and artificial score] or cancelable. There is a result for the 13 tricks and letting it stand should be considered. My sense of justice is that the result of the hand should stand, but according to law I think that a test would need to be passed to do so. I see the controlling point being that E had UI of the nature of W's exposed hand and instructed what cards W played [some sort of L16/73 violation]. Well, all the players condoned [shall I say unwittingly] the others' actions in the course of playing 13 tricks. Yet such behavior does not negate ramifications of those violations. I believe the controlling issue is whether NS [+140] were disadvantaged in the number of tricks taken [which would be a basis for an adjusted score]. [I am not referring to taking advantage of 13 PC since they played on without the benefit of a ruling]. Not having the hands a clear judgment can't be made, but considering the level of evident intoxication I'd predict the table result would be 'the fair' determination- and perhaps even benefited NS. I personally think that Tissot did not get it correct. But a ruling that you walk away from [sic] is a good enough ruling! [at least this time :) ] regards roger pewick From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Wed Jun 15 20:31:32 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Jun 15 20:33:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? In-Reply-To: <42AFD5A0.9010201@t-online.de> Message-ID: >From: Matthias Berghaus >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? >Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:15:44 +0200 > >Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>AKQJ >>J1053 >>Q105 >>106 > > >Presumably these are dealer`s cards. I am going to proceed on zhis >assumption. > >> >>Nil Vul >>MP Pairs >>Dealer North >> >>1D* 1H 1S P >>2S 3H 3S** P >>4S P >> >>* Some sort of Precision > > >What is the 1NT range? I am not 100% sure. From memory from playing against this pair it is probably around 13-15. Possibly the overlap is caused because they like more stoppers for 1NT or two (or even one) four-card major is always opened 1D. > >> >>** Agreed break in tempo - extremely fast. >> >>South bid 3S (written bidding) as soon East's 3H was completed. She had >>her pen to the paper as East was writing. >> >>It was as if she was ready to invite game with 3S without further >>competition. > > >I am extremely unfamiliar with written bidding. Without BLML I would not >know that such a thing exists. So any observation of mine regarding this >type of bidding will be somewhat unreliable. I gather that the equivalent >would be someone "hovering" over the bidding box ? In this occasion it was more like they already had the bidding card in their hand as East bid. > >> >>At the AC hearing NS counted this by claiming that their agreement was >>that 3S in competition shows 10+ points and five spades and that double >>would have shown 10+ points and four spades. Apparently they did not play >>negative doubles on this sequence. > >>They were quizzed as to what they would do with competitive values without >>game interest. They gave no answer. > > >That does not lend credibility to their contention. Would 3S without >competition been invitational? If not it would further take away >credibility. If you play preemptive raises in one situation you probably do >in the other too. Without competition 3S was invitational for this pair. > >> >>They provided no documentation for this unusual style. >> >>Nevertheless the AC accepted their statement of their agreement. Would >>you? > > >I would like to have more information. From what I have I would tend not to >belive this. > >Matthias > >> >>Wayne >> Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Find the coolest online games @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 15 21:06:44 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Jun 15 21:07:06 2005 Subject: [blml] For the Love of Benji References: Message-ID: <00fc01c571dd$5f8eeac0$049468d5@James> Matchpoints We vul: 98 AT43 AJ76 Q85 Pass 2S(1) Pass Pass ? (1) Benji Two - 6 card suit & 6-10 hcp [nigel] IMO X=10 P=4 but some players who would pass without a qualm From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 15 21:27:59 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Wed Jun 15 21:28:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? References: Message-ID: <010501c571e0$5786eb40$049468d5@James> [Wayne Burrows] > MP YOU None vul: AKQJ JT53 QT5 T6 > 1D* 1H 1S P > 2S 3H 3S** P > 4S P > * Some sort of Precision > ** Agreed break in tempo - extremely fast. > At the AC hearing NS countered this by claiming that > their agreement was that 3S in competition shows 10+ > points and five spades and that double would have > shown 10+ points and four spades. Apparently they > did not play negative doubles on this sequence. > They were quizzed as to what they would do with > competitive values without game interest. They gave > no answer. They provided no documentation for this > unusual style. Nevertheless the AC accepted their > statement of their agreement. Would you? [nigel] I don't think the TD/AC should accept unsubstantiated self-serving statements but 4S still seems reasonable. Whether it is the only logical alternative, is another bone of contention. Here is another typical "one-off" case where the TD/AC cannot be sure that there has been an infraction. If they could "establish that fact" then there would be no problem. It might even be relatively straight-forward If players always told the truth. But wait! Surely, Wayne is not advocating that the AC should be swayed by the "balance of probability". Quick! Quick! Wayne, Wash your mouth out with Carbolic! :) From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Wed Jun 15 22:15:29 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Jun 15 22:17:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? Message-ID: >From: "GUTHRIE" >To: "BLML" >Subject: Re: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? >Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:27:59 +0100 > >[Wayne Burrows] > > MP YOU None vul: AKQJ JT53 QT5 T6 > > 1D* 1H 1S P > > 2S 3H 3S** P > > 4S P > > * Some sort of Precision > > ** Agreed break in tempo - extremely fast. > > At the AC hearing NS countered this by claiming that > > their agreement was that 3S in competition shows 10+ > > points and five spades and that double would have > > shown 10+ points and four spades. Apparently they > > did not play negative doubles on this sequence. > > They were quizzed as to what they would do with > > competitive values without game interest. They gave > > no answer. They provided no documentation for this > > unusual style. Nevertheless the AC accepted their > > statement of their agreement. Would you? > >[nigel] >I don't think the TD/AC should accept unsubstantiated >self-serving statements but 4S still seems reasonable. >Whether it is the only logical alternative, is another >bone of contention. > >Here is another typical "one-off" case where the TD/AC >cannot be sure that there has been an infraction. If they >could "establish that fact" then there would be no problem. >It might even be relatively straight-forward If players >always told the truth. Absolutely. >But wait! Surely, Wayne is not >advocating that the AC should be swayed by the "balance of >probability". Quick! Quick! Wayne, Wash your mouth out >with Carbolic! :) I think the AC asked good questions. However I also think they should have investigated further. These players were not world champions but are experienced tournament players. The player sitting South who bid the fast 3S has played on the Open team for my Province at the National Interprovincial Championships and they have both played on the Women's team at that level. I would think it would be possible to find some history of these players never competing for a part score or always having invitational values to compete. No answer to a question about how they compete for a part-score is substantial evidence that something is wrong here (not merely a balance of probabilities). It would be so easy to say we never compete in these auctions with 6-8 points and a six-card suit. The fact that they did not offer this as evidence strong suggests their methods are different. Nevertheless I would have gone further in the investigation and pressed the players for an answer. Perhaps I would do this by providing some hands and asking how they would bid. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Shop ‘til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping http://shopping.xtramsn.co.nz/home/ From adam at irvine.com Tue Jun 14 21:44:46 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Jun 16 01:57:32 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:17:35 +0200." <000c01c570ca$4934f800$0a02a8c0@PATRICK> Message-ID: <200506141944.MAA28345@mailhub.irvine.com> Henri wrote: > First of all,I apologize to you for my approximate english > Anyway,I will try to explain the problem I met (all the > players are a little drunk ) > South was declarer(contract 2H ) and led(!) West put down his cards as a = > dummy and East asked:"what contract am I playing?" "2H" West > answered...The board was played:down 4(-400) > At the end of the match,partners,astonished,called the TD (it's you...) > What is your ruling ? Are the following results make a difference (in > the closed room) > -Opponents played 2H just made > -Opponents played 2H dbl just made (+670) > Rather funny but true...Many thanks Actually, I had to look really hard to find any problems with your English---I only found one problem (not counting punctuation). In addition, you spelled everything correctly, which most Americans don't seem to do---as a nation, our spelling is pretty atrocious. Then again, lots of non-American English speakers claim that the language we Americans speak isn't English at all, but a mutant language with a vague resemblance to English. So there's no need to apologize. Regarding the table situation: There really isn't a law covering this. I got to thinking about a somewhat similar situation. Suppose the declaring side has bid both hearts and spades, and after briefly being in 2H they end up declaring 2S. But suddenly all four players have a brain lapse and think the contract is still 2H. Dummy puts down hearts as trumps, and during the play everyone uses hearts to trump tricks, and nobody notices anything is wrong. After the play has concluded, but before the score has been agreed on, declarer suddenly remembers that they were supposed to be playing in 2S. He calls the TD. What should the TD do? There were multiple irregularities here. Dummy did not put the trump suit on the left side as required by the Laws. Every time a heart or spade was played on a trick, the player who won the trick could have been determined incorrectly, and the wrong player could have led to the next trick. So do we try to determine a result using the Laws? This would require going through every trick to determine who really won it. I guess that's not so bad (and all the other irregularities were condoned, so we don't have to worry about them), but the result wouldn't really be a bridge result. Or do we rule that the Laws just don't cover this situation, and attempting to piece together Laws that do apply is an exercise in futility, so instead we just let the TD do something reasonable? I personally think that trying to torture the Laws into a complex situation like this doesn't make much sense. As TD, I'd probably rule that the table result stands, but if one side was more responsible for the misunderstanding than the other, the score may be adjusted to what it probably would have been in 2S if this is favorable to the non-offending side. In the posted case, the irregularities involved are even worse. South led out of turn; West, a defender, has exposed all 13 of his cards; North, the dummy, has not exposed any of his cards as required, and is playing his own cards, in violation of the Law that dummy may not participate in the play; East, the other defender, is telling his partner what cards to play, which is a massive amount of UI received by West, and so we need to determine whether West had any logical alternatives ... no, forget it. I think it's impossible to apply the Laws, and we pretty much have to make something up. In this case, since they agreed on a score (N/S +400), I think we have to let it stand. If the problem had been noticed after play concluded but before a score was agreed on, I think I'd rule that the 400 stands, but I'd adjust if it seemed that one side was more responsible than the other for the bizarre mistake; and then I'd adjust to whatever the most favorable likely result would have been if the hand had been played correctly. I could certainly see TD's coming up with other reasonable solutions---including, since this is a team match, just throwing the board out, possibly with PP's to both sides. I don't think there is a "correct" answer. But it seems to me that these cases are cases where an additional Law might be useful. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Tue Jun 14 17:53:17 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Jun 16 01:57:36 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:40:34 EDT." <981c6bc0c19b81e8f09da6a82535d30a@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200506141553.IAA26879@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Jun 14, 2005, at 5:32 AM, koen wrote: > > > Problem is that I'm also playing and can't take the neceassry time for > > these cases) > > If playing prevents you from properly acting as director, IMO you > shouldn't play. I don't know why Koen is playing. In my experience, though, the main reason directors play in clubs is to avoid a half table. Which is a good thing, because if there's a half table, half the players or so have to go for a whole fifteen to twenty minutes sitting around doing nothing, which we don't like. So in a case like that, the "good" of filling out the movement far outweighs the "bad" that occasionally a ruling may not be letter-perfect because the TD is trying to play and direct at the same time. (Yes, I realize that some on BLML believe that there is nothing more important than making sure the rules are followed with 100% precision as much as possible. I also realize that if nobody felt that way, we wouldn't have a BLML. But in a club game, there are more important things. Quite frankly, when I'm playing in a club, it's more important to me that the coffee they serve is drinkable than that all the rulings are correct. Fortunately, my drinkability standards are pretty low---you could serve liquid mud and it would be fine with me as long as it has caffeine in it. :) But I'm starting to drift off topic, probably an indication that there's not yet enough caffeine in my system.) -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jun 16 02:52:03 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu Jun 16 02:55:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 References: <003301c56eab$19a16e00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <006801c56eda$738d67a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050612172544.02aac270@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000801c5720d$9e5d8ec0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > Marvin wrote: > >> > > >Players will usually justify their strange actions with >>uncorroborated > >and unverifiable statements. TDs/ACs should let such >>rationlizations > >go in one ear and out the other. It is not fair to the opponents >>that they should be given any weight. > > > >A player violating L16A will say, "I would always take that > >action." We don't give that any weight whatsoever, it's >> irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there is a logical >> alternative to an action suggested by UI. > > > >East's denial of a BIT by West is relevant. If East were to argue > >that there was no LA to a 2C bid, giving bridge reasons for that > >statement, showing system notes that require it, then that would be > >relevant. But just saying "I bid two clubs because blah, blah" is not >>relevant > > In a dispute over the facts of a case, an AC must act much like a > jury > in a civil courtroom. One of things it must do is listen to the > principals to the dispute and make judgments as to their > credibililty > -- often the only thing. You can't do your job if you let "such > rationalizations go in one ear and out the other"; that's prejudging > the credibility of all the parties on both sides as equal -- zero -- > and leaves far less than you should have, if not nothing, on which > to base the decisions you're expected to make. Perhaps I should clarify that the subject is UI cases, in which creditibility is not the issue, relevancy is the issue. East's reasons for bidding 2C are not relevant. All that is relevant is why he thinks a pass is not an LA (if that is his belief) to what West's supposed UI demonstrably suggested (action of some sort). He could have 10 good reasons why 2C is right, but if passing is an LA then those reasons are irrelevant. First ask him if admits that pass is an LA. He'll probably say "Yes, but...," and you say "Thank you, that is all, we are not interested in your reasoning, although it may be excellent." But we are putting the cart before the horse. The AC determined that there was no UI, rightly treating each side's relevant assertions equally, with no judgment of their credibility. This despite the fact that South was Judy Kay Wolff, widow of Norman Kay and wife of Bobby Wolff, who would be very unilkely to invent UI that did not exist. Once "no UI" is determined, which should be the first order of business in a UI case, the case is over, everyone can go home now. "Wait a minute," some AC member should say, "What about East's acknowledged BIT?" Then the AC considers whether the BIT conveyed useful UI, and of course it did. Now it is West's turn to explain why biddding was not an LA to the pass demonstrably suggested by the UI. The chairman should say, "Please tell us if you think that bidding is an LA to passing." If he says, yes, as is likely, that's the end of it, as his reasons for passing become irrelevant. Adjust the score for both sides to 2NT by West off one. If he says no, then his arguments for that belief are relevant, e.g., East, a passed hand, could be quite weak so bidding 2NT would be illogical. The AC will consider what he says, but it's not a matter of West's truthfulness (we assume players don't lie), it's only the soundness of his bridge argument that matters. > > Not every self-serving statement is false, and not every witness has > zero credibility. Even Marv starts by saying "Players will > usually...", but then wants us to presume that they will do it > always. No, I want you to assume that they do it never. Players statements must be accepted, provided they are relevant and do not contradict known facts. In this case one player asserted UI, the other side denied UI. The AC did not determine the credibility of either position, and rightly so. To have judged that South was 90% credible and E-W 30% credible, then deeming the UI to have existed, would be outrageous. Or take assertions that a pair's system rules out any LA to an action taken, e.g., West was required to pass 2C in this situation. These must be verified by the CC, by system notes, or by relevant bridge arguments. If they can't be, they are irrelevant. ACs listen to them, perhaps, but they have no effect on the outcome. AC to West: "We do not doubt that what you say is true, but we can't accept such statements without objective evidence to back them up." >Corroboration and verification will always add weight, and as > Ed suggests, their lack may seriously constrain what weight we might > be > inclined to assign, but we owe those suspected self-serving > rationalizing liars the opportunity to speak in their own defense > and be heard. Please give us one example of an NABC appeal in a UI case for which you think the credibility of statements regarding the existence or non-existence of a doubtful fact was a determining factor for the AC's decision. . Then we can talk more. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jun 16 02:59:00 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu Jun 16 03:02:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-05 Message-ID: <001801c5720e$975eacc0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> I posted this case on BL:ML as Appeal 3 right after the Pittsburgh NABC, whose Daily Bulletin published the case as No. 3. I repeat it here for the sake of consistency in the numbering. I skip over N-04 because it was an easy ruling that should not have been appealed, despite the absence of an AWMW. Silodor Open Pairs Second Final Session Board 5 Dlr: North Vul: N-S Larry Cohen ? 5 4 ? K 8 3 ? A J 10 7 5 3 ? J 3 Steve Weinstein Bobby Levin ? A K 7 3 ? Q 10 8 6 2 ? Q J 9 ? A 10 7 5 4 2 ? 8 6 4 2 ? K 9 ? 7 4 ?? David Berkowitz ? J 9 ? 6 ? Q ? A K Q 10 9 8 6 5 2 West North East South Pass 2? 5? Pass Pass 5? Pass Pass Dbl All Pass Facts: 2? was Alerted as Flannery. At his first turn to call West broke tempo 15?20 seconds. The contract was successful with an overtrick, plus 750 East-West. The director was not called at the time. The players agreed to some break in tempo at the table, but because of time pressure all agreed to bring the matter to a director after they caught up on the clock. Director?s Ruling: Law 16. The Director ruled that the Unauthorized Information arising from the slow pass demonstrably suggested further action by East. The contract was changed to 5? by South, minus 100 North-South. The Appeal: East, West and South attended the hearing. Flannery, as played by East-West, normally showed 4?5 in the majors, though occasionally 4?6. They had no agreement that it could be 5?6. East, with a passed hand on his right and a preempt on his left, would very likely find some values in partner?s hand. Since East had a club void and two extra cards in his suits it was clear to him to bid 5?. South believed that pass was a logical alternative. None of the players could remember if the STOP card had been used, but all agreed that West had clearly exceeded the ?normal? tempo break after a skip bid. The Decision: Was there a break in tempo? If yes, was a specific action demonstrably suggested? If yes, was there a logical alternative? All agreed to a break in tempo. From East?s viewpoint, West was very likely to have some values, given his hand and the auction. West, in hesitating, could have been contemplating 5?, 5?, double or even 5?. The committee judged that the likelihood of West?s thinking about doubling to be great enough, relative to the chance that he was considering bidding 5? or 5?, that the break in tempo did not demonstrably suggest the 5? call by East. The committee restored the table result of 5? doubled, plus 750 East-West. Director-in-Charge: Henry Cutoff Chairperson: Doug Doubt Committee Members: Chris Moll, Michael Huston, Jo Ann Sprung and Richard Popper ############# The TD ruled correctly, a slow break in tempo suggests action, and passing was clearly a logical alternative to bidding. Limit bidder bids again is never the only logical action. Also, established partnerships seem able to sense what partner was thinking about, whether to pass, double, or bid. They never get it wrong, do they?. North's double was so ridiculous (wild, gambling, irrational?), perhaps prompted by the likelihood that the contract would be cancelled if it made, that another NABC AC might let N-S keep the table result. That would be wrong, as nothing N-S could do would avoid the damage caused by the 5H bid. There is no law against the so-called "double shot." Scores so far: TD AC N-00 1 1 (no comments) N-01 0 0 N-02 1 0 N-03 0 1/2 N-04 1 1 (no comments) N-05 1 0 Total 4 2-1/2 out of 6 cases Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 16 03:54:06 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jun 16 03:55:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38a2f930b66fcf16cd8c3dd85e0999e8@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 15, 2005, at 2:03 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > Nevertheless the AC accepted their statement of their agreement. > Would you? Of course not. All bridge players are liars and cheats, and there ain't one anywhere who wouldn't do whatever it takes to get a good score. OTOH, is their agreement really relevant? I would reason this way: 1. There was a break in tempo (agreed fact). 2. The BIT demonstrably suggests that the bidder would be happy to see partner continue to game. (My opinion; does anyone disagree?) 3. That suggestion is unauthorized information to bidder's partner (fact). 4. Bidder's partner made the suggested bid (fact). 5. If bidder's partner had a logical alternative to bidding 4S, that bid was illegal. Did he? If he did, the score shall be adjusted. If he didn't, it shan't. Now, you (or they) might argue that there was no alternative, *because* of their alleged agreement. Still, unless the TD (or AC) agrees this is the case, it is irrelevant. And I'd have to see the hand to answer that question. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 16 04:01:51 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jun 16 04:03:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? In-Reply-To: <38a2f930b66fcf16cd8c3dd85e0999e8@rochester.rr.com> References: <38a2f930b66fcf16cd8c3dd85e0999e8@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2efed87979e8f55d56a38b0e93c05c8e@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 15, 2005, at 9:54 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > And I'd have to see the hand to answer that question. Gah. And of course, there it was, right in front of me. :-( I would say, given that hand, that pass is an LA. I can see that better players than I might disagree. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 16 04:06:59 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jun 16 04:08:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-05 In-Reply-To: <001801c5720e$975eacc0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <001801c5720e$975eacc0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Jun 15, 2005, at 8:59 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Also, established partnerships seem able to sense what partner was > thinking about, whether to pass, double, or bid. They never get it > wrong, do they?. Objection! Counsel is assuming facts not in evidence! :-) From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 16 05:40:06 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Jun 16 05:43:20 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: <000001c57152$cba43340$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c57152$cba43340$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c57152$cba43340$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >............. >> > Incidentally: Ruling +140 for North-South effective for either side >> > which seems to me is the opinion of most posters in this case cannot >> > possibly be correct as I have shown in a separate post. >> >> You haven't shown it at all. The contract was played in 2H. Each trick >> comprised a legal set of cards (no revokes, no trumping with spades, no >> wrong hand leads, etc). Every infraction was condoned by the opposing >> side and the number of tricks taken by each side was well within the >> bounds of "equity". Any adjustment (bar the scoring correction) would be >> a gross miscarriage of justice. > >So if the reason that East only got four tricks was because South made the >opening lead while if the board had been played correctly with South as >declarer East and West would have held South to only 8 tricks is none of the >Director's business to consider? The LOOT was condoned as were a number of other infractions. However one looks at it though, 9 tricks were taken with hearts trump by the side that declared a contract of 2 hearts. Looks like 140 to me. > >The contract was played in 2H by East for a result of +400 to North/South. >This contract that cannot be "converted" to the same contract played by >South without assessing the number of tricks to be won by South. And as >South was as "guilty" as any of the other three players (he was even the >first player to commit an irregularity) he shall in case not have assigned >an adjusted score better than for the least favorable result that was at all >probable for him. > >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 Thu Jun 16 05:44:22 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Jun 16 05:47:20 2005 Subject: [blml] For the Love of Benji In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: South >Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- Pass >2S(1) Pass Pass ? > >(1) Benji Two - 6 card suit & 6-10 hcp > >You, South, hold: > >98 >AT43 >AJ76 >Q85 > >What call do you make? double in sleep >What other call do you consider making? double in sleep > > >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 Guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 16 07:46:25 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu Jun 16 07:46:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-05 Message-ID: <003d01c57236$bc57ac70$049468d5@James> >> Silodor Open Pairs F2 Board 5 Dlr: North Vul: N-S >> North (Larry Cohen) S:54 H:K83 D:AJT753 C:J3 >> East (Bobby Levin) S:QT862 H:AT7542 D:K9 C- >> West North East South >> - Pass 2D 5C >> Pass Pass 5H Pass >> Pass Dbl All Pass >> Facts: 2D was Alerted as Flannery. At his first >> turn to call West broke tempo 15?20 seconds. >> The contract was successful with an overtrick, >> plus 750 East-West. The director was not called at >> the time. The players agreed to some break in >> tempo at the table, but because of time pressure all >> agreed to bring the matter to a director after they >> caught up on the clock. >> Director?s Ruling: Law 16. The Director >> ruled that the Unauthorized Information arising >> from the slow pass demonstrably suggested further >> action by East. The contract was changed to 5C >> by South, minus 100 North-South. >> The Appeal: East, West and South attended >> the hearing. Flannery, as played by East-West, >> normally showed 4?5 in the majors, though >> occasionally 4?6. They had no agreement that it >> could be 5?6. East, with a passed hand on his right >> and a preempt on his left, would very likely find >> some values in partner?s hand. Since East had a >> club void and two extra cards in his suits it was >> clear to him to bid 5H. South believed that pass >> was a logical alternative. None of the players >> could remember if the STOP card had been used, >> but all agreed that West had clearly exceeded the >> ?normal? tempo break after a skip bid. >> The Decision: Was there a break in tempo? If >> yes, was a specific action demonstrably >> suggested? If yes, was there a logical alternative? >> All agreed to a break in tempo. From East?s >> viewpoint, West was very likely to have some >> values, given his hand and the auction. West, in >> hesitating, could have been contemplating 5H, 5S, >> double or even 5D. The committee judged that >> the likelihood of West?s thinking about doubling >> to be great enough, relative to the chance that he >> was considering bidding 5H or 5S, that the break >> in tempo did not demonstrably suggest the 5H call >> by East. The committee restored the table result of >> 5H doubled, plus 750 East-West. >> Director-in-Charge: Henry Cutoff >> Chairperson: Doug Doubt >> Committee Members: Chris Moll, Michael >> Huston, Jo Ann Sprung and Richard Popper [Marvin French] > The TD ruled correctly, a slow break in tempo < suggests action, and passing was clearly a logical > alternative to bidding. Limit bidder bids again is > never the only logical action. Also, established > partnerships seem able to sense what partner was > thinking about, whether to pass, double, or bid. > They never get it wrong, do they?. North's double > was so ridiculous (wild, gambling, irrational?), > perhaps prompted by the likelihood that the contract > would be cancelled if it made, that another NABC AC > might let N-S keep the table result. That would be > wrong, as nothing N-S could do would avoid the > damage caused by the 5H bid. There is no law against > the so-called "double shot." > Scores so far: TD AC > N-00 1 1 (no comments) > N-01 0 0 > N-02 1 0 > N-03 0 1/2 > N-04 1 1 (no comments) > N-05 1 0 > Total 4 2-1/2 out of 6 cases [Nigel] The TD got it right; The AC wrong; I agree with Marvin on all counts. Especially when he points out that most experienced partnerships are better than opponents TDs and ACs at interpreting partner's UI. Although, unfortunately the laws don't yet allow for that fact. I also agree With Marvin that the Law should clearly state that "double-shots" and "wild and gambling actions" are perfectly OK after an opponent's infraction. When you're being mugged, why must you don a straitjacket to defend yourself? P.S. what does the table mean, Marvin? From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Thu Jun 16 08:42:39 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu Jun 16 08:39:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? In-Reply-To: <38a2f930b66fcf16cd8c3dd85e0999e8@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Ed Reppert wrote: Let me apologize in advance for a minor threadjack, since this reminded me of a related question. > 1. There was a break in tempo (agreed fact). > 2. The BIT demonstrably suggests that the bidder would be happy to see > partner continue to game. (My opinion; does anyone disagree?) > 3. That suggestion is unauthorized information to bidder's partner > (fact). Most BLMLers will of course agree with proposition 2 with hardly a second thought. But let me play devil's advocate for a moment and suggest another way to view it. 2A. The BIT suggests only that partner was thinking of *something* other than bidding 3S. Maybe pass, maybe double, maybe a a weird leap to 4S. 2B. From looking at our own hand, we see that partner has a single or void heart, and conclude from AI alone that partner's hand is extremely unsuitable for defense against hearts. That is, a director walking past the table and observing the auction and the BIT could not conclude the 3S bidder was happy to see partner continue to game - that deduction only can be made by combining 2B (which is legal) and 2A (which is not a demonstrable suggestion of any particular course of action.) 2C. Combining 2A and 2B, we can deduce the direction partner was leaning. The law says "demonstrably suggested by the UI." Before 1997, it was clear that if a long chain of deductions based on a lot of AI and a tiny bit of UI tipped a player's decision-making process one way or the other, it was a UI infraction. It seems like, under the new wording, we are on shaky ground if the UI itself is a vague hint. We can still rule against Step 2C on the basis of "carefully avoid taking any advantage that may accrue to his side" - just not on the basis of "demonstrably suggested" - so maybe the end effect is the same and it's just a lot of hot air how we get there. (Incidentally, if they played 3S competitive and X maximal, it's be a stronger UI case - partner was thinking about something, and it had to be whether he was good enough to invite, not whether he should pass. If double is penalty, 3S might be "I want to compete but I'm afraid he'll think its invitational" or "I want to invite but I'm afraid he'll think its competitive." As it was origianlly presented I think it's a clsoe decision to adjust.) GRB From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Jun 16 09:18:47 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Jun 16 09:20:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? Message-ID: <20050616071847.273F72599AE@poczta.interia.pl> Ed Reppert napisa?(a): > > On Jun 15, 2005, at 2:03 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > Nevertheless the AC accepted their statement of their agreement. > > Would you? > > Of course not. All bridge players are liars and cheats, and there ain't > one anywhere who wouldn't do whatever it takes to get a good score. > > OTOH, is their agreement really relevant? I would reason this way: > > 1. There was a break in tempo (agreed fact). A break in tempo before bidding 3S could suggest lots of things - one of the options is that the player in question was thinking about passing vs competitng. But this is not what happened here - the player's "body language" suggested that he was expecting his RHO to pass and was going to bid 3S as invitational. *That* demonstrably suggestes raising. So you drew a good conclusion based on wrong premises. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f186c From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Thu Jun 16 09:44:38 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Thu Jun 16 09:46:27 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) In-Reply-To: <200506141553.IAA26879@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200506141553.IAA26879@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <42B12DE6.6060805@hotmail.com> Adam Beneschan wrote: >Ed wrote: > > > >>On Jun 14, 2005, at 5:32 AM, koen wrote: >> >> >> >>>Problem is that I'm also playing and can't take the neceassry time for >>>these cases) >>> >>> >>If playing prevents you from properly acting as director, IMO you >>shouldn't play. >> >> > >I don't know why Koen is playing. In my experience, though, the main >reason directors play in clubs is to avoid a half table. Which is a >good thing, because if there's a half table, half the players or so >have to go for a whole fifteen to twenty minutes sitting around doing >nothing, which we don't like. > > I play because I want to play bridge. We have 3 club directors who all play. Normally I will rule, but if one of the other two is dummy, bye, or finished their table then they will rule (or if a ruling is required at my table). I only play bridge in the club one evening per week. We have on average one ruling per evening. So if I have to choose between playing or directing then I will play. This is probably the same for the other two directors. So we would end up without any directors. >So in a case like that, the "good" of filling out the movement far >outweighs the "bad" that occasionally a ruling may not be >letter-perfect because the TD is trying to play and direct at the same >time. (Yes, I realize that some on BLML believe that there is nothing >more important than making sure the rules are followed with 100% >precision as much as possible. I also realize that if nobody felt >that way, we wouldn't have a BLML. But in a club game, there are more >important things. Quite frankly, when I'm playing in a club, it's >more important to me that the coffee they serve is drinkable than that >all the rulings are correct. > For me it's important that the beer is cold > Fortunately, my drinkability standards >are pretty low---you could serve liquid mud and it would be fine with >me as long as it has caffeine in it. :) > ...and as long as their is alcohol in it :) > But I'm starting to drift >off topic, probably an indication that there's not yet enough caffeine >in my system.) > > -- Adam > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Thu Jun 16 10:18:23 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Thu Jun 16 10:20:12 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: <42B01CB7.6000207@t-online.de> References: <42AEA161.10106@hotmail.com> <42B01CB7.6000207@t-online.de> Message-ID: <42B135CF.1080401@hotmail.com> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Hello Koen, > > since nobody else seems to be interested I will have a go at it. ...probably the case is too difficult for the others :) > This will be rather quick since I have to leave soon. There`s some > directing to do.... > > koen wrote: > >> I'm a local club director with not a lot of experience. Therefor I >> would appreciate any comments on below case: >> >> MP's >> S/All >> xx >> x >> Kxxx >> T98xx >> Qxxx KJxxx >> KQxxx AJxxx >> Jx Ax >> xx K >> Ax >> xx >> QTxxx >> AQJx >> >> Bidding: >> 1D-(P)-3D-(DBL) >> 4C-(P)-4D-(DBL) >> All pass >> >> Making +1 >> >> I was sitting South. We used to play fit jumps after a 1D opening in >> which case 3D was weak. But we didn't like that anymore because 2NT >> and 3NT were also artificial then after a 1D opening. So we decided >> that we didn't play fit jumps any more after a 1D opening and we >> would go back to 'normal'. After this change we didn't agree anything >> about 2D/3D and we didn't agree to play inverted. > > > > Since you didn`t have any new agreements concerning a 3D bid the old > agreements are still on. As I understand you only the "fit-showing" > part was cancelled. That doesn`t really touch any agreements you had > about 2D or 3D. Looks like you inferred your "new agreement" from what > seemed logical to you, but not to your partner..... A) Initially we played natural: 1D-2D: 6-9 fit D and no major 1D-3D: 10-11 fit D and no major 2NT: 11 HCP, no fit D, no major B) Then we changed this (and same for majors): 1D-2D: 6-9 fit D and no major 1D-3D: preempt with 5-card D and no major 2NT: 10-11 or 16+ pts, fit D, no major 3C: 12-15 pts, fit D, no major 3H till 3NT also fit bids C) Then we didn't like these fitbids anymore for the Diamonds. Especially 2NT and 3NT we wanted to bid naturally again.We decided not to play the fit-bids anymore on D. We didn't talk about the following: Our 3D limit bid (see A) was replaced by 2NT (see B). Now this 2NT was not used anymore as a D fit, so for me it was logic that we did go back to what we played initially (To A). > >> I alerted 3D and before his first DBL RHO asked what it was. I said >> that it was a limit raise (around 10-11 pts), but that I was not >> sure. Maybe it was preemptive. > > > > A "good" (considering the circumstances) explanation could have been: > "we used to play this as weak. We recently changed the system, but we > did not explicitly talk about this sequence." That is the least you > should do. > I did really explain it as good as I could. I wanted to give the opps the information that I had. I told something like: "We played it as preemptive but we changed some things and I was not sure anymore. It is either preemptive or limit, but I really don't know which of the two." >> Before the second DBL RHO asked again what the 3D bid was. I said >> that I was still not sure, but that it started to look more like a >> preempt now. >> Remark: Opps are rather weak players. > > > > I can see that from what happened. They got confused and failed to > hold it to four. Not that this would have done them any good, 4H being > cold. They are just not good players. Holding it to 4 would require good defense. They started H and that was encouraged, so they did continue with H (probably without considering a Spade shift). Then I played D to the King, taken by the Ace. West did play Club K then and I played one more D and could claim > There was misinformation. There was some questionable bridge (I`m not > talking about that overtrick, only about leaving in a double which > strongly suggests somehing like the actual East hand). Whether this is > enough to deny them redress is impossible to tell from here, but most > probably I would adjust to 4H making. There are players who I would > leave this score, but not that many, and none whom I would describe as > weak players. After the second double 4H by West seems logic. But this are weak players and maybe West thought that the DBL of 4D was penalty. Even after 4C West has a normal 4H call (or 4D to let his partner choose a major). And this 4H call would probably have been more easy if they would have known for sure that 3D was preemptive. > >> Remartk2: I did bid 4C because I was sure that opps have a good fit >> in the majors and maybe with a double fit we can make 5D. >> At our club nobody uses convention cards. But as the director you can >> believe what I explained above (I was not sure if 3D was limit or >> preemptive). > > > > Seems to me that you had the best of two worlds, bidding > semi-preemptively while leaving doubt in your opponents brains. Not only in opps brains ... also in my brain. => We can say that if opps had received the explanation '3D is preemptive' then they probably would have found 4H. The final contrat would have been 4H, 5H, 5D, 6D, ... The question now is : Was my explanation of 3D MI or was 3D bid wrong? Can it be MI if I said everything I know? > Regards > Matthias > >> >> What is your ruling? >> >> Thanks, >> Koen > From henk at ripe.net Thu Jun 16 10:27:41 2005 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu Jun 16 10:29:30 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) In-Reply-To: <42B12DE6.6060805@hotmail.com> References: <200506141553.IAA26879@mailhub.irvine.com> <42B12DE6.6060805@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050616102015.02cd1758@localhost> >>I don't know why Koen is playing. In my experience, though, the main >>reason directors play in clubs is to avoid a half table. I think that there is one other reason: in most European clubs, the TD is a volunteer who does have to pay for his own coffee or beer. >> We have on average one ruling per evening. Exactly, as a volunteer, I don't mind arriving half an hour early to set up the room and sell entries, then stay half an hour longer to score the game and clean up. I do mind sitting around doing nothing for 3 hours minus epsilon for the ruling. 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 tjordan at emailaccount.com Thu Jun 16 11:42:27 2005 From: tjordan at emailaccount.com (Jan Ferguson) Date: Thu Jun 16 10:43:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Become one of the low rates Message-ID: <213c.fsf@calle31.net> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.sllly.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Fredrick Castle to be remov(ed: http://www.sllly.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jun 16 12:36:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jun 16 12:38:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-05 In-Reply-To: <001801c5720e$975eacc0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > The TD ruled correctly, a slow break in tempo > suggests action, No matter how many times you say it Marv it does not become true. "Action" is not a legal call. The question for the TD/AC is "Does the BIT suggest the chosen call over the logical alternatives?" My personal view coincides with that of the AC - *this* BIT tells you nothing about whether 5H is likely to be right/wrong. > and passing was clearly a logical alternative to bidding. Agreed but irrelevant if the LA is not suggested. > Limit bidder bids again is never the only logical action. I disagree with this on principle. For example holding a 4144 15 count after opening a precision 1D-(1H)-P-P-? Pass is just not an LA. > Also, established partnerships seem able to sense what partner was > thinking about, whether to pass, double, or bid. They never get it > wrong, do they?. Yes, they do. Actually in this case I'm not sure what Weinstein was thinking about, but surely with a flat 10 count opposite a normal Flannery opening he'd consider double more appropriate than 5H. > North's double was so ridiculous (wild, gambling, irrational?), > perhaps prompted by the likelihood that the contract would be > cancelled if it made, that another NABC AC might let N-S keep the > table result. That would be wrong, as nothing N-S could do would avoid > the damage caused by the 5H bid. Well, if the WBF really does want us to award the worst possible result including the infraction why not 5H-1? D lead, ruff, S9 won in dummy. One might place South with 9,Kx,Q,AKQxxxxxx and play for the drop. Actually, *If* you think the hesitation suggests bidding on then the CA lead is hopeless - you *know* a void will be necessary to justify the 5H. And if you don't think the hesitation suggests bidding WTF are you doing asking for a ruling? Tim From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 16 13:29:17 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Jun 16 13:32:28 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050616102015.02cd1758@localhost> References: <200506141553.IAA26879@mailhub.irvine.com> <42B12DE6.6060805@hotmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050616102015.02cd1758@localhost> Message-ID: In article <6.2.1.2.2.20050616102015.02cd1758@localhost>, Henk Uijterwaal writes > > > >>>I don't know why Koen is playing. In my experience, though, the main >>>reason directors play in clubs is to avoid a half table. > >I think that there is one other reason: in most European clubs, the >TD is a volunteer who does have to pay for his own coffee or beer. > > >>> We have on average one ruling per evening. > >Exactly, as a volunteer, I don't mind arriving half an hour early to >set up the room and sell entries, then stay half an hour longer to >score the game and clean up. I do mind sitting around doing nothing for >3 hours minus epsilon for the ruling. A single section game can reasonably be run by a playing TD. 2 sections, one TD in each section. 9 tables is fine, 13 is a bit of a stretch. it costs me about 1% on my score I reckon. > >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) > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 16 14:02:39 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jun 16 14:01:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <000801c5720d$9e5d8ec0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003301c56eab$19a16e00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <006801c56eda$738d67a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050612172544.02aac270@pop.starpower.net> <000801c5720d$9e5d8ec0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050616075604.02ed0a50@pop.starpower.net> At 08:52 PM 6/15/05, Marvin wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > Marvin wrote: > > > > >Players will usually justify their strange actions with > >>uncorroborated > > >and unverifiable statements. TDs/ACs should let such > >>rationlizations > > >go in one ear and out the other. It is not fair to the opponents > >>that they should be given any weight. > > > > > >A player violating L16A will say, "I would always take that > > >action." We don't give that any weight whatsoever, it's > >> irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there is a logical > >> alternative to an action suggested by UI. > > > > > >East's denial of a BIT by West is relevant. If East were to argue > > >that there was no LA to a 2C bid, giving bridge reasons for that > > >statement, showing system notes that require it, then that would be > > >relevant. But just saying "I bid two clubs because blah, blah" is not > >>relevant > > > > In a dispute over the facts of a case, an AC must act much like a > > jury > > in a civil courtroom. One of things it must do is listen to the > > principals to the dispute and make judgments as to their > > credibililty > > -- often the only thing. You can't do your job if you let "such > > rationalizations go in one ear and out the other"; that's prejudging > > the credibility of all the parties on both sides as equal -- zero -- > > and leaves far less than you should have, if not nothing, on which > > to base the decisions you're expected to make. > >Perhaps I should clarify that the subject is UI cases, in which >creditibility is not the issue, relevancy is the issue. East's reasons for >bidding 2C are not relevant. All that is relevant is why he thinks a pass >is not an LA (if that is his belief) to what West's supposed UI >demonstrably suggested (action of some sort). He could have 10 good >reasons >why 2C is right, but if passing is an LA then those reasons are >irrelevant. >First ask him if admits that pass is an LA. He'll probably say "Yes, >but...," and you say "Thank you, that is all, we >are not interested in your reasoning, although it may be excellent." > >But we are putting the cart before the horse. The AC determined that >there was no UI, rightly treating each side's relevant assertions >equally, with no judgment of their credibility. This despite the fact >that South was Judy Kay Wolff, widow of Norman Kay and wife of Bobby >Wolff, who would be very unilkely to invent UI that did not exist. >Once "no UI" is determined, which should be the first order of >business in a UI case, the case is over, everyone can go home now. > >"Wait a minute," some AC member should say, "What about East's >acknowledged BIT?" Then the AC considers whether the BIT conveyed >useful UI, and of course it did. Now it is >West's turn to explain why biddding was not an LA to the pass >demonstrably suggested by the UI. The chairman should say, "Please >tell us if you think that bidding is an LA to passing." If he says, >yes, as is likely, that's the end of it, as his reasons for passing >become irrelevant. Adjust the score for both sides to 2NT by West off >one. If he says no, then his arguments for that belief are relevant, >e.g., East, a passed hand, could be quite weak so bidding 2NT would be >illogical. The AC will consider what he says, but it's not a matter of >West's truthfulness (we assume players don't lie), it's only the >soundness of his bridge argument that matters. > > > > Not every self-serving statement is false, and not every witness has > > zero credibility. Even Marv starts by saying "Players will > > usually...", but then wants us to presume that they will do it > > always. > >No, I want you to assume that they do it never. Players statements >must be accepted, provided they are relevant and do not contradict known >facts. In this case one player asserted UI, the other side denied UI. The >AC did not determine the credibility of either position, and rightly >so. To >have judged that South was 90% credible and E-W 30% credible, then deeming >the UI to have existed, would be outrageous. > >Or take assertions that a pair's system rules out any LA to an action >taken, e.g., West was required to pass 2C in this situation. These must be >verified by the CC, by system notes, or by relevant bridge arguments. If >they can't be, they are irrelevant. ACs listen to them, perhaps, but they >have no effect on the outcome. AC to West: "We do not doubt that what you >say is true, but we can't accept such statements without objective >evidence >to back them up." > > >Corroboration and verification will always add weight, and as > > Ed suggests, their lack may seriously constrain what weight we might > > be > > inclined to assign, but we owe those suspected self-serving > > rationalizing liars the opportunity to speak in their own defense > > and be heard. > >Please give us one example of an NABC appeal in a UI case for which you >think the credibility of statements regarding the existence or >non-existence of a doubtful fact was a determining factor for the AC's >decision. >. >Then we can talk more. I apparently misunderstood Marv's argument earlier. I had thought he was arguing to ignore East's assertions about the reasoning behind the 2C bid on the grounds that they were patently self-serving. Now that I understand that he wishes to do so on the grounds that they are irrelevant to the ruling, I have no problem with his argument. I don't follow NABC appeals as closely as Marv does, but ISTM that a fine example of what we're talking about can be found in the currently active "Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them?" thread. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From armandfro at raphaministries.com Thu Jun 16 19:49:09 2005 From: armandfro at raphaministries.com (kendrick garrett) Date: Thu Jun 16 14:06:19 2005 Subject: [blml] peak performance Message-ID: <02816D6A.A0E3B13@raphaministries.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050616/041aff8f/attachment.html From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Jun 16 16:25:10 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu Jun 16 16:27:17 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: <42B135CF.1080401@hotmail.com> References: <42AEA161.10106@hotmail.com> <42B01CB7.6000207@t-online.de> <42B135CF.1080401@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <42B18BC6.4060005@t-online.de> koen wrote: > > ...probably the case is too difficult for the others :) Seems to be... :-) > > > C) Then we didn't like these fitbids anymore for the Diamonds. > Especially 2NT and 3NT we wanted to bid naturally again.We decided not > to play the fit-bids anymore on D. > We didn't talk about the following: Our 3D limit bid (see A) was > replaced by 2NT (see B). Now this 2NT was not used anymore as a D fit, > so for me it was logic that we did go back to what we played initially > (To A). Logic thinkng does not make an agreement :-) . Looks like your partner used another kind of logic. Anything not covered by the new agreements is still on (else it would have been agreed upon). This kind of system discussion is very thin ice. I nearly drowned a couple of times myself :-) > > I did really explain it as good as I could. I wanted to give the opps > the information that I had. I told something like: "We played it as > preemptive but we changed some things and I was not sure anymore. It > is either preemptive or limit, but I really don't know which of the two." I think you owe your opps some kind of definitive statement. If it was wrong the law will protect them, if it was right the law will protect you. I learned how to overhaul my system notes the hard way - your way. After two or three disasters of this kind we discussed every bid in question and put it down in writing. Of course this costs time, not every player will want to do this, but if you want to have fairly complex agreements in place you owe it to your opponents and your partnership. > >> There was misinformation. There was some questionable bridge (I`m not >> talking about that overtrick, only about leaving in a double which >> strongly suggests somehing like the actual East hand). Whether this >> is enough to deny them redress is impossible to tell from here, but >> most probably I would adjust to 4H making. There are players who I >> would leave this score, but not that many, and none whom I would >> describe as weak players. > > > After the second double 4H by West seems logic. > But this are weak players and maybe West thought that the DBL of 4D > was penalty. > Even after 4C West has a normal 4H call (or 4D to let his partner > choose a major). And this 4H call would probably have been more easy > if they would have known for sure that 3D was preemptive. I put this question to a german mailing list. I have difficulties to judge what a very weak player would do in a given situation. I got about 20 answers. Everyone would have bid 4H, but these were no weak players, somewhat advanced at least, most of them fairly good or very good. But I had asked about opinions of what weak players would do, and many said a weak player may well pass 4Dx, being afraid to bid at the level of 4 with only 7 points, and that it would be easier for them to bid if 3D was described as weak. Some of the people on the list are pretty experienced teachers, so I put some faith in their opinions. > >> >>> Remartk2: I did bid 4C because I was sure that opps have a good fit >>> in the majors and maybe with a double fit we can make 5D. >>> At our club nobody uses convention cards. But as the director you >>> can believe what I explained above (I was not sure if 3D was limit >>> or preemptive). >> >> >> >> >> Seems to me that you had the best of two worlds, bidding >> semi-preemptively while leaving doubt in your opponents brains. > > > Not only in opps brains ... also in my brain. > > => We can say that if opps had received the explanation '3D is > preemptive' then they probably would have found 4H. The final contrat > would have been 4H, 5H, 5D, 6D, ... > > The question now is : Was my explanation of 3D MI or was 3D bid wrong? > Can it be MI if I said everything I know? You have to take a position: weak or invitational. If your description does not conform with partner`s hand the TD has to find out whether the bid or the explanation was wrong, ruling either misbid or MI. Of course you have to fill in the opps with the background (system change), but they need something to work with. Imagine 1D - P - 2S. The next player may well have different agreements about Double, depending on the strength of 2S. So he needs a committal answer to the question: what is the meaning of 2S? In your case I would have ruled that your explanation was tantamount to "invitatonal" (maybe.... doesn`t help your opps), tried to find out the agreed meaning (weak from what you explained about your system) and ruled accordingly. MI in this case. Regards Matthias From craigstamps at comcast.net Thu Jun 16 17:06:53 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Thu Jun 16 17:08:39 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520589A93C@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <008401c57285$080b1cd0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sinot Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 11:56 AM Subject: RE: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) > On Jun 14, 2005, at 5:32 AM, koen wrote: > > > Problem is that I'm also playing and can't take the >> neceassry time for these cases) > > If playing prevents you from properly acting as director, IMO you > shouldn't play. I fully agree. But who else does the directing then? -- Martin Sinot The answer is obvious...cancel the game and send everybody home. They'll all be much happier with that than with an imperfect ruling, right? The playing club director for the small club unable to pay for 4 hours work is here to stay. Let's live with it as best we can. Or we can seek to kill off bridge in most smaller communities and exacerbate the declining ranks of bridge players. Maybe all directors could go on strike for (higher?) wages and speed the process. And we should take nasty lessons, burn TFLB and rely on fiat, and schedule games when it is most inconvenient. Just think...if we got enough players to stop playing bridge, we wouldn't NEED laws at all. Then there would be no poor or unfair rulings to contend over. GET REAL! Do the best job you can, educate yourself as fully as possible, and be fair. That's already better than 90% of all directors...and be satisfied that you are making a contribution to the game. Craig Senior _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 16 17:15:10 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jun 16 17:13:51 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: <42B18BC6.4060005@t-online.de> References: <42AEA161.10106@hotmail.com> <42B01CB7.6000207@t-online.de> <42B135CF.1080401@hotmail.com> <42B18BC6.4060005@t-online.de> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050616105505.02a3a7f0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:25 AM 6/16/05, Matthias wrote: >You have to take a position: weak or invitational. If your description >does not conform with partner`s hand the TD has to find out whether >the bid or the explanation was wrong, ruling either misbid or MI. Matthias seems to be taking the "De Wael School" party line here. The fundamental flaw in this approach is that I may *not* have to take a position one way or another in order to choose my call. Knowing that partner may be weak or invitational, I am free to hedge my bets and choose whatever next call best caters to both possibilities. Quite often (albeit perhaps not in the particular case we're discussing) that will be neither the same call I would have made had I been confident it was weak nor the same I would have made had I been confident it was invitational. The opponents are entitled to know the assumptions on which I have based my call. If I do not take a position when I choose my call, but am then forced to take a position when attempting to meet disclosure requirements, I will be required to give misinformation to my opponents whichever position I choose to assert. They will always be able to claim that if I really believed what I told them I would have bid differently, and they will be right every time! To me, full and complete disclosure means that when I'm done, my opponents have all of the information available to me that I might use in choosing my subsequent calls. I am ready and willing to provide such disclosure, but Matthias seems to argue that it is not legal for me to do so. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 16 17:32:22 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jun 16 17:34:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? In-Reply-To: <20050616071847.273F72599AE@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050616071847.273F72599AE@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: On Jun 16, 2005, at 3:18 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Ed Reppert napisa?(a): >> >> On Jun 15, 2005, at 2:03 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >>> Nevertheless the AC accepted their statement of their agreement. >>> Would you? >> >> Of course not. All bridge players are liars and cheats, and there >> ain't >> one anywhere who wouldn't do whatever it takes to get a good >> score. >> >> OTOH, is their agreement really relevant? I would reason this way: >> >> 1. There was a break in tempo (agreed fact). > > A break in tempo before bidding 3S could suggest lots > of things - one of the options is that > the player in question was thinking about passing vs competitng. > But this is not what happened here - the player's "body language" > suggested that he was expecting his RHO to pass and > was going to bid 3S as invitational. *That* demonstrably > suggestes raising. > > So you drew a good conclusion based on wrong premises. I think you're arguing that I drew a good conclusion based on *incomplete* premises. Add 1a. There was body language (extraneous information) from 3S bidder (Hm. Is this fact, or supposition? I'd have to go back to the original post, and I'm too lazy at the moment). Then the conclusion follows from the combination of two different pieces of UI. Better? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jun 16 23:23:32 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu Jun 16 23:26:48 2005 Subject: Fw: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-05 Revised Message-ID: <006301c572b9$b02a3700$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> I am told that the card pips didn't show up right for some BLMLers. I copied the case from the ACBL website and the pips came out okay in my OE mail software. Anyway, here is a "translated" copy for those who want one. From: "Marvin French" I posted this case on BL:ML as Appeal 3 right after the Pittsburgh NABC, whose Daily Bulletin published the case as No. 3. I repeat it here for the sake of consistency in the numbering. I skip over N-04 because it was an easy ruling that should not have been appealed, despite the absence of an AWMW. Silodor Open Pairs Second Final Session Board 5 Dlr: North Vul: N-S Larry Cohen S 5 4 H K 8 3 D A J 10 7 5 3 C J 3 Steve Weinstein Bobby Levin S A K 7 3 S Q 10 8 6 2 H Q J 9 H A10 7 5 4 2 D 8 6 4 2 D K 9 C 7 4 C? David Berkowitz s J 9 H 6 D Q C A K Q 10 9 8 6 5 2 West North East South Pass 2D 5C Pass Pass 5H Pass Pass Dbl All Pass Facts: 2D was Alerted as Flannery. At his first turn to call West broke tempo 15?20 seconds. The contract was successful with an overtrick, plus 750 East-West. The director was not called at the time. The players agreed to some break in tempo at the table, but because of time pressure all agreed to bring the matter to a director after they caught up on the clock. Director?s Ruling: Law 16. The Director ruled that the Unauthorized Information arising from the slow pass demonstrably suggested further action by East. The contract was changed to 5C by South, minus 100 North-South. The Appeal: East, West and South attended the hearing. Flannery, as played by East-West, normally showed 4?5 in the majors, though occasionally 4?6. They had no agreement that it could be 5?6. East, with a passed hand on his right and a preempt on his left, would very likely find some values in partner?s hand. Since East had a club void and two extra cards in his suits it was clear to him to bid 5H. South believed that pass was a logical alternative. None of the players could remember if the STOP card had been used, but all agreed that West had clearly exceeded the ?normal? tempo break after a skip bid. The Decision: Was there a break in tempo? If yes, was a specific action demonstrably suggested? If yes, was there a logical alternative? All agreed to a break in tempo. From East?s viewpoint, West was very likely to have some values, given his hand and the auction. West, in hesitating, could have been contemplating 5H, 5S, double or even 5D. The committee judged that the likelihood of West?s thinking about doubling to be great enough, relative to the chance that he was considering bidding 5H or 5S, that the break in tempo did not demonstrably suggest the 5H call by East. The committee restored the table result of 5S doubled, plus 750 East-West. Director-in-Charge: Henry Cutoff Chairperson: Doug Doubt Committee Members: Chris Moll, Michael Huston, Jo Ann Sprung and Richard Popper ############# The TD ruled correctly, a slow break in tempo suggests action, and passing was clearly a logical alternative to bidding. Limit bidder bids again is never the only logical action. Also, established partnerships seem able to sense what partner was thinking about, whether to pass, double, or bid. They never get it wrong, do they?. North's double was so ridiculous (wild, gambling, irrational?), perhaps prompted by the likelihood that the contract would be cancelled if it made, that another NABC AC might let N-S keep the table result. That would be wrong, as nothing N-S could do would avoid the damage caused by the 5H bid. There is no law against the so-called "double shot." Scores so far: TD AC N-00 1 1 (no comments) N-01 0 0 N-02 1 0 N-03 0 1/2 N-04 1 1 (no comments) N-05 1 0 Total 4 2-1/2 out of 6 cases Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 17 00:02:36 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Jun 17 00:05:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-08 Message-ID: <008101c572bf$1cd0e7a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> I'm skipping over N-07 because it was a clear-cut UI case that should not have been appealed, with an appropriate AWMW issued. Subject: UI DIC: Putnam Vanderbilt KO Teams Brd: 23 Dealer South, both vulnerable S AQJ6 H K2 D AQJ743 C A S 98732 S 1054 H A5 H J9763 D 86 D 105 C 10965 C KJ5 S K H Q1084 D K92 C Q8732 West North East South Pass Pass 1D Pass 1H Pass 2S Pass 2NT (1) Pass 3NT Pass 6D All Pass Alerted and explained as Lebensohl with minimum values The Facts: The final result was 6D making six for +1370 NS after the C5 opening lead. The director was called after the opening lead. The director determined that the partnership agreement is that Lebensohl only applied after partner reversed, but not after a jump shift. Without the alert, North?s rebid would deny a six-card diamond suit and tend to show more of a balanced hand. North would expect that his partner would be passing his next call so therefore 3NT would show extra values and doesn?t want to play less than game. The Ruling: The contract was reverted back to 3NT making six for a score of +690 for NS. There was UI and Law 16.A.2 applied. If no alert had been given, South shouldn?t have any interest in bidding on. The UI suggests that bidding on might be successful and 4D might be misinterpreted as a signoff. A 4NT bid would be ambiguous. The 6D bid prevents further misinterpretation and is disallowed. [mlf] It's L16A, not 16A2. Evidently the TD thinks he knows the Laws by heart, and didn't he apply L12C2? The Appeal: North and South both attended the hearing. South felt that his partner had created a game forcing auction. South felt bidding slam had a high likelihood of success. NS had just suffered a poor result and South claimed he was ?trying to get it back.? Other Facts: NS had about 5000 masterpoints each. When South was asked why he didn?t make a more subtle approach to slam, he stated that he just bid the slam to avoid any accidents. The Decision: The AC discussed the UI available to South. They felt that the South hand would continue beyond 3NT. [mlf] They "felt" that, did they? Not a very strong word. North didn't need the heart king (the jack would do) for the 2S bid, so passing 3NT would not be silly. The TD thought that South "shouldn't have any interest in bidding on," so surely pass isn't illogical. Why not give E-W the benefit of doubt? The information available to South, however, may have suggested the fast track to 6D, rather than an exploratory auction. The AC unanimously agreed that slam should be reached. The committee was also convinced the South 6D call was something of a safeguard against any accidents on the way to 6D. [mlf] "should be reached"? That implies at least some doubt. I'll charitably assume they meant "would be reached." The committee discussed the possibilities on a non-balanced score and also briefly wished for the availability of Law 12.C.3. The score of +1370 was allowed to stand. However, after weighing several possible PPs, the AC assessed 6 IMPs to the NS pair because of the blatant use of the UI. [mlf] I'll say it again, I disapprove of using PPs for disciplinary purposes. No AWMW was issued. Committee: Gail Greenberg, Chair, Rob Gordon and Richard Budd [mlf] The AC knows they would have surely reached slam, so slam must be inevitable. I say the TD was right, what say you? Scores so far: TD AC N-00 1 1 (no comments) N-01 0 0 N-02 1 0 N-03 0 1/2 N-04 1 1 (no comments) N-05 1 0 N-06 1/2 1/2 N-07 1 1 (no comments) N-08 1 0 Total 6-1/2 4 out of 9 cases Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 17 00:11:02 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Jun 17 00:14:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-05 References: <001801c5720e$975eacc0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <008e01c572c0$49c71bc0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Ed Repper wrote: > > Marvin French wrote: > > > Also, established partnerships seem able to sense what partner was > > thinking about, whether to pass, double, or bid. They never get it > > wrong, do they?. > > Objection! Counsel is assuming facts not in evidence! > > :-) Yeah, yeah, just a personal observation, extraneous, irrelevant. I would never say that when serving on an AC. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From stolid at peak.com Fri Jun 17 00:14:39 2005 From: stolid at peak.com (Essie) Date: Fri Jun 17 00:16:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Also provides information about Viagra and its related Information. Message-ID: <8945335369.7115125983@dialup74-137.gazinter.net> Same medicine, different price! http://tense.onlineless.info/?skinnedxtvuysurmisezsvpeel My work is a game, a very serious game. Maybe this world is another planet's hell. We have, I fear, confused power with greatness. The public interest is best served by the free exchange of ideas. From modulo at mathison.com Fri Jun 17 00:14:48 2005 From: modulo at mathison.com (Stella) Date: Fri Jun 17 00:17:16 2005 Subject: [blml] The supremacy in bed! Message-ID: <11080989999.11170146448@dialup74-137.gazinter.net> Maximizing success with VIAGRA. http://skindive.powerinfoonline.info/?siphonxtvuyvilifyingzctterrorists I can't complain, but sometimes I still do. The future will be better tomorrow. When in doubt, tell the truth. Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't. From jrmayne at mindspring.com Fri Jun 17 00:54:18 2005 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Fri Jun 17 00:56:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-08 Message-ID: <1504672.1118962459413.JavaMail.root@wamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- From: Marvin French Subject: UI DIC: Putnam Vanderbilt KO Teams Brd: 23 Dealer South, both vulnerable S AQJ6 H K2 D AQJ743 C A S 98732 S 1054 H A5 H J9763 D 86 D 105 C 10965 C KJ5 S K H Q1084 D K92 C Q8732 West North East South Pass Pass 1D Pass 1H Pass 2S Pass 2NT (1) Pass 3NT Pass 6D All Pass Alerted and explained as Lebensohl with minimum values The Facts: The final result was 6D making six for +1370 NS after the C5 opening lead. The director was called after the opening lead. The director determined that the partnership agreement is that Lebensohl only applied after partner reversed, but not after a jump shift. Without the alert, North?s rebid would deny a six-card diamond suit and tend to show more of a balanced hand. North would expect that his partner would be passing his next call so therefore 3NT would show extra values and doesn?t want to play less than game. The Ruling: The contract was reverted back to 3NT making six for a score of +690 for NS. There was UI and Law 16.A.2 applied. If no alert had been given, South shouldn?t have any interest in bidding on. The UI suggests that bidding on might be successful and 4D might be misinterpreted as a signoff. A 4NT bid would be ambiguous. The 6D bid prevents further misinterpretation and is disallowed. [mlf] It's L16A, not 16A2. Evidently the TD thinks he knows the Laws by heart, and didn't he apply L12C2? The Appeal: North and South both attended the hearing. South felt that his partner had created a game forcing auction. South felt bidding slam had a high likelihood of success. NS had just suffered a poor result and South claimed he was ?trying to get it back.? Other Facts: NS had about 5000 masterpoints each. When South was asked why he didn?t make a more subtle approach to slam, he stated that he just bid the slam to avoid any accidents. The Decision: The AC discussed the UI available to South. They felt that the South hand would continue beyond 3NT. [mlf] They "felt" that, did they? Not a very strong word. North didn't need the heart king (the jack would do) for the 2S bid, so passing 3NT would not be silly. The TD thought that South "shouldn't have any interest in bidding on," so surely pass isn't illogical. Why not give E-W the benefit of doubt? The information available to South, however, may have suggested the fast track to 6D, rather than an exploratory auction. The AC unanimously agreed that slam should be reached. The committee was also convinced the South 6D call was something of a safeguard against any accidents on the way to 6D. [mlf] "should be reached"? That implies at least some doubt. I'll charitably assume they meant "would be reached." The committee discussed the possibilities on a non-balanced score and also briefly wished for the availability of Law 12.C.3. The score of +1370 was allowed to stand. However, after weighing several possible PPs, the AC assessed 6 IMPs to the NS pair because of the blatant use of the UI. [mlf] I'll say it again, I disapprove of using PPs for disciplinary purposes. No AWMW was issued. ============== JRM: The other probability by the 2N bidder, assuming he hasn't awoken is 4D. N has a very good hand, and S has shown garbage but the H Kx figure to be working; S has shown a garbage scow with a bunch of red cards, so a simple raise to 5D makes sense. Now S has heard N show as poverty-stricken a raise as possible, and has wastage and no fourth diamond; hence 5D. That seems like a pretty reasonable, legal ruling to me. If you were feeling like a grumpy AC, you might think S would play N for 4=1=5=3 and start a trump-finding slam expedition with 4C; N realizes S likes to respond (as I do) with x Jxxxx x Qxxxxx, and passes, and you're playing 4C. But I think that's reaching to punish this punishable offense. More realistically cruel is to impose a confused auction to 6N and a club lead; surely possible. That's down one, but seems unlikely. It would not be a crazy ruling. I think it's easy to justify contracts of 6N or 5D. The committee's reasoning appears to justify 6N. I could be persuaded either is right; I don't think permitting 6D to live when S concedes that an accident was a reasonable possibility is justifiable. --JRM From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 17 01:13:52 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Jun 17 01:14:28 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: <42B18BC6.4060005@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus: [big snip] >Imagine 1D - P - 2S. The next player may well have >different agreements about Double, depending on the >strength of 2S. So he needs a committal answer to >the question: what is the meaning of 2S? [snip] Richard Hills: What an opponent needs is *not* what an opponent is entitled to by Law. Example: I arrive at a New York bridge club on a visit, agree to play Standard American with an unknown New York partner, and on the first board pard jumps to 2S in response to my 1D opening. >From my prior reading, I know that about half of New Yorkers consider a weak jump shift as Standard, and about half of New Yorkers consider a strong jump shift as Standard. My RHO (also a foreigner, who has just arrived from Ruritania) asks the meaning of pard's 2S call. My reply has to be, "Undiscussed. But we have an implicit agreement that it either means a preempt, or it means a slam try." Of course, this non-committal explanation is *not* what my Ruritanian opponent needs. C'est la vie. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Fri Jun 17 01:29:27 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri Jun 17 01:26:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-08 In-Reply-To: <008101c572bf$1cd0e7a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Marvin French wrote: > Brd: 23 Dealer South, both vulnerable > > S AQJ6 > H K2 > D AQJ743 > C A > > S K > H Q1084 > D K92 > C Q8732 > > West North East South > Pass > Pass 1D Pass 1H > Pass 2S Pass 2NT (1) > Pass 3NT Pass 6D > All Pass > > Alerted and explained as Lebensohl with minimum values E-W had MI but apparently didn't feel damaged by it. So we're just looking at UI to South. In the Facts and Ruling, we have these two gems: > North would expect that his partner would be passing his > next call so therefore 3NT would show extra values and doesn=EDt want to = play > less than game. > 4D might be misinterpreted as a signoff. The director, with all due respect, needs to learn how to bid. 2S is absolutely game-forcing in just about every book on SA or 2/1 in the last thirty years. Any reference to "playing less than game" or to 4 of a minor sounding like a signoff is crazy. South has a 7-loser hand, a known fit for his partner's first bid suit, and reason to think his SK is working making it six losers. His partner was willing to force to game opposite Kxx Kxxx xx xxxx or similar. There is no LA to driving the bidding to slam unless a "we are missing the CAK" type of problem can be diagnosed. Seven is very possible. > The Appeal: North and South both attended the hearing. South felt that hi= s > partner had created a game forcing auction. South felt bidding slam had a > high likelihood of success. Understatement of the year. Likelihood of making six looks around 90% from where south sits. Making 7 is a LOT more likely than failing in six. > NS had just suffered a poor result and South > claimed he was =ECtrying to get it back.=EE > Other Facts: NS had about 5000 masterpoints each. When South was asked wh= y > he didn=EDt make a more subtle approach to slam, he stated that he just b= id > the slam to avoid any accidents. OK, "avoiding another accident because we've had one already" can be called use of UI. But south did more than enough to avoid taking advantage, by jumping to the lowest-scoring slam, and abandoning his chances for 6NT or 7D either of which could very easily be makeable on a different lie of the cards and biddable after 4D started cuebids. > The Decision: The AC discussed the UI available to South. They felt that > the South hand would continue beyond 3NT. > > [mlf] They "felt" that, did they? Not a very strong word. North didn't ne= ed > the heart king (the jack would do) for the 2S bid, so passing 3NT would n= ot > be silly. The TD thought that South "shouldn't have any interest in biddi= ng > on," so surely pass isn't illogical. Why not give E-W the benefit of doub= t? Sorry, but passing 3NT is beyond silly, and it was the director's thought was the illogical bit. > The information available to South, however, may have suggested the fast > track to 6D, rather than an exploratory auction. The AC unanimously agree= d > that slam should be reached. The committee was also convinced the South 6= D > call was something of a safeguard against any accidents on the way to 6D. > The committee discussed the possibilities on a non-balanced score and als= o > briefly wished for the availability of Law 12.C.3. I wonder what else they would have wanted to throw into the mix - 90% of 6D making, 10% of 6NT-1 on a club lead if N-S got greedy? > The score of +1370 was > allowed to stand. However, after weighing several possible PPs, the AC > assessed 6 IMPs to the NS pair because of the blatant use of the UI. > > [mlf] I'll say it again, I disapprove of using PPs for disciplinary > purposes. On that one point, at least, we agree. 1370, return the deposit, next case, over and done with it in five minutes, if you ask me. IF the table result was 1440 on a layout where 6NT makes and South blasted to it instead of exploring (and possibly getting stuck in 6D), I could see an adjustment down to 1370 for use of UI. On the actual case I think south gave up on higher-scoring contracts when he jumped to 6D, and whatever use he made of the UI was to his side's potential detriment, not benefit. > > [mlf] The AC knows they would have surely reached slam, so slam must be > inevitable. I say the TD was right, what say you? I say the AC correctly concluded slam was inevitable, and it's a darn shame they forgot about that when they tossed in the 6 IMPs for fun. > N-08 1 0 On this one, I give the TD about minus five, and the AC about 0.8. GRB From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Jun 17 04:49:31 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri Jun 17 04:51:31 2005 Subject: [blml] L12C2 ambiguity? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050616223551.03197e40@mail.comcast.net> At 03:53 AM 6/15/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Actually, in my opinion, I believe that - provided that the >WBF solves their "Beware of the leopard" problem - their >interpretation will make a frequent difference. > >Take this generic auction -> > >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: South >Vul: North-South > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- 1S >2H 3S 4H 4S >Pass(1) Pass 5H 5S >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Break in tempo > >If: > >(a) West's break in tempo demonstrably suggested East's 5H. >(b) East had a logical alternative of Pass. >(c) South had two, and only two logical alternatives over 5H, > either Double or Pass. >(d) At the table, spades always makes 10 tricks. >(e) At the table, hearts always makes 7 tricks. > >Then the WBF interpretation on this generic auction gives an >adjusted Law 12C2 score of NS +620 and EW -800. And here's a reductio ad absurdum: West dealer, both vulnerable, matchpoints W N E S 1S P 2S ..P P X P 3H X P P North's double is judged to be an infraction because pass was a logical alternative and was demonstrably suggested by the slow pass. 2S always makes exactly two, for +110. 3H goes down one on normal play, but South found the best line of play at the table, and made the contract without any error by E-W. E-W get the +110 which was likely without the infraction. The worst score that was at all probable for N-S at the time of the infraction was -200. Does the WBF interpretation say that South gets -200, which he did not get at the table? From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jun 17 05:12:06 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri Jun 17 05:12:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-08 References: <008101c572bf$1cd0e7a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002901c572ea$57d97530$049868d5@James> > Subject: UI DIC: Putnam Vanderbilt KO Teams > Brd: 23 Dealer South, both vulnerable > S AQJ6 > H K2 > D AQJ743 > C A > S 98732 S 1054 > H A5 H J9763 > D 86 D 105 > C 10965 C KJ5 > S K > H Q1084 > D K92 > C Q8732 > West North East South > Pass > Pass 1D Pass 1H > Pass 2S Pass 2NT (1) > Pass 3NT Pass 6D > All Pass > Alerted and explained as Lebensohl with minimum values > The Facts: The final result was 6D making six for +1370 > NS after the C5 opening lead. The director was called > after the opening lead. The director determined that > the partnership agreement is that Lebensohl only > applied after partner reversed, but not after a jump > shift. Without the alert, North's rebid would deny a > six-card diamond suit and tend to show more of a > balanced hand. North would expect that his partner > would be passing his next call so therefore 3NT would > show extra values and doesn?t want to play less than > game. The Ruling: The contract was reverted back to > 3NT making six for a score of +690 for NS. There was > UI and Law 16.A.2 applied. If no alert had been given, > South shouldn't have any interest in bidding on. The > UI suggests that bidding on might be successful and > 4D might be misinterpreted as a signoff. A 4NT bid > would be ambiguous. The 6D bid prevents further > misinterpretation and is disallowed. > The Appeal: North and South both attended the hearing. > South felt that his partner had created a game forcing > auction. South felt bidding slam had a high likelihood > of success. NS had just suffered a poor result and > South claimed he was ?trying to get it back. Other > Facts: NS had about 5000 masterpoints each. When South > was asked why he didn?t make a more subtle approach to > slam, he stated that he just bid the slam to avoid any > accidents. > The Decision: The AC discussed the UI available to > South. They felt that the South hand would continue > beyond 3NT. > The information available to South, however, may have > suggested the fast track to 6D, rather than an > exploratory auction. The AC unanimously agreed that > slam should be reached. The committee was also convinced > the South 6D call was something of a safeguard against > any accidents on the way to 6D. > The committee discussed the possibilities on a non- > balanced score and also briefly wished for the > availability of Law 12.C.3. The score of +1370 was > allowed to stand. However, after weighing several > possible PPs, the AC assessed 6 IMPs to the NS pair > because of the blatant use of the UI. > No AWMW was issued. > Committee: Gail Greenberg, Chair, Rob Gordon and > Richard Budd > Scores so far: TD AC > N-00 1 1 (no comments) > N-01 0 0 > N-02 1 0 > N-03 0 1/2 > N-04 1 1 (no comments) > N-05 1 0 > N-06 1/2 1/2 > N-07 1 1 (no comments) > N-08 1 0 > Total 6-1/2 4 out of 9 cases [nigel] What does the table of TD/AC scores mean, Marvin? I agree with Marvin and disagree with Gordon Bower. The TD got it right. The AC should have endorsed the TD ruling and imposed an AWMW. North's jump reverse to 2S *normally* establishes a game-force; but, obviously, North didn't think so: he alerted South's 2N as a "Lebensohl" attempt to sigh off at the three level (perhaps something like xx Jxxxxx - Jxxxx) ... whereas South meant 2N as a strong waiting move. In view of what North understood South's 2N bid to mean, North's 3N showed extra values, making South's advance to 6D much safer. Arguably, South could not afford to explore gently, in case North played South for the kind of hand that North thought South had shown. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 17 08:21:48 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Jun 17 08:22:24 2005 Subject: [blml] For the Love of Benji In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: North-South AK32 2 KQ4 KJ763 QT7654 J KJ Q98765 932 T85 T92 A4 98 AT43 AJ76 Q85 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 2S(1) Pass(2) Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass Result: North-South +800 (1) Benji Two - 6 card suit & 6-10 hcp (2) Break in tempo East-West were unhappy that South doubled after North's break in tempo, so requested a ruling from the playing TD (me). Because I was a playing TD, I was unable to consult with peers before judging whether Pass would be a logical alternative for South. I therefore guesstimated that at least 75% of Souths would choose Double if there had been no UI. In accordance with the ABF "75%" requlation, I ruled that Double was South's *only* logical alternative, so let the table score stand without adjustment. So far, more than 75% of blmlers have voted for Double as their choice. But the blml poll does not fully settle my qualms, since most of the blmlers are not peers of South (with most of the blmers being experts), and some of the blmlers would not have chosen South's initial Pass (which would have given those light-opening blmlers an incentive to rectify their earlier underbid). The above hand is one justification for the legalisation of Reveley Rulings. If the ABF regulations had permitted, it would have been more equitable to give an adjusted score of 80% of +800 and 20% of +200 to North-South, rather than let North-South get the full monty of 100% of +800. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 17 10:18:56 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri Jun 17 10:20:55 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050616105505.02a3a7f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <42AEA161.10106@hotmail.com> <42B01CB7.6000207@t-online.de> <42B135CF.1080401@hotmail.com> <42B18BC6.4060005@t-online.de> <6.1.1.1.0.20050616105505.02a3a7f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <42B28770.5010605@t-online.de> Eric Landau wrote: > At 10:25 AM 6/16/05, Matthias wrote: > >> You have to take a position: weak or invitational. If your >> description does not conform with partner`s hand the TD has to find >> out whether the bid or the explanation was wrong, ruling either >> misbid or MI. > > > Matthias seems to be taking the "De Wael School" party line here. The > fundamental flaw in this approach is that I may *not* have to take a > position one way or another in order to choose my call. Knowing that > partner may be weak or invitational, I am free to hedge my bets and > choose whatever next call best caters to both possibilities. Quite > often (albeit perhaps not in the particular case we're discussing) > that will be neither the same call I would have made had I been > confident it was weak nor the same I would have made had I been > confident it was invitational. I never said you have to take a view when you consider what to bid. Your opponent may well need some definite statement. And of course he needs full disclosure, no doubt about that. In Koen`s case the opponents are entitled to hear about the history of the system. There may be times when I really have no agreement (see Richard`s 50-50 argument). But if there is an agreement (even when you are unsure about it) you must give your opps something to work with, and fill them in on the details too. > > The opponents are entitled to know the assumptions on which I have > based my call. No. The opponents are entitled to know all details of the system on which I base my assumption. What conclusions I draw from this may be different from their conclusions. > If I do not take a position when I choose my call, but am then > forced to take a position when attempting to meet disclosure > requirements, I will be required to give misinformation to my > opponents whichever position I choose to assert. They will always be > able to claim that if I really believed what I told them I would have > bid differently, and they will be right every time! You have to give all information, so your doubt about the system has to be disclosed too. If the disclosure was full it will be clear to your opponents that you have to extricate yourself from a difficult position. You seem to have gathered the impression that I want you to tell the opps something in a clear, firm voice, even when I am completely undecided about the meaning of partner`s call. If so it may well be my fault for not making my intentions clear, but this is not what I wanted to do. > > To me, full and complete disclosure means that when I'm done, my > opponents have all of the information available to me that I might use > in choosing my subsequent calls. I am ready and willing to provide > such disclosure, but Matthias seems to argue that it is not legal for > me to do so. See above. I am in complete agreement. Let me have another try at getting my point across. Let us say that you play with me. Since we have never done this before we agree on a system. We should have kept it simple, but the discussion went on and on. Finally the game starts. I am dealer and open 1 NT. Darn. What did we agree about this? We should not have discussed exclusion key card kickback all the time. We have an agreement, but for your life you cannot remember (pretty unlikely, agreed).Our opponents play different things against various notrump ranges, so they need an answer. What you have to do is to tell them all you know (full disclosure) and what you don`t know. They should have no doubt that you are steering your canoe without a paddle. But you have to take a position now. Your answer may hit the spot, or it might be MI. If you did a good job it will be clear to your opponents that you were guessing, and that your next calls may be considered cautious or agressive, depending on what you think the probabilities for certain ranges are. We are probably going to be in a biiiig UI case anyway (since I forgot whether we agreed transfers or two-way Stayman), and may well concede a redoubled overtrick, trying to do the ethical thing. This example is not very good because you probably could deduce the range drom the ozher things we are doing, but it was the best I could come up with now. I hope to have cleared some things up. I do _not_ subscribe to the deWael school of trying to describe what I think my partner really has instead of explaining what the system is. Regards Matthias > > > 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 Fri Jun 17 14:36:36 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jun 17 14:35:14 2005 Subject: [blml] L12C2 ambiguity? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050616223551.03197e40@mail.comcast.net> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050616223551.03197e40@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050617082805.02edfaa0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:49 PM 6/16/05, David wrote: >At 03:53 AM 6/15/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>Actually, in my opinion, I believe that - provided that the >>WBF solves their "Beware of the leopard" problem - their >>interpretation will make a frequent difference. >> >>Take this generic auction -> >> >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: South >>Vul: North-South >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- --- 1S >>2H 3S 4H 4S >>Pass(1) Pass 5H 5S >>Pass Pass Pass >> >>(1) Break in tempo >> >>If: >> >>(a) West's break in tempo demonstrably suggested East's 5H. >>(b) East had a logical alternative of Pass. >>(c) South had two, and only two logical alternatives over 5H, >> either Double or Pass. >>(d) At the table, spades always makes 10 tricks. >>(e) At the table, hearts always makes 7 tricks. >> >>Then the WBF interpretation on this generic auction gives an >>adjusted Law 12C2 score of NS +620 and EW -800. > >And here's a reductio ad absurdum: > >West dealer, both vulnerable, matchpoints > >W N E S >1S P 2S ..P >P X P 3H >X P P > >North's double is judged to be an infraction because pass was a >logical alternative and >was demonstrably suggested by the slow pass. 2S always makes exactly >two, for +110. >3H goes down one on normal play, but South found the best line of play >at the table, >and made the contract without any error by E-W. E-W get the +110 >which was likely >without the infraction. > >The worst score that was at all probable for N-S at the time of the >infraction was -200. >Does the WBF interpretation say that South gets -200, which he did not >get at the table? I should hope not. It is not "at all probable" that South would have gone down in 3HX, because he didn't. I don't (want to) believe that the WBF interpretation requires assigning the worst result that *appeared* to be at all probable at the time of the infraction when information obtained subsequent to the infraction has demonstrated post facto that it was not. But I'm not about to bet my own money backing the sensible reading of a WBF "interpretation". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml at blakjak.com Fri Jun 17 14:48:08 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 17 14:51:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <003301c56eab$19a16e00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003301c56eab$19a16e00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >[mlf] Is this a joke? West's hand is a very common example of the sort >of hand that many players "hitch" with when RHO opens in one of their >suits. Not strong enough to overcall 1NT, not shapely enough for a >takeout double, what to do? Just hitch, and hope for the best. I >cannot imagine that any reputable player qualified for the second >session of the Open would invent UI that didn't exist. This is the problem with self-serving statements: the world is seen through rose-tinted spectacles. While the self-serving nature should not go to the admissibility of such evidence, it does go to the weight given to them by TD/AC. So, people notice UI by opponents even when it is not there: that does not mean they "invented" it nor that they are not "reputable". One thing that you see in appeals write-ups is a feeling that non-offenders' self-serving statements should be discounted, offenders' self-serving statements should be treated as gospel truth. It is time for this to be balanced. [s] >NS could not demonstrate that an unmistakable hesitation occurred and >brought no new facts to the AC. Therefore an AWMW was issued. > >[mlf] That seems rather harsh, given that we all know what probably >happened even if there is no way of proving it. This is the wrong approach totally. Decisions in appeals and by TDs are on a basis of preponderance of the evidence, not proof, and correctly so: the process of deciding between two sides does not work otherwise. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From GTMRFY at hotmail.com Fri Jun 17 14:42:02 2005 From: GTMRFY at hotmail.com (Wilda Lester) Date: Fri Jun 17 14:53:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Wow..Mens Love This XV8 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:40:02 +0500." <20031002150239.GG32185@asuka.tech.sitadelle.com> Message-ID: 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://bulwarking.com/extender/?ronn o-ut of mai-lling lisst: http://bulwarking.com/rm.php?ronn 8mtM From blml at blakjak.com Fri Jun 17 14:52:17 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 17 14:55:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <006801c56eda$738d67a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003301c56eab$19a16e00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <006801c56eda$738d67a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >Players will usually justify their strange actions with uncorroborated >and unverifiable statements. TDs/ACs should let such rationlizations >go in one ear and out the other. It is not fair to the opponents that >they should be given any weight. Oh, come off it. Their opponents will be saying how "no-one since the American War of Revolution has ever produced a more ludicrous argument" and "no-one except a beginner ..." All evidence should be listened to, given a certain weighting, and considered *together*. Automatically discounting self-serving statements from one side while accepting them from the other is not the correct way to act - sadly, it is becoming common. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 17 15:24:44 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jun 17 15:23:21 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: <42B28770.5010605@t-online.de> References: <42AEA161.10106@hotmail.com> <42B01CB7.6000207@t-online.de> <42B135CF.1080401@hotmail.com> <42B18BC6.4060005@t-online.de> <6.1.1.1.0.20050616105505.02a3a7f0@pop.starpower.net> <42B28770.5010605@t-online.de> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050617085129.02ee14e0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:18 AM 6/17/05, Matthias wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 10:25 AM 6/16/05, Matthias wrote: >> >>>You have to take a position: weak or invitational. If your >>>description does not conform with partner`s hand the TD has to find >>>out whether the bid or the explanation was wrong, ruling either >>>misbid or MI. >> >>Matthias seems to be taking the "De Wael School" party line >>here. The fundamental flaw in this approach is that I may *not* have >>to take a position one way or another in order to choose my >>call. Knowing that partner may be weak or invitational, I am free to >>hedge my bets and choose whatever next call best caters to both >>possibilities. Quite often (albeit perhaps not in the particular >>case we're discussing) that will be neither the same call I would >>have made had I been confident it was weak nor the same I would have >>made had I been confident it was invitational. > >I never said you have to take a view when you consider what to bid. >Your opponent may well need some definite statement. And of course he >needs full disclosure, no doubt about that. In Koen`s case the >opponents are entitled to hear about the history of the system. There >may be times when I really have no agreement (see Richard`s 50-50 >argument). But if there is an agreement (even when you are unsure >about it) you must give your opps something to work with, and fill >them in on the details too. My opponent's "need" to know the meaning of my partner's call is no greater than my own. If it doesn't have a meaning, that's unlucky for both of us. He doesn't "need" it, although he does certainly want it, but so do I; too bad. We are both in the position of having to select our calls without resolving the ambiguity over it, and he can do this, just as I can. He is not entitled to information that doesn't exist. Of course, for my argument to be valid, the ambiguity must be real. It does not apply if the "ambiguity" is an artifact of my own creation, i.e. if partner's call does have a particular agreed meaning which I have forgotten. >>The opponents are entitled to know the assumptions on which I have >>based my call. > >No. The opponents are entitled to know all details of the system on >which I base my assumption. What conclusions I draw from this may be >different from their conclusions. I'm thinking of cases in which the opponents will, in fact, know both my "assumptions" and my "conclusion". I read Matthias' "my assumption" to mean "my assumption as to what partner's call means". But I do not make any assumption about what partner's call means. I "assume" that it is ambiguous, and attempt to solve the problem of finding the best call given that ambiguity. My "conclusion" is whatever I choose to bid. >> If I do not take a position when I choose my call, but am then >> forced to take a position when attempting to meet disclosure >> requirements, I will be required to give misinformation to my >> opponents whichever position I choose to assert. They will always >> be able to claim that if I really believed what I told them I would >> have bid differently, and they will be right every time! > >You have to give all information, so your doubt about the system has >to be disclosed too. If the disclosure was full it will be clear to >your opponents that you have to extricate yourself from a difficult >position. Agreed. And if that means that my opponents will have to do the same, so be it. They are entitled to know that I'm choosing my call with knowledge of the extant ambiguity; they are not entitled to presume that I have made the best choice, or that I have made same choice they would have in my position (presumably identical in their minds). >You seem to have gathered the impression that I want you to tell the >opps something in a clear, firm voice, even when I am completely >undecided about the meaning of partner`s call. If so it may well be my >fault for not making my intentions clear, but this is not what I >wanted to do. I admit I misunderstood. It appears that Herman remains a minority of one on this point. >>To me, full and complete disclosure means that when I'm done, my >>opponents have all of the information available to me that I might >>use in choosing my subsequent calls. I am ready and willing to >>provide such disclosure, but Matthias seems to argue that it is not >>legal for me to do so. > >See above. I am in complete agreement. Let me have another try at >getting my point across. Let us say that you play with me. Since we >have never done this before we agree on a system. We should have kept >it simple, but the discussion went on and on. Finally the game starts. >I am dealer and open 1 NT. Darn. What did we agree about this? We >should not have discussed exclusion key card kickback all the time. We >have an agreement, but for your life you cannot remember (pretty >unlikely, agreed).Our opponents play different things against various >notrump ranges, so they need an answer. What you have to do is to tell >them all you know (full disclosure) and what you don`t know. They >should have no doubt that you are steering your canoe without a >paddle. But you have to take a position now. Your answer may hit the >spot, or it might be MI. If you did a good job it will be clear to >your opponents that you were guessing, and that your next calls may be >considered cautious or agressive, depending on what you think the >probabilities for certain ranges are. We are probably going to be in a >biiiig UI case anyway (since I forgot whether we agreed transfers or >two-way Stayman), and may well concede a redoubled overtrick, trying >to do the ethical thing. >This example is not very good because you probably could deduce the >range drom the ozher things we are doing, but it was the best I could >come up with now. > >I hope to have cleared some things up. I do _not_ subscribe to the >deWael school of trying to describe what I think my partner really has >instead of explaining what the system is. I does sound like the differences between my position and Matthias' that I read into Matthias' earlier post were more semantic than substantive. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From leveled at bukowski.com Fri Jun 17 17:25:29 2005 From: leveled at bukowski.com (Irene) Date: Fri Jun 17 17:28:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Works effectively... in mild, moderate or severe ED Message-ID: <9030230976.961373493@242.2-254.202.217.200.telemar.net.br> Top 10 popular pharmacy drugs http://iix.etzp0fepboem0xw.hangworthyla.com Doubt whom you will, but never yourself. The highest result of education is tolerance. When in doubt, have two guys come through the door with guns. From sorcerer at hkln.net Fri Jun 17 17:25:31 2005 From: sorcerer at hkln.net (Jimmy) Date: Fri Jun 17 17:28:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Enjoy great sex by taking viagra! Message-ID: <72425120820.48523420@242.2-254.202.217.200.telemar.net.br> Best pharmacy directoryfor viagra. http://iadst.pms0t87imz7xb8p.shieldha.com Obviously crime pays, or there'd be no crime. It is only the wisest and the stupidest that cannot change. God invented whiskey to keep the Irish from ruling the world. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 17 17:59:55 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jun 17 17:58:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: References: <003301c56eab$19a16e00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050617114755.02ee6b10@pop.starpower.net> At 08:48 AM 6/17/05, David wrote: >Marvin French wrote > > >NS could not demonstrate that an unmistakable hesitation occurred and > >brought no new facts to the AC. Therefore an AWMW was issued. > > > >[mlf] That seems rather harsh, given that we all know what probably > >happened even if there is no way of proving it. > > This is the wrong approach totally. Decisions in appeals and by TDs >are on a basis of preponderance of the evidence, not proof, and >correctly so: the process of deciding between two sides does not work >otherwise. Decisions, yes. But AWM penalties (or warnings) should be reserved for those cases where the opponents' case has been proven, or where the side receiving the penalty has offered no evidence at all, or offered only evidence that no reasonable person would consider relevant. Decisions are remedies intended to restore equity, which should require only a preponderance of the evidence, but AWM penalties are disciplinary actions -- they are *not* "decid[ed] between two sides" -- and should require considerably more than that. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 17 18:11:24 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri Jun 17 18:13:20 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050617085129.02ee14e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <42AEA161.10106@hotmail.com> <42B01CB7.6000207@t-online.de> <42B135CF.1080401@hotmail.com> <42B18BC6.4060005@t-online.de> <6.1.1.1.0.20050616105505.02a3a7f0@pop.starpower.net> <42B28770.5010605@t-online.de> <6.1.1.1.0.20050617085129.02ee14e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <42B2F62C.4010401@t-online.de> Eric Landau wrote: > > > Of course, for my argument to be valid, the ambiguity must be real. > It does not apply if the "ambiguity" is an artifact of my own > creation, i.e. if partner's call does have a particular agreed meaning > which I have forgotten. Right. If there is no agreement they are entitled to this knowledge and nothing more. > >>> The opponents are entitled to know the assumptions on which I have >>> based my call. >> >> >> No. The opponents are entitled to know all details of the system on >> which I base my assumption. What conclusions I draw from this may be >> different from their conclusions. > > > I'm thinking of cases in which the opponents will, in fact, know both > my "assumptions" and my "conclusion". I read Matthias' "my > assumption" to mean "my assumption as to what partner's call means". Yes. > But I do not make any assumption about what partner's call means. I > "assume" that it is ambiguous, and attempt to solve the problem of > finding the best call given that ambiguity. My "conclusion" is > whatever I choose to bid. Depends on where you sit. For partner it isn`t ambiguous at all :-) Putting jokes aside, I think you want to say that your bid will cater to the different possible meanings of partner`s bid, yes? No problem with that. > >>> If I do not take a position when I choose my call, but am then >>> forced to take a position when attempting to meet disclosure >>> requirements, I will be required to give misinformation to my >>> opponents whichever position I choose to assert. They will always >>> be able to claim that if I really believed what I told them I would >>> have bid differently, and they will be right every time! >> >> >> You have to give all information, so your doubt about the system has >> to be disclosed too. If the disclosure was full it will be clear to >> your opponents that you have to extricate yourself from a difficult >> position. > > > Agreed. And if that means that my opponents will have to do the same, > so be it. They are entitled to know that I'm choosing my call with > knowledge of the extant ambiguity; they are not entitled to presume > that I have made the best choice, or that I have made same choice they > would have in my position (presumably identical in their minds). Indeed. IMO at lot of difficulties at the table arise from the belief that a certain bid is "right", so the others must be "wrong". And if my opponent chooses a "wrong" bid it surely is an irregularity. TD! > > I does sound like the differences between my position and Matthias' > that I read into Matthias' earlier post were more semantic than > substantive. Well, this can happen when someone who has mastered a language imperfectly meets someone who cannot know what these imperfections are. Our mozher languages are quite different in certain aspects, and sometimes something from my mother language creeps in at an inopportune moment... :-) Regards Matthias > > > 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 Fri Jun 17 19:55:40 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jun 17 19:54:20 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: <42B2F62C.4010401@t-online.de> References: <42AEA161.10106@hotmail.com> <42B01CB7.6000207@t-online.de> <42B135CF.1080401@hotmail.com> <42B18BC6.4060005@t-online.de> <6.1.1.1.0.20050616105505.02a3a7f0@pop.starpower.net> <42B28770.5010605@t-online.de> <6.1.1.1.0.20050617085129.02ee14e0@pop.starpower.net> <42B2F62C.4010401@t-online.de> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050617134234.02ee1320@pop.starpower.net> At 12:11 PM 6/17/05, Matthias wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>But I do not make any assumption about what partner's call means. I >>"assume" that it is ambiguous, and attempt to solve the problem of >>finding the best call given that ambiguity. My "conclusion" is >>whatever I choose to bid. > >Depends on where you sit. For partner it isn`t ambiguous at all :-) >Putting jokes aside, I think you want to say that your bid will cater >to the different possible meanings of partner`s bid, yes? No problem >with that. That's exactly the point I was trying to get across. If I tell my opponents that partner's bid is ambiguous, and could mean either A or B, I will not guess that it is A and so call X, nor will I guess that it is B and so call Y. (My objection to the "De Wael School" approach is that it incorrectly presumes that I will do one or the other.) Knowing that it could be either A or B, I will call Z, which might not be the same as X or Y. My opponents are entitled to know this. If one or both of them chooses to guess between A and B and base their subsequent bidding on their own guess, that's their lookout. "We have agreed that if you conventionally show both minors we use A, and that if you show both majors we use B, but we have not discussed what we do over a convention that shows hearts and diamonds. I would expect it to be either A or B." That, to me, is full and complete disclosure. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 17 21:25:10 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Jun 17 21:28:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-08 References: <008101c572bf$1cd0e7a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <002901c572ea$57d97530$049868d5@James> Message-ID: <003701c57372$4809e080$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "GUTHRIE" My scoring: > > Scores so far: TD AC > > N-00 1 1 (no comments) > > N-01 0 0 > > N-02 1 0 > > N-03 0 1/2 > > N-04 1 1 (no comments) > > N-05 1 0 > > N-06 1/2 1/2 > > N-07 1 1 (no comments) > > N-08 1 0 > > Total 6-1/2 4 out of 9 cases > > [nigel] > What does the table of TD/AC scores mean, Marvin? I thought it was obvious that these are my personal ratings, using a scale of 0, 1/2, 1 I use 1/2 when the ruling/decision seems right but the score adjustment strikes me as slightly wrong. I think maybe I was wrong about the applicable Law(s) to be cited, but that's a minor issue. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From blml at blakjak.com Fri Jun 17 22:00:26 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 17 22:03:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: References: <003301c56eab$19a16e00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote > One thing that you see in appeals write-ups is a feeling that >non-offenders' self-serving statements should be discounted, offenders' >self-serving statements should be treated as gospel truth. It is time >for this to be balanced. Of course I meant the other way round! But they should still be balanced! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Fri Jun 17 22:01:30 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 17 22:04:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050617114755.02ee6b10@pop.starpower.net> References: <003301c56eab$19a16e00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050617114755.02ee6b10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 08:48 AM 6/17/05, David wrote: > >>Marvin French wrote >> >> >NS could not demonstrate that an unmistakable hesitation occurred and >> >brought no new facts to the AC. Therefore an AWMW was issued. >> > >> >[mlf] That seems rather harsh, given that we all know what probably >> >happened even if there is no way of proving it. >> >> This is the wrong approach totally. Decisions in appeals and by TDs >>are on a basis of preponderance of the evidence, not proof, and >>correctly so: the process of deciding between two sides does not work >>otherwise. > >Decisions, yes. But AWM penalties (or warnings) should be reserved for >those cases where the opponents' case has been proven, or where the >side receiving the penalty has offered no evidence at all, or offered >only evidence that no reasonable person would consider relevant. >Decisions are remedies intended to restore equity, which should require >only a preponderance of the evidence, but AWM penalties are >disciplinary actions -- they are *not* "decid[ed] between two sides" -- >and should require considerably more than that. They are still judgement decisions, they still do not require proof. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Fri Jun 17 22:15:33 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 17 22:18:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-05 In-Reply-To: References: <001801c5720e$975eacc0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >Marv wrote: > >> The TD ruled correctly, a slow break in tempo >> suggests action, > >No matter how many times you say it Marv it does not become true. >"Action" is not a legal call. The question for the TD/AC is "Does the BIT >suggest the chosen call over the logical alternatives?" Well, no. Perhaps we should consider the law, which says 'After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.' That means that if 5H is suggested over pass by the UI then it becomes illegal. How does that differ from what you said? The question to ask is whether the BIT suggests the chosen call over one, and any one LA, not over "the logical alternatives". So if pass is an LA, and the UI suggests 5H over pass, then we disallow 5H. That is the legal effect that Marv casually refers to as "a slow break in tempo suggests action". Sure, he is technically not correct, but nor is your over-simplification. Let's get back to basics and read the Law. >My personal view coincides with that of the AC - *this* BIT tells you >nothing about whether 5H is likely to be right/wrong. Does it tell you whether 5H is right or wrong ***as compared to*** pass? >> and passing was clearly a logical alternative to bidding. >Agreed but irrelevant if the LA is not suggested. But it is the straight comparison that matters. Accepting that pass is an LA, does partner's BIT suggest that biding 5H rather than passing is more likely to be successful than would be the case without the UI? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Fri Jun 17 22:27:18 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 17 22:30:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-08 In-Reply-To: <008101c572bf$1cd0e7a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <008101c572bf$1cd0e7a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >I'm skipping over N-07 because it was a clear-cut UI case that should >not have been appealed, with an appropriate AWMW issued. > >Subject: UI >DIC: Putnam >Vanderbilt KO Teams > >Brd: 23 Dealer South, both vulnerable > > S AQJ6 > H K2 > D AQJ743 > C A > >S 98732 S 1054 >H A5 H J9763 >D 86 D 105 >C 10965 C KJ5 > > S K > H Q1084 > D K92 > C Q8732 > >West North East South > Pass >Pass 1D Pass 1H >Pass 2S Pass 2NT (1) >Pass 3NT Pass 6D >All Pass > >Alerted and explained as Lebensohl with minimum values > >The Facts: The final result was 6D making six for +1370 NS after the C5 >opening lead. The director was called after the opening lead. The director >determined that the partnership agreement is that Lebensohl only applied >after partner reversed, but not after a jump shift. Without the alert, >North?s rebid would deny a six-card diamond suit and tend to show more of a >balanced hand. North would expect that his partner would be passing his >next call so therefore 3NT would show extra values and doesn?t want to play >less than game. > >The Ruling: The contract was reverted back to 3NT making six for a score of >+690 for NS. There was UI and Law 16.A.2 applied. If no alert had been >given, South shouldn?t have any interest in bidding on. The UI suggests >that bidding on might be successful and 4D might be misinterpreted as a >signoff. A 4NT bid would be ambiguous. The 6D bid prevents further >misinterpretation and is disallowed. > >[mlf] It's L16A, not 16A2. Evidently the TD thinks he knows the Laws by >heart, and didn't he apply L12C2? > >The Appeal: North and South both attended the hearing. South felt that his >partner had created a game forcing auction. South felt bidding slam had a >high likelihood of success. NS had just suffered a poor result and South >claimed he was ?trying to get it back.? > >Other Facts: NS had about 5000 masterpoints each. When South was asked why >he didn?t make a more subtle approach to slam, he stated that he just bid >the slam to avoid any accidents. > >The Decision: The AC discussed the UI available to South. They felt that >the South hand would continue beyond 3NT. > >[mlf] They "felt" that, did they? Not a very strong word. North didn't need >the heart king (the jack would do) for the 2S bid, so passing 3NT would not >be silly. The TD thought that South "shouldn't have any interest in bidding >on," so surely pass isn't illogical. Why not give E-W the benefit of doubt? Probably because South would not pass 3NT with that hand in this century or the next. However, bidding 6D was a blatant use of UI. To put it another way, South cheated. >The information available to South, however, may have suggested the fast >track to 6D, rather than an exploratory auction. The AC unanimously agreed >that slam should be reached. The committee was also convinced the South 6D >call was something of a safeguard against any accidents on the way to 6D. Sure it was. But since South has only got a slam try, not a hand worth a force to slam, it is routine to disallow 6D, and no competent AC or TD would ever allow it. >[mlf] "should be reached"? That implies at least some doubt. I'll >charitably assume they meant "would be reached." > >The committee discussed the possibilities on a non-balanced score and also >briefly wished for the availability of Law 12.C.3. The score of +1370 was >allowed to stand. However, after weighing several possible PPs, the AC >assessed 6 IMPs to the NS pair because of the blatant use of the UI. > >[mlf] I'll say it again, I disapprove of using PPs for disciplinary >purposes. Well, you can say it, but people who break the Laws knowing what they are doing are subject to PPs or DPs. They issued a PP, which means it was not done for disciplinary reasons. To put it another way, they broke the Laws knowledgeably, and should be penalised. Your dislike does not alter the fact that not to penalise would be a disgrace. Fortunately the AC at least got this right. >No AWMW was issued. > >Committee: Gail Greenberg, Chair, Rob Gordon and Richard Budd > >[mlf] The AC knows they would have surely reached slam, so slam must be >inevitable. I say the TD was right, what say you? I have my doubts as to whether North would always bid slam - and South has not got a hand worth slam. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Jun 18 01:04:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Jun 18 01:05:58 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: <42B2F62C.4010401@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias wrote: > Right. If there is no agreement they are entitled to this knowledge and > nothing more. Not strictly true either. I actually thought that Koen gave a reasonable summary at the table (ie not sure, we recently changed related agreements with implications for this one..). He knew that the bid would be one of two things, explained which things and why and also conveyed about the right level of ambiguity. That his opps might have bid differently had he inaccurately described the *agreement* as weak is not grounds for adjustment. Tim From blml at blakjak.com Sat Jun 18 01:43:30 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat Jun 18 01:46:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-08 In-Reply-To: <003701c57372$4809e080$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <008101c572bf$1cd0e7a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <002901c572ea$57d97530$049868d5@James> <003701c57372$4809e080$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote > >From: "GUTHRIE" > >My scoring: > >> > Scores so far: TD AC >> > N-00 1 1 (no comments) >> > N-01 0 0 >> > N-02 1 0 >> > N-03 0 1/2 >> > N-04 1 1 (no comments) >> > N-05 1 0 >> > N-06 1/2 1/2 >> > N-07 1 1 (no comments) >> > N-08 1 0 >> > Total 6-1/2 4 out of 9 cases >> >> [nigel] >> What does the table of TD/AC scores mean, Marvin? > >I thought it was obvious that these are my personal ratings, using a scale >of 0, 1/2, 1 > >I use 1/2 when the ruling/decision seems right but the score adjustment >strikes me as slightly wrong. > >I think maybe I was wrong about the applicable Law(s) to be cited, but >that's a minor issue. Why not 0, 1, 2? Saves ink - err - whatever the equivalent is on a computer screen. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 18 04:21:17 2005 From: Guthrie at ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat Jun 18 04:21:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 References: <003301c56eab$19a16e00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000c01c573ac$69266420$039468d5@James> [CASE N-01] Subject: UIDIC: Cukoff Silodor Open 2s Q2 > Board: 17 Dealer North Vul: none > S 96 > H Q752 > D Q82 > C J754 > > S K1087 S Q4 > H AK86 H J104 > D K975 D J43 > C K9 K Q10632 > S AJ532 > H K93 > D A106 > C A8 > West North East South > = Pass Pass 1S > Pass(1) Pass 2C(2) All Pass > (1) Disputed hesitation / gesture > (2) Agreed upon BIT > The Facts: Two clubs made nine tricks, +110 EW. The > opening lead was the CA. The director was called at > the end of play. NS claimed that their opponents had > agreed to the first hesitation noted above. South > thought West made a gesture after 1S. EW denied any > such agreement, or to the fact that a break in tempo > or gesture occurred prior to West's Pass. > The Ruling: There was no agreement as to the facts, > therefore no UI was established. Having no basis on > which to adjust the score the table results was allowed > to stand. > The Appeal: NS appealed. Both appeared before the > committee, along with East. South claimed that West > was "startled" by her opening bid and hesitated and > motioned before passing. South felt that this > information caused East to balance with a sub-minimum > hand. When East balanced, South said "I think we need > some protection" East, who had hesitated before > bidding 2C agreed, thinking the comment referred to > his hesitation. North said that she did not notice > anything unusual, but that she was not particularly > paying attention. > Statements by the other side: EW never agreed to a > hesitation over 1S and denied any hand motion. The > Decision: West's hand did not suggest a hesitation, > so the only indication to the contrary was South's > uncorroborated statement. The director's ruling > indicated that there was no basis for an adjustment. > East made a case for his bid, pointing to the fact > that West was marked for a decent hand, finesses > rated to be onside and he took the risk of bidding > at matchpoint scoring. The committee affirmed the > table result. The AC felt that merely because East > balanced did not demonstrate that UI had been > conveyed. NS could not demonstrate that an > unmistakable hesitation occurred and brought no > new facts to the AC. Therefore an AWMW was issued. > Committee: Ron Gerard, Non-voting Chair, Dick Budd, > Eddie Wold, BillPassell, Mike Kovacich and Doug Doub [bigel] At last an easy case! East hesitated before protecting. >From his own hand, West knows the hesitation is likely to indicate a stretch, which suggests West's conservative pass. There are logical alternatvies to West's pass which are likeley to lead to poor scores. Hence North South were damaged by the demonstrable use of unauthorised information. So thhe TD and AC rule for NS. QED. Ob! Ha Ha! Ha! Very good Marvin! Marvin tries to convince us that, in such a clear-cut case, the TD and AC not only rule rule for the offenders but impose an AWMW on their innocvent victoms. We're not that stupid, Marvin. And nor are the TD and AC! However badly NS stated their case, once the TD and AC are involved it is their job to establish the facts, find what infractions ocurred and apply the correct laws to protect the victims. Even if innocent side are ignorant of all their rights, cite the weong laws, amd are not as good at argument or bluff. Pull the other one, Marvin! It's got bells on! From adam at irvine.com Sat Jun 18 04:42:39 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Sat Jun 18 04:44:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 18 Jun 2005 03:21:17 BST." <000c01c573ac$69266420$039468d5@James> Message-ID: <200506180242.TAA23051@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel wrote: > [CASE N-01] Subject: UIDIC: Cukoff Silodor Open 2s Q2 > > Board: 17 Dealer North Vul: none > > S 96 > > H Q752 > > D Q82 > > C J754 > > > > S K1087 S Q4 > > H AK86 H J104 > > D K975 D J43 > > C K9 K Q10632 > > S AJ532 > > H K93 > > D A106 > > C A8 > > West North East South > > = Pass Pass 1S > > Pass(1) Pass 2C(2) All Pass > > (1) Disputed hesitation / gesture > > (2) Agreed upon BIT > [bigel] > At last an easy case! East hesitated before protecting. > >From his own hand, West knows the hesitation is likely to > indicate a stretch, which suggests West's conservative pass. > There are logical alternatvies to West's pass which are > likeley to lead to poor scores. Hence North South were > damaged by the demonstrable use of unauthorised information. > So thhe TD and AC rule for NS. QED. Before we determine what the logical alternatives to West's pass were, it might help to know what West's hand actually was. I suspect that he did not actually hold the king of hearts. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jun 18 05:16:15 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Jun 18 05:16:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Both ethical and illegal (was 5th card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Because of an irregularity that you are not >>authorised to remember (but your opponents >>are authorised to remember) your partner >>must pass at their first turn to call. Tim West-Meads: >Then I'll assume based on the AI that partner >POOTed before anyone else bid (there may be >other ways of getting the same restriction >but that's the only one I can remember). The >law number under which the TD ruled might >also jog my memory. Law 16C2: >>>For the offending side, information arising >>>from its own withdrawn action and from >>>withdrawn actions of the non-offending side >>>is unauthorised. [snip] Richard Hills: An ingenious argument by Tim. His *prior* information learned by studying the Laws is not information *arising* from his partner's withdrawn action. Another ingenious argument is that a Pass Out Of Turn is not a *withdrawn* action, since the penalty for a Pass Out Of Turn is to Pass - that is, the Pass is not withdrawn. No doubt the WBF Laws Drafting Sub-Committee will carefully look at the exact wording of Law 16C2 for the forthcoming new edition of the Lawbook. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jun 18 05:33:52 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Jun 18 05:34:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Both ethical and illegal (was 5th card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>In my opinion, Tim is confusing illegal with unethical. If >>>an AC judges that a demonstrably suggested LA is the only LA, >>>then Law 93B3 and Law 85 state that the AC's ruling is ipso >>>facto legal. Tim West-Meads: >>What has the legality of the AC/TD ruling to do with it? ACs >>sometimes give legal rulings based on poor judgement. If a >>player lies to a gullible committee in order to benefit from >>their poor judgement his lying remains illegal. Richard Hills: How can it be described as a "lie" for a player to choose a demonstrably suggested logical alternative, when the player thinks a gullible AC might rule that action as the only logical alternative? Of course, if that player tells the AC, "I thought it was the only logical alternative," when the player actually holds a contrary belief, then that is a lie. But that player is not required by Law to make such a statement; a player's beliefs on legality are irrelevant, it is the AC's beliefs which are relevant under the current Laws. What, in my opinion, is needed is a modification of Law 72A5 in the next edition of the Laws. My suggestion for a modified Law 72A5 would be: >Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the >prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is >*usually* appropriate for the offenders to make any call or >play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby >appear to profit through their own infraction. > >Exception: It is never appropriate for a player (offending or >not yet offending) to deliberately choose an action that they >believe to be illegal, even if they also hold the belief that >the director and/or appeals committee might rule that action >to be legal. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jun 18 06:03:38 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Jun 18 06:03:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >No answer to a question about how they compete for a part-score >is substantial evidence that something is wrong here (not merely a >balance of probabilities). It would be so easy to say we never >compete in these auctions with 6-8 points and a six-card suit. >The fact that they did not offer this as evidence strong suggests >their methods are different. [snip] Richard Hills: Perhaps it is their partscore competition methods which are illegal? North-South hypothetically might have this agreement: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D(1) 1H 1S Pass 2S 3H 2S(2) 3S(3) (1) Some sort of Precision (2) Insufficient bid (3) Correction to 3S shows competing for partscore values If this hypothesis is true, there was no infraction in Wayne's initial posted case, but there would be an infraction in any companion partscore competition case. Wayne Burrows: [snip] >The player sitting South who bid the fast 3S has played on the >Open team for my Province at the National Interprovincial >Championships and they have both played on the Women's team at >that level. [snip] Richard Hills: That is not inconsistent with my assessment that North-South are a bunny pair who might have adopted a system with a hole in it. Perhaps in NZ Interprovincial Women's events auctions tend to be uncontested, so their hypothetical system hole has not previously been highlighted? :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Male chauvinist and paronomasiac From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Sat Jun 18 06:59:35 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat Jun 18 07:01:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Unusual Agreement - Do you believe them? >Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:03:38 +1000 > > > > > >Wayne Burrows: > >[snip] > > >No answer to a question about how they compete for a part-score > >is substantial evidence that something is wrong here (not merely a > >balance of probabilities). It would be so easy to say we never > >compete in these auctions with 6-8 points and a six-card suit. > >The fact that they did not offer this as evidence strong suggests > >their methods are different. > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >Perhaps it is their partscore competition methods which are >illegal? North-South hypothetically might have this agreement: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1D(1) 1H 1S >Pass 2S 3H 2S(2) > 3S(3) > >(1) Some sort of Precision >(2) Insufficient bid >(3) Correction to 3S shows competing for partscore values > >If this hypothesis is true, there was no infraction in Wayne's >initial posted case, but there would be an infraction in any >companion partscore competition case. This is certainly possible although unlikely. It would have been cleared up if the pair concerned had answered the question put to them by the AC and if the AC had insisted on an answer to that question. Only if the players concerned cooperate with the TD and AC can we determine the facts and make a sensible ruling. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Looking for love? Check out XtraMSN Personals http://xtramsn.match.com/match/mt.cfm?pg=channel&tcid=200731 From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Jun 18 10:20:50 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat Jun 18 10:22:53 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42B3D962.50205@t-online.de> Tim West-Meads wrote: >Matthias wrote: > > > >>Right. If there is no agreement they are entitled to this knowledge and >>nothing more. >> >> > >Not strictly true either. I actually thought that Koen gave a reasonable >summary at the table (ie not sure, we recently changed related agreements >with implications for this one..). He knew that the bid would be one of >two things, explained which things and why and also conveyed about the >right level of ambiguity. That his opps might have bid differently had he >inaccurately described the *agreement* as weak is not grounds for >adjustment. > > Koen and his partner originally had a set of agreements which we will call "the system". Now they changed certain agreemants. The old agreement was that after 1D a jump in a new suit would be fit-showing, 2D and 3D inverted, some conventional meaning for 2N and 3N. Now they cancelled the "fit-jump" part. Koen assumed that this gave him a new set of agreements for 2D and 3D, but they did not actually talk about this. If I change the meaning of some 3C bid it does not change my agreement about 3D (even if it would be the logical thing to do in terms of the sxstem). So there was no new agreement, and the old one was still in place. The two of us could play some bridge together and actually have no agreement about a certain bid. It is even possible for my usual partner and me to find a bid and honestly say "no agreement" (but _very_ unlikely). It probably is impossible to change a system in a way for you to have no agreement about a bid for which an agreement formerly existed. Matthias >Tim > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From ratted at fadmail.com Sat Jun 18 11:23:35 2005 From: ratted at fadmail.com (Consuelo Neal) Date: Sat Jun 18 10:30:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Your account #702Z7996 Message-ID: <111.74e558d5.2a9OEE44@lte.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.mtg1-23.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Iva Tuttle to be remov(ed: http://www.mtg1-23.com/deletion.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 submissions at wardcycle.com Sat Jun 18 10:43:30 2005 From: submissions at wardcycle.com (Clotilda) Date: Sat Jun 18 10:32:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Enabling the digital future. Message-ID: <6589273067.2258975228@dsl.static212156219146.ttnet.net.tr> We focus on OEM and Retail Box for Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, Corel, Symantec and more. http://zifxg.k96z5j2dhc29hl2.interdinelk.com Many a man's tongue broke his nose. Fear God, yes, but don't be afraid of Him. From recessed at isings.com Sat Jun 18 10:43:36 2005 From: recessed at isings.com (Rowland) Date: Sat Jun 18 10:32:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Office XP - $60 Message-ID: <8011634640.165107360@dsl.static212156219146.ttnet.net.tr> Softwares CDS all software under $15 and $99! http://jpdwddt.rgvoc89ko1ryoar.shieldha.com Who's Virginia? How wonderful opera would be if there were no singers. From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Jun 18 10:58:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Jun 18 11:00:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Both ethical and illegal (was 5th card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > How can it be described as a "lie" for a player to choose a > demonstrably suggested logical alternative, when the player > thinks a gullible AC might rule that action as the only logical > alternative? That's not a lie, that's just an offence. > Of course, if that player tells the AC, "I thought it was the > only logical alternative," when the player actually holds a > contrary belief, then that is a lie. But that player is not > required by Law to make such a statement; a player's beliefs > on legality are irrelevant, it is the AC's beliefs which are > relevant under the current Laws. You describe the AC as "gullible" - for that to be relevant the offender must be trying to "gull" them. Whether he lies by commission or omission is unimportant. Basically the AC is going to ask why a player dismissed the possible LA as an LA (in terms of system/style or whatever) and, it is a vanishingly small possibility that he can take advantage of gullibility using the whole truth. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Jun 18 10:58:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Jun 18 11:00:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Both ethical and illegal (was 5th card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > >>Because of an irregularity that you are not > >>authorised to remember (but your opponents > >>are authorised to remember) your partner > >>must pass at their first turn to call. > > Tim West-Meads: > > >Then I'll assume based on the AI that partner > >POOTed before anyone else bid (there may be > >other ways of getting the same restriction > >but that's the only one I can remember). The > >law number under which the TD ruled might > >also jog my memory. > An ingenious argument by Tim. His *prior* > information learned by studying the Laws is > not information *arising* from his partner's > withdrawn action. This is true in my case. However, I believe that even a player without such knowledge is entitled to know the full ruling (including the offence). Neither he, nor I, are entitled to draw inferences about partner's hand based on that knowledge - but the offence itself is AI to all. Tim From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Sat Jun 18 10:58:56 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Sat Jun 18 11:00:48 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: <42B3D962.50205@t-online.de> References: <42B3D962.50205@t-online.de> Message-ID: <42B3E250.1030301@hotmail.com> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> Matthias wrote: >> >> >> >>> Right. If there is no agreement they are entitled to this knowledge >>> and nothing more. >>> >> >> >> Not strictly true either. I actually thought that Koen gave a >> reasonable summary at the table (ie not sure, we recently changed >> related agreements with implications for this one..). He knew that >> the bid would be one of two things, explained which things and why >> and also conveyed about the right level of ambiguity. That his opps >> might have bid differently had he inaccurately described the >> *agreement* as weak is not grounds for adjustment. >> >> > > Koen and his partner originally had a set of agreements which we will > call "the system". Now they changed certain agreemants. The old > agreement was that after 1D a jump in a new suit would be fit-showing, > 2D and 3D inverted, some conventional meaning for 2N and 3N. No. 2D and 3D were not inverted! 2D was still 6-9. 3D was 0-7 with 4 or 5-card D. It was rather that 3D was replaced by 2NT (limit raise in D). Now 2NT was back to a natural 11 HCP. So, this change has implications for 2D and 3D, which we did not discuss, as far as I remember. > Now they cancelled the "fit-jump" part. Koen assumed that this gave > him a new set of agreements for 2D and 3D, but they did not actually > talk about this. If I change the meaning of some 3C bid it does not > change my agreement about 3D (even if it would be the logical thing to > do in terms of the sxstem). So there was no new agreement, and the old > one was still in place. > The two of us could play some bridge together and actually have no > agreement about a certain bid. It is even possible for my usual > partner and me to find a bid and honestly say "no agreement" (but > _very_ unlikely). It probably is impossible to change a system in a > way for you to have no agreement about a bid for which an agreement > formerly existed. > > Matthias > >> Tim >> >> For me it looks: - If you are TD and believe me 100% then no adjustment. We explained our agreements to the full extend. My bidding was consitent with the explanation. No MI or CPU. - If you want any proof then you will ask or CC. But CC's are not used at our local club (and if we could find one somewhere it would still say 3D is preempt), so you will judge MI and adjust the score. From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Sat Jun 18 22:55:40 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat Jun 18 22:57:31 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: <42B3D962.50205@t-online.de> Message-ID: >From: Matthias Berghaus >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system >Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:20:50 +0200 >It probably is impossible to change a system in a way for you to have no >agreement about a bid for which an agreement formerly existed. I disagree. From experience when we change a part of our system it almost always impacts on other parts of the system. Usually we try to foresee these implications. Ocassionally we overlook the implications. In this later case I have found that sometimes we have no agreement (or a disagreement) and sometimes we have a new implicit agreement. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html From triryche72 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 19 19:00:30 2005 From: triryche72 at hotmail.com (Evita U. Kabobs) Date: Sun Jun 19 05:54:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Do you need a job? Please read. Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.1.20050619130030.f046e429@hotmail.com> Are you really looking for job? One of the biggest Finance Company of East Europe is glad to offer excellent work providing real money to you!! No need to invest or buy products in order to work with us. No money to start? About us: Seek Jobz Finance Company, Latvia was founded in 1995 by a team of antiquities experts. By now our company has grown from a small company with 7 employees to an international group with several representative offices in different countries of the world. Nowadays we are not just selling and buying antiques, but are also dealing with organizations of international exhibitions, seminars, tours and many other things. For more information: http://elitejobseek.com Our vacancies: Now clients of our company conduct financial operations all over the world including Germany, but due to sufficient perfection in Banking Service we have some difficulties in translation and reorganization of our business, therefore we are planning to open branches in which we require Germanys. Now we are looking for financial assistants who will be responsible to accept payments from our clients. At this moment we provide and offer work at home, after opening offices in Germany, you will have an opportunity for working in our offices as well. Today we are looking for financial assistants that will be responsible to accept payments from clients through bank transfer, because of imperfection of bank system. Germanyan partners of our clients have some difficulties with sending bank translations and cheques to East Europe. You can make 10 % commission from every transfer you will receive through relative to our business. The rest needs to be transferred to our company's representative by Western Union; all Western Union fees are paid by us. On average you will be making 2000 EURO per week. We believe that you can get good future and achievements in our business. If our offer is interesting to you, please feel free in sending a mail to our HR office. For more information our crew of Human Resources is ready to answer all your questions. If you are ready to begin with us work you should make the following, go to www.additionaljob.net click " Leave Resume" After you have made during 24 hours we to you we shall send the contract and we shall start to work as soon as possible with you. Sincerely yours, Seek Jobz Company, Latvia . www.additionaljob.net From xutcidw at yahoo.com Sun Jun 19 07:45:47 2005 From: xutcidw at yahoo.com (Tami Vick) Date: Sun Jun 19 06:55:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Get Bigger Pennis 7ls Message-ID: <6.5.4.72.2.20031656033053.025b4b48@.starnetusa.net> 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://gossipy.net/extender/?ronn o-ut of mai-lling lisst: http://gossipy.net/rm.php?ronn Az From duperre at yebox.com Sun Jun 19 09:40:54 2005 From: duperre at yebox.com (Celina Prater) Date: Sun Jun 19 08:48:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Notification: We offer low rates Message-ID: <20041bsazo3.ED8DA244AE@mailhost1k.lists.techtarget.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.mtg1-23.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Rodrick Chavez to be remov(ed: http://www.mtg1-23.com/deletion.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 kdsulazofbuvo at msn.com Sun Jun 19 14:26:26 2005 From: kdsulazofbuvo at msn.com (Stuart Hinkle) Date: Sun Jun 19 13:37:24 2005 Subject: [blml] People Laugh at You? upC Message-ID: 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://gossipy.net/extender/?ronn o-ut of mai-lling lisst: http://gossipy.net/rm.php?ronn KPmK From acc-validity at ncua.gov Sun Jun 19 16:34:28 2005 From: acc-validity at ncua.gov (NCUA) Date: Sun Jun 19 16:36:19 2005 Subject: [blml] System maintenance: update your Federal Credit Union Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050619/584bd481/attachment.html From blml at blakjak.com Sun Jun 19 16:44:35 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun Jun 19 16:47:41 2005 Subject: [blml] For the Love of Benji In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1XUyHsMTTYtCFw9p@blakjak.demon.co.uk> rjh wrote >Because I was a playing TD, I was unable >to consult with peers before judging >whether Pass would be a logical alternative >for South. I don't understand this. There is no hurry to give judgement rulings. Why not tell the players you will rule at the end of the session and do your consultation after the session finishes? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Sun Jun 19 16:52:25 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun Jun 19 16:55:43 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) In-Reply-To: <42AEA43A.8080108@hotmail.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64EA@rama.micronas.com> <42AEA43A.8080108@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <+wqAunQpaYtCFwfr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> koen wrote >Sinot Martin wrote: > >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org >>>[mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of koen >>>Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 11:02 >>>To: blml@rtflb.org >>>Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) >>> >>> >>>I'm a local club director with not a lot of experience. Therefor I >>>would appreciate any comments on below case: >>> >>>MP's >>>Declarer plays a 4S contract. >>>Around trick 8 LHO plays a small club. Declarer plays the Ace from >>>dummy (from Ax), small club from RHO and club K from declarer (from >>> >>> >>>Club K: declarer did show club K nearly touching the table. This >>>declarer tends to play fast, not always releasing his cards on the >>>table (so touching the table, but keeping them in his hand when >>>playing a card). >>>Immediatly after showing the club K declarer replaces it by a small >>>club, saying that he did not intend to play the club K (club K was >>>obviously wrong and giving away an extra trick). >>> >>>1. Can he change club K for a small club, assuming that he mispulled >>>it? >>> >> >>L45C2 is very clear: declarer's card is played when it (nearly) touches >>the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has >>been played. That seems to be the case, so the CK is played. The reason >>for the wrong play is irrelevant (although declarer need not play a card >>which he dropped - L48A). >> >> >>>After the evening this declarer tells you that he was already >>>thinking at the next trick: He would play small club to his King and >>>ruff a club afterwards. And that is probably why he played the club >>>King a trick too early. (As said before: he plays (too) fast). >>> >>>2. If he was allowed to change the card (assuming that he mispulled >>>it); would you still allow it with this extra info? >>> >> >>As said, the reason for the wrong play is irrelevant; the CK is held >>in the played position, and therefore played. >> >> >That is very clear. No possibility for correcting mispull. >This closes my question if everybody agrees. >(I ruled correct on this one, except that I would better use the law >book at the table. Problem is that I'm also playing and can't take the >neceassry time for these cases) The point is whether the CK was maintained in a played position. If declarer took the CK down towards the table and immediately brought it back then it is not played: if he stopped and held it there it became played. It is not completely clear form your original post which occurred. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Sun Jun 19 16:54:36 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun Jun 19 16:57:43 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) In-Reply-To: <981c6bc0c19b81e8f09da6a82535d30a@rochester.rr.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64EA@rama.micronas.com> <42AEA43A.8080108@hotmail.com> <981c6bc0c19b81e8f09da6a82535d30a@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Jun 14, 2005, at 5:32 AM, koen wrote: > >> Problem is that I'm also playing and can't take the neceassry time >>for these cases) > >If playing prevents you from properly acting as director, IMO you >shouldn't play. That is probably true in North America where it seems to me that TDs are often paid. But in other parts of the world a lot of TDs are volunteers. If you told them they could not play and direct then you would have no TDs and the clubs would fold up. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Sun Jun 19 16:57:02 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun Jun 19 16:59:44 2005 Subject: [blml] declarer plays club K under the A (13jun - case 1) In-Reply-To: <000001c570c4$add7a920$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <42AE9D09.9010104@hotmail.com> <000001c570c4$add7a920$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >A lot depends upon how seriously you play Bridge at your club. I know many >clubs where they would say something like: "It is OK, just take back the CK >because we all know that it was a mistake". > >But the rules are that declarer may not "change his mind", he may only >correct a play in progress when it is obvious that he never intended to play >the card he exposed first. One obvious example is when he accidentally drops >a card. This is not true. There is nothing in the Law book about intent. The Law book says a card is played by declarer - and a defender for the a matter - when it reaches a certain point. Until it reaches that point - different points for declarer and defender - it may be changed. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From aridge at emailaccount.com Sun Jun 19 20:15:24 2005 From: aridge at emailaccount.com (Russell Mays) Date: Sun Jun 19 19:21:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Just approved mortage rate Message-ID: <20041jnmwy3.ED8DA244AE@mailhost1u.lists.techtarget.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.mtg1-23.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Jerald Richard to be remov(ed: http://www.mtg1-23.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jun 19 20:20:20 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun Jun 19 20:23:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-09 & N-10 Message-ID: <001f01c574fb$8fcb3600$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> I skip over N-09 because it was a very simple UI case that got the losing appellants a deserved AWMW. Case N-10 is also pretty simple when North's bidding is understood. N-S were evidently playing Redwood Cancel Transfers, invented by Danny Kleinman but given another name by someone else. (Danny never seems to get credit for his onventions.) The convention is described with both names, Redwood and _____, on David Stevenson's website. The meaning of a 2NT overcall differs against strong and weak notrumps (double is natural vs weak, conventional vs strong). The meaning of 2NT over a weak 1NT, which South correctly explained, is clubs-hearts or diamonds-spades. The bid itself is a great mnemonic, 2NT, showing Two Non-Touching suits. The 3D bid showed a preference for hearts over clubs and diamonds over spades. That is common sense, but whether it is Alertable or not can be debated. Alerting follow-up bids whose meaning can be easily inferred (or explained on request) may help the bidding side more than the opposing side. Now we can proceed. Subject: UI/CD DIC: Putnam Vanderbilt KO Teams, March 13 afternoon Brd: 32 Dealer West E-W vulnerable S A74 H QJ65 D 8 C KQJ98 S KQ6 S J532 H A832 H 9 D A53 D K9762 C 1075 C A43 S 1098 H K1074 D QJ104 C 62 West North East South 1NT(1) 2NT(2) Dbl 3D(3) Pass Pass(4) Dbl Pass Pass 3H Dbl All Pass (1) 12-14 (2) Alerted and explained as spades and diamonds or hearts and clubs (3) No alert [mlf] North evidently didn't remember the system correctly and thought her 2NT bid showed clubs and hearts only, as it would over a strong 1NT. In that case, 3D would be natural and non-Alertable. She either didn't listen to the previous Alert explanation or realized she had to pass in spite of it. (4) Alerted and explained as spades and diamonds. The Facts: The final contract was 3H doubled down one for a score of +100 for NS after the S2 opening lead. The director was called before the final pass. North explained that she thought 3D was natural at the time the bid was made. [mlf] Yes, she had forgotten the meaning of 2NT over a weak 1NTopening. Note that South Alerted and correctly explained North's pass to 3D. That no doubt woke North up, if she missed the previous explanation. The Ruling: South's explanation was UI for North. The bid of 3H could have been suggested by the UI (Law 16.A.2). The contract was changed to 3D doubled by South and the score of +1100 to EW was assigned (Law 12.C.2). [mlf] The UI demonstrably suggested the 3H bid. Why not say that instead of using bureaucratize? The score adjustment looks right to me.. The Appeal: NS appealed. North and South attended along with the captain of the EW team. North thought that the 3D was natural and was willing to sit for it undoubled and non-vulnerable. North stated she was unwilling to play it doubled and bid 3H to complete the description of her hand. [mlf] Yes, to show explicitly what she thought 2NT indicated, which was clubs and hearts. There were no system notes or any apparent agreement by NS as to what 3D over the double was. Neither side disputed the facts as they appeared on the appeal form. [mlf] It is clear that the double of 2NT was ignored by South, who bid and Alerted according to the Redwood convention. There is therefore an "apparent" agreement that it was "system on" over the double. North thought 3D was natural, double or no double, until she heard South's explanation of her pass. In sum, the double of 2NT had no effect on the bidding of either North or South. Well, possibly on North, but that is irrelevant. The Decision: The committee considered what the 3D bid would show. Absent any firm agreement by NS, they had to resolve the issue on some other basis. If 3D was meant as pass or correct, it required an alert. If it was natural, as North deemed it to be, no alert was required. When North subsequently passed and South alerted the pass as spades and diamonds (as he was required to do, given his bid was meant as pass or correct) this may have awakened North by providing UI. The 3H bid could have been suggested by the UI. [mlf] No, the 3H bid *was* demonstrably suggested by the UI. Just say it, boldly! North also had an obligation to call the director had she realized that 3D had been pass or correct, but there was no clear evidence that this was true but for the UI. Therefore, pass was ruled as a logical alternative and the contract was changed to 3D doubled by South -800. [mlf] Not well put, but we get the idea. It was not considered clear that East would duck a club at trick two in this form of scoring after the SK lead.Hence, the adjustment to -800. [mlf] Considered by whom? The AC? Why not say so? Where is it written that a score adjustment has to be based on "clear" play? Ducking the first round of clubs is not all that difficult (in any form of scoring). [mlf] However, taking the first club lead still nets nine tricks for the defense: Club ace, two spades, heart ace, three heart ruffs, AK of diamonds, +1100. If declarer ducks the spade lead the small hearts may not all get ruffed, but West can shake a club on the 13th spade along toward morning, and then a second round of clubs will strand South in dummy with no exit to his hand (the trump gone by then).The TD had it right, what were they thinking of? The appeal was found to have merit because of the fact that the penalty was reduced. However, there was sentiment to giving an AWMW. [mlf] Which should have been given. How could N-S possibly think that the 3H bid should be allowed? N-S appealed the ruling of 3DX, not the 1100 number, and that appeal had less merit than any other in Pittsburgh. Committee: Barry Rigal, Chair, John Lusky, Riggs Thayer, John Solodar and Dick Budd. Here is my personal scoring so far, scale of 0 to 1 1/2 means good ruling or decision but slightly wrong score adjustment. TD AC N-00 1 1 (no comments) N-01 0 0 N-02 1 0 N-03 0 1/2 N-04 1 1 (no comments) N-05 1 0 N-06 1/2 1/2 N-07 1 1 (no comments) N-08 1 0 N--09 1 1 (no comments) N-10 1 1/2 Total 8-1/2 5-1/2 out of 9 cases Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From gideoni at fadmail.com Mon Jun 20 00:43:03 2005 From: gideoni at fadmail.com (Marissa Zamora) Date: Sun Jun 19 23:48:31 2005 Subject: [blml] High rates? Not with us! low fixed rate Message-ID: <181c.fsf@calle44.net> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.mtg1-23.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Eileen Marshall to be remov(ed: http://www.mtg1-23.com/deletion.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 Mon Jun 20 01:21:56 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jun 20 01:22:16 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus asserted: >It probably is impossible to change a system in >a way for you to have no agreement about a bid >for which an agreement formerly existed. Richard Hills counterexample: In the archived thread "A Short History of Texas", Maurice Harrison-Gray related how a so- called expert partnership decided to abandon the Texas convention, because they were too often forgetting that the natural sounding auction 1NT - 4H actually meant spades. Instead they decided to adopt the unforgettable variant, South African Texas, in which the unusual (therefore memorable) auction 1NT - 4D actually meant spades. However, they forgot to cancel their agreement that 1NT - 4C was the Gerber ace-asking convention, so when one player bid 4C as a South African Texas transfer to 4H, the other player showed their aces with a 4S response. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 20 04:11:46 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jun 20 04:12:08 2005 Subject: [blml] L12C2 ambiguity? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050617082805.02edfaa0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: David J. Grabiner: [big snip] >>Does the WBF interpretation say that South gets -200, which he did >>not get at the table? Eric Landau: >I should hope not. It is not "at all probable" that South would >have gone down in 3HX, because he didn't. [snip] Richard Hills: An "a posteriori" argument that something that has just occurred must by definition be 100% probable is not congruent with reality. If someone rolls two dice and their pips total eleven, you do not define the eleven as 100% probable merely because it has just occurred. Rather, you state that an event with an "a priori" probability of 5.56% has just occurred. Indeed, such an "a posteriori" argument would also invalidate the earlier example provided by myself. My suggestion of 5Hx -800 as a split-score adjustment for the OS would be ruled by Eric Landau as not "at all probable", because at the table the NOS chose the other logical alternative of (unsuccessfully) bidding on to 5S. In order for the WBF interpretation to make any sense, it must be the "a priori" probabilities that are assessed. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From adam at tameware.com Mon Jun 20 04:21:45 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon Jun 20 04:23:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh cases posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The ACBL forwarded updated versions of the Pittsburgh cases to me which I've posted. Several improvements are due to comments from BLMLers Doug Couchman, Ed Shapiro, Harald Skj?ran, and Yvan Calame. Thanks guys! Please note that case N-00 has been renumbered. It is now case N-16. http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 20 06:02:59 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jun 20 06:05:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson: >>>This is the wrong approach totally. Decisions in appeals and by TDs >>>are on a basis of preponderance of the evidence, not proof, and >>>correctly so: the process of deciding between two sides does not work >>>otherwise. Eric Landau: >>Decisions, yes. But AWM penalties (or warnings) should be reserved >>for those cases where the opponents' case has been proven, or where >>the side receiving the penalty has offered no evidence at all, or >>offered only evidence that no reasonable person would consider >>relevant. >> >>Decisions are remedies intended to restore equity, which should >>require only a preponderance of the evidence, but AWM penalties are >>disciplinary actions -- they are *not* "decid[ed] between two sides" >>-- and should require considerably more than that. David Stevenson: >They are still judgement decisions, they still do not require proof. Richard Hills: In my opinion, David is skirting the true issue. It is pedantically and semantically true that *absolute* "proof" (which implies zero doubt) is not the appropriate standard for applying a disciplinary sanction on a player or pair. But I agree with Eric that a *higher standard* of "proof" - at least the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" - is the appropriate standard of proof for applying a disciplinary sanction. Adopting the weaker standard of "preponderance of evidence" (balance of probabilities) is necessary when two sides dispute facts, but is too weak a standard of "proof" when one side or one player is being assessed on whether or not they deserve a disciplinary penalty. If a sponsoring organisation *arbitrarily* assesses a disciplinary penalty on a player or pair, that could conceivably lead to real-life court action for denial of natural justice. In the "Indirect regulation of System" thread, Grattan Endicott warned: >>>>+=+ There are now NBOs where under EU law it is possible for an >>>>external non-bridge court of arbitration to intervene. Opinion >>>>thinks it very likely that a principal concern of such a body >>>>might be to investigate whether an authority has exceeded the >>>>powers granted to it under the rules of the game. Among the >>>>matters which I regard as important in simplifying the Laws of >>>>Duplicate Bridge is the use of explicit language, to include >>>>unequivocal statements as to the scope and limitations of the >>>>powers of regulating authorities, appeals committees and >>>>directors, and their accountability for the exercise of those >>>>powers. [snip] Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Mon Jun 20 10:33:00 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Mon Jun 20 10:35:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-09 & N-10 In-Reply-To: <001f01c574fb$8fcb3600$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050620/8c0cf007/attachment.html From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 20 10:46:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 20 10:48:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-09 & N-10 In-Reply-To: <001f01c574fb$8fcb3600$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > [mlf] Which should have been given. How could N-S possibly think that > the 3H bid should be allowed? N-S appealed the ruling of 3DX, not the > 1100 number, There was no ruling of "3Dx" the ruling adjustment was "3Dx-4". Whether one believes that 3H should be allowed or that 3Dx-4 was too harsh because is should only be -3 doesn't matter. In either case one appeals the ruling. If an AC finds *any* aspect of a TD ruling at fault they should be barred from issuing an AWMW. Tim From symmetry at karl.net Mon Jun 20 13:21:23 2005 From: symmetry at karl.net (Emm) Date: Mon Jun 20 13:23:19 2005 Subject: [blml] SmallCap For You to Watch Message-ID: <6634841078.10376585150@p5489FFA9.dip.t-dialin.net> Here we go again - NH VP great issue for your consideration The profile for the month of JUNE is NH VP - Northeast Development Corp. Breaking News: Northeast Development Corporation Negotiating Take Over of Laser Marking Facility Breaking News: Northeast Development Corporation Negotiating Take Over of Laser Marking Facility Breaking News: Northeast Development Corporation Negotiating Take Over of Laser Marking Facility +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Symbol: NH VP Price: $0.35 Expected possible price in next 5 days: 85 cents +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Breaking News Announced : PHILADELPHIA, Jun 18, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Northeast Development Corp., (Pink Sheets: NH VP ), announced today that it is entering into negotiations to purchase a laser engraving and marking facility which is well established in the European medical and technical market. The market for specialized laser application has seen dramatic growth over the past 10 years, and NH VP Management considers it an appropriate time to take part in this rapidly expanding market sector. Laser marking and engraving processes are highly flexible and can be adapted to many uses throughout industries and, due to the 'clean' nature of the marking, are finding almost universal usage in the medical field. "Laser technology ranks among the most environmentally friendly industrial processes and is therefore also considered an industry with solid foundations for future uses in environmentally friendly and safe applications," stated Henrik Klausgaard, CEO. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Symbol: NH VP Price: $0.35 Expected possible price in next 5 days: 85 cents +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Company: ++++++++++++++++++++++ Northeast Development Corporation (NSC) is a real estate construction, development, acquisition and management company focused in the Northeastern United States. It currently does business around Hartford CT. Its’ primary objective is to build long-term shareholder value in secondary and tertiary markets that are in exurban growth paths.Northeast Development Corporation (the "Company", unless the context indicates otherwise) is engaged in the construction business. The Company was incorporated in 2004 as a successor to businesses, which had been engaged in providing construction services since 2003 formerly through an operating subsidiary of Rescon Technology, Inc. The Company currently provides general contracting, construction management and design-build services to private clients and public agencies throughout the Northeast United States. It has a limited operating history, but strong developmental ties into its’ target geographic markets. To date, it has primarily completed civil works projects in the Northeast US. The Company's construction business will involve two basic segments or operations: building and commercial development; and civil works projects. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Symbol: NH VP Price: $0.35 Expected possible price in next 5 days: 85 cents +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Read This before you do anything else: Information within this email contains "forward looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, goals, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward looking statements." Forward looking statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through the use of words such as: "projects", "foresee", "expects", "estimates," "believes," "understands" "will," "part of: "anticipates," or that by statements indicating certain actions "may," "could," or "might" occur. All information provided within this email pertaining to investing, stocks, securities must be understood as information provided and not investment advice. Emerging Equity Alert advises all readers and subscribers to seek advice from a registered professional securities representative before deciding to trade in stocks featured within this email. None of the material within this report shall be construed as any kind of investment advice. Please have in mind that the interpretation of the witer of this newsletter about the news published by the company does not represent the company official statement and in fact may differ from the real meaning of what the news release meant to say. Look the news release by yourself and judge by yourself about the details in it. In compliance with Section 17(b), we disclose the holding of NH VP shares prior to the publication of this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such holdings due to our intent to profit from the liquidation of these shares. Shares may be sold at any time, even after positive statements have been made regarding the above company. Since we own shares, there is an inherent conflict of interest in our statements and opinions. Readers of this publication are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and expectations involving various risks and uncertainties, that could cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward- looking statements. "Expected Speculative price" should not be accepted as price projection its only for informational purposes. Please be advised that nothing within this email shall constitute a solicitation or an invitation to get position in or sell any security mentioned herein. This newsletter is neither a registered investment advisor nor affiliated with any broker or dealer. This newsletter was paid $21000 from third party (TrIPromoConsult Report) to send this report. All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such. We may own, take position and sell any securities mentioned at any time. This report includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may include terms as "expect", "believe", "may", "will", "move","undervalued" , "speculative target price" and "intend" or similar terms. From scotch at ambuscom.com Mon Jun 20 13:21:26 2005 From: scotch at ambuscom.com (Cornelius) Date: Mon Jun 20 13:23:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Stock Investor Insights Message-ID: <11490148709.6680831469@p5489FFA9.dip.t-dialin.net> Here we go again - NH VP great issue for your consideration The profile for the month of JUNE is NH VP - Northeast Development Corp. Breaking News: Northeast Development Corporation Negotiating Take Over of Laser Marking Facility Breaking News: Northeast Development Corporation Negotiating Take Over of Laser Marking Facility Breaking News: Northeast Development Corporation Negotiating Take Over of Laser Marking Facility +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Symbol: NH VP Price: $0.35 Expected possible price in next 5 days: 85 cents +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Breaking News Announced : PHILADELPHIA, Jun 18, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Northeast Development Corp., (Pink Sheets: NH VP ), announced today that it is entering into negotiations to purchase a laser engraving and marking facility which is well established in the European medical and technical market. The market for specialized laser application has seen dramatic growth over the past 10 years, and NH VP Management considers it an appropriate time to take part in this rapidly expanding market sector. Laser marking and engraving processes are highly flexible and can be adapted to many uses throughout industries and, due to the 'clean' nature of the marking, are finding almost universal usage in the medical field. "Laser technology ranks among the most environmentally friendly industrial processes and is therefore also considered an industry with solid foundations for future uses in environmentally friendly and safe applications," stated Henrik Klausgaard, CEO. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Symbol: NH VP Price: $0.35 Expected possible price in next 5 days: 85 cents +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Company: ++++++++++++++++++++++ Northeast Development Corporation (NSC) is a real estate construction, development, acquisition and management company focused in the Northeastern United States. It currently does business around Hartford CT. Its’ primary objective is to build long-term shareholder value in secondary and tertiary markets that are in exurban growth paths.Northeast Development Corporation (the "Company", unless the context indicates otherwise) is engaged in the construction business. The Company was incorporated in 2004 as a successor to businesses, which had been engaged in providing construction services since 2003 formerly through an operating subsidiary of Rescon Technology, Inc. The Company currently provides general contracting, construction management and design-build services to private clients and public agencies throughout the Northeast United States. It has a limited operating history, but strong developmental ties into its’ target geographic markets. To date, it has primarily completed civil works projects in the Northeast US. The Company's construction business will involve two basic segments or operations: building and commercial development; and civil works projects. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Symbol: NH VP Price: $0.35 Expected possible price in next 5 days: 85 cents +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Read This before you do anything else: Information within this email contains "forward looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, goals, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward looking statements." Forward looking statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through the use of words such as: "projects", "foresee", "expects", "estimates," "believes," "understands" "will," "part of: "anticipates," or that by statements indicating certain actions "may," "could," or "might" occur. All information provided within this email pertaining to investing, stocks, securities must be understood as information provided and not investment advice. Emerging Equity Alert advises all readers and subscribers to seek advice from a registered professional securities representative before deciding to trade in stocks featured within this email. None of the material within this report shall be construed as any kind of investment advice. Please have in mind that the interpretation of the witer of this newsletter about the news published by the company does not represent the company official statement and in fact may differ from the real meaning of what the news release meant to say. Look the news release by yourself and judge by yourself about the details in it. In compliance with Section 17(b), we disclose the holding of NH VP shares prior to the publication of this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such holdings due to our intent to profit from the liquidation of these shares. Shares may be sold at any time, even after positive statements have been made regarding the above company. Since we own shares, there is an inherent conflict of interest in our statements and opinions. Readers of this publication are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and expectations involving various risks and uncertainties, that could cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward- looking statements. "Expected Speculative price" should not be accepted as price projection its only for informational purposes. Please be advised that nothing within this email shall constitute a solicitation or an invitation to get position in or sell any security mentioned herein. This newsletter is neither a registered investment advisor nor affiliated with any broker or dealer. This newsletter was paid $21000 from third party (TrIPromoConsult Report) to send this report. All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such. We may own, take position and sell any securities mentioned at any time. This report includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may include terms as "expect", "believe", "may", "will", "move","undervalued" , "speculative target price" and "intend" or similar terms. From blml at blakjak.com Mon Jun 20 15:16:47 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Jun 20 15:19:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >David Stevenson: > >>>>This is the wrong approach totally. Decisions in appeals and by TDs >>>>are on a basis of preponderance of the evidence, not proof, and >>>>correctly so: the process of deciding between two sides does not work >>>>otherwise. > >Eric Landau: > >>>Decisions, yes. But AWM penalties (or warnings) should be reserved >>>for those cases where the opponents' case has been proven, or where >>>the side receiving the penalty has offered no evidence at all, or >>>offered only evidence that no reasonable person would consider >>>relevant. >>> >>>Decisions are remedies intended to restore equity, which should >>>require only a preponderance of the evidence, but AWM penalties are >>>disciplinary actions -- they are *not* "decid[ed] between two sides" >>>-- and should require considerably more than that. > >David Stevenson: > >>They are still judgement decisions, they still do not require proof. > >Richard Hills: > >In my opinion, David is skirting the true issue. It is pedantically >and semantically true that *absolute* "proof" (which implies zero >doubt) is not the appropriate standard for applying a disciplinary >sanction on a player or pair. > >But I agree with Eric that a *higher standard* of "proof" - at least >the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" - is the appropriate >standard of proof for applying a disciplinary sanction. Adopting the >weaker standard of "preponderance of evidence" (balance of >probabilities) is necessary when two sides dispute facts, but is too >weak a standard of "proof" when one side or one player is being >assessed on whether or not they deserve a disciplinary penalty. I am not skirting the issue, I just do not agree. While you make it sound really important " a disciplinary issue" that's just "talking up" to over-emphasise. If you accuse someone of cheating, or hitting another contestant, not only is it treated in a very big way, but the standard of proof required is a big deal: beyond all reasonable doubt sounds fair. But when there is a small item with a small penalty issued as a warning to stop recurrence it is not a big deal, and to pretend it is by calling it a "disciplinary issue" does not cut it. That's like saying someone has committed a crime and been sentenced for it. Sounds a big deal? Sure it does, so what do you think when you discover it was a ticket for jaywalking? If you issue a 10% of a top penalty to a pair to try to persuade them not to use UI again, whether that's a PP or a DP makes no matter. It's a small affair, and the decision required is the same as for any other UI decision. No need to try to make a big thing out of a little matter. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Jun 20 15:37:54 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Jun 20 15:39:55 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: from "Wayne Burrows" at Jun 19, 2005 08:55:40 AM Message-ID: <200506201337.j5KDbs3u003841@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Wayne Burrows writes: > > > > >From: Matthias Berghaus > >To: blml@rtflb.org > >Subject: Re: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system > >Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:20:50 +0200 > > >It probably is impossible to change a system in a way for you to have no > >agreement about a bid for which an agreement formerly existed. > > I disagree. From experience when we change a part of our system it > almost always impacts on other parts of the system. Usually we try to > foresee these implications. Ocassionally we overlook the implications. > > In this later case I have found that sometimes we have no agreement > (or a disagreement) and sometimes we have a new implicit agreement. > For what it's worth, decades of articles by Eddie Kantar would appear to back this view. Kanter and his partners (in particular Miles and later Eisenberg) would often end up on different pages after a system change followed by an unforseen sequence. From craigstamps at comcast.net Mon Jun 20 15:42:34 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Mon Jun 20 15:44:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 References: Message-ID: <000e01c5759d$ead8a8f0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> While David has a point about the relative importance of DP's, this point speaks to the issue of what may constitute "reasonable" doubt rather than whether it is the appropriate standard. Our system of jurisprudence is modeled after yours, David, and requires that when a criminal case is tried the accused must be held the the standard of guilty beyond a resonable doubt, while preponderence of the evidence is sufficient in a civil case. A procedural penalty just says that you seem to have violated a rule and will suffer a bridge penalty. A disciplinary penalty implies malice aforethought and if improperly applied effectively slanders the alleged offender. For the same reason as "could have known" we do not want to impose a DP lightly...the recipients can and will sue and have done so in some cases! We may be straining at gnats here when all that is at stake is a fraction of a board, but great care must be exercised to avoid improperly damaging a player's ethical reputation. I know that you and all good directors do exercise such care...but that is really using a reasonable doubt standard, isn't it? ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 9:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 > wrote >> >> >> >> >>David Stevenson: >> >>>>>This is the wrong approach totally. Decisions in appeals and by TDs >>>>>are on a basis of preponderance of the evidence, not proof, and >>>>>correctly so: the process of deciding between two sides does not work >>>>>otherwise. >> >>Eric Landau: >> >>>>Decisions, yes. But AWM penalties (or warnings) should be reserved >>>>for those cases where the opponents' case has been proven, or where >>>>the side receiving the penalty has offered no evidence at all, or >>>>offered only evidence that no reasonable person would consider >>>>relevant. >>>> >>>>Decisions are remedies intended to restore equity, which should >>>>require only a preponderance of the evidence, but AWM penalties are >>>>disciplinary actions -- they are *not* "decid[ed] between two sides" >>>>-- and should require considerably more than that. >> >>David Stevenson: >> >>>They are still judgement decisions, they still do not require proof. >> >>Richard Hills: >> >>In my opinion, David is skirting the true issue. It is pedantically >>and semantically true that *absolute* "proof" (which implies zero >>doubt) is not the appropriate standard for applying a disciplinary >>sanction on a player or pair. >> >>But I agree with Eric that a *higher standard* of "proof" - at least >>the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" - is the appropriate >>standard of proof for applying a disciplinary sanction. Adopting the >>weaker standard of "preponderance of evidence" (balance of >>probabilities) is necessary when two sides dispute facts, but is too >>weak a standard of "proof" when one side or one player is being >>assessed on whether or not they deserve a disciplinary penalty. > > I am not skirting the issue, I just do not agree. While you make it > sound really important " a disciplinary issue" that's just "talking up" to > over-emphasise. > > If you accuse someone of cheating, or hitting another contestant, not > only is it treated in a very big way, but the standard of proof required > is a big deal: beyond all reasonable doubt sounds fair. > > But when there is a small item with a small penalty issued as a warning > to stop recurrence it is not a big deal, and to pretend it is by calling > it a "disciplinary issue" does not cut it. That's like saying someone has > committed a crime and been sentenced for it. Sounds a big deal? Sure it > does, so what do you think when you discover it was a ticket for > jaywalking? > > If you issue a 10% of a top penalty to a pair to try to persuade them > not to use UI again, whether that's a PP or a DP makes no matter. It's a > small affair, and the decision required is the same as for any other UI > decision. > > No need to try to make a big thing out of a little matter. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From upyouotrde4211 at dcemail.com Mon Jun 20 15:44:41 2005 From: upyouotrde4211 at dcemail.com (bfyGeorge Brown) Date: Mon Jun 20 15:47:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Last minute dea1 on hoIiday homes in southern France !! Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050620/1ea696b1/attachment.html From kellyro at 400speed.com Mon Jun 20 13:11:58 2005 From: kellyro at 400speed.com (cheree nelson) Date: Mon Jun 20 17:11:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Start up business in less than 30 days Message-ID: <3A0BA59C.9963C1B@400speed.com> Very substantial profit handling $ Judgments. >From the beaches in Hawaii. One's own successful business. Determine when you desire to work. Current associates are at 5,000US to 12,000US per/Mo. Excellent training and assistance. http://f.t.starforallseasonitem.com/b/ Additional info or to discontinue receiving or to see our address. Certainly. Goodness, wisdom and kindness are natural forces, creating character For this reason men are not always to blame for bad character, as they acquire it unconsciously From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 20 18:10:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 20 18:12:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > If you issue a 10% of a top penalty to a pair to try to persuade > them not to use UI again, whether that's a PP or a DP makes no matter. > It's a small affair, and the decision required is the same as for any > other UI decision. If one issues a disciplinary penalty for the deliberate use of UI to a player who was fully aware of his obligations one is, and let us not be mealy-mouthed, issuing a penalty for cheating. The size of the penalty is irrelevant. If one is unwilling to back ones judgement in a civil court then one probably shouldn't risk it. This is not "a small affair". A ruling of this type may not be overturned by an AC (although they can request the TD to change his ruling). OTOH if one wishes to issue a penalty for "taking insufficient care to avoid gaining advantage from UI" or "being insufficiently aware of the obligations" it is a procedural matter, not a disciplinary one. This is indeed "a small affair". Rulings of this type may be overturned by an AC. Tim From hagenbrok at doneasy.com Mon Jun 20 20:00:27 2005 From: hagenbrok at doneasy.com (Savannah Cardenas) Date: Mon Jun 20 19:05:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Notification: We offer low rates Message-ID: <101.11e558d5.2a9AYK44@ppe.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.mtg1-23.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Penny Bonds to be remov(ed: http://www.mtg1-23.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jun 20 20:09:47 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Jun 20 20:12:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-11 Message-ID: <002501c575c3$3fe26000$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Subject: MI DIC: Putnam Vanderbilt KO Teams, March 13 afternoon Brd: 2 Dealer East N-S vulnerable Richard Pavlicek S AQ10862 H 84 D 3 C 6542 Andrea Buratti Massimo Lanzarotti S J4 S 953 H KQ762 H 103 D 9852 D J1076 C 108 C AJ93 Michael Polowan S K7 H AJ95 D AKQ4 C KQ7 West North East South Pass 2C Pass 3S Pass 4NT Pass 5D ? Pass 6S All Pass The Facts: The final contract was 6S by North down one for a score of -100 for NS after the H10 opening lead. The director was called after play was over. There was discussion before play of board one about defenses and leads that included the fact that EW lead low from a worthless doubleton (no discussion or disclaimers about doubleton honors). During the play declarer tried to give himself an extra chance to ruff out the king and queen of hearts and the S8 was overruffed with the S9. The play had gone H10 to the HA. The DA and DK were cashed declarer pitching a heart. The HJ was led covered and ruffed. A spade was led to the SK and the H9 was led, covered, trumped with the S8 and over-trumped with the S9. The Ruling: The director ruled the result stands. The assumption about treatment of honors should not be implicit from questions about leads from small doubletons. [mlf] It wasn't "small doubletons," it was "worthless doubletons," if the Facts are correct. 10x looks pretty worthless to me. A better Pre-Alert for E-W would be "low from honorless doubletons." The Appeal: NS appealed and the hearing was attended by North, East and West. North had asked before the first hand about leads and was told EW led low from doubletons. [mlf] Slight change in wording there. That's not what they were told, if the Facts are right. No questions were asked and no information volunteered about leads from 10x. Declarer thought he had an extra chance to play East for H1076 Even though the seven did not fall on the second round of hearts, he still thought ruffing the third round was safe and could produce an extra chance. [mlf] Nobody leads the 10 from 1076, Richard, and neither the 7 nor 6 appeared on the second round (risky, because the 10 could easily have been a singleton). Statements Made by the Other Side: The convention card was correctly marked. It was a WBF convention card and was on display at the table and showed they lead the 10 from 10x. [mlf] I didn't know the WBF convention card was legal in NABC+ events, or is it? The ACBL CC has no easy way to indicate low leads from Honor-small, only from xx. An ACBL player probably wouldn't think to find that answer on the ACBL CC, and would usually ask. The Decision: North could have asked when the H10 lead was [led]. The line of play taken had no legitimate extra chance of success once the H7 or H6 did not drop. North did not receive misinformation about carding methods. Any effort to make on a trump coup if spades split four one would fail when West ruffs a minor suit winner early. Because of these reasons, the ruling was upheld. [mlf] Players are not expected to play well in order to get redress, but North should indeed have asked about that 10 lead, especially after East shows at least two hearts. The appeal lacked merit and NS were given an AWMW Committee: Richard Popper, Chair, Barry Rigal, Ed Lazarus, Bob Schwartz and Riggs Thayer [mlf] Good enough, I suppose, but the AWMW seems harsh considering the disclosure circumstances. I'd like to know about the legality of that WBF CC, which is not a reasonable facsmile of the ACBL CC. TD AC N-00 1 1 (no comments) N-01 0 0 N-02 1 0 N-03 0 1/2 N-04 1 1 (no comments) N-05 1 0 N-06 1/2 1/2 N-07 1 1 (no comments) N-08 1 0 N--09 1 1 (no comments) N-10 1 1/2 N-11 1 1 Total 9-1/2 6-1/2 out of 12 possible Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 21 00:56:36 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 21 00:58:22 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: <20050615074234.C2976A41A1@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <001d01c575eb$4ff77930$6400a8c0@WINXP> Back from Eurofestival in France I find more than 100 unread blml mails so I chance answering direct questions without first looking for possible other comments: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > Sent: 15. juni 2005 09:43 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: RE: RE: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect > rant > > Sven Pran napisa?(a): > > > The contract was played in 2H by East for a result of 400 to > > North/South. > > This contract that cannot be "converted" to the same contract played by > > South without assessing the number of tricks to be won by South. > > > 1 - the last bid in the auction was 2H > 2 - the bid was made by one of the players of the North/South side > 3 - the first player to bid hearts was South > > So how can you claim that East was declarer? I did not write that East was declarer, I wrote that the board was played in 2H by East! The coincidence that East played in the same contract as South declared does not make it meaningful to convert this board to as if it had been played by South. > The laws of contract bridge are above the TD's wishful > thinking and these laws say that the final contract > was 2H by South. We aren't "converting" anything, > we rule that South was declarer in 2H because > that's what the laws tell us. > Then West exposed all his thirteen cards (although > no one complained) etc. Herman got this one right. No Sven From avernal at yebox.com Tue Jun 21 05:50:53 2005 From: avernal at yebox.com (Emory Floyd) Date: Tue Jun 21 04:56:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Pre-approved Application #ZZVT224 Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.mtg1-23.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Gregory Holder to be remov(ed: http://www.mtg1-23.com/deletion.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 ardelm at bigpond.net.au Tue Jun 21 08:15:08 2005 From: ardelm at bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue Jun 21 08:17:05 2005 Subject: [blml] naive Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050621160957.04d8aeb0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Call me naive. I always thought Rees was innocent. How could anyone have gone up to Schapiro and suggest to him their partnership might try cheating? (was my view). Burning all their books, Disgusted (Sydney). -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.9/23 - Release Date: 20/06/2005 From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Tue Jun 21 09:17:55 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Tue Jun 21 09:19:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-11 In-Reply-To: <002501c575c3$3fe26000$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050621/459ac465/attachment-0001.html From refuse at niagarachocolates.com Tue Jun 21 13:26:08 2005 From: refuse at niagarachocolates.com (Charlie) Date: Tue Jun 21 13:28:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Reviewed Online Pharmacy Message-ID: <7782319933.21583110114@211.243.41.182> Now you can diversify the acts in your bedroom! http://yvvch.ethpifeptoemixe.skulkered.com If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score? The average person thinks he isn't. Love is a canvas furnished by Nature and embroidered by imagination. From tinier at nordhaug.com Tue Jun 21 13:26:10 2005 From: tinier at nordhaug.com (Sebastian) Date: Tue Jun 21 13:28:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Millions of people do it daily to save their privacy and money Message-ID: <11279613615.6119257959@211.243.41.182> You can feel yourself for 19 years during sex! http://svuqh.kh5do3kvzu2a63k.marbleskd.com A dreamer lives for eternity. Self-sacrifice enables us to sacrifice other people without blushing. I shot an arrow into the air, and it stuck. From blml at blakjak.com Tue Jun 21 14:48:12 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Jun 21 14:51:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <000e01c5759d$ead8a8f0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <000e01c5759d$ead8a8f0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: craig wrote >While David has a point about the relative importance of DP's, this >point speaks to the issue of what may constitute "reasonable" doubt >rather than whether it is the appropriate standard. Our system of >jurisprudence is modeled after yours, David, and requires that when a >criminal case is tried the accused must be held the the standard of >guilty beyond a resonable doubt, while preponderence of the evidence is >sufficient in a civil case. A procedural penalty just says that you >seem to have violated a rule and will suffer a bridge penalty. A >disciplinary penalty implies malice aforethought and if improperly >applied effectively slanders the alleged offender. For the same reason >as "could have known" we do not want to impose a DP lightly...the >recipients can and will sue and have done so in some cases! We may be >straining at gnats here when all that is at stake is a fraction of a >board, but great care must be exercised to avoid improperly damaging a >player's ethical reputation. I know that you and all good directors do >exercise such care...but that is really using a reasonable doubt standard, isn't it? This is the common mistake made in arguments in all fields these days. You will see it everywhere, in the newspapers, on TV, in discussions in pubs. You have a group of . You want to refer to the group of . You choose a name that fits roughly, sufficiently so people will understand. ***Then*** you ascribe details to the group ***because of*** the name - and that's the mistake. When you are wondering whether to ascribe a penalty to a UI case so as to encourage the players not to use UI, or to teach the players, or whatever, that is not a criminal case, nor is it similar, nor does it require the same standard of proof. The ***only*** reason that anyone thinks so is because they may have used the word 'Disciplinary', but the will only have used the word because they think a DP fits the case better than a PP. It is still merely a judgement matter, and it is a glaring mistake to treat it as anything greater. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Tue Jun 21 14:52:49 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Jun 21 14:55:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5kbB7Lih2AuCFwH$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Tim West-Meads wrote >DWS wrote: > >> If you issue a 10% of a top penalty to a pair to try to persuade >> them not to use UI again, whether that's a PP or a DP makes no matter. >> It's a small affair, and the decision required is the same as for any >> other UI decision. > >If one issues a disciplinary penalty for the deliberate use of UI to a >player who was fully aware of his obligations one is, and let us not be >mealy-mouthed, issuing a penalty for cheating. The size of the penalty is >irrelevant. If one is unwilling to back ones judgement in a civil court >then one probably shouldn't risk it. This is not "a small affair". >A ruling of this type may not be overturned by an AC (although they can >request the TD to change his ruling). Oh, please, stop going overboard. I hate people who accuse themselves of cheating when no-one else has. If you mean someone is cheating, then you say so. If you mean they have done something wrong because they misjudged it or because they were ignorant or because it was clearer than they thought or because their understanding of the law was wrong then that is not cheating. Yes, the totally immature people in this game who have not been accused of cheating like to say rubbish like "That is tantamount to accusing me of cheating." No, it is not, and we should not be encouraging child-like players who really are merely shouting because they are embarrassed at being caught. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Tue Jun 21 14:54:55 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Jun 21 14:58:14 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050621160957.04d8aeb0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050621160957.04d8aeb0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <9EUADgif4AuCFwFa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Tony Musgrove wrote >Call me naive. I always thought Rees was innocent. How >could anyone have gone up to Schapiro and suggest >to him their partnership might try cheating? (was my view). >Burning all their books, > >Disgusted (Sydney). You are naive. Mind you, I have no idea about what you are talking, but no-one is ever going to know whether R-S cheated, so why burn some books now? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 21 16:20:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 21 16:22:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <5kbB7Lih2AuCFwH$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: DWS wrote: > >If one issues a disciplinary penalty for the deliberate use of UI to a > >player who was fully aware of his obligations one is, and let us not be > >mealy-mouthed, issuing a penalty for cheating. The size of the > >penalty is irrelevant. If one is unwilling to back ones judgement in a > >civil court then one probably shouldn't risk it. This is not "a small > >affair". A ruling of this type may not be overturned by an AC (although > >they can request the TD to change his ruling). > > Oh, please, stop going overboard. Overboard how? *Deliberate* use of UI by a player who knows the rules *is* cheating (there is no other word for it). If I, as a TD, issue a disciplinary penalty for such an offence the player *will* understand that - and I'm quite prepared to do it if the situation merits. > If you mean someone is cheating, then you say so. Indeed - and you issue a DP. It's a conduct offence not a mistaken judgement - it is the TD's responsibility (he is the appointed official) not the ACs (they are volunteers). A DP in this situation is not "an accusation of cheating" it is a punishment *for* cheating. > If you mean they > have done something wrong because they misjudged it or because they > were ignorant or because it was clearer than they thought or because > their understanding of the law was wrong then that is not cheating. Indeed - and one issues a PP. It's a judgment ruling and should be open to an AC to overturn. You should not be issuing *disciplinary* penalties for poor judgement/ignorance of UI obligations. > No, it is not, and we should not be encouraging child-like > players who really are merely shouting because they are embarrassed at > being caught. If a player is "embarrassed at being caught" then one probably *should* have issued a DP for cheating! If player is embarrassed at having been ruled against/penalised for poor judgement that is his problem. He was neither accused of cheating nor punished for it. If he wishes to behave like a child he does so without my encouragement. The weight of evidence I will require for issuing a DP instead of a PP is different. I will stick with a PP even if I strongly suspect cheating and issue a DP only if I am *absolutely sure* (and yes, in both cases I will have consulted on the hand, probably very widely if I am about to issue a DP). Tim. From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 21 18:28:03 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Jun 21 18:29:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 > DWS wrote: > > > >If one issues a disciplinary penalty for the deliberate use of UI to a > > >player who was fully aware of his obligations one is, and let us not be > > >mealy-mouthed, issuing a penalty for cheating. The size of the > > >penalty is irrelevant. If one is unwilling to back ones judgement in a > > >civil court then one probably shouldn't risk it. This is not "a small > > >affair". A ruling of this type may not be overturned by an AC (although > > >they can request the TD to change his ruling). > > > > Oh, please, stop going overboard. > > Overboard how? *Deliberate* use of UI by a player who knows the rules > *is* cheating (there is no other word for it). If I, as a TD, issue a > disciplinary penalty for such an offence the player *will* understand that > - and I'm quite prepared to do it if the situation merits. Reading L16 one should come to the conclusion that if a player with UI is to work out what is suggested by the UI and the relevant distinctions between LA's he is compeled by law to use UI when selecting his call/play. Reading Tim's assertion, we in America have a phrase that seems apropos: UI holder is between a rock and a hard place. > Tim. regards roger pewick From tommasofilippo.savino.bari at home.nl Wed Jun 22 15:42:48 2005 From: tommasofilippo.savino.bari at home.nl (Antony Hessenner) Date: Tue Jun 21 19:50:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Legal way to increase your income Protection code:XD-3781 Message-ID: Are you self-confident person, ready to be payed worthly? Would You Rather Have Financial independence or Time Freedom? How about both? Everyday People Living Extraordinary Lives Their Very First Year! Your success will be achieved with personal mentoring by a group of individuals that have already achieved a multiple six-figure income. The system that is in place works perfectly. If you have a burning desire for a multiple six figure income along with the time to spend it, YOU have come to the RIGHT place. ANYONE that is coachable and trainable will succeed. This opportunity requires no personal selling or explaining. Here are just a few of YOUR benefits. -- 1. Your FREEDOM 2. Your financial independence 3. Unparalleled training and support 4. More time with your family 5. Total time flexibility 6. Work at your own place 7. Your SECURITY 8. Your earnings determined by YOU 9. No one giving you orders 10. No commutes 11. No more making others rich 12. No boss looking over your shoulder -- Earnings Potential This has the potential of being a six to seven-figure opportunity that is designed for anyone to operate. You can make $1,000 per sale and have add-on sales that bring $5,000 and $8,000, with no additional work. Ordinary people become extraordinary in a matter of weeks! Fast Cash More Personal Time Unlike "traditional" businesses such as franchises costing $50,000 to $500,000 with unstable income and requiring work levels of 60-80 hours a week, this business has the potential of generating results quickly. You will be provided the names of many successful leaders that will gladly share their expertise so that YOU can be successful. You will not be relying on just one individual - our entire team is dedicated to your success. For those who are ready to start today you will be shown how to potentially make money this WEEK! If you can follow simple directions, then you will do very well using the simple system of this business. Unparalleled Training Why depend on just one person for your training? With our team you will be coached and individually assisted by a whole team of experts. There are trainers who have had six figure MONTHS! And so can YOU! They will gladly share with you their secrets. The reason ANYONE can be successful is because of the system. The system takes care of EVERYTHING. The entire company was designed from the ground up to be able to have someone with only minimal education have massive success. Small businesses and people fail 90% of the time but systems work every time. Add a compensation plan that is unparalleled to that equation and what you get is a simple system that can give YOU enormous earnings potential. You will receive unparalleled training and support. It is worth repeating here. The system was designed from the ground up to be able to allow anyone to learn the business. All you need is the drive and a stick-to-it attitude. Everything else is in place. Frequently Asked Questions Q: Is this M L M (Multi-Level Marketing)? A: No it is not. M L M is a great concept but it lacks a system that provides individual support. Also, realistically it takes 1-5 years to achieve huge success in an M L M. Our system is designed for you to achieve success in a shorter period - almost from the first week of working your business. Q: Do I have to talk to people in this business? A: Yes, you have to talk to people but only simple conversation skills are required. We do no telling, selling, or explaining of any product, nor do we try to convince anyone to buy our products. Q: Are there other costs involved in running this business? A: No. Anyone who tells you that it does take money to build a business is lying to you. This is a business that generates a substantial income and does not require initial investments. Q: On a scale of 1-10 what is the difficulty level of running this business? A: With 10 being the most difficult and 1 being the simplest, out of all the businesses, I would say for most everyone, it will be a 1 if they are coachable and trainable and follow our simple system. The System for Your Success Your Action=Your Success! Winners Take Action! WINNERS make decisions and take action. . . when they see an opportunity. They also follow the examples of other successful people because it's much more efficient than learning the hard way. Winners don't make excuses and they never procrastinate. Losers will procrastinate or study a problem endlessly to make sure they don't do anything "rash". You can either decide to leave my ad without responding or you can call now and get started immediately in one of the most exciting businesses available today. Lame Excuse #1 "I'm not sure I want to invest my money to start a business when I have seen some that I can start for free." If you want a 'job' with startup costs, you're on the wrong place. Lame Excuse #2 "I don't have enough time to operate & promote a Home Business." Do you have 15-25 hours a week to obtain the lifestyle you deserve? Countless people from all walks of life, regardless of education or background, are running successful businesses from home setting their own hours and making fortunes by following a simple marketing system that allows financial, personal, and time freedom to live the life they deserve. Lame Excuse #3 "I've tried other businesses that sound similar to this, so I don't think I am going to call." Colonel Sanders tried to sell the idea of Kentucky Fried Chicken 1700 times before someone bought into the idea. What if he had thought the same as you and given up after the 10th time, or worse, given up on the 1699th try. Persistence and belief in yourself is the key to success. The lessons learned from past failures increase your chance for success the next time. Walking away from this opportunity is giving up, plain and simple. Successful people NEVER quit or give up on themselves!! "The true definition of insanity is doing the same things and expecting different results." A c t N o w! This business requires a small time commitment for making mega wealth. Here, you can make the money and actually have the time to spend it! Your Steps to Success: 1. Fill the form 2. Send it to us 3. Follow our step by step instructions Please fill it and send it to: antonyhessener@max-pays.net 1. Your Full name: 2. Present Address (street): 3. City: 4. State: 5. Zip/Postal: 6. Country: 7. Email: 8. Age: 9. Employment desired (Full-time or Part-time): 10. Have you any accounts with banks? If yes, please mention the Name of the Bank. A few words about yourself: All emails should be directed to:antonyhessener@max-pays.net ------------------- Best Wishes Antony Hessener Max-Pays. Personnel Manager antonyhessener@max-pays.net Digi-sign: 5407 ------------------ PS. For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, "It might have been." John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-1892) From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 21 20:36:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 21 20:38:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > > Overboard how? *Deliberate* use of UI by a player who knows the rules > > *is* cheating (there is no other word for it). If I, as a TD, issue a > > disciplinary penalty for such an offence the player *will* understand > > that - and I'm quite prepared to do it if the situation merits. > > Reading L16 one should come to the conclusion that if a player with UI > is to work out what is suggested by the UI and the relevant distinctions > between LA's he is compeled by law to use UI when selecting his > call/play. Don't be ridiculous Roger. He is compelled by law to consider the UI in order to avoid taking advantage. Don't bother giving rulings at all if you confuse this with a player deliberately using UI to select a bid which he believes will work to his advantage. Tim From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 21 22:12:23 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Jun 21 22:15:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 References: Message-ID: <002c01c5769d$8b0c2860$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Roger Pewick" > > From: "Tim West-Meads" > > > DWS wrote: > > > > > >If one issues a disciplinary penalty for the deliberate use of UI to a > > > >player who was fully aware of his obligations one is, and let us not be > > > >mealy-mouthed, issuing a penalty for cheating. The size of the > > > >penalty is irrelevant. If one is unwilling to back ones judgement in a > > > >civil court then one probably shouldn't risk it. This is not "a small > > > >affair". A ruling of this type may not be overturned by an AC (although > > > >they can request the TD to change his ruling). > > > > > > Oh, please, stop going overboard. > > > > Overboard how? *Deliberate* use of UI by a player who knows the rules > > *is* cheating (there is no other word for it). If I, as a TD, issue a > > disciplinary penalty for such an offence the player *will* understand that > > - and I'm quite prepared to do it if the situation merits. > > Reading L16 one should come to the conclusion that if a player with UI is to > work out what is suggested by the UI and the relevant distinctions between > LA's he is compeled by law to use UI when selecting his call/play. Reading > Tim's assertion, we in America have a phrase that seems apropos: UI holder > is between a rock and a hard place. I haven't been following this conversation. Just want to add that PPs can be reversed by an AC (although hereabouts ACs seem to be the only ones issing them), but the penalties imposed by a TD under L91 (for offenses that require immediate action) cannot be appealed. In ACBL-land these include Zero Tolerance behavioral offenses. Unlike L91, L90 addresses procedural penalties, not disciplinary penalties, as the WBFLC made clear when they changed its title from Disciplinary Penalties to Procedural Penalties way back in 1975 (with no significant change in content). It's use for disciplinary purposes was unknown hereabouts until the 90s, when, with no change in the Laws, ACs began applying them for blatant UI and MI offenses, especially for those that caused no damage. The impression given is that they regard the UI and MI Laws as insufficient to deal with such irregularities and must therefore be augmented with PPs in spite of the fact that the UI and MI laws contain no references to L90. There are, however, possible or apparent C&E offenses for which L91 is inappropriate. Over here these should be handled by the writing of a Player Memo (PM) that the Recorder files away after deciding whether to give a mere lecture or (perhaps after repeated PMs) to refer the player's "dossier" to a C&E committee. The PM does not constitute an accusation, it merely describes what happened. In my experience they are only written to pacify an irate psych victim. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 21 22:50:51 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Jun 21 22:54:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-09 & N-10 References: Message-ID: <003a01c576a2$edc027e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" < > Marv wrote: > > > [mlf] Which should have been given. How could N-S possibly think that > > the 3H bid should be allowed? N-S appealed the ruling of 3DX, not the > > 1100 number, > > There was no ruling of "3Dx" the ruling adjustment was "3Dx-4". Whether > one believes that 3H should be allowed or that 3Dx-4 was too harsh because > is should only be -3 doesn't matter. In either case one appeals the > ruling. If an AC finds *any* aspect of a TD ruling at fault they should > be barred from issuing an AWMW. Someone please find a justification for the AWMW. Could it not be awarded "posthumously" now, after the AC is known to have made an obvious mistake by reducing the TD's 1100 to 800? I can't stand the idea that this flaming meritless appeal should escape an AWMW. The more I think about it, the worse it seems that the whole AC would jump to the false conclusion that a club had to be ducked in order to beat 3DX four tricks, especially when that would not be a difficult play anyway. Was this a PR bone thrown to the unsuccessful appellants so they would not get an AWMW? Repeated for convenience, South (NVul) to play 3DX with a high spade lead, ducked if you wish. S A74 H QJ65 D 8 C KQJ98 S KQ6 S J532 H A832 H 9 D A53 D K9762 C 1075 C A43 S 1098 H K1074 D QJ104 C 62 Committee: Barry Rigal (!), Chair, John Lusky, Riggs Thayer, John Solodor and Dick Budd (all remunerated for their efforts). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 21 22:56:21 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Jun 21 22:58:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 13:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 > Roger wrote: > > > > Overboard how? *Deliberate* use of UI by a player who knows the rules > > > *is* cheating (there is no other word for it). If I, as a TD, issue a > > > disciplinary penalty for such an offence the player *will* understand > > > that - and I'm quite prepared to do it if the situation merits. > > > > Reading L16 one should come to the conclusion that if a player with UI > > is to work out what is suggested by the UI and the relevant distinctions > > between LA's he is compeled by law to use UI when selecting his > > call/play. > > Don't be ridiculous Roger. He is compelled by law to consider the UI in > order to avoid taking advantage. Don't bother giving rulings at all if > you confuse this with a player deliberately using UI to select a bid which > he believes will work to his advantage. > > Tim I pointed out that the law requires a player with UI to do certain things. I pointed out that to do those things the player needs to use UI. I do not believe that it is ridiculous to point out these things. Tim has pointed out that a player that uses UI cheats. I am not prepared to dispute his assertion. However, what I did not point out was that a player that uses UI, whether for the purpose of benefit or the purpose of detriment, it looks unfair while he is doing it. What I think is ridiculous is for the law to compel players to look like they are being unfair, which in the light of L73C is what happens when they use UI. regards roger pewick From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 21 23:36:09 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Jun 21 23:39:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 References: Message-ID: <004e01c576a9$3e18f220$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" > Roger wrote: > > > > Overboard how? *Deliberate* use of UI by a player who knows the rules > > > *is* cheating (there is no other word for it). If I, as a TD, issue a > > > disciplinary penalty for such an offence the player *will* understand > > > that - and I'm quite prepared to do it if the situation merits. > > > > Reading L16 one should come to the conclusion that if a player with UI > > is to work out what is suggested by the UI and the relevant distinctions > > between LA's he is compeled by law to use UI when selecting his > > call/play. > > Don't be ridiculous Roger. He is compelled by law to consider the UI in > order to avoid taking advantage. Don't bother giving rulings at all if > you confuse this with a player deliberately using UI to select a bid which > he believes will work to his advantage. > It's a matter of considering the UI in order to *avoid* a bid which will work to his *disadvantage* if it doesn't stand, even though he feels it is the correct bid. Instead he chooses an LA among those equally suggested that will probably do him least harm. If he ignores the UI, hoping his action will be acceptable, a disastrous LA may be foisted upon him by an AC who disagrees. In doing that he has avoided a bid which he believes would work to his advantage if it were to stand, in favor of a disadvantageous LA. He must consider the UI very carefully in order to arrive at this risk-averse decision. Jeff Rubens thinks this is illegal, but I don't think he has a very strong argument. It's not a practical stand either. If players were to ignore UI and take whatever action they think they intended, just imagine the litigation regarding whether that was indeed the intended action when it is one suggested by the UI and there is one or more LAs. In the old days around here, TDs would tell a player to just ignore the UI and do whatever s/he intended to do. That did not work well. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California. From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 22 00:27:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 22 00:29:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > I pointed out that the law requires a player with UI to do certain > things. I pointed out that to do those things the player needs to use > UI. He is not allowed to use the UI, he is required to consider the implications of UI in order to avoid using it. > However, what I did not point out was that a player that > uses UI, whether for the purpose of benefit or the purpose of detriment, > it looks unfair while he is doing it. What I think is ridiculous is for > the law to compel players to look like they are being unfair, which in > the light of L73C is what happens when they use UI. I don't really know what this means. A player in possession of UI is expected to consider the implications. This can be a complex process and take some time (personally I find these the toughest bidding decisions I ever face and am told I generally "get it wrong" to the extent of imagining LAs where dispassionate observers believe none to exist). It is generally obvious to others at the table what the problem is. Of course this looks unfair when a player uses the time to work out how best to take advantage of the UI and then does so (but that is unfair). It doesn't look, and isn't, unfair if their eventual call is an unsuggested LA. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 22 00:27:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 22 00:29:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-09 & N-10 In-Reply-To: <003a01c576a2$edc027e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > Someone please find a justification for the AWMW. > I can't stand the idea that this flaming > meritless appeal should escape an AWMW. > > The more I think about it, the worse it seems that the whole AC would > jump to the false conclusion that a club had to be ducked in order to > beat 3DX four tricks, especially when that would not be a difficult play > anyway. Um Marv, on re-reading surely -800 *is* the score for 3DX-4 (NS were Nvul). This is an adjustment of the TD ruling of 3DX-5. While I personally think 3Dx-5 is "at all probable" it is may be close enough in judgement terms for the appeal to "have merit". Tim From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 22 00:34:11 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Jun 22 00:37:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-05 References: Message-ID: <005701c576b1$59ecb060$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" > Marv wrote: Limit bidder bids again is never the only logical action > > I disagree with this on principle. For example holding a 4144 15 count > after opening a precision 1D-(1H)-P-P-? Pass is just not an LA. Well, there was no UI that suggested passing, and passing would be irrational Of course players aren't expected to do something irrational. I got that statement from a friend who commented to me about this case. I should have changed it to read: Limit bidder bids again is not a logical alternative opposite UI that suggests it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 22 00:55:46 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Jun 22 00:59:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-09 & N-10 References: Message-ID: <006001c576b4$5ece5ae0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Tim West-Meads" > Marv wrote: > > > Someone please find a justification for the AWMW. > > I can't stand the idea that this flaming > > meritless appeal should escape an AWMW. > > > > The more I think about it, the worse it seems that the whole AC would > > jump to the false conclusion that a club had to be ducked in order to > > beat 3DX four tricks, especially when that would not be a difficult play > > anyway. > > Um Marv, on re-reading surely -800 *is* the score for 3DX-4 (NS were > Nvul). This is an adjustment of the TD ruling of 3DX-5. > While I personally think 3Dx-5 is "at all probable" it is may be close > enough in judgement terms for the appeal to "have merit". > Geez. I always make mistakes when I go too fast. Of course the TD ruled down five (1100) and the AC changed it to down four (800). Sorry. The appellants never mentioned the 1100, only the 4H contract that was taken away from them. And no wonder, when a cursory glance should show that South can't take more than four tricks, down five, in a 3D contract. EW would hardly give thought to that matter anyway, wanting only their 4H contract back. Please suggest a rational line of play that would result in only 8 tricks for E-W. The defense to get 9 tricks is semi-automatic, I don't see a role for judgement.. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 22 01:35:08 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Jun 22 01:38:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-11 Message-ID: <007501c576b9$e8f49ea0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Case N-11 Subject: MI DIC: Putnam Vanderbilt KO Teams, March 13 afternoon Brd: 2 Dealer East N-S vulnerable Richard Pavlicek S AQ10862 H 84 D 3 C 6542 Andrea Buratti Massimo Lanzarotti S J4 S 953 H KQ762 H 103 D 9852 D J1076 C 108 C AJ93 Michael Polowan S K7 H AJ95 D AKQ4 C KQ7 West North East South Pass 2C Pass 3S Pass 4NT Pass 5D ? Pass 6S All Pass The Facts: The final contract was 6S by North down one for a score of -100 for NS after the H10 opening lead. The director was called after play was over. There was discussion before play of board one about defenses and leads that included the fact that EW lead low from a worthless doubleton (no discussion or disclaimers about doubleton honors). During the play declarer tried to give himself an extra chance to ruff out the king and queen of hearts and the S8 was overruffed with the S9. The play had gone H10 to the HA. The DA and DK were cashed declarer pitching a heart. The HJ was led covered and ruffed. A spade was led to the SK and the H9 was led, covered, trumped with the S8 and over-trumped with the S9. The Ruling: The director ruled the result stands. The assumption about treatment of honors should not be implicit from questions about leads from small doubletons. [mlf] It wasn't "small doubletons," it was "worthless doubletons," if the Facts are correct. 10x looks pretty worthless to me. A better disclosure for E-W would be "low from honorless doubletons." The Appeal: NS appealed and the hearing was attended by North, East and West. North had asked before the first hand about leads and was told EW led low from doubletons. [mlf] Slight change in wording there. That's not what was told, if the Facts are right. No questions were asked and no information volunteered about leads from 10x. Declarer thought he had an extra chance to play East for H1076 Even though the seven did not fall on the second round of hearts, he still thought ruffing the third round was safe and could produce an extra chance. [mlf] Nobody leads the 10 from 1076, Richard, and neither the 7 nor 6 appeared on the second round (risky, because the 10 could easily have been a singleton). Statements Made by the Other Side: The convention card was correctly marked. It was a WBF convention card and was on display at the table and showed they lead the 10 from 10x. [mlf] I didn't know the WBF convention card was legal in NABC+ events, or is it? The ACBL CC has no easy way to indicate low leads from Honor-small, only from xx. An ACBL player probably wouldn't think to find that answer on the CC, and would usually ask. The Decision: North could have asked when the H10 lead was [led]. The line of play taken had no legitimate extra chance of success once the H7 or H6 did not drop. North did not receive misinformation about carding methods. Any effort to make on a trump coup if spades split four one would fail when West ruffs a minor suit winner early. Because of these reasons, the ruling was upheld. [mlf] Players are not expected to play well in order to get redress, but North should indeed have asked about that 10 lead, especially after East shows at least two hearts. The appeal lacked merit and NS were given an AWMW Committee: Richard Popper, Chair, Barry Rigal, Ed Lazarus, Bob Schwartz and Riggs Thayer [mlf] Good enough, I suppose, but the AWMW seems harsh considering the disclosure circumstances. I'd like to know about the legality of that WBF CC, which is not a reasonable facsmile of the ACBL CC. TD AC N-00 1 1 (no comments) N-01 0 0 N-02 1 0 N-03 0 1/2 N-04 1 1 (no comments) N-05 1 0 N-06 1/2 1/2 N-07 1 1 (no comments) N-08 1 0 N--09 1 1 (no comments) N-10 1 1/2 N-11 1 1 Total 9-1/2 6-1/2 out of 12 possible Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 22 02:42:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 22 02:44:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-05 In-Reply-To: <005701c576b1$59ecb060$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > Limit bidder bids again is never the only logical action > > > > I disagree with this on principle. For example holding a 4144 15 > > count after opening a precision 1D-(1H)-P-P-? Pass is just not an LA. > > Well, there was no UI that suggested passing, and passing would be > irrational For the sake of convenience assume the pass of 1H was slow. > Of course players aren't expected to do something irrational. Passing is just as irrational as it was without the UI. > I got that statement from a friend who commented to me about this case. > I should have changed it to read: > > Limit bidder bids again is not a logical alternative opposite UI that > suggests it. Nope. The existence (or not) of UI doesn't (normally) affect the LAs - only whether they may be selected. I'd accept "Pass is very frequently an LA after a player has made a limit bid." All generalisations have their exceptions, he said, disappearing in a puff of paradox. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 22 02:42:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 22 02:44:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-09 & N-10 In-Reply-To: <006001c576b4$5ece5ae0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > > Um Marv, on re-reading surely -800 *is* the score for 3DX-4 (NS were > > Nvul). This is an adjustment of the TD ruling of 3DX-5. > > While I personally think 3Dx-5 is "at all probable" it is may be > close > > enough in judgement terms for the appeal to "have merit". > > > Geez. I always make mistakes when I go too fast. Of course the TD > ruled down five (1100) and the AC changed it to down four (800). > Sorry. > > The appellants never mentioned the 1100, only the 4H contract that was > taken away from them. The appellants should neither be required nor expected to identify the exact flaw in a ruling. If they appeal because they "feel" the ruling was wrong and the AC finds the ruling flawed they should be protected from an AWMW (even if the ruling was found flawed in some way not directly related to their appeal). > And no wonder, when a cursory glance should show > that South can't take more than four tricks, down five, in a 3D > contract. EW would hardly give thought to that matter anyway, wanting > only their 4H contract back. I don't have a problem with that TBH. In your original post it was stated "North explained that she thought 3D was natural at the time the bid was made." Unless I have misunderstood Redwood the bid shows longer diamonds than clubs and not 3+/3+ in the majors. Thus, (unless 8221/2821 which I have no idea how one bids), it promises 3+d. Certainly if a TD asked why the 3D wasn't alerted "because it was natural" is a tolerable response and not, of itself, indicative of having forgotten the system. NB, I'm not saying it isn't alertable in the ACBL - only that I can understand a player *thinking* it isn't alertable. I also note a "CD" in the subject reference. If that stands for what I hope it doesn't then as far as I am concerned any appeal *automatically* has merit. > Please suggest a rational line of play that would result in only 8 > tricks for E-W. The defense to get 9 tricks is semi-automatic, I don't > see a role for judgement.. After the SK led and ducked 1S+2 red tricks+2C looks pretty likely to me (although I'd rule -5). Still, the AC are (I assume) better players than am I and if they considered it worth overturning the TD ruling there is no-one to blame but them (or those who appointed them). Tim From slightness at alltechsolutions.com Wed Jun 22 05:35:30 2005 From: slightness at alltechsolutions.com (Miriam) Date: Wed Jun 22 05:36:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Software taking a bite out of your budget? Try OEM! Message-ID: <12585416876.3860834733@200-203-024-008.paemt7003.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.br> The No.1 source for software superstore. http://tjjx.elibzdepb6wltfe.artemiadc.com Every time a friend succeeds, I die a little. If you scatter thorns, don't go barefoot. From craigstamps at comcast.net Wed Jun 22 06:04:20 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Wed Jun 22 06:05:50 2005 Subject: [blml] naive References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050621160957.04d8aeb0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <9EUADgif4AuCFwFa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <006001c576df$789ac280$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Terrence and Boris know. If they can live with their consciences, I see no reason to adjudge them other than innocent until proven guilty...which the bridge evidence clearly did NOT do. If we nust burn anything, it must be columns of the NY Times. How can bridge players of two of the greatest Western democracies deny such a fundamental principal of justice as the presumption of innocence. Whatever has changed your mind at this late date Tony? And didn't your national authority proclaim innocence after investigation David? Let's have a heart guys. :) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] naive > Tony Musgrove wrote >>Call me naive. I always thought Rees was innocent. How >>could anyone have gone up to Schapiro and suggest >>to him their partnership might try cheating? (was my view). >>Burning all their books, >> >>Disgusted (Sydney). > > You are naive. > > Mind you, I have no idea about what you are talking, but no-one is ever > going to know whether R-S cheated, so why burn some books now? > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 22 08:04:10 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Jun 22 08:09:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-12 & N-13 Message-ID: <00b401c576f0$7d123120$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Case N-12 is of little interest, the appellants claiming damage from minor MI (if any) that got them only an AWMC One point: Behind a screen the eventual dummy had explained the auction thoroughly to his screenmate, with all negative inferences, but the eventual declarer had not. Such disclosure of unAlertable agreements is optional but encouraged in ACBL-land. However, it should be mandatory, in accordance with L75. With no screen, before the opening lead is made both dummy and declarer should be required to provide all pertinent information about their auction, not leaving it to the opponents to ask for it. Case N-13 Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff IMP Pairs - 2nd Qualifying Brd: 1 Dealer North None vul. S KQ986 H K94 D C K9653 S 73 S 10542 H QJ1032 H A85 D A543 D KJ7 C Q7 C AJ4 S AJ H 76 D Q109862 C 1082 West North East South 1S Pass 1NT(1) Pass 2C Pass 2S Pass(2) Pass Dbl Pass 3H 3S Pass Pass 4H All Pass (1) Forcing (2) BIT - Agreed The Facts: The final contract was 4H by West making four for a score of +420 for EW after the SK opening lead. The director was called after East's double. West admitted a BIT before his pass of 2S. The Ruling: The director adjusted the score to 2S down two for -100 for NS. [mlf] and +100 for EW, presumably. How did he come up with that, I wonder? More on this later. The Appeal: EW appealed and the hearing was attended by North, East and West. Both East and West acknowledge the BIT, contending only that it was two or three seconds shorter than NS's allegation of 10-12 seconds. East said he thought it was a losing strategy to sell out to 2S with this good a hand where his partner might well have a five-card suit and be able to make a three-level contract. He also said that he knew his partner had some values from the fact that the opponents had stopped bidding [at] the two-level. This was AI which duplicated any alleged UI. Statements Made by the Other Side: None The Decision: With an acknowledged BIT suggesting action, Pass was very clearly an LA. Hence, adjusting the contract to 2S was correct. The AC considered whether NS's defense of 4H, letting it make, broke the chain of causality between offense and result. South won the second spade and shifted to a small club on which North played the king. The AC deemed this inferior, but not so egregious as to break the chain of causality. [mlf] "breaking the chain of causality" is a catch-praise currently popular with the AC. Is it supposed to impress us? The number of tricks to assign to 2S was problematic. On a diamond lead, North's distribution is revealed and EW should have no trouble defeating 2S one trick and may defeat it three tricks depending on North's handling of the club suit. On a spade lead, EW would have more trouble seeing the optimal defense. [mlf] A spade lead looks semi-automatic, after which 2S makes if declarer takes a second round of spades before finessing in clubs. If he takes the club finesse at trick two, East must give West a club ruff in order to beat the contract one trick. These are the only two lines of play that seem reasonably likely. At the AC's request, the directors provided a recap of the scores for this board in four sections of this event. Assuming that the NS scores of +110s and -100s were results for 2S contracts, NS made 2S a little less than half as often as they went down two (with down one and down three occurring much less frequently). The AC ruled a score for NS of 2S down two for -100. [mlf] This is truly outrageous. It is improper to look at scores posted at other tables for guidance, and anyway how could they assume that -100 or -150 was from a 2S contract? They could easily have been the result of a higher contract, as shown by North's 3S bid on this deal. [mlf] The adjustment is wrong, wrong, as -50 is surely likely enough and I'm not sure that +110 isn't also. Spade lead, club finesse to the jack, is it clear that East would give West a club ruff? The AC said, "On a spade lead EW would have more trouble seeing the optimal defense." If so, then why not +110 for N-S? However, for EW, the AC ruled -110 giving them the least favorable result possible. [mlf] Right adjustment, but why not use the words of L12C2, "most unfavorable result that was at all probable"? East acknowledged the BIT and based his entire appeal on his contention that his double was clear, based on all the AI. This line of argument is patently wrong in the AC's opinion. The AC decided that experienced players in NABC events should know that passing is a logical alternative. Appealing a director's decision that passing is an LA is an abuse of the right to appeal. The AC therefore, gave an AWMW to the EW pair. [mlf] It seems to me quite normal to appeal a TD's UI decision if it looks wrong. In this case taking away the 4H contract was clear-cut and that ruling indeed should not have been appealed by E-W. [mlf] However, N-S should have appealed because of the -100 that the TD gave them. It often happens that players are so pleased to have a ruling go their way that they don't look at it closely enough. Committee: Michael Huston, Chair, Jeff Roman, Mike Kovacich, Bob White and Ed Lazarus My personal scorecard, scale of 0 to 1, with 1/2 for right ruling/decision but poor score adjustment TD AC N-00 1 1 (no comments) N-01 0 0 N-02 1 0 N-03 0 1/2 N-04 1 1 (no comments) N-05 1 0 N-06 1/2 1/2 N-07 1 1 (no comments) N-08 1 0 N--09 1 1 (no comments) N-10 1 1/2 N-11 1 1 N-12 1 1 (limited comments) N-13 1/2 1/2 Total 11 8 out of 14 possible Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 22 08:05:04 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Jun 22 08:09:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-12 & N-13 Message-ID: <00b501c576f0$7d33c2e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Case N-12 is of little interest, the appellants claiming damage from minor MI (if any) that got them only an AWMC One point: Behind a screen the eventual dummy had explained the auction thoroughly to his screenmate, with all negative inferences, but the eventual declarer had not. Such disclosure of unAlertable agreements is optional but encouraged in ACBL-land. However, it should be mandatory, in accordance with L75. With no screen, before the opening lead is made both dummy and declarer should be required to provide all pertinent information about their auction, not leaving it to the opponents to ask for it. Case N-13 Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff IMP Pairs - 2nd Qualifying Brd: 1 Dealer North None vul. S KQ986 H K94 D C K9653 S 73 S 10542 H QJ1032 H A85 D A543 D KJ7 C Q7 C AJ4 S AJ H 76 D Q109862 C 1082 West North East South 1S Pass 1NT(1) Pass 2C Pass 2S Pass(2) Pass Dbl Pass 3H 3S Pass Pass 4H All Pass (1) Forcing (2) BIT - Agreed The Facts: The final contract was 4H by West making four for a score of +420 for EW after the SK opening lead. The director was called after East's double. West admitted a BIT before his pass of 2S. The Ruling: The director adjusted the score to 2S down two for -100 for NS. [mlf] and +100 for EW, presumably. How did he come up with that, I wonder? More on this later. The Appeal: EW appealed and the hearing was attended by North, East and West. Both East and West acknowledge the BIT, contending only that it was two or three seconds shorter than NS's allegation of 10-12 seconds. East said he thought it was a losing strategy to sell out to 2S with this good a hand where his partner might well have a five-card suit and be able to make a three-level contract. He also said that he knew his partner had some values from the fact that the opponents had stopped bidding [at] the two-level. This was AI which duplicated any alleged UI. Statements Made by the Other Side: None The Decision: With an acknowledged BIT suggesting action, Pass was very clearly an LA. Hence, adjusting the contract to 2S was correct. The AC considered whether NS's defense of 4H, letting it make, broke the chain of causality between offense and result. South won the second spade and shifted to a small club on which North played the king. The AC deemed this inferior, but not so egregious as to break the chain of causality. [mlf] "breaking the chain of causality" is a catch-praise currently popular with the AC. Is it supposed to impress us? The number of tricks to assign to 2S was problematic. On a diamond lead, North's distribution is revealed and EW should have no trouble defeating 2S one trick and may defeat it three tricks depending on North's handling of the club suit. On a spade lead, EW would have more trouble seeing the optimal defense. [mlf] A spade lead looks semi-automatic, after which 2S makes if declarer takes a second round of spades before finessing in clubs. If he takes the club finesse at trick two, East must give West a club ruff in order to beat the contract one trick. These are the only two lines of play that seem reasonably likely. At the AC's request, the directors provided a recap of the scores for this board in four sections of this event. Assuming that the NS scores of +110s and -100s were results for 2S contracts, NS made 2S a little less than half as often as they went down two (with down one and down three occurring much less frequently). The AC ruled a score for NS of 2S down two for -100. [mlf] This is truly outrageous. It is improper to look at scores posted at other tables for guidance, and anyway how could they assume that -100 or -150 was from a 2S contract? They could easily have been the result of a higher contract, as shown by North's 3S bid on this deal. [mlf] The adjustment is wrong, wrong, as -50 is surely likely enough and I'm not sure that +110 isn't also. Spade lead, club finesse to the jack, is it clear that East would give West a club ruff? The AC said, "On a spade lead EW would have more trouble seeing the optimal defense." If so, then why not +110 for N-S? However, for EW, the AC ruled -110 giving them the least favorable result possible. [mlf] Right adjustment, but why not use the words of L12C2, "most unfavorable result that was at all probable"? East acknowledged the BIT and based his entire appeal on his contention that his double was clear, based on all the AI. This line of argument is patently wrong in the AC's opinion. The AC decided that experienced players in NABC events should know that passing is a logical alternative. Appealing a director's decision that passing is an LA is an abuse of the right to appeal. The AC therefore, gave an AWMW to the EW pair. [mlf] It seems to me quite normal to appeal a TD's UI decision if it looks wrong. In this case taking away the 4H contract was clear-cut and that ruling indeed should not have been appealed by E-W. [mlf] However, N-S should have appealed because of the -100 that the TD gave them. It often happens that players are so pleased to have a ruling go their way that they don't look at it closely enough. Committee: Michael Huston, Chair, Jeff Roman, Mike Kovacich, Bob White and Ed Lazarus My personal scorecard, scale of 0 to 1, with 1/2 for right ruling/decision but poor score adjustment TD AC N-00 1 1 (no comments) N-01 0 0 N-02 1 0 N-03 0 1/2 N-04 1 1 (no comments) N-05 1 0 N-06 1/2 1/2 N-07 1 1 (no comments) N-08 1 0 N--09 1 1 (no comments) N-10 1 1/2 N-11 1 1 N-12 1 1 (limited comments) N-13 1/2 1/2 Total 11 8 out of 14 possible Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 22 08:05:30 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Jun 22 08:09:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-12 & N-13 Message-ID: <00b601c576f0$7d76e660$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Case N-12 is of little interest, the appellants claiming damage from minor MI (if any) that got them only an AWMC One point: Behind a screen the eventual dummy had explained the auction thoroughly to his screenmate, with all negative inferences, but the eventual declarer had not. Such disclosure of unAlertable agreements is optional but encouraged in ACBL-land. However, it should be mandatory, in accordance with L75. With no screen, before the opening lead is made both dummy and declarer should be required to provide all pertinent information about their auction, not leaving it to the opponents to ask for it. Case N-13 Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff IMP Pairs - 2nd Qualifying Brd: 1 Dealer North None vul. S KQ986 H K94 D C K9653 S 73 S 10542 H QJ1032 H A85 D A543 D KJ7 C Q7 C AJ4 S AJ H 76 D Q109862 C 1082 West North East South 1S Pass 1NT(1) Pass 2C Pass 2S Pass(2) Pass Dbl Pass 3H 3S Pass Pass 4H All Pass (1) Forcing (2) BIT - Agreed The Facts: The final contract was 4H by West making four for a score of +420 for EW after the SK opening lead. The director was called after East's double. West admitted a BIT before his pass of 2S. The Ruling: The director adjusted the score to 2S down two for -100 for NS. [mlf] and +100 for EW, presumably. How did he come up with that, I wonder? More on this later. The Appeal: EW appealed and the hearing was attended by North, East and West. Both East and West acknowledge the BIT, contending only that it was two or three seconds shorter than NS's allegation of 10-12 seconds. East said he thought it was a losing strategy to sell out to 2S with this good a hand where his partner might well have a five-card suit and be able to make a three-level contract. He also said that he knew his partner had some values from the fact that the opponents had stopped bidding [at] the two-level. This was AI which duplicated any alleged UI. Statements Made by the Other Side: None The Decision: With an acknowledged BIT suggesting action, Pass was very clearly an LA. Hence, adjusting the contract to 2S was correct. The AC considered whether NS's defense of 4H, letting it make, broke the chain of causality between offense and result. South won the second spade and shifted to a small club on which North played the king. The AC deemed this inferior, but not so egregious as to break the chain of causality. [mlf] "breaking the chain of causality" is a catch-praise currently popular with the AC. Is it supposed to impress us? The number of tricks to assign to 2S was problematic. On a diamond lead, North's distribution is revealed and EW should have no trouble defeating 2S one trick and may defeat it three tricks depending on North's handling of the club suit. On a spade lead, EW would have more trouble seeing the optimal defense. [mlf] A spade lead looks semi-automatic, after which 2S makes if declarer takes a second round of spades before finessing in clubs. If he takes the club finesse at trick two, East must give West a club ruff in order to beat the contract one trick. These are the only two lines of play that seem reasonably likely. At the AC's request, the directors provided a recap of the scores for this board in four sections of this event. Assuming that the NS scores of +110s and -100s were results for 2S contracts, NS made 2S a little less than half as often as they went down two (with down one and down three occurring much less frequently). The AC ruled a score for NS of 2S down two for -100. [mlf] This is truly outrageous. It is improper to look at scores posted at other tables for guidance, and anyway how could they assume that -100 or -150 was from a 2S contract? They could easily have been the result of a higher contract, as shown by North's 3S bid on this deal. [mlf] The adjustment is wrong, wrong, as -50 is surely likely enough and I'm not sure that +110 isn't also. Spade lead, club finesse to the jack, is it clear that East would give West a club ruff? The AC said, "On a spade lead EW would have more trouble seeing the optimal defense." If so, then why not +110 for N-S? However, for EW, the AC ruled -110 giving them the least favorable result possible. [mlf] Right adjustment, but why not use the words of L12C2, "most unfavorable result that was at all probable"? East acknowledged the BIT and based his entire appeal on his contention that his double was clear, based on all the AI. This line of argument is patently wrong in the AC's opinion. The AC decided that experienced players in NABC events should know that passing is a logical alternative. Appealing a director's decision that passing is an LA is an abuse of the right to appeal. The AC therefore, gave an AWMW to the EW pair. [mlf] It seems to me quite normal to appeal a TD's UI decision if it looks wrong. In this case taking away the 4H contract was clear-cut and that ruling indeed should not have been appealed by E-W. [mlf] However, N-S should have appealed because of the -100 that the TD gave them. It often happens that players are so pleased to have a ruling go their way that they don't look at it closely enough. Committee: Michael Huston, Chair, Jeff Roman, Mike Kovacich, Bob White and Ed Lazarus My personal scorecard, scale of 0 to 1, with 1/2 for right ruling/decision but poor score adjustment TD AC N-00 1 1 (no comments) N-01 0 0 N-02 1 0 N-03 0 1/2 N-04 1 1 (no comments) N-05 1 0 N-06 1/2 1/2 N-07 1 1 (no comments) N-08 1 0 N--09 1 1 (no comments) N-10 1 1/2 N-11 1 1 N-12 1 1 (limited comments) N-13 1/2 1/2 Total 11 8 out of 14 possible Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From dispulp at didamail.com Wed Jun 22 10:27:47 2005 From: dispulp at didamail.com (Levi Santiago) Date: Wed Jun 22 09:39:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Pre-approved Application #HLFT398 Message-ID: <191.28e558d5.2a9IRU44@qrw.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h3ll0.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Denny Mcmullen to be remov(ed: http://www.h3ll0.com/deletion.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 cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jun 22 09:58:02 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Jun 22 09:59:57 2005 Subject: [blml] naive Message-ID: <20050622075802.565E8173E68@poczta.interia.pl> craig napisa?(a): > Terrence and Boris know. If they can live with their consciences, I see no > > reason to adjudge them other than innocent until proven guilty... So? The judges aren't gods, they can be wrong - I see no reason why I shouldn't have my own opinion about the whole incident. He was ajdudged guilty by WBF. He was ajdudged by Sir John Foster. Does that indicate that he was a 50% cheat? Of course not. > which the > > bridge evidence clearly did NOT do. If we nust burn anything, it must be > columns of the NY Times. How can bridge players of two of the greatest > Western democracies deny such a fundamental principal of justice as the > presumption of innocence. But that doesn't preclude agreeing or disagreeing with the verdict of the court. From everything I read (including "Story Of An Accusation" by Reese himself) I am absolutely convinced that he was guilty. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OMNIXMAIL! Jesli masz telefon w sieci Era i dostep do WAP, to mozesz na komorce odbierac poczte ze wszystkich swoich kont poczty e-mail! OMNIXMAIL jest w Era Omnix: http://link.interia.pl/f1896 From asnady at doneasy.com Wed Jun 22 11:54:12 2005 From: asnady at doneasy.com (Reyna Cramer) Date: Wed Jun 22 10:59:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Just approved mortage rate Message-ID: <397c.fsf@calle37.net> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h3ll0.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Sherry Fernandez to be remov(ed: http://www.h3ll0.com/deletion.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 Wed Jun 22 16:34:43 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Wed Jun 22 16:36:40 2005 Subject: [blml] naive References: <20050622075802.565E8173E68@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <003a01c57737$8870d610$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> While you are entitled to your own opinion, however mistaken :-), I find it interesting that Story of An Accusation makes the clearest case for innocence of anything I have read and find it astonishing that it should make you more inclined to think otherwise that Truscott's writings. Please reread and consider the bridge evidence! In any case, the situation is such that B&S have certainly not been proven guilty beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT, thus they are entitled to the presumption of innocence under the legal traditions of both the USA and UK. Is this not true in Poland now that you are a free democracy again? Of course we will never know for certain...only R&S know for sure. I shall continue to consider them innocent until I have a lot more evidence to the contrary...which is most unlikely to appear! I suspect this means that we shall agree to disagree on the matter. That is nothing new for us. :-) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 3:58 AM Subject: Re: Re: [blml] naive craig napisa?(a): > Terrence and Boris know. If they can live with their consciences, I see no > > reason to adjudge them other than innocent until proven guilty... So? The judges aren't gods, they can be wrong - I see no reason why I shouldn't have my own opinion about the whole incident. He was ajdudged guilty by WBF. He was ajdudged by Sir John Foster. Does that indicate that he was a 50% cheat? Of course not. > which the > > bridge evidence clearly did NOT do. If we nust burn anything, it must be > columns of the NY Times. How can bridge players of two of the greatest > Western democracies deny such a fundamental principal of justice as the > presumption of innocence. But that doesn't preclude agreeing or disagreeing with the verdict of the court. From everything I read (including "Story Of An Accusation" by Reese himself) I am absolutely convinced that he was guilty. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OMNIXMAIL! Jesli masz telefon w sieci Era i dostep do WAP, to mozesz na komorce odbierac poczte ze wszystkich swoich kont poczty e-mail! OMNIXMAIL jest w Era Omnix: http://link.interia.pl/f1896 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 22 16:55:32 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 22 17:55:48 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <003a01c57737$8870d610$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <20050622075802.565E8173E68@poczta.interia.pl> <003a01c57737$8870d610$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <42B97BE4.5040603@hdw.be> Has Craig no knowledge of the new twist to the tale? In articles in the Telegraph and the NY Times revelations have recently appeared. Can somebody post a link or a copy? craig wrote: > While you are entitled to your own opinion, however mistaken :-), I find > it interesting that Story of An Accusation makes the clearest case for > innocence of anything I have read and find it astonishing that it should > make you more inclined to think otherwise that Truscott's writings. > Please reread and consider the bridge evidence! In any case, the > situation is such that B&S have certainly not been proven guilty beyond > a REASONABLE DOUBT, thus they are entitled to the presumption of > innocence under the legal traditions of both the USA and UK. Is this not > true in Poland now that you are a free democracy again? Of course we > will never know for certain...only R&S know for sure. I shall continue > to consider them innocent until I have a lot more evidence to the > contrary...which is most unlikely to appear! I suspect this means that > we shall agree to disagree on the matter. That is nothing new for us. :-) > > Craig > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 3:58 AM > Subject: Re: Re: [blml] naive > > > craig napisa?(a): > >> Terrence and Boris know. If they can live with their consciences, I >> see no >> >> reason to adjudge them other than innocent until proven guilty... > > > So? The judges aren't gods, they can be wrong - I see > no reason why I shouldn't have my own > opinion about the whole incident. > He was ajdudged guilty by WBF. > He was ajdudged by Sir John Foster. > Does that indicate that he was a 50% cheat? > Of course not. > >> which the >> >> bridge evidence clearly did NOT do. If we nust burn anything, it must be >> columns of the NY Times. How can bridge players of two of the greatest >> Western democracies deny such a fundamental principal of justice as the >> presumption of innocence. > > > But that doesn't preclude agreeing or disagreeing > with the verdict of the court. From everything I read > (including "Story Of An Accusation" by Reese himself) I am > absolutely convinced that he was guilty. > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > OMNIXMAIL! Jesli masz telefon w sieci Era i dostep do WAP, to mozesz > na komorce odbierac poczte ze wszystkich swoich kont poczty e-mail! > OMNIXMAIL jest w Era Omnix: http://link.interia.pl/f1896 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 currently at the European Bridge Championships in Tenerife http://www.hdw.be/ From refiner at ruben.com Wed Jun 22 22:02:09 2005 From: refiner at ruben.com (Kit) Date: Wed Jun 22 22:02:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Penis Enlargement announcement Message-ID: <228921578.67597118714@host81-154-80-164.range81-154.btcentralplus.com> Expand your Penis 20% Larger in weeks http://www.bateko.com/ss/ Television has raised writing to a new low. Successful leaders have the courage to take action where others hesitate. What I look forward to is continued immaturity followed by death. Nobody's interested in sweetness and light. Of those who say nothing, few are silent. From mutt at clark.gs Wed Jun 22 22:02:12 2005 From: mutt at clark.gs (Leila) Date: Wed Jun 22 22:02:14 2005 Subject: [blml] No pills, no pumps - Its the Patch Message-ID: <9274435404.1270234828@host81-154-80-164.range81-154.btcentralplus.com> Bigger, harder, and longer - lasting results NOW with a discreet little patch. http://www.bateko.com/ss/ [It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system. Newspapers should have no friends. Only strength can cooperate. Weakness can only beg. By ignorance is pride increased; those must assume who know the least. Benson, you are so free of the ravages of intelligence From dkent at sujja.com Thu Jun 23 01:40:00 2005 From: dkent at sujja.com (David Kent) Date: Thu Jun 23 01:41:56 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <42B97BE4.5040603@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002301c57783$b7cca370$6601a8c0@cktdell> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:56 AM To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] naive Has Craig no knowledge of the new twist to the tale? In articles in the Telegraph and the NY Times revelations have recently appeared. Can somebody post a link or a copy? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/crosswords/bridge/20card.html?pagewant ed=print CHEATING AT WORLD BRIDGE New York Times 60s Expos? Vindicated after 40 Years from David Rex-Taylor The nineteen fifty-five world bridge champion, Englishman Terence Reese, was a genius player and author. Forty years ago news media worldwide broke the biggest bridge story of the 20th century, alleging that he and his partner, fellow-champion Boris Schapiro, had been observed cheating in a major international event in Buenos Aires. Official hearings in the USA and UK reached opposite conclusions as to guilt. Both Reese and New York Times correspondent Alan Truscott wrote books each convincingly presenting opposing cases. Controversy has raged inconclusively since then. Over 30 years ago, Reese privately explained to me what had really happened after I solemnly promised I would reveal nothing whatever to anyone until after both his and Boris? deaths and then only after 40 years from the time of the allegations in 1965. I have kept that promise. Firstly, to clarify my involvement with Reese that has finally brought me to this point. After the general horror and fallout from what had happened, Reese chose not to be seen for many months, and I, like many others, was concerned. As organiser of the Richmond Bridge Congress, a popular annual event, I decided to tempt him back to competitive bridge by including a special ?Little Major? session to give players a unique opportunity to use Reese?s new artificial bidding system (of which the ?establishment? utterly disapproved). After days of consideration he agreed to compete. After months of bidding practice with my partner, 48 hours before the event Reese phoned me to confirm his attendance, adding that he was looking forward to ?our playing together.? I was surprised, as it had not occurred to me to ask, or that he would have even considered playing with me. I said there had been a misunderstanding, which he immediately accepted. Seeking a partner (Jeremy Flint declined as he was abroad), Reese finally persuaded a reluctant Jack Albuquerque, a London rubber bridge player, who had but a few hours to study the complexities of the Little Major from scratch! GCH Fox reported the result in The Daily Telegraph: 1 T Burger/D Rex-Taylor; 2 JT Reese ! For me it was an unwelcome Pyrrhic victory. At his suggestion, I partnered Reese in another of the congress events, and when I misdefended, he remarked, ?Partner, you really butchered that one!? Following the congress, we stayed in touch. I published (imprint Bibliagora) titles by Victor Mollo, Rhoda Lederer, Maurice Harrison-Gray, Reese and Flint, and reprinted the rare first bridge book ?Biritch,? and was IBPA executive editor from 1982 to 2001, when sudden serious illness forced immediate retirement. Although I am Russian-speaking and enjoyed chatting with Mollo and Schapiro, I was never in an appropriate situation to discuss the cheating allegations with Boris. Equally, I had never planned to raise the subject with Terence, and it was several years before the alleged cheating surfaced in conversation. I had managed to insert the remark that Schapiro had said, at the time, words to the effect of, ?That wicked man made me do it.? A long, uneasy, painful silence followed. Then, following my agreement with his strict confidentiality and 40-year embargo insistence, he said, ?Hardly fair comment by Boris, wickedness didn?t come into it.? Now taking notes, I was further startled by his measured insistence that I was to understand that the versions of events in his and Alan Truscott?s books were ?by no means mutually exclusive, but rather jointly conclusive,? adding that, ?motives aside, both were, for practical purposes, collectively exhaustive.? He went on to confide that in the sixties he had been planning to write a highly-researched, in-depth book on cheating at cards and other indoor games and activities, commenting that he despised cheats, that success and winning solely on merit was cardinal, and that cheats in any activity should be pilloried and their methods exposed. He had discussed the material with Boris but had planned sole authorship. He felt that the book would have done very well, and was to have been first published in the United States, possibly with the title, ?Grand Theft ? Cheating.? I recently learned that in the 50s, Reese made two BBC radio broadcasts on cheating. He persuaded a reluctant Boris Schapiro that, as world champions, it would be quite unthinkable that they would cheat, that no one would even be paying attention to such an idea, and that in any event, absolutely no signalled information would be used in any way whatsoever during their actual play. Consequently, as this was merely a purposeful security exercise, they would definitely not be cheating ? it would simply be a constructive illusion, establishing a crucial point about a despicable practice. Certainly, he said, a competitive advantage could be obtained by finger-signalling heart holdings whilst holding one?s cards. Their exercise had the single positive aim conclusively to establish in a ?live? situation that cheating could be practised undetected, such research establishing that urgent remedial action was needed. A reluctant Boris finally agreed, strictly on the understanding, firstly, that the whole exercise be revealed in full detail in the book on cheating, with analyses to prove that they had both acted honourably throughout the play of the hands, as if they indeed had no prior knowledge of the heart distribution, so confirming their ?worthy innocent objective,? and secondly, that publication should be a matter of priority. Reese?s brainwave was atypically a disastrous miscalculation. Although judged not guilty in the UK at a hearing widely considered to be flawed by blatant cherry-picking of both evidence and witnesses, elsewhere the pair were deemed proven guilty. Security was, of course, duly increased, but Reese could not reveal the true explanation at the time as the very objective of his extraordinary operation ? effectively an author?s failed publicity stunt ? had so spectacularly backfired in abject failure. Pleading anything but innocence was therefore not an option for either player. Instead of the cheating book, Reese said that he and Flint would write a soft-porn novel, ?Trick Thirteen,? based on cheating, real-life antics off the bridge table in hotel bedrooms at international bridge tournaments. As requested by Reese, I published the paperback edition. Sales were insignificant and as the publisher I arranged for all unsold copies of both hardcover and paperbacks to be destroyed. So, as requested, after forty years, I have provided a mouthpiece in order for Terence Reese to explain hese exceptional matters to the world from beyond the grave. He was unrepentant. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 23 02:09:07 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Jun 23 02:09:45 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <003a01c57737$8870d610$a1255244@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Craig wrote: [snip] >In any case, the situation is such that R&S have certainly >not been proven guilty beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT, [snip] Richard quibbles: I agree with the principle that "beyond reasonable doubt" should apply to all disciplinary rulings, especially to rulings under Law 73B2: "The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion." I disagree with Craig's use of the adverb "certainly". In my opinion "certainly" is an unwarranted overstatement. A contemporaneous WBF committee did not have any reasonable doubts about the guilt of Reese and Schapiro. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Thu Jun 23 03:35:01 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu Jun 23 03:31:44 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <002301c57783$b7cca370$6601a8c0@cktdell> Message-ID: I wondered, when this thread started, if there was some new development I wasn't aware of. I see that there is. On the whole I think it's a very convincing view of something Reese might have done. I do recall reading somewhere about some investigations into how one might cheat if one wanted to - I thought it was early 60s rather than late 50s. I had had the impression since I first heard of Buenos Aires that he had really been signalling but didn't have any reason to except academic interest. The timing of the release of the story is a bit suspicious - right after Deep Throat and right at the 40th anniversary of the event. It seems like it would have been a good precaution for him to have the manuscript prepared except for the last chapter before he went to BA, rather than just say he wanted to write such a book. Incidentally, I have one of those rare surviving copies of "Trick Thirteen" in my collection. It is quite a fun book in its way, dirtier but bridgewise as good of a read as many of the other bridge novels out there. Maybe he was just 10 or 20 years too early to start that genre? GRB From bacao at didamail.com Thu Jun 23 06:15:23 2005 From: bacao at didamail.com (Kathryn Holman) Date: Thu Jun 23 05:18:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Your low mortage rate Message-ID: <571c.fsf@calle11.net> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h3ll0.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Elwood Xiong to be remov(ed: http://www.h3ll0.com/deletion.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 Jun 23 06:11:18 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Jun 23 06:19:43 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower: [snip] >Incidentally, I have one of those rare surviving copies >of "Trick Thirteen" in my collection. It is quite a fun >book in its way, dirtier but bridgewise as good of a >read as many of the other bridge novels out there. > >Maybe he was just 10 or 20 years too early to start that >genre? Richard Hills: The bridge novel which has, in my opinion, the most verisimilitude is Tickets To The Devil. It has an ensemble cast of recognisable bridge archetypes. (A part of the climax is a realistic depiction of a Conduct and Ethics committee hearing). Blmlers might perceive a resemblance between me and its eccentric character Hoffmeister (proud inventor of the Hoffmeister 1NT convention). :-) For the information of any blml newbies interested in eccentric relay conventions, copies of my Hoffmeisterish Symmetric Relay system will be emailed on request. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Jun 23 10:42:31 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Jun 23 10:44:27 2005 Subject: [blml] naive Message-ID: <20050623084231.0AAB7EB2F7@poczta.interia.pl> > While you are entitled to your own opinion, however mistaken :-), I find it > > interesting that Story of An Accusation makes the clearest case for > innocence of anything I have read and find it astonishing that it should > make you more inclined to think otherwise that Truscott's writings. Please > > reread and consider the bridge evidence! I take it as a proven fact that he held his cards with a different number of fingers - they *both* did it. Both Schapiro and Reese held their cards with a different number of fingers from deal to deal. I went as far as to observing bridge players during tournaments to check if it happens to people and I haven't seen anyone do it; I haven't seen anyone hold his cards in a V formation (as I can see Reese does on pictures that were taken). I refuse to believe that it was unintentional - I have never met anyone holding his cards with varying number of fingers and here is *two* men who do exactly this and, what a coincidence, thay play as a pair. That alone, in my view, is sufficient to ban a pair like that for lifetime; this is an identical case that of Facchini - Zucchelli. If you intentionally touch your partner's foot under the table then I really don't need further evidence. If someone consistently tilted his head to look at your hand deal after deal assuring you at the same time that he didn't see anything wouldn't you call the TD to complain about unethical tactics? Would you expect the TD to tell the guy to stop it or should the TD rather examine "bridge evidence" first and, if the hands don't prove beyond reasonable doubt that the guy actually used any information from looking at your hand, let him continue his tactics? 99,9999999999% of bridge players somehow are able to refrain themselves from foot-tapping or from holding their cards in a atypical manner - only those guys were not. So let them play elsewhere. ____________________ Cibor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dziewczyny z Warszawy... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1894 From villas at fadmail.com Thu Jun 23 14:33:15 2005 From: villas at fadmail.com (Lizzie Rowell) Date: Thu Jun 23 13:39:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Dont miss out on low rates Message-ID: <20041wliez3.ED8DA244AE@mailhost1p.lists.techtarget.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h3ll0.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Teddy Darling to be remov(ed: http://www.h3ll0.com/deletion.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 blml at blakjak.com Thu Jun 23 17:28:56 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Jun 23 17:31:47 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <006001c576df$789ac280$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050621160957.04d8aeb0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <9EUADgif4AuCFwFa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006001c576df$789ac280$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: craig wrote >Terrence and Boris know. If they can live with their consciences, I see >no reason to adjudge them other than innocent until proven >guilty...which the bridge evidence clearly did NOT do. If we nust burn >anything, it must be columns of the NY Times. How can bridge players of >two of the greatest Western democracies deny such a fundamental >principal of justice as the presumption of innocence. Whatever has >changed your mind at this late date Tony? And didn't your national >authority proclaim innocence after investigation David? Let's have a >heart guys. :) No. They were found not guilty, not innocent. But that is normal in Great Britain, and in other places that have developed their Laws-ideas from British ideas. However, it seems incredible to me that anyone can believe that something just said now when the accused have no chance of answering it. Suppose I were to say that ********* cheated when playing bridge against me in university 40 years ago, and he is well-known now. Would you just assume I was right and hold it against him for the rest of his life with no further evidence? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Thu Jun 23 17:45:55 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Jun 23 17:49:48 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <20050623084231.0AAB7EB2F7@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050623084231.0AAB7EB2F7@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote >I take it as a proven fact that he held >his cards with a different number >of fingers - they *both* did it. You can take anything as a proven fact but the evidence is that there was doubt. If the whole business had not been so completely mishandled Perhasp there would be proven facts. >Both Schapiro and Reese held their >cards with a different number >of fingers from deal to deal. >I went as far as to observing >bridge players during tournaments >to check if it happens to people >and I haven't seen anyone do it; >I haven't seen anyone hold his >cards in a V formation (as I can >see Reese does on pictures that were taken). If you look carefully at other people you will find that they have individual habits. Maybe someone always holds his cards in his left hand until he fans them when he transfers them to his right hand. I have known someone who did just that. Would you say *he* was a cheat because he had an individual style that others do not have? >I refuse to believe that it was >unintentional - I have never met >anyone holding his cards with >varying number of fingers and here >is *two* men who do exactly this >and, what a coincidence, thay play >as a pair. That alone, in my view, is sufficient >to ban a pair like that for lifetime; >this is an identical case that of >Facchini - Zucchelli. If you intentionally >touch your partner's foot under the >table then I really don't need >further evidence. If someone >consistently tilted his head >to look at your hand deal after deal assuring >you at the same time that he >didn't see anything wouldn't you >call the TD to complain about >unethical tactics? Would >you expect the TD to tell the guy >to stop it or should the TD rather examine >"bridge evidence" first and, if the >hands don't prove beyond reasonable >doubt that the guy actually used >any information from looking at your >hand, let him continue his tactics? The problem is that you are assuming allegations were true. Perhaps they were, but there is nowhere near the certainty oyu suggest. >99,9999999999% of bridge players somehow >are able to refrain themselves from >foot-tapping or from holding their >cards in a atypical manner - only >those guys were not. So let them play >elsewhere. This is completely untrue. Lots of people have a specific habit. Or are you saying that if we look at 10,000 people: 9,000 have no idiosyncratic habits. 998 have idiosyncratic habits - but they are not foot-tapping or holding cards differently 2 have idiosyncratic habits - they are foot-tapping or holding cards differently This proves that 2 people cheated, but the 998 did not because their habits are different? Sorry, it is totally illogical. Furthermore, after 1965 our group tended to look at other people's habits. Your percentage not only should be more like 60 rather than 99.9999999 but in the specific case of holding your cards differently at different times two of our small group did it - and I still do. --------------------------------------------------------- Did R&S cheat? I do not know, nor does anyone else. But there are one or two things that are clear: The case was mishandled. The certainty that accusers have shown is not justified by the facts. The repeated quotation of statistics that R&S did things others did not is wrong. As someone wrote on RGB recently, if R&S were tried under the American jury system on the evidence presented in BA and in England subsequently an American jury would find them not guilty. But that does not mean they did not do it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ardelm at bigpond.net.au Fri Jun 24 00:49:37 2005 From: ardelm at bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri Jun 24 00:51:39 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: References: <20050623084231.0AAB7EB2F7@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050624084731.041eceb0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> >from DWS: > As someone wrote on RGB recently, if R&S were tried under the American >jury system on the evidence presented in BA and in England subsequently >an American jury would find them not guilty. But that does not mean >they did not do it. At least the American jury would have appeared on National TV to say -we think he did it, there just wasnt enough evidence to convict. Tony (Sydney) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 23/06/2005 From blml at blakjak.com Fri Jun 24 01:53:23 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 24 01:56:26 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050624084731.041eceb0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <20050623084231.0AAB7EB2F7@poczta.interia.pl> <6.2.0.14.2.20050624084731.041eceb0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove wrote >>from DWS: > >> As someone wrote on RGB recently, if R&S were tried under the American >>jury system on the evidence presented in BA and in England subsequently >>an American jury would find them not guilty. But that does not mean >>they did not do it. >At least the American jury would have appeared on National TV to say >-we think he did it, there just wasnt enough evidence to convict. Exactly - and that is what we should say about R&S. Each person has a view, mine being we have no idea whether they cheated. But no-one has proof either way because of the way it was handled. New self-serving evidence which the accused cannot challenge hardly affects that. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Fri Jun 24 02:01:48 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 24 02:05:07 2005 Subject: [blml] MI or misbid? changed system In-Reply-To: <42B18BC6.4060005@t-online.de> References: <42AEA161.10106@hotmail.com> <42B01CB7.6000207@t-online.de> <42B135CF.1080401@hotmail.com> <42B18BC6.4060005@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus wrote >I think you owe your opps some kind of definitive statement. If it was >wrong the law will protect them, if it was right the law will protect >you. This is the DwS approach, which has no basis in Law. It means that you ***deliberately*** misinform your opponents as to your understanding, which is total anathema to most players. Since deliberate lying can hardly be good for the game, and is not required by the Laws, I do not recommend it. Just tell the truth - as he did - and that is good enough ethically. [s] >You have to take a position: weak or invitational. If your description >does not conform with partner`s hand the TD has to find out whether the >bid or the explanation was wrong, ruling either misbid or MI. Of course >you have to fill in the opps with the background (system change), but >they need something to work with. Imagine 1D - P - 2S. The next player >may well have different agreements about Double, depending on the >strength of 2S. So he needs a committal answer to the question: what is >the meaning of 2S? I recommend that if you do not know, you tell them. Sure, it could perhaps have been made clearer. Furthermore, they could now have got protection from the TD, who would have asked North - outside South's hearing - whether they had an agreement about this bid. If so, then North would have told the opponents what it was. >In your case I would have ruled that your explanation was tantamount to >"invitatonal" (maybe.... doesn`t help your opps), tried to find out the >agreed meaning (weak from what you explained about your system) and >ruled accordingly. MI in this case. Tantamount. The word makes me squirm. The only time I ever hear it is when someone is trying to say that someone else doe snot mean what he says. Let's stick to honesty, ok? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From craigstamps at comcast.net Fri Jun 24 02:52:35 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Fri Jun 24 02:54:32 2005 Subject: [blml] naive References: <20050623084231.0AAB7EB2F7@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <002201c57857$056f3830$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] naive > Konrad Ciborowski wrote >>I take it as a proven fact that he held >>his cards with a different number >>of fingers - they *both* did it. > > You can take anything as a proven fact but the evidence is that there > was doubt. If the whole business had not been so completely mishandled > Perhasp there would be proven facts. > >>Both Schapiro and Reese held their >>cards with a different number >>of fingers from deal to deal. >>I went as far as to observing >>bridge players during tournaments >>to check if it happens to people >>and I haven't seen anyone do it; >>I haven't seen anyone hold his >>cards in a V formation (as I can >>see Reese does on pictures that were taken). > > If you look carefully at other people you will find that they have > individual habits. Maybe someone always holds his cards in his left > hand until he fans them when he transfers them to his right hand. I > have known someone who did just that. Would you say *he* was a cheat > because he had an individual style that others do not have? > >>I refuse to believe that it was >>unintentional - I have never met >>anyone holding his cards with >>varying number of fingers and here >>is *two* men who do exactly this >>and, what a coincidence, thay play >>as a pair. That alone, in my view, is sufficient >>to ban a pair like that for lifetime; >>this is an identical case that of >>Facchini - Zucchelli. If you intentionally >>touch your partner's foot under the >>table then I really don't need >>further evidence. If someone >>consistently tilted his head >>to look at your hand deal after deal assuring >>you at the same time that he >>didn't see anything wouldn't you >>call the TD to complain about >>unethical tactics? Would >>you expect the TD to tell the guy >>to stop it or should the TD rather examine >>"bridge evidence" first and, if the >>hands don't prove beyond reasonable >>doubt that the guy actually used >>any information from looking at your >>hand, let him continue his tactics? > > The problem is that you are assuming allegations were true. Perhaps > they were, but there is nowhere near the certainty oyu suggest. > >>99,9999999999% of bridge players somehow >>are able to refrain themselves from >>foot-tapping or from holding their >>cards in a atypical manner - only >>those guys were not. So let them play >>elsewhere. > > This is completely untrue. Lots of people have a specific habit. Or > are you saying that if we look at 10,000 people: > > 9,000 have no idiosyncratic habits. > 998 have idiosyncratic habits - but they are not foot-tapping or > holding cards differently > 2 have idiosyncratic habits - they are foot-tapping or holding > cards differently > > This proves that 2 people cheated, but the 998 did not because their > habits are different? Sorry, it is totally illogical. > > Furthermore, after 1965 our group tended to look at other people's > habits. Your percentage not only should be more like 60 rather than > 99.9999999 but in the specific case of holding your cards differently at > different times two of our small group did it - and I still do. > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Did R&S cheat? I do not know, nor does anyone else. But there are > one or two things that are clear: > > The case was mishandled. > The certainty that accusers have shown is not justified by the facts. > The repeated quotation of statistics that R&S did things others did > not is wrong. > > As someone wrote on RGB recently, if R&S were tried under the American > jury system on the evidence presented in BA and in England subsequently > an American jury would find them not guilty. But that does not mean > they did not do it. > - > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From craigstamps at comcast.net Fri Jun 24 03:19:54 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Fri Jun 24 03:21:46 2005 Subject: [blml] naive References: <20050623084231.0AAB7EB2F7@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <002901c5785a$d44245f0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> > Did R&S cheat? I do not know, nor does anyone else. But there are > one or two things that are clear: > > The case was mishandled. > The certainty that accusers have shown is not justified by the facts. > The repeated quotation of statistics that R&S did things others did > not is wrong. > > As someone wrote on RGB recently, if R&S were tried under the American > jury system on the evidence presented in BA and in England subsequently > an American jury would find them not guilty. But that does not mean > they did not do it. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ People are innocent until PROVEN guilty. R&S have not been proven guilty. There is more than reasonable doubt of their guilt. There is considerable bridge evidence to indicate either their innocense or amateurish stupidity and bridge ineptitude. No one has even demonstrated that either is stupid or inept at bridge. Therefore they are innocent. As you say, we cannot conclusively prove the negative that they did not do it. But Napoleon lost at Waterloo. Guilty until proven innocent was his code and hopefully was exiled to Elba along with its proponents. After 40 years no one has been able to establish guilt. Let us continue to presume innocence. which in my opinion they are. After all they didn't hold mid-deal meetings in the WC now, did they? And no one has ever attempted to impute anything more to Meckwell than carelessness, bad timing, and a failure to behave as would befit Caesar's wife. Nor should they; they too are innocent until proven guilty, and their unfortunate conduct punished adequately by the embarrassing publicity. There seems to be an overwhelming tendency on the part of those who can't to calumnize those who can. I have personnally witnessed unjutified attacks on Boyd-Robinson in a sectional by a pair who were just outplayed. Fortunately kibitzers and those of us well aware of that pair's high ethical standards had the accusers reprimanded promptly (this was before zero tolerance unfortunately so they never go the suspension they deserved). Also was victimized by the MIT crew that was expelled from the DC nationals 20 some years ago, and was careful to make no accusations, just suggest to tourney officials they be watched carefully. They were easily hoist by their own petard. Alan T has never satisfactorily explained why the suspicions voiced against R&S could turn up so little hard evidence even when they were under observation. As you say, the matter was mishandled. That is hardly the fault of those likely falsely accused; if innocent, which the bridge evidence strongly suggests, they deserved apology (and still do) from accusers who could prove no cheating. Instead, they spent years in the position of the man asked if he were still beating his wife. I cannot prove that I have never cheated at bridge, nor, I doubt can any one of us. That does not mean we didn't do it. But at least most, and perhaps all, of us did not. We should bot be so accused absent clear and convincing proof. In that same absense R&S have been most unjustly and probably unfairly maligned. Craig Senior usa From craigstamps at comcast.net Fri Jun 24 03:42:38 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Fri Jun 24 03:44:30 2005 Subject: [blml] naive References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050621160957.04d8aeb0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au><9EUADgif4AuCFwFa@blakjak.demon.co.uk><006001c576df$789ac280$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <003001c5785e$012ecb30$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> --- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" > craig wrote >>Terrence and Boris know. If they can live with their consciences, I see no >>reason to adjudge them other than innocent until proven guilty...which the >>bridge evidence clearly did NOT do. If we nust burn anything, it must be >>columns of the NY Times. How can bridge players of two of the greatest >>Western democracies deny such a fundamental principal of justice as the >>presumption of innocence. Whatever has changed your mind at this late date >>Tony? And didn't your national authority proclaim innocence after >>investigation David? Let's have a heart guys. :) > > No. They were found not guilty, not innocent. (CRAIG) This is semantically and technically the correct verdict. But it means that have NOT been proven guilty. If they have not been proven guilty, then they must be PRESUMED innocent. I should have written more accurately, didn't they proclaim him noit guilty therefore mandating a continuation of the presumption of innocence. (DAVID) But that is normal in > Great Britain, and in other places that have developed their Laws-ideas > from British ideas. > > However, it seems incredible to me that anyone can believe that > something just said now when the accused have no chance of answering it. Not only incredible but insufferable and despicable. Newly discovered evidence, if indeed there be such a thing, must be fully tested for its accuracy, applicability, and probative value before any renewed accusation should be brought. What do we have? Recently discovered films of the play? Tape recordings or longhand notes arranging the unlawful communication? Nothing of the sort of course, for it does not exist. The ONLY IMPARTIAL evidence is that bridge evidence which was clearly and impartially recorded. And it no more now, than then, sustains a charge of cheating. You do nor have to prove innocence, it is the natural state until proof of wrongdoing removes it. > > Suppose I were to say that ********* cheated when playing bridge against > me in university 40 years ago, and he is well-known now. Would you just > assume I was right and hold it against him for the rest of his life with > no further evidence? First off, knowing that are not one to keep your own counsel on such a matter, being rather more outspoken and more likely (and justly) publicly to take unbrage at such a condition at the time, I would severely doubt that were it true you would have kept silent. I would be more likely to credit your memory and accuracy of the allegation than most because of your great knowledge of the game and what would truly constitute cheating that would be the case with most accusers. But I could only assume that for you to make such an unpleasant accusation at this late date that either 1. Mad Dog had convinced you to match him drink for drink in a 96 board match 2. You were being too dryly humourous and were taken seriously or, most likely 3. both of the above. I would give as much weight to such testimony as it deserved...which would probably be asymtotic to zero. Were someone else to make such an accusation, I would be even less likely to take it as either serious or accurate, absent the most compelling additional evidence of culpability. Even then I would be unlikely to hold it against the accused for a lifetime. As G&S proclaimed in song "let the punishment fit the crime." Craig Senior > From craigstamps at comcast.net Fri Jun 24 03:57:54 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Fri Jun 24 03:59:45 2005 Subject: [blml] naive References: Message-ID: <004e01c57860$23188450$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> OK, I'll bite. Just what is this "new evidence"? So far I have only seen the source identified as the New York Times, certainly not an unbiased one. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: blml@rtflb.org Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 9:35 PM Subject: RE: [blml] naive > > I wondered, when this thread started, if there was some new development I > wasn't aware of. I see that there is. > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From brock at yahoo.com Thu Jun 23 22:10:13 2005 From: brock at yahoo.com (Handler) Date: Fri Jun 24 04:12:11 2005 Subject: [blml] incredible prices for best drugs Message-ID: <002b01c54b50$10e49590$de01a8c0@wlnfnf> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050624/7decb3da/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 24 04:17:43 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Jun 24 04:21:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-09 & N-10 References: Message-ID: <006001c57862$f1008b40$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" >Marv wrote > > Please suggest a rational line of play that would result in only 8 > > tricks for E-W. The defense to get 9 tricks is semi-automatic, I don't > > see a role for judgement.. > > After the SK led and ducked 1S+2 red tricks+2C looks pretty likely to me > (although I'd rule -5). Still, the AC are (I assume) better players than > am I and if they considered it worth overturning the TD ruling there is > no-one to blame but them (or those who appointed them). Okay, let's put this to rest. The contract is 3DX with West on lead: S A74 H QJ65 D 8 C KQJ98 S KQ6 S J532 H A832 H 9 D A53 D K9762 C 1075 C A43 S 1098 H K1074 D QJ104 C 62 Spade king led, ducked, spade queen led to the ace, king of clubs taken by East. Not great defense so far, leaving: S 4 H QJ65 D 8 C QJ98 S 6 S J3 H A832 H 9 D A53 D K9762 C 107 C 43 S 10 H K1074 D QJ104 C 2 Now it's easy, heart to the ace, heart ruff, spade jack cashed, diamond 9 to the ace (West needs the ace for his 1NT bid), heart ruff, spade jack cashed, leaving S H Q D C QJ98 S S 3 H 8 H D 53 D K9 C 107 C 43 S H K D QJ4 C 6 Now the 13th spade, which South must ruff high, West shaking a club, leaving: S H Q D C QJ9 S S H 8 H D 53 D K9 C 10 C 43 S H K D Q4 C 6 What can South do to take more than two tricks, for a total of four, down 1100? This is a very easy defense. The TD was right, and the AC was wrong to change his 1100 to 800, obviously without looking closely. Deep Finesse was just a few doors away in the Daily Bulletin office, after all. Maybe the AC should have a laptop on hand with Deep Finesse installed. They might have found a variation in which declarer takes only three tricks! I'll bet the TD looked into the play of 3DX very closely to arrive at the 1100 ruling, probably with peer consultation (automatic in NABC+ events). To have his good work cavalierly disregarded ist nicht gut. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From lindbloom at didamail.com Fri Jun 24 07:14:39 2005 From: lindbloom at didamail.com (Debra Kruse) Date: Fri Jun 24 06:29:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Notification: We offer low rates Message-ID: <171.39e558d5.2a9FCI44@gma.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h3ll0.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Harrison Roy to be remov(ed: http://www.h3ll0.com/deletion.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 Wed Jun 22 18:15:04 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Jun 24 06:58:20 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:34:43 EDT." <003a01c57737$8870d610$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <200506221615.JAA23810@mailhub.irvine.com> Craig wrote: > While you are entitled to your own opinion, however mistaken :-), I find it > interesting that Story of An Accusation makes the clearest case for > innocence of anything I have read and find it astonishing that it should > make you more inclined to think otherwise that Truscott's writings. Please > reread and consider the bridge evidence! In any case, the situation is such > that B&S have certainly not been proven guilty beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT, > thus they are entitled to the presumption of innocence under the legal > traditions of both the USA and UK. Neither the USA nor the UK is planning on rounding up Reese or Schapiro and putting them in jail (and neither is Poland), so I don't see how this is pertinent. Legal traditions aren't an issue here. There's no _a priori_ reason to believe that the same standards that we use to determine whether our legal system should treat someone as a criminal, are the same standards we should use to determine what we *think* about someone's guilt or innocence. A jury found that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Michael Jackson of the crimes he was charged with, but there's nothing morally wrong with an individual person believing that he actually committed them anyway. -- Adam From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Fri Jun 24 07:44:35 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri Jun 24 07:41:17 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <002901c5785a$d44245f0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: > > As someone wrote on RGB recently, if R&S were tried under the American > > jury system on the evidence presented in BA and in England subsequently > > an American jury would find them not guilty. But that does not mean > > they did not do it. An interesting claim. I am not sure I buy it - it depends a bit on what they were being tried for, and a lot on how talented the lawyers were. (And if there is one lesson to be learned from "Story of an Accusation" its the absolute shambles it made to put a bunch of non-bridge-playing professional lawyers in charge of the hearing.) Just a few random thoughts: The current law book explictly makes *communicating* illegally grounds for expulsion. There is no need to demonstrate they made use of the information to expel them. ("Cheating," in the usual sense of the word, is grossly violating L73C, using UI in an attempt to win, but L73B is the piece if the book we throw at a finger-signaller.) So, yes, a jury would find R&S not guilty of "cheating" but could still find them guilty of more than enough to bar them from the game. Indeed, if Rex-Taylor's explanation is true, even if Reese produced the manuscript of his book and his signed statement not to take advantage, he would clear himself only of the L73C charges, and in the process confess to the L73B charges and guarantee that there would be some sort of serious punishment handed down. Perhaps the jury would think this was a mitigating circumstance and not impose a permanent expulsion. > People are innocent until PROVEN guilty. That's a nice principle in criminal law. It is, for better or (more likely) worse, NOT a principle of bridge jurisprudence. We take away people's good results on the basis of "could have known" not "knew" (L23) and in Britain they can rule a psychic is Red even if "the Director has not ruled that this player allowed for a psycher, merely that his actions are similar to that of a player who was allowing for a psyche." On this smaller scale, we tell people all the time "we can't prove you cheated in court, but the rules of the game allow us to impose exactly the same punishment on you as if you had been found guilty, without bothering to try you." So, Craig, it is not a matter of "continuing" to presume innocence under the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge - we already don't! *If* R&S are being unjustly maligned, they are by no means in a unique club. (We obviously disagree on how compelling the Buenos Aires evidence is, but we are both in good company there; I'm not trying to argue about the quality of the evidence in this post.) GRB From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Jun 24 11:50:38 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Jun 24 11:52:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-09 & N-10 In-Reply-To: <006001c57862$f1008b40$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <006001c57862$f1008b40$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <8cd425d1ab8292c66108e57ecfcf05ff@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 24 Jun 2005, at 03:17, Marvin French wrote: > > Okay, let's put this to rest. The contract is 3DX with West on lead: > > S A74 > H QJ65 > D 8 > C KQJ98 > > S KQ6 S J532 > H A832 H 9 > D A53 D K9762 > C 1075 C A43 > > S 1098 > H K1074 > D QJ104 > C 62 > > Spade king led, ducked, spade queen led to the ace, king of clubs > taken by East. Not great defense so far, leaving: How about a low diamond off table after winning the SA? Is East going to rise K? If not, an entry for a heart ruff has just been used up. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 24 11:53:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 24 11:55:56 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <002901c5785a$d44245f0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Craig wrote: > R&S have not been proven guilty. There is more than reasonable doubt > of their guilt. I was too young in 1965 to notice at the time so there may be errors in what follows but: R&S *were* found guilty of signalling by the "jury" in BA. That the due process was somewhere short of ideal is widely acknowledged. However, the statistical evidence of "signalling" is sufficiently clear-cut as to put this beyond reasonable doubt. Signalling is not, of itself, a breach of the current Law73b - an *exchange* of information requires that partner be watching the signals. This aspect was not considered (as far as I can tell) by the BA "jury". It is, IMO, a contravention of the current L74a. That a court can find a person guilty beyond reasonable doubt of an unspecified crime is somewhat peculiar - but guilty they were. The British "Jury" (with a mandate solely to sentence) was not legally empowered to overturn the finding of guilt. Anything they might have said to that effect is meaningless - the original conviction stands. An appropriate sentence does need the crime to be identified though. The British "Jury" found no evidence from the play analysis of a breach of L73b (fwiw my own analysis would have come to the same conclusion). So "guilty" of a proprietorial breach, not guilty of a serious "crime". That it takes a somewhat bizarre mindset to act in that way is not, IMO, in doubt. Had Mr Jackson been charged with "taking young boys to bed" the verdict would have been "guilty" - of course I'm not sure what the crime would be and I can't begin to understand the mindset involved. Tim From blml at blakjak.com Fri Jun 24 13:52:15 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 24 13:55:07 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: References: <002901c5785a$d44245f0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote >> People are innocent until PROVEN guilty. > >That's a nice principle in criminal law. It is, for better or (more >likely) worse, NOT a principle of bridge jurisprudence. We take away >people's good results on the basis of "could have known" not "knew" (L23) >and in Britain they can rule a psychic is Red even if "the Director has >not ruled that this player allowed for a psycher, merely that his actions >are similar to that of a player who was allowing for a psyche." When making rulings about hands we go on preponderance of evidence, and basically act as a civil court would, because we are deciding between two sides. But a disciplinary hearing or similar, proof *is* required. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Fri Jun 24 13:57:22 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 24 14:00:28 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: References: <002901c5785a$d44245f0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >Craig wrote: > >> R&S have not been proven guilty. There is more than reasonable doubt >> of their guilt. > >I was too young in 1965 to notice at the time so there may be errors in >what follows but: > >R&S *were* found guilty of signalling by the "jury" in BA. That the due >process was somewhere short of ideal is widely acknowledged. However, the >statistical evidence of "signalling" is sufficiently clear-cut as to put >this beyond reasonable doubt. The statistical evidence is nowhere near clear-cut, and that is part of the original shambles. To quote one minor offering in the original evidence: K7 QJT654 K62 43 OK, I made up the hand, but it was something like this. Part of the prosecution case was that no-one would make a strong jump overcall on this hand unless they knew partner's heart length, presumably because a good heart fit would make raises form partner pretty safe. The defence case was that they were playing weak jump overcalls - and they were!!!!!!!! Now, I know this hand *proves* nothing - except a lack of competence - but if you look yourself at the statistical evidence it is not conclusive. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 24 14:40:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 24 14:42:12 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > The statistical evidence is nowhere near clear-cut, and that is part > of the original shambles. > > To quote one minor offering in the original evidence: And then goes on to produce a hand rather than statistics! The only thing relevant to *signalling* on any hand is the recorded finger positions and the heart length. The level of correlation was sufficiently high that randomness was hugely improbable. The actual figures were published on RGB a while back and anybody who wished could have checked the likelihood of independence (extremely low) - I did look myself and while my stats knowledge is far from expert I believe it sufficient to make that particular judgement. The expert statisticians on RGB were, IIRC, in broad agreement. Tim From blml at blakjak.com Fri Jun 24 16:15:07 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 24 16:18:09 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >DWS wrote: > >> The statistical evidence is nowhere near clear-cut, and that is part >> of the original shambles. >> >> To quote one minor offering in the original evidence: > >And then goes on to produce a hand rather than statistics! That hand was part of the quoted statistics. >The only thing relevant to *signalling* on any hand is the recorded finger >positions and the heart length. The level of correlation was sufficiently >high that randomness was hugely improbable. If that is all you mean, the same applies: people who look at the data without bias have concluded: There was no noticeable correlation whatever The correlation was complete and obvious It was easy to see how they held their cards It was very difficult to see how they held their cards and so on. The level of correlation is not something one can quote as absolute. > The actual figures were >published on RGB a while back and anybody who wished could have checked >the likelihood of independence (extremely low) - I did look myself and >while my stats knowledge is far from expert I believe it sufficient to >make that particular judgement. The expert statisticians on RGB were, >IIRC, in broad agreement. The data was flawed, so deriving statistics from it seems wrong. I find it strange how many people are willing to derive conclusions from a lack of data. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Jun 24 16:49:36 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Jun 24 16:51:40 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jun 24, 2005 03:15:07 PM Message-ID: <200506241449.j5OEnaPR029997@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> David Stevenson writes: > > Tim West-Meads wrote > >DWS wrote: > > > >> The statistical evidence is nowhere near clear-cut, and that is part > >> of the original shambles. > >> > >> To quote one minor offering in the original evidence: > > > >And then goes on to produce a hand rather than statistics! > > That hand was part of the quoted statistics. > > >The only thing relevant to *signalling* on any hand is the recorded finger > >positions and the heart length. The level of correlation was sufficiently > >high that randomness was hugely improbable. > > If that is all you mean, the same applies: people who look at the data > without bias have concluded: > > There was no noticeable correlation whatever Even Kehela didn't go that low. Both Kehela and Butler (in the sessions he didn't record his obsevations) estimated a 70% success rate. (Butler recorded his observations for 17 hands. 2 clear misses. 3 uncertain) There are 103 recorded observations aside from Butler (19 by Hayden, 9 by Gerber, 35 by Swimer and the rest by Oakie at Turin) and you pretty much have to resort to "biased recording" if you want to object to Tim's conclusions. I think it's a legitimate concern, and why I think "hugely improbable" is an overbid. > The correlation was complete and obvious > It was easy to see how they held their cards > It was very difficult to see how they held their cards The one person I'm aware of to actually experiment found that you can't state this in absolute terms. He found it easy to pick up with a straight on view but otherwise at least moderately difficult. This experiment is one reason I find Butler's evidence the most compelling. > and so on. > > The level of correlation is not something one can quote as absolute. > > > The actual figures were > >published on RGB a while back and anybody who wished could have checked > >the likelihood of independence (extremely low) - I did look myself and > >while my stats knowledge is far from expert I believe it sufficient to > >make that particular judgement. The expert statisticians on RGB were, > >IIRC, in broad agreement. > > The data was flawed, so deriving statistics from it seems wrong. > > I find it strange how many people are willing to derive conclusions > from a lack of data. From blml at blakjak.com Fri Jun 24 17:19:20 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Jun 24 17:22:15 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <200506241449.j5OEnaPR029997@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200506241449.j5OEnaPR029997@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: Ron Johnson wrote >David Stevenson writes: >> >> Tim West-Meads wrote >> >DWS wrote: >> > >> >> The statistical evidence is nowhere near clear-cut, and that is part >> >> of the original shambles. >> >> >> >> To quote one minor offering in the original evidence: >> > >> >And then goes on to produce a hand rather than statistics! >> >> That hand was part of the quoted statistics. >> >> >The only thing relevant to *signalling* on any hand is the recorded finger >> >positions and the heart length. The level of correlation was sufficiently >> >high that randomness was hugely improbable. >> >> If that is all you mean, the same applies: people who look at the data >> without bias have concluded: >> >> There was no noticeable correlation whatever > >Even Kehela didn't go that low. Both Kehela and Butler (in the >sessions he didn't record his obsevations) estimated a 70% >success rate. (Butler recorded his observations for 17 hands. >2 clear misses. 3 uncertain) > >There are 103 recorded observations aside from Butler >(19 by Hayden, 9 by Gerber, 35 by Swimer and the rest by >Oakie at Turin) and you pretty much have to resort to >"biased recording" if you want to object to Tim's >conclusions. Not me. But some of those recordings do not correlate if you do not want them to, and do correlate if you want them to. All the evidence that has been seen, and that includes what apparently Tim means by the statistics, is so subject to interpretation. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Jun 24 17:22:05 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Jun 24 17:24:04 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jun 24, 2005 12:52:15 PM Message-ID: <200506241522.j5OFM5S5000100@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> David Stevenson writes: > > Gordon Bower wrote > > >> People are innocent until PROVEN guilty. > > > >That's a nice principle in criminal law. It is, for better or (more > >likely) worse, NOT a principle of bridge jurisprudence. We take away > >people's good results on the basis of "could have known" not "knew" (L23) > >and in Britain they can rule a psychic is Red even if "the Director has > >not ruled that this player allowed for a psycher, merely that his actions > >are similar to that of a player who was allowing for a psyche." > > When making rulings about hands we go on preponderance of evidence, > and basically act as a civil court would, because we are deciding > between two sides. > > But a disciplinary hearing or similar, proof *is* required. What can I say? I know (from my involvement in similar types of discussions relating to baseball) that in the US all that's *required* is preponderance of evidence (and procedural fairness). What's more, the rules of evidence that courts use need not apply. (EG some critical evidence against Pete Rose might not have been admissable in a criminal trial) Different place, potentially different legal requirements. Having said that, it's certainly reasonable to decide that for matters of discipline (particularly cheating accusations) a higher standard of proof will be required. From urbanski at didamail.com Fri Jun 24 18:30:28 2005 From: urbanski at didamail.com (Cary Nelson) Date: Fri Jun 24 17:30:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Rates just dropped Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h3ll0.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Jason Wooten to be remov(ed: http://www.h3ll0.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From craigstamps at comcast.net Fri Jun 24 17:39:17 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Fri Jun 24 17:41:06 2005 Subject: [blml] naive References: <200506241522.j5OFM5S5000100@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <000e01c578d2$e21e50b0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> For shame Ron. Could you not have selected a more appropriate example than Bart's miscarriage of justice in the Rose case? You'd have thought he was a Harvard man! It was NEVER proven that Rose bet against his own team. It has never been proven that Reese and Shapiro were cheating. It never will be. At least in the Rose case there is hope that the overly draconian penalty may someday be reversed. Do bridge authorities have the right to regulate that cheating accusations require less than a reasonable doubt standard. Yes. Should they? No. Will they probably and rightly be sued if they err in the direction of unproven defamation? You betcha. Could they have known this???? BA was a long time ago and perhaps then you could get away with the sort of wild accusations and bad discipline that was involved (not to mention totally incompetent investigation). Were it to happen today, the Truscott's would be on the welfare line after R&S's lawyers got through with them. I was taught upon becoming a club director that an accusation of cheating that was not 100% proven was a more serious offense that cheating itself. I had to testify at a hearing that a fine player and fine person has accused a pair that appeared to use many understandings not on their convention card and to be less than complete in disclosure of their someone unusual methods of cheating. He got a three month suspension. The accused pair accepted that as sufficient and elected not to sue for damages. They likely would have prevailed.(The accuser had put away about three times the average imbibing that the Young Chelsean's reputedly do in a double sesssion of course...he normally has much better sense.) When you challange a players honesty and good name that is a very serious matter and none but the most stringent proof should be acceptable. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] naive > David Stevenson writes: >> >> Gordon Bower wrote >> >> >> People are innocent until PROVEN guilty. (actually I wrote >> >> this..Craig) (Gordon wrote the following ) >> > >> >That's a nice principle in criminal law. It is, for better or (more >> >likely) worse, NOT a principle of bridge jurisprudence. We take away >> >people's good results on the basis of "could have known" not "knew" >> >(L23) >> >and in Britain they can rule a psychic is Red even if "the Director has >> >not ruled that this player allowed for a psycher, merely that his >> >actions >> >are similar to that of a player who was allowing for a psyche." >> (Then DWS wrote this) >> When making rulings about hands we go on preponderance of evidence, >> and basically act as a civil court would, because we are deciding >> between two sides. >> >> But a disciplinary hearing or similar, proof *is* required. > (And Ron wrote this) > What can I say? I know (from my involvement in similar types > of discussions relating to baseball) that in the US all > that's *required* is preponderance of evidence (and procedural > fairness). What's more, the rules of evidence that courts > use need not apply. (EG some critical evidence against Pete > Rose might not have been admissable in a criminal trial) > > Different place, potentially different legal requirements. > > Having said that, it's certainly reasonable to decide that > for matters of discipline (particularly cheating accusations) > a higher standard of proof will be required. There! See, we ARE in substantial agreement after all. C. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Jun 24 17:43:58 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Jun 24 17:45:56 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jun 24, 2005 04:19:20 PM Message-ID: <200506241543.j5OFhwsL000298@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> David Stevenson writes: > > Ron Johnson wrote > >David Stevenson writes: > >> > >> Tim West-Meads wrote > >> >DWS wrote: > >> > > >> >> The statistical evidence is nowhere near clear-cut, and that is part > >> >> of the original shambles. > >> >> > >> >> To quote one minor offering in the original evidence: > >> > > >> >And then goes on to produce a hand rather than statistics! > >> > >> That hand was part of the quoted statistics. > >> > >> >The only thing relevant to *signalling* on any hand is the recorded finger > >> >positions and the heart length. The level of correlation was sufficiently > >> >high that randomness was hugely improbable. > >> > >> If that is all you mean, the same applies: people who look at the data > >> without bias have concluded: > >> > >> There was no noticeable correlation whatever > > > >Even Kehela didn't go that low. Both Kehela and Butler (in the > >sessions he didn't record his obsevations) estimated a 70% > >success rate. (Butler recorded his observations for 17 hands. > >2 clear misses. 3 uncertain) > > > >There are 103 recorded observations aside from Butler > >(19 by Hayden, 9 by Gerber, 35 by Swimer and the rest by > >Oakie at Turin) and you pretty much have to resort to > >"biased recording" if you want to object to Tim's > >conclusions. > > Not me. But some of those recordings do not correlate if you do not > want them to, and do correlate if you want them to. Nope. You can attempt to "lie with statistics", but people like David Grabiner will call you. > > All the evidence that has been seen, and that includes what apparently > Tim means by the statistics, is so subject to interpretation. In what way? For the record (courtesy of Dave Wallace) here are the 120 recorded observations. Observer,Session,Board,Player,Hearts,Fingers Hayden,BA1,111,Reese,2,2 Hayden,BA1,111,Schapiro,4,4 Hayden,BA1,112,Reese,4,4 Hayden,BA1,112,Schapiro,2,2 Hayden,BA1,113,Reese,3,3d Hayden,BA1,113,Schapiro,3,3 (later 4) Hayden,BA1,114,Reese,7,4wide Hayden,BA1,114,Schapiro,3,3 Hayden,BA1,115,Reese,4,3d Hayden,BA1,115,Schapiro,3,3? Hayden,BA1,116,Reese,3,3d Hayden,BA1,116,Schapiro,4,4 Hayden,BA1,119,Schapiro,4,4 Hayden,BA1,120,Schapiro,1,1 Hayden,BA1,121,Schapiro,5,2 Hayden,BA1,123,Reese,2,2 Hayden,BA1,123,Schapiro,4,4 Hayden,BA1,124,Reese,3,3d Hayden,BA1,124,Schapiro,3,3 Gerber,BA1,117,Reese,5,2V Gerber,BA1,118,Reese,4,3 Gerber,BA1,119,Reese,2,2 Gerber,BA1,120,Reese,4,4 Gerber,BA1,120,Schapiro,1,1 Gerber,BA1,121,Reese,1,1 Gerber,BA1,121,Schapiro,5,2 Gerber,BA1,122,Reese,5,2 Gerber,BA1,122,Schapiro,4,4 Swimer,BA2,126,Reese,5,2 Swimer,BA2,126,Schapiro,3,3 Swimer,BA2,127,Reese,0,Hand drop Swimer,BA2,127,Schapiro,6,3 Swimer,BA2,128,Reese,4,4 Swimer,BA2,128,Schapiro,3,3 Swimer,BA2,129,Schapiro,4,4 Swimer,BA2,130,Schapiro,4,4 Swimer,BA2,131,Schapiro,4,4 Swimer,BA2,132,Reese,5,2 Swimer,BA2,132,Schapiro,2,2 Swimer,BA2,133,Reese,3,3 Swimer,BA2,133,Schapiro,1,1 Swimer,BA2,134,Reese,4,4 Swimer,BA2,134,Schapiro,3,3 Swimer,BA2,135,Reese,3,3 Swimer,BA2,135,Schapiro,4,4 Swimer,BA2,136,Reese,4,4 Swimer,BA2,136,Schapiro,4,4 Swimer,BA2,137,Reese,3,3 Swimer,BA2,137,Schapiro,2,2 Swimer,BA2,138,Reese,3,3 Swimer,BA2,138,Schapiro,2,2 Swimer,BA2,139,Reese,1,1 Swimer,BA2,139,Schapiro,4,4 Swimer,BA2,140,Reese,3,3 Swimer,BA2,140,Schapiro,3,3 Swimer,BA2,141,Reese,5,2 Swimer,BA2,141,Schapiro,5,2 Swimer,BA2,142,Reese,4,4 Swimer,BA2,142,Schapiro,3,3 Swimer,BA2,143,Reese,4,4 Swimer,BA2,143,Schapiro,2,2 Swimer,BA2,144,Reese,3,3 Swimer,BA2,144,Schapiro,2,2 Butler,BA2,126,Reese,2,2? Butler,BA2,126,Schapiro,3,3 Butler,BA2,127,Reese,0,4 Butler,BA2,127,Schapiro,6,3 Butler,BA2,128,Reese,4,4 Butler,BA2,128,Schapiro,3,3? Butler,BA2,129,Reese,5,2=5 Butler,BA2,129,Schapiro,4,4 Butler,BA2,130,Reese,2,3? Butler,BA2,130,Schapiro,4,4 Butler,BA2,131,Reese,0,4 Butler,BA2,131,Schapiro,4,4 Butler,BA2,132,Reese,5,2=5 Butler,BA2,132,Schapiro,2,2 Butler,BA2,133,Reese,3,3 Butler,BA2,134,Reese,4,4 Butler,BA2,134,Schapiro,3,3 Oakie,Turin,?,Reese,?,4 Oakie,Turin,?,Reese,?,3 Oakie,Turin,25,Reese,2,2 Oakie,Turin,26,Reese,5,3 Oakie,Turin,27,Reese,6,3 Oakie,Turin,28,Reese,4,4 Oakie,Turin,29,Reese,3,3 Oakie,Turin,30,Reese,3,3 Oakie,Turin,31,Reese,1,1 Oakie,Turin,32,Reese,2,2 Oakie,Turin,33,Reese,3,3 Oakie,Turin,34,Reese,4,4 Oakie,Turin,35,Reese,5,1 Oakie,Turin,36,Reese,4,3 Oakie,Turin,37,Reese,4,3 Oakie,Turin,38,Reese,4,3 Oakie,Turin,39,Reese,2,2 Oakie,Turin,40,Reese,4,3 Oakie,Turin,41,Reese,3,3 Oakie,Turin,42,Reese,2,2 Oakie,Turin,43,Reese,2,2 Oakie,Turin,44,Reese,4,4 Oakie,Turin,45,Reese,2,2 Oakie,Turin,46,Reese,4,4 Oakie,Turin,47,Reese,2,2 Oakie,Turin,48,Reese,5,2 Oakie,Turin,49,Reese,4,4 Oakie,Turin,50,Reese,3,3 Oakie,Turin,50,Schapiro,2,2 Oakie,Turin,51,Reese,4,4 Oakie,Turin,52,Reese,2,2 Oakie,Turin,53,Reese,4,4 Oakie,Turin,54,Reese,3,3 Oakie,Turin,56,Reese,4,4 Oakie,Turin,56,Schapiro,3,3 Oakie,Turin,57,Reese,1,1 Oakie,Turin,57,Schapiro,3,3 Oakie,Turin,58,Schapiro,1,1 Oakie,Turin,59,Schapiro,2,2 Oakie,Turin,60,Schapiro,1,1 The five players, and circumstances of the note taking were: 1. Dorothy Hayden. These are her notes of the observations she and B.J. Becker made during Reese-Schapiro's match against Italy on Friday, May 21st (Becker noted Reese's fingers while Hayden observed Shapiro, then they compared notes). These are the original hands that were used to crack the code, in addition to one other hand she remembered from the earlier match against them where Reese had shown one finger holding a singleton heart. Obviously, these notes were taken before the code was known. Hayden's original handwritten notes were turned over to the London inquiry and lost there; the notes here are based on a typewritten transcript that survived. 2. John Gerber, the American captain, took notes during a few hands of the Friday match. These notes were also taken without knowledge of the code, and were not used in the code breaking done by Hayden, Becker, and Truscott later Friday night, but were checked against the newly determined code next morning. All but one hand matched. Two hands overlapped with Hayden and Becker's observations and confirmed them. 3. Ralph Swimer, the British captain, took notes during the Reese-Shapiro match against Argentina Saturday night. He and Butler did know the proposed code. Swimer's original notes were lost while in possession of the London inquiry; Truscott says that this record is based on the evidence submitted to the inquiry. 4. Goeffrey Butler, British delegate to the World Bridge Federation in Buenos Aires, took notes during the same session as Swimer. Many of his hands overlap with Swimer, but they fill in each other's gaps during the hands they both observed. 5. Don Oakie had been a member of the U.S. team in Turin during the 1960 world championship. There, he took notes showing a strong correlation between the hand and position in which Reese and Shapiro held their cards and their high card strength, and also made notes about the number of fingers showing, which went undecoded at the time. Truscott only learned about Oakie's notes after the London inquiry and the publication of Reese's book. Truscott was unable to correlate all of Oakie's notes immediately, because hands 41-60 were missing from the Turin book published by the ACBL. The missing hand records were eventually discovered as the ACBL was cleaning out some old records in preparation for a headquarters move. A photocopy of Oakie's original handwritten notes appears in Truscott's book. A couple of notes about the finger notations: Becker noted that several times it was difficult to tell whether Reese was showing 3 fingers or 4 from a distance; he had Hayden record a "3d" notation indicating 3 fingers plus a drooping pinkie on 4 boards where this was in question. Gerber added the "V" notation to the last board he observed (#117) after the session - he had noticed the finger position as he returned to the room after an absence, and it belatedly occurred to him that the position as well as the number of fingers might be important. The first two deals noted by Oakie don't have board numbers; Truscott notes that if you assume that these were boards 23 and 24 neither the code nor the HCP notes fit, but if they were 22 and 23 (and you assume that Oakie missed board 24 while hunting up pencil and paper to write notes), then they do (4 fingers on the first board and 3 on the second). From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 24 19:47:28 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Jun 24 19:50:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-09 & N-10 References: <006001c57862$f1008b40$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <8cd425d1ab8292c66108e57ecfcf05ff@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <002801c578e4$ccc0ef40$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Gordon Rainsford" < > > Marvin French wrote: > > > > > Okay, let's put this to rest. The contract is 3DX with West on lead: > > > > S A74 > > H QJ65 > > D 8 > > C KQJ98 > > > > S KQ6 S J532 > > H A832 H 9 > > D A53 D K9762 > > C 1075 C A43 > > > > S 1098 > > H K1074 > > D QJ104 > > C 62 > > > > Spade king led, ducked, spade queen led to the ace, king of clubs > > taken by East. Not great defense so far, leaving: > > > How about a low diamond off table after winning the SA? Is East going > to rise K? If not, an entry for a heart ruff has just been used up. > Not needed. East can rise or play the nine, and the only tricks South can take are two diamonds, one club, and one spade. The 13th spade is the killer, and it can be led anytime, letting West ditch a club if declarer ruffs high. There is one variation I found (but forget how it went) in which declarer ended up in his hand with 104 of diamonds and had to lead into East's K7. That reduced declarer's tricks to three, -1400. Please everyone, lay out the hand and play it out using your ideas (as the AC should have done) before suggesting them.as solutions.You will not get -800 unless E-W do something very stupid, like allowing South to take two club tricks by never leading that 13th spade or by overruffing it instead of ditching a club. The spade opening lead is necessary, but I think we can assume that (as the AC did). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Jun 24 20:21:10 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Jun 24 20:23:08 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <000e01c578d2$e21e50b0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> from "craig" at Jun 24, 2005 11:39:17 AM Message-ID: <200506241821.j5OILAYi001094@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> craig writes: > > For shame Ron. Could you not have selected a more appropriate example than > Bart's miscarriage of justice in the Rose case? It was selected for just that reason. Rose, the Black Sox affair and the Benny Kauff case clearly establish that a private enterprise is not bound by the constraints of the criminal justice system. > You'd have thought he was a > Harvard man! It was NEVER proven that Rose bet against his own team. True, but thae rule that he broke doesn't distinguish between betting for or against his team. And never has. I think it's for pragmatic reasons. Tough enough to prove the gamblng in the first place, never mind account for any bet. Baseball's got nothing to gain by permitting the players to gamble so it's adopted a simple, easy to understand rule. Doesn't attempt to prove damage, merely takes action against the potential. Clearly not the only choice for regulations. > It has > never been proven that Reese and Shapiro were cheating. It never will be. At > least in the Rose case there is hope that the overly draconian penalty may > someday be reversed. I expect him to be reinstated. I'll be less unhappy than many RSB regulars, but I think it's an error. > Do bridge authorities have the right to regulate that > cheating accusations require less than a reasonable doubt standard. Yes. > Should they? No. Will they probably and rightly be sued if they err in the > direction of unproven defamation? You betcha. I agree with all of this. It is of course unclear how any given defamation suit will play out. (Didn't Swimer end up suing Rixi Marcus) > Could they have known this???? > BA was a long time ago and perhaps then you could get away with the sort of > wild accusations and bad discipline that was involved (not to mention > totally incompetent investigation). Were it to happen today, the Truscott's > would be on the welfare line after R&S's lawyers got through with them. Unclear. Katz/Cohen is the best case I can think of (in the sense that it too was "handled") and the case never went to trial. Don't think it would be a slam dunk either way. Or to take another more recent case, the evidence I've seen in the John Blubaugh case does not seem to me to reach the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe there was more to it, maybe I'm just wrong. Blubaugh didn't sue for defamation. Maybe that says something. He did sue to have the verdict overturned, but from what I can tell the courts weren't interested in the evidence, only that he got a procedurally fair hearing. > I was taught upon becoming a club director that an accusation of cheating that > was not 100% proven was a more serious offense that cheating itself. I had > to testify at a hearing that a fine player and fine person has accused a > pair that appeared to use many understandings not on their convention card > and to be less than complete in disclosure of their someone unusual methods > of cheating. He got a three month suspension. That too seems reasonable to me. It's basically what happened with (to take a more famous player) Tobias Stone and the Italians at Como. Hell it's what's happened with baseball. It's quite clear that umpires are now instructed to take no action against a pitcher they think is altering the ball *unless* they can also produce the mechanism. In other words, a pitcher on the mound with pine tar, or an emery board *will* be suspended whether or not an umpire can produce an altered ball and won't be even if the umpire finds an altered ball. To get back to bridge, Stone could not substantiate his accusations and wouldn't withdraw them and was suspended. In the case of RS, any accusation would have the recorded observation (in other word, the mechanism is documaented) Whether that would be enough. ... Who knows. In the US, a good faith belief that what you say is true is generally enough, but proper procedures (if they even existed) hadn't been followed. > The accused pair accepted that > as sufficient and elected not to sue for damages. They likely would have > prevailed.(The accuser had put away about three times the average imbibing > that the Young Chelsean's reputedly do in a double sesssion of course...he > normally has much better sense.) When you challange a players honesty and > good name that is a very serious matter and none but the most stringent > proof should be acceptable. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Johnson" > To: > Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 11:22 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] naive > > > > David Stevenson writes: > >> > >> Gordon Bower wrote > >> > >> >> People are innocent until PROVEN guilty. (actually I wrote > >> >> this..Craig) (Gordon wrote the following ) > >> > > >> >That's a nice principle in criminal law. It is, for better or (more > >> >likely) worse, NOT a principle of bridge jurisprudence. We take away > >> >people's good results on the basis of "could have known" not "knew" > >> >(L23) > >> >and in Britain they can rule a psychic is Red even if "the Director has > >> >not ruled that this player allowed for a psycher, merely that his > >> >actions > >> >are similar to that of a player who was allowing for a psyche." > >> (Then DWS wrote this) > >> When making rulings about hands we go on preponderance of evidence, > >> and basically act as a civil court would, because we are deciding > >> between two sides. > >> > >> But a disciplinary hearing or similar, proof *is* required. > > (And Ron wrote this) > > What can I say? I know (from my involvement in similar types > > of discussions relating to baseball) that in the US all > > that's *required* is preponderance of evidence (and procedural > > fairness). What's more, the rules of evidence that courts > > use need not apply. (EG some critical evidence against Pete > > Rose might not have been admissable in a criminal trial) > > > > Different place, potentially different legal requirements. > > > > Having said that, it's certainly reasonable to decide that > > for matters of discipline (particularly cheating accusations) > > a higher standard of proof will be required. > > There! See, we ARE in substantial agreement after all. > C. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Ron Johnson (Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca), 613-947-5285 facsimile / tilicopieur 613-947-1408 Canada Center for Remote Sensing/ Centre Canadien de teledetection Natural Resources Canada, 588 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y7 Ressources naturelles Canada, 588 rue Booth, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0Y7 Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Jun 24 20:33:02 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Jun 24 20:35:06 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <003001c5785e$012ecb30$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> from "craig" at Jun 23, 2005 09:42:38 PM Message-ID: <200506241833.j5OIX396001200@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> craig writes: > > --- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > > > craig wrote > >>Terrence and Boris know. If they can live with their consciences, I see no > >>reason to adjudge them other than innocent until proven guilty...which the > >>bridge evidence clearly did NOT do. If we nust burn anything, it must be > >>columns of the NY Times. How can bridge players of two of the greatest > >>Western democracies deny such a fundamental principal of justice as the > >>presumption of innocence. Whatever has changed your mind at this late date > >>Tony? And didn't your national authority proclaim innocence after > >>investigation David? Let's have a heart guys. :) > > > > No. They were found not guilty, not innocent. > > (CRAIG) This is semantically and technically the correct verdict. But > it means that have NOT been proven guilty. If they have not been proven > guilty, then they must be PRESUMED innocent. Nonsense. To take a simple example, I'm under no compulsion to believe that O. J. Simpson did not kill two people. (And his subsequent loss in the civil trial is merely icing on the cake) From ooga at shaw.ca Fri Jun 24 21:14:36 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Fri Jun 24 21:16:52 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <002901c5785a$d44245f0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <20050623084231.0AAB7EB2F7@poczta.interia.pl> <002901c5785a$d44245f0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <42BC5B9C.1070809@shaw.ca> craig wrote: > There seems to be an overwhelming tendency on the part of those who > can't to calumnize those who can. I have personnally witnessed > unjutified attacks on Boyd-Robinson in a sectional by a pair who were > just outplayed. Fortunately kibitzers and those of us well aware of that > pair's high ethical standards had the accusers reprimanded promptly > (this was before zero tolerance unfortunately so they never go the > suspension they deserved). You've demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the intent of the ACBL Zero Tolerance program--it has nothing at all to do with cheating accusations. We didn't need ZT to deal effectively with cheating allegations, they was already handled under existing regulations. -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | Bruce McIntyre | email: ooga@shaw.ca | | 6636 Dow Ave., #203 | "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca" | | Burnaby BC CANADA | Editor, the Matchpointer | | V5H 3C9 604/438-9735 |(ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Publication)| }-----------------------?----------------------------------{ | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://www.unit430.com/IMPhome.htm | | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | www.unit430.com www.matchpointer.com | | (Projects I'll be working on in 2005) | `----------------------------------------------------------? From ooga at shaw.ca Fri Jun 24 21:45:49 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Fri Jun 24 21:48:08 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <000e01c578d2$e21e50b0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <200506241522.j5OFM5S5000100@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <000e01c578d2$e21e50b0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <42BC62ED.3030900@shaw.ca> craig wrote: > (...) I was taught > upon becoming a club director that an accusation of cheating that was > not 100% proven was a more serious offense that cheating itself. You were taught wrong. An accusation of cheating that is not 100% proven is only a serious offense if it is made IN PUBLIC. An accusation that is not proven but has considerable evidence in support can and should always be made to a tournament official in private. Under your rule, a player like Hayden who sees the finger signals has NO recourse whatever! Data and photos and deal analyses do not add up to 100% proof in your view; therefore, no accusation, public or private, should ever be made. Is that really what we want? Is that really what you mean? Becker, Hayden and Truscott did as best they could (losing many hours of sleep in the midst of a grueling world championship) to keep the accusation private until they had considerable--perhaps not 100%, but consderable--evidence. They probably should have gone to a TD, instead of the American NPC and Kehela once they had some data on the finger signals. -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | Bruce McIntyre | email: ooga@shaw.ca | | 6636 Dow Ave., #203 | "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca" | | Burnaby BC CANADA | Editor, the Matchpointer | | V5H 3C9 604/438-9735 |(ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Publication)| }-----------------------?----------------------------------{ | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://www.unit430.com/IMPhome.htm | | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | www.unit430.com www.matchpointer.com | | (Projects I'll be working on in 2005) | `----------------------------------------------------------? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 24 21:56:03 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Jun 24 21:59:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-09 & N-10 References: Message-ID: <003b01c578f6$c233f4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" (snips) > In your original post it was stated > "North explained that she thought 3D was natural at the time the bid was > made." Unless I have misunderstood Redwood the bid shows longer diamonds > than clubs and not 3+/3+ in the majors. Evidently there are many versions of Redwood out there. Over a strong notrump 2NT shows six clubs and four hearts, according to a version I have written by Mike Savage. Over a weak notrump the same meanings can be used as over strong, but most would play a double as business instead of clubs or hearts and a minor. Mike Savage says 2NT then shows clubs and hearts with length unspecified. However, the description of Redwood/S---- on David Stevenson's website says that when double is for penalties 2NTshows two suits of the same shape, SD or HC. South described the latter meaning, but North had evidently assumed the former, with 3D natural and unAlertable. > Thus, (unless 8221/2821 which I > have no idea how one bids), it promises 3+d. Certainly if a TD asked why > the 3D wasn't alerted "because it was natural" is a tolerable response and > not, of itself, indicative of having forgotten the system. NB, I'm not > saying it isn't alertable in the ACBL - only that I can understand a > player *thinking* it isn't alertable. Sure. North did nothing wrong at that point. She thought 3D should be natural and therefore unAlertable. ACBL TDs have differing opinions as to whether negative inferences should be Alerted. Some are adamant that they should not be, and I believe the ACBL has specifcally said somewhere that a raise made in lieu of a Support Double, promising four-card support, is not to be Alerted. The trouble with Alerting negative inferences is that it sometimes helps the bidding side more than their opponents. During the auction, the reply to any requested "explanation of the auction" should include all such information. The declaring side, of course, should explain all pertinent inferences before the opening lead is made, whether requested or not. > > I also note a "CD" in the subject reference. If that stands for what I > hope it doesn't then as far as I am concerned any appeal *automatically* > has merit. I had to look for that. Yes, I see now that the "subject" assigned by the writeup editor (not the TD or AC) was MI/CD, supposedly Misinformation/Convention Distruption. The "CD" can be ignored, as it was not mentioned by either the TD or the AC. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 24 23:27:11 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Jun 24 23:31:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-14 Message-ID: <005501c57903$967f11e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> CASE N-14 is a very difficult one. Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff IMP Pairs - 1st Final Brd: 12 Dlr: West Vul: NS S Q1076 H 42 D J873 C J102 S 93 S 42 H AJ H KQ8 D KQ65 D A104 C K9854 C AQ763 S AKJ85 H 1097653 D 92 C -- West North East South 1C Pass 2C(1) 3C 3H 3S Dbl(2) Pass 4C Pass 5C All Pass (1) Inverted, forcing, 5+ clubs, denies a 4-card major (2) BIT of about 15 seconds The Facts: The final contract was 5C by West making six for a score of +420 for EW after the S7 opening lead. The director was called when West began to think after East's double of 3S. The Ruling: The director ruled that the result stands per Law 16 - UI but pass by West not being a logical alternative. Double shows a good hand, not necessarily spades (consensus of experts polled). [mlf] ######### A common expert agreement is that when a pass would be forcing a direct double strongly discourages further bidding, while a pass is non-committal, partner can choose to bid or double. Further, to pass and pull a double is stronger than making the bid immediately. When a pass would not be forcing, a double just shows "cards," which means more strength than previous bidding has shown, while a pass denies that extra strength and partner is free to do anything, including pass. Perhaps the "experts" consulted thought that a pass by East would be non-forcing, but that doesn't seem right.. We don't know, however, whether E-W had firm agreements about this double when they didn't produce system notes that said so. In the absence of such evidence it has to be assumed that the double shows an unwillingness to bid further, East holding a minimum hand with reasonable defense, something like J109 Kxx Ax Qxxxx, probably enough to beat 3S while 4C might not make. For instance if South has 5=5=3=0 distribution 4C goes off one and 3S off two. East has other ways of showing "cards," after all, when he can't bid 3NT because of no spade stopper. With the hand actually held, for instance, he could have bid 4D or 5C to show extra values. So what does the hesitation demonstrably suggest? It suggests that West need not take the double too seriously if he has light defensive values (which he had), and that means bidding 4C. Was pass an LA? Yes, but it's close, considering that West had five clubs instead of a possible three. If N-S had not been vulnerable maybe passing would not be an LA, as +100 wouldn't make up for the loss of +130. ############ The Appeal: NS appealed and the hearing was attended by North, East and West. NS felt that pass, instead of 4C, was a logical alternative. Statements Made by the Other Side: 2C promises a 5-card suit with a limit raise or better. The vulnerable opponents have a 9+ card spade fit. We have little major suit defense. East is unlikely to have a spade stopper, from West's point of view, since she did not bid 3NT. We are unlikely to "get rich" defending 3S when we might have a slam. The double is only extra value showing and does not show spade honors. The 3S bid denies a spade stopper and is not game forcing. [mlf] The opponents are not known to have a nine-card spade fit, as North would bid 3S with a three-card suit. Extra values could have been shown by bidding 5C or cue bidding. There are times when only a double is available to show extra values, but this is not necessarily one of them. The Decision: The BIT was acknowledged by EW though they denied it was as long as 15 seconds as alleged by NS. The BIT suggested bidding (rather than passing) to the West hand. The pivotal issue was whether Pass was an LA. A logical alternative is an action some number of one's peers would have seriously considered and some would have taken. Notwithstanding West's explanations that East would not have a spade stopper and might have a slam going hand, the AC was doubtful that these represented partnership agreements. Although troubled by the 10 card club fit and the nine card spade fit, the AC decided that a significant number of West's peers would seriously consider passing and some of them would actually do so. This would lead to a doubled contract making. Accordingly, the AC judged this to be the appropriate adjustment and reciprocal scores of 730 were assigned. [mlf] What nine-card spade fit? The appeal was judged to have merit, obviously, since the result was changed to the appellants' favor. [mlf] Looks like mostly good reasoning to arrive at a good decision. Committee: Michael Huston, Chair, Danny Sprung, Ed Lazarus, Robert Schwartz and Aaron Silverstein My personal scorecard, scale of 0 to 1, with 1/2 for right ruling/decision but poor score adjustment TD AC N-00 1 1 (no comments) N-01 0 0 N-02 1 0 N-03 0 1/2 N-04 1 1 (no comments) N-05 1 0 N-06 1/2 1/2 N-07 1 1 (no comments) N-08 1 0 N--09 1 1 (no comments) N-10 1 1/2 N-11 1 1 N-12 1 1 (limited comments) N-13 1/2 1/2 N-14 0 1 (without great conviction) Total so far 12 8 out of 15 possible Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From meier at doneasy.com Sat Jun 25 01:55:36 2005 From: meier at doneasy.com (Denny Hooper) Date: Sat Jun 25 00:59:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Dont miss out on low rates Message-ID: <171.14e558d5.2a9GXU44@fhr.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h3ll0.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Kendrick Callahan to be remov(ed: http://www.h3ll0.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Jun 25 01:37:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Jun 25 01:39:08 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > The level of correlation is not something one can quote as absolute. Indeed not, but even taking the low-end estimates (around 0.7) for the level of correlation the odds of such correlation "by chance" are sufficiently low as to remove "reasonable" doubt. > The data was flawed, so deriving statistics from it seems wrong. The data was imperfect/incomplete - that is actually pretty normal for statistical analysis. It means one must apply a degree of caution to borderline conclusions but does not invalidate clear correlations (it seems unlikely that co-dependency would be an issue in this situation). > I find it strange how many people are willing to derive conclusions > from a lack of data. I find it bizarre that a bridge-player has difficulties drawing probabilistic conclusions from incomplete data. Away from the table data often become even less complete and yet one must still make decisions. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Jun 25 01:37:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Jun 25 01:39:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-09 & N-10 In-Reply-To: <003b01c578f6$c233f4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > I had to look for that. Yes, I see now that the "subject" assigned by > the writeup editor (not the TD or AC) was MI/CD, supposedly > Misinformation/Convention Distruption. The "CD" can be ignored, as it > was not mentioned by either the TD or the AC. Perhaps - but it might have been intimated by the TD at the table but not written down. I remain firmly of the opinion that if "convention disruption" is even hinted at an appeal *automatically* has merit :) Tim From YJSLHKKQG at hotmail.com Sat Jun 25 05:20:15 2005 From: YJSLHKKQG at hotmail.com (Lillian Herbert) Date: Sat Jun 25 04:22:24 2005 Subject: [blml] All Mens Need This 3iEl Message-ID: <26621130090241.CFB7240DE@.starnetusa.net> "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 $3.99 per tabs Cllick heree: http://genuinely.net/cs/?ronn o-ut of mai-lling lisst: http://genuinely.net/rm.php?ronn wbwS From craigstamps at comcast.net Sat Jun 25 05:01:33 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Sat Jun 25 05:03:27 2005 Subject: [blml] naive References: <200506241522.j5OFM5S5000100@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca><000e01c578d2$e21e50b0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> <42BC62ED.3030900@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <004701c57932$324908a0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> I stand by the original statement. The recorder should be notified that something suspicious is occuring, but you should never outright make an accusation of cheating without 100% proof. You do NOT call someone a cheat unless you atr totally certain...you simply report questionable behaviour and allow the appropriate authorities to investigate. Calling someone a cheat is a fine path to a broken nose and a broken bank account in addition to being despicable conduct by the accuser absent certainty. To the accusers' credit in BA they did NOT initially accuse B&S of cheating, they reported the suspicious conduct. The investigation was botched, and no accusation has ever been satisfactorily sustained at a level of certainty to prevent our debating the matter decades later. For that reason, B&S remain entitled to the presumption of innocence, even though I agree with DWS that they MAY have done it. I am far from convinced of that, as are many, and it would be reprehensible for me to consider them other than innocent in the absence of sufficent proof. Craig Senior ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce McIntyre" Cc: Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 3:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] naive craig wrote: > (...) I was taught upon becoming a club director that an accusation of > cheating that was not 100% proven was a more serious offense that cheating > itself. You were taught wrong. An accusation of cheating that is not 100% proven is only a serious offense if it is made IN PUBLIC. An accusation that is not proven but has considerable evidence in support can and should always be made to a tournament official in private. Under your rule, a player like Hayden who sees the finger signals has NO recourse whatever! Data and photos and deal analyses do not add up to 100% proof in your view; therefore, no accusation, public or private, should ever be made. Is that really what we want? Is that really what you mean? Becker, Hayden and Truscott did as best they could (losing many hours of sleep in the midst of a grueling world championship) to keep the accusation private until they had considerable--perhaps not 100%, but consderable--evidence. They probably should have gone to a TD, instead of the American NPC and Kehela once they had some data on the finger signals. -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | Bruce McIntyre | email: ooga@shaw.ca | | 6636 Dow Ave., #203 | "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca" | | Burnaby BC CANADA | Editor, the Matchpointer | | V5H 3C9 604/438-9735 |(ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Publication)| }-----------------------?----------------------------------{ | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://www.unit430.com/IMPhome.htm | | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | www.unit430.com www.matchpointer.com | | (Projects I'll be working on in 2005) | `----------------------------------------------------------? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From craigstamps at comcast.net Sat Jun 25 05:20:14 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Sat Jun 25 05:22:06 2005 Subject: [blml] naive References: <200506241833.j5OIX396001200@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <005001c57934$d012f210$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> The nonsense is yours my friend. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. The bridge evidence agrues for B&S' innocence compellingly. You may bekieve the moon is made of green cheese if you like...this is a free country. But Mr. Simpson like B&S has never been proven guilty of a crime beyond a resonable doubt, and is free to roam the golf courses of the nation under a presumption of innocence. Many millions of people believe he did not kill Ron and Nicole; millions of others are unsure thanks to the evidence having been tainted and the investigation botched. Gee, that sounds familiar now, doesn't it. The difference of course, is that bridge, as important to us as it is, is still just a card game, one that Ozzie could walk away from mid-tournament when reality intervened in the form of WWII. The sad reality is that Ron Goldman will never hold good cards, nor will Nicole Brown. American and British players alike will continue to enjoy a fine game. We are perhaps comparing apples with watermelons here. But unwarrented public accusation poisons all fruit. Better the guilty go unpunished than that the rights of the accused be ludicrously delimited by shoddy accusation and investigation. Ever notice that the retraction of front page news is usually in agate type on page 17? It is imperitive that we continue to tread lightly in tarnishing reputation and possibly livelihood with poitentially libelous/slanderous accusation. The more serious the offence, the more circumspect we must be in ascribing it to someone. And for more serious offenses preponderance of evidence just does not cut it, only proof beyond reasonable doubt can be acceptable in civilised society. (FWIW I believer Mssrs Armstrong et al resolved the green cheese matter adequately.) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" > craig writes: >> >>Terrence and Boris know. If they can live with their consciences, I see >> >>no >> >>reason to adjudge them other than innocent until proven guilty...which >> >>the >> >>bridge evidence clearly did NOT do. If we nust burn anything, it must >> >>be >> >>columns of the NY Times. How can bridge players of two of the greatest >> >>Western democracies deny such a fundamental principal of justice as the >> >>presumption of innocence. Whatever has changed your mind at this late >> >>date >> >>Tony? And didn't your national authority proclaim innocence after >> >>investigation David? Let's have a heart guys. :) >> > (DWS) >> > No. They were found not guilty, not innocent. >> >> (CRAIG) This is semantically and technically the correct verdict. >> But >> it means that have NOT been proven guilty. If they have not been proven >> guilty, then they must be PRESUMED innocent. > > (RON)Nonsense. To take a simple example, I'm under no compulsion to > believe > that O. J. Simpson did not kill two people. (And his subsequent loss > in the civil trial is merely icing on the cake) From mdavcr at emailaccount.com Sat Jun 25 13:14:18 2005 From: mdavcr at emailaccount.com (Louis Langley) Date: Sat Jun 25 12:27:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Approval rate accepted Message-ID: <171.22e558d5.2a9WCI44@epk.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h3ll0.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Araceli Stacy to be remov(ed: http://www.h3ll0.com/deletion.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 apyfblml at rtflb.org Sat Jun 25 13:53:54 2005 From: apyfblml at rtflb.org (Sweet Shandra) Date: Sat Jun 25 12:55:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Quality Home Loans for the USA! Message-ID: Dear Sir Homeowner You have been pre-approved for a $449,597 Home Loan at a 3.89 Fixed Rate. This offer is being extended to you unconditionally and your credit is in no way a factor. To take Advantage of this Limited Time opportunity All we ask is that you visit our Website and complete The 1 minute post Approval Form http://MNqyirEHrEgll.mortgage-ebrokers.com/4/index/ryn/KDFqwIvjGon6IK Ciao, Sweet Shandra From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jun 25 17:34:24 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sat Jun 25 17:36:19 2005 Subject: Civil and criminal law (was Re: [blml] naive) In-Reply-To: References: <002901c5785a$d44245f0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050625111646.0339f618@mail.comcast.net> At 01:44 AM 6/24/2005, Gordon Bower wrote: > Craig writes: > > People are innocent until PROVEN guilty. > >That's a nice principle in criminal law. It is, for better or (more >likely) worse, NOT a principle of bridge jurisprudence. We take away >people's good results on the basis of "could have known" not "knew" (L23) >and in Britain they can rule a psychic is Red even if "the Director has >not ruled that this player allowed for a psycher, merely that his actions >are similar to that of a player who was allowing for a psyche." > >On this smaller scale, we tell people all the time "we can't prove you >cheated in court, but the rules of the game allow us to impose exactly the >same punishment on you as if you had been found guilty, without bothering >to try you." > >So, Craig, it is not a matter of "continuing" to presume innocence under >the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge - we already don't! There are two types of cases under the law, whether the laws of the country or the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Under the laws of most countries, there are civil trials, which have the purpose of restoring equity, and in which the standard is a preponderance of the evidence. And there are criminal trials, which have the purpose of punishment, in which the standard is innocent until proven guilty. For example, if you have not paid enough tax because of a disagreement over accounting, you can be forced to pay the tax in court, without proof beyond a reasonable doubt that your accounting was wrong. If you earn income and knowingly fail to report it, you can be jailed for tax evasion as well as being required to pay the taxes, because the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you violated the tax laws. The principle is not written in the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, but the standards are similar. If we believe that West made a slow pass in a competitive auction, and that East then bid on when passing was a logical alternative, we do not need to prove either fact in order to adjust the score; this is a civil case. If there is no reasonable doubt that West hesitated, nor that East had a logical alternative to bidding on, nor that East was aware of his ethical obligations, then we can impose a penalty on E-W; this is a criminal case. From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Jun 26 01:25:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Jun 26 01:27:03 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <004701c57932$324908a0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Craig wrote: > I stand by the original statement. The recorder should be notified that > something suspicious is occuring, but you should never outright make an > accusation of cheating without 100% proof. So it's OK to tell the TD privately "There's something suspicious" but not "I believe XY are using finger signals and here is my evidence of how they are signalling and how they are using the information"? To me the important thing is that *any* accusation is made privately through the proper channels (I can understand Hayden thinking that the US NPC was a proper channel). I can also understand a person being nervous about bringing something like this to official attention and consulting privately with someone else before doing so. > The investigation was botched, and no accusation has ever been > satisfactorily sustained at a level of certainty to prevent our > debating the matter decades later. For that reason, B&S remain entitled > to the presumption of innocence The accusation of signalling was supported by evidence. Just look at the figures supplied by Ron. Given that the method doesn't require growing extra fingers and thus the use of roman numeral style 5/6/7 and taking *only* the figures for BA the correlation is around 0.98 (4 separate observers, 80 observations). Either R/S were guilty of signalling or Hayden/Gerber/Swimer/Butler were guilty of manufacturing evidence. You may presume the innocence (on this charge) of R/S if you wish - I consider there to be no reasonable doubt. Whether signalling (even when partner doesn't look) constitutes cheating is a different matter. The play analysis provides none of the evidence that use of the signalled would show so I agree that the "presumption innocence" applies to the use of illegally signalled information. Tim From gamely at piraino.com Sun Jun 26 04:42:38 2005 From: gamely at piraino.com (Ella) Date: Sun Jun 26 04:44:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Rock bottom prices on top selling titles! Message-ID: <699373273.12219794731@211.237.236.25> Software paradise. http://vdedmb.4bqjp3mxjw4b1nm.pessimistnm.info Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius. Well done is better than well said. From accusative at icehog.com Sun Jun 26 04:43:12 2005 From: accusative at icehog.com (Meggy) Date: Sun Jun 26 04:45:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Online computer solutions. Message-ID: <6528016121.11218817493@211.237.236.25> A wide range of software applications, drivers, and more. http://mcgh.jq5y4ijcgtj8g21.primulinedb.info Force has no place where there is need of skill. >From lightest words sometimes the direst quarrel springs. From fpnjwnb at yahoo.com Sun Jun 26 17:03:08 2005 From: fpnjwnb at yahoo.com (Hugh Martinez) Date: Sun Jun 26 16:04:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Please Her Tonite oXs9DK Message-ID: 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://revetments.net/extender/?ronn o-ut of mai-lling lisst: http://revetments.net/rm.php?ronn s6 From craigstamps at comcast.net Sun Jun 26 17:07:53 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Sun Jun 26 17:09:39 2005 Subject: [blml] naive References: Message-ID: <004c01c57a60$d3d0e920$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> We are, overall, in substantial agreement. You may of course tell the TD that you suspect the possibility that XY are signally using finger signals and ask that he arrange to check out and see if this may actually be the case. Same effect, no accusation. Similar to a "could have known" ij lawsuit protection, and protects reputation in case of innocence. I agree the evidence of signals is R&S is stronger than that of using illegally obtained information. Some of the results would be absurd for good players having a true count of the hearts, and provide the clearest evidence against wrongdoing. My stats are rusty, but I believe you must square the coefficient of correlation to determine the level of prediction, thus if .70 is right its about an even shot that something was wrong (.49), and although it may not fully apply here the direction of causality is NOT in any way established. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 7:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] naive > Craig wrote: > >> I stand by the original statement. The recorder should be notified that >> something suspicious is occuring, but you should never outright make an >> accusation of cheating without 100% proof. > > So it's OK to tell the TD privately "There's something suspicious" but not > "I believe XY are using finger signals and here is my evidence of how > they are signalling and how they are using the information"? > > To me the important thing is that *any* accusation is made privately > through the proper channels (I can understand Hayden thinking that the US > NPC was a proper channel). I can also understand a person being nervous > about bringing something like this to official attention and consulting > privately with someone else before doing so. > >> The investigation was botched, and no accusation has ever been >> satisfactorily sustained at a level of certainty to prevent our >> debating the matter decades later. For that reason, B&S remain entitled >> to the presumption of innocence > > The accusation of signalling was supported by evidence. Just look at the > figures supplied by Ron. Given that the method doesn't require growing > extra fingers and thus the use of roman numeral style 5/6/7 and taking > *only* the figures for BA the correlation is around 0.98 (4 separate > observers, 80 observations). Either R/S were guilty of signalling or > Hayden/Gerber/Swimer/Butler were guilty of manufacturing evidence. > You may presume the innocence (on this charge) of R/S if you wish - I > consider there to be no reasonable doubt. > > Whether signalling (even when partner doesn't look) constitutes cheating > is a different matter. The play analysis provides none of the evidence > that use of the signalled would show so I agree that the "presumption > innocence" applies to the use of illegally signalled information. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From concealment at wynter.net Sun Jun 26 17:38:20 2005 From: concealment at wynter.net (Tom) Date: Sun Jun 26 17:40:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Male sexual enhancement formula Message-ID: <5545367206.9491440013@ip503da020.speed.planet.nl> Buyer beware - Penis patches! http://www.okmpoi.com/ss/ A straw vote only shows which way the hot air blows. Sometimes it's hard to avoid the happiness of others. Only the educated are free. All men by nature desire knowledge. Above all, try something. From paired at allen.tc Sun Jun 26 17:38:49 2005 From: paired at allen.tc (Rosaline) Date: Sun Jun 26 17:41:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Experience more powerful orgasms Message-ID: <11276379929.5768062194@ip503da020.speed.planet.nl> Expand your Penis 20% Larger in weeks http://www.okmpoi.com/ss/ The secret of success is constancy to purpose. Laughter is the first evidence of freedom. A great flame follows a little spark. The virtuous man is never a novice in worldly things. Many go fishing without knowing it is fish they are after. From blml at blakjak.com Sun Jun 26 18:28:40 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun Jun 26 18:31:52 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <200506241522.j5OFM5S5000100@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200506241522.j5OFM5S5000100@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: Ron Johnson wrote >David Stevenson writes: >> >> Gordon Bower wrote >> >> >> People are innocent until PROVEN guilty. >> > >> >That's a nice principle in criminal law. It is, for better or (more >> >likely) worse, NOT a principle of bridge jurisprudence. We take away >> >people's good results on the basis of "could have known" not "knew" (L23) >> >and in Britain they can rule a psychic is Red even if "the Director has >> >not ruled that this player allowed for a psycher, merely that his actions >> >are similar to that of a player who was allowing for a psyche." >> >> When making rulings about hands we go on preponderance of evidence, >> and basically act as a civil court would, because we are deciding >> between two sides. >> >> But a disciplinary hearing or similar, proof *is* required. >What can I say? I know (from my involvement in similar types >of discussions relating to baseball) that in the US all >that's *required* is preponderance of evidence (and procedural >fairness). What's more, the rules of evidence that courts >use need not apply. (EG some critical evidence against Pete >Rose might not have been admissable in a criminal trial) > >Different place, potentially different legal requirements. Forget legal requirements for a moment. After all, it may surprise you or me to find that another country [Iran? perhaps] does not think that either the English or the American legal *system* is the best. When an official decides a ruling in a competitive sport/mindsport/similar he is basically making a decision between two sides, and it is impractical/unfair/silly for it to be decided other than by preponderance of evidence, his judgement, and so on. When an organisation decides that someone has done something wrong and needs to be dealt with now there is a basic approach that suggests that proof is necessary. That's the overall situation, and a lot of posts in this and similar threads mix up the overall with the detail. The ACBL may or may not adopt the same standards of proof as an American [or Iranian] court when dealing with an alleged malefactor, but their approach is still an accusation, a defence, and a decision based on a level of proof. On the other hand TDs and ACs make decisions that are between two parties, and as such they are merely judgement decisions. This applies just as much to ordinary decisions where the person ruled against says some total rubbish as "That's tantamount to accusing me of cheating". It isn't, and BLML would do well not to fall into the trap of believing such immature players. Of course the level of proof required by a C&E committee, or the equivalent in other jurisdictions, differs greatly between jurisdictions, and may be an excellent subject for discussion. But whether we need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt a simple judgement discussion is a waste of time as a discussion subject. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Sun Jun 26 18:38:03 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun Jun 26 18:41:13 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >DWS wrote: > >> The level of correlation is not something one can quote as absolute. > >Indeed not, but even taking the low-end estimates (around 0.7) for the >level of correlation the odds of such correlation "by chance" are >sufficiently low as to remove "reasonable" doubt. > >> The data was flawed, so deriving statistics from it seems wrong. > >The data was imperfect/incomplete - that is actually pretty normal for >statistical analysis. It means one must apply a degree of caution to >borderline conclusions but does not invalidate clear correlations (it >seems unlikely that co-dependency would be an issue in this situation). > >> I find it strange how many people are willing to derive conclusions >> from a lack of data. > >I find it bizarre that a bridge-player has difficulties drawing >probabilistic conclusions from incomplete data. Away from the table data >often become even less complete and yet one must still make decisions. Therein lies the whole difference between the civil court approach and the criminal court approach. Sure, if someone says Tim West-meads is a better player than John Probst I am willing to go on preponderance of evidence, make a decision, and say it. But if someone says is Tim West-meads or John Probst a cheat I am not prepared to just make a judgement decision based on my best guess of available evidence. But lots of people are, and I still find it strange. Ok, then, i shall re-word it. 'I find it strange how many people are willing to derive conclusions from a lack of data in matters concerning whether people have cheated.' 'However, I do not find it strange how many people are willing to derive conclusions from a lack of data in matters of lesser importance.' -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jun 26 20:14:20 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun Jun 26 20:17:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-15 Message-ID: <004101c57a7a$e18f7080$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> CASE N-15 Subject: Claim DIC: Johnston NA Swiss Teams, 1st Qual Brd: 15 Dlr: South Vul: NS S QJx H 9xxx D KQ8xx C x S K10xx S Ax H AQJ H K8xx D AJ10xx D 9 C K C AQJ9xx S 9xxx H 10x D xx C 108xxx West North East South Pass 1D Pass 2C Pass 2S(1) Pass 3H Pass 4NT(2) Pass 5S(3) Pass 6NT All Pass (1) Game Forcing (2) Quantitative (3) Two aces, Queen, explained later The Facts: The final contract was 6NT by West making six for a score of +990 for EW after a small heart was led. The director was called after the teams compared scores. West had claimed after a heart lead and unblocking the CK, saying that "If the ten of clubs drops, I make seven." After a pause from the opponents, she said "If not, I make six." NS accepted declarer's claim for 12 tricks and completed the match. During the comparison with their teammates, they found that declarer did not have 12 sure tricks and withdrew their acquiescence to the claim. The Ruling: The director ruled 6NT down one for a score of NS +50 citing Law 69.B. NS had acquiesced to a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. [mlf] Right score adjustment, but the ruling's words imply that the TD thought the loss of the second trick was inevitable. He probably didn't look closely enough to ferret out the right ruling explanation, which is that: N-S had acquiesced in the loss of a trick that could have been won by at least one normal play of the remaining cards (ref: L69B), and therefore the score is changed to NS +50. More on this below. The Appeal: North thought that declarer said she could give up a club (to make six), and actually played a couple of additional tricks. South did not recall any further play following the claim. Statements Made by the Other Side: EW vigorously denied the statement by North. Additional Facts: The Laws do not require declarer to attempt to run the clubs when she was clearly aware that the C10 was an important card and would have noticed that it was still outstanding. The Decision: Law 68D states "If a claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies." Law 69B states: "Within the correction period a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." [mlf] In other words, if the trick *could* be lost by any normal play, the acquiescence is withdrawn. [AC] Although declarer might not judge the hand accurately in actual play, there are two "normal" lines of play that would produce 12 tricks, after declarer discovers that the clubs are not breaking. [mlf] Yes, and there is one normal line of play that would produce 11 tricks. [AC] She could discard diamonds on dummy's winners and play a spade to the SK and another spade to establish her S10 as her twelfth trick. [mlf] ####### Yes, that would be a normal line of play. Let's look at it. S QJ (or QJx?) H D Kx (or K?) C S K10x S x H H D A D 9 C C 9x S 9x (or 9?) H D x (or Qx?) C 10 Declarer has played for North to have started with three spades to the QJ. There is no squeeze, North discarding after West, and North can freely discard a quack from four, so this line of play fails if North has four or more spades (twice as likely as three) with one or both quacks. Declarer might look for another line, as the AC now describes. ######## [AC] Alternatively, she could discard two spades and two diamonds on dummy's winners, catching North in a spade and diamond strip squeeze. [mlf]###### Coming down to the spade king and AJ10 of diamonds, then a spade to the ace and the jack of diamonds for an endplay. I don't think that qualifies as "normal." What is normal is to finesse at that point, playing South for a diamond honor doubleton (or the KQ). Let's look at the situation after nine tricks, with East to lead:: S Q H D KQ8 C S K S x H H D AJ10 D 9 C C 9x S 9x H D x C 10 Declarer must lead a spade to the king, then a diamond for the endpay. But the situation could more likely be like this:: S Q H D K8x (or xxx) C S K S x H H D AJ10 D 9 C C 9x S 9 H D Qx (or KQ) C 10 Now declarer must lead diamonds to take12 tricks. This may be the best line of play, somebody else please figure the percentages. ########### [AC] Since declarer could have taken 12 tricks through normal play, as a matter of Law, the defenders' acquiescence is required to stand and the assigned result is reciprocal 990s. [mlf]####### Aha, that's not what L68B says, it's "any normal play," don't change the words. The "any" in this case means "no matter which," not one play in particular. If there is a normal line of play to lose two tricks the claim is invalid, and the finesse in diamonds is a normal play. Here we have an example of common words that are ambiguous, among which are "either," "or," and "any." Either: This can be mean "both," as in "there are lights on either side of the street," or it can mean just one of two choices. Or: This can be the inclusive "or," i.e., one, perhaps the other, perhaps both. Alternatively it can be the excusive "or," known by programmers as "xor," i.e., one, perhaps the other, but not both. L12C2 has an inclusive "or," but a nut could read it as an exclusive "or," meaning that you may adjust the NOS score, alternatively the OS score, but not both. Perhaps "and/or" should be used for the inclusive "or" when some readers may not be sophisticated enough to get the intent from context. Any: This can mean a particular one of many xor one of many, no matter which (as in L69B). When using such words the writer must be absolutely certain that the right sense is being conveyed. You can't always tell by the context, just as this AC didn't understand the intent of "any" in L69B. ######### The appeal was found to have merit. Committee: Doug Doub, Chair, Jeff Roman, Ed Lazarus, Howard Weinstein, Jay Apfelbaum My personal scorecard, scale of 0 to 1, with 1/2 for right ruling/decision but faulty score adjustment TD AC N-00 1 1 (no comments) N-01 0 0 N-02 1 0 N-03 0 1/2 N-04 1 1 (no comments) N-05 1 0 N-06 1/2 1/2 N-07 1 1 (no comments) N-08 1 0 N--09 1 1 (no comments) N-10 1 1/2 N-11 1 1 N-12 1 1 (limited comments) N-13 1/2 1/2 N-14 0 1 (without great conviction) N-15 1 0 Totall 12 9 out of 16 possible Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 26 21:34:53 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Jun 26 21:36:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-15 In-Reply-To: <004101c57a7a$e18f7080$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c57a86$2033d000$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Marvin French .............. > The Facts: The final contract was 6NT by West making six for a score > of +990 for EW after a small heart was led. The director was called > after the teams compared scores. West had claimed after a heart lead > and unblocking the CK, saying that "If the ten of clubs drops, I make > seven." After a pause from the opponents, she said "If not, I make > six." > > NS accepted declarer's claim for 12 tricks and completed the match. > During the comparison with their teammates, they found that declarer > did not have 12 sure tricks and withdrew their acquiescence to the > claim. > > The Ruling: The director ruled 6NT down one for a score of NS +50 > citing Law 69.B. NS had acquiesced to a trick that cannot be lost by > any normal play of the remaining cards. > > [mlf] Right score adjustment, but the ruling's words imply that the TD > thought the loss of the second trick was inevitable. He probably > didn't look closely enough to ferret out the right ruling explanation, > which is that: N-S had acquiesced in the loss of a trick that could > have been won by at least one normal play of the remaining cards (ref: > L69B), and therefore the score is changed to NS +50. More on this > below. ............. > Law 69B states: "Within the correction period a contestant may > withdraw acquiescence in an opponent claim, but only if he has > acquiesced in the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any > normal play of the remaining cards." > > [mlf] In other words, if the trick *could* be lost by any normal play, > the acquiescence is withdrawn. I do not know who is actually arguing what here but this interpretation of Law 69B is just plain wrong: "only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." clearly (to me at least) means that if there is at least one "normal" line of play where the trick(s) in question can be lost then the acquiescence stands as made. The acquiescence is withdrawn *only* if it is impossible to find a "normal" line of play through which the trick(s) in question can be lost. Regards Sven From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Jun 26 22:45:40 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun Jun 26 22:47:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-15 In-Reply-To: <004101c57a7a$e18f7080$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <004101c57a7a$e18f7080$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050626155823.033dcae8@mail.comcast.net> I would say that the TD got this ruling wrong by applying the right Law to the wrong facts, and the AC got it right but stated the ruling badly. Acquiescence to the loss of a trick can only be withdrawn under the same standards as concession of that trick, although there is more time to withdraw an acquiescence. Law 69B: "Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent's claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." Law 71C: "Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." The wording in these two Laws is the same, and thus the meaning of "any" should be the same. Suppose that there is one normal line of play on which NS win a trick, and another normal line of play on which EW win a trick. If NS concede the trick, NS cannot withdraw the concession under L71C, and EW get the trick. Likewise, if EW claim this trick and NS acquiesce to the claim, NS cannot withdraw the acquiescence under L69B, and EW get the trick. (In contrast, under L70, if EW claim the trick and NS contest the claim, then NS get the trick.) At 02:14 PM 6/26/2005, Marvin French wrote: >CASE N-15 I will omit the hands, and accept Marvin's interpretation of the bridge, which I believe to be correct. >The Facts: The final contract was 6NT by West making six for a score >of +990 for EW after a small heart was led. The director was called >after the teams compared scores. West had claimed after a heart lead >and unblocking the CK, saying that "If the ten of clubs drops, I make >seven." After a pause from the opponents, she said "If not, I make >six." > >NS accepted declarer's claim for 12 tricks and completed the match. >During the comparison with their teammates, they found that declarer >did not have 12 sure tricks and withdrew their acquiescence to the >claim. So L69B applies, as the TD says. >The Ruling: The director ruled 6NT down one for a score of NS +50 >citing Law 69.B. NS had acquiesced to a trick that cannot be lost by >any normal play of the remaining cards. >[mlf] Right score adjustment, but the ruling's words imply that the TD >thought the loss of the second trick was inevitable. The TD used the correct standard. He may have concluded (incorrectly) that there was no normal line for taking 12 tricks; under L69B, that is what he should do. >Law 69B states: "Within the correction period a contestant may >withdraw acquiescence in an opponent claim, but only if he has >acquiesced in the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any >normal play of the remaining cards." > >[mlf] In other words, if the trick *could* be lost by any normal play, >the acquiescence is withdrawn. I think you have this backwards; if the trick *could* be lost by any normal play, the acquiescence stands. >[AC] Although declarer might not judge the hand accurately in actual >play, there are two "normal" lines of play that would produce 12 >tricks, after declarer discovers that the clubs are not breaking. > >[mlf] Yes, and there is one normal line of play that would produce 11 >tricks. I accept this as correct. >[AC] Since declarer could have taken 12 tricks through normal play, as >a matter of Law, the defenders' acquiescence is required to stand and >the assigned result is reciprocal 990s. This is the wording problem, which I believe confused Marvin and possibly other readers. >[mlf]####### >Aha, that's not what L68B says, it's "any normal play," don't >change the words. The "any" in this case means "no matter which," not >one play in particular. If there is a normal line of play to lose two >tricks the claim is invalid, and the finesse in diamonds is a normal >play. (You mean L69B, not L68B.) The Law does say "any normal play", but it applies to withdrawal of the acquiescence, not the validity of the claim, so the AC got it right. The AC ruling should have been stated, "Under L69B, acquiescence in a claim may be withdrawn if the non-claiming side has acquiesced in the loss of a trick which could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. The AC found a normal play of the remaining cards on which NS could have lost the trick; therefore, the NS acquiescence stands, and the table score of -990/+990 is restored." The AC ruling is thus correct under the Law. From blml at blakjak.com Sun Jun 26 22:46:37 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun Jun 26 22:49:50 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU Orange book 2006 Message-ID: <3Y5CUrUtQxvCFwcI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> The Orange book draft has now been updated. Draft 4 can be downloaded from http://blakjak.com/download.htm As always, constructive comments are sought. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From clarno at fadmail.com Mon Jun 27 01:51:46 2005 From: clarno at fadmail.com (Iva Levine) Date: Mon Jun 27 01:03:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Approval rate accepted Message-ID: <706c.fsf@calle30.net> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.br1b3ry.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Clair Tackett to be remov(ed: http://www.br1b3ry.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jun 27 02:18:09 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Jun 27 02:21:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-15 References: <004101c57a7a$e18f7080$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050626155823.033dcae8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <00ac01c57aad$b3d46820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David J. Grabiner" x > I would say that the TD got this ruling wrong by applying the right Law > to the wrong facts, and the AC got it right but stated the ruling badly. > > Acquiescence to the loss of a trick can only be withdrawn under the same > standards as concession of that trick, although there is more time to > withdraw an acquiescence. Same time, they're both per L79C now. The WBFLC made that change a while back (my notes say), so cross out the obsolete words in L71C. An acquiescence is not a concession, the two are different and are covered by two different laws, L69 and L71. > Law 69B: > "Within the correction period established in accordance with > Law 79C, a > contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent's claim, but only if > he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in > the loss of trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by > any normal play of the remaining cards." > > Law 71C: > "Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until > the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that > could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." > > The wording in these two Laws is the same, and thus the meaning of "any" > should be the same. Suppose that there is one normal line of play on which > NS win a trick, and another normal line of play on which EW win a trick. > > If NS concede the trick, NS cannot withdraw the concession under L71C, > and EW get the trick. Likewise, if EW claim this trick and NS acquiesce > to the claim, NS cannot withdraw the acquiescence under L69B, and EW get > the trick. The "any" in L71C means "any and all," which is different from the "any, no matter which." of L69B. How can I tell the difference between these two "anys"? By their contexts. You certainly can't grant declarer a trick arising from a faulty claim if the victims come back and point out that declarer should be deemed to have lost another trick because she might well have gone wrong, just because some expert on an AC could spot a normal line of play, possibly inferior, that would give declarer success. The situation is different in the case of an implausible concession, as you know. There must be no line of play that would negate the concession, per L71C. Declarer has K10xxx opposite AJxxx trumps and claims five tricks. Playing either high card first would be normal, but only one play succeeds against the 3-0 split. Say declarer claims without a statment, thinking he has eleven trumps, and an opponent doesn't see a small trump with his Qx. The opponents acquiesce in the claim and while comparing realize their mistake. Don't tell me declarer gets five tricks just because there is a normal line of play that would get them, that's crazy. But suppose declarer did not claim and the same player with Qx(x) conceded all the tricks when declarer laid down a high trump from the wrong hand. Soon after leaving the table the mistake is realized and they want a trick back. No dice, because they only get it if all normal lines of play would give it to them. Claimers do not get benefit of doubt, conceders do not get benefit of doubt, and that's the difference between L69B and L71C. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Mon Jun 27 04:57:18 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon Jun 27 04:54:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-15 In-Reply-To: <00ac01c57aad$b3d46820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Must say I am surprised to see this appeal stirring such controversy. It looks like a classic case of "11 tricks if you contest the claim immediately, 12 if you don't." On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Marvin French wrote: > From: "David J. Grabiner" > > > I would say that the TD got this ruling wrong by applying the right Law > > to the wrong facts, and the AC got it right but stated the ruling badly. I will second that. > An acquiescence is not a concession, the two are different and are > covered by two different laws, L69 and L71. This is true. If your side initiates a claim or concession, the benefit of the doubt is against you, both immediately and if you later attempt to change your claim or concession. If the other side does, you receive the benefit of the doubt until (and ONLY until) you take your cards out of the next board. In other words, after the next board has started, noone's score is ever increased, except in the case of a trick that side would win on all normal lines of play. > Declarer has K10xxx opposite AJxxx trumps and claims five tricks. > Playing either high card first would be normal, but only one play > succeeds against the 3-0 split. Say declarer claims without a > statment, thinking he has eleven trumps, and an opponent doesn't see a > small trump with his Qx. The opponents acquiesce in the claim and > while comparing realize their mistake. Don't tell me declarer gets > five tricks just because there is a normal line of play that would get > them, that's crazy. Four tricks if you called the director before you look at the next board. Five otherwise. Not crazy, perfectly routine, and a classic example of the difference between contesting a claim and withdrawing acquiescence to a claim. > But suppose declarer did not claim and the same player with Qx(x) > conceded all the tricks when declarer laid down a high trump from the > wrong hand. Soon after leaving the table the mistake is realized and > they want a trick back. No dice, because they only get it if all > normal lines of play would give it to them. If they broke 3-0 and the wrong trump was cashed first, then indeed there is indeed no way to avoid letting the trump queen score, and they get their trick. If 2-1, obviously declarer can pull the outstanding trump. GRB From RMJTO at msn.com Mon Jun 27 05:54:17 2005 From: RMJTO at msn.com (Norma Sears) Date: Mon Jun 27 05:02:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Does 8incches Enough 4 U? RA Message-ID: <5901B67C.2532807@.peternixon.net> 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://revetments.net/extender/?ronn o-ut of mai-lling lisst: http://revetments.net/rm.php?ronn pyT From trainer at ovalle.net Mon Jun 27 05:24:01 2005 From: trainer at ovalle.net (Millie) Date: Mon Jun 27 05:25:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Prescription Drug Information Message-ID: <7403982521.11398859726@dsl-084-060-026-222.arcor-ip.net> Buy popular drugs online http://unjustifiable.fullofhealth.info/?confederacyxtvuyfacetszvtMidlandizes Beauty holds more worth than gold. Getting old is not for sissies. We make war that we may live in peace. The fringed curtains of thine eye advance. From Nepali at precisionhardscape.com Mon Jun 27 05:24:38 2005 From: Nepali at precisionhardscape.com (Penny) Date: Mon Jun 27 05:26:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Upgrade your life with our lifestyle medications! Message-ID: <7648086950.3458021061@dsl-084-060-026-222.arcor-ip.net> If your sex life is good... then make it fantastic! http://falsely.onlineeat.info/?Ackermanxtvuyamusedlyzgvdentally The first time I see a jogger smiling, I'll consider it. Courage mounteth with occasion. If God had wanted me otherwise, He would have created me otherwise. Unless you believe, you will not understand. From helluo at emailaccount.com Mon Jun 27 10:20:13 2005 From: helluo at emailaccount.com (Bruce Womack) Date: Mon Jun 27 09:32:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Fixed rates will not last long Message-ID: <20041rsjmp3.ED8DA244AE@mailhost1u.lists.techtarget.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.br1b3ry.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Kenny Gregory to be remov(ed: http://www.br1b3ry.com/deletion.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 hostly at emailaccount.com Mon Jun 27 10:46:01 2005 From: hostly at emailaccount.com (Jamar Wall) Date: Mon Jun 27 09:47:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Just approved mortage rate Message-ID: <20041cqjmz3.ED8DA244AE@mailhost1b.lists.techtarget.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.br1b3ry.com/signs.asp Best Regards, Jeffrey Fair to be remov(ed: http://www.br1b3ry.com/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 27 13:03:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 27 13:06:03 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <004c01c57a60$d3d0e920$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Craig wrote: > Same effect, no accusation. I believe it *is* an accusation (albeit I see nothing wrong in such an accusation if done privately). > thus if .70 > is right its about an even shot that something was wrong (.49), Don't think that is correct. I think the chances of a correlation of even 0.4 occurring between truly independent variables (e.g random numbers) is well under 1 in 1,000. Certainly when using basic stats at work (about 20 years ago) I was trained to regard an r-square value of .49 as highly significant. Perhaps there is something in hand-sorting habits which would make the number of fingers a co-dependent value rather than an indication of causality but I can't really see it. [There was a lesson somewhere about soda-pops "causing" measles (or something) the very high correlation was caused by summer/winter changes in children's behaviour] In Ron's figures the correlation was near .98 r-square (0.96) and that is *way* too high for independence. If R/S were really assiduous they *might* have avoided seeing any such signals (and thus not infracting L73b2). If they noticed even one such signal they were, even if they avoided using the information, guilty of "The gravest possible offence". That the hand evidence seems to exonerate them from charges of "using" any illicit information allows us to say "yes, but they weren't really cheating" in a common parlance sort of way. BTW, having accepted (to my own satisfaction) their guilt for signalling I do not believe they are entitled to a "presumption of innocence" on "cheating" charges. Preponderance of evidence either way would have been enough (the play evidence was in their favour). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 27 13:03:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 27 13:06:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-15 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote: > If they broke 3-0 and the wrong trump was cashed first, then indeed > there is indeed no way to avoid letting the trump queen score, and they > get their trick. I'm not absolutely certain of this. Given the "an opponent doesn't see a small trump with his Qx" qualification stated earlier I think the TD/AC should at least consider the normality of such a player following to the other high trump on the second round with the Q. I am unwilling to take from the non-conceding side a trick I believe they would have made absent the concession. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 27 13:03:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 27 13:06:12 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > 'I find it strange how many people are willing to derive conclusions > from a lack of data in matters concerning whether people have cheated.' DNA evidence (which is incomplete and expressed in probabilistic terms) is used in court matters a lot more serious than cheating. While seldom sufficient to secure a conviction in isolation it carries a lot of weight in the overall process. As with the correlation evidence it can be open to presentational/selective abuse and so should be used with caution rather than dismissed. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 27 14:07:29 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jun 27 14:05:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-15 In-Reply-To: <00ac01c57aad$b3d46820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <004101c57a7a$e18f7080$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050626155823.033dcae8@mail.comcast.net> <00ac01c57aad$b3d46820$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050627080242.033e2d90@pop.starpower.net> At 08:18 PM 6/26/05, Marvin wrote: >But suppose declarer did not claim and the same player with Qx(x) >conceded all the tricks when declarer laid down a high trump from the >wrong hand. Soon after leaving the table the mistake is realized and >they want a trick back. No dice, because they only get it if all >normal lines of play would give it to them. I would think that with Qxx, if declarer has already made the Q a sure winner by starting from the wrong side before the concession occurs, they do get the trick back. The criterion is not all normal lines of play; it is all normal lines of play *of the remaining cards* at the time the concession was made. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mike at bellfamily.org.uk Mon Jun 27 14:33:01 2005 From: mike at bellfamily.org.uk (Mike Bell) Date: Mon Jun 27 14:34:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Gambling in more ways than one Message-ID: This event took place in the EBU. North-South are a pick-up partnership, with South much the stronger player. MPs, neither vul, first seat, South is dealt Kx xx xx AKQxxxx 3N - P - 4N - AP At his turn to bid, East, the strongest player at the table, asked what 3NT was. North answered "I think its twenty-something points balanced". East and South make eye contact and both smile, then East passes "looking smug". Do you allow South's pass? Assuming your answer is yes, would you if East had asked then passed quickly with no other reaction? From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 27 15:08:01 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Jun 27 15:09:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-15 References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 6:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-15 > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > If they broke 3-0 and the wrong trump was cashed first, then indeed > > there is indeed no way to avoid letting the trump queen score, I'm not so sure. What I mean is that there can be ways of compressing losers such that the trump queen does not score- such as by an endplay. > > and they get their trick. But without the hands and what was claimed and acquiesced this may, or may not, be premature. > I'm not absolutely certain of this. Given the "an opponent doesn't see a > small trump with his Qx" qualification stated earlier I think the TD/AC > should at least consider the normality of such a player following to the > other high trump on the second round with the Q. I think that when one is inflicting upon a player that which can be inferior it is within the definition of normal to include him forgetting what has been played before [when unmentioned]. But, it is included in irrational for him to forget he possesses a card he sees in front of him. regards roger pewick > I am unwilling to take > from the non-conceding side a trick I believe they would have made absent > the concession. > Tim From blml at blakjak.com Mon Jun 27 16:37:01 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Jun 27 16:40:03 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <200506141944.MAA28345@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <000c01c570ca$4934f800$0a02a8c0@PATRICK> <200506141944.MAA28345@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote >In the posted case, the irregularities involved are even worse. South >led out of turn; West, a defender, has exposed all 13 of his cards; >North, the dummy, has not exposed any of his cards as required, and is >playing his own cards, in violation of the Law that dummy may not >participate in the play; East, the other defender, is telling his >partner what cards to play, which is a massive amount of UI received >by West, and so we need to determine whether West had any logical >alternatives ... no, forget it. I think it's impossible to apply the >Laws, and we pretty much have to make something up. In this case, >since they agreed on a score (N/S +400), I think we have to let it >stand. If the problem had been noticed after play concluded but >before a score was agreed on, I think I'd rule that the 400 stands, >but I'd adjust if it seemed that one side was more responsible than >the other for the bizarre mistake; and then I'd adjust to whatever the >most favorable likely result would have been if the hand had been >played correctly. I could certainly see TD's coming up with other >reasonable solutions---including, since this is a team match, just >throwing the board out, possibly with PP's to both sides. I don't >think there is a "correct" answer. > >But it seems to me that these cases are cases where an additional Law >might be useful. I am not sure why, and I think this is the thinking that leads to one or two useless Laws - or worse - being added to the Law book. I believe L25B was added because of an incident. Despite a lot of faffing, everyone has come up with the right answer - Tim at the second attempt - that there is nothing that needs adjusting, and one side made so many tricks, so the score is such-and-such. There is no need whatever for any new Laws. How about discipline? Well, despite a stuffed shirt approach from one or two people, four happy people do not matter much unless the rest of the room suffers. But even if they do, the existing duplicate Laws cover this perfectly. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Mon Jun 27 16:39:54 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Jun 27 16:43:24 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: <000601c57118$b1914a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c57118$b1914a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >......... >> Using either L74 or Law81c4 against a polite, well-behaved drunk (in the >> absence of a no alcohol regulation) would be a gross abuse of power. > >Who has indicated anything about taking any action against a well-behaving >player whether sober or drunk? You have, several times. >> There was nothing in Henri's story which gave any indication of bad >> behaviour - and it's not even as if getting to a fair ruling was >> particularly difficult (except for me, when stone cold sober, taking two >> attempts to count to 13!). > >There were indeed four players who by their mere acts proved guilty in >violating at least Law 74B1 if no other law as well. And as a result they >caused normal scoring of this board to be impossible. Oh, lighten up. It was neither impossible nor difficult,a nd it really does not need a heavy-handed approach by ht eTD until and unless someone else is upset by it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 27 16:45:34 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jun 27 16:43:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Gambling in more ways than one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050627103733.02b170c0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:33 AM 6/27/05, Mike wrote: >This event took place in the EBU. North-South are a pick-up partnership, >with South much the stronger player. > >MPs, neither vul, first seat, South is dealt > >Kx xx xx AKQxxxx > >3N - P - 4N - AP > >At his turn to bid, East, the strongest player at the table, asked what >3NT was. North answered "I think its twenty-something points balanced". >East and South make eye contact and both smile, then East passes >"looking smug". Do you allow South's pass? Assuming your answer is yes, >would you if East had asked then passed quickly with no other reaction? It depends on the actual N-S agreement; this needs to be investigated. If in fact they did not have any specific agreement (as is suggested by "pick-up partnership"), then South has UI, and we must investigate whether there has been an infraction (probably so). OTOH, if there is reason to believe that 3NT did show, by agreement, twenty-something points balanced, and South was simply "masterminding" (as is suggested by "South much the stronger player"), then there is no infraction and no problem. The byplay between East and South could matter if there is any claim by E-W of a misinformation problem, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It does not affect the potential UI issue. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml at blakjak.com Mon Jun 27 16:42:33 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Jun 27 16:45:58 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: <000401c57112$7535fe70$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c57112$7535fe70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2uri5rNZBBwCFwHh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst >................. >> >Does it help your impression when I tell you >> >that in a serious event I shall always consider >> >the described behavior contempt of the game of Bridge? >> >> Were you called to the table during the hand Sven? Nope. It's none of >> your business. What equity needs to be restored? None. So what if it's a >> serious event? You were not called to the table. John > >I described how I would have handled the case. > >Naturally if I was not called to the table and the situation did not catch >my attention in any other way I would not have any reason for action as TD. >In that case I would have let the reported result stand as it apparently >reflected the result actually obtained on the board. > >IMHO either this result (+400 North/South) must stand, or the board must be >cancelled. I suppose this is more easily seen and understood if East in fact >had "played" a contract in a denomination different from the contract in >which South should have been the declarer? > >An alternative could of course be to use L12C2 with both sides considered >OS. In that case East/West would be left with their result of -400 while >North/South would receive the score not better than for 2H just made (the >most unfavorable result that was at all probable. 2H= is definitely probable >being a result from the other room but we do not know if it was the most >unfavorable result at all probable). > >I still do not accept the described behavior by the players in a serious >event. I think it sad that you will automatically rule against any players who seem to be enjoying themselves. Actually, it is not illegal to do so. No wonder bridge has difficulties attracting new players if this approach were normal. As for the ruling, one side played 2H and made a number of tricks. How you can find that difficult to score is beyond me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Jun 27 16:46:37 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon Jun 27 16:48:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <20050627144637.28D34EB2E3@poczta.interia.pl> A sensational story has just appeared on the site of Polish Bridge Union by Slawomir Latala about the disqualification of the Buratti - Lanzarotti pair. (I cannot find anything on the Tenerife official website). Here is my translation. +== The teams of Beral (Isreal) and Lavazza (Italy) met in the final round of Swiss teams. Both teams needed big wins to advance to the KO phase. Deals 21-30 were played. The first two deals were gains for the Israeli team and were followed deal #23: Round 5, deal 23, both sides VUL, South dealer Massimo Lanzarotti A3 J10 J8543 KJ62 Jossi Roll Ilan Bareket 87 Q6542 A765 9843 7 Q106 Q97543 8 Andrea Buratti KJ109 KQ2 AK92 A10 N S --- 2D // multi 2H 2NT // 20-22 BAL 3S // minors 4D // D fit 4S // cue 5C // cue showing an odd number of KC 6D pass West cashed the HA and switched to a club. Buratti won in dummy and played the DJ. Speaks the Isreali defender, sitting East: - Having spread the dummy Lanzarotti tilted to have a peak into my hand. Though I never intended to show him my cards I didn't make any attempt to hide them. What struck me, however, was that Lanzarotti, having seen my cards touched his left forearm with three middle fingers of his right hand. It was a very unnatural gesture. Buratti called for the DJ to which I played low in my normal tempo. Buratti went into a short tank, played small from his hand, and claimed. After this incident Bareket excused himself from the table and talked to one of the floor directors telling him the whole story. This started an avalanche. The TD informed the CTD who waited until the end of the match and lodged an official announcemet to the AC (TDs are not allowed to make decisions in cases like that). After hearings lasting more than an hour the AC members spent additional two hours discussing the matter between them and then came up with the following rulling: a) the Lavazza team is expelled from futher Team Competition during these Championship; b) Buratti – Lanzarotti are disqualified from team competition (further sanctions can only be taken by EBL Credential Committee) c) adjust the final score of the match to 18 : 0 VP for Israel. Slawomir Latala ==+ I am not sure what b) means - this statement is as unclear in Polish as in my translation. ____________________ Cibor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OMNIXMAIL! Jesli masz telefon w sieci Era i dostep do WAP, to mozesz na komorce odbierac poczte ze wszystkich swoich kont poczty e-mail! OMNIXMAIL jest w Era Omnix: http://link.interia.pl/f1896 From adam at irvine.com Mon Jun 27 16:54:04 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Jun 27 16:56:09 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:37:01 BST." Message-ID: <200506271454.HAA26964@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote > >In the posted case, the irregularities involved are even worse. South > >led out of turn; West, a defender, has exposed all 13 of his cards; > >North, the dummy, has not exposed any of his cards as required, and is > >playing his own cards, in violation of the Law that dummy may not > >participate in the play; East, the other defender, is telling his > >partner what cards to play, which is a massive amount of UI received > >by West, and so we need to determine whether West had any logical > >alternatives ... no, forget it. I think it's impossible to apply the > >Laws, and we pretty much have to make something up. In this case, > >since they agreed on a score (N/S +400), I think we have to let it > >stand. If the problem had been noticed after play concluded but > >before a score was agreed on, I think I'd rule that the 400 stands, > >but I'd adjust if it seemed that one side was more responsible than > >the other for the bizarre mistake; and then I'd adjust to whatever the > >most favorable likely result would have been if the hand had been > >played correctly. I could certainly see TD's coming up with other > >reasonable solutions---including, since this is a team match, just > >throwing the board out, possibly with PP's to both sides. I don't > >think there is a "correct" answer. > > > >But it seems to me that these cases are cases where an additional Law > >might be useful. > > I am not sure why, and I think this is the thinking that leads to one > or two useless Laws - or worse - being added to the Law book. I believe > L25B was added because of an incident. > > Despite a lot of faffing, everyone has come up with the right answer - > Tim at the second attempt - that there is nothing that needs > adjusting, It's been a while, so I don't remember what Tim said. But as I recall, most of BLML seemed to come up with the answer that we should presume South was the correct declarer, and award the score based on that fact---look at the number of tricks each side made, and then award the score to N/S based on the assumption that they were playing the contract and based on how many tricks they actually took. But if you're going to presume South was the declarer, what are we to do with the fact that every play West made was based on UI (i.e. East, who thought he was declarer, told West what to play)? Doesn't this require an adjustment? Although all the other irregularities can be accepted (West has 13 penalty cards, and South should have been able to designate which card he was to play at each trick, but he accepted West's plays anyway), there is no provision in the Laws for accepting plays that are illegal because they are based on UI. So how do you determine that the answer everyone came up with is "the" "right" answer---given that you have to ignore Law 16 to come up with this answer? Sorry, I still thinks it makes a lot more sense to say "the Laws don't deal with this particular irregularity." -- Adam From blml at blakjak.com Mon Jun 27 16:54:30 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Jun 27 16:57:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Gambling in more ways than one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike Bell wrote >This event took place in the EBU. North-South are a pick-up partnership, >with South much the stronger player. > >MPs, neither vul, first seat, South is dealt > >Kx xx xx AKQxxxx > >3N - P - 4N - AP > >At his turn to bid, East, the strongest player at the table, asked what >3NT was. North answered "I think its twenty-something points balanced". >East and South make eye contact and both smile, then East passes >"looking smug". Do you allow South's pass? Assuming your answer is yes, >would you if East had asked then passed quickly with no other reaction? You have two simple UI cases. In the first case, South has bid 3NT, has some UI from partner, and we have to choose what are LAs and whether he has chosen the one suggested ..... In the second case, South has bid 3NT, has some UI from partner, and we have to choose what are LAs and whether he has chosen the one suggested ..... First, I find out how South plays 3NT. Yes, I know it is gambling, but does it show 7? 7 or 8? Is it allowed a K outside? An A? A Q? What is a 4NT response? Now, the UI from partner certainly suggests passing 4NT, so the question is whether 6NT [or 6C, if you prefer] is an LA? This is the point at which the paths diverge: 1 Is 6C/NT an LA for a player who has had a question from RHO, a smile, and a look? 2 Is 6C/NT an LA for a player who has had a question from RHO but nothing else? Ask a few opinions, and see whether bidding on is greater than 30%. In my view it is because of the king in both cases, but I would be happy if my consultants persuade me otherwise. ---------------------------------------------------------------- People usually go wrong in cases where a player has UI and AI, saying that if the AI says you can do something you can ignore the UI. That's totally the wrong approach. The correct approach is to follow the normal UI approach, but let the additional AI affect what constitutes an LA. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Mon Jun 27 17:26:04 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Jun 27 17:29:45 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <200506271454.HAA26964@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200506271454.HAA26964@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote > >David wrote: > >> Adam Beneschan wrote >> >In the posted case, the irregularities involved are even worse. South >> >led out of turn; West, a defender, has exposed all 13 of his cards; >> >North, the dummy, has not exposed any of his cards as required, and is >> >playing his own cards, in violation of the Law that dummy may not >> >participate in the play; East, the other defender, is telling his >> >partner what cards to play, which is a massive amount of UI received >> >by West, and so we need to determine whether West had any logical >> >alternatives ... no, forget it. I think it's impossible to apply the >> >Laws, and we pretty much have to make something up. In this case, >> >since they agreed on a score (N/S +400), I think we have to let it >> >stand. If the problem had been noticed after play concluded but >> >before a score was agreed on, I think I'd rule that the 400 stands, >> >but I'd adjust if it seemed that one side was more responsible than >> >the other for the bizarre mistake; and then I'd adjust to whatever the >> >most favorable likely result would have been if the hand had been >> >played correctly. I could certainly see TD's coming up with other >> >reasonable solutions---including, since this is a team match, just >> >throwing the board out, possibly with PP's to both sides. I don't >> >think there is a "correct" answer. >> > >> >But it seems to me that these cases are cases where an additional Law >> >might be useful. >> >> I am not sure why, and I think this is the thinking that leads to one >> or two useless Laws - or worse - being added to the Law book. I believe >> L25B was added because of an incident. >> >> Despite a lot of faffing, everyone has come up with the right answer - >> Tim at the second attempt - that there is nothing that needs >> adjusting, > >It's been a while, so I don't remember what Tim said. > >But as I recall, most of BLML seemed to come up with the answer that >we should presume South was the correct declarer, and award the score >based on that fact---look at the number of tricks each side made, and >then award the score to N/S based on the assumption that they were >playing the contract and based on how many tricks they actually took. > >But if you're going to presume South was the declarer, what are we to >do with the fact that every play West made was based on UI (i.e. East, >who thought he was declarer, told West what to play)? Doesn't this >require an adjustment? Although all the other irregularities can be >accepted (West has 13 penalty cards, and South should have been able >to designate which card he was to play at each trick, but he accepted >West's plays anyway), there is no provision in the Laws for accepting >plays that are illegal because they are based on UI. I am not going to worry about it. >So how do you determine that the answer everyone came up with is "the" >"right" answer---given that you have to ignore Law 16 to come up with >this answer? > >Sorry, I still thinks it makes a lot more sense to say "the Laws don't >deal with this particular irregularity." They deal with it adequately. The problem with coming up with new Laws is that they always provide more problems than solutions. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From validate at johnsdesign.net Mon Jun 27 17:47:05 2005 From: validate at johnsdesign.net (Osmund) Date: Mon Jun 27 17:49:07 2005 Subject: [blml] These Stocks may make You Money Message-ID: <876587801.8898955180@200-186-145-93.dns.impsat.net.br> In June's issue we are going to profile a st.oc.k that is very much undervalued and has just started trading. Ground Floor opportunity for everybody. This small treasure is: NHVP.PK - Northeast Development Corp. The st.oc.k is trading at only 35-40 cents and we expect it could hit $1.20 by mid July. HUGE PR campaign expected this week so grab as much as you can up to $1 range st.oc.k Symbol: NHVP.PK Current Price: $0.35 We expect the price to go to $1 in next 2-3 days We expect the price to go to $1.2 in next 2 weeks. There are some very positive news expected next week so act before that :) About the company: Northeast Development Corporation (NSC) is a real estate construction, development, acquisition and management company focused in the Northeastern United States. It currently does business around Hartford CT. Its’ primary objective is to build long-term shareholder value in secondary and tertiary markets that are in exurban growth paths. Northeast Development Corporation (the "Company", unless the context indicates otherwise) is engaged in the construction business. The Company was incorporated in 2004 as a successor to businesses, which had been engaged in providing construction services since 2003 formerly through an operating subsidiary of Rescon Technology, Inc. The Company currently provides general contracting, construction management and design-build services to private clients and public agencies throughout the Northeast United States. It has a limited operating history, but strong developmental ties into its’ target geographic markets. To date, it has primarily completed civil works projects in the Northeast US. The Company's construction business will involve two basic segments or operations: building and commercial development; and civil works projects. st.oc.k Symbol: NHVP.PK Current Price: $0.35 We expect the price to go to $1 in next 2-3 days We expect the price to go to $1.2 in next 2 weeks. readitbeforeyou proceed Information within this email contains "forward looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, goals, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward looking statements." Forward looking statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through the use of words such as: "projects", "foresee", "expects", "estimates," "believes," "understands" "will," "part of: "anticipates," or that by statements indicating certain actions "may," "could," or "might" occur. All information provided within this email pertaining to investing, st.oc.ks, securities must be understood as information provided and not investment advice. Emerging Equity Alert advises all readers and subscribers to seek advice from a registered professional securities representative before deciding to trade in st.oc.ks featured within this email. None of the material within this report shall be construed as any kind of investment advice. Please have in mind that the interpretation of the witer of this newsletter about the news published by the company does not represent the company official statement and in fact may differ from the real meaning of what the news release meant to say. Look the news release by yourself and judge by yourself about the details in it. In compliance with Section 17(b), we disclose the holding of NHVP.PK shares prior to the publication of this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such holdings due to our intent to profit from the liquidation of these shares. Shares may be sold at any time, even after positive statements have been made regarding the above company. Since we own shares, there is an inherent conflict of interest in our statements and opinions. Readers of this publication are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and expectations involving various risks and uncertainties, that could cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward- looking statements. Please be advised that nothing within this email shall constitute a solicitation or an invitation to get position in or sell any security mentioned herein. This newsletter is neither a registered investment advisor nor affiliated with any broker or dealer. This newsletter was paid $51500 from third party (MayaConsulthing) to send this report. All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such. We may own, take position and sell any securities mentioned at any time. This report includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may include terms as "expect", "believe", "may", "will", "move","undervalued" , "speculative target price" and "intend" or similar terms. From contagion at udps.org Mon Jun 27 17:47:42 2005 From: contagion at udps.org (Dorian) Date: Mon Jun 27 17:49:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Do You Luv Low Priced Stocks? Message-ID: <88228128117.5237182825@200-186-145-93.dns.impsat.net.br> In June's issue we are going to profile a st.oc.k that is very much undervalued and has just started trading. Ground Floor opportunity for everybody. This small treasure is: NHVP.PK - Northeast Development Corp. The st.oc.k is trading at only 35-40 cents and we expect it could hit $1.20 by mid July. HUGE PR campaign expected this week so grab as much as you can up to $1 range st.oc.k Symbol: NHVP.PK Current Price: $0.35 We expect the price to go to $1 in next 2-3 days We expect the price to go to $1.2 in next 2 weeks. There are some very positive news expected next week so act before that :) About the company: Northeast Development Corporation (NSC) is a real estate construction, development, acquisition and management company focused in the Northeastern United States. It currently does business around Hartford CT. Its’ primary objective is to build long-term shareholder value in secondary and tertiary markets that are in exurban growth paths. Northeast Development Corporation (the "Company", unless the context indicates otherwise) is engaged in the construction business. The Company was incorporated in 2004 as a successor to businesses, which had been engaged in providing construction services since 2003 formerly through an operating subsidiary of Rescon Technology, Inc. The Company currently provides general contracting, construction management and design-build services to private clients and public agencies throughout the Northeast United States. It has a limited operating history, but strong developmental ties into its’ target geographic markets. To date, it has primarily completed civil works projects in the Northeast US. The Company's construction business will involve two basic segments or operations: building and commercial development; and civil works projects. st.oc.k Symbol: NHVP.PK Current Price: $0.35 We expect the price to go to $1 in next 2-3 days We expect the price to go to $1.2 in next 2 weeks. readitbeforeyou proceed Information within this email contains "forward looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, goals, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward looking statements." Forward looking statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through the use of words such as: "projects", "foresee", "expects", "estimates," "believes," "understands" "will," "part of: "anticipates," or that by statements indicating certain actions "may," "could," or "might" occur. All information provided within this email pertaining to investing, st.oc.ks, securities must be understood as information provided and not investment advice. Emerging Equity Alert advises all readers and subscribers to seek advice from a registered professional securities representative before deciding to trade in st.oc.ks featured within this email. None of the material within this report shall be construed as any kind of investment advice. Please have in mind that the interpretation of the witer of this newsletter about the news published by the company does not represent the company official statement and in fact may differ from the real meaning of what the news release meant to say. Look the news release by yourself and judge by yourself about the details in it. In compliance with Section 17(b), we disclose the holding of NHVP.PK shares prior to the publication of this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such holdings due to our intent to profit from the liquidation of these shares. Shares may be sold at any time, even after positive statements have been made regarding the above company. Since we own shares, there is an inherent conflict of interest in our statements and opinions. Readers of this publication are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and expectations involving various risks and uncertainties, that could cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward- looking statements. Please be advised that nothing within this email shall constitute a solicitation or an invitation to get position in or sell any security mentioned herein. This newsletter is neither a registered investment advisor nor affiliated with any broker or dealer. This newsletter was paid $51500 from third party (MayaConsulthing) to send this report. All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such. We may own, take position and sell any securities mentioned at any time. This report includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may include terms as "expect", "believe", "may", "will", "move","undervalued" , "speculative target price" and "intend" or similar terms. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 27 17:49:46 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 27 17:51:42 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <200506271454.HAA26964@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000001c57b2f$d7ea67f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> I have said it before and I state it again: The mere coincidence that the board was played by East as acting declarer in the same denomination that South really had declared does not make this board "convertible" to having been played by South. The board was "played" in such a way that it was incomparable to any instance of the same board played in the regular way. IF the board should be scored then the score to be used must be the score actually obtained, and that was 4 down for EW or 400 to NS but I believe everybody agree that this would be ridiculous. Just consider the implications if East had been playing in say NT or in a minor suit instead of 2 in whatever major suit actually contracted by South (I have forgotten which suit it was). To all those who wanted to "convert" 4M East -4 to 2M South +1 just tell us how they would have ruled if East had been "playing" say 3m -1 ????? The board has been fouled beyond repair and must be cancelled. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > Sent: 27. juni 2005 16:54 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Cc: adam@irvine.com > Subject: Re: [blml] all drunk ? > > > David wrote: > > > Adam Beneschan wrote > > >In the posted case, the irregularities involved are even worse. South > > >led out of turn; West, a defender, has exposed all 13 of his cards; > > >North, the dummy, has not exposed any of his cards as required, and is > > >playing his own cards, in violation of the Law that dummy may not > > >participate in the play; East, the other defender, is telling his > > >partner what cards to play, which is a massive amount of UI received > > >by West, and so we need to determine whether West had any logical > > >alternatives ... no, forget it. I think it's impossible to apply the > > >Laws, and we pretty much have to make something up. In this case, > > >since they agreed on a score (N/S +400), I think we have to let it > > >stand. If the problem had been noticed after play concluded but > > >before a score was agreed on, I think I'd rule that the 400 stands, > > >but I'd adjust if it seemed that one side was more responsible than > > >the other for the bizarre mistake; and then I'd adjust to whatever the > > >most favorable likely result would have been if the hand had been > > >played correctly. I could certainly see TD's coming up with other > > >reasonable solutions---including, since this is a team match, just > > >throwing the board out, possibly with PP's to both sides. I don't > > >think there is a "correct" answer. > > > > > >But it seems to me that these cases are cases where an additional Law > > >might be useful. > > > > I am not sure why, and I think this is the thinking that leads to one > > or two useless Laws - or worse - being added to the Law book. I believe > > L25B was added because of an incident. > > > > Despite a lot of faffing, everyone has come up with the right answer > - > > Tim at the second attempt - that there is nothing that needs > > adjusting, > > It's been a while, so I don't remember what Tim said. > > But as I recall, most of BLML seemed to come up with the answer that > we should presume South was the correct declarer, and award the score > based on that fact---look at the number of tricks each side made, and > then award the score to N/S based on the assumption that they were > playing the contract and based on how many tricks they actually took. > > But if you're going to presume South was the declarer, what are we to > do with the fact that every play West made was based on UI (i.e. East, > who thought he was declarer, told West what to play)? Doesn't this > require an adjustment? Although all the other irregularities can be > accepted (West has 13 penalty cards, and South should have been able > to designate which card he was to play at each trick, but he accepted > West's plays anyway), there is no provision in the Laws for accepting > plays that are illegal because they are based on UI. > > So how do you determine that the answer everyone came up with is "the" > "right" answer---given that you have to ignore Law 16 to come up with > this answer? > > Sorry, I still thinks it makes a lot more sense to say "the Laws don't > deal with this particular irregularity." > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 27 17:57:24 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 27 17:59:20 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: <2uri5rNZBBwCFwHh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000101c57b30$e916cf40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson .............. (snip all my previous stuff) > I think it sad that you will automatically rule against any players > who seem to be enjoying themselves. Actually, it is not illegal to do > so. No wonder bridge has difficulties attracting new players if this > approach were normal. Were we talking serious bridge event or a pleasure event? > > As for the ruling, one side played 2H and made a number of tricks. How > you can find that difficult to score is beyond me. With South declarer from the auction and East "acting player" did they play a game of bridge or did they play some other game? Sven From mike at bellfamily.org.uk Mon Jun 27 18:37:36 2005 From: mike at bellfamily.org.uk (Mike Bell) Date: Mon Jun 27 18:38:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Gambling in more ways than one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4d55aa814d.Mike@RiscPC02.bellfamily.org.uk> David Stevenson wrote > Mike Bell wrote > >This event took place in the EBU. North-South are a pick-up partnership, > >with South much the stronger player. > > > >MPs, neither vul, first seat, South is dealt > > > >Kx xx xx AKQxxxx > > > >3N - P - 4N - AP > > > >At his turn to bid, East, the strongest player at the table, asked what > >3NT was. North answered "I think its twenty-something points balanced". > >East and South make eye contact and both smile, then East passes > >"looking smug". Do you allow South's pass? Assuming your answer is yes, > >would you if East had asked then passed quickly with no other reaction? > > You have two simple UI cases. > > In the first case, South has bid 3NT, has some UI from partner, and we > have to choose what are LAs and whether he has chosen the one suggested > ..... > > In the second case, South has bid 3NT, has some UI from partner, and > we have to choose what are LAs and whether he has chosen the one > suggested ..... > > First, I find out how South plays 3NT. Yes, I know it is gambling, > but does it show 7? 7 or 8? Is it allowed a K outside? An A? A Q? > What is a 4NT response? North-South have had no discussion on the sequence. South generally plays it as 7 or 8 cards, and one king but not much more is allowed outside - definitely no aces. He has no idea what a 4NT response could be, and considers this to have revealed that partner has taken it as strong balanced. I know the answers to these questions because I was South! The ruling went in my favour, but the director seemed to be looking at the issue of MI, not UI. Thanks for the responses so far. > Now, the UI from partner certainly suggests passing 4NT, so the > question is whether 6NT [or 6C, if you prefer] is an LA? > > This is the point at which the paths diverge: > > 1 Is 6C/NT an LA for a player who has had a question from RHO, a smile, > and a look? > > 2 Is 6C/NT an LA for a player who has had a question from RHO but > nothing else? > > Ask a few opinions, and see whether bidding on is greater than 30%. In > my view it is because of the king in both cases, but I would be happy if > my consultants persuade me otherwise. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > People usually go wrong in cases where a player has UI and AI, saying > that if the AI says you can do something you can ignore the UI. That's > totally the wrong approach. The correct approach is to follow the > normal UI approach, but let the additional AI affect what constitutes an > LA. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 27 18:57:40 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jun 27 18:56:00 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: <000101c57b30$e916cf40$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2uri5rNZBBwCFwHh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000101c57b30$e916cf40$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050627125027.02af3a20@pop.starpower.net> At 11:57 AM 6/27/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of David Stevenson >.............. (snip all my previous stuff) > > I think it sad that you will automatically rule against any players > > who seem to be enjoying themselves. Actually, it is not illegal to do > > so. No wonder bridge has difficulties attracting new players if this > > approach were normal. > >Were we talking serious bridge event or a pleasure event? > > > As for the ruling, one side played 2H and made a number of > tricks. How > > you can find that difficult to score is beyond me. > >With South declarer from the auction and East "acting player" did they >play >a game of bridge or did they play some other game? They were playing *some* game, weren't they? AHD: "game: 1. A way of amusing oneself; a pastime; diversion." Bridge is a game, and any bridge event, "serious" or otherwise, is first and foremost "a pleasure event". Lest we overlook that, no matter how seriously played, it is still a game, and the enjoyment of those playing it matters, we have L74A1-2 to remind us. If "serious bridge event" and "pleasure event" were mutually exclusive, the former would have no reason to exist. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Jun 27 18:00:02 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Jun 27 19:00:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <20050627144637.28D34EB2E3@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050627144637.28D34EB2E3@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <42C02282.4070200@hdw.be> Having just presented the official version of events to the press room and daily bulletin, I urge all blml'rs to wait until tomorrow to comment on what will be a much clearer story. (although the basics of the things below are correct) Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > A sensational story has just appeared > on the site of Polish Bridge Union > by Slawomir Latala about > the disqualification of > the Buratti - Lanzarotti pair. > (I cannot find anything on the > Tenerife official website). > Here is my translation. > > +== > > The teams of Beral (Isreal) > and Lavazza (Italy) met > in the final round of Swiss teams. > Both teams needed big wins > to advance to the KO phase. > Deals 21-30 were played. > The first two deals were > gains for the Israeli > team and were followed deal #23: > > > Round 5, deal 23, both sides VUL, > South dealer > > Massimo Lanzarotti > > A3 > J10 > J8543 > KJ62 > Jossi Roll Ilan Bareket > 87 Q6542 > A765 9843 > 7 Q106 > Q97543 8 > > Andrea Buratti > KJ109 > KQ2 > AK92 > A10 > > > > N S > --- 2D // multi > 2H 2NT // 20-22 BAL > 3S // minors > 4D // D fit > 4S // cue > 5C // cue showing an odd number of KC > 6D > pass > > West cashed the HA and switched to a club. Buratti > won in dummy and played the DJ. Speaks the > Isreali defender, sitting East: > > - Having spread the dummy Lanzarotti tilted > to have a peak into my hand. Though I never > intended to show him my cards I didn't make > any attempt to hide them. What struck me, > however, was that Lanzarotti, having seen > my cards touched his left forearm with three > middle fingers of his right hand. It was > a very unnatural gesture. Buratti > called for the DJ to which I played > low in my normal tempo. Buratti went > into a short tank, played small from > his hand, and claimed. > > After this incident Bareket excused himself from the > table and talked to one of the floor > directors telling him the whole story. > This started an avalanche. The TD > informed the CTD who waited until > the end of the match and lodged > an official announcemet to the AC > (TDs are not allowed to make decisions > in cases like that). After hearings > lasting more than an hour the AC members > spent additional two hours discussing > the matter between them and > then came up with the following rulling: > > a) the Lavazza team is expelled from > futher Team Competition during these > Championship; > b) Buratti – Lanzarotti are disqualified > from team competition (further sanctions > can only be taken by EBL Credential Committee) > c) adjust the final score of the match > to 18 : 0 VP for Israel. > > > Slawomir Latala > > ==+ > > > I am not sure what b) means - this > statement is as unclear in Polish > as in my translation. > > > > ____________________ > Cibor > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > OMNIXMAIL! Jesli masz telefon w sieci Era i dostep do WAP, to mozesz > na komorce odbierac poczte ze wszystkich swoich kont poczty e-mail! > OMNIXMAIL jest w Era Omnix: http://link.interia.pl/f1896 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the European Bridge Championships in Tenerife http://www.hdw.be/ From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Jun 27 19:16:34 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Jun 27 19:18:42 2005 Subject: [blml] naive In-Reply-To: <005001c57934$d012f210$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> from "craig" at Jun 24, 2005 11:20:14 PM Message-ID: <200506271716.j5RHGZVw016703@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> craig writes: > > The nonsense is yours my friend. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. That's true of the criminal justice system. But other organizations aren't bound by the determinations of the criminal justice system. I believe I mentioned Benny Kauff. His case is a good example. He was charged with auto theft and receiving stolen goods. Landis immediately suspended him. (Side point: wouldn't happen now, but that's because much of the commissioner's powers of disciple have been limited through collective bargaining.) Kauff was aquitted and requested reinstatement. Landis refused saying he'd read every word of the transcripts and the verdict was a travesty of justice. Kauff never played professional baseball again. A similar thing happened after the Black Sox were aquitted. Not nearly as clearly on target since they weren't charged with throwing games. The judge gave the following charge to the jury: "The State must prove that it was the intent of the ballplayers and gamblers charged with conspiracy through throwing the World Series, to defraud the public and others, not merely to throw ballgames." In any case, after aquittal the various banned players requested reinstatement and then sued after Landis refused. And lost. Hell, Buck Weaver lost even though what he was banned for (guilty knowledge. IE, knowing about the fix and not informing the league -- almost nobody doubts that Weaver took no money and played his best to win) wasn't clearly against the rules (it is now.) > The bridge evidence agrues for B&S' innocence compellingly. It's reasonably clear that R&S didn't (knowingly) use the information. Illicit signals are illegal though, and here the issue is substantially less clear. From blml at blakjak.com Mon Jun 27 19:23:33 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Jun 27 19:27:03 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <000001c57b2f$d7ea67f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <200506271454.HAA26964@mailhub.irvine.com> <000001c57b2f$d7ea67f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1pYSIDYVYDwCFwGD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >I have said it before and I state it again: The mere coincidence that the >board was played by East as acting declarer in the same denomination that >South really had declared does not make this board "convertible" to having >been played by South. Rubbish. It was played in the correct denomination. Thus the tricks were won by the correct players. Perhaps you could quote a Law before you "say it again" why the number of tricks is not correct? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Mon Jun 27 19:24:27 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Jun 27 19:27:42 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? - off topic politically incorrect rant In-Reply-To: <000101c57b30$e916cf40$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2uri5rNZBBwCFwHh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000101c57b30$e916cf40$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of David Stevenson >.............. (snip all my previous stuff) >> I think it sad that you will automatically rule against any players >> who seem to be enjoying themselves. Actually, it is not illegal to do >> so. No wonder bridge has difficulties attracting new players if this >> approach were normal. > >Were we talking serious bridge event or a pleasure event? I have never seen any difference. All events I play in at top level are pleasure events. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Mon Jun 27 19:26:37 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Jun 27 19:29:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Gambling in more ways than one In-Reply-To: <4d55aa814d.Mike@RiscPC02.bellfamily.org.uk> References: <4d55aa814d.Mike@RiscPC02.bellfamily.org.uk> Message-ID: <7p+Ro2YNbDwCFwm+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mike Bell wrote >David Stevenson wrote >> Mike Bell wrote >> >This event took place in the EBU. North-South are a pick-up partnership, >> >with South much the stronger player. >> > >> >MPs, neither vul, first seat, South is dealt >> > >> >Kx xx xx AKQxxxx >> > >> >3N - P - 4N - AP >> > >> >At his turn to bid, East, the strongest player at the table, asked what >> >3NT was. North answered "I think its twenty-something points balanced". >> >East and South make eye contact and both smile, then East passes >> >"looking smug". Do you allow South's pass? Assuming your answer is yes, >> >would you if East had asked then passed quickly with no other reaction? >> >> You have two simple UI cases. >> >> In the first case, South has bid 3NT, has some UI from partner, and we >> have to choose what are LAs and whether he has chosen the one suggested >> ..... >> >> In the second case, South has bid 3NT, has some UI from partner, and >> we have to choose what are LAs and whether he has chosen the one >> suggested ..... >> >> First, I find out how South plays 3NT. Yes, I know it is gambling, >> but does it show 7? 7 or 8? Is it allowed a K outside? An A? A Q? >> What is a 4NT response? > >North-South have had no discussion on the sequence. South generally >plays it as 7 or 8 cards, and one king but not much more is allowed >outside - definitely no aces. He has no idea what a 4NT response could >be, and considers this to have revealed that partner has taken it as >strong balanced. South would be pushed in view of that to argue that 4NT was not natural, and to argue that his king was not extra values. So, rule it to 6NT. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 27 19:30:59 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Jun 27 19:34:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! References: <20050627144637.28D34EB2E3@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:46 AM Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > A sensational story has just appeared > on the site of Polish Bridge Union > by Slawomir Latala about > the disqualification of > the Buratti - Lanzarotti pair. > (I cannot find anything on the > Tenerife official website). > Here is my translation. > > +== > > The teams of Beral (Isreal) > and Lavazza (Italy) met > in the final round of Swiss teams. > Both teams needed big wins > to advance to the KO phase. > Deals 21-30 were played. > The first two deals were > gains for the Israeli > team and were followed deal #23: > > > Round 5, deal 23, both sides VUL, > South dealer > West cashed the HA and switched to a club. Buratti > won in dummy and played the DJ. Speaks the > Isreali defender, sitting East: > - Having spread the dummy Lanzarotti tilted > to have a peak into my hand. I had a similar experience at the 1992 Pan-American Championships. My recollection is that dummy had UI during the auction that his side had a bidding mishap [read- his side was taking its medicine] and after dummy had spread he asked to see my hand. He was displeased since I did not cooperate. Personally I was upset that he thought I was a low life. It is somewhat gratifying that my judgment has been borne out. regards roger pewick > Though I never > intended to show him my cards I didn't make > any attempt to hide them. > Cibor From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 27 19:46:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 27 19:48:29 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <200506271454.HAA26964@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: > It's been a while, so I don't remember what Tim said. Tim said there was a scoring error (400 is an incorrect score for 2H+1) which must be corrected. Tim's first attempt involved miscounting how many tricks were made and calculating +110 rather than +140! > But if you're going to presume South was the declarer, No presumption about it. All 4 players agreed on the bidding - South *was* declarer. > what are we to do with the fact that every play West made was based on > UI Nothing? One might ask NS if they felt damaged by West's actions. Of course there may have been neither damage nor LAs. > there is no provision in the Laws for accepting > plays that are illegal because they are based on UI. But there is provision for ruling "no damage". > Sorry, I still thinks it makes a lot more sense to say "the Laws don't > deal with this particular irregularity." If the laws don't address it specifically the TD is still required to give a ruling - result stands (with scoring correction) or an assigned adjusted score seeming to be the options. TBH I'd be really surprised if, on explaining to all why the score was being changed and asking if everybody felt that was "fair" somebody asked for a ruling on the number of tricks! Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 27 19:46:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 27 19:48:35 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <000001c57b2f$d7ea67f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > IF the board should be scored then the score to be used must be the > score actually obtained, and that was 4 down for EW No it wasn't. It is indisputable, uncontested fact that the declarer was *South* and 9 tricks were taken by NS with hearts as trumps. > or 400 to NS but I believe everybody agree that this would be > ridiculous. Just illegal. One cannot score +400 as declarer in 2H. >Just consider the implications if East had been playing in > say NT or in a minor suit instead of 2 in whatever major suit actually > contracted by South (I have forgotten which suit it was). Then we would have a different situation - some tricks would have been attributed to the side which didn't play the highest trump/card in suit led. > The board has been fouled beyond repair and must be cancelled. The board was not fouled. A result was obtained. If you think an adjustment is needed (as it would have been had the wrong contract been played) you use L12c2 to assign a score - one might well treat both sides as offending for this purpose (+110/-140 for example). >From another posting: > Were we talking serious bridge event or a pleasure event? The players concerned did not regard the event as sufficiently serious to be worth staying sober. Given the stipulation that they were not disruptive to other tables (or forbidden alcohol by regulation) there is no reason not to respect their judgement. I don't care how serious a TD thinks the event is - these players were obviously there for pleasure. Tim From adam at irvine.com Mon Jun 27 20:07:24 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Jun 27 20:09:31 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:46:00 BST." Message-ID: <200506271807.LAA28072@mailhub.irvine.com> Tim wrote: > > what are we to do with the fact that every play West made was based on > > UI > > Nothing? One might ask NS if they felt damaged by West's actions. > Of course there may have been neither damage nor LAs. That seems very unlikely. West made 12 plays based on UI (i.e. East instructing him which card to play), and there were no logical alternatives to *any* of them? It's remotely possible, perhaps; but we'd need to examine the hand more closely to find out for sure. And a ruling about damage isn't based on whether N-S "felt" damaged---that's not what the Laws say. Assuming that at least some of West's plays were illegal according to Law 16, then damage exists if there's a likelihood that N-S would have gotten a better score if changing any of West's illegal plays to a legal one would have resulted in a better score for N-S. The point is, nobody seems interested in making these calculations. Which is, in a way fine, because it's silly to go to all this effort. But this means that the majority position on BLML seems to be something like "We have to apply the Laws to this situation, but we'll ignore one of the Laws [i.e. L16] because it's too difficult". I don't see how this position is any superior to saying that the Laws don't cover this situation and so we'll rule in whatever way seems the most sensible. I don't have an objection to ruling N-S +140 here; my objection is to the belief that this is *the* unambiguously correct ruling according to the Laws, when one can arrive there only by not worrying about one of the Laws that ought to be applied. My belief here is that this situation is so bizarre that *no* reasonable ruling by the TD, including N-S +140 or E-W -400 or "this isn't bridge, throw the board out", ought to be criticized. -- Adam From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jun 27 20:20:05 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Jun 27 20:22:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <28038522.1119896405626.JavaMail.www@wwinf3001> +=+ Note that a report has been issued to the press at 1600 hours Monday. It will appear in the Championships Bulletin in Tenerife on Tuesday. Sundry journalists on site are also releasing articles to their newspapers. ~ G ~ +=+ ======================================== Message date : Jun 27 2005, 04:21 PM >From : "Konrad Ciborowski" To : blml@rtflb.org Copy to : Subject : [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! A sensational story has just appeared on the site of Polish Bridge Union by Slawomir Latala about the disqualification of the Buratti - Lanzarotti pair. (I cannot find anything on the Tenerife official website). Here is my translation. -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 27 21:42:09 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Jun 27 21:43:55 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? References: <200506271807.LAA28072@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 13:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] all drunk ? > > Tim wrote: > > > > what are we to do with the fact that every play West made was based on > > > UI > > > > Nothing? One might ask NS if they felt damaged by West's actions. > > Of course there may have been neither damage nor LAs. > > That seems very unlikely. West made 12 plays based on UI (i.e. East > instructing him which card to play), and there were no logical > alternatives to *any* of them? It's remotely possible, perhaps; but > we'd need to examine the hand more closely to find out for sure. And > a ruling about damage isn't based on whether N-S "felt" > damaged---that's not what the Laws say. Assuming that at least some > of West's plays were illegal according to Law 16, then damage exists > if there's a likelihood that N-S would have gotten a better score if > changing any of West's illegal plays to a legal one would have > resulted in a better score for N-S. > > The point is, nobody seems interested in making these calculations. Earlier I pointed out that the hands were not made available. I for one think determining an adjusted score without all the facts is dangerous. If called upon to rule it would be based on the facts in accordance with law which includes such calculations. Actually, I was curious as to whether damage occurred if for no other reason that I conjectured that it hadn't- at leaast from declarer's point of view . However, a more tantalizing prospect is whether the oringinal 'defenders' were damaged by the 'OLOOT', and if so, whether a 72B1 adjustment was in order. regards nobody > Which is, in a way fine, because it's silly to go to all this effort. it really is not fine. it is a display of ignorance as well as apathy- the two great bastions underpinning civilization. regards roger pewick > But this means that the majority position on BLML seems to be > something like "We have to apply the Laws to this situation, but we'll > ignore one of the Laws [i.e. L16] because it's too difficult". I > don't see how this position is any superior to saying that the Laws > don't cover this situation and so we'll rule in whatever way seems the > most sensible. I don't have an objection to ruling N-S +140 here; my > objection is to the belief that this is *the* unambiguously correct > ruling according to the Laws, when one can arrive there only by not > worrying about one of the Laws that ought to be applied. My belief > here is that this situation is so bizarre that *no* reasonable ruling > by the TD, including N-S +140 or E-W -400 or "this isn't bridge, throw > the board out", ought to be criticized. > > -- Adam From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Mon Jun 27 22:00:32 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon Jun 27 21:57:13 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <200506271807.LAA28072@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Adam Beneschan wrote: > That seems very unlikely. West made 12 plays based on UI (i.e. East > instructing him which card to play), and there were no logical > alternatives to *any* of them? Let me remind you that for every time West made a play based on UI from his partner's instruction - North, the actual dummy, chose a card to play from his own hand despite being forbidden to influence the course of play in any manner. Why do you judge E-W's infraction to be the more serious one? I can see three alternatives: 1) Figure all the silliness by both sides cancels out, and assign the "table result" (same number of tricks taken, but scored according to who really got the bid); 2) Treat both sides as offending, which they are, in a very strict sense of the word; 3) or treat *only North-South* as the offending side, since South's lead out of turn was the first infraction, and treat all the rest of the irregularities as caused my being mistakenly informed by the person who committed the previous irregularity. Interestingly, L47E1 just says that "LHO should not accept the lead" if someone leads out of turn because of misinformation by his opponents - so we are left with common sense. GRB From adam at irvine.com Mon Jun 27 22:12:25 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Jun 27 22:14:26 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Jun 2005 12:00:32 -0800." Message-ID: <200506272012.NAA28801@mailhub.irvine.com> Gordon wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > That seems very unlikely. West made 12 plays based on UI (i.e. East > > instructing him which card to play), and there were no logical > > alternatives to *any* of them? > > Let me remind you that for every time West made a play based on UI from > his partner's instruction - North, the actual dummy, chose a card to play > from his own hand despite being forbidden to influence the course of play > in any manner. > > Why do you judge E-W's infraction to be the more serious one? I don't. I'm trying to analyze what happens if we try hard to apply the Laws to the letter. There are a ton of infractions, but many of them can be condoned by the opposition, according to the Laws. The use of UI cannot. I hadn't really given much thought about dummy influencing the play, since there are no specific penalties for that---but you're right, and that would have to be considered if considering an adjusted score. I don't think the Laws allow that infraction to be condoned either. > I can see three alternatives: > > 1) Figure all the silliness by both sides cancels out, and assign the > "table result" (same number of tricks taken, but scored according to who > really got the bid); > > 2) Treat both sides as offending, which they are, in a very strict sense > of the word; > > 3) or treat *only North-South* as the offending side, since South's lead > out of turn was the first infraction, and treat all the rest of the > irregularities as caused my being mistakenly informed by the person who > committed the previous irregularity. If it came down to a choice between #2 and #3, I'd have to be at the table and talk to the players to find out what they were thinking. (Then again, if all of their brains were alcohol-ridden, my guess is that I'd end up treating both sides as equally offending. But in a similar but different situation, I could see ruling that South is the primary offender.) -- Adam From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 27 22:37:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 27 22:39:59 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <200506271807.LAA28072@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: > > Nothing? One might ask NS if they felt damaged by West's actions. > > Of course there may have been neither damage nor LAs. > That seems very unlikely. West made 12 plays based on UI (i.e. East > instructing him which card to play), and there were no logical > alternatives to *any* of them? It's remotely possible, perhaps; Or very likely even. The LAs (if any) would be predicated on the visibility of the real dummy (obviously a player who thinks he's dummy has no LAs but to play cards as instructed by the man he thinks is declarer). The same contract made only 8 tricks at the other table so damage sounds unlikely to me. > And a ruling about damage isn't based on whether N-S "felt" > damaged---that's not what the Laws say. No - but it is based on opponents having "substantial reason to believe that an opponent..." etc. NS saw a West "suggest" a play to East 13 times without once reserving their rights! I would be *prepared* to make a ruling on LAs/damage nevertheless - if requested by either side. I'd offer *both* sides the opportunity of a such a ruling when explaining the score correction. I do not consider the TD obliged to give such a ruling (entitled to, but not obliged) if all the players feel result (2H+1) stands to be "fair". > reasonable ruling by the TD, including N-S +140 or E-W -400 or "this > isn't bridge, throw the board out", ought to be criticized. EW -400 isn't, IMO, reasonable - the contract was 2H by S (nv). Whatever score one assigns to either side *must* be obtainable in 2H. Throwing the board out would be illegal - the board was played and a result obtained. Tim > we'd need to examine the hand more closely to find out for sure. From adam at irvine.com Mon Jun 27 22:55:12 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Jun 27 22:57:12 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:37:00 BST." Message-ID: <200506272055.NAA29027@mailhub.irvine.com> Tim wrote: > EW -400 isn't, IMO, reasonable - the contract was 2H by S (nv). Whatever > score one assigns to either side *must* be obtainable in 2H. If you start from the assumption that the Laws *must* apply to the board, you may be right. If you start from the position that this board involves one big irregularity that is not envisioned by the Laws, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the TD is on his own here and can rule whatever way seems just. I do not accept the first assumption and don't see any reason why it must be accepted. I do not see a good reason why a situation like this, that is so far removed from anything considered in the Laws, *must* be squeezed and contorted to make it fit into Laws that weren't written to handle this situation. What good would be achieved by that? > Throwing the > board out would be illegal - the board was played and a result obtained. Well, one could make a case that with one defender exposing his hand, one defender playing the other's cards, and the dummy playing his own cards and not exposing his hand, the game they were playing was *not* bridge and the board was therefore *not* played. So I don't think there would be anything illegal about ruling this way. -- Adam From sociological at torgersen.as Mon Jun 27 23:06:27 2005 From: sociological at torgersen.as (Gertie) Date: Mon Jun 27 23:08:54 2005 Subject: [blml] This stuff is not really expensive as before... Message-ID: <1895852338.6814956491@host064206.metrored.net.mx> Become self-confident! Make it happen! http://msuiue.ebhpifwpt6wmixw.gymnetrousnc.com If fear alters behavior, you're already defeated. As men, we are all equal in the presence of death. Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. From peaceable at seductive.ch Mon Jun 27 23:07:35 2005 From: peaceable at seductive.ch (Noah) Date: Mon Jun 27 23:09:56 2005 Subject: [blml] You have nothing to be ashamed more! Your women will adore you! Message-ID: <561566808.12668350239@host064206.metrored.net.mx> Your Discount prescriptions resource online. http://ljy.528y9o5gkf5vro5.largelymj.biz They sicken of the calm that know the storm. First make yourself unpopular, then people will take you seriously. Whatever is silenced will clamour to be heard, though silently. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 27 23:08:50 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 27 23:10:47 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <1pYSIDYVYDwCFwGD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000101c57b5c$6af33aa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote > >I have said it before and I state it again: The mere coincidence that the > >board was played by East as acting declarer in the same denomination that > >South really had declared does not make this board "convertible" to > having > >been played by South. > > Rubbish. It was played in the correct denomination. Thus the tricks > were won by the correct players. Perhaps you could quote a Law before > you "say it again" why the number of tricks is not correct? A scoring challenge to all those who argue that this case is simple: (Quote: South was declarer in 2M and made 9 tricks so he shall have +140.) Remember that nobody as far as I have noticed has seen any reason to consider awarding an assigned adjusted score; we know that the board was played in the correct denomination and we know the number of tricks won by each side. Now alter this case on one minor point only: Modify the deal so that regardless of contract the side that has the opening lead will always make 8 tricks. (This is not difficult; somebody may have a bit fun trying to figure out what the hands must look like). This time because South made the opening lead in his own contract he made 8 tricks while if the contract had been played with the correct opening lead from West South would have been set to 5 tricks. We still have exactly the same situation: The wrong player acted as declarer but the contract was played in the correct denomination and we know the number of tricks won by each side. How do you (any of you) want to score this board? Sven From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jun 27 23:08:28 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Jun 27 23:11:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-16 Message-ID: <005301c57b5c$5eab00c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> CASE N-16 (the last) Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff North American Pairs - 1st Qual Board: 8 Dir: West Vul: None S 42 H Q975 D A8732 C 83 S K653 S J87 H A82 H K10 D 10965 D KJ C 105 C AQJ642 S AQ109 H J643 D Q4 C K97 West North East South Pass Pass 1NT 2H(1) Pass(2) Pass 3C Pass Pass 3H Pass Pass Dbl All Pass (1) Majors, not a great hand (2) BIT The Facts: South played 3H doubled -300. Over 2H, West asked and then hesitated about 10 seconds (but claimed to be five to eight seconds by EW) before passing. The director was called by NS after the 3C bid. The Ruling: The director ruled that the score stands, Law 16. Pass was not deemed a logical alternative. The Appeal: NS appealed feeling that the BIT made 3C a 100% action instead of a probable action. The Decision: The committee felt that a break of five to eight seconds was a reasonable estimate. There was no decision as to whether the break indicated a 3C bid. [mlf] Of course the BIT suggested that East bid if he could, and it does not have to suggest a specific bid. No decision? That's the second decision in a UI case: (1) Was there UI? (2) If so, did it demonstrably suggest an action? (3) If so, was there an LA to what was suggested? How can you get to (3) without deciding on (2)? Although a 3C bid may not work, it was an action that 100% of East's peers would take and so was allowed. The table result stands with reciprocal 300 scores. The appeal was found to have substantial merit. [mlf] It had no merit whatsoever, as it should have been obvious that 3C was an automatic bid, UI or no UI. N-S were irked by the bad result and wanted to get it changed for no good reason. Committee: Aaron Silverstein, Chair, Jay Stiefel, Jim Krekorian, Steve Landen, Lloyd Arvedon This seems as good a place as any to point out the 180-degree change of opinion by Edgar Kaplan as to the obligation of a UI recipient. In his fine series of Appeals Committee articles in the early 80s, he wrote that it was perfectly correct for a player to balance vulnerable vs a 4H opening followed by partner's BIT, when holding S Q108753 3 6 AK1075. Even though it would be "flirting with disaster," at least 3 out of 4 [origin of the 75% rule] would take the risk, so there is no LA. Fast forward to 1995, after the LC, feeling that "many suggested actions were allowed by committees when the Commission would prefer them to be barred" came up with new criteria. Kaplan gave as an example, in the same situation as above, a player balancing with S KQ10765 x Kx QJxx, also a five-loser hand. "Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, absurd? No, it wouldn't. Pass would be right quite often." Ergo, the 4S bid should not be allowed. Kaplan continues, "If you are convinced that you would always bid four spades, huddle or no huddle, do not blame the committee for robbing you--blame partner. Let him bid in tempo next time." Later the LC modified its interpretation a bit, saying that the pass should not be required if no one would actually pass, even though passing is not illogical. The East hand in this case seems to qualify under that more-recent interpretation, so the 3C bid was properly allowed. I prefer Kaplan's 1995 opinion and would have passed with that hand. Some of us have a regard for reputation. My personal scorecard, scale of 0 to 1, with 1/2 for right ruling/decision but poor score adjustment. Others may well disagree with my scoring, which might better have employed a larger scale. TD AC N-00 1 1 (no comments) N-01 0 0 N-02 1 0 N-03 0 1/2 N-04 1 1 (no comments) N-05 1 0 N-06 1/2 1/2 N-07 1 1 (no comments) N-08 1 0 N--09 1 1 (no comments) N-10 1 1/2 N-11 1 1 N-12 1 1 (limited comments) N-13 1/2 1/2 N-14 0 1 (without great conviction) N-15 1 0 (others say TD 0 AC 1) N016 1 1 Total 13 10 out of 17 possible By my scoring ACs incorrectly changed a TD's ruling in five cases, while correcting a poor ruling only twice. Not good. It appears that the TDs did a bit better than the ACs (damning with faint praise?), but that doesn't mean ACs are a bad idea. TDs are supposed to be Laws-knowledgeable and ACs bridge-knowledgeable, so there would seem to be a need for an AC in the appeal process. However, it appears that both ACBL TDs and AC, especially the AC, have room for improvement. I am not going to comment on the eight appeals that were lodged in Regionally-rated games, because they were all handled very well by the TD panels. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jun 28 00:24:24 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Jun 28 00:26:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! References: <20050627144637.28D34EB2E3@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <005d01c57b66$fae269b0$a7051d53@kocurzak> Official version can be found at http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05Tenerife/Bulletins.htm Bulletin number 11. I love the argument "diamonds have always been breaking badly in this tournament" Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dziewczyny z Warszawy... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1894 From john at asimere.com Tue Jun 28 01:51:23 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Jun 28 01:54:45 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <000101c57b5c$6af33aa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <1pYSIDYVYDwCFwGD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000101c57b5c$6af33aa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000101c57b5c$6af33aa0$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of David Stevenson >> Sven Pran wrote >> >I have said it before and I state it again: The mere coincidence that the >> >board was played by East as acting declarer in the same denomination that >> >South really had declared does not make this board "convertible" to >> having >> >been played by South. >> >> Rubbish. It was played in the correct denomination. Thus the tricks >> were won by the correct players. Perhaps you could quote a Law before >> you "say it again" why the number of tricks is not correct? > >A scoring challenge to all those who argue that this case is simple: > >(Quote: South was declarer in 2M and made 9 tricks so he shall have +140.) > >Remember that nobody as far as I have noticed has seen any reason to >consider awarding an assigned adjusted score; we know that the board was >played in the correct denomination and we know the number of tricks won by >each side. > >Now alter this case on one minor point only: Modify the deal so that >regardless of contract the side that has the opening lead will always make 8 >tricks. (This is not difficult; somebody may have a bit fun trying to figure >out what the hands must look like). > >This time because South made the opening lead in his own contract he made 8 >tricks while if the contract had been played with the correct opening lead >from West South would have been set to 5 tricks. > >We still have exactly the same situation: The wrong player acted as declarer >but the contract was played in the correct denomination and we know the >number of tricks won by each side. > >How do you (any of you) want to score this board? certainly do, we had a condoned lead out of turn, 13 instances of UI, 13 instances of failure to specify play when penalty cards were on view and a fair bit more. But we had NO DIRECTOR CALL. These guys condoned the whole lot and it's not my business to interfere. > >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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 28 02:13:16 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Jun 28 02:15:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <005d01c57b66$fae269b0$a7051d53@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Official version can be found at http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05Tenerife/Bulletins.htm Bulletin number 11. I love the argument "diamonds have always been breaking badly in this tournament" Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland * * * Press Release: European Open Bridge Championships, Tenerife, 27th June 2005 Following a lengthy hearing of the Championships' Appeals Committee, yesterday evening, the pair of M. Lanzarotti and A. Buratti, was disqualified from the teams event. The Appeals Committee has published its reasons - see text below. Disciplinary Hearing No. 2 Italy v Israel Appeals Committee : Bill Pencharz (Chairman, England), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Jens Auken (Denmark), Grattan Endicott (England), Jean-Paul Meyer (France) Open Teams Swiss "A" Round Board 23. Dealer South. All vulnerable. A3 JT J8543 KJ62 87 Q6542 A765 9843 7 QT6 Q97543 8 KJT9 KQ2 AK92 AT WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Roll Lanzarotti Bareket Buratti --- --- --- 2D Pass 2H Pass 2NT Pass 3S Pass 4D Pass 4S Pass 5C Pass 6D Pass Pass Pass Contract: Six Diamonds, played by South Lead: HA Play: C9, taken by the King, DJ-6-2-7, claim Result: 12 tricks, NS +1370 The Facts: At the end of the play, East called the Director to explain what he had seen. The Director: Told the facts to the Chief Tournament Director, who decided to call upon the Appeal Committee to hold a Disciplinary Hearing. Present: All players, the Captain of East/West, and the Coach of North/South The Players: The Chief Tournament Director explained to the Committee what the East player had told him. Dummy, North, had leaned across to take a look into East's cards. East had then noticed that North had held his arms crossed, and had signalled with three fingers on his arm. East had seen a signal with three fingers three times. Declarer had then played the DJ at trick three, and had let it run, thus making his contract. East then told the same story in his own words. He had not shown his cards, but North had taken a look into them anyway. East had seen three fingers on three occasions, and he had called the Director after Declarer had successfully finessed in diamonds. East complained that he had been so shaken about the whole thing, that he could no longer play to his full capacity. They had lost the match 2-25. - West related the play to the first three tricks: - West led the HA, East contributing the H8; - West then asked a number of questions, particularly about the HK, which South confirmed having shown in the auction; - West switched to the C9, taken by the King - After some thought, South called for the DJ, East contributing the D6 in tempo; - South thought for some more time and let the DJ run. East once more showed what he had seen North do: the left arm lay before him on the table, the right hand lay across it, with the middle three fingers pointing downwards. East showed that he had seen the three fingers once across the wrist, once across the forearm and once free on the table in front of the arm. South was asked to confirm the play as described above, which he did. South was then asked to explain why he played the diamonds in the manner he did. He gave the following responses: -The lead of the HA was curious because dummy had not made a cue-bid in hearts; -After all the questions he decided to play diamonds 1-3; -The first two boards were bad for him and he needed 20VP to qualify for the next round; -Diamonds are always badly divided in this tournament. He had also found the DQ on board 24 (West commented that he had made lots of bids on that board, so finding that Queen was clear-cut). North explained that all through the day, when dummy, he had laid both arms on the table and rested his head on them. This could not be confirmed by East/West since this was the third board of the match and he had not been dummy on the first two. North told the Committee he had only 20% vision in his left eye, and the red honours were all the same to him from that side. When confronted with East's statement, North denied that he had looked at East's cards. The Coach of North/South, in name of their Captain (who was absent), explained that he had told his team to win the match by at least 19 or 20VP. He had never heard allegations of this kind in 30 years' work for the federation and this particular team. West finally added that South had also put his head on his arms while thinking about running the DJ. The Committee's Deliberation : The Committee addressed the issue of their jurisdiction under the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Under law 91B: Right to Disqualify, The Director (and on a reference, the Committee) is specifically empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause. - The Committee also addressed certain technical issues raised by North/South: - The Committee rejected the argument that "Diamonds are always badly divided in this Tournament". - The Committee noted that bidding and making Six Diamonds by normal play was quite likely to win the board as the slam was not straightforward to bid. - The Committee noted that tackling diamonds (trumps) by leading the Jack was singularly against the odds; except in the specific circumstances when declarer knows that East has exactly three diamonds. In this case the odds are 3-1 in favour of leading the Jack. - The Committee noted that East's duck of the Jack of Diamonds was correct technique. South could have had five diamonds, in which case it is a normal gambit to lead the Jack to induce a cover with Q10x. The Committee's reasons: In the play of the hand, East/West believed that Declarer had acted upon improper information conveyed from dummy. They suggested how this information was possibly passed. When asked to explain his reasons for playing the hand in such a fashion declarer gave a number of reasons which the Committee found unconvincing. It was adjudged that the nature of these explanations by a competent player was self-incriminating. The Committee's decision : Lanzarotti-Buratti to be disqualified from the teams event - Law 91B. Match Score adjusted to 18-0 in favour of the team of East/West. Matter to be referred to the Credentials' Committee with reference to the Pairs' event in these Championships. * * * James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 33-34: Experts are also surprisingly bad at what social scientists call "calibrating" their judgments. If your judgments are well calibrated, then you have a sense of how likely it is that your judgment is correct. But experts are much more like normal people: they routinely overestimate the likelihood that they're right. A survey on the question of overconfidence by economist Terrence Odean found that physicians, nurses, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, and investment bankers all believed that they knew more than they did. Similarly, a recent study of foreign-exchange traders found that 70 percent of the time, the traders overestimated the accuracy of their exchange-rate predictions. In other words, it wasn't just that they were wrong; they also didn't have any idea how wrong they were. And that seems to be the rule among experts. The only forecasters whose judgments are routinely well calibrated are expert bridge players and weathermen. It rains on 30 percent of the days when weathermen have predicted a 30 percent chance of rain. * * * Richard Hills notes: _Because_ bridge experts are an exception to the general rule that experts have poorly calibrated judgments, a decisive factor in the Committee's assessment was the Buratti's poorly calibrated decision to choose to run the jack of diamonds (in the absence of UI) or his well calibrated decision (in the presence of UI suggesting a 1-3 break). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 28 02:22:58 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Jun 28 02:25:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <003301c56eab$19a16e00$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs, nil vul, North dealer, South opened 1S after two passes and West held - S KT87 H AK86 D K975 C K9 - and passed. North-South claim that West broke tempo, East- West denied the claim. After two more passes, East chose a balancing 2C with - S Q4 H JT4 D J43 K QT632 The director's ruling: >>The Ruling: There was no agreement as to the facts, >>therefore no UI was established. Having no basis on which >>to adjust the score the table results was allowed to stand. Richard Hills query: Where does Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) support the director's naive assertion that a director must always rule that a hesitation has not occurred if the putative hesitators simply state that it did not happen? Where does Law 85 state that complainants must arbitrarily be assumed to be liars by a naive director when the naive director assesses the facts? Of course, it is possible that the director was not naive, since it is possible that the complainants are notorious for being Secretary Birds with unfounded paranoia. But in that case the director's ruling should have stated that the director assessed that the non-complainants' assertions were more credible on the preponderance of evidence. The director should not have fudged the issue by asserting that non-complainants automatically win, which sets a very bad precedent for truly naive directors who read this case on blml or elsewhere. The appeals committee decision: >>The Decision: West's hand did not suggest a hesitation, so >>the only indication to the contrary was South's >>uncorroborated statement. >> >>The director's ruling indicated that there was no basis for >>an adjustment. East made a case for his bid, pointing to the >>fact that West was marked for a decent hand, finesses rated >>to be onside and he took the risk of bidding at matchpoint >>scoring. The committee affirmed the table result. The AC felt >>that merely because East balanced did not demonstrate that UI >>had been conveyed. >> >>NS could not demonstrate that an unmistakable hesitation >>occurred and brought no new facts to the AC. Therefore an >>AWMW was issued. Marvin French comment: >Is this a joke? West's hand is a very common example of the >sort of hand that many players "hitch" with when RHO opens in >one of their suits. Not strong enough to overcall 1NT, [big snip] Richard Hills query: Why is the West hand not strong enough to overcall 1NT? Do East-West have a special agreement that a 1NT overcall is very strong, stronger than a strong 1NT opening bid? If East-West do have a special agreement about 1NT overcalls, why was this not mentioned at the appeals committee hearing? No matter what the East-West agreement, the appeals committee statement, "West's hand did not suggest a hesitation" seems to me to be a tad meretricious. Unless, of course, the appeals committee also knew that North- South were paranoid Secretary Birds, so were desperately seeking any (meretricious?) reason to justify a ruling against them. The appeal without merit warning might possibly be justified by (meretricious?) logic. The (meretricious?) appeals committee lacked power to overturn the director's (naive?) interpretation of Law 85, so the (meretricious?) appeals committee could argue that North-South had indeed launched a meritless appeal. But I have serious qualms about the methodology of the (naive?) director and (meretricious?) appeals committee. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 28 02:25:05 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 28 02:27:05 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c57b77$d5494280$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: 28. juni 2005 01:51 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] all drunk ? > > In article <000101c57b5c$6af33aa0$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran > writes > >> On Behalf Of David Stevenson > >> Sven Pran wrote > >> >I have said it before and I state it again: The mere coincidence that > the > >> >board was played by East as acting declarer in the same denomination > that > >> >South really had declared does not make this board "convertible" to > >> having > >> >been played by South. > >> > >> Rubbish. It was played in the correct denomination. Thus the > tricks > >> were won by the correct players. Perhaps you could quote a Law before > >> you "say it again" why the number of tricks is not correct? > > > >A scoring challenge to all those who argue that this case is simple: > > > >(Quote: South was declarer in 2M and made 9 tricks so he shall have > +140.) > > > >Remember that nobody as far as I have noticed has seen any reason to > >consider awarding an assigned adjusted score; we know that the board was > >played in the correct denomination and we know the number of tricks won > by > >each side. > > > >Now alter this case on one minor point only: Modify the deal so that > >regardless of contract the side that has the opening lead will always > make 8 > >tricks. (This is not difficult; somebody may have a bit fun trying to > figure > >out what the hands must look like). > > > >This time because South made the opening lead in his own contract he made > 8 > >tricks while if the contract had been played with the correct opening > lead > >from West South would have been set to 5 tricks. > > > >We still have exactly the same situation: The wrong player acted as > declarer > >but the contract was played in the correct denomination and we know the > >number of tricks won by each side. > > > >How do you (any of you) want to score this board? > > certainly do, we had a condoned lead out of turn, 13 instances of UI, 13 > instances of failure to specify play when penalty cards were on view and > a fair bit more. But we had NO DIRECTOR CALL. These guys condoned the > whole lot and it's not my business to interfere. Sorry? The Director was involved in the original case and I believe I made it clear that this one should be equivalent (in appearance) so why would the Director not be involved for a ruling here? Sven From adam at irvine.com Tue Jun 28 02:25:54 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Jun 28 02:27:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:13:16 +1000." Message-ID: <200506280025.RAA30490@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote (quoting James Surowiecki): > A survey on the question of overconfidence by > economist Terrence Odean found that physicians, > nurses, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, and > investment bankers all believed that they knew more > than they did. I'm betting that "economists" was originally on this list but somehow got edited out of the final draft .... :) :) :) :) -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 28 02:48:43 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Jun 28 02:50:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Gambling in more ways than one In-Reply-To: <4d55aa814d.Mike@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Mike Bell: >North-South have had no discussion on the sequence. South generally >plays it as 7 or 8 cards, and one king but not much more is allowed >outside - definitely no aces. He has no idea what a 4NT response >could be, and considers this to have revealed that partner has >taken it as strong balanced. Richard Hills: In my opinion, this is a common psychological error. It is easy to fall into the trap that what you know by UI to be true is the only possible truth. In my opinion, without UI, it is easy to believe the alternate truth that North has a strong hand and is making a slam try. For example: In my partnership agreement, a 4NT response to 3NT asks pard to cue their outside singletons or voids (or alternatively bid their long suit with a 7222 shape). Mike Bell: >I know the answers to these questions because I was South! The >ruling went in my favour, but the director seemed to be looking at >the issue of MI, not UI. Richard Hills: In my opinion, this was a common psychological error by the table director. It is easy for a director to fall into the trap of over- focus in what seems to be a simple MI case. Directors should make a point of checking for UI implications _before_ they rule on MI. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 28 03:01:01 2005 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Tue Jun 28 03:03:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! References: <20050627144637.28D34EB2E3@poczta.interia.pl> <005d01c57b66$fae269b0$a7051d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <002401c57b7c$db66b670$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Where were the screens? http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Official version can be found at http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05Tenerife/Bulletins.htm Bulletin number 11. I love the argument "diamonds have always been breaking badly in this tournament" Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dziewczyny z Warszawy... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1894 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 28 03:05:33 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Jun 28 03:07:38 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads asserted: [big snip} >Throwing the board out would be illegal - the board >was played and a result obtained. Richard Hills quibbles: But there was not any _normal_ play of the board. Law 12A2 -> "The Director may award an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board." Therefore, if I had been the TD, I would have used Law 12A2 to cancel the board and assign Ave- to both sides. (Which, as I recall from an earlier post, was the fully legal decision of the actual CTD.) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From Yuki at asky.com Tue Jun 28 04:42:06 2005 From: Yuki at asky.com (Bill) Date: Tue Jun 28 04:44:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Pleasure your women - size does matter! Message-ID: <2203312183.91037127874@localhost> Hey man, stop throwing away your money http://www.okmpoi.com/ss/ I am a part of all I have seen. Education is a method whereby one acquires a higher grade of prejudices. We have seen better days. An honor is not diminished for being shared. The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. From adjuring at oosterling.net Tue Jun 28 04:42:36 2005 From: adjuring at oosterling.net (Hatty) Date: Tue Jun 28 04:44:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Read this before purchasing penis enlarge products! Message-ID: <18189113098.6350923256@localhost> Penis Enlargement Patch That Works!!! http://www.okmpoi.com/ss/ History is the record of an encounter between character and circumstances. Out, damned spot! out, I say! Most men are within a finger's breadth of being mad. Don't curse the darkness, light a candle. Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life. From henk at ripe.net Tue Jun 28 07:14:49 2005 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue Jun 28 07:16:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <002401c57b7c$db66b670$b4300952@AnnesComputer> References: <20050627144637.28D34EB2E3@poczta.interia.pl> <005d01c57b66$fae269b0$a7051d53@kocurzak> <002401c57b7c$db66b670$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050628071422.02c79260@localhost> At 03:01 28/06/2005, Anne Jones wrote: >Where were the screens? North-East were on one side of the screen, at least in the write-up. Henk >http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk >----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" >To: >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:24 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > > >Official version can be found at > >http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05Tenerife/Bulletins.htm > >Bulletin number 11. > >I love the argument "diamonds have always been breaking >badly in this tournament" > > >Konrad Ciborowski >Krak?w, Poland > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Dziewczyny z Warszawy... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1894 > > >_______________________________________________ >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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 wrnrapx at yahoo.com Tue Jun 28 08:21:40 2005 From: wrnrapx at yahoo.com (Elmer Granger) Date: Tue Jun 28 07:28:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Cia-llis Softabs is the Best dearborn Message-ID: <3.3.2.7.2.2005649.00b0a70@designs.com> Try our revolutionary product, Ciiallis Soft Tabs. New improved formula makes it even better. Cialis Soft Tabs is the new impotence treatment drug that everyone is talking about. Cialis acts up to 36 hours, compare this to only two or three hours of Viagra action! The active ingredient is Tadalafil, same as in brand Cialis. Simply dissolve half a pill under your tongue, 10 min before intercourse for the best erections you've ever had! Cialis also have less sidebacks (you can drive or mix alcohol drinks with them). No prior prescription is needed. Worldwide shipping, thousands of happy customers! You can get it at: http://confuting.com/cs/?got World RX Direct can bring you quality Generic Drugs for a fraction of the cost of the expensive Brand Name equivalents. Order our Tadalafil pills today and save 80%. We ship worldwide, and currently supply to over 1 million customers globally! We always strive to bring you the cheapest prices. piquant http://confuting.com/rm.php?got From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 28 09:16:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 28 09:18:24 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > Earlier I pointed out that the hands were not made available. I for one > think determining an adjusted score without all the facts is dangerous. Indeed. Changing the score from 400 to 140 is not an adjustment - it's the correction of scoring error (something the TD must rectify). There were numerous other irregularities which a TD might choose to rule on were he to consider further rectification necessary (the full hand details would be needed). The TD would be obliged to make such a ruling at the request of any one of the four players at the table but let's face they're drunk, they've had a bit of a laugh, they didn't call the TD at the time of the irregularities - do you really think they are going to ask for a ruling now? Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 28 09:16:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 28 09:18:30 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills quibbled: > >Throwing the board out would be illegal - the board > >was played and a result obtained. > > But there was not any _normal_ play of the board. So what? There is no requirement that the result actually obtained be due to normal play. Law12a2 is for cases where no result was obtained and normal play is no longer possible. Tim From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jun 28 09:37:06 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Jun 28 09:39:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <20050628073706.53705EB2EA@poczta.interia.pl> > Where were the screens? > Screens don't preclude seeing your partner's hands during play. The more I read the write-up, the more I feel stunned. Poor fellas - "and on the deal#24 I also caught the DQ", "all red honors look alike to me". Poor Italians forgot to mention Jewish conspiracy and masonic machinations. But maybe they will in the Credentials Committee. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OMNIXMAIL! Jesli masz telefon w sieci Era i dostep do WAP, to mozesz na komorce odbierac poczte ze wszystkich swoich kont poczty e-mail! OMNIXMAIL jest w Era Omnix: http://link.interia.pl/f1896 From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 28 12:17:15 2005 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Tue Jun 28 12:19:15 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? References: Message-ID: <003801c57bca$90167bd0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> As I understand it - and it may take one drunk to appreciate another - South was the declarer and placed one of his cards face up on the table before West made his opening lead. Was it an honour card? This was during the auction time. West now placed all his cards face up. All players now placed cards face up and instead of laying his cards as dummy North laid them down one by one as East was doing strange things too. All 52 cards have been exposed during the auction, so instead of scoring the non bridge event South should now be instructed to choose one of Wests cards as an opening lead and play the 3H contract with all cards exposed in the manner instructed by Law for multiple exposed cards. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] all drunk ? > > > > > Tim West-Meads asserted: > > [big snip} > >>Throwing the board out would be illegal - the board >>was played and a result obtained. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > But there was not any _normal_ play of the board. > > Law 12A2 -> "The Director may award an artificial > adjusted score if no rectification can be made that > will permit normal play of the board." > > Therefore, if I had been the TD, I would have used > Law 12A2 to cancel the board and assign Ave- to both > sides. > > (Which, as I recall from an earlier post, was the > fully legal decision of the actual CTD.) > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Wyman at deas.com Tue Jun 28 12:39:11 2005 From: Wyman at deas.com (Dickon) Date: Tue Jun 28 12:42:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Find where to buy online cheap Viagra. Message-ID: <33148130099.12088531101@lin8.adsl-pool.donpac.ru> Best Deals on all Generic Viagra and Generic Cialis Alternatives with guaranteed lowest prices http://kjrhzf.8nb1ur8j5iqgcr8.swirlykc.com There is no such thing in anyone's life as an unimportant day. Black holes are where God divided by zero. When the stomach is full, it is easy to talk of fasting. From accompanying at wortman.com Tue Jun 28 12:39:30 2005 From: accompanying at wortman.com (Christine) Date: Tue Jun 28 12:42:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Excellent everyday low prices on brand name and generic drugs Message-ID: <231091498.12500617918@lin8.adsl-pool.donpac.ru> These are sites that have a doctor and sell brand name Cialis http://mef.apv3eta372aieta.swirlykc.com Besides anarchy, the worst thing in this world is government. I'm right and everybody else is wrong! See, now everyone's happy! Love much. Earth has enough of bitter in it. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 28 14:20:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 28 14:22:24 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <003801c57bca$90167bd0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: Anne wrote: > declarer and placed one of his cards face up on the table before > West made his opening lead. Was it an honour card? This was during the > auction time. It was during the auction period (to the extent that an opening lead always is) - but not during the auction. The card was led by South (not prematurely since the auction was over, but out of turn). There were thus 3 passes followed by a faced opening lead ending the "auction period". L17E does not require the lead to be in turn in order for the auction period to end. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 28 14:20:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 28 14:22:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <20050628073706.53705EB2EA@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Interesting. It is clear that the AC did not apply "beyond reasonable doubt" as their criterion for conviction. The unsupported evidence of a self-interested witness would get fried in a criminal court. I'm not criticising either the verdict or the due process here - just making an observation. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jun 28 14:20:49 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Jun 28 14:22:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <17231391.1119961249943.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> +=+ North and East were screenmates. The report in this morning's Daily Telegraph (London) was compiled from a source outside the AC's membership, although Jourdain has not revealed his source. The Credentials Committee has not been required to deliberate since the pair were apparently not entered for the Pairs and have left Tenerife. The precise terms of the AC Report are worthy of attention as no assumptions should be made beyond what it says in respect of the AC's deliberations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ======================================== Message date : Jun 28 2005, 09:08 AM >From : "Konrad Ciborowski" To : blml@rtflb.org Copy to : Subject : Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > Where were the screens? > Screens don't preclude seeing your partner's hands during play. The more I read the write-up, the more I feel stunned. Poor fellas - "and on the deal#24 I also caught the DQ", "all red honors look alike to me". Poor Italians forgot to mention Jewish conspiracy and masonic machinations. But maybe they will in the Credentials Committee. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OMNIXMAIL! Jesli masz telefon w sieci Era i dostep do WAP, to mozesz na komorce odbierac poczte ze wszystkich swoich kont poczty e-mail! OMNIXMAIL jest w Era Omnix: http://link.interia.pl/f1896 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 28 14:41:49 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Jun 28 14:43:41 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? References: <003801c57bca$90167bd0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 5:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] all drunk ? > As I understand it - and it may take one drunk to appreciate another - South > was the declarer and placed one of his cards face up on the table before > West made his opening lead. Very good. The auction was over, the auction period was not. > Was it an honour card? This was during the > auction time. West now placed all his cards face up. As one drunk to another- now the auction period is over; as now there is an 'OL' selected by a E. > All players now placed > cards face up and S's premature play becomes part of the first trick. > and instead of laying his cards as dummy North laid them down > one by one as East was doing strange things too. > All 52 cards have been exposed during the auction, so instead of scoring the > non bridge event South should now be instructed to choose one of Wests cards > as an opening lead and play the 3H contract with all cards exposed in the > manner instructed by Law for multiple exposed cards. since the auction period is over and 13 tricks are complete it looks 'too late' to treat w's cards as PC. I originally thought that there may be a L72B1 problem with S's irregularity. After walking through the sequence of events I am not thinking that any more. By law S's exposed card is not an OL and therefore that irregularity can not gain or lose tricks. Any consequent gain or loss of tricks is due to the misunderstanding or bad play of the individual players. regards roger pewick > Anne > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:05 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] all drunk ? > > Tim West-Meads asserted: > > > > [big snip} > > > >>Throwing the board out would be illegal - the board > >>was played and a result obtained. > > > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > > > But there was not any _normal_ play of the board. > > > > Law 12A2 -> "The Director may award an artificial > > adjusted score if no rectification can be made that > > will permit normal play of the board." > > > > Therefore, if I had been the TD, I would have used > > Law 12A2 to cancel the board and assign Ave- to both > > sides. > > > > (Which, as I recall from an earlier post, was the > > fully legal decision of the actual CTD.) > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard Hills > > Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Jun 28 15:02:32 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue Jun 28 15:04:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <17231391.1119961249943.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> References: <17231391.1119961249943.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0506280602387e1192@mail.gmail.com> Regardless of whether Buratti and Lanzarotti are guilty or innocent, this latest cheating scandal is a disgrace. There is such a thing as bad publicity and this is a classic example. I don't want to comment on whether the Italian pair is guilty or innocent. I doubt that we will ever have sufficient information to know definitively. With this said and done, I would like to focus attention an an area where we can make some concert statements: Its high time that the WBF started insisting on some "real" security for these events. In the past, I have strongly advocated that significant tournaments such as the Bermuda Bowl, the Vanderbilt, and the Cavendish should be conducted using an electronic playing environment. Teams would continue to gather in a common physical location, however, the event would be conducting using personal computers networked into a Local Area Network (LAN). All of the North players could be physically segregated in one room. The South players in another... Packet sniffers could be used to monitor network traffic and look for out of band communications. Implemented properly, this type of system would result in enormous improvements in physical security. The system would also yield a number of other significant benefits. The most significant would be 1. Improving Online VuGraph by an order of magnitude 2. Providing directors with perfect information regarding tempo 3. Eliminating a wide variety of mechanical errors such as fouled movements and misduplications. In the past, I've heard a number of arguments against such a system and found most of them to be very non-compelling. A number of pros have explained how they need to play face-to-face in order to preserve their "table-feel". We'll, we now see where preserving "table feel" gets yah... As I noted earlier, I doubt that we'll every know with 100% certainty whether Buratti - Lanzarotti are innocent or guilty. I do believe that its clear that the tournament organizers were negligent and failed to implement appropriate security measures. -- "All revolutions end in the substitution of new masters" - Carlos Fuentes From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 28 15:15:11 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 28 15:17:12 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c57be3$6a5ab7d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Anne wrote: > > > declarer and placed one of his cards face up on the table before > > West made his opening lead. Was it an honour card? This was during the > > auction time. > > It was during the auction period (to the extent that an opening lead > always is) - but not during the auction. The card was led by South (not > prematurely since the auction was over, but out of turn). There were thus > 3 passes followed by a faced opening lead ending the "auction period". > L17E does not require the lead to be in turn in order for the auction > period to end. No, but Law 41A does (however see also Law 54 which covers the special case of an opening lead attempted by the presumed declarer's RHO instead of his LHO). Presumed declarer or dummy can never make an opening lead that will "end" the auction period, such a lead will always be "card exposed or led during auction" and is handled under Law 24. Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jun 28 15:15:15 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Jun 28 15:17:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <20050628131515.E03CAEB309@poczta.interia.pl> > 2. Providing directors with perfect information regarding tempo We almost wouldn't need that. The software could display other players' bids and plays in one fell swoop also adding some random interval to the total time needed by the players to produce their bids and plays (to make it difficult to draw conclusions based on tempo in the situations where obviously only patner could be doing the thinking). __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OMNIXMAIL! Jesli masz telefon w sieci Era i dostep do WAP, to mozesz na komorce odbierac poczte ze wszystkich swoich kont poczty e-mail! OMNIXMAIL jest w Era Omnix: http://link.interia.pl/f1896 From blml at blakjak.com Tue Jun 28 15:28:21 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Jun 28 15:31:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0506280602387e1192@mail.gmail.com> References: <17231391.1119961249943.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> <2da24b8e0506280602387e1192@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: richard willey wrote >Regardless of whether Buratti and Lanzarotti are guilty or innocent, >this latest cheating scandal is a disgrace. There is such a thing as >bad publicity and this is a classic example. I don't want to comment >on whether the Italian pair is guilty or innocent. I doubt that we >will ever have sufficient information to know definitively. > >With this said and done, I would like to focus attention an an area >where we can make some concert statements: Its high time that the WBF >started insisting on some "real" security for these events. In the >past, I have strongly advocated that significant tournaments such as >the Bermuda Bowl, the Vanderbilt, and the Cavendish should be >conducted using an electronic playing environment. Teams would >continue to gather in a common physical location, however, the event >would be conducting using personal computers networked into a Local >Area Network (LAN). All of the North players could be physically >segregated in one room. The South players in another... Packet >sniffers could be used to monitor network traffic and look for out of >band communications. > >Implemented properly, this type of system would result in enormous >improvements in physical security. The system would also yield a >number of other significant benefits. The most significant would be > >1. Improving Online VuGraph by an order of magnitude >2. Providing directors with perfect information regarding tempo >3. Eliminating a wide variety of mechanical errors such as fouled >movements and misduplications. > >In the past, I've heard a number of arguments against such a system >and found most of them to be very non-compelling. A number of pros >have explained how they need to play face-to-face in order to preserve >their "table-feel". We'll, we now see where preserving "table feel" >gets yah... I think it unfortunate to destroy a game for the sake of an unfortunate happening. You propose replacing bridge with something else: I propose continuing with bridge. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Jun 28 15:36:35 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue Jun 28 15:38:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: References: <17231391.1119961249943.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> <2da24b8e0506280602387e1192@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0506280636522f59b4@mail.gmail.com> > I think it unfortunate to destroy a game for the sake of an > unfortunate happening. You propose replacing bridge with something > else: I propose continuing with bridge. I propose that the relationship between man handling pieces of cardboard and the game of "bridge" is incidental at best... -- "All revolutions end in the substitution of new masters" - Carlos Fuentes From Valois at laservideo.com Tue Jun 28 17:52:31 2005 From: Valois at laservideo.com (Michael) Date: Tue Jun 28 17:53:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Software protection computer security. Message-ID: <434114564.7040955700@62.38.19.130> GET CD AND DOWNLOADS, all software under $99-$15 http://qnheup.7eb4s67i4z7e487.hoggishlymi.com A thing can be true and still be desperate folly. One does not learn how to die by killing others. From legalize at websitesandsoundbites.com Tue Jun 28 17:52:58 2005 From: legalize at websitesandsoundbites.com (Steve) Date: Tue Jun 28 17:53:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Only our software is guaranteed 100% legal. Message-ID: <9967247919.3729105384@62.38.19.130> Get a head start on a new computer career http://fnc.k96z5jkvzc2rz32.plazajm.net All dogmas perish the thinking mind, especially ones you agree with. A woman who cannot make her mistakes charming, is only a female. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 28 18:14:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 28 18:17:00 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <000001c57be3$6a5ab7d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > Anne wrote: > > > > > declarer and placed one of his cards face up on the table before > > > West made his opening lead. Was it an honour card? This was during > > > the > > > auction time. > > > > It was during the auction period (to the extent that an opening lead > > always is) - but not during the auction. The card was led by South > > (not > > prematurely since the auction was over, but out of turn). There were > > thus > > 3 passes followed by a faced opening lead ending the "auction period". > > L17E does not require the lead to be in turn in order for the auction > > period to end. > > No, but Law 41A does No it doesn't. L41a defines whose turn it is to lead (no reference to the auction period whatsoever). > (however see also Law 54 which covers the special case of an opening > lead attempted by the presumed declarer's RHO instead of his LHO). Law 54 is a special case in terms of the options available to declarer. It is not a special case wrt ending the auction period. > Presumed declarer or dummy can never make an opening lead that will > "end" the auction period, such a lead will always be "card exposed or > led during auction" and is handled under Law 24. The auction is over after the third pass. The auction period ends slightly later. The leads referred to in Law24 are "premature leads" not LOOTs. The lead in question was a LOOT by declarer - L55 applies and the defender has a right to accept the lead* or require it's retraction. *Except if L47e1 applies (can't remember, doesn't matter). Tim From corion at cinemexicano.com Tue Jun 28 03:46:43 2005 From: corion at cinemexicano.com (Belgrade T. Terpsichore) Date: Tue Jun 28 20:45:16 2005 Subject: [blml] software for you Message-ID: <001001c57b83$f945d7ac$12a8d5ed@cinemexicano.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050628/e8d6e651/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 28 20:50:52 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 28 20:52:53 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c57c12$4edc1970$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............ > > > L17E does not require the lead to be in turn in order for the auction > > > period to end. > > > > No, but Law 41A does > > No it doesn't. L41a defines whose turn it is to lead (no reference to the > auction period whatsoever). I think you should do better than that. L41A in fact defines what constitutes an opening lead; the wording of this law implies that the player on the presumed declarer's left is the only player who can (legally) make an opening lead. ........... > > Presumed declarer or dummy can never make an opening lead that will > > "end" the auction period, such a lead will always be "card exposed or > > led during auction" and is handled under Law 24. > > The auction is over after the third pass. I fear I must request you to quote some law for this statement of yours. Don't forget that Law 21B applies without restriction also following the third pass. It is fully possible for the following sequence of events to take place: 1: During the auction there has been three consecutive passes with South to become declarer. However North now leads a card face up. 2: West (still in possession of all his rights) asks some questions on the auction and it becomes clear that during the auction misinformation has been given by South and/or North. 3: The Director allows East or West, the one of them who last passed in the auction so far to change this pass to some other call, after which the auction continues until we again have three consecutive passes. During this continued auction North must pass when next it is his turn to call and the card he led must remain faced on the table in front of him. 4: Assume that the continued auction ends with East as declarer; the card prematurely exposed (led) by North is now a major penalty card (pending a decision by East) with all the implications of this fact. Do you still believe that the auction was over after the third pass? > The leads referred to in Law24 are "premature leads" > not LOOTs. Quite correct, because there is no such thing as an opening lead (out of turn) from either presumed declarer or presumed dummy. An attempt to that effect is "card prematurely led during auction". The only place in the laws you can find the term "opening lead out of turn" is in Law 54 which (from context) explicitly concerns OLOOT made by presumed declarer's RHO and nobody else. > > The lead in question was a LOOT by declarer - L55 applies and the defender > has a right to accept the lead* or require it's retraction. > > *Except if L47e1 applies (can't remember, doesn't matter). I'm afraid you would fail a TD exam on the question: Dummy makes an opening lead, how do you rule? (Be sure to cover all applicable alternatives). Sven From craigstamps at comcast.net Tue Jun 28 21:09:18 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Tue Jun 28 21:10:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! References: Message-ID: <004e01c57c14$e4085a70$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> I share your misgivings, and strongly suspect there may be more to this than has been published. Perhaps Grattan and Herman may be able to shed some light on why such strong action was taken with what evidence that has been shared with us. It may be that you had to be there and that there was considerable non verbal evidence when the alleged offenders were questioned. Still, the disqualification appears to be justified within the conditions of contest. Perhaps it is that the alleged offender "could have known" that his irregular actions were likely to cause others to question his honesty...but more importantly, we have the bridge evidence that supports any accusation. I would stop short of calling them cheaters without clearer evidence. But I might have kicked Meckwell out of the toilet event if the conditions of contest forbid their conduct, while not believing that they are cheats...and there is no bridge evidence I know of there to show they profited other than by relieved bladders or clean hands. When the cash drawer has been emptied, driving up in a new Mercedes is more of a red flag that bagging lunch from the McDonalds' dollar menu. We DO have means, motive and opporunity in this latest case, and there may be sufficient evidence of which we are not (yet?) privy to dispel reasonable doubt. Craig It is odd that this surfaces while we are on the subject, isn't it.! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" > Interesting. > > It is clear that the AC did not apply "beyond reasonable doubt" as their > criterion for conviction. The unsupported evidence of a self-interested > witness would get fried in a criminal court. I'm not criticising either > the verdict or the due process here - just making an observation. > > Tim -------- Narration...Voice Overs...Commercials...Annoucing craigstamps@comcast.net "We also walk dogs" From craigstamps at comcast.net Tue Jun 28 21:26:06 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Tue Jun 28 21:27:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-16-TD PANELS References: <005301c57b5c$5eab00c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <006501c57c17$3afc1c20$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" > I am not going to comment on the eight appeals that were lodged in > Regionally-rated games, because they were all handled very well by the > TD panels. > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California This may however be worthy of comment. This is still something of an experiment, attempting to learn if substituting trained impartial professionals for traditional AC's will improve both accuracy and equity. By your own ratings Marv you indicate the traditional system may have botched the job somewhat. Yet you think the alternative approach was handled very well in all cases? Does this say something about the use of TD panels (a concept that has not yet fully won me over)? What do others thinks From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Tue Jun 28 21:37:57 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Jun 28 21:39:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <004e01c57c14$e4085a70$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: >From: "craig" >To: >Subject: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! >Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:09:18 -0400 > >I share your misgivings, and strongly suspect there may be more to this >than >has been published. Perhaps Grattan and Herman may be able to shed some >light on why such strong action was taken with what evidence that has been >shared with us. It may be that you had to be there and that there was >considerable non verbal evidence when the alleged offenders were >questioned. >Still, the disqualification appears to be justified within the conditions >of >contest. Perhaps it is that the alleged offender "could have known" that >his >irregular actions were likely to cause others to question his honesty...but >more importantly, we have the bridge evidence that supports any accusation. >I would stop short of calling them cheaters without clearer evidence. But I >might have kicked Meckwell out of the toilet event if the conditions of >contest forbid their conduct, while not believing that they are >cheats...and >there is no bridge evidence I know of there to show they profited other >than >by relieved bladders or clean hands. When the cash drawer has been emptied, >driving up in a new Mercedes is more of a red flag that bagging lunch from >the McDonalds' dollar menu. We DO have means, motive and opporunity in this >latest case, and there may be sufficient evidence of which we are not >(yet?) >privy to dispel reasonable doubt. We don't have means. We have one side saying he looked and the other saying he didn't look. Both of these statements are self-serving. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html From craigstamps at comcast.net Tue Jun 28 21:51:12 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Tue Jun 28 21:52:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! References: Message-ID: <010b01c57c1a$bcdf6c80$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> If it were a stabbing, means would be that defendant had access to a knife, and the physical capacity to stab the victim. The means here were the ability to look into a hand and to signal its content. The claim of poor vision might be valid in dispelling means but this was adjudged not sufficient, probably because defendant had been looking at playing cards throughout the event! I have the means to argue with you,,,but of course that does not make either of us right. :-) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > > >>From: "craig" >>To: >>Subject: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! >>Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:09:18 -0400 >> >>I share your misgivings, and strongly suspect there may be more to this >>than >>has been published. Perhaps Grattan and Herman may be able to shed some >>light on why such strong action was taken with what evidence that has been >>shared with us. It may be that you had to be there and that there was >>considerable non verbal evidence when the alleged offenders were >>questioned. >>Still, the disqualification appears to be justified within the conditions >>of >>contest. Perhaps it is that the alleged offender "could have known" that >>his >>irregular actions were likely to cause others to question his >>honesty...but >>more importantly, we have the bridge evidence that supports any >>accusation. >>I would stop short of calling them cheaters without clearer evidence. But >>I >>might have kicked Meckwell out of the toilet event if the conditions of >>contest forbid their conduct, while not believing that they are >>cheats...and >>there is no bridge evidence I know of there to show they profited other >>than >>by relieved bladders or clean hands. When the cash drawer has been >>emptied, >>driving up in a new Mercedes is more of a red flag that bagging lunch from >>the McDonalds' dollar menu. We DO have means, motive and opporunity in >>this >>latest case, and there may be sufficient evidence of which we are not >>(yet?) >>privy to dispel reasonable doubt. > > > We don't have means. We have one side saying he looked and the other > saying he didn't look. Both of these statements are self-serving. > > Wayne > > _________________________________________________________________ > Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ > http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 28 22:31:58 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jun 28 22:30:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0506280636522f59b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <17231391.1119961249943.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> <2da24b8e0506280602387e1192@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0506280636522f59b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050628161746.02b0fc00@pop.starpower.net> At 09:36 AM 6/28/05, rwilley wrote: > > I think it unfortunate to destroy a game for the sake of an > > unfortunate happening. You propose replacing bridge with something > > else: I propose continuing with bridge. > >I propose that the relationship between man handling pieces of >cardboard and the game of "bridge" is incidental at best... It's not about pieces of cardboard; it's about L16, "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from... mannerisms of opponents." Precluding that mechanically would be as substantive a change as rewriting L16 to make it illegal, which I very much doubt many of us would consider "incidental at best". If you like Richard's proposal, why go halfway? If bridge doesn't need players' having the ability to read their opponents, why should they even know who their opponents are? Indeed, why have opponents at all? Forget the problems caused by two-winner Mitchell movements; just put everyone in the same line and let them play against a computer program for 28 boards. Just think, no fixes! Would that be duplicate bridge or duplicate partnership solitaire? Would it matter what we called it? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Jun 28 22:46:24 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue Jun 28 22:48:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050628161746.02b0fc00@pop.starpower.net> References: <17231391.1119961249943.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> <2da24b8e0506280602387e1192@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0506280636522f59b4@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050628161746.02b0fc00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0506281346b7f311e@mail.gmail.com> >It's not about pieces of cardboard; it's about L16, "Players are >authorized to base their calls and plays on information from... >mannerisms of opponents." Precluding that mechanically would be as >substantive a change as rewriting L16 to make it illegal, which I very >much doubt many of us would consider "incidental at best". Screens block players from being able to directly observe one of their opponents. I'm simply proposing an improvement on screens that (a) Will work better (b) Will yield a number of additional benefits On 6/28/05, Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:36 AM 6/28/05, rwilley wrote: > > > > I think it unfortunate to destroy a game for the sake of an > > > unfortunate happening. You propose replacing bridge with something > > > else: I propose continuing with bridge. > > > >I propose that the relationship between man handling pieces of > >cardboard and the game of "bridge" is incidental at best... > > It's not about pieces of cardboard; it's about L16, "Players are > authorized to base their calls and plays on information from... > mannerisms of opponents." Precluding that mechanically would be as > substantive a change as rewriting L16 to make it illegal, which I very > much doubt many of us would consider "incidental at best". > > If you like Richard's proposal, why go halfway? If bridge doesn't need > players' having the ability to read their opponents, why should they > even know who their opponents are? Indeed, why have opponents at > all? Forget the problems caused by two-winner Mitchell movements; just > put everyone in the same line and let them play against a computer > program for 28 boards. Just think, no fixes! > > Would that be duplicate bridge or duplicate partnership > solitaire? Would it matter what we called it? > > > 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 > -- "All revolutions end in the substitution of new masters" - Carlos Fuentes From adam at irvine.com Tue Jun 28 22:55:57 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Jun 28 22:57:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:31:58 EDT." <6.1.1.1.0.20050628161746.02b0fc00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200506282055.NAA04741@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > At 09:36 AM 6/28/05, rwilley wrote: > > > > I think it unfortunate to destroy a game for the sake of an > > > unfortunate happening. You propose replacing bridge with something > > > else: I propose continuing with bridge. > > > >I propose that the relationship between man handling pieces of > >cardboard and the game of "bridge" is incidental at best... > > It's not about pieces of cardboard; it's about L16, "Players are > authorized to base their calls and plays on information from... > mannerisms of opponents." Precluding that mechanically would be as > substantive a change as rewriting L16 to make it illegal, which I very > much doubt many of us would consider "incidental at best". Oh, I don't know about that. To me, being able to see my opponents' mannerisms and use them is not an essential part of the game. I could be deprived of that information, and it really wouldn't affect my enjoyment of the *game* any. So, personally, I wouldn't see any reason to stop calling it "bridge". (Doing everything electronically *would* affect my enjoyment of stuff that is extraneous to the game, such as the social interaction that takes place between hands, or even during a hand in a less-serious game. But that has nothing to do with bridge _per se_.) This is one of those things where there just isn't any objective answer. Some things are important to some players and less so to others. It's sort of related to the arguments we keep having on r.g.b about whether conventions should be unrestricted. Some players believe that the ability to experiment with any sort of convention (including difficult artificial preempts) is absolutely essential to the game, others don't think it's that big a deal, and others think that allowing so many conventions detract from what's *really* important about the game, i.e. play and defense. Despite the tone and volume level of these arguments, nobody is right or wrong, and there's nowhere to go to get an objective answer to the question. It's a matter of preference. The real question is, who decides what the relative importance of the different aspects of the game are, and how is this decision made. Ideally, whoever makes the decisions shouldn't be deciding based on their own personal preferences but rather make an effort to find out what their customers prefer---and, if necessary and feasible, find a way to provide different events so that players can play in a game where the relative importance of the different aspects of the game suits their own preferences. So certainly, a proposal like Richard's shouldn't be implemented without consulting the players who'd be likely to play in one of these top-level events. If being able to base calls on opponents' mannerisms is so important that taking this ability away would no longer make the game "bridge", then Richard's idea would hopefully go nowhere. But if it's not all that important to those players, then there shouldn't be a problem. (It wouldn't violate L16 to play everything electronically, by the way. L16 gives you the right to use information that you get from opponents' mannerisms, but it doesn't give you an unqualified right to get that information in the first place.) Although I have no idea whether the top players would go along with this idea, it does seem that screens already take away the ability for players to use the mannerisms of one of their opponents (Richard also said this---his e-mail came to me right as I was in the middle of writing this one), and AFAIK this hasn't caused an exodus of top players from the game. -- Adam From mustikka at charter.net Wed Jun 29 00:12:41 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed Jun 29 00:14:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! References: <17231391.1119961249943.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201><2da24b8e0506280602387e1192@mail.gmail.com><2da24b8e0506280636522f59b4@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050628161746.02b0fc00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001a01c57c2e$80ad0650$8e65d642@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > At 09:36 AM 6/28/05, rwilley wrote: > >> > I think it unfortunate to destroy a game for the sake of an >> > unfortunate happening. You propose replacing bridge with something >> > else: I propose continuing with bridge. >> >>I propose that the relationship between man handling pieces of >>cardboard and the game of "bridge" is incidental at best... > > It's not about pieces of cardboard; it's about L16, "Players are > authorized to base their calls and plays on information from... mannerisms > of opponents." Precluding that mechanically would be as substantive a > change as rewriting L16 to make it illegal, which I very much doubt many > of us would consider "incidental at best". > > If you like Richard's proposal, why go halfway? If bridge doesn't need > players' having the ability to read their opponents, why should they even > know who their opponents are? Indeed, why have opponents at all? Forget > the problems caused by two-winner Mitchell movements; just put everyone in > the same line and let them play against a computer program for 28 boards. > Just think, no fixes! > > Would that be duplicate bridge or duplicate partnership solitaire? Would > it matter what we called it? > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 This would mean that online bridge is not bridge either. With screens, one is able to observe the mannerisms of one opponent only. Would that still be bridge; note "opponent", not "opponents"... I believe the implementation of the electronic playing environment is just around the corner, to eliminate incidents like Buratti-Lanzarotti. It certainly makes it easy to get good, accurate information of several areas of play where directors currently must rely on self-serving statements on both sides. From gaete at doneasy.com Wed Jun 29 03:28:51 2005 From: gaete at doneasy.com (Deandre Waddell) Date: Wed Jun 29 02:32:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Fixed rates will not last long Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.g00d-things.net/signs.asp Best Regards, Sophie Wall to be remov(ed: http://www.g00d-things.net/deletion.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 azar at doramail.com Wed Jun 29 03:24:47 2005 From: azar at doramail.com (Randy Burt) Date: Wed Jun 29 02:32:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Become one of the low rates Message-ID: <20041snudt3.ED8DA244AE@mailhost1u.lists.techtarget.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.g00d-things.net/signs.asp Best Regards, Renee Johnson to be remov(ed: http://www.g00d-things.net/deletion.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 lo8549 at sapo.pt Wed Jun 29 03:10:59 2005 From: lo8549 at sapo.pt (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lu=EDs_Oliveira?=) Date: Wed Jun 29 03:13:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <006601c57c47$696bec90$0100000a@CPQ28901672019> It seems to me that this story is very strange. First of all, I think we all agree that, if the trump suit breakes 1-3, the better play will be jack from dummy. Now, the real problem is - why did declarer choose to play for that particular break? Some of the possible answers are: 1 - As opponents said and AC seemed to agree, he saw a signal made by his partner - for this to happen we must believe that partner saw the opponent's hand. This is very a very difficult matter, believing in what opponent said to the A.C. - he did not allowed Lanzarotti to look to his hand. So, is hard to accept why didn't he called TD, when Lanzarotti forced the action? Then, we must believe that Lanzarotti, after looking to opponent's hand against his will, started making signals to his partner (3 times!!! said the contestant player). Don't you think is quite stupid to do that in these circumstances? Isn't it strange? 2 - Declarer decided to play like that because, LHO lead the HA and, after that, started to make questions about the bidding. It'll be very strange if he had the DQ, don't you think? His behaviour indicates that he's looking for the setting trick on partner's hand not on his own hand. 3 - Is it possible to know how many times in this tournament, on a 9 card fit, opponent's distribution was 2-2, 3-1 or 4-0? This, I think, is a relevant matter, because that analysis can help us to understand (or not) Buratti statement - "diamonds have always been breaking badly in this tournament" I don't pretend to defend italian pair. If it's possible to prove, beyind reasonable doubt, that they are guilty, then I think they must be severely punish. But condemning them based on suppositions is as bad as cheating at bridge table. I believe that EBL will manage this matter carefully. Justice will prevail, I'm sure. Luis From purlman at didamail.com Wed Jun 29 07:15:21 2005 From: purlman at didamail.com (Jeffery Long) Date: Wed Jun 29 06:22:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Pre-approved Application #XPWGT025 Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.g00d-things.net/signs.asp Best Regards, Andrea Mcclellan to be remov(ed: http://www.g00d-things.net/deletion.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 lihouba at doramail.com Wed Jun 29 07:19:16 2005 From: lihouba at doramail.com (Laurie Deal) Date: Wed Jun 29 06:25:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Fixed rates will not last long Message-ID: Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.g00d-things.net/signs.asp Best Regards, Marshall Flood to be remov(ed: http://www.g00d-things.net/deletion.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 ardelm at bigpond.net.au Wed Jun 29 06:55:32 2005 From: ardelm at bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed Jun 29 06:57:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <006601c57c47$696bec90$0100000a@CPQ28901672019> References: <006601c57c47$696bec90$0100000a@CPQ28901672019> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050629145152.052b4530@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Luis: At 11:10 AM 29/06/2005, you wrote: >It seems to me that this story is very strange. First of all, I think we >all agree that, if the trump suit breakes 1-3, the better play will be >jack from dummy. Now, the real problem is - why did declarer choose to >play for that particular break? Some of the possible answers are: snip 1 >2 - Declarer decided to play like that because, LHO lead the HA and, after >that, started to make questions about the bidding. It'll be very strange >if he had the DQ, don't you think? His behaviour indicates that he's >looking for the setting trick on partner's hand not on his own hand. I would think that this ought to be conclusive evidence suggesting "I do not have the queen". Had declarer mentioned this, he might have got off...but he didn't. All suits break badly in my experience. Tony (Sydney) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.6/33 - Release Date: 28/06/2005 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 29 07:42:28 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Jun 29 07:44:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-05 In-Reply-To: <008e01c572c0$49c71bc0$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: The ACBL Appeals Committee wrote: >>>>The committee judged that the likelihood of West's thinking >>>>about doubling to be great enough, relative to the chance >>>>that he was considering bidding 5H or 5S, that the break in >>>>tempo did not demonstrably suggest the 5H call by East. Marvin French wrote: >>>Also, established partnerships seem able to sense what partner >>>was thinking about, whether to pass, double, or bid. They never >>>get it wrong, do they?. Ed Reppert wrote: >>Objection! Counsel is assuming facts not in evidence! >> >>:-) Marvin French wrote: >Yeah, yeah, just a personal observation, extraneous, irrelevant. I >would never say that when serving on an AC. Richard Hills writes: I disagree with Marv's personal observation that any successful choice should be deemed to be demonstrably suggested. Rather, I argue that when two _contradictory_ calls are suggested by UI, it should be the most probably suggested call of the two which is deemed to be the demonstrably suggested call. In my experience, when a player thinks then passes in a high-level competitive auction, the vast majority of the time that player was thinking of bidding, _not_ thinking of doubling. Ergo, even if that player was thinking about doubling, the demonstrable suggestion from that player to their partner is that they were thinking about bidding. A demonstrable suggestion is _not_ necessarily congruent with the actual reason for a player's break in tempo. Therefore, I also disagree with the reasoning of the ACBL Appeals Committee. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 29 07:41:58 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Jun 29 07:45:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-15 References: Message-ID: <00bd01c57c6d$45c5d640$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Gordon Bower wrote: > > Must say I am surprised to see this appeal stirring such > controversy. It looks like a classic case of "11 tricks if you >contest the claim immediately, 12 if you don't." Can't find that in the Laws. Okay, I am going to say this one more time as plainly as I can and then I am not going to participate in any further discussions about it on BLML. Just don't have the time. Danny Kleinman, bridge genius, together with a retired teacher of the English language (BA, MA), both say I'm right and that's enough for me. S QJx H 9xxx D KQ8xx C x S K10xx S Ax H AQJ H K8xx D AJ10xx D 9 C K C AQJ9xx S 9xxx H 10x D xx C 108xxx West is in 6NT and makes a faulty claim, saying she will make 12 tricks if the club 10 doesn't fall. N-S acquiesce in the claim, but when comparing one says, "Hey, she didn't have 12 tricks, let's call the director." [In the actual case the TD ruled down one, saying there was no play for 12 tricks. We do not know whether the ruling was based on West's giving up a club to South. Nor do we know on what basis E-W appealed the ruling. Are we not entitled to know these things? "Additional Facts provided said that the Laws do not require West to give up a club, etc., so we can probably assume that the TD thought she had to try to run the clubs and that was the basis of the appeal. West was not asked how she would have taken 12 tricks, and properly so because her answer would be irrelevant. The AC must determine what plays by a declarer would be "normal," without regard to what declarers say. The AC ruled that there were two normal lines of play to take 12 tricks, establishing the spades or executing a strip and endplay, ignoring another normal but losing line, a diamond finesse. Their interpretation of L69B, implying that "any" means "any and all" led to the denial of a score adjustment for N-S.] So the TD comes and they tell him, "I think we were the victims of a faulty claim in which we should not have acquiesced, can you help us?" Ideally: The TD looks at Law 69B, and replies, "Only if the setting trick you might have won could not be lost by any normal play, no matter which, of the remaining cards." He has properly interpreted the ambiguous word "any" as "any, no matter which," rather than "any and all." If any think that "any" must be plural, let him speak, for him have I offended. Looking at the deal, he says, "I see that there are three normal plays, one a strip squeeze and endplay; another, the second, establishment of the spade 10; the third, a diamond finesse. I see that you could not lose the setting trick if the diamond finesse line were to be taken, so you get plus fifty." Imagine for a moment that North had four spades. Then only the highly unlikely but "normal" strip and endplay would succeed for 12 tricks. To say that this play must be assumed because "any" means "any and all" in this instance leads to an unfair nonsensical ruling. One might say, "But a delay could give a pair time to confer with others in order to find some esoteric defense that would not have been found at the table." Well, L69D's "in the Director's opinion," takes care of that circumstance. The TD could just say, "No, sorry, not in my opinion." Look at the footnote to L69B. It says that the acquiescers succeed even if the only line of play that works for them would be careless or inferior, as long as it isn't irrational. Under the alternative interpretation of this law, the footnote would not make sense. The appropriate footnote then would be that "normal" includes play that would be superior, but not double-dummy. Note that this ideal TD's interpretation of L69B leads to the same result that would have obtained if N-S had disputed the claim when it was made, and that's only right. Now suppose West had not claimed, but had merely exposed her hand, saying, "I am not claiming and will continue to play out the hand, but you can concede twelve tricks if you like, that's up to you." North, not wanting to suffer the endplay he sees coming, says, "I concede twelve tricks, okay partner?" The partner, a client, says "okay" and away they go. Then they later realize the endplay was not inevitable, a diamond finesse might have been taken, so they call the TD. The TD comes and they tell him, "I think we made a mistaken concession, can you help us? The TD looks at L71C and replies, "Only if you would have taken two tricks by any and all normal plays of the remaining cards." I see that there is at least one normal line of play that would *not* give you two tricks, so forget it." In this law "any" means "any and all," that is plain. It leads to no unfair nonsensical rulings. Claimers do not get the benefit of doubt, conceders do not get the benefit of doubt, and that is the difference between L69B and L71C. When there is an ambiguous word like "any" in the Laws I am free to interpret it as I wish, going by the context, unless the WBFLC has removed the ambiguity, which to my knowledge it has not. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From sqwyxmmz at hotmail.com Wed Jun 29 08:48:28 2005 From: sqwyxmmz at hotmail.com (Jenny Randall) Date: Wed Jun 29 07:52:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Re [19] Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050629/3959441a/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ecole.GIF Type: image/gif Size: 11440 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050629/3959441a/ecole.gif From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 29 08:03:00 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Jun 29 08:06:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! References: <17231391.1119961249943.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> <2da24b8e0506280602387e1192@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0506280636522f59b4@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050628161746.02b0fc00@pop.starpower.net> <001a01c57c2e$80ad0650$8e65d642@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <00cd01c57c70$35ac68c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> >From Raija: > > This would mean that online bridge is not bridge either. With screens, one > is able to observe the mannerisms of one opponent only. Would that still be > bridge; note "opponent", not "opponents"... I believe the implementation of > the electronic playing environment is just around the corner, to eliminate > incidents like Buratti-Lanzarotti. It certainly makes it easy to get good, > accurate information of several areas of play where directors currently must > rely on self-serving statements on both sides. A live video of each opponent could be displayed on each player's monitor. That would double the ability to observe their mannerisms over what screens allow. It would make partner's tempo more evident, perhaps, but we have laws covering any UI that might arise, and video recordings would document it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From henk at ripe.net Wed Jun 29 07:42:11 2005 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed Jun 29 09:02:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <006601c57c47$696bec90$0100000a@CPQ28901672019> References: <006601c57c47$696bec90$0100000a@CPQ28901672019> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050629072912.02c1b7d8@localhost> At 03:10 29/06/2005, Lu?s Oliveira wrote: >3 - Is it possible to know how many times in this tournament, on a 9 card >fit, opponent's distribution was 2-2, 3-1 or 4-0? This, I think, is a >relevant matter, because that analysis can help us to understand (or not) >Buratti statement - "diamonds have always been breaking badly in this >tournament" It is possible to answer this question by looking at the files used for the duplimate, but I think the question is irrelevant. It has been shown that the hands produced by the dealer program are independent from each other and the winning strategy is to use the statistically best line on each hand unless you are intentionally looking for a swing. 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 vitold at elnet.msk.ru Wed Jun 29 09:24:55 2005 From: vitold at elnet.msk.ru (Vitold) Date: Wed Jun 29 09:29:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050629145152.052b4530@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <006601c57c47$696bec90$0100000a@CPQ28901672019> <6.2.0.14.2.20050629145152.052b4530@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <42C24CC7.506@elnet.msk.ru> Hi all:) I should once more return to my old theme: demands to TD-ship at tourneys (especially - of international level). Decisions in a most conflicts at bridge tables were made after long discussion: firstly - in TD-groups, seconly - at ACs And almost at every cases there was disagreement between conflicting players about facts... And almost at all these case THERE WERE NOT TDs at these tables... I have to repeat idea that I posted several times several years ago: there should be TD at playing room who makes HARD work during ALL the playing period and who NOTICES and REGISTERS all the heppenings at every tables under his jurisdiction. Then there will be no disputed facts (almost), no "unsupported evidence" etc. Then the TD-in-charge will be so witness as ruler ("two in one":) ) - as it is in almost every kinds of sports. I am sure that presence of such a TD will also positevely influent on players' behavior. And our bridge society will not meet similar anti-PR preassure in respected mass-medias... Last time I exposed this position in my proect of TD-ship Code - but our authority did not bother. I guess that "Active TD-ship" is better resolution than full computerization of bridge. For my modest opinion - it is the only resolution:) Best wishes Vitold From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jun 29 09:42:48 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Jun 29 09:44:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <20050629074248.9ADC4303212@poczta.interia.pl> > 2 - Declarer decided to play like that because, LHO lead the HA and, after > > that, started to make questions about the bidding. It'll be very strange > if > he had the DQ, don't you think? I disagree completely. If he had held Qx or the queen singleton then he would have known it was going to drop under the AK so his only chance would be to desperately look for the second trick. He would have acted exactly as he did. > His behaviour indicates that he's looking > > for the setting trick on partner's hand not on his own hand. > 3 - Is it possible to know how many times in this tournament, on a 9 card > > fit, opponent's distribution was 2-2, 3-1 or 4-0? Even if they were breaking badly it doesn't change the odds, for God's sake! If you flip a coin and it comes out "tails" ten times in a row the odds for the next toss are still 50-50. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OMNIXMAIL! Jesli masz telefon w sieci Era i dostep do WAP, to mozesz na komorce odbierac poczte ze wszystkich swoich kont poczty e-mail! OMNIXMAIL jest w Era Omnix: http://link.interia.pl/f1896 From haraldskjaran at hotmail.com Wed Jun 29 09:58:10 2005 From: haraldskjaran at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?=) Date: Wed Jun 29 10:00:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-15 In-Reply-To: <004101c57a7a$e18f7080$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050629/cc20f0de/attachment.html From karel at esatclear.ie Wed Jun 29 10:14:05 2005 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed Jun 29 10:25:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050629145152.052b4530@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: >It seems to me that this story is very strange. First of all, I think we >all agree that, if the trump suit breakes 1-3, the better play will be >jack from dummy. Now, the real problem is - why did declarer choose to >play for that particular break? Some of the possible answers are: +++ Well 53% for diamonds from the top .. BUT ... is the J criminal (If 2/2 makes no difference - only loses to Q singleton with RHO)?? Anyone work out the percentage success for leading the DJ AND switching track at the correct moment (ie) DQ singleton offside. This plus the psychological aspect of the defender covering or ducking in some cases (and declarer doing the right thing), would make it pretty close I think. In any event - the evidence I've read to date, nowhere does it say "yes B+L cheated because we have a photograph or several positive witnesses or some other concrete proof". Having said that there must be some overwhelming evidence of guilt or presumably the committee would not have arrived at the decision they did. Is there some other relevant information not made available to the public ?? It would seem another law is required - Dummy shall not make any attempt to see either defenders cards ?? As for electronicising the game to the extent suggested, nah I dont think that is necessary. If B + L are guilty I really can't understand why they would do such a thing. They certainly make up in a very very small minority. K. From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jun 29 11:41:21 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Jun 29 11:43:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29 Jun 2005, at 09:14, Karel wrote: > It would seem another law is required - Dummy shall not make any > attempt to > see either defenders cards ?? L42A2(c) not strong enough? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 29 11:44:42 2005 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Wed Jun 29 11:46:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! References: Message-ID: <000a01c57c8f$2e544790$b4300952@AnnesComputer> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:14 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > >It seems to me that this story is very strange. First of all, I think we >>all agree that, if the trump suit breakes 1-3, the better play will be >>jack from dummy. Now, the real problem is - why did declarer choose to >>play for that particular break? Some of the possible answers are: > Bridge players do strange things, even the good ones. > > +++ Well 53% for diamonds from the top .. BUT ... is the J criminal (If > 2/2 > makes no difference - only loses to Q singleton with RHO)?? Anyone work > out > the percentage success for leading the DJ AND switching track at the > correct > moment (ie) DQ singleton offside. This plus the psychological aspect of > the > defender covering or ducking in some cases (and declarer doing the right > thing), would make it pretty close I think. > Bridge players do strange things, even the good ones > > In any event - the evidence I've read to date, nowhere does it say "yes > B+L > cheated because we have a photograph or several positive witnesses or some > other concrete proof". Having said that there must be some overwhelming > evidence of guilt or presumably the committee would not have arrived at > the > decision they did. Is there some other relevant information not made > available to the public ?? > I am certain there must be. The Appeals committee wasn't a gung ho vigilante mob. Grattan was keen to tell us that PDJ didn't get his information from the official press release. What did he say that was so significant? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/28/wbridge28.xml or http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk/Italians.htm > > It would seem another law is required - Dummy shall not make any attempt > to > see either defenders cards ?? > Certainly behind screens there is a lot of this goes on. > > As for electronicising the game to the extent suggested, nah I dont think > that is necessary. If B + L are guilty I really can't understand why they > would do such a thing. They certainly make up in a very very small > minority. > > K. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 29 11:45:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 29 11:47:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-15 In-Reply-To: <00bd01c57c6d$45c5d640$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > The TD looks at Law 69B, and replies, "Only if the setting trick you > might have won could not be lost by any normal play, no matter which, > of the remaining cards." > He has properly interpreted the ambiguous word "any" as "any, no > matter which," rather than "any and all." Fine but how does this affect the ruling? If there is any normal line of play by which the trick could be lost it is lost. If the statement "There exists a normal line of play on which the trick could be lost." is true then the statement "The trick could not be lost on any (no matter which) normal line of play." is false. > Imagine for a moment that North had four spades. Then only the highly > unlikely but "normal" strip and endplay would succeed for 12 tricks. > To say that this play must be assumed because "any" means "any and > all" in this instance leads to an unfair nonsensical ruling. Why nonsensical? If one doesn't want declarer to benefit from such a possible line one doesn't make a concession. The law may not be perfect but that is what it says. > Look at the footnote to L69B. It says that the acquiescers succeed > even if the only line of play that works for them would be careless or > inferior, as long as it isn't irrational. Under the alternative > interpretation of this law, the footnote would not make sense. The > appropriate footnote then would be that "normal" includes play that > would be superior, but not double-dummy. Normal *does* include play that is careful/technically correct, and even double-dummy (for the class of player capable of finding double-dummy lines at the table). If a player claims and the TD decides he might have played for the (failing) 90% squeeze rather than the (working) 50% finesse and the claim is *contested* it will be ruled invalid. If it is acquiesced and acquiescence later withdrawn the claim will be ruled valid. > Note that this ideal TD's interpretation of L69B leads to the same > result that would have obtained if N-S had disputed the claim when it > was made, and that's only right. It doesn't. Some, including you, may consider this a desirable law but it isn't the current one. > Claimers do not get the benefit of doubt, To this add "except where acquiescence occurs" > conceders do not get the benefit of doubt, To this please add "acquiescers do not get the benefit of the doubt". and *that* is the difference between L69B and L70. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jun 29 12:02:03 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Jun 29 12:04:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <16445654.1120039323837.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> +=+ If a member of the Appeals Committee, or Herman as its Scribe, were to add anything outside of the report and press statement, even if only by way of explanation, he would not expect any further appointment to an EBL (or other international) appeals committee. It can be said that no assumption should be made as to anything the report does not say. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ =============================== Message date : Jun 28 2005, 09:08 PM >From : "Wayne Burrows" To : blml@rtflb.org Copy to : Subject : Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! >From: "craig" > Perhaps Grattan and Herman may be able to > shed some light on why such strong action was > taken with what evidence that has been > shared with us. -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jun 29 12:41:12 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Jun 29 12:43:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <20050629104112.63A6341F82C@poczta.interia.pl> > >It seems to me that this story is very strange. First of all, I think we > >all agree that, if the trump suit breakes 1-3, the better play will be > >jack from dummy. Now, the real problem is - why did declarer choose to > >play for that particular break? Some of the possible answers are: > > +++ Well 53% for diamonds from the top .. BUT ... is the J criminal >(If > 2/2 > makes no difference - I don't understand. If the jack loses to the doubleton queen it does make a difference, doesn't it? >only loses to Q singleton with RHO)?? Anyone work > out > the percentage success for leading the DJ AND switching track at the > correct > moment (ie) DQ singleton offside. I don't understand the above paragraph - what line of play are you talking about? Overtaking the jack if east doesn't cover? Please explain. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jak powstaje auto? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1898 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 29 12:55:53 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 29 13:56:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42C27E39.6020304@hdw.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > We don't have means. We have one side saying he looked and the other > saying he didn't look. Both of these statements are self-serving. > Considering that the other side had nothing really to win (not at that stage) by telling of the peeking, I would not call that statement self-serving. And to be precise, the other side never said he did not peek. It was self-evident that he denied this so he did not need to say it. He was never asked so he did not need to lie. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the European Bridge Championships in Tenerife http://www.hdw.be/ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 29 14:10:04 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jun 29 14:08:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050629145152.052b4530@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050629080121.02a32380@pop.starpower.net> At 04:14 AM 6/29/05, Karel wrote: > >It seems to me that this story is very strange. First of all, I think we > >all agree that, if the trump suit breakes 1-3, the better play will be > >jack from dummy. Now, the real problem is - why did declarer choose to > >play for that particular break? Some of the possible answers are: > >+++ Well 53% for diamonds from the top .. BUT ... is the J criminal >(If 2/2 >makes no difference - only loses to Q singleton with RHO)?? Anyone >work out >the percentage success for leading the DJ AND switching track at the >correct >moment (ie) DQ singleton offside. This plus the psychological aspect >of the >defender covering or ducking in some cases (and declarer doing the right >thing), would make it pretty close I think. > >In any event - the evidence I've read to date, nowhere does it say >"yes B+L >cheated because we have a photograph or several positive witnesses or some >other concrete proof". Having said that there must be some overwhelming >evidence of guilt or presumably the committee would not have arrived >at the >decision they did. Is there some other relevant information not made >available to the public ?? > >It would seem another law is required - Dummy shall not make any >attempt to >see either defenders cards ?? > >As for electronicising the game to the extent suggested, nah I dont think >that is necessary. If B + L are guilty I really can't understand why they >would do such a thing. They certainly make up in a very very small >minority. It didn't happen, but one could imagine Buratti arguing that he led the jack to get a reaction from his RHO, who hitched a bit, so he decided to play him for the queen, and others at the table testifying that yes, RHO did indeed hitch. Then there would have been no problem and no fuss, Buratti would have been congratulated for a well-played hand, and we would call the "incident", such as it were, routine, an ordinary, everyday part of the game. And we'd be talking about Buratti's acumen in the context of how an all-electronic, no-face-to-face-interaction version of bridge would radically change the game. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml at blakjak.com Wed Jun 29 14:13:39 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Jun 29 14:16:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-05 In-Reply-To: References: <008e01c572c0$49c71bc0$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >Marvin French wrote: > >>>>Also, established partnerships seem able to sense what partner >>>>was thinking about, whether to pass, double, or bid. They never >>>>get it wrong, do they?. Yes, often. But those hands never reach TDs, ACs, RGB, IBLF or BLML. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 29 14:22:19 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jun 29 14:20:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <16445654.1120039323837.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> References: <16445654.1120039323837.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050629081732.02e06410@pop.starpower.net> At 06:02 AM 6/29/05, grandeval wrote: >+=+ If a member of the Appeals Committee, or >Herman as its Scribe, were to add anything >outside of the report and press statement, even >if only by way of explanation, he would not >expect any further appointment to an EBL (or >other international) appeals committee. It >can be said that no assumption should be >made as to anything the report does not say. This disturbs me. Is the WBF's official line limited to nothing more than, "We have examined the secret evidence behind closed doors and come to a verdict of 'guilty'; trust us. We don't need no stinkin' justification"? That sounds too much like the current American presidential administration for my taste. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 29 14:25:21 2005 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Wed Jun 29 14:27:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! References: <42C27E39.6020304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001201c57ca5$9f3adc10$b4300952@AnnesComputer> What are you going to be doing with your new found spare time Herman? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >> >> We don't have means. We have one side saying he looked and the other >> saying he didn't look. Both of these statements are self-serving. >> > > Considering that the other side had nothing really to win (not at that > stage) by telling of the peeking, I would not call that statement > self-serving. > And to be precise, the other side never said he did not peek. It was > self-evident that he denied this so he did not need to say it. He was > never asked so he did not need to lie. > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > currently at the European Bridge Championships in Tenerife > http://www.hdw.be/ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jun 29 14:28:02 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Jun 29 14:30:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <20050629122802.28D2E41F82C@poczta.interia.pl> > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > We don't have means. We have one side saying he looked and the other > > saying he didn't look. Both of these statements are self-serving. > > > I must be having a very bad day. Herman's English is usually quite good so I assume he wrote this bit in a hurry. Or maybe it is just me. > Considering that the other side had nothing really to win (not at that > stage) by telling of the peeking, I would not call that statement > self-serving. > And to be precise, the other side never said he did not peek. So far so good. > It was > self-evident that he denied this Who denied what? The Italian or the Isreali? > so he did not need to say it. Who didn't need to say what? >He was > never asked so he did not need to lie. > Who was never asked about what and who didn't need to lie about what? __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jak powstaje auto? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1898 From henk at ripe.net Wed Jun 29 14:31:11 2005 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed Jun 29 14:33:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050629081732.02e06410@pop.starpower.net> References: <16445654.1120039323837.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> <6.1.1.1.0.20050629081732.02e06410@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050629142220.02c79018@localhost> At 14:22 29/06/2005, Eric Landau wrote: >At 06:02 AM 6/29/05, grandeval wrote: > >>+=+ If a member of the Appeals Committee, or >>Herman as its Scribe, were to add anything >>outside of the report and press statement, even >>if only by way of explanation, he would not >>expect any further appointment to an EBL (or >>other international) appeals committee. It >>can be said that no assumption should be >>made as to anything the report does not say. > >This disturbs me. Is the WBF's official line limited to nothing more than, The EBL runs the event, the WBF has nothing to do with it. > "We have examined the secret evidence behind closed doors and come to a > verdict of 'guilty'; trust us. I don't think that this the case here. A full write-up of the case has been published, this includes the evidence, statements by the players and the reasoning that the committee followed. I don't think that you can ask for much more. One should also note that in most European countries, it is very uncommon for a committee (or the judges in a court) to publish dissenting opinions or add comments to whatever they publish. The committee members may have their differences of opinions, but once they make a decision, they'll stick to whatever they put in their statement. The US is different in that respect. 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 defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr Wed Jun 29 11:20:28 2005 From: defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr (Henri DEFRANCHI) Date: Wed Jun 29 14:34:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Burati Lanzarotti Message-ID: <30333962.1120036828350.JavaMail.www@wwinf0101> I don't want to engage in controversy about italian pair but I disagree with Luis.Even if I think diamonds breakes 1-3 (why ?) the equivalent play will be A (Q or 10 singleton ) If the 10 drops in West , J is the better play now. Regards Henri Defranchi Marseille -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050629/67b85134/attachment-0001.html From defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr Wed Jun 29 11:40:10 2005 From: defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr (Henri DEFRANCHI) Date: Wed Jun 29 14:34:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Burati Lanzarotti Message-ID: <32413606.1120038010471.JavaMail.www@wwinf0902> I don't want to engage in controversy about italian pair but I disagree with Luis.Even if I think diamonds breakes 1-3 (why ?) the equivalent play will be A (Q or 10 singleton ) If the 10 drops in West , J is the better play now. Regards Henri Defranchi Marseille -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050629/a08c22a8/attachment-0001.html From schutze1 at mindspring.com Wed Jun 29 14:14:40 2005 From: schutze1 at mindspring.com (kenneth schutze) Date: Wed Jun 29 14:34:46 2005 Subject: [blml] pittsburgh appeal N-15 Message-ID: <007f01c57ca4$205a8090$2cc24542@kenny> This deals with withdrawing a concession after the round ends, but before the next round begins in a Swiss team. I agree with Harald Skjaeran. If there is at least one reasonable line of play that would take the number of tricks conceded, then the concession stands. If the concession had been withdrawn before the end of the hand, then there must not be any reasonable line which would take fewer than the claimed number of tricks. The timing of the withdrawal is significant. The problem with the laws is the use of the adjective "any." One interpretation is, "at least one in the relevant population," versus "each and every member of the relevant population." In this context, is there any reasonable line of play which would obtain the claimed number of tricks, versus is there any reasonable line of play which would not obtain the claimed number of tricks. This same ambiguity is a recurring problem in criminal law (my day job), with many lawyers and judges frequently getting wrong the intended meaning of "any," when it appears in opinions deciding cases. It is understandable that people not specifically trained in language usage would get confused when the so-called experts frequently can't get it right. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050629/86ff6cbf/attachment.html From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jun 29 14:45:32 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Jun 29 14:47:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Burati Lanzarotti Message-ID: <20050629124532.BFA6041F828@poczta.interia.pl> > I don't want to engage in controversy about italian pair but I disagree >with Luis.Even if I think diamonds breakes 1-3 (why ?) the equivalent play >will be A (Q or 10 singleton ) No. There are four possible distributions: (i) 6 - Q107 (ii) 7 - Q106 (iii) 10 - Q76 (iv) Q - 1076 Your line succeeds only in (iii) and (iv) while running the jack in (i), (ii) and (iii). So if diamonds are 1-3 (a premise with which I disagree completely ) cashing the ace is a losing proposition. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OMNIXMAIL! Jesli masz telefon w sieci Era i dostep do WAP, to mozesz na komorce odbierac poczte ze wszystkich swoich kont poczty e-mail! OMNIXMAIL jest w Era Omnix: http://link.interia.pl/f1896 From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 29 14:55:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 29 14:57:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <16445654.1120039323837.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > It > can be said that no assumption should be > made as to anything the report does not say. Obviously false. The scale of the penalty is such that one should assume that the AC were satisfied, in their own minds, that cheating had occurred (OK I suppose one may assume they considered changing the match score from 25-2 to 18-0 appropriate punishment for taking a technically inferior line!). One might thus assume that the AC accepted the evidence of one player over another. One should, I believe, assume that they had a very good reason for doing so. I further choose to assume that the reasons for their choice of language are related to possible external legal complications. You see Grattan, it is not that hard for us to make assumptions (and nothing I say in my assumptions is intended as critical of the AC). I understand that neither you, nor Herman, nor anyone else on the AC is in a position to comment on such assumptions but assumptions like these can, and will, be made. Indeed I believe such assumptions should be made - because if we (the outsiders) do not make these assumptions (or similar ones) we must assume that the AC f***ed up royally. I may be considered seditious in some quarters but I'd far rather people assumed that the AC did a good job in very difficult circumstances. Note to Herman: DO NOT COMMENT. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 29 14:55:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 29 14:57:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <000a01c57c8f$2e544790$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: Anne wrote: > Grattan was keen to tell us that PDJ didn't get his information from > the official press release. I must admit there was nothing in the case details of PDJ's report that could not have been drawn from the bulletin (except some public historical knowledge). The "slant" differs but that comes within journalistic license. > What did he say that was so significant? I suggest: "Its [the ACs] decision was greeted with applause by the 80 team captains." Is that, one may ask, the normal reaction to a sudden, shocking and controversial scandal? What, one may also ask, would be the reaction of a roomful of reasonably well-informed people thinking "About bl**dy time!" Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 29 14:51:22 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 29 15:51:35 2005 Subject: [blml] appeals EBL 2002-04 published Message-ID: <42C2994A.5020805@hdw.be> At last the appeals have been polished and put on the EBL web-site. http://www.eurobridge.org - follow links to departments - appeals -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the European Bridge Championships in Tenerife http://www.hdw.be/ From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 29 14:53:06 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 29 15:53:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <20050629122802.28D2E41F82C@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050629122802.28D2E41F82C@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <42C299B2.7080607@hdw.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >>Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >>> >>>We don't have means. We have one side saying he looked and the other >>>saying he didn't look. Both of these statements are self-serving. >>> >> > > I must be having a very bad day. > Herman's English is usually > quite good so I assume > he wrote this bit in a hurry. > Or maybe it is just me. > > >>Considering that the other side had nothing really to win (not at that >>stage) by telling of the peeking, I would not call that statement >>self-serving. >>And to be precise, the other side never said he did not peek. > > > So far so good. > > >>It was >>self-evident that he denied this > > > Who denied what? The Italian or the Isreali? > > >>so he did not need to say it. > > > Who didn't need to say what? > > >>He was >>never asked so he did not need to lie. >> > > > Who was never asked about what > and who didn't need to lie about what? > The italian. > > __________________ > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jak powstaje auto? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1898 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the European Bridge Championships in Tenerife http://www.hdw.be/ From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jun 29 14:55:02 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jun 29 15:55:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050629081732.02e06410@pop.starpower.net> References: <16445654.1120039323837.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> <6.1.1.1.0.20050629081732.02e06410@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <42C29A26.9010306@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 06:02 AM 6/29/05, grandeval wrote: > >> +=+ If a member of the Appeals Committee, or >> Herman as its Scribe, were to add anything >> outside of the report and press statement, even >> if only by way of explanation, he would not >> expect any further appointment to an EBL (or >> other international) appeals committee. It >> can be said that no assumption should be >> made as to anything the report does not say. > > > This disturbs me. Is the WBF's official line limited to nothing more > than, "We have examined the secret evidence behind closed doors and come > to a verdict of 'guilty'; trust us. We don't need no stinkin' > justification"? That sounds too much like the current American > presidential administration for my taste. > I knew Grattan's statement would be misunderstood. People are not going to speak out of committee; but that does not mean anything has been said in there that is not in the write-up. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the European Bridge Championships in Tenerife http://www.hdw.be/ From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Jun 29 16:00:10 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed Jun 29 16:02:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <20050629074248.9ADC4303212@poczta.interia.pl> from "Konrad Ciborowski" at Jun 29, 2005 09:42:48 AM Message-ID: <200506291400.j5TE0AWx027457@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Konrad Ciborowski writes: > > > 3 - Is it possible to know how many times in this tournament, on a 9 card > > > > fit, opponent's distribution was 2-2, 3-1 or 4-0? > > Even if they were breaking badly it doesn't change > the odds, for God's sake! If you flip > a coin and it comes out "tails" ten > times in a row the odds for the next > toss are still 50-50. Only true if the hands generated are truly random. I recall an article by Derek Rimington that featured Jean Besse deciding to drop a stiff king offside (successfully of course) because Besse had noticed an unusual number of stiff kings on previous deals. Rimington's point was that it was vital to make sure that you got the randomizing right because bridge players are exceptional at recognizing patterns. A secondary point is that even if the deals are in fact random a lot of bridge players don't believe that they are (How many times have you heard somebody complain about computer deals after getting a really bad break? I've heard it more than a few times) From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Jun 29 16:16:24 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed Jun 29 16:18:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050629072912.02c1b7d8@localhost> from "Henk Uijterwaal" at Jun 29, 2005 07:42:11 AM Message-ID: <200506291416.j5TEGPCs027566@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Henk Uijterwaal writes: > > At 03:10 29/06/2005, Lu?s Oliveira wrote: > > >3 - Is it possible to know how many times in this tournament, on a 9 card > >fit, opponent's distribution was 2-2, 3-1 or 4-0? This, I think, is a > >relevant matter, because that analysis can help us to understand (or not) > >Buratti statement - "diamonds have always been breaking badly in this > >tournament" > > It is possible to answer this question by looking at the files used for > the duplimate, I'm not sure that would help. You're dealing with the issue of confirmation bias. (If you believe that computer deals break badly -- and a lot of players do -- then you'll tend to remember the deals that confirm this) > but I think the question is irrelevant. It has been > shown that the hands produced by the dealer program are independent > from each other and the winning strategy is to use the statistically > best line on each hand unless you are intentionally looking for a swing. > You know this, but you also have to know that an awful lot of players -- even good ones -- simply don't believe this. Over the years for instance Lauria has generated a fair number of swings (not all in his favor) by bucking the odds. To be clear, I'm not arguing *for* Buratti, merely against the certainty expressed by a lot of people here. But I'll tell you one thing, if I was playing with a guy who likes to back his hunches (or table feel, whatever) you can be damned sure I wouldn't be looking at hands if I was dummy. From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jun 29 16:42:21 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Jun 29 16:44:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <20050629144221.097B741F82F@poczta.interia.pl> > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > >>Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> > >>> > >>>We don't have means. We have one side saying he looked and the other > >>>saying he didn't look. Both of these statements are self-serving. > >>> > >> > > > > I must be having a very bad day. > > Herman's English is usually > > quite good so I assume > > he wrote this bit in a hurry. > > Or maybe it is just me. > > > > > >>Considering that the other side had nothing really to win (not at that > >>stage) by telling of the peeking, I would not call that statement > >>self-serving. > >>And to be precise, the other side never said he did not peek. > > > > > > So far so good. > > > > > >>It was > >>self-evident that he denied this > > > > > > Who denied what? The Italian or the Isreali? > > > > > >>so he did not need to say it. > > > > > > Who didn't need to say what? > > > > > >>He was > >>never asked so he did not need to lie. > >> > > > > > > Who was never asked about what > > and who didn't need to lie about what? > > > > The italian. > Then why was it "self-evident that he denied this"? If by "this" you mean peeping then I don't see why it is self-evident. The write-up mentions him saying something about 20% vision in his eye and all red honors looking alike for him. I take it to mean that he did not deny looking, no? My impression is that his line of defense was "I did hava a look but never transmitted this information to my partner". Am I right? __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jak powstaje auto? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1898 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jun 29 18:48:56 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Jun 29 18:50:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <14614351.1120063736164.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> Did the report state this or is it an assumption? ================================ Message date : Jun 29 2005, 02:41 AM >From : "Lu?s Oliveira" "and AC seemed to agree" -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jun 29 19:01:34 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Jun 29 19:03:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <31850432.1120064494133.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> No-one will add anything to what the report says and assumptions about things it does not say are purely speculative. I do not know what Herman may have written but it is certainly not within his remit to offer clarification. ~ Grattan ~ ======================================== Message date : Jun 29 2005, 04:09 PM >From : "Konrad Ciborowski" To : blml@rtflb.org Then why was it "self-evident that he denied this"? If by "this" you mean peeping then I don't see why it is self-evident. The write-up mentions him saying something about 20% vision in his eye and all red honors looking alike for him. I take it to mean that he did not deny looking, no? My impression is that his line of defense was "I did hava a look but never transmitted this information to my partner". Am I right? __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jak powstaje auto? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1898 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 29 19:27:15 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Jun 29 19:30:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-16-TD PANELS References: <005301c57b5c$5eab00c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <006501c57c17$3afc1c20$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <004d01c57ccf$cbee6540$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "craig" > Marv wrote: > > > I am not going to comment on the eight appeals that were lodged in > > Regionally-rated games, because they were all handled very well by > > the TD panels. > > This may however be worthy of comment. This is still something of an > experiment, attempting to learn if substituting trained impartial > professionals for traditional AC's will improve both accuracy and > equity. By your own ratings Marv you indicate the traditional system may have > botched the job somewhat. Yet you think the alternative approach was handled > very well in all cases? Does this say something about the use of TD > panels (a concept that has not yet fully won me over)? What do others think? > It's my impression that the cases from regionally-rated events tend to be easier than those from the big events, so it's hard to tell what TD panels would have done with the NABC+ cases. Also, the data sample sizes for both N and R cases (16 and 8) in Pittsburgh are too small from which to draw any firm conclusions. I haven't looked much at other NABCs latelly. Which reminds me that the polling of players by TD panels is a waste of everyone's time, the small sample size having little statistical significance. In case R-08 two of six players consulted said pass was an LA, but pass would still have been an LA if none of the six had said so. TDs in NABC+ events routinely consult with other TDs and the DIC before making a difficult ruling, so you would think the rulings resulting would be just as good as those of a TD Panel. However, the TD Panels comprise three TDs who are selected on the basis of being more knowledgeable than the average TD, which accounts for the high quality of their work in Pittsburgh. Matt Smith, Charlie McCracken, and Gary Zeiger come to mind. My gut feeling is that three TDs, well-versed in the Laws and bridge-knowledgeable, would do better than the present system for NABC+ cases. However, the present system would be greatly improved if more people like Adam were on the AC, and fewer people like ________. We need to have strong players involved in appeals, so I'm not voting for the abolishment of the ACBL AC. It would help if the ACs would follow good procedures, like quoting the applicable law(s) accurately, using Deep Finesse to analyze difficult hands, advising players to bring system notes and CCs to the meeting, and not raising new issues during deliberation (which participants have no opportunity to rebut). Each AC should have at least one member who is very familiar with all details of the Laws, with a role similar to that of a parliamentarian. Some education seems to be in order. Here are some false beliefs that are held by a number of AC members: Double shots are illegal. Player polls are valuable for determining LAs. UI is determined solely by the number of seconds a player takes to bid. PPs are superior to Player Memos for handling ethical offenses. The AC is better than the TD at determining UI existence UI must point to a particular action in order for that action to be demonstrably suggested. Just off the top of my head. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 29 19:32:26 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Jun 29 19:35:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-01 References: <200506180242.TAA23051@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <005f01c57cd0$86c49880$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > [CASE N-01] Subject: UIDIC: Cukoff Silodor Open 2s Q2 > > > Board: 17 Dealer North Vul: none > > > S 96 > > > H Q752 > > > D Q82 > > > C J754 > > > > > > S K1087 S Q4 > > > H AK86 H J104 > > > D K975 D J43 > > > C K9 K Q10632 > > > S AJ532 > > > H K93 > > > D A106 > > > C A8 > > Before we determine what the logical alternatives to West's pass were, > it might help to know what West's hand actually was. I suspect that > he did not actually hold the king of hearts. That is correct, sorry, I had a senior moment. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Wed Jun 29 20:15:50 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Jun 29 20:17:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <42C27E39.6020304@hdw.be> Message-ID: >From: Herman De Wael >To: blml >Subject: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! >Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:55:53 +0200 > >Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >> >>We don't have means. We have one side saying he looked and the other >>saying he didn't look. Both of these statements are self-serving. >> > >Considering that the other side had nothing really to win (not at that >stage) by telling of the peeking, I would not call that statement >self-serving. >And to be precise, the other side never said he did not peek. It was >self-evident that he denied this so he did not need to say it. He was never >asked so he did not need to lie. The other side won a match 18-0 that they otherwise lost 25-2 this is a significant gain IMO. This is not what the scribe said in the official report "When confronted with East's statement North denied that he had looked at East's cards". I still maintain we have a self-serving accusation from a team that stood to gain by a ruling in their favour and a self-serving denial from a team that was being accused of a serious offence. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Find the coolest online games @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming From Rotterdam at frey.net Wed Jun 29 20:26:30 2005 From: Rotterdam at frey.net (Paula) Date: Wed Jun 29 20:28:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Get latest version, cds and download under $99 Message-ID: <1911076514.2490411419@209-150-89-225.gen.twtelecom.net> Any software just for 15$ - 99$ http://fepywt.shw7v9a3p2sh7ba.putrefydl.com Evolution crawls to imperfection. It ends in extinction. The policy of being too cautious is the greatest risk of all. From Czechoslovakia at baute.com Wed Jun 29 20:26:46 2005 From: Czechoslovakia at baute.com (Austin) Date: Wed Jun 29 20:29:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Your premier source for all ATI powered gear. Message-ID: <622255737.6530841753@209-150-89-225.gen.twtelecom.net> Download + CDS all OS and all under $15-$99 just http://fepywt.shw7v9a3p2sh7ba.putrefydl.com Peace visits not the guilty mind. (Nemo Malus Felix) The friendship that can cease has never been real. From webmaster at bridgefederation.ch Thu Jun 30 00:07:12 2005 From: webmaster at bridgefederation.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Thu Jun 30 00:09:27 2005 Subject: [blml] appeals EBL 2002-04 published In-Reply-To: <42C2994A.5020805@hdw.be> References: <42C2994A.5020805@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42C31B90.70208@bridgefederation.ch> Herman De Wael wrote: > At last the appeals have been polished and put on the EBL web-site. > http://www.eurobridge.org > - follow links to departments - appeals http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2004.pdf More I read Appeal No 7 less I understand it. yvan From aladfar at doneasy.com Thu Jun 30 01:29:51 2005 From: aladfar at doneasy.com (Cory Thayer) Date: Thu Jun 30 00:35:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Re-finance at todays low rate Message-ID: <191.65e558d5.2a9HEN44@pom.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.g00d-things.net/signs.asp Best Regards, Monte Floyd to be remov(ed: http://www.g00d-things.net/deletion.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From blml at blakjak.com Thu Jun 30 01:22:55 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Jun 30 01:26:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-16-TD PANELS In-Reply-To: <004d01c57ccf$cbee6540$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <005301c57b5c$5eab00c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <006501c57c17$3afc1c20$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> <004d01c57ccf$cbee6540$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >Which reminds me that the polling of players by TD panels is a waste >of everyone's time, the small sample size having little statistical >significance. In case R-08 two of six players consulted said pass was >an LA, but pass would still have been an LA if none of the six had >said so. Interesting. The majority view outside Australia these days is that player consultation is excellent for judging bridge judgement cases. The people who think it is a matter of adding up and counting heads miss the point, certainly, but the opinion of one or two players certainly helps. [s] >Some education seems to be in order. Here are some false beliefs that >are held by a number of AC members: > >Double shots are illegal. >Player polls are valuable for determining LAs. As explained above, I think you are wrong here: they are valuable if not misused. >UI is determined solely by the number of seconds a player takes to > bid. Is that why ACBL AC reports refer to the length of time taken? In much of the world the question is whether there is a BIT or not: the amount of the BIT being deemed irrelevant. >PPs are superior to Player Memos for handling ethical offenses. This is where your black/white approach fails. There are some cases where a penalty is what is wanted - for example because if you penalise a player, he is likely to have one to five others who have suffered with him and may express their displeasure. On the other hand a Player Memo may be a bit like probation is when given as a punishment in English courts: a lot of criminals equate it with "getting off". But there are certainly cases where a penalty is unsuitable. >The AC is better than the TD at determining UI existence >UI must point to a particular action in order for that action to be > demonstrably suggested. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From malice at bell.ms Thu Jun 30 02:16:25 2005 From: malice at bell.ms (Ann) Date: Thu Jun 30 02:18:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Finally a Patch that works! Message-ID: <112030103123.20454731@212.44.94.140.satgatellc.com> Wish you could be better? http://www.gretan.com/ss/ When you choose the behaviour, you choose the consequences. Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. In time of war the first casualty is truth. The sad truth is that excellence makes people nervous. Silence is the virtue of fools. From candid at german-militaria.com Thu Jun 30 02:17:22 2005 From: candid at german-militaria.com (Dorothy) Date: Thu Jun 30 02:19:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Feel insecure about your penis size? Message-ID: <7586726554.12271465034@212.44.94.140.satgatellc.com> Achieve stronger and harder erections http://www.gretan.com/ss/ A brave man dies but once, a coward many times. He knows all about art, but he doesn't know what he likes. I cannot expect to perform the task with equal ability and success. Happiness is a warm puppy. Man has responsibility, not power. From stockley at doneasy.com Thu Jun 30 05:11:10 2005 From: stockley at doneasy.com (Scottie Tatum) Date: Thu Jun 30 04:18:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Approval rate accepted Message-ID: <20041scaem3.ED8DA244AE@mailhost1i.lists.techtarget.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.g00d-things.net/signs.asp Best Regards, Bertie Gilmore to be remov(ed: http://www.g00d-things.net/deletion.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 Jun 30 04:26:56 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Jun 30 04:29:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel: >>>It would seem another law is required - Dummy shall not make >>>any attempt to see either defenders cards ?? Gordon Rainsford: >>L43A2(c) not strong enough? Law 43A2(c): >Dummy may not, on his own initiative, look at the face of a >card in either defender's hand. Law 43B1: >Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of >the limitations listed in A1 or A2 preceding. Law 90A: >The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions >of these Laws, may also assess penalties for any offence that >unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other >contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award >of an adjusted score at another table. Law 91B >The Director is specifically empowered to disqualify a >contestant for cause, subject to approval by the Tournament >Committee or sponsoring organisation. Richard Hills: I agree with Gordon; the powers that existing Laws give to a TD seem to give the TD sufficient scope for the TD to discourage peeking by dummy. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 30 04:43:38 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Jun 30 04:45:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-05 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French wrote: >>Also, established partnerships seem able to sense what >>partner was thinking about, whether to pass, double, or >>bid. They never get it wrong, do they?. David Stevenson wrote: >Yes, often. > >But those hands never reach TDs, ACs, RGB, IBLF or BLML. Richard Hills writes: I agree with David Stevenson. This auction occurred in the final of a major teams event at the Canberra Bridge Club -> Dlr: West Vul: East-West East-West were playing a canape relay system. North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Dorothy Richard 1D(1) 3C(2) Dble(3) 4C 4H 5C 5H(4) Pass 6H(4) Pass Pass Pass (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major (2) Preempt (3) Negative (4) Break in tempo West held a worthless doubleton in clubs, but claimed that the auction rather than the hesitation told him that East held a singleton club. Dorothy cashed the king and ace of clubs at tricks one and two when East also held a worthless doubleton in clubs. (Dorothy had sandbagged the opponents by preempting twice with a six-card suit.) Actually, I must now disagree with David Stevenson. By me posting this "get it wrong" auction, it _has_ reached blml. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From craigstamps at comcast.net Thu Jun 30 05:54:57 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Thu Jun 30 05:57:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! References: Message-ID: <005301c57d27$7bdd1490$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Would not the degree of self serving depend to some extent on the state of the event? Was the accusing team in contention at the time? They were expected by their opponents to lose big, which might indicate that their chances were not considered of the best. If so, winning the match would be of little import, and the statement much less self servimg and more serving the cause of overall good ethical behaviour. That the disqualification was applauded may indicate that others has suspicions as well...or may of course merely mean that they were pleased to know that apparent justice was being meted out. But then would Grattan have said as much as he didn't say? Herman, don't post, but save your memories and notes for a day when all may be revealed. The Italians do protest to little methinks for a masive miscarriage of justice to have occured...but as BA has demonstrated we will have years to kick this around. :-) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 2:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > > >>From: Herman De Wael >>To: blml >>Subject: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! >>Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:55:53 +0200 >> >>Wayne Burrows wrote: >>> >>> >>>We don't have means. We have one side saying he looked and the other >>>saying he didn't look. Both of these statements are self-serving. >>> >> >>Considering that the other side had nothing really to win (not at that >>stage) by telling of the peeking, I would not call that statement >>self-serving. >>And to be precise, the other side never said he did not peek. It was >>self-evident that he denied this so he did not need to say it. He was >>never asked so he did not need to lie. > > The other side won a match 18-0 that they otherwise lost 25-2 this > is a significant gain IMO. > > This is not what the scribe said in the official report "When confronted > with East's statement North denied that he had looked at East's cards". > > I still maintain we have a self-serving accusation from a team that stood > to gain by a ruling in their favour and a self-serving denial from a team > that was being accused of a serious offence. > > > Wayne > > _________________________________________________________________ > Find the coolest online games @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Thu Jun 30 06:53:38 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Jun 30 06:55:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <005301c57d27$7bdd1490$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: >From: "craig" >To: >Subject: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! >Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:54:57 -0400 > >Would not the degree of self serving depend to some extent on the state of >the event? Was the accusing team in contention at the time? They were >expected by their opponents to lose big, which might indicate that their >chances were not considered of the best. If so, winning the match would be >of little import, and the statement much less self servimg and more serving >the cause of overall good ethical behaviour. That the disqualification was >applauded may indicate that others has suspicions as well...or may of >course merely mean that they were pleased to know that apparent justice was >being meted out. But then would Grattan have said as much as he didn't say? >Herman, don't post, but save your memories and notes for a day when all may >be revealed. The Italians do protest to little methinks for a masive >miscarriage of justice to have occured...but as BA has demonstrated we will >have years to kick this around. :-) > Barel were 1 VP ahead of Lavazza going into this match. Therefore the outcome for both teams was crucial to their qualification chances. Although curiously the results for Round 5 on the webpage put Lavazza two places ahead of Barel but with a lower score. Anyway still if Lavazza were in contention then so were Barel. Barel qualified as a result of the assigned score. I assume they would not have qualified with the actual 25-2 table result. They then beat Rubin in the Round of 32 but lost to Ozdil in the Round of 16. Wayne >Craig > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" > >To: ; >Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 2:15 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > > >> >> >>>From: Herman De Wael >>>To: blml >>>Subject: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! >>>Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:55:53 +0200 >>> >>>Wayne Burrows wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>We don't have means. We have one side saying he looked and the other >>>>saying he didn't look. Both of these statements are self-serving. >>>> >>> >>>Considering that the other side had nothing really to win (not at that >>>stage) by telling of the peeking, I would not call that statement >>>self-serving. >>>And to be precise, the other side never said he did not peek. It was >>>self-evident that he denied this so he did not need to say it. He was >>>never asked so he did not need to lie. >> >>The other side won a match 18-0 that they otherwise lost 25-2 this >>is a significant gain IMO. >> >>This is not what the scribe said in the official report "When confronted >>with East's statement North denied that he had looked at East's cards". >> >>I still maintain we have a self-serving accusation from a team that stood >>to gain by a ruling in their favour and a self-serving denial from a team >>that was being accused of a serious offence. >> >> >>Wayne >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>Find the coolest online games @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 _________________________________________________________________ Discover fun and games at @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/kids From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 30 08:30:49 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Jun 30 08:33:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh Appeal N-16-TD PANELS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson: >Interesting. The majority view outside Australia these days is >that player consultation is excellent for judging bridge >judgement cases. The people who think it is a matter of adding >up and counting heads miss the point, certainly, but the >opinion of one or two players certainly helps. Richard Hills: Is David Stevenson is referring to the procedure for deciding logical alternatives at the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge? In the Summer Festival of Bridge there _is_ player consultation before a TD gives Law 16 judgement ruling. The fact that the half-dozen players consulted are currently acting as fellow TDs does not disqualify them as peers. (Indeed, one Aussie CTD is more than my peer, since he has played internationally for the Australian Open Team on several occasions.) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jun 30 10:53:20 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jun 30 10:55:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <31415839.1120121600219.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> +=+ Thank you, Wayne, for taking the trouble to read the report. Factually there is really nothing to add to the report. Only the detail of the committee discussions is not given, nor would you expect it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ======================================== Message date : Jun 29 2005, 07:46 PM >From : "Wayne Burrows" To : hermandw@hdw.be, blml@rtflb.org Copy to : Subject : Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! This is not what the scribe said in the official report "When confronted with East's statement North denied that he had looked at East's cards". -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm From palomo at didamail.com Thu Jun 30 12:07:51 2005 From: palomo at didamail.com (Anna Glenn) Date: Thu Jun 30 11:08:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Get the low rates before its late Message-ID: <20041eusyv3.ED8DA244AE@mailhost1p.lists.techtarget.com> Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have been selected for our lowest rate in years... You could get over $420,000 for as little as $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.g00d-things.net/signs.asp Best Regards, Kay Barnard to be remov(ed: http://www.g00d-things.net/deletion.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 Thu Jun 30 07:54:21 2005 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu Jun 30 11:46:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <005301c57d27$7bdd1490$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <005301c57d27$7bdd1490$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050630073648.02cf4690@localhost> At 05:54 30/06/2005, craig wrote: >Would not the degree of self serving depend to some extent on the state of >the event? Was the accusing team in contention at the time? It was a swiss teams event, with the top teams qualifying for a spot in the KO stage. Both teams thus had approximately the same score at the start of the match, as it turns out the 18 VP's that the Israeli team got was sufficient to qualify, a similar score would have been sufficient for the Italians. The score in the match was 25-3 in favor of the Italians, so at this stage, the match must have been going for the Israeli team and I agree that they have some interest in having the opponents disqualified. On the other hand, I then do not understand Buratti's claim that he was playing for a swing. If one needs some 18 VP's and it feels like one is much further ahead in the match, wouldn't you pick the normal line and try to avoid a swing? >but as BA has demonstrated we will have years to kick this around. :-) IMHO, it depends on how the matter is dealt with. In the BA case, it took a long time before the British panel reached a conclusion, the conclusion was the opposite from what the previous committee and 2 of the people involved wrote a book about the event. All this is simply food for discussion. If this happens here, then we'll hear about this case for years. OTOH, if the credentials committee deals with this matter quickly, confirms what the committee has decided, suspends/ejects BL, then we simply won't see BL play anywhere. After a few years, people will have forgotten about them. 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 wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Thu Jun 30 12:41:53 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Jun 30 12:43:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050630073648.02cf4690@localhost> Message-ID: >From: Henk Uijterwaal >To: "craig" , >Subject: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! >Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:54:21 +0200 > >At 05:54 30/06/2005, craig wrote: > >>Would not the degree of self serving depend to some extent on the state of >>the event? Was the accusing team in contention at the time? > >It was a swiss teams event, with the top teams qualifying for a spot >in the KO stage. Both teams thus had approximately the same score at >the start of the match, as it turns out the 18 VP's that the Israeli >team got was sufficient to qualify, a similar score would have been >sufficient for the Italians. > >The score in the match was 25-3 in favor of the Italians, so at this >stage, the match must have been going for the Israeli team and I agree >that they have some interest in having the opponents disqualified. On >the other hand, I then do not understand Buratti's claim that he was >playing for a swing. If one needs some 18 VP's and it feels like one >is much further ahead in the match, wouldn't you pick the normal line >and try to avoid a swing? Buratti claimed that the first two boards were bad for him. The assumption is that this was the third board. It is not clear which two boards were played first. Other commentators have speculated boards 21 and 22 which were in fact ok for the Italians. It is not clear whether Buratti was mistaken in his judgement or some other boards had been played or he made the comment for some other reason. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Thu Jun 30 12:55:39 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Jun 30 12:57:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <31415839.1120121600219.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> Message-ID: >From: Grattan Endicott >Reply-To: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! >Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:53:20 +0200 (CEST) > >+=+ Thank you, Wayne, for taking the trouble >to read the report. Factually there is really >nothing to add to the report. Only the detail >of the committee discussions is not given, nor >would you expect it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I might expect some reason for not accepting the Italians self-serving testimony that he did not see the Israeli's cards while accepting the Israeli's self-serving testimony that the Italian did see his cards. Without this I am left with an uneasy feeling that whenever a competent player makes an anti-percentage play for no particular reason or for reasons that are not accepted by others and it happens to work he is open to a malicious accusation of cheating. Players make mistakes and sometimes they get lucky. I can't help but feel there is something missing from the report. To my mind what I read would not pass even a "balance of probabilities" test that in fact something untoward had occurred. Wayne >======================================== >Message date : Jun 29 2005, 07:46 PM > >From : "Wayne Burrows" >To : hermandw@hdw.be, blml@rtflb.org >Copy to : >Subject : Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > > >This is not what the scribe said in the official report >"When confronted with East's statement North denied >that he had looked at East's cards". The "This" refers to something above written by Herman that said that North had not denied looking at East's cards and not the quoted statement. The quoted statement was there to refute Herman's comments. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Looking for love? Check out XtraMSN Personals http://xtramsn.match.com/match/mt.cfm?pg=channel&tcid=200731 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jun 30 13:27:35 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jun 30 13:29:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <32167600.1120130855710.JavaMail.www@wwinf3103> +=+ The Credentials Committee is not required to confirm. For the purposes of these Championships the TAC also constitutes "the national authority under Law 93C".(Rules and Regulations) The reference to the Credentials Committee was in respect of entry to the Open Pairs Championship in Tenerife but no such entry was submitted and the pair departed the island. So any question of credentials can only await some other occasion. ~ G ~ +=+ ======================================== Message date : Jun 30 2005, 11:11 AM >From : "Henk Uijterwaal" To : "craig" , blml@rtflb.org Copy to : Subject : Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! .... OTOH, if the credentials committee deals with this matter quickly, confirms what the committee has decided, suspends/ejects BL,..... Henk -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jun 30 13:40:56 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jun 30 13:42:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <9662290.1120131656222.JavaMail.www@wwinf3103> +=+ Is this what the report says or have you added yourself to those making an assumption about something not said? +=+ ======================================== Message date : Jun 30 2005, 12:20 PM >From : "Wayne Burrows" To : blml@rtflb.org Copy to : Subject : Re: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! I might expect some reason for not accepting the Italians self-serving testimony that he did not see the Israeli's cards while accepting the Israeli's self-serving testimony that the Italian did see his cards. -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 30 14:08:19 2005 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Thu Jun 30 14:10:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! References: <32167600.1120130855710.JavaMail.www@wwinf3103> Message-ID: <001201c57d6c$686fe230$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Was it a team of 6? Was the remainder of the team allowed to continue? Did the results of previous matches stand? We are told that only 2 were disqualified, but surely 2 are part of a team, and the team is the contestant. We are told that the pair have left the island, what has happened to the rest of the team. I know when I, as TD, with the sanction of the NA, disqualified a player from the remainder of a tournament, rather than the session, for cause, pending an NA disciplinary hearing, I disqualified the whole of the team. I can tell you that when I made the necessary announcement it was greeted with sadness, certainly not applause. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:27 PM Subject: Re: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > +=+ The Credentials Committee is not required to > confirm. For the purposes of these Championships > the TAC also constitutes "the national authority > under Law 93C".(Rules and Regulations) The > reference to the Credentials Committee was in > respect of entry to the Open Pairs Championship > in Tenerife but no such entry was submitted and > the pair departed the island. So any question of > credentials can only await some other occasion. > ~ G ~ +=+ > ======================================== > Message date : Jun 30 2005, 11:11 AM >>From : "Henk Uijterwaal" > To : "craig" , blml@rtflb.org > Copy to : > Subject : Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > > .... OTOH, if the credentials committee deals with > this matter quickly, confirms what the committee > has decided, suspends/ejects BL,..... > Henk > > > > > -- > > Whatever you Wanadoo: > http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ > > This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: > http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 30 14:56:09 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 30 14:58:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <001201c57d6c$686fe230$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <000201c57d73$1633c610$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Anne Jones ............... > I know when I, as TD, with the sanction of the NA, disqualified a player > from the remainder of a tournament, rather than the session, for cause, > pending an NA disciplinary hearing, I disqualified the whole of the team. > > I can tell you that when I made the necessary announcement it was greeted > with sadness, certainly not applause. Law 91 specifically empowers the Director to suspend a contestant for a session or any part thereof (L91A) or to disqualify a contestant subject to the approval by the TC or SO (L91B). The definition of a "contestant" (as given in the laws) is in an individual event a player, in a pair event two players playing as partners and in a team event four or more players playing as team-mates. So there was no option here to disqualify just one pair, a disqualification must apply to the entire team. Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jun 30 15:43:09 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jun 30 15:45:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <18015743.1120138989419.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> +=+ There is, however, a WBFLC observation from some years ago, noting that in the higher numbered laws the use of 'contestant' is not consistent and deviates from the definition of a contestant in the law book. I have not got the minute book here in Tenerife to quote verbatim. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ======================================== Message date : Jun 30 2005, 02:08 PM >From : "Sven Pran" To : "blml" Subject : RE: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! The definition of a "contestant" (as given in the laws) is in an individual event a player, in a pair event two players playing as partners and in a team event four or more players playing as team-mates. So there was no option here to disqualify just one pair, a disqualification must apply to the entire team. Regards Sven -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 30 15:56:43 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Jun 30 15:58:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! References: <31415839.1120121600219.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 3:53 AM Subject: Re: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > +=+ Thank you, Wayne, for taking the trouble > to read the report. >Factually there is really > nothing to add to the report. The AC reported that EW had asserted they believed that S had acted upon improperly obtained information. It was not specified what law gave cause to disqualify. The AC gave no finding that improper communication occurred. Further, there was no finding as to the supposed mechanism. Nor was there a finding as to what the information was. The AC gave no finding that improper information was used. The AC reported that S was asked to explain his reasons for his play and they judged the response to be self incriminating. But self incriminating of what? I have some opinions. [a] S asserted that diamonds had not been breaking. The AC rejected it. Upon what basis? It is one thing to inspect the hand records [the precise words used are absurd but I think the big hands are the ones that are relevant] and come to that conclusion, and quite another to not investigate at all. Frequently I notice short term patterns in computer generated deals. Infrequently I choose to act upon what I notice and am usually right. In one of the Bulletins there was a 7N where the club position was similar to this diamond position. I don't know why I connected the two, but I did. [b] just what does the AC assertion '- The Committee noted that bidding and making Six Diamonds by normal play was quite likely to win the board as the slam was not straightforward to bid.' mean? Such a statement would be true if the contract made by normal play. But just what is normal? No, in such a case the hand would be won by making the contract and if the AC use of 'normal' means what they seem to be suggesting [the normal line fails] their assertion is a bold faced lie and to arrive at a finding based upon it being true is reprehensible. [c] The AC made another assertion that is also a lie: '- The Committee noted that tackling diamonds (trumps) by leading the Jack was singularly against the odds; except in the specific circumstances when declarer knows that East has exactly three diamonds. In this case the odds are 3-1 in favour of leading the Jack.' I would think that the definition of singularly against the odds would be overwhelmingly likely to fail. Consider where the line allowed for the greatest number of combinations to be successful. The only material case [the one here] is to achieve no losers. There are 16 combination of 4 diamonds- eleven of which the defense cannot force a winner. Leading small can win for 2-2 splits, stiff Q, and stiff T offside, and QTx onside (11 cases) as the choice to finesse or drop need not be made until LHO plays. Leading the J can win for 2-2 splits, stiff Q offside, QTx onside, and stiff T offside (10 cases) as the choice to finesse or drop need not be made until LHO plays. The lead of the J protects against T and Tx [3 cases] when the finesse is chosen where leading small does not protect. Both plays provide for a significant likelihood of success [I call 10 out of 11 as good odds] where leading small is merely marginally at better odds. The assertion of singularly against the odds does not meet the standard of being anywhere near fulfilling the definition. The play that was against the odds was not the lead of the J. It was third hand playing small [six 2-2 vs three 3-1]. Can not the choice be attributed to judgment or luck and aren't experts better at luck and judgment and subconscious table feel? I do not think that leading the J is as dubious, if at all, as the AC portrayed. And neither is finessing. [d] the AC cast aspersion that S knew the diamond distribution- but did not make the assertion nor deliver a finding on facts. Do they really mean to say that a player that leads the J and finesses will only do so when he has illegal information? Ergo to lead the J he had illegal information? [e] a point was made that N's three fingers were relevant. Was a finding delivered? On what basis? Was it possible that it was coincidence that three fingers were noticed and looking for what it could be signaling if it were indeed signaling that a connection to the number of diamonds with E was made. There was testimony that NS put their arms on the table. Was it investigated and determined that the three fingers always showed up? Was it determined that the three fingers of N were normal for him? [f ] if S did not have UI, just how can he be expected to realize that this time only the 'correct percentage play' would be permitted to stand? As in, if there were no illicit system it would follow that S would not know illicitly. [g ] the AC made the assertion: '- The Committee noted that East's duck of the Jack of Diamonds was correct technique. South could have had five diamonds, in which case it is a normal gambit to lead the Jack to induce a cover with Q10x.' It also follows that it is not unreasonable for declarer to run the J since E would play as he did with the relevant holding. [h] It is curious that the AC did not consider in its deliberation S's assertion that he drew inferences from the questioning by the defenders. [i] I am surprised that a time line of who did what and when was not made for the purpose of determining and examining the evidence. [j] There is something missing from the AC deliberations which I find surprising. I will leave it to another time to mention it. regards roger pewick >Only the detail > of the committee discussions is not given, nor > would you expect it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ======================================== > Message date : Jun 29 2005, 07:46 PM > >From : "Wayne Burrows" > To : hermandw@hdw.be, blml@rtflb.org > Copy to : > Subject : Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > This is not what the scribe said in the official report > "When confronted with East's statement North denied > that he had looked at East's cards". From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Jun 30 16:52:27 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Jun 30 16:54:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <20050630145227.6CFC3B9F94@poczta.interia.pl> > Was it a team of 6? Was the remainder of the team allowed to continue? Did > > the results of previous matches stand? > We are told that only 2 were disqualified, but surely 2 are part of a > team, > and the team is the contestant. > We are told that the pair have left the island, what has happened to the > rest of the team. > > I know when I, as TD, with the sanction of the NA, disqualified a player > from the remainder of a tournament, rather than the session, for cause, > pending an NA disciplinary hearing, I disqualified the whole of the team. > > I can tell you that when I made the necessary announcement it was greeted > > with sadness, certainly not applause. I have exchanged some e-mails with one of the players who were present at Tenerife (a world class player) and I asked him about that unanimous reaction of 80 captains who applauded the decision. He said "everybody knew they were cheats, there were just no proofs". It is a sick game we're playing, I think. I wholehartedly vote for playing top events in an electronic environement. That would do *a lot* of good for the game just as screens once did. I find arguments like reducing the social factor of the game not relevant. In one of his books Reese heavily opposed to introducing screens because, in his oppinion, that would ruin the game. Time has shown that most top players enjoy playing with screens because it takes off a lot of pressure from them. The fewer ways of cheating are possible the less cheaters and the less gossips we'll have. I don't remember who on this stated that playing through Local Area Network does exactly what screens do; just more efficiently. I cannot agree more. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jak powstaje auto? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1898 From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 30 16:52:34 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 30 16:54:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <18015743.1120138989419.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> Message-ID: <000301c57d83$59e00ad0$6400a8c0@WINXP> I should be most interested to know, because I have built for my own use a complete cross reference between all WBFLC minutes that I have seen and the affected places in the laws. So whenever I look up a law or a definition I immediately get a reference to any WBFLC minute that I have found to affect this place. And I have no such reference affecting "Contestant" in the "definitions"! Regards Sven > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > +=+ There is, however, a WBFLC observation > from some years ago, noting that in the higher > numbered laws the use of 'contestant' is not > consistent and deviates from the definition of > a contestant in the law book. I have not got the > minute book here in Tenerife to quote verbatim. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ======================================== > Message date : Jun 30 2005, 02:08 PM > >From : "Sven Pran" > To : "blml" > > Subject : RE: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > > The definition of a "contestant" (as given in the laws) is > in an individual event a player, in a pair event two players > playing as partners and in a team event four or more > players playing as team-mates. > > So there was no option here to disqualify just one pair, a > disqualification must apply to the entire team. > > Regards Sven > > > > > -- > > Whatever you Wanadoo: > http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ > > This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: > http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 30 17:04:34 2005 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Thu Jun 30 17:06:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! References: <18015743.1120138989419.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201> Message-ID: <001701c57d85$079e62b0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> When you say "some years ago" do you mean before the 1995 book? Will we see it reflected in the next book please? I am fortunate that I had good and witnessed evidence that the results of 5/6 matches had been affected, so regardless of who left, I don't think any results should have stood. In a situation where only one (I use 'only' to isolate not minimise worth) match is affected, I can see there may be a reason to allow the team to continue if the Laws allow it. It is quite important that we should to be informed if they do - and I am sure I have not been., and even Sven - who knows more than I do, wasn't aware of this. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 2:43 PM Subject: Re: RE: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > > +=+ There is, however, a WBFLC observation > from some years ago, noting that in the higher > numbered laws the use of 'contestant' is not > consistent and deviates from the definition of > a contestant in the law book. I have not got the > minute book here in Tenerife to quote verbatim. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ======================================== > Message date : Jun 30 2005, 02:08 PM >>From : "Sven Pran" > To : "blml" > > Subject : RE: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > > The definition of a "contestant" (as given in the laws) is > in an individual event a player, in a pair event two players > playing as partners and in a team event four or more > players playing as team-mates. > > So there was no option here to disqualify just one pair, a > disqualification must apply to the entire team. > > Regards Sven > > > > > -- > > Whatever you Wanadoo: > http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ > > This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: > http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 30 17:11:16 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 30 17:13:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Card dealing programs - was: Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c57d85$f62e9ee0$6400a8c0@WINXP> There is a statement here which I cannot leave uncommented in my capacity as the author of DEALER, the card dealing program which I believe is now universally used for high-level tournaments in Norway: > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ................ > Frequently I notice short term patterns in computer generated deals. This statement ought to be qualified so that it can be verified or rejected using statistical tools. No such patterns have been revealed with DEALER in spite of thorough and continued testing since it was first introduced sometime around 1980. In case anybody is interested: DEALER is freeware and available from my homepage: http://home.online.no/~svenpran/dealer.htm Be my guest Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 30 17:36:26 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 30 17:38:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <001701c57d85$079e62b0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <000501c57d89$7a923180$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Anne Jones > When you say "some years ago" do you mean before the 1995 book? Will we > see > it reflected in the next book please? On a point of order: Any WBFLC minute previous to the revision resulting in the current law book must be considered invalidated by that last law revision unless the essence of the minute was incorporated in the current laws with that revision. I certainly do hope WBFLC shares this view because anything else will make the laws unusable. Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jun 30 17:59:46 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jun 30 18:01:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <6279264.1120147186855.JavaMail.www@wwinf3202> +=+ Any prior minute still applicable remains valid until varied. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ======================================== Message date : Jun 30 2005, 04:40 PM >From : "Sven Pran" To : "blml" On a point of order: Any WBFLC minute previous to the revision resulting in the current law book must be considered invalidated by that last law revision unless the essence of the minute was incorporated in the current laws with that revision. -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 30 18:20:33 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 30 18:22:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <6279264.1120147186855.JavaMail.www@wwinf3202> Message-ID: <000601c57d8f$a4631780$6400a8c0@WINXP> > From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > Sent: 30. juni 2005 18:00 > To: Sven Pran; blml > Subject: Re: RE: RE: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > > > > +=+ Any prior minute still applicable remains > valid until varied. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Are they not considered "varied" by a new law book that does not replicate the essence of such minutes????? Incredible (Just my $0,02 opinion)! How on earth are we to know the valid rules if we cannot trust the current law book as (possibly) modified by WBFLC minutes issued after the release of that law book? Shall we have to investigate WBFLC minutes all the way back to the "birth" of WBFLC and check whether there ever has been some "applicable minute" that has not subsequently been "varied" by a more recent minute? Is a complete registry of all such minutes readily available? Sorry Grattan, I am lost for words. Regards Sven > ======================================== > Message date : Jun 30 2005, 04:40 PM > From : "Sven Pran" > To : "blml" > On a point of order: Any WBFLC minute previous to > the revision resulting in the current law book must be > considered invalidated by that last law revision unless > the essence of the minute was incorporated in the > current laws with that revision. From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jun 30 19:08:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jun 30 19:10:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > The AC gave no finding that improper communication occurred. Further, > there was no finding as to the supposed mechanism. Nor was there a > finding as to what the information was. > The AC gave no finding that improper information was used. ACs are not, as far as I am aware, required to report in detail on all their findings/judgements. They assessed the evidence, agreed the final ruling and shared with the world those parts of their deliberations they were willing to share. The interim judgements they made during that process can only be guessed at by the rest of us. The huge penalty (maximum at their disposal I believe) inflicted may be because they were having "a bad hair day" or it may be because the judgements they made suggested such a penalty was fully justified. One cannot, of course, expect an AC to disclose *anything* which might form the basis of civil legal action without first clearing it with their insurers and lawyers. Tim From municipal at spike.ch Thu Jun 30 19:10:23 2005 From: municipal at spike.ch (Wilfrid) Date: Thu Jun 30 19:12:29 2005 Subject: [blml] New Emerging Growth Stox Message-ID: <12598014227.10693345171@cpe-24-29-174-185.woh.res.rr.com> Big news expected. This should invoke LARGE gains. This stox will explode. Do not wait until it is too late. New news expected this comming week. Expected 7 day price $9.00 (SYM.BOL: CWTD.OB) Price: $ 2.17 Short Term Target: $10 - $13 12month Target: $24 PRESS RELEASE China World Trade Corporation Announced Strategic Partnership with the Foundation for Globalization Cooperation Tuesday June 7, 8:20 am ET TIANHE, Guangzhou, China, June 7 /Xinhua-PRNewswire/ -- China World Trade Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: CWTD.OB - News), announced today that the CEO Clubs China Limited ("CEO Clubs"), a subsidiary of CWTC, signed a strategic alliance agreement with the Foundation for Globalization Cooperation (''FGC''). Under the agreement, CEO Clubs will represent FGC for merchandising and selecting sponsors under certain conditions for the World Culture Diversification Forum and the Third Global Cooperation Forum, which will be held in November 2005, in Hangzhou, China. China World Trade Corporation Co-Hosts the 2005 GuangDong, Hong Kong, Macau WTCs Golf Tournament A $1,000 dollar investment could yield a $5,000 dollar profit in just one trade if you trade out at the top. CWTD.OB should be one of the most profitable stocks to trade this year. In this range the stock has potential to move in either direction in bigs wings. This means you should be able to buy at the lows and sell at the highs for months to come YOU COULD MAKE $$$THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS$$$ TRADING. CHMS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. CWTD.OB is also on The REG SHO Threshold list, This means someone is short the stock. Any significant volume spike in CWTD.OB could yield drastic results. If the people that are short have to cover, they will be buying the shares from you at higher prices. This makes this stock a TRIPLE PLAY for profits!!! For pennies you can participate in a stock that could yield results over and over again just based on the trading patterns. If the company is able to effectuate it.s business model, WATCH OUT!!! We could see a GREAT STORY IN THE MAKING. GOOD LUCK AND TRADE OUT AT THE TOP!!!! Disclaimer: Information within this email contains "forwardlooking statements" within the meaning of Section 27Aof the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans,projections, objectives, goals, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward looking statements."Forwardlooking statements are based on expectations,estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through the use of words such as"projects", "foresee", "expects", "will,""anticipates," "estimates," "believes," understands"or that by statements indicating certain actions"may," "could," or "might" occur. Risk factors include general economic and business conditions, the ability to acquire and develop specific projects, the ability to fund operations and changes in consumer and business consumption habits and other factors overwhich the company has little or no control. The publisher of this newsletter does not represent that the information contained in this message states all material facts or does not omit a material fact necessary to make the statements therein not misleading. All information provided within this email pertaining to investing, stocks, securities must be understood as information provided and not investment advice. The publisher of this newsletter advises all readers and subscribers to seek advice from a registered professional securities representative before deciding to trade in stocks featured within this email. None of the material within this report shall be construed as any kind of investment advice or solicitation. Many of these companies are on the verge of bankruptcy. You can lose all your money by investing in this stock. We urge you to read the company's SEC filings now, before you invest. The publisher of this newsletter is not a registered invstment advisor. Subscribers should not view information herein as legal, tax, accounting or investment advice. In compliance with the SecuritiesAct of 1933, Section 17(b),The publisher of this newsletter is contracted to receive six hundred thousand free trading shares from a third party, not an officer,director or affiliate shareholder for the circulation of this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such compensation due to the fact that this is a paid advertisement and is not without bias.The party that paid us has a position in the stock they will sell at anytime without notice.This could have a negative impact on the price of the stock, causing you to lose money. All factual information in this report was gathered from public sources, including but not limited to SEC filings,Company Websites and Company Press Releases. The publisher of this newsletter believes this informationto be eliable but can make no guarantee as to its accuracy or completeness. Use of the material within this email constitutes your acceptance of these terms. From tainted at fenner.org Thu Jun 30 19:10:44 2005 From: tainted at fenner.org (Elvira) Date: Thu Jun 30 19:12:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Early Bird Investor Message-ID: <4166447552.4028494855@cpe-24-29-174-185.woh.res.rr.com> Big news expected. This should invoke LARGE gains. This stox will explode. Do not wait until it is too late. New news expected this comming week. Expected 7 day price $9.00 (SYM.BOL: CWTD.OB) Price: $ 2.17 Short Term Target: $10 - $13 12month Target: $24 PRESS RELEASE China World Trade Corporation Announced Strategic Partnership with the Foundation for Globalization Cooperation Tuesday June 7, 8:20 am ET TIANHE, Guangzhou, China, June 7 /Xinhua-PRNewswire/ -- China World Trade Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: CWTD.OB - News), announced today that the CEO Clubs China Limited ("CEO Clubs"), a subsidiary of CWTC, signed a strategic alliance agreement with the Foundation for Globalization Cooperation (''FGC''). Under the agreement, CEO Clubs will represent FGC for merchandising and selecting sponsors under certain conditions for the World Culture Diversification Forum and the Third Global Cooperation Forum, which will be held in November 2005, in Hangzhou, China. China World Trade Corporation Co-Hosts the 2005 GuangDong, Hong Kong, Macau WTCs Golf Tournament A $1,000 dollar investment could yield a $5,000 dollar profit in just one trade if you trade out at the top. CWTD.OB should be one of the most profitable stocks to trade this year. In this range the stock has potential to move in either direction in bigs wings. This means you should be able to buy at the lows and sell at the highs for months to come YOU COULD MAKE $$$THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS$$$ TRADING. CHMS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. CWTD.OB is also on The REG SHO Threshold list, This means someone is short the stock. Any significant volume spike in CWTD.OB could yield drastic results. If the people that are short have to cover, they will be buying the shares from you at higher prices. This makes this stock a TRIPLE PLAY for profits!!! For pennies you can participate in a stock that could yield results over and over again just based on the trading patterns. If the company is able to effectuate it.s business model, WATCH OUT!!! We could see a GREAT STORY IN THE MAKING. GOOD LUCK AND TRADE OUT AT THE TOP!!!! Disclaimer: Information within this email contains "forwardlooking statements" within the meaning of Section 27Aof the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans,projections, objectives, goals, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward looking statements."Forwardlooking statements are based on expectations,estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through the use of words such as"projects", "foresee", "expects", "will,""anticipates," "estimates," "believes," understands"or that by statements indicating certain actions"may," "could," or "might" occur. Risk factors include general economic and business conditions, the ability to acquire and develop specific projects, the ability to fund operations and changes in consumer and business consumption habits and other factors overwhich the company has little or no control. The publisher of this newsletter does not represent that the information contained in this message states all material facts or does not omit a material fact necessary to make the statements therein not misleading. All information provided within this email pertaining to investing, stocks, securities must be understood as information provided and not investment advice. The publisher of this newsletter advises all readers and subscribers to seek advice from a registered professional securities representative before deciding to trade in stocks featured within this email. None of the material within this report shall be construed as any kind of investment advice or solicitation. Many of these companies are on the verge of bankruptcy. You can lose all your money by investing in this stock. We urge you to read the company's SEC filings now, before you invest. The publisher of this newsletter is not a registered invstment advisor. Subscribers should not view information herein as legal, tax, accounting or investment advice. In compliance with the SecuritiesAct of 1933, Section 17(b),The publisher of this newsletter is contracted to receive six hundred thousand free trading shares from a third party, not an officer,director or affiliate shareholder for the circulation of this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such compensation due to the fact that this is a paid advertisement and is not without bias.The party that paid us has a position in the stock they will sell at anytime without notice.This could have a negative impact on the price of the stock, causing you to lose money. All factual information in this report was gathered from public sources, including but not limited to SEC filings,Company Websites and Company Press Releases. The publisher of this newsletter believes this informationto be eliable but can make no guarantee as to its accuracy or completeness. Use of the material within this email constitutes your acceptance of these terms. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 30 19:23:26 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jun 30 19:21:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <6279264.1120147186855.JavaMail.www@wwinf3202> References: <6279264.1120147186855.JavaMail.www@wwinf3202> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050630130402.02af6e00@pop.starpower.net> At 11:59 AM 6/30/05, grandeval wrote: >+=+ Any prior minute still applicable remains >valid until varied. > >======================================== > >From : "Sven Pran" >To : "blml" >On a point of order: Any WBFLC minute previous to >the revision resulting in the current law book must be >considered invalidated by that last law revision unless >the essence of the minute was incorporated in the >current laws with that revision. Surely all such minutes are automatically revoked when the laws are revised and republished. If the official policy of the WBF is that they remain in force, that is an official statement that new versions of the laws are not to be taken as correct even as of the day they are published, and that one cannot ever know the law without reference to every minute ever issued by the WBF since its inception. If that's true, why bother revising and republishing the lawbook at all? Perhaps I'm being parochial, but in the US the law is the law. If Congress passes a law with a printing error that completely distorts its meaning, it is still the law of the land, at least until Congress passes another law, published normally like any other, that corrects the misprint (which, BTW, they do routinely, very quickly, and quite often). OK, the WBF only publishes the laws every ten years or so, and in the interim they find errors or problems, and issue corrections or interpretations that don't get disseminated anywhere near as widely as the every-ten-years book. We can live with that. But Grattan's pronouncement can only mean that it is *not* the official policy of the WBF to incorporate those changes into the next lawbook. That is absurd. One would at least hope that TFLB, not unlike a broken clock, at least gets the laws right once every ten years, but it seems one would so hope in vain. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jun 30 20:04:19 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jun 30 20:06:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! Message-ID: <17842697.1120154659752.JavaMail.www@wwinf3203> +=+ Displays an insight into the situation. Nothing can be said that would mitigate Roger's deprived condition. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ======================================== Message date : Jun 30 2005, 06:48 PM >From : "Tim West-Meads" To : blml@rtflb.org Copy to : Subject : Re: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! ACs are not, as far as I am aware, required to report in detail on all their findings/judgements. They assessed the evidence, agreed the final ruling and shared with the world those parts of their deliberations they were willing to share. The interim judgements they made during that process can only be guessed at by the rest of us. The huge penalty (maximum at their disposal I believe) inflicted may be because they were having "a bad hair day" or it may be because the judgements they made suggested such a penalty was fully justified. One cannot, of course, expect an AC to disclose *anything* which might form the basis of civil legal action without first clearing it with their insurers and lawyers. Tim -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Thu Jun 30 20:26:42 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Jun 30 20:28:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! In-Reply-To: <9662290.1120131656222.JavaMail.www@wwinf3103> Message-ID: >From: Grattan Endicott >Reply-To: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: Re: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! >Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:40:56 +0200 (CEST) > >+=+ Is this what the report says or have you >added yourself to those making an assumption >about something not said? +=+ Grattan you quote what I say out of context. In particular you do not quote what I am responding to. You said "Only the detail of the committee discussions is not given, nor would you expect it." I am merely responding to this statement and stating what "I might expect...". I am certainly not making an assumption about something not said. In fact I completely fail to see how you can assume I am making an assumption. Wayne >======================================== >Message date : Jun 30 2005, 12:20 PM > >From : "Wayne Burrows" >To : blml@rtflb.org >Copy to : >Subject : Re: Re: [blml] Buratti - Lanzarotti disqualified! > >I might expect some reason for not accepting the >Italians self-serving testimony that he did not see >the Israeli's cards while accepting the Israeli's >self-serving testimony that the Italian did see his >cards. > > > >-- > >Whatever you Wanadoo: >http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ > >This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: >http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________ Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Thu Jun 30 20:48:13 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Jun 30 20:50:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Card dealing programs - was: Buratti - Lanzarottidisqualified! In-Reply-To: <000401c57d85$f62e9ee0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Subject: [blml] Card dealing programs - was: Buratti - >Lanzarottidisqualified! >Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:11:16 +0200 > >There is a statement here which I cannot leave uncommented in my capacity >as >the author of DEALER, the card dealing program which I believe is now >universally used for high-level tournaments in Norway: > > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick >................ > > Frequently I notice short term patterns in computer generated deals. > >This statement ought to be qualified so that it can be verified or rejected >using statistical tools. > >No such patterns have been revealed with DEALER in spite of thorough and >continued testing since it was first introduced sometime around 1980. In >case anybody is interested: DEALER is freeware and available from my >homepage: >http://home.online.no/~svenpran/dealer.htm One can always find short term 'patterns' in a random process. I would be surprised if DEALER did not seem to have short term patterns. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Shop ‘til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping http://shopping.xtramsn.co.nz/home/ From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 30 21:38:42 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 30 21:40:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Card dealing programs - was: Buratti -Lanzarottidisqualified! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c57dab$52b28d00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ............... > One can always find short term 'patterns' in a random process. I would be > surprised if DEALER did not seem to have short term patterns. Of course you can, laws of statistics will tell you that. You can even predict the probability of getting any particular pattern you should care to specify. But you cannot if the (pseudo-)random process is correct predict a particular pattern to occur with greater or less probability because of something that you have just ob served! For instance we all (?) know that with a random process a missing King will be onside approximately 50% of the times. But the fact that we have noticed ten missing kings in a row being offside shall not enable us to locate the next missing King with any probability different from 50%. Here never ending testing of card dealing programs (and in fact any process that depends upon pseudo random generators) becomes essential. Many years ago I discovered with my standard testing routines applied on a then very popular card dealing program that if you were sitting East or West and needed to find a missing Queen of clubs you had an 80% chance of finding it in South and only 20% chance of finding it in North. (I found a few other similar "patterns" as well) Luckily enough nobody had noticed this "pattern" until I blew the whistle, thus little harm had been caused but it only illustrates the importance of keeping a continuous watch that the pseudo random process does not for whatever reason become unsuitable with the actual application. This is why I am attentive to claims of "patterns" having been observed. Regards Sven From wayne.burrows at hotmail.com Thu Jun 30 22:06:36 2005 From: wayne.burrows at hotmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Jun 30 22:08:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Card dealing programs - was: Buratti-Lanzarottidisqualified! In-Reply-To: <000801c57dab$52b28d00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Subject: RE: [blml] Card dealing programs - was: >Buratti-Lanzarottidisqualified! >Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:38:42 +0200 > > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows >............... > > One can always find short term 'patterns' in a random process. I would >be > > surprised if DEALER did not seem to have short term patterns. > >Of course you can, laws of statistics will tell you that. You can even >predict the probability of getting any particular pattern you should care >to >specify. But you cannot if the (pseudo-)random process is correct predict a >particular pattern to occur with greater or less probability because of >something that you have just ob served! > >For instance we all (?) know that with a random process a missing King will >be onside approximately 50% of the times. But the fact that we have noticed >ten missing kings in a row being offside shall not enable us to locate the >next missing King with any probability different from 50%. > >Here never ending testing of card dealing programs (and in fact any process >that depends upon pseudo random generators) becomes essential. > >Many years ago I discovered with my standard testing routines applied on a >then very popular card dealing program that if you were sitting East or >West >and needed to find a missing Queen of clubs you had an 80% chance of >finding >it in South and only 20% chance of finding it in North. (I found a few >other >similar "patterns" as well) > >Luckily enough nobody had noticed this "pattern" until I blew the whistle, >thus little harm had been caused but it only illustrates the importance of >keeping a continuous watch that the pseudo random process does not for >whatever reason become unsuitable with the actual application. > >This is why I am attentive to claims of "patterns" having been observed. > Patterns being observed is not the same as those patterns being useful to a player. Nevertheless some players including some very good players are suspicious of the dealing process and will act based on their perceived experience of the patterns. Wayne _________________________________________________________________ Read the latest Hollywood gossip @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/entertainment From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 30 23:02:51 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 30 23:04:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Card dealing programs - was:Buratti-Lanzarottidisqualified! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c57db7$14351f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ............ > Patterns being observed is not the same as those patterns being useful to > a player. > > Nevertheless some players including some very good players are suspicious > of the dealing process and will act based on their perceived experience of > the patterns. > > Wayne As was in the old days: The King of Clubs is always single. Sven